Superbly Weird Neutral Cult
Whilst doing some Neutral research for a book I was writing, I came across officially the weirdest site I have ever EVER found on the net:
[Complete with bizarro sound effects]
I should, perhaps, worship this site. But I'm not sure, because I don't understand most of what the hell it's trying to say. For example:
"The ontological position of the norm of neutrality is not different from that of the norm of inclusivity. The principles of which the norms of neutrality and inclusivity are interpretations are both (non-meta-)doctrinal and nonpropositional. Thus in the first instance both norms belong to a first-order normative doctrine, that is, a normative doctrine about the ground-world. We have seen how in this ground-world the principle of relevance of which the norm of inclusivity is an interpretation is supplementary to the principle of truth. Truth in isolation is not worth anything, for truth always needs relevance in the end. Similarly, the principle of neutrality of which the norm of neutrality is an interpretation is supplementary to the principle of relevance. Relevance in isolation is not worth anything either, for also relevance needs a focus of relevancy in the end. It is the principle of neutrality which ultimately furnishes this determinant."
Now, when I read this, I conclude that one of four things is happening:
- I'm a lot stupider than I thought.
- Whoever wrote this shit is really really smart and has come up with his own philosophy near enough from scratch.
- The person who wrote this is insane and it really does make no sense.
- The person who wrote this is very good at writing stuff that sounds clever but means nothing.
Would this final option actually be the ultimate irony I wonder?
Check out the site's short stories, it's all quite fascinating in a truly surreal way.
posted by Matt McGrath at 6:18 am
2 Comments:
For the record, this is what I think this passage means. If we substitute 'matter' for ground and 'ideal' for 'truth' it all seems to boil down to an exceesively wordy and reheated Platonism.
Prepare thyself for a massive comment. Here we go:
Norms of neutrality and inclusivity both have the same 'ontological position' - this is just jargon meaning they share the same status or nature.
This shared nature consists in the fact that both norms interpret principles that are:
1. 'non-meta' - ie. relating to a base ('ground-world') rather than a superstructure ('Truth'?)
2. Doctrinal - these principles are authoritative beliefs.
3. Non-propositional - jargon meaning these principles are neither true nor false in themselves.
Now - in this guy's 'ground world', a 'principle of relevance' is held to be 'supplementary' to the 'principle of truth'.
'Supplementary' implies that 'relevance' is neither subordinate nor superior to truth, but co-ordinate with it. This is therefore a non-hierarchical system in which we should not talk about 'base' and 'superstructure' - but rather 'groundworld' and, 'truth' as co-ordinate values.
Thus, both 'truth' and 'relevance' exist within a binary pairing - both the ground world and the ideal world require the existence of their opposte in order to have meaning.
The 'norm of inclusivity' provides an interpretation of this principle of relevance (which, we remember, relates to the ground world and is neither true nor false). The norm of neutrality provides an interpretation of a principle of neutrality (which also relates to the ground world and is neither true nor false).
Inclusivity and neutrality are therefore, seemingly held to be the values that co-ordinate the ideal/truth with the ground-world.
'Inclusivity' co-ordinates the 'truth' with the ground (since it interprets 'relevance', which appears to be synonymous with the 'ground'). 'Neutrality' co-ordinates the ground with the truth. The co-ordinate relationship between the two is thus both inclusive and neutral.
Thus, while ground and truth are co-ordinate and require each other for meaning - the 'truth' remains the shaping, causal component. The ground is 'included' to the truth and thus should acquire the cahracteristics of the truth. The 'ground' is related 'neutrally' to the truth, and therefore can impose no positive or negative value upon it. His universe is not therefore neutral - but neutrality provides one of the linking components between the two elements.
Which leaves us with Platonism - albeit with an idiosyncratic stress upon the symbiotic relationship between matter and form.
Of course, there's every possibility that I've completely misunderstood the thing as well....!
That is truly impressive.
I feel my maths degree sometimes places limits on me. Not often mind you.
This is, however, a good example of an argument to say 'so what?' to.
However, that would more or less discount the validity of my entire site, so perhaps I'd better desist.
It does make you wonder though, couldn't all that this passage said be expressed in but a few words, and is that not really the epitome of philosophical discussion?
Perhaps only of good literature...
Post a Comment
<< Home