| Online: | |
| Visits: | |
| Stories: |
Our problem with the difference between similarity and difference
Conceptualization rests on differences and similarities.
It means that our eternal problem is that difference has to be more fundamental than similarity, since there is no similarity without a difference, at the same time as there are two kinds of differences: in a similarity and pure difference, meaning that the thing we discuss (ie, reality) can only be either contradictory (ie, a pure difference) or ambiguous (ie, a difference in a similarity).
This fact leads to the question whether it means that reality actually is contradictory (as cladists and particle physicists claim), since the ambiguity is not a matter of reality but of the relation from reality to conceptualization, The answer is no. The contradiction just arises due to that there is (ie, exists) a double ambiguity between reality and conceptualization (ie, in both directions between them). The contradiction is thus merely an illusion.
Instead, conceptualization models reality consistently, although ambiguously. Conceptualization can’t fuse with reality, because a representation can’t fuse with the represented (see Magritte’s painting “Ceci n’est pas une pipe”). Reality is simply unreachable for us (which already the ancient Greeks concluded). Reality thus isn’t contradictory (contrary to what cladists and particle physicists claim), but just unreachable for conceptualization. The best we can do is to model it, although ambiguously.
Source: http://menvall.wordpress.com/2014/07/05/our-problem-with-the-difference-between-similarity-and-difference/
