I don't disagree with this Guille, but all the logics must be brought into the same house of cards, and all must be argued to a much sounder ground... I noticed earlier you mentioned you were stuck as where to go with anun; may I suggest what I just stated, and realize that the largest conceptual systems' logic must be a major part of the analogous universology, along with all logics being contradicted and argued to better grounds. The advantages of systems' logic is its already existing mathematical foundations; although much of this math needs repair, it is still a very useful start to unite a completed picture of conceptual intentionality, emotional materialism and analogous universalism... And, like it or not, economics is the most complete universological system to start with to reach our truly attainable goals___a much better argued economics, based on John Nash's much truer equilibrium math and models... Of course there are many other disciplinary approaches at our disposal also; it's just that IMO economics would seem the easiest, as it is the most complete, as to math and systems' maturity... BTW, Leon Walrus was a physicist and mathematician before becoming an economist of initial economic equilibrium fame... If you have any better ideas of what universological system or systems to use, to unite and make your and my ideas more coherent, let me know... I just feel very strongly that some form of systems' universology is direly needed, to complete the picture...
regards
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by <<<GUILLE>>> I was searching on the internet when I came along this interview to Micahel Hardt: http://www.theminnesotareview.org/ns61/hardt.htm he isn't a postmodern thinker totally, but his main idea is joining marxism and poststructuralism. In a part of the interview he says that there he has no problems with contradictions in the world, just as I do. For example, there are two types of loves (he says): the passive and the active one, one which doesn't act and is influenced from external forms and another one which is isolated. He says they are two manifestations of the same love, and that happen in all loves (when one is there, the other too). Also, he says that the proletarian is 'wthin but against' capitalism. He explains that the proletarian is part of capitalism, and pushes it to it's limit, to thinks which are not dealing with market and production, to covering wills and liberties etz, that is, to pull capitalism out of itself. So within and against is another contradiction but true. We can say that this is the logic of contradiction, and that it is the only logic of logics; the logic about logics, not like the others which are logics about something else (math, music, science, mind...), as if logic always tried to escape from itself. |