From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!garbo.ucc.umass.edu!dime!chelm.cs.umass.edu!yodaiken Sun Dec  1 13:06:51 EST 1991
Article 1774 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!garbo.ucc.umass.edu!dime!chelm.cs.umass.edu!yodaiken
>From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Is dialectical thought an "informal logic"?
Message-ID: <39994@dime.cs.umass.edu>
Date: 30 Nov 91 18:57:18 GMT
References: <39953@dime.cs.umass.edu> <6JB7BB2w164w@depsych.Gwinnett.COM>
Sender: news@dime.cs.umass.edu
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Lines: 40

In article <6JB7BB2w164w@depsych.Gwinnett.COM> rc@depsych.Gwinnett.COM (Richard Carlson) writes:
>yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>
>> In article <Z1u3BB1w164w@depsych.Gwinnett.COM> rc@depsych.Gwinnett.COM (Richa
>> >erwin@trwacs.UUCP (Harry Erwin) writes:
>> >
>> >> In my experience, dialectical thought is a non-mathematical approach to
>> >> non-linear systems theory. Most of the rules can be reformulated in
>> >> topological terms.
>> >
>> >You are probably right.  On pp 665-666 of _Goedel, Escher, Bach_
>> >Hofstadter describes an experience in which there was a "fusion"
>> >[my quotes] or "symbolic recombination" [his quotes] in his mind
>> >which put together two opposing ideas.  He describes the
>> >subjective experience in some detail.  On p 667 he talks about
>> >ideas mapping onto each other, which sounds topological and makes
...
>> For an equally nonsensical treatment of the topic, try "On Contradiction"
>> by the late, and barely lamented, Chairman Mao. 
>
>You didn't think Hofstadter's account was any good?  Or is it that
>you think dialectical thinking is inherently flawed?  (Last night

I think that Hofstadter's account is a kind of Klassic Kartoon version
of an idea that is either trite or mystical mush. And loose analogies
between mathematical theories, e.g. topology or non-linear systems theory,
and the process of understanding or the inner life of the soul, or 
the godess principle or whatever, don't appeal to me. 

>I watched a discussion between psychologist Jeffrey Mishlove, the
>host of PBS's _Thinking Allowed_ and a biologist named Rupert
>Sheldrake.  Sheldrake argued that "creativity" involved the
>"synthesis" of "opposing" "ideas."  Hmm, I thought, another
>scientist reinventing the dialectic.)

Well, it's not a particularly deep concept, is it? It's not like 
he stumbled on Lagrange's theorem or quicksort or  the infield fly rule
or anything else that you need a minute or two of work to comprehend. 




