Category ■ coincidentally equipped with logical not, ¬ and disjunctive or, V , ( { ¬ ■ ■ = ( { ■ } , ¬ ) } , V ) = ¬ ■ V ■ , for "{ }" set and "( )" open interval, may not be identical under dualism, where there are two non-partitioned categories, like either idealism, or materialism and monism, implying that privileged status could impair it's logical pedigree if monism is a prerequisite, say.
If you have two conflicting accounts of something, then each of those accounts speaks to the perspectives, needs, etc. of the ones holding the account. It is not difficult to allow the empirical factuality of a scientific account to coexist with the mythopoeic truth of an indigenous history. In many cases there will be an obvious point of convergence, precisely where the contradiction seems to be: in this case, the "surface of the earth" is the Americas, and the "subterranean world of spirits" from whence their ancestors came was the land on the other side of the Bering land bridge, which they crossed however many thousand years ago (in the mythic/cyclic time of tribal culture, this span was likely experienced as vast eons). There is no contradiction between the two accounts, just two perspectives being communicated in two different languages with radically different conceptions of time and space. They do not need to be at odds with each other, any more than nature and technology do - indeed, this radically dualist either/or approach to such matters is a big part of the problems in the world at large currently - people being unable or unwilling to see beyond either/or, exclusivist reasoning. I've got nothing more than a BA in Psych and I can grasp this - it's not that difficult... 🙄
Hi, professeur boghossian, last week I have met mister Francis Wolf, from France.. Best regards
Category ■ coincidentally equipped with logical not, ¬ and disjunctive or, V ,
( { ¬ ■ ■ = ( { ■ } , ¬ ) } , V ) = ¬ ■ V ■ , for "{ }" set and "( )" open interval, may not be identical under dualism, where there are two non-partitioned categories, like either idealism, or materialism and monism, implying that privileged status could impair it's logical pedigree if monism is a prerequisite, say.
If you have two conflicting accounts of something, then each of those accounts speaks to the perspectives, needs, etc. of the ones holding the account. It is not difficult to allow the empirical factuality of a scientific account to coexist with the mythopoeic truth of an indigenous history. In many cases there will be an obvious point of convergence, precisely where the contradiction seems to be: in this case, the "surface of the earth" is the Americas, and the "subterranean world of spirits" from whence their ancestors came was the land on the other side of the Bering land bridge, which they crossed however many thousand years ago (in the mythic/cyclic time of tribal culture, this span was likely experienced as vast eons). There is no contradiction between the two accounts, just two perspectives being communicated in two different languages with radically different conceptions of time and space. They do not need to be at odds with each other, any more than nature and technology do - indeed, this radically dualist either/or approach to such matters is a big part of the problems in the world at large currently - people being unable or unwilling to see beyond either/or, exclusivist reasoning. I've got nothing more than a BA in Psych and I can grasp this - it's not that difficult... 🙄
Truth is Relative