+
From: roberto echen <rechen@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
+
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 17:27:29 -0300
Donald E Van Duyse wrote:
For relativity, the complexity of the whole is
> always greater than the putative sum of its parts.
It seems to me that the above concept is not relativistic at all.
Gestalt's psichologists were anything but relativistic. Relativity means
the assumption that the whole is a provisory construction and always
open and (paradoxicaly) not completed. Concepts as 'rizoma' and
'machine' take it into account.
>
> "And is it not a plausible suspicion that if 'to be' were pointless and
> the universe void of meaning, we would never have achieved not only the
> ability to imagine otherwise but even the ability to think precisely
> this: that 'to be' is indeed pointless and the universe void of meaning."
> (Leszek Kolakowski, Metaphysical Horror, pg. 120)
>
That 'universe' makes sense or has a meaning says nothing about
relativity or relativism. Relativity doesn't deny meaning. On the
contrary it is based upon the 'existence' not of meaning but meanings,
being meaning and sense constructions. But, not any construccion can
make its way to existance. This has to do with Foucault's concept of
'exclusion'.
BTW, what does 'universe' mean?
Greetings
Roberto