tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1438289051411770399.post8692861864690464401..comments2024-03-28T09:51:55.365-06:00Comments on ECOLOGY WITHOUT NATURE: Process and SoritesTimothy Mortonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05067377804366363020noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1438289051411770399.post-67570595327124210932012-04-26T12:53:43.852-05:002012-04-26T12:53:43.852-05:00My comment was an attempt to reconstruct a version...My comment was an attempt to reconstruct a version of the Sorites for processes since I was a puzzled about the relevance of the schema to your discussion. While it may not have been what you had in mind, 1) was an attempt derive a paradox from two more or less plausible metaphysical assumptions. <br /><br />If you deny 1, then there isn't problem concerning when the fundamental ingredients compose a process. Since a) either processes don't have ingredients or b) they are just made out of processes (turtles all the way down).<br /><br />I'm not sure what you mean by "ontically given" here. If this is just observability measurability, then it's an epistemological property and not obviously relevant here. <br /><br />If it's something ontological like conforming to the metaphysics of presence then the process fan can always invoke her Derrida or her Deleuze - processes could have a trace structure undermines their self-identity at source. Ontically underdetermined processes seem, if anything, more plausible than ontically undetermined objects. <br /><br />Best, David RodenDavidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04359327661778032716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1438289051411770399.post-39583260428953682712012-04-24T16:23:09.610-05:002012-04-24T16:23:09.610-05:00Hi Tim,
I've been following this chain of pos...Hi Tim,<br /><br />I've been following this chain of posts over the past few days with interest. As far as Whitehead goes (and whoever follows after Whitehead) I don't think there is any way around conceding that his whole metaphysics is a metaphysics of presence. In fact, I think Whitehead's whole point was to generalize the idea of presence to include all beings (i.e., all actual entities experience the presence of all other actual entities). No doubt Whitehead is sure to be a philosopher of influence for some time to come (and deservedly so) but I think it's time to leave some elements of his thought behind. And this is coming form someone who really digs Whitehead. Just my two cents.Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15416844400144968041noreply@blogger.com