Miscellaneous Philosophical Questions

I was thinking today about particular and general and got to wondering, hey, what is a particular or particularity?  To answer this question, I tried in my mind to identify something-only-particular, anything at all only-particular.  Now, I suspect this is just a refashioned quest for the thing-in-itself, but bear with me.  

Here's what I found: I couldn't find only-particular.  Of course, I shouldn't be surprised as there's nothing so general as particularity.

I repeated the same search for only-general, but likewise failed in my quest to find any particular instance, ahem, of only-general.

Things got a bit interesting when I began to question one level up from this particularity and generality seeking.  If neither exist, if you will, what are we to make of these words that distinguish?  I could find no instance, in my mind, of some form of particularity that was not, in its describable particular aspect, described by wholly non-general words.  In fact, I could not find a particular word, ahem, that wasn't also general.

In addition to the question what are we to make of distinguishing, I also queried what are we to make of 'not'?  If you look up 'particular' in the dictionary, the primary definition reads 'not general.'  Of course, surely, but what does 'not' mean if 'A not B' denotes no not-being?

I suppose some form of speculating like the above underlies Nishida's absolute contraditory identity.

Re: Miscellaneous Philosophical Questions

In addition to the question what are we to make of distinguishing, I also queried what are we to make of 'not'?

Tom, what do you make of Moneynot?

Re: Miscellaneous Philosophical Questions

Tom: If you look up 'particular' in the dictionary, the primary definition
reads 'not general.'  Of course, surely, but what does 'not' mean if 'A
not B' denotes no not-being?

Language (responding with a postcard from Bora Bora): “The weather is here. Wish you were beautiful.”

If you look up “particular” in the dictionary, before the definition comes a word that defines it as a part of speech–adjective. This is critical because it means the word essentially has no historically functional definition outside of 1) the presence of a noun or nouns, 2) a context, 3) the shared understanding of the context and the language between communicants. (I imagine there are three or four other conditions impinging on the functional definition of which I cannot think this early in the morning.)

“Historically functional” is an adjectival phrase that I am using in the context of Nishida's “absolute contraditory identity.” (Since you so coyly brought it up.) “History” (n.) and “function” (n.) seem also to be critical in this analysis of Nishida that puts an existential light on the ethics and political value of  “absolute contradictory identity” in this passage and this one, and this one. Whether or not one agrees with Nishida or the essayists in these instances, they all seem to give an interesting grounding to the phrase and punch Language's ticket for the return trip from the South Seas.

Re: Miscellaneous Philosophical Questions

Steven said: Whether or not one agrees with Nishida or the essayists in these instances, they all seem to give an interesting grounding to the phrase and punch Language's ticket for the return trip from the South Seas.

Excerpts from Wikipedia - Samurai:
In his book “Ideals of the Samurai” translator William Scott Wilson states: “The warriors in the Heike Monogatari served as models for the educated warriors of later generations, and the ideals depicted by them were not assumed to be beyond reach. Rather, these ideals were vigorously pursued in the upper echelons of warrior society and recommended as the proper form of the Japanese man of arms. With the Heike Monogatari, the image of the Japanese warrior in literature came to its full maturity.”

Wilson then translates the writings of several warriors who mention the Heike Monogatari as an example for their men to follow.

Plenty of warrior writings document this ideal from the 13th century onward. Most warriors aspired to or followed this ideal otherwise there would have been no cohesion in the samurai armies.

Re: Miscellaneous Philosophical Questions

Following an implication from my first post, if particular and universal reside always together-as-one, and particular is no manner separable from universal, not and dual disappear in one breath.  'Contradiction,' for its part—and this comment applies to Nishida's 'contradictory identity'—evaporates.  So, too, difference and differance and same and non-separate.  Etc.

You might say language takes a holiday, but not in the way Wittgenstein meant that phrase.

Re: Miscellaneous Philosophical Questions

One of the techniques employed in Middle Way meditation is to hold such opposites together in awareness with equal intensity – to cathect them with equal object libido, one might say.  Normally, one or the other is privileged; when they are thus held together, however, they evaporate.  Language takes a holiday.

Re: Miscellaneous Philosophical Questions

Meditate on this.

Re: Miscellaneous Philosophical Questions

You guys are con-fusing.