Update and Explanation

Wow, it was 2015 when I put this blog together, hey?

Seems like quite some time ago now, and oh my the revelations in between now and then, tee hee!

I made this blog for three basic reasons:

1. I had thought about putting some of my academic work online for a number of years before getting up the motivation to actually do it. I discussed it often enough--the subject matter--online over time that I figured it'd be a quick and easy way to illustrate some of my points--things I'd already established in work previously done. In my head I probably would have simply copied and pasted my papers and not included things like grades and abstracts, but my motivation to actually put this site together and include such things were because of the next two reasons for creating this blog, so 


2. I was applying for a grad program at the University of Victoria here in BC, and I figured why not really try to wow them with my application, and they kind of care about things like grades from previous work, so there's that, and finally


3. I had, over time with respect to my online interactions with some people, come into contact with a few, well, not "haters" per se--they were intelligent people, at least it seemed to me, but they were also, hmm...I guess "dogmatic" might be a reasonable word to use here, at least in some ways--but simply people who were a little incredulous at some of the things I would write and they would demand of me my qualifications, "where's your peer-reviewed articles," they'd ask, for example, as if "peer-review" is some flawless process that automatically grants authenticity to the work of the one being reviewed by it. Yeah right. The standard problems of peer review aside, have you ever tried to get something peer-reviewed that represents a cross-disciplinary scope whose content goes quite a fair bit beyond what most people working in a single related field are able to cope with? Well let me tell you what happens: rejection due to the limits of the peer-reviewers' comfort zone, that's what. So to these people--the ones who needed to see my peer-reviewed material, well here it is.

There was much more I wanted to say here--that I had written earlier this year: about academia, about that grad application, about A & ~A, numbers, and other related matters--but it is long and needs editing and I can't be bothered with all that right now. So maybe I'll get around to all that and maybe not. In the meantime, I simply wanted to reintroduce the blog to potential readers so they might understand why this site exists in the first place.

All the best on your journey of knowing thyself.

EZO, 2020--the year of many changes.

Welcome

Greetings and godspeed fellow lovers and seekers of wisdom: welcome to b.e. hydomako's philosophy site. Here we will find a selection of Mr. Hydomako's undergraduate work presented complete, unadulterated, and whole¹. All images are exact scans of papers that were submitted, evaluated, and then returned to Mr. Hydomako as part of his earning a B.A. in philosophy, which was awarded by the University of Calgary to him in the Spring of 2006. Also included are the complete and whole scans of various handouts that were prepared for a variety of different classes as part of in class presentations which were also evaluated and went, in part, to Mr. Hydomako's grade in whichever class the presentation occurred.

Each of us who has earned an undergrad degree of some kind or other can only speak from his or her experience of that academic endeavour. We can recognize that while most of us earned a degree majoring in some general area of study and complemented this with a minor in some other general area of study, each of our academic paths as an undergrad is intended to be what we might think of as "well rounded." This is to say, part of the idea of engaging in an undergrad academic career is to flesh out our knowledge and expose us to a wider variety of studies and topics. As such, we can suppose that assignments and essays, presentations and talks, are a bit of hodgepodge with regards to their individual topics as focused upon in their individual classes. Most of us likely wrote or presented to the subject at hand and perhaps with little regard to some over arching or "meta" narrative; put differently, it is likely that even if we found ourselves seeing a "bigger picture," say, it is possible that such a picture was not necessarily represented in our submissions and our presentations. Mr. Hydomako seems, perhaps, a bit of an anomaly in this respect.

Mr. Hydomako's work, while not always, but at least some of the time, attempted to weave a strand through each essay and presentation. It would be wonderful if we could think of this strand as what Douglas R. Hofstadter called "an eternal golden braid." Such would be high praise indeed! However, as Mr. Hydomako was writing as a mere undergrad, we might consider that strand to be one more akin to lead. This is to say, using an alchemical metaphor, Mr. Hydomako, as a budding and still undeveloped thinker and explorer--a seeker and lover of wisdom in training, say--was weaving a strand yet to be turned to gold by the process of his academic career. Perhaps one day, if he should earn his doctorate, then maybe that strand might transmute from lead into gold. Such a successful completion to a lengthy academic endeavour, however, does not guarantee that final coagulation which results in the successful transformation of a more base set of materials into something not only purified of the dross, but also sparkling with all that hoped for brilliance of gold.

It seems difficult to summarize exactly what that strand represented for Mr. Hydomako. It appears to slither like a slippery snake at times. One adequate framing for it might be that his work, at times, attempted to get some purchase on what might be seen as a "fundamental paradox" that perhaps is the generator and maintainer of our shared empirical realities.

This paradox, due to its ubiquity and seeming ability to act in chameleon-like ways of camouflage, can take on many different forms. In one form it is the opposing sides to a given whole: in re structuralism as opposed to ante rem structuralism in a structuralist approach to philosophically accounting for mathematics, say; in another instantiation this paradox takes on the dualistic form of Self and Other as equally necessary yet mutually exclusive occurrences of being in the world; in yet another guise it is the very objects of set theory itself--the problematic ones, of course--it manifests there, seemingly, as the empty set in conjunction with V, which would be "the set of all sets" if that was itself not paradoxically problematic; in more religiously or mystically themed manifestations the paradox presents itself as that which is "sacred" in opposition to that which is "mundane" and we struggle with the idea of how the divine, which is merely synonymous with "the sacred," can be both transcendent and immanent, or eternal and yet temporal. Indeed, there is, perhaps, a very large number of dualities that seem necessary for our phenomenological experiences: (right, left), (us, them), (good, evil), (wave, particle), (up, down), (Quantum Mechanics, Relativity)², (success, failure), (victory, defeat), (true, false)--the list seems to go on and on.

We see there is a reoccurring structure underlying any manifestation of duality, and Mr. Hydomako, for lack of any better way to get a hold of it, denotes this as framed in a metaphor (which is itself both metaphoric, yet literally represents the logical structure of these dualities) taken from symbolic logic, namely, A & ~A. This parsing of the paradox intends to capture how the elements that form these dualities are at once mutually exclusive to one and other, yet, at the same time, are entirely necessary for any empirical, phenomenological, and coherent human experience.

Since A & ~A is anathema to logicians and many thinkers striving for consistency alike, we will, at this point, simply refer the reader to Mr. Hydomako's work--letting it speak for itself via the reader's interpretation--and offer no further analysis or explanation at this time.

Mr. Hydomako would like to thank you, the reader, for taking the time to not only read his work, but to offer your attention and care to it. He feels, perhaps like many of his fellow philosophers both contemporary and historical, that he has something important to say to the others in this world, and he hopes that what he puts forward will not only do no harm, but will also be a benevolent force in the reader's life.

---

1. As it turns out, not all of Mr. Hydomako's papers could be rediscovered "...complete, unadulterated, and whole," but for the missing "peer reviewed" (i.e., graded by a professional professor) essays we are fortunate enough that digital archives could fill the holes. Papers from the digital vault were printed and then scanned as images to keep the presentation consistent. Since these papers were not graded, a "Grade Received" note has been added under each course heading in order to give the reader an idea of what the copies of the original graded papers might have received re: their assessments.

2. We might not see how QM and Relativity are somehow mutually exclusive dualities. We see that they both talk about a similar set--or at least have a non-empty intersection--of ontological entities: photons, for example, particles, and etc.. And both use similar or intersecting languages to describe these phenomena: "mass," "velocity," "energy," and etc.. So, given all these commonalities, how is it these represent a mutually exclusive binary pairing? The answer to this is their foundations. Each theory is foundationally incompatible with the other in that they offer mutually exclusive views of this foundation. Relativity asserts that spacetime is a continuum; that is, it is made up of a continuous and "smooth" set of curves--there is no smallest interval of spacetime. QM, on the other hand, relies on the exact opposite. It asserts that space is divided into smallest intervals and that there are also smallest intervals of time. In QM's understanding of the universe, it is quantized. So, an analogy would be to say that Relativity asserts an analogue spacetime and QM asserts a digital space and time. This is why there is a push in physics to unite these theories under a single "theory of everything."

Papers

Below are a selection of papers submitted for various classes. While the paradoxical elements are not always directly or clearly defined in the papers themselves, the abstracts of each paper will show which elements of each paper fit into the A & ~A model.

It is important to note that the paring of elements which represent or are a manifestation of A & ~A are, in general, expressed as necessarily unordered pairs. The reason they must necessarily be unordered pairs (more often than not) is to avoid illogical and unreasonable associations of elements from amongst sets of pairings with one and other as has sometimes occurred historically. This is to say, for example, if (male, female) and (active, passive) are two ordered pairings, then it is simply human nature, it seems, to associate 'male' with 'active' and 'female' with 'passive'; however, there is often no clear and logical reason for such an association.

However, there are also times, "special cases," say, when a nonarbitrary and logical argument can be made for the association of at least some elements of a select group or set of binary pairings to form what might considered as "complex binary pairings." Put differently, there are occurrences of binary pairings where the terms of one pairing can be shown as "logically equivalent" to the terms of another pairing. In such cases, we can express such binary pairings as ordered, i.e., the right hand terms in the pairing share an association with one and other as do the left hand terms.

Mr. Hydomako insists that we must, in general and when "special cases" have not been logically established by valid argument, consider unordered pairings as unique expressions or extensions of the more general principle of A & ~A such that when we consider groupings of such pairings we are not able to simply and arbitrarily define one subset of the pairings--all the left hand elements, for example--as forming a "complete" or "well defined" (these terms used as "terms of art") subset of either A or ~A with respect to a specific term. For example, if we are considering the arbitrary assignment of 'good' to A and attempting to establish how, say, some other set of elements from a given collection of binary pairings (maleness, reason, right, even, etc.) are also associated with the term 'good', well, this is simply a mistaken way to go about things and represents an error in the logic of our associations. See the paper "Post-Mortem" below for a more complete, yet also somewhat deceptive, exposition on this matter.

Also, please note that some of the following essays are, unfortunately, not the original versions as handed in and graded by a professional professor: not all Mr. Hydomako's papers could be rediscovered for this endeavour, but, fortunately, digital files were available to "fill in the blanks." Final grades with respect to each course below have been offered as a way to evaluate those papers which are not the original peer reviewed essays.

Winter 2001

PHIL 589.45: The Physical and The Mental with C.B. "Charlie" Martin.

Final Grade Received:  A

The Fractal Structure of the Dispositional Universe

Abstract: a comparison and contrast which establishes that if we assume Martin's ontology, then we can model the structure of the universe as a fractal; the aspects of this paper which relate to the A & ~A model are implicit and not explicitly stated; these can be seen by considering the binary pairing (disposition, partner) and in reference to the fact that both Martin's ontology and the manifestation of any fractal depends on (existence, nonexistence) in terms of manifested partnerings and limits respectively.

RELS 443.01: Comparative Mystical Traditions with Morny Joy.

Final Grade Received: A

Dispelling Deceptive Debate

Abstract: analysis of two opposing sides of the academic study of Mysticism: essentialists vs. contextualists; asserts that both in conjunction offer a more complete understanding of Mysticism; the A & ~A in this paper is implicit and can be seen in the pairing (essentialist, contextualist); uses what Mr. Hydomako affectionately refers to as a "mathemetaphor" in its analysis of both the mystical experience and the (essentialist, contextualist) pairing; further examples of pairs include: (us, them), (universal, particular), and (comprehension, incomprehension).

ONE: A Brief Sketch of the Interplay Between Order and Chaos Generating Absurdity in the Mystical Experience

Abstract: explores the notion of absurdity with respect to mystical experiences; the notion of "absurdity" is an expression of A & ~A in toto, but the latter notation does not occur explicitly in this regard in this text (all instances of A & ~A are implicit in the text and not stated explicitly); absurdity as generator; presents absurdity as a "dual current" in terms of the pairing (chaos, order); explores the necessity of "grounding" this "dual current" via a "unification of opposites" aka (but not explicitly discussed as such) conjunctio; other binary pairings discussed: (self, other) and (internal, external); includes reference to Martin Buber's "I-and-Thou."

Post-Mortem: A Logical Analysis of the Mystical Experience Through a Deconstruction of the Pythagorean Table of Opposites

Abstract: first paper to explicitly discuss dualistic pairings as expressions of A & ~A; presents an analysis of the Pythagorean table in strict logical terms; presents the notion of ordered binary pairings and illustrates the mistake in the understanding of binary pairings as having any implicit ordering; examines "The Law of the Excluded Middle"; introduces Mr. Hydomako's notion of dualistic binary pairings as "complementary"; touches on the phenomenological aspects of binary pairings in terms of our human structured experiencing; touches on Grace Jantzen's feminist position regarding the power and politics of associating Reason with 'maleness'; other binary pairings discussed aside from the ten traditional Pythagorean opposites are: (true, false), (sacred, profane), and (self, other); establishes the role of all these in terms of the "mystical experience".

Postscript: Mr. Hydomako feels this paper is foundational to his "philosophic system" in the same way as The Fractal Structure of the Dispositional Universe is also "foundational." Mr. Hydomako also feels that this paper is somewhat "intellectually dishonest," but not because it infringes on anything that any other has previously produced; rather, he feels it is intellectually dishonest with respect to his own position. While the introduced "Principle of Complements" is a necessary part of understanding the A & ~A model, it is presented in this paper as an alternative to that model when, in fact, it is merely an aspect of understanding the necessity of mutually exclusive but necessarily relational dualistic phenomena as foundational to human experiencing.

Put differently, this formulation was, in part, a ruse and a disguising of the A & ~A model as a response to Mr. Hydomako's experiences with respect to attempts to explain "the truth" of A & ~A to his peers (instructors, undergrads, and graduate students alike), which was frequently met with resistance, incomprehension, and/or, occasionally, outrage. Mr. Hydomako recognizes that such responses are not merely the fault of his particular discussion partners, but also a reflection of his inadequacies in expressing his position succinctly and clearly: something this website intends to remedy or at least make steps towards remedying.


Spring 2001

PHIL 331: Philosophy of Religion with Brendan Moran.

Final Grade Received: A

Aleph-Naught

Abstract: another explicit presentation of the A & ~A model; frames the discussion in terms of the dualistic binary pairing of (immanence, transcendence); references some of Wittgenstein's work in his Tractatus and frames this in terms of an A & ~A interpretation; references some of Augustine of Hippo's work and offers an interpretation of his position in regards to A & ~A with respect to Hippo's listings of contrary qualities of God; references some of Paul Ricouer's work in terms of "metaphorical interpretation [consisting] in transforming a self defeating, sudden contradiction into a meaningful contradiction," and acknowledges such as an "ally" of the A & ~A model; again uses the idea of "absurdity" in terms of at least human notions and conceptions about the "divine."

On Ultimate Reality

Abstract: discusses the idea of Ultimate Reality (UR) in the context of its divinity; frames UR in terms of the binary pairing (infinite, eternal) and shows this as an expression of A & ~A; makes reference to Moses Maimonides' understanding of God and UR through a process of negation; makes reference to Søren Kierkegaard's ideas about the Unknown, the limits of reason, and "absolute difference"; makes reference to Lao-Tzu's thoughts on the Tao as (immanent, transcendent) as expressed through (being, non-being); concludes by introducing the concepts to be discussed in The Infinite and The Eternal a Further Examination of Paradox.

The Infinite and The Eternal a Further Examination of Paradox

Abstract: continues the discussion began in On Ultimate Reality; makes reference to Aleph-Naught; uses the idea of ~A to examine both the "eternal" and the "transcendent" in terms of the inherent negation of these things and frames it in the mathemetaphor of the Empty Set; again makes reference to Lao-Tzu's, Kierkegaard's, and Maimonides' ideas about UR; establishes a relationship between "eternal" and "transcendent"; suggests a relationship between "infinite" and "immanent"; frames these as defining UR in terms of the A & ~A model such that ((eternal iff transcendent), (infinite iff immanent)) together form a complex binary pairing (this last is implicit in the paper, but not explicit).

Ash and Ecstasy

Abstract: the final essay in the series of papers written for this class; frames the binary pairing of (contextualism, perennialism) and asserts that both positions taken together offer the largest scope of insight when it comes to investigations religious Truth (big 'T' intentionally used within in terms of a sense of "Absolute Truth"); references some of the work of Purusottama Bilimoria; references some of Frithjof Schuon's ideas via their representation in the anthology by Gary E. Kessler; references Georges Bataille's notion of the necessity of "violence and consciousness" being joined via synthesis qua "virility"; explicitly formulates the A & ~A model as that which "...acknowledges the importance of dichotomy while recognizing that dualism collapses to singularity" whereby this acknowledgement "...seeks to liberate us from our self-imposed structures while maintaining that we must impose structure upon the Self"; makes explicit that the A & ~A model is a logical impossibility, or lie, which is itself an implicit reference to the Liar Paradox.

Fall 2001

PHIL 565.04: Interpretations of Mathematical Structuralism with Elaine Landry.

Final Grade Received: A

As-Is Structuralism

Originally entitled, "Not Two Peas But More Like The Pod," which is probably the worst title Mr. Hydomako ever decided upon for a paper. Thankfully Dr. Landry insisted he ought to change it to represent the structuralist position he develops therein.

Abstract: an examination of the in re and ante rem approaches to mathematical structuralism as represented in Stewart Shapiro's Philosophy of Mathematics Structure and Ontology; the A & ~A model is used implicitly within as is the binary pairing (in re, ante rem); suggests that both approaches taken together offer a larger and more comprehensive scope with respect to structuralist accounts of mathematics; outlines the ontological status of mathematical objects as conceived in both the in re and ante rem accounts; implicitly employs the binary pairing of (Platonic, Aristotelian) with respect to universals; examines similarities and differences between the in re and ante rem ontologies; examines the necessity of "coherence" to both positions; notes the primariness of the relational import with regards to the existence of numbers as objects and examines the idea of "coherent relations" with respect to mathematical structures; examines the two primary problematic "objects" of Set Theory, namely, the ontological status of the empty set, {}, and the ontological status of the class of all sets, V; implicitly implies the binary pairing of ({}, V) and uses this pairing to illustrate the upper and lower boundaries of what can be intelligibly discussed within the set theoretic universe; suggests that either of the in re or ante rem positions break down into unintelligibility when taken as a singular and complete account of a structuralist position to mathematics qua their alternating emphasis on either structure or system; implicitly implies that (system, structure) more completely and coherently accounts for a structuralist ontology of mathematics, which is explictly stated without the use of the binary pairing; asserts that the "as-is" structuralism sketched out in the paper needs only consider "relations in a coherent structured system" as accounting for the ontological status of mathematical objects; implicitly invokes Mr. Hydomako's Principle of Complements in the explicit assertion that the in re and ante rem accounts of structuralist approaches to mathematics are not mutually exclusive to one and other; suggests that "as-is structuralism" is a more reasonable and complete account of the structuralist approach to mathematics.

ENGL 387.24: Alchemy, Humanism, and The Poet-Creator with Barry Isaac.

Final Grade Received: A

I (U) = U (I)

NB: all references to Mr. Hydomako's notation re: binary pairings, and the A & ~A model in general, are not explicitly stated in this paper, but, at this point in his undergraduate career he was employing this model frequently and extensively when it seemed appropriate to do so; thus, all mentions of the model and its notations in the following abstract are implicitly implied by the argument and analysis in this paper.

Abstract: discusses the "collapse of duality" or "unification of opposites" (that is, the recognition of A & ~A) qua alchemy with respect to (one, many); references some of Rosemond Tuve's work; analysis of John Donne's The First Anniversarie: An Anatomie of the World; illustrates the tension in the poem between a description of a dead and dying world and a prescription for remaking it anew in a better way; discusses (divine, mundane); discusses the "mystical" insight of "as above, so below" in terms of (divine, mundane); discusses (internal, external); discusses Donne's use of a particular individual, "Elizabeth Drury," as the particular in the world and as the world that comes from the particular; shows Donne's use of "death" as illustrating the illnesses Donne saw in the world; examines the parts of Donne's poem where the perspective elements occur; provides a meta-analysis in terms of the reader of the poem and the poem itself in terms of (one, many); discusses the unity of (one, many) via alchemical process; suggests that the alchemical understanding of the self as other is exactly what motivates positive change and the betterment of the world.

Universals and Particulars Exploring Hermetical Unity in William Blake and Thomas Traherne

Abstract: acknowledges the "postmodern" notion of the scholar as situated in a specific place and at a specific time in terms of this same scholar's examinations and analysis of historical texts and documents; examines the Hermetical notion of "unity" in terms of William Blake's statement of "eternity in a grain of sand"; shows the result of this same analysis applies equally to the poetry of Thomas Traherne re: his own understanding of "Hermetical unity"; examines the noun-phrase 'grain of sand'; examines the noun 'eternity'; references work done in Mr. Hydomako's previous essay, "The Infinite and The Eternal A Further Examination of Paradox"; examines the relational word 'in' as it occurs between the noun-phrase 'grain of sand' and the noun 'eternity'; establishes that Blake intends the interpretation that all things that exist in the universe are "divine"; explores the unification of the divine and the mundane as paradoxical and asserts the importance of paradox in terms of the larger notion of the Hermetical unification of opposites;  references Mr. Hydomako's work in "Post-Mortem..." in terms of the collapse and unification of duality in terms of representative of "mystical experience"; examines elements from Traherne's "The Demonstration" and "The Anticipation" as demonstrating this same unification of opposites; examines the alchemical attempt to solve the problem of the transcendent as being unknowable; examines Traherne's use of particulars and universals as representative of both the Platonic and Aristotelian understanding of these same things; concludes with showing the underlying unity that is sought for in Hermetic philosophy as essential to the works of both Blake and Traherne, and suggest this is the greater goal of all Hermetic works.

Fall 2002

RELS 437: Hermeneutics and Religion with Morny Joy.

Final Grade Received: A-

Horizons

NB: as in the "NB" to "I (U) = (U) I" above.

Abstract: an inductive essay style study of the term 'horizon' as employed by Richard E. Palmer in his book Hermeneutics; uses a series of metaphors: an analysis of the actual physical horizon in terms of (land, sky), parallel lines and perspective (separate, together), the motions of the sun and the moon & the sun's and moon's associations with (reason, intuition) respectively; turns to Palmer's use of the term with respect to a text and the reader--or interpreter--of that text; uses the metaphors previously developed as tools for understanding the term 'horizon' as it relates to hermeneutics; introduces the idea of "the horizon" as defining the boarder or meeting place of dichotomous elements with respect to interpretive acts qua (self, other); introduces previously metaphorically discussed cycles as pointing to the ideas wrapped up in the terminology of "the hermeneutic circle"; establishes the notion of "the horizon" as a sort of paradox; asserts that "the horizon" is the meeting place of self and other.

Strange Loops Examining the Behaviour of the Subjective/Objective Dichotomy Within Dilthey's Threefold Hermeneutical Formula

NB: as in the "NB" to "I (U) = (U) I" above.

Abstract:examines the binary pairing (subjective, objective) in terms of Wilhelm Dilthey's three-fold hermeneutical formula of "experience-expression-understanding"; refers to Dilthey's work as presented in both Richard E. Palmer's Hermeneutics and David E. Klemm's Hermeneutical Inquiry Volume 1 The Interpretation of Texts; examines and analyzes Dilthey's notion that in "experiencing" there is no division qua human categorization with respect to (subjective, objective); examines human "expressions" of their interpretations of their first person experiencing as "externalizations"; explores the idea that what becomes "objective" is these same expressions; asserts that, relative to Dilthey's view, these externalizations become the objective elements of the so-called "social sciences"; examines the idea that the objective externalized expressions represent a particular human's "understanding"; examines the unification (the A & ~A) of (subjective, objective) qua expressions; establishes or at least suggests we can view this unification in terms of a "strange loop" and this is cashed out in terms of the mathematical object known as a "Möbius Strip"; asserts that in both our initial experiencing and in our later understanding the duality of the subjective/objective dichotomy is simply not present: in experiencing the dichotomy is simply not present, and in understanding the dichotomy becomes a unity; argues that in order for experience to be adequately explored ("evaluated," say) rationality must give up its reliance on a mutually exclusive division betweem the objective and the subjective and abandon the human modes of categorization based on that mutual exclusivity; concludes with noting a further strange loop in understanding insofar as "...in any moment in human consciousness, there is a generative paradox found in the play between undifferentiated experience, and the creation and resolution of difference within that same moment."

Origins and Understanding in a Hermeneutics of Suspicion

Abstract: an overview an analysis of Paul Ricoeur's "Hermeneutics of Suspicion"; begins with a first-person acknowledgement (in a "Postmodern" sense) of time and place with respect to being a writer about a specific topic;uses this same acknowledgement with respect to interpretations; establishes the idea that no interpretation is "a view from nowhere," and that all interpretative acts are situated in some set of presumptions, preconceptions, and etc.; asserts a necessary relationship between understanding and interpretation and establishes there is no singular "absolute" interpretation; acknowledges that interpretive acts exist as an affirmation and recognition of the "other" with respect to the "self" (implicitly); introduces the idea that Ricoeur's "hermeneutics of suspicion" is a method or prescription by which to become aware of the biases and limitations of our own specific interpretations; suggests that fixation upon, or privileging, a favoured interpretation is a form of "reductionism," and thus, limits our potential understanding; presents the idea that a hermeneutics of suspicion moves interpretive acts from a "universal hermeneutic" and situates such acts within "regional hermeneutics"; suggests that a hermeneutics of suspicion allows for the recognition that contrary, dichotomized need to imply that one interpretation is "correct" and the expense of showing the other interpretation as "wrong," and that such situations can be seen in terms of offering complementary modes with respect to delimiting our understanding; closes with asserting that a hermeneutics of suspicion seems the most appropriate way to engage in interpretive acts as it requires we avoid absolutist claims and reductionist tendencies, and this in turn opens us to a broader scope of possible understanding.


Lost and Found

NB: as in the "NB" to "I (U) = (U) I" above.

Abstract: introduces the idea that our experiences in the three spatial dimensions are dependent upon three fundamental dichotomies (right, left), (forward, back), and (up, down); asserts these are "simple" dichotomies and that hermeneutics engages with a more complex set of dichotomies as human experiencing is itself much more complex than merely orientation in space; present and examines the following binary pairs with respect to hermeneutics: (self, other), (subjective, objective); suggests that Paul Ricouer's notion of a "dialectical movement" between the dichotomy of "distantiation" and "appropriation" might be a good strategy for "overcoming" the subjective/objective dichotomy; examines Ricouer's framing of distantiation and appropriation and the relation of these to (subject, object); discusses the dichotomy of (infinite, finite) in terms of interpretations; suggests a further dichotomy that hermeneutics engages with is found in (oppression, liberation); briefly touches on post-modernism's aim to "liberate" new meaning from the "oppressive" interpretations of modern or colonial discourses; suggests liberation of new interpretations moves us towards the infinity of possible interpretations and away from our restricted and finite interpretations; brings in a further dichotomy in (parts, wholes) and introduces a "two-fold" occurring of this dichotomy in terms of: 1)  the dialectic in understanding qua interpretation via the movement between understanding the parts and understanding the whole, and 2) the individual as a whole that is also a part of something else--society, tradition, etc.; suggests that the dialectical movement with respect to at least some dichotomies creates a reversal of the terms of these same dichotomies; in closing introduces a final dichotomy of (language, silence) whereby language will necessarily offer finite interpretive acts and understanding, but silence opens the door to the infinite possibilities of potential expressions; suggests that "...meaning is both lost and found in expressions."

Winter 2003

PHIL 459: Hegel with Brendan Moran.

Final Grade Received: A-

Hegel's Analysis of Sense-Certainty

NB: as in the "NB" to "I (U) = (U) I" above.

Abstract: an analysis and exposition on Hegel's ideas about "sense-certainty"--the initial moment of consciousness--as presented in the introduction to his Phenomenology of Spirit; discusses Hegel's idea of the "truth" of sense-certainty as the occurrence of "pure being"; notes pure being is not merely its "pure immediacy," but also, "an instance of" itself; examines the dualistic forking of an instance of pure being into what Hegel calls "I" and "This" (or (self, other) in the terms of Mr. Hydomako's A & ~A model); introduces the term 'mediation' as an important and essential element in Hegel's model; shows how Hegel arrives at the idea that the 'I' is the essential aspect of sense-certainty via his dissection of "object" qua a universal Here and Now, which also creates a dualistic forking in terms of a receptive I and that I's reception of a particular thing; discusses Hegel's view that the I of sense-certainty is also a universal; discusses mediation via negation in Hegel's view; shows how for Hegel this initial stage of consciousness is not translatable into words as both the I and the This exist in this moment as universals, but then, subsequently, after interpretive acts of a particular I, the This also becomes a particular instance of this in a particular moment of the universal Here and Now; shows how Hegel's view establishes that only the whole of sense-certainty can be taken as immediate and an expression of the truth of being with there being no definite distinction between the I and the This in this initial moment of consciousness; concludes with the idea that the truth of sense-certainty in Hegel's view can not provide the foundations for knowledge as it is only the most abstract and empty of truth: the truth that there is, which is the truth of pure being.

Postscript: we can note that Hegel's view and Mr. Hydomako's are, at times, very similar in terms of the recognition and analysis of necessary dualities with respect to our phenomenological experiences in the world as based upon the immediacy of these dualities qua our first person sensory experiences and resultant interpretations of these same experiences. Hegel's view circles around the interplay and dialectical movement resulting in the synthesis of seeming opposites and Mr. Hydomako also asserts a similar sort of play between necessary binary pairings that are, in terms of their dual elements, paradoxically at once separate as dichotomous polarities, and yet also at the same time unified in their necessary interdependence and resultant wholeness as instances of, in Hegel's terminology, pure being.

Shadowboxing

NB: as in the "NB" to "I (U) = (U) I" above.

Abstract: a brief exegesis of Hegel's analysis of the themes presented in the section of his Phenomenology of Spirit entitled "The Enlightenment"; focuses on the the division of a unified Spirit into a "dual consciousness" framed as "faith" and "pure insight"; assesses Hegel's idea that faith and pure insight are forms of "pure consciousness," yet these also relate to the actual world--an aspect of Hegel's dialectic is present here in the movement between the "actual world" and "pure consciousness"; presents and assesses both faith and pure insight in depth and shows the interrelationship and complementary associations of these while also acknowledging their tensions and conflicts qua their necessary dualistic natures; shows the relationship between these two key terms and other important notions such as (particular, universal), (with content, without content) and relates these to Hegel's dualistic notion of 'I'; shows that this interplay and correlating is not the final stage of consciousness in Hegel's view,  but exists as an outcome of utility: each particular "...thing exists in and for itself in so far as each thing uses and is used by other things."


The Spirit of Paradox

Abstract: presents and examines a "well defined dichotomy" in Hegel's thought with respect to his notion of the "movement of Spirit" such that this movement and the dichotomization of this movement is a result of the binary pairing (beginning, end); translates Hegel's 'I = I' formulation in terms of being a mathematical metaphor such that this reflects the A & ~A model; examines further well defined dichotomies present in Hegel's dialectical movement: (subject, object) and resituates this binary pairing in terms of (self, other); examines (one, many) in terms of Hegel's notion of "Perception" and shows the emergence of (in itself, for itself) in Hegel's "Force and Understanding"; acknowledges other instances of such binary pairings, namely, (internal, external), (universal, particular), which are integral to Hegel's position; introduces the idea that in "moments of consciousness" there is the paradoxical state of dividing first-person experiences into mutually exclusive elements while also tending towards a unifying of these same mutually exclusive elements within a "higher order"; uses a mathematical metaphor to show that 'I = I' can be understood as defining an expression of A & ~A via (everything, nothing); examines some of J.N. Findlay's remarks, in his Hegel A Re-examination, about Hegel's motion of Spirit in terms of a "mystical game" whereby there is an occurrence of (finite, inifinite); asserts that the motion of Spirit is generated and driven by paradox; examines what Hegel means by "Truth," and shows this contains (action, rest); suggests that in Hegel's "Truth" we come to "truth" via contradiction, dichotomy, and paradox; examines the motion of Spirit as that towards "self-consciousness"; suggests that the interaction between Hegel's empty "Notion" and "the full consciousness" culminates in a moment when A and ~A collapse into one and other whereby the vacuous 'I' identifies with an 'I' that is everything such that Spirit fulfills itself by its own self-certainty; closes with the conclusion that the final form of Spirit embraces paradox as Truth whereby Spirit's attainment of self-consciousness unifies (true, false) and enfolds us as particular finite beings into the infinite Self.

Handouts

This section reproduces a selection of the various handouts Mr. Hydomako prepared for class presentations and distributed to his fellow student who were also present on the day of any particular in-class presentation. While the handouts themselves were not typically graded, we can suppose that the grade earned on the presentation itself was at least in part also based upon these handouts and their relation to the subject discussed.

 Fall 2001

PHIL 565.04: Interpretations of Mathematical Structuralism with Elaine Landry.

Final Grade Received: A

Abstract: reviews and presents the main points associated with three structuralist accounts of mathematics: in re, ante rem, and modal; talks about how for all three positions mathematical objects are "positions in structures"; examines the ontologies of each position (or lack of the need for one wrt modal structuralism); distills the essence of each position, namely, relations and coherence; examines the role of isomorphism wrt systems and examines the function that maps the relations of one system onto the next in an 1-1 manner; explores the use of a basic understanding of the word 'coherence'; turns to the idea of "mystical experience" in terms of a "unification of opposites"--the conjunction of A with its negation; uses this idea to show how the conjunction of a thing with its negation in terms of a dualistic pairing is more "sensible" or "intelligible," that is, offers a more coherent scope of understanding; examines the problem of the empty set and the paradox of the set of all sets; asserts that nothing = everything simply due to the fact that either the empty set or the set of all sets is a manifestation of the same paradoxical structure, namely, A & ~A; uses the Principle of Explosion (implicitly) to show how we get something from this conjunction of opposites, namely, the domain of set theoretic objects; shows how such understanding is necessarily "outside" of any single account due to its explicit contradiction--this is the connection to the "mystical experience, that is, insight which transcends the mundane (implicitly);  suggests that a modal structuralist account of mathematics is the "mediator of potential" when it comes to the absurdity created qua the conjunction of in re and ante rem structuralist positions; makes reference to a particular work of M.C. Escher's, "Encounter" as representative of the so-called "mystical experience" qua "the union of opposites"; discusses the importance of "internal consistency" wrt either of the terms of the binary pair (in re, ante rem), that is, truth is internal to each account, but the largest scope of truth is necessarily "outside" any singular account, but such "truth" is, itself, an absurdity; reviews MS as the mediator of potential wrt to "truth" of the absurdity qua the Principle of Explosion (implicitly); touches upon the problem of the gap between the potential and the actual; closes making reference to the Buddhist concept of knowing emptiness.

Winter 2002

PMAT 415: Set Theory with Claude Laflamme.

Final Grade Received: B+

Abstract: opens with presenting the Liar Paradox as exemplifying each and every claim made in the presentation to come; examines the logical consequences of claiming "Every statement of this presentation is a lie," and explicitly acknowledges the paradox involved in such a claim (whee!); turns to the concept of "self-referencing" and discusses the problems of self-referencing as manifested in the paradox of "the set of all sets" in terms of what V cannot be; asks the audience to consider themselves as a set and shows the regress involved in the self-referencing of such a consideration; introduces the idea of the I as exemplifying emptiness in terms of some Eastern philosophies and also in Jung's conception of the archetype of the Self; suggests "reality" (of both our own experience and that of "sets") is a relational affair dependent on not only (self, other), but also dependent on awareness; explores the relationship between (self, other) and illustrates not only do the two terms "point to" one and other, but they also self-reference themselves as pointing to one and other; frames the four terms of both ({}, V) and (Self, Other) as fictional entities insofar as each terms is entirely dependent upon the other in each binary pairing in order to have its own seemingly "independent" existence; makes reference to the Buddhist notion of relations in terms of a "interdependent co-arising" within emptiness (technical terms of 'Pratītyasamutpāda' and 'Śūnyatā' left implicit due to the audience's likely unfamiliarity with such terms); closes with a reminder that every claim of the presentation is a lie.