[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>> demonstrating its power and pervasiveness.   
   >>>          This could be interpreted as a form of philosophical   
   >>> confirmation bias.   
   >>>          The analytical tools of logicist positivism are used to   
   >>> critique philosophical systems, which reinforces the use of those tools.   
   >>>      Geometry as a Science:   
   >>>          By framing geometry as something that can be grounded in, or   
   >>> analyzed by, logicist positivism, they are implicitly treating it as a   
   >>> science. This is a departure from a purely platonic view, where geometry   
   >>> is seen as a realm of pure ideals, independent of empirical validation.   
   >>>      Various Perspectives:   
   >>>          Phenomenological Perspective:   
   >>>              From a Husserlian perspective, the pre-geometric is a realm   
   >>> of lived experience that provides the foundation for geometric   
   >>> idealizations. The emphasis is on the intuitive grasp of geometric   
   >>> forms.   
   >>>          Deconstructive Perspective:   
   >>>              From a Derridean perspective, the pre-geometric is a site   
   >>> of instability and ambiguity, where the attempt to ground geometric   
   >>> truths in pure intuition is always undermined by the play of language   
   >>> and difference.   
   >>>          Analytical Perspective:   
   >>>              From an analytical perspective, the focus is on the logical   
   >>> structure of geometric systems and the precise definition of geometric   
   >>> concepts. The pre-geometric is seen as a realm of pre-linguistic   
   >>> intuition that needs to be formalized and clarified.   
   >>>          Historical Perspective:   
   >>>              The historical context of the early 20th century, with its   
   >>> emphasis on scientific rigor and logical analysis, heavily influenced   
   >>> both Husserl and Derrida.   
   >>>   
   >>> In essence, your reading highlights the complex interplay between   
   >>> Platonism, phenomenology, and logicist positivism. It suggests that even   
   >>> seemingly critical analyses can be deeply embedded within the very   
   >>> frameworks they seek to critique.   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>> Thanks GG. It's a usual notion of postmodernist criticism the   
   >>> deconstructive account though not necessarily the disfigurist account   
   >>> which some have as so follows, or as with regards to the arguments   
   >>> against induction and for deduction, since antiquity, as thorough.   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>> You're bringing up an important distinction between deconstruction and   
   >>> what you call a "disfigurist" account, particularly in relation to the   
   >>> problem of induction and the preference for deduction. This distinction   
   >>> is crucial for understanding the nuances of postmodernist criticism.   
   >>> Let's explore it:   
   >>>   
   >>> Deconstruction vs. "Disfigurism":   
   >>>   
   >>>      Deconstruction (Derrida):   
   >>>          Focuses on revealing the inherent instability and ambiguity of   
   >>> language and concepts.   
   >>>          Seeks to expose the hidden hierarchies and power dynamics   
   >>> embedded within texts and systems of thought.   
   >>>          Often involves a careful analysis of binary oppositions,   
   >>> demonstrating how they are not fixed but rather fluid and   
   >>> interdependent.   
   >>>          Tends to focus on the text, and the way the text creates   
   >>> meaning.   
   >>>      "Disfigurism" (Hypothetical):   
   >>>          As you suggest, this might involve a more radical approach, not   
   >>> just revealing instability but actively disrupting and dismantling   
   >>> established structures.   
   >>>          Could involve a more explicit rejection of foundationalism and   
   >>> a celebration of fragmentation and incoherence.   
   >>>          May be less concerned with textual analysis and more with   
   >>> performative acts of disruption.   
   >>>          May be more concerned with the destruction of the system of   
   >>> meaning, instead of the analysis of it.   
   >>>      Arguments Against Induction and for Deduction:   
   >>>          The problem of induction, famously articulated by David Hume,   
   >>> highlights the limitations of inferring general conclusions from   
   >>> specific observations.   
   >>>          Deduction, on the other hand, provides logically certain   
   >>> conclusions based on established premises.   
   >>>          From antiquity, philosophers have grappled with this tension,   
   >>> often favoring deduction as a more reliable form of reasoning.   
   >>>          Postmodernism's relation:   
   >>>              Deconstruction fits well within postmodernism, as it   
   >>> questions the foundations of knowledge.   
   >>>              A “disfigurist” account would be a more extreme version of   
   >>> this, and would be less concerned with the text, and more concerned with   
   >>> the destruction of the systems that created the text.   
   >>>      The Thoroughness of the Anti-Induction Argument:   
   >>>          The arguments against induction have indeed been thorough,   
   >>> raising fundamental questions about the nature of causality,   
   >>> probability, and justification.   
   >>>          These arguments resonate with postmodernist critiques of grand   
   >>> narratives and universal truths.   
   >>>          Deduction's allure:   
   >>>              Deduction's appeal lies in its perceived certainty. If the   
   >>> premises are true, the conclusion must also be true.   
   >>>              This aligns with a desire for logical rigor and precision,   
   >>> which has been a driving force in Western philosophy.   
   >>>   
   >>> Connecting the Concepts:   
   >>>   
   >>>      Deconstruction can be seen as a way of revealing the inherent   
   >>> limitations of deductive systems, by exposing the hidden assumptions and   
   >>> biases that underlie their premises.   
   >>>      A "disfigurist" approach might take this further, actively   
   >>> undermining the very possibility of logical coherence.   
   >>>      The thoroughness of the anti-induction argument provides a fertile   
   >>> ground for both deconstructive and "disfigurist" critiques, as it   
   >>> challenges the foundations of empirical knowledge.   
   >>>   
   >>> In essence, you're highlighting a spectrum of postmodernist criticism,   
   >>> ranging from the careful analysis of deconstruction to the more radical   
   >>> disruption of a hypothetical "disfigurism." Both approaches, however,   
   >>> find common ground in the long-standing philosophical debate about   
   >>> induction and deduction.   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>> Thanks GG. Here the fuller and wider dialectic and both prior and   
   >>> posterior and the deductive guaranteeing the inductive not the other way   
   >>> around are considered logical consistencies and the needful for a   
   >>> thorough theory. The "disfigurist" is a term from post-modernist   
   >>> literary criticism theory, that results its own frailty and makes for a   
   >>> re-emergent structuralist account, thus speaking to the philosophical   
   >>> maturity in the technical philosophy as logical and true. Comment on   
   >>> considered tracks of evolution in philosophical maturity, of   
   >>> individuals, with regards canon and dogma, tradition.   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>> You've laid out a complex and insightful perspective on the evolution of   
   >>> philosophical thought, highlighting the interplay between deduction,   
   >>> induction, deconstruction, "disfigurism," and structuralism. Let's break   
   >>> down these considered tracks of evolution and their implications for   
   >>> philosophical maturity:   
   >>>   
   >>> Deduction Guaranteeing Induction:   
   >>>   
   >>>      The assertion that deduction can guarantee induction, rather than   
   >>> the reverse, signifies a strong emphasis on logical consistency and   
   >>> foundational rigor.   
   >>>      This approach suggests that a truly comprehensive theory must begin   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)