Sat, 14 Oct 1995 09:45:45 EST

I've received a few comments on my posting on "Otherness' and wish to
clarify (or muddy) the issue.
(1) I am NOT saying that the Other exists, in itself. It most
definitely does not, but it exists as a potentiality to become
existent, and this potentiality limits the extensionality (physical
and conceptual) of the Entity. eg Bohr's concept of complementarity,
where the particle becomes existent within an interaction (Observer
observes and the particle becomes existential within that 'utterance'
of observation)...but..the wave 'exists' as a potential-to-be-
particle, even though the interaction has only permitted the particle
to become spatiotemporally existent. The Other exists, not as an
entity in itelf, but as a potential to be, and this establishes the
boundaries of the Entity/Self. But the Other has no identity-in-

(2) I agree fully with Matt Tomaso's observation that we should
distinguish between dualizing and dichotomizing oppositions. The
latter, which he calls bipolar and I call oppositional binarism, is a
conceptual trap. But a binarism that simply distinguishes between the
Self and Not-Self (without identifying the Not-Self) is a basic
criteria of cognition. It doesn't have the adjectives of opposing or
any value term; it simply establishes boundaries to the Self.

(3) In a healthy organism (individual or society) these boundaries
must be 'reasonably' open and negotiable. The boundaries (which can
be internal) are the key sites for change, and can be considered
quite dangerous, simply because they expose the Self to variation,
and yet, are subject to the Self's need for stability. Necessary
conflict.. (but not Hegelian).

Edwina Taborsky
Bishop's University Phone: (819)822.9600
Lennoxville, Quebec Fax: (819)822.9661
Canada JIM 1Z7