In a message dated 10/06/2004 06:04:06 GMT Standard Time,
michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
Jud:
> For me 'entity + language = truth' is not acceptable. Just think of
Blair's
> statement about the so-called 'entities' of mass destruction, and the
> 'language' he used to describe their existence, in which he included the
'fact' that
> they could be launched within 15-minutes. All falsity, and all 'entity +
> language' that equalled misrepresentation. For me then only 'entity= truth
is
> relevant, and THAT is precisely the reason for my battles with the
> transcendentalists, because their notion of an 'entity' is so primitive and
slippery
> [abstract objects and so on] it obscures truth — and my small side-show
of
a
> battle is ultimately about the meaning of truth.
Michael:
So, Jud, truth for you is the revelation, showing or uncovering (pebble in
the hand, there!) of beings in the manner of the way that such beings are
(physically for physical beings, non-physical for non-physical beings,
humanly for human beings, etc), and not primarily a property of statements
concerning such beings
Jud:
No,no,no, no.Firstly there is no suggestion that my apprehension of objects
being the
only things which are actual, is by some communication of knowledge to me by
a divine or supernatural agency.
Neither was it an enlightening or astonishing disclosure. Rather it was
something that I instinctively grasped as a child at a very early age
but was gainsaid and disputed [I was brainwashed] the moment I started to
attend school and church, where it was made clear to me by others [adults who
obviously knew better — or were supposed to know better] that there were
other 'entities' or 'beings' on the world scene, and the fact that we couldn't
see them, and they couldn't prove that they were really there, didn't mean
that they didn't really exist.
For me the term 'none-physical beings' is a complete misnomer and carries an
equivalent comic value to when I think of Tommy Cooper [well known beloved
English comic, now sadly dead] or the shadow-shows with rice-paper screens
powered by candlelight, which we impoverished wartime kids played with, which
always had the ubiquitous cardboard cut-out ghost, with which silhouetted
form we chased the other on-screen characters around the cardboard stage with
the usual 'Ooohers!' and 'Whoooers!'
Regarding 'property,' and the persistent Platonic misunderstanding of the
way entities as entities exist.
There is no such thing as 'property,' there are only material possessions,
and a pebble doesn't 'have' the 'property' of roundness — it is simply round.
The attribution of physical globosity or rotundity is no more than a human
perception, which provides a categorial/classificational system for what are
perceived as 'like objects,' which is employed to impute evidence of mutual
existentiality to objects by humans beings, for whom the social notion of
possession, property and entitic similarity and discriminatory dissimilarity were
important elements of survival. Looking at a flower they would say: 'This
beautiful flower possesses eight petals,' when in fact the flower, being
insensate, 'has' no notion of 'number' or 'possession', or the fact that the manner
in which the photonic wavelength of light strikes its petals, is interpreted
by the human brain via their exterior sensors the eyes — as being
'beautiful.'
So 'words' don't have 'properties' or 'belongingses' any more than bluebells
or cats — a bluebell simply exists as a bluebell and a cat exists as the
entity which we call 'cat. Words simply communicate by signification the
activity of one human brain to another. The grammatical categories, which are
essential for an understanding of the way this signification works, do not exist
of course, only the human signifier and categorisor exists — only the
bluebell and the cat and the human observer/commentator exist.
Michael:
(as you say "'entity + language = truth' is not
acceptable" and "only 'entity= truth is relevant, and THAT is precisely the
reason for my battles with the transcendentalists").
Thus far (apart from quibbles concerning what entities "actually" are (what
constitutes
"existence" or "existents"/"entities" etc), what counts as "actual")
Jud:
Oh that entitic definition was just a 'quibble!' In fact it is the
misunderstand of what constitutes an entity and what doesn't that has stalked the
dusty corridors of time since the immortal Parmenides rubbished the concept of
'nothing.' He discusses the truth, and the second the world of illusion -- that
is, the world of the senses and the erroneous opinions of mankind founded
upon them. In his opinion truth lies in the perception that existence is, and
error in the idea that non-existence also can be. 'When the goddess took
Parmenides by the hand and instructs him in the two ways, that of Truth and the
deceptive way of Belief, in which is no truth at all, a human milestone was
reached, which was savagely destroyed by the malevolent 'philosophically
challenged' Plato with his childish belief in floating forms — and the ill conceived
human 'properties' of 'perfection' which inhabited his perverse universe.
Michael:
You and Heidegger would be on the same ground since what you say above is a
crude
version of the phenomenological critique of reason ushered in by Heidegger
when he claims that aletheia is not 'truth' (as customarily given as
statements and propositions corresponding (correctly or incorrectly) to
states of affairs) but the very un-concealing (a-letheia) itself of such
states of affairs (beings) -- the pebble, there!, in the hand; the artwork
staying the fourfold of erath/sky/mortal/immortal; the polis site-ing the
stay of humans; the electron revealed in its traces and tracks formed in
re-action with the material environment of the experimental setup; etc.
Jud:
That's precisely where the old guy got confused. As well as being something
of a genius in the clever manipulation of language
for purposes of cognitive deception, in order to deceive himself as much as
his readers. It was his brilliance this connection which leads people to
suspect a mild Asbergiersm. He had an inadequate grasp of grammar and
semantics, [see his public humiliation in: 'Gesprach mit Herr Heidegger]
_http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/gesprachmittheidegger.htm_
(http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/gesprachmittheidegger.htm)
He misunderstood the fact that 'truth,' or 'aletheia, ' doesn't actually
'exist' within the pebble TO BE 'REVEALED,' or that 'truth'
mystically exists in its 'uncovering,' or 'revealing,' or anywhere else —
but what exists is the actual pebble, and the words that humans
use such as truth and alethia [including me and my use of the word
'actuality'] in order to address the pebble
do not exist — only the existing pebble exists and the human observer
observing the pebble.
Michael:
The difference is that Heidegger understands that such unconcealing largely
takes place in language (or something like it...) and that the very
unconcealing that happens in language is also beset by a concealing and
obscuration due to the very bewaying of language itself; whereas your kind
of thinking (revealing of truth) wants to (but can not) see through the
obscurations of language, to make it transparent so that the "entity" shows
through, despite the fact that language in its opacity (density of words and
connotation, etc) is completely necessary for such revelation (look, the
pebble!).
Jud:
A long sentence [no criticism] and I am not quite sure where to insert my
incision?
Heidegger's misfortune was in confusing truth-claim type statements with the
possibility of unconcealing or concealing of a non-existent 'truth.'
Practically ALL statements concern existential assertions, and as you imply
these claims
due to the abstraction [the root of all obscurantism] and the only way to
become aware of the way in which a pebble exits is to
hold it in your hand and feel it, lick it, smell it, see it, weigh it, feel
its heat or coolness, etc.
Descriptions by yourself or by others of an unseen and unknown pebble, are
quite inadequate for the purposes of communicational apprehension, for not
only do the words employed comply with the tastes and perceptions of the
addressee, but in any description tend to deliberately or unintentionally conceal
the way the pebble exists, for they are also incapable of any thorough
description [even if they tried for millions of years], because THERE IS NO SUCH
THING AS A TRUE DESCRIPTION - there being no such thing as truth — only the
pebble.
Language is only capable of creating an inadequate propositional
transparency, so that the 'entity shows through very vaguely and dimly and is subject to
many contending and disputatious arguments as you will have discovered if
you have ever been confronted with a salesmen, attorney or politician or
philosopher whose spiel is overflowing with the benefits or 'truths' of
non-existent 'properties' of the article or idea which he is attempting to flog.
Michael:
In a way, your kind of thinking wants to see through the linguistic screen
that reveals entities to the entities themselves but can
only accomplish this through that very employment of language and thus the
screen (as the above attests). In that sense, your "side-show" battle is
with your (philosophical) self (and thus should take centre stage).
Jud:
You are perfectly correct. It is very important to analyse the significata
with which we describe the meanings embedded in philosophy, and the ways that
words can be used to conceal and reveal the workings of other people's
brains. I am human and therefore I use human language not only for the
clarification of the ideas of others, but in order to clarify my own ideas too. My
battle with myself is to a large extent over, in the sense that I am satisfied
that I have covered the major areas of thought [in varying degrees I admit] and
that my nominalistic experiential approach is the most suitable for me
personally.
That is NOT to say that my mind is forever closed to the acceptance of other
ideas, though in my guts I know that any ideas of an inferior
transcendentalist nature stand no chance of admittance int my canon.
In my investigations/musings which have taken place over a long period, it
has come to my notice that it is not nominalists that create wars, torture and
burn people, subjugate people, exterminate people, but those who hold
transcendental beliefs and have faith in the transcendental - believe in the
possibility of the existence of nothing etc — for me these are the dangerous
enemies of mankind.
If I enter upon the stage of disputation I am [unavoidably] centre-stage —
because for me I am the addressor and the addressee of all the two-way
cognitive traffic taking place, in exactly the same way that you are centre-stage
in your communicative world. Thus I act out my self-appointed role, as you
perform yours.
In the act of communication we both briefly occupy the same stage — you say
your lines and I spout mine. Is all the preparation worth it? The learning
of the script, the honing of the sentences? Is this little side-show
production worth the effort for the cast? Is the tiny audience lurking in cyberdom
worth the trials and tribulations - the occasional applause or the constant
booing? Yes, I think so — it's fun, and for me it is very educational.
I learn a lot from my fellow players and the cries from the gallery, and for
that I am grateful.
regards
Jud.
Nullius in Verba
_http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/index.htm_
(http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/index.htm)
JUD EVANS - XVANS XPERIENTIALISM
��Ҷ��2)�Y����i�z{l�騽����Ơzf��������mi�z{l����z����+�/��֥���֜�g������+-���J��Ȧy�������,y�0JZ����j�j[^�v����V���w/���ױ�����~�&�+-�� ���)ej��*����