what is the 'cause,' Cheerskep, of the web of associations your mind
connects to prepositions? For surely prepositions allow a speaker to pick
out relations between middle sized dry goods, no matter how personal the
field of connotations a speaker attaches to them. For instance, the sentence
'the sack of barley is _on_ the mat' is true if an only if a sack (picked
out pragmatically, deictically by 'the sack') actually stands on a mat. So
although we may be skeptical about the priority and relationship between
sentence and state of affairs, or again about how a sentence corresponds to
said state of affairs (a healthy skepticism, perhaps), it seems difficult to
move to the further claim that there _is no_ relationship between the sack
of barley and the Mat. At any rate, the latter claim expresses a dogmatism,
rather than a skepticism.
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 1:20 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In a message dated 10/5/08 12:14:01 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>
> > The particles of an atom are related together in an act of
> > closure, and that relation is not a "notion" in the quasi mind of
> > any particle or atom, but is an objective fact that the human
> > mind has found to exist.
> >
>
> Very quickly: What you are doing there is simply insisting that an entity
> --
> a thing you call a "relation" -- "exists". But that's exactly what I deny.
> I
> say there is no such entity "out there". And I say the burden of proof is
> on
> anyone who insists a particular entity exists -- like relations, angels,
> devils,
> paranormal miracles, operant "curses", and so forth.
>
> Your mind can consider many notions, and concoct what it calls a "relation"
> between any two or more of them. But that "relation" is solely notional, a
> "comparison" your mind invents. I can be compared to the coffee mug on my
> desk in
> countless ways. I can say, "The mug and I are related by comparative age,
> size, "relative" distance from the Plymouth Rock.
>
> Think of Cleopara's left nostril when she was four-years-one-day old. By
> you,
> there are a number of "relations" between that object and my left nostril
> on
> 10/6/08. Then we can bring in your left nostril as well, and consider the
> three-way "relations" -- their relative size, color, etc. Then we can
> articulate
> "relationships" between the three nostrils and the mug on my desk. And
> then. .
> . Your position entails that every single notion of that sort is citing an
> entity, a "thing", out there. To my mind this position entails countless
> absurdities. And remember that each of those alleged "relations" is an
> entity by
> you, so they must have relations to every other object AND to every other
> relation that ever "existed", and each of THOSE relations-between-relations
> is an
> entity, so it is further related to...
>
> The usual notion of "fact" is similarly absurd. I assert that "facts" also
> have no entity status outside of our notional mullings. You would insist
> that
> besides the entities "my mug" and "my desk", there is an entity involved --
> no,
> a number of other entities involved -- called "facts" ("It is a fact that
> the
> mug is on the desk. It is a fact that the desk is bigger than the mug. It
> is a
> fact that I just touched the mug. It is a fact that...") And evidently
> every
> extant relation entails facts. ("It is a fact that my left toe is related
> to
> the New Orleans Mardi Gras Parade of 1967.")
>
> Recall that I started this thread with a confession of my astonishment that
> we all have assumed the "existence" of utterly fundamental objects and
> events
> -- such as "relations" and "facts" and "signifying/denoting/naming etc" --
> without ever thinking the implications through. . .to their exposure as
> absurdities.
>
>
> **************
> New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your
> destination. Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out!
>
> (http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000001)
