--- On Thu, 10/23/08, Georges Metanomski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From: Georges Metanomski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [analytical-indicant-theory] I am Self-Aware - The Collision of
Fact and Principle?
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thursday, October 23, 2008, 5:56 PM
--- On Thu, 10/23/08, Joseph Polanik <[EMAIL PROTECTED] rr.com> wrote:
============ =======
Georges Metanomski wrote:
>We postulate with Einstein and Popper the Principle of Relativity,
>which underlies epistemology and science since Descartes:
>**All elements of the human Universe are relative, excepting
>Awareness, its utmost absolute foundation.* *
============ =======
JP:
I've read the post in which you deny postulating a transcendent
Awareness; but, I must say that your language invites just such an
interpretation; particularly, when you capitalize 'Awareness' and speak
about 'the' human Universe. if there is only one human Universe, how
could it be founded by an individual awareness brought forth within that
universe --- a universe into which I am myself thrown, as it were?
============ ======
G:
If you read it, you must have read the introductory note
<<<
Words don't carry meaning, only hint it and, especially
at he general founding level, hide it, like trees hide
the forest. Sartre said:
***
Having discovered the world through language,
I have over long time taken language for the world.
***
Digging through the language to (partially) attain the
world he wrote the IMO most beautiful ontological essay,
"L'Etre et le Neant". He uses there a device partly
neutralizing misleading syntactic terms by putting them
in brackets, eg. "conscience (de) soi" avoiding some
entity "soi" having "conscience" .
In his wake I say "(my) awareness" to avoid the "my"
having "awareness" and yet hint "my red" which you cannot
see, "my pain", which you cannot feel.
I'll use this convention below, wherever pertinent.
>>>
Thus, I don't assert anything about "Awareness", or the
"human Universe", but hint them. It's actually not my
original hint, but that of Descartes (see my
Disambiguation) . Some people freed from enslavement by
language can take it and conceive Gravity, Relativity,
Evolution, Psychanalysis or Quantum Field Theory. Others
stay slaves of language and spin in idle circles of
verbal illusions believing that their Words create
transcendental Beings. It does not aim at you in
particular. If you idly spin, you spin in good company:
Frege, Russell, Goedel, Quine, Church, Wittgenstein,
Cantor, Zermelo, Fraenkel, Tarski, all Copenhagen
Interpretation, without mentioning hundreds of petty
satellites like Searle.
When hinting, I use such devices as may help it to get
through. I capitalize "Awareness" to stress it as
the unique absolute and utmost foundation. I hint the
"human Universe" as distinguished from transcendental
phantasms and capitalize it to stress its global
extension, matching that of "Awareness".
When you say
"if there is only one human Universe, how could it be
founded by an individual awareness brought forth within that universe --- a
universe into which I am myself thrown, as it were?"
you simply did not understand the Principle.
No blame, of course, I said frequently that it's perhaps
the most difficult and certainly most unusual postulate.
I'll try to hint the explanation:
Naively formulated, it postulates a Universe restricted to
an individual. It's naive, as at the founding level there
is no "individual" , nor even "myself", but only (my)
Awareness which will found and construct (myself) as
well as all elements of (my) Universe, some of them "the
others" presenting similar behavior to (myself).
The Principle postulates (my) Awareness founding the
entire (my) Universe beyond which nothing exists (for me).
You exist (for me) as an element of (my) Universe, whom
I associate with (your own) Universe, totally inaccessible
for me, except indirectly, via shared elements called
"symbols".
In the post, which you allegedly read I recall the rules
of debating axiomatic theories:
<<<
... it's an Axiom, so that you may:
-Accept it and discuss deduced from it theorems,
-Falsify it inductively from some facts,
-Reject it arbitrarily with the epistemology and science
which it underlies.
In the latter case you would have to formulate some
alternative axioms and theory, or you would stay in
vacuum.
>>>
Gary rejected the Principle and has decently opted for
the apparently unique alternative, viz. the Naive Realism.
You, however, discuss my axiom of Awareness from outside,
which is like refuting the SR because it does not satisfy
the Aether postulate.
I said and repeat that I don't seek so much acceptance,
as trials to falsify, but to falsify from inside of the
View. You may, of course, reject it, but then arbitrarily,
without justification else than formulation of some
alternative axiomatic View.
Consequently, I'll leave it at that and, if you wish, will
welcome you to a discussion respecting the above rules,
especially to trials to falsify my View from inside.
BTW your assertion that "only a propositional formula
may be a tautology" is wrong. For a logic student it's
the boolean operator "1111". For a writer it's a useless
repetition like "smallest minimum" or "global totality",
or "self awareness".
Georges.
============ ======
__._,_.___
Messages in this topic (2)
Reply (via web post)
|
Start a new topic
Messages
| Files
| Photos
| Links
| Database
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch
format to Traditional
Visit Your Group
|
Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use |
Unsubscribe
Recent Activity
Visit Your Group
Only on Yahoo!
World of Star Wars
Meet fans, watch
videos & more.
Search Ads
Get new customers.
List your web site
in Yahoo! Search.
Moderator Central
Yahoo! Groups
Join and receive
produce updates.
.
__,_._,___
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Epistemology" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
