BO:
" Truth and objectivity is the same, I know of no
truth that's not objective - unless one reverts to
SOM's of looking upon the old myths as "their form of
reason" .
Ron:
The basic tenet of the MoQ and the current philosophical view
Is that objective truth is relative. To illustrate that objective
Truth is linguistic as well as the s/o distinction, I offer that
1+1=2 is a truth that is not objective, to name one of many truths
That do not occupy a point in space. Objectivity embodies the abstract/
Concrete distinction of western language.
When Derk Bodde translated Feng Youlan's history of Chinese philosophy
(1952), he noted the difficulties of construing the White Horse paradox
in English.
Strictly speaking, names or terms are divided into those that are
abstract and those that are concrete. The abstract term denotes the
universal, the concrete term the particular. The particular is the
denotation, and the universal the connotation, of the term. In western
inflected languages there is no difficulty in distinguishing between the
particular ('white' or 'horse') and the abstract ('whiteness' or
'horseness'). In Chinese, however, owing to the fact that the written
characters are ideographic and pictorial and lack all inflection, there
is no possible way, as far as the form of individual words is concerned,
of distinguishing between abstract and concrete terms. Thus in Chinese
the word designating a particular horse and that designating the
universal, 'horseness,' are written and pronounced in the same way.
Similarly with other terms, so that such words as 'horse' and 'white',
being used to designate both the concrete particular and the abstract
universal, thus hold two values. (1952:206)
The original "abstract"/"concrete" distinction was a distinction among
words or terms. Traditional grammar distinguishes the abstract noun
"whiteness" from the concrete noun "white" without implying that this
linguistic contrast corresponds to a metaphysical distinction in what
they stand for. In the 17th century this grammatical distinction was
transposed to the domain of ideas. Locke speaks of the general idea of a
triangle which is "neither Oblique nor Rectangle, neither Equilateral,
Equicrural nor Scalenon; but all and none of these at once," remarking
that even this idea is not among the most "abstract, comprehensive and
difficult" (Essay IV.vii.9). Locke's conception of an abstract idea as
one that is formed from concrete ideas by the omission of distinguishing
detail was immediately rejected by Berkeley and then by Hume. But even
for Locke there was no suggestion that the distinction between abstract
ideas and concrete or particular ideas corresponds to a distinction
among objects. "It is plain, ..." Locke writes, "that General and
Universal, belong not to the real existence of things; but are
Inventions and Creatures of the Understanding, made by it for its own
use, and concern only signs, whether Words or Ideas"
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abstract-objects/
Peirce's definition of a sign defines it in relation to its object and
its interpretant sign, and thus it defines signhood in relative terms,
by means of a predicate with three places. In this definition, signhood
is a role in a triadic relation, a role that a thing bears or plays in a
given context of relationships - it is not as an absolute, non-relative
property of a thing-in-itself, one that it possesses independently of
all relationships to other things.
In a very real sense, inquiry is the process by which sign relations
come to be established and continue to evolve. In other words, inquiry,
"thinking" in its best sense, "is a term denoting the various ways in
which things acquire significance" (John Dewey). Thus, there is an
active and intricate form of cooperation that needs to be appreciated
and maintained between these converging modes of investigation.
Inquiry and truth finding are linguistic conventions which form sign
relations in an effort to attain certainty within a linguistic context.
Consequently each language structure
Has its own contextual system of distinctions.
If Chinese lingual systems do not make the abstract/concrete distinction
then it stands to reason that Chinese culture does not make the
mind/matter-subject/object
Distinctions because it terms them as one, supporting my statement that
Chinese intellectuals do not make the abstract/concrete distinction
which disproves the
s/o distinction as a general human perceptual possession, consequently
the MOQ concept is nothing new to their culture.
I have demonstrated my argument against the intellectual level as the
value of the s/o divide. Would you demonstrate and support your argument
in the same manner?
(Sans sarcastic rhetoric please)
Much Thanks, Bo
-Ron
P.S. I would not be so dogged about pursuing this if I didn't think your
SOL interpretation wasn't valid. It is worth arguing this point
extensively in my opinion.
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
