> On Oct 22, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Søren Brier <sb....@cbs.dk> wrote: > > All conceptual knowledge need language of some sort and -as Wittgenstein > says – there are no private language. Thus you must assume the existence of > other embodied experiential conscious subject in language, - and you must > assume something this language is about.
This seems to be the point of Heidegger’s take (against Husserl) on phenomenology. We are always already fallen and embedded in a shared world. That’s the starting point. Others like Levinas react against this. > I end up with the gnostic feeling that some basic aspect of us must have > been there form “the beginning”. If it makes any sense at all to talk about > one beginning. All zeroes, empty sets, vacuum fields and so on are a form of > logical backtracking. But as Skt. Augustine says in Book XI of his > Confessions then the universe is not made in time but with time. It makes no > sense asking what God was doing before the creation. When we try to determine > the time of big bang, the physicists do it by backtracking the internal time > of the universe. There is no universal time “outside” the universe to place > this event in, just like the universe is the place for all things, but it > does not have a place of its own to be. There is nothing “outside” or > “before” the universe, because these concepts stop making sense outside. We > can only talk about emptiness and eternity. I think in physics even with the rising skepticism of string theory that some inflationary multiverse without beginning is the mainstream view. (Not everyone accepts it of course given the lack of empirical evidence) Like you I think thought time is always wrapped up with existence to the point we can’t talk about an outside. I think it’s interesting that at minimum we need physical laws but again I’m not sure it makes sense to talk about that as ‘outside.’ Sticking with Peirce his foundational cosmology that Edwina mentioned seems quite neoplatonic. Of course Kelly Parker has written a lot on that which is quite persuasive.
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
