Psycho-Babble Writing | for creative writing | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

Re: The albatross

Posted by alexandra_k on October 5, 2005, at 22:05:19

In reply to Re: The albatross » alexandra_k, posted by Damos on October 3, 2005, at 21:05:00

and i guess the issue with saying things
saying things with content
saying things that address fundamental concerns
is the problem of
just how wrong is one willing to be?
because the more you say
the more likely you are to say something objectionable.

like me
like i have done
already...

because the truth is neutral
the truth doesn't care
and of course i can now think of a variety of counter-examples
where one might well be better off
not knowing
not knowing the truth

but what is truth?
truth is a property of propositions
(truth is a property of thought and language - mental contents and meanings).
more than that...
it is hard to say...
there are a variety of theories i guess.

and language and thought
carve the world up
it a way that does not accurately mirror
mind-independent divisions in reality
and if truth is a correspondance relation between meanings and mind-independent reality
then one is never in a position to know whether any claim is true or false
because one does not have access to mind-independent reality
all one has access to
is the meeting point of mind and world.

and language and thought...
muddy the waters.
Joseph Black wrote that 'caloric fluid flowed from one object to another'
is such a claim true or false?
there is no such thing as caloric fluid...
and thus if his utterance logically entails 'there is such a thing as caloric fluid'
it would be false.
so what is the meaning of his utterance?
what does it mean?
how do we map truth conditions?
one could radically translate the utterance
(to make the meaning clear)
1) there is such a thing as caloric fluid
2) that caloric fluid flowed from one object to another
and both claims would have to be true in order for his utterance to be true...
in which case his utterance is false because 1) is false...

but that seems an inadequate translation of what Black was trying to say...
perhaps...

perhaps this is better
'it is observed that one object that is hot makes the object next to it hot as well'
in which case that seems to be true enough...

and maybe laws of nature
instead of ruling out certain mind-independent events from occurring...
maybe laws of nature
just say that
'the phenomena that runs contrary to the law will never be observed'

and psychology is thought to be reducible to physiology
and physiology is thought to be reducible to biology
and biology is thought to be reducible to chemistry
and chemistry is thought to be reducible to physics
and physics requires an observer...
which brings us back to mind

and thus in the search for fundamental entities
the fundamental bits of matter
the brute objects and properties that comprise this world
cannot be given a reductive explanation
because you are either left having to conclude that certain things are brute
or if you refuse to accept that
if you refuse to accept that you have hit bedrock
that your spade is turned
that explanation has to stop somewhere
then you see that explanation is holistic

and atomism and holism are two sides to the same coin
and you cannot properly understand one without the other
because there are two ways to become wise
one way is to study one thing in as much detail as possible
(because then one understands the nature of the thing and how it will unfold and impact upon other things in various ways)
and the other way is to study as many different things as possible
(because then one understands the relationship between things)

and so from one pov
from the atomistic pov
you have these essential properties
which are instinsic (internal) to the thing and guide the way in which it will interact with other things (with their intrinsic properties)
and from the other pov
from the holistic pov
you treat the thing as a 'black box' where the essential properties are unknown and you just study the relationships between the black box and the next black box
you study the laws

but really...
both are two sides to the same coin
and really...
there is no such distinction in reality

as my old teacher was so very fond of saying
it is not like on day x god made the objects with their essential properites
and on day x+1 god superimposed the laws of nature on top of them to govern their interrelationships

no

rather he made the objects
and then he rested
because there was no more work to do

and from the pov of atomism
intrinsic properties are brute
and from the pov of holism
laws of nature are brute
and if one wants to explain intrinsic properties
one can treat them as a black box and appeal to the laws
and if one wants to explain the laws
one can treat them as a black box and appeal to
essential properties

and the truth is transcendental once again
because both are true
but not completely
(because language / thought carves the world up in artificial ways)
and the greater truth...
is that you can put both sides
atomism
holism
together
and once you understand how they are two sides to the coin (the artificial distinctions in language)
then you can see the greater truth
and the greater truth transcends the limited truth of the parts
and thus there are degrees of truth
even though 'degrees of truth' doesn't make any sense at all to an analytic philosopher
(to the best of my knowledge)

hmm.

and mind and matter
two sides of an articificial distinction
a problem that arises from our language and our thought making an arbitrary distinction
for convenience
that does not accurately reflect a genuine distinction in realiy.
and thus the irreducability of consciousness
is an artifact of what we mean by consciousness
because of the very way we define the term
consciousness cannot be reductively explained by appeals to matter
cannot be reductively explained unless you alter the meaning of the term 'consciousness' as every materialist account of consciousness just has to do to solve the problem. because that simply is the only way to solve the intractible problem, by definition.

and there it is.

and the point...
the point is in danger of getting lost...
but the point was something of consequence...
to me at least.

because it seems to me
it seems to me
that in doing metaphysics
(which concerns itself with the fundamental nature of reality)
what you are really doing is going
one
or two
or one
or two
over and over again.
laws of nature and essential properties
one
or two
or one
or two?
mind and matter
one
or two?
objects (things) and universals (properties)
one
or two?

two different ways of viewing the same thing
because there is no distinction in reality

and even us
even our nature
we are made from the meeting of sperm and egg
so is our essential nature
one
or two?
and many phenomena...
many phenomena that we observe
(mental conflict, repression etc)
require that we are two
and many phenomena...
many phenomena that we observe
(a single body, moral responsibility)
require that we are one

and in reality there is no distinction...

and so i guess that is why it does make some kind of sense to speak of 'degrees of truth'
but what is meant by truth?
the trouble is that our very language carves things up in a way that is (strictly speaking) false
and yet the world can conform to what is said
more
or less
and that is the best we can do...

except that to appreciate that that is the case...

is one better again.

and it is apparant that meanings slide...

and the limits of my language is the limits of my world

w.

and all we have access to is the meeting point of mind and world
but the trouble with that is that the distinction between mind and world is itself an artifact of language

and so the question remains:
how is communication possible?
well...
because people are so very similar
similar mind
similar world
(though to say this seems senseless in a way)
and we cannot comprehend of how a very alien species
with a radically different psychology
would see the world...
we simply cannot comprehend
just like how we cannot comprehend beings whose thought conforms to different laws of logic

and w. was right again...

some things cannot be said
they can only be shown
and anyone who truely understands me must see
that my words are senseless
anyone who truely understands me must see
that i am trying to express the inexpressable
and he must use my words as a ladder
to ascend
and once one has ascended one must throw away the ladder
as nonsense

hmm.


 

Thread

 

Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post

Notify the administrators

They will then review this post with the posting guidelines in mind.

To contact them about something other than this post, please use this form instead.

 

Start a new thread

 
Google
dr-bob.org www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for
in
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | FAQ
Psycho-Babble Writing | Framed

poster:alexandra_k thread:561840
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/write/20050910/msgs/563525.html