Heidegger

Georges Metanomski wrote:
> — Joseph Polanik wrote:
>
>>Georges Metanomski wrote:
>>
>>> (Speaking for myself). Not creating, but recalling
>>> 3d class High School grammar rules. “is” requires not
>>> any ruddy predicate, but a PROPERTY (or ATTRIBUTE),
>>> which may be explicit (ball is red) or implicit
>>> (Is the ball red? “It is”).
>>
>>it is still incorrect to claim that ‘is’ requires a
>>predicate — even
>>if you are finally admitting that it can be implicit.
>
> G:
> I refuse to consider wrong vocabulary: “is” cannot
> require predicate, because it is part of predicate
> “is red”.

your criteria for judging syntactical correctness are questionable.

as I’ve said before, there are two popular ways to parse a simple
sentence like ‘the ball is red’:

1: Subject - Copula - Predicate

2: Subject - Predicate (Copula - Complement)

in either case ‘the ball’ is the subject.

according to the first system for parsing a sentence, ‘is’ is the
copula; and, ‘red’ is the predicate. thus, a predicate that is not
explicitly present would be implicit.

according to the second system for parsing a sentence, ‘is red’ is the
predicate; but, this system would break down the predicate into its
constituent parts: copula and complement. thus, a complement that is not
explicitly present would be implicit.

> And I don’t care about “is”, because it
> does not exist in many languages. And I don’t care
> about syntax, but about semantics, about meaning.

the why do you limit your arguments to allegations of improper syntax?

consider the statement, Z: I know that I am; but, not what I am.

I claim that this statement is: 1. syntactically correct; 2.
semantically meaningful; and, 3. true.

thus far, you’ve made allegations of improper syntax; and, you seem to
be suggesting that anyone who has used this syntax in the last 1500
years in any language with a copula has been speaking nonsense —
because it was (in your opinion) stated in syntactically incorrect
language.

if you have presented a rational argument that statement Z is
semantically meaningless or that it is in fact false; then, I must have
missed it; and, ask that you restate it.

> Last time my wife said “merde” she meant “the dog
> is wet”. Try to make something of that playing with
> words and with syntax. In order to free myself
> from them I conceived the symbol &. I agree to
> discuss all implications of symbolic constructs
> e&an &a, e&, e&e, a&a,

an symbolic system operates on the syntactic level. in symbolic logic,
for example, (P -> Q) (-Q -> -P). this is a syntactic transformation
and does not involve the semantic evaluation of whatever is substituted
for P and Q.

> Please, wait for my next post where I contrast
> Noumenalism and Phenomenology with help of these
> constructs, incorporating, as you see above, your
> suggestions of &a and e&.

you have miscontrued the suggestion concerning ‘e-’.

>[1] e0& !Ea[e0&a] defines attributeless entity e0.

‘e-’ does not define e as attribute-less. ‘e-’ describes a statement
that lacks an explicit predicate (or copula complement).

consider two statements, ‘I am hungry’ and ‘I am’. the former could be
symbolized as e-p. the latter would be symbolized as ‘e-’ because the
copula complement is not explicit.

‘e-’ doesn’t mean the entity is known to lack attributes. ‘e-’ describes
a sentence where no explicit attribution is made.

remember, your symbology was allegedly for evaluating predicate
assignment *expressions*. well ‘e-’ describes an expression (a sentence)
that lacks an explicit copula complement.

since you are refusing to admit that a statement without an explicit
copula complement can have an implicit copula complement; do you deny
that a statement without an explicit copula complement can have an
implicit copula complement?

regards,

Joe

–
Philosophy is, after all, done ultimately in the first person for the
first person. — H-N Castaneda

@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
 http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@

Posted on Thursday, November 8th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback