Axiom 2
January 16th, 2008, search relatedRelated posts :: Yes, I Have No Holerons :: Is it merely Trivially True? :: Allegations of Demolition :: Is Dasein a Reality?
Axiom 2
Michael Eldred wrote:
>Joseph Polanik
>>JP: obviously, you hold fast to the idea that classifying the
>>*syntactic* form of a statement as ‘absolute’ (an archaic, 19th
>>century designation) transfers a quality of ‘absolute significance’ to
>>the semantic analysis of meaning.
>ME: Obviously you are confusing two different things. I am using
>”absolute” in the sense of “absolute signification” as in the OED.
>>JP: does that mean that when you say ‘I am’ you speak with absolute
>>significance? when I say ‘I am’ I speak with agnostic significance. If
>>someone else said ‘I am’ how would we know whether he spoke with
>>absolute significance or agnostic significance?
>ME: I am not married to the term “absolute” as used by the OED. If you
>like, you can call this simplest usage of ‘to be’ its signification
>plain and simple, synonymous with ‘to exist’ in everyday language
>(philosophical usage may then make a distinction between these two
>terms).
the problem with philosophical usage is not so much that it doesn’t
consistently distinguish ‘existence’ and ‘being’; but, that it doesn’t
consistently make the distinction between the root predicate and a root
predicate type — reality vs a reality type; existence vs a mode of
existence; or, being vs a mode of being.
>If you want to “speak with *agnostic* significance” when proclaiming
>”I am” in your CPI, then how on earth could you ever claim “I *know*
>that I am” in the first part of this so-called CPI if now, as you
>profess, you don’t know, i.e. claim to be “agnostic”?
in the Claim of Partial Ignorance, I assert ‘I know that I am; but, not
what I am’.
in the first part, I speak with certainty. I know that I am because
self-asserted self-awareness is self-verifying.
in the second part, I admit not knowing; hence, I am agnostic as to the
reality *type* that I have.
when you say ‘I am’ what mode of being do you claim for yourself; or, do
you say ‘I am’ without making a claim as to your mode of being?
>>[JP]: you wouldn’t want to say that a tree exists in the same sense
>>that a number exists, would you?
>[ME]: Indeed, I “wouldn’t want to say that a tree exists in the same
>sense that a number exists”.
okay; then, you’ve just conceeded Axiom 2: not every reality has the
same reality type; or, schematically, not every [root predicate] has the
same [root predicate]-type
Joe
–
Philosophy is, after all, done ultimately in the first person for the
first person. — H-N Castaneda
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
