Axiom and Translation
December 24th, 2007, search relatedRelated posts :: Yes, I Have No Holerons :: Axiom 0 and its Translation (1) :: The Relationship between Axiom and Translation :: Is Dasein a Reality?
Michael Eldred wrote :
>Joseph Polanik schrieb
>>JP: we’ve previously established that any attempt to use the
>>linguistic history of the word used as the root predicate to help
>>determine what the root predicate means implies a reversal of the
>>usual relation between an axiomatic system and its translation into
>>human language.
from your post of 23-Nov-2007:
>>>>[JP]: it is true that, in english (and, for all I know, many other
>>>>languages), the copula is a form of the verb to be. however, that
>>>>is a linguistic quirk. if your argument against the CPI is based
>>>>on such a linguistic quirk; then, it would be invalid if expressed
>>>>in a language whose copula derives from some word other than their
>>>>equivalent of the verb to be. surely you are not relying on an
>>>>argument as culture-bound as that.
>>>ME: You seem to think that the content is independent of language. It
>>>is not. You have to try to say what you have to say in a particular
>>>language, listening all the while to what that language says to you.
>>>Note also that English ‘being’ has an Indo-European root ‘*bhu’, so
>>>equivalents can be found in all Indo-European languages. But the
>>>important point is that your very thinking is linguistically and
>>>historically situated and bound (see below).
>>this last, claim together with the extensive etymological information
>>you have presented in previous posts, suggests that you have forgotten
>>something significant concerning the relationship between an axiomatic
>>system and its verbal translation (or interpretation or model): it is
>>the axiomatic system that controls the meaning of the verbal
>>translation.
>>you seem to want it the other way around.
>ME: Yes, I do …
>>JP: consequently, the linguistic history of the word used as the root
>>predicate is irrelevant … *unless* you can explain why we are
>>compelled to reverse the usual relation between an axiom and its
>>translation. if the reversal is just for this case; then, why is this
>>not merely a self-serving, ad hoc claim? if this reversal is supposed
>>to be universal; then, you would have to explain to physicists that
>>quarks actually reflect certain wavelengths of light but only if you
>>name the three quark ‘flavors’ after the three primary colors. how
>>would you do that?
this is the question that you don’t seem willing to focus on: is this
reversal ad hoc and self-serving; or, is it universal; and, in either
case, what is your justification for reversing the relation between an
axiom and translation?
Joe
–
Philosophy is, after all, done ultimately in the first person for the
first person. — H-N Castaneda
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
