Heidegger

Googlers note: Joseph Polanik has once again left unaddressed an argument
that I expressly gave after claiming I never gave it:

>>> your posts since then support a reconstruction of your argument as

>>> follows:

>>>

>>> * it is a fact that, in english, the first-person singular pronoun is

>>> now and has for centuries been spelled ‘I’.

>>>

>>> * it is a fact that a given person uses ‘I’ for self-referencing at

>>> various points in time.

>>>

>>> * these two facts must have an explanation.

>>>

>>> * the only possible explanation is Q, that that the referent of ‘I’ is

>>> always self-identical.

>>>

>>> * but, at [2], -Q is assumed/concluded: the referent of ‘I’ is never

>>> self-identical.

>>>

>>> * therefore … what? that your claim to have found the only possible

>>> explanation for the unchanged spelling of the english first-person

>>> singular pronoun is false?

>>

>> I cited Hume’s explanation here:

>>

>> http://an-archos.com/pipermail/heidegger…

>>

>>

>> You failed to address that argument in your subsequent replies, and now

>> pretend like I never gave an explanation. If, in your next reply, you do

>> not address each and every item in what I cite at the link above WITHOUT

>> CLIPPING ANYTHING OUT, this conversation is over.

Nowhere in your reply below do you address anything in the link above. In
fact, you once again clipped it out, contrary to my express request, which
request was in response to your chronic pattern of clipping out my arguments
and then claiming that I never gave them. Therefore, until you address each
and every argument that I cite at the above link, this conversation is over.

On 5/1/08, Joseph Polanik wrote:
>
> Anthony Crifasi wrote:
>
> >Joseph Polanik wrote:
>
> >>Anthony,
>
> >>one of your crucial claims seems to be that the proposition ‘I remain
> >>self-identical throughout all my perceptions’ is a necessary condition
> >>of existence.
>
> >>this proposition may be symbolized, as follows:
>
> >>[1]: P -> Q
>
> >>where
>
> >>P = ‘I exist’
> >>Q = ‘I remain self-identical throughout all my perceptions’
>
> >>you also claim that Q is false.
>
> >>[2]: -Q
>
> —————————————————-
> Psychiatric Evidence for a Schizo-Epistemology
> —————————————————-
>
> >>I gave you my reason for doubting that the proposition in question is
> >>self-evidently true: the counseling profession is devoted to breaking
> >>this assumed self-identity over time. often, a counselee is helped to
> >>understand that “I am not the person I once was” or “I can change”.
>
> >>>the relevant cases from the “counseling profession,” are the ones in
> >>>which people stop referring to themselves in the past by the first
> >>>person pronoun. Those in the “counseling profession” consider that to
> >>>be a sign of a complete break in self-identity (e.g., schizophrenia,
> >>>in which the different “selves” refer to each other in the 3rd
> >>>person). Hence, those in the “counseling profession” agree with me
> >>>that the identity of the first person pronoun is necessarily tied to
> >>>self-identity.
>
> >>Objections to your latest attempt to distract attention from the
> >>gaping contradictions already noted above:
>
> >>* you have confused schizophrenia with multiple personality disorder.
> >>with MPD, each personality will refer to itself in the first person
> >>and to the others in the third person. with schizophrenia there is
> >>often a loss of the first person perspective in favor of a third
> >>person perspective.
>
> >>* in any event, … so what? some psychiatric disorders have symptoms
> >>including disturbed self-reference; and, therefore, … what?
>
> >>are you saying that Q is a necessary condition of existence (even
> >>though you assume Q is false); because, some psychiatric patients have
> >>disturances of self-reference?
>
> >The “counseling profession” considers losses of the first person
> >perspective to be indicative of a rift in self-identity itself, since
> >their diagnosis is that there would then literally be several selves.
> >The implied assumption, therefore, is that the first person perspective
> >is necessarily tied to self-identity.
>
> the first person perspective is necessarily tied to first-person
> self-referencing. there is no implication that the referent of
> successive acts of self-referencing will be identical.
>
> if you are making such an assumption; then, your argument depends on an
> assumption that is contrary to fact.
>
> >You, on the other hand, have been attempting to counter that the
> >consistent use of the first person pronoun is not necessarily tied to
> >identity in the referent at all. So the very “counseling profession”
> >that you cited before disagrees with you.
>
> you seem to sense that your argument is dying; for, you are starting to
> trade on the transparent ambiguity of ‘identity’ vs ‘identical’ and
> possibly on the murky ambiguity of ’self-’ as noun vs ’self-’ as
> pronoun.
>
> an identity as a set of self-identifications (affirmations of the form:
> I am [a(n)] X) can change over time; but, what is your evidence that the
> counseling profession does not seek to facilitate such change?
>
> how does the evidence from the psychiatric ward help prove
>
> [1]: P -> Q
>
> where
>
> P = ‘I exist’
> Q = ‘I remain self-identical throughout all my perceptions’
>
> and you also claim that Q is false.
>
> [2]: -Q
>
> how does any of this help you establish your new schizo-epistemology?
>
> you are saying that a necessary condition of existence is a false
> proposition — a condition that does not obtain. and, as evidence, you
> cite your own idiosyncratic intepretation of schizophrenic symptoms.
>
> this is your argument for [1]?
>
> Joe
> –
> Philosophy is, after all, done ultimately in the first person for the
> first person. — H-N Castaneda
>
> @^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
>  http://what-am-i.net
> @^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
>
> _______________________________________________
> heidegger mailing list
> heidegger at an-archos.com
> http://an-archos.com/mailman/listinfo/he…
> http://heidegger.an-archos.com/
>

Posted on Sunday, May 4th, 2008 at 6:02 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback