On the Alleged Impossibility of Claims of Partial Ignorance
October 12th, 2008, search relatedRelated posts :: CPI vs OD :: Identifying the Implicit Complement of ‘I Am’ :: Summary of Arguments against the Experientio :: Its demolition and the Denial of Total Ignorance
it seems that there is considerable controversy concerning the
possibility of claims of partial ignorance; particularly, *the* CPI: I
know that I am; but, not what I am.
unfortunately, recent discussion has focused on claims that such
statements are or are not meaningful; claims that such statements are or
are not grammatical; and, the relation, if any, between the two sets of
claims.
I’ll ask the obvious question: does ‘is not grammatical’ imply ‘is not
meaningful’ or vice versa or both or neither?
however that turns out, it might not address the more fundamental
question of whether claims of partial ignorance conflict with a claim
that seems more central to your theory: that anything that is has
properties by which one knows what it is.
can you state this core principle of your theory as a proposition from
which you derive the conclusion that claims of partial ignorance are not
possible?
Joe
PS: as an aside, Jud, I might mention that, while preparing this post, I
once again reviewed your dissertation in the attempt to discover for
myself the source of the conflict between the main body of your theory
and claims of partial ignorance.
I came upon the section you’ve added incorporating your misunderstanding
of one of my counter-examples (the even prime number) without so much as
a mention of its source.
furthermore, you must be using an invalid code for the existential
quantifier. it shows up as a small square (at least in Firefox). To
generate a real backwards ‘E’ for the existential quantifier, use one of
the following in your HTML: ‘∃’ or ‘∃’ — in either case
WITHOUT the quote marks.
this is outrageous. if you are going to show the world that you
misunderstand the sources you conceal, you should at least render the
evidence in valid HTML!!
–
Philosophy is, after all, done ultimately in the first person for the
first person. — H-N Castaneda
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
