Heidegger

In a message dated 04/10/2008 _jPolanik at nc.rr.com_
(mailto:jPolanik@nc.rr.com) writes:

[Jud]: I [am] interested in receiving the vital message from you which deals
with my recent demolition of the *I think therefore I am.* absurdity.

[Joe]: consider a statement such as ‘I experience; therefore, I am’ or the
simpler ‘I am’.

[Jud]: Such predicatationally truncated, sententially orphanic verbalisms
are meaningless

[Joe (new)]:
the theory of the implicit copula complement unifies the theory of the
(subject + copula + complement) sentence and the theory of the (subject + copula)
sentence — the is of predication and the is of instantiation, respectively.
hence, a statement such as ‘I am’ is a complete sentence. it is neither
truncated nor orphanic nor empty, etc. Jud: You CONTINUISOUSY miss the point Joe.
In situations where statements are generated of the type *I am* there are
only two *real world* situation where such construction or viable.

1. As a reply (For Christ’s sake - I’ve written all this before!) to an
antecedal question of statement. such as:

TYPE (A)
1. Judge: *Are you James Wentworth Plungington?
2. Plaintiff: *I am.*
3. Father: *Are you responsible for the broken window?
4. Son: * I am.*

or

TYPE (B)

Orphanic ( implicit copula complement sentences ) only work if the addressee
has previous knowledge of some of the unspoken, unmentioned, elided
existential modalities (trannies call them *properties) of the subject.

Thus when God or Popeye proclaims *I am* we ALREADY have a knowledge of at
least some of God’s existential modalities IN ADVANCE (God is good, God is
great, God is love, God is all powerful etc:) I Popeye’s case most children (of
my generation anyway) know most - if not all of the cartoon sailorman’s
existential modalities (both the fictional and the real) that he had one eye, ate
spinach, had Olive Oil as his girl friend etc., in his fictional dimension,
and that he was the brainchild and product of the brilliant cartoonist Walt
Disney on the other (See my well known piece on the internet *Popeye’s Poker
_http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/popeye.htm_
 http://evans-experientialism.freewebspac…) )

If the subject who utters the statement is completely unknown the two
possibilities arise..

1. The circumstances surrounding the addressee’s confrontation with the
subject. He suddenly comes across an entity - perhaps a man who is standing next
to him on the underground suddenly turns towards him and blurts out *I am.*

In this situation the addressee probably says:

(A) (The Most Likely.) *You are… what?* assuming that the man is mentally
unbalanced and has gone into a trance mid-speech.

or

(B) (The Most Unlikely) * Yes, I can see that you exist and that you are
standing right beside me wearing a fedora, a blue satin suit and Wellington
boots and that you have a clothes’ peg on your nose… etc. etc.

In other words, even though, unlike God or Popeye whose existential modes
are well known thus eliminating the need for a time-wasting list of their modes,
manners and ways, the unknown man on the train is visually available and (at
least) his appearance and the modes it suggests are sufficient to accept his
announcement that he exists and to acknowledge it.

IF and this is where you have just shot yourself down in flames… IF the
subject of Descartes scenario makes a similar claim IT PRESUPPOSES that he too -
like God and Popeye is already aware of his existential modalities for
otherwise the theory of the implicit copula complement unifying the theory of the
(subject + copula + complement) does NOT function for the necessary apriori
predicational knowledge is MISSING sentence remains incomplete, truncated,
orphanic and empty.

Joe: interestingly enough, you recently expressed your theory that a
(subject + predicate) sentence has an implicit copula; thus, accomplishing a further
theoretical unification.

Jud: As I said I still have to research the [s] of simple verb endings to
see if there is a copuletic dimension to it - but even before I do that - I have
a feeling that a similar situation prevails, and that whenever there may be
a predicational blank or uncertainty we resort to the overt copula type
sentence of the third person continuous. But I have put that on the back -burner
for the time being.

Joe: consider the simple (subject + copula + complement) sentence:

I am an experiencer.

the complement (an experiencer) is a subject complement. it predicates the
subject (says something about *what* the subject is). in english this
predication can also be expressed in an appositive structure:

Jud: Yes, actually it is hovering on the lip of being an example of a *is*
of identity statement

It is the little *an* word which drags it kicking and screaming back into
the appositive category.

The *an* makes it clear that there is more than one *experiencer* thus it
misses the indenticative gravy train.

If the guy was known by the name *Experiencer* as a stage name, or he was a
wrestler with the *ring name* experiencer* then it would function as an *is*
of identity statement like:

*Tony Blair is Prime Minister - Prime Minister is Tony Blair*
*Joe Bloggs is Experiencer - *Experiencer is Joe Bloggs.*

Joe:
I, this experiencer, am.

Jud: I doubt if the above is valid - you have altered it, it scans OK as an
old time poetic line - it may well have been written by Lord Byron. Well… I
will accept it tentatively … but I sense a swizz coming on… are you going
to introduce another *self* symbol and play experience, self, I and me off
against each other in some such of bizarre existential quartet of *the is of
identity?* Well… we will soon find out.

Joe: now, two things could happen. first the ‘am’ can become implicit. this
results in ‘I, this experiencer’ which is the implicit copula structure some
languages use. [note: this is also the so-called ‘topic/comment’ structure of
the African-American dialect of english.]

Jud: The term *I, this experiencer (just like the *I am* only works if the
missing predicational information *the experiencer of … what?* is known to
the addressee from some past dialogic data. BTW Notice and learn here. See the
word *this* acts copuletically by pointing (indicating) just like my arrow
symbols or the word *is.* This is more evidence of the essential indicating
role of the copula (rather than as a existentialiser)

THAT IS WHY I CALLED MY LINGUISTIC THEORY ANALYTICAL INDICANT THEORY!

Look now at this:
*I experienced a dreadful accident last night.* Eric stuttered. *Jack did
not appreciate the horror of the experience I underwent.. but…* Eric then
relayed the full details of the terrible terrorist attack in which he had become
involved.. He screwed up his eyes in an expression of pin and jabbed his
finger into his chest, *I , this experiencer know JUST how it felt - because I
bloody-well experienced it,* he ended with a sob.

Here the reader understands the existential experiential modality that Eric
endured and his *I this experiencer* (though a little weird) is acceptable. on
that basis. If on the other hand the listener was NOT au fait with his
experience of terrorism the sudden expression: *I, this experiencer* would be
meaningless.

It would not work in an Experientio situation either, because he would not
be able to describe himself as an experiencer without being aware of anything
that he had previously experienced. All you are doing

secondly, the appositive structure of predication makes it clear that, even
when saying *what* I am via the appositive/predicative word or phrase, the
assertion *that* I am is still made. {footnote 1}

I experience
(hence) I am an experiencer
(hence) I, this experiencer, am
(hence) I am
(hence) I experience; therefore, I am

thus, as Heidegger and Descartes both agreed: sum grounds (is the necessary
condition of) cogito.

Jud: Wrong! Such a paradigm only works if the experience or experiences are
already known. I matter not what verb you choose antecedal knowledge is vital
hence:

I am a painter. I, this painter am. I am. I paint therefore I am.

This would prompt the following questions

1. What sort of painter are you? Do you paint walls, pictures, toenails?
2. Which painter are you?
3. You are what?
4. You paint, therefore you are what? A painter?

Descartes seeker after existential confirmation would be exposed to exactly
the same self interrogation

I am a thinker. I, this thinker am. I am. I think therefore I am.

1. What sort of thinker are you? Do you think about trees, philosophy, sex?
2. Which thinker are you?
3. You are what?
4. You think, therefore you are what? A thinker?

Joe

{1}: I, [some name] uses the appositive structure to express identity; thus
allowing a further theoretical unification.

I am Claudius = I, Claudius [title of a fictional autobiography of an
emperor of Rome]

Jud: He ( Robert Graves,) can say that because everybody ALREADY knows he
is/was the Roman Emperor Claudius.

I am Harcourt Fenton Mudd = I, Mudd [title of an episode of Star Trek, the
Original Series]

Jud: Ditto (Knowledge of Star Wars essential or read TV listings)

I am Q = I, Q [title of an essay written by young Q in Star Trek, Voyager (Q
2)]

Jud Ditto (Knowledge of Star Wars essential or read TV listings)

I am (a) Robot = I, Robot [title of a collection of short stories by Isaac
Asimov then a movie]

Jud: Unacceptable In spite of your attempt to squeeze it in by half removing
the indefinite article.

Jud

Posted on Sunday, October 5th, 2008 at 6:01 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback