Paola, (01)
My primary reason for introducing the terms Umwelt, Lebenswelt,
and Innenwelt was to avoid using the word 'reality' in too many
different senses. (02)
> I am interested in exploring your proposed distinction between
> umwelt (UW), its rough equivalent lebenswelt (LW) and InnerWelt (IW),
> as possible categorization of reality based on the subjective or
> objective stance. (03)
As I mentioned in my previous note, I like John Deely's distinction
between UW and LW because it distinguishes what is biologically
perceptible (UW) from a language-influenced classification (LW). (04)
Following is the URL of Deely's analysis: (05)
http://web.archive.org/web/20060221134707/http://www.ut.ee/SOSE/deely.htm (06)
Brief summary: (07)
Reality -- What exists independent of any observer or any system
of perception and interpretation. Reality is same for all
beings, independent of their sensory apparatus or mental
capacity. Reality would be the same for an alien from
outer space or even a robot designed by the aliens. But
there may be aspects of reality that are inaccessible
without some kind of sensory enhancers (such as telescopes,
microscopes, microphones, or gamma-ray detectors). (08)
Umwelt (UW) -- "a vehicle for expressing especially the role of
biological heritage in the use and function of signs, rather
than for expressing what is species-specifically human in
the use and function of signs." (Deely's definition) (09)
Lebenswelt (LW) -- "I have proposed that the term Lebenswelt
should be adopted to express an Umwelt which is species- (010)
specifically human, retaining Umwelt to express the
generic idea of an objective world which is in every
case species-specific consequent upon biological
constitution." (Deely) (011)
Innenwelt (IW) -- The inner world of human experience, thought,
mental models, feelings, wishes, hopes, fears, etc. (012)
> ... although reality can be expressed with truth values. (013)
No. Reality is not "expressed" in truth values. It just is.
What is expressed are statements in some language, whose truth
or falsity is evaluated in terms of their correspondence with
what is. (014)
> what truths pertain to the UW and what to the IW?
>
> Surely there are overlaps, dichotomies and dependencies between
> the two stances. (015)
Yes, there are definite overlaps. Everything that is true about
reality in the IW must have been perceived through the biological
mechanisms that determine the UW and the linguisitic interpretation
in the LW. (016)
It is also important to recognize that statements that have
been written, spoken, or thought are also part of reality.
Therefore, there can be metalevel truths: (017)
- The following sentence has four words: "The sky is blue." (018)
- In ordinary arithmetic, "2+2=4" is a theorem. (019)
- Most people believe that the earth is spherical. (020)
But in all cases, truth is determined by testing the statements
by some method for examining the evidence (UW) of what is.
Note that both object-level and metalevel statements can be
objective, in the sense that their truth or falsity can be
tested by someone other than the speaker. (021)
I would classify some of your categories as object-level
or and metalevel: (022)
Object level truths, determined by UW mechanisms, possibly
enhanced by sensory extenders such as microscopes: (023)
ontological (when truth resides in things);
factual or empirical (physical, chemical, biological, and social); (024)
Metalevel truths, determined by UW mechanisms and LW interpretation
of statements: (025)
logical (truth resides in ideas, tautologies);
mathematical (truth is validity or coherency, axioms);
semantic (truth is meaning); (026)
I don't know what you mean by "verbal (truth of words or speech);".
If you mean statements in linguistics, those would be metalevel.
But if you mean the truth of something stated in language, that
would be object level or metalevel or one of the following: (027)
The remaining three categories raise more complex issues. (028)
For "poetic or fictitious truths;" those could be metalevel
statements about what some author wrote, or they could be
object-level statements that use analogies and metaphors to
make observations about society and human feelings for which
there is no established non-metaphorical terminology. (029)
For "moral norms and imperatives;" this gets into serious
philosophical issues about the grounds for ethics. Some would
say that there are object-level, metalevel, or metaphorical
grounds. But the amount of writing on this topic is too
voluminous even to summarize. (030)
For "religious truths (divine verities)" the issue is similar
to the basis for moral norms. (031)
John (032)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (033)
|