[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Wittgenstein and the pictures

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Len Yabloko" <lenya@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 16:45:07 +0000
Message-id: <W2141327798314291217522707@webmail39>
John,     (01)

>FK>> If you co-operate with your environment smoothly, you do not need
> >> to communicate at all.
>LY> Thank you for this observation. This may be stated succinctly as:
> > communication is ephemeral.
>That discussion is hopelessly misleading, and the word 'communicate'
>is the heart of the confusion.  Instead, I would recommend the far
>more general word 'sign'.  All "cooperation" depends on signs, as
>does all forms of resistance and fighting.  And what does "ephemeral"
>add?  Most signs are conveyed in much less than a day.
>    (02)

"Ephemeral" here means physically unnecessary (much like illusive substance 
once called "ephere"(?) that was though to be required to conduct radio waves) 
. In fact signs do not need to have a physical embodiment. The phenomena of 
syncronisity without physical contact exist on all scales of nature staring 
from "action at distances" and ending with thought "emphaty". Signs transcend 
physical reality and can only be understood at that hire level. This line of 
argument is also known as "transcendental materialism".     (03)

>LY> I think that thinking is epi-phenomenon as well.
>That raises an enormous number of questions that lead to endless
>confusion.  Talking about signs makes the discussion far more
>concrete, and it makes it possible to discuss and analyze all the
>phenomena of human communication, ape communication, as well as the
>intermediate cases of apes and humans who use a form of language.
>    (04)

Confusion - yes. Endless - not necessarily. To analyze signs you need to detect 
their presence. Quantum mechanics, as an example, is very concrete even though 
particle can never in principle be observed directly.    (05)

>Please read that paper I cited, which discusses and classifies the
>various kinds of signs and their relationships to the specialized
>signs of language.
I will. And thank you for your comments and references which are always 
relevant.    (06)

--Len    (07)

>John    (08)

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    (09)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>