From: "John Foster" <borealis-AT-mercuryspeed.com> Subject: i prefer clauses Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 20:00:00 -0800 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. John: When the word 'is' is used it is meant to convey information in a logical way. A language which does not utilize logic does not require the use of 'is' or 'is not'. Is is redundant in a non- dialectical sense. Jud: Human Language IS logic. When we make statements employing the word 'is' or 'being' etc. we are making propositions about the states or modalities of the subject. Could you please post a few sample sentences [complete not elided] from your illogical language or languages? John here: Oh really. You meant to say that every sentence ever wrote was logical? blue...patch...above hibiscus wide...beaping meteors...night Where did I write 'is' or 'be'? I did not say that there has to be any sentences. I prefer clauses....Just preceptions of what occasions...purely as phenomena....It is still language....the use of a higher order language requires logical expressions like 'is' or 'is not' or 'perhaps' and that is that. Either/or/and and but are also examples of higher order languages. If I smile, that is a sign that I am happy, and whether I say it or not if I only smile, this is most convincing to any skeptic.... A phrase denotes a quality regarding a common thing. A series of phrases about a common thing denotes some more qualities...there is no need to go off too deep to figure out that a lot of language is used to describe perception, feeling, and so on. You don't need any abstract ideas... In Heideggers' "Hermenuetics of Facticity" is an example of a non-logical description of his home...there is no reference to any abstract ideas, or notions....and that was the simple riddle of the whole corpus of Heidegger. John: In a primary language which is purely descriptive and phenomenal, the word is has not validity, or use. When a language does not use logical expressions, then it is a 'primary language' which expresses information about anything, whether real, surreal, and imaginary. Jud: You are indeed a revolutionary! You will need to furnish us with some examples to back up your claims which are the most revolutionary I have ever read. What 'primary language' are you referring to? John here: The one that is used when you walk about when there is no one to argue with. Jud: I hope it's not English? John: Sure. I will avoid the word is or be just to prove it to you. Jud: Have you published there 9what seemt to be quite bizzare ideas anywhere on the web? John: The ideas are not original at all. Betrand Russell has already wrote extensively on this in the "Inquiry into meaning and truth." I would say that is a primary reference...on the use of logical expressions? Have you ever read any works by Russell? Have you read any Russell? This may clear your concerns up... Jud: Let me get this quite clear - you are claiming that the word 'is' has no validity or use? John here: Only if you want to argue, explain or describe something...the word 'is' is a logical expression just like '=' in mathematics. There areonly two 'material equivalencies' here: either something is the case or it is not the case. But this is also an arguement....why would I personally care if something was the case or not....? Unless there was some doubt, or skeptical inquiry...but most of our experience in the world is not really up for skeptical inquiry, radical doubt, etc. Therefore most our thinking, and verbal thought lacks any use of 'is' or 'is not' or 'be'....all these expressions act like operators in a natural dialectic which is used to argue or reason symbolically...certainly the present tense 'is' rather than 'was' is an arguement...don't you see that? When a memory is perceived we don't need to provide a running commentary that this 'was' what happened to me or her or it, we already know intuitively that the memory is past...so why use the word 'is' or 'was' when remembering? John here: Primates use the same 'primary' language that you use when you cannot argue with me. It is the same language. Jud: Do you challenge the validity of the statement: "George Bush is American." You are saying that he is NOT American? John: I am American. The reason is that I live in Canada. Canada is in North America. America is named after an Italian geographer, therefore Bush is also an American. Bush is no more American than I am even though I live in Canada and am not a citizen of the US. What was/is your point? Attencion Norte Americanoes we are not afraid of you.... Jud: It is true that the possibility remains that due to some information which is not in the public domain that George Bush may NOT be American, or even that the George Bush mentioned in the sentence is another George Bush to the one that you think I refer to in the sentence. John: Why do you insist on very elementary, childish, in fact, examples? Jud: All this proves what I said earlier, that language is logic and statements are in the form of propostions that may be true or untrue. Any proposition using the 'is, are, being' words is CHALLENGEABLE! Any statement about any existential modality of any entity is CONTESTABLE. If you believe that the word is has not validity, or use in language then I suppose you are in favour of scrapping the word? John: I think that you have strayed a bit from the original point here. But I will concede that now you are making some sense. It is funny - if as you say - language is always logical, then how could any sentence be 'contestable' or 'challengeable'. It seems to me that you have contradicted yourself here because in the beginning you claim that language is 'logic' and then soon afterwards claim that language in the form of simple or complex sentences are also 'contestable' and not worthy of standing up to logic???? Maybe you could revise your claim that language is logic, and admit that there are some sentences which are propositions and also not logical, or contestable.... Jud: This is all very curious and exciting and I can't wait to hear your explanations. Are you going to remove all the 'is' words from 'Being and Time?' John: Sorry Jud. I am not capable of removing the words that someone else wrote and published. I have no desire to amend the book as it exists, and neither do I wish to remove 'is' or 'being' from the english language....although I suspect that there are some others on this list who aspire to remove all of the words of Heidegger, even the 'is' words. I think that would be a terrible error.... Jud: If you plan to do that then what about the 'being' words which are the same word in a different conjugation? Do you plan to storm the Winter Palace and the White House while you're about it? Is Parliament safe? :-) John: I am not sure what the significance of these acts would result in other than a laughter or possibly incarceration? It seems that you rely very much on imagry of 'revolutionary aspirations' and this is a bit revealing for me since I think you are attempting to be 'revolutionary' and to get a lot of attention for your ideas. I have no aspirations of any sort like 'storming' these hugely opulent and hideous edifices. That is my opinion since in a few more days the Yantze, the Great Gorge, will be fully flooded, and future generations will never see this sight. The winter palace can be rebuilt by Tzars and Tzarinas who rely on slave labour. The White House too...Who cares really about these edifices when the real million year-old-in the works treasures are being destroyed for short term profits? How really cares about 'political relations' and 'ideologies' ....anyway? John: The word 'is' only functions in 'higher order' languages, like math, like directives, and logical statements whether truthful or untruthful, opinions in short, as well as in the 'attitudinal proposition. ' Jud: What you say interests me greatly for I have no idea that you took such an AITist position in relation to math and logic. John: God. Now you are agreeing with me.... I have long been trying to establish a connection between 'is' and certain mathematical functions. You are the first Heideggerrian to agree with me - please post some examples. Back to language though - are you saying that in a sentence such as: "George Bush is the President of USA" and "The apple is red" etc. , that the 'is' is invalid and that GB is not President and the apple is not red? If not, what exactly ARE you saying? John: Maybe it was in your presentation of the ideas. You were essentially in agreement with much of the whole 'reason d'etre' for Heidegger going public...I thought that I could see no difference in the two perspectives. Ist gibst
HTML VERSION: