Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 20:50:53 +0100
From: "steve.devos" <steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Physics, Metaphysics, Etymology




Hugh/Mark

An interesting question - it had not occured to me to look up the OED 
definition before - I had simply followed cultural/philosophical common 
practice - which in my particular case would probably be understood as 
starting with, as much as anywhere, with Adorno's lectures on 
metaphysics and as there - with Aristotle, but interestingly you both 
appear to be 'misquoting' or misreading the same OED dictionary entry on 
metaphysics.

However I'd still maintain that contrary to what "living minds" may 
imagine a statement such as Hackings below remains true.

steve

hbone wrote:

> Mark/All,
>
> a)  Found on Google:
> ..."BCE asterisk (*) Words beginning with an asterisk are not attested in
> any written source, but they have been reconstructed by etymological 
> analysis, such as
> Description: History and evolution of more than 30000 words, including 
> slang
> and technical terms."
>
> b) This doesn't contradict my theory that history exists only in living
> minds, all else being artifact.  Living persons can't understand those
> 30,000 words the way their originators understood them.
>
> c) Lyotard, in "Le Differend", taught me more about the complexity of
> language than any other source I've read:  The meaning of a word for an
> addressor is not always the same as the meaning of that word  for the
> addressee. Dictionaries sometimes reduce, sometimes increase that 
> element of
> confusion.
>
> d) >From "Alice in Wonderland:
> "When I use a word", Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it
> means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."
> "The question is", said Alice, whether you can make words mean so many
> different things".
>
> e) You can find dictionary meanings online in the Oxford English 
> Dictionary
> or Webster's Collegiate, by buying a subscription.  If the "powers 
> that be"
> were truly interested in educating children, they would make standard
> historical, literary, and linguistic references such as dictionaries and
> encyclopedias of various disciplines found in the world's best
> libraries, free and easily available to children on-line.  They would also
> present strategies to search those references quickly and efficiently.
>
> regards,
> Hugh
>  
> ^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^
>  
> Mark wrote:
> Actually, metaphysics and physics don't have any real etymological
> connection. Rather, it refers to the writings of Aristotle. According to
> Oxford's Companion:
>
> The term 'metaphysics' originated...as a title given to some of 
> Aristotle's
> works in the catalogue of the edition of them produced by Andronicus of
> Rhodes in the second half of the first century [BCE] (although it may have
> come from an earlier library classification). It meant simply the works
> which followed those on physics in the catalogue.
>
> --mark
>
>
> hbone wrote:
>
> steve,
>
> a dictionary says metaphysics is the philosophy of "being" and "knowing".
>
> I have thought of metaphysics as beyond physics.  In that sense, lasers
> would have been metaphysical until discovered.  The search for nature's
> secrets suggests going beyond what we know.  New discoveries, perhaps the
> laser, are often side effects, not the goal that was sought.
> I don't think physicists can be physicisst without considering potential,
> imagining various outcomes to experiments etc.
>
> Never heard the idea that lasers might have occurred billions of years 
> ago.
> How about H-bombs and eyeglasses.  If machines make us cyborgs, how about
> the bow and arrow?
> If something walks like a duck and quacks like a duck its called a duck.
>
> If something talks like a secretary and answers your questions over a 
> phone
> like, its probably
> a cyborg, a metaphysical "being" that "knows" the answer to your question.
>
> regards,
> Hugh
>
> ~^*~^~^*~^~*^~*^~*^~*^~*^~*~^*~^*^
>
>
> > hugh
> >
> >         an interesting thought - but as far as I am aware there are very
> > few examples of things actually invented by humans - i.e. things that
> > could not, or seem unlikely to  exist in the universe without human
> > agency. My personal favorite is the laser - as far as we (that humans
> > know) nothing lased in the un iverse un til about 60-50 years ago.  This
> > may as (Ian Hacking points out) deeply trouble some physicists who argue
> > that 'potentially' this has existed for 14-30 billion years depending on
> > the age of the universe. However when physicists talk about potential
> > its clear we are no longer dealing with physics but metaphysics.
> >         To apply the rationale to the notion of the cyborg it is plain
> > that the cyborg cannot exist without human agency - and that as we are
> > always talking of the potential of the cyborg rather than its actuality
> > we are dealing with metaphysics rather than the actuality. Could the
> > cyborg have evolved within nature ? The cyborg is a very specific
> > socio-cultural concept that probably only truly has temporary meaning as
> > a result of the current cultural phantasies of a given socio-cultural
> > group. Consequently the answer is no, for like phrenology the idea will
> > most likely fade away, to become a historical curio. However the
> > actuality of the medical and social practices will remain but as we
> > become acclimatised to the practices we will have a less hysterical
> > ideological notion to support it...
> >
> > personally I doubt that anybody will miss it...
> >
> > regards
> > steve
> > hbone wrote:
> >
> > >Steve,
> > >
> > >If we knew precisely what a cyborg "is" is, perhaps we could prove that
> we
> > >are "not"
> > >cyborgs.  Could God or Nature create a cyborg without human agency?  Or
> are
> > >living humans as mechanical as anything they can make?
> > >
> > >regards,
> > >Hugh
> > >
> > >*^*^^*^*^*^*^*^*
> > >
> > >I always think of the 'desert of the real' as precisely a reference to
> > >Zizek's published response to the 9/11 event and the Iraq war tragedy -
> but
> > >within that text there is a deep critique of the dominance of cultural
> > >studies and the USA left by postmodern theory - with it's rejection of
> it's
> > >own left history and it's replacement by the specifics of  postmodern
> > >theory - with the consequence that i'm never sure whether Eric is being
> > >'ironic' or not.  (Eric can answer that himself).
> > >
> > >In one of the articles on the history of the world social forum (In 
> NLR)
> an
> > >important  Brazilian radical (name forgotton for the moment) said 
> that he
> > >was very glad that American radicals did not arrivve in their 
> droves for
> the
> > >first WSF from the US NGO's - for he felt that they would have worked
> hard
> > >to impose their own agenda on the Forum...  He was referring I 
> believe to
> > >the incorrect belief that the postmodern theory and expeience as
> denounced
> > >by Zizek and others is in some sense an adequate response to the real
> > >socio-econocmic experience that people live in....
> > >
> > >(Given Eric's occasional desire to be cyborg - does this mean he is not
> > >human... laughs.  (Actually I almost worked on what would be called a
> > >'cyborg' project some years ago but couldn't afford the cut in
> salary...))
> > >
> > >regards
> > >steve
> > >
> > >hbone wrote:
> > >
> > >Eric wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >Welcome to the desert of the real..
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >eric
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >p.s. - in his ethics, Badiou distinguishes between what he calls the
> > >
> > >Immortal and the >animal.  Furthermore, he claims that one of the
> conditions
> > >of an ethics of truth is that it >must remain in a certain sense
> unnameable.
> > >I think the burden is on you to show why >this is so different from
> Lyotard'
> > >s conceptualization of the Inhuman, especially when he >quotes 
> Adorno as
> > >saying: "Art remains loyal to humankind uniquely through its 
> >inhumanity
> in
> > >regard to it."
> > >
> > >You welcome me to the same desert you offer Steve.
> > >
> > >I think "the" real is what personal experience - senses/brain/mind
> brings
> > >to the "is it happening".  Words on paper are real for you, even though
> you
> > >name their content unnameable.
> > >
> > >In this instance, you define your "real" as your understanding of  the
> > >representations of
> > >a) Badious's  experience of the "Immortal" and the "animal"
> > >b) Lyotard's experience of reading
> > >c) Adorno's experience:  Adorno's reification of  an abstract force 
> named
> > >"Art".
> > >
> > >I think "the" real is what personal experience - senses/brain/mind
> brings
> > >to the "is it happening".  Those words on paper are real for you, even
> > >though you name them unnameable".
> > >
> > >Like others' pain, we acknowledge others' beliefs, experiences, and
> install
> > >them in memory as if they were actual, not representations.
> > >
> > >regards,
> > >Hugh
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >

HTML VERSION:

Mark/All,

a)  Found on Google:
..."BCE asterisk (*) Words beginning with an asterisk are not attested in
any written source, but they have been reconstructed by etymological analysis, such as
Description: History and evolution of more than 30000 words, including slang
and technical terms."

b) This doesn't contradict my theory that history exists only in living
minds, all else being artifact.  Living persons can't understand those
30,000 words the way their originators understood them.

c) Lyotard, in "Le Differend", taught me more about the complexity of
language than any other source I've read:  The meaning of a word for an
addressor is not always the same as the meaning of that word  for the
addressee. Dictionaries sometimes reduce, sometimes increase that element of
confusion.

d) >From "Alice in Wonderland:
"When I use a word", Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it
means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."
"The question is", said Alice, whether you can make words mean so many
different things".

e) You can find dictionary meanings online in the Oxford English Dictionary
or Webster's Collegiate, by buying a subscription.  If the "powers that be"
were truly interested in educating children, they would make standard
historical, literary, and linguistic references such as dictionaries and
encyclopedias of various disciplines found in the world's best
libraries, free and easily available to children on-line.  They would also
present strategies to search those references quickly and efficiently.

regards,
Hugh

 

^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^

 

Mark wrote:
Actually, metaphysics and physics don't have any real etymological
connection. Rather, it refers to the writings of Aristotle. According to
Oxford's Companion:

The term 'metaphysics' originated...as a title given to some of Aristotle's
works in the catalogue of the edition of them produced by Andronicus of
Rhodes in the second half of the first century [BCE] (although it may have
come from an earlier library classification). It meant simply the works
which followed those on physics in the catalogue.

--mark


hbone wrote:

steve,

a dictionary says metaphysics is the philosophy of "being" and "knowing".

I have thought of metaphysics as beyond physics.  In that sense, lasers
would have been metaphysical until discovered.  The search for nature's
secrets suggests going beyond what we know.  New discoveries, perhaps the
laser, are often side effects, not the goal that was sought.
I don't think physicists can be physicisst without considering potential,
imagining various outcomes to experiments etc.

Never heard the idea that lasers might have occurred billions of years ago.
How about H-bombs and eyeglasses.  If machines make us cyborgs, how about
the bow and arrow?
If something walks like a duck and quacks like a duck its called a duck.

If something talks like a secretary and answers your questions over a phone
like, its probably
a cyborg, a metaphysical "being" that "knows" the answer to your question.

regards,
Hugh

~^*~^~^*~^~*^~*^~*^~*^~*^~*~^*~^*^


> hugh
>
>         an interesting thought - but as far as I am aware there are very
> few examples of things actually invented by humans - i.e. things that
> could not, or seem unlikely to  exist in the universe without human
> agency. My personal favorite is the laser - as far as we (that humans
> know) nothing lased in the un iverse un til about 60-50 years ago.  This
> may as (Ian Hacking points out) deeply trouble some physicists who argue
> that 'potentially' this has existed for 14-30 billion years depending on
> the age of the universe. However when physicists talk about potential
> its clear we are no longer dealing with physics but metaphysics.
>         To apply the rationale to the notion of the cyborg it is plain
> that the cyborg cannot exist without human agency - and that as we are
> always talking of the potential of the cyborg rather than its actuality
> we are dealing with metaphysics rather than the actuality. Could the
> cyborg have evolved within nature ? The cyborg is a very specific
> socio-cultural concept that probably only truly has temporary meaning as
> a result of the current cultural phantasies of a given socio-cultural
> group. Consequently the answer is no, for like phrenology the idea will
> most likely fade away, to become a historical curio. However the
> actuality of the medical and social practices will remain but as we
> become acclimatised to the practices we will have a less hysterical
> ideological notion to support it...
>
> personally I doubt that anybody will miss it...
>
> regards
> steve
> hbone wrote:
>
> >Steve,
> >
> >If we knew precisely what a cyborg "is" is, perhaps we could prove that
we
> >are "not"
> >cyborgs.  Could God or Nature create a cyborg without human agency?  Or
are
> >living humans as mechanical as anything they can make?
> >
> >regards,
> >Hugh
> >
> >*^*^^*^*^*^*^*^*
> >
> >I always think of the 'desert of the real' as precisely a reference to
> >Zizek's published response to the 9/11 event and the Iraq war tragedy -
but
> >within that text there is a deep critique of the dominance of cultural
> >studies and the USA left by postmodern theory - with it's rejection of
it's
> >own left history and it's replacement by the specifics of  postmodern
> >theory - with the consequence that i'm never sure whether Eric is being
> >'ironic' or not.  (Eric can answer that himself).
> >
> >In one of the articles on the history of the world social forum (In NLR)
an
> >important  Brazilian radical (name forgotton for the moment) said that he
> >was very glad that American radicals did not arrivve in their droves for
the
> >first WSF from the US NGO's - for he felt that they would have worked
hard
> >to impose their own agenda on the Forum...  He was referring I believe to
> >the incorrect belief that the postmodern theory and expeience as
denounced
> >by Zizek and others is in some sense an adequate response to the real
> >socio-econocmic experience that people live in....
> >
> >(Given Eric's occasional desire to be cyborg - does this mean he is not
> >human... laughs.  (Actually I almost worked on what would be called a
> >'cyborg' project some years ago but couldn't afford the cut in
salary...))
> >
> >regards
> >steve
> >
> >hbone wrote:
> >
> >Eric wrote:
> >
> >
> >Welcome to the desert of the real..
> >
> >
> >
> >eric
> >
> >
> >
> >p.s. - in his ethics, Badiou distinguishes between what he calls the
> >
> >Immortal and the >animal.  Furthermore, he claims that one of the
conditions
> >of an ethics of truth is that it >must remain in a certain sense
unnameable.
> >I think the burden is on you to show why >this is so different from
Lyotard'
> >s conceptualization of the Inhuman, especially when he >quotes Adorno as
> >saying: "Art remains loyal to humankind uniquely through its >inhumanity
in
> >regard to it."
> >
> >You welcome me to the same desert you offer Steve.
> >
> >I think "the" real is what personal experience - senses/brain/mind
brings
> >to the "is it happening".  Words on paper are real for you, even though
you
> >name their content unnameable.
> >
> >In this instance, you define your "real" as your understanding of  the
> >representations of
> >a) Badious's  experience of the "Immortal" and the "animal"
> >b) Lyotard's experience of reading
> >c) Adorno's experience:  Adorno's reification of  an abstract force named
> >"Art".
> >
> >I think "the" real is what personal experience - senses/brain/mind
brings
> >to the "is it happening".  Those words on paper are real for you, even
> >though you name them unnameable".
> >
> >Like others' pain, we acknowledge others' beliefs, experiences, and
install
> >them in memory as if they were actual, not representations.
> >
> >regards,
> >Hugh
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>