| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Keynes
Guest
|
 Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2008 8:43 am Post subject: Re: The Clay Ballerina |
 |
|
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 23:39:29 -0400, herbzet <herbzet@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Keynes wrote:
herbzet wrote:
s.j.lagoe@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sep 18, 1:57 pm, Josip Almasi <j...@vrspace.org> wrote:
s.j.la...@googlemail.com wrote:
[...]
Below is a dialogue arguing that traditionals view of objects,
endurance, perdurance in philosophy and logic are incorrect. I would
be interested to hear your comments, whether you see flaws in its
argument or what the extensions of it may be. Sigmund.
Extensions are pointing to flaws.
Like JJ said, it was clay all the time, but it's changing properties
(attributes).
Sure, but a statue can be repaired when it becomes damaged resulting
in the same statue but with different material composition. Then of
course it is the statue that's properties have changed. There is
nothing special about the clays objecthood compared to the figures
objecthood - they are both valid things right, and the both "exist"?
This may be nice intro story for dialectic reasoning:)
Relation of subject and object and attributing attributes to objects etc.
Regards...
In Quine's "Mathematical Logic" he says something like (quoting from
from memory):
"It's not at all evident what constitutes a thing, i.e., is a man
a thing, or is an event a thing, and a man a collection of events?"
In set theory and (I think) in mereology we have that a collection
of things is itself a thing.
Obviously a thing is a concept and a concept is a thing.
What if one dispenses with shaky conceptualism?
I give up, what?
|
You pretend not to know, but actually you do know.
Most of the time our minds are without concepts.
That's what TV is for ain't it? (Beats meditation.) |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
herbzet
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2008 9:06 am Post subject: Re: The Clay Ballerina |
|
|
Keynes wrote:
| Quote: | herbzet wrote:
Keynes wrote:
herbzet wrote:
s.j.lagoe@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sep 18, 1:57 pm, Josip Almasi <j...@vrspace.org> wrote:
s.j.la...@googlemail.com wrote:
[...]
Below is a dialogue arguing that traditionals view of objects,
endurance, perdurance in philosophy and logic are incorrect. I would
be interested to hear your comments, whether you see flaws in its
argument or what the extensions of it may be. Sigmund.
Extensions are pointing to flaws.
Like JJ said, it was clay all the time, but it's changing properties
(attributes).
Sure, but a statue can be repaired when it becomes damaged resulting
in the same statue but with different material composition. Then of
course it is the statue that's properties have changed. There is
nothing special about the clays objecthood compared to the figures
objecthood - they are both valid things right, and the both "exist"?
This may be nice intro story for dialectic reasoning:)
Relation of subject and object and attributing attributes to objects etc.
Regards...
In Quine's "Mathematical Logic" he says something like (quoting from
from memory):
"It's not at all evident what constitutes a thing, i.e., is a man
a thing, or is an event a thing, and a man a collection of events?"
In set theory and (I think) in mereology we have that a collection
of things is itself a thing.
Obviously a thing is a concept and a concept is a thing.
What if one dispenses with shaky conceptualism?
I give up, what?
You pretend not to know, but actually you do know.
|
You flatter me! -- or insult me, I'm not sure. :0
| Quote: | Most of the time our minds are without concepts.
That's what TV is for ain't it? (Beats meditation.)
|
I've lived without TV for the last couple of years.
--
hz |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Josip Almasi
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2008 11:11 am Post subject: Re: The Clay Ballerina |
|
|
s.j.lagoe@googlemail.com wrote:
| Quote: |
Sure, but a statue can be repaired when it becomes damaged resulting
in the same statue but with different material composition. Then of
course it is the statue that's properties have changed. There is
nothing special about the clays objecthood compared to the figures
objecthood - they are both valid things right, and the both "exist"?
|
Look you may be right from the point of 'classic logic' whatever that
means guess it goes back to ancient greeks:)
But in the meantime we invented predicates and class algebra and such,
to fix flaws in logic AKA boolean algebra.
Metaphysically speaking, definition of an object is sort of 'anything we
can think of', see, implies subject, so - yes they both 'exist' - in our
minds!
Phisically speaking, it's just clay.
It's subject who sees the statue.
So it's class ClayStatue extends Clay implements Statue;)
Seriously, don't forget that 'objecthood' implies subject.
Regards... |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 9:18 pm Post subject: Re: The Clay Ballerina |
|
|
On Sep 18, 6:15 pm, Wolf Kirchmeir <wolf...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
| Quote: | s.j.la...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sep 18, 5:06 pm, arkestra <arkes...@gmail.com> wrote:
B) Easy money. There's one thing there, obviously. Aclaystatue of a
[...]
For example, if it were a pitcher of milk, instead of aclaystatue of
aballerina, then I do not think a similar argument could be made so
that there are both "a pitcher of milk" and "milk" on the table
without changing anything about their placement/orientation.
Well, I guess you could analagously pour the pitcher's contents into a
bottle. Then the same milk would be on the table, but the "pitcher of
milk" would be gone. Because the milk was there originally, the "milk"
and "pitcher of milk" must have been different things given that one
has survived while the other has not. Regards, Sigmund.
Siggy, your response indicates that you are are assuming that if there's
a noun for it, it must be a thing. IOW, the 6th grade concept of "noun"
is misleading you.
|
I simply stated (if a while ago now) that if I have milk in one bottle
and pour it in to another, I am left with the same "milk", but a
different "bottle of milk". I certainly don't see what that had to do
with discussion of "nouns". I assume you disagree with my statement
but I am unclear from your reply as to why.
| Quote: | Think "referents" instead of "things", and the puzzle disappears.
|
I am very aware that objects contain 'referents' to objects and not
the objects themselves (they use identifying attributes of the object
to which they refer, such as names). But, I certainly don't see the
relevence to any argument here in pointing out this distinction here
(i.e. it seems a non-sequitor).
| Quote: |
A noun is simply that class of word that appears as the head of a noun
phrase. The fact that we use some nouns to refer to people, others to
refer to objects, others to refer to sensations, etc, is not relevant.
|
<scratches_head/> whoever said it was?
| Quote: | We also use nouns to refer to processes, but we use verbs for the same
purpose (eg, refrigeration - refrigerate). Does that mean that when we
use the noun to refer to a process it's a thing, and when we use the
verb it's not a thing? That's absurd.
|
Hardly, and there are canonical examples as such - if "A marries B",
the existence of a "Marriage" is implied. But again, I don't see the
relevence of this.
The original dialogue merely identified that a clay ball and a clay
statue can be both the same things from one point of view (i.e the
same piece of clay), and different things from another. The fact that
these perspectives are all equally valid indicates that there is no
one definable thing on the table. Assuming otherwise will lead to
contradiction.
| Quote: |
Etc.
HTH
--
Wolf Kirchmeir |
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 9:27 pm Post subject: Re: The Clay Ballerina |
|
|
On Sep 18, 11:32 pm, "kamerm" <kame...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: | "{:-])))" <...being@home...> wrote in message
news:d6o5d45g75utsh8iqvmitg7oljjemf4abt@4ax.com...
s.j.lagoe wrote:
Josip Almasi wrote:
Like JJ said, it wasclayall the time, but it's changing properties
(attributes).
Sure, but a statue can be repaired when it becomes damaged resulting
in the same statue but with different material composition. Then of
course it is the statue that's properties have changed. There is
nothing special about the clays objecthood compared to the figures
objecthood - they are both valid things right, and the both "exist"?
H'ears a story
about a story
maybe within a story.
'The Argonauts were ordered by the Gods to
complete their long journey in one and the same
ship -- the Argo -- against the certainty of the
boat's gradual deterioration. Over the course of
the voyage the Argonauts slowly replaced each
piece of the ship, "so that they ended with an
entirely new ship, without having to alter either
its name or its form. This ship Argo is highly
useful," Barthes continues. "It affords the
allegory of an eminently structural object,
created not by genius, inspiration, determination,
evolution, but by two modest actions (which cannot
be caught up in any mystique of creation):
substitution (one part replaces another, as in a
paradigm) and nomination (the name is in no way
linked to the stability of the parts): by dint of
combinations made within one and the same name,
nothing is left of the origin: Argo is an object
with no other cause than its name, with no other
identity than its form.'
-knot that
it matters-
supposedly about 98% of the chemical constituents of our bodies are replaced
every 3-6 months while we live.
-k
|
And then you are 98% a different person from that which was extant 6
months ago, while simultaneously being 100% the same person too! There
is no contradiction or paradox here (as some would have you believe)
that needs some "solution" or "treatment". It just depends what
perspective you wish to take for some task at hand. Both standpoints
are equally valid. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 9:53 pm Post subject: Re: The Clay Ballerina |
|
|
On Sep 18, 2:32 pm, forbisga...@msn.com wrote:
| Quote: | On Sep 18, 6:24 am, s.j.la...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sep 18, 1:57 pm, Josip Almasi <j...@vrspace.org> wrote:
Extensions are pointing to flaws.
Like JJ said, it was clay all the time, but it's changing properties
(attributes).
Sure, but a statue can be repaired when it becomes damaged resulting
in the same statue but with different material composition. Then of
course it is the statue that's properties have changed. There is
nothing special about the clays objecthood compared to the figures
objecthood - they are both valid things right, and the both "exist"?
I'm not sure why you claim two statues are the same if they have
different material composition?
|
Surely this is trivially dealt with? The person that is you now, and
the one that was you as a child share the same identity, yet have
different material compositions. No different for the statues.
| Quote: | What kind of concept of identity
have you?
|
The one that states that two things share identity if they have the
same identifiying properties. What other concept of identity would
possibly make sense?
| Quote: |
Consider personal identiy.
I exist in the here and now. I share a relationship with a string
of blokes near me within these coordinates but they are not me
and if it is a choice between them and me I choose me. What
has that guy who exists next week ever done for me and what
did I ever ask of the guys before me?
And yet, why do we consider time special and not one of the
other dimensions. Or is that dementions?
What is a thing? The clay figure of the ballerina was destroyed
and a ball of clay put in its place.
|
Agreed. And yet throughout the same bit of clay remained throughout.
To say "no, you can't talk about the piece of clay as being a thing in
its own right", a thing with a shape property that happened to
change", is gonna require a bit more than handwaving so far 
Regards, Sigmund
| Quote: | At the time of the bet the
ball of clay did not exist and so couldn't have been on the table.
Talk about "the clay" is a mere obfuscation.
"The clay" does not exist separate from its other properties. |
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 12:20 am Post subject: Re: The Clay Ballerina |
|
|
On Nov 15, 1:53 pm, s.j.la...@googlemail.com wrote:
| Quote: | On Sep 18, 2:32 pm, forbisga...@msn.com wrote:
On Sep 18, 6:24 am, s.j.la...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sep 18, 1:57 pm, Josip Almasi <j...@vrspace.org> wrote:
Extensions are pointing to flaws.
Like JJ said, it was clay all the time, but it's changing properties
(attributes).
Sure, but a statue can be repaired when it becomes damaged resulting
in the same statue but with different material composition. Then of
course it is the statue that's properties have changed. There is
nothing special about the clays objecthood compared to the figures
objecthood - they are both valid things right, and the both "exist"?
I'm not sure why you claim two statues are the same if they have
different material composition?
Surely this is trivially dealt with?
|
Not based upon your construct of the clay ballerina.
| Quote: | The person that is you now, and
the one that was you as a child share the same identity,
|
It's a useful lie none care to challenge. That child is long
gone and has no use of the effect he left behind. The
unbroken set of individuals following him have claimed
those effects and no other has placed a greater claim
on them.
| Quote: | yet have
different material compositions. No different for the statues.
|
I'm not the one claiming identity here. I'm claiming ownership
of the effects of others who are very closely related to me.
| Quote: | What kind of concept of identity have you?
The one that states that two things share identity if they have the
same identifiying properties. What other concept of identity would
possibly make sense?
|
But you claim identity where properties differ. Upon what basis
do you do so?
| Quote: | Consider personal identiy.
I exist in the here and now. I share a relationship with a string
of blokes near me within these coordinates but they are not me
and if it is a choice between them and me I choose me. What
has that guy who exists next week ever done for me and what
did I ever ask of the guys before me?
And yet, why do we consider time special and not one of the
other dimensions. Or is that dementions?
What is a thing? The clay figure of the ballerina was destroyed
and a ball of clay put in its place.
Agreed. And yet throughout the same bit of clay remained throughout.
To say "no, you can't talk about the piece of clay as being a thing in
its own right", a thing with a shape property that happened to
change", is gonna require a bit more than handwaving so far
Regards, Sigmund
|
Who's doing the handwaving? Not me. I want to know why I
should accept your handwaving. You claim identity where none
exists. It's as if one is the same as two because they are both
numbers. What we accept for reasons of convenience and what
is needn't be the same. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
kamerm
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 11:30 pm Post subject: Re: The Clay Ballerina |
|
|
<s.j.lagoe@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:416d40dd-00dc-447c-88b2-c2d0235f0936@r37g2000prr.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 18, 11:32 pm, "kamerm" <kame...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: | "{:-])))" <...being@home...> wrote in message
news:d6o5d45g75utsh8iqvmitg7oljjemf4abt@4ax.com...
s.j.lagoe wrote:
Josip Almasi wrote:
Like JJ said, it wasclayall the time, but it's changing properties
(attributes).
Sure, but a statue can be repaired when it becomes damaged resulting
in the same statue but with different material composition. Then of
course it is the statue that's properties have changed. There is
nothing special about the clays objecthood compared to the figures
objecthood - they are both valid things right, and the both "exist"?
H'ears a story
about a story
maybe within a story.
'The Argonauts were ordered by the Gods to
complete their long journey in one and the same
ship -- the Argo -- against the certainty of the
boat's gradual deterioration. Over the course of
the voyage the Argonauts slowly replaced each
piece of the ship, "so that they ended with an
entirely new ship, without having to alter either
its name or its form. This ship Argo is highly
useful," Barthes continues. "It affords the
allegory of an eminently structural object,
created not by genius, inspiration, determination,
evolution, but by two modest actions (which cannot
be caught up in any mystique of creation):
substitution (one part replaces another, as in a
paradigm) and nomination (the name is in no way
linked to the stability of the parts): by dint of
combinations made within one and the same name,
nothing is left of the origin: Argo is an object
with no other cause than its name, with no other
identity than its form.'
-knot that
it matters-
supposedly about 98% of the chemical constituents of our bodies are
replaced
every 3-6 months while we live.
-k
|
s.j.lagoe:
And then you are 98% a different person from that which was extant 6
months ago, while simultaneously being 100% the same person too! There
is no contradiction or paradox here (as some would have you believe)
that needs some "solution" or "treatment". It just depends what
perspective you wish to take for some task at hand. Both standpoints
are equally valid.
k:
i agree
Chinese philosophers distinguish between li (loosely "principle") and shih
(loosely "phenomena") -
the Buddhist "Treatise On The Golden Lion"
http://www.empty-universe.com/zen/golden_lion.htm
goes further than daoists might in drawing conclusions, but is illustrative
both of how ancient and universal this kind of analogy and conundrum is, and
how ancient consideration and resolution of the matter is not all that
different from current.
elaborating: context matters - taking a "clay ballerina" or "golden lion"
and placing them where neither form nor material are familiar will show them
for what they are - unique lumps of manipulated matter, that evoke thoughts
and considerations of known materials and forms in people sharing the same
cultural milieu as the sculptor. Which is to say, a clay ballerina isn't a
ballerina, and a clay lion isn't a lion. Moreover, to the degree that the
particular properties of "clay" or "gold" are necessary for its intended
function (cf. the exquisite molecular scale engineering of modern computing
chip substrates), this "clay" isn't that "clay", and this "gold" isn't that
"gold".
a notion of the utility of words (eg. context) can prevent drowning in a sea
of mis-applied ontology (not that ontology isn't useful sometimes :-)
as to whether one should be utilitarian -- only if that's useful to you ;-D
-k (typically found in a.p.t) |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Wolf Kirchmeir
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 1:07 am Post subject: Re: The Clay Ballerina |
|
|
s.j.lagoe@googlemail.com wrote:
| Quote: | On Sep 18, 6:15 pm, Wolf Kirchmeir <wolf...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
s.j.la...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sep 18, 5:06 pm, arkestra <arkes...@gmail.com> wrote:
B) Easy money. There's one thing there, obviously. A clay statue of a
[...]
For example, if it were a pitcher of milk, instead of a clay statue of
a ballerina, then I do not think a similar argument could be made so
that there are both "a pitcher of milk" and "milk" on the table
without changing anything about their placement/orientation.
Well, I guess you could analogously pour the pitcher's contents into a
bottle. Then the same milk would be on the table, but the "pitcher of
milk" would be gone. Because the milk was there originally, the "milk"
and "pitcher of milk" must have been different things given that one
has survived while the other has not. Regards, Sigmund.
Siggy, your response indicates that you are are assuming that if there's
a noun for it, it must be a thing. IOW, the 6th grade concept of "noun"
is misleading you.
|
The phrase "pitcher of milk" is a noun phrase, which is semantically a
noun (it's on of the way we use to talk about something for which we
don't have a separate word.) (To understand this process, consider that
many words in one language must be translated by a phrase in another
language.) IOW a noun phrase is semantically a noun.
But the 6th grade definition of "noun" is "word that names a person,
place, or thing." Hence "pitcher of milk", "clay ballerina" etc must be
"things" in your language. But "thing" is a fuzzy concept, which is one
of the reasons that you have a puzzle. You're quite right that you have
discovered a puzzle, but it seems to me a puzzle of language usage
rather than of reality (whatever "reality" may be, that is. )
BTW, the 6th grade definition of "noun" is at the very least is
incomplete, since nouns can also name states, process, concepts, and so
on. They can also be shorthand for extended definitions, in which case
it's a bit of head scratcher what exactly they refer to (much
philosophical thinking has been expended on this question.)
| Quote: | I simply stated (if a while ago now) that if I have milk in one bottle
and pour it in to another, I am left with the same "milk", but a
different "bottle of milk". I certainly don't see what that had to do
with discussion of "nouns". I assume you disagree with my statement
but I am unclear from your reply as to why.
|
I don't disagree, I just don't think it's as serious a puzzle as you
seem to think.
| Quote: | Think "referents" instead of "things", and the puzzle disappears.
I am very aware that objects contain 'referents' to objects and not
the objects themselves (they use identifying attributes of the object
to which they refer, such as names). But, I certainly don't see the
relevance to any argument here in pointing out this distinction here
(i.e. it seems a non-sequitur).
|
"Referent" means "that which a term refers to." The term was introduced
to assist in distinguishing between intensional and extensional
meanings. For example, attributive adjectives (eg, "beautiful") have
intensional meanings, descriptive adjectives (eg "red") have extensional
meanings.
| Quote: | A noun is simply that class of word that appears as the head of a noun
phrase. The fact that we use some nouns to refer to people, others to
refer to objects, others to refer to sensations, etc, is not relevant.
scratches_head/> whoever said it was?
We also use nouns to refer to processes, but we use verbs for the same
purpose (eg, refrigeration - refrigerate). Does that mean that when we
use the noun to refer to a process it's a thing, and when we use the
verb it's not a thing? That's absurd.
Hardly, and there are canonical examples as such - if "A marries B",
the existence of a "Marriage" is implied.
|
No, all that implication shows is that in English you can build a noun
on the same root as a verb. It proves nothing about the existence of
anything (or any thing, for that matter.)
| Quote: | But again, I don't see the
relevance of this.
|
That's because you don't see that "A marries B" does not have the same
referents as "the marriage of A and B." (Not to mention that "marriage"
is an extremely ambiguous term.)
As I said, think referents.
| Quote: | The original dialogue merely identified that a clay ball and a clay
statue can be both the same things from one point of view (i.e the
same piece of clay), and different things from another. The fact that
these perspectives are all equally valid indicates that there is no
one definable thing on the table. Assuming otherwise will lead to
contradiction.
|
What your example illustrates is that "perspective" differentiates one
thing from another. IOW, what is the referent of "lump of clay"? Of
"clay statue of a ballerina"? Of "painted clay marble?" Etc.
To put it another way, "thing" always implies what you call
"perspective", which I prefer to call "context", for that term reminds
you that a thing exists in relation to other things. (I would even go so
far as to claim that any given "thing" is a collection (selection?) of
relationships. Perhaps that's because I find it fairly easy to think in
terms of networks (graphs, in mathematical language). But that's another
discussion. Maybe.)
There were a bunch of German philosophers who wanted to talk about the
"Ding an sich" ("thing in itself.") It seens to me that you have arrived
at the same concept, and have (correctly, IMO) found it wanting.
Well, I guess that's stirred up the mud at the bottom of the pool a bit. ;-)
--
Wolf Kirchmeir |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
herbzet
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 9:07 am Post subject: Re: The Clay Ballerina |
|
|
Wolf Kirchmeir wrote:
| Quote: | s.j.lagoe@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sep 18, 6:15 pm, Wolf Kirchmeir <wolf...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
s.j.la...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sep 18, 5:06 pm, arkestra <arkes...@gmail.com> wrote:
B) Easy money. There's one thing there, obviously. A clay statue of a
[...]
For example, if it were a pitcher of milk, instead of a clay statue of
a ballerina, then I do not think a similar argument could be made so
that there are both "a pitcher of milk" and "milk" on the table
without changing anything about their placement/orientation.
Well, I guess you could analogously pour the pitcher's contents into a
bottle. Then the same milk would be on the table, but the "pitcher of
milk" would be gone. Because the milk was there originally, the "milk"
and "pitcher of milk" must have been different things given that one
has survived while the other has not. Regards, Sigmund.
Siggy, your response indicates that you are are assuming that if there's
a noun for it, it must be a thing. IOW, the 6th grade concept of "noun"
is misleading you.
The phrase "pitcher of milk" is a noun phrase, which is semantically a
noun (it's on of the way we use to talk about something for which we
don't have a separate word.) (To understand this process, consider that
many words in one language must be translated by a phrase in another
language.) IOW a noun phrase is semantically a noun.
But the 6th grade definition of "noun" is "word that names a person,
place, or thing." Hence "pitcher of milk", "clay ballerina" etc must be
"things" in your language. But "thing" is a fuzzy concept, which is one
of the reasons that you have a puzzle. You're quite right that you have
discovered a puzzle, but it seems to me a puzzle of language usage
rather than of reality (whatever "reality" may be, that is. )
BTW, the 6th grade definition of "noun" is at the very least is
incomplete, since nouns can also name states, process, concepts, and so
on. They can also be shorthand for extended definitions, in which case
it's a bit of head scratcher what exactly they refer to (much
philosophical thinking has been expended on this question.)
I simply stated (if a while ago now) that if I have milk in one bottle
and pour it in to another, I am left with the same "milk", but a
different "bottle of milk". I certainly don't see what that had to do
with discussion of "nouns". I assume you disagree with my statement
but I am unclear from your reply as to why.
I don't disagree, I just don't think it's as serious a puzzle as you
seem to think.
Think "referents" instead of "things", and the puzzle disappears.
I am very aware that objects contain 'referents' to objects and not
the objects themselves (they use identifying attributes of the object
to which they refer, such as names). But, I certainly don't see the
relevance to any argument here in pointing out this distinction here
(i.e. it seems a non-sequitur).
"Referent" means "that which a term refers to." The term was introduced
to assist in distinguishing between intensional and extensional
meanings. For example, attributive adjectives (eg, "beautiful") have
intensional meanings, descriptive adjectives (eg "red") have extensional
meanings.
A noun is simply that class of word that appears as the head of a noun
phrase. The fact that we use some nouns to refer to people, others to
refer to objects, others to refer to sensations, etc, is not relevant.
scratches_head/> whoever said it was?
We also use nouns to refer to processes, but we use verbs for the same
purpose (eg, refrigeration - refrigerate). Does that mean that when we
use the noun to refer to a process it's a thing, and when we use the
verb it's not a thing? That's absurd.
Hardly, and there are canonical examples as such - if "A marries B",
the existence of a "Marriage" is implied.
No, all that implication shows is that in English you can build a noun
on the same root as a verb. It proves nothing about the existence of
anything (or any thing, for that matter.)
But again, I don't see the
relevance of this.
That's because you don't see that "A marries B" does not have the same
referents as "the marriage of A and B." (Not to mention that "marriage"
is an extremely ambiguous term.)
As I said, think referents.
The original dialogue merely identified that a clay ball and a clay
statue can be both the same things from one point of view (i.e the
same piece of clay), and different things from another. The fact that
these perspectives are all equally valid indicates that there is no
one definable thing on the table. Assuming otherwise will lead to
contradiction.
What your example illustrates is that "perspective" differentiates one
thing from another. IOW, what is the referent of "lump of clay"? Of
"clay statue of a ballerina"? Of "painted clay marble?" Etc.
To put it another way, "thing" always implies what you call
"perspective", which I prefer to call "context", for that term reminds
you that a thing exists in relation to other things. (I would even go so
far as to claim that any given "thing" is a collection (selection?) of
relationships. Perhaps that's because I find it fairly easy to think in
terms of networks (graphs, in mathematical language). But that's another
discussion. Maybe.)
There were a bunch of German philosophers who wanted to talk about the
"Ding an sich" ("thing in itself.") It seens to me that you have arrived
at the same concept, and have (correctly, IMO) found it wanting.
Well, I guess that's stirred up the mud at the bottom of the pool a bit.
|
Speaking of the "Ding an sich", John Jones recently came up with the
felicitous phrase "the object that spins in darkness at the centre of
its property satellites" at the end of the post
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.logic/msg/63e20a06fd50fc9c?dmode=source .
Just wanted to share!
--
hz |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Wolf Kirchmeir
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 9:52 pm Post subject: Re: The Clay Ballerina |
|
|
herbzet wrote:
| Quote: |
Wolf Kirchmeir wrote:
s.j.lagoe@googlemail.com wrote:
[...] |
| Quote: | There were a bunch of German philosophers who wanted to talk about the
"Ding an sich" ("thing in itself.") It seens to me that you have arrived
at the same concept, and have (correctly, IMO) found it wanting.
Well, I guess that's stirred up the mud at the bottom of the pool a bit. ;-)
Speaking of the "Ding an sich", John Jones recently came up with the
felicitous phrase "the object that spins in darkness at the centre of
its property satellites" at the end of the post
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.logic/msg/63e20a06fd50fc9c?dmode=source .
Just wanted to share!
--
hz
|
I like it!
Some years ago, while discussing the concepts of "mask" and "persona"
with my students, I concluded that there is nothing "behind" the mask.
There is only the mask. There is only interface/interaction. There is
nothing that interfaces, nothing that interacts. A variation on the
argument against Descartes' "Cogito ergo sum."
PS: "Persona" is Latin for "mask." "Mask" probably derives from an
Arabic word meaning "clown."
HTH
--
Wolf Kirchmeir |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Teresita
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 7:03 am Post subject: Re: The Clay Ballerina |
|
|
In article <492159a1$0$5530$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com>, Wolf Kirchmeir
says...
| Quote: |
PS: "Persona" is Latin for "mask." "Mask" probably derives from an
Arabic word meaning "clown."
|
And that brings us around to Bozo once again. Everything comes in waves.
--
Teresita
The Trick Is To Keep Writing... http://lilith-links.blogspot.com |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
herbzet
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 10:56 pm Post subject: Re: The Clay Ballerina |
|
|
Wolf Kirchmeir wrote:
| Quote: | herbzet wrote:
Wolf Kirchmeir wrote:
|
[...]
| Quote: | There were a bunch of German philosophers who wanted to talk about the
"Ding an sich" ("thing in itself.") It seens to me that you have arrived
at the same concept, and have (correctly, IMO) found it wanting.
Well, I guess that's stirred up the mud at the bottom of the pool a bit. ;-)
Speaking of the "Ding an sich", John Jones recently came up with the
felicitous phrase "the object that spins in darkness at the centre of
its property satellites" at the end of the post
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.logic/msg/63e20a06fd50fc9c?dmode=source .
Just wanted to share!
I like it!
|
| Quote: | Some years ago, while discussing the concepts of "mask" and "persona"
with my students, I concluded that there is nothing "behind" the mask.
There is only the mask. There is only interface/interaction. There is
nothing that interfaces, nothing that interacts. A variation on the
argument against Descartes' "Cogito ergo sum."
PS: "Persona" is Latin for "mask." "Mask" probably derives from an
Arabic word meaning "clown."
|
"... a face to meet the faces that you meet ..."
-- T.S. Eliot --
--
hz |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Mitch Harris
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 3:04 pm Post subject: Re: The Clay Ballerina |
|
|
On Nov 17, 10:52 am, Wolf Kirchmeir <wolf...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
| Quote: | PS: "Persona" is Latin for "mask." "Mask" probably derives from an
Arabic word meaning "clown."
|
From the American Heritage Dictionary:
from French masque, from Italian maschera, from Medieval Latin
masca, specter, witch, mask.
But it could easily have a provenance from Arabic before that.
Mitch |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
