Re: 88mm of nonsense.
Matt Kozusko (mkozusko@parallel.park.uga.edu)
Tue, 26 Oct 1999 17:30:35 -0500
Steven Gabriel wrote:
> Why a first property? Take the example of geometry. If you take an axiom
> (roughly equivalent to a property) out you lose a lot of the system.
> Euclid and others spent decades trying to knock out an axiom and failed.
> Let's say you could sum up all 5 in one property. It would be equivalent
> to listing all five properties and putting "ands" between them. [cut]
In order for you to develop axioms or properties, you need phenomena.
What allows us to detect phenomena? I'm talking about the moment
before properties began to be thought about. Not, in this case, how
do sentences work, but how can we have words.
We are arguing different points now, I think. I am arguing there must
be a principle in place that allows us to distinguish the phenomena
for which we develop axioms. How do you know there is geometry?
Becuase the differences between things allows you to see things as
distinct phenomena. You would never know what darkness was unless it
could be contrasted with something different, like light. So how
could you go about making observations about darkness until you were
aware of its counterpart, light? Not only the word "darkness" and its
synonyms, but also in part the whole concept of darkness is thinkable
only when there is something different with which to contrast it.
Meaning is possible only because of difference.
> And my shoelaces are wearing thin as is.
But I'm finding it all very fascinating. Since my last post, I have,
quite uncharacteristically, gone out and bought a copy of the
Hofstadter book you recommended (incidentally, the index does not
mention Derrida or Saussre, but it does mention Thomas Kuhn...I
anticipate certain disciplinary favoritisms). I am willing to concede
that perhaps the discussion should be moved elsewhere (bananafish are
*very* peculiar), but, company provided, I am quite happy to
continue.
--
Matt Kozusko mkozusko@parallel.park.uga.edu