Schroder sq and the new talea

Asa, ...'try to bound ourselfs in literary terms, as in,
the linquistic, academic regression,etc.'
I had no itention whatever to discuss with you any issue
at all because we seem to be from differnt planets. But
your disapproval of linquistics and the progress made
since,say, the German philosophy including Heidegger is
impossible for me to swallow. When Wittgenstein asked Frege to comment on his Tractatus the first question Frege
asked was: is this meant as a literary or scientific work?
Frege has drawn the separation line between the two. Litarature as art may treat about beauty, or what ever but
is not about the truth. Ie their sentences need not the truth conditions. So these sentences may have whatever meaning they have but they do not need the reference. However scientific sentences need both. In the other post I
mentioned ,uh, the 'value' of Higs particle. We in Europe
spend 2 billion Dollar in order to discovere if this particle exist. I don't believe that anyone will surch for
Pegasus while any poet or writer is free to write a intersting story about the beauty of his wings. There is no sence in science to askribe or 'attribute' whatever qualitys to a non existent object. Even in mathematics you
can not ask the question about peculiar qualitys of sets without any member. But 'your' Heidegger was able to write
a book about 'nothing' or 'nothingness'. The German expression is 'Das Nichts nichtet' and I am not able to put
this in English. I hope Dertonarm will help , his Englisch
is much better then my. I speak 5 different lanquages and
know how difficult literary translation are. I regard Serbo-Kroatian and Dutch both as my 'native' lanquages but I would never dare or try to translete a literary work from one to the other. But there is no such problem at all in translation of scientific works. That is why the science is the same in any part of the world.Why should this be so you think? Well choose your favourite.
Regard,

Nandric, I too have difficulties with Heidegger's philosophy, but mostly on the grounds that philosophy itself is never knowledge. Philosophy is/are merely reasons, and as such, entirely made up to justify a behavior.

IMO vision is what makes a thing like a great tonearm possible. It is hard to say what the source of the vision might be. But you see this all the time in great art, great technology, great accomplishment. A musician may have poor technique, but if he has vision it can take him places that his technique never could. If you see a great tonearm, it is the vision behind it that made it possible.

Vision and intention are the things that make for greatness. Philosophy is the thing that we make up along the way to explain ourselves; in the face of simply Being, philosophy vanishes, but vision and intention remain.

Nandric, thank you for your response. Yes, I saw you out there. That's why I threw the "regression" in there, on the water. I didn't know it would be you, but you are the smartest at the academic lingusitic stuff, so I figured it wouldn't be long. :0)

Yes, I agree, science and mathematics are their own languages too. And, yes, writing and mathematical languages have different referent rules, etc., but that does not mean that they are not still both bounded by the dualistic operation of thought construction.

Deconstruction is an interest in dicing up things. As far as it goes, such dicing up interests is a good thing, as I think I said, but there has been a prolonged over-reliance/attachment that has led to a stagnation. Maybe a little reintegration is needed in our stew. Or maybe, just maybe, a search for the ground of these cognitive constructions (I mean, we've looked everywhere else, right?).

And here's the new flash: Change does not evolutionarily favor no-change mind!

Yes, Nandric, there is a relative language issue between us, but, you know, we are on the same "planet" because we are both HERE NOW. Do you *see* this/me?

On Heidegger: I did not put him in with the regression stuff, purposely; he's in a lower paragraph on the art stuff that was meant primarily for Atmasph. Although, since we are there, did he ever really see what was below the signs and symbols? The cognitively attached mind defines the absence of things - matter-things, thought-things, sign-things, symbol-things, etc. - as a No-thing-ness.

Nandric, again, the same question, no textbooks: what/who are you when you are not thinking? Does it feel like a No-thing-ness place to you?

The same question: what existed before the Big Bang?

A trick question: the "what" that existed before the Big Bang, where is it now? Is it still HERE, NOW?

On the progression on literary deconstruction - sure, the Bloomberg group is as fine as a place to start as any - but, didn't Wittgenstein change his mind later? Isn't there early Wittgenstein and later Wittgenstein?

Here's the koan: can you answer the Big Bang/Mind-beneath-thought questions above without reaching for more Wittgenstein...or Russell, or Popper, or Kuhn, or Freyerabend, or....whoever who is not-you.

When you saw the Early/Later Wittgenstein, did you inflexibly reach?

You said, "Litarature [sic] as art may treat about beauty, or what ever but
is not about the truth. "

Are you saying that the perception of beauty is not a perception of Truth?

Is that because you can not cognitively locate (or dice up) a Beauty-thing?

The wild geese do not intend to cast their reflections,
The water has no mind to receive their images?

M-

Atmasphere, Your Quine (assuming your are American) is a
philosopher, logician and mathemtathician. He made very important contributions to i.a.the philosophy of lanquage.
Since Frege this ,say, discipline is a scientific undertaking. I admire Quine very much and made much effort
to understand his work (mathematics not included). But he
has made many contributions to linquistics wich is certainly a science. Where would you drow the line?
I myself am sure that the results reached by the modern philosophy of lanquage belong to knowledge. I am not Popperian but look at his,uh, conceptions reg. refutation,confirmation and objective knowledge.
He btw borowed 'objective knowledge' from Frege ('the third world') Now deed you ever heard about confirmation or refutation of literary works? There is no problem at all to provide for arts of any kind. This is our cultural heritage that we all care for and admire.
In the same sence as scientific knowledge belongs to us all
this applys for arts. But they are to me different categorys. The arts don't belong to objective knowledge.
The word 'objective' in the 'conjunction' should point at
this fact. Ie they lack confirmation and refutation in scientific sence.

Regards,

Asa, Nandric, Rudolf Steiner found for himself - and thus for us... - the fixed point in philosophy and supplied thus the fix point so desperately longed for by Immanuel Kant.
In his "Philosophie der Freiheit" (philosophy of freedom) he identified the process of thinking as the fix point per se.
An interesting approach which stroke me directly when I first encountered it decades back at the age of 17.
Certainly worth to muse about in the context of the last 15 posts in particular and in general anyway....;-) ...
To meditate about this "concept" might give to many answers to many questions.
BTW - Nandric, the 2 billion dollars you quote at cost for the particle accelerator in the soil underneath Cern are misleading for americans. It is 2000 billion dollars in fact ( a "billion" in american english is the same as 1 Milliarde in german/dutch - strange side way in mathematic ).

Is there such thing as "non-cognitive" knowledge........ intuition?
Personally I like to see pure and straight intuition as being exactly that - non-personalized and objective knowledge NOT blinded/fooled by an individual matrix.
Or maybe the commonsense "sphere" surrounding mother earth and named "aether". A kind of extra-spiritual universal master-brain of human experience past and present. In the sense that it compound ALL human souls/spirits and their gained knowledge which is non-focussed on life and individual existence. Postulated by Rudolf Steiner ( again...) and believed by anthroposophy to be available to every human soul.
Wished it was.

I want to note, that I am very positive surprised by the posts which up the past 2 days. Seems after all, that there is true life on earth and that there are actually many audiophiles who see way past the platter of a turntable ...;-) ......

Finally - that specific ars germanicum "gladius" was just an example for "inherent quality" - nothing more and nothing less..........