The Rise of the Global South

[Dragonfly]

Can one of you guys give an example of a "floating abstraction"? They are rather popular with Objectivists (to denounce them), but I'd like to see a concrete example of such a floating abstraction. Or is "floating abstraction" itself perhaps a floating abstraction?

[tjohnson]

Perhaps this will help explain where i am coming from.

Before a noise. , may become a symbol, something must exist for the symbol to

symbolize. So the first problem of symbolism should be to investigate the problem

of ‘existence’. To define ‘existence’, we have to state the standards by which we

judge existence. At present, the use of this term is not uniform and is largely a

matter of convenience. Of late, mathematicians have discovered a great deal about

this term. For our present purposes, we may accept two kinds of existence: (1) the

physical existence, roughly connected with our ‘senses’ and persistence, and (2)

‘logical’ existence. The new researches in the foundations of mathematics,

originated by Brouwer and Weyl, seem to lead to a curtailment of the meaning of

‘logical’ existence in quite a sound direction; but we may provisionally accept the

most general meaning, as introduced by Poincaré. He defines ‘logical’ existence as a

statement free from self-contradictions. Thus, we may say that a ‘thought’ to be a

‘thought’ must not be self-contradictory. A self-contradictory statement is

meaningless; we can argue either way without reaching any valid results. We say,

then, that a self-contradictory statement has no ‘logical’ existence. As an example,

let us take a statement about a square circle. This is called a contradiction in terms, a

non-sense, a meaningless statement, which has no ‘logical’ existence. Let us label

this ‘word salad’ by a special noise—let us say, ‘blah-blah’. Will such a noise

become a word, a symbol ? Obviously not—it stands for nothing; it remains a mere

noise. , no matter if volumes should be written about it.

It is extremely important, semantically, to notice that not all the noises. , we

humans make should be considered as symbols or valid words. Such empty noises. ,

can occur not only in direct ‘statements’, but also in ‘questions’. Quite obviously,

‘questions’ which employ noises. , instead of words, are not significant questions.

They ask nothing, and cannot be answered. They are, perhaps, best treated by

‘mental’ pathologists as symptoms of delusions, illusions, or hallucinations. In

asylums the noises. , patients make are predominantly meaningless, as far as the

external world is concerned, but become symbols in the illness of the patient.

Also;

In this analysis the ‘philosophers’ have been omitted. This is because they

require a special treatment. As an historical fact, many ‘philosophers’ have played

an important and, to be frank, sinister role in history. At the bottom of any historical

trend, we find a certain ‘philosophy’, a structural implication cleverly formulated by

some ‘philosopher’. The reader of this work will later find that most ‘philosophers’

gamble on multiordinal and el terms, which have no definite single (one-valued)

meaning, and so, by cleverness in twisting, can be made to appear to mean anything

desired. It is now no mystery that some quite influential ‘philosophers’ were

‘mentally’ ill. Some ‘mentally’ ill persons are tremendously clever in the

manipulation of words and can sometimes deceive even trained specialists. Among

the clever concoctions which appear in history as ‘philosophic’ systems, we can find

flatly opposing doctrines. Therefore, it has not been difficult at any period for the

rulers to select a cleverly constructed doctrine perfectly fitting the ends they desired.

Edited November 3, 2007 by general semanticist

[Ellen Stuttle]

Can one of you guys give an example of a "floating abstraction"? They are rather popular with Objectivists (to denounce them), but I'd like to see a concrete example of such a floating abstraction. Or is "floating abstraction" itself perhaps a floating abstraction?

Global warming. (Too-ready-to-mind to resist.)

E-

[Ellen Stuttle]

Perhaps this will help explain where i am coming from.

[....] we may provisionally accept the

most general meaning, as introduced by Poincaré. He defines ‘logical’ existence as a

statement free from self-contradictions. Thus, we may say that a ‘thought’ to be a

‘thought’ must not be self-contradictory. A self-contradictory statement is

meaningless; we can argue either way without reaching any valid results. We say,

then, that a self-contradictory statement has no ‘logical’ existence. As an example,

let us take a statement about a square circle. This is called a contradiction in terms, a

non-sense, a meaningless statement, which has no ‘logical’ existence.

[....]

From that (and other details in the passages quoted), it sure doesn't sound as if Korzybski denied any usefulness to logic. He's employing the logical requirement of non-self-contradiction. I thought you'd adopted your antipathy to logic from his views. Does he elsewhere contradict what he says above and rail against logic?

Just curious.

Ellen

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

I was interested by your account, Michael (post #96). This particular paragraph I'll single out because it confirms from a self-report what I suspect occurs for many people, especially young people, who become enthused by Rand:

I know that in my Randroid phase, the pamphletizing part was foremost in my mind, not the rational part—although that had a strong appeal, too. I used to love to preach the virtues of being rational or else be doomed. (sinister music with thunder in the background) Back then, I must have read ITOE at least 10 times and I still didn't understand it, and worse, I didn't understand where the inspiring pamphletizing calls to action went to in that book (although there were some glimmers). It was a mystery to me that I thought would be revealed over time. But I loved the images of what happened to the bad guys for being irrational, altruistic and second-handers in Rand's fiction and I would pepper my dinner-table or workplace preachings with examples of this.

The additional rub is the belief that engaging in the "pamphletizing" is being rational, that it's what a rational person does. And then there's the especially damaging clincher of the excoriating being turned inward against oneself, producing fearful self-criticism as I described (post #94), as well as other-criticism.

Ellen

___

[BaalChatzaf]

Can one of you guys give an example of a "floating abstraction"? They are rather popular with Objectivists (to denounce them), but I'd like to see a concrete example of such a floating abstraction. Or is "floating abstraction" itself perhaps a floating abstraction?

Global warming. (Too-ready-to-mind to resist.)

E-

Ocean temperatures are currently rising (on average). Why they are rising is an interesting question. There is not definite proof (in fact there is counter evidence) that the rise in temperature is closely linked to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. In the past CO2 levels have -trailed- temperature rises, not preceded them.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Ellen Stuttle]

Can one of you guys give an example of a "floating abstraction"? They are rather popular with Objectivists (to denounce them), but I'd like to see a concrete example of such a floating abstraction. Or is "floating abstraction" itself perhaps a floating abstraction?

Global warming. (Too-ready-to-mind to resist.)

E-

Ocean temperatures are currently rising (on average). Why they are rising is an interesting question. There is not definite proof (in fact there is counter evidence) that the rise in temperature is closely linked to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. In the past CO2 levels have -trailed- temperature rises, not preceded them.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Talk about acting like a complete fall guy for a joke. I was being funny, ha, ha; the whole global-warming issue as a "floating abstraction." And thanks for the info, Bob. Not as if my husband hasn't been giving a series of presentations on the science of the issue, and as if I haven't several times mentioned this fact. I assure you I know about the lag, etc. Nor is it entirely, entirely clear about ocean temperature rise. In any case, let's not deflect this thread to AGW issues, please. It was a joke.

Ellen

___

[tjohnson]

From that (and other details in the passages quoted), it sure doesn't sound as if Korzybski denied any usefulness to logic. He's employing the logical requirement of non-self-contradiction. I thought you'd adopted your antipathy to logic from his views. Does he elsewhere contradict what he says above and rail against logic?

He wasn't against 'logic', it was 2-valued logic being applied to 'reality". My brackets.

This ‘logic’ [Aristotelian] can be considered as a two-valued

‘logic’ because of the fundamental ‘law of the excluded third’, expressed as ‘A is B

or not B’, by which a third possibility is excluded. But even the traditional ‘logic’

had to admit in its scheme what was called ‘modality’; namely, some degrees of

certainty or uncertainty with which a given statement is made. Lately, Lukasiewicz

has shown that a three-valued ‘logic’ can be so formulated as to include modality.

Later, he and Tarski generalized it to an n-valued ‘logic’. When n tends toward

infinity, this ‘logic’ becomes the ‘logic’ of probability.

‘Logic’ is defined as the ‘science of the laws of thought’. Obviously, then, to produce ‘logic’

we should have to study all forms of human behaviour connected directly with mentation;...

...What has passed under the name of ‘logic’, for instance, is not ‘logic’ according to

its own definition, but represents a philosophical grammar of a primitive-made

language, of a structure different from the structure of the world, unfit for serious

use. If we try to apply the rules of the old ‘logic’, we find ourselves blocked by

ridiculous impasses. So, naturally, we discover that we have no use for such a

‘logic’.

There is much more discussion in S&S.

[tjohnson]

[Talk about acting like a complete fall guy for a joke. I was being funny, ha, ha; the whole global-warming issue as a "floating abstraction." And thanks for the info, Bob. Not as if my husband hasn't been giving a series of presentations on the science of the issue, and as if I haven't several times mentioned this fact. I assure you I know about the lag, etc. Nor is it entirely, entirely clear about ocean temperature rise. In any case, let's not deflect this thread to AGW issues, please. It was a joke.

Gee, I'm glad Baal said that and not me Ellen I think you better not quit your day job!

[Ellen Stuttle]

Gee, I'm glad Baal said that and not me Ellen I think you better not quit your day job!

Well, I wouldn't have expected you to get it, GS, since you diligently refuse to read Objectivist sources despite posting on an Objectivist list. But Bob is familiar with the literature.

Ellen

___

[Selene]

Can one of you guys give an example of a "floating abstraction"? They are rather popular with Objectivists (to denounce them), but I'd like to see a concrete example of such a floating abstraction. Or is "floating abstraction" itself perhaps a floating abstraction?

Global warming. (Too-ready-to-mind to resist.)

E-

Ocean temperatures are currently rising (on average). Why they are rising is an interesting question. There is not definite proof (in fact there is counter evidence) that the rise in temperature is closely linked to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. In the past CO2 levels have -trailed- temperature rises, not preceded them.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Ok. We know you're smart and the rest of us have access to the same data. You did not answer the question raised.