JONATHAN,
ELEPHANT:
>> in a nutshell:
>> Things only exist where statements of their nature can be true and
>> consistent, either as a variety of the good or (perhaps) in some higher
>> (logically necessary) fashion. If that counts as a non-ontology of truth,
>> then I'm a vogon's grandmother.
JONATHAN:
> Hi Grandma! I assume your point is that for something to exist, we must be
> able to make demonstrably true statements about it.
ELEPHANT:
Quite.
JONATHAN:
> However for everything I
> perceive to exist, I can make an infinity of "true" statements and an even
> larger (:-) infinity of "untrue" statements. I do not consider these
> statements to be the REASON an object exists (i.e. ontology). They are a
> CONSQUENCE of existence.
ELEPHANT:
I follow your point, but the confusion is in the thought that we perceive
things to exist and then come along and make statements afterwards. IMO
*what* we perceive is the upshot of the statements we associate with our
perception, and before the throwing of that linguistic net there is no
*what*, but just the aesthetic continuum. For this reason, your claim that
we can make an infinity of true and untrue statements about *what* we
perceive is infact false. Consequently the conclusion you draw, that what
exists is unconnected to what statements we think of as true, is also false.
Existence, alteast with SQ entities like subjects and objects, is a
consequence of our intellectualising in pursuit of quality. As to that
which isn't a subject or an object - that's another matter.
all the best,
Elephant
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:06 BST