Are Symbols "primary"?

Discuss arguments for existence of God and faith in general. Any aspect of any orientation toward religion/spirituality, as long as it is based upon a positive open to other people attitude.

Moderator: Metacrock

User avatar
met
Posts: 2813
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:05 pm

Re: Are Symbols "primary"?

Post by met » Sat Oct 01, 2016 12:10 pm

Oh, btw, did you notice that the aforementioned "conflict", between "maths and biology" - between the empirical and the rational - traced by Malabou in her Kant book - is also presented succinctly in the Alexander vs. the Mystic 'koan' on our other thread? :?
The “One” is the space of the “world” of the tick, but also the “pinch” of the lobster, or that rendezvous in person to confirm online pictures (with a new lover or an old God). This is the machinery operative...as “onto-theology."
Dr Ward Blanton

User avatar
Magritte
Posts: 831
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2012 10:36 am

Re: Are Symbols "primary"?

Post by Magritte » Mon Oct 03, 2016 8:49 pm

I feel lazy. I wonder if you can give me the "for dummies" version, e.g.

"What I mean by the primacy of symbols is [the world is made of words, and by changing the words we change the world], and my main reasons for believing this is so are 1), 2), and 3)"

I want to know what you think, in the simplest terms. about the primacy of symbols, with no digressions or quotations. Bonus points if you can do this without rhetorical questions, ellipses and winking smileys.

My hypothesis is that you won't be able to do this, because it will end up sounding vacuous, or silly, or both.
One of the hallmarks of freedom is that when you recognize someone is being intellectually dishonest or arguing with you in bad faith, you have the option to walk away without being punished, imprisoned or tortured.

User avatar
met
Posts: 2813
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:05 pm

Re: Are Symbols "primary"?

Post by met » Mon Oct 03, 2016 9:13 pm

Easy....
The world is made up of cups and tables and trees and relationships, &etc- but wait, please note! - all these things are not objects, as (it appears that) you so lazily assume, but categories of objects.
What the objects really are in themselves, as Kant, Heidegger, et al assert, 'is withdrawn from us', & we only know them as appearances, relationally, i.e. correlationally - 'in terms of the way we think about them.'
The “One” is the space of the “world” of the tick, but also the “pinch” of the lobster, or that rendezvous in person to confirm online pictures (with a new lover or an old God). This is the machinery operative...as “onto-theology."
Dr Ward Blanton

User avatar
met
Posts: 2813
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:05 pm

Re: Are Symbols "primary"?

Post by met » Mon Oct 03, 2016 9:32 pm

Derrida's riveting image for Kant's insight was 'vomit' - i.e. the insides outside - so like, Kantian 'vomit' all over everything ... ;)
The “One” is the space of the “world” of the tick, but also the “pinch” of the lobster, or that rendezvous in person to confirm online pictures (with a new lover or an old God). This is the machinery operative...as “onto-theology."
Dr Ward Blanton

User avatar
Magritte
Posts: 831
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2012 10:36 am

Re: Are Symbols "primary"?

Post by Magritte » Tue Oct 04, 2016 7:12 am

Where does the symbolic being primary enter into this?
One of the hallmarks of freedom is that when you recognize someone is being intellectually dishonest or arguing with you in bad faith, you have the option to walk away without being punished, imprisoned or tortured.

Post Reply