Is God God?
IS GOD GOD?
How can this question make sense? By the law of identity, A = A. A negative answer necessarily contradicts itself: God not God? Nonsense.
Although Aristotle takes this as a "law of being" -- each thing is what it is and not another thing -- it is first and foremost a law of sign-use, required as a necessary condition of scientific (uniquely true or false) discourse and knowledge. If the same word did not mean the same thing each time it is used in such discourse, it would be impossible for any statement in which it occurs to be assigned "true" or "false" as a unique value, since any statement of the presupposed distinguishing feature would exchange the value if they were interchanged (substituted for each other).
Yet, certain occurrences of the same sign used twice ("doubles*") make perfectly good sense. Grammar sanctions saying "God is good", and "the Devil is evil". In fact, "Devil" was judged by one Harlem minister to apply to G.W. Bush because he used "evil" objectively: personalizing what originated with the person.
And it could surely not be denied that the Spirit manifests in the spiritual (as an entity, in (a) non-sensory qualia. Similarly, memory is enables remembering (a definite neuro-psychological arousal functions as the material condition of conscious recall: trauma to the first directly affects the second). As further illustration, we can be said to "see into our own seeing": not just become aware of ourselves experiencing an act of visual perception, but also critically distinguishing the non-linguistic (symbolic) features from what they are called (the blue color vs. the words "blue" and "color"), while also perhaps taking note of other formal features of content (position, state, intensities). Still further, such a list of "doubles" would be incomplete if it did not mention "thinking of thinking", and recall Aristotle's formula of "thought thinking thought" for God's Nous (mind,consciousness). Finally, this series is completed as a totality under "consciousness of consciousness", since each of the other doubles* -- and all similar to them, as a class -- comes into discourse through consciousness as: continuity; awareness; personal self-presence; formed for purposes of communication under sign-use. (S*). Consciousness of consciousness is completed in the S* of S* (S* 'squared').
Summarizing this brief survey of "Token doubles" as these uses of signs might be called (completing a seven-sequence list) gives:
Token Doubles Sign-Use Levels of predicate type
7 God of God (the totality of totalities) Theology
6 thinking thought (knowing knowing) Philosophy
5 awareness of self-awareness ("ego") Existentialism
4 remembering remembering Moral agency
3 seeing seeing Material Perceptual
2 feeling feeling Aesthetic Phenomenal
1 consciousness of consciousness Neoro-Psychological
In each of these, and in the sequence as a whole, there occurs a doubling of the token, with its enabling process particularity folded into the text. Each case provides the completion of a field of particulars as a totality. The sequential order from bottom to top is in order of generic particularity; the sequential order from top down is according to universal necessity. The ascending levels are predicates of predicates of predicates,....; what is true of all higher is true of all lower, but not vice versa. This hierarchy of predicates, ranging from "God" to the neuro-psychological basis of conscious human experience, spans and comprehends the breadth of content under sign-use in a single system. Alternatives to the exact 7 -digit division -- 8 or more,; 6 or less -- might seem possible, but many considerations point to seven as the natural number of natural ordinal sequences, manifesting a primordial form. Following the application of the system to itself one step further, then, the number of actual types of sign-uses by for will be 7 x 7 = 49. Plus 1 for the whole = 50, the number of the ancient Babylonian God Marduk. This was the ancient deity that proclaimed himself (through his priests) God of Gods, Lord of Lords, consolidating all the names and powers of the other Gods under the unity of "His" name. This was the original "monotheistic" sign-use construct, circa 2000 BCE. A little book (The Necronomicron) turned up in the l960's with glyphs for the "49 names of Marduk", ending with Nibiru", which Z. Sitchin claims is ancient Sumerian for "Hebrew", name of starship that once brought the Great Gods Anu, Enlil and Enki from a 'captured' body orbiting our sun in 3,600 year intervals. Sitchin claims these people (the Sumerians) were connected with beings from outer space, and their great Ziggarut E-houses and temples showed it. The schema proposed here reproduces stands from this ancient, pre-Biblical Marduk era, but has nothing to do with occultism. Objective knowledge may have passed through Asia minor and Europe from gnostic and hermetic traditions, disguizing deepest esoteric truths in order to prevent their being corrupted and lost.
Closure: Is God God? This form of question can be given meaning if: 1. the first "God" is taken as predicate of a type of sign-use independent of languages -- a use-for-a-use, as it were, the universal form of certain token particularities. 2. the second is an expressive use for the user's own particularity. It then says: "What "God" communicate as text is that to which I (the user) commit to as the completing totality."
Further clarification of the ideas sketched here must include grounds for the critical distinction between valid and invalid inferences from given sign-uses. The following sections on "Token Taulogies" and Russell's Theory of Logical Types are toward that end.
(see previous post. tbc.)
How can this question make sense? By the law of identity, A = A. A negative answer necessarily contradicts itself: God not God? Nonsense.
Although Aristotle takes this as a "law of being" -- each thing is what it is and not another thing -- it is first and foremost a law of sign-use, required as a necessary condition of scientific (uniquely true or false) discourse and knowledge. If the same word did not mean the same thing each time it is used in such discourse, it would be impossible for any statement in which it occurs to be assigned "true" or "false" as a unique value, since any statement of the presupposed distinguishing feature would exchange the value if they were interchanged (substituted for each other).
Yet, certain occurrences of the same sign used twice ("doubles*") make perfectly good sense. Grammar sanctions saying "God is good", and "the Devil is evil". In fact, "Devil" was judged by one Harlem minister to apply to G.W. Bush because he used "evil" objectively: personalizing what originated with the person.
And it could surely not be denied that the Spirit manifests in the spiritual (as an entity, in (a) non-sensory qualia. Similarly, memory is enables remembering (a definite neuro-psychological arousal functions as the material condition of conscious recall: trauma to the first directly affects the second). As further illustration, we can be said to "see into our own seeing": not just become aware of ourselves experiencing an act of visual perception, but also critically distinguishing the non-linguistic (symbolic) features from what they are called (the blue color vs. the words "blue" and "color"), while also perhaps taking note of other formal features of content (position, state, intensities). Still further, such a list of "doubles" would be incomplete if it did not mention "thinking of thinking", and recall Aristotle's formula of "thought thinking thought" for God's Nous (mind,consciousness). Finally, this series is completed as a totality under "consciousness of consciousness", since each of the other doubles* -- and all similar to them, as a class -- comes into discourse through consciousness as: continuity; awareness; personal self-presence; formed for purposes of communication under sign-use. (S*). Consciousness of consciousness is completed in the S* of S* (S* 'squared').
Summarizing this brief survey of "Token doubles" as these uses of signs might be called (completing a seven-sequence list) gives:
Token Doubles Sign-Use Levels of predicate type
7 God of God (the totality of totalities) Theology
6 thinking thought (knowing knowing) Philosophy
5 awareness of self-awareness ("ego") Existentialism
4 remembering remembering Moral agency
3 seeing seeing Material Perceptual
2 feeling feeling Aesthetic Phenomenal
1 consciousness of consciousness Neoro-Psychological
In each of these, and in the sequence as a whole, there occurs a doubling of the token, with its enabling process particularity folded into the text. Each case provides the completion of a field of particulars as a totality. The sequential order from bottom to top is in order of generic particularity; the sequential order from top down is according to universal necessity. The ascending levels are predicates of predicates of predicates,....; what is true of all higher is true of all lower, but not vice versa. This hierarchy of predicates, ranging from "God" to the neuro-psychological basis of conscious human experience, spans and comprehends the breadth of content under sign-use in a single system. Alternatives to the exact 7 -digit division -- 8 or more,; 6 or less -- might seem possible, but many considerations point to seven as the natural number of natural ordinal sequences, manifesting a primordial form. Following the application of the system to itself one step further, then, the number of actual types of sign-uses by for will be 7 x 7 = 49. Plus 1 for the whole = 50, the number of the ancient Babylonian God Marduk. This was the ancient deity that proclaimed himself (through his priests) God of Gods, Lord of Lords, consolidating all the names and powers of the other Gods under the unity of "His" name. This was the original "monotheistic" sign-use construct, circa 2000 BCE. A little book (The Necronomicron) turned up in the l960's with glyphs for the "49 names of Marduk", ending with Nibiru", which Z. Sitchin claims is ancient Sumerian for "Hebrew", name of starship that once brought the Great Gods Anu, Enlil and Enki from a 'captured' body orbiting our sun in 3,600 year intervals. Sitchin claims these people (the Sumerians) were connected with beings from outer space, and their great Ziggarut E-houses and temples showed it. The schema proposed here reproduces stands from this ancient, pre-Biblical Marduk era, but has nothing to do with occultism. Objective knowledge may have passed through Asia minor and Europe from gnostic and hermetic traditions, disguizing deepest esoteric truths in order to prevent their being corrupted and lost.
Closure: Is God God? This form of question can be given meaning if: 1. the first "God" is taken as predicate of a type of sign-use independent of languages -- a use-for-a-use, as it were, the universal form of certain token particularities. 2. the second is an expressive use for the user's own particularity. It then says: "What "God" communicate as text is that to which I (the user) commit to as the completing totality."
Further clarification of the ideas sketched here must include grounds for the critical distinction between valid and invalid inferences from given sign-uses. The following sections on "Token Taulogies" and Russell's Theory of Logical Types are toward that end.
(see previous post. tbc.)
posted by Sid Thomas | 1:49 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home