Ierrellus

phaedrus:

Good argument. IMHO, however, I fail to see how hermeneutics, a tool for recognizing the personal in identifications, lives up to Heidegger's search for ontological reality. Agreement as a pragmatic reality does not define sources of agreement.

Whenever I have met with an unfamiliar object, there has always been someone who, when questioned about the object, imposes definitions.
If scientists can tell me there are two ways of defining a photon, then what is to prevent me from stating two ways of defining the design I gave? Why should such definitions limit interpretations?

Before we fall for the old truth by agreement standard of definitions, should we not ask why we agree, which has little to do with the ability to communicate?

Ierrellus

Ierrellus

postscript:

If I run my finger across the sidewalk on which ants are moving, the ants will stop at the finger scent and change their direction of motion. We have communicated. How did we agree?

Ierrellus

snatchbalance

Irrelleus,

You may have disturbed thier pheromonal trail, and thereby altered thier behavior, but I think it falls short of communication.

As far as your original question goes, like a number of other posters have pointed out, it is so ambiguous, that its nauture is simply a matter of interpretation.

Now the ants' trail, to other ants, probably has a single possible interpretation - this way to food(There may be nuances to the ant message that we are not aware of).

SB

[ May 02, 2002: Message edited by: snatchbalance ]</p>

Ierrellus

Second communication with animals. This is true!
I am lying under my favorite shade tree after work, enjoying the warm day. My cat is in hot pursuit of a fieldmouse. I stand up to watch. Usually a cat cripples a mouse on first contact so as to have play with the wounded prey. The mouse has not yet been crippled. It runs from the cat and faces me. A choice of destinies? The mouse runs up my legs and into my my hand. I take it away and deposit it in a safe place.

What happened here, snatchbalance?

I also learned the bird sound for "there's trouble below" ( the cat is stalking) and have used the sound much to the dismay of my neighborhood birds. Were we not communicating?

Ierrellus

[ May 02, 2002: Message edited by: Ierrellus ]</p>

snatchbalance

Ierrellus,

1. In the case of the mouse, I don't know. The answers could range from a consious evaluation of options on the part of the mouse; to blind reaction in while in an extremly distressed state. I tend towards the later explanation.

2. As to the birds, if there realy was a cat, and the birds understood your warning, then yes, you communicated a warning to the birds. However, if you had added some aspect of ambiguity to your warning, the birds would either not have reacted, or would not have known how to react.

For the birds, there is a single definition.

SB

Ierrellus

snatchbalance:

When I gave the birds their distress signal, with no cat around, they reacted. They don't understand philosophy. None of them have even read Gadamer.


Ierrellus

owleye

James...

"I hear what you're saying Owl."

Really? I'm not yet convinced.

"But ask yourself this question: what does it mean for a thing to look "nothing like a triangle"?"

Well, I gave the example of a four-sided figure. But a circle would do just as well. What are thinking? Are you going to make some kind of case that a triangle and a square share some properties in common, and therefore, I cannot say that a square looks nothing like a triangle? If this is your point, I want nothing of it. The question requires perception, not just a a conception. Perhaps you didn't notice the use of "looks like."

"Is there a triangle in reality to which we must conform our thoughts and perceptions?"

What does a question about reality have to do with drawn objects? Why is it you even ask this question? Are you thinking that a triangle must exist before I can represent one in some drawing? Do unicorns have to exist before I can represent one in a drawing? What gives?

"Or is it the case that the ancients fashioned an abstract object with three sides which they then defined to be a triangle?"

Of what value is it to your thesis that you have to draw on the ancients to have defined it? Also, what is your purpose in calling it an abstract object?

"If it is the latter (as I believe) then for a thing not to look like a triangle means that it fails to conform to our definition of the abstract object that has been constructed from our perceptions."

If the definition of a triangle is that it is a three-sided figure, how do you know what it looks like, merely from the definition? Don't you have to perceive it in some way? Consider, for example, that you were denied the ability to perceive objects spatially through any of the senses and try to compare your idea of conforming to a triangle's definition to those who are able to perceive by sight, both of which have access to the same definition? Could you then tell me what it would look like merely from the definition? Shouldn't this tell you that something has to be added to the definition in order to be able to perceive it as a triangle in the ordinary sense of looking like one? Alternatively, try to describe a three-sided figure (or any other spatial object for that matter) without making use of any actual spatial references. Consider the example you might make use terms like 'left," or "bottom", or even 'triangle' as we might do in a windows software application. You might define or declare them as part of the software you use. But from this alone, can you tell us what 'left' or 'triangle' looks like prior to the software being executed so as to present it to us as an object we can perceive?

owleye

James Still

In that case I think we should just agree to disagree and leave it at that. It's fine by me that we bring different "perspectives" to the issue.

phaedrus

Ierrellus

IMHO, however, I fail to see how hermeneutics, a tool for recognizing the personal in identifications, lives up to Heidegger's search for ontological reality.

Umm care to substantiate that statement?

Agreement as a pragmatic reality does not define sources of agreement.

Why do you need to define the sources? Once you are in agreement, you have agreed to a particular definition.

Whenever I have met with an unfamiliar object, there has always been someone who, when questioned about the object, imposes definitions

And if you agree to the definition you are in agreement, that is how a knowledge base is formed.

If scientists can tell me there are two ways of defining a photon, then what is to prevent me from stating two ways of defining the design I gave? Why should such definitions limit interpretations?

Err...definitions limit interpretations. Do i have to elaborate that statement? Science is one of the interpretations available to us today, it is not the only one. That is what I am trying to tell you, your original post had pre-defined and hence would get limited interpretations. An open-end question would serve the purpose much better.

Before we fall for the old truth by agreement standard of definitions, should we not ask why we agree, which has little to do with the ability to communicate

Err...Ummm...if dont communicate how can we come to an agreement? We agree for several reasons...to live and co-exist for starters.

If I run my finger across the sidewalk on which ants are moving, the ants will stop at the finger scent and change their direction of motion. We have communicated. How did we agree?

*scratches head* What have you communicated and what did you want to agree on?

JP

Ierrellus

phaedrus:

Personal perspective can never be totally extracted from one's view of objects. Consensus of perceptions is possible only if there exists some correlation among diverse perceptional abilities. Pragmatic consensus of perceptions implies that this is the best we can do until something better comes along. Weak interpretations of reality, then, are substantiated by our survival fears.

John Lilly's tank experience proves only that with sensory deprivation, the human mind goes into its surreal dream act. That finding substantiates the fact that the
reality of objectivity relies on the activity of a few neurotransmitters.

Back to my communication with ants. I imposed my will upon the ants by sending a chemical message wich they understood. I still think this is communication without agreement.

(edited for spelling. I can't spell shite!)


Ierrellus

[ May 03, 2002: Message edited by: Ierrellus ]</p>