sense, senseless, and nonsense (understanding Wittgenstein)

[ExpectantlyIronic]

Sapius,

I am saying “a rose”.

Now what? Where do we go from here?

We can only really derive meaning from context, so to just say "a rose" leaves a lot open to interpretation. We really can't say much about the term "a rose" due to the fact the statement is so information void. If we were to imagine every common use of the term "rose" we'd end up with a rather large set. By adding qualifiers we reduce the size of the set, and better establish what we're trying to say. It would be meaningless to suggest that "a rose is a rose", but to suggest that "I saw a red rose the other day" makes the usage of the term rather explicit.

Is it NOT “a rose”? Is it anything other than “a rose”?

Is what not a rose? The term "rose" is not a flower. The term "rose" is a bunch of scribbles (or noises) that lends itself to a number of uses: one of which is to indicate that the user of the term is referencing a specific sort of flower.

Or is it “a rose” because I imagine it is “a rose”?

Have you ever heard of E-Prime? It's a essentially a variant upon the English language that eliminates the verb form "to be". So where we might say "there is a cat there" in standard English, we would say "I see a cat there" in E-Prime. The point of this is to eliminate certain sorts of deceptive speech. In an imaginary world where everyone spoke in E-Prime we wouldn't run into any problems concerning whether a thing is the thing I think it is, as we'd never claim that a thing is anything. This kinda cuts to the heart of what I'm trying to say. It simply isn't meaningful to say that a thing is itself, or that a thing is something that it isn't, or that a thing is anything. To suggest that "a bachelor is an unmarried man" is simply a lazy way of saying "the terms 'bachelor' and 'unmarried man' are interchangeable in speech".

[Sapius]

EI,

We can only really derive meaning from context, so to just say "a rose" leaves a lot open to interpretation.

I agree and know how the meaning of the same word can change depending on the context, hence we compiled a dictionary, which shows different meanings of the same word according to different usages.

A=A actually says nothing about the “meaning” of any particular thing itself, but points to the fact that we are able to recognize a thing, say absolutely any particular thing at all, from any other particular thing, as in a stark comparison without applying any meaning at all.

Which means, we are able to recognize R for what it is – which is, simply an R; not an S. or a P or a Q. So we have said nothing else about the R itself except that it is actually nothing other than that, as in stark comparison. Now without this system of “recognition through differentiation” (which is expressed as “A=A”), that lies at the core of our consciousness itself, we can never reach the meaning of any context at all. Can we?

There is no argument on my side that a particular word holds some inherently true meaning. I am simply trying to see what does ‘meaning-making’ actually depend on - at its core that is, from which I cannot go any beyond, logically speaking.

Going beyond that renders consciousness non-existent, so logically speaking, it stops there for a certainty.

A=A in other words also means duality, for without that system of ‘recognition through differentiation’, we cannot even consider to be conscious of absolutely any thing at all; and for that system to be logically effective, which in our case means ‘understand’, through meaning-making (which is in fact superficial), there has to necessarily be a thing to a thing differentiation. So nothing can exist except in and of duality.

Hence, there is no such thing as ONE totality, for it cannot exist other then with at least TWO being around. Hence, it is impossible for a ONE true GOD to exist, even if you think of it as a logically deduced Ultimate or Absolute. For that is dependant, to say the least, on at least one other thing, to be. Otherwise, nothing is. I can only understand or say that with Absolute certainty, but that can never be an Absolute Truth by itself. It necessarily needs a leg to stand on.

Surely, it is not necessary for you to get into such things if you are not interested. And I really cannot express that meaningful understanding in any other way, although extrapolated from superficial meaning-making itself. It REALLY means nothing at the core of existence actually. Contradiction? Well… so be it… I can say no more…

[ExpectantlyIronic]

Sapius,

Now without this system of “recognition through differentiation” (which is expressed as “A=A”), that lies at the core of our consciousness itself,

I have a rather fundamental problem with this notion. To understand my reasoning, you'll need to first understand that I consider the contents of consciousness to be connected with physical brain states by a direct correspondence. There's a ridiculous amount of empirical evidence to back up this view, so I'm as confident in it as anything. It seems then that whatever we posit to be at the "core of our consciousness" should be reconcilable in some way with what we know about the structure of the brain itself. Your theory of "recognition through differentiation" simply doesn't seem to be supported by cognitive science.

What does seem to be the case from cognitive studies is that the differences that we experience in things begin as differences in the world. It would seem that there is something beyond our conscious experience of things that impresses itself upon the nerves of our sensory apparatus, and by virtue of this sends patterns of data through our brains which our conscious experience is reflective of (if not reducible to). Consciousness doesn't need to process anything, as it's correspondent to whatever state the brain happens to be in, of which we can observe and determine what processes underly its functioning. Given that it doesn't seem like the brain needs to have a process to differentiate things, as things tend to be differentiated when they first impress themselves upon it as sense-data, it simply doesn't seem that we can say that consciousness does any sort of differentiation.

It would seem that the world is necessarily already divided, and it is only by way of abstraction that we are lead to form concepts of a unified world that might need dividing. So, perhaps, we should say that at least one cognitive function is to unite a necessarily divided world. More-or-less the reverse of what I hear being said by many on this board.

[Sapius]

EI,

I have a rather fundamental problem with this notion. To understand my reasoning, you'll need to first understand that I consider the contents of consciousness to be connected with physical brain states by a direct correspondence. There's a ridiculous amount of empirical evidence to back up this view, so I'm as confident in it as anything.

OK, other than the connectivity as described; what exactly is “conscious-ness”?

It seems then that whatever we posit to be at the "core of our consciousness" should be reconcilable in some way with what we know about the structure of the brain itself. Your theory of "recognition through differentiation" simply doesn't seem to be supported by cognitive science.

Hey! Why would I need any support when I can think for myself? After all, it must have been minds like mine that put that science together. Is it the God's written word that I cannot or should not go against? Do you not think for yourself?

If the notion seems irrational, since cognitive science doesn’t seem to support it, which obviously you seem to have confidence in, then it seems that I am incompetent, hence it seems that it is useless to discuss this with me. Isn’t it?

Can’t you see that a brain has to necessarily calculate millions of incoming data at light speed to make some sense of it? And that calculative part itself is what “consciousness” is. Now how could the brain calculate anything at all if it could not DIFFERENTIATE one bit of data from another in the first place? AND think! IS it the BRAIN that is differentia-ting, or the process itself?

So out of the millions, how many bits of data would be necessarily needed at the least to RECOGNIZE one bit? I would say at the least one another. "Recognition through Differentiation" = A=A. And what exatly IS differentiating? If you can really look deep enough, you will find absoluely nothing there; no real THING such as Conciousness or Mind. Now what do you think? Leave all Sciences aside for once. On the other hand... I thnk this should be too much for you to handle. So just forget the 'really deep' part. It will only confuse you further.

What does seem to be the case from cognitive studies is that the differences that we experience in things begin as differences in the world. It would seem that there is something beyond our conscious experience of things that impresses itself upon the nerves of our sensory apparatus, and by virtue of this sends patterns of data through our brains which our conscious experience is reflective of (if not reducible to). Consciousness doesn't need to process anything, as it's correspondent to whatever state the brain happens to be in, of which we can observe and determine what processes underly its functioning. Given that it doesn't seem like the brain needs to have a process to differentiate things, as things tend to be differentiated when they first impress themselves upon it as sense-data, it simply doesn't seem that we can say that consciousness does any sort of differentiation.

Firstly, so many things “seem” to be…. to cognitive science. And you “seem” to be happy with it, so I should “seem” to be illogical. So what is your problem then?

Secondly, considering that the calculative part itself is consciousness, (otherwise you have to empirically show me consciousness), reread your above cognitive studies and see how ridicules it sounds my friend. For example…

“ there is something beyond our conscious experience” What IS? I want to know.

“Consciousness doesn't need to process anything” As if IT could;

“it simply doesn't seem that we can say that consciousness does any sort of differentiation.” No IT doesn’t, IT cant, IT, IT and IT. Because A=A IS consciousness. It doesn’t seem, but most definitely is. Now sue me if you want to, if it “seems” illogical :)

So all I can say to cognitive science is, nnln :)

It would seem that the world is necessarily already divided, and it is only by way of abstraction that we are lead to form concepts of a unified world that might need dividing. So, perhaps, we should say that at least one cognitive function is to unite a necessarily divided world. More-or-less the reverse of what I hear being said by many on this board.

Agaaaaain.... 'It would seem...'??? Don't you know anything for sure? In my opinion you should drop that figure of speach all together.

And... Am I the board’s keeper? Am I the many? Sorry to disappoint you my friend; I can’t do any thing about that. You could try convincing them with cognitive science though. It seems you need real Good luck, for sure :)

[ExpectantlyIronic]

Sapius,

OK, other than the connectivity as described; what exactly is “conscious-ness”?

I like the way Nagel put it in describing consciousness as being characterized by its phenomenal contents and a "what it is like" feeling. There's something it is like to see red.

Hey! Why would I need any support when I can think for myself? After all, it must have been minds like mine that put that science together. Is it the God's written word that I cannot or should not go against? Do you not think for yourself?

What I described was an obvious abductive inference from the available data. You realize that scientists aren't philosophers, and that they actually test their hypothesis' right? I'm not saying that you need authoritative support for your opinion, but rather that what you say conflicts with what has been observed.

If the notion seems irrational, since cognitive science doesn’t seem to support it, which obviously you seem to have confidence in, then it seems that I am incompetent, hence it seems that it is useless to discuss this with me. Isn’t it?

It doesn't make you incompetent, it just means you haven't researched the issue, and apparently aren't aware of many facts about the brains physical structure. I'm discussing this with you solely because I enjoy debating matters, and as long as you're competent enough to understand what I'm saying, you're competent enough to discuss matters with.

Can’t you see that a brain has to necessarily calculate millions of incoming data at light speed to make some sense of it?

Data doesn't move through the brain at "light speed". In fact, the brain is slower then the computer you're using at the moment. Where it has an edge over your computer is in the fact that it doesn't need a unique algorithm for whatever it might be used to do, and doesn't process a single stream of data at a time, but rather processes said data in a massively parallel way.

And that calculative part itself is what “consciousness” is.

I'd only say that there's a correspondence between the neocortex (the region primarily responsible for intelligence) and phenomenal consciousness. Or, more accurately, the correspondence involves the processes undergone in the neocortex, rather then every aspect of its material makeup. We can't reduce the contents of consciousness directly to brain processes, because all the facts about the brain don't seem to exhaust all the facts about consciousness. There is a "what it is like" aspect to being conscious that one can't give a physical account for (currently). This doesn't mean that one has to ascribe to dualism or even neutral monism, but it does show that the physical reductionist stances that were all the rage for awhile are in need for some serious rethinking.

Now how could the brain calculate anything at all if it could not DIFFERENTIATE one bit of data from another in the first place? AND think! IS it the BRAIN that is differentia-ting, or the process itself?

The processes undergone by the brain are part of the brain. We don't generally say that the processes undergone by a cat cause it to jump, but rather that the cat simply jumps. It might be helpful to add such qualifiers in certain circumstances where we are describing cats jumping, but for general purposes we can trust that they will be taken implicitly as part of the cat.

As for the how the brain can process data without differentiating between it, you need to remember that said data isn't processed as a single stream, but rather in a number of parallel streams (1.2 million nerve fibers are in the optic nerve alone). The data is differentiated when it arrives at the retinal nerves, remains differentiated when it travels down the optic nerve, and then gets abstracted and saved due to invariant portions of the various streams. Although, your computer really does something similar, despite not being massively parallel. When you hit the "w" on your keyboard you've already sent specific data into it that doesn't need to be differentiated from the data that would have entered it if you had typed a "y". Your computer (and your brain) differentiates between such data by virtue of not being cross-wired to begin with.

I find it somewhat difficult to imagine that by suggesting that consciousness is the differentiation of data (or some such), you simply meant that our brains aren't cross-wired. Although, who knows. You might just have an incredibly odd way of putting things.

If you can really look deep enough, you will find absoluely nothing there; no real THING such as Conciousness or Mind. Now what do you think? Leave all Sciences aside for once. On the other hand... I thnk this should be too much for you to handle. So just forget the 'really deep' part. It will only confuse you further.

The "deep" thought you're suggesting is called "type-A materialism".

Secondly, considering that the calculative part itself is consciousness, (otherwise you have to empirically show me consciousness), reread your above cognitive studies and see how ridicules it sounds my friend. For example…

I was doing something that we call referencing the facts. Everything I say isn't "cognitive science", merely the empirical observations that I cite to provide a grounds for my inferences.

“ there is something beyond our conscious experience” What IS? I want to know.

My conscious experience is outside of your conscious experience, so there's one thing at least. Or are you going to slide into solipsism to defend your viewpoint?

Agaaaaain.... 'It would seem...'??? Don't you know anything for sure? In my opinion you should drop that figure of speach all together.

Certainty is the refuge of folks with fragile egos built upon thinking they're right. Everything we can be certain of is both obvious and trivial.

[Matt Gregory]

Certainty is the refuge of folks with fragile egos built upon thinking they're right. Everything we can be certain of is both obvious and trivial.

That sounds funny coming from someone who can't even hold a coherent conversation about it. :)

[ExpectantlyIronic]

Matt,

That sounds funny coming from someone who can't even hold a coherent conversation about it.

I don't happen to think that everything that folks claim to be certain of is something that can be known with certainty. In many circumstances I don't even think that such claims are true. I once sought certainty, and I found it only in raw conscious experience itself. To limit one's ontology to just that is perfectly fine if they enjoy being such a skeptic (though it does seem to involve a good degree of hypocrisy), but I think there's a whole lot more out there to discuss. If a bit of doubt is the price to pay for the possibility of having knowledge of those aspects of existence that may lie beyond raw conscious experience, then that's the price I'm willing to pay.

Even if you don't agree with me, do you at least get what I'm saying?

[Sapius]

EI,

Data doesn't move through the brain at "light speed". In fact, the brain is slower then the computer you're using at the moment. Where it has an edge over your computer is in the fact that it doesn't need a unique algorithm for whatever it might be used to do, and doesn't process a single stream of data at a time, but rather processes said data in a massively parallel way.

“light speed” is just a figure of speech, but what you describe scientifically, is good enough for me. In any case, the point is…

The processes undergone by the brain are part of the brain. We don't generally say that the processes undergone by a cat cause it to jump, but rather that the cat simply jumps.

No, EI. It is not only the “process” that is the “part” of the brain, but absolutely everything is a “part” of the brain. (including the brain, but that needs time and philosophy to understand) That is, including what is thrown at it. And at the same time, it is only the “process” itself (Sensing - recognition through differentiation - thence reaction), which is what is happening. Which you do not recognize and say that the cat “simply jumps”; "simply jumps" is not good enought for me. So what made the "cat" jump when it saw a ghost? The eye ball, the optic nerve? The brain? OR the computing process of it ALL. So, in fact it is the process itself, and nothing else that makes the “cat” jump. And "we" jump due ot our own "processes" - consciousness.

I find it somewhat difficult to imagine that by suggesting that consciousness is the differentiation of data (or some such), you simply meant that our brains aren't cross-wired. Although, who knows. You might just have an incredibly odd way of putting things.

May be,but I find it quite logical. And I am not really up to discussing what “logic” is right now.

The "deep" thought you're suggesting is called "type-A materialism".

Thanks for the info. But I don't think so. You can call it how ever you understand it.

[Leyla Shen]

ExI:

I don't happen to think that everything that folks claim to be certain of is something that can be known with certainty. In many circumstances I don't even think that such claims are true. I once sought certainty, and I found it only in raw conscious experience itself. To limit one's ontology to just that is perfectly fine if they enjoy being such a skeptic (though it does seem to involve a good degree of hypocrisy), but I think there's a whole lot more out there to discuss. If a bit of doubt is the price to pay for the possibility of having knowledge of those aspects of existence that may lie beyond raw conscious experience, then that's the price I'm willing to pay.

Even if you don't agree with me, do you at least get what I'm saying?

I reckon I do, but I don't have the time to post the reply I'd like to right now. I would be interested to know what you think of Saussere, and most interested to know if you have come across Lacan and your thoughts on him.

When you use the term ego, does it come from any understanding of Freud?

[Matt Gregory]

ExpectantlyIronic,

I don't happen to think that everything that folks claim to be certain of is something that can be known with certainty. In many circumstances I don't even think that such claims are true.

Well, you can't take someone's word for it. You have to arrive at it yourself.

I once sought certainty, and I found it only in raw conscious experience itself. To limit one's ontology to just that is perfectly fine if they enjoy being such a skeptic (though it does seem to involve a good degree of hypocrisy), but I think there's a whole lot more out there to discuss. If a bit of doubt is the price to pay for the possibility of having knowledge of those aspects of existence that may lie beyond raw conscious experience, then that's the price I'm willing to pay.

This view makes a few unnecessary assumptions, but alright.

Even if you don't agree with me, do you at least get what I'm saying?

Yeah, I'll quit browbeating you with this subject. I was hoping you might be open minded to this stuff, because you seem like an intelligent fellow, but if you're not interested, that's cool. Thanks for the discussions, though! I thought they were good.

[keira]

If i interperted your last quote correctly i would have to say i agree with it entirely. The comfort of certainty is what cripples us when trying to examine reality in dept. For example we cannot even entertain the fact that we are in an infinit reality as our whole being is concerned with beginings and endings.

As for ego well i would have to say in my own words that it is only a survival tool which we require to survive in this temporary consciousness. I would say every living thing has it. Everything we do is centered around ego. The simple fact that we are discussing on this site about reality in general is only another way we are educating or helping ourselves through this consiousness.

[ExpectantlyIronic]

Sapius,

Sure, we can call any temporal event a process, and we can even sum up such things with sweeping generalizations if we wish. Although, what we should be asking ourselves is exactly what question we're trying to answer by doing such things. As far as your metaphysic is concerned, I think you're approaching things from the wrong angle. Rather then ask yourself if your views on the structure of reality are logical, you should be asking yourself if any contradicting view might also be logical. I can pretty much assure you that such is the case. There are many ways one can approach the whole mind/body problem, and many of them just outright solve it. The question isn't which one of them is logical (as none of them involve necessary logical contradictions if approached with care), but why we should accept one rather then another, or any at all.

You seem to approach ontology using a very reductionist method. Sure, all proper approaches to ontology involve some reduction (reducing an actual God to just a concept of God for example), but I'm of the opinion that such things shouldn't be systematized but taken on more-or-less a case-by-case basis after considerable analysis. Furthermore, we can reduce the mental to the physical, or the physical to the mental, or both of them to something else entirely, or even just keep them utterly separated. What do any of these conceptual frameworks really accomplish at the end of the day? An apple is still the same apple it's always been for me, regardless of it's just in my mind, if it's in the world, or whatever else. Wittgenstein once said something to the effect of "don't think, but look!". The reality of things reveals itself plainly to anyone who cares to pay attention. Beyond those simple sensations though it's all generalization and speculation, and we make mistakes whenever we let this wander too far from that which we've directly observed.


Leyla,

Saussure made a lot of positive contributions to linguistics, but I think his structuralism can often get taken too far. It's almost dangerous by virtue of giving legitimacy to sweeping generalization. Which should tell you about how fond I am of psychoanalyst tendencies to not take each man in kind. By combining the Freudian technique of drawing assumptions without sufficient evidence, with a Sapir-Worf style of giving language too dominating a role in practical thought, I find it difficult to agree with a lot Lacan has to say. Then again, I haven't exactly studied him in any degree of depth.

When you use the term ego, does it come from any understanding of Freud?

No. I use it simply to mean self-image. I'm not overly fond of Freud, and think his reach was much greater then his grasp. With his talk of the "unconscious" he did hit upon the idea that we tie emotional associations to things based upon past experiences. These do tend to last even after said experiences are long forgotten, but that doesn't mean that such memories are stalking in some sort of actual unconscious region of the brain, manipulating our thoughts cleverly out of sight. Experiences simply have a lasting associative effect that ripples out beyond their obvious purview.


Matt,

Thanks for the discussions, though! I thought they were good.

Always.

[Sapius]

EI,

I think you're approaching things from the wrong angle. Rather then ask yourself if your views on the structure of reality are logical, you should be asking yourself if any contradicting view might also be logical. I can pretty much assure you that such is the case.

I agree with you absolutely, and I mean it. Now hear this…

“I think you're approaching things from the wrong angle. Rather then ask yourself if your views on the structure of reality are logical, you should be asking yourself if any contradicting view might also be logical. I can pretty much assure you that such is the case.”

I haven't changed a single word; now what say you?

There are many ways one can approach the whole mind/body problem, and many of them just outright solve it. The question isn't which one of them is logical (as none of them involve necessary logical contradictions if approached with care), but why we should accept one rather then another, or any at all.

I agree in this too, but what you fail to recognize is, we recognize or accept one conclusion over the other because as individuals, we find one thing more logical over another. I have no problems or doubt about your logical deductions as they mean to you. Your conclusions don’t bother me at all, so mine should not bother you, if you really mean what you said above.

It is merely a discussion, and take it as just that. You do think deeply on such issues, and I respect that, but your conclusions are worth nothing to me.

You seem to approach ontology using a very reductionist method.

You can label it as you like, EI, which I’m not even sure of what it means. I have never ever studied or read books on philosophy, except the one titled ‘philosophy for dummies’, and what I have heared here, which give me a rough idea of what people mean by the labels. However, I’m not really that interested. As you say here…

The reality of things reveals itself plainly to anyone who cares to pay attention.

That has exactly made me what I am, I have relied pretty much on nothing else, really.

What do any of these conceptual frameworks really accomplish at the end of the day? An apple is still the same apple it's always been for me, regardless of it's just in my mind, if it's in the world, or whatever else. Wittgenstein once said something to the effect of "don't think, but look!". The reality of things reveals itself plainly to anyone who cares to pay attention. Beyond those simple sensations though it's all generalization and speculation, and we make mistakes

Yes, we make mistakes, I agree, that is when we “reason” and can reach varied conclusions either way, and hence, “don’t think, but look” is a wonderful advice. But what you and this Wittgenstein (I can’t even spell or pronounce his name correctly by the way) fail to see is; what this stark “looking” itself actually is, how does that even come about, by what means is that even possible?

If you are not interested, all I can say is that it is merely a matter of interest. Each to his own... my friend.

Tell me, can you show me that an object could be visible without light? And I will show you how it is impossible to see anything at all if darkness did not accompany it. Its the same thing of course, but it is just a matter of perspective.

In a similar manner, it is impossible to distinguish one thing from another, if it were anything else but it self, against all that it is not. You simply know it is an apple by looking at it, I want to know what ‘looking’ is. For me an apple is logically there, without a doubt. Whereas, a theological God is logically impossible, hence does not exist. That is what thinking grants me the access to; and you (along with Wittgenstein) are essentially telling me to throw away the baby with the dirty water? Whereas you used the same thing to arrive at what you did, and you seem to say that you and this W has already done all the thinking that is to be done for each and every soul. Think my friend.

It is just a matter of how one “looks” at things; if you and Wittgenstein prefer to simply look, so be it… good luck to you both…. why talk then? You see… how futile it is for you to think over things and then tell me don’t think? Why do you want to do the thinking for me, just as you wouldn’t want me to think for you?

I have absolutely no problems with anybodies thinking, I am simply concerned as to my own.

[bert]

as I have mentioned with unending comfort,there are no conclusive conclusions,yet nothing cause to grow unless we have ,or make,the necessity of an last or concluding element of a series.we create from reasoning involved in drawing a conclusion or making a logical judgement on the basis of circumstantial evidence and prior conclusions rather than on the basis of direct observation,bringing ,as any term of the equation,from one side to the other,without destroying the equation ,into a trait of thoughtfulness in action or decision.

[Leyla Shen]

ExI:

By combining the Freudian technique of drawing assumptions without sufficient evidence, with a Sapir-Worf style of giving language too dominating a role in practical thought, I find it difficult to agree with a lot Lacan has to say.

Hey, that’s not bad for a sweeping generalisation!

What particular assumptions without sufficient evidence concern you in Freud?

Lacan’s argument is against the idea of any structural stability in the relationship between signifier (phonology) and signified (concept), the inextricable elements of Sausage’s fundamental unit of language, the sign. In Sausage, the sign is primary. In Lacan, it is the signifier. Whereas in Lacan, phonology exists first and not necessarily with conceptualisation, in Saussure phonology and conceptualisation necessarily exist together.

When a pre-linguistic child hears the sound “Dad,” Lacan would have him searching for meaning but in Saussure concept implies phonology and phonology implies concept. Like a pre-linguistic child, if I were to say “kardes” to you, there exists for you a phonology--and a search for meaning (unless you speak Turkish, that is). Once I tell you its English equivalent is either “brother” or “friend,” then you associate it with the concepts you have of those things, and those things are not strictly referents since the exist by association. I mean, before the age of, say, 10 (it’s getting earlier as time goes!) what kid knows that Dad is Dad because he fucked Mum (and vice versa) and out you and your brothers came? So, for Lacan, language is primarily composed of (“pure”) signifiers, and not signs.

More later.

[Edit: emphasis]

[ExpectantlyIronic]

Leyla,

What particular assumptions without sufficient evidence concern you in Freud?

Almost everything he said really. On what grounds did he claim that the Oedipus complex was universal? To demonstrate that such a theory has scientific merit, you'd have to perform a rather large sociological study. Although, given that Freud thought such a thing was primarily unconscious, you couldn't preform such a study. His claim was unfalsifiable, and a great many of his claims are of that sort. This doesn't render his theories invalid, merely unscientific by modern standards. This is significant, as Freud claimed that his theories were scientific.

My main problem with Freud is that he didn't seem to be offering rules of exactly how, for example, childhood trauma P will in fact result in behavior Q. What we have then is the theoretically observable childhood trauma, a bunch of unobservable theoretics, and then the behavior. Given that his theoretical model didn't provide us the means to say "this happened at this point in this persons life, and so it will certainly result in this behavior", what was the point? He could have simply demonstrated the correlation between P and Q without a theoretical causative bridge, given that said bridge wasn't even theoretically falsifiable.

I could say that invisible and incorporeal gnomes determine if a match will light a twig on fire, and we'll have an explanation of how we go from P to Q, but it's a rather pointless explanation. One might say that we'd be better off studying exactly what is going on with the match and the wood. In the same vein, I'm saying that we need to look to neuroscience to explain what Freud attempted to.

Edit: I'm being rather kind in this post by mainly focusing on those theories of Freud's where there is actually an observable cause and effect. In most of Freud's work, he seems to simply provide an unobservable cause for an observed "effect". Saying that P leads to Q where the P is unobservable doesn't give us much. We may no longer question the nature of Q, but now we must ask ourselves about the nature of P. What is this ego/super-ego/id exactly? Is it supposed to be a metaphorical representation of cognitive processes in the way that some people say God is a metaphor for natural processes? If so, doesn't it fail to provide us with any explanatory power at all? I can say that the universe exists because of God, and that may satisfy some, but it just seems like a contrived excuse to not have to wonder about such things.

Whereas in Lacan, phonology exists first and not necessarily with conceptualisation, in Saussure phonology and conceptualisation necessarily exist together.

This seems similar to Wittgenstein's philosophy of language as it's described in Philosophical Investigations.

[Leyla Shen]

ExI:

This seems similar to Wittgenstein's philosophy of language as it's described in Philosophical Investigations.

Since I find a good part of myself in Lacan (to the degree that I have read his works thus far), I did a search on Wittgenstein after this comment of yours and found a site on which I consider the psychoanalytic problem perfectly expressed. A critical mix of Lacan, Freud, Wittgenstein and a couple of others ignite the slumbering embers into a raging fire. [At least in my mind :)]

I am in the process of giving it a thorough read, but invite you for the time being to particularly read (and remark upon if/as you see appropriate) part 13, A Solution Emerges of the following link:

criticism.com

[Faust]

I would have never thought that Wittgenstein knew about Kierkegaard.. he called him a saint.

[Leyla Shen]

ExI:

Returning to address earlier posts:

With a little elbow grease, I think it’s fair to conclude that Freud’s ultimate direction with psychoanalysis was to achieve the healthiest ego (human interaction with "the real" world) possible. Lacan never abandoned Freud‘s fundamental ideas, but added to them in his interpretation another dimension. In my view, Lacan’s piece de resistance is the “illusory self.” This ideation comes about in the Mirror Stage when the child encounters an image (a reflection) of self as a whole, independent entity (in the form of his body) which does not represent--in terms of his own autonomy and independence since he so obviously remains reliant upon his caretakers--reality. So, this is the stage where a person identifies self--identifies “I,”--but also a stage which forms a split in their self-image between the perfect, autonomous “I” (imago) and the reality that he does not meet it.

Now, this is, of course, not something which can be proven in the terms which you would like it to be. It’s only evidence is the same evidence with which you yourself might consider each morning that you exist as an individual. Or even as a whole subject. Whilst it can be scientifically proven that your body is alive every morning you wake up if you go and see a doctor who takes your pulse and measures your brainwaves, etc, it cannot be scientifically proven that the sum of your particular memories and experiences arise at the same time, every morning; it seems to me that that is nothing more than a foregone conclusion--it is true because you can say “I am” (or, "I see...")* and you do not need this scientifically tested before you say it. It’s a thing on the same order of proof as exchanging salutations with other people. So, before I continue (there is much to say), I would like to know what your thoughts are here--if you consider this sufficient evidence to warrant meaningful discussion. I mean, I’d hate to waste my precious breath. (Though, it is likely that I might just continue for the hell of it, anyway. :) )

*Edited to add further comment in brackets.

[ExpectantlyIronic]

Leyla,

I don't disagree that our conception of those things that compose ourself, and the fact that such things are often disconnected from what we imagine them to be like, is learned at some point in childhood. I can't imagine that Lacan thought such a thing to be all that revolutionary or controversial, rather, I imagine he mostly just wanted to name it so that it could be more easily thought of and worked into the larger picture. Then again, perhaps it was controversial at some point, given that I always think I'm stating the obvious, but nevertheless seem to be occasionally disagreeable.

[Leyla Shen]

ExI:

I don't disagree that our conception of those things that compose ourself, and the fact that such things are often disconnected from what we imagine them to be like, is learned at some point in childhood.

OK, wait. What, in your view, is the difference between "our conception of those things that compose ourself" and what we "imagine them [those things that compose ourself] to be like"?

And, consequently, how are such things often disconnected?

[ExpectantlyIronic]

Leyla,

I worded that poorly. All I meant to say was that our presence in the world is often different then what we think it to be. For instance, what you sound like to yourself isn't what you'll necessarily hear if you play back a recording of what you said.