View
223
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
8/6/2019 Does Pure or Simple Presence Exist
1/21
DOES PUREOR SIMPLE PRESENCEEXIST?
JUD EVANS
INTRODUCTION
Question:Does Simple or Pure Presence Exist?
Answer: No. Not at all. Only that which is present exists. The presence of that
which is present does not exist.
Question: Does Existence orBeingexist?
Answer: No. Not at all. Only that which exists exists. The existence ofthat which
exists does not exist. The so-called presence, existence or beingof that which is
what it is does not exist.
Question: Does nuclear fission exist?
Answer: No. Not at all. Only the energised, fissionable material itself exists. What
exists is splittable, nuclear reactive material in which a massive nucleus
separates into smaller energetic nuclei which are simultaneously released.
THE CONCEPTS OFACTIONAND CHANGEARE A MEDIEVAL MYTH
A lot of people [not all] have great difficulty in grasping what is going on here -
Even when the underlying principle is explained in the most simple manner. The
theory that no action of any kind exists in the cosmos is so counter-intuitive, that
when someone is first exposed to eliminative materialist ideas, it seems so
illogical that one wonders how anyone could have ever conceived of it in the first
place.
8/6/2019 Does Pure or Simple Presence Exist
2/21
There is a theory going around that is a variant of the nature or nurture argument,
that some people are born with a genetical make-up which renders them
incapable of ever understanding it. The story goes that there are some who are
just neuro-physically incapable of dealing with the idea at all. There is a similar
yarn that some are born with a gene that predisposes them towards religious and
transcendentalist appetites as you probably know.
Logically eliminative materialism is compellingly simple. Only material entities
exist. Thus a standing tree exists (is present in a form we call *tree*) and if it falls
it exists as a falling tree. When it lies on the ground it exists as a fallen tree. It can
be described as a fallen tree because it exists (or is present in the world) in the
existential modality or manner of what in the English language we refer to as: a
fallen tree.
But beware! That is not to say that existential modality itself actually exists, for
only the existent tree, the human descriptor and the material world and greater
cosmos actually exist.
Because whilst it is falling a tree is described as a falling tree is not because it
has assumed, taken-on, adopted or acquired the characteristics of a Platonic-
style abstract template of fallingness, for fallingness, and the falling of a tree
does not exist as a separate entity. Only the standing, falling, or fallen tree really
exists.
Only the upright, falling or fallen object exists. The reader who is perusing these
words right now exists - but his readingdoes not. If I travelled to wherever you
live and met the reading you, or the you who read, I would never ever meet up
with or listen to your reading- I would meet the reading you - not your reading. -
even if you read out loud to me.
8/6/2019 Does Pure or Simple Presence Exist
3/21
Humans refer to a falling tree as a falling tree because that is the way that we
describe the way an object exists whilst it is descending from the upright
position under the influence of gravitational force. But the coming down (orthe
descent) does not exist - only the descending tree exists. Gravitational force
doesn't exist - only the gravitating object [the tree] exists in the state or mode of
changing its spatial position under the influence of gravitons. But change and
changing does not exist either - the ontologically corrupt language (the useful
fiction) I have been imprinted in infancy to use causes me (as I write this) to
correct each phrase which suggests that action and change exists dualisticlly as
well as the actor or the changing material entity.
The seamless change by/of the tree from existing as an upright tree to that of
being present as a horizontally prone tree is simply the way that the tree changes
the position in which it exists, but that does not mean that either the seamless
change, the uprightness, the falling, the lying horizontally prone , or even change
itselfactually exists. Only the changing tree exists.
A COMPLETE REJECTION OF THE ARISTOTELIAN CATEGORIES.
I am an Eliminative Determinist or Material-Determinist and such a position holds
that not one of Aristotle's usefully fictitious categorical mentalisations is
ontologically viable though they make excellent grammatical categorial fictions
for use in human communication - but that is as far as they can be said to be
meaningful to eliminative ontologists.
En passant, two of the most ontologically abused signs in human communication
are the *is* sign (and its conjugates of *am/are*) which were originally labelled
*copulae* by medieval thinkers.
8/6/2019 Does Pure or Simple Presence Exist
4/21
Such is also the case with the equally notorious ontologically dissolute, and
semantically unrestrained existentialiser - the backward E () of so-called
Predicative "Logic."
1. Therefore ontologically the terms *is* and *exists* are terms are both at the
same time syncategorematic and redundancies - for:
(a) no object in the cosmos does not exist.
(b) No object lacks any existential modalities.
2. Because of (a) and (b) above, in sentential or propositional forms such usefully
fictional syncategoremes as: /is/ and /exist/ have no meanings other than
facilitating ontological truth claims. When standing by themselves, as contrasted
with a categorematic terms like *elephant, cat and soup spoon* which are
cognitive instantiations (nominata) of objects which CAN be found in the real
world - they are ontologically meaningless.
As Sten Ebbesen writes in:
Logic - Philosophy of Language and a Whetstone for the Philosopher's Linguistic
Tools, Was ist Philosophie im Mittelalter? Qu'est-ce que la philosophie au moyen
ge? What is Philosophy in the Middle Ages? Ed. by Aertsen, Jan A. / Speer,
Andreas. 1998.
A medieval logic book can serve as a list of reminders, reminders of things we
ought to do one day. Like writing a logic of each languages syncategorematic
terms ... or how they work (Ebbesen p. 46)
8/6/2019 Does Pure or Simple Presence Exist
5/21
(For even more curious forms of exercise in reification and useful fiction
employed in modern philosophy and elsewhere to wittingly/unwittingly
perpetuate ontological dualism please read my dissertation here: :
THE REIFICATION OF THE UNREAL
http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/reification_of_the_unreal.htm
What is important is what actually exists. It is ontological nonsense to claim that
one can show what is actually is present in the world by arguing that the
existence or presence of something needs to be assumed by the employment of
useful fictions in order to justify, resolve or vindicate certain inherited pseudo-
existential instantiatives and override ontologically counterfeit grammatical or
semantic sense regarding such putative "existence claims."
In other words it is far more important for humans to be aware of what is actually
present in the world rather than to transcendentally existentialise the actantial
tool or legitimise a semantically primitive linguistic model used to analyze or
describe some objective material actant by concocting ontological fictions in
order to comply with the grammar of an ontologically corrupt system of semantic
description.
Kant was also aware of the dangers of transcendentalism, for he wrote:
I entitle transcendental all knowledge which is occupied not so much with
objects as with the mode of our knowledge of objects in so far as this mode of
knowledge is to be possible a priori.
( Kant. Was ist Philosophie im Mittelalter?. P. 220)
Here is a rsum of Aristotle's treatment of the subject from wikipedia
8/6/2019 Does Pure or Simple Presence Exist
6/21
http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Categories_(Aristotle
THE ANTEPRAEDICAMENTA [2] AND [3]
The text begins with an explication of what is meant by "synonymous," or
univocal words, what is meant by "homonymous," or equivocal words, and what
is meant by "paronymous," or denominative
(sometimes translated "derivative") words.
It then divides forms of speech as being:
(a) Either simple, without composition or structure, such as "man," "horse,"
"fights," etc.
(b) Or having composition and structure, such as "a man fights," "the horse
runs," etc.
Only composite forms of speech can be true or false.
Next, he distinguishes between what is said "of" a subject and what is "in" a
subject. What is said "of" a subject describes the kind of thing that it is as a
whole, answering the question "what is it?". What is said to be "in" a subject is a
predicate that does not describe it as a whole but cannot exist without the
subject, such as the shape of something. The latter has come to be known as
inherence.
Of all the things that exist,
8/6/2019 Does Pure or Simple Presence Exist
7/21
1. Some may be predicated of a subject, but are in no subject; as man may be
predicated of James or John, but is not in any subject.
2. Some are in a subject, but cannot be predicated of any subject. Thus a certain
individual point of grammatical knowledge is in me as in a subject, but it cannot
be predicated of any subject; because it is an individual thing.
3. Some are both in a subject and able to be predicated of a subject, for example
science, which is in the mind as in a subject, and may be predicated of geometry
as of a subject.
4. Last, some things neither can be in any subject nor can be predicated of any
subject. These are individual substances, which cannot be predicated, because
they are individuals; and cannot be in a subject, because they are substances.
THE PRAEDICAMENTA [4] and [5] Then we come to the categories themselves,
whose definitions depend upon these four forms of predication. Aristotle's own
text at in Ackrill's standard English version is: Of things said without any
combination, each signifies either substance or quantity or qualification or a
relative or where or when or being-in-a-position or having or doing or being-
affected. To give a rough idea, examples of substance are man, horse; of
quantity: four-foot, five-fold; of qualification: white, grammatical; of a relative:
double, half, larger; of where: in the Lyceum, in the market-place; of when:
yesterday, last- year; of being-in-a-position: is-lying, is-sitting; of having: has-
shoes-on, has-armour-on; of doing: cutting, burning; of being-affected: being-cut,
being-burned. (1b25-2a4) A brief explanation (with some alternative translations)
is as follows:
1. Substance (ousia, essence or substance).[6]
8/6/2019 Does Pure or Simple Presence Exist
8/21
Substance is that which cannot be predicated of anything or be said to be in
anything. Hence, this particular man or that particular tree are substances. Later
in the text, Aristotle calls these particulars "primary substances", to distinguish
them from secondary substances, which are universals and can be predicated.
Hence, Socrates is a primary substance, while man is a secondary substance.
Man is predicated of Socrates, and therefore all that is predicated of man is
predicated of Socrates.
2. Quantity (poson, how much).
This is the extension of an object, and may be either discrete or continuous.
Further, its parts may or may not have relative positions to each other. All
medieval discussions about the nature of the continuum, of the infinite and the
infinitely divisible, are a long footnote to this text. It is of great importance in the
development of mathematical ideas in the medieval and late Scholastic period.
Examples: two cubits long, number, space, (length of) time.
3. Qualification or Quality (poion, of what kind or quality).
This determination characterizes the nature of an object. Examples: white, black,
grammatical, hot, sweet, curved, straight.
4. Relative or Relation (pros ti, toward something).
This is the way one object may be related to another. Examples: double, half,
large, master, knowledge.
5. Where or Place (pou, where).
8/6/2019 Does Pure or Simple Presence Exist
9/21
Position in relation to the surrounding environment. Examples: in a marketplace,
in the Lyceum. When or Time (pote, when). Position in relation to the course of
events. Examples: yesterday, last year.
6. When or Time (pote, when).
Position in relation to the course of events. Examples: yesterday, last year.
7. Being-in-a-position, posture, attitude (keisthai, to lie).
The examples Aristotle gives indicate that he meant a condition of rest resulting
from an action: 'Lying', 'sitting', 'standing'. Thus position may be taken as the end
point for the corresponding action. The term is, however, frequently taken to
mean the relative position of the parts of an object (usually a living object), given
that the position of the parts is inseparable from the state of rest implied.
8. Having or state, condition (echein, to have or be).
The examples Aristotle gives indicate that he meant a condition of rest resulting
from an affection (i. e. being acted on): 'shod', 'armed'. The term is, however,
frequently taken to mean the determination arising from the physical
accoutrements of an object: one's shoes, one's arms, etc. Traditionally, this
category is also called a habitus (from Latin habere, to have).
9. Doing or Action (poiein, to make or do).
The production of change in some other object (or in the agent itself qua other).
10. Being-affected or Affection (paschein, to suffer or undergo).
8/6/2019 Does Pure or Simple Presence Exist
10/21
The reception of change from some other object (or from the affected object itself
qua other). Aristotle's name paschein for this category has traditionally been
translated into English as "affection" and "passion" (also "passivity"), easily
misinterpreted to refer only or mainly to affection as an emotion or to emotional
passion. For action he gave the example, 'to lance', 'to cauterize'; for affection, 'to
be lanced', 'to be cauterized.' His examples make clear that action is to affection
as the active voice is to the passive voice - as acting is to being acted on.
(wikipedia)
THE ELIMINITIVIST REJECTION.
Eliminative determinism holds that not one of Aristotle's categorical
mentalisations are ontologically viable. They make excellent grammatical
categories - but that is as far as they can be said to be meaningful to eliminative
ontologists.
No object in the cosmos undergoes change of any sort whatsoever - there are no
temporal interstices of existential modality - existential modality does not exist -
only the modulating object is extant- only changing objects can be found to be
present. Doing things and being something do not exist. Only the stative acting
object exists. There is no spurious ontological duality. Such transcendentalist
occultish nonsense is an insidious misapprehension that continues to stalk
science and philosophy like some ontological Banquo's ghost.
The stage direction, "exit ghost" appears in three of William Shakespeare's plays:
Hamlet, Macbeth and Julius Caesar. Only when similar directions to rid our
thinking of such primitive ontological categories will humanity understand the
social, academic, political and ghastly intellectual damage such ignorance has
wreaked upon our world whilst reification rules.
8/6/2019 Does Pure or Simple Presence Exist
11/21
Predicationally language allows us to describe changing objects in uncountable
sentential variations- but none of these grammatico-semantic "properties"
actually exist. Such communicative signification is no more than the currently
existing neurological network of the addressor and the addressee to which the
communication is directed, received and understood.
The Existential Noctet (which of course does not actually exist in itself) is a
simplified version of Aristotle's ontological fantasies. It is an attempt to update
precisely what the "IS" word actually does in in relation to the nominatum (the
object referred to) of a sentence from a onto-linguistic point of view. It is meant
as an essay at a further critique of the Russell/Frege view of the *be-function*
function and not as a modernisation or replacement for the Aristotelian
categories.
Thus the inclusion of the is-word in a sentence points to the object's:
1. Existential modality.
2. Existential state.
3. Existential numerosity.
4. Existential relative positionality.
5. Existential identification.
6. Existential classification
7. Existential nominality.
8. Existential transcendentality.
9. Existential spatial occupancy.
For an "IS-word" equivalent substitute any of the above terms in the following
sentence in place of the "IS" word:
" features the anthropocentrically attributed inexistent existential modality of ."
8/6/2019 Does Pure or Simple Presence Exist
12/21
Example:
"The leaf is green." becomes...
"The leaf features the anthropocentrically attributed existential modality of
greeness(or being green) ."
"The apple is red."
becomes...
"The apple features the anthropocentrically attributed existential modality of
being red."
"The tree is falling." becomes...
"The tree features the anthropocentrically attributed existential modality of
falling."
Therefore redness, greenness, and falling are no more than homocentric
attributions of modality, state, numerosity, positionality, identification,
classification, nominality, transcendentality, spatial occupancy and do not exist
as the (so-called) medieval properties owned by the tree.
Plainly the photonic wavelengths which bounce off the surface of an observed
object (such as a tree) are neurologically moderated perceptions of the
transactions of the human sensorium as to the way that certain wave-lengths of
light are reflected from the surface of the tree onto the lens of the observers eye.
This visual data is then transported as electro-chemical signals attributed to the
8/6/2019 Does Pure or Simple Presence Exist
13/21
observed object which (if required for communication to other humans ) is
converted into liguistic signs as adjectival descriptives and claimed to be
inherent or intrinsic feastures of the manner in which the tree exists.
In fact the so-called properties of objects are in reality no more than neuronal
verbalisations of the manner in which humans perceive different wavelengths of
light.
The same pattern and attribution of properties is true of the other four senses of
mankind - touch, taste, hearing, and smell.
ARE ALL PEOPLE CAPABLE OF GRASPING THIS CONCEPT?
I do not personally subscribe to the belief that some eliminativists hold - that
there are people who are congenitally incapable of ever grasping the ontological
principle involved here. My own view is that for tens of thousands of years the
human race has been imprinted in infancy by their parents and society as to
believe in a non-existent duality of object and action and have internalised the
fiction of action as an apparent obviousness of action as a "fact of the cosmos."
To find the "fact" challenged at first seems utterly incredible. In my experience of
meeting many people who have at first rejected eliminativism as preposterous,
and who have later seen the light, they all admit that it was the hardest
intellectual problem that they have ever experienced, and that it took a lot of
concentration.
One man described the experience as being as if his brain was rebelling against
thinking about it - as if it was "intentionally avoiding the strain" [his words.] An
"occurrence" cannot happen because "occurrences" do not exist to be able to
happen. "Accidents" do not exist. What exists are the two cars that collide - not
the "collision." Put another way both cars exist in a modality of colliding - but the
8/6/2019 Does Pure or Simple Presence Exist
14/21
"modality of colliding" does not exist - only the colliding cars exist. I realise that
this is a VERY DIFFICULT concept to grasp and there is absolutely no shame to
be felt if one cannot understand it immediately.
Eliminative materialists are the most extreme anti-reificationalists you will ever
encounter. They are in fact ontological revolutionaries. One way of coming
towards an understanding of the idea is to look at the semantic value of words -
because it is the words we use that cloak and obscure the ontological reality that
lies behind our imperfect view of the world around us. This is where I part
company with Hume. You will notice that the eliminativist assiduously avoids
certain states of the verb. It is a constant struggle for me to achieve - for I have
been exposed to the old way of thinking all my life and I have been as much
brain-washed as the next man.
The way we think about the IS-word is a very important part of the confusion - I
constructed a whole website on the BE-Mechanism alone. (Analytical Indicant
Theory.)
But the BE-word apart, many innocent-looking words are fraught with ontological
problems. For example verbs that have been turned into nouns which we call
gerunds, or adjectives [less common] that we turn into gerunds [adjectival
nouns] Gerundive: Passive verbal adjective - Gerund: Active verbal noun.
The insidious nature of language and the way in which it affects our
understanding of ontological actuality can be seen in these following examples:
I. The gerund is a verbal noun, just as the participle is a verbal adjective. That is,
just as the participle is a verbal form that functions as an adjective, the gerund is
a verbal form that functions as a noun. You must be careful, however, because in
English both the gerund and the present participle end in -ing. You will have no
8/6/2019 Does Pure or Simple Presence Exist
15/21
problem, however, if you ask yourself whether the verbal form is adjectival or
substantive. Noun or Adjective?
(1) Leaving the theatre, we ran into our friends. ("Leaving" = adj. modifying "we")
(2) I like running. ("running" = a noun, the direct object of "like")
(3) We saw a man running across the field. ("running" = an adj. modifying "man")
(4) Swimming is fun. ("Swimming" = a noun, modified by the adj. "fun")
So if we look above and pick one example out at random, we can see that our use
of certain forms of language reinforces our illusion that action exists, for in (2)
the use of the word running as a noun [the name of something] suggests that
what is named exists - when plainly it does not - only the running runner exists. It
is all fine and dandy to use the present participle [continuous present] form of a
verb but because in English in the gerundial form of a NOUN the gerund ALSO
ends in -ing it continually confuses our ontologically grasp of what really exists
and what does not. The same problem is now recognised in the field of
computerology and ontology-talk is all the rage within the world of computer
programmers and AI experts and theorists.
NUCLEAR REACTION
Fig. 1: Fusion of Hydrogen into Helium A star is like a gigantic nuclear furnace.
The nuclear reactions inside convert hydrogen into helium by means of a process
known as fusion. But does the 'Process exist' or is it 'that which is processed or
that which processes' that exists?
8/6/2019 Does Pure or Simple Presence Exist
16/21
It is this nuclear reaction that gives a star its energy. Fusion takes place when the
nuclei of hydrogen atoms with one proton each fuse together to form helium
atoms with two protons. But does this nuclear reaction' or 'fusion' exist? Or is it
that which reacts and fuses that exists? A standard hydrogen atom has one
proton in its nucleus. There are two isotopes of hydrogen which also contain one
proton, but contain neutrons as well. Deuterium contains one neutron while
Tritium contains two. Deep within the star, A deuterium atom combines with a
tritium atom. This forms a helium atom and an extra neutron. In the process, an
incredible amount of energy is released.
So if we now turn again to nuclear fission and apply the same analysis the
original sentence string which I produced to describe it, we can see that I totally
avoid any gerund or abstract noun:
Here it is again...
What exists is nuclear reactive material in which a massive nucleus splits into
smaller nuclei with the simultaneous release of energy.
We see that when I was forming the sentence I selected present perfect and
present continuous forms of verbs but avoided any word-form which would
suggest that anything else extra existed over and beyond the actual fissionable
material itself.
As I have my linguists-hat on at the moment I shall be extra-nit-picking and
observe that even in this sentence there is an ontological mistake, for technically
speaking:
the simultaneous release of energy doesn't exist either - what exists is energetic
material (matergy) which is simultaneously released.
8/6/2019 Does Pure or Simple Presence Exist
17/21
So the final eliminative materialist sentence which is designed to render an
accurately scientific ontological description of how the fissionable material exists
as it changes its existential modality from a stable macro-community into a
number of micro-communities of energised concretia can now be expressed as:
What exists is nuclear reactive material in which a dissevering atomic nucleus
splits into smaller energetic nuclei which are simultaneously released.
DO NUMBERS EXIST?
Do abstract numbers exist? No - only numerate humans are present in the world.
Numbers are a brilliantly conceived useful fiction which has helped us move from
the cave to Cape Canaveral. They allow us to carry out all kinds of operations and
create all kinds of things that we could not do if we had not created them.
Originally men used stones or their fingers as counters - then they made the giant
step for mankind of awarding names to the amount of stones or fingers that were
held up. As time went by man abstractionalised and distanced number away from
stones and fingers [broke the link of cognitive dependency.] But, since numbers
(being abstract names created by man) change in shape or position from one
digit to another, and since change is a condition that only real things experience,
doesn't that make numbers real? If so, what's wrong with considering that
numbers exist -- especially, since they also have changing relationships to each
other?
No - it does not make the abstract meaning of numbers real - it does not make
them present in the world. It just means that the material medium [the pixels, ink
stains, graphite, paint, wood and plastic etc.,] changes its existential
representational configuration on the page, screen or chequebook.
8/6/2019 Does Pure or Simple Presence Exist
18/21
Only real mathematicians or enumerators are ontologically present - abstractive
numbers do not - only abstracting humans and the ink, paint and plastic which
represent them exist:
CONCLUSION
Eliminative materialism seeks to DESCRIBE the way entities exist WITHOUT
reifying the WAY that they exist into pseudo-entities in themselves.
Thus whilst the exploding massive nucleus undoubtedly exists, and the multi-
versioned smaller energetic nuclei that are the new modality of what was once a
singleton exist - the actual process or action or occurrence does not exist for
those sorts of words are just useful linguistic short-cuts or useful fictions that we
employ to avoid using a long sentence such as...
What exists is nuclear reactive material in which a massive nucleus splits into
smaller energetic nuclei which are simultaneously released.
... when we can throw actual reality out of the window in favour of brevity, and
just use three words and say...
"Nuclear fission exists."
When Marie Curie first heard about the advent of nuclear fission she changed the
way she existed [specifically her neuronal networks modified their existential
configuration] from that of a human ignorant of the way in which nuclear reactive
material exists at the moment when a massive nucleus splits into smaller nuclei
with the simultaneous release of energy, to a human with a brain which was
cognisant of the way in which nuclear reactive material exists at the moment
8/6/2019 Does Pure or Simple Presence Exist
19/21
when a massive nucleus splits into smaller nuclei with the simultaneous release
of energy
If we had the technology to take a super-dooper electron magnetic microscopic
picture before and after shot of the relevant parts of the net where the templates
are stored you would detect a configurational difference twixt Shot 01 before the
new information became available to her and Shot 02 after the new information
became available to her.
Like Heidegger's phantasy of the existence of simple presence - the word
existence is an abstract noun. Existence itself does not exist. What exists are the
ACTUAL OBJECTS in the cosmos. Put another way - Being does not exist, and
like the metaphysical manikin Dasein neither does simple presence.
Only objects that BE [are] the objects they are - exist.
Communicating humans exist. The methods they use to communicate are
gestures, signs symbols and sounds. We can even communicate with taste and
smell. Examples?
An unfaithful wife says to her lover who sometimes visits the cafe where she
works:
If I put sugar in your tea you will know it is safe to come tonight - no sugar means
that my husband will be at home.
In this case the medium of communication whereby the message My husband will
be away tonight [the dissolved grains of sugar which impart the taste-message]
to the lover exist. But what about the lack of sugar which does not exist in the
cup when the message is the opposite?
8/6/2019 Does Pure or Simple Presence Exist
20/21
Now what about the other customers who have or do not have sugar in their tea?
Does the sweet sugar taste in their cups carry a message?
You perhaps will see now that symbols like sugar, or the scent a woman wears as
a signal that she is available sexually whenever she wears it HAVE TO BE agreed
in advance in order to have any meaning in the brain of the addressor and the
addressee. It is the same with letters and words and signs and symbols of all
types - there has got to be antecedally agreed.
So while sugar exists, and scent exists, and the configured graphite particles or
dried ink particles exist on a paper page [or as pixelations on a screen etc.] in the
shape of previously agreed shapes of letters the meaning of those shapes only
exists as an existential modality of the writer's and the reader's brain. The words
themselves are MEANINGLESS - like the sugar and the scent they contain no
meaning. The meaning is attributed to them by the communicators. Only the
meaningfully communicating addressee exists and the meaningfully updated
human addressor between which the meaning of one can be conveyed to the
other.
Ontologically debt does not exist. What exists is the human debtor who owes X-
amount of money. You could certainly try to claim to your bank manager that your
debt did not exist, but I would not advise it. Bank managers like scientists are
notoriously uneducated in ontology - he would probably press the secret bell
under his desk which signals for the men in white-coats. ;-)
The reification of money like the reification of number, mind, consciousness,
time, speed, motion, space and all the rest of the importantly helpful abstractions
which we have dreamed up and created as essentially useful fictions to make our
8/6/2019 Does Pure or Simple Presence Exist
21/21
lives a lot easier are human ways of existing which set us apart from the animals
and have allowed us to emerge from the caves to Cape Canaveral.
We exist as numerative humans - but numbers themselves do not exist.
Notes:
1. Smith, Robin 1995 "Logic". In J. Barnes (ed) The Cambridge companion to
Aristotle, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 55.
2. The forms of predication were called by the medieval scholastic philosophers
the antepraedicamenta.
3. Note, however, that although Aristotle has apparently distinguished between
"being in a subject", and "being predicated truly of a subject", in the Prior
Analytics these are treated as synonymous. This has led some to suspect that
Aristotle was not the author of the Categories[citation needed].
4. Aristotle (1995)
5. The Oxford Translation is universally recognized as the standard English
version of Aristotle. See the publisher's blurb
6. Note that while Aristotle's use of ousia is ambiguous between 'essence' and
substance' there is a close link between them. See his Metaphysics This part was
probably not part of the original text, but added by some unknown editor, Ackrill
(1963) pp. 69-70.
Recommended