Oct 25, 2019, 9:48 AM
The verb to be circumvents existence, which is what you are trying to circumvent testifying for, just as Heidegger was trying to circumvent and reverse the verb and noun – because both of you are tying to make speech conform to experience rather than speech test experience – which is it’s only POSSIBLE function unless you’re trying to lie.
All imagination is produced by association and introspective causes justificationary but all speech like all action is falsificationary – whether or not we wish it to be.
So you can describe your predictions, imaginations and fantasies (meaning) in an effort to deceive yourself and others, or you can speak your predictions, imaginations and fantasies (meaning) and have others falsify them or not, or you can act on your predications, imaginations, and fantasies (meaning) and physical reality will falsify them or not.
We are capable of free association, imagination (prediction), and fiction (relations between predictions), just as we capable of our own falsification of our fictions (reason, calculation, computation). But this requires agency, and to prefer the rewards of knowledge (truth) over masturbation( sedation by daydreaming) .
So we physically demonstrate the series: sense(collection), perception(disambiguation), auto-association (free association), prediction (imagination), fictions (compositions) produce hypotheses, and THEN we falsify (test) them (detect risk and losses) using Reason, Calculation (transformation of inputs into outputs) and computation (using assistants-to-memory to overcome limits – something a we cannot do without external instrumentation, especially symbols that preserve correspondence-name, and other properties of the name-noun expressed as measurements of varying degrees of precision.)
So the question is which market are you serving when you speak? Purely psychological (psychotic), purely personal interpretation of interpersonal (solipsistic), interpersonal (empathic), practical action (evidentiary), generalization (analytic), generalization without empathy (aspergers), failure to generalize or empathize (autism).
And this is the underlying question. Are you preventing your learning and continuous adaptation to reality by the incremental development of agency, or are you trying to do the opposite which is the primary function of all religions, and most philosophies, and most pseudoscience, and that is to justify not paying the psychological, emotional, physical, and material costs of adapting to reality such that you develop agency? And always and everywhere with very little effort we can ask any individual a few questions, and discover the economics of his or her system of decidability, given costs and returns. (my favorite being christians, muslims, and hindus, as we do not see this other than ‘nationalism’ in the far east and the non-superstitious right, and the upper classes who have and have demonstrated agency.
We don’t think of language as a system of measurement (but measurement of what?) but a cursory disambiguation and operationalization of english vocabulary (names of references, whether person, place, thing, action, change etc – reduced to scales that are open to human perception. As an example, Time in english includes always – sometimes – just a bit ago – now – not just a bit ago – sometimes not, and never. Most english vocabulary follows this 3 to 5 to 7 example range, which is about the maximum of human means of disambiguation into scopes of untidily; matches human short term memory; matches the number of points necessary to falsify a line (reduce most errors). I find when I disambiguate a concept that is not well understood because of insufficient operationalization, I end up with twelve or more points. I find that when I serialize existing terms I end up with five or seven.
And this difference illustrates the function of operationalization – to improve precision in human speech.