pynchon agnostic? II

[thomas kyhn rovsing hjoernet]

On 03/03/03 22:36, "jbor" <jbor at bigpond.com> wrote:

> on 3/3/03 7:59 AM, thomas kyhn rovsing hjoernet at tkrh at worldonline.dk
> wrote:
> 
>>>> In order to operate with this Œtruth,¹ you depend on concepts such as
>>>> Œphysical,¹ Œbullet,¹ Œhole,¹ Œchest,¹ not to mention Œtruth.¹
>>> 
>>> Well, I think we are on pretty solid ground with those four terms, unless
>>> you want to contest the existence of matter.
>> 
>> Without contesting or affirming the existence of matter, those four terms are
>> established and defined in langauge;

> Well, no, there's blood and guts and an ambulance siren to establish and
> define "bullet", "hole" and "chest", and these are the "physical"
> consequences, or "truth", of the material event.

I do not claim that bullet holes in chests lack consequences. I claim that
these divisions seem not to be prior to language. As I wrote earlier, the
fact that different languages divide 'physical reality' (accordingly, also a
'division' or 'invention') in different ways can be seen as an indication of
this. The designations involved are functional in many contexts, but that
does not mean that they reflect any extra-linguistic 'reality' as it 'is.'

> To speak of religious or philosophical "truth" is another thing entirely.
> It's the difference between a concrete and an abstract noun.

'Concrete truth'? It still needs language.

> Language can be divided into categories too. It's called grammar.

And that's made up in language too.

>> whatever is outside of language is not in itself divided into distinct
>> entities. 


Thomas