pynchon agnostic? II

[thomas kyhn rovsing hjoernet]

On 04/03/03 22:26, "jbor" <jbor at bigpond.com> wrote:

> on 4/3/03 8:14 AM, thomas kyhn rovsing hjoernet at tkrh at worldonline.dk
> wrote:
> 
>>> 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.
> 
> No, concrete nouns. Things. Objects. People. Phenomena which can be
> positively identified and described by human sense organs regardless of
> language.

Don't know about that. How do human sense organs describe phenomena? And,
how do they identify them? Don't they just register stimuli and leave
identification and description to another instance? & how would these sense
data be differentiated without the use of general categories?

>>>> whatever is outside of language is not in itself divided into distinct
>>>> entities. 
> 
> A theory that won't or can't distinguish between a cantaloupe/rockmelon and
> "God" isn't a particularly useful or relevant one.

Who says it won't/can't? How would you distinguish and define 'cantaloupe,'
'rockmelon,' and 'god,' if not by means of language? I do not claim that
there is no difference, that all is the same. What I'm saying is that
differentiation depends on categories that do not exist prior to language.


Thomas