@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:
Who said meaning is irrelevant ?
I am only conveying that such is not the "epicentre" of this debate as some have suggested...
Truth as referent is at stake, not knowledge on it as phenomenological expression...
...I guess I am in the 10 chapter Arj...
I never doubt that you are.
Simple question:
If there weren't any people, would there still be numbers?
If you give an answer to that, isn't it going to be a priori? How could it be empirical?
Can an a priori argument stand as ontological proof? If proof means a gain in confidence, it doesn't appear so, because you can't doubt that which is a priori.
The stuff about cause and the nature of "nature".. all those things... the anatomy and physiology of an event, the word event.... dophins in the clouds.... where's the dolphin? All that stuff can get "answered" by becoming irrelevant once you note that "what is" whatever it is, must be meaningful whatever your vantage point on it may be.
Now you're underneath science. Scientific models can come and go... you don't have to work out whether the latest and greatest theory is logically self-contained... whether it's magically managed to have a foundation that isn't a priori.
You're onto the root of all models. You're in a position to be able to predict what any model is going to possess and and what it won't. For instance, there never will be a model that allows part of reality to be completely independant of the rest of it. True or false?
If you pick between true and false on that question... how did you do that? Maybe it's like the people of older times would say... there are two minds... a lower and a higher. To function in your world, you have to use the lower. That's why it's so easy to forget the wisdom of the higher. As I obviously demonstrate over and over.
