[Fis] A priori truths
johnsonmwj1 at gmail.com
Sun Nov 18 17:02:02 CET 2018
Karl, thank you - this is so beautifully expressed. "The organised faithful
have created a concept of an empty transcendence, where there is nothing
but that what is pointed out to you" pretty much sums up the state of our
On Sun, 18 Nov 2018, 12:16 Karl Javorszky <karl.javorszky at gmail.com wrote:
> A priori truths
> Let me welcome Xueshan’s initiative and take the opportunity to give an
> overview relating to the fundamental cultural agreements in force in Europe
> till today, in their historical context.
> During the first few centuries of the Christian age, there were several
> conflicts among local dioceses and schools of faith. These were, some with
> more, some with less violence, consolidated into what is now the general
> idea of what is faith.
> For Information Studies, of interest is one aspect of the alteration
> between the so-called gnostic heresies and the opinion which managed to
> remain the ruling, generally accepted basis of understanding the faith.
> Formulated simply, the conflict was between adherents of “any member of the
> flock of believers can recognise the divine creation at work behind the
> apparitions” (they put it in the form of: “can any believer countenance the
> divine features of the face of the Saviour”) against the view “you need
> specialists who explain to you, how to understand correctly the divine
> truths”. Seen from today, the question was, whether a job category, class,
> profession, officialdom, hierarchy is needed or not in matters of religion
> and faith. As we know, the bureaucrats have gained the upper hand and it is
> a closed non-problem now that one needs priests to be a member of a church
> which has priests, and every church does have priests, they state. The PR
> damage is catastrophic for the gnostic side: the mainstream speaks of pagan
> animalists, illusionists, charlatans or make-believers.
> If we could put the egotistic and self-serving components of human
> intelligence aside for a while, we would have to call the winning side to
> have achieved victory not by reasoning only. If we can recognise a divine
> work, then it is there. If we need specialists, who explain what is where
> to see, then the thing to see is not a priori there. The organised faithful
> have created a concept of an empty transcendence, where there is nothing
> but that what is pointed out to you. This de-furnishing of the imagined
> enveloping transcendent space is culturally axiomatic also in Arithmetic
> and Geometry. At school, if they say we construct a Descartes space, we
> invariably imagine it empty, unless otherwise instructed. The school of
> thought “No a-priori truths” has won and establishes rationality by saying
> so forcefully, repeating its mantra. They keep silent about the deep
> atheism inherent in “you do not look anything into the realm behind the
> world, there is nothing there, unless we say so”, thereby negating the
> existence of God in any other fashion but as a mental creation, made up by
> the apparat. Doing away with all of the false apparitions of God to the
> weak in faith, they ended up by eliminating any and all kinds of concepts
> of pre-arranged truths, be these divine or not.
> This is insofar regrettable, as there exist many hints that it would be
> more in harmony with Nature if we had an agreed imagination of the empty
> space that is furnished with a huge number of a priori existing facts.
> Wittgenstein builds up his argumentation from the basics of Sachverhalt
> und Zusammenhang. Literal translations are: things-behave and
> together-hanging. Usual translations are: fact, elementary fact, actual
> state of affairs, and: relation, connection, context.
> Now we have a web of Sachverhalten, which could be visualised as the
> deposit boxes in a large storehouse, each with an address and a content.
> What we have to find, are the Zusammenhaenge. We can mentally pre-structure
> space by erecting rectangular axes which are scaled identically. Which
> element is on which place in which moment is then a result of which orders
> prevail. The inner relations among the elements and their places are given
> by the concept of orders, and how the concepts of orders are permissive or
> averse to each other. As we impose or detect an order, we find the
> corresponding relations among the elements. The terms “order” and
> “relations exist among elements” are definitions of each other.
> Let me conclude by quoting an old proverb: “The first will end up being
> the last”. This does reflect some egalitarian thought alive in early
> Christianity and can give hope to a person in an uncomfortable situation.
> Now we simply want to expand this proverb and investigate its general form:
> “The *i-th* will end up being the *j-th, *once Order B gains over Order
> A”. What we are interested in, are the adventures that the element
> encounters while it transits from the *i-th *place in Order A into its
> new *j-th* place in Order B, namely a. with which other elements
> constitutes its journey a Zusammenhang – as they generate a cycle -, and b.
> which spatial coordinates are transversed in such a fashion that the
> applicable spatial slice, implicated by the existence of the coordinate, is
> generated. The idea of Zusammenhang is now attached to the concept of
> cycles, and the collection of Sachverhalte among which Zusammenhaenge are
> possible, is generated by any and all orders that had been, have been, are,
> will predictably be, or are implicated to become the case. The pixels on
> the screen are the Sachverhalte, and we recognise their inner Zusammenhang
> if the colors of the pixels represent cycles. The pixels are not all
> uniformly grey but are pre-loaded reflecting their last few Zusammenhaenge.
> It may be culturally unfortunate for a European, that a world view built
> up on the most rational system that can be envisioned, that is, on the
> system of natural numbers, turns out to have great resemblance to a
> polytheistic construct. There is an incessant fight over the relative
> importance of *b-a *or* a+b* over *b-2a *or *2a-3b, etc. *The Hindus and
> the ancient Greeks had polytheistic concepts, where there was a continual,
> rhythmic rivalry among the gods, representing principles of ordering the
> The inner consistency of logic may still be beyond our intellect. What we
> can do today, is to observe how some principles which have probably to do
> with inner consistency, unveil themselves, as seen by their determining how
> much of what is where and when, in case we decide to enter and shoulder the
> scientific effort and do not shake but stir, repeatedly, a collection of
> Conclusion: there is reason to take up the Gnostics’ side in the debate,
> by stating that there exists a pre-arranged, a-priori structure behind
> Nature, which any person can detect and describe, referring to facts and
> procedures that are publicly known, like the natural numbers and the
> operation of sorting.
> Fis mailing list
> Fis at listas.unizar.es
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Fis