A Quick Bit of Help With Differance: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Language » A Quick Bit of Help With Differance » A Quick Bit of Help With Differance

Page: 1 2 3

A Quick Bit of Help With Differance

Cadrache
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: AB, Canada

Total Topics: 104
Total Posts: 2644

Posted 10/20/09 - 07:44 PM:	#21
I still maintain that differance is a structuring principle I like that part at least. You cannot create a language by way of defferance if you use regression. Cat? Dog? = Sight. As such - the similarity derived from regression results in no difference between cat and dog. Therefore no language is formed. Division at least works.
"...There was a writer who asked why it was that when we find positive experiences we say that only the physical facts are real, but in negative experiences we believe that reality is subjective. He made an example of those who say that in birth only the pain is real, the joy a subjective point of view, but that in death it is the emotional loss that is the reality." - Tony Ballantyne, Recursion. _____________________________________________ Truth is want. - The internal state of matters. Truth is Need. - The external state of affairs.

quickly
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 29, 2007

Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 233

Posted 10/20/09 - 07:58 PM:	#22
What I mean is that I don't know in what sense you're using the term "regression." The only application of the term "regression" to linguistics or semiotics I have seen is Jakobson's theory of it, but that has to do with the hierarchy of the loss of information and structure due to impairment (esp. aphasia, cf., Freud on regression in a psychological context). You say that "regression" and "defferrance" cannot be coexist as principles of a natural language. I fail to see what either has to do with the statement "Cat? Dog? = Sight." Are you saying that if we suppose a regression, that both "cat" and "dog" become semantically identical? pragmatically identical? are you referring to their intension, as in, we lose the ability for form definite descriptions? do you mean that the language is dependent upon a visual sensa? You have a set of ambiguous terms ("defferrance, regression, division") which are not commonly used to discuss language or semiotics, and you refuse to give definitions of them. I usually think your posts are incredibly witty and fun to read. I am just confused now.
Sunt bona, sunt quaedam mediocria, sunt mala plura quae legis hic; aliter non fit philosophyforums.com (cf., Martial, Epigrammata I.XVI)

Cadrache
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: AB, Canada

Total Topics: 104
Total Posts: 2644

Posted 10/21/09 - 03:56 PM:	#23
I am still definately having trouble linking my ideas to your knowledge.. Question: What happens to an action when you apply structure to it? What exactly is the difference between 'run' the word and the actual action 'run'? Example 1. You have a red cup and a blue cup. George asks you to hand him the red cup. PositiveGenius claims that by regression - the similarity of red between both the observation red cup and the 'want-red-cup' means that you don't hand George the blue cup. Example 2. You have 2 cups. Both are a different shade of red. George still asks forthe red cup. Which cup do you give? Even if both use Deferrence as the key for determining which cup - the action used to defer must also be the same. Why should the action that defferance creates between two words(Ex.1 red:red) change when you are still performing the same action between two other words(Ex2 red:red)? Equivilancy and Similarity are different structures. We will however claim that both results in the answer "They are the same." By technicality you cannot however claim that two things that 'are the same' by way of similarity are equivilant to one another. You must introduce a third function for that. (at least most of the time.) Edited by Cadrache on 10/21/09 - 04:02 PM
"...There was a writer who asked why it was that when we find positive experiences we say that only the physical facts are real, but in negative experiences we believe that reality is subjective. He made an example of those who say that in birth only the pain is real, the joy a subjective point of view, but that in death it is the emotional loss that is the reality." - Tony Ballantyne, Recursion. _____________________________________________ Truth is want. - The internal state of matters. Truth is Need. - The external state of affairs.

Page: 1 2 3

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.