This is a discussion for my message board, between myself and Tiny Thinker
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Definitions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1)Transendental Signifier (TS):
The signification mark (word) which refurs to the top of metphysical hieararchy; the organizing principle which makes sense of all sense data and groups it into a meaningful and coherent whole, through which meaning can be understood.The corrolary, the thing the Transcendental Signifier signifies, is the "Trnascendental Signified (designated as TSed)"
(2) Signifier:
The term used of writtern words in the linguistic theories know as "structurailsm" and in the theories of French Linguist Ferdenand Sassure. A signifer is a "marK," that is writting, which designates a concept forming a word, that which points to an object as the thing that it is and no other. ie, a phsyical tree is the signified, the object of the signifier "t-r-e-e."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preliminary Observations:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Any rational, coherent and meaningful view of the universe must of necessity presuppose an oranizing principle which makes sense of the universe and explains the hierarchy of conceptualization.
(2) Organizing principles are summed up in a single first principle which grounds any sort of metaphysical hierarchy, the Transcendental Signifier (TS)
(3) It is impossible to do without a Trancendental Signifyer, all attempts to do so have ended in the re-establishment of a new TS. This is because we caannot organize the universe without a princinple of organizing.
(4)TS functions Uniquely as Top of The Metaphysical Heirarchy.It's function is mutually exclusive.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Argument:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P1) TS's function is mutually exclusive, no other principle can superceed that of the TS since it alone grounds all principles and bestows meaning through orgnaization of concepts.
P2)We have no choice but to assume the relaity of some form of TSed since we cannot function coherently without a TS
P3) We have no choice but to assume the reality of some form of TSed since the universe does seem to fall into line with the meaning we bestow upon it.
P4) The logical conclusion would be that There must be a TSed which actually creates and organizes the Universe.
P5) The sifnifier "God" is one version of the TS, that is to say, God functions in the divine ecnomy exacly as the TS functions in a metaphysical hierarchy.
P6) Since "God" is a version of the TS, and since TS and God concept share a unique function which should be mutually exclusive, the logical conculusion is that: God and TS share identity.ie "God" concept is descrition of the Transcendental Signified.
P7)Since the TS should be assumed as real, and TS and God share identity, we should assume that God is the Transcendental Singified, and thus is an actual reality.
rational warrent for belief in God's existence, QED..
MetacrockSense of the Numinous.
Edited by: Metacrock at: 3/15/05 7:55 am
Tiny Thinker
Namo Buddha
Posts: 893
(3/15/05 9:03 pm)
67.165.91.10
Reply | Edit | Del
ezSupporter
Re: Re-written version of TS argument
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Except that, again, going from T4 to T5 is wishful thinking. It may or may not be true, but there is no necessity for going from the first set of statements to the next. It's nice to show that "God" and "TS" aren't incompatible, but there is no reason given why the two must (or even should) be equated.
"When you help others, you can't help helping yourself."
--from the broadway musical Avenue Q
Metacrock
ezOP
Posts: 1410
(3/16/05 5:59 am)
205.188.116.6
Reply | Edit | Del
ezSupporter
Re: Re-written version of TS argument
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
obviously they should be equated because they function the same in their respective economies and becasue they mutuatlly exclusive. that is, no other thing can be the TS bu thte TS, and no other thing can be God but God, yet they seem to do the same things. So the lgoical conclusion would be that they are the same
Is that so God damn stupid that that Davidson mother @#%$ was justified in his lies?.
MetacrockSense of the Numinous.
Tiny Thinker
Namo Buddha
Posts: 894
(3/16/05 2:07 pm)
67.165.91.10
Reply | Edit | Del
ezSupporter
Re: Re-written version of TS argument
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
obviously they should be equated because they function the same in their respective economies
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not so. Zurbzug tastes like strawberries. Strawberries taste like strawberries. Zurbzug must therefore be equated with strawberries and since we have an argument for the existence of strawberries we have an argument for the existence of Zurbzug. I say again, God just appears out of nowhere in the argument defined in a way that makes God similar to the TS, but why accept you notion of God or the divine economy in the *first* place. Arguing for the similarity or equivalence of a model of God and the TS does not make that model of God real, just similar to the TS. If, on the other hand, you want to claim that God is just a name for the TS, then you are starting only with the fundamental or essential definition/properties of the TS and *still* need additional arguments for extra-definitional features which distinguish your model of God.
"When you help others, you can't help helping yourself."
--from the broadway musical Avenue Q
Metacrock
ezOP
Posts: 1415
(3/17/05 2:28 pm)
152.163.100.6
Reply | Edit | Del
ezSupporter
Re: Re-written version of TS argument
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not so. Zurbzug tastes like strawberries. Strawberries taste like strawberries. Zurbzug must therefore be equated with strawberries and since we have an argument for the existence of strawberries we have an argument for the existence of Zurbzug.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Really? Where could get this Zurbzug? Sounds interesting. Are they natural? do they grow on trees? are they berries? Is it a man-made substance?
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I say again, God just appears out of nowhere in the argument defined in a way that makes God similar to the TS, but why accept you notion of God or the divine economy in the *first* place.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
god doesn't appear out of Nowhere. its' called "a God argument." So you know from the outset the reason I"m giving it. God arguments don't have to be little scinetific experinces, we are observing something emprically, will it turn out to be this or that? No it's a construct, it's desiged in the mind to reflect a certain reality and demosntrate its' truth. So you know up front God is going to figure into it.
God's function in the divine economy is a de*****ion of the God concept. That seem pretty obtuse to expect that there has to be empirical being to observe or you can't theorize a contrsuct of such a being and compare it to reality to see if anything is really like that.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arguing for the similarity or equivalence of a model of God and the TS does not make that model of God real, just similar to the TS.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well sure, but if the points of similarity are exclusive... I mean for example if I say "Batman is a guy who wears a bat-like costum, uses amazing little gadgets and goes around finding and beatign criminals" the I find a guy doing that, can I not call him Batman? I mean he's not the guy in the comic books. Mabye he's not Bruce Wayne and there's no Gothom city, and even if there is, it's not identically the one in the comic books, its' the one in real life. But it's still close enough, what are the odds that anyone else would do that? Couldn't I say "this is the real life batman?"
S0 why can't we supposse that the guys int he Bible and I experinced the same reality that we both "God." when it's mutally exclusive and nothing else could be like it?
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If, on the other hand, you want to claim that God is just a name for the TS, then you are starting only with the fundamental or essential definition/properties of the TS and *still* need additional arguments for extra-definitional features which distinguish your model of God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmmmmm ok so what if I say "there is an x such that X is the object of my ultimate concenrs, and this a propery object of my religous devotion?" Then can't I say there is a "a god" since I have an object of religious devotion and that's essentailly what God is?
dont forget I"m assumming there's this mutually excluive quailty, such that no two things could share these qualities, thus anything that fits the de*****ion is pretty much it.
MetacrockSense of the Numinous.
Metacrock
ezOP
Posts: 1416
(3/17/05 2:34 pm)
152.163.101.10
Reply | Edit | Del
ezSupporter
Re: Re-written version of TS argument
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
this may be a better example.
Clark Kent is known to exist. sueprman is rumored to exist. Certain things have happened in Metropolis of late, sotries of a strong man in a red cape flying over the city, fantastic accounts of this caped-man of steel rescuing innocent people from trains and things, but no one really knows for sure if thse stories are true.
a new development, someone brought in an object that this 'Superman' (as he is now doubed) has touched. The finger prints off that object were accidently compared to those of reproter Clark Kent, and it turns out that they are identical. But how can that be? That would mean that kent has to be this Superman, but how can he be? Superman doesnt' exist!
Anyway, others have ponited out that kent looks exactly like superman, but we can dismiss that out of hand since he wears glasses and the other doesn't.
No comments:
Post a Comment