March 8, 2003
-
Coming to Terms with Absolutes
Last weekend, I enjoyed an exchange with dreadpirate* on the value of logic. A subsection of that discussion dealt with the possible existence of absolutes along with my argument that the statement "there are no absolutes" is nonsense. The wily rogue left the following statement in my comments section. "I do so enjoy your research, writing, and line of thought! And the twist of semantics are just wonderful my lady."
All week long there's been a train of thought running on a circular track around my mind. "absolutes ... semantics ... absolutes ... semantics ..." Since I've been afflicted with these chugging, clacking, and very distracting thoughts, I have no choice but to try to get them organized and out of my head. So welcome to my Saturday blog.
Coming to terms can be an arduous process. If every word had only one meaning, if words could not be used ambiguously, if each word were an ideal term, in short, if language were a pure and perfect medium for thought, we'd have no problem. Any reader could see straight through the words to the content of my mind. But, at least in English, any given word can have shades of meaning and important words tend to contain many shadows. If I use a word in one sense and you hear it in another, words have passed between us but we have not come to terms. A term, defined by Adler and Doren in How to Read a Book, is a word used unambiguously. For us to come to terms, we must somehow manage for a time to use a given word with one and only one meaning.
Semantics is the art and science of the meaning of words. It is an art in the same way that poetry is an art. The more possible meanings a person associates with a given word, the more options that person finds to use the word in creative, ambiguous ways. Semantics is a science in that we can quantify usages of words in order to gain understanding of the precision of language. One person uses a word, a second person interprets the word, and the first says, that's not precisely what I meant. The protest "that's just semantics" is a denial of the ambiguous nature of language.
So what relevance does a discussion of semantics have to the previous discussion of absolutes? All conversation assumes that absolutes exist. I assume that when you speak to me you actually have a thought you are attempting to comminucate. The imperfect nature of language has led some people to the conclude that because language is imprecise thought must also be imprecise. This conclusion arises from a faulty syllogism.
Language is an imprecise medium. (semantics)
Thoughts are commuinicated through language.
Therefore, thoughts are imprecise. (there are no absolutes)
This syllogism implies a relationship between thought and language that does not in fact exist. "The word is not the thing." For example, when I look at the wall behind my desk I see a particular shade of purple. I can describe it as dark lavender, light violet, cool purple. Tucker says, "well, it's not green." If there were a one to one relationship between thought and language, each new phrase would correspond to a change in the thought. But, in fact, the color I see remains the same as I grapple with the possibilities for precise communication. I had this difficulty the other day as I attempted to describe the specific color I had in mind when I used the word "aqua" with a friend in another state who is designing a piece of jewelry for me. In the end, I finally told her that anything in a certain range would work for me, but that ambiguity doesn't negate the fact that when I use the word "aqua," I have a specific color in mind.
The word "absolute" is used in logic to mean "that which is self-sufficient, free of external references or relationships." Any statement of fact is an absolute in that such statements contain no qualification, restriction or exception. All definitions reference absolutes. I offered as an example of an absolute statement the definition of the freezing point of water, "when the temperature falls below 32 degrees F or 0 C, water freezes." Dread said that there seem to be exceptions to this rule, therefore the rule is not an absolute. For instance, there are lakes which do not freeze when the air temperature falls below the "freezing point." However, the influence of variant conditions upon water which cause it to occasionally exist in a "supercooled" state as a liquid do not change the definition of the freezing point of water.
I'm fascinated by meaning. I want to know what you mean when you speak. I want to know how you know what you know. I want to know if it's possible to know anything. I'm sure I'll continue to turn these thoughts over and inspect them from different angles. But one thing seems certain to me. I can't know anything without first knowing something. While my language may be abstract, imprecise, and fuzzy, the thought I'm attempting to communicate is specific, actual and concrete. In other words, it's absolute.
I've heard that the links I worked on yesterday afternoon don't work. Well, that stinks. I don't know why the links in my skin won't take you to those blogs. I know they have worked in the past, I've used them. But, now I can't get any of them to work.
I'll keep tinkering and I'll let you know if I get them fixed.
*Yes, I know that dread doesn't like to be linked.
Comments (10)
Ok, here goes my two cents worth. I think you are somewhat deconstructionist, and dread one hundred percent is. (Hey, lemme roll with this for a minute, I dunno the guy from adam, just followed his argument a bit.) See, dread is trying to convince you that there is no such thing as truth, that everything is relative, morals are silly, and meaning is dependent on whoever is saying it. Your truth is not his truth, so to speak. When we try to convince people that water freezes at a certain temperature, we have to make damn sure that it's in a controlled environment we're talking about (a vacuum). The thing is... we don't live in a vacuum!
The whole reason language and writing exist is an attempt to communicate. And the thing is, it's impossible to communicate feelings exactly, because feelings and sentiments are not exacts. Don't you agree? But the process of it all... is an art for that very reason. It's like trying to achieve transcendence, or enlightenment. We know it's most likely impossible, but we keep on trying because we want to exist to other folks, and in order for us to exist to other folks, we've got to make ourselves be heard.
Ever heard of that The Medium is the Message philosophy? Look at this very medium that is Xanga. It's writing, of course, but really an extended version of controlled speech--and that very concept changes our message here, don't you think? Your message that you're trying to get out to us changes each time we go to interpret it, and prolly changes a little every time you read it. This medium you're using right now is contributing to the confusion of your message! Then add the comments of other people here? Too weird. I say it's amazing we get any concepts across at all. Folks get pissed all the time and claim that their messages haven't been translated properly--hell, I've seen two cases of it in the past two weeks.
Damn, I'm stopping. lol I've written too long and forgotten what the hell I wanted my message to be, other than... Hey! I read your blog and tried to understand what you had to say, baby.
Did you just call me a name? lol ooooh, ooooh, oooh check this:
Words refer to Words
They wrestle endlessly with each other in an infinite dance.
Yet we seek a center on which to rest.
A stable presence.
A final place where all is clear and movement is no more.
A final death.
But the resting point is a wishful fantasy.
The imaginary centers we've constructed,
the pockets of solidity in the pulsing membranes of the void,
must be dissolved, exposed to friction,
invited to dance.
This is Deconstruction.
Not a theory, not an idea,
but a practice.
To transcend the center
And dance within and beyond the words
(and the myriad structures which the words precede)
We must become
Deconstructionists.Maybe I am a post-deconstructionist. Because I don't accept the premise that there is no center to be found.
Well half way through that you lost me. I never think what I am saying is correct or incorrect or anything really, except what pours out of my head and fingers. I do feel I am very boring at times but then if we are not a genius, we all are at times. I am sure the intelligent ones got your drift. Sorry I didn't, will look forward to your next one. As I have told you once before. I just thought you were a lady making those huge American Quilts. I get the connection now of bits and pieces of words, not material but not when I first visited you. Cheers Portia
Yes, that definitely is a faulty syllogism. Something a little off with the "logic".
I think as far as achieving transcendence or enlightenment goes, depending on who you ask you will get a different perspective of whether or not it's possible. Many, many people would emphatically say YES. Others, no. However, have to disagree with you that we are only able to imperfectly communicate...occasionally (or more often than we'd like) communication is marred and flawed, but many times one communicates oneself perfectly.
You may believe a center can be found, but that doesn't mean it will be a center for me.
Each person's absolutes and truths are so different. I try to appreciate and understand all views...but it is not easy. Wears out this poor old brain
I sometimes (or is that most times?) think we get too hung up on trying to understand things and just need to get on with living.
o/ 
God Bless - Dale
Daff - When I say that I believe a center can be found, I'm saying that I believe that when you speak, there is a "real" meaning behind your words. You have an "actual" thought that you are expressing. The logical conclusion of the descontructionist game is that beneath the shfiting dancing words, is only a shifting and dancing illusion of "solidity". (Derrida would say) the practice of speaking as though we can know what we are talking about is only an illusion. In his epistemology, we can't ever "know" anything because there is nothing to know. Which begs the question of how and why he would ever try to communicate his ideas with another.
However, when you say "You may believe a center can be found, but that doesn't mean it will be a center for me." I understand you to mean that the thing I percieve as Ultimate Reality may not be the same thing that you perceive Ultimate Reality to be. I will more than grant this point. I will affirm that no two people can share the same understanding of Ulitmate Reality due to the very nature of encounter between the finite and the infinite. Having said that, I think it goes too far to say that because we cannot have the identical experience/understanding of Ultimate Reality that we would have no commonality which we could use as a frame of reference.
Very good points. I agree with most of them. Too many times I have been explaining the way I feel about something, and I have paused and wondered if it were the truth--did I really feel that way and why. I agree with Derrida's concept that it's damn near impossible to figure out why we think what we think. (I'm the one who asked you to read Paglia, remember, and that lady will go to any lengths to figure out WHY
) See, I'm very willing to accept feeling as a reason. This is why I'm a transcendentalist. Why is it the way I think? Because I feel it to be so. And that's good enough for me. Is it good enough for other people? Usually not. But I've made myself accept that I don't have to justify absolutes to other people for me to be content with my own truths. Therefore absolutes aren't necessary for me, and are ridiculous factors to use in an argument. I accept feelings much faster than logic, in other words. If someone is telling me something I perceive to be bullshit, I'll say... do you really feel that to be the truth--and who'm I to argue feelings? That's the gist of what I was trying to say, I guess. Doesn't mean I won't get involved in conversations trying to logically explain my ideas, because it's fun to delve into logisitics every now and then. Like now. 
Daffy may well have a point. (Her own!—HA!) I too perplex over such ludicrous things as constants, controlled environments and absolutes. It is a sickness I tell you. A mental incapacity to think upon a linear, singular thought level of the mundane. I think all that matters is that we attempt to educate ourselves and perhaps touch those around us as a butterfly touches our skin. Gentle, soft, transparent, fleeting and yet still a touch nonetheless.
Sail on... sail on!!!
PS. THREE LINKS< spanking, planking and keelhauling you lucky seadog!
Comments are closed.