Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Hojo

Self reference Question

4 posts in this topic

am I getting the self reference problem right where as no word means anything because it itself 
means nothing unless self referenced to something. So If I say the word Chicken the word chicken in itself 
means absolutely nothing. By saying any one word we are actually saying what it is not and that creates a void
in the mind where the word actually sits as a symbol. by not self referencing all language is completely meaningless
and every word we focus on literally means nothing. If I were to say The chicken wing is spicy in reality Im actually saying
the nothing nothing is nothing.

Edited by Hojo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are equating chicken wing with spiciness, this is fine if you can provide evidence for it actually being so.

 

Providing evidence for why the general term chicken wing and the general term spice is in a particular scenario referencing something together, there is absolutely no self reference problem in providing such evidence. It is also no self reference problem in the pure logical form without evidence, so I have no idea what you mean.

Every word means something, we invented it for no other reason, it is impossible to invent a word without reason, so therefore there is always meaning to a word. It is even true by definition, if we consider everything a word only which references something else.

What is your problem.


how much can you bend your mind? and how much do you have to do it to see straight?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course all symbols are meaningness and relative.

But that is not the self-reference problem. That's just realizing the nature of what a symbol is.

The self-reference problem is when you try to use a symbolic system to speak truths about itself. For example, if you try to use science to explain what is science or you try to use logic to prove the validity of logic. Stuff like that. Eventually language is always gonna fail to fully be able to talk about itself because it is 2nd order.

Truth must be prior to language because language must first exist before it can do any symbolic work. You can have truth without language but you cannot have language without truth.


You are God. You are Truth. You are Love. You are Infinity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Leo Gura

7 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Of course all symbols are meaningness and relative.

But that is not the self-reference problem. That's just realizing the nature of what a symbol is.

The self-reference problem is when you try to use a symbolic system to speak truths about itself. For example, if you try to use science to explain what is science or you try to use logic to prove the validity of logic. Stuff like that. Eventually language is always gonna fail to fully be able to talk about itself because it is 2nd order.

Truth must be prior to language because language must first exist before it can do any symbolic work. You can have truth without language but you cannot have language without truth.

Yes, something has to be indivisible, to reduce that which is indivisible is impossible and to try to do it is absurd. Which is why knowledge is immanent, and never contained in a symbolic reflection but merely is the reflection as well.

To understand this is a form of rationalism, that which is indivisible goes by another name, "a priori".


how much can you bend your mind? and how much do you have to do it to see straight?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0