Willard van Orman Quine - Guest Book Volume 4. Each guest book item includes initials of the sender, the date of the message, the message text, and a summary of my response (if any) to the writer in bold text. You may link back to my home page or to any of the sites in my Family Web Site Ring:
2_ it can mean that the significance of a word is related to an operation called the transcendental reduction which is updated Platonism, namely, Husserl. A word resides in reduction to a fixed meaning, like a chair, which means many chairs that could be recognised, but actually one semantic reduction, which is its Platonic and fixed meaning.
Naturally, Quine would reject this methdologically, because Quine is a naturalist in epistemology. Here, Quine is without a reduction as I would call, because he has not progressed enough to integrate the reduction of a word to its idealist structuralism. Quine is Husserl, without a reduction, he is still looking at the action of the senses in creating a meaning, but never able to come to a fixed structure.
Naturally, for anyone that knows me, I have no time for anyone but one that can accept an idealist reduction.
Using Hans Halvorson's truth table, I am going to stretch this and argue that (1) and (2) are the same. This would make perfect sense, as I have repeatly emphasized to Prof. Gilbert Harman, and others, that it take a theological mind, it would appear to me, to be able to make this reduction, because either skeptics or behavioralists are ever learning and never able to get anywhere definite in epistemology.
Husserl is the knowledge of what is seen sub specie eternitatis. Against Quine, we do not look at the things that are seen, but the things that are unseen, and the reason that the mind can take on these fixed forms of transcendental meaning, with would also include Kant, because the mind grasps space and time as a precondition of awareness, is because our thinking is not grounded in the leftist sensual world, but in something that is highly intuitionist. And though I appreciate that this would bear some fruit here with Williard's methods, I would still not be able, unless they can show me this, in more detail, to agree that meaning is anything but transcendental because of the eidetic reduction.
Quine is a leftist naturalistic thinker, but in my book, he would eventually get to the reduction. How do we learn the meaning of words? By interaction with the world around us, but also because words themsevles, in and of themselves, simpliciter, have that much power: hence meaning is transcendental because the tradition of meaning is deduction from a standard of fixed meanings that pertain to the eternal nature of the mind. When we use a word, it is already reduced, and these semantic particles are what are assumed in a controlled linguistic universe.
Caveat emptor: every time something is listed as one and two, this does not mean that it is the same. Gary Butler who is Congressman and James McCrery is not the same, but thinking about this, it is close. Who is on the left and right from my model? From one reading it would be the present holder of the office that would be on the right because he knows everyone that is rich, but in another sense he is leftist because he is connected to big government, like military. However, once we reduce large frames, it is close to identity somehow. It is like saying that Plato and Aristotle is the same, or that Kant and Husserl is the same, or that Marx and Hegel is the same.
I have noticed that Oscar Becker has discussed Heidegger's relation to Husserl, and this would,using my model, be evidence of how Husserl is on the right, and Heidegger on the left, and a pure Ich, is something fitting with my philosophy more than the empirical Ich. Like I said, I have no time for empirical matters, in this strict sense, because I want to, like Calikles, reduce everything and get on with this. Socrates said that he gave up empirical science in his youth because he wanted to study how men's morals fitted an eternal scheme of things.
Willard, get note to Yasmin/or Rebecca that I have called about the stationary for Red snapper corporation, and that we want to use this for the accounting, see if you can search a little bit with Prof. Halim in Heidelberg if he could get us anything about Oscar Becker. Also, tell Rebecca that Gary Butler does not know Quine that well enough to make grand commentary, other than just talking quietly to him. But I am sure that we can tangle with this enough to be fruitful, over dinner with red snapper,
this micrology is taking two philosophers from randomness, who is Calikles and who is socrates? Is both the same? When can Halvorson get me this "gamma space" proof?
canary copy:tell me more about that friend!
With Kindest Regards, Gary Butler (email: louiedog (at) sport.rr.com)