 |
 |
Warning: contains philosophy. Delete and move on if so desired. Apologies to poets. Keston has produced a substantial explanation of his notion of 'totality'. The following main principle has been asseverated: I. It is only possible to connect (in thought or expression) two objects, because the meaning of each derives from the group (or 'entirety') in which they 'participate'. This is re-stated in slightly different form as: I'. It is only possible meaningfully to connect (in thought or expression) two objects, because the group in which they participate is a source of possible meaning. Additionally, we have: II. A group can only have meaning itself and serve as the guarantor of meaning for its participants insofar as it participates in another, different group. It is concluded that: III. Since objects can indeed be meaningfully connected in poetry (and other usage), there must exist a (groupwise) 'transcendental' entity, in which all groups participate directly or indirectly, which we shall call the _totality_ T. T might thus be said to be _autosemantic_. T also is said to have other, more exotic, properties: it is the "imaginative forestage to the possibility of new global ethics". So we have postulated an ontology of 'objects' and 'groups' of objects, with a semantically primitive relation of 'participation', which may relate either object to object or object to group. The meaning of objects, groups, or object/object relations is determined by and explained by their participation in some group, and ultimately by their participation in T. Please let me know, Keston, if I have misunderstood. These assertions are neither immediately obvious nor unambiguous as they stand, owing to ambiguities in the ordinary usage of the key terms, notably 'meaning' and 'participation'. Senses of 'meaning' like (Fregean) 'sense',' reference', 'intention', 'usage', 'point' or 'role' should be distinguished and the intended ones indicated. Your mention of the fish/tuna distinction seems to be beside the point, as the participation relation you are aiming at does not seem to be 'is a kind of'. Rather it looks like an essentially social one (i.e. one requiring social actors). The only things we know about 'participation' so far are that it is a transitive relation and presumably social. Can you say a little more to throw some more light on this? %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%