ellauri071.html on line 246: <semantics>
ellauri071.html on line 253: semantics>
ellauri071.html on line 255: <semantics>
ellauri071.html on line 262: semantics>
ellauri071.html on line 264: <semantics>
ellauri071.html on line 271: semantics>
ellauri071.html on line 273: <semantics>
ellauri071.html on line 280: semantics>
ellauri071.html on line 282: <semantics>
ellauri071.html on line 298: semantics>
ellauri071.html on line 300: <semantics>
ellauri071.html on line 307: semantics>
ellauri071.html on line 309: <semantics>
ellauri071.html on line 316: semantics>
ellauri071.html on line 318: <semantics>
ellauri071.html on line 325: semantics>
ellauri071.html on line 327: <semantics>
ellauri071.html on line 334: semantics>
ellauri071.html on line 336: <semantics>
ellauri071.html on line 343: semantics>
ellauri071.html on line 345: <semantics>
ellauri071.html on line 352: semantics>
ellauri071.html on line 354: <semantics>
ellauri071.html on line 361: semantics>
ellauri071.html on line 365: <semantics>
ellauri071.html on line 399: semantics>
ellauri089.html on line 124: During the 1930s and 1940s, Heinlein was deeply interested in Alfred Korzybski's general semantics and attended a number of seminars on the subject. His views on epistemology seem to have flowed from that interest, and his fictional characters continue to express Korzybskian views to the very end of his writing career.
ellauri096.html on line 151: If paradoxes were always sets of propositions or arguments or conclusions, then they would always be meaningful. But some paradoxes are semantically flawed (Sorensen 2003b, 352) and some have answers that are backed by a pseudo-argument employing a defective “lemma” that lacks a truth-value. Kurt Grelling’s paradox, for instance, opens with a distinction between autological and heterological words. An autological word describes itself, e.g., ‘polysyllabic’ is polysllabic, ‘English’ is English, ‘noun’ is a noun, etc. A heterological word does not describe itself, e.g., ‘monosyllabic’ is not monosyllabic, ‘Chinese’ is not Chinese, ‘verb’ is not a verb, etc. Now for the riddle: Is ‘heterological’ heterological or autological? If ‘heterological’ is heterological, then since it describes itself, it is autological. But if ‘heterological’ is autological, then since it is a word that does not describe itself, it is heterological. The common solution to this puzzle is that ‘heterological’, as defined by Grelling, is not a genuine predicate (Thomson 1962). In other words, “Is ‘heterological’ heterological?” is without meaning. There can be no predicate that applies to all and only those predicates it does not apply to for the same reason that there can be no barber who shaves all and only those people who do not shave themselves.
ellauri096.html on line 199: Several commentators on the surprise test paradox object that interpreting surprise as unprovability changes the topic. Instead of posing the surprise test paradox, it poses a variation of the liar paradox. Other concepts can be blended with the liar. For instance, mixing in alethic notions generates the possible liar: Is ‘This statement is possibly false’ true? (Post 1970) (If it is false, then it is false that it is possibly false. What cannot possibly be false is necessarily true. But if it is necessarily true, then it cannot be possibly false.) Since the semantic concept of validity involves the notion of possibility, one can also derive validity liars such as Pseudo-Scotus’ paradox: ‘Squares are squares, therefore, this argument is invalid’ (Read 1979). Suppose Pseudo-Scotus’ argument is valid. Since the premise is necessarily true, the conclusion would be necessarily true. But the conclusion contradicts the supposition that argument is valid. Therefore, by reductio, the argument is necessarily invalid. Wait! The argument can be invalid only if it is possible for the premise to be true and the conclusion to be false. But we have already proved that the conclusion of ‘Squares are squares, therefore, this argument is invalid’ is necessarily true. There is no consistent judgment of the argument’s validity. A similar predicament follows from ‘The test is on Friday but this prediction cannot be soundly deduced from this announcement’.
ellauri096.html on line 201: One can mock up a complicated liar paradox that resembles the surprise test paradox. But this complex variant of the liar is not an epistemic paradox. For the paradoxes turn on the semantic concept of truth rather than an epistemic concept.
ellauri131.html on line 651: According to his website, Not-A-Guru "Robbins is an entrepreneur, best-selling author, philanthropist and the nation's #1 Life and Business Strategist." What exactly is a Life and Business Strategist, if not a guru, therapist, and financial advisor all rolled into one coach? Sounds like a bunch of self-help semantics to us, but you be the judge.
ellauri153.html on line 850: Conceivably, the contrasts form some kind of semantic unit. This may be a unit as broadly defined as positive versus negative, with alive and daring being positive and sad and insecure being negative. Titi-uu. Big surprise? Loud and sharp vs. quiet and mumbling. No wonder Bob Cohen was not very memorable as a linguist. He was rather like Reb Berelen. He too was a well-known parasite.
ellauri163.html on line 660: John Perry on Willin isä. Hän on tutkimusmatkailija maailmastamme, joka löysi portaalin Lyran maailmaan ja josta tuli shamaani, joka tunnetaan nimellä Stanislaus Grumman tai Jopari, hänen alkuperäisen nimensä korruptio. John Richard Perry (born 1943) is Henry Waldgrave Stuart Professor of Philosophy Emeritus at Stanford University and Distinguished Professor of Philosophy Emeritus at the University of California, Riverside. He has made significant contributions to philosophy in the fields of philosophy of language, metaphysics, and philosophy of mind. He is known primarily for his work on situation semantics (together with Jon Barwise), reflexivity, indexicality, personal identity, and self-knowledge. Situation Semantics was a huge flop, which became obvious when Barwise died of the cancer of the colon.
ellauri183.html on line 329: Early research in linguistic formal semantics used Partee's system to achieve a wealth of empirical and conceptual results. Later work by Irene Heim, Angelika Kratzer, Tanya Reinhart, Robert May and others built on Partee's work to further reconcile it with the generative approach to syntax. The resulting framework is known as the Heim and Kratzer system, after the authors of the textbook Semantics in Generative Grammar which first codified and popularized it. The Heim and Kratzer system differs from earlier approaches in that it incorporates a level of syntactic representation called logical form which undergoes semantic interpretation. Thus, this system often includes syntactic representations and operations which were introduced by translation rules in Montague's system. However, work by others such as Gerald Gazdar proposed models of the syntax-semantics interface which stayed closer to Montague's, providing a system of interpretation in which denotations could be computed on the basis of surface structures. These approaches live on in frameworks such as categorial grammar and combinatory categorial grammar.
ellauri184.html on line 646: Jesus was crucified between two other “robbers”. The original Greek texts speak of lestai (Mt, Mk). Lestes is the Greek translation of the Latin latro. Both terms have a similarly broad semantic meaning. What is important in our context is that latro and lestes denote not only a street robber but also a resistance- and guerilla fighter. It is likely that no one perceived Jesus as a guerilla fighter, but the term lestes is even broader than the English terms robber, bandit, or resistance fighter, it includes terrorist.
ellauri266.html on line 325: General semantics, a philosophy of language-meaning that was developed by Alfred Korzybski (1879–1950), a Polish-American scholar, and furthered by S.I. Hayakawa, Wendell Johnson, and others; it is the study of language as a representation of reality. Korzybski’s theory was intended to improve the habits of glib upper-class response to hostile low-class environment. Drawing upon such varied disciplines as relativity theory, quantum mechanics, and mathematical logic, Korzybski and his followers sought a scientific, non-Aristotelian basis for clear understanding of the differences between symbol (word) and reality (referent) and the ways in which they themselves can influence (or manipulate) and limit other humans´ ability to think.
ellauri266.html on line 327: A major emphasis of general semantics has been in practical training, in methods for establishing better habits of evaluation, e.g., by indexing words, as “man1,” “man2,” and by dating, as “Roosevelt1930,” “Roosevelt1940,” to indicate exactly which man or which stage of time one is referring to.
ellauri266.html on line 328: Korzybski’s major work on general semantics is Science and Sanity (1933; 5th ed., 1994). The Institute of General Semantics (founded 1938) publishes a quarterly, ETC: A Review of General Semantics.
ellauri266.html on line 333: For fertilization to take place, certain interindividual processes must take place: male and female must get each other´s attention, stimulate each other, secure each other´s cooperation or at least compliance, until the female (or male) finally assumes the appropriate position for receiving the sperm. This known as courtship. Mm, I´m getting the hots by just saying this. General semantics must surely have something to contribute to human sexuality. Mobility increases intelligence, that must be why the in-out moving human male is more intelligent than the female. The adult male is capable of being sexually aroused with or without provocation at practically any time. No wonder females prefer smelly company to no company at all. Except in a KZ lager they tend to lose interest, says Morris Gombinder in Shadows on the Hudson. Desmond Morris has an ingenious argument about the relation of a man´s sexuality to his way of life. "The naked ape is the sexiest man alive!", he says, and means it. "In baboons", he says, "the time from mounting to ejaculation is max 8 seconds, a goldfish´s attention span. Our ladies would never be satisfied with that!" Specialized organs such as lips, ear-lobes, nipples, breasts and genitals are richly endowed with things to lick and suck. Sorry folks, now I just have to take a break for a quick wank, I´m really gettting uncomfortably erect. Thank you. The sexually attractive parts are predominantly at the front, except the arse. Face-to-face sex is personalized sex, said the missionary. From the back you don´t really know who you are interacting with.
ellauri333.html on line 236: The orientalist F. E. Pargiter (1852–1927) theorized that Hanuman was a proto-Dravidian deity. According to this theory, the name "Hanuman" derives from Tamil word for male monkey (ana-mandi), first transformed to "Anumant" – a name which remains in use. "Anumant", according to this hypothesis, was later Sanskritized to "Hanuman" because the ancient Aryans confronted with a popular monkey deity of ancient Dravidians coopted the concept and then Sanskritized it. According to Murray Emeneau, known for his Tamil linguistic studies, this theory does not make sense because the Old Tamil word mandi in Sangam literature can only mean "female monkey", and Hanuman is male. Further, adds Emeneau, the compound ana-mandi makes no semantic sense in Tamil, which has well developed and sophisticated grammar and semantic rules. The "prominent jaw" etymology, according to Emeneau, is therefore plausible.
xxx/ellauri103.html on line 262: Writing under the pseudonym Edward Schlosser on Vox, the author of the essay “I’m a Liberal Professor, and My Liberal Students Scare Me” describes higher education’s “current climate of fear” and its “heavily policed discourse of semantic sensitivity” – and I am concerned that this touchy ethos, in which offendedness is used as a weapon, has spread far beyond academia, in part thanks to social media.
xxx/ellauri168.html on line 297: Notable ideas: Hard problem of consciousness, extended mind, two-dimensional semantics, naturalistic dualism, philosophical zombie.
xxx/ellauri170.html on line 664: Nitpicking, Differences are merely semantic.
xxx/ellauri354.html on line 253: Sartre has said that the writer's is to cure the "sick" language that is incommunicative. Iris Murdoch, in attempting to answer what the sickness of the language really is, says it is the fact that we can no longer take language for granted as a medium of communication. "Its transparancy has gone. We are like people who for a long time looked out of a window without noticing the glass - and then one day began to notice this too. Hemingway also feals this way. Our time demands a simple prose. with an Eliot-like emphasis on semantics."
xxx/ellauri400.html on line 288: bit of a semantic detour, and took on the meanings of
45