diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'extra/philosophy_of_concept_art.tex')
| -rw-r--r-- | extra/philosophy_of_concept_art.tex | 296 |
1 files changed, 144 insertions, 152 deletions
diff --git a/extra/philosophy_of_concept_art.tex b/extra/philosophy_of_concept_art.tex index f2431ef..1c8c71b 100644 --- a/extra/philosophy_of_concept_art.tex +++ b/extra/philosophy_of_concept_art.tex @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ \newcommand{\action}[1]{[\textit{#1}]} -\newcommand{\speaker}[1]{\vskip 0.2em \textsc{#1}: } -\newcommand{\speakermod}[2]{\vskip 0.2em \textsc{#1} \textit{(#2)}: } +\newcommand{\spk}[1]{\vskip 0.4em \textsc{#1}: } +\newcommand{\spkmod}[2]{\vskip 0.4em \textsc{#1} \textit{(#2)}: } \chapter{Philosophy of Concept Art (1987)} @@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ by Christer Hennix \\ Dec. 6, 1987 \par } -\speaker{FLYNT} I'm going to give a summary of how I originated Concept Art +\spk{Flynt} I'm going to give a summary of how I originated Concept Art in order to bring it up to the point where it's understandable why I speak of you (Catherine Christer Hennix) as my only successor in the genre. Summarizing briefly, I see two things coming together. One of them @@ -30,16 +30,16 @@ intellectual dimension in Stockhausen---Stockhausen's theoretical journal \journaltitle{die Reihe}---the impression that they were doing science actually---for example Stockhausen had a long essay on how the duration of the notes had to correspond to the twelve pitches of the -chromatic scale \ldots +chromatic scale\ldots -\speaker{HENNIX} "\ldots\ how time passes\ldots"\footnote{\journaltitle{die Reihe 3}} +\spk{Hennix} \enquote{\ldots\ \textit{how time passes}\ldots}\footnote{\journaltitle{die Reihe 3}} -\speaker{FLYNT} Yes, and what is more, the other rhythms had to correspond to +\spk{Flynt} Yes, and what is more, the other rhythms had to correspond to the overtone structure above those frequencies as fundamentals. -\speaker{HENNIX} Yes, I'm quite familiar with that. +\spk{Hennix} Yes, I'm quite familiar with that. -\speaker{FLYNT} Yes, I would expect you would be. I remember Bo +\spk{Flynt} Yes, I would expect you would be. I remember Bo Nilson---you will like this---in 1958 at the same time I saw Stockhausen's score---he went even one step further than Stockhausen because he used fractional amplitude specifications---so this is even more than @@ -55,11 +55,9 @@ is on one axis and the length of the note is on another axis. What he would do was to superimpose that on some picture like from a star catalogue--- +\spk{Hennix} \opustitle{Atlas Eclipticalis}--- -\speaker{HENNIX} \opustitle{Atlas Eclipticalis}--- - - -\speaker{FLYNT} Yeah, well, that's the particular piece. I'm making up a +\spk{Flynt} Yeah, well, that's the particular piece. I'm making up a composite of his compositional techniques but the result is that when you break up a sequential event in that way, it's not like a pitch-time graph where there's an intuitive recognition of the way the process unfolds. @@ -102,12 +100,10 @@ the attitude, they were rewriting the history of music, trying to show that all previous important figures were essentially preoccupied with structure, that they had been complete structuralists. - -\speaker{HENNIX} Really? I thought it was only Webern that was given that +\spk{Hennix} Really? I thought it was only Webern that was given that treatment. - -\speaker{FLYNT} Well, they were digging up all these composers from the +\spk{Flynt} Well, they were digging up all these composers from the Middle Ages, the isorhythmic motet and everything like that---they were sort of dredging that up because that was the previous period---the medieval scores in the form of a circle and the use of insertion @@ -123,25 +119,25 @@ quite an excursion. At any rate there is in music, there is this preoccupation with---it may be a kind of quasi-Pythagoreanism, I don't know\ldots -\speaker{HENNIX} The way I looked at it was that they saw in Webern, first of +\spk{Hennix} The way I looked at it was that they saw in Webern, first of all the harmony was going away. And they saw in Webern a way of determining the note more and more precisely, in terms of all of its parameters, pitch, duration, timbre and all that. What was left was that timbre was not serialized yet. And that, as far I see it, was what the Darmstadt school did---they added--- -\speaker{FLYNT} Stockhausen's \opustitle{Kontra-Punkte}--- +\spk{Flynt} Stockhausen's \opustitle{Kontra-Punkte}--- -\speaker{HENNIX} Yeah. And they all considered Webern the god of the new +\spk{Hennix} Yeah. And they all considered Webern the god of the new music--- -\speaker{FLYNT} Yes--- +\spk{Flynt} Yes--- -\speaker{HENNIX} ---and also a little bit Messiaen--- +\spk{Hennix} ---and also a little bit Messiaen--- -\speaker{FLYNT} Yes. +\spk{Flynt} Yes. -\speaker{HENNIX} It was Webern and Messaien that determined the entire +\spk{Hennix} It was Webern and Messaien that determined the entire fifties in Darmstadt. In other words, they were saying that Cage was no good. He was just looking in \booktitle{I Ching}---it was a random thing. And you cannot recover the structure, it's hidden, as you said. The problem was @@ -154,15 +150,13 @@ had to fake it. Because---you find that yourself when you do serial music---the music moves too slowly. So you change the numbers to get the music up a little bit. -\speaker{FLYNT} Yes. We're taking longer on this than I meant to\ldots +\spk{Flynt} Yes. We're taking longer on this than I meant to\ldots -\speaker{HENNIX} But I wanted to say this. The completely deterministic com- -position technique and the completely random, aleatoric technique, +\spk{Hennix} But I wanted to say this. The completely deterministic composition technique and the completely random, aleatoric technique, gave exactly the same results. And that was the complete breakdown of -the Darmstadt school. That's when they started to improvise in Darm- -stadt. Not before that was there improvisation in Darmstadt. +the Darmstadt school. That's when they started to improvise in Darmstadt. Not before that was there improvisation in Darmstadt. -\speaker{FLYNT} When they first tried to serialize duration, they tried to pick a +\spk{Flynt} When they first tried to serialize duration, they tried to pick a fundamental unit and use multiples of it; in other words, that's not the way you serialize pitch. You don't take one cycle per second and then use two cycles per second, up to twelve. That's not what you do. But @@ -210,9 +204,7 @@ Carnap. And I was a schoolmate of Kripke, Solovay, Goodman \etc\ my conversations with them were insignificant as far as the philosophy of mathematics was concerned, there was no discussion between me and them on any of that but it will locate the time frame that I'm talking -about.* - -\footnote{I'm being too diffident. I had quite significant discussions with Kripke and Goodman in 1961. [H.F,, note added]} +about.\footnote{I'm being too diffident. I had quite significant discussions with Kripke and Goodman in 1961. [H.F,, note added]} But observing what was going on at that time, I picked up the idea that the most plausible explanation of what mathematics is, is that it is @@ -259,7 +251,7 @@ mathematician was to study structures which do not have any reality. And that from time to time you will give an interpretation to one or the other of these structures, like a physical interpretation, and then it may be found to be true or false in reality or not. Meanwhile, you have -another sense of the word "interpretation" which has to do with relative +another sense of the word \enquote{interpretation} which has to do with relative consistency proofs by something having a model. This is now a completely open question for me, what they thought @@ -268,11 +260,11 @@ doing---he interpreted one or another non-Euclidean geometry---what was the interpretation that he used? It was a denumerable domain of algebraic numbers.\footnote{Foundations of Geometry, pp. 27--30} -\speaker{HENNIX} I think his ideas go back to Klein's models---which are +\spk{Hennix} I think his ideas go back to Klein's models---which are Euclidean in the center of the circle and then at the periphery they have turned non-Euclidean (in the complex plane). -\speaker{FLYNT} You had to have an explanation of how mathematics could be +\spk{Flynt} You had to have an explanation of how mathematics could be true in any sense whatsoever even though any claim of a connection with the real world had been completely severed, and it was being pursued in some kind of vacuum. What does mathematics mean in that @@ -286,28 +278,28 @@ infinitary games. By the way, I completely overlooked that aspect at that time. You know, I can only see it now, kind of like two superimposed pictures, because I see what I know now and compare it with what I knew then. -\speaker{HENNIX} Yeah, the same for myself. I didn't know that this idea of +\spk{Hennix} Yeah, the same for myself. I didn't know that this idea of Hilbert's was forced by Frege until later. Frege was the one who said that either the parallel axiom is true, or it's not. Which way do you want it? And so he caused the big stir in the foundations of geometry in the end of the nineteenth century and that's why he became enemies with Hilbert. They were life enemies. -\speaker{FLYNT} The reason I see it like two superimposed transparencies--- +\spk{Flynt} The reason I see it like two superimposed transparencies--- -\speaker{HENNIX} But even today this debate with Frege---you have to go to a +\spk{Hennix} But even today this debate with Frege---you have to go to a single volume in Frege's posthumous writings---it is not mentioned in any textbook---no lecture mentions it, and, so far, nobody has explained it properly.\footnote{\booktitle{Nachgelassene Schriften und Wissenschaftlicher Briefwechsel}, vol. 2, Felix Meiner, Hamburg: 1976. (Gottlob Frege, The Philosophical and Mathematical Correspondence, University of Chicago Press: 1980)} -\speaker{FLYNT} Yes, yes, yes. You're talking about an obscure origin of something +\spk{Flynt} Yes, yes, yes. You're talking about an obscure origin of something and what I'm talking about is a kind of consensus that had grown up, since everybody agreed that mathematics should study unreal structures. -\speaker{HENNIX} But that consensus was forced on us, that that was what we +\spk{Hennix} But that consensus was forced on us, that that was what we were supposed to do. -\speaker{FLYNT} The problem then---I thought mathematics was like chess. +\spk{Flynt} The problem then---I thought mathematics was like chess. What I understand now is that even a good formalist would not agree with that. A good formalist would say that when you have a finite game like chess, the problems of validity and soundness become transparent @@ -321,11 +313,11 @@ problem to stand for mathematics. Or that the reliability of a finite game was sufficiently complicated to stand for mathematics so I basically focused just on a finite game. -\speaker{HENNIX} By the way, this was exactly the late Wittgenstein's view of +\spk{Hennix} By the way, this was exactly the late Wittgenstein's view of the philosophy of mathematics---it's not a complete misunderstanding, that is to say, other people thought of it that way too. -\speaker{FLYNT} The question then arose of even the soundness, the reliability, +\spk{Flynt} The question then arose of even the soundness, the reliability, the consistency of a finite game---this then is the problem for example whether it is possible to follow a very simple rule correctly or not. The other thing that was feeding into everything that was going on was that @@ -334,23 +326,23 @@ the Harvard Bookstore when I walked in as a freshman my very first day there---so in other words I was looking at Wittgenstein's Remarks on The Foundations of Mathematics from 1957--- -\speaker{HENNIX} Ten years before me--- +\spk{Hennix} Ten years before me--- -\speaker{FLYNT} ---but very cursorily. Because I had a philosophical +\spk{Flynt} ---but very cursorily. Because I had a philosophical agenda---I passed over this material in a very cursory way because I had a philosophical agenda. I was not involved in the distinction between a finite and an infinite structure. I was not involved in that. -\speaker{HENNIX} You thought there was no such distinction? +\spk{Hennix} You thought there was no such distinction? -\speaker{FLYNT} Well no, I thought that---it didn't seem that there was very +\spk{Flynt} Well no, I thought that---it didn't seem that there was very much point in worrying about that when there were much more extreme problems to be worried about. But Wittgenstein wrote a lot about the possibility of following very simple rules. And I assumed that if there were epistemological questions for mathematics that this game interpretation---this chess interpretation---had displaced the question of the soundness and reliability of the mathematics to the possibility of -understanding a very simple rule like writing the series "plus 2". +understanding a very simple rule like writing the series \enquote{plus 2}. And having gathered that this was the way that I should picture mathematics---I mean we understood very well that there were other @@ -359,9 +351,9 @@ obsolete. In other words the person who believed that mathematics was a description of a real supra-terrestrial structure, and certainly there were people like that--- -\speaker{HENNIX} Still today. +\spk{Hennix} Still today. -\speaker{FLYNT} ---we thought that this was a philosophy that had been +\spk{Flynt} ---we thought that this was a philosophy that had been exposed as superstitious by Positivism and possibly even by Ockham several centuries earlier. So it was not that we didn't know about that. I drew a personal conclusion that that position could not be defended by @@ -372,8 +364,8 @@ meant to me. In my philosophy I was not concerned with the specifics of mathematics; I was concerned with the problem of how I knowa world beyond my immediate sensations. That was actually the question that I -began with---the question of propositions of material fact, like "it is raining" -or "the \textsc{Empire State Building} is at Fifth Avenue and 34th Street." +began with---the question of propositions of material fact, like \enquote{it is raining} +or \enquote{the \textsc{Empire State Building} is at Fifth Avenue and 34th Street.} I had read a very simplified exposition---it was actually some lectures that Carnap gave in England in the 1930s on what Positivism @@ -403,29 +395,29 @@ text which in effect gave my own empiricist constructions of what it means to say that A causes B and so forth, to give empiricist constructive definitions of those---which is, I suppose, in the spirit of Carnap's program, even though I hadn't actually seen what he had written, and if -I had it would have confused me---no, I wouldn't say "confused"; I +I had it would have confused me---no, I wouldn't say \enquote{confused}; I would say it would have discredited him completely. I wouldn't say -"confused" because that's too modest. +\enquote{confused} because that's too modest. -\speaker{HENNIX} No, I wouldn't think "confused," I would think it would +\spk{Hennix} No, I wouldn't think \enquote{confused,} I would think it would have upset you\ldots -\speaker{FLYNT} No, I wouldn't say "confused." I would say he had been +\spk{Flynt} No, I wouldn't say \enquote{confused.} I would say he had been discredited. I very quickly passed to the position that the propositions of natural science were meaningless metaphysics. -\speaker{HENNIX} On what basis? Can you pin that down? A little bit, only. +\spk{Hennix} On what basis? Can you pin that down? A little bit, only. -\speaker{FLYNT} This is something I want to compress---it says a little bit about +\spk{Flynt} This is something I want to compress---it says a little bit about this in \booktitle{Blueprint for a Higher Civilization}\footnote{H. Flynt, Blueprint for a Higher Civilization (Milan, 1975). Recently reissued and an expanded and corrected edition by \textsc{Salitter Workings}}---like -the proposition, "this key is made of iron" or something like that, I comment on that in the +the proposition, \enquote{this key is made of iron} or something like that, I comment on that in the essay \essaytitle{Philosophical Aspects of Walking Through Walls}. -\speaker{HENNIX} I didn't recall the example actually. +\spk{Hennix} I didn't recall the example actually. -\speakermod{FLYNT}{reading} "The natural sciences must certainly be dismantled. +\spkmod{Flynt}{reading} \textquote{The natural sciences must certainly be dismantled. In this connection it is appropriate to make a criticism about the logic of science as Carnap rationalized it. Carnap considered a proposition meaningful if it had any empirically verifiable proposition as an @@ -441,7 +433,7 @@ fabrication which amalgamates a few trivially-testable meanings with an infinite number of untestable meanings and inveigles us to accept the whole conglomeration at once. It is apparent at the very beginning of \booktitle{Philosophy and Logical Syntax} that Carnap recognized this quite -clearly; but it did not occur to him to do anything about it." +clearly; but it did not occur to him to do anything about it.} The only point that I'm trying to make here is that I began to move very quickly when I was still very young towards a position of extreme @@ -450,7 +442,7 @@ was not a slow process. I just immediately took Carnap's critique of metaphysics, decided that it applied directly to natural science---you dismiss natural science as meaningless. The problem: is there an object that is beyond my experience, is there a glass which is beyond what they -would call the "scopic" glass, the "tactile" glass \action{gestures toward the +would call the \enquote{scopic} glass, the \enquote{tactile} glass \action{gestures toward the glass from which he has been drinking}---is there a glass other than those glasses---when you first think about it, that question seems to have exactly the status of the propositions about God, freedom, and @@ -478,16 +470,16 @@ Kant makes the same point. In order to ask the question whether there is a glass beyond my sense impression of it---I cannot ask that question\ldots -\speaker{HENNIX} Oh you mean the \term{ding an sich} question. +\spk{Hennix} Oh you mean the \term{ding an sich} question. -\speaker{FLYNT} Well that's what Kant would have been talking about but I +\spk{Flynt} Well that's what Kant would have been talking about but I don't want to fit that narrowly into Kant's controlling the terms of the discussion. I'm trying to ask it as someone who has embraced Logical Positivism and is now turning around to question Logical Positivism---you see the point that I was just making there---when you say that this key is made of iron, which is Carnap's favorite example---and then a protocol sentence, for example -"if I hold a magnet near this key, the key will be attracted to the magnet"---it +\enquote{if I hold a magnet near this key, the key will be attracted to the magnet}---it is not clear where Carnap stands on the question whether only my sense impressions are real---just talking about this situation---only my sense impressions are real---or is there @@ -540,26 +532,26 @@ forces a yes answer. This does not mean that a proof of the existence of the external world has been given. It meant that the proposition of the existence of the external world would verify itself even if it were false! -\speaker{HENNIX} I find this extremely interesting and rewarding, what you are +\spk{Hennix} I find this extremely interesting and rewarding, what you are saying now, because I never heard you say it this way before. I just want to ask you one question before you go on: namely, I see something for the first time which I hadn't seen before---but before you go on I just want to ask you one leading question: the simple existential statement, -"there is a glass on the table." You include that also in what will be -doubtable here. In other words not just "there is a glass on the table" -but "there exists a glass," the existential statement. I guess I wasn't very +\enquote{there is a glass on the table.} You include that also in what will be +doubtable here. In other words not just \enquote{there is a glass on the table} +but \enquote{there exists a glass,} the existential statement. I guess I wasn't very clear now. -\speaker{FLYNT} No, the thing is, the approach that I'm taking doesn't break it +\spk{Flynt} No, the thing is, the approach that I'm taking doesn't break it down the way that you're talking about. Let me tell you. You may not be \emph{sympatico} with empiricism. When you are trying to deal with philosophy at all---you have to make some allowance for the fact---you have to understand that the philosopher may be carving up problems in a way that is temperamentally alien to you. -\speaker{HENNIX} Yeah\ldots +\spk{Hennix} Yeah\ldots -\speaker{FLYNT} You have to understand that. This is why somebody like +\spk{Flynt} You have to understand that. This is why somebody like Carnap would read Hegel and say it's not saying anything. Actually, Hegel is saying something. In fact, you might go so far as to make a case that Hegel is actually rebutting Carnap, becaue if you understand what @@ -574,17 +566,17 @@ solved problem. I'm trying to give you a sense of misunderstandings between philosophers that are the results of temperamental incompatibilities. -\speaker{HENNIX} What you are giving me is a two-step way to skepticism. You +\spk{Hennix} What you are giving me is a two-step way to skepticism. You ask a certain question---is there something beyond this perception of -the glass? And you say the answer "yes" is forced on me, but then you +the glass? And you say the answer \enquote{yes} is forced on me, but then you realize this was a meaningless question. -\speaker{FLYNT} No, it's the other way around. +\spk{Flynt} No, it's the other way around. -\speaker{HENNIX} Oh, okay, but here's where you have to explain in detail +\spk{Hennix} Oh, okay, but here's where you have to explain in detail because here's where I miss you. -\speaker{FLYNT} Let me go through the series of steps again. The series of steps +\spk{Flynt} Let me go through the series of steps again. The series of steps was\ldots\ I'll have to doit all at the same time. You have to understand---I don't think that you even understand what an empiricist is. It's a peculiar attitude. And one of the reasons why you have very little @@ -598,9 +590,9 @@ because in addition to having the doctrine of the construction of the world from sense impressions, they also want to have things like science--- -\speaker{HENNIX} Ethics\ldots +\spk{Hennix} Ethics\ldots -\speaker{FLYNT} No, not ethics---one of the characteristics of the twentieth- +\spk{Flynt} No, not ethics---one of the characteristics of the twentieth- century philosopher was the appearance of the tough-guy philosopher who rejects all of ethics as meaningless, which Carnap certainly did and people who are close to him like A.J. Ayer---no, they did not want @@ -625,9 +617,9 @@ stupidity, because the man did not realize that his answers were not adequate, did not realize how preposterous his constructions of the world were--- -\speaker{HENNIX} I would say vulgar. +\spk{Hennix} I would say vulgar. -\speaker{FLYNT} Yes, yes. And\ldots\ what is even worse about empiricism is, in the +\spk{Flynt} Yes, yes. And\ldots\ what is even worse about empiricism is, in the case of somebody like Mach, not only does he want to have his sense impressions and does he want to have his science, but he wants to have science explain sense impressions! And nevertheless it was supposed to @@ -646,12 +638,12 @@ authentic empiricist. You ask does a glass exist; an authentic empiricist would have to say that he already has a problem with that---that he has to regard that as an undefined question or statement. It's undefined, because if you are asking me if at this moment I quote unquote -have---interesting word there, "have"---that is what our ordinary +have---interesting word there, \enquote{have}---that is what our ordinary language gives us as the idiom for this. -\speaker{HENNIX} Or "suffer!" +\spk{Hennix} Or \enquote{suffer!} -\speaker{FLYNT} Yes, "have" or "suffer," that's right. I have or I suffer a scopic +\spk{Flynt} Yes, \enquote{have} or \enquote{suffer,} that's right. I have or I suffer a scopic glass or visual glass apparition---then that is identically true. That is identically true. If you express any surprise at that, we have a problem here. I have a scopic glass. If I say I have an apparitional glass, would @@ -671,77 +663,77 @@ an objectivity to compare it to. And a bona fide empiricist would not agree that my sense impression is subjective---subjective in comparison to \emph{what}? -\speaker{HENNIX} So an empiricist would be a person who would not doubt +\spk{Hennix} So an empiricist would be a person who would not doubt whether he had a toothache or not. In other words, if he had a toothache\ldots -\speaker{FLYNT} You would regard it as being a mistake to do what? I'm not -sure about the word "toothache"---if you mean that he would not +\spk{Flynt} You would regard it as being a mistake to do what? I'm not +sure about the word \enquote{toothache}---if you mean that he would not doubt whether he had a toothache sensation. Whether there is an organic---in the language of medicine---whether there is an organic substrate for the toothache impression---this in a medical sense is a question of what is called hysteria or something like that\ldots -\speaker{HENNIX} Suppose I have a toothache. But now I'm an empiricist so I +\spk{Hennix} Suppose I have a toothache. But now I'm an empiricist so I say I'm doubting this impression. I probably don't have a toothache. -\speaker{FLYNT} No, no\ldots +\spk{Flynt} No, no\ldots -\speaker{HENNIX} I have to accept the toothache? +\spk{Hennix} I have to accept the toothache? -\speaker{FLYNT} No, you don't have--- +\spk{Flynt} No, you don't have--- -\speaker{HENNIX} The glass you said was---I couldn't doubt the perception of +\spk{Hennix} The glass you said was---I couldn't doubt the perception of the glass. You said that was beyond doubt, in some sense, for the empiricist. -\speaker{FLYNT} It would be some kind of logical mistake to think that there +\spk{Flynt} It would be some kind of logical mistake to think that there was anything there to be doubted. -\speaker{HENNIX} Okay. And the same with the toothache. +\spk{Hennix} Okay. And the same with the toothache. -\speaker{FLYNT} Yes, yes. I mean the point is not so much that we have come +\spk{Flynt} Yes, yes. I mean the point is not so much that we have come into an area in which the empiricist is prepared to have faith---that would be completely missing the point. No faith is required---that's the point. The point is that it would be some kind of logical error. Once you understand what a sense impression is, the terminology of doubt does not apply to that level. -\speaker{HENNIX} I see. Just that was my question. +\spk{Hennix} I see. Just that was my question. -\speaker{FLYNT} The terminology of doubt does not apply to apparitions. It +\spk{Flynt} The terminology of doubt does not apply to apparitions. It doesn't make sense to doubt subjective apparitions. The empiricist is already nervous when you ask does a glass exist. If you are asking -whether I have a "scopic" glass, it's identically true. Wait, wait. There +whether I have a \enquote{scopic} glass, it's identically true. Wait, wait. There are already problems there. I'll come back to them. But when you say---it sounds like what you're asking me is whether the fact that I see a glass is sufficient to prove an objective glass---that sounds like \ldots -\speaker{HENNIX} No, no, that's not what--- +\spk{Hennix} No, no, that's not what--- -\speaker{FLYNT} Well, ok. Most people when they say: -"do you concede that there is a glass on the table---I'm sitting here looking at it," what they -mean is: "do you concede that from your visual glass apparition you should conclude an objective glass, a substantial glass?" I'm taking it for +\spk{Flynt} Well, ok. Most people when they say: +\enquote{do you concede that there is a glass on the table---I'm sitting here looking at it,} what they +mean is: \enquote{do you concede that from your visual glass apparition you should conclude an objective glass, a substantial glass?} I'm taking it for granted that you know enough about philosophy to have a sense of the -full weight those two words "substantial" and "objective" have in +full weight those two words \enquote{substantial} and \enquote{objective} have in philosophy. -\speaker{HENNIX} Yes. +\spk{Hennix} Yes. -\speaker{FLYNT} That at great length is my reaction to your question about -doubting "there is a glass on the table" versus doubting "there exists a glass." -A bona fide empiricist would say, "Why are you asking me this?" +\spk{Flynt} That at great length is my reaction to your question about +doubting \enquote{there is a glass on the table} versus doubting \enquote{there exists a glass.} +A bona fide empiricist would say, \enquote{Why are you asking me this?} The scopic glass is simply here for me. As far as concluding that an objective glass exists from the existence of that apparition---the traditional problem of concluding whether the apparition is a symptom of -some transcendent world---I think the word "transcendent" is sometimes +some transcendent world---I think the word \enquote{transcendent} is sometimes used in that sense in philosophy---the world beyond any sense impression--- -\speaker{HENNIX} This is why I used the example of the pain---because it +\spk{Hennix} This is why I used the example of the pain---because it would be senseless for me to claim that \emph{I} can have \emph{your} toothache! -\speaker{FLYNT} Now just a minute. An empiricist---what you're really getting +\spk{Flynt} Now just a minute. An empiricist---what you're really getting at what you're sort of squeezing out of me here---I'm glad to have it squeezed out of me---I have no embarrassment about this---is that with empiricism either you must be prepared immediately to depart @@ -758,7 +750,7 @@ For the empiricist, nothing remotely like that question has arisen yet, because I haven't got outside of my own quote unquote head yet. Maybe you're just squeezing more and more. Either the empiricist -must be a "madman" or else he must be insincere. I took the alternative +must be a \enquote{madman} or else he must be insincere. I took the alternative of the madman. This is important not for me but for the general public to be told---something which the general public has never been told---and I know why they have never been told---maybe it is necessary to @@ -776,14 +768,14 @@ the scientist needed. And, at the same time, empiricism was supposed to be---in the case of Neurath---he wanted to make some kind of unification of empiricism with Marxism and make it like a complete demythified view of society. -\speaker{HENNIX} There was even an attempt to bring ethics into it. +\spk{Hennix} There was even an attempt to bring ethics into it. -\speaker{FLYNT} Well, in Neurath's case, yes. +\spk{Flynt} Well, in Neurath's case, yes. -\speaker{HENNIX} Schlick too, I think---Schlick, I recall, did something in -ethics.\bootnote{\booktitle{Fragen der Ethik}, Vienna, 1930.} +\spk{Hennix} Schlick too, I think---Schlick, I recall, did something in +ethics.\footnote{\booktitle{Fragen der Ethik}, Vienna, 1930.} -\speaker{FLYNT} I was talking about why empiricism is not portrayed honestly +\spk{Flynt} I was talking about why empiricism is not portrayed honestly in the general picture that exists of philosophy---the public picture of philosophy---it was brought in to solve the problem of what is a base for science---namely, sense impressions are going to be taken as @@ -791,20 +783,20 @@ elemental. Science is going to arise from sense impressions by construction. Nevertheless it is required that both scientific knowledge and the common-sense social world be produced by this approach--- -\speaker{HENNIX} Neurath, you mean. +\spk{Hennix} Neurath, you mean. -\speaker{FLYNT} No, no. Well, Carnap did not deny the existence of other +\spk{Flynt} No, no. Well, Carnap did not deny the existence of other people. All of the positivists\ldots -\speaker{HENNIX} Rather, he had nothing to say about it. +\spk{Hennix} Rather, he had nothing to say about it. -\speaker{FLYNT} I didn't say ethics---I said the common-sense social world. I +\spk{Flynt} I didn't say ethics---I said the common-sense social world. I wasn't talking about anything ethical\ldots -\speaker{HENNIX} The existence of tables and cars and--- +\spk{Hennix} The existence of tables and cars and--- -\speaker{FLYNT} Well, what I'm saying is that the existence of other people is on +\spk{Flynt} Well, what I'm saying is that the existence of other people is on the same level as the existence of tables and automobiles. And what is even worse than that is that the ones who were scientists in fact wanted to see perception itself as the product of the abstract and quantified @@ -827,14 +819,14 @@ take that \emph{seriously} anymore. As a matter of fact Hume wrote two philosophical works and in the first work\footnote{\booktitle{Treatise on Human Nature}} there is the notorious passage in which he himself -understands what it means to be a genuine empiricist.\footnote{Book I, Part IV, VII "Conclusion"} +understands what it means to be a genuine empiricist.\footnote{Book I, Part IV, VII \enquote{Conclusion}} He says, \textquote{I feel that I am an outcast from the human race,} and so forth in this famous passage---he says, -"I do not know if the glass continues to exist after I've looked away from it." +\enquote{I do not know if the glass continues to exist after I've looked away from it.} That line in Hume should have told you whatever you wanted to know about the existence of the glass. You should be able to ascertain the appropriate answer to your question. -Hume says: "I do not know if the glass exists when I look away from it." +Hume says: \enquote{I do not know if the glass exists when I look away from it.} Hume's second book\footnote{\booktitle{An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding}}, when he was trying to vindicate himself, @@ -867,7 +859,7 @@ how dreams would affect the validity of the proof. He touches on all of those in a way which is just awful. It's a disgraceful performance. But he had the issue there, actually. -Well, your first reaction is, "I have no way of answering this." Your +Well, your first reaction is, \enquote{I have no way of answering this.} Your second reaction is, that \emph{if I understand the question}, then there must be an external world. So it would seem that I have actually proved the external world---that's what Kant actually said. Or he came very near @@ -875,11 +867,11 @@ to saying something like that. The third step is the realization that the statement would validate itself not only if it's true---but if it's false it validates itself equally well! -\speaker{HENNIX} Given this method of understanding the question. And the +\spk{Hennix} Given this method of understanding the question. And the method remained unspecified so far---as far as I know nobody has been able to do very well at specifying it. -\speaker{FLYNT} What? Do you mean if somebody asks whether there is an +\spk{Flynt} What? Do you mean if somebody asks whether there is an external world---my last remark is a comment about semantics---the genuine semantic issue, as I said, and it's very different from the sort of thing that Tarski is going on about which I think is just ridiculous. @@ -899,8 +891,8 @@ then there is no guarantee of the continuity of the position of the pieces in the absence of moves. What happens is that people treat those basic questions as if they are so basic that it's sort of preposterous to make an issue of them. Kripke said very clearly in his book on Wittgenstein that -once the question, "Does language exist?" has been asked, not to give -an affirmative answer is "insane and intolerable."\footnote{S. Kripke, +once the question, \enquote{Does language exist?} has been asked, not to give +an affirmative answer is \enquote{insane and intolerable.}\footnote{S. Kripke, \booktitle{Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language}, p.60} It's the same reaction as there is to solipsism---that solipsism is the philosophy of the man in the lunatic asylum. @@ -909,23 +901,23 @@ The thing that may come before all the discussion so far is the question of \emph{what is my position on being classified as insane} is the beginning This of philosophy for me. -\speaker{HENNIX} Well, this is the classical beginning of philosophy. +\spk{Hennix} Well, this is the classical beginning of philosophy. -\speaker{FLYNT} Because if you're not willing to face up to being classified as +\spk{Flynt} Because if you're not willing to face up to being classified as insane---if you want to avoid that confrontation---you can't be a philosopher. That confrontation is at the center of bona fide philosophy. -\speaker{HENNIX} Or was\ldots +\spk{Hennix} Or was\ldots -\speaker{FLYNT} Yes. At any rate, I had reached this point in something like -1961. I had not yet done \essaytitlte{The "Is There Language?" Trap}. But I had reached +\spk{Flynt} Yes. At any rate, I had reached this point in something like +1961. I had not yet done \essaytitle{The \enquote{Is There Language?} Trap}. But I had reached the point of saying that to claim the existence of a world beyond experience is untenable. However I understood very well that it begins to create problems for me to say, \textquote{I have a visual glass apparition,} because there is a lot of structure in that sentence. And it's not clear what is supporting that structure after the world has been cut away. -Even the use of the idioms like "have" and "suffer." The use of the word -"I"---after the objective world has been cut away it's unclear what is the +Even the use of the idioms like \enquote{have} and \enquote{suffer.} The use of the word +\enquote{I}---after the objective world has been cut away it's unclear what is the basis for all of that. And this is the point I had reached in 1961 and this is the point when I did \essaytitle{Concept Art}. @@ -981,7 +973,7 @@ rule---but in each case they wish to express the violation, the failure of some traditional organizing principle of these uninterpreted calculi, For instance there is one where, among other things, the very notation itself has an undisplaced active interaction with the subjectivity of the -quote unquote reader.\footnote{dated 6/19/61---later titled "Illusions."} +quote unquote reader.\footnote{dated 6/19/61---later titled \enquote{Illusions.}} And that determines the structure of the derivation, the proof. It was pointed out to me many years later that it's not just that you don't get this in schoolbook mathematics---this is what @@ -994,15 +986,15 @@ In other words, for each step you are told, for that step only and for this moment only, what the transformation rule is. And by the time you are ready to take the next step, that rule is forgotten and inoperative. -\speaker{HENNIX} This is the \essaytitle{Energy Cube Organism}? +\spk{Hennix} This is the \essaytitle{Energy Cube Organism}? -\speaker{FLYNT} No, no. \essaytitle{The Energy Cube Organism} was not Concept Art at +\spk{Flynt} No, no. \essaytitle{The Energy Cube Organism} was not Concept Art at all. No, no. It was a different genre. That one was the piece called \essaytitle{Transformations}. \essaytitle{The Energy Cube Organism} and the \essaytitle{Perception-Dissociator} in my own classification are not Concept Art. Only the pieces labeled -"Concept Art" are Concept Art. And I only did four of them until 1987. +\enquote{Concept Art} are Concept Art. And I only did four of them until 1987. Three of them are in \booktitle{An Anthology}, and the fourth was published in \journaltitle{dimension 14} (1963). \essaytitle{The Energy Cube Organism} and the \essaytitle{Perception-Dissociator} were in other genres. I drew these distinctions of genre @@ -1024,18 +1016,18 @@ general rule written in Heaven. But in fact there isn't any general rule, and when you move the pawn to Bishop 3, you're just making up what you are doing right at that moment, and there isn't any general rule. -\speaker{HENNIX} You would label this ad hoc? +\spk{Hennix} You would label this ad hoc? -\speaker{FLYNT} That's right. That would be perhaps a better word for it. All +\spk{Flynt} That's right. That would be perhaps a better word for it. All transformation rules and probably even all formation rules are ad hoc, yes, yes. -I said "nominalistic" because they are only there individually. +I said \enquote{nominalistic} because they are only there individually. They do not add up to any general--- -\speaker{HENNIX} System of rules? +\spk{Hennix} System of rules? -\speaker{FLYNT} No---not that---they do not add up to any generality, to a +\spk{Flynt} No---not that---they do not add up to any generality, to a general rule that covers all cases of a certain class. What is inadequate about this---and I realized very quickly that @@ -1109,20 +1101,20 @@ third thing is that this does not claim to have objective truth. It is a construction for the world-hallucination or the world-apparition or even a construction for the private world-apparition. -\speaker{HENNIX} You are actually extending the world by new constructions. +\spk{Hennix} You are actually extending the world by new constructions. -\speaker{FLYNT} But it's the world-apparition. In a sense if I believed that these +\spk{Flynt} But it's the world-apparition. In a sense if I believed that these rules were objectively established, then it would almost indicate that I had not learned the lesson of the very piece which sits beside it on the -page!\footnote{\essaytitle{Innperseqs} versus \essaytitle{{Transformations,} second edition.} +page!\footnote{\essaytitle{Innperseqs} versus \essaytitle{Transformations,} second edition.} And what am I doing talking about a page and a text? So the answer is that I have abandoned the provision of truth as the purpose of this activity and I have moved to the provision of experiences where the possibility of these experiences is a surprise. -\speaker{HENNIX} And you don't have to be an empiricist to be surprised. +\spk{Hennix} And you don't have to be an empiricist to be surprised. -\speaker{FLYNT} Yes. Yes. But the truth claim that you would have from a +\spk{Flynt} Yes. Yes. But the truth claim that you would have from a Kripke or a Goodman has been dropped. The meaning of the text is the meaning that the reader associates to it. And the thing is, that in conventional intellectual work that's an unacceptable answer, because |