Schroder sq and the new talea

Asa, Thanks to Lew I need not to state my 'materialistic'
conviction. I am 'physicalist' all the way .Ie all events
are physical and we are hoping to be able to reduce all
sciences to physical terms. So in this sence even 'semanticalisam' is a provisional state because of lack of better. What I like to address is your talk about
'linquistic decomposition'. You are obviously not familiar
with 'compositionality principle' as introduced by Frege.
A sentence is a composed whole such that every expression
in a sentence contributes to the meaning of the whole sentence. The analysis of a sentence may involve 'decomposition' but this is only for the sake of
analysis: trying to stipulate wich 'part' play which function in the whole sentence.
Now : 'cogito ergo sum' is not my conviction but I attributed this to you as your possible premisse. One can easely 'deduce' from there the conclusion 'I am not' when
not thinking. The problem is 'I am not' is not a sentence
or not completed sentence. Ie badly composed because this sentence lack 'some parts' and consequently has no complete
meaning. Say like 'x + 4'. As long as we have not put some
number in the 'marker' x this expression has no sence nor
reference. So producing some bewildering 'meánings' from
the word 'not' and constructing 'nothingnees' as adding
up to the presuppoosed meaning has nothing to do with semantics or linquistic theory but illustrates the lack of
needed knowledge. Stating the same in a question statement:
how can one discuss quantification theory with a person
who has never heard about quantification?

Regards,

Why has this thread reduced to gibberish -i.e modern philosphy? "Consciousness has nothing to do with thought; as soon as you achieve a state of consciousness without thought, it can be said that you are super-conscious" ???

Consciousness is a state of awareness - it presupposes something to be a aware of i.e. external reality. Thought is identification and integration of observable facts of reality - that's it!!! To say "when thought is silenced is actual knowledge" is simply nonsense.

Atmasphere, when René Descartes postulated the often quoted and often misinterpreted "cogito ergo sum" he assumed only the very content of the sentence - "I am actually thinking, consequently I exist". It was no statement to explain behavior - rather connecting the process of thinking with physic and psychic existence of the person stating.
As such it calls at least for a certain degree of "realizing" to be able to reflect on ones own process of thinking and to be able to draw any consequence from this discovery.
But indeed - the thinking or the thought per se is not simultaneously "being". But "being" is most likely a (if not "the"...) conditio sine qua non for "thinking" ( assuming that even the most complex "learning" computer is actually only counting 1 and 0 and is not thinking in the way we define it ).

I think ( a risky word in this context...;-) ...) that Descartes phenomenal statement - which marked the awakening of the spirit of humanism - is not philosophy. It is much more. It is the self-recognition of the human spirit. Beyond knowledge. Beyond religion.
There are a lot of us out there today who have gained a lot of "knowledge", but many of them are not actually aware of their own existence and the inherent consequences.
I am a bit familiar with Jiddu Krishnamurti's thoughts ( at least the one printed...) and I can not agree that

Knowing that your consciousness exists in a state of true Being when thought is silenced is actual knowledge.

Knowledge in the sense of enlightenment or "satori" (as in Buddhism ) is an ( if fascinating, kind of conciliatory and tempting in a religious sense ) egomaniacal human error.

Dear Nandric, Heidegger's

Das Nichts nichtet..

is even in German a kind of strange phrase (like Wagner's "Liebestod" ...).
"nichtet" as such is not a real word in German ( can't believe it is actually part of the Duden ), but it is absolutely clear what it means.
It should be translated ( to get to the core of the sentence and its content) as: "The Nothing nullifies".

Hope this helps.
BTW - the best discussion so far in my 18+ months on Audiogon !
Best regards,
D.

Dear Nandric, when you said

In the çontext of áudio system you are able to relate tonearm,
cart,TT, amps.and speakers. This is obviously RELATIONAL
issue. Correlation of those, say, different parts is the
same.

you were right. I do so because these are all parts of a system. Only together they do form a system. As important as one or the other part of the system may be ( and there are of course certain parts which do contribute more to the "sound" of the audio set-up then others ) - only the whole system does reproduce a recording into music (hopefully ...) again. So here we do indeed have individual tools, which do relate to each other in a certain context and can not fulfill their purpose without the others.
And yes, so far I too have not found any object which does indeed satisfy both conditions - Fx and Gx.
Regards,
D.