David: May I quote further?:"...its own semantics. That is to say, the referential relations of language must be given priority over syntactical relations, while it is only as syntactical relations are themselves open through their boundary conditions to a controlling center beyond them that they may be meaningfully understood themselves. If syntactical relations can be understood and handled in this way; it is not so likely that we will project the kind of relations that obtain among words and sentences into the objective realities to which they are semantically correlated" Lance ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: May 17, 2004 09:08 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Land of the Free
Lance wrote: > As I've quoted so many times: "no syntactics contains > ITS OWN semantics". You dropped the discussion on this topic, so I'm not sure what your peculiar understanding of this is. I hate guessing at what people are thinking, but in this case, I think I must offer some comments. If they don't apply to you, don't get mad at me and say that I am misrepresenting you. Just clarify your perspective. Syntactics is not the same as syntax, and yet it appears that you are interpreting this statement in that way to make fallacious arguments. Syntax certainly does have its own semantics, as I have shown in a previous post. Syntactics, on the other hand, is a system of using symbols to represent concepts. Gödel reduced some philosophical statements to mathematical symbols in order to create some interesting theorems and proofs. By doing this, a side observation is made of "no syntactics contains its own semantics." Big deal. Everyone who has studied algebra already knows this is true. We substitute symbols all the time in order to resolve mathematical problems. Children call them "word problems." We convert the problem stated in words to mathematical symbols, and then we can use the logic system of math to resolve the problem without clouding our mind with the specific meanings of the symbols themselves. Every child who has worked math problems understands this, but you have to say, "no syntactics contains its own semantics," which only obfuscates the issue while at the same time causing you to appear intelligent by your use of esoteric words that only few understand. So to aid our communication, please recognize the difference between syntax and syntactics, more specifically, symbol meaning. The syntax of a sentence is something much more than the substitution of symbols. The arrangment of words can have specific meaning, and it is a meaning defined by the language itself. Therefore, while I might agree that no syntactics has its own semantics, I would not agree that no syntax (the order and arrangment of words and structural elements) has its own semantics (meaning). Lance wrote: > You are correct IFF (if and only if) you never have to visit that >"woodshed" again. What are the chances of that being the case? > What I believe "changed" was behaviour. That "change" is temporary. Why do you insist that I would be correct ONLY if future punishment was not necessary? What if I said you were correct if and only if you never had to speak to her again about her misbehavior? Would that mean that words do not change a person's heart? Of course not. I expect a series of punishments and instruction to be needed. I might have to spank her 7 times and speak to her 50 times before her heart is changed. So what. These are the tools used to change her heart. I think perhaps what you mean to say is that punishment ALONE is insufficient to change hearts. I would agree with that statement. If my wife punishes one of our children, I am always asking her what she said to the child because that is more important, in my perspective, than the actual punishment itself. The combination of love, words, and punishment is a powerful way to change hearts. These are the methods of God himself, giving us the law and its decree of punishment, and also giving us the good news of the gospel of mercy found in Jesus Christ. Systems that advocate only the use of words or only the use of punishment always seem to fail. Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
