- Towards confusion and disintegration
- Towards dogma, recitation, ritual
- Towards discovery, insight
The third is the only one that allows the conversation to continue. The first two either lose or eliminate the possibility of semantic content. It isn't possible to continue a confused conversation, and a dogmatic or ritualistic exchange cannot develop. It is possible that the first two options conflate, depending on how they are considered.
When we reject a particular way of articulating the truth (dogma), we do not relinquish objectivity. Objective truth can only be explored in a working language, however much we may wish to find a 'terminal formulation'. What we count as a working language cannot be captured in a specific formula either, but only reveals itself in our practice, in our actual conversations with one another.
Within these conversations, there are certain moves that would be terminally confusing. These moves, however, can only be characterised semantically - there is no 'extra-linguistic' formula for distinguishing them. This is a direct consequence of the indeterminacy of translation - it is only when we know what someone means that we can adjudicate on the sense (intelligibility) of what they are saying.
A Moore's paradoxical statement is only 'paradoxical' if we insist on decoding its representation canonically. And, of course, the insistence on canonical interpretation is also 'paradoxical', for the same reasons. If I insist that the classical example of a Moore's statement uses 'believe', for instance, in the 'normal' way, then my insistence is also a Moore's paradox.
No comments:
Post a Comment