Overblog Suivre ce blog
Editer l'article Administration Créer mon blog

Recherche

1 novembre 2016 2 01 /11 /novembre /2016 08:20
You Be Mother II, 1990 by London-based film artist Sarah Pucill

You Be Mother II, 1990 by London-based film artist Sarah Pucill

Afin de ne pas faire de contresens et de déformer le texte, je vous le livre dans sa version anglaise que l’on peut trouver dans ce monument qui devrait être enseigné dès l’école primaire, « Science and Sanity ». Korzybski avait même prévu un chapitre particulier concernant l’éducation, étant bien conscient que pour changer la société, une des clés était de former les nouvelles générations en les dotant des outils adaptés (On Non-Aristotelian Training, chapitre XXIX, Science and Sanity). Le bouquin est sorti en 1933…force est de constater que l’enseignement de Korzybski n’a pas percolé dans la société ! Il faut dire que c’est de la véritable dynamite intellectuelle propre à développer une dynamique révolutionnaire dans notre rapport au monde qui aurait dissipé l’épais brouillard qu’une infime minorité contribue à produire pour masquer ses agissements délétères au détriment de la communauté humaine! Mais ce qui est vrai aujourd’hui ne le sera peut-être pas demain et construire sur l’ignorance une domination est bien la chose la plus absurde à faire dans un univers dont la clé est justement la complexité !

Je me demande si une des clés du dossier ummite ne se trouverait pas dans ce « paradoxe » illustré par Epiménides tant il est vrai qu’à la lecture des courriers et des Tweets nous pataugeons dans ce fameux « paradoxe » du menteur.

 

In Science and Sanity, Fifth Edition, Chap. VII The mechanism of Time-Binding. Pg 435

“For further details about theory of types, the reader is referred to the literature on the subject and Supplement II ; here I shall give only a few examples of the complexities and difficulties inherent in language, and show how simply they become solved by the aid of Non Aristotelian general semantics and the resulting « consciousness of abstracting ».

As an example, I quote Russell’s analysis of the « simple » statement « I am lying », as given in the Principia. «  The oldest contradiction of the kind in question is the Epimenides. Epimenides the Cretan said that all Cretans were liars, and all other statements made by Cretans were certainly lies. Was this a lie? The simplest form of this contradiction is afforded by man who says « I am lying »; if he is lying, he is speaking the truth, and vice versa…

When a man says « I am lying », we may interpret his statement as: « There is a proposition which I am affirming and which is false ». That is to say, he is asserting the truth of some value of the function « I assert p, and p is false. » But we saw that the word “false” is ambiguous, and that, in order to make it unambiguous, we must specify the order of falsehood, or, what comes to the same thing, the order of the proposition to which falsehood is ascribed. We saw also that, if p is a proposition of the nth order, a proposition in which p occurs as an apparent variable is not of the nth order, but of a higher order. Hence the kind of truth or falsehood which can belong to the statement “there is a proposition p which I am affirming and which has falsehood of the nth order” is truth or falsehood of a higher order than the nth. Hence the statement of Epimenides does not fall within its own scope, and therefore no contradiction emerges.

If we regard the statement “I am lying” as a compact way of simultaneously making all the following statements: “I am asserting a false proposition of the first order,” “I am asserting a false proposition of the second order”, and so on, we find the following curious state of things: As no proposition of the first order is being asserted, the statement “I am asserting a false proposition of the first order” is false.

This statement is of the second order, hence the statement “I am making a false statement of the second order” is true.  This is a statement of the third order, and is the only statement of the third order which is being made. Hence the statement “I am making a false statement of the third order” is false. Thus we see that the statement “I am making a false statement of order 2n+1” is false, while the statement “I am making a false statement of order 2n” is true. But in this state of things there is no contradiction.”

 

 

Une expression de l'âme collective?

Une expression de l'âme collective?

Partager cet article

Repost 0

commentaires

Articles Récents

Liens