Evans Experientialism | MESIN = Evans Experientialism 1999 - 2009 SeARCHTHE WHOLE STE? GBB cuck tHe seancn Burrow "The Hegel a “The Academy Liary The Nominal Library Peli atin Athonaetin from Grook Athonaion, atomple of Athona, the goddose of wi do PHILOSOPHY AND THE REIFICATION OF THE UNREAL (Towa ls a Gonora/ Thoory of Rotication in Two Pant 01 Thomcs) Désertation i the Degree of BA. (ons) Jud Evans - University of Central Lancashire, England PAGE THREE OF FOUR - CHAPTER THREE THEME ONE CONTINUED ‘CONTENTS at Evidencing the Non. Copulaity of 1S 32 Falsity of IS as a Classifieatory Node 33 Gerunds, Abstractions and Reific 34 Karl MancLukace and Veringlichwng 35 Kotarbins k's Wars aw School of Relam 3.6 Heidegger -Dasein os a Gerunuliat Lie 3.1 More Compelling Evidence for The Non-Copularity of IS. There Is no more suspect definitional cop-out In the history of linguistics than the notorious description of the so-called copuletic variant of the indicant “is* ( and its conjugates) as a special kind of verb to join two parts of a sentence and to express either that the two parts denote the same thing of that the first has the property denoted by the second. This definition manqué is mirrored by the failed attempts of various philosophers to puzzle out the ontological purpose and effects of such a definition (among them Aquinas and Heldegiger) who threw up their hands in despair following thelr unproductive efforts to understand the linguistic operation involved. One curious and maybe significant piece of verified information about so-called “copular verbs’ is that they are followed by adjectives -not adverbs EVIDENTIAL ITEM ONE, Adjectives Only After Copuler Verbs. More light is thrown upon this historic definitional cock-up by examining the other so-called common ‘copula vorbs:* seem, look, turn, become, appear, sound, smoll, tasto, foo! and got in relation to the adjectivality with which they are uniquely associated, Now such a fact Is of great Importance, for If copula verbs are syntactically confined to indicating adjectival predication which DESCRIBES asubject - then this means thet they are concerned with a restrictive function which confines them to pointing only to representations of THE WAY, MANNER OR MODE of existing subjects and NOT thi FACT that they exist as a way of introducing or acknowledging their simple existence or presence in the world Because theological and transcendental proofs rely on the assumption that “is’ is a viable verb which is completely meaningful by itself, this new discovery, highlighting as it does the give-away adjectival connection, surely puts in jeopardy and exposes the distorted religious version of this rule, where, in an effort to evade, conceal, cover-up and obfuscate the logicoinguistic significance of the dianoetic consistency of the rule, aberrant forms like “God is* and other examples of the orphanic ‘Is* are employed. Other embarrassing adjectiveless descriptive predication is also cynically elided in the hope that the covert descriptive predication “filed-in* or completed by the believer, replete with the necessary and mandatory adjectival content inherent in any employment of a copula, will not clash with the crude existential clalm of “pure existence" and that the subsequent Illogicality of the claim that God existe will go unnoticed. Thus is the predicational and ontological guilt off-loaded onto the naive believer leaving the clergy and philosophers like Heldegger with what they have formerly belleved to have had - hands and consciences clean of the sin or ignorance, gross illogicality and communicative vandalism. EVIDENTIAL ITEM TW Observer Modalities Disguised as Modalities of the Observed. One further curious fact leaps off the page the minute one examines the so-called “group of copulas* and that is that the words adjectivally describe not the existential state of the subject - but rather that they also provide an example of the existential state of the observer, commentator, or the author of suich descriptive sentences, who attempt to characterise the subject. This means that the classical claim of copularity by the tradition that: “the two parts denote the same thing, or that the first has the Property denoted by the second’ is utter rubbish. Some explanatory examples: 1. “She seems happy.” This is obviously an existential modality of the observer - not the observed, for here a judgement is being made by the commentator or “in the eye of the beholder’ that the subject is seemingly happy not in the eye of the beheld. The beheld Is elther happy or unhappy. (‘Seem* is a copular verb) 2. "The stew smells good.” Here again the fact that the stew smells good Is an existential mode of the smeller «not the smelled. (°Smell’ is a copular verb.) 3. ‘it Is getting late” It Is cbvious here that ‘time’ Is getting late for the existential modality of the lutterer of this statement - it is not “getting late’ for time itself.” ("Get” is a copular verb.) 4. ‘Marjorie Is my girltriend.* The nominalisations “Marjorie” and girifrienc’ are attribution of identity assigned by one set of humane to ancther, therefore the attributing of such labels is agsin an =not Marjorie his girlfriend, (is* |s a copular verb) EtNlack Is Brtlsh “This sentence fo an asceition regarding the attribution of the existential modality of “Britishness’ to Jack. As such it is an assertive existential modality of the attributor - not the attributant. (is* is a copular verb.) 6. “Marjorie looks intelligent” Intelligent is an adjective in predicative position. It is an existential ‘modality of the opinion of the observer - not the person herself. (‘Look* is a copular verb.) EVIDENTIAL ITEM THREE. The Conceptually Restrictive Orphanic |S of Covert Predication ‘As far as Ibel is concerned there are only predicational descriptions of already existing subjects Mostly this predication is all above board and overt - but sometimes it is in the archaic form adopted historically because “religion depends on ‘is" as an existentialiser. Such antique covert predicative forms look clumsy and gawky and the average English speaker simply slackens his Jaw allows his puzzled eyes to glaze over and asks what..."If the grammatical constituent about which something Is predicated is not ALREADY conceptually instantiated or existentialised as the subject of the sentence it cannot be ontologically available for the attribution of any predicative description. In other words ALL sentential are ALREADY IN PLACE (conceptually instanced) and as such do not need any redundant pseudo-existentialising be-operators like “is*. When a writer wishes to Introduce a subject which he or she feels that readers are almost certain not to have heard of before - then he must insert the “exists" word into the senternce to make clear his meaning and intent. Otherwise the reader will encounter such as word as a new, unfamiliar sentential subject and cannot conceptually existentialise in accordance with the writer's wishes, Thus, rather than make a statement such as: “The Monastery of Zagorsk |." he writes: “The Monastery of Sergiev Posad exists... and adds ... near Moscow.” A critical feature of the so-called swinging copul (covert predication) which is yet another proof of the essentially non-existerntial functioning of ibe! and its conjugates, is the fact that the: "God is." Christian ontological instantiational reductio-ad- necessitum only works with known subjects with have been previously conceptually Instartlated proving that “is’ only ever points to existential modality and does not fuction as an introducer to pure existence or worldly presence. Whilst it is possible to be understood when using a covert copula in the case of God - it is only posslble because EVERYONE knows about the notion of a creator and can fill in something on the empty dotted line from their own favourite neurological depository of snippets of predication about God, such as: “God is the creator of the universe’ or “God is a creation of the human mind” etc. But readersfaddressees CANNOT be expected to conceptually instantiate of existentlalise unknown subjects like “exists’ can do. Language Is all about clear communication - and the term “God Is." Is not such an example. Notice by the way that the millions of Muslim members of the most sucessful, rapidly growing religion in the world are always careful when speaking English to add the predicate; “Allah... is great!” 3. 2. The Falsity of IS as a Classifieatory Node of Predication This section rejects the doctrine that In the English language Mel is a verb that has several distinct functions in addition to confirming the number, past, present or durative distinctions of time in relation to the subject. Unlike the word ‘exists, which operates as a means of distinguishing ontological fact from fiction, reality from beth illusion and hallucination and denotes that spatial and temporal considerations are applicable, ibe! acts as a mute, empty deictic pointer to indicate the predicate being no more than a lexical arrow bereft of any predicational content whatsoever. The Predicational Misrepresentation of IS. | refuse to accept the bellef that the word “is' contains determinants of the predicate which Inhere within it as a form of connotative nominal, adjectival, verbal, locative and existential semantic content as expressed in the following standard examples: ofldonthy noun fs now of Predication no of Cominuly noun ie verb of Location nouns place The eat fs on the mat ofExdetonce Ie There ke aca | assert that in the above examples the “is* an unchanging inatticulate symbol and it is wrongful to Identify the copula as a semantic node upon which to hang the classifications of the variant predicational types, for it Is the existential modalities which furnish the predicative stereotypes ? not the neutral deictic indicant device that points to such modification.