The reason why "that" is the most mischievous word, metaphysically, in our language, is that it points to what-we-are as an object of what-we-are-not, whereas the reverse is the precise truth.
It is nefaste in that its use necessarily obliges the user to be speaking as a phenomenal object envisaging its own noumenality objectively.
Whereas the relative truth he is seeking is that PHENOMENA are just the objectification of noumenon, and therefore are "that" whose SUBJECT is "this".
---Wei Wu Wei
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"That" implies something separate from "this." But "this" includes everything, so how could there be a "that?" It's amusing that just about everything we say is not true. Is that why you named this blog "Untruths?"
ReplyDeleteThe title "Where can one stand?" points to the impossibility of separating "oneself" from "What IS" in order to "know It." So it follows that no pointer can be the Truth.
ReplyDeleteI prefer some pointers to others, but as we talked about earlier, flexibility is also valuable in this regard since a pointer is essentially a tool, good for some things, not others.
For instance, I, too, like "This" as a pointer to What IS more than "That." It has less of an objectifying quality. But it still has some, and as was asked in the blog title, where can one stand to make ANY reference to "Totality"?
On the other hand, it's still good to be able to use the word "that," if only as an ordinary pronoun referring to something mentioned at an earlier time. And, as you know, sometimes it is used as a pointer.
I guess that I'm learning to appreciate the pros and cons of all these pointers, and not worry too much about which I like best.