[lit-ideas] Re: Twater -- English Philosophical Lexicon
- From: "Mike Geary" <atlas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 23:08:57 -0500
JL: "> Geary's expertise in air-conditioning I had higher hopes in. He mentions
pressure and temperature:Objections to 'pressure'. If a piano falls on me, the pressure is high, butsurely I am still a living being, if I survive. -- there's no CHEMICAL change involved, only physical.
One would certainly have had higher hopes for the Loeb's Pool Side Librarian's understand of basic science than is on display here. Water only boils (turns into a vapor, evaporates) at 212 degrees Fahrenheit (100 degrees by the sissy European centigrade scale) when the atmospheric pressure is 14.69 psia. At .5 psia water boils at 79.6 degrees F. At 1000 psia water boils at 545 degrees F. Most people would say that demonstrates a relationship between pressure and temperature. The two go hand in hand. Never any variance. Almost all "things" exist in three states depending on the pressure and temperature (some skip a stage, like CO2 and sublimate). Even you, you Ligurian stud you, will at a certain temperature and pressure either evaporate or solidify or remain a softie.
According to Gurry's taxonomy of things the criterion is when the temperature too high: 'vapour' things, when the temperature 'cosi-cosa': 'water' when the temperature very low: ice.<<The temperature argument is equally minimisable:
Wrong again. -- It's the relationship between pressure and temperature. They go together like a horse and carriage, you can't have one without the other. In a deep enough vacuum,water can boil at 32 degrees F (0 C) instead of freeze. Get it yet?
Surely the freezing of water and the steaming of water is a physical process (not chemical) that every schoolboy is familiar with.
It's a change of phase. How the molecules bond to one another changes very dramatically according to how much energy they have. There more to life, JL, than is dreamt of in your linguistics. I claim that water is not ice, ice is not steam and steam is not water. There are the same compound with very different characteristics. It is those characteristics that seem important to me. You don't cook with ice. You don't cool your drink with water.
Mike Geary Memphis----- Original Message ----- From: <Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx>
To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 6:48 PM Subject: [lit-ideas] Twater -- English Philosophical Lexicon
In a message dated 7/8/2009 6:20:05 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, karltrogge@xxxxxxxx writes: I apologize to the list for my careless wording and ESPECIALLY to JL Speranza for my cranky response --Karl Trogge Kiel, Germany He's back! I'm so happy! So what's her surname, Khol? I actually thought another unwanted implicature was that someone was planning to 'blind' and 'deafen' any noisy neighbour. P. Stone is right: 'nanny' is not a Navajan concept. Geary is wrong that words are arbitrary. Surely I cannot think of anotherword for 'mom' other than 'mom. There is no language where 'mother' doesn'tstart with 'm' -- cfr. 'mam-ary gland'. Omar: what's 'water' in your native tongue? (I know in Russian -- Walter's mother tongue -- it's -vodka-). ---P. Stone minimises my 'derision and mockery' in the rather elaborated wordsof Mr. Trogge. ---- Grice calls this: the devil of scienticism (scientism). As Putnam notes, "H20" is a reduction definition of 'water'. It's ascientific reduction definition. As in Eddington's famous "Two tables" -- whichone is real: the almost empty one, or the real one? ---- He said words to the effect that _things_ in the word can be taxonomised according the following criterion: colloquially: 'water', 'ice', 'vapour'. things non-colloquially: 'H20'. Surely that's naive, so I took the liberty to express the dichotomy in philosophical terms, what Grice calls 'trouser-words': Ice is, _really_, water. P. A. Stone may have said it only 5 times, but for philosophers once isenough. Unless you say "ice is not really water" you have not cancelled yourclaim.Now, Grice notes: 'water' and 'ice' belong to the SAME level. What he calls'stone-age metaphysics'. (cfr. Eskimo words for 'snow', i.e. frozen water, or congelaed aquatic, 'agua congelada, hielo, in Spanish). So, it's totally arbitrary to suppose that the direction goes in one way: ice is really water rather than, rather, in the other: water is really ice Geary's expertise in air-conditioning I had higher hopes in. He mentions pressure and temperature:Objections to 'pressure'. If a piano falls on me, the pressure is high, butsurely I am still a living being, if I survive. -- there's no CHEMICAL change involved, only physical. ----- The temperature argument is equally minimisable: According to Gurry's taxonomy of things the criterion is when the temperature too high: 'vapour' things when the temperature 'cosi-cosa': 'water' when the temperature very low: ice. Surely the freezing of water and the steaming of water is a physical process (not chemical) that every schoolboy is familiar with.(INTERLUDE TO R. Paul: Of course I would be irated if some person violentlyblinded or deafen someone. The worst thing is I thought K. Trogge was attempting that on Helen Kohl) ---- For Aristotle, only CHEMICAL processes count for 'trans-substantiation' -- and I, like Grice, don't follow him there --. For Grice and I it's only METAPHYSICAL trans-substantiation that counts . So, to taxonomise things according to the temperature we feel more 'comfy' with sounds offensive to my ear. ------ Now, Grice uses the "Martian" example in "Some remarks about the senses" Putnam takes that from Grice. Grice writes, googlebooks, "Putnam (of all people)" "I was criticised for being too formal (by Putnam, of all people)" ---- Putnam wanting to sound witty, concocted the 'twater'. -- which recently has been reworded as 'schwater' and 'schmwater'.'tw*t' is a very LOW slang, for the OED. Browing was confused about it, andmakes it rhyme with 'what' in "Pippa Passes". The meaning, Browning thought, was 'a nun's attire', or part whereof. The urban dictionary online defines 'twater' (i.e. Putnam's _word_) as'slang for v*ginal j*ices'. So, I propose -- since Eric Yost is patronisingthe English Language twater: term introduced into philosophical discourse in English -- but found to be untranslatable to other languages -- by Hilary Putnam. See 'water'. ---- Etc. J. L. Speranza Buenos Aires, Argentina **************Popular laptop deals plus free shipping! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221917659x1201411421/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Faltfarm.media plex.com%2Fad%2Fck%2F12309%2D81939%2D1629%2D2) ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
- [lit-ideas] Twater -- English Philosophical Lexicon
- From: Jlsperanza
- [lit-ideas] Twater -- English Philosophical Lexicon
Other related posts:
- » [lit-ideas] Twater -- English Philosophical Lexicon - Jlsperanza
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Twater -- English Philosophical Lexicon - Mike Geary