RETRONYMIC UPDATING

Dear JWK,

Although I enjoy it, writing to you is very difficult because you speak (possibly live) in a world of abstraction cleverly and interestingly rationalised as empiricism. You are (like practically everybody else) misled by ancient verbal forms imprinted upon your reticulate neural nets during the period of your  familial  upbringing and socialisation and have internalised the "fact" that simply because some noun has an indicative or deictic role, there must be some *thing* to which it refers or semiotically points out as an actual denotatum.

One cannot point to existential modes of a human neurological reticulum (although one may think that such is the case) because *existential modes* do not exist to be indicated  *action* does not exist only the actant. Unless one indicates an object of some kind one is indicating>    !   

There is no *activity* existing in the brain, nor, psyche, mind, spirit, soul, energy, dynamic nor any other spiritist fictional product of our imaginations, just the fleshy, electrified, chemicalised, thinking, active or activated brainmeat.

In other words, though fascinating and intellectually stimulating the nominatives you employ (for the most part) consist of non-referential reificative riddle me ree (from my POV) urgently in need of retronymic updating because existing terms like *time* and *experience have become inadequate for science because they do not refer to anything real (*experience => *experiencer* and *time => *that which is timed* instead.)
 
If Einstein had replaced the reification *relativity* with *relative cosmic objects* it would have been much nearer to the heavenly facts of the matter. Though admittedly *The Theory of Relative Cosmic Objects* does not have the same snappy sound as  *The Theory of Relativity.*

I think and live in a real, entiative *thought less – rather than entitively *thought* – ful) world of flesh and blood thinkers (*thought* being yet another ontological nursery word) consisting of material concrecity, a domain of ever changing material entities, never *being* (in the ontologically grotesque Heideggerian meaning of the term)  but incessantly *becoming* causal objects which exist in the only way they can exist, as conglomerated communities of interactive individuates impinging upon other coalescences. It is the more obvious impingements that humans have singled out as so called *events* around which they have constructed the useful fiction called *time.* I refer of course to the turning, moving earth elliptical orbiting the centrally spatialised sun at an average distance of about 150 million kilometers, every 365.256363 mean solar days. Providing an apparent *movement* of the Sun to a human observer with respect to the stars at a rate of about 1°/day (or a Sun or Moon diameter every 12 hours.) So much for the ersatz (artificial, but in this case organisationally and mensurally useful) chronological abstraction *time.*

It is a world that does not recognize abstraction as serious items of philosophy or science, but as being no more than useful fictions or handy ways of talking about …blank… I leave a …blank… and insert the word "blank" because I do not wish to employ the word *nothing* in case I fall into the trap of appearing to be referring to something called nothing – which neither exists or does not exist. Such is the way in which I regard other *nothing words* like *time, space, mind, experience movement, action* or all the rest of the useful fictions that men prefer to use as an alternative to getting down to serious onto-semantic brass tacks.

I appreciate you may have difficulty in understanding what I am trying to say and for that I sincerely apologise. Like many others I am grappling with inherited forms of communication which are ontologically attenuated with the virus of duality. However, unlike Wittgenstein I am unwilling to remain stumm or ascend into a domain of zero-comunication then pull up the ladder and sulk.

Best,

Jud.

Athenaeum Library of Philosophy