The Four-Cornered Negation and the Semiotic Expression of the Presemiotic

[essius]

The other day it occurred to me that Indian philosopher Sañjaya Belatthiputta’s principle of four-cornered (or four-fold) negation (FCN) may bear an important conceptual relation to presemiotic semiosis, i.e., to semiosis that expresses no awareness of semiosis.* FCN follows the form “Neither A, nor not-A, nor both A and not-A, nor neither A nor

Comments

Yes!

[yumdidlyiscious]

I agree. FCN can be a very useful tool in discovering avenues of thought and for exploring or reviving dead ends of thought. I have experienced this first hand when I started looking into Eastern religious thought, I had a hard time not absorbing other people's points of view in a non-prejudiced way before determining my own. At this point, I started to take the four cornered negation approach to what I read. It is a wonderful way of discovering new lines of thought. I then pushed this further into my prejudices and my beliefs. In fact, I could credit this approach (as opposed to general skepticism I tended to employ up to that point) with cultivating my critical thinking skills. You can actually see it (if you haven't already) in my personality as a habit of not agreeing or disagreeing with anyone very often

[essius]

My problem with Sanjaya ultimately stems from his commitment to this way of thinking past the point where it becomes useful. Or at least that is what we might infer from the Buddhist camp. In other words, when you reach the point of "Silence" the analysis stops. And for me, an existentialist, the point is to keep going. Am I being too vague?You're an existentialist, are you? I thought you didn't like labels. ;) I, too, find the FCN to be of limited application, and although a cosmic clown once fancied me a "closet mystic," I have not yet made the leap of faith into that "choiceless awareness" wherein the FCN gets expressed "existentially," if you will. Does the FCN apply universally? and on what level? Do "levels," too, require fourfold nihilation? To take the existentialist reference a bit further, the whole thing reminds me of Kierkegaard's stages. Instead of the common analysis of the stages in terms of "aesthetic," "ethical," and "religious," a focus on the the three stages in terms of "first immediacy," "reflection," and "

[yumdidlyiscious]

I thought you didn't like labels.
I don't like labels. I do however find labels useful in explaining to others where my heart lies.

Does the FCN apply universally? and on what level? Do "levels," too, require fourfold nihilation? Depends on what you mean by "universally". There is an interpretation that the four fold negation stems from everyone's subjectivity and that each point of view is opposite to another. So not to be idiotic or redundant but I could say that yes it applies universally, no it does not, it both does and does not, etc. I think that it does have levels from my POV, and these are established via their usefulness to argument and practical application.

a focus on the the three stages in terms of "first immediacy," "reflection," and "immediacy after reflection" (or "second immediacy") might be fruitful.
I think that's a great idea! Don't stop now!

Perhaps I just do not have what it takes to make this particular "leap of faith."I doubt this, actually. I would love to see this fleshed out more. Assuming it

[essius]

I…labels useful in explaining to others where my heart lies.

Then in what manner do you count yourself an existentialist?

I doubt this, actually. I would love to see this fleshed out more. Assuming it hasn't already been done, who is a better candidate than you?

I can think of a few. No matter, the problem is that this requires more than merely thinking things through, as that's still merely "reflection." The shift to a perpetual state of attentivity is paradoxically one of the easiest and most difficult tasks for a semiotic animal. "Fleshing it out" requires real flesh, real embodiment-and therein lies the rub.

[yumdidlyiscious]

I think we're searching for meaning. I think we start out one way and our experiences influence where we go. I think we should have a sense of personal responsibility and define our framework for bettering ourselves through that. I don't think we should follow doctrines (especially without question) if we cannot apply them to ourselves on a personal level (our experience). This is my understanding of the existentialist perspective. It is possible, however, that I am misinformed, so point me to some reading material if you think I've got it wrong...

"Fleshing it out" requires real flesh, real embodiment-and therein lies the rub.Indeed. I want to see you do it anyway. I think you are capable and have the interest and self discipline to probably get a book out of it. Unless you want to save that as post PhD work