Name and Form

[Guest guest]

Chittaranjan writes:

 

According to the Sense-Reference theory every word has a sense, and

it is this sense that in turn refers to the 'concrete' object in the

world. According to Advaita, this theory is wrong. There is no

mediate thing called a 'sense' between a word and its object. The

positing of any such intermediate 'sense' leads to an infinite

regress because this would need other relationships to bind the word

to the sense and the sense to the object, which in turn would need

more binding relationships to bind these new relationships to their

respective relata and so on ad infinitum.

 

Hello Chittaranjan,

Your account of the Sense and Reference theory of Frege is

in error and I also have difficulty with your account of word and object in

Advaita which has been a theme of yours of late. First, Frege was treating of

referring expressions such as 'the morning star' and 'the evening star', 'Walter

Scott', 'the author of Rob Roy'. In the given cases the expressions refer to

the same entity but have different senses. This is why the composite expression

'Walter Scott is the author of Rob Roy' provides information. There is nothing

analytically true about the two expressions. This links to the well known

distinction between connotation and denotation i.e. what may be said of a thing

and the thing itself. There is nothing mysterious about this nor any

implication of intermediate reality.

 

About the word/object relationship you write:

"According to Advaita, the sense and the object are the same, and the

object is united with the word. There is no thing or relationship

between Name and Form to make them into a duality. But the name is

distinct from its object even though there is no relationship that

can be posited between them. "

 

To which I would reply that not all words are names of things and a word in a

language is a symbol of something but not the thing itself. In a previous and

lower state of evolution words may have mostly been signs of something, that

pointed to that thing. They were uttered in the presence of the thing. Words

like 'but', 'and', 'maybe' are not signs or symbols of anything.

 

Combining the notions of referring expression, sense, symbol, sign and meaning

into the one sentence Sankara wrote in B.S.B. II.ii.28 wrote:

"Therefore an object and its knowledge differ". Note he is not saying that they

are different, they differ - a vital distinction. The meaning that is extracted

from the experience of an object is multivalent and depends on the interests of

the perceiver. The single pot may be viewed in terms of its colour, capacity,

suitability. I believe that this level of meaning and intentionality is the

important one; you can't write on 'paper' or drink 'water'. These vocables are

just articulated air, the map is not the territory.

 

You quote Sankara:

"And words are connected with the general characteristics (i.e.,

genus) and not with the individuals, for the individuals are

infinite, and it is impossible to comprehend the relation of a word

(with all of them). Thus, even though the individuals are born, the

distinctive general characteristics remain constant, so that this

creates no difficulty with the eternality of the words cow, etc."

(BSB, I,III,8.27).

 

By the way your mode of referring to the text is idiosyncratic. The standard

manner is given in the centre top of the book. All the writers use it and it

makes finding the place easy which I was unable to do in the case of the

foregoing quote from you.

 

What Sankara could have in mind here is the idea of a universal e.g. cow that is

neither this nor that cow and to whom expressions refer that establish its

cowhood. The Eternality of 'cow' refers to the atemporality of the concept and

not that it is a denizen of Platonia.

 

The mystic sense of nonduality is I think due to connaturality. We know

something because we are it in some sense but that is something that we can only

realize and not know. A vast topic.

 

Best Regards,

Michael.