Going to be focusing upon this series for a bit due to the extent of the arguments I must make. There is much to say on this topic, as well as confusion, so my efforts here are fruitful, especially at this moment in history when our task will be to expose self-obsessive materialists to the reality of spirit. Be still and understand that this is worship of imperfection, and nothing short, as denial of greatness. Where it is ostensibly unfair to label such a position as cowardly, persistence in the denial is indistinguishable.

Inexactness is No Argument, but Rather Our Limits

Logical positivism, just as logical language, is a materially universalising “tool” rather than a philosophical position, based in a reality to be contended with; much like the reality of biological change as contrasting to evolutionary theory. You cannot argue against biological change itself; you can only argue about how it functions in various terms. So the universalising process in logical positivism is merely a tightening of ‘optics/sense-knowledge/comprehension’ with extraction of detail, primarily, and ironically, through focus towards minuteness in particularising definition.

So then logical language and the logical positivism’s verifiability criterion do not constitute a philosophical stance but a foundational truth of material reality itself. It is not a position unless someone challenges it. This paradox mirrors the tension between determinism and free will: If everything is predetermined, how can we claim to have choices?

Enter radical translation thought experiments. Imagine an alien species with a language so foreign that even its most basic concepts are incomprehensible. This suggests logical positivism fails to function due to inexactness in communication; basically, how do we know when our translations are accurate? These are concepts which illuminate the limits of language rather than anything in logical positivism, however. The productivity and value of any given translation is a signal for correctness, not certainty. So herein rests the crux: we cannot verify truth, only approximate it with imperfect language. Poor definition does nothing to undermine the omnipresent value of direct observation. The fuzzy pole is still going to hit you so it doesn’t matter how well you see it so much as how well you avoid it; correctness is the thing.

Heidegger’s existentialism dismisses logic as secondary to experience, he reduces reality to perception only, a tower of falsehoods where meaning is arbitrary and subject to interpretation. Manteic theory in Resurrexit Spiritus offers the counterpoint: Imagination and rationality are not opposites but co-dependent forces. Without imagination, reason may become sterile; without reason, imagination spirals into chaos and irrationality. The imagination and subjective then only have as much value as they can reflect and convey some valuable facets of reality.

This brings us to the heart of the matter: Language is imperfect, but it is also our most profound tool for communicating about and regarding reality. Imagine a world with a perfect language, even in such a utopia, ambiguity remains. Any arguments suggesting primacy of the subjective is nothing but argument from inexactness and definition or synonym. Thought experiment: imagine the whole world spoke the same language and no word had two definitions in the language, arguments from inexactness fumbled as subjectivity in existentialism would be just as invalid because the reality of logic doesn’t have to do with the inexactness or imperfection of the subjective observer or observation but only the logic underlying basic observation; despite flaws in language or inexactness of interpretation when coming into third-parties aren’t observers of the internal reality within you, and only as observant as possible within their own reality. Existential subjectivity then falls apart as nothing but imperfect personality-ness.