|WikiProject Philosophy||(Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject Linguistics||(Rated Stub-class)|
I am interested in the function of 'mathesis universalis' in Descartes and Leibniz in as much as it informs or shapes (ie in as much as IT STRUCTURES FROM THE INSIDE)'constituted idealities' in Derrida's sense of the TRANSCENDENTAL SIGNIFIED of a signifier (which latter finds its place within a conceptual articulation). In other words, the cognized 'experience of reality' that has successfully evaded the machinations of Descartes' deceiving demon is not simply unmediated sensation of the external environment NOR MERELY EMPIRICAL EXPERIENCE (whether construed in Ockhamist mode or a la Lockeans) __but rather the output or product of the SYNTHESIZING ACTIVITY OF THE COGNITIVE FACULTIES OF WILLING, COMPARISON, IMAGINATION etc.
It is RETRIEVED EXPERIENCE as shaped or fashioned (in quasi-Kantian manner) by 'creative' cognitive activity IN ACCORD WITH THE IMPERATIVES OF THE CONSTITUTION OF MATHEMATICAL IDEALITIES. This 'topos' of synthesizing cognitive activity is admittedly NOT EXPLICITLY PRESENT in any literal reading of Descartes' treament of the matter; however in accord with the STIPULATED ADMISSIBILITY CRITERIA as set forth by Descartes we can say the following: if the 'sensory datums' impinging upon the perceptual organs of the (subject's) sensorium HAVE NOT BEEN SO RESHAPED (into alignment with the said imperatives as above), the resultant processed (or cognized) EXPERIENCE OF REALITY is NOT allowable (by Rene D) to count as 'experience of the real'!
My point/ what I am getting at here is the Heideggerian point that 'experience of reality' that is thus secured (ie by being 'frogmarched into shape' in accord with the imperatives of 'constituted idealities' as admissible when subsisting UNDER THE REGIME OF 'mathesis universalis') is experience that is 'secured' _and hence validated_ only within the vitiated or 'neutered' framework of a womb-like HOT HOUSE STYLE environment. It is further experience that is 'secured' by REPUDIATING (in the violent Lacanian sense of being aggressively 'in denial') the contingent, play-like dimension to human experience AS WELL AS by disowning the myriad of other possibilities for creative cognitive synthesis of the SENSORY MANIFOLD OF EXPERIENCE that is 'raw reality' (in Lacan's sense of the unassimilated/ unassimilable Real)!!
I want to make further remarks on all this ....but will demur until 'someone out there' (a lonely 'message in a bottle' cast forelornly adrift into the infinite seas of cyberspace) deigns _or is provoked into_ responding to the above!
What does a universal language have to do with a universal science?
I mean, besides the obvious necessity of language to communicate any theoretical universal science, I feel that that relation, and how the original authors envisaged it, should be expanded upon in the article. romnempire (talk) 16:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)