Eliminating Self-contradictory Synchrons

SYNCHRONS

CAN NARRATIVE HISTORY BE OBJECTIVE?

-Assuming "OBJECTIVITY" entails "intellectually intelligible; independent of how it is thought or represented" -> self-consistent (self-contradictions are incompatible with reality story including everything).

If there are two or more, it is not logically unified

On the possibility of an objective narrative history

An Argument

-"Unsquare synchrons" are incompatible with a single self-consistent coherent narrative impossible.. Therefore they must be prevented, in principle, or the historical narrative will fold latent contradictions into itself in the process of telling it.

Ex. the existence of 'gays', 'Jews'. 'the unborn'.

"Gay" was a term of use introduced by the homosexual community to reverse "sad", which became soul-predicable of them after the onset of AIDS. The new recombinant DNA/RNA viral disease struck them first, hardest, deadliest, with many believing that their form of sexual intercourse was, in fact, causally responsible for the scourge that followed. Since the general population in America, after the Eisenhower 50's, was undergoing a radical de-sublimation of Old Psychoclass sexual positions (pun intended) -- whether it was 'repressive' or not, as H. Marcuse argued (and Wm. Reich would agree that it was) -- the dismay at this terrible turn of events fueled empathy for their 'sexual liberation' in the 70's when 'coming out' emerged. Each person has their own 'sexual orientation'; who are your, or anybody, to judge how others do it? This flowed compatibly with sympathy for AIDS affliction, leading to the reversal of "sad" to "gay". The euphemistic token* caught on. Suddenly in Tokenspace there blossomed a new, historically unique class of persons: Gays. They even had an Originating Moment, in which one of them kicked a policeperson in the groin in a bar.

But the truth is more like this, quoting from NYTimes article
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/26/books/26secret.html
Sexual Outlaw on the Gay Frontier

By PATRICIA COHEN


Published: July 25, 2010


A colleague urged Samuel Steward to talk to Kinsey and the two met in late 1949. Kinsey quickly enlisted him as what Steward called an “unofficial collaborator,” prompting Steward to become an even more compulsive chronicler. On each of the 746 cards that ultimately made up his alphabetized Stud File, Steward listed his sexual partner’s name, his place in the lineup (i.e., the 354th person Steward had sex with), the dates and locations of every encounter, a coded description of penis size and of every specific sexual activity, and a brief comment. Of Valentino, filed under the actor’s real name, Guglielmi, R., he wrote: “Nuf sed.”

In Kinsey, Steward found a kindred spirit, a close friend and an ideal father figure. “I suppose that to a degree I fell in love with him,” he wrote in a published memoir. (The two never had any sexual contact.)



Steward’s tales of frequent sexual encounters as a teenager and undergraduate in Woodsfield and Columbus, Ohio, in the 1920s and ’30s are a counterpoint to the aggressive persecution of homosexuals during the 1950s McCarthy scare. As Mr. Baumann and other historians have noted, there was no homosexual panic in those earlier years because of a reluctance to discuss sex in any detail and the resulting widespread ignorance.

Mr. Spring said: “It’s all about language. If there are no culturally accepted words to describe an experience, it remains off the radar.”





To which may be added here: When the culturally accepted words for communicating an experience are text-token reversals, an impossible-to-square synchron will be installed in the grammar of ordinary discourse.

-Answer to question: only by A. Eliminating Text~Token SYNCHRONS (memory loops from personal life 'not part of the freely imagined architecture')

B. Tracing the thread of internal-objective ("formal") psychological processes.

Argument: the penalty for not doing A. is endless loops of predication on Text-Token self-contradiction.

II. The Jewish Problem --

IMPOSSIBLE SYNCHRON

Synchrons: definition of words concurrently used by a communicating population.

The sentence ""x is a Jew" is true only if x defines themselves as we do" is (truly) instantiated by two opposed "we" users: A. Reformed, Secular, Diaspora (controlling the grammar of 'Israel', as a state; and B. Biblical (Ultra-) Orthodox (controlling the religious grammar by defining converts; some are adamant anti-Zionists). But these, though opposed to each other 'inside' the uses, so to speak, are NOT opposed in the name they call themselves: "Jews".

So is this word a 'name'? - because each of them uses the same word-sound (and translations). Hardly, one thinks. It is clear that the text, what "Jew" is taken as a predicate of, to refer to, has been split off from its token and reversed against itself. But the common token presents to Others some common face of what it stands for to both. It defines a psychosemiotic glitch. But to grammar of ordinary language flowing through it makes not a whit of difference. A name is a noun is a name...

To repeat the form of the glitch: when a token is used by mutually exclusive self-referencers, each denying the other's right to define the generic term for both.

The grammar of ordinary language is infected by Impossible Synchrons.

An analogous psychosemiotic situation results when, for instance, a family has instituted impromptu categories all members have learned and respect as boundaries. Then one day some distant relative comes to visit speaking a language in which the word for 'sink' and 'toilet' were token-identical, as 'bear' is in English for the wooly animal and 'to carry. When told to "dump it in the sink" once, he translated it wrongly in his mind and stood aghast. It obliged all to become aware of how they automatically processed language. So with sexuality, among those who always understood "it' straight. But there WAS no 'straight' before 'not-straight'->crooked->homosexual-gay 'came out'. Nor was there ever a "gay frontier" for "outlaw Sam Steward" to roam. There was just a hyper lascivious, lewd queer getting laid by the best he could,

The principle: People ought not be obliged, in order to carry on their daily affairs, to communicate with others in terms which introducing new categories of self-reference, or redefine old terms used for self-reference and understanding..