The Will to Might.

[Sauwelios]

It seems to me that two distinct definitions of "metaphysical" are being used here. In popular language, it simply means "supernatural". But as Heidegger has argued, that was not the original meaning. The original meaning of "metaphysics" is "the collective of those subjects of philosophy that cannot be categorised under the headings "ethics", "logic", or "physics", but that nevertheless are closer to a subject of physics than to one of ethics or logic." Physics studies phenomena within Nature (or the world), whereas metaphysics studies Nature as a whole, or the essence of Nature (the collective of all that is, or the Being thereof, respectively).

[Epoche75]

"Meta", as in "beyond" or "transcending", is not a substantial category in philosophy itself; the concept demands endless ontology and in that sense is reprehensible. In a word, useless. For anything that is essential to something else, that is, must "be" in order for another thing to "be", must in turn suppose a prior essential being for it, itself, to exist. When philosophers believe they are engaged in "metaphysics", they are really only demonstrating various forms of physical (scientific) inquiry. There is absolutely nothing comprehensibly possible which could suspend the reality and being of an object to get at its essence....or...the "foundation" for its existence. If one could, one would have to ask the same of that essential feature, and so on, ad infinitem.

Physics studies phenomena within Nature (or the world), whereas metaphysics studies Nature as a whole, or the essence of Nature (the collective of all that is, or the Being thereof, respectively).

I do not understand the difference between "within nature" and "nature as a whole". I do not think of "nature" as something that "holds contents" or can have the characteristic of "wholeness". Rather, I think that the term is used philosophically to generalize anything that exists. It is a very, very ambiguous term, like "God".

When you start modeling the concept of "nature" as a kind of geometric entity...something which has shape, form, and presence, you will be expected to start talking about it as if can be distinguished from things that are unnatural (which is impossible), and from things which are "outside" it (which is impossible), and from things which define it...such as "ontological essence" (which is impossible).

I'm not saying you can't do this, since that is the business of "philosophy", to wander into a maze-work of unusual terminologies and lexicons. I'm only saying that the work of philosophy can be simplified, causing much of its mystique to disappear. This is not fun, mind you, especially if you fancy yourself a philosopher.

[Sauwelios]

"Meta", as in "beyond" or "transcending", is not a substantial category in philosophy itself; the concept demands endless ontology and in that sense is reprehensible.

Yeah, so that was the meaning I was reprehending. "Meta" in the word "metaphysics" just means "after".

In a word, useless. For anything that is essential to something else, that is, must "be" in order for another thing to "be", must in turn suppose a prior essential being for it, itself, to exist.

Why?

When philosophers believe they are engaged in "metaphysics", they are really only demonstrating various forms of physical (scientific) inquiry. There is absolutely nothing comprehensibly possible which could suspend the reality and being of an object to get at its essence

But the being of an object is its essence (literally).

....or...the "foundation" for its existence. If one could, one would have to ask the same of that essential feature, and so on, ad infinitem.

That is the mistake all philosophers from Plato to Nietzsche have made, I think, according to Heidegger: to regard Being (das Sein) as a being (ein Seiendes). Being is not an ens, and therefore has no essens; it is itself the essence of all that is.

Physics studies phenomena within Nature (or the world), whereas metaphysics studies Nature as a whole, or the essence of Nature (the collective of all that is, or the Being thereof, respectively).

I do not understand the difference between "within nature" and "nature as a whole". I do not think of "nature" as something that "holds contents" or can have the characteristic of "wholeness". Rather, I think that the term is used philosophically to generalize anything that exists. It is a very, very ambiguous term, like "God".

That's why I gave the phrase "the world" as a synonym. Physics does not study the world (or the universe) as a whole, but only aspects of the universe. It does not ask about the Being of being-as-a-whole.

When you start modeling the concept of "nature" as a kind of geometric entity...something which has shape, form, and presence, you will be expected to start talking about it as if can be distinguished from things that are unnatural (which is impossible), and from things which are "outside" it (which is impossible), and from things which define it...such as "ontological essence" (which is impossible).

I'm not saying you can't do this, since that is the business of "philosophy", to wander into a maze-work of unusual terminologies and lexicons. I'm only saying that the work of philosophy can be simplified, causing much of its mystique to disappear. This is not fun, mind you, especially if you fancy yourself a philosopher.

"Wander into a maze-work", "fancy" - I sense a certain resentment here. I suspect this arises from the fact that philosophy, rightly understood, is not the handmaid of anything, not even of science. It is not philosophy, but religion which, in the Western world, has been replaced by science. And as so-called "philosophy" (in the style of Kant, for instance) was formerly the handmaid of religion, it is now supposed to be the handmaid of science. This religion - Christianity - developed truthfulness as a virtue. This truthfulness, however, turned against Christianity by revealing the latter's mendaciousness. It was like the scorpion's stinger killing the scorpion. Now science wants to continue with the stinger alone, ignorant of or ignoring the fact that the stinger was part of the scorpion, and therefore must die with it. If you will consider Nietzsche a philosopher, it was a philosopher's truthfulness that turned against itself:

"[W]e came to a long halt at the question about the cause of this will [to truth] - until we finally came to a complete stop before a still more basic question. We asked about the value of this will. Suppose we want truth: why not rather untruth? And uncertainty? Even ignorance? - The problem of the value of truth came before us".
[Nietzsche, BGE 1.]

It is not the job of philosophy to give science a good conscience about itself - to tell it that science is good, that it is good to gain knowledge about the world. Rather, philosophy questions science. It asks, "Why science? And if science, - whither science?". Without philosophy, science is meaningless...

[Epoche75]

Whatever I say you are going to disagree, Saully.

I expect nothing less.

[Ed3]

Hi Sauwelios,

To answer a couple of questions:
1) velocity (Not Speed) is defined as a limit. (Speed is the magnitude of the velocity vector)
2) Your comment “the question is not what the speed of a particle is in an "infinitesimal" timespan, but in the absence of a timespan (a "timespan" of zero)” can not be answered for many reasons, some of which you mentioned yourself.

This is why velocity is defined the way that it is.

One observation is that we are not looking specifically at t - t0, we are looking, in the case of constant velocity, at the ratio of st - st0 to t - t0. Which is equal to s for all t not equal to t0. In the case of variable velocities we are looking at the ratio represented by (fi(t) - fi(t0)/ (t - t0 )), differing in each ith dimension, and this ratio can have many interesting limits.

One thing that continues to bother me is Heideger’s us versus them concept of Science and Philosophy. Historically, Science was considered a philosophy and in my option correctly so. I also think that it is unlikely that Physicists can not address Physics. Analogously, you should consider Godel’s proofs on Mathematics. Though technically Godel might be considered a logician.

As a final comment, Kant is a big subject, and I will not dismiss him in totality. But I am comfortable in dismissing his notions of time, space, and exclusively internal phenomena.

[Sauwelios]

"What is the beautiful? - a pleasure-experience, which hides from us the actual aims that the will has in a guise [die der Wille in einer Erscheinung hat]. By what, then, is the pleasure-experience aroused? Objectively: the beautiful is a smiling of Nature, an excess of force and of pleasure-feeling of existence: one could think of plants. It is the damsel's-body of the Sphinx. The aim of the beautiful is seducing-to-existence. What, then, is that smiling, that seductiveness, really? Negatively: the concealing of need [Noth], the smoothing-away of all folds and the sanguine soul-glance of the thing.

"See Helena in every woman" the lust for existence conceals the unbeautiful. Negation of need [Noth], either genuine or seeming negation of need is the beautiful. The sound of one's native tongue in a strange land is beautiful. Even the worst piece of music can be experienced as beautiful in comparison with adverse howling, whereas it would be experienced as ugly compared to other pieces of music. So it is with the beauty of plants etc. as well. The need [Bedürfniss] for the negation of need [Noth] and the semblance of such a negation must meet halfway.

"Of what, then, does this semblance consist? Impetuousness, lust, crowding, and distorted stretching-out should not be noticeable. The actual question is: how is this possible? Considering the terrifying nature of the will? Only by means of an image [Vorstellung], subjectively: by means of a phantom [Wahngebilde, literally "delusional image"] that is shoved in between, which gives the pretense of the success of the voracious life-will; the beautiful is a blissful dream on the countenance of a being whose features now smile in hope. With this dream, this anticipation in his head does Faust see "Helena" in every woman. So we find that the individual will, too, can dream, can anticipate, has images and fantasies [Vorstellungen und Phantasiebilder]. The aim of Nature in this beautiful smiling of that will's guises is the seduction of other individuals to existence. The plant is the beautiful world of the animal, the whole world that of man, the genius the beautiful world of the primordial will itself. The creations of art are the highest pleasure-goal of the will.

"Every Greek statue can teach us that the beautiful is only negation. - The highest enjoyment does the will have at the Dionysian tragedy, because here even the terrifying face of existence stimulates to living-on - by means of ecstatic excitations."

[Nietzsche, Nachlass End 1870 - April 1871, my translation.]

[Sauwelios]

Hi Sauwelios,

To answer a couple of questions:
1) velocity (Not Speed) is defined as a limit. (Speed is the magnitude of the velocity vector)
2) Your comment “the question is not what the speed of a particle is in an "infinitesimal" timespan, but in the absence of a timespan (a "timespan" of zero)” can not be answered for many reasons, some of which you mentioned yourself.

This is why velocity is defined the way that it is.

One observation is that we are not looking specifically at t - t0, we are looking, in the case of constant velocity, at the ratio of st - st0 to t - t0. Which is equal to s for all t not equal to t0. In the case of variable velocities we are looking at the ratio represented by (fi(t) - fi(t0)/ (t - t0 )), differing in each ith dimension, and this ratio can have many interesting limits.

One thing that continues to bother me is Heideger’s us versus them concept of Science and Philosophy. Historically, Science was considered a philosophy and in my option correctly so. I also think that it is unlikely that Physicists can not address Physics.

Whoa whoa whoa, I never said that. And neither did Heidegger. What we're saying is that physicists cannot address physics as physicists, that is, without philosophising; they can only address physics as philosophers.

[Ed3]

Hi Sauwelios

How would you characterize Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle?

I should have thought of this last night. Getting old and senile I’m afraid.

Thanks Ed

[Sauwelios]

Hi Sauwelios

How would you characterize Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle?

As a hypothesis.

[Ed3]

Hi Sauwelios

How about of Physics or about physics? Both or neither?

I think it is both, and an example of how this unnecessary classification scheme breaks down.

[Sauwelios]

Hi Sauwelios

How about of Physics or about physics? Both or neither?

What?

[Ed3]

Hi Sauwelios,

We have been discussing the point of view that Science could not discuss Science. Only Philosophy can discuss Science.

My question is:

How would you classify the set of equations Δ pi X Δ li => h? Where pi is the momentum in the ith dimension and li is the length in the ith dimension?

This mathematical inequality is called the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

Most people, who understand even a little about Physcis, would say that it is a profound restriction on Physicis/Reality itself. In fact you can even argue that the observer and the observed are inseperable.

However, this inequality can readily be deduced based on the results of a simple light experiment.

This means that these equations are both a statement contained properly within the realm of Physics, and yet they are a profound comment about Physicis.

Now - who gets credit? The Scientist or the Philosopher?

Honestly, I don’t think we should even be asking this question. If we just consider Science a Branch of Philosophy it would not matter.

[Epoche75]

Ed3, Sauwelios has made it clear that he does not understand the mathematical formulae you post, and yet you keep doing it.

You are showing off, Ed3. Now stop it. It's not fair.

WTF does that mean?

Δ pi X Δ li => h?

[Lollipop King]

Ed3, Sauwelios has made it clear that he does not understand the mathematical formulae you post, and yet you keep doing it.

You are showing off, Ed3. Now stop it. It's not fair.

WTF does that mean?

Δ pi X Δ li => h?

What it means that he's making the cardinal error in judgment which misconstrues knowledge or information for wisdom or insight or intelligence, and he's using it to make himself feel better about his inadequacies.

[Sauwelios]

I will indulge you, Ed. Science (Greek phusika) may be considered a branch of Philosophy. As I said before;

"The original meaning of "metaphysics" is "the collective of those subjects of philosophy that cannot be categorised under the headings "ethics", "logic", or "physics", but that nevertheless are closer to a subject of physics than to one of ethics or logic." Physics studies phenomena within Nature (or the world), whereas metaphysics studies Nature as a whole, or the essence of Nature (the collective of all that is, or the Being thereof, respectively)."

What is called "physics" here is the Greek phusika, which also includes biology, for example. So Physics, in the modern sense, is a branch of Physics in the Greek sense, and Physics in the Greek sense is a branch of Philosophy. So far so good.

We arrive at a problem, however, when we consider the fourth traditional "branch" of Philosophy: Metaphysics. For Metaphysics (ta meta ta phusika) is not merely a branch of Philosophy. It is First Philosophy (prote philosophia). Originally, Philosophy was just that. But phusis, the Being of all that is, was misunderstood as that which is, and subsequently as that which is given, is discovered, as opposed to created by man. The former was then called phusika, the latter ethika. And because both fields were treated of with words, logoi, Logic was thought to be more primary than both. But Logic, rather than a field - and as such, an end - in itself, was only a means for the First Philosophers, the phusiologoi. It was a means to treat of phusis, that is, the Being of all that is (the "physical" as well as the "ethical"). So Physics, if it does not treat of the Being of, for instance, light, rather than of the light itself, is not true (First) Philosophy. It is a branch of Philosophy; but branched Philosophy is not true Philosophy.

But the example I just gave, light, is a "bad" example because it is not something like a galaxy or a solar system or a planet or an ecosystem or an organism or an organ or a cell or a molecule. Light may be thought of as a "light quantum" (photon), of course, but this is a simplification. Indeed, quantum theory is a simplification, which is necessary because man can only think in terms of "things". We must understand the underlying force as a (definite!) "quantum" because it is impossible to think of untrammeled flux. But - modern - Physics wants to understand the underlying nature of the light. So in this sense it arrives again at the domain of First Philosophy. But Physics must model light - i.e., simplify it - evermore accurately; it always aims at a description, not an understanding. It is this that distinguishes Physics and true Philosophy. Physics seeks to model the physical evermore accurately; Philosophy in the true sense is concerned with the truth, not with a description of it.

I am aware that I have contradicted myself above. First I said Physics wants to understand the underlying nature of light. Then I said it does not seek to understand, but to describe. But in order to understand (stand under) a phenomenon, one must first describe it, that is, de-fine it as "something". Physics seeks to describe things, and the "stuff" all things are made of ("force") as accurately as possible, whereas Philosophy, rightly understood, seeks to understand the nature of that stuff. But I am stammering, because grammar (logic) can only treat of "things", not of the underlying flux. I will revisit this subject later.

[Epoche75]

to make himself feel better about his inadequacies.

No Satyr, that's what you do, by clicking your own thread seventy thousand times to make it appear popular, and, by trying to make us all feel miserable. And, as if this wasn't enough, you go and have a kid. Now, because of you, there is one more life that must be lived in this cold, heartless universe. Did that child ask to be born? No, you selfish, sadistic man you.

Because of you, I have stopped using hair gel because I feel feminine....not because such products are consumer fetishes....which is the right reason for not using such products.

All you do is confuse the hell out of everyone. Your avatar is scary. You are negative. Scatological. Odious. And just downright mean.

Ed3 is a show-off because he has underdeveloped social skills from hanging out with geniuses and savants all his life. He simply doesn't know how to work his way into a peer group by having simple conversations. He has been conditioned to do this. All he has now is his wife, and she rarely lets him use the computer....which is his only contact with the world (except when he drives to the pharmacy on Sundays) He is an old, senile man because of this, and he feels utterly alone in this world. Did you ever think about that? What about Ed3's feelings and needs?

[Sauwelios]

I am on to something here, boys. Pay heed.

[Lollipop King]

to make himself feel better about his inadequacies.

No Satyr, that's what you do, by clicking your own thread seventy thousand times to make it appear popular,

Huh?
Is that what you've devised to explain its popularity?

Yes, my dear fellow, I have nothing better to do but to click on my thread, 100 times per day so that I can impress minds like yours.

Where have I presented the opinion that being popular makes you valuable?
If anything I speak against popularity.

Perhaps you should seek its popularity in the fact that it has to do with sex and sexuality, the favorite obsession of mankind's and the source of identity and meaning.
But you are too busy trying to slander the one who threatens your 'comfortable numbness' to explore possibilities.

and, by trying to make us all feel miserable.

Yes, you've read right through me, dear....sir.
I sleep and dream about you and how you feel.

I'm sorry reality makes you feel miserable. It's unfortunate that the universe, nor I, actually give a shit.

Shall I sugar-coat your aspirins for you, as well?

And, as if this wasn't enough, you go and have a kid.

How dare I?!!!!

Now, because of you, there is one more life that must be lived in this cold, heartless universe. Did that child ask to be born? No, you selfish, sadistic man you.

"Sadistic"?
Selfish, yes, but sadistic?

I actually love life, you miserable wretch, and I intend to teach the child to love it no less.
My greatest fear is that it'll row up to be like you and your kind.

Too bad, for you, you pathetic sub-human, that you require goals and gods and all sorts of concoctions to enjoy the sheer joy of existing.

When there is no fire within, the coldness of the universe, makes us shiver...and oh how you tremble, dear sub-human wretch.

Because of you, I have stopped using hair gel because I feel feminine....not because such products are consumer fetishes....which is the right reason for not using such products.

And still you remain girlish.

Is that what you would have done, girly-man; would you have clicked on your thread to make it appear popular?
how sad that you need such shallow reinforcements.

All you do is confuse the hell out of everyone. Your avatar is scary. You are negative. Scatological. Odious. And just downright mean.

Pathetic wretch, all these things are me playing on the feebleness of the common wretch, like you.

"Negative"? The universe is negative, if you take human preferences as your standard. It is cold, dark, unknown and uncaring.

Exposing the truth in a world addicted to escapism and feel-good, politically-correct, idealisms and childish romanticism, is my duty, dear ...fiend.
In a world of Disney-Land , delusions and religious bullshit, taken literally my miserable wretches, like you and your kind, it is my duty to expose the bullshit and the pseudo-altruistic egotism pretending to be a representation of a "higher" force.

Dear wretch, did anyone ever console you with the lie that the road to heaven does not pass through hell?
Can you grow strong without pain and suffering?
Can you grow wise without ignorance and challenge?
Can you feel pleasure without pain?

Ed3 is a show-off because he has underdeveloped social skills from hanging out with geniuses and savants all his life.

Are you one of these "geniuses"?

He simply doesn't know how to work his way into a peer group by having simple conversations.

"simple" conversations are the favorite pastime of the simpleton.

He has been conditioned to do this.

Unlike you, of course.

All he has now is his wife, and she rarely lets him use the computer....which is his only contact with the world (except when he drives to the pharmacy on Sundays) He is an old, senile man because of this, and he feels utterly alone in this world. Did you ever think about that? What about Ed3's feelings and needs?

And what does any of this have to do with truth?

Should we water down reality for the feeble and downtrodden?
Are we here to comfort each other or to explore reality?

What is this a support group?

Get the hell out of here!!!

[Epoche75]

Get the hell out of here!!!

[Lollipop King]

Get the hell out of here!!!

Then be glad for forum rules and authority figures defending your right to be weak.

I just clicked-on my thread another 20 times.

At this rate I'll hit 100 000 views by Christmas.
That'll make me real popular and cool and shit.

Having a child pales in comparison to this honor.
your opinion, dear sub-human, matters, because the opinion of retarded psychologies is sooooo precise and insightful that no matter what they say it must be true.

[Epoche75]

"You know, there's like a butt-load of gangs at this school. This one gang kept wanting me to join because I'm pretty good with a bow staff."

[Lollipop King]

Hey, where'd you get my yearbook picture?!

[Sauwelios]

I understand the order now as:

ta meta ta phusika
ta logika
ta phusika kai ta ethika

That is to say:

"Metaphysics"
"Logic"
"Physics" and "Ethics"

The quotation marks serve to express that none of these words are used in their usual sense.

"The Gospel According To John [was] born out of a Greek atmosphere, out of the soil of the Dionysian: its influence on Christianity, as opposed to the Jewish [influence]."
[Nietzsche, Nachlass Ende 1870-April 1871.]

The Gospel According To John is the most Greek of the Gospels. Let us recall its opening line:

"In the beginning was the Word [ho logos], and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

This single line summarises the whole "oblivion [forgetfulness] of Being", as Heidegger calls it. For it presents as the rightful object of all metaphysical study, the word (which it (co-)equates with God). But the word, or God, being a being (ein Seiendes), is not Being [das Sein) itself. First Philosophy does not ask about the first and/or highest being, but about the Being of this being (and of all other beings).

In order to understand anything about "Physics" or "Ethics", one needs "Logic", that is, the idea of "thinghood". Thus even Quantum Physics needs the idea of the "quantum", the amount, which - though it is not a unity, like the atom - is still a "unit". It is still something caught in, defined by, a "word". An amount is by definition a definite amount, but that is precisely what the underlying force of which the quantum is supposed to be an amount is not: definite. That is, Quantum Physics is a simplification (singlification!) of Nature (phusis). It is an attempt to catch in words that which is beyond words.

Earlier in this thread, I invoked Heraclitus' statement that "Nature loves to conceal itself", which I interpreted in a novel way, in line with Nietzsche's statement that the highest will to power is the will to stamp Becoming with the character of Being (in the Parmenidean sense). Becoming to me seemed to be concealed in the illusion of Being. I will now try a perhaps more conventional approach.

Becoming (phusis) is concealed from us, because consciousness of untrammeled flux is impossible: one can only be conscious of something, that is, of a "thing". Consciousness, therefore, needs the illusion of "thinghood", of "Being", - in short, it needs the logos. In the beginning was the Word, it seems to consciousness, as without the Word no consciousness is possible.

Heidegger points out that the Greek word for "truth", aletheia, signifies an "un-forgetting" or a revealing. This revealing, it is suggested by Heraclitus, is legein in Greek, "speaking" (from whence derives the word logos). So the Word first "reveals" phusis, and it does this by de-fining it - or rather, by defining phusika, "physical things", that is, by distinguishing relative differences within the flux and giving parts of it the semblance of absoluteness (absolute unity (separateness and wholeness) and durability, that is, absolute spatial as well as temporal unity).

Legein therefore is not really a revealing, but a falsifying. What it presents on this side of the curtain or veil is not what is behind the curtain or veil. Yet it is what's behind the curtain or veil which First Philosophy, or Metaphysics, asks about. It asks about what is within the confines of the defined; about the force within the form. In fact, legein is a veiling, not a revealing: it veils by placing something, not behind curtains, but before them. Without the curtains that the logos draws, we would not be able to see anything: for we can only see that which is in front of curtains. "Logic", therefore, is a drawing curtains, which makes it possible for us to see "physical" and "ethical" "things". Philosophy, however, asks about what is behind the curtains - as well as about the need for curtains, about how curtains and "physical" and "ethical" "things" arise from - beyond all those things. It seeks an explanation, an account (logos), of the coming-about of all these things.

"[Philosophy] always creates the world in its own image, it cannot do otherwise; philosophy is this tyrannical drive itself, the most spiritual will to power, to the “creation of the world,” to the causa prima."
[Nietzsche, BGE 9.]

[Epoche75]

It is still something caught in, defined by, a "word".

Of course one could argue that "there is nothing outside of text", and that if your proposition were true, it couldn't be true because the possibilities it denies are the things necessary for it to be true. Circular yes, but purposely.

SIATD had a picture of some superhero dude declaring "there is nothing outside of text". Maybe it was Derrida. But if you think about it....the logos, which means any form of information, essentially, contains the very laws and mechanics (the rules of a language) which allow it to function. There would be no possibility of something being true of false without this language context, being paradoxical, and the a priori structures of logic which create the very possiblity of binary values such as "true" and "false" would not exist....making "meaning" and communication in general impossible. Even a mere intersubjective truth could not exist. One couldn't even say "truth is subjective" and make any sense. And thinking too would be impossible, as far as linguists are concerned.

It would be like a negation of a negation to say "no being has wordness", or "no word has being." An illegal circularity of the premise's "self-referentiality"- "there is no truth", for example.

Just a thought.

[Sauwelios]

It is still something caught in, defined by, a "word".

Of course one could argue that "there is nothing outside of text", and that if your proposition were true, it couldn't be true because the possibilities it denies are the things necessary for it to be true. Circular yes, but purposely.

SIATD had a picture of some superhero dude declaring "there is nothing outside of text". Maybe it was Derrida. But if you think about it....the logos, which means any form of information, essentially, contains the very laws and mechanics (the rules of a language) which allow it to function. There would be no possibility of something being true of false without this language context, being paradoxical, and the a priori structures of logic which create the very possiblity of binary values such as "true" and "false" would not exist....making "meaning" and communication in general impossible. Even a mere intersubjective truth could not exist. One couldn't even say "truth is subjective" and make any sense. And thinking too would be impossible, as far as linguists are concerned.

It would be like a negation of a negation to say "no being has wordness", or "no word has being." An illegal circularity of the premise's "self-referentiality"- "there is no truth", for example.

Just a thought.

I don't really understand what you're trying to tell me. It may be impossible to have any idea of what is beyond the logos. Nevertheless it must logically have arisen from something (though not a "thing"). So even though without the logos, there is no need for such a ground, seen from the world this side of the logos (id est, the "logical" world), there must be such a ground. It is the Chaos that brings forth all, and that devours all. Or, to say it with a Norwegian Metal band;

"Out of emptiness
Out of Ginnungagap
Came Yggdrasil
Came life
Out of emptiness
Out of Ginnungagap
Came all of what is today"