In the first chapter(s) of the Foucault's Pendulum, Eco writes that (in the view of his narrator at least) there exists one immobile point in the universe, and the pendulum (which swifts position due to the planet moving along with everything else) still is tied to that invisible point.
I am not sure if later in the book this is negated as a view (it might, i haven't read past chapter2). Yet the view seems strange, even if one hypothesises a single Universe which is effectively a closed system.
I have to suppose this issue is central in his novel- maybe moreso from another/slightly different use of it-, given he was afterall a semiotician (semion exactly means 'single point', and it is linguistically and philosophically connoting a search for a set system or at least one set point, so as to examine everything else by in an axiomatic manner).
In the realm of philosophy, anyway, no such singular point can be argued to exist. For many reasons, but it can boil down to the fact that ultimately we use terms to theorise, and no one can actually quantify how one senses any specific term. Ie i may use the term "one" or "point" or "David Cameron", but it is not like anyone else will have formed those in their own mind in a perfectly identical manner, given we do not have either the same mind or the same formations of mind in the first place.
So, is there any point? I mean people here might have some insight, given they post in an OP forum losing their time for so many years
I am not sure if later in the book this is negated as a view (it might, i haven't read past chapter2). Yet the view seems strange, even if one hypothesises a single Universe which is effectively a closed system.
I have to suppose this issue is central in his novel- maybe moreso from another/slightly different use of it-, given he was afterall a semiotician (semion exactly means 'single point', and it is linguistically and philosophically connoting a search for a set system or at least one set point, so as to examine everything else by in an axiomatic manner).
In the realm of philosophy, anyway, no such singular point can be argued to exist. For many reasons, but it can boil down to the fact that ultimately we use terms to theorise, and no one can actually quantify how one senses any specific term. Ie i may use the term "one" or "point" or "David Cameron", but it is not like anyone else will have formed those in their own mind in a perfectly identical manner, given we do not have either the same mind or the same formations of mind in the first place.
So, is there any point? I mean people here might have some insight, given they post in an OP forum losing their time for so many years
