Should language mean stuff?

Or there is no distinction between them at all. Why assume such a thing?

None of this is obvious. You already link language to reality in such a simple way as if every word has a referent. It is clear that many commonly used words have no referents whatsoever. How might we account for these words? Where are the logic atoms here?

To the entire philosophy of language since the death of the Vienna Circle.

It's less a basis than a series of assumptions.

By the way, what is your position? For logical atomism?

My current idea is that ambiguity itself speaks a point. That ambiguity is the only thing that can speak. This is why languages must flow rather than just happen to flow. It is essential not in its unavoidability but in its constitutive role for meaning itself.

__________________
"Loves them? They need them, like they need the air."

You do realize what a negation of subject/object ultimately entails, right? Not to mention the absurdity of using a logical structure to deny a logical structure.

Not every word has a physical referent, no. But they at least refer to an abstract function.

Or do you assume that abstractions do not exist?

Obviously, as I stated previously, I think there are certain fixed concepts derived from human perception which are the basis for atomic words.

Subject and object duality, for example.

Furthermore, I think that duality is also a universal, not just an artifact of perception.

The alternative, if you choose to take it, would be to suppose that there is no objective differentiation whatsoever, which then only leaves you solipsism, and you're welcome to it.

Well, that isn't so far removed from the idea of a dualistic object/subject basis in which content is arbitrary and structure primary.

__________________
#31 on SC's Top 100 Mofos list!!

BTW, don't get mad if we miscommunicate, PN, it's necessary for the evolution of language.

Now, if you're following me, you'll then want an example of a non-anthropic duality, and if you're really thinking it through, you'll already have it figured out.

Well, it certainly wouldn't be using logic. It would be using phenomenology, which is also what such a negation entails. It ends up not being absurdity at all really but the average experiences of everyday life, which are too often ignored by logicians.

All I've been saying is that this is a task to prove.

Might not be a duality. Might not be a subject.

This is a big claim. If there is one thing I am firmly against at this point in my life it's binary distinctions even if I might speak of them casually. I would never attest to their existence.

This is correct only assuming that there is a subject.

It's absolutely not based within any structure. It's on the boundary where structure ends and nonsense begins. It's that space just on the edge of comprehension. The space of paradox and riddle. This is the space I would like to champion with my idea of flow and opposition to logical atomism (which would absolutely justify a standardization of language).

Sounds like semantic BS to me.

I gotcha.

Do you deny the existence of qualities and assert only the existence of quantities?

Oh, it's not so big if you do some reading on the subject.

But I can understand that the avoidance of those distinctions is your personal choice.

I guess we're both either correct or incorrect depending if we assume the existence/nonexistence of duality.

Any form of bipolarity is a structure, including sense/nonsense.

There's an interesting Jung quote that you might like:

“The pendulum of the mind oscillates between sense and nonsense, not between right and wrong”

Anyways, to what extent does your aversion to duality reach?

Are you also allergic to true/false formulations? Because that would pretty much annihilate your whole argument.

>semantic BS

The man in my avatar has been accused of worse before.

>Do you deny the existence of qualities and assert only the existence of quantities?

In what way do or can either exist? What constitutes an existence for you? Quantities in what sense? As measured? That is merely a quality subjected to a count for one. Qualities in what sense? As experienced? Well that cannot be denied. But what do you think this question should reveal?

>Oh, it's not so big if you do some reading on the subject.

What readings would you suggest?

>Any form of bipolarity is a structure

Sense cannot be part of a structure. It is what makes a structuring possible. It is an a priori condition for structure. In other words, a non-structure cannot be a structure.

It reaches infinitely as long as we are talking about the true nature of reality.

Truth and falsity are ways of reconciling language with itself. What I am saying should stay at the furthest border of language where it begins to break down, where language cannot account for it. This failure to account for something is the moment of truth, which is different from mere linguistic consistency. It is so different, it deserves a different font.

>Do you deny the existence of qualities and assert only the existence of quantities?

I would say, perhaps, that quantification is objective and qualification is subjective.

What constitutes an existence for me? Oh, something that encompasses both the general/abstract and the specific/concrete, maybe.

Perhaps, hm, units of cognition or meaning? I'd say there is a definite dynamic there that ought not be ignored.

>Oh, it's not so big if you do some reading on the subject.

Wow, that would be tough. There are many. many sources I've drawn upon over my lifetime and synthesized into my own eclectic hodgepodge stew.

Alan Watts, Max Tegmark, Michio Kaku, Lao Tzu... That's just a few off the top of my head.

>Any form of bipolarity is a structure

Non-structure would indicate non-existence. Anything that exists has structure, even if not a physical structure.

Also, let me suggest that there may be a nesting dynamic to reality that would allow exactly that seeming impossibility you say.

You're cute.

Are you saying you do not believe in the existence of absolute truth?

Oh, and I would also recommend Chomsky and Langan, though I've not read much of either my own self.

so this entire debate was based on the fact that Alanis Morrisette has no clue whatsoever what irony is?

No offense, but if you're going to use a word, know what it means.

__________________
"You, me, everyone...we are all made of star stuff." - Neil Degrasse Tyson

https://shawnsmovienight.blogspot.com/

This is simply an assertion. I don't believe the distinction is there, to be honest. You'd have to demonstrate.

This assumes that there are such categories as general and specific. I myself would deny such a hierarchy. After all, I am speaking of the world beyond logic.

Ignoring it I am not. But I am also not attempting to make any claims about what qualifies cognition or subjectivity.

If possible, could you provide specific works rather than names? Each thinker has written many works on many topics.

But it would be much better if you could briefly discuss their ideas regarding our current discussion first, so I know what I am getting into.

But of the names I do recognize, I think pointing me to works of science is misleading, as what I am speaking of exists outside of science or at least its language. Of the names you listed, I am most familiar with Chomsky's work and have read brief portions of recommended to me by others of his Minimalist Program. His championing of a universal grammar and the normalizing ability of linguistic flow may or may not be opposed to my ends. They also may or may not be true. Of course, I will have to investigate more to determine my solidarity with him.

What is your definition of existence? Furthermore, what is your definition of structure? I believe the latter only refers to something within language. To merely assert existence is not assert any knowledge of a structure. I believe earlier you said that existence was constituted by "encompassing" both the general and specific, neither of which seem able to exist outside of language and therefore could simply be fictions.

Please expand on this idea.

I clearly do believe in it. I just do not believe language can access it in the way you claim it can. I do not believe language can be atomized to correspond to material reality. In fact, I believe that language, if atomized in this way, would quickly devolve into a set of fictions, albeit useful fictions, but math is useful while triangles and circles cannot exist. I would never claim that math is not true in its own way, but part of its truth lays in how people buy into its language. Without a powerful standardizing force, math would be as chaotic as ordinary language.

To say the distinction does not exist is also simply an assertion.

So. Where does that leave us?

Oh, I see. The world beyond logic.

I wasn't referring to you specifically.

Why do I get the feeling I'm getting my chain jerked? It's obvious to me from the above that you can do well enough on your own.

If you've been paying attention at all, you'd understand that I've already made clear that I don't see these subjects as unrelated.

Jeeez. Explain definitions to you....

Point out the objective examples of general and specific reality....

You want fries with that?

Like an essay?

Think of it as an inclusion/exclusion principle of a global/local status quo in which teleological causality manifests locally, but globally there is a self-causative entity or totality.

Oh, I think language can represent reality because reality is in itself symbolic ie. discrete physical reality is representational of a more inclusive general state of affairs.

One last offering, and then I'm out. This is getting repetitive.

You mention envisioning a hierarchical status quo. Let me give you a little something that may help adjust your understanding of what I'm referring to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterarchy

The object and the subject are contiguous because there is nothing within subjectivity that cannot be accounted for by objectivity. There is therefore no distinction between them. This is my reasoning. If you would like to provide counterexamples, please go ahead. This is the nature of discussion.

I don't know why you can't recommend me specific works. If you don't want to recommend me anything just say so, but I only wanted to understand further the reasoning behind your assertions. You claimed that these authors helped you understand without explaining their ideas to me. How am I supposed to discover which of their works led you to think what you think? You are simply not being helpful.

It isn't clear to me, and I've been reading every word you've written. Your ideas are very sparse and filled with technical terminology. I wish you would explain them to me, but if you don't want to so be it.

Can you give me at least one example of a general and a specific reality?

This is very difficult to understand, as I'm sure anyone would agree. I hate to trouble you, but could you please expand on this using less technical words?

Is there any way to reach this more general state of affairs or to speak about it? In what way does what you call "discrete physical reality" represent this general state of affairs? What is the relation between the two?

When did I mention this? What are you referring to? Is this an example of what I have been discussing? Is this meant to be a counterexample against something I have said? Because it is clearly not. What is the relation of this page towards what I have been saying? In other words, what should I get out of this page?

I like you, PN, but there is no way I'm up for continuing this conversation. I'm glad you're interested and you're obviously intelligent but I think I've reached my limit on trying to articulate these ideas. I can only say you should keep on with your own inquiries and read more about what we've discussed here. I, however, must call it a day as far as this conversation is concerned.

Well, to be perfectly honest, you have been entirely incoherent these past few posts -- responding immediately to my questions with answers that do not reflect the question, name-dropping authors without corresponding ideas or purpose, and ridiculing/dismissing things I wrote in all seriousness with smart responses.

The fact is, I have no idea what your position is at all. The ideas you have tossed out don't correspond in any way with each other that I have detected. For example, if you are indeed a proponent of "heterarchy", you should know that it can essentially be said to be a view of nature in terms of flows. This has been my view all along.

But this cannot possibly be your view, since you are supposed a proponent of structuralism, general/specific hierarchy, and most of all logical atomism. All of these ideas I have tried to confront here tonight, but you have not been willing to meet me at all during this confrontation.

These are difficult questions, and they perhaps do not belong on a movie forum, but it happened and they were raised. I too feel this has not been at all a productive exercise but mostly because you have been avoiding me instead of addressing me.

Goodnight, Deadite.

Very well, I'll add JUST ONE MORE post as food for thought.


The general and specific aspects of reality are not solely hierarchical.

Simultaneously, it is true that specification and generalization are mental attributes.

That's it, I'm out.