• g0d
    It's not the case that 'expectancy' is 'just another noun' because the expectancy associated with using a word like 'tree' can vary according to context across a vast range.fresco

    I do agree that meaning does not live in individual words. Meaning is more like a fluid that moves through words and time. I think you agree. It's risky to write 'meaning is X' because maybe the primary point is that we are always already doing it. We live in meaning(s). We already know. So any theory like 'meaning is a fluid' is 'really' an anti-theory. It directs individual investigation this way or that.

    Calling a tree 'an object' is merely to acknowledge that we can agree to contextually focus, or narrow down on the range of expectancies.fresco

    For me it's more like our neural network coming pre-trained by evolution to grasp the world as a system of objects 'in' a world (and not just spatially). Of course there is an artificial layer (our theory about it), but I think it's clear that dogs for instance recognize objects.

    So maybe we have [biological <- cultural <- personal <- ] conceptual schemes & philosophy has trouble with the notion of intelligibility and the subject/object issue because these are deeper than the cultural scheme.

    Within the cultural scheme we can notice the limits of the cultural scheme. We can find where it tends to glitch out.
  • g0d
    Let's get mundane; you are correct in your assessment, for which I wish to commend you.Vessuvius

    Thank you. I say that's getting mundane in a good way. I didn't have to slowly translate it. It's your business, but you are asking quite a bit from strangers when you have too much fun with the poetry. These issues are tangled enough already.

    I am glad to see lots of different personalities around though, so I don't mean to be unfriendly.
  • Vessuvius

    Nor do I hope for that consideration either; that much we can affirm on a basis of commonality. Irrespective of which it is clear to me that the vastness in breadth of your contribution remains incomparable to all my own, thus far. Owing to the prior, I stand in gratitude of your acknowledgement, for my sake and yours.
  • g0d
    Such a pov is a bit like swimming without the buoyancy aids of fixed axioms.fresco

    Right. And I've been drunk on Rorty's kool-aid, which is good kool-aid.

    Anyone who can roll with Rorty will of course do just fine in ordinary communication. And we could use other names like Nietzsche to symbolize the insouciance.

    I still think that the smoke clears and we are left with contradictions or sore spots. These don't really matter. Maybe Rorty and Nietzsche are primarily attitudes. They are to be digested more like musicians or comedians than as earnest theorists about reality, it seems to me. And I like them.

    But I'd like to hear your thoughts if any on 'world.'

    Heidegger scholar Nikolas Kompridis writes: "World disclosure refers, with deliberate ambiguity, to a process which actually occurs at two different levels. At one level, it refers to the disclosure of an already interpreted, symbolically structured world; the world, that is, within which we always already find ourselves. At another level, it refers as much to the disclosure of new horizons of meaning as to the disclosure of previously hidden or unthematized dimensions of meaning." — Wiki
    <emphasis added>

    To me it doesn't matter that Heidegger said it but that once pointed out I actually find it there. (Heidegger is useful, but I don't like when the talk shifts from a concern with what is and how it is to a concern with what so and so says as the focus. )
  • fresco
    Okay three points...
    1. Derrida (endorsed by Rorty) pointed out that the import of any assertion (pivileging) was contingent on its negation i.e. aporia was inevitable.
    2. Genetic epistemology (Piaget's philosophical extension of his developmental psychology) suggests the limitless continuity/rolling scenario of state transitions between 'knowlege' and 'world' as each 'discovery' raises more questions.
    3. Human language is 'generative' (Chomsky) which implies a potentially infinite set of meanings.
  • g0d

    I agree that aporia is inevitable if we try to do traditional metaphysics on the subject and object.

    I also agree with genetic epistemology, which sounds like Hegel without finale.

    I also agree about an infinite set of meanings.

    But what am I agreeing with you about if not the 'world' as a phenomenon or structure of communication or a 'how it is'?

    If Rorty tells me I should abandon the lens metaphor, then why should I believe him? How is he going to make a case without describing reality in some way? A person could try to just lead by example and ignore metaphysics. But even if doing this we are going to get descriptions of reality.

    If we try to do non-fiction at all, we are talking about reality. Just because a stiff or word-math approach to metaphysics leads to aporia doesn't mean IMO that we have transcended being in a world together.

    [None of this is of much practical importance. I see that. But it's fun to try to get clear on. So I am offering the thoughts that softened my adoption of Rorty and other thinkers. The attitude is right, but they only cut the knot. They don't untie it.]
  • g0d

    Thanks. I hope you stay around. I love reading philosophy, but there's no substitute for paraphrasing and debating, in my opinion.

    As far as writing style goes, I also found places like these great for experimenting. To me there's no substitute for just trying stuff and seeing how it goes.
  • Vessuvius

    My intent rests on abidance toward the same form of sentiment, in the hope that it confer betterment in apprehension, greater than that which would bear truth were we to act otherwise.

    I can merely offer ever more an extent of affirmation than before for that of which you have yielded much advocacy since, as we regard each, as a matter of consensus; absent of all disputation amongst ourselves in its every aspect.

    (Thanks man, you as well.)
  • fresco

    I would say you are agreeing with a shifting world and shifting self where 'is-ness' amounts to little more than a snapshot memory or a projection in the mind. This matters little unless we are concerned with 'meaning' or 'purose of life', in which some sort of permanent anchor is being sought as in most religions or rigid political preferences. Unfortunately, the majority of the species may not have the time or intellect to understand this, and tribal conflicts will continue, perhaps resulting in eventual species extinction.
Add a Comment