Could you answer the question that was asked, please. What were you agreeing on?

Musing a bit, that is part of the problem I have with apokrisis's epistemic "cut"; the cut could not be a private thing. — Banno

The cut is another relative thing, never absolute. And it creates the "private" realm from which either communities or individuals would construct meaning in terms of a sign relation.

So the entirety of you problem is that you haven't understood the concept. That tends to happen when you are lazy about reading the literature.

What would sharing it with yourself look like? — Banno

As I've said, speaking creates the speaker. A linguistic identity, a psychological construct of self, develops by mastering the habits of language use.

Being a self is a particular kind of language game. One that is baked into the general communal game. It is right there in the grammar - me, you and them - as Mead pointed out.

So if I have a beetle in my box, I can talk about it to myself. I can construct the view which says there is this "me" and there is this "other".

But this is not of course a whole private language. It is some private vocab. It refers to the world that only I see because only "I" could have such a point of view. It is that tightly tied to any claims to identity that "I" might have. Hence why qualia are treated as the height of the private and ineffable.

In general, our "I" is socially and culturally constructed. It encodes the communal "I" as the point of view from which a generalised and linguistically sharable selfhood arises. So most of our speaking remains speech from a collective cultural identity. As I said about wine-tasters, this becomes true even of talk about ineffable qualia.

Thus again, this is about degrees of the private or public. In the end, the speaking "I" is still largely a cultural self. But every person lives in a different body. We all have some unique point of view as well. So there is scope for private language to construct that as the private experience of some solipsistic notion of "myself".

The time wasting is apparently mutual. IF it is all a matter of degree, then there can be no absolutely private language...

I think we agree, but you do not realise it. Odd. — Banno

Tiresome bullshit. The corollary was that public language is equally a matter of degree.

Are you wanting to say there can be no absolutely public language?

So still the same old games from you, Banno. The less you say, the safer you feel. It's a life I guess.

So if I have a beetle in my box, I can talk about it to myself. — apokrisis

In what language?

Tiresome bullshit — apokrisis

You do not have to be here. You are welcome to go and spend your time more productively.

But you enjoy this.

As I said about wine-tasters, this becomes true even of talk about ineffable qualia. — apokrisis

Isn't there a puzzle here, if one is able to eff what is ineffable?

This is all rather a puzzle.

So if I have a beetle in my box, I can talk about it to myself. I can construct the view which says there is this "me" and there is this "other". — apokrisis

Ride yourself of private items thus: imagine that it changes over time, but you do not notice. In this case, presumably one would imagine that your ineffable self changes between one instance of your talking to yourself and the next, but you didn't notice. Not an unlikely scenario.

Given that, what grounds could you have for concluding that you are the very same as you were previously?

As I said, we would use the resources of the communal language, but would be free to create private words.

And what is more germane to my original argument - which was about the advantage of a pragmatic theory of truth - is that I am focused on the issue of the speaker doing the speaking. Who is this person really? Is s/he a social construct or is s/he a neurobiological individual?

There is both a division and a division that is not clearcut - relative and dichotomous rather than dualistic and absolute.

So I am focused on what it could even mean to be private - in any sense. Or public, in any sense. I am highlighting the fact that language - as semiosis or a triadic sign relation - has to make the I-ness that both speaks and appears to understand the speaking in right fashion. The production of actual language speaks to the successful production of the I-ness that we associate with "being a speaker expressing meanings".

Banno wants to talk about Davidson and that whole edifice of flanneling built on the possibility/impossibility of translation. This is somehow vitally important to put Cartesian dualism to the sword, not to mention Kantian representationalism.

Well good luck to all that AP still playing its philosophy of language long past its intellectual sell-by date.

Meanwhile over here - particularly at the intersection of science and metaphysics - Peircean semiotics is going strong. The essential issues have been framed in far more fruitful fashion.

Rather than trying to kill metaphysics, science is cashing it out as irreducibly complex triadic relations. Systems science, cybernetics, hierarchy theory, complex adaptive systems, and all the other ways of speaking about a holistic or organic understanding of existence.

So the issue is not "in what language", but "for what reason".

A systems perspective recognises the reality of final cause. And for there to be "a purpose" there has to be "a self" in some proper sense.

Hence the private does make no sense. That is the mistake of Cartesian dualism and Kantian representationalism.

But the public also makes no sense as that is a reification of the collective.

You need an actual theory of wholes which makes sense of the forming of the parts. Which is the issue I am focused on.

You do not have to be here. — Banno

Still hoping to be in control of the discursive boundaries? Make this a safe space for that guy Banno? Remove the possibility of his authority being challenged?

But you enjoy this. — Banno

Of course. I love the immense variety of life. And without the irritation, it is easy to get lazy.

Once more. Please answer the direct question.

The corollary was that public language is equally a matter of degree. Are you wanting to say there can be no absolutely public language?

It might be private, but how can it be a language, especially if the private aspect is what is not, or what is unable to be, communicated (per your depiction above)? — Luke

I agree that it wouldn't be properly called language, but that makes it no less real. Banno doesn't like "mental furnishing", or any suggestion that the private aspect is real. In reference to the game analogy which we discussed earlier, I argued that the analogy falls short because there are things like personal strategies which are completely outside of the game itself, but nevertheless have significant influence over the way that the game is played. So here, if language is compared to a game, the private aspect goes far beyond language itself (as strategy goes far beyond the game), and has significant influence over the use of language. And that is most evident in my example of the extreme, strategies of deception.

I would avoid such talk. Too close to reification; too much. — Banno

Reification is what is needed though. There is a need to take seriously, as real, the private aspect. This is because things like misunderstanding, misleading, and deception, are very real, though they are of the private aspect. If we do not consider these as real possibilities, we will not consider the need for justification as real either.

The cut is another relative thing, never absolute. And it creates the "private" realm from which either communities or individuals would construct meaning in terms of a sign relation. — apokrisis

I would like to see a good clear explanation of exactly what "epistemic cut" refers to in your usage apokrisis?

Here is a full account - https://www.informatics.indiana.edu/rocha/publications/pattee/pattee.html

What I really want is an account of how you use this.

I use it like Pattee. I learnt if from him directly. But if I see you making an effort, of course I would help explain anything you might not understand or disagree with.

My professors taught me that to demonstrate how I understand another's writing, I should put it in my own words. That's what I got marked on. Can you demonstrate an understanding of what Pattee means by "epistemic cut"?

Do as your professors advise then. Read the paper, put it into your own words, then I will grade you.

Or this search gives you 130 hits to explore.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/search?Search=epistemic+cut&expand=yes&child=&forums=&or=Relevance&mem=&tag=&date=All&Checkboxes%5B0%5D=titles&Checkboxes%5B1%5D=WithReplies&Checkboxes%5B2%5D=child&user=apokrisis&pg=p2

Well, it used to be a thread that looked to be heading in a productive general direction...



I'm working on a reply to your last request to me. It may be a bit. Real life and all...

;)

The subject is epistemology. So our goal ought to be to limit the object of inquiry to that which is relevant to the subject. If we were discussing metaphysics or ontology here, we would be looking to broaden the object, as you suggest, to consider what all thinking has in common, and consider what all activity has in common, but since this is epistemology, we want to limit our field of observation, to focus directly on what we call "knowing". — Metaphysician Undercover

This is a bit ridiculous.

Is belief irrelevant to epistemology? I think not.

The JTB notion of belief conflates between a report of belief and belief. I've already argued for all this... in this thread. I've no reason to bear the burden twice. Revisit it, if you like, and ask questions.

Ever since I first encountered the so-called "private language argument" I have taken it to be asserting the impossibility of making a wholly novel vocabulary intelligible to yourself without translating it into a public language.

Of course. I love the immense variety of life. And without the irritation, it is easy to get lazy. — apokrisis

...or is it that you are still hoping to be in control of the discursive boundaries? Make this a safe space for that guy Apo? Remove the possibility of his authority being challenged?

X-)

Ever since I first encountered the so-called "private language argument" I have taken it to be asserting the impossibility of making a wholly novel vocabulary intelligible to yourself without translating it into a public language. — Janus

That's it.

The corollary was that public language is equally a matter of degree. Are you wanting to say there can be no absolutely public language? — apokrisis

I've got no idea what an absolutely public language might be.

Again, you are far too tricksy for me, Apo.

If it is impossible for me to communicate to you, exactly, and precisely what I mean, how is that not an indication of private language? In other words, if the public part is always missing something from ideal completion, and perfection in translation, then isn't this the part which is private? — Metaphysician Undercover

This is very revealing. It shows that Meta does not take the idea of a public language quite far enough.

The supposition in the quote above is that there is a meaning that is to be communicated, and that even when this is made public there might be a piece of the meaning that is left out.

That is, there is a meaning that is seperate from the public utterance.

That is what is being denied.

So what is happening when you can't quite find the words?

The folk view would be that you have a meaning in your head that you cannot quite translate into English.

But perhaps instead what is happening is that the thought is incomplete, the meaning unfinished, until the right words are found.

That is, the words make the thought as much as the thought makes the words.

I've got no idea what an absolutely public language might be. — Banno

One where everyone shares the exact same interpretations with no personal nuance.

But even if you shout "fire", there's always going to be a few wondering what that could mean.

One where everyone shares the exact same interpretations with no personal nuance. — apokrisis

Interpretations of what? Interpretation is moving from one language to another, yes? How does interpretation work when we are both speaking English? Are we talking radical interpretation?

Interpretation is moving from one language to another, yes? — Banno

Huh? That would be interpreting two different languages. And that could well involve the construction of a different sense of being a speaker to speak like a native.

How does interpretation work when we are both speaking English? — Banno

We would both share some point of view - enough of one so that the personal differences or personal quirks did not feel like they make an important difference. We would share the cultural identity involved. We would be the kinds of selves that entails.

And now can you address the questions I've asked of you repeatedly. It is boring dealing with these trivialities you post as replies.

And now can you address the questions I've asked of you repeatedly. It is boring dealing with these trivialities you post as replies. — apokrisis

Sorry - which was it again?

Same old same old. Get a life.

Get a life. — apokrisis

I have one, thanks. Just boiling up some spuds fresh out of the ground, part of my first crop. Plenty more to come. They will be served with fresh herbs and a local olive oil.

Spent most of the morning helping Laotian friends with a legal issue. Quite satisfactory.

Oh, and spent some time puzzling over a bit of epistemology. Cream.

Can you two children please knock it off. You're embarrassments to yourselves. If you've nothing of philosophical relevance to say, say nothing.

Damn. Mum found out.