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.

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.

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.

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. )

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.

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.]

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.

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.)

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.

Yeah I think we have the same attitude and sense of transcendence of dogma. We embrace a dynamic, shifting reality.

And, indeed, our human journey is probably back into the void. We form groups in terms of a feared-hated-despised other, and the same individualism that allows for explosive creativity also keep us from working together. And then we die like dogs after a short life and can't be bothered with the long-term consequences of our actions.

My response: try to act decently and also laugh with gods now and then.

Agreed.

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. — fresco

Yes, and unfortunately the current conditions are looking ripe for an escalation of global conflict such as we have never before witnessed. I doubt that species extinction is likely but radical population reduction is on the cards and much less eventually than one would hope, I think.

Your pessimism is well understood. And the 'Gaia hypothesis' seems to imply the inevitability of wars as a limiting factor on population.

Yes, and unfortunately the current conditions are looking ripe for an escalation of global conflict such as we have never before witnessed. I doubt that species extinction is likely but radical population reduction is on the cards and much less eventually than one would hope, I think. — Janus

Uh-oh. We might not exist anymore :scream: . Yet, I pity the one who doesn't not exist, what a fuckfest :monkey: .

Yes, and even apart from the Gaia hypothesis observations of characteristic human behavior would seem to support thinking that, in the face of dwindling resources and growing demand, that increasing, and increasingly, global conflict will be inevitable.

Uh-oh. We might not exist anymore :scream: . Yet, I pity the one who doesn't not exist, what a fuckfest :monkey: . — Merkwurdichliebe

Doesn't not exist? I couldn't possibly fail to disagree with you less! :joke:

A current book by Rovelli (the Order of Time) underscores Bohr's view with the phrase 'things are just repetitive events.
This proposed 'relativity of existence' seems to me to render most philosophical discussion of 'ontology' to be what Wittgenstein called Geschwätz (idle chatter).
Any thoughts ? — fresco

Long thread, but a clear OP to be directly spoken to.

Strictly speaking, no objects are identical with themselves over time. What remains unchanged over time are certain properties that find expression in the laws of conservation of energy, momentum, electrical charge, etc., these necessarily being closer to the basis of all.

It appears to us, though, that the world consists of parts that have continued from “a moment ago”, and thus still retain their identity in time; yet, matter really only appears secondarily as a congealed potentiality, a congealed gestalt, as it were, a hub of relations.

I think 'what remains over time' is observer memory of the interaction event between 'observer' and 'observed'. What we call 'properties' are observer expectations with respect to the event.What we call 'conservation' of energy, charge etc is the repetition of prediction of aspects of the 'measurement' of events, thereby implying 'identity' of a single phenomenon.
Note that the fundamental level,of 'measurement' is 'nominal' (i.e. naming or asigning identity)

As a child, I tortured myself trying to figure out the causality problem: how anything could exist at all. I wondered that we are stuck with a nothing -> something derivation, which did not make any sense to me. The explanations I heard of seemed to start with a "nothing" that seems really like some kind of "something" (e.g. quantum flux, a mechanism that provides for our laws of physics, a mechanism that would allow time to start, etc.). It seemed clear that my concept of existence and reality had to be fundamentally wrong.

What helped my sanity on this was when I started to try and understand what absolutely nothing was, as it was the only thing I could imagine that could exist without an explanation. I figured it could not have physics (what mechanisms are driving the behavior described by those laws?), or properties (what is holding onto that property, or lack thereof?). And, well, I could not say that Thing A exists inside a realm of absolute nothingness, nor could I say that Thing A does not exist. There was nothing that was holding the existence of Thing A, or lack thereof.

This got me thinking about existence differently than my brain was trained for. It seemed relative, in that given any sort of hypothetical realm that included a description of something we might see as "existence" for this realm to exist, then that realm exists, but only with respect to itself. If the hypothetical description of this realm includes mechanisms to allow for things such as our laws of physics, and for existence (with respect to that realm or with respect to something within that realm), and allows for universe to big bang out and form people sitting on some planet thinking about it, then that that could make sense to me as what we have.

Both Einstein and Bohr were right. There is a definite configuration (of character/interactive form, activity, influence) which can be designated as an electron. Also, that designation is with respect to subjective human understanding. My take is that a difference in names does not translate into a difference in identity. No matter how an electron is explained, it does not alter its identity. It seems analogous to the gravity problem between Newton and Einstein's explanations - only the perspective differs.

Existence is absolute in the context that everything can be designated as such.

I think this has to do with point of view. We accept that human selves have a point of view and that animals have a point of view, however, can there be a point of view from everywhere?

The pov scenario tends to imply a dichotomy between 'observer' and 'observed' as self contained entities. I suggest that the 'interaction event' involves co-extension of observer and observed, i.e. 'thinger',and 'thing' are instantaneously co-established (In a Heideggarian sense of Dasein and present-at-hand.)

Indeed this could be the 'view from everywhere' !:wink:

Sounds like panpsychism.

Googling 'Heidegger, and Panpsychism' suggests the jury is out on that.

The concept of 'existence' may mean different things, but I mainly see two of them - existence inside the mind and existence outside of the mind. What is 'inside' is an illusion, meaning that it is not reality itself, only its representation; what is 'outside' is the absolute emanating all things, including our minds. The mind is self conscious and knows it is (existence), an external object is just an idea derived from induction, but never 100 % certain (being as logos). We may never prove for sure that we are not imprisoned in a matrix of our selves. Every person has this uncertainty and carry this suspicion till the end of life. There will never be enough proof that I am not the only person, hallucinating the reality which does not exist outside of me. In this case, I would be my own creator, the absolute, otherwise - the absolute should be an objective reality. Weather existence is relative or not depends on what it is related to, if it is related to something external, it is 'relative'; if it is related to itself, it is its own foundation, that is the absolute, which makes it 'absolute'.

Sorry no.
All this assumes a representalist view of language. The nonrepresentalist view takes 'languaging' to be a behavior in which the meaning of words like 'mind' 'reality' and "existence' cannot be extricated from the ephemeral coordinative roles they play in transient contexts.

How does an OP so misguided reach 31 pages?

Maybe there is something more substantial to 'chew' here than on other threads !

Must be. So what is it?

A current book by Rovelli (the Order of Time) underscores Bohr's view with the phrase 'things are just repetitive events.
This proposed 'relativity of existence' seems to me to render most philosophical discussion of 'ontology' to be what Wittgenstein called Geschwätz (idle chatter). — fresco

Sure, things are repetitive events.

Hence, there are repetitive events.

Hence, there exist repetitive events.


But what makes 'em relative?

.....because 'events'; are relative to 'observers' who note their 'repetition' using their memories, and define what constitutes 'the event window'.

Note that 'observation' involves 'verbalization'...assigning 'thinghood'...we are not considering interactions that go unnoticed, nor are we going beyond the operations of 'the minds eye'. There are no unobserved' silent falling trees in the forest ...saying it has already implies observation in the minds eye !

Words re-present events...allow for re-experiencing them,(Vorstelling in German)