I have an inkling but I'm not sure; my memory is not that comprehensive, unfortunately.

Languaging' is a form of behavior which co-ordinates behavior. Your languaging sample about 'just squiggles on a screen' is your attempt to to elicit a response from me involving the word/concept 'ideas'. — fresco

So how can scribbles be about themselves? What does it mean for something to be about something or itself?

But from Maturana's 'languaging' point of view, 'ideas' are merely sequences of 'internal actions/conversations which we call 'thinking'. It is this ability to 'act off line' which gives humanity an evolutionary advantage over most other species. In fact, one definition psychologists use for 'intelligence' is 'the capacity to delay a physical response'. — fresco

Or to filter our instinctive behaviors. But this is all scribbles about things that arent scribbles. I'm not writing to get you to write back, or to hear you talk. My intent is simply to convey ideas, and ideas can be non-verbal. The scribbles on the screen are about my ideas, and ideas are about the world.

I look at the world as being replete with meaning, not as lacking it. — Janus

I do too.

I still maintain a distinction between a tablet that is inscribed with hieroglyphics that had ikonic or symbolic meaning to whoever inscribed it, and one which has been inscribed with marks which had no ikonic or symbolic meaning. — Janus

Your meaning is clear, however the case of an ancient inscriber deliberately making random marks that appear to be hieroglyphics is curious. I imagine it takes quite a bit of effort to inscribe marks on a stone tablet. Also, that the marks appear to be hieroglyphs implies a significant degree of order. The amount of effort and the designed order both suggest intention or purpose. Even if the intention was to make a faux tablet, for decoration or a prop, or perhaps to fool people, the object served a purpose and was meaningful in that regard.

Of course it could be deciphered more or less correctly or incorrectly, but that possibility does not exist in the case of the meaningless marks; we would simply be making a mistake if we tried to decipher it. — Janus

As I suggested, maybe the purpose is to try making others attempt to decipher it.

To further demonstrate my point, I defy you, or anyone, to reply to this post with a meaningless response.

Even if the intention was to make a faux tablet, for decoration or a prop, or perhaps to fool people, the object served a purpose and was meaningful in that regard. — praxis

Yes, I do agree with you that the tablet would have meaning in those senses, just as natural marks have meanings. And the tablet in question would also embody human intentional meaning. I was just attempting to draw a coherent distinction between those more or less arbitrary or extemporaneous intentional and unintentional kinds of meanings and conventionalized semantic meanings.

floccinaucinihilipilification (meaning/value, what's the difference)

I think alcontali is talking about meta-mathematics. I could be mistaken. — Noah Te Stroete

Unlike metaphysics, which is epistemically not a legitimate subdiscipline of physics -- as it cannot experimentally test its propositions -- metamathematics does derive its propositions axiomatically -- i.e. is subject to provability -- and is therefore epistemically a legitimate subdiscipline of mathematics.

Seriously, metamathematics is NOT to mathematics what metaphysics is to physics.

So, no, I do not particularly distinguish between metamathematics and mathematics, because there is simply no need for that. For example, Hilbert calculi may be metamathematical but that is a non-issue in their discussion. They have absolutely no fundamentally different nature.

Mathematics has absolutely no problem talking about itself. So, yes, mathematics is vain. It definitely has narcissistic qualities.

As a side remark, I always thought that science cannot legitimately talk about itself -- it generally cannot -- but I think that there may be a twist to that.

Falsificationism is in my impression subject to falsification, because Pavlov's dog is a falsificationist animal. You can repeatedly carry out Pavlov's experiments to look for a black swan in that context, i.e. to find a dog or another animal assumed to subscribe to falsificationism, but that refuses to learn to salivate when repeatedly served with a bell ring. Therefore, falsificationism seems to "eat its own dog food".

Furthermore, when Hardy quipped that real mathematics is useless, he was referring to his own experience in exploring number theory; which is not part of metamathematics at all.

Real number theory is obviously as useless and meaningless -- no direct use or application possible and utterly devoid of meaning/semantics -- as every other axiomatic theory in mathematics.

The good stuff is also quite lazy, as it minimizes what it actually wants to talk about, besides, of course, being purposely useless and meaningless. Therefore the good stuff, i.e. in Hardy's terms, the "real mathematics", tends to be fairly ridiculous. If it does not make you laugh, the stuff is probably just too serious.

Seriously, metamathematics is NOT to mathematics what metaphysics is to physics. — alcontali

So metamathematics is provable, metaphysics is not. So, is counting apples meaningless? Or is that not mathematics?

That still does not mean that language would be a physical phenomenon with size, weight, temperature, electromagnetic radiation. Does language have any particular color or smell?

Seriously, language is an abstraction that lives in its own Platonic world. We cannot avoid using such abstractions, simply, because we communicate.

Still, we should not confuse these abstractions with the real, physical world.

The word "cat" is not a cat. It is a word. It is a language expression. It is not the real, physical thing at all. — alcontali

Never mind. I think this answered my question, and I think I agree with you.

So, is counting apples meaningless? — Noah Te Stroete

No, it is the apples that provide the semantics/meaning. So, it is not meaningless.

Or is that not mathematics? — Noah Te Stroete

It is application of mathematics and not mathematics proper. So, you are possibly doing inventory control, or so? Is it about accounting and financial reporting?

So, you are possibly doing inventory control, or so? Is it about accounting and financial reporting? — alcontali

Ha ha! I would go bananas if I had to do those jobs.

Ha ha! I would go bananas if I had to do those jobs. — Noah Te Stroete

Well, when people become semantical, they are often intentionally motivated. It is a real-world job to help other people discover and/or achieve their goal. Still, for various reasons, the job of "consultant" actually has a bad reputation.

Ultimately, the reason why there are accountants is the same as why there are trash collectors, sewer divers, or any other real-life jobs, really. The work just needs to be done. So, someone will end up getting dragged into it, kicking and screaming, and then also getting paid to do it. There will also always be some kind of manager equipped with a whip, keeping an eye on the situation. Slavery is freedom.

Well, when people become semantical, they are often intentionally motivated. It is a real-world job to help other people discover and/or achieve their goal. Still, for various reasons, the job of "consultant" actually has a bad reputation.

Ultimately, the reason why there are accountants is the same as why there are trash collectors, sewer divers, or any other real-life jobs, really. The work just needs to be done. So, someone will end up getting dragged into it, kicking and screaming, and then also getting paid to do it. There will also always be some kind of manager equipped with a whip, keeping an eye on the situation. Slavery is freedom. — alcontali

I can’t tell if you’re being admonishing, analytical, or comical. I suspect it’s all of the above.

I can’t tell if you’re being admonishing, analytical, or comical. I suspect it’s all of the above. — Noah Te Stroete

Art. 71b. Arbeit macht frei !

Das bundesfederationlich Zusammenarbeitsgesamtsamt

Dare I ask for a translation?

Dare I ask for a translation? — Noah Te Stroete

I was just making fun of these long German words by inventing a mostly meaningless one.

Apparently, I am not the only one doing that! ;-)

This used to be the longest one, until they deprecated and archived it:

Rindfleischetikettierungsüberwachungsaufgabenübertragungsgesetz

It is the name of an abandoned regulatory arrangement for beef labelling.

Selbstverständlich!

“Work sets you free.” At one time a spiritual lesson, then made sinister by Auschwitz. Fucking Nazis.

“Work sets you free.” At one time a spiritual lesson, then made sinister by Auschwitz. Fucking Nazis. — Noah Te Stroete

Ever since the publication of "The Kingdom of Auschwitz", by Otto Friedrich, it seems to be ok to mock the literal German version too. In fact, Orwell had already spectacularly pulled that off in "1984" in English, published belatedly in 1949 (it is obvious that Orwell had wanted to publish it in 1948).

Thinking of it, the slogan is indeed something sinister and truly Orwellian.

I agree. “Work” as in work you don’t enjoy or work that you mind is a dirty word.

Are symbols meaningless?
— creativesoul

If a symbol is a nonterminal... — alcontali

Is being nonterminal equivalent to being meaningless?

Point out to me where you have discussed any impact of die Kehre on analysis of 'meaning'... — fresco

Evidently we've two different ideas regarding what it takes for one position to effectively exhaust another... It's a matter of explanatory power.

Offer an example, any example, of meaning that does not consist of what I've already set out. Heiddy invented all these new language games as a result of not understanding how all thought/belief works. He did not clearly delineate between thought/belief that is prior to language, pre-reflective thought/belief in linguistic form, and reflective thought/belief in linguistic form.

Simply put, he did not draw and maintain the actual distinction between thought/belief and thinking about thought/belief. Being, Dasein, Being in the world, ready at hand, etc, all of those notions are the result of not getting thought/belief right to start with.

He was not alone.

Get that wrong, and you'll certainly get meaning wrong as well.

Revisit the ancient texts thread.

Is being nonterminal equivalent to being meaningless? — creativesoul

Only if the terminals in that system are meaningless. Otherwise, no.

For example, the terminals in natural language ("the defining vocabulary") are explicitly meaningful. You can explain each of them by showing one or more real-world images. No need for words. Just show one or more images of a "man" and a "woman", and it should be roughly clear what these terminals mean.

In my impression, meaning/semantics somehow requires real-world terminals. I am not sure, though, because semiotics is obviously an endless rant.

According to formalist philosophy, to which I subscribe (without denying Platonism), mathematics is syntax-only:

Syntactics is the Morris'ean branch of semiotics that deals with the formal properties of signs and symbols; the interrelation of the signs, without regard to meaning.

Natural language wants to convey meaning while formal language wants to structure it.

I think that you're mistaken on several levels here.

There are many meaningful terms within the defining vocabulary of natural languages that do not have a real world physical referent.

Natural language does much more than convey meaning. I may even argue against that on it's face.

Structuring meaning is not equivalent to being meaningless.

Terminals are language constructs. Symbols are meaningful in exactly the way I've set out here. That's the difference between accidental marks and symbols.

I would not doubt if current convention agrees wholeheartedly with everything you've written, although some of it seems dubitable. I'm not an expert in maths. Hell, I'm not even at a novice level. That said, to say that mathematics is meaningless given it's historical evolution through time through people, is suspect to say the least.

Given that mathematical symbols are meaningful to those who know how to use the language, I find the claim that math is meaningless to be entirely untenable, unexplainable, and contrary to known facts.

There are many meaningful terms within the defining vocabulary of natural languages that do not have a real world physical referent. — creativesoul

You could be right. I am not familiar with the semiotics thing.

Structuring meaning is not equivalent to being meaningless. — creativesoul

Well, if all the meaning is necessarily elsewhere ... I think that the problem is rather the negative connotation of the term "meaningless".

That said, to say that mathematics is meaningless given it's historical evolution through time through people, is suspect to say the least. — creativesoul

With "meaningless" considered to be "bad", and "meaningful" considered to be "good", in common parlance, I certainly understand your objection. The problem is that this view can easily lead astray.

Therefore, the problem is rather to overcome the resistance to considering "meaningless" and "useless" as neutral terms. In a technical context, these terms should probably not be used to make value judgements.

I’m not sure that games with rules have meaning, but they can be meaningful to some.

I think that you're mistaken on several levels here. — creativesoul

It is a connotational issue.

For example, in common parlance, "laziness" is bad; even very bad. In a technical context, laziness, as in "lazy evaluation", is a lofty ideal to aspire to. The lazier, the better, because less is more.

In a technical context, "Your approach is lazy", is a compliment. It means that you are an expert at avoiding work, and therefore, an example to be emulated.

But your lay term 'aboutness' is vacuous, because unless you are a naive realist you have no 'bedrock'. My 'cordination of coordination' rests on the bedrock of 'action decisions' involved in physical, psychological and social 'prediction and control'. Now part of that coordination certainly uses the abstract persistence of 'words' to mentally paint shifting snapshots of 'an external world', but my contextual 'snapshot' can never be guaranteed to be synonymous with yours. All that matters is a degree of mutual coordination as to what might happen next (which Maturana calls 'structural coupling').

I suggest you need to consider some of the empirical studies of language pathology to understand my position. For example, it is well known that the development of twins can be hampered by an ideosyncratic private language. And studies by Merleau-Ponty of brain damaged war veterans showed for example that the command word 'salute' produced no understanding but social situation of an officer entering the room produced immediate saluting action.

i see, so your answer is 'Heidegger got it wrong' ! You dismiss his admirable attempt to use neologisms to transcend the infinite regress as futile ? .....

And die Kehre in philosophy has been equally applied to Wittgenstein's dismissal of his earlier Tractatus which involved a 'picture theory of language' . Also..to non representationalist views of language developed by Quine et al conducive to neo-pragmatism (Rorty), and post modernism (Derrida) all of which were iconoclastic with respect to traditional analytic philososophy (which concerned itself with 'pseudo-problems' like discriminating between 'thought' and 'belief' !).

No doubt, they all 'got it wrong' !
...which in my terms translates as 'if you want to structurally couple, with me you need to commune with my psychological need to reinforce my understanding of philosophy'.

I can only give an 'Irish' response to that, which is
...'If you want to get to Dublin, I wouldn't start from here' !

idiosyncratic private language — fresco

a footnote - the root of the word 'idiot' is someone who speaks in a way that nobody else can understand - from latin'idios', own or private; (c.f. 'idiom' to make one's own; so 'idiomatic'); also idiosyncrasy c. 1600, from French idiosyncrasie, from Latinized form of Greek idiosynkrasia "a peculiar temperament," from idios "one's own" ; so in this context, use of the word 'private' is actually redundant!

Good point except that two 'idiots' speaking their own mutually understood language are involved.
Looks like 'idiosyncratic' is redundant. !