[MD] Philosophy and Abstraction

[John Carl]

Dan and Matt,

I was reading along Matt's response to dmb in this thread and I came across
this:
--------------
Matt:
I could hardly take the idea that Rorty articulates the slogan "it's
language all the way down" to be a strawman, but that slogan, for
example, is what I've been asking for a more circumspect attitude
towards in unpacking its meaning in conversation with John.
---------------
and I had the realization that my thinking on "it's language all the way
down" didn't come from my own head from thinking about that bits/bytes
posting of Adrie, but musta been some phrase I'd heard or picked up in my
travels.  However, the fact that it did resonate so loudly between my own
two ears, means something to me.  It makes my own ideas not seem quite as
ridiculous in my own estimation, if famous philosophers agree that "it's
language, all the way down".  There's a certain fitness.

However, if it's all language, all the way down, then it's also
consciousness, all the way down.  And we're really stuck with Idealism,
which is what I've been saying all along, so I can't say it here or it'd be
too blatantly self-serving.


> John:  In a reductionist sense, no.  And I see what you mean.  I did
> > place the caveat somewhere along the lines of this discussion that
> > language as "i'm defining it" - an expansion of language, just as the
> > MoQ proposes an expansion of "intellect", I'm urging an expansion of
> > "language".
>
> Dan:
>
> If you don't mind, I would prefer that we stick to dictionary
> definitions; it makes for a better discussion, one in which we can,
> perhaps, at least reach some common ground. According to
> dictionary.com there are a number of definitions pertaining to
> language. If it seems worthwhile, you might want to check them out and
> see which one(s) might be helpful to further the discussion.
> Otherwise, it seems rather fruitless to continue.
>
>

John:  Ah Dan, you and your "fruitless to continue" all the time.  What
kinda fruit are you not finding anyway?   Also, it only seems fair to me
that if we allow the MoQ to change the definition of intellect, then we
oughta look outside of SOM definitions of language too.  Otherwise we're
picking and choosing, willy nilly, to satisfy our own views.




> How does the MOQ expand on intellect?
>
>

By including the heart WITH the head.  By enfolding romantic mentation into
the classic equation.  The dictionary definition of intellect is "reason
without feeling"  The MoQ expansion pack is "reason with feeling".







>
> >John:
> > And this really started as a topic of discussion, at least in my mind,
> > from a posting Adrie shared about the bits of the matter being bytes.
> > That in a very real sense, It IS information, all the way down.
> > Meaningful, relational information is what reality is, deep down.
> > Another way of saying "Meaningful, relational information"  is
> > "language".
>
> Dan:
> Within a certain context, yes.
>

John:

Right.  And a philosopher gets to make his assertions from within a defined
context.  I read that in the handbook somewhere.



>
> >John:
> > And what is language, but a story?  A narrative is the only basis for
> > meaning and understanding possible, so I'd be just as content saying
> > "it's all stories, all the way down".
>
> Dan:
>
> Actually, I could almost go along with that. But still, there is more
> to reality than can be told in a story. So, no, I beg to differ with
> you. Of course, it is not something I can tell... rather, you just
> have to see for yourself. And you will know.
>
>
John:

Ah, but you just did tell, Dan.  And I do see for myself and it's all part
of the story in the end.  Begging to differ is what stories are all about,
for without conflict, there would be no drama.

Appreciative of the words,

John