[MD] Philosophy and Abstraction

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 1:41 PM, John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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?

Dan:

There you go again, being goofy. And yet you asure me over and over
again that you're serious. Come on, John. Is it too much to ask for an
intelligent discussion? That's all I am saying. Why the nonsense?

John:
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.

Dan:

The MOQ doesn't change the definition of intellect. I think Bo is
behind that notion.

>
>
>
>Dan:
>> 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".

Dan:
Disagree. If you have read LILA, perhaps you noticed that the
characters each represented a level... Lila the biologicial, Rigel the
social, and Phaedrus the intellectual. Notice how cold and impersonal
Phaedrus is... that is the intellect... cold and impersonal. RMP
clearly states that the romantic/classical split was a mistake and
substituted the Dynamic/static split with the MOQ.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> >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.

Dan:

I guess.

>
>
>
>>
>> >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.

Dan:

There is no end... which of course is the point and why reality can
never be contained with words. It is Dynamic and as soon as we attempt
to pin it down, we lose something.


>
> Appreciative of the words,

Yeah, well,

Dan