[MD] Tuukka's letter to Robert Pirsig

[craigerb at comcast.net]

[Tuukka]
> A common fallacy in metaphysics, at least among amateurs, is that we 
> have a predicate, which is expected to mean something, that is not 
> defined.

But historically, predicates do mean something, even before they are defined.

[Craig, previously]
> I'm not certain one can "perceive oneself as only mindlessly repeating concepts".
> As soon as one "perceives oneself repeating concepts", it is no longer "mindless"
> (though one may "perceive oneself mindlessly repeating words", i.e., using words
> without regard to their meaning.  Is this what you mean?)

[Tuukka]
> Why not? 

Because this negates your example.  You were trying to give an example of 
the use of a predicate nonrelativizably and now you have only an example of using
a predicate without regard to its meaning.

 [Tuukka]
> I am fairly certain, that when small children begin learning language,
> they initially use predicates nonrelativizably. This is not yet a
> logical error. As their grasp of language improves, they intuitively
> relativize predicates to each other. By doing so, they obtain the
> ability to form a static network of interrelated dialectical truths. But
> this network makes it possible for them to use predicates
> nonrelativizably with the erroneous assumption that they have
> relativized those predicates to the dialectical truths they already have.

[Craig, previously]
> Language acquisition:
> Step 1: use predicates nonrelativizably.
> Step 2: relativize predicates to each other.
> Step 3: form a static network of interrelated dialectical truths.
> Step 4: use predicates nonrelativizably with the erroneous assumption that
> those predicates have been relativized to the dialectical truths [static network
> of interrelated dialectical truths].
> Do you have an example where our learning language goes through these steps?

[Tuukka]
> Only steps 1 and 2 are relevant for language acquisiton. Step 3 is the 
> same as step 2. The network is formed by relativizing predicates to each 
> other. Step 4 is no longer a part of language acquisition.

I can accept that Step 2 & Step 3 are equivalent, but Step 4 is different from both Step2/3
& Step 1.  So why isn't Step 4 part of language acquisition?
But without the requested example of progressing through Steps 1 - 4 correctly,
it is difficult to tell.
Craig