Meaning Systems

[The Black Jester]

Sorry it's taken me a while to get back to you; this is likely to be a long post, and I haven't really had a solid stretch of time to write it until now.

Anyway, I'm just pulling this out of my ass, so feel free to ignore.

You think I'm not talking out of my ass? Because I am, let's have no illusions about that. I might be able to craft my verbal diarrhea into pleasing shapes every now and again, but you needn't take this as anything more than a playful abstraction.

Come to think of it, if I were to claim any basis to my ideas beyond that of other people's, paradoxically, it would only undermine them. I tend to believe that everything that ever gets said by anyone can only come from one place, 'their ass' being as good a metaphor as any for it. 

I love it.  The "Ass" - the primary metaphorical origin of ideas.

Please don't bother to apologize, even for politeness sake.  However others might be bored to tears reading this interaction, I, for one, appreciate the time you have taken to respond.

First of all, I agree with xSilverPhinx: these are all excellent points, and I fear you may have gone beyond the range of my own ham-fisted attempts to become a philosophic autodidact.  I have done little study in either the philosophy of language or the philosophy of metaphysics.  I have a cursory understanding of certain metaphysical ideas, but my main training has been in the philosophy of mind and in epistemology.

In that case, before we can come to determine what is and isn't 'valid,' we need to have at least one goal already set, a priori. To give something a pragmatic significance, it needs some agenda to have significance with, even if that's just to survive. 

It occurs to me now that I was attempting a cheap maneuver out of the infinite regress: trying to claim that any "why" question asked of a logical point could ultimately be answered until you arrived at the question of values.  I was, somewhat confusedly, trying to point out that the a priori asymptote came as a point of meaning and value, rather than as an unanswered logical premise, so that in some sense logic held together, and it's foundation was not itself, but another area of philosophy.  But that just vanishes the problem down another rabbit hole.

Now we get into metaphysics.

I must admit that I am still grappling with understanding precisely what is meant by saying something has a "metaphysical" existence.  Is it spiritual?  Is it merely the non-physical realm of ideas, similar to the Forms?  To me, when we notice relations in the world, we abstract those relations and form language games to mirror those relations, but those language games are instantiated, at least to my way of thinking, in the physical brain - they are not "non-stuff."

But that is another argument  . 

Actually, now that I think of it, I found myself agreeing with much of what you wrote, and wondering, further, what your thoughts on philosophy of mind might be?  Interested in another thread, or perhaps even a one on one debate on the matter?

[xSilverPhinx]

Actually, now that I think of it, I found myself agreeing with much of what you wrote, and wondering, further, what your thoughts on philosophy of mind might be?  Interested in another thread, or perhaps even a one on one debate on the matter?

:old popcorn icon:

That should be interesting, it almost always is. 

[Melmoth]

I must admit that I am still grappling with understanding precisely what is meant by saying something has a "metaphysical" existence.  Is it spiritual?  Is it merely the non-physical realm of ideas, similar to the Forms?  To me, when we notice relations in the world, we abstract those relations and form language games to mirror those relations, but those language games are instantiated, at least to my way of thinking, in the physical brain - they are not "non-stuff."

But that is another argument 

Actually, now that I think of it, I found myself agreeing with much of what you wrote, and wondering, further, what your thoughts on philosophy of mind might be?  Interested in another thread, or perhaps even a one on one debate on the matter?

The areas of philosophy that I probably have the most 'learning' in, if you could call it that, are language (so metaphysics is pretty much a given) and aesthetics. I'd say these compliment the philosophy of mind pretty nicely.

So yes, that would probably be very eye-opening for me, if you want to start off a new thread. I'd also be interested in a one on one debate, though I'm not sure what, specifically, we'd want to talk about within the subject. I like the angle of approach that this discussion seems to have taken into it, from one of understanding language and meaning, so perhaps we might want to take advantage of that somehow. I'll leave it up to you. You can set the parameters.

One thing I should say though: if it gets too 'sciency' then I'm afraid I'll be flying blind. I'm an art and literature buff, but not a science person. What little I do know has been picked up from popular science books that have been incidental to my interest in langauge, or as background research for my writing hobbies. For instance, I wrote a short story recently in which one of the characters comes home from a long trip to find her husband has committed suicide, so for authenticity's sake I wanted a sense of what happens to the body after it dies. Cue a very good book by Mary Roach called Stiff: The Curious Lives of Human Cadavars. Fiction writing can lead you down some very strange avenues.

[Melmoth]

:old popcorn icon:

That should be interesting, it almost always is.

It's nice to know you're appreciated.

[The Black Jester]

The areas of philosophy that I probably have the most 'learning' in, if you could call it that, are language (so metaphysics is pretty much a given) and aesthetics. I'd say these compliment the philosophy of mind pretty nicely.

I would agree.  It actually gives me a few ideas on where to begin and with what questions.

My "training" consists of a collection of various philosophy classes taken at the university level, combined with my own reading over the years, but I never had a major or structured, formal track in the subject.  So this could turn out to be amusing.  A little like those toughman competitions, where any random asshole can get in the ring, as long as he can get the gloves on, and still has teeth to lose. 

So yes, that would probably be very eye-opening for me, if you want to start off a new thread. I'd also be interested in a one on one debate, though I'm not sure what, specifically, we'd want to talk about within the subject. I like the angle of approach that this discussion seems to have taken into it, from one of understanding language and meaning, so perhaps we might want to take advantage of that somehow. I'll leave it up to you. You can set the parameters.

I think it would be similarly eye-opening for me, particularly since your areas of interest are different to mine. Although we could just end up talking past one another. There are a number of avenues we can explore.  Both a formalized debate and an open thread have their advantages, and disadvantages.  With a formal debate, you have a rather constraining structure, and the question under discussion must be precisely defined for the debate to be of any use.  So we'd have to pick a topic, and one on which we disagree.  But that focus can also be an advantage: no one else can interject, and we have less ability to get off-track.  Which leads me to my next question: do you have a position on Phil of Mind?  Is the mind different to the brain, in your opinion?  Do you feel strongly enough about that to defend a position?

A new thread would allow input from anyone else with an interest or an opinion, which could get chaotic, and we'd have no control over the direction of the discussion, but it could allow for a richer debate, and could easily segue from the topics discussed previously in this thread.

I'm leaning to just creating a new thread, unless you disagree.

One thing I should say though: if it gets too 'sciency' then I'm afraid I'll be flying blind. I'm an art and literature buff, but not a science person. What little I do know has been picked up from popular science books that have been incidental to my interest in langauge, or as background research for my writing hobbies. For instance, I wrote a short story recently in which one of the characters comes home from a long trip to find her husband has committed suicide, so for authenticity's sake I wanted a sense of what happens to the body after it dies. Cue a very good book by Mary Roach called Stiff: The Curious Lives of Human Cadavars. Fiction writing can lead you down some very strange avenues.

I'm a science buff, but hardly an expert: but yes, neuroscience does tend to inform my opinion quite a bit.  However, we can stay strictly logical, there's plenty of positions to discuss having either nothing to do with the science, or for which the particular details of the science are irrelevant.  But it could also be enlightening, in that we'd both have to read up a bit to keep up with the discussion. 

The broadest and most obvious questions have to do with the mind/brain problem:

Is the mind the brain, or is the mind a separate thing, and if so, how is it related to the brain?
What is consciousness and how is it created?
Is there a self?
Do Qualia exist, and if so, how are they accounted for?
Can subjective experience be accounted for by a 3rd person physicalist science?
What is the nature of intentionality?
Does the mind require input from the body (in addition to the brain) to function (the embodiment issue)?

Or we can just focus on the various positions that have been taken to account for the mind/body problem: the various strains of dualism, behavioralism, token Identity theories, functionalism, etc. 

The question of intentionality might interest you the most, given your appreciation for the phil of language.

I bet the Cadavar book is interesting!

Your thoughts?

[Melmoth]

I've just sent you a PM (I hope).