I start with the believe that concepts come from and are grown within a human context and never leave it.

I start with the believe that concepts come from and are grown within a human context and never leave it. They’re always bound to the users, even if they pass on the usage to objects they create, like computers and things. It’s all built and designed with human understanding and abilities.

The patterns are used and are useful for humans and human purposes.

So with that at my root, “concepts” before numbers even, is where I start from.

==

Now, if you believe numbers or logic have an existence separate from humans, then it would take a WHOLE lot more talking from me because THAT’S a different bridge to cross.

=

Well, I’ve been away from my computer all day, I have a pot of coffee brewing, so I’m getting mentally ‘ready’ for whatever comes at me online

===

:) I actually relish challenges to things I’m thinking about. Sometimes I don’t know if I have any clue what I’m talking about until I’m compelled to talk about it :)

irons sharpens iron or something like that. In any case, knowing that there’s at least one person here, perhaps two that doubt this idea, means I’ll have to keep working on it ’til I can explain it _so well_, there’s not a soul that wouldn’t be convinced.

[then I woke up from my dream of being a master orator and come to my senses]

====

Woah – I forgot about this side of you David! Awesome :D

So, it is a terminology issue it seems. perhaps then you see me as using the term “metaphor” far too loosely as a substitution for other words that might be more appropriate.

Does this sound like it might be the issue you have with this?

===

Interesting! No, it isn’t over-reaching to use reifying. Still, there’s an implication hiding within the concept of reification: it still holds to the concrete / abstract dichotomy.

These are STILL concepts. Abstract. Concrete. What’s reification? It uses these concepts to build a concept where they’re used in error.

Is something really concrete? Is it really abstract?

I know it sounds like one could go into an endless realm of recursion, deeper and deeper until you end up seeing nothing at the beginning, but I don’t think that’s necessary either.

The beginning is with us. The ending is with us. The circle is used and completed with us.

So, to me, EVERYTHING that is us, what we are, how we use the things we do, how our brain functions, ALL OF THAT matters when attempting to discern truth values.

It’s messier this way: It feels like reinventing the wheel.

But I see value in that: I’m basically attempting to take a lens with the word “Metaphor” written on it, looking through it, and seeing “What if everything was metaphor? If so, how is everything metaphor?” and seeing what fits and what doesn’t.

It’s a recalibration.

Perhaps there’s a better word than metaphor. Analogy is probably a stronger word but it doesn’t capture the fictional aspect as well as metaphor does.

Plus the fictional-ness of what we refer to as concrete is always there: we just ignore it so often that we forget it.

====

Oh I know the established definitions but I’m looking (probably vainly so) at what a restructuring of this all might be like.

I did a project a few years back that I still haven’t finished – this was one stage of it: https://www.amazon.com/Out-Context-Cross…/dp/B00KFOQIG6 – where I cross-linked the largest thesaurus I could find to see what patterns emerged from it. – and patterns definitely emerged. 5 “buckets” of words as it were. I don’t know if it has significance, but I *think* I know what the central concepts are that bind the words together in each of them, and yet I wasn’t sure. Perhaps it was a fluke and invalid.

I sat on it for a year, then dumped it all together in a poorly formatted thing.

[I also put a copy on Internet Archive for free ’cause I don’t expect anything to come of it… I just wanted to “mark that I did it”]

So, I’m *probably* coming at things from a different angle than most. When you have what might be a novel way to look at things, it can be hard to put it together in an explainable way, which is why I spend most of my time just sitting on the idea, letting it self-organize over time as i go along.

===

A food for thought What’s the concept that ties together “metaphor, placeholder, abstraction, substitution, pronoun, real numbers” and the like? This is where I’m trying to get to Not a narrow specific restrictive limited use concept but rather the underlying concept (that may or may not have a word attached to it – i don’t know).

====

I like the ‘gist’ of semiotics but one of my issues with it is they can get rather high brow and disconnected from things.

It’s hard to avoid that in a lot of fields whose territory ends up being the theoretical moreso than the grounded.

I try hard to straddle the two and tie them together somehow. I’m trying to avoid being a pure physicalist while also avoiding going off into the clouds into the land of pure theory.

Only way I’ve found to do that so far was to try to stay away from allowing myself to stay within a particular silo of acadmic knowledge and instead of work towards a transdisciplinary approach.

[I could get into my “silos of knowledge” problem rant here but I’ll be good :) ]

====

[I agree with the relationship you see between semoitics and category theory – adding this afterwards as I’m still composing my long winded response to the first thing below :P – and now to the show]

But you’re right: if I was looking for the field that deals with the underlying “something”, semiotics is it. A number of times through the years, I found myself sorely tempted to just dive into and just go hog wild in there.

It’s just.. I know the longer I stayed in there, the less and less I’d make sense to people when i started describing things.

But the approach I’m taking: Use a commonly understood word like “metaphor” and broaden it (rather than narrow it).

Once broadened in definition, starting from a commonly understood base, I can use it to express the underlying concepts better without getting into greater and greater levels of specificity.

Part of the reason why this matters to me is: I’m ultimately a generalist.

Rabidly a generalist.

Where’s the generalist in University? You have the university fields of knowledge. Specialization. Each specialization has its own lens with which it views reality through.

“economic point of view”. “sociological point of view”, “political point of view”. “sociopoliticoeconomic point of view”. “biological point of view”, “physics point of view”….

and here’s the thing: while specialization is _very useful_ and I wouldn’t ever want to get rid of it It has its necessarily limitations. Their glossaries, axioms, and the like all form a “blind men describing an elephant” problem.

(ok, I wasn’t going to rant but I did and there it is :P )

====

I agree – the “goes without saying” is a big part of the issue. Our teachers simplify things when we’re young, hoping that we’ll learn it “more correctly” as time goes on.

But errors introduced early remain.

“equals” is a good example.

What to do? I dunno. I’m working on it for myself. Hopefully I’ll hit a point where I can say it (whatever ‘it’ turns out to be), in a way that is understandable to others. Hopefully.

===

 

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


× six = 42

Leave a Reply