The Linguistic Wall: Set Six: Implications/Summary?

Looking at the Wall...

Implications-- set 6

  1. Let's try to gather together some of this wool...

  2. The basic primitives of our language are irreducible (to non-gestalten atoms) and convertible (to OTHER primitives at the same level of precision/imprecision).

  3. There are 'limits' to the reality that science/research can plumb. Once they get past some ordinary level of precision, they are forced to use multiple models (from the ordinary world) to describe/predict the ambiguity of the experiences at that hyper-precision level. (The notions of 'field' and 'causality' are two GOOD examples--all the research and philosophical discussion in the world won't get US any farther than the intersubjectively--and yet slightly corrigible--knowledge we ALREADY have in the ordinary world about these notions.)

  4. [This methodological dependence on models from other areas of research is NOT a liability, but a considerable source of creativity in discovery, as the history of scientific progress has amply shown.]

  5. Existence is fundamentally 'inter-relatedness'. We exist 'because' we have relationships with other things that 'exist'--sorta like a MAJOR UNIVERSAL gestalten. There could be trillions and trillions of other things that exist--to one another, but not to me--of which it is accurate to say 'they don't exist' as long as I am not presumptive about the absolute uniqueness of MY set of relationships.

  6. Reality is patterns and sub-patterns--there are no 'individual, absolute units' that do NOT anchor untold relationship--physical, semantic.

  7. Solidity and stability in our universe is achieved/experienced at the macro-level where both reality and the words used to describe that reality HAVE the same level of ambiguity.

  8. Argument, explanation, and definition are simply forms of 'pointing'. Sometimes we point perceptually (e.g. we hold up the piece of paper with the dots) and sometimes we point semantically (e.g. we describe what region looks like the left eye, what area looks like the smile). We are totally dependent on intersubjectivly to produce 'consensus', although intersubjectivity can be influenced by many, many means (e.g. emotions, social constructions, aberrant will).

  9. Reality is foundationally understand as being in a PERSONAL CONTEXT. Our earliest experiences 'build' this context, our experiences in life consistently reinforce this, and our hermeneutic efforts (broadly considered) require this. One cannot BEGIN to interpret the verbal 'atoms' of a text WITHOUT some working hypothesis of its meaning (however wrong the initial guess might be).

Go to the next in the series
Christian ThinkTank Homepage...[]