:joke: Is Lao Tzu trying to describe the nameless?The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao;
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth.
The named is the mother of ten thousand things.
Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.
Ever desiring, one can see the manifestations.
These two spring from the same source but differ in name;
this appears as darkness.
Darkness within darkness.
The gate to all mystery. — Lao Tzu
When a capable creature is referring to some thing, they are always doing so via common language use. There are no examples to the contrary. — creativesoul
it is simply a matter of directing one's attention. — Metaphysician Undercover
You don't seem to have ever actually defined "successful reference"... — Metaphysician Undercover
Yes I read the op, and it seems to me that "reference" is to direct someone's attention, with language or otherwise. The op directs my attention toward naming and describing, neither of which is essential to reference. So I'd say that the op is a failed attempt at directing my attention toward the concept of "reference". — Metaphysician Undercover
You see, talking about something (describing), and directing one's attention to the thing being talked about, are two distinct things. — Metaphysician Undercover
Talking about something does not qualify as successful reference. — Metaphysician Undercover
This goes against everyday observable events... — creativesoul
I didn't say that you cannot reference through language, I said that language is not necessary. — Metaphysician Undercover
Give me an example of successful reference that uses neither naming practices nor descriptive ones. — creativesoul
Our issue here, as always with you, is a difference in our notions of reference. — creativesoul
In order for successful reference to happen, a speaker must draw an other's attention to the same thing that their attention is already upon... — creativesoul
The fact remains that referencing is something distinct from naming, describing, or a combination of these. — Metaphysician Undercover
Imagine you are telling me something about your cat "tigger", You say "tigger is ...". I, not knowing that you have a cat named tigger, say "what are you referring to? — Metaphysician Undercover
there is another, completely different form of "successful reference", which is to direct one's attention toward a physical object, or physical occurrence, and this is not a linguistic matter at all, it's a matter of showing the physical object, or occurrence, referenced. — Metaphysician Undercover
Which means I referred prior to showing. — creativesoul
What I'm questioning here is whether or not pointing alone, and/or showing alone is referring... — creativesoul
One is to refer to a physical object, the other to refer to a subject. — Metaphysician Undercover
That is two different kinds of referents. It is not two different kinds of referring. — creativesoul
OK, let's look at it from that perspective then, one type of referring, but two types of referent... ...it is two different kinds of referring — Metaphysician Undercover
Showing another my cat is not referring to the cat. — creativesoul
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.