Words' can be thought of as any repetitive behavioral gesture used to facilitate 'structural coupling' between individuals, or to internally resolve behavioral uncertainties within individuale. Those 'gestures' could manifest at any level, from the neural to the muscular. — fresco

Does this mean...

...that the fundamental experience of the observer is reducible to behavioral gestures? That these gestures appear at any conceivable level of behavior, including language. And language is a peculiar gesture with the power of structurally coupling distinctions made by the observer...

...?

Thinking about blue as opposed to thinking blue.

See the difference? — Shamshir

I do. So then, round it off for me. Don't expect me to fill in the blanks, I haven't the means.

The short answer is 'yes', except that 'languaging' (Maturana) always has an 'organizational function'...there are no 'neutral descriptions' as such.

that 'languaging' (Maturana) always has an 'organizational function'...there are no 'neutral descriptions' as such. — fresco

Could you elaborate?

The hint is water. The answer is ironically solution.

The answer is ironically solution. — Shamshir

That kind of irony is very unnerving. :grin:

I hesitate in 'elaborating' if you have not read up on Maturana yourself. I appreciate he is 'difficult' and that you would certainly have a problem with that if you were to cling to your 'absolutist stance'. He makes sense to me from a number of pov's ranging from constructivism via pragmatism to post modernism. If any of these is a no go area for you ,we are unlikely to 'structurally couple':wink: .
(The 'no neutral descriptions' point is another version of Nietzsche's point that there can be no operational distinction between 'description' and 'reality'. Some descriptions are simply more useful than others in particular contexts.)

cling to your 'absolutist stance' — fresco

That is a bold accusation. I always argue from the relativist perspective. And I mean always, in capital letters.

He makes sense to me from a number of pov's ranging from constructivism via pragmatism to post modernism. If any of these is a no go area for you — fresco

I am a philosopher, there is nowhere I won't go

So let's do it.

Nietzsche's point that there can be no operational distinction between 'description' and 'reality'. Some descriptions are simply more useful than others in particular contexts. — fresco

That wasn't Nietzsche's meaning at all. It was much more fundamental. His point was that there is no necessary correspondence between direct experience (viz. nerve stimuli) and the concepts which supposedly correspond to it, up to and including any notion of functional context. It's all in is essay: "truth and lies in a nonmoral sense". That is a very powerful piece of literature. Conclusion: all knowledge is a lie.

I am a philosopher, there is nowhere I won't go — Merkwurdichliebe

Then go nowhere. :cool:

Then go nowhere. :cool: — Shamshir

But I'm already there. :nerd:

Okay, but you did use the phrase 'non negotiable' somewhere above (I think)

Please scan the links I have provided above, together with the Von Glasersfeld comments which are googleable. Now it may be that starting another thread may be more appropriate. Let me know what you think.

And re Nieztsche, I am taking Rorty's 'pragmatist interpretation' of it which can be found by googling the video clip for 'Rorty on Truth'

Touché.

Okay, but you did use the phrase 'non negotiable' somewhere above (I think) — fresco

Yes, absolutely. And I have the ability to speak from other perspectives which are not compatible with my own personal beliefs. That means you will never be able to access, nor discuss these non-negotiable positions that I occupy.

I am Merkwurdichliebe...my love is strange. :grin: :kiss: :death:

Now it may be that starting another thread may be more appropriate. Let me know what you think. — fresco

I would gladly contribute to that thread. I think you might get across to some people here on TPF. But be prepared for immense criticism from the knowing ones.

And re Nieztsche, I am taking Rorty's 'pragmatist interpretation' of it which can be found by googling the video clip for 'Rorty on Truth' — fresco

I think Nietzsche is best approached directly, and not through the interpretation of another. There are probably less than a handful of historic philosophers that are best approached directly, or maybe all should be approached directly. Who knows?

Yes, I think the criticism could certainly be expected from 'turkeys being asked to vote for Christmas' !

BTW ' A direct approach' would be pretty useless to a post-modernist like Derrida, who would argue that even the author himself would later put a different interpretation on the text he produced on a previous occasion. It all about transitional cognitive states and shifting contexts.

My question is, how can we say the prelinguistic creature cannot think of "existence" as it does a "tree"? After all, the tree is not a "tree" in prelinguistic thought, it only factors as something distinct that correlates to something else distinct. So, it is very possible that "existence", like the "tree", can be thought by the nonlinguistic creature. — Merkwurdichliebe

Prelinguistic creatures do not think of "trees". Rather, they draw a correlation between trees and other things. "Trees" is a word. Trees are not. The tree is not a "tree" in linguistic thought. It is part of a correlation which attributes meaning and as such makes the tree meaningful/significant to the creature.

Nonlinguistic creatures cannot think of "existence" for it is a word. Non linguistic creatures cannot think of existence because it is not directly perceptible.

Yet, I find a problem here, it seems to be beyond the scope of linguistic thought, to speculate whether or not "existence", like the "tree", can factor as something distinct, with some correlation to something else distinct, in prelinguistic thought. As it stands, it is impossible for the linguistic thinker to enter into the mind of the nonlinguistic thinker without going silent...from our perspective, we can only understand the "tree", "existence", or the nonlinguistic thinker through language — Merkwurdichliebe

That's a common belief. It's false. No time now... Later.

Existence is absolute in the sense that existence absolutely and objectively exists, has always existed and necessarily must exist.

And existence is absolute in the sense that there is one ultimate thing that necessarily does exist: the universe (or multiverse).

....and prior to that human concept we call 'The Big Bang' ?....

That theory only explains the transmutation of existence in to its current state.

No it doesn't. Even 'time' had no 'existence' prior to that human concept of 'an event'.

Sorry buddy, but you're wrong on that account.

Any such theory necessitates existence to function. And that specific one begins with everything being compressed to a single point of existence. But there is existence a priori and the theory offers no claims as to how and when it came about.

Well buddy, you've forgotten one thing, every theory need a 'theoretician' to function...maybe even the same one who might theorize that 'existence is absolute'.

every theory need a 'theoretician' to function... — fresco

Even the theory of "languaging", right?

Existence is absolute, absolute is relative

Yes...but the 'words' are contingent on 'directing action' i.e.'transitional states' not permanence. They function as 'nodes of relative persistence'.. So to say 'trees exist' is vacuous unless some hypothetical action is being contemplated by humans' in which the word 'trees' is contextually significant.
The issue of 'time' as inextricable with 'existence' was explored by Heidegger as being confined to humans (Daseins).
Hence my raising of 'time issue' and 'Big Bang' .Without that Heideggerian anchor, there would indeed be an infinite regress implied.