Purely abstract concepts are the things we know we don't know and the things we don't know we don't know, they may also be the things that we don't know that we know. — Mark Dennis

You probably already know this ( no pun intended-ha), but that is basically one interpretation of Kant's noumena.

Anchoring a purely abstract concept requires giving it a physical point with which to identify it physically through language. — Mark Dennis

I would say Mark, that anchoring abstracts is a method of apprehending or perceiving such through cognition. And through that cognition, we can posit it through the logic of language or consider it an ineffable phenomena.

I would submit, it would also not mean in either case, it could not become an objective truth. It could be a subjective truth, or an illogical truth, or even indeterminable. Beyond that, there are all kinds of logical truths, tautologies, contradictions, et al.

I would say Mark, that anchoring abstracts is a method of apprehending or perceiving such through cognition. And through that cognition, we can posit it through the logic of language or consider it an ineffable phenomena — 3017amen

I did think of cognition at first, however I worry that the mind can arguably be something that is considered anchored abstract in and of itself; so it might be risky to say the anchor point is the minds of people as opposed to the language of people.

Maybe I'm wrong though.

so it might be risky to say the anchor point is the minds of people as opposed to the language of people. — Mark Dennis

...sure, the a priori thing in itself.

And the question begging notion that in either case of apprehending reality, it is not knowable. It just is.

I'm sure there are smarter and more intuitive minds out there that could elucidate better...

And the question begging notion that in either case of apprehending reality, it is not knowable. It just is. — 3017amen

A fair point. Would It be fair to say then that the anchor points lie in cognition and the language used to describe cognition?

Were certain Qualia of Kants mind doomed to become pure abstract the moment he died or do his writings retain the anchor points to our anchored abstractions of Kants mind and thoroughly preserve the Qualia of his mind?

maybe pros and cons to thinking this way. — Mark Dennis

If it be granted knowledge is nothing but a judgement of relative truth (I know/don’t know this because of that), then knowledge is either something we are given by a certain means, or we are not given by those same means.

Judgement itself is predicated on either intuitions of phenomena, or conceptions of thought, the former is empirical knowledge, the latter is a priori knowledge, but both remain judgements.

If unknown or unnamed concepts cannot be thought, and unknown influences on reality cannot become phenomena, it follows that in neither case can a relative truth be judged, which makes explicit no knowledge is possible. Knowledge in the form of purely abstract knowledge is thereby denied and the idea of pure abstract knowledge is meaningless.

As regards anchored abstract knowledge, that which is forthwith observed, identified and named has been exposed to the tribunal of reason, because the criteria for phenomena has been met, hence lent to judgement and the possibility of empirical knowledge. Therefore, anchored abstract knowledge is anchored, but never was abstract, thus the idea of anchored abstract knowledge is denied. This, however does nothing to deny knowledge of abstracts, if such abstracts meet their necessary criteria in intuition or conception.

If it were me, I’d just call pure abstract knowledge impossible, and anchored abstract knowledge possible.
———————-

Anchoring a purely abstract concept requires giving it a physical point with which to identify it physically through language. — Mark Dennis

I can think everything about an abstract construction, such that simple co-existents become joined, without illustration or invocation of a single word.

Thanks for giving me something to chew on.

A fair point. Would It be fair to say then that the anchor points lie in cognition and the language used to describe cognition? — Mark Dennis

I think one would have to define anchor points first(?). Similarly:

Daniel Dennett identifies four properties that are commonly ascribed to qualia.[2] According to these, qualia are:
1.ineffable ; that is, they cannot be communicated, or apprehended by any means other than direct experience.
2.intrinsic ; that is, they are non-relational properties, which do not change depending on the experience's relation to other things.
3.private ; that is, all interpersonal comparisons of qualia are systematically impossible.
4.directly or immediately apprehensible in consciousness; that is, to experience a quale is to know one experiences a quale, and to know all there is to know about that quale.

Were certain Qualia of Kants mind doomed to become pure abstract the moment he died or do his writings retain the anchor points to our anchored abstractions of Kants mind and thoroughly preserve the Qualia of his mind? — Mark Dennis

I'm thinking in terms of Kant's Transcendental philosophy there, because I don't think he really parsed abstracts or Qualia, only in the a priori/noumenal sense, otherwise he stuck pretty much with our phenomenal sense of understanding:


Kant's investigations in the Transcendental Logic lead him to conclude that the understanding and reason can only legitimately be applied to things as they appear phenomenally to us in experience. What things are in themselves as being noumenal, independent of our cognition, remains limited by what is known through phenomenal experience.

Kant gives two expositions of space and time: metaphysical and transcendental. The metaphysical expositions of space and time are concerned with clarifying how those intuitions are known independently of experience. The transcendental expositions attempt to show how the metaphysical conclusions might be applied to enrich our understanding.

...time is a pure a priori intuition that renders mathematics possible. Time is not a concept, since otherwise it would merely conform to formal logical analysis (and therefore, to the principle of non-contradiction). However, time makes it possible to deviate from the principle of non-contradiction: indeed, it is possible to say that A and non-A are in the same spatial location if one considers them in different times, and a sufficient alteration between states were to occur (A32/B48). Time and space cannot thus be regarded as existing in themselves. They are a priori forms of sensible intuition.

According to Schopenhauer's essay, Kant's three main merits are as follows:
-The distinction of the phenomenon from the thing-in-itself (Ding an sich) The intellect mediates between things and knowledge
-A priori knowledge is separate from a posteriori knowledge
-The ideal and the real are diverse from each other

Mark, those are just some talking points about Kant's views on our so-called limits of knowledge. Unless I'm missing something (which is entirely possible) I don't think he really explored much relative to abstracts.

For instance, we don't know the nature of existing things (nature of our existence in general) but rather, we just experience them. However, we can feel through our intuition (synthetic a priori judgements) that abstracts must/might have a real existence. Otherwise, in this context of discussion, he only felt there were things existing a priori, like the concept of noumena. My interpretation is, I think the only thing he thought was abstract was the concept of unknowable noumena.

So back to your question, if you take known a priori qualities, or the so-called nature of mathematics/music for example, what kind of existence is that? Here are some possible choices:

1. purely abstract
2. metaphysical abstract
3. cosmological abstract
4. universal abstract (universal languages-math/music)
5. physical abstract (through the ability to describe physics)
6. cognitive abstract (our consciousness)

and so on...

That's how I'm interpreting part of your questions. The logic of language is another topic of course...

I think one would have to define anchor points first(?). Similarly: — 3017amen

To put it simply, to me the anchor point is defined as the physical location that the meaning of the abstraction resides, whether that's a book, someone's mind or in a script.

To me, pure abstract includes unknowable Noumena and discoverable phenomena. Some of it can be anchored which means its phenomena and some is too far below the surface for our human minds to perceive which would be Noumena.

Also I apologise but I tend not to get into debates about a priori as I feel pragmatism focuses purely on posteriori. I should have been clearer that I'm working in the medium of pragmatic truth and knowledge. I just don't see where one would find the time to experience a priori knowledge.

just don't see where one would find the time to experience a priori knowledge — Mark Dennis

The world of mathematics you would. Which begs the question, what does it feel like to run calculations (?).

begs the question, what does it feel like to run calculations (?). — 3017amen

Blew my mind a little there.. Might as well ask; what does it feel like to think? It's the only answer I can come up with to your question. Calculating feels like thinking, but what does it feel like to think? It's a feeling to think, what is it like to feel a feeling? Can't even begin to answer that question.

If it were me, I’d just call pure abstract knowledge impossible, and anchored abstract knowledge possible. — Mww

Only in a non-linear sense. It's easy for us now to say that the concept of Pi is anchored abstract and that Pi a Priori just was, not so for all the humans that lived without the concept.

I do take your points though; So I'll ask the question of you again but only on the grounds that we are strictly speaking about relative interpretations of phenomena both observed and unobserved.

Is there pragmatic utility in these distinctions between purely abstract and Anchored abstract?

So back to your question, if you take known a priori qualities, or the so-called nature of mathematics/music for example, what kind of existence is that? Here are some possible choices:

1. purely abstract
2. metaphysical abstract
3. cosmological abstract
4. universal abstract (universal languages-math/music)
5. physical abstract (through the ability to describe physics)
6. cognitive abstract (our consciousness)

and so on... — 3017amen

I've mulled this over so I can come back to it now. I think the reason this threw me a little is because I only see the use in recognising 1, 4 and 6. 1 will just be one until it becomes part of 6(except for Noumena which will always be 1), then 6 becomes part of 4 unless it stays in a mind, unused and unspoken; which is highly unlikely if we are including all forms of expression, so most of 6 will become part of 4.

Calculating feels like thinking, but what does it feel like to think? I — Mark Dennis

But why are we calculating or thinking?

If I'm calculating a formula to determine the size of a roof truss, I'm feeling a sense of anticipation. I'm feeling a sense of hope.

If I'm calculating a formula in physics, I'm feeling a sense of wonderment.

Hope, anticipation, wonderment.

I'm simultaneously feeling those feelings while performing mathematical computation.

Cognitive science would probably say some of those feelings are from the subconscious; an illogical mix of sensory experience from consciousness.

Maybe it can be said then our encounter with a priori mathematical abstracts is all part of another phenomenon?

Maybe it can be said then our encounter with a priori mathematical abstracts is all part of another phenomenon? — 3017amen

That's what I'm feeling too, for example we might say that confronting a priori truths or discovering them is satisfying to us. The emotions you describe could definitely be attributed toward success in those endeavours, but what about when you are struggling or failing in them?

However this isn't always the case, sometimes the truth hurts, sometimes it is scary and ugly. It gives me no satisfaction to be correct and truthful when I say "I will die one day as will everyone and everything I care about."

So I'd say all those emotions are reactions to a priori knowledge. Some people deny the truth, they do however deny it differently than they deny the untrue I think. The emotions behind denying the untrue and denying the true are different.

Is there pragmatic utility in these distinctions between purely abstract and Anchored abstract? — Mark Dennis

(Stronger) Top down.....
Pragmatic utility in the distinction? I would have to say no, because of the way they’re defined. Purely abstract, the unknown, unnamed, realistically non-affective conceptions, is never even presentable to our attention, so can’t have any practical use. It seems irrational to infuse an unknown with purpose the fulfillment of which could never be shown. It follows that if half of the content of a distinction is unavailable for any practical use, the distinction itself disappears.

Dogmatic utility, on the other hand, would stand, given the definitions. That which has no practical utility for some reason remains useless because of the rule that made some thing useless, whereas that which has practical utility, also because of its rules, remains practical. Adherence to dogmatic architecture would also prevent one from overlapping the other, thus maintaining the very distinction the definitions require.

(Weaker) Bottom up......
For whatever reason it should happen we are met with an insurmountable rational inconsistency, we can attribute our inabilities to a class or realm that wasn’t available to us anyway. Then, the practical utility in the distinction would arise as the demarcation between that for which our abilities are sufficient and that for which they are not.

Dunno if I addressed your query as you meant it to be understood, but I hope so.

Pragmatic utility in the distinction? I would have to say no, because of the way they’re defined. Purely abstract, the unknown, unnamed, realistically non-affective conceptions, is never even presentable to our attention, so can’t have any practical use. It seems irrational to infuse an unknown with purpose the fulfillment of which could never be shown. It follows that if half of the content of a distinction is unavailable for any practical use, the distinction itself disappears. — Mww

I think you're misunderstanding what I mean by pure abstract. This isnt Noumena its phenomena. Pure abstract is just unamed and unnoticed until someone, anyone names and notices it. Ethics as a word, was pure abstract until someone conceptualised it. Don't know how to make this any clearer.

Interesting thought there. Your first two paragraphs capture the classic Existential angst that one, at some point, will encounter during life's sojourn; intrinsic fear and anxiety. How can we mitigate that?

Well back to the metaphysical elements of experiencing life's phenomena. Are emotions in fact, metaphysical elements? Some would say yes:

Fear, anxiety, joy, wonderment, love, perceptions of the color red, most of which can't really be defined, at least for the materialist. Are they pure a priori abstracts as perhaps a Kantian things in themselves? Thing's that just are, with no explanation other than the phenomenon of experiencing them?

From a cognitive science point of view, I believe one thing we do know, is that the need to integrate them rather than repudiate them, is essential in self-awareness and gaining knowledge about the world.

That notion makes me think whether humans encounter metaphysical phenomena everyday, without realizing it... ?

In the alternative we're back to trying to define one of the greatest metaphysical abstracts of all called Love.

Interesting thought there. Your first two paragraphs capture the classic Existential angst that one, at some point, will encounter during life's sojourn; intrinsic fear and anxiety. How can we mitigate that? — 3017amen

I'm glad you asked! Answer me this, how would you react if you were transported to a universe which is composed entirely of air? You are floating there in the air weightless in the dark, no stars, no ground, no gravity, nothing but the air to breath and you have no way of getting back to our universe. How do you feel?

Then imagine at the point where you accept you will never escape this place; you are back here in our universe? What is your reaction to it then?

I've got my answers to those questions but I'd like to hear yours first and see how close they match.

That notion makes me think whether humans encounter metaphysical phenomena everyday, without realizing it... ?

In the alternative we're back to trying to define one of the greatest metaphysical abstracts of all called Love.

What is Existential Love? What is Love? A mixture of joy, gratitude and care of the object of love? Does all life, love something the universe contains? Do all humans?

This isnt Noumena its phenomena. Pure abstract is just unamed and unnoticed until someone, anyone names and notices it. Ethics as a word, was pure abstract until someone conceptualised it. — Mark Dennis

In effect, we knew all about how to treat each other, except we didn’t know it was ethics?

Am I understanding better?

In effect, we knew all about how to treat each other, except we didn’t know it was ethics?

Am I understanding better? — Mww

Yes. Kind of, or that different ethical values are at play absent definition and that the study of ethics too spent time undefined. Take my work with Generationism or ancestor morality for example; it's one thing for me to say that this value exists, its another thing entirely for me to say it is defined. Looking at history, we can see countless behaviours that reflect someone trying to be a good person by being a good ancestor, however other than the Hebrew writings of Pentateuch, not much has been philosophised about this observable at play value.

Another more personal example for me is pragmatism; I spent a lot of my life not knowing to define myself as such even though I displayed those value behaviours and thoughts.

So collectively, we attempt to anchor a priori abstracts but individually we are anchoring them posteriori.

I hope this has somewhat made it clearer. Apologies for not managoing to do so earlier. Enjoying the conversation though.

Say hello to an infinite compendium of pure abstract concepts.

What does this do for pragmatic utility? How much pragmatic thinking grounded in rules?

Yep, or the Meinongian jungle!

What does this do for pragmatic utility? How much pragmatic thinking grounded in rules? — Mww

Well for me, it helps to think of the concept creations as discoveries. Did Kant create Kantian ethics or did he recognise the existence of these values already and try to linguistically map them?

Are we creating language or discovering it? These are just a few of the questions in my head relating to this. If we are discovering instead of creating, then it helps to think of the abstract world as a vast ocean, waiting to be fished. Whether they are existing or subsisting values. Do we purely create stories or are we discovering narratives to base stories upon?

Are we creating language or discovering it? — Mark Dennis

I would say we create it. Given any dinosaur, the existence of the object seems to pre-date any language from which is derived the name for it. On the other hand, the capacity for language would seem to be intrinsic to human nature, but even so, the invention of language presupposes its needful use.

I never thought of the yet-discovered world as abstract, but I see no great difficulty in it. Broadening the scope of a concept doesn’t necessarily falsify it.

What is Existential Love? What is Love? A mixture of joy, gratitude and care of the object of love? Does all life, love something the universe contains? Do all humans? — Mark Dennis

I think that's worth noting, because it seems to be a mixture of many truth's.

Abstract Love: what is the love we have for aesthetics?

Consider the feeling when we look at an object, thing, person, an idea, agreement, et al. and we say 'I love that', what kind of truth is that?

Abstract Love: what is the love we have for aesthetics?

Consider the feeling when we look at an object, thing, person, an idea, agreement, et al. and we say 'I love that', what kind of truth is that? — 3017amen

Firstly, I just want to say I think you are brilliant and I am greatly enjoying this dialogue. So, I'm going to use our conversation as our object of examination and evaluation here. So why do I love this conversation? Expectation I feel has a lot to do with it as well as Truth. Love, at it's core; is the feeling one gets when the object of love is matching with our best expectations of it. Symmetry between expectation and reality. This goes to the heart of art and aesthetics in a way, all love is aesthetic appreciation, of aspects of the universe captured by the artist and observed by the appreciator. Now, a structured and symmetrical piece is usually pleasing to most people who feel it matches with their internal perceived truth; that there is a structure and order to the universe. Now keep in mind, it isn't the object of love itself we are all trying to find symmetry in (After all, Assymetry can be beautiful if it's still true) but we are always looking for symmetry between expectation of reality and reality itself. Nothing feels better than when reality matches up to our best expectations of it, but that also means nothing feels worse than when reality matches up to our worst expectations of it.

So to me, in identifying what is good and bad art; Bad art is something you are indifferent too or annoyed at because it captures no truth that you can identify, good art is something that makes you feel strongly towards something you believe to be true of reality in some way. However, some pieces inherently mean nothing, because some people believe there is no meaning to anything. I imagine a few moral antirealist artists just laugh at every single person who sees meaning in their piece.

Anyway; that was a good side avenue into love and art!

I'm going to start a discussion soon about existential love :) will probably quote you heavily in the OP and look forward to further contributions from you there. You have excellent Socratic methods that I find absolutely refreshing.

I think Love is a fascinating subject. A subject that relates to abstract phenomena that we experience as humans.

In the context of , say, romantic love, when humans look at each other and determine they are attracted to each other, that cognitive process does not seem to have rational explanation. Sure, that which you suggested is real, and seemingly consists of some elements of subjective and objective truth's, but what about the concept of chemistry?

Often, we hear of people who have a deep love for each other say "...I don't really know what it is, I just feel really comfortable with him/her. I just knew it when I met him/her."

Is that an existential love that 'just is', with no rational explanation?

Or, what about the phrase " I have a walk in front of a train love for him/her." Would we sacrifice our selves for another? Is that rational?

Now a quick look at the emotion of hate. Look at, say, terrorism. If two terrorist conceive a plan for destruction, and they get enjoyment from it, can we say that they love to hate? Are they passionate to hate?

PS: and BTW thank you for your gracious compliments Mark. I'm a little embarrassed because I feel humbled...like everyone else here, I'm just exercising my mind. We are all interconnected in that we need each other to bounce ideas off one another, which in turn we end up uncovering or discovering some element of truth to our sojourn here... .