Stop pissing on each other for pissing on each other.

That the things people say actually reflect in one-to-one correspondence some picture of the world as they believe it to be. — Isaac

:up:

Another one for the pile: the immediacy of revelation/self evidence/unmediated cognition. The it "just seems this way to me" brigade vs the wealth of evidence for the self as the internal documents of a vast bodily bureaucracy.

The biggest lie I was taught is more of an attitude than a falsehood.

The lie has the function of convincing someone pulled by the hideous strength of life's currents that thrashing their arms and legs in the roil counts as "swimming" and thus helps them stay afloat. The deeper truth is that the lie must nevertheless be believed on pain of drowning.

Missed the option that the distinction isn't worth making?

grim reaper is secretly bae!?11?

Do you think there is a man who isn't concerned about his masculinity? — unenlightened

No. I think men who are unconcerned with it have either not had it challenged or haven't realised when it was challenged.

Let's say that a correlates with c.
b also correlates with c, but to an even greater extent.
when b is controlled for, a no longer correlates with c.
when a is controlled for, b still correlates with c. — Hallucinogen

In addition to correlation does not imply causation. And assuming you're reading that correlation causally by specifying a causal model:

a correlates with c; could go a->c or c->a
b correlates with c; could go b->c or c-> a
a is conditionally independent of c given b; that says something like a->b->c or a->b<-c or a<-b->c, all undirected paths from a to c go through b.
b is conditionally dependent upon c given a; that says there is at least one path in the causal diagram from b to c or from c to b that does not go through a.

It looks like you're referring to the condition of confusing a collider (a->b<-c has b as a collider of a and c) for a fork (a<-b->c has b as a fork of a and c) or a chain (a->b->c) maybe?

Looks->attractiveness
personality->attractiveness
looks->personality or personality->looks

if looks-> personality then attractiveness<-looks->personality->attractiveness
if personality->looks then attractiveness<-personality->looks->attractiveness

The first has looks as forking personality and attractiveness as well as a chain to attractiveness through personality, the second has personality forking looks and attractiveness with a chain from personality to attractiveness through looks. So you might also be referring to the idea that a system can have more than one pathway from a variable to another through other variables, so blocking off one path through controlling/conditioning doesn't block off all of 'em just in case there's more than one.

Whether someone's committing an error of causal reasoning depends on the adequacy of the causal model, though. You can't tell colliders from forks or chains through reason alone, or even correlation/data alone!

1. What is ultimate reality to you? God? Matter? Something else? — jjstet

Probably nature.

2. Is truth absolute or relative? Are at least some truths absolute? Where do these come from? — jjstet

Don't know what you mean by absolute or relative. Assuming relative means context dependent and absolute means context independent, I'd guess all truths are relative, since the events which make accounts accurate occur in a context.

3. Are moral values absolute or relative? Are at least some moral values absolute? If so, where do these absolute moral values come from? — jjstet

Using the same split; relative, and for the same reason.

4. How would you answer the three great philosophical questions of life: Where did we come from? Why are we here? and Where are we going? — jjstet

Nature. No reason. No idea.

Explaining personal stance on this:

You say a thing which is contentious, provocative and implausible in an OP and don't evince it. You make a bad OP. That might get closed regardless of what it's about.

That said, I'd be more inclined to close a thread that had a poorly researched offensive opinion as its OP quickly, or a thread which restates a terrible media talking point; like academia bias against blokes; without evidence. Because at that point it's kinda hard to tell from trolling.

If you wanna make a thread with a spicy take on something that attracts a lot of shitposting, try and bring a sufficient heap nuance and evidence to get your spicy take treated as something other than a shitpost.

Coming up with what you think about it takes longer. Try writing down what you think the quote means, keep doing it until you think you've covered every aspect of it, and how every aspect relates to every other aspect... At some point you'll find things you either don't understand or find weird. If you find something weird, maybe you disagree with it, and at that point you've found a critical opinion of it.

Informed opinions begin with "huh", then you compare "huh" to what's happened before. Find the huh! Then you'll find the comparison.

@BlipBlop forgot to tag you, click on link in prev. post.

Read this.

Your ego was so frail, that you felt obliged, in some way, to prove to me - and to yourself - that somehow, you still have power. Again, you prove me correct, and you, wrong. — Gus Lamarch

:up:

To be fair, the passive aggressive reason I chose to relay these points now was that I was lenient with you over another mod issue, and I felt you were rude with me for it. It was a nice confluence of no one wanting to do it and me having a shitty reason to do it. I am, however, relaying honest feedback to you (and it's not just mine). If you decide to use that feedback to improve the article, I guess you win!

I am grateful if you can give me more material to show to others how the intellect of the forum administration is biased, impartial, and incapable of plurality of thoughts. Feel free to submit more. — Gus Lamarch

If you seemed willing to address the issues I've highlighted I'd be more willing to provide you with further feedback. The essay has structural problems; why are you arguing what you're arguing? Tell us! And tell us why it matters! It should be relatively easy to tell what you're arguing about and why it matters, from the essay, even if I don't understand the terms' intricacies. You need to give readers a desire to buy in to study your work, you get closer to that by being clear.

The naturalistic "fallacy", here, in your "justification", proves vacant of support and foundation. — Gus Lamarch

However, I come to affirm my hypothesis that there is a fourth
category of egoism that has not yet been recognized, but it is more important than all the others, and that in principle, it would be the causality of all humanity: Natural Egoism – Man's egoism is the natural essence of “Being”. — Gus Lamarch, from the Article

One vital part of a discussion paper which advances an argument is anticipating common counterarguments against your claims. As I understood the major thrust of your article, it runs something like: (1) Human values derive from an inherent structure called the ego (2) This inherent structure characterises these values (3) It is a perversion (of modern civilisation) not to adhere to the values derived only from the inherent structure. What is good is explained in terms of an inherent structure of the ego; at face value an appeal to nature. I'm not saying it's necessarily a bad thing to do that, I'm saying that you should be aware that that would be a common way of dismissing your argument. Addressing this point would strengthen your argument considerably.

It's quite like why Anscombe devoted a lot of words to Hume's fork, and introduced the concept of relative bruteness in order to make room for her ethics. She knew what mattered to her enemies, and why it mattered to them.

If you understand why an accusation of the naturalistic fallacy doesn't apply to your article, don't spend your time arguing with me about it, put it in your article.

I know I'm not the center of the universe. But physically, I am the center, from purely my own perspective, looking out at the world and all other beings. The occasional angst I get is: Why am I the person who is physically at the center looking out? Is this about the "meaning of life"? I don't care about the meaning of life. I only wonder why I'm at the physical center of it, looking out. Do others feel that way? — Scott South

"Headlessness", but some people find commonality in it. I'm headless too!

I don't know what a fair price is though given Gamestop was been trading between $4-$15 for the past few years and now it's "crashed" to $86 or so now. — BitconnectCarlos

Yeah! I don't know, or really care, what the fair price is. I'd've been fine losing it all if GME crashed to 0 at that point. Not going to pretend I'm "value investing" or whatever. I was trying to make a funny where I framed an investment expecting a loss as a need for a fair price of the thing I wanted, apparently I am not a funny. Should've learned that by now.

What do you mean with covering a short position? — Benkei

Not a direct answer to the question; but in case you've not read what happened to Melvin capital. The number of shares of GME sold short the last few days has been 120% of the number of shares sold otherwise. About 6 months ago that was 240%. When the increase in GME value was triggered, Melvin capital lost over 2 billion USD and was bailed out by other companies. The overall losses inflicted on people's short positions this month has been 20 billion, all the while they are not relinquishing their short positions much going by this.

Edit: To be clear; this isn't just a case of people shorting GME after it blew up then getting owned when it didn't deflate in time, people were shorting it loads before it blew up and it seems that's part of why it blew up. The overall position on it is still very short, so the same thing could very well happen again.

I would take this as an obvious indicator that the market is overpriced, overtly excessive, out of touch, ready for a collapse. — ssu

Indeed. This is why I bought a few shares of GME when it was going down rapidly today. I wanted to get a fair price for it.

simply for a better assessment if it was my demerit during the development process, or if it was something from the administration -? — Gus Lamarch

A few of the reasons:

(1) The argumentative style was overblown, lots of grandstanding.
(2) you talked around points without making them clearly. Say what you'll say, say it, then tell us you've said it. Tell us why what you're writing about matters.
(3) the essay was poorly formatted and layed out on the page. - eg your use of whitespace+linebreaks and numbered lists in p 1->6.
(4) the philosophical content touches on an obvious case of the naturalistic fallacy without addressing it. If you're going to do something like naturalise morality, you need an answer to why it's not the fallacy.
(5) You'd previously submitted it as the original post of a thread.

A few sections aren't arguments or clear intuition pumps, eg. the "life-egoism" graph on p2 does not clearly relate to any of the argument before or after it. If it only clearly relates to you it's not good communication.

I'll provide more examples of the points if you like.

A hedge suggests the original asset continues to be held. — Benkei

Ah right. Cheers!

This is in most cases not a hedge. — Benkei

Why isn't a change in investment strategy (the "flight to safety") that aims to buy things that aren't effected by these ruinous market shenanigans a hedge? I don't understand.

I think the reasoning behind the conspiracy is that Citadel are the fifth largest investor in silver, and they're looking to raise the value of that to offset their losses on GME. — Michael

I'd heard that. I don't think it suffices. I'm sure they would attempt to raise the price if they could; where's the evidence that they have. I'm suspicious that the framing of the increase of prices of precious metals in these stories has nothing to do with investors hedging for a volatile market/crash, when that's usually what precious metal prices going up is said to mean! Now it's "redditors taking an eye on silver", not "investors pivoting into precious metals in anticipation of financial crisis"! But I don't think my vague suspicions are enough to say "it's a media manipulation by Citadel" - and I've not seen anything that supports more than vague suspicions?

Also anyone getting inundated with headlines to buy silver? — BitconnectCarlos

Yes.

WSB is saying this is a false flag.

I doubt that it's a conspiracy? The only way it makes sense as a conspiracy would be if:

Media attention on silver was intended to divert people from buying GME onto buying silver.

The rise in silver is mirrored by a rise in the other precious metals. Precious metals are seen to function as a hedge in volatile market conditions, so if people are buying into precious metals all it means is that either investors have no fucking idea what is going on, that they're trying to avoid the effects of a crash they're anticipating, or both.

I think it would require an enormous amount of coordination in order for the rise in precious metal prices over the last week to be a result of a proportional change in retail investor spending patterns caused by a media management strategy by hedge funds- I think it's better explained by investors panicking that the stock market is going to crash and hedging against it.

@Michael

GME's still at 121% short volume. Over 20 billion dollars lost for shorters so far.

As my old professor would ask, if you knew what needed to be the case for it to be true that fdrake flipped the bird, well.... — Banno

And you've been trolling us with his remarks ever since.:roll:

Pretending not to understand is exceedingly frustrating; the onus is on you to give an account of how the statement "fdrake flipped the bird"'s truth or falsity spells out the meaning of the speech act of flipping the bird, not to turn the question around for the 9 millionth time. What does truth or falsity have to do with the speech act of flipping the bird?

But that's not the important part of my reply. That's "The world is always interpreted." — Banno

Why would "the world is always interpreted" imply "the world is always interpretable as a statement".

Well, Davidson would simply put it into a proposition: "fdrake flipped the bird" is true iff fdrake flipped the bird. — Banno

That's very much a statement that fdrake flipped the bird being true, not fdrake's act of flipping the bird being true.

Ummm... Whoops! — Kenosha Kid

Just conjecture, I am a noob.

Can you imagine what the operational leverage of your average investment firm is after the covid bailouts went to the financial industry? Debt fueling speculation.

And how much that gets multiplied when trading short like this? One firm already lost 3 billion USD and had to be bailed out by its friends. Debt fueling debt fueling debt multiplying debt fueling debt...

LGND looks like it's getting squeezed too.

↪Michael Short positions of certain sizes have to be reported to the competent authorities in EU. Don't know about the US: https://www.afm.nl/en/professionals/registers/meldingenregisters/netto-shortposities-actueel — Benkei

I think the short volume/interest of a stock is different from whether a portfolio is net short? As I understand it short interest in a stock says how often a share is short sold compared to its number of available shares. It doesn't care about who's short selling it and what % of their portfolio is devoted to shorting. If I've read it right, you've linked a registry of companies whose portfolios are above a certain % of short position, not a list of companies whose stocks are shorted at a really high volume?

Is there a way to see if any other stock has a > 100% short volume? — Michael

I'd guess yahoo finance has a database somewhere? I had a look for a bit there but couldn't find a list.

As I understand it, that means that you must have 100% of the purchase price on hand, i.e. you may not borrow to purchase; not that you are required to borrow to purchase. — Pfhorrest

That seems right to me too. I thought it suggested that the user required the ability to buy on the margin in order to buy the stock, perhaps I've misinterpreted things. I edited the post I made to flag that explicitly.

I think it remains the case that brokerages stopped people from being able to buy GME even with all their own money up front. But they allowed people simultaneously to sell it. Robinhood and Etoro definitely did that - a couple of friends tried to buy the stocks with their own money and couldn't. But it was fine to sell the stock!

From a risk management perspective it's necessary to allow a lot and that includes telling traders to fuck off with orders unless they post additional margin. — Benkei

It is a very risky stock, the reason all this started was that for some reason a few hedge funds had been shorting the hell out of it. It's still currently at 120% short volume. The rising value of stock caused a big loss for Melvin Capital.

So, was what Robinhood etc were doing earlier something more than just requiring 100% cash on hand to buy? Like, you couldn't buy it at all, even in cash? I thought it was the latter but then my brokerage's notice plus fdrake's mention of margin earlier makes me wonder if wasn't just that. — Pfhorrest

Robinhood stopped buy orders of GME. Full stop. As did Etoro. t212 stopped new clients from joining. Heard reports about other agencies that buy orders of GME were made impossible. A brokerage I saw but can't remember the name of IBKR started requiring that an investor had the ability to buy on the margin - borrow money to buy stock - in order to issue buy orders for GME - IE they put in a requirement that someone was an institutional investor in order to buy GME.

Citation: https://twitter.com/IBKR/status/1354792600004386818

Interactive Brokers has put AMC, BB, EXPR, GME, and KOSS option trading into liquidation only due to the extraordinary volatility in the markets. In addition, long stock positions will require 100% margin and short stock positions will require 300% margin until further notice.

Edit: Seems I didn't know what I was talking about. More than possible I misinterpreted all of this. Things I know for certain: Robinhood made buy orders impossible for regular clients (confirmed from friend), as did Etoro (confirmed from other friend).

Cheers. T212's stopped "onboarding clients"!

Etoro's stopped buy orders. They've all done it. Holy shit.

You need fucking margin to buy it now. Everyone who has margin is short on GME already, that's how they got into this fucking mess. Etoro's still got buy options apparently.

2 h ago public brokerages (eg robinhood) stopped buy options on GME. Shorting ladder attack resumed. Disgusting collusion.

The person who posted it asked an honest question, it wasnt hate filled it was just ignorant. How is an ignorant person supposed to learn if no one has the chance to correct them? — DingoJones

I deleted it because it was clearly homophobic. Because the OP of that thread seemed well intentioned I just warned them rather than banning them.

And then the monetary the monetary policy. I guess that the most rational reasoning of what is happening is given by modern monetary theory (MMT), which basically argues that if the US prints money, it doesn't matter, because it's the US. I'm not the only one confused with MMT, for example Nobel-prize winner Paul Krugman seems to be also confused. That the most accurate model to describe our economy is "Zombie economics" doesn't sound very nice. — ssu

Yanis Varifoukas described the phenomenon very well:

I'd previously understood the pieces in and around your quotes as a breaking of the 'crystalline purity of logic' (§ 97, 107, 108) that is embedded in the Tractatus. It's the expectation that language should be made to conform to subject-predicate form, central to the project of the Tractatus, that is being rejected. Where Wittgenstein had thought that philosophy was the revealing of the hidden logical perfection of our everyday language, he now "rotates" the angle of our examination so that common language use takes primacy. He thus expands his view of language from nothing but propositions to everything, including propositions.

You it seems would take this further in positing that we might somehow have a language (or some such) that is outside of propositional forms, that in effect cannot be put into propositional form. — Banno

I think the rejection is of the glasses. Part of that rejection is the "subject-predicate form", but I believe that's not all which is rejected. The metaphysical vision associated with logic in the Tractatus is what is rejected. But what is that metaphysical vision - the filter that wearing the glasses puts on?

The world is all that is the case, and what is the case is the existence of states of affairs/atomic facts, a proposition is a truth function of elementary propositions. — Tractatus, Wittgenstein

What is the connexion between atomic facts and elementary propositions? That's the glasses, the "picture frame" that ensures accordance (truth) and discord (falsity) of the elementary proposition with the atomic fact represented in the picture frame. That things/events (atomic facts) can be mapped in to a corresponding picture element - truth function of elementary propositions - is a restatement of the doctrine of propositional content; everything that can happen can be stated.

Given that this is rejected, how is it rejected? Not through a negation; as if some things that can happen cannot be stated ("the manifest"), that negation remains within the ambit of defining the world through how it comes to be embedded in a logical picture of facts, and is the "final move" so to speak in the Tractatus - a realisation of how limited a vocabulary a logical picture alone provides.

The general form of propositions is: This is how things are." (4.15 Tractatus)——That is the kind of proposition that one repeats to oneself countless times. One thinks that one is
tracing the outline of the thing's nature over and over again, and one is merely tracing round the frame through which we look at it.
115. A. picture held us captive. And we could not get outside it, for it lay in our language and language seemed to repeat it to us inexorably. — PI, Wittgenstein

It's rejected through improvisation, a metaphysical "yes, and" to a doctrine which purported to hold a monopoly on the sense of things. Recognising the contingency of the connexion between elementary propositions and atomic facts is enough to refute it, as it was before construed as a necessary component of language. Within its operation; with the glasses on; yes, necessarily, everything that happens is the disquotational image of a true statement - the atomic fact kernel of an elementary proposition. Outside of it? Well... There's a lot.

General speech acts just don't fit into it; how could flipping someone the bird be true or false? Why would truth matter for it? Truth would only matter when parsing it later as an event in game which required the glasses to be played. "X flipped Y the bird". The sense of the act isn't spelled out in truth or falsity, it's spelled out through the analysis of the role it plays in a "language game" - truth and falsity might be grammatical mistakes within that game, not eligible moves, but they may still play a role in a meta-game of language game description. It can be true, or false, that truth or falsity have nothing to do with the sense of flipping someone the bird. But a description, a "logical picture" of flipping someone the bird might be able to be true or false - eg "you only flip the bird to people you love" would be false, "people tend to flip the bird to insult people or things" would be true.

Taking aim at Davidson: In putting on the glasses, and setting out a speech act through the truth of a statement which represents it "X P'd Y at t", the sense is expressed in how the interpreter would assign truth or falsity to it, not in the truth or falsity of it. This sleight of hand is rendered imperceptible if one has forgotten the glasses can come off. The centrality of truth to meaning only makes sense in terms of this sleight of hand - truth is central to the filter.

With the glasses off, things that break the schema of the glasses seem commonplace, because they are. But you can put the glasses on again to assess descriptions of things which break the picture frame.

I think the situation is both much worse and much better than that fundamental loneliness would suggest.

Much worse: we don't even have that purported level of insight into ourselves. The only epistemic authority we have with respect to our own conduct is one of fiat; usually there is no one else capable of saying why we did what we did. We can't ever "truly" get into our own heads.

Much better: we're not fundamentally alone, our selves are made of interactions we have with others - extracted patterns from the social instances we're exposed to. Our self concept forms in adaptation to our developmental environs. We were never "truly" in our own heads to begin with.

My point is that "speaking out" or "having an impact" may be a serious political trap unless we qualify these statements. I think the U.S. in particular has an ingenious political field which can create a powerful illusion of change and radical reform, while remaining perfectly within the confines of the status quo. This is another important point for Foucault, the productive element of power. — Giorgi

Precisely my thinking about #MeToo (and #TimesUp), which was largely a Hollywood thing. Surface changes made, but nothing structural. The victims remained victims, nothing much changed. — Kenosha Kid

:up:

Perhaps controversial, but the confinement of mass politics to discourse; politics as mass shitposting; isn't isolated to the US, UK, or even the political North. You can read the failure of the Arab spring uprisings and global climate strikes in the same context. Non-coordinated spontaneous disruption by an actor network is antithetical to any new institutionalisation of power by that network - the revolution's come to look like a corporate teambuilding event.

Even if it breaks shit, there's little to no plan. What comes in the space cleared by that breaking?

Thanks for your efforts. That's an excellent reply. — Banno

:up:

The "claim" is nothing but the commonplace that when what we say is true, it sets out how things are. I have difficulty in seeing how you might maintain that the world is interpreted and yet treat this interpretation as tacit; especially if that tacit interpretation is thought of as not being capable of interpretation in propositional form.

I think the contention isn't that "everything is capable of being set out in a statement", it's where that capability comes from and how it works.

The notion of a level of interpretation that is not linguistic is counterintuitive.

It might be counterinuitive to you? It isn't to me. I'm quite used to throwing more into the notion of interpretation than speech acts and statements. Eg, vision's involved, seeing-as is an interpretation, and there need be no words in a figure-ground relationship.

It might be worthwhile to make a distinction between linguistic interpretation and language involving interpretation. A linguistic interpretation would be a "setting out in words", a description etc, a language involving interpretation would be an interpretation which is informed by and partially constituted with language. Example; a doctor looking at a lung scan for an abnormality, a linguistic interpretation might be the speech act of making the assertion "There's an abnormality here", a language involving interpretation would be seeing the abnormality due to learning how to do it - from textbooks, demonstrations etc. The latter type is simultaneously more expansive and...

I gather the notion is that the world is already divided into cups and tables before these are spoken of; (the before here being a logical, not a temporal, priority? I understand time plays an odd role in Heidegger's metaphysics...)

construable as logically prior to the other. I claim language involving interpretation is logically prior to linguistic interpretation.

But I think it's worthwhile to note the temporal part too; I don't think this distinction between language involving and linguistic interpretation commits me to a temporal ordering between the two types; like one precedes the other; they're more like styles of engagement, ways of "reading off the world". The predicative as-structure; that which seeks, finds and judges propositions and their content; is very similar to Wittgenstein's "glasses" in the PI.

103. The ideal, as we think of it, is unshakable. You can never get outside it; you must always turn back. There is no outside; outside you cannot breathe.—Where does this idea come from? It is like a pair of glasses on our nose through which we see whatever we look at. It never occurs to us to take them off.

104. We predicate of the thing what lies in the method of representing it. Impressed by the possibility of a comparison, we think we are perceiving a state of affairs of the highest generality.

The pre-predicative one is more informal and pragmatic, taking off the glasses, the rough ground is blurry but saturated with articulable structure; an encoding in propositional content is one means of articulation. Both the pre-predicative and the predicative seem to be involved in most speech acts, and have distinct styles of content which interweave. Why distinct styles of content? Putting on the glasses of propositional form is a filter, it seeks statements and judgements, it encodes the world in their images. And "we predicate of the thing that which lies in the method of representing (encoding - me) it". If you stop seeing the world in terms of an expectation of sentential logical form, that doesn't stop it from being able to be parsed in accordance with that form. What the routine occurrence in everyday non-glasses-wearing acts does do, however, is show that such logical form shows up in the world (and it is there!) only when using the glasses to see it. It goes from a necessary component of interaction to a contingent one; you can take off the glasses, and the propositional form need not appear. Once you take of the glasses, things still "make themselves manifest" as it were, but are not outside of the scope of language, language is born in interaction with that rough ground. What is articulated has to be wrestled into sentences, and sentential form is the referee's count at the pin.

The predicative as structure is a means of representation of the world's articulable content which yields statements and judgements thereof, it summarises, encodes, condenses, judges. Nothing falls apart if you take off the glasses; and you might need them again for reading. The important thing is the glasses can come off; which destroys the monopoly on content which you're imputing to the propositional form. It only seems like a monopoly because you've got the glasses on.

So what I'm reacting to in your position is that you seem to me to be doing the same thing as in 104:

Impressed by the possibility of a comparison, we think we are perceiving a state of affairs of the highest generality.

"x" is true iff x. As a theory of meaning through redundancy, of comparing the world to a logical form your vantage point has imputed to it and finding a match - you were looking for one. I have no problem with the match. It's that you're using that to limit other styles of filtering the world. It seems you are claiming it is the only match, a necessary match. It's like you've got the glasses on and define seeing as seeing through those glasses! So from my perspective:

Well, if it is not propositional, what is it? What other form could it have?

The premises underlying those questions are wrongheaded; the form isn't of the state of affairs, it's discovered in seeing the world a certain way. That logical form arises in an interaction; statements have propositional content because we and the world put it there conjointly.

And even if there is some alternative form, that form must be capable of interpretation in propositional form.

I'll grant this, you can put the glasses on, but that only limits how the world shows up when they're on. The appeal for that claim is the logical priority of the pre-predicative; that the glasses can be taken off.

If you want examples of other ways of seeing the world that don't turn around what goes into statements; you're looking at other metaphysical vantage points. Maybe the world looks like interacting objects, manifestations of substance, dynamical systems, actor networks, monads, assemblages... I want to emphasise "other" in "other metaphysical vantage points"; claiming "the world is an object language" is a metaphysical claim.