Date: Jul 7, 2013 8:42 PM
Author: fom
Subject: Re: Ordinals describable by a finite string of symbols

On 7/7/2013 7:19 PM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> "fom" <> wrote in message

>> On 7/7/2013 5:02 PM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
>>> "fom" <> wrote in message

>>>> On 7/7/2013 1:10 PM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
>>>>> "fom" <> wrote in message

>>>>>> On 7/7/2013 8:06 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
>>>>>>> "Julio Di Egidio" <> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:krbohl$av6$

>>>>>>>> We know it when you know it, it self-represents
>>>>>>> Oops, I just meant: We know it when we know it...

>>>>>> It is common among the men with whom I
>>>>>> work to hear, "It is what it is".
>>>>>> I take it to be an article of faith

>>>>> Is that all you could gather? Then I'll give you another pearl to
>>>>> think
>>>>> about: dogmatism and scepticism are the two sides of the same coin.
>>>>> But
>>>>> take your time...

>>>> Well, I had been thinking in terms of the
>>>> fact that experience has an unavoidable
>>>> subjective sense. It invariably admits the
>>>> reduction of linguistic expressions to mere
>>>> syntax. But, it is also the subjective
>>>> experience that affords meaningful interpretation.

>>> I do not see how linguistic expression (language) can be reduced to
>>> syntax: a sign is not a symbol, the magic is all in the interpreter.

>> Two different individuals with two different
>> subjective experiences may interpret linguistic
>> expressions differently.

> Nope, language is a mutual thing per definition (well, the one I am
> giving), where private language is a limit case.

Yes. I find every attempt to make mathematics a
solipsistic enterprise distasteful. Men and women
are exchanging ideas.

>> In like fashion, there is the Fregean argument
>> that any mark can signify.

> An argument perfectly in line with the enslavement to mechanical
> signification... I've never liked it.

Once again, the exchange of ideas would modify
any such private languages into a pidgin.

>> There are a great many aspects to pragmatics
>> involved with meaning. Carnap is attributed
>> with delineating syntax, semantics, and pragmatics.
>> Agreements as to the fact that an expression is
>> well-formed and that particular well-formed
>> expressions have particular meanings are matters
>> which fall into the domain of pragmatics.

> Carnap has done interesting things in linguistics, but I think
> pragmatics is properly about a distinction within semantics. Anyway, I
> do not see considerations of pragmatics conflicting with my various theses.

No. It supports them.

Carnap made the distinction so he could engage
in the abstractions of his "ideal language theory"
without concern for user interaction. On that
account, it is separate from semantics. But, it
probably depends upon how one is thinking of semantics.

Perhaps the distinction is clearer if one refers to
pragmatics in relation to formal semantics.

>>>> It is in the transition from subjective to
>>>> objective where all of the difficulties seem to
>>>> arise.

>>> We have already spoken about these seeming difficulties: what
>>> "objectivity" I would ask? I.e. same cart before the horses.

>> Then I must assume you choose to be a
>> Humean skeptic.

> I laugh at Hume. I am just saying we are back to where we were.

Russell states that identity is inherently
circular. He is, of course, speaking of the
self-identity of an ontological individual.
But, consideration of how the sign of equality
is used will give one an intimate view of
the circles.

If the horses pulling a cart are
walking in a small circle...