Lakefingers said:

redgreenvines said:

mostly I am certain you have a view of me that is other than possible.
I never use such words as endless, ultimate, or mastery.
These do get in the way of a close approximation to anything real.
and that is what both philosophy and poetry want to do.

---

If I have that view of you then clearly it's possible.

---

Lakefingers said:

Yes, there's always more you could learn.

---

Lakefingers said:

redgreenvines said:

it's artifice,
truth being that I do not use those words.
ergo your view is an impossible one which translates as erroneous.

---

Well, scroll up and note that you fabricated what "translates as erroneous," which makes your claims erroneous.

---

Lakefingers said:

I think your definition makes the discussion absurd. Maybe it is absurd either way.

---

Quote:

It's reached its inherent limits? Would you mind stating precisely what those are?

---

As you can imagine, its quite difficult to list the limits of language with language.
In fact, to successfully do so, without speaking metaphorically would create the sort of prose I am referencing in OP.

I'll give it a shot though.


We use language in typical prose in order to describe (map) most anything we can conceive of (territory).
Korzybski in Science and Sanity remarked that "The map is not the territory." and herein we find that our descriptions used in typical prose, while potentially becoming very accurate maps..can never fully encompass the territory (our conception).

The only way the territory can be equal with the map (the description) is if we are somehow able to describe what is being conveyed in not only the message, but in the writing itself. This is why I used the term 'poetry' its the only word I can think of to describe what I'm trying to get across.


Something like this however introduces a bit of a paradox..how can the map be the territory?

I was introduced to this concept of poetic language becoming the territory through learning about the idea of lethal texts.
The typical archetype of the lethal text goes something like as the reader is reading it, it destroys/elevates the readers mind do to the very nature of the language used by introducing a logical paradox.

This concept is a bit different but aligns with the idea that the prose as well as information contained within a concept reflects the idea multi-dimensionaly..in that the structure of the words used and the words used convey a the same message.

As it stands, the very nature of my version of complexity creation (time) and inspiration of this thread sort of follows this..map becoming the territory..
custom (what was) + novelty (interactions/creation of what was) = complexity (time)

We can see this with the alphabet and its creation of language.
We have the alphabet (custom) rearranged in novel ways (novelty) to bring about a message, an order of higher complexity...
But this pattern of higher orders of complexity may continue where the language itself is rearranged in novel ways in order to bring about a message only possible by the higher complexity of the novel use of a customary language.