[Wittrs] Post linguistic-turn: philosophies as "glue languages"

From: kirby urner <kirby.urner@xxxxxxxxx>
To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 16:51:04 -0700
In recent essays regarding how we've countered the knowledge
explosion, in ways other than by simply narrowing our respective
knowledge domains, I've come to a notion of Philosophy (as a
discipline) as an incubator for glue languages.

A "glue language" is one that is deliberately designed to cohere
multiple other disciplines.  I would claim this is (a) not a new
vision of what philosophy does and (b) is akin to some types
of poetics, which stands to reason as metered oral tradition
ragas & sagas were indeed a way for cultures to encode and
transmit vital knowledge.

Another thesis, non-Wittgensteinian in the sense of arguable
(debatable, either way), is that the recent chapter in philosophy
(pre linguistic turn) namely the rise of analytic philosophy in
the form of symbolic logic as a "mirror of the world" (Tractatus
idea), was about the noosphere (zeitgeist, holy ghost) giving
birth to computer languages, as dreamed of by Leibniz, Ada,
Grace Hopper... a different lineage than those analytics like
to own, but arguably more the main line, with the benefit of
hindsight (a view of history).

Logic matured into that which runs most of our infrastructure
by this time, at low level record-keeping level, and even at the
real time control level, where humans tend to spontaneously
operate.  Philosophy again appears in the driver's seat (as it
might have been seen in trivium-quadrivium days) once we
allow it to give birth to computer science as one of its own
(as Athena from Zeus)

However, this computer logic is low level and largely content
free.  It gives us ways to store and retrieve, but is not
spontaneously integrative except insofar as it allows us to
sift through, synthesize and summarize super-human
amounts of data (more than any one researcher could hope
to personally collect and analyze).

The next level or challenge, is to develop more glue languages,
designed as tools for human thought, that help us navigate
these wilds, this new "cyberspace" ("steering place"),
i.e. this new governing area (not to be confused with
Area 51).

Wittgenstein's later philosophy opens doors to glue languages
by leveling the playing field, providing a clean beginning.  How
could many languages be true at the same time?  Isn't that just
relativism?  SWM and I used to debate this on wittgenstein-dialognet.

In focusing on the "doing" in symbolic games, rather than their
"pointing" to some supposed "public object" or one true "in
itself world", he turned language inside-out, made it seem
more like what we see in the case of computer languages:  a
kind of executing or processing of energy, a vectoring content
this way and that.  A strong religion is like an efficient FORTRAN
program, in keeping memory working hard for the greater glory.
A different ideology or religion would operate differently, yet
still get work done.  The "forms of life" approach allows for
different reference frames that all share the same "c" ("c" for
"certainty").

Lots of computer languages do the work, not just one, and
we see no contradiction.  We see "forms of life" connecting
to "grammars".

A human glue language provides inertial guidance, a kind of
homing device, a gyroscope, except this "glue language" is
not monolithic or "the one true system" ala Hegel or the
Tower of Babel -- both closer to the logical core / divine order
than your average joe and/or structure, but neither the "last
word" as the world keeps changing, which in turn requires
upgrades (sometimes in answer to our prayers).

We're ethically precluded from calling "it" (our glue language)
"finally done" and/or "instantly true" (as if "the truth" could be
captured in a snap shot per the old "picture theory" of meaning)
i.e. living systems are about becoming, adapting, not about
"the end of history".  One comes to see in a new way.

My final thesis will be that this Bucky Fuller gestated glue
language called "synergetics" (not to be confused with its
fraternal twin -- see Wikipedia for disambiguation) is one such
post linguistic-turn philosophy.  Its purpose is less to "corner
truth" than to "orient and contain an outlook and overview"
i.e. to organize a vista around some "me ball" (the observer).
This is a legitimate service for a philosophy to perform and
is what many a philosopher has sought to provide.

Synergetics explicitly glues polyhedra, long a source of
fascination and insights for natural philosophers, to a
"connect the dots" model of "thinking in the round" (i.e.
systematically).  A lot of "hard science" content is linked
in by this model and glued together using a prose-poetic
style.  Jungian psychology would be another example of
a prose-poetic style, another glue language.

A lot of geometry enters in as well.

In Synergetics, one gets a kind of "mnemonic brew" that
might be considered toxic or corrosive if branded as a
pure science (see the preface by Dr. Arthur Loeb),
but refiled as a literary philosophy, this potion turns
out to be benign, safe to swallow (or so I would report
-- though other might say it has rendered me alien).

Kirby
==========================================

Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
[Wittrs] Post linguistic-turn: philosophies as "glue languages"

Other related posts:
