Misleading Indicators: "Mirror" Metaphor/"Real Principles

Francesco Ranci wrote:

I find the metaphor of the "mirror" (when you say:

"The terms we use and the intellectual formulations we make roughly “mirror” the realities we are talking about, but they are not the realities themselves") very misleading. A misleading metaphor that I fear even more than the misleading indicators we started talking about.

I do not believe in "real principle behind" an item of language, if you mean by that something that is not a result of our mental activity. I would enjoy a friendly discussion about this crucial topic.

**********

What do you find misleading about “mirror”?  It seems to me to be a very good metaphor to use when discussing these issues we’ve been talking about (and, yes, many other intellectual concerns). 

Indeed, my phraseology of a rough[ened] “mirror” seems quite adequate to the task of arriving at the truth of such realities. The “mirror” is not a perfect mirror, and our words/concepts in and of themselves can’t fully “replicate” or even completely “image” such realities, but they can get a fraction of the way there towards doing do (even if the ratio for this is only 1 in a million-plus chance of being able to accomplish this feat).  Even this is worlds more of an accomplishment above absolutely “not” being able to do so. 

If there’s absolutely no connection between the realities we try to study and our (terms/intellectual formulations/and even our descriptions or explanations of such matters), then why should we even bother ourselves?  If that’s the case, wouldn’t it be a lot more sensible for us all to be doing something else with our lives? [This is a perfectly serious, perfectly honest, well-intentioned question with no cutting sarcasm intended] ... What do you think about this point I am making here? ...

“Real Principles” behind words/conceptions/understandings/descriptions/& explanations) may be problematic, I would agree.  Problematic, for one reason, because: single words and simple concepts themselves cannot possibly encapsulate or adequately describe the realities of our world (even if we accept the axiom that ‘words have [real] meaning.’)  Problematic, for another reason, because: have we {and can we} truly gear[ed] our rudimentary language toward an adequate description or explanation of things we perceive in our world?  And, is it within the power of language – communication – to be able to do so? If it’s not, then what can language do?  What can it accomplish in and of its own communicative power?

Clearly many of the Greco-Roman Classics and late Medieval Scholastics believed that language could more clearly “mirror” the realities of the universe.  {Perhaps, others in the long human past and around the globe, also believed in the ability of the human mind to strive after and attain a true knowledge of reality or at least a symbolized counterpart of such.  But even if they did have vastly different visions of metaphysical-cosmological reality in our world, and didn’t aspire to the former notion, they did, it seems, posit some level of a connection among words-meaning-realties if only in a very minimalistic sense.

Your point is a very interesting one when you say “I do not believe in a "real principle behind" an item of language, if you mean by that something that is not a result of our mental activity.” Would you be willing to say, then, that you wouldn’t believe in even a real material thing existing behind an item of language (i.e., the idea that our words can – or may - correspond to material realities)?  Would you say that our conscious and more importantly subconscious sensed perceptions of the real world have been shaped by what I can only call our conscious mental activities?  Or is there a level to our senses & perceptions of that reality that precedes our higher mental activities?  These are my basic questions on such a matter.

The way I understand “real” principles is this.  They’re different from the intellectual notions we formulate (conveniently termed by the Scholastics of the Late Medieval era (Scotists and Thomists) as being “intellectual principles.”)  Real principles underlie Real things, whether one chooses the Platonic interpretation of such or the Aristotelian.  Clearly these “real principles” are not real material things, but still I would bet both Aristotle and Plato would be hard pressed to call these things ‘spiritual’ realities as modern Catholic scholars have done.  These “real principles” may be nothing more than dimensional aspects of unitary, substantial realities or things; distinguished from our conceptions by the fact of our senses/minds first noticing or perceiving such realities, then formulating a set of ideas about them. 

But, more and more, I tend to view these “real principles” as being something else, something far more scientifically intriguing than just dimensional aspects of things. I tend to think what we’re witnessing, in terms of real principles, are templates of sorts.  Maybe they are bundles of energy-force relationships that precede matter and more complex forms of radiant energy.  They’d act like rudimentary bonds for real things, keep them held together in their substantial forms, and from dissipating into nothingness, or better-said, base matter/energy which we might probably even perceive as being nothingness.  This may be a misconception on my part, but that’s what I think.  (If I’m wrong or if I have mischaracterized any scientific understanding of things though what I’ve said in this paragraph, someone please correct me).

In any case, these are a few of my questions for you on the topic and, indeed, some of my basic understandings/perspectives.  I invite you now to respond to my questions and offer some of your own ideas.  Anyone else is welcome to jump in with pointers also.  I look forward to hearing from you. 

Best! 

Luke R.

---

Do You Yahoo!?
Sign-up for Video Highlights of 2002 FIFA World Cup