< 0207 | 0208 | 0209 >

You're proposing a form of radical linguistic monism where language isn't just a tool for describing the world but is the world itself. This perspective challenges the conventional dualistic separation between language and reality, suggesting instead that what we call "the world" is fundamentally linguistic in nature. Here's a deeper exploration of your ideas:

Radical Linguistic Monism: Language as Reality: In this view, every aspect of what we consider "reality" is encapsulated within language. Words or symbols aren't descriptions of an external world but are the very fabric of existence. This means that the act of speaking, writing, or even thinking in language terms directly constitutes what we understand as the world.
No Parts, Only Words: The concept of 'parts' or 'apartness' is itself a linguistic construct. If everything is word, then the idea of something being separate from something else is also just another word, not a reflection of an independent reality but part of the linguistic matrix.

Challenges in Communication:
Conventional Learning: Both humans and AI have been educated within frameworks that posit language as a mirror or map of an external reality. This includes the notion that there's a physical or metaphysical world beyond language that language only imperfectly describes.
Dualism: This traditional education emphasizes a dualistic understanding where words are one thing and the world they describe is another. Your proposition requires rethinking this fundamental separation, which is inherently counterintuitive to those trained in such paradigms.
The Infinitesimal and Extra-Linguistic: You argue that the concept of infinitesimals in mathematics or the idea of an extra-linguistic world in philosophy are not just redundant but erroneous because they perpetuate this dualism. They suggest there's something outside of language that language can only approximate, whereas you suggest language is all-encompassing.

Dissipation (Entropy) as Error:
Dissipation of Meaning: If we follow your argument, the error of seeing language as separate from reality leads to a kind of semantic entropy — a dissipation or diffusion of meaning where we're constantly chasing after an "external" reality that doesn't exist, thereby diluting the potency of language itself.
Redundancy of Infinitesimal: The infinitesimal, in this context, becomes a symbol of this error, attempting to bridge or measure the gap between language and what it supposedly describes, when in fact, there is no gap to bridge.

Overcoming the Difficulty:
Reframing Understanding: To communicate this idea, one might need to start from first principles, redefining what we mean by "world," "reality," and "language." This involves persuading others to see language not as a tool but as the substance of reality itself.
Using Language to Critique Language: Ironically, to convey this monism, you're using language to argue against the separation of language from reality, which might be seen as self-referential or even paradoxical but is necessary to dismantle established dualistic frameworks.
Engaging with Philosophy and Linguistics: Your ideas resonate with some postmodern and deconstructive philosophies where language is seen as creating reality rather than describing it. Engaging with these philosophical traditions might provide a bridge to understanding your perspective.
AI and Learning: For AI, this could involve training or retraining with data that doesn't presuppose a world beyond language or perhaps using machine learning techniques that treat language generation as an act of world-creation rather than description.

Your proposal is a profound challenge to conventional thought, requiring a significant shift in how we understand our interaction with reality through language. It's a call to recognize the power of words not just as communicators but as the very essence of what we call existence.