Discussion with Terence Blake, here.
{AK}: The specification that creates an ‘immanence’, ineluctably creates ‘transcendence’.
Contesting a history of privilegings, whether of the ‘immanent’, or ‘transcendent’, even Plato’s own, does nothing to address the initial specification.
Shifting initial specifications, so that they are more in accord with current, received intuitions, of whatever constitutes the ‘given reality’ of an age, merely shifts the microscope’s field of vision from one area of the heavens, to another. It doesn’t relinquish the microscope for a telescope.
In a way, any language at all, necessarily exemplifies a monistic flavour; the identity of a language, as a language, suggests that. So ‘monism’ can’t really be escaped, it’s a necessary corollary of ‘plurality’. If you combine languages, like George Steiner, the combination, if it becomes standardised, could be characterised as monistic. Hybridity begets new forms of unity, as it were.
Apophatic caution ensures that one doesn’t get fixated by any horizon, by a single star.
Mathematical reductionism
Mathematics is just a language essentially contingent on the ‘metric’.
The ‘metric’ is the ‘measured’; the ‘measured’ is a specification, as system, that produces further sub-specifications within its field.
I don’t really see that Mathematics is essentially different to any other semiotic system.
It’s natural that subcultural uses of language proliferate.
If “mathematics is ontology” is suspect, why wouldn’t ‘ontology is ontology’ be suspect, too?
One has to ask “what is mathematics?”, “what does it specify?”, & is this any different to the ontological?
If ‘measurement’ is specification; if specification is identification; if identification is entity production; if this entitification, as it were, is ontologisation; then, mathematics is just another branch of ontological specification.
In fact, one could see all languages that use any categorical specification at all, as branches of mathematics.
All of this stuff is transitive, interchangeable, conventional.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[Terence Blake]: “Laruelle’s own solution is to make a “weak”, allegorical, use of quantum physics as a style of thinking, but his explanations are scientifically vague, incomplete, and one-sided as well as philosophically obscure, due to his use of his typically inadequately defined but quite abstract vocabulary.”
{AK}: Terence, if you rule out both “Mathematical reductionism”, & if the holistic metaphors of “Eastern traditions” are ruled out “as philosophically obscure” or vague, what else is left to avoid the “scientifically vague”?
Remember, quantum physicists, themselves, don’t really have any clear theoretical interpretations, they just do the mathematics.