You can always take a concept that’s relative to your own model of the world and curry it—folding the relevant information from your model of the world into a curried version of the concept.
If simultaneously have such a curried concept (feel like it “obviously exists”), and deny the legitimacy of constructing concepts in this way when you examine concepts reflectively, you will be confused.
I guess this is 70% aimed at Ramana. I find most attempts at “objective definition” unsatisfying qua definitions since they cut out fuzzy intuitive bits that often matter for everyday speech, but that’s less interesting to talk about.
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/eDpPnT7wdBwWPGvo5/2-place-and-1-place-words
You can always take a concept that’s relative to your own model of the world and curry it—folding the relevant information from your model of the world into a curried version of the concept.
If simultaneously have such a curried concept (feel like it “obviously exists”), and deny the legitimacy of constructing concepts in this way when you examine concepts reflectively, you will be confused.
Was this intended to respond to any particular point, or just a general observation?
I guess this is 70% aimed at Ramana. I find most attempts at “objective definition” unsatisfying qua definitions since they cut out fuzzy intuitive bits that often matter for everyday speech, but that’s less interesting to talk about.