It is fun to look at Ferdinand de Saussure and his work. So, thank you for suggesting this path, Alex.
What struck me in particular is how it provides a look into the times of his days, how thinking has evolved since. And yet we are dealing with the same reality of language nevertheless. I recognize that he made major steps in linguistics, with a structural and philosophical approach to it.
--
I consider myself not a structuralist. Yet structure itself is the essence of my thinking. I do not like the overall structure of structuralism, trying to capture how one should look at structure. Rather, I want the word to tell me what the structure is. As such, structure is a self-based reality.
So, when I look at religion, then I see how one can start with an idea in highest position, and then everything else (hopefully) falls into place underneath it. The structure is top-down.
Contrasting this with science, one starts not with any top position but one starts at the bottom. Collecting data and observations is the first action that will allow the scientist to stand on something solid, and then reach for higher grounds. The structure is bottom-up. In science one can even jump to a higher level, but one must always end up on one's feet, be it with either the facts/data or with a nice theory. Yet one does not stand with the hypothesis for very long. That balloon hangs in the air and must be tied to facts and evidence, otherwise it is popped. It need not be proven, but if a hypothesis does not morph into a nice theory, it will be gone.
Then in philosophy, one can see that neither top nor bottom is the point for starting the discussion, but rather the concept itself is where one starts. As long as the writer considers the concept understood, he or she can use it to start a discussion. Obviously, this leads to fantastic discussions that at times can be a bit muddy, too, when the concept is not exactly the same in everyone's minds.
These three examples of different structural forms within our thinking help make the point that the brain is malleable without an end. It is us, human beings ourselves, who declare what the meaning is for the words that we use. Yet, one of the problems of the mind is that, while using the same form over and over again, one can start thinking that this form is the same as the whole of existence.
A priest will view everything in light of God (and in light of not-God), and therefore view all as such, not necessarily aware that a person can stand on completely different grounds altogether (and still declare a perspective at the same level as God). In science, for instance, one can propose that Energy is that scientific word that can rival with the religious word of God.
A scientist will view everything in light of the data, facts, evidence and observations, but may then forget that, while theorizing, the scientific truth is accepted as true one way, and not the other way. In a theory, there is always space for an alternate view, yet nowadays many physicists consider some of the theories the same as facts -- an overreach. A spot that is religious in nature can get occupied by a scientist while the scientist may incorrectly believe (!) that it is scientific in essence.
A philosopher is perhaps the best person to declare that once a concept is accepted, then the philosopher will walk this concept straight into a rabbit hole where the 'walls of projection' are all in line with the accepted position. Everything inside the rabbit hole declares that concept as absolutely true.
We must stand next to our language to view it properly, and that I why I do like the (quick read I had of the) work by Ferdinand de Saussure. He got that point quite right. I do think I take it one step further by pointing out the non-functionality of all-inclusive words (other than their pointing to the whole, of course). Still, the work of De Saussure embodies major steps, major steps.
--
Structurally, the word universe is a 1-word. It does not have a context by itself. It stands on its own. It is what it is. Other 1-words are Mankind, Nature, Life, Whole, God, Reality, and the likes. They point to an all-inclusive state, no further context given.
Allow me to clarify that they are not 2-words or 1+0 words. They truly are ‘just’ 1-words, all-inclusive, all by themselves.
Next, these words themselves can then be used as the context in which a content is found. A galaxy is found as content in the context of the universe. Next, a galaxy can be used as a context for a solar system, for instance, as the content. Yet there is no context for the context called universe. Anything there is, is included in the word universe.
Gödel showed us with his Incompleteness Theorems that we should not start with axioms and then expect their completenesses to stretch all the way to the level of the universe. Rather, axioms have their own levels of completeness, and if we take them up a step further, then they become incompletenesses. They then missed the mark, so to speak.
The example I like to use is that growing a mustache is indeed a human trait, but the completeness of this fact is not found at the overall level of all people. We find a certain box labeled 'can grow a mustache' and only certain people fit in that box. There will not be any children in that box, nor will there be too many women in that box either. You get the drift. At the largest of levels, we can never expect to see a completeness. It is at the lower levels that we can find the boxes with their completenesses.
And this pinpoints us back to the start of our material universe. The Big Bang was a one-time event, not repeated, and it was an undermining of the completeness of the prior state. From one large completeness (or... if we go for the nagging details then it is better to say: from the potential of one large completeness), we ended up finding many completenesses yet all smaller than the original (attempt) had been.
--
As last point therefore the only truths that do exist at the overall level:
* Negative truths
* Neutral truths
The negative truths are like:
"The only certainty is uncertainty"
"There is no truth" (presented as a truth)
There are no positive truths at the overall level but, next to the negative ones, there are neutral truths.
They are the already mentioned 1-words that are all-inclusive. They do not have a positive or a negative twist to them. Rather, the positives and the negatives are all found inside the all-inclusive word.
One word to mention here in light of the universe is the word Matter. Obviously, we can consider this a positive, because, yes, indeed, it is there, said the scientist. Yet by itself it is a neutral word. Simply put: Matter is what it is. Then, next, we can use the word Matter as the context to discuss, for instance, neutrons and protons as the contents.
—
Thank you, Alex, for engaging me in this conversation. Apologies for the long replies. I can't seem to make them nice and short : - )
