Ontological Relativity–thoughts on Formation of Metaphysical Referents?

If one considers language as a set of words that refer to other words for meaning as well as to experiences or referents in the world experienced with perception and cognition as Quine did in Ontological Relativity, it is a practical matter to consider one’s one range of philosophical thought with a little more objectivity. Since Socrates began that process of examining the meaning of words and concepts and found them rather circular or even empty as he did in the ‘Meno’ nearly 2500 years ago the development of symbolic logic in mathematical and linguistic forms has enabled philosophers to write down their own ideas to consider them individually and as phrases to actually consider the content and it’s meaning. 

It is ironic that Quine wrote the Two Dogmas of Empiricism as an attack on two primary premises of empiricist philosophy when he was himself such an objective, no realist sort of philosopher. In carefully examining the empiricism notions about Kantian distinctions between analytic and synthetic ideas Quine brought to bear the phenomenalism implicit in language use. Quine’s analytic theory was not a ditto of John Dewey’s version of pragmatism in linguistic theory, although Ontological Relativity was given as a series of Dewey Lectures at Harvard University. Quine recognized that language meanings are developed within ontologies that get their meaning through circular reinforcement from language use. As in mathematics given axioms must be accepted to start with, philosophers too must make some metaphysical constructions on the basis of language and ideas sometimes accepted virtually as axiomatic. That is usually an error in language constructions for philosophical purposes. 

There is quite a vast realm of inquiry possible today with linguistic philosophy, with Shannon’s information theory and it’s holographic universe as bits of data/quanta derivatives conjectured about by cosmological physicists and others. The reduction of language to reference bits of data units coinciding with aspects of experience is a kind of challenging and phenomenal task. In some ways language becomes something like the relation of higher-order computer languages referring to more basic languages or even assembler language regarding binary bits of data. The reference to a rainbow for instance, occurs at a higher level than simple comments about photons, photons refracted in the Earth’s atmosphere and so forth. It is a concept at a higher functional level of more value to sentient beings that nature–in fact though the potential for a rainbow to be perceived does not exist in nature at a below sentient perception level perhaps (well maybe alligators perceive rainbows, and certainly the American possum might)–sentient beings do perceive rainbows if they have vision and are not color blind. 

Human language may have a vast realm of words that exist for human sentience referring to relations to the material experience such as warmth or cold that have nothing more than coordinate graph field position referent causality quanta for itself. We tend to believe that actual quanta such as quarks exist in the Universe though unperceived directly, yet that colors, temperature and such are just subjective perceptions without anything that a corresponding empirical reference causal relationship of a contingent to us nature. If we ever touch some field relationship of atoms in particular energy states we then get a sensation of hot, cold or color. Metaphysical ideas and their lexicons also tend to require some sort of statistically associated field reference in some way, even if it is a negation of a known physical field.