Addiction to Time as a Super-Structure

[SanteriSatama]

AND THE PROCESS IN AND OF THE SPIRIT:

Now, if and when you are starting to become a little more acceptive of the possibility of intuitionist and process philosophical mathematics, let's throw more water to steam their hot and purifying vapour over the hot rocks. Speaking from the intuitionist ontology of mathematics, and accepting and relating with the main contemporary contribution of Western spirituality, IE deep structure of Quantum Theory, as continuation of the process of Plato's and Aristotle's thinking of actual and potential and how math plays in the between, there is no real separation between poetry (from the Greek verb "to do") and a mathematical sign written as magical runes, which decohere the Potential into Actual according to Plato's quantum cave mechanics of Matrix. Quite conscious of the responsibility involved in accepting and doing writing, and especially mathematical writing (of a new language), as it originally and always was: Magic and Creation.

Thus when writing, the incarnated Subject writes a new language and self-expression of mathematics first and foremost for the Spirit, in the process philosophical gnothi seauton of the Spirit. This rolling in the intersubjective social sphere is of secondary importance if it matters at all, anything more than amusement.

[AshvinP]

What is truly basic here is that the meaning of an "abstraction" is a symbol which points to an underlying Reality that is not exhausted by the symbol. If you are claiming that the mathematical concepts you employ in argument are not symbols but are actually the things-in-themselves in their totality, then we have much more basic issues to sort out than anything you say in the rest of your latest post.

OVERFLOW OF RIGHTEOUS WRATH:

Yes, that is the basic issue, from which the rest flows. How can it be so hard to get through that I subscribe to intuitionist philosophy of mathematics, and strongly oppose formalism?

Formalism, e.g. and especially axiomatic set theory: Mathematics is just post-modern language game of logical if-then structures derived from arbitrary and abstract axiomatics.

And further, formalism goes de facto hand in hand with materialism and physicalism as the theory of mathematics implied by contemporary mathematical physics.

Intuitionism: The ontology of mathematics is intuitive and as such, the idealist ontology cannot be exhausted by construction of any mathematical language.

Further, my own up to date approach to intuitionis-idealist philosophy of mathematics is much more process philosophical than that of Brouwer or other classical intuitionists. A marriage of classical intuitionism, Whitehead's point-free process philosophy and development of computation theory with major temporal implications of undecidability of Halting problem with Curry-Howard correspondence etc.

No, you are still failing to understand my point. It does not matter what approach to mathematics you take or whether you intuit the mathematical symbols or rationally deduce them or arrive at them by other means. The symbols by themselves are not the equivalent of the idea-beings who produce them through their living activity, any more than a poem about Love is Love. Furthermore, we were never talking about intuiting, deriving, etc. any ontology - we were talking about your take on Cleric's assertion that "no perspective within MAL decides to fragment". I was critiquing your response, "yes, there is such a perspective, it's called math". It is so radically simple of a critique that you cannot comprehend it, because you are always seeking the most convoluted approach to obfuscate your actual claims and then pretend as if everything you are writing is self-evident. There is a reason why no one here resonates with your "up to date approach" or can even understand what it is... because it is meaningless abstraction pretending to be meaningful.

NEXT STAGE:

No, thanks... I know when reasoned argument is falling on deaf ears and right now you doing a great impression of someone who is deaf, dumb, and blind to all Reason.

[SanteriSatama]

No, you are still failing to understand my point. It does not matter what approach to mathematics you take or whether you intuit the mathematical symbols or rationally deduce them or arrive at them by other means. The symbols by themselves are not the equivalent of the idea-beings who produce them through their living activity, any more than a poem about Love is Love. Furthermore, we were never talking about intuiting, deriving, etc. any ontology - we were talking about your take on Cleric's assertion that "no perspective within MAL decides to fragment". I was critiquing your response, "yes, there is such a perspective, it's called math". It is so radically simple of a critique that you cannot comprehend it, because you are always seeking the most convoluted approach to obfuscate your actual claims and then pretend as if everything you are writing is self-evident. There is a reason why no one here resonates with your "up to date approach" or can even understand what it is... because it is meaningless abstraction pretending to be meaningful.

On the contrary, if a poem about Love is not Love, it's a bad poem. A poem in a poetry book saying "I am a book" is not lying, it is conversing with the reader / holder of a book, instructing and informing the body holding and touching a book to let go of the anti-poetical reference theory... at least for the duration of reading-touching.

Your argument so far is nothing but classical reference theory of language as a should, as a tyranny of classical semantics. I adviced at least couple times not to read with lense of bivalent logic of reference theory, but to no avail. The mechanistic conditioning is to tight that you now identify reference theory with bivalent logic as capitalized Reason itself.

2.2.4 Dynamic semantics

In laying out the various versions of classical semantics, we said a lot about sentences. By comparison, we said hardly anything about conversations, or discourses. This is no accident; classical approaches to semantics typically think of properties of conversations or discourses as explicable in terms of explanatorily prior semantic properties of sentences (even if classical semanticists do often take the semantic contents of sentences to be sensitive to features of the discourse in which they occur).

Dynamic semantics is, to a first approximation, an approach to semantics which reverses these explanatory priorities. (The sorts of classical theories sketched above are, by contrast, called “static” semantic theories.) On a dynamic approach, a semantic theory does not aim primarily to deliver a pairing of sentences with propositions which then determine the sentence’s truth conditions. Rather, according to these dynamic approaches to semantics, the semantic values of sentences are rather “context change potentials”—roughly, instructions for updating the context, or discourse.

(...)

2.2.5 Expressivist semantics

A final alternative to classical semantics differs from those discussed in the preceding four subsections in two (related) respects.

The first is that, unlike the other non-classical approaches, expressivist semantics was originally not motivated by linguistic considerations. Rather, it was developed in response to specifically metaethical considerations. A number of philosophers held metaethical views which made it hard for them to see how a classical semantic treatment of sentences about ethics could be correct, and so developed expressivism as an alternative treatment of these parts of language.

(...)

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/meaning/#TheoRefe

It is relatively easy, especially in the quantum context, to prove that mathematical languages are not primarily referetial, they are primarily poetic. The measurement problem shows the deep and utter failure of reference theory in the quantum domain. A mathematical language of a measurement is the measurement, it does not refer to external objects, it poetically produces the observable phenomena in a measurement event-process within the dualism of potential-actual.

When the topic is as challenging for language and semantics as process and spirit, classical reference theory with bivalent logic ("Love-poem is not Love") taken as a tyranny and elevated into Reason is helpful only as showing how not to. Dynamic and Expressivist semantics, among others, are much more inherently True, as these modes at least try to do justice to the topic. As your example of Love poem shows, reference theory with bivalent logic leads to externalizing and excluding Love from language and discussion.

[AshvinP]

No, you are still failing to understand my point. It does not matter what approach to mathematics you take or whether you intuit the mathematical symbols or rationally deduce them or arrive at them by other means. The symbols by themselves are not the equivalent of the idea-beings who produce them through their living activity, any more than a poem about Love is Love. Furthermore, we were never talking about intuiting, deriving, etc. any ontology - we were talking about your take on Cleric's assertion that "no perspective within MAL decides to fragment". I was critiquing your response, "yes, there is such a perspective, it's called math". It is so radically simple of a critique that you cannot comprehend it, because you are always seeking the most convoluted approach to obfuscate your actual claims and then pretend as if everything you are writing is self-evident. There is a reason why no one here resonates with your "up to date approach" or can even understand what it is... because it is meaningless abstraction pretending to be meaningful.

On the contrary, if a poem about Love is not Love, it's a bad poem. A poem in a poetry book saying "I am a book" is not lying, it is conversing with the reader / holder of a book, instructing and informing the body holding and touching a book to let go of the anti-poetical reference theory... at least for the duration of reading-touching.

Your argument so far is nothing but classical reference theory of language as a should, as a tyranny of classical semantics. I adviced at least couple times not to read with lense of bivalent logic of reference theory, but to no avail. The mechanistic conditioning is to tight that you now identify reference theory with bivalent logic as capitalized Reason itself.

2.2.4 Dynamic semantics

In laying out the various versions of classical semantics, we said a lot about sentences. By comparison, we said hardly anything about conversations, or discourses. This is no accident; classical approaches to semantics typically think of properties of conversations or discourses as explicable in terms of explanatorily prior semantic properties of sentences (even if classical semanticists do often take the semantic contents of sentences to be sensitive to features of the discourse in which they occur).

Dynamic semantics is, to a first approximation, an approach to semantics which reverses these explanatory priorities. (The sorts of classical theories sketched above are, by contrast, called “static” semantic theories.) On a dynamic approach, a semantic theory does not aim primarily to deliver a pairing of sentences with propositions which then determine the sentence’s truth conditions. Rather, according to these dynamic approaches to semantics, the semantic values of sentences are rather “context change potentials”—roughly, instructions for updating the context, or discourse.

(...)

2.2.5 Expressivist semantics

A final alternative to classical semantics differs from those discussed in the preceding four subsections in two (related) respects.

The first is that, unlike the other non-classical approaches, expressivist semantics was originally not motivated by linguistic considerations. Rather, it was developed in response to specifically metaethical considerations. A number of philosophers held metaethical views which made it hard for them to see how a classical semantic treatment of sentences about ethics could be correct, and so developed expressivism as an alternative treatment of these parts of language.

(...)

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/meaning/#TheoRefe

It is relatively easy, especially in the quantum context, to prove that mathematical languages are not primarily referetial, they are primarily poetic. The measurement problem shows the deep and utter failure of reference theory in the quantum domain. A mathematical language of a measurement is the measurement, it does not refer to external objects, it poetically produces the observable phenomena in a measurement event-process within the dualism of potential-actual.

When the topic is as challenging for language and semantics as process and spirit, classical reference theory with bivalent logic ("Love-poem is not Love") taken as a tyranny and elevated into Reason is helpful only as showing how not to. Dynamic and Expressivist semantics, among others, are much more inherently True, as these modes at least try to do justice to the topic. As your example of Love poem shows, reference theory with bivalent logic leads to externalizing and excluding Love from language and discussion.

I will make one last comment on my position here:

Things like 'God became bored and split into parts' are simply false. As a matter of fact there's no such perspective of MAL which decides to 'split into parts'.
...
One of the hinderances is our rigid conception of Time. It seems like there's concrete moment in time when MAL decides to split and then concrete moment when it integrates. When we grasp Time in this manner we do something similar to the flat Earth fallacy - we extrapolate the metamorphosis of our state of being into imagined far past and far future. This results in the ideas like the Big Bang and Heat Death. Even though in certain sense it is justified to speak of these poles, neither of them is something that happened/will happen in a physical Cosmos, in linear time. The more we move towards these poles, the more time breaks down and in fact the poles are one thing - the eternal potential. Time is simply spread out, differentiated ideas, experienced relative to each other in gradual integration.

You respond, "yes there is such a perspective, and it's called math". Now I step in to "defend" Cleric's position (which was probably my first mistake in this entire drama), because what he is speaking of in terms of "integration" is not a trivial matter in Western idealist philosophy or spirituality, as I am sure you are well aware. In fact, that metamorphic process is essential for us to grasp (not only with intellect but entire Being). Your criticism is, "no guys, you are failing to see what math tells us of Reality - spiritual beings can integrate, fragment, move up, down, left, right, around in circles, all with equal probability and in equal measure". What is your argument for this conclusion?

There is no argument - when you said, "it's called math", that was the beginning and end of your argument. The rest of what you write is telling me I cannot possibly grasp what you are saying until I let go of any sort of reasoning through these things. You attach various labels to that reasoning like "bivalent logic" and "reference theory" so as to make your avoidance of my arguments seem more valid. You sidestep any actual points made by Cleric in his posts or me in mine. You deny that mathematical systems and poetry are symbols for deeper underlying Reality, against all logic and reason.

You tell me you have no idea what I mean by "metamorphic progression" and, moreover, you will not read anything I have written detailing exactly what I mean. Yet you expect me to continue trying to comprehend your clearly incomprehensible rants which have almost nothing to do with the original comments anymore. You say that you are not "criticizing" anyone's claims, when you clearly are and have been called out as doing so, because you know that none of your 'post-structural' philosophy is capable of criticizing those claims. In fact, post-structural philosophy is only possible because what Cleric says about "integration" is actually true.

So that's a summary of position on this topic and I will leave it there.

[SanteriSatama]

I will make one last comment on my position here:

Things like 'God became bored and split into parts' are simply false. As a matter of fact there's no such perspective of MAL which decides to 'split into parts'.
...
One of the hinderances is our rigid conception of Time. It seems like there's concrete moment in time when MAL decides to split and then concrete moment when it integrates. When we grasp Time in this manner we do something similar to the flat Earth fallacy - we extrapolate the metamorphosis of our state of being into imagined far past and far future. This results in the ideas like the Big Bang and Heat Death. Even though in certain sense it is justified to speak of these poles, neither of them is something that happened/will happen in a physical Cosmos, in linear time. The more we move towards these poles, the more time breaks down and in fact the poles are one thing - the eternal potential. Time is simply spread out, differentiated ideas, experienced relative to each other in gradual integration.

You chose the most valid quotes. My comment was in between those, in the tension between.

You respond, "yes there is such a perspective, and it's called math". Now I step in to "defend" Cleric's position (which was probably my first mistake in this entire drama), because what he is speaking of in terms of "integration" is not a trivial matter in Western idealist philosophy or spirituality, as I am sure you are well aware. In fact, that metamorphic process is essential for us to grasp (not only with intellect but entire Being). Your criticism is, "no guys, you are failing to see what math tells us of Reality - spiritual beings can integrate, fragment, move up, down, left, right, around in circles, all with equal probability and in equal measure". What is your argument for this conclusion?

I'm not saying that mathematics is the singular agentive force you imagine in your argument, on the contrary. Hence my criticism of idea-expression "One" and the "soap opera" metaphor. Equal propability and equal measure are your words, and seems like somehow originating from the ghost of the "Law of Identity". From my perspective "equality" is very context dependent phenomenon. In my linear time-line I intuited the more coherent linguistic definition 'neither more nor less' of equivalence relations before I found out that Donald Knuth's presentation of Surreal Number had also dug out and revealed that simple implicate order, so far hidden in the blind spot under the nose. It is nice to intuit first something "new", and then find out you're not alone. That gives empirical evidence and some feel of intuitionst and idealist and spiritual ontology of mathematics. Which is a Greek word in plural, with root meaning 'learnings'. The ancient proverb 'mathemata pathemata', "learnings are passionate processes", is phenomenally very true both in the relation of Spirit and incarnated mathematical subject, as well as in the more linguistic p2p relations of social sphere.

There's no equality between measure theories of various metrics, ie. contexts in which equivalence relations can make sense. Even most familiar metrics of natural numbers and integers have very significant qualitative differences.

Decisions vs. undecidability is a very nuanced and difficult issue in foundational mathematics. There is already a strong consensus that certain kinds of questions in certain kinds of contexts leads to undecidability, which as such breaks the universalism of bivalent logic which demand 'yes' or 'no' answer to every question.

There is much to explore in foundationally mereological approach of inquiry-creation of part-whole relations. Better language for that is only in the first initial steps of making-becoming. Also Cleric comments on this difficult challenge. One of the implications are "actual" time travelling machines made of pure math. Which in non-linear time would both exist and need to be invented. This would give "metaphoric progression" the very concrete etymological meaning of 'metaphor'. The math entity Metatron seems also all about time - memory, time jumps, sacred geometry and such.

But as by 'splitting to parts' something more dissassociated than mereology was implied, the perspective in question is the metaphor of One/All/Absolute as the Origin of p-adic numbers. That which splits into rather dissassociated prime numbers in the standard theory of p-adic numbers, which still builds it's formalism from the additive perspective, instead of constructing better integrated and self-conscious language directly from the perspective of division/partition. What gradually became the current p-adic theory and presentation has been the dominant mathematical archetype in mathematical cognition, and as archetype, of course mostly as subconscious force beyond and behind phenomenal mathematical languages, more consciously surfacing only in master grade mathematicians such as Weyl etc. But as that archetype has been gradually been surfacing more consciously, it has become more possible to (semi)consciously also challenge that archetype for it's failings and try to rethink and feel Something Else, something better, not least from the perspective of pragmatic truth theory as well as truth theory of coherence.

Trying to speak and find language for such Something Else, a birth of a qualitatively "new" Archetype and mathematical cognition also in non-linear realm, is of course a major challenge. The language of myth seems the best option in some contexts of discussion and inquiry. What comes to mind now as analogue of the "old" and less and less actual "One", is the myth of Chronos devouring his children, that old story of "integration" and phenomenal philosophy and form-giving of time. The Oedipal myth is a a closely related reverse myth of the Chronos myth. Is not more kind and more loving philosophy-phenomenology-math-spirituality etc. of and in time also in the focus of your investigation of metaphoric progress???

When I say such perspective exists, I mean it existed in "past". Past is of course present in the now, not external but in a sense also actual, but on archetypal-spiritual level we have moved on to different formation and context of perspectives, which allows us to speak in that sense also "outside" of the earlier/more limiting stage of mathematical evolution. Yes, we have shifted to new qualitatively different time, on spiritual and archetypal level, though we still have still very under-developed linguistic means for discussing and sense making in the social drama of inter-personal level. But in our linear time experience, intuitive comprehension keeps on expanding and deepening.

The rest of what you write is telling me I cannot possibly grasp what you are saying until I let go of any sort of reasoning through these things.

I'm just saying that the axioms of bivalent logic and reference theory of meaning form a way too narrow frame for reasoning and sense making of our major math-archetypal shift from "old" more limiting paradigm of scarcity of time to "new" and emerging abundance of time.

I'm not saying you are unable to grasp what I'm speaking from, otherwise there would be no meaning to having a discussion. We've been just going through the traditional motions of the "Art of appearing right", which is fine old book by dear old Schopenhauer, dear Ashvin-the-Argumentative, the traditional rite with ad hominems and all, and I agreed to play the same game out of respect and sympathy. From my part I apologize for feelings hurt, and forgive feelings hurt. And trust that despite and because of the dear old game, some genuine learning also takes place.

[AshvinP]

Trying to speak and find language for such Something Else, a birth of a qualitatively "new" Archetype and mathematical cognition also in non-linear realm, is of course a major challenge. The language of myth seems the best option in some contexts of discussion and inquiry. What comes to mind now as analogue of the "old" and less and less actual "One", is the myth of Chronos devouring his children, that old story of "integration" and phenomenal philosophy and form-giving of time. The Oedipal myth is a a closely related reverse myth of the Chronos myth. Is not more kind and more loving philosophy-phenomenology-math-spirituality etc. of and in time also in the focus of your investigation of metaphoric progress???

When I say such perspective exists, I mean it existed in "past". Past is of course present in the now, not external but in a sense also actual, but on archetypal-spiritual level we have moved on to different formation and context of perspectives, which allows us to speak in that sense also "outside" of the earlier/more limiting stage of mathematical evolution. Yes, we have shifted to new qualitatively different time, on spiritual and archetypal level, though we still have still very under-developed linguistic means for discussing and sense making in the social drama of inter-personal level. But in our linear time experience, intuitive comprehension keeps on expanding and deepening.

So what is the practical implication for what you write above? How does it bring forth more "loving" philosophy-phenomenology-math-spirituality in our lives than the "old story of integration"?

I'm not saying you are unable to grasp what I'm speaking from, otherwise there would be no meaning to having a discussion. We've been just going through the traditional motions of the "Art of appearing right", which is fine old book by dear old Schopenhauer, dear Ashvin-the-Argumentative, the traditional rite with ad hominems and all, and I agreed to play the same game out of respect and sympathy. From my part I apologize for feelings hurt, and forgive feelings hurt. And trust that despite and because of the dear old game, some genuine learning also takes place.

I don't take it personally and I hope you don't either. Whenever I write something rather "harsh" it should be taken as being harsh against your arguments on this forum and not you personally, and I take it that way from you as well. I am never judging a person's soul qualities on this forum because I am in no position to intuit such things and, even if I was, I would not be expressing it publicly in that manner.

[SanteriSatama]

So what is the practical implication for what you write above? How does it bring forth more "loving" philosophy-phenomenology-math-spirituality in our lives than the "old story of integration"?

The or a practical implication (oh the constant tension between a and the, which this language forces on speech!) comes from the original motivation of a very worried father.

As the Soul impels the individual into the future, the Spirit gathers all thoughts within Memory of the past. The Soul belongs to Love and the Spirit belongs to Memory. It is through Love and Memory that our past and our future converge into the present, and this convergence occurs every single moment. Now let us remember Heraclitus' saying quoted at the beginning and hear it again, but this time by way of the Spirit's illumination: “Living and dead are the same and so are waking and sleeping, youth and age. For the one in changing becomes the other, and the other, changing, again becomes the one.”

The practical implication, perhaps, is from this perspective first steps towards constracting a language of mathematics that practically allowes and enables a future self to return to this time and crisis from time where we Flourish, instead of perishing in this or that dystopian vision which we are constantly being fed by the political and materialistic discourses.

[AshvinP]

So what is the practical implication for what you write above? How does it bring forth more "loving" philosophy-phenomenology-math-spirituality in our lives than the "old story of integration"?

The or a practical implication (oh the constant tension between a and the, which this language forces on speech!) comes from the original motivation of a very worried father.

As the Soul impels the individual into the future, the Spirit gathers all thoughts within Memory of the past. The Soul belongs to Love and the Spirit belongs to Memory. It is through Love and Memory that our past and our future converge into the present, and this convergence occurs every single moment. Now let us remember Heraclitus' saying quoted at the beginning and hear it again, but this time by way of the Spirit's illumination: “Living and dead are the same and so are waking and sleeping, youth and age. For the one in changing becomes the other, and the other, changing, again becomes the one.”

The practical implication, perhaps, is from this perspective first steps towards constracting a language of mathematics that practically allowes and enables a future self to return to this time and crisis from time where we Flourish, instead of perishing in this or that dystopian vision which we are constantly being fed by the political and materialistic discourses.

I see what you are saying, but for me that "language" already exists. When we see "time machines" in movies, or other ways of exploring past-present-future intermingling through artistic expression, I believe what is being expressed is the actual nature of Reality as we experience it every moment; every moment we are sleeping, dreaming, or awake. Of course, we have forgotten this Reality most starkly in the modern era. We have idolized concepts of space and time in the most unhealthy way. So, put another way, we only need a shift in perspective to remember how our future-Self is always attracting and being-attracted by our present-Self. All else, including language of mathematics, are tools to help us remember. And re-membering is, in its essence, the integration we have been discussing.

[DandelionSoul]

I am new here and, being new, unfamiliar with the apparently longstanding conflict being recapitulated in the past few pages, and I don't really feel qualified to comment on the contents of those posts. But if it's okay, I would like to suggest to the OP that Watts was being deliberately loose with his language: he was more concerned about creating a viscerally intuitive image to express a nondual metaphysics than outlining a rigorous account of it. I suspect that the mountain-or-forest aphorism at the beginning is in a similar position: there's only so much (and perhaps nothing) we can say about God or the Mystery (or whatever name we like) without stumbling headlong into dualistic language and spacetime-bound concepts and anthropomorphic analogies and other technically inaccurate ways of speaking. Watts knows that as well as anyone, and goes forward with a wink to let the audience know not to take him too seriously.

With that said, I think you're pointing to a real problem here -- we have a tendency to reify metaphorical or poetic language and miss the truth it's trying to express, missing the moon for the finger pointing at it and all that.

[SanteriSatama]

I see what you are saying, but for me that "language" already exists. When we see "time machines" in movies, or other ways of exploring past-present-future intermingling through artistic expression, I believe what is being expressed is the actual nature of Reality as we experience it every moment; every moment we are sleeping, dreaming, or awake. Of course, we have forgotten this Reality most starkly in the modern era. We have idolized concepts of space and time in the most unhealthy way. So, put another way, we only need a shift in perspective to remember how our future-Self is always attracting and being-attracted by our present-Self. All else, including language of mathematics, are tools to help us remember. And re-membering is, in its essence, the integration we have been discussing.

With that said, I think you're pointing to a real problem here -- we have a tendency to reify metaphorical or poetic language and miss the truth it's trying to express, missing the moon for the finger pointing at it and all that.

What I mean is concrete and reified formal language. Which is also "context-free" in the sense that it does not refer to expressions of natural language with alphabetic or other concrete signs. So yes, we can call building elements of a formal mathemetical language tools. An intuitionist language of mathematics is an "integration" of natural and formal language, but instead of term "integration", which in contemporary mathematical language is reserved for other purpose, better term in this context is coherence and coherence theory of truth.

From my empirical perspective, new and creative intuitions from the idealist ontology come mostly as vague and nebulous pre-linguistic "feels-ideas". There's long and hard process of nebulous intuitions solidiying into concrete written language, a relation of natural and formal language. I'm with Wittgenstein and don't consider the concept or practice of metalanguage helpful or valid, because that leads to abstract and incoherent and in case of metalanguage of axiomatic set theory, non-computational and non-demonstrable formalism, but make-believe of Empreror's new clothes.

Concrete formal computational languages, such that are running under the hood or our written natural language, are very concrete in the sense that they can compute and do things which become sentient interactions, like this discussion here.

For formalism, there's nothing outside an abstract and arbitrary language game. And as said, for intuitionist philosophy, the idealist ontology cannot be exhausted by by any mathematical language. But empirically, there is a movement of nebulous ideas seeking concrete self-expressions. Biological DNA is such a concrete language. Certain bacterial DNA can do knot-theory better than any human mathematician, for whom they remain mathematical mystery.

In summary, for formalism, mathematical language is abstract. For intuitionism, a coherent formal mathematical language in the trinity of intuitive ontology, natural language and formal language needs to be concrete, constructible and sensually demonstrable, to be coherent and "integral" part of a process.