Mathematics takes terms from ordinary language and romantic novels and inserts them as symbols in mathematical texts, where they gain new seductive and false explanatory powers. Take these examples:

“Convergance” amd “limit” are two mathematical jobs or pleasantries used in calculus. Mathematics invites us to imagine our way through to believing that these words mean more than just where the motorway is, or how much we have had to drink. Now they must operate as “explanations”, but mathematical “explanation” is never more than a woosy feeling.

“Infinity”, popular in romantic novels in exchanges between couples, gets mathematically souped up to the technical version, where it now helps us to imagine that result we’ve been trying to get at for so bloody long, in a nicely comforting, mysterious, number-thang way.

Be under no illusion. Mathematics is the whore-house, the fairground, the market-place of anything vacuous that takes our fancy. It missappropriates, miss-sells, fantasises, demands, all under the hegemony of the concretization of vacuous syntax. Mathematics, more than any subject on this earth, is replete with notions taken from human behaviour, religion, romance, and myth. It is philosophy’s business to destroy mathematics and return sense to the Common Man.

Mathematics is like arithmetic - syntax, only with added entertainment. It’s the entertainment we can get rid of because it entraps and stifles if we languish too long with it.

We can get rid of our hypnotization with the entertainment of mathematics by plainly pointing out that graphical and verbal expediants (convergance, limits, infinity, etc), are merely devices to help us remember or stimulate the style or presentation of vacuous syntax. It is vacuous syntax that we should aim for in mathematics, and not entertainment and fantasy. It is philosophy’s businesss to destroy what is currently taken for mathematics, and to return it to its syntactical, common sense, roots.

The philosopher can point out to the mathematician that graphical and verbal expediants (convergance, limits, infinity, etc), are non-mathematical devices used to help us remember a mathematical text.

Which philosopher, which mathmetician, which mathemnatical devices, which mathematical text? You need to use philosophy as a tool by painting a particular picture. Instead, you just pile new abstractions on top of the old ones.

It is almost as though you don’t really expect to be taken seriously. Are you just being ironic [clever] in exposing the intellectual aridity of philosophical/scientific/mathematical jargon?

The philosopher, any or all of them, can point out to the mathematicians, all of them, that graphical and verbal expediants (convergance, limits, infinity, etc), are non-mathematical devices used to help us remember a mathematical text, and have no technical, non-technical, or mathematically significant role, neither do they point to mathematical or other realities beyond those encountered through everyday speech.

But non-technical devices inhabit mathematical labyrinths equally as graphic as the least verbal philosophical connundrums. This is clearly on display when infinity reconfigures time into spacial expediants—but only up to the point where the event horizion converges with a singularity that limits all further exploration.

[i]But non-technical devices inhabit mathematical labyrinths equally as graphic as the least verbal philosophical connundrums. This is clearly on display when infinity reconfigures time into spacial expediants—but only up to the point where the event horizion converges with a singularity that limits all further exploration.

Do you agree?[/i]

Okay, how about this:

And non-technical devices inhabit mathematical labyrinths equally as graphic as the least verbal philosophical connundrums. This is clearly on display when infinity reconfigures time into spacial expediants—and only up to the point where the event horizion converges with a singularity that limits all further exploration.

The credit belongs to all those who agree to disagree about all of the things they no longer agree to disagree about. Starting of course with God agreeing with me that He does not exist.

None. But it shows that we enliven our world with myth and magic and that these, where they are not genuine, are often employed in the sciences.
Actually, change “none” to some".