Quote:
|
This is quite a broad claim. I would not be able to say if I agree or do not agree to any kind of certainty since there are an extensive amount of meanings that are out there to be covered. However, so far in my own investigations evidence does tend to lean towards this principle. In the context I am working in, the principle being, no "meaning" that could be independently from any or all other meanings. I suppose to understand what all of our definitions of meaning is, would be a very important first step to making a constructive conversation on the subject.
|
Well, think of it this way; since you have a worldview (a map), you can recognize "things" from the sensory data. I.e. the "map" holds some definitions as to what sort of pattern constitutes an entity or an event "X".
That is, you place a specific meaning on a specific pattern. How would you explain that meaning to someone who does not share any concept of your worldview? Someone who does not even understand any definition of space and time.
Of course communication with someone like that would be impossible, unless you managed to first explain quite a few concepts and how you understand them from your personal worldview.
I think with this you can figure that there simply cannot exist any "meaning on any pattern of data" that could be independently understood. You could say that the meaning of a concept
is how it relates to other meanings/concepts in your worldview, and vice versa. The idea of "space" gets its meaning from the idea of how objects behave in it. The idea of "objects" gets its meaning from how they exist in space (it's actually a bit more complex than that but you get the idea). You can't really expect to find definitions (on the patterns) that are explicitly known and understood without any other definitions.
The situation is actually quite analogous to a dictionary, which explains each word with other words. There is no excplicitly understood fundamental words that explain the rest of the words. Instead the (meanings of the) words in the dictionary support each others in a circular and self-coherent fashion.
Quote:
|
I have not studied much into philosophy formally. This is the first time I have encountered the Map-Territory concept.
|
I've never studied philosophy formally. I'm not sure what's the purpose of that, to understand the history of philosophy? I think that with some thought very many people are capable of ending up to similar conclusions as Korzybski. The point of philosophy is to think for yourself, me thinks
-Anssi
