[coberst]

In the Beginning Was the…Meaning?

The great truth of the nineteenth century was that produced by William Dilthey, which was what wo/man constantly strived for. ”It was “meaning” said Dilthey, meaning is the great truth about human nature. Everything that lives, lives by drawing together strands of experience as a basis for its action; to live is to act, to move forward into the world of experience…Meaning is the relationship between parts of experience.” Man does not do this drawing together on the basis of simple experience but on the basis of concepts. Man imposes symbolic categories of thought on raw experience. His conception of life determines the manner in which s/he values all of its parts.

Concludes Dilthey, meaning “is the comprehensive category through which life becomes comprehensible…Man is the meaning-creating animal.” Quote from “Beyond Alienation” Becker

Objectivists claim:

“Linguistic expressions and the concepts they express are symbolic structures, meaningless in themselves, that get their meaning via direct, unmediated correlation with things and categories in the actual world (or possible worlds).”

SGCS (Second Generation Cognitive Science) claim that the underlying error in this comprehension of meaning is that meaning depends in no way upon the nature of the thinking, communication, and experience of the human agent. SGCS takes this to be the central problem with the objectivist approach.

The SGCS approach is far different; it attempts “to characterize meaning in terms of the nature of the organisms doing the thinking.”

Experience is construed in a broad sense; it is construed as “the totality of human experience and everything that plays a role in it—the nature of our bodies, our genetically inherited capacities, our modes of physical functioning in the world, our social organization, etc. In short, it takes as essential much of what is seen as irrelevant in the objectivist account”

Experimentalism, i.e. SGCS, characterizes meaning in terms of embodiment. Conceptual structure exists in a preconception form that is hardwired, it is genetically formed. This structure is in the form of basic-level categories, which are defined by our gestalt perception, and kinesthetic image schematic structures, which are simple structures that enter into our everyday bodily experience.

These preconceptual structures are directly meaningful because they “are directly and repeatedly experienced because of the nature of the body and its mode of functioning in our environment.”

Abstract conceptual structures are indirectly meaningful because they are understood due to their “systematic relationship to directly meaningful structures”.

The word ‘meaning’ has at least two meanings. The meaning of something can be its definition as found in a dictionary; also the meaning of something can be what association it has with me. For example: the Iraq war had some meaning to me as an aware citizen of America but that same war has a great deal more meaning to me if my grandson joins the army and is sent to Iraq.

Is it possible for the word, i.e. language, to come before the meaning?

Quotes from “Women, fire, and Dangerous Things” by George Lakoff

[jedaisoul]

Originally Posted by coberst

Is it possible for the word, i.e. language, to come before the meaning?

It is true that there is no meaning in the natural world. It just is. Meaning is an abstraction, a conceptualisation, made by sentient beings. The question of whether language precedes meaning is difficult. Language is pointless without meaning, so therefore, presumably, one must have something meaningful to express to spur the original generation of a language in which to express it. E.g. "ug" may have meant "hello", "welcome", "nice to see you" (or whatever) and "ug ug ug" may have meant "danger" (or some such). The meaning was conveyed principally by the inflection of the voice, rather than the word used (which was just a grunt). Then gradually specific sounds became associated with specific meanings, and then those sounds became words which could be used together to convey more complex meanings.

But once a language exists, a new meaning may often be expressed in old words. Indeed that seems to be essential. Communication relies on a common understanding of the words. Therefore if new ideas could not be expressed in existing words, how would we communicate them?

I have had direct experience of this. I have formulated a new concept of space-time. When I try to express it very few, if any, people understand what I'm saying (as far as I can tell). I think that this is because they do not associate the words I use with the meanings I intend. But the meanings I intend cannot be conveyed using the meanings that they currently associate with the words. Therefore I'm reduced to using mataphor to hint at the meaning I intend. It does not work very well.

[coberst]

Jedaisoul

I think you are using the word "meaning" only as meaning a definition. I am really trying to concentrate on the meaning of the word "meaning" in another sense, i.e. as an association I make. Iraq is meaningful to me.

Time has an entirely different meaning to me if I am confined in a jail cell than if I am sailing on the lake.

If my daughter introduces me to her boy friend that guy has little meaning to me. When my daughter informs me that they are going to be married that man takes on a completely different meaning to me.

[jedaisoul]

Originally Posted by coberst

I think you are using the word "meaning" only as meaning a definition. I am really trying to concentrate on the meaning of the word "meaning" in another sense, i.e. as an association I make. Iraq is meaningful to me.

Time has an entirely different meaning to me if I am confined in a jail cell than if I am sailing on the lake.

If my daughter introduces me to her boy friend that guy has little meaning to me. When my daughter informs me that they are going to be married that man takes on a completely different meaning to me.

This is a common enough use of the word, but as far as I can see it adds nothing. Why not use the word "association", if that is what you mean?

[coberst]

Originally Posted by jedaisoul

This is a common enough use of the word, but as far as I can see it adds nothing. Why not use the word "association", if that is what you mean?

Concludes Dilthey, meaning “is the comprehensive category through which life becomes comprehensible…Man is the meaning-creating animal.” Quote from “Beyond Alienation” Becker

[jedaisoul]

Originally Posted by coberst

Concludes Dilthey, meaning “is the comprehensive category through which life becomes comprehensible…Man is the meaning-creating animal.” Quote from “Beyond Alienation” Becker

Yes, but in which sense of "meaning" was he using the word?

[LaurieAG]

Originally Posted by coberst

In the Beginning Was the…Meaning?

...

The word ‘meaning’ has at least two meanings. The meaning of something can be its definition as found in a dictionary; also the meaning of something can be what association it has with me. For example: the Iraq war had some meaning to me as an aware citizen of America but that same war has a great deal more meaning to me if my grandson joins the army and is sent to Iraq.

Is it possible for the word, i.e. language, to come before the meaning?

Hi Coberst,

This may be an example.

I applied some rough rules of soldier latin (i.e. not exact but good enough for someone using a lexicon) on the latin vulgate of John 1:1 as drawn in the Book of Kells and came up with an interesting 'meaning' that is probably as aplicable as any.

'During original worship poetry springs, twisting both sayings'

[coberst]

Originally Posted by jedaisoul

Yes, but in which sense of "meaning" was he using the word?

In the sense different from that used by objectivist philosophy. In the same sense as when I say "that Iraq is very meaningful to me".

[coberst]

Originally Posted by LaurieAG

Hi Coberst,

This may be an example.

I applied some rough rules of soldier latin (i.e. not exact but good enough for someone using a lexicon) on the latin vulgate of John 1:1 as drawn in the Book of Kells and came up with an interesting 'meaning' that is probably as aplicable as any.

'During original worship poetry springs, twisting both sayings'

I think that is a good example of "meaning" and also a good example of how "slippery" is this concept. If you have read Pirsig's "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" and/or "Lila" it is what Pirsig calls "quality", I think.