Putting flesh (meaning) on the bones (facts)

[coberst]

Putting flesh (meaning) on the bones (facts)

Imagine that you lived long ago and that you were blessed with an inquiring mind (depending upon the culture, of course, because in many cultures an inquiring mind might subject you to hostile crowds, Socrates for example).

You are walking along the cliff edge high above the lake. You have in your hands both a small stone and a large stone. The smaller is about half the weight of the larger. You drop both stones at the same time into the water of the lake, and are astonished to see that both stones hit the water simultaneously. You are not only astonished but try the same thing many times before acknowledging as fact that the larger stone does not fall more quickly into the water than does the smaller stone.

“It is in the passage from the bare recognition of each item presented as being just what it is, to its treatment as being in some sense not what it is , but what it may become or be used as, that psychic meanings as such arise.” James Mark Baldwin

WAIT!! Do not give up and go on your way because I have quoted something that is not easily comprehended. Let us examine this very important statement and try to ascertain its “meaning”.

I would say that in our imagined experience we could label the two stones held over the lake far below as qualifying to be “the bare recognition of each item presented”.

What does Baldwin mean by the phrase “psychic meanings”?

Psychic meaning becomes more easily clarified when we are trying to create an experience that displays a hypothetical determination. The psychic value of these objects individually is one thing, which is then supplemented when the combination of objects and situation are conjoined.

We start with a simple combination of data from which we create a system that is available for the creation of something new and perhaps the repository of new meaning.

Imagine a bell curve with one end being fact and the other end being meaning. When we perceive an object that object, that fact, becomes a tiny bit more than fact because I have apprehended it. Because I apprehend one object out of a world of objects that object gains some tiny bit of meaning to me. That act of apprehension creates meaning in some tiny fashion.

One can imagine that particular fact becoming more meaningful to me for various reasons and the hypothetical experiment is a way of recognizing the process of a fact with a tiny bit of meaning becoming an object that is greatly meaningful to me and its factuality is barley significant.

One can thus “see” a progression from total fact to total meaning. One can see a movement from an object having meaning to an object as being meaning.

What is an instance of an object being total meaning?

I was raised as a Catholic and I learned that the mass is a ritual through which a piece of bread becomes the body of Christ. To me and to most of similarly trained youngsters the receiving of Communion is not a factual experience but it is totally a meaning experience. The bread has lost all of its factuality and has become pure meaning. I suspect everyone has experiences that are similar.

Can you think of a similar experience of a fact becoming total meaning in your life? I am speaking of an instance when a thing becomes what it SEEMS.

Quotation from “Thought and Things: A study in the development of meaning of thought” James Mark Baldwin

[Eclogite]

Could you indicate more clearly where your words end and the quotation from Baldwin begins. Thank you.

[coberst]

Originally Posted by Eclogite

Could you indicate more clearly where your words end and the quotation from Baldwin begins. Thank you.

Just follow the quotation marks.

[Donk]

I'm pretty bright, and highly skilled in English. I can usually figure out what people mean, even if they haven't said it properly. (Part of my work involves rewriting advertising copy to make it more punchy and readable.) But faced with a paragraph such as

Psychic meaning becomes more easily clarified when we are trying to create an experience that displays a hypothetical determination. The psychic value of these objects individually is one thing, which is then supplemented when the combination of objects and situation are conjoined.

I have to throw in the towel. I've reread your piece several times and I'm still none the wiser. Great philosophers don't just think great thoughts - they have the ability to communicate those thoughts to lesser thinkers. Any chance of a translation for us poor mortals?

[Thunderbird]

Originally Posted by Donk

I'm pretty bright, and highly skilled in English. I can usually figure out what people mean, even if they haven't said it properly. (Part of my work involves rewriting advertising copy to make it more punchy and readable.) But faced with a paragraph such as

I have to throw in the towel. I've reread your piece several times and I'm still none the wiser. Great philosophers don't just think great thoughts - they have the ability to communicate those thoughts to lesser thinkers. Any chance of a translation for us poor mortals?

IMO... What he is saying is...things have no meaning without a contex.
A thing is given its meaning within the context of other things. When is a stone just a stone ? Never.

A poet may refer to the stone to evoke something that is cold inanimate, immovable. “The Heart becomes as a heavy a stone .”

A geologist may see a stone as a bundle containing information about history. “The rock tells a tale of continental drift.”

A sculptor may refer to the stone as a source of inspiration. “The stone speaks , I am silent.”

I would think that someone who works in advertisement could get that. When is a beer just a beer?

Of coarse you’ve got a point Coberst tends to be a bit overly semantic when dealing with conceptualizing His thoughts. I do enjoy reading them however because they allow me time to think while I read. I would not attempt to read a book authored by him though.

[Donk]

Like you, I enjoy reading Coberst. I get the feeling, though, that he's trying to stimulate debate. My point is that discussion simply isn't going to happen if the original post is dense to the point of opacity. I was offering advice, not criticism.

[Thunderbird]

Originally Posted by Donk

Like you, I enjoy reading Coberst. I get the feeling, though, that he's trying to stimulate debate. My point is that discussion simply isn't going to happen if the original post is dense to the point of opacity. I was offering advice, not criticism.

Yes I know, but
Really, He seem's to avoid debate, but more like he is thinking out loud to invite input which he does not get a lot of for the reason you point out. He seems to use the forum as a sounding bored.. eeerr, board.


Sorry for that one Coberst. You're threads are unlike any other's posting. They are well written thoughtful, intelligent I read all them, but a bit.... well, what's the word... Vulcanish.

[Gardamorg]

Originally Posted by coberst

Can you think of a similar experience of a fact becoming total meaning in your life?

The fact is that the longer a wrestling match lasts, and the longer you keep a good pace, the higher your percentage of winning becomes, because over time more variables and chances present themselves.

The meaning is that no matter how much better that kid is, I still have a percentage, a chance of winning, and if the variables go in my favor, I can beat ANYONE!!!

The variables can be increased with training, but nothing is a match for a bit of luck on your side.

[Gardamorg]

Originally Posted by Thunderbird

Yes I know, but
Really, He seem's to avoid debate, but more like he is thinking out loud to invite input which he does not get a lot of for the reason you point out. He seems to use the forum as a sounding bored.. eeerr, board.


Sorry for that one Coberst. You're threads are unlike any other's posting. They are well written thoughtful, intelligent I read all them, but a bit.... well, what's the word... Vulcanish.

The point of this topic was not to impress you.

He, I think, wanted to see if we got what he was talking about by answering his question.

It was a test.

I think.

[Thunderbird]

Originally Posted by Gardamorg

The point of this topic was not to impress you.

He, I think, wanted to see if we got what he was talking about by answering his question.

It was a test.

I think.

Good point. The question at hand

Originally Posted by coberst
Can you think of a similar experience of a fact becoming total meaning in your life?

I would say... I am what I think. I have found that we create our world firstly though how we see it, this is reflected in my predispositions from experiances in my memory that can be a limit to what is and can be, therefore I try to see it as potentials of what is creative and unbounded instead.