Mainly to those involved in the Quality and Information Theory thread (but for
all). Although, this is a quick detour; I'm not even sure where this fits in the
discussion, but I thought it could be useful.
About meaning.
Meaning, as opposed to information, requires both an object (to which meaning is
attached) and a subject (who "attaches" meaning to an object, e.g., to the
sequence of symbols "dog"). In the most obvious way, we attach meaning to symbols
(eg, words); but then, we also attach meaning to "things", "events", and all we
are confronted with in life. This is not unlike the basic attachment of meaning
to symbols, mutatis mutandis. Let's suppose I meet a friend and understand that
s/he is happy. To understand this, I have to interpret a collection of signals
and "symbols" (his expression, the things he says, his reactions to events,
etc.), none of which in itself equates "X is happy". The way the concept of
happiness appears in my head is not completely unlike the way the furry
four-legged pet appears in my head when I read the word "dog". In both cases, the
raw bricks of perception must be organized and "read" in a way that is
subjective, or more than subjective.
My point is in fact that "attaching" meaning to a referent of any kind (word,
object, event, ...) is really a never-ending process, in the sense that it is not
something we do, and then it's done once for all. The meaning we attach to
whatever depends, in principle, on all our experience and emotions and everything
about us. It is in constant evolution. The meaning I attach to something today is
not the same I would have attached yesterday or I will attach tomorrow. As we
"grow" (or just change), all our interpretative system changes with us. As we
grow, each referent acquires new and deeper meanings. Perhaps the englightened
sees the universe in a drop of water. (Perhaps this has to do with holons, etc,
too).
It seems to me, based on the above, that the way each one of us attaches meanings
to what we perceive defines us and our boundaries; meaning is more than
subjective, it really defines the subject, like, "we are the meanings we give".
And like, "our purpose in life is giving better and better meanings to
referents", which would be, become better and better versions of ourselves.
Is that any useful?
-- Andrea Sosio P&T-TPD-SP Tel. (8)9006 mailto: Andrea.Sosio@italtel.itMOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:45 BST