Wholeness and the implicate order by David Bohm is worth a read for his
suggestion that our language is fragmenting our perceptions.
A switch to a verb based language would reinforce the importance of
recognising that all structures are transient and in a process of evolution.
Squonk. (the verb)!
In a message dated 1/7/02 7:56:16 AM GMT Standard Time,
andrea.sosio@italtel.it writes:
<< Subj: MD: Meaning as a never-ending process
Date: 1/7/02 7:56:16 AM GMT Standard Time
From: andrea.sosio@italtel.it (Andrea Sosio)
Sender: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
Reply-to: moq_discuss@moq.org
To: moq_discuss@moq.org
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?
>>
MOQ.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