Hello Andrea,
I like getting right to the point, so....
You wrote:
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.
rick: Agreed 100%...
Andrea:
The meaning we attach to whatever depends, in principle, on all our
experience and emotions and everything about us.
rick: I don't know why you chose to specifically identify the one factor of
'emotion' next to the broad catch-all's 'all our experience' and 'everything
about us'.... 'emotion' should clearly be covered by both the broader
terms... are you saying it's somehow more important than other factors
(genetics, upbringing, education, etc...).
Andrea:
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.
rick: Well.... It can't really be too dynamic or no communication between
people would be possible. Clearly, languages require a great deal of
static-latching respecting the meaning of the words that make up the
language... that's the reason for dictionaries and encyclopedias, too latch
the meanings of words and concepts.
Andrea:
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...
rick: But you just said that the meaning we attach depends on our
'experiences', 'emotions' and 'everything about us'... which suggests that
it is 'us' and 'our boundaries' which defines our meanings.... which way
would you like it??? Or is this just to apply Pirsig's thoughts on
'selective awareness' (ZMM p. 69) to concepts of meaning?
Andrea:
meaning is more than subjective...
rick: I think you'll find that all terms have both subjective and objective
aspects.... I say 'dog'. You immediately think of a 'Golden Retriever' and
I immediately think of a 'bulldog'... but we're both thinking canine, and we
both know what concept the referent is pointing at...
Andrea:
...it really defines the subject, like, "we are the meanings we
give".
rick: I thought we are what we eat.... or was it... We are what we
drive...? No wait... We are what we wear.... (I don't care for these broad
'we are....X' kind of statements. My view: We are a mesh of far too many
factors, patterns, elements and whatnot such that no single statement could
ever
effectively sum up what we are.)
Andrea:
And like, "our purpose in life is giving better and better meanings to
referents", which would be, become better and better versions of ourselves.
rick: But once again, if all the meanings of all our terms are constantly
evolving as you suggest above, than it would hardly be possible to give
better meanings to referents because the terms which you would need to
express those meanings would also be constantly in flux. More
realistically, I would suggest that the core meanings of most terms are far
more static than dynamic and change little over the course of time (of
course it depends on what sort of time spans you're looking at as well....).
This is a necessary precondition to communication. The fact that
communication is possible is the evidence for the fact that meanings must be
static to a significant extent.
Is that useful?
sincerely,
rick
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