Hello Rick,
a few replies to your direct questions:
Valence wrote:
> 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.
With "experience" I meant past experience, while with emotion I was referring,
among other things, simply to the mood. Anyway, the right one was "everything
about us".
> 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.
Yes, there seems to be a fundamental common set of static latches. Actually, I'm
not sure what we can say about those common static latches. We understand the
"common" meaning of words empirically, of course, since we are children, based
on others' reactions to our words. But in the end we are only sure that we agree
on what "dog" means to the extent that language allows us to check it. So what
we really have in common as regards, for example, the word "dog", isn't that
obvious to me, in principle. Anyway, this path of thinking IMO doesn't lead to
much useful; so I would rather leave these sophisms aside.
As another kind of reply, note that I double-focused on "grow" as opposed to a
more neutral "change". Probably I would define "growth" as the change that is
consistent with prior static latches. That is, intuitively, meaning is not
replaced by something completely "else"; rather, it is
deepened/broadened/corrected... building on previous meanings as well as the
reactions we get from others (although this source of evolution works at
different levels than it does when we first "learn" the words as children). This
dynamic evolution of meanings, in this sense, goes *counter* the communication
barriers between people. If the meaning each one of us attaches to a referent is
limited due to the peculiar limits of the individual, the difference between
your personal limits and my personal limits *are* something that hinders
communication between us. As we both grow and become capable of seeing more
comprehensive meanings in referents, it becomes *easier* to communicate. Seeing
things in more than a single perspective. Becoming aware of other possible
points of view.
> 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?
I probably use "define" in an unusual way; I often have problems with that.
Plainly said, if you say that we are our meanings, you have an equation, and can
spell it out forwards or backwards depending on context or simply your taste.
> 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.
As above. I don't think of evolution of meanings as a random flux. While we
constantly change, our new selves are always built upon our previous selves.
Evolution is of course regulated by the extent to which we get consistent
reactions to the patterns we adopt. This goes for verbal communication (the
extent to which we get consistent replies from those we are communicating with)
as well as everything else.
Andrea
-- 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