Hey Andrea:
I like this thread....
> >
> > 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:
> 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.
rick: Right, like I said, there are both subjective and objective aspects to
meaning.
Andrea:
Anyway, this path of thinking IMO doesn't lead to
> much useful; so I would rather leave these sophisms aside.
rick: I find it amusing that in a conversation about the meaning of words
and limits of language you would dismiss anything as 'sophism'. Especially
in a forum devoted to the work of a self-proclaimed Sophist....
Andrea:
> 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...
rick: YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! This is on the money. In fact, this is
basically what the 'Good is already noun' thread was discussing. I have put
forth the contention that Pirsig has changed/replaced the meaning of the
word 'good', rather than deepened/broadened it (I'm not really happy with
'corrected'... it seems to imply a right/wrong kind of thing that always
makes me uncomfortable... maybe 'improved' would have been a better choice).
I won't bother to restate my evidence argument to support that contention
here, if you're interested, just check the posts.
>
> > Andrea:
> As above. I don't think of evolution of meanings as a random flux...
> ...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.
rick:
Agreed.
Andrea: (I snipped this from the above)
While we constantly change, our new selves are always built upon our
previous selves.
rick: This is a poorly worded sentence. Of course, if WE are thing that is
changing, than OUR new selves will ALWAYS be built on OUR previous selves.
But this only occurs where a thing genuinely 'grows' and is not merely
'replaced' by some other thing. The really important question in each case
is whether the new thing attached to a certain referent is in fact 'built
upon' the previous thing attached to that referent, or whether it is
something different entirely; a mere homonym.
thanks for the fun word talk,
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