The Riddle Of Everything Meaningful
It is neither objective nor subjective; neither internal nor external; neither material nor immaterial; neither physical nor non-physical. It does not have a spatiotemporal location. It causes and/or leads to actions. It evokes feelings, and affords memories. It facilitates language creation and it's subsequent use. It's the key of all successful communication. It's the aim of all translation. It emerges by virtue of drawing correlations between different things. It exists in it's entirety long before we've acquired the means to discover and/or take proper account of it.
What is it?
What is it?
Comments (113)
:mask: :smirk: :mask:
What are you hoping to discuss here?
My only quibble that I can see is that it emerges by virtue of drawing correlations, full stop.
Cool. I'm listening. Quibble away.
:wink:
Potentially more Lounge material but.. is it a tongue? lol. speech?
Edit: or words?
There is an aspect of existence, then, that exists not necessarily as a ‘thing’ regardless of correlation.
To say that meaning emerges by virtue of drawing correlations only ‘between different things’ rules out the possibility of meaning emerging from a correlation between a ‘thing’ and some undiscovered existence of meaning.
I hope this is clear enough.
I am inclined to wonder if you are speaking of the imaginary or imagination.
That's not a given. How can something exist before existing? Emergence is coming into existence.
Quoting Possibility
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Could you provide an example of some undiscovered existence of meaning?
Those are meaningful things.
Ok, clearly I’ve misunderstood you, then. My interpretation of ‘emerge’ was this, from Google Dictionary:
1. move out of or away from something and become visible.
Or perhaps this:
2. become apparent or prominent.
Either way, I misinterpreted your statement here:
Quoting creativesoul
as existing prior to emerging.
But will it be kept from us forever because the answer would ruin the point behind the question? Is this just a charade to generate conversation?
Once the donkey gets the carrot, the donkey stops.
I see. Understandable.
"Meaning exists in it's entirety long before we've acquired the means to discover and/or take proper account of it" was just making the point that (some)meaning exists in it's entirety prior to language.
In the above, we could exchange "exists" with "emerges" and lose nothing meaningful. Emergent meaning is newly formed. I would not agree that meaning exists prior to being formed, although I realize that several schools of thought believe otherwise.
A nice bit of rhetoric. Lacks quite a bit of meaning. Enough to sound profound to some, I'm sure. Not I.
It's also poisoning the well.
This deserves revisitation.
That's not what I said.
Purpose.
Quoting creativesoul
Aside from the bit above, I'd say that that's as close as any other besides...
Meaning. All purpose is full of meaning. Not all meaning is full of purpose.
Hey Praxis!
Hope this finds you well.
So you’re saying that meaning may exist prior to language, but we have no means to discover it as such. How would you know that it exists fully formed, then? And what form could this meaning have?
FWIW, I am of the school of thought in which meaning exists prior to being formed. Language enables a suggestion of possible forms, allowing a meaningful relation to emerge as potentially significant.
Quoting creativesoul
Ok, I think I’m with you now. So, would you agree that any possible relation is meaningful?
Meaning without purpose, aye? Can you explain, show or demonstrate that?
Quoting Possibility
I'm saying that meaning exists prior to language, and language [b]is[b] the means by which we can discover and take proper account of that.
Quoting Possibility
Well...
We can know that meaning exists in it's entirety prior to language use(naming and descriptive practices) by virtue of using language to acquire knowledge of how all meaningful language use works; how meaningful things become meaningful to us; how successful communication happens; how all successful translation happens; how all meaningful thought and belief that are formed via language use can be, and then discovering that there is a basic autonomous process underlying all this that makes it all possible, and that that process does not require naming and descriptive practices to be a part of it. Rather, we can know that language use becomes part of this already ongoing process, adding to it's complexity.
We can know that meaning exists in it's entirety prior to language use(naming and descriptive practices) by virtue of knowing that language-less creatures form, have, and/or hold thought and belief about what's happened, is happening, and/or is about to happen, in very much the same way we do(by virtue of the same basic process) and knowing that all thought and belief is meaningful to the creature forming, having, and/or holding it.
I wouldn't. I would completely agree that many relationships exist prior to any and all language use(causality, spatiotemporal, symbiotic, existential dependency, elemental constituency, significance, familial, biological, etc.); that some relations do not(they depend upon language use for language use is part of the relationship); that some language dependent meaningful relations exist prior to an individual language user's acquisition thereof; that some relationships exist prior to meaning; etc..
...but I would not agree that all relations(or any possible relation) are(is) meaningful.
Well, I'm not sure what would count as a successful demonstration to you, but I could try...
Touching fire causes pain. One can learn that touching fire causes pain by virtue of touching fire, feeling pain, and drawing a correlation between the touching and the resulting pain. The fire becomes meaningful to the creature by virtue of doing so. The creature has attributed/recognized causality, and has done so correctly in this case.
Where would purpose fit into this? The creature didn't aim to get burnt.
Okay, dead end.
How about relationships?
So you say that some relationships exist prior to meaning, but not all, and that some relations do not exist prior to language use. I have to ask: by exist, do you mean in relation to a self-conscious subject?
I do not just mean that things exist in relation to a self-conscious subject, but some meaningful relations certainly do, and cannot exist in absence thereof.
But can they possibly still exist simply as relations, regardless of meaning?
I should have further qualified... some things... are in relation to a self-conscious subject, and cannot exist in absence thereof.
Edited to add:
Oh, never-mind. I already had properly quantified that claim.
:smile:
Yes, I got that, but it doesn’t answer my question. If some relations can exist ‘prior to’ meaning, and some cannot exist as a meaningful relation in absence of a self-conscious subject, who’s to say it isn’t the same relation, which exists meaningfully only in the presence of a self-conscious subject, yet also exists in its absence, ‘prior to’ or regardless of meaning?
In other words, is ‘meaningful’ an inherent property of some relations, or a possible attribute of all relations?
I don't think you grasp what's being written. Some more connections need to be made.
Causality is an example of a relationship that exists in it's entirety prior to meaning. Spatiotemporal relationships are another. Shame is a relationship that cannot exist in the absence of a self-conscious subject.
Are you really asking me who's to say those aren't the same relation?
:brow:
Are those the only options?
:yikes:
Or perhaps I’m just approaching it from a perspective that you’re struggling to relate to - it certainly wouldn’t be the first time...
In my view, you’re referring to relationship structure. ‘Causality’ as signifying a meaningful relation ignores the limited understanding of relationship structure to which it refers, and claims to signify the whole relationship. The ‘relationship that exists in its entirety prior to meaning’ here refers to an ‘event horizon’ of sorts: awareness of a more complex qualitative structure that transcends the meaningful relation we define as ‘causality’. Same with ‘spatio-temporal relationships’.
‘Shame’, on the other hand, signifies a meaningful relation that recognises a limited understanding of the relationship structure - it’s subjectively determined. A more complex relationship structure exists prior to meaning, of which ‘shame’ describes our variable (affected), self-conscious perspective.
So, I’m not suggesting that ‘causality’ might be the same relation as ‘shame’. But if you’re after an example, then I might suggest that ‘causality’ and ‘will’ refer to the same relationship structure... but that may be another discussion entirely.
I thought you were asking about my position...
Quoting Possibility
That's one kind of relationship.
Quoting creativesoul
What does the term "it" pick out here to the exclusion of all else?
I'm not following. Are you referring to the word? Mentioning the word's earlier use? Are you talking about the word or are you using the word as a means for talking about the referent of the word(what the word picks out)?
It looks like there's been some substantial revisions and/or additions to the last few replies...
I've yet to have re-examined them. Need to prior to saying much more.
In this statement, ‘it’ refers to the word. It wasn’t very clear, though. I’m distinguishing between the meaningful relation (how the word is defined) and the relation that exists prior to meaning (what the word refers to).
Quoting creativesoul
I’m using the word as a means for talking about what the word refers to in relation to how the word is defined.
From Wikipedia: “Causality is influence by which one event, process, state or object (a cause) contributes to the production of another event, process, state or object (an effect).”
Here ‘causality’ is defined by a potential relation to spatio-temporal structures. This is the meaningful relation. What ‘causality’ refers to, though, extends beyond this particular potential we meaningfully relate to. So we’re aware (a priori) that the relation exists prior to (or beyond) this meaning, but we have insufficient information to structure that aspect of the relation within the concept. So we assume a uniformly infinite temporal extension to the relational structure based on the information we do have. And all subsequent debate regarding our understanding of causality as a relation has been trying to refine this assumption.
Quoting creativesoul
?? No revisions from me...
Must've been my skimming too quickly...
You began by asking and/or imploring - and rightly so - about my position on all meaning. Just a reminder that the OP is chock full of statements any and all of which are about what I've come to strongly believe about all things meaningful. You picked one of those statements out as something objectionable(a quibble). You've since failed to offer a valid objection to that statement. You realized this and admitted mistranslation. I've acknowledged that admission and found it quite understandable given the different acceptable senses of the term "emerge". No problem...
Now however, I've allowed you to ask the questions. They are supposed to be about my position, or at the very least, about my claims here. Unfortunately it seems we've arrived at a place far away from that. It seems clear to me that the very questions and claims we're considering at this point are so far removed from the OP that a 'reset button' is needed, if I may speak so loosely.
Either you've not understood the OP, or you had far more than a quibble. I suspect it's the latter.
To be clear on the revisitation...
I'm not "defining a meaningful relation with a word"(whatever that is supposed to mean). I am picking several kinds of meaningful relations out, to the exclusion of all the others. Sometimes I do this with a word(the name of a distinct kind of relationship) and sometimes I do so with a description thereof(to tease out the nuances between the kinds).
Some relationships exist in their entirety prior to any of them ever becoming meaningful to any individual creature. Again, some of these are spatiotemporal relationships, others are causal relationships(causality).
The key here - is of course - getting a good grip upon exactly what it takes for something to even be capable of existing in it's entirety prior to becoming meaningful; a need to establish a criterion setting out what it takes in order for something to exist in it's entirety prior to becoming meaningful to any individual creature capable of attributing and/or misattributing meaning.
One more thing...
Quoting Possibility
If something exists meaningfully only in the presence of a self-conscious subject, then it cannot be said to exist in the absence thereof(regardless of any further subsequent qualification). Those are mutually exclusive statements; one the negation of the other. A relationship cannot do both, exist meaningfully only in the presence of a self-conscious subject, and exist in it's entirety in the complete absence thereof. That's an incoherent and/or self-contradictory train of thought.
When we say that something "exists meaningfully", aren't we're talking about something that is meaningful to some creature or another? Some things exist in their entirety prior to even becoming and/or being meaningful to a creature. Some of those things are relationships. Some are not. None of things are meaningful prior to becoming so. All meaningful things become so solely by virtue of becoming and/or being part of a correlation drawn by a creature capable of doing so.
The aquarium existed in it's entirety prior to becoming meaningful to my cat. The aquarium was not meaningful to the cat until the cat drew correlations between the water in the aquarium and the satisfaction of her own thirst that drinking water can provide. Now, the cat goes to the aquarium whenever she wants a drink of water. The aquarium existed in it's entirety prior to becoming meaningful(significant) to her.
Causality existed in it's entirety prior to ever becoming meaningful to a creature capable of the attribution, misattribution, and/or recognition of causal relationships.
Do we at least agree on that?
The aquarium is meaningful to you as an aquarium, but is now meaningful to your cat NOT as an aquarium but as a water source. From your perspective, it’s both an aquarium (existing as such in its entirety prior to becoming meaningful to your cat) and a meaningful relation as a potential water source for your cat.
Quoting creativesoul
Beg to differ. It cannot be said to either exist or not exist in absence of a self-conscious subject. The key qualification in the statement is ‘meaningfully’.
I would agree. That's good improvement.
Quoting Possibility
Quoting creativesoul
Quoting Possibility
Ok, I think I get what you're saying!
You're drawing a distinction between something existing and that same something existing meaningfully. So, in the case of the aquarium, it existed in it's entirety prior to becoming meaningful to my cat. Only after it became significant and/or meaningful to her did it exist meaningfully to her.
I think we are close.
Some things exist in their entirety prior to becoming meaningful to a capable creature(setting aside what counts as that for the time being).
Quoting Possibility
Quoting Possibility
These two contradict one another otherwise, because you said what you claimed could not be...
Sorry - I was getting ahead of myself, and messed it up. :yikes: It can be said to exist - if something exists meaningfully only in the presence of a self-conscious subject, then it possibly exists in the absence thereof - and also possibly doesn’t exist. In other words, there is no way to prove it either way, because proof requires the presence of a self-conscious subject. So your claim that it cannot be said to exist in the absence of a self-conscious subject prompts the question: from what position is this claim being made (who’s to say), if it cannot be made in relation to a self-conscious subject?
Nonsense.
When it is the case that something exists, it is not possible for that situation to be any other way. Things don't do both, exist and not exist simultaneously. The ONLY possible way to not exist is...
...not existing.
That's what it means to say those things. Saying otherwise ends in self-contradiction. Saying both that something exists, and that that same something possibly doesn't exist is self-contradictory.
What would it take for something to both exist and not exist simultaneously?
Nothing.
There is no possible way for that claim to be true.
Would you care to readdress the OP? It may read differently.
Sometimes some of those things are already meaningful(to others), because the aforementioned others have been drawing correlations including those things(between those things and others). That's how language acquisition works(when language use is a part of the correlation). One learns naming practices by virtue of drawing correlations between names and their referents(what they pick out of this world to the exclusion of all else). One learns how to use language as a means for getting what one wants by drawing correlations between language use and what happens afterwards. One learns how to talk about the world and oneself by virtue of language acquisition. One does not construct one's own native tongue. Rather, one learns it.
Some things exist in their entirety prior to an individual's awareness(language use, for example).
Other things exist in their entirety prior to becoming part of any meaningful correlation ever drawn by a human; prior to any and all human awareness of them. Causality, spatiotemporal relations, etc.
All marks become meaningful solely by virtue of becoming part of a correlation drawn between them and something else by a creature capable of doing so.
That's how all things meaningful become so, by virtue of becoming a part of a correlation.
Are you really saying that there's no way to prove that some things exist in their entirety prior to becoming meaningful to an individual creature capable of attributing meaning/significance to them?
Your 'argument' was that it could be said(we could say either).
You're right. We can say that something exists only under certain circumstances and yet can exist in other different circumstances. It renders the notion of only meaningless to do so. I mean, if that's what we're saying, then the term isn't adding anything at all to our understanding except unnecessary confusion.
"Only" means under some specific sets of stipulated circumstances and no other.
Short answer: no. I’m saying that there’s no way to prove that the meaning/significance attributed is or is not the entirety of its existence without attributing meaning/significance as a limitation. You can say that your cat’s water source is not the entirety of the aquarium’s existence, but in doing so you are attributing your own meaning/significance to the relation.
By the same token, I can be aware that causality as temporally defined is not the entirety of the relation’s existence, but I cannot prove that its entirety exists according to the meaning I then attribute to it as a self-conscious subject.
I will take a look at the many other posts you have added when I have more time.
Well, I'm not sure what all this has been about then, aside from you explaining to me the limitations of your own position on meaning.
I’m not arguing that a relation that exists meaningfully does not exist, only that the nature of its existence prior to a creature attributing meaning is indeterminate. I don’t think we can say anything about ‘relations that exist in their entirety prior to meaning’ within the bounds of logic.
But if we can say something that appears contradictory, then we can think about it, and it’s at least possible that we can relate to it prior to language use, beyond the necessity of significance or potential, perhaps even meaningfully - exploring possible distinctions and relational structures between significance and meaning.
Relating all this back to the OP...
Quoting creativesoul
And I now recognise that it’s not meaning, but thought that you’re referring to.
Thanks for your patience. I got there eventually :blush:
Existing and existing meaningfully...
Do you draw and maintain that distinction?
Yes - but in terms of relational possibility, not just logical possibility.
More self-contradiction.
Not in terms of what it takes in order for something to become meaningful(existing meaningfully)?
Wisdom.
Contradiction positions a relation outside the bounds of logic. It doesn’t eliminate the relational possibility.
Quoting Possibility
Some relations may never become meaningful for us, but it’s possible to relate to them nonetheless, outside the bounds of language. But to most we have attributed meaning (arbitrarily) for the purpose of re-constructing the relation as a concept, and talking about it within the bounds of language, reason, logic, etc. Even though we may be at least vaguely aware, if we’re honest and conscious of how others relate, that this relation at least possibly exists prior to (or beyond) its meaning so attributed. ‘Truth’ is an example of this, and so is ‘existence’. Both of these relations exist in their entirety prior to becoming meaningful, and the relations that we construct within the bounds of language are more accurately understood as an incomplete perspective (an approximation) of the possible relation in its entirety.
I disagree... completely.
It seems that perhaps your framework will not allow us to say something about that which exists in it's entirety prior to meaning, without ending in self-contradiction, but that inevitable result is - I strongly suspect - due to the inherent flaws within that framework.
Why the scare-quotes around the terms truth and existence? The words are part of a relation, so if that's what you're saying by calling them both relations, I would concur. However, as parts of language use, they are meaningful, so it doesn't make sense to say that both exist in their entirety prior to becoming meaningful.
I would also not call existence "a relation" or a relationship that exists in it's entirety prior to becoming meaningful.
Well, my framework is not a logical one, but a relational structure which is founded ultimately on a binary contradiction. I’m okay with that, because I can relate to it. Relation doesn’t fit within a logical framework, no matter how hard we try.
Quoting creativesoul
Okay, but let’s take a look at all of what I said:
Quoting Possibility
The relation is not meaningful in its entirety necessarily within language use, only as a partial render/construction of the entire relation. So, even as parts of language use, ‘truth’ can only grasp the meaningful aspects of a relation that possibly exists beyond our faculties of imagination, understanding and judgement. Sure, it doesn’t make sense as parts of language use, but it doesn’t really have to.
What would you call it then?
Existence is a relation to the possibility of non-existence. In its entirety, and prior to becoming meaningful, the possibility of existence is inseparable from its negation.
Interesting. It reminded me of para-consistent logic or rejecting bivalence or rejecting the LEM. Have you no issue with explosion? No use for truth?
This might be our main point of contention. It seems to fit fine to me, without ending in incoherency, equivocation, or self-contradiction.
Truth has use, of course - but I’m not talking about use, but about relation. Acknowledging that truth as we use it is an approximation guards against hubris, and encourages awareness, connection and collaboration with what we don’t yet understand.
Quoting creativesoul
We can make it fit, sure - by ignorance, isolation or exclusion of possibility, as impossible.
Having an effect/affect. A necessary precondition of becoming meaningful and/or becoming part of a causal and/or spatiotemporal relation.
That looks like an attempt at a logical rendering to me.
Here's my issue with it...
When something exists in it's entirety prior to language use, there is no possibility that it does not, and there is no negation.
Considering whether or not something or another exists; parsing existence in terms of the possibility of non-existence; claiming that existence is inseparable from it's negation presupposes that negation itself exists. Negation is entirely existentially dependent upon language use. Existence is not. Hence, as above, when something exists in it's entirety prior to language use, there is no possibility that it does not, and there is no such thing as negation.
I don't talk in terms of things being meaningful in their entirety. Existing is not equivalent to being meaningful.
I think I agree with the gist of what you're saying. Our knowledge of that which exists in it's entirety prior to becoming meaningful and/or prior to our becoming aware of it is certainly limited.
Ok. But do you agree that existence, as a necessary precondition of becoming meaningful, has at least the possibility of a relational effect/affect prior to its own meaning? That is, prior to any awareness of existence?
Quoting creativesoul
As a statement, this would be considered an attempt at logical rendering. As a thinking process prior to language use, prior to formulation into thought, existence is BOTH possible and impossible, and it is in our relation to this binary contradiction that renders existence NOT impossible for the purpose of our thinking about it. So any thought I have about existence excludes its possible negation in order to consolidate the thought in my mind for potential relations.
So, it’s difficult for me to express - using language - the possibility that something exists in its entirety prior to language use, without a logical rendering that approximates the expression, at best.
Existence is not a thinking process...
The question makes little to no sense on my view. Not all things that exist are meaningful. Some causal and spatiotemporal relationships exist in their entirety prior to ever becoming meaningful to any individual creature capable of attributing meaning.
The statement would be considered an attempt at logical rendering, as you pointed out. But we are capable of relation prior to language use, prior to any formulation into thought, even - and in this kind of relation, existence is BOTH possible and impossible. But that’s meaningless. Our potential relation renders existence NOT impossible for the purpose of our thinking about it, of structuring our perception of its potentiality in relation to our own. And in that rendering, our perspective of existence is already limited to what seems a ‘necessary’ possibility.
So any thought I might have about existence should exclude the possibility of its negation. But I am nevertheless capable of at least considering the possibility of non-existence. And that is not entirely meaningless.
Quoting creativesoul
Well, let’s start from a point of agreement:
Quoting creativesoul
I interpret your position - and I’m confident you’ll correct me if I’m mistaken - as saying that something is only meaningful when meaning is attributed by a creature capable of distinguishing between meaning and change, or between meaning and shape, for instance. So the fact that an amoeba alters direction until it is travelling along a chemical gradient (and I realise we may be going over very old ground here) does not render an amoeba ‘capable of attributing meaning’. Am I close, or way off?
...drawing correlations between that something(whatever it is) and something else; roughly always between different things. Sometimes, it could be between meaning and other things.
Quoting Possibility
I would concur that the fact that an omoeba alters direction until it is traveling along a chemical gradient does not render an omoeba capable of drawing correlations between different things, the chemical gradient being one of those things...
So...the chemical gradient is not meaningful to the amoeba? The amoeba is incapable of drawing a correlation between the shape of the chemical gradient and the direction of motion?
The chemical gradient is not meaningful to the amoeba. The amoeba is incapable of drawing correlations between different things.
So, meaning exists by virtue of a correlation between not just different things, but significant objects, as in the focus or goal of a thinking subject. The potential or capacity for thought, for you, is a precondition to the possibility of meaning, then - not the other way around.
I use "things" and not "objects" for good reason. I reject the subject/object dichotomy/framework as well as a few other inherently inadequate, but nonetheless commonly used ones.
As far as the last statement goes, I would tentatively agree, but it's quite a bit more nuanced than that, especially after language use has begun. Along the evolutionary timeline, there are situations where some prior meaning is a precondition for some potential thought. But, as a matter of initial emergence, meaning and thought are co-dependent upon one another.
Fair enough - I’ve no argument with you there. But it seems to me that you’re not referring simply to difference, but to significance. And that these ‘things’ are more specific than you’re implying with the term.
Quoting creativesoul
I can see how a ‘bottom-up’ emergence would appear logical from an evolutionary standpoint. But it just seems unnecessarily complicated, to me. A bit like a geocentric structure of the solar system.
There's a curious thing about both implication and entailment, but that's another topic in it's own right.
When we talk about particular circumstances involving particular individual creatures capable of attributing meaning by virtue of drawing correlations between different things, the things will be stipulated and/or more clearly identified. "Thing", however, I found fits best in a universally applicable description of that basic process(the attribution and/or misattribution of meaning). I used to use "objects of physiological sensory perception", but I become 'painfully' aware of the fact that not all meaningful things are such. In addition, I've a host of other reasons for rejecting object/subject talk. So, as any reasonable critical thinker ought do, I decided to no longer use that description as a result of finding it lacking and/or inadequate for taking proper account of all attribution and misattribution of meaning.
When I'm making the claim that all meaning is the result of drawing correlations between different things, I'm offering a basic outline which can be applied to any and all particular examples of meaning. There are no exceptions to the contrary.
So, with regard to the concern expressed in the quote at the top of this page...
When we begin talking about particular examples, as we did earlier with my cat, those "things" become less vague. It's not a flaw. It's a feature.
Hmm. That strikes me as rather odd. On the one hand, you point out that "things" are much more specific(and rightly so, by the way) than the term implies, but then on the other you claim that an evolutionarily amenable theory of meaning such as the one I've been advocating 'just seems too unnecessarily complicated', and further compare it to Ptolemy???
That sort of comparison - if warranted - ought at least be accompanied by some real life example that somehow shows a lack of explanatory power inherent to the position I'm advocating here. Ptolemy's position failed to be able to account for observation.
Aside from that false analogy and/or false equivalence, there's something else a bit curious about the charge of 'unnecessarily complicated' that becomes clear to one who chooses to compare our explanations here. I mean, to be clear, I would say much the same thing regarding the framework you've been employing - and have if memory serves me.
If you compare our respective positions, what are the benefits of the theory of meaning that you advocate that are found sorely lacking in mine?
My argument is not that you should be more specific, but that your theory is not as ‘universally applicable’ as you seem to imply by the terms ‘different’ and ‘things’. You’ve admitted as much here with regard to what is a ‘thing’: what you don’t wish to give a specific name to - a potential, if you will. However, you’re also not referring to what is merely ‘different’, but only what is significant.
So it seems to me a more accurate description of your theory to say that meaning exists by virtue of drawing correlations between significance.
Quoting creativesoul
Ptolemy’s was not the only geocentric model - it is the convoluted attempts made to account for observation within the assumptions of geocentrism that I was analogising, with regard to your theory being ‘more nuanced’, that ‘some prior meaning is a condition for some potential thought’, and that their initial emergence is essentially ‘co-dependent’. All of this suggests to me there is something limited in the perspective, leading to unpredictable variance in the structure. That’s all.
I’m certainly not assuming I have a better or more complete theory - I haven’t done anywhere near enough work to warrant such a claim, and couldn’t hope to match your grasp of the topic. I only wonder if you’ve considered a more inclusive understanding of meaning than you already propose - one that structures ALL possibility of meaning existentially prior to potential thought, regardless of consciousness. You seem resistant to the notion, which is understandable. I’m still trying to work through it myself.
Damn. It looks like we have a respectful conversation happening. I appreciate that more than these words can possibly convey(pun intended :wink:). Your latest response shows some promise for more detailed explanations than just "different things" to be worth getting into. I'll incorporate significance as well by making the distinctions between it and the attribution of meaning clear.
May be a while though...
Cheers!
I appreciate your saying that but I'm still stitching it all together, so to speak.
So,
Significance and meaning are distinct.
Quoting creativesoul
Yes - the detail I think we seem unable to agree on is whether meaning or significance is prior...
Quoting creativesoul
Not in the sense that meaning is distinct from significance, no. But only self-conscious creatures are even potentially aware of this distinction. I’m proposing that, for those creatures unable to distinguish between meaning and significance, meaning IS that significance.
The aquarium plays a life sustaining role in my cat's life. Since water is life sustaining and the aquarium provides water, the aquarium is a significant part of my cat's life. That is never considered by the cat. The aquarium's life sustaining role in my cat's life goes completely unnoticed by my cat.
So, meaning is not that significance.
The cat doesn’t need to distinguish purpose or meaning in order for her interactions to be purposeful or meaningful. The relation between the cat and the aquarium may not have a particular meaning for the cat - she recognises its significance, and manifests that significance through her actions. But the relation is NOT meaningless, regardless of what the cat does or doesn’t notice or consider.
Quoting creativesoul
I think perhaps I’m still interpreting ‘things’ differently to you. Do you consider relations to be things?
I concur.
The life sustaining role is not recognized by her for she does not have the language in order to be able to draw such complex correlations. The relation is meaningful to us, and significant to her by virtue of being life sustaining. She has no clue.
Not all things significant to her are also meaningful to her. Unless something becomes part of a correlation drawn by a candidate under consideration, it is not meaningful to them. That same something may be significant to her without her ever becoming aware of the significance that it has.
Significance is not equivalent to meaning.
Fair enough - not consciously recognised as significant, but nevertheless manifest in her attention and effort towards the aquarium. That’s how you recognise the significance of the relation - because her attention and effort (her integration and manifestation of significance) is not just meaningful but significant TO you. It is not, however significant TO me, although I recognise its potential significance, and that is meaningful to me.
But your cat has a clue - she has the vague awareness of a relation to the aquarium water source that varies in significance (attention and effort) according to the state she is in. When she’s thirsty, her limited capacity for thought gravitates towards this potentiality. If you empty the tank, she would still consider it, but it may eventually drop in this significance in favour of other water sources with more recently perceived potential to satisfy an allocation of attention and effort toward the relation.
Quoting creativesoul
I agree with most of this. Your last sentence I would say that it may be significant to her without her ever recognising the significance that it has. But I think a cat may be vaguely aware of significance in the same way we can be vaguely aware of relations existing prior to becoming meaningful to us.
There is a distinction between meaningful and meaningful TO someone. We draw this distinction through our awareness of what is meaningful to us, but NOT meaningful to another. But can you give an example of something that you would say IS meaningful TO your cat?
Quoting creativesoul
I concur. My point is that possible meaning is attributed where we recognise variable significance, and potential significance is attributed where we recognise variable attention and effort.
The cat is neither you nor I.
Agreed. You might have to spell out your point here...
'The' relation? As if we've only been discussing one. Clarity... please.
:brow:
There are a plethora of different relations between the aquarium and the cat. Some are meaningful to the cat. Some are not. Some are significant to her. Some are not. Some are both, significant and meaningful to her. Some are significant but not meaningful to her. All things meaningful to her become so by virtue of becoming a part of some correlation or other that she draws between different things. Some meaningful things exist in their entirety prior to ever becoming a part of a correlation she draws between them and other things(prior to ever becoming meaningful to her). Some do not.
WE recognize the life-sustaining relation between water and her(this harks back to the aforementioned "role" that the aquarium plays) as well as a place for her to get a drink. One of these two relations she is aware also of, but the other... not so much. The aquarium is meaningful to her as a place to get a drink. The aquarium is significant to her as a place to get a drink and as an elemental constituent in/of that process. She recognizes the aquarium as a place to get a drink, not as a life sustaining source of drinking water. Not all things that have a significant impact upon her life are meaningful to her as such.
The cat's aquarium is becoming more and more the perfect example for us to use.
This looks like of those times where the narrative gets meta and the authors lose sight of the ground.
The very notion of possible meaning is existentially dependent upon language use. Where there has never been language use, there could have never been anyone hedging their bets upon another's meaning. Possible meaning [u]is only attributed within a language game. Cookie does not play such games.
I do regularly encounter an assumption that I’ve lost sight of the ground when I start shifting rapidly between perspectives like this. I have an overall relational structure in mind that is six-dimensional, with possibility or meaning as six-dimensional structure, value, potential or significance as five-dimensional and physical interaction, events or life as four-dimensional structures of relation. Each dimensional level allows a corresponding level of integrated awareness. So it’s quite obvious to me that I can attribute the possibility of meaning to Cookie’s vague awareness of significance, but Cookie cannot. I forget that most people need to consolidate discussions at a particular level of awareness in order to keep track.
I’m not saying that Cookie attributes possible meaning, but that possible meaning is attributable (by us) to both variable structures of significance and variable structures or patterns of attention/effort. Such attribution requires that we recognise the variability in relation as a single entity.
When she's thirsty she goes to the place where she drinks. She knows how to get there. If she found it empty, she'd go elsewhere.
Quoting Possibility
I'm suddenly reminded of being charged with using an unnecessarily complicated framework.
I won’t deny that. You did, however, say this:
Quoting creativesoul
So I’m curious: would you say that the aquarium water source has variable significance to your cat (ie, she attributes attention and effort relative to her state of thirst and the comparative proximity/potentiality of ‘the place where she drinks’), but is meaningful to her only in relation to that significance?
Quoting creativesoul
Ha ha. I find it surprisingly simple to navigate, actually. It keeps me from ‘losing sight of the ground’. I can structure in my mind where a perspective might be in relation to you, Cookie or the aquarium, at various levels of awareness.
If we attribute possible meaning to my cat...
Can we be wrong? How could we possibly know that we are? What standard of comparison could we use as a means to know what sort of stuff is meaningful to her, could become meaningful to her, and what sort of stuff cannot possibly be, or cannot ever become meaningful to her?
I missed this. I completely disagree.
If we replace "someone" with "a creature capable of attributing meaning" there is no distinction between being meaningful and being meaningful to a creature capable of attributing meaning.
Your notion of significance blurs the distinction between causality and meaning. Causality is always significant, but not always meaningful. That's part of my rejection of significance being equated to meaning. They are not equivalent.
I’m not suggesting we attribute possible meaning to your cat. I’m saying that our awareness of the aquarium’s significance to your cat has meaning for us. With this information, we attribute possible meaning or purpose to the aquarium beyond its significance to us.
Quoting creativesoul
Okay, now I think we might be getting somewhere. You’re talking about meaningful as a way of being or becoming in relation to a creature. This seems to be a temporal relation for you, as if at some point the relation, once meaningful, can cease to be so. Would that be accurate?
Quoting creativesoul
Causality refers to a temporal relation, significance and meaning (in my view) do not. But I agree, they are NOT equivalent.
The way I see it, if WE recognise causality as always significant, then all causality is at least potentially meaningful to US. But your cat is unaware of causality as such, she is only aware of those aspects of causality that are potentially significant to her. When we recognise this significance, we might consider them meaningful to her, but really we’re just projecting our own awareness of possible meaningfulness (to us) onto the cat.
:brow:
That's exactly what we're doing when we're talking about what's meaningful to her.
Quoting Possibility
Our awareness has meaning... for us, nonetheless?
:yikes:
Weird way to talk, if you ask me.
How does our awareness become meaningful... for us?
Causality is not the sort of thing even capable of referring.
You're not getting it.
I'm talking about how all things become meaningful.
I know that this was years ago, but recent discussions on the forum have me revisiting this thread.
I must've been in too argumentative a mood or something else perhaps when first reading the above, because upon rereading it today, I found myself wondering why I had not concurred, hesitantly anyway, with the interpretation above.
Yes! Without doubt, meaningfulness has temporal duration/relation. Things that were once meaningful can cease to be so.
After rereading this thread, I want to once again commend you on continuing to maintain a respectful 'tone' despite what clearly looks to me - now at least - like my own unwarranted bristling/taking unwarranted offense at different times throughout.
Ha ha, evidence that meaning has a temporal duration. The thread has different meaning now than it did back then.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
:lol:
Very true. I have never realised something too 'elemental'. MU asks for evidence, but I guess this three-year-old thread speaks for itself. What I don't get regarding temporal duration, if it only applies to both increase and cease of meaningfulness.
I mean, either gains meaningfulness or loses it. (?)
Aren't there things with a constant meaningful duration?
I think I will think deeply about some examples of the above all morning...
That would be eternal truth, if there is such a thing. Some would attribute this to God, others to mathematics, and some perhaps to physics. It seems like people generally have a desire to assume some kind of eternal meaning, as a sort of principle of balance, because life, while it seems to strive in that direction, fails in its capacity to give us this.
Interesting.
'Eternal truth' sounds very good. I agree with the examples which some can be related to. I guess inside physics or mathematics, there are different grades of truth, yet all of them have to share a common core, that eternal truth we are talking about.
On the other hand, I want to try to find an eternal truth with the basic knowledge I have about philosophy. I think I have to discard God because I am not a believer. It is true that Christian ethics and existentialism have struck me, but I would look like a fool if I considered God as an eternal truth, honestly.
What if we could consider 'cogito ergo sum' as an eternal truth?
Alas, being aware that we exist or being aware of our consciousness could be an eternal truth.
I can't imagine a decrease in the level of meaningfulness in Cartesianism.
Wouldn't this mean that your existence is eternal?
And, is it 'my existence is eternal' an eternal truth or not?
Oh I see, "I exist now", is an eternal truth. So the "eternal truth" is a truth which obtains the highest degree of certainty. The other less certain truths are not eternal because we allow that they may fall out of the status of being true at some time, just like what happened to "Pluto is a planet". The truths with a really low level of certainty, which we employ commonly in our mundane thinking, like "it will not rain today", are only true for as long as they are useful.