DOES NOTHING EXIST???

@Chights47,

Actually, context is everything... If I said "sixteen" you would have little clue what I meant by it until I gave you a context.
If I said "turn", how can you know the meaning of that word if there is no context? Are you supposed to turn, or is it your turn? Just a few examples off the top of my head. Context, or relationship gives meaning. So I would say the opposite of you, that context has everything to do with meaning.

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Context actually isn't everything, it's just the attempt at providing representation for something unknown to anyone other than ourselves. By saying "sixteen" just in itself, I would be able to speculate at possible meanings but wouldn't have any remote idea. The more context you provide, the more of an understanding I would have about it, but would never really "grasp" it as you do. Context doesn't "give" meaning, it simply promotes understanding. Through this understanding, we find our own meaning, we don't understand your meaning what-so-ever. "Meaning" is something that can only exist inside each being individually and can never, in anyway, be given or taken.

1 Reply

@Chights47,

If that were so, all communication would be an exercise of futility.

If I said "sixteen" suddenly and out of the blue, you would have no means of knowing what the meaning was. You would know I said a number, but the meaning of it would be lost on you. You wouldn't even be able to say with certainty what is the previous number. I guess you would go for 15, but what if I was referring to musical notes. Then the previous number would be 8...

So, context gives meaning. If I say "car" you know I am talking about something with wheels. It could be a wide range of things. You know what the word means, but just that word out of the blue would hardly be meaningful. If I put one more word up.. "My car", then you would know more. It would be more meaningful, but still not very. What about my car? Language is made to communicate meaning, and if it doesn't.. well then language is meaningless.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

It seems as if you still don't understand the difference between "meaning" and "understanding". If your aim with communication is meaning, then it IS an exercise in futility. The goal is to aim for a greater level of understanding. No one will ever really know what you "mean" but many people will understand what you say and it will provide some level of new meaning for their own lives. Meaning is like a mixture of our person understanding (perceptions) and our feelings about them.

I'll use your own words this time as the example: http://able2know.org/topic/163374-10#post-4601379 The "interpretation" that you referred to is the "understanding". It's like the circular spiral of a spring and you're just looking strait down and seeing a circle. Context leads to understanding, which then leads to meaning...but not the original meaning, it's our meaning of the context which we received through our understanding. Now if we experience something first hand that simple just cuts out the context.

2 Replies

@Chights47,

Quote:

Meaning is like a mixture of our person understanding (perceptions) and our feelings about them.

I would use the word superposition instead of mixture.

0 Replies

@Chights47,

Quote:

Now if we experience something first hand that simple just cuts out the context

This leads me to suspect that we may not be using the word "context" in the same way. There is always a context.
If you experience something first hand there will at the very least be the relationshis "you as observer" and "what you observe". Within this relationship, or context, both meaning and understanding occur.

Quote:

No one will ever really know what you "mean" but many people will understand what you say and it will provide some level of new meaning for their own lives.

I recognize this from the consideration of the differences between wisdom and knowledge. Knowledge can be communicated, wisdom cannot. But both have elements of relationship and context.

The only times there is no relationship and no context is when, deep in meditation, you are able to experience oneness. But this experience is such that it cannot be talked about or thought about afterwards because there is no meaning and no understanding. Both of those require a conceptual framework, both for communicating and thinking (internal communication).

I think I do understand the difference between meaning and understanding. Meaning is a socially negotiated concept, and understanding is an individual's grasp of it. Things do not have meaning in themselves. Like I said, meaning happens in relationships. You-your thoughts, you-another person, objects relating to objects.

Quote:

Meaning is like a mixture of our person understanding (perceptions) and our feelings about them.

Even here there is a context in which there is a relationship between concept that give rise to meaning. Understanding can alter these relationships, thereby altering the overall meaning.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracus wrote:

If you experience something first hand there will at the very least be the relationships "you as observer" and "what you observe". Within this relationship, or context, both meaning and understanding occur.

I believe that the "relationships" that you are referring to would change from "context" to mere perception.

Cyracus wrote:

Meaning is a socially negotiated concept, and understanding is an individual's grasp of it.

The "meaning" that you're describing is actually "reality" and the "understanding" that you're describing is "meaning". Now "understanding" is simply the "bridge" between each of our "meanings"

1 Reply

@Chights47,

Are these your personal definitions of these words?
We know that human perception works by way of relationships. Lots of internal relationships that form the notion of self, and then lots of relationships between the perceived self and it's external world. "Meaning" is something agreed upon by all aspects of these relationships that has any bearing on what is true, and what is true is simply "what works".

You say "mere perception", but like I said, even perception is a matter of relationships, of context.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Context: Discourse that surrounds a language unit and helps to determine its interpretation.

Reality: That which exists objectively and in fact.

Understanding: The quality or condition of one who understands; comprehension.
~~~Understand: To perceive and comprehend the nature and significance of; grasp

Meaning: The reference of an expression.
~~~Expression: a manifestation of an emotion, feeling, etc., without words

I used a search engine (google) to look up the exact definitions and copy and pasted them. Context is in relation to words and statements, not actions and feelings which is what first-hand experiences are about. I can kind of see how meaning can be confused, but it's the 'reference' of an expression...not the expression itself (such as the feeling). The "feeling" is not transferred, it is simply referenced in order to achieve understanding and creates a different (although similar) "feeling" within the other person.

1 Reply

@Chights47,

I had never pegged you for a naive realist...

Like I said, "self" can be accounted for as "internal discourse". What are you arguing? That meaning is inherent to whatever subject it embodies?

Do you not know the controversy of the word "objective", with regards to the definition of "reality"? Look it up if you don't.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Well, the antonym of objective is subjective which means: taking place within the mind and modified by individual bias. So objective (based on that definition) would be: Taking place outside of the mind and modified by a majority bias...I'm pretty sure that is what "reality" is based on.

Do you believe that idea's, understandings, and meanings are simply a collection of words to create a cohesive whole?

What does this really mean:

Cyracuz wrote:

We know that human perception works by way of relationships. Lots of internal relationships that form the notion of self, and then lots of relationships between the perceived self and it's external world. "Meaning" is something agreed upon by all aspects of these relationships that has any bearing on what is true, and what is true is simply "what works".

Is this really all that meaning is? Even if I said that I completely agree with you would we really understand the same meaning behind this context of it, or does it just amount to that and that's it. this goes along one of the main questions of the philosophy of language: What does it mean to "mean" something?

1 Reply

@Chights47,

Perhaps we are trying to communicate the same thing. Perhaps my understanding of what some words mean isn't the same as your understanding of what the words mean. But if we were to talk about it and describe it in greater detail by creating contexts that eliminate misunderstandings we would eventually reach a mutual agreement about what these words mean.
It may sound plain stubborn, but from my perspective, meaning has to do with context.

I do not think "meaning" is something absolute and objective. I believe it is a product of mutual understanding. Perhaps we could say that understanding is something we reach for, but meaning is something we create...

Sorry for the late reply. I've been busy this week.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

It may sound plain stubborn, but from my perspective, meaning has to do with context.

This is where we differ, I believe context to be about understanding, and that meaning is about recognition through past experiences and perceptions, and emotions which are attached to those experiences and perceptions. As humans, I'm pretty sure that we're more than just plain context.

1 Reply

@Chights47,

I am trying to understand your distinction between "meaning" and "understanding", but it seems to me they are about as distinct as "water" and "wet"...

I think this is a matter of our core beliefs, since you say that "As humans, I'm pretty sure that we're more than just plain context"..

They way I see it, my "mind" is just the sum of the thoughts that are happening. There is no "agent doing the thinking" that is the mind that makes this happen. Perceptions make up our entire reality, and even physical matter is merely a perception. Physics is even beginning to support this ancient view. There is no "objective" since even the act of observation has an effect on what is observed. It is a relationship. All is relationship, and only within them can we find meaning, come to understand and learn our identities, but there is no fundamental reality underlying it all. It is illusion, and we are as much it's makers as it's victims...

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Whatever the context, the word "sixteen" will always mean the number 16 rather than, say, 15. Context will let us know if it refers to a score, a temperature, someone's name (it's possible), etc. Whatever the context is, it will enrich the meaning rather than replace it. So context could never be the source of meaning.

(Your misconception is like those of economists who believe value to be determined by supply and demand, which can only explain why value oscillates above and below a certain amount, rather than explaining that amount itself.)

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Think of it like the mixture of different chemicals. Lets say that I'm "salt" and you're "water". By our "mixing" idea's we form a "solution" of "salt water". Through that we can begin to understand each other, but not completely. You will never completely understand "salt" and I will never completely understand "water" it will always be the "solution" that we understand. You state that everything is about relationship. Well my definition of relationship, is the bond between 2 separate things.If I'm salt and you're water, then I can never understand water, just as you can never understand salt, the only thing that we will understand is the solution, the "mixture". In order to understand something completely, we would have to completely leave ourselves and become that thing, but we would never be able to take that understanding back with us because we would then interpret that event thus creating a new "solution".

It may not be a perfect analogy, but I've racked my brain on this and can't think of anything better in which I can convey in just text alone. If you need anything clarified or explained further in depth, just let me know.

2 Replies

@Chights47,

You seem to be completely ignoring perspective. How does salt differ from any other matter? How does it differ from sand, for instance? The answer to this lies in what these substances mean to us. It's about how we understand them, not about what they are in themselves.

For the rest, I think your analogies of water and salt are a bit too simplistic. This isn't about what we percieve, it's about how we percieve. The tradition of physics to simply ignore the conscious observer in order to get "objective truths" is ending with the realization that observation is intrinsic to the very existence of matter.

0 Replies

@Chights47,

Chights47 wrote:

Think of it like the mixture of different chemicals. Lets say that I'm "salt" and you're "water". By our "mixing" idea's we form a "solution" of "salt water". Through that we can begin to understand each other, but not completely. You will never completely understand "salt" and I will never completely understand "water" it will always be the "solution" that we understand. You state that everything is about relationship. Well my definition of relationship, is the bond between 2 separate things.If I'm salt and you're water, then I can never understand water, just as you can never understand salt, the only thing that we will understand is the solution, the "mixture". In order to understand something completely, we would have to completely leave ourselves and become that thing, but we would never be able to take that understanding back with us because we would then interpret that event thus creating a new "solution".

It may not be a perfect analogy, but I've racked my brain on this and can't think of anything better in which I can convey in just text alone. If you need anything clarified or explained further in depth, just let me know.

And if you need to know what the word "fifteen" means, please let me know.

1 Reply

@guigus,

Ok I'll bite, what does "fifteen" mean to you?

1 Reply

@Chights47,

Chights47 wrote:

Ok I'll bite, what does "fifteen" mean to you?

You tell me.

I'll give you a clue: fourteen plus one.

2 Replies

DOES NOTHING EXIST???

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know