Past, Present and Future - do they exist?

T*E C*T example is taken from a celebrated problem in pattern perception where * stands for a potentially ambiguous symbol between "A" and "H"
The point is that in dynamic context as opposed static mathematics there is NO ambiguity. The observer resolves set membership by reference to
the "word" level as opposed to the "letter" level. (Computer recognition devices find this difficult).

The implication is that static sets of properties which define "things" may be mathematical significant for binary logic, but in the real world of semantics binary logic may be a subsidiary process. Piaget pointed out that "logic" is a late development in the maturation process, hence the acquisition of meaning cannot point to logic or mathematical set theory as a necessary component.

I think meaning is prior to logic and language, which are an attempt to convey the transcendent nature of meaning.

Meaning is not inherent in things, thoughts, events, language or logic.

: if, for the moment, we assume logic and language as prior to all meaning, then what is to follow meaning in this progression?

Moreover, what is that which is contributed by logic and language?

How can language and logic be prior to meaning?

My position above starts with the proposition by Piaget and later Capra that "action" is prior to everything. (My other philosophical leaning is towards Wittgenstein "meaning is use".) Language is acquired as "a speech act" which co-ordinates other actions. Later language is internalised as a system for "thought acts". Piaget in fact has little to say about language per se, but Capra expands the views of Bateson et al who develop Piagets position towards the Santiago Theory of Cognition in which "cognition" is merely "another term for the general life process" . All then leans on a definition of "life" which is perhaps even further beyond the scope of this thread.

If, for the moment, we assume logic and language as prior to all meaning, then what is to follow meaning in this progression?

Moreover, what is that which is contributed by logic and language?

Understanding?

I don't think logic/language could develop or evolve without the rudimentary drive of desire and need as (or in form of) unarticulated meaning.

I don't know where or how to jump into this very interesting thread. Let me just suggest that the difference between words and deeds breaks down with the notion of speech ACTS (and thought acts for that matter). Language and Logic, on the other hand, are "systems" for the organization of meanings. If we take language to mean just collections of words, then language and meaning(s) are one. But if we look at the principles of logic and punctuations, we have a kind of meta-system of meanings, i.e., the "rules" which function as meaningful prescriptions and proscriptions for action.

Language and Logic, on the other hand, are "systems" for the organization of meanings.

If we take language to mean just collections of words, then language and meaning(s) are one. But if we look at the principles of logic and punctuations, we have a kind of meta-system of meanings, i.e., the "rules" which function as meaningful prescriptions and proscriptions for action.

Is logic/language a specific set of principles and rules or the understanding of those rules?

In my above phrase ("...if we look at the principles of logic and punctuations, we have a kind of meta-system of meanings, i.e., the "rules" which function as meaningful prescriptions and proscriptions for action."), I meant to say "principles of logic and GRAMMAR). Grammar is, for better or for worse, clearly a form of linguistic logic. The subject-object set is clearly one of our most lasting imperatives for thought (underlying Descartes' dualism of mind and other).

It WAS my intent, quex, but I'm glad you underscored it. We have a very deep-seated assumption that every deed requires a do-er, and this might even underlie our assumption that every event is an effect of a CAUSE (doer).

quex144 wrote:

Is logic/language a specific set of principles and rules or the understanding of those rules?

Quote:

The science of logic both derives its own principles and utilizes them to derive any thing of any sort. Its propagation is brought on by the utility of its own construction. To extract that which is important to the science, a certain understanding is called on, and so the principles (and meta-principles) of logic are utilized by the understanding to its own development, as well as to its own construction. A set of principles? Yes. Understanding? Yes.