Reply
Wed 21 Mar, 2007 02:02 pm
Let's talk about meaning
A few days ago I received a note from my grandson J. J said he had decided to join the Army Reserves. At that moment there developed a new connection between the Iraq war and me. At that moment the Iraq war became meaningful to me in a way far different from what it might have been before.
Meaning happens when there develops a confluence of emotion and knowledge such that a domain of knowledge becomes part of me. Meaning happens when a domain of knowledge becomes a vital part of me.
I witness on TV a mother crying because her son is missing; I immediately resonate with a feeling that is somewhat like that of the mother, I sympathize with that mother. I do not need to go to any effort to place myself into the shoes of that mother.
But suppose I see on TV a mother proudly embracing the death of her son, the suicide bomber. Empathy can happen when I try to create an analogy in my imagination that will allow me to understand what another person feels. To understand that mother I must make a significant effort to place myself into the shoes of that mother. If I am successful I can then say I understand that mother.
Understanding is the creation of meaning; it is a subjective happening when there develops a confluence of emotion and knowing that might be regarded as a tipping point. It happens in a moment and often only after a good bit of effort. We know many things but understand only a few.
Our schools and colleges teach us what to know but seldom have anything to say about understanding. In our world of production and consumption understanding is a luxury that we must work at to achieve.
Question for discussion
Do you experience things that I call understanding or do you think that understanding and meaning are something entirely different from what I have defined here?
I am trying to think in terms of what is meaningful. Seems to me that we cannot determine the meaning of something we do not have a measure of understanding of.
I don't know if I agree that understanding creates meaning. I definetly agree that meaning is something we assign individually. It is not 'out there' to be found. It arises within us because we seek it and then create it.
But this term, understanding...
It strikes me that understanding is a complex issue. Our understanding can sometimes make things seem meaningful. But then our understanding alters, and the meaningful things lose their sense and become meaningless.
So I'd say that understanding is the creation of meaning, but also the destruction of meaning. Ignorance can just as easily be the reason we determine something to be meaningful. I think you are right in that there is an emotional ingredient in this soup, but I am thinking that very often it may well be the only ingredient...
When I study someone like Becker I will have to work long and hard to ever understand what he is saying. I will, bit by bit, wake up some morning and find that I understand part of what he is saying. When this happens I think that I have completed a mental model of what the author is saying.
My mental model is my subjective model that may very well not agree with the model someone else uses to understand the author. I think that as I try to reach an understanding of a domain of knowledge I begin to build a mental papier mache form and at some point along the process my emotion joins my intellect to tell me that my model 'fills the bill'.
It is at this point that ecastasy happens. Water turns to ice and I will not remodel my understanding unless something important shakes my confidence in my model.
That reminds me of religious "method". Not to be rude, but you're basically saying that if it feels good then you take it for truth...
For my part I am constantly remodeling my understanding.
Cyracuz wrote:That reminds me of religious "method". Not to be rude, but you're basically saying that if it feels good then you take it for truth...
For my part I am constantly remodeling my understanding.
Different strokes for different folks.
If I never reached an understanding I would not have a firm foundation upon which to build. When I reach an understanding, which is rare, I go on to other things with a sense of security and accomplishment. I think of it like an artist who finishes a painting. I have created something that I decide is good.
I understand, coberst.
But doesn't that mean that your activites are more emotional and artistic that intellectual?
Of course, everyone who wants to create a coherent picture of a vast idea or set of ideas needs to stack concepts on top of one another. But what do you do if you find an impossible contradiction of concepts higher up in the "pyramid" of concepts? Do you strip it down and examine the firm foundations?
For my part, I think that coherency is dangerous. Every philosopher seeks to present his thoughts coherently, when the truth is that his thoughts came to him in chaos. The coherency is the lie told on demand from people who seek to understand and would have it neatly presented. But while facts may be objective, the context you put them in, the coherency, almost never is. That is why I am wary of it...
C
If I recall correctly you proudly proclaimed that you never listen to anyone. In which case You seldom learn anything.
Oh I listen. I just don't believe everything I hear. Or read.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace