Where does meaning come from?

James

I am curious as to what you mean when you say:

How is it that one can discover the objective truth of what one is? I imagine this can only be done via reference . . .

Now if this can be done . . . how is it that the meaning of ones life would spring from the objective truth?

I am interested in an answer to this.

:-k

How does one discover objective truth about anything?

Try it and “discover the objective truth” about it. :sunglasses:

Hey encode,

Would I be laughed at or dismissed if I said meaning is in everything? That meaning is the foundation for things to exist?

My belief is that all reality is fundamentally information. In human terms, it is information expressed as matter. The question for me is: how to make meaning comprehensible? Many people look out at the universe and fail to find meaning–it all looks arbitrary and accidental, without purpose, without aim–and become nihilistic. But how would you distinguish true meaninglessness from incomprehensible meaning? They would look the same. Incomprehensible meaning is like hearing a foreign language: you know it means something but you can’t tell the difference between that and random meaningless babbling?

Yeah. :sunglasses:

Too late.

gib

► I am going to answer your post twice - this time around I will answer my favorite part . . . and . . .
► . . . next time around I will answer the bit relating to reality being information expressed as matter.
► I have devised an artificial method that derives meaning from analogy - more on that at a later date.

Never . . . not when it comes to meaning . . . maybe when it comes to being late for work . . .

Yeah . . . some people would laugh at you and others would dismiss you and there are those that would do both . . .
. . . I am not in any three of those categories however . . .

I actually really like your post.

This will require a little more mental effort on my part - but I will get back to you about it.
I do believe however, that at the very least, you have partially answered it already.

Yes, I have a similar view regarding reality and information - information expressed as matter is something I will put more thought into - making sure to consider the energy side of the equation.

Now this is where we get near to my favorite part of your post . . .

I agree.

And there it is . . . my favorite part of your post . . . I am totally inclined to agree.

For the example you gave to make a contrast between what we perceive as meaning and meaning that otherwise exists even when we do not see it . . .
. . . or in the case of your example . . . hear it . . . really tells us something about meaning.

=D>

Arcturus Descending

The sun is gently shining with a golden glow and there are a only a few large white clouds in the sky - it is mid afternoon and the temperature is perfect - high above is an Eagle circling . . . Mr List is contemplating the Koi Pond as the Nishikigoi effortlessly move through the water . . .

All the trees surrounding the garden are still - the atmosphere is serene and the air is pure and feels refreshing with each breath . . .

You are welcome to remain silent for a while and let your thoughts take in meaning from the surrounds - just to be immersed in tranquil reflection . . . Mr List gently walks off to prepare the lemonade . . . ten minutes later he returns with a tray holding three tall glasses of fresh lemonade each containing a generous amount of ice . . . he smiles and returns to watch the Nishikigoi float along in their own world . . .

Your thoughts move over a quiet, almost silent internal dialogue as you sip your lemonade:

Meaning for me was within those tears . . . one of the most meaningful, beautiful things in the world to me.

I only just watched Hacksaw Ridge the other day for the first time . . . I was pretty much engrossed the whole way through . . . Great movie. It sounds like I might have to give Dunkirk a viewing to find out what you mean . . .

I will say that interacting with other people in general brings a lot of meaning to my life . . . sometimes inspiring and sometimes just meaningful in smaller ways.

- I think too that meaning can come from a smile -

:smiley:

Has anyone told you you’re very structured? :laughing:

Thank you! :slight_smile: The feeling goes both ways. I really enjoy when two strangers can have a civilized exchange online. It gives both parties a chance to express themselves to the wider world.

It’s my metaphysics of consciousness. It’s a whole Pandora’s box of philosophy.

Think of it in terms of sensation. Our sensations are essentially information. What they tell us is: there’s matter.

There’s also energy, of course, and physicists now-a-days tell us they’re the same thing, but I’m a subjectivist (a specific approach to idealism). While that doesn’t mean I disagree with science, I don’t think science represents the “natural” or “intuitive” view of man. I think to get at the natural/intuitive view of man, one must appeal to one’s subjective experiences. What we can glean about the world by appeal to our subjective experiences is that it seems to be made of objects–macroscopic sized objects around the order of chair, trees, TVs, human beings–that seems to be what’s naturally “given” to us (or told to us if you buy my reality-qua-information spin). Energy’s in there too, of course, but we experience energy as objects doing things, or changing, or perhaps as properties of objects, like light or heat, but objects are the basic units of our world, at least with respect to human subjective experience.

Well, analogies are very powerful for getting a point across. I’m glad my use of them can make someone’s day. :laughing: Thank you!

I certainly think so. I think it requires a bit of hubris to think that where you can’t find meaning there is none. It’s even more challenging when the meaning is incomprehensible–it means you’re not only failing to find meaning but can’t find it even if it’s right in front of you.

"Meaning“ is the central concept of semantics which is one of the most important subdiscipline of linguistics. The semantical research can be done in a synchronic and in a diachronic (etymological) way. So meaning has a history too. Animals do not reall know that a certain phenomenenon has a meaning; but they know the meaning of some phenomenons, because they have experienced them. So one has to have something like the human language in which one can analyse sound (phonemes) and the smalles forms with a meaning (morphemes), then words, sentences, texts.

Just observe little children when they learn the language of their parents or family. They learn that certain speech-forms, thus lingusitic forms, have certain meanings, either inward or outward. If these meanings are inward, then they are part of the language itself; and if they are outward, then they are part of both the language and the environment. So meanings can change (see also above: diachronic [etymological]), are in permanent contact with the environment of any language. The inward located meanings have a more subjective or "individual“ character, and the outward located meanings have a more objective character, and both are in permanent contact.

Can you give an example of inward meaning and outward meaning? Is it the same difference as between mental and physical? Or is it that inward meaning is speech-forms that come packaged with the language itself (so to speak)–words like “and” or “the” or because"–whereas outward meaning is speech-forms that are subsumed into language to serve the function of denoting or identifying things in the environment–words like “chair” or “cloud” or “shoe”?

From cognitive abilities, if one lacks cognitive abilities, one can’t comprehend much and are per definition retarded.

Do cognitive abilities include qualia to you?

Lump

I understand what you have written . . . I would have to intuitively say that this is definitely part of the truth . . .

. . . there are however a few caveats.

Here are three things to consider . . . let us employ analogy to illustrate . . .

1 ► If a tree fell in the woods, and nobody was around to hear it, did the tree really fall?

2 ► If a person(lets call him Bob) is sitting in a stadium(which is filled to capacity) - and bob has no cognitive abilities - is the stadium really filled to capacity?

3 ► Incomprehensible meaning is like hearing a foreign language:
You know it means something but you can’t tell the difference between that and random meaningless babbling.
[size=85]gib(2017)[/size]

You could say that each of us only receives an incomplete puzzle to work with when it comes to meaning . . . meaning being the puzzle.

You are saying in a way: meaning always boils down to individual perception of comprehensive experience . . .

. . . I am saying: that when it does not boil down to individual perception, meaning still exists . . .

. . . to say otherwise, I would surmise, is to say that others do not exist . . .

. . . that is to suppose that something is true without having evidence to confirm it.

So where does that leave us? Well, your guess is as good as mine . . . mind.

encode_decode

Yes?

That is a perfect scene to me, encode_decode. I have experienced that kind of day except for the Eagle. That would have been a rare day. I am also glad that the sun was gently shining.
Mr. List, being that I am a skeptic, would I be stepping out on some kind of silly limb to ask you if you do have a Zen Garden? No reason why you couldn’t.

Why are the trees still? Are they afraid to breathe for fear of disturbing the perfect moment?
Why are the trees still? Have you commanded them not to dance?

Ah, but this is a non-thinking moment. I will let something else absorb the meaning.
:-$

What are you wearing on your feet?

Three tall glasses? Are we expecting company or are you generously giving me two glasses?
I wonder how the koi experience their life? Their movement?

What are my thoughts in this moment? Or perhaps they were about the koi or simply a silent moment of contemplation ~ koi swimming within my mind.

. . .

Hacksaw Ridge can be a lesson in not judging things and people by appearance. Here was this conscientious objector who was taken for a coward though he wanted to serve his country but in his own way. He was beaten because people were not capable of seeing beyond the surface. He later …well, you know the story but perhaps others might want to see it.

Yes, Dunkirk is certainly well worth seeing. I love movies which are larger than life.

Yes, for many, it would have to be that way. It is for me too. We are social creatures. I think that without trying, that meaning just slips in.
But I do not believe that it can be the same with any and all.
Perhaps Maxwell could explain that.

Yes, like the meaning which comes from a sunny day after we have experienced days of rain - though I love the rain.
A smile can be like a burst of the sun’s rays.

Everything that is relevant to the one who is learning a language can be used as an example here. Thus: Everything. A tree for example becomes a semantical meaning as an inward meaning when the linguistic form “tree” is internalized (learned).

By "inward meanings“ I mean here in my example the forms that have already been internalized by the child, either incorrectly, then the child has to learn more, or correctly, then the child can use them for the next steps of learning. By "outward meaning“ I mean here in my example the forms that are new for the child, thus have not already been internalized by the child, are just outwards in the environment of the child. So the linguistic forms and their meanings inside the body (brain) of the child become firmer and more and more (like an inventory of a company / corporation for example), whereas the linguistic forms and their meanings outside the body (brain) of the child (and still inside the bodies [brains] of the child’s parents for example) become less and less. At last, when the language is almost (almost!) acquired, the child (about 3 years old) could already go to school, if there was not the other language precondition that must be fulfilled: the language of writing / reading (which is a skill the child is not capable of before the age of 5 years).

What I mainly wanted to say in my post above is that there is already meaning in the language before one learns this meaning. So we learn a language that has already been learned by others. But if you observe a young child who is learning the parental language, then you can ascertain how pre-linguistic meanings become linguistic meanings. Everything becomes more and more abstract and spiritual (later even philosophical and mathematical). That is a huge advantage.

Thank you for your post.

I equate meaning to core qualities.

The core is like the existential everything of a being.
It has all kinds of temporary and changing aspects,
as well as repeating or old aspects.
Meaning can be found in the mental aspect of the existential core.
Meaning is like an alchemical biproduct.
A biological rare chemical complex.

That is the closest thing to an accurate description that ive got.

It would be like a forest supporting the life of monkeys.
In this case, the man suppports the life of meanings as memes.

Do you see what i mean?

iambiguous

What you have to say seems like it is interesting - I need a little clarification so I can understand it better. Apologies in advance.

  1. I agree that emotion is tricky. Do you think cognition is not relevant to emotions? How do you see genes affecting emotions?
  2. Do you think that reason only takes place in the primitive components of the brain?

I agree that memes are a part of our emotions. I also think that emotions are used against people in a political manner.

Could you possibly give me a brief description of either/or and is/ought in the way you are using it here? Maybe you could provide a link to something that would help me understand it better . . . I am only guessing that you are not an objectivist - is that correct? I am purely curious.

To which you asked me a question as follows:

I am not too sure about the obligation as such but I could demonstrate the part where Gamer speaks of metaphor. Do you have any ideas how? I would like to learn.

I am interested in reading more of your thoughts iambiguous. Hopefully I do not cause any inconvenience.

James S Saint wrote:

I was going to follow the pattern which is a part of me at times well, often actually, in responding to posts ~~ giving my own answer. But I decided to adhere to the Socratic method which is clearly not a part of me. lol. Don’t expect that too often.

You have just left the student in the mighty forest. Where does he/she go from there? 8-[

So, what are you saying here, James?
How do we go about accomplishing this great feat?
What is our guiding light to get there?
Is there any one specific thing (or something which cannot be left out) which must be used in order to do this?

With the evolution of life on earth, the human brain came to embody the capacity to reason and to feel. They are both intertwined in an enormously complex interaction between genes [biological imperatives] and memes [social, political and economic narratives]. These narratives are rooted historically, cuturally and experientially both within and between particular communities of men and women sharing or not sharing particular sets of experiences.

In other words, you tell me: in any specific context where does reasoning end and feeling begin? Where does “I” end and “we” begin? Is there a way to determine this such that so-called “rational human beings” can come to grasp how one ought to behave in any particular context?

I don’t think so.

Well, an example I like to use revolves around something like this:

1] Is Donald Trump the president of the United States? Either he is or he is not. In other words, unless our sense of reality is just an illusion rooted in solipsism or in a sim world or in a demonic dream, we are able to establish that in fact Donald Trump is the president of the United States. This is true objectively for all of us. Though, sure, subjectively, particular individuals may say that he is not. What then becomes important is the extent to which those who say that he is are able to demonstrate that this is true.

2] Donald Trump is doing a superb job as president of the Unitied States. Is this either true or not true? Is this something that can in fact be demonstrated as true objectively for all of us?

For those [the political objectivists] who insist that he either is or is not doing a superb job, I challenge them to demonstrate this. That is, to establish this objectively such that the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy in this is/ought world is shown to be unreasonable.

If I may, Arc, does James’ comment remind you of the What Of Your Essence? thread? If we are ever changing creatures, is it even possible to discover the objective truth of what you are?