Cheerskep fails to engage the subtlety of the argument that we involuntarily assign meaning to external objects, etc. That is not to say those objects have meaning but in fact it's almost the same thing because we can't sense the world without a-priori experiencing it as "meaningful".
It does nothing for Cheerskep's argument to keep whap, whap, whapping the dead horse and to not move on to more curious aspects of how we create meaning in the world. Further, his sketchy stories to press his point: the maid gesturing, or the woman in a racist enviornment, these are not genuinely intuitive value texts. Something of intuitive value centers on our immediate, ineffable, involuntary awareness of something that we then claim as something good, beautiful, awful, etc. We project this ineffable state to the object and assume it is intrinsic to it. We cannot do otherwise. Yes, we can stand before something and say, "it's my own sensation that I project to the object," but even as we say that our minds have concluded that the object (as if) exudes the sensation we have felt. If such were not the case we'd have no use for pronouns, as one example, which require us to admit the otherness of the world. WC --- On Mon, 8/25/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: "Meaning" is always in a mind, never in an object." > To: [email protected] > Date: Monday, August 25, 2008, 8:46 PM > William writes: > > > The projection I speak of is intuitive. It is not a > decision. It is not > > voluntary. As an intuitive projection it is a > sensation, not language or > > mathematics but a an emotive act resulting from > sensory experience. > > > I don't dispute this. The white woman in the South a > hundred years ago > fearfully "saw" the big black guy walking toward > her as a beast who wanted to > rape > her. Agreed: She hasn't "decided", > "volunteered", to see him that way. Lovers > "project on" their lovers a romantic idealization > concocted in their minds. > Voters susceptible to hero-worship "project on" > their leader the "great man" > image their minds have conjured, dawing on association from > the white-washed > historical idols of history plus maybe their memory of > their excellent Dad. > > What I project on someone may condition my reception of > everything he does, > but in truth it doesn't change the actual man one whit. > That whole projection > business is in my mind. How many times have we heard and > essentially agreed > with a line like, "For God sakes, when are you going > to see him for what he > is?" > And when we utter a line like that, we're not claiming > the other person's > "vision" is voluntary. Exactly what we're > trying to do is put more > associations in > his mind in the hope we'll finally change his receiving > apparatus. > > > "In this way I do disagree with Cheerskep's > extreme subjectivity." > > > It's not obvious to me that there's any intrinsic > disagreement between us > here. As for honestly believing that an extra-mental object > "has" "meaning", > "is" > "meaningful", I don't for a minute deny that > many people so believe. They > look at something, and notion arises in their minds. It > must have "come from" > the > object! No -- all that came from the object was raw sense > data. It's the mind > that associates, construes. > > > And Brady has brought up the problem, too. If we > can't know what is > > going on in another's brain when we say such and > such, then why is it that > most > > people are able to communicate rather successfully, > even when they represent > > differing cultures, class,m education, motives, etc? > The answer is > intuitive > > projection, a way of involuntarily pretending that the > objective world has > > meaning. > > > I should initially say I won't comment on that last > sentence because it > illuminates nothing for me. > > Again and again I've said that our various modes of > communication are > "serviceable". One of caring housekeepers, an > Indonesian, just came into my > room, > pointed toward the bedroom, put two palms together, and > tilted her head > against > them. I "got" that she wanted me to know my wife > was now asleep. > > What I'd urge is that we also consider why the opposite > occurs. If we showed > an Andean sheep-herder this exchange, it would convey > effectively nothing. > It's no good on one hand to cite "cultural > experience" as building > associations > into us that enable us to derive "meaningful" > notion from oft-experienced > stuff > -- beginning with vocabulary in our language -- and on the > other hand to > imply that no, it's not a matter of our being subjected > to repeated > juxapositions > in experience that enlarges our inventory of memory that we > then associate > with new raw experience -- it's that the object -- > word, phrase, painting, > swastika -- HAS "meaning" independent of any > associating the mind does. > > > > ************** > It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find > your travel > deal here. > > (http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)
