Meaning is always in a mind. What constitutes a mind? What about animals like dogs and cats, do they experience meaning? Birds. fish? Where do we draw the line and say that there might be a conscious brain but no mind? Let's go further. What about trees? Some scientists say trees "communicate" to one another. If meaning is always in a mind, we'd better be clear as to what a mind is, and if its physical dimension as a brain or something like it, determines were meaning is.
The more Cheerskep toots a one note horn about meaning the more I suspect something we call meaning has slipped away while we're distracted by the din. I'm wondering if consciousness entails a kind of merging with other, the objective. The merging transplants meaning. We can't notice anything without doing that. So the only way for Cheerskep to say that the object does not contain meaning is for him to remain unconscious of it. WC --- On Thu, 8/28/08, [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: Thursday, August 28, 2008, 12:15 PM > I infer frm the abrupt mid-sentence termination of my last > posting that my > garrulity overtaxed the host computer's patience. > > Here's how it continued and ends: > > "Nor does the somebody coming along > necessarily place the same meaning in the object at > different times,large or > small." > > That's right. My view of John Edwards is different from > what it was a while > ago. I should report that my mind replaces Kate's > phrase "place the same > meaning in the object" with something like "finds > different associations with the > object arising". A strict reading of "place a > meaning in" suggest all sorts of > notion I can't agree with -- e.g. that a > "meaning" somehow resides IN the > object after it is "placed" there. > > "However, within a culture, in a general sense, > someones coming along do > tend to place the same sort of meaning in objects, > whether natural or > made, and that meaning placed is modified by the > someone's > experience,education,whether their feet hurt, etc." > > I agree with the spirit of this. > > "This placement of meaning is imperfect only if one > expects communication to be a mirror of what was intended > by the author, and > there seems to be something strange about that ideal,maybe > even sublime." > > Again, I'll address this as though it were saying > something like, "It's a > mistake if you ever expect to somehow convey an exact > replica of your notion to > someone else's mind (Though such an effort is often > serviceably successful." > I'll take Kate's line here as talking about > "placing" a notion in someone else's > mind. I'll go along with that. I can never go along > with the idea that it > is in some way "placed in" the object. > -- Cheerskep > > > > ************** > 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)
