Mike Brady writes:
"I believe that there is such a thing as an intentionally
meaningful artifact, that is, things made by humans with the purpose of
conveying meaning."
I can interpret that line in a way I could accept, though I'd avoid that
undefined use of "meaning" because it smacks of a mind-independent entity or
activity. Here's a phrasing I could buy:
"By 'an intentionally meaningful artifact' I have in mind something made by a
human who intends the artifact as a tool to convey to another mind roughly
the notion he has in mind."
I'd buy that because I do it all the time myself. I'm doing it right now. And
I often write reminder-notes to myself.
Mike goes on:
"And further, such artifacts contain a meaning in their structure, such as
the markings on the plaques. I cannot see how they don't."
Mike has at no time described what he has in mind when he says "meaning", but
I suspect those last two lines veil a deep confusion. I HAVE described what
I'll have in mind when I use the word "meaning", and it's always notion --
the notion in the speaker's mind and the notion that arises in the listener's
mind. Markings on a plaque may OCCASION "meaning" in a contemplator's mind, but
all reasons for thinking the markings ARE "meaning" are confused (in the
contexts displayed on this forum so far). No one so far has described his idea
of
"meaning" in a way that justifies believing it can ever be a non-notional
entity.
The carver who makes those markings hopes that the mind of anyone
contemplating them will conjure notion like the notion in the carver's mind.
Mike
evidently believes that because the carver INTENDED his markings to occasion
the rise
of his notion in someone else's mind, the marking must BE "meaning".
Presumably if markings were not INTENDED to occasion notion in contemplators,
then they would not BE meaning. Imagine a treasured elm in the town square
found one morning lying on the ground. An examiner says, "these marks mean it
was struck lightning". So those marks are not "meaning". Even if the examiner
says, "These marks show it was intentionally chopped down by a vandal," the
marks, I assume, would not, according to Mike, BE meaning.
Mike continues his argument:
"The artifact is a channel with a signal, and the signal (the diagrams)
contain meaning in a way that is separate from the receiver (decoder)."
I suspect that all Mike means by 'signal' is that the mark is such that the
carver hopes a contemplator's associating mind will "connect" the visual mark
with other notion, and a new notion -- very like the one the carver had mind --
will arise in the contemplator's mind. Suppose aliens find an errant
satellite of ours that has no markings INTENDED to convey our notion, but the
aliens
infer all sorts of things about us. Is the satellite "meaning"?
Or, perhaps better, suppose a kidnapped child intentionally discards his
teddy bear because he fears the kidnapper will do the teddy bear harm. Trackers
find the bear, and figure out where the kidnapper and child are. Is the teddy
bear "meaning"? It wasn't intended by the child to convey anything.
Throughout all of this, we have no idea what's Mike's idea of the nature of
this "meaning" he keeps talking about.
Mike writes:
"I believe it is correct to say that Linear A, a prehistoric script
from Crete, is meaningful, is full of meaning --"
Pause. I see those two qualifiers as different. I could buy 'meaningful' if
you have in mind something like "occasioning recognizable notion in a
contemplator's mind". But to equate that with being "full of" undefined
"meaning" seems
unjustified. I've already described how a word occasions notion when
contemplated, but I've said it's solely because the inert scription (or
utterance) has
repeatedly been juxtaposed with a given notion -- and association ensues. I
would never says it's because the word has in it, like a tree spirit or
something, a mystical entity called "meaning".
" -- because it exhibits all the evidence of an intentionally produced form
of written
communications."
I conceded at the top I'd accept this as one of the reasons why you might
call something "meaningful". But that's no argument for believing it "IS"
anything I'd call "meaning", or has anything IN it I'd call "meaning". Two lost
hikers separately light fires. One lights it to keep warm, the other intending
it
to "signal" his presence. Searchers rescue the second guy right away. The first
guy staggers out of the woods a week later, finds out about the second guy's
experience, and asks the searchers, "How come you didn't come get me too?" One
searcher says, "Because we could see the meaning in the second guy's fire."
Another searcher says, "Because his fire WAS meaning."
Mike concludes:
"We just don't know how to read it. When we do, we will
be able to know what it means."
Granted -- that's the way people talk. And over the kitchen-table it's very
serviceable to talk of an object carrying on the activity of "meaning". But in
fact, inert objects don't carry on any activity. Nor do they intend.
Mike, would you like to try your hand at describing this entity you call
"meaning"? I hope I've persuaded you that it won't do simply to say "The
capacity
to occasion recognizable notion IS meaning." And then perhaps you'd describe
the activity -- what you think an object is allegedly doing when it "means"?
**************
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)
