I said there might be some stimulus that affects brain cells to create mental patterns. That's as far as I'll go in agreeing with the reception notion you describe. All science is fairly convincing that we construct what we see and that the construction is modeled by cultural preferences, signs, etc., to a large extent, excluding the yet uncertain patterning mentioned above.
Inadvertently, I gave Miller a chance to guffaw when I wrote eliminate instead of pluralize. But I had already equalized the two terms, indicating that full elimination is equal to full inclusion as far as specific identity is concerned. Subtlety is not Miller's game, though. wc ________________________________ From: Michael Brady <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Monday, October 5, 2009 1:28:33 PM Subject: Meanings William wrote > Meaning is what we project and is affected by how we use external reality, > even the realities we ourselves make or manipulate like a painting or musical > composition. As I've said before, I believe that artifacts contain in them structural properties of one kind or other that lead to consistent interpretations by individuals. There is something there, in them, in artifacts, that distinguishes them from the random detritus of nature. There is a form in them that is significant, that can signify to someone, who can then interpret the signifying. The person, btw, doesn't "project," doesn't throw something out onto the object. That has a bit of metaphorical expansion to it. Rather, the person receives it in such a way that it "makes sense" to the person. That's the interpretive part. A very important aspect here is that the thing out there and the person's receptive mechanism in here are two different things, and they can be separated, if the person chooses to do so. That's the manipulation William speaks of. It is how the meanings of words slide around, and how maps work. All in all, there are two basic conditions here: terminus and correlation. The terminus is the place where one thing ends. It can be clear, definite, precise, or it can be fuzzy, vague, and unstable. But it is important to us that something terminates, ends, stops--that a thing can be *determined*--so that we can distinguish it from other things. And there is correlation, the method of mapping and of representation ... and of art. "This <--> that." [Cheerskep: note the absence of a verb.] When William says that meaning can be manipuated, he implies that his knowing of somethign can be determined (limited) and that it can be arbitrarily *and willfully* correlated to something (A <--> C or A <--> E, etc.). | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Michael Brady [email protected] http://considerthepreposition.blogspot.com/ http://thinkinglikeadesigner.blogspot.com/ Subscribe: [email protected] Unsubscribe: [email protected]
