Michael writes:
"words, artifacts, and utterances contain formal configurations that
persist and convey their "meaning." The tube of paint contains stuff that
conveys
"redness" to the viewer."
I'm not at all sure I get what's on Michael's mind here, but here's what
comes to my mind as I read those lines.
To go to the second line first: I don't question that a tube of red paint
contains chemical stuff ("formal configurations"?) such that, when it is
looked at through the eyes of normally-sighted people, light rays impinge on
the
retina and the retina sends nerve impulses deeper into the brain where they
are processed by the brain in such a way that the raw sensation that we
call "red" arises in the minds of those "normal" observers. (I go along with
Michael in ignoring the responses of "abnormal" people. I grant much of
philosophical interest may be said about the responses of blind or color-blind
people, but I think we can propound some implications of the reaction of normal
eyes that are not disproven or rendered vacuous by the responses of
abnormal eyes.)
But I myself would not call that red sensation the "meaning" of the paint,
any more than I'd call pain the "meaning" of a touched flame, or the taste
of chocolate the "meaning" of that brown candy on my desk.
Perhaps Michael would say that the more pertinent comparison to sight is
sound.
On the other hand, though the word 'meaning' is used repeatedly on the
forum I haven't seen any successful effort to describe the notion a lister has
in mind as he uses that word. In my next posting I'll try my unsure hand at
that - and I'll bring sound into it.
