In a message dated 8/31/12 6:49:54 PM, [email protected] writes:
"I take it Cheerskep agrees with my statement where I mention that any word will elicit some meaning. When a person responds to a word by saying it's meaningless, he is right to the extent that all words are in themselves meaningless. In another sense he is saying that he doesn't understand the context with word addresses. But in his brain many meanings for the word have already reached consciousness" Agreed, in large part. William, our wording is not "wrong"; but it tends to obscure a distinction I was trying to stress. Instead of saying, "Cheerskep agrees that any word will elicit some meaning", I'd say, "Cheerskep agrees that any word will elicit some notion." I know I'm not going to eradicate the word 'meaning' from all discussion. It is too ingrained in our way of talking. So I figure I'd better accommodate my phrasing. I know that many people will insist on saying the likes of, "Whatever comes to my mind when I hear a word is the word's 'meaning for me'." So I use the phrase 'meaning for me' - with the understanding that it's my phrase for the notion occasioned by hearing/reading an utterance or scription. That "notion" is not to be confused with any mind-independent, "real", "correct" THE MEANING OF the "word". I disapprove of seeming to use the same word for two different things, but experience tells me that, when advancing a radically new theory, it's best to do it while using as many familiar words as possible. Otherwise you risk coming across as plain old wacky. I'm not sure of this, William, but I think it's possible you and I are the only members of this forum who believe words do not have an intrinsic, mind-independent "meaning". In a message dated 8/31/12 6:49:54 PM, [email protected] writes: > I take it Cheerskep agrees with my statement where I mention that any > word will > elicit some meaning. When a person responds to a word by saying it's > meaningless, he is right to the extent that all words are in themselves > meaningless. In another sense he is saying that he doesn't understand the > context with word addresses. But in his brain many meanings for the word > have > already reached consciousness an some of them may be taboo or too odd to > express > and so 'cultural' rules apply and he excuses himself by saying 'it's > meaningless'. > > > On the question of aesthetic ideal, I don't see what all the confusion is > about. > There are lots of aesthetic ideals. Generally one or two is dominant in > any > given era and culture. Individuals may think they are free from these > ideals > but the best they can do is a variation on it. True yesterday, true > today, true > tomorrow. The hard part is recognizing when an aesthetic ideal is at the > point > of radical transformation. > wc > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Fri, August 31, 2012 11:54:21 AM > Subject: Re: Aesthetic Ideal > > William writes: > "When we hear or read a word that seems meaningless, our amazing brains > will. . . . > resort to onomatopoeia [and other devices as it attacks] > the job of explaining whatever it senses. It will come up with a > 'meaning', > always. " > > I recently completed a one-act play that addresses the topic. The full > nineteen-page one act is available at: > > http://tommccormackplays.com/pdfs/Why-Bren-Left-PHILOSOPHY-8-29-.pdf > > Here's an excerpt. BREN is an academic in exile, KIT is the > recent-college-graduate daughter of his landlord: > > BREN > You -- and some philosophers -- are like children who believe in > tree-spirits. In effect, you think inside every "word" dwells an abstract > imp. > On > yonder shelves, you assume there are a million inky imps carrying out > abstract > actions twenty-four-seven: "naming", "referring", "picking out". . > ."denoting", "designating", "signifying". . . "meaning". Wonder the shelf > don't > collapse under all that truckin'. > > . . . .Those imps are as mythical as angels. What you call "words": > audible > or inky, they are incapable of DOING ANYTHING. After a writer puts ink > on > paper, the ink -- that you'd point at and say "That's a word" -- is as > inert as stone. When you read, you're inclined to say it's the "word" > that's > acting, but ALL THE ACTION IS BY YOUR BRAIN -- > (lightly taps KIT's head) > -- recalling memories connected with those sounds and inky shapes. And > piecing together new notions you've never had before. > > KIT > Wait -- > BREN > -- Suppose I say "hypostatize" to you. What notion rises? > KIT > . . . "Hypostatize"? Everyone knows that. It's a kinky sex position from > the Kama Sutra. You made the word up. To me, it's meaningless. > BREN > Right. 'It's "meaningless" to you.' Which you say because the sound > "hypostatize" connects with nothing in your memory. > KIT > . . . But 'hot' and 'milk' DO connect! So do 'justice', 'beauty', 'art'. > You trying to tell me they're meaningless? > BREN > YOU wouldn't call them meaningless. Because if ANYTHING comes to your > mind when you hear my talk-noise, you'd say: There! That's obviously "the > meaning for me"! But these notions, these "meanings for you" -- where do > the > pieces come from, and how do they get assembled? > KIT > ..."How do they get assembled"? I'm not sure what you're -- > BREN > -- When I say "apelsin", or "milk", "democracy", "designate" -- or even > "Cleopatra!" -- what comes into your head are solely BITS OF MEMORY > retrieved > and mosaicked by your racy brain as it processes the familiar sound. > KIT > -- Wait. Slow down -- > BREN > -- You think your notion of Cleopatra comes from a bolt shafted down by > Plato or Zeus? > KIT > Slow down! > . . . . > > BREN > If you want to call whatever comes to your mind a "meaning", you can argue > your life has a headful of meaning. But it's your head's meaning, not the > words'.
