I see an underlying element in nearly every discussion here. That element is meaning. I doubt that there would be much in the line objection to that assessment. If we acknowledge the existence of meaning, should we not also assess how meaning is obtained/designated, and to what it applies?

My premonition tells me that this discussion, in order to be reasonably successful, will necessarily involve the single filter through which all meaning evolves, the human perceptual faculty.

I think that there are different kinds of meaning, which involve different elements. I see a different kind of meaning in a physical symbolic representation than I do in say, a metaphorical usage of words such as poetry. I believe because these represent different modes of correlation, they also represent different forms of meaning.

This line of thinking has been inspired within me most recently by a book entitled "Meaning" by Michael Polanyi and Harry Prosch. It lends some form of credence to the subjective nature of human perception by recognizing that it applies to both, the establishment of scientific knowledge and personal opinion. The idea is that because everything known must go through the subjective mind, objective knowledge is in fact, prone to the the subjective assessment of it. That idea is irrefutable, but what consequences does it necessarily have?

I would think that this line of thinking would enable and/or allow the objective minded people to see objectivity in a slightly different light.

Hopefully this can be discussed reasonably, rationally, and without the oh-so-common name calling and implied personal insults.

is that an alabama jersey that kids wearin ROLL TIDE!!!!!

Go Bearcats? Muskie? Buckeyes? Boo Tide!

What to you mean?

Truly!

Ok, I've actually been thinking about this quite deeply for the past couple of weeks. I'm convinced that, for me, the meaning of life is found in love and dreams.

That's it period.

From a practical point of view was thinking about including things like, curiousity (a deep desire to learn and/or experience new things), and achievements (the satisfaction of accomplishing something). However, after having given thid some thought I've realized that both of these things ultimately reduce to 'dreams'. It's either a dream to learn and experience something new, or it's the satisfaction of having acheived a pervious dream. So I prefer to reduce all of that to just 'dreams'. This simplifies things to a single concept that covers all the bases.

The other thing I have recognized is love. And this includes a love of all things, not just love of living things, or romantic love, although those are perhaps the most potent forms of love. But instead 'love' simply means gratitude and enjoyment in the now.

Whether you are grateful to be in the company of a loved one, or you're simply grateful to be in the company of a beautiful day, or a bicycle ride, or whatever it is that you enjoy. The enjoyment and gratitude of being in that state is "love".

So for me, it all reduces to love and dreams.

I get what your saying Abra...I see your love and dreams and I'm going to reduce it to just love. Not romantic type love, as in lovers, marriage, I love you and you complete me love. Just the pure energy of love. The love that is around us every day...the little things, the everyday things that so many miss because they are busy seeking out the "you complete me" kind of love. Love itself is much more than just an emotion. It is a force of nature, therefore it must contain truth..it is the basis of our creation, the meaning behind our entire existence.

Either that or we have evolved from a sordid puddle of mud.....
and that just does not resonate with my being, my spirit.

To take a little different tack from “the meaning of life”…

I separate out the two factors
1) “What it is” is objective
2) “What it means” is subjective

As far as I’m concerned, once you try to make “meaning” into an objective thing, meaning itself loses meaning. In other words, once you remove the subjective factor, meaning becomes objective. But then meaning becomes “what it is” and ceases to be “what it means”, so there is no “what it means” anymore. It’s gone. There’s nothing left but “what it is”. Hence, no meaning.

Sky wrote:



I am inclined to agree Sky. That being said, words have a different kind of meaning than say a symbol such as a flag. That is kind the direction I wanted to pursue. I would like to establish what it is that constitutes/develops meaning within an individual and perhaps how that is done.

Hmmm….. I think I see what you mean.

The flag would be associated with a purely abstract meaning (e.g. patriotism), unlike words such as “ball” or “run”, which would be associated with objective things.

I would say that, since there is no objective thing that one can point to and say “that is what this symbol means”, it must necessarily be developed through some sort of process of comparing the actions of others with one’s own actions and assuming (or agreeing) that the reasons behind those actions are identical to one’s own. But that's really an objective process as well.

Really, I end up going back to the cause-effect idea here.

The “meaning” of a flag is more of an effect, in the sense that looking at it/thinking about it, produces a reaction in oneself, and that reaction is the meaning. So I think the development of the meaning is one of a sort of "unconscious linking" of a perception to an emotion. I think the idea of "our song" is a good example. There is some emotional state that is associated/identified with a specific memory.

That is opposed to a “proactive” assignment of meaning to a label for the purpose of communicating about the referent to which the label assigned.

Make sense?

I see what you mean and I think you're beginning to touch on what I am thinking, however, the focus still seems to be upon the objective measures necessarily for discussing meaning. I think that the idea of meaning being subjective need not be mentioned, as it is a given really. All attempts to discuss it are necessarily objective as well, so that also needs no further attention.

I do not think that the topic can be fully expressed in cause and effect terms. Those attempts would either require knowing what the causes actually are or be sidetracked into figuring them out, and therefore lose the focus. I think that there can be an overview of sorts given which encompass all possible cases.

Ok, so as I see it…

We've got "meaning" as an analytical association/identification of a symbol and a definite referent – “The word ‘ball’ means ‘an elastic, spherical object’.”; “The blue line on the maps means ‘highway’.”

And then we've got "meaning” as an association of an emotional state and an abstract – “Our song means a lot to us.”; “An oath means more to some than it does to others.”; “The cat purring means he’s happy”.

And then we’ve got “meaning” as a purpose or end – “The meaning of life is ______.”

So as far as I can tell, the lowest common denominator of “meaning” is that it involves an association/identification between two things – a “referent” and a “significance”.

Now since I don’t seem to be doing very well at getting to the point you want to get at, I’ll let you take it from there – or start from a different foundation and take it somewhere else if I got off on the wrong foot somewhere.

To quote NovaRoma: “What do you mean?”