Theory of the Soul

[minuspace]

Basically, any trait we ascribe to a person, place, or thing. If  someone gives to charity a lot,  we say he's generous. If a house was the scene of a murder we say it's haunted. If we trust someone and they act contrary to that trust, we see it as betrayal. Stuff like that. See also the bit about stories  and how these traits are seen over a lifetime.

It's a tricky word, meaning.  Seems like it discloses the connections between things over space and time, like an interrelated web of relations.  In the first place, it allows you to string together all these letters and words in order to apprehend a 'meaningful' sentence.  How is this possible?

I mean, instead of knowing and acting on the premise that the object I see before me is the same keyboard as it was just a second ago, what stops me from perceiving it as an endless stream of 'keyboards' being replaced one after the other to match the sample rate of consciousness  Or, how do I even recognize that it is the same 'I' perduring through all these different experiences?  What is the ground of similarity upon which we experience such constant distinction?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Basically, any trait we ascribe to a person, place, or thing. If  someone gives to charity a lot,  we say he's generous. If a house was the scene of a murder we say it's haunted. If we trust someone and they act contrary to that trust, we see it as betrayal. Stuff like that. See also the bit about stories  and how these traits are seen over a lifetime.

So you're defining the word "meaning" as an attribution of a trait?

Is the speed of light an example of "meaning", then? Because the speed of light is a trait attributed to light. Most scientists would disagree with that definition, because a trait is a property inherent to an object or occurrence.

The examples you give are not consistent with that definition, as they are all interpretations of events. That is far more consistent with how most cognitive psychologists and neuroscientists use the term "meaning".

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Meaning is generally agreed to be a function of interpretation derived from perception and context. In other words, it is something that occurs within an observer, not an inherent property of a phenomenon.

[minuspace]

I also like how Huxley put it in the Doors:

The function of the brain and nervous system is to protect us from being overwhelmed and confused by this mass of largely useless and irrelevant knowledge, by shutting out most of what we should otherwise perceive or remember at any moment, and leaving only that very small and special selection which is likely to be practically useful." According to such a theory, each one of us is potentially Mind at Large. But in so far as we are animals, our business is at all costs to survive. To make biological survival possible, Mind at Large has to be funneled through the reducing valve of the brain and nervous system. What comes out at the other end is a measly trickle of the kind of consciousness which will help us to stay alive on the surface of this particular planet.

[Ed. Can't spell]

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

So, there's meaning that's an interpretation made by and within an observer, and multiple observers could infer different meanings from the same phenomenon based on biology, life circumstances, and context.

Meaning is also used to describe the interpretation intended by a conscious creator when they make something happen, the intended meaning. You know, the bane of every high school English Lit course. Maybe some of the nutpunching is miscommunication? Like, if I say "the Universe has no meaning" and someone else says "the Universe has no meaning," those are the same sentences, but I could mean "intended meaning" whereas that guy means "inferred meaning" and then we holler past each other because English is a shit language and can't decide which way up is?

[LMNO]

That's why "defining your terms" takes up the majority of most philosophy books.

Or you could be a complete douche, like R.D. Laing, and write stuff like:

I get what I deserve

I deserve what I get.



I have it,

therefore I deserve it



I deserve it

because I have it.



You have not got it

therefore you do not deserve it



You do not deserve it

because you have not got it



You have not got it

because you do not deserve it



You do not deserve it

therefore you have not got it.

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

That's why "defining your terms" takes up the majority of most philosophy books.

Or you could be a complete douche, like R.D. Laing, and write stuff like:

I get what I deserve

I deserve what I get.



I have it,

therefore I deserve it



I deserve it

because I have it.



You have not got it

therefore you do not deserve it



You do not deserve it

because you have not got it



You have not got it

because you do not deserve it



You do not deserve it

therefore you have not got it.

While douchey, that does read like a good explanation of what's wrong with the just world fallacy.

[LMNO]

Yeah.  I'm not saying he's wrong, just that he's kind of a wanker.

[thewake]

Generally when I think of the "meaning of the universe," I take it to mean that it was made, or exists, for a purpose in the same way a burrito exists and its meaning is for me to eat it. Similarly with the "meaning of life." Aka, I'm talking some kind of inherent meaning. Not a subjective meaning/purpose. In fact, purpose would be a better word to get at how I'm thinking about it.

I do not mean to say that we cannot all individually, or collectively, assign a purpose to our particular lives and the world we live in from our particular point of view. But I rather think it's impossible to know if the universe has some kind of inherent meaning, at least it seems impossible for me to know it right now. On the other hand, it can be show that inherent in the burrito is the fact that it was made to be eaten (even if it never is eaten, and instead just sits in a freezer).

[LMNO]

The amount of hubris required to believe the universe exists for your personal benefit, like something you'd order at Chipotle, is staggering.


Frankly, I'm kind of impressed at your level of self-involvement.

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

Generally when I think of the "meaning of the universe," I take it to mean that it was made, or exists, for a purpose in the same way a burrito exists and its meaning is for me to eat it. Similarly with the "meaning of life." Aka, I'm talking some kind of inherent meaning. Not a subjective meaning/purpose. In fact, purpose would be a better word to get at how I'm thinking about it.

I do not mean to say that we cannot all individually, or collectively, assign a purpose to our particular lives and the world we live in from our particular point of view. But I rather think it's impossible to know if the universe has some kind of inherent meaning, at least it seems impossible for me to know it right now. On the other hand, it can be show that inherent in the burrito is the fact that it was made to be eaten (even if it never is eaten, and instead just sits in a freezer).

I'm going to quibble with your use of "inherent" here. The burrito has inherent properties, but meaning isn't one of them. You could have a burrito that was created for a television ad or a weird art project that was never intended to be eaten. The burrito has two meanings: the intended meaning from the one who created it (an internal interpretation of the creator "I am making this burrito for this asshole to eat") and the inferred meaning from the observer of the burrito (an internal interpretation of the object based on context and other factors "that burrito is meant for this asshole to eat because he paid for it," "this burrito is meant for me to eat," "this burrito is meant for me to eat but that asshole is eating it instead," etc).

[thewake]

Generally when I think of the "meaning of the universe," I take it to mean that it was made, or exists, for a purpose in the same way a burrito exists and its meaning is for me to eat it. Similarly with the "meaning of life." Aka, I'm talking some kind of inherent meaning. Not a subjective meaning/purpose. In fact, purpose would be a better word to get at how I'm thinking about it.

I do not mean to say that we cannot all individually, or collectively, assign a purpose to our particular lives and the world we live in from our particular point of view. But I rather think it's impossible to know if the universe has some kind of inherent meaning, at least it seems impossible for me to know it right now. On the other hand, it can be show that inherent in the burrito is the fact that it was made to be eaten (even if it never is eaten, and instead just sits in a freezer).

I'm going to quibble with your use of "inherent" here. The burrito has inherent properties, but meaning isn't one of them. You could have a burrito that was created for a television ad or a weird art project that was never intended to be eaten. The burrito has two meanings: the intended meaning from the one who created it (an internal interpretation of the creator "I am making this burrito for this asshole to eat") and the inferred meaning from the observer of the burrito (an internal interpretation of the object based on context and other factors "that burrito is meant for this asshole to eat because he paid for it," "this burrito is meant for me to eat," "this burrito is meant for me to eat but that asshole is eating it instead," etc).

I'd have to say your distinction makes quite a bit of sense, and avoids quite a bit of confusion.

[Cain]

Yeah.  I'm not saying he's wrong, just that he's kind of a wanker.

This is generally true of all philosophers.

Except Wittgenstein, who was both wrong and a wanker.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Yeah.  I'm not saying he's wrong, just that he's kind of a wanker.

This is generally true of all philosophers.

Except Wittgenstein, who was both wrong and a wanker.

[LMNO]

Yeah.  I'm not saying he's wrong, just that he's kind of a wanker.

This is generally true of all philosophers.

Except Wittgenstein, who was both wrong and a wanker.