...if we’re honest and conscious of how others relate, that this relation at least possibly exists prior to (or beyond) its meaning so attributed. ‘Truth’ is an example of this, and so is ‘existence’. Both of these relations exist in their entirety prior to becoming meaningful... — Possibility
It seems that perhaps your framework will not allow us to say something about that which exists in it's entirety prior to meaning, without ending in self-contradiction, but that inevitable result is - I strongly suspect - due to the inherent flaws within that framework. — creativesoul
Why the scare-quotes around the terms truth and existence? The words are part of a relation, so if that's what you're saying by calling them both relations, I would concur. However, as parts of language use, they are meaningful, so it doesn't make sense to say that both exist in their entirety prior to becoming meaningful. — creativesoul
‘Truth’ is an example of this, and so is ‘existence’. Both of these relations exist in their entirety prior to becoming meaningful, and the relations that we construct within the bounds of language are more accurately understood as an incomplete perspective (an approximation) of the possible relation in its entirety. — Possibility
I would also not call existence "a relation" or a relationship that exists in it's entirety prior to becoming meaningful. — creativesoul
Well, my framework is not a logical one, but a relational structure which is founded ultimately on a binary contradiction. I’m okay with that, because I can relate to it. Relation doesn’t fit within a logical framework, no matter how hard we try. — Possibility
Relation doesn’t fit within a logical framework, no matter how hard we try. — Possibility
Interesting. It reminded me of para-consistent logic or rejecting bivalence or rejecting the LEM. Have you no issue with explosion? No use for truth? — creativesoul
This might be our main point of contention. It seems to fit fine to me, without ending in incoherency, equivocation, or self-contradiction. — creativesoul
I would also not call existence "a relation" or a relationship that exists in it's entirety prior to becoming meaningful.
— creativesoul
What would you call it then? — Possibility
Existence is a relation to the possibility of non-existence. In its entirety, and prior to becoming meaningful, the possibility of existence is inseparable from its negation.
The relation is not meaningful in its entirety necessarily within language use, only as a partial render/construction of the entire relation. — Possibility
I would also not call existence "a relation" or a relationship that exists in it's entirety prior to becoming meaningful.
— creativesoul
What would you call it then?
— Possibility
Having an effect/affect. A necessary precondition of becoming meaningful and/or becoming part of a causal and/or spatiotemporal relation. — creativesoul
“Existence is a relation to the possibility of non-existence. In its entirety, and prior to becoming meaningful, the possibility of existence is inseparable from its negation.”
That looks like an attempt at a logical rendering to me.
Here's my issue with it...
When something exists in it's entirety prior to language use, there is no possibility that it does not, and there is no negation.
Considering whether or not something or another exists; parsing existence in terms of the possibility of non-existence; claiming that existence is inseparable from it's negation presupposes that negation itself exists. Negation is entirely existentially dependent upon language use. Existence is not. Hence, as above, when something exists in it's entirety prior to language use, there is no possibility that it does not, and there is no such thing as negation. — creativesoul
As a thinking process prior to language use, prior to formulation into thought, existence is BOTH possible and impossible... — Possibility
Ok. But do you agree that existence, as a necessary precondition of becoming meaningful, has at least the possibility of a relational effect/affect prior to its own meaning? — Possibility
Ok. But do you agree that existence, as a necessary precondition of becoming meaningful, has at least the possibility of a relational effect/affect prior to its own meaning?
— Possibility
The question makes little to no sense on my view. Not all things that exist are meaningful. Some causal and spatiotemporal relationships exist in their entirety prior to ever becoming meaningful to any individual creature capable of attributing meaning. — creativesoul
Our knowledge of that which exists in it's entirety prior to becoming meaningful and/or prior to our becoming aware of it is certainly limited. — creativesoul
I interpret your position - and I’m confident you’ll correct me if I’m mistaken - as saying that something is only meaningful when meaning is attributed by a creature capable of...distinguishing between meaning and change, or between meaning and shape, for instance.— Possibility
So the fact that an amoeba alters direction until it is travelling along a chemical gradient (and I realise we may be going over very old ground here) does not render an amoeba ‘capable of attributing meaning’. Am I close, or way off? — Possibility
I would concur that the fact that an omoeba alters direction until it is traveling along a chemical gradient does not render an omoeba capable of drawing correlations between different things, the chemical gradient being one of those things... — creativesoul
I would concur that the fact that an omoeba alters direction until it is traveling along a chemical gradient does not render an omoeba capable of drawing correlations between different things, the chemical gradient being one of those things...
— creativesoul
So...the chemical gradient is not meaningful to the amoeba? The amoeba is incapable of drawing a correlation between the shape of the chemical gradient and the direction of motion? — Possibility
So, meaning exists by virtue of a correlation between not just different things, but significant objects, as in the focus or goal of a thinking subject. The potential or capacity for thought, for you, is a precondition to the possibility of meaning, then - not the other way around. — Possibility
I use "things" and not "objects" for good reason. I reject the subject/object dichotomy/framework as well as a few other inherently inadequate, but nonetheless commonly used ones. — creativesoul
As far as the last statement goes, I would tentatively agree, but it's quite a bit more nuanced than that, especially after language use has begun. Along the evolutionary timeline, there are situations where some prior meaning is a precondition for some potential thought. But, as a matter of initial emergence, meaning and thought are co-dependent upon one another. — creativesoul
...these ‘things’ are more specific than you’re implying with the term. — Possibility
I can see how a ‘bottom-up’ emergence would appear logical from an evolutionary standpoint. But it just seems unnecessarily complicated, to me. A bit like a geocentric structure of the solar system. — Possibility
That sort of comparison - if warranted - ought at least be accompanied by some real life example that somehow shows a lack of explanatory power inherent to the position I'm advocating here. Ptolemy's position failed to be able to account for observation. — creativesoul
I... ...couldn’t hope to match your grasp of the topic... — Possibility
There is a naturally occurring process by which all meaningful things become so. — creativesoul
Significance and meaning are distinct. — creativesoul
Some things that make significant impact upon what happens next are not at all meaningful to the creature being significantly impacted. — creativesoul
I’m proposing that, for those creatures unable to distinguish between meaning and significance, meaning IS that significance. — Possibility
The aquarium plays a life sustaining role in my cat's life. Since water is life sustaining and the aquarium provides water, the aquarium is a significant part of my cat's life. That is never considered by the cat. The aquarium's life sustaining role in my cat's life goes completely unnoticed by my cat.
So, meaning is not that significance. — creativesoul
Not all things significant to the cat are meaningful to her. All things meaningful to the cat are also significant to her. — creativesoul
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.