“Either way” is miselading how? I simply said squiggles or not there is physical presence (therefore an archeological artifact). — I like sushi
You used the word “text”. If you call something a “text” then you’re saying it is a “text”. Don’t blame me for your lack of clarity. — I like sushi
You are presupposing something lost by calling it a “text”. If not then you’re saying little more than “this text is not a text”. At best you could say this is not a text it is a pseudo-text.
Surely you can follow my thinking here?
Just because it has not been mentioned, does not mean it hasn't been accounted for. — creativesoul
I think we can agree that meaning of the same marks, signs, and symbols changes through time and different use. The scare-quotes are no longer necessary. The meaning of a text is determined by the users of the language. That meaning can persist through time even if there are more than one(accepted in practice) use for the marks, even if the marks are correlated to different things than the original users. The original meaning, however, could not persist if no one correlated the marks to the same things at all. The same holds good of all common use.
— creativesoul
Clearly the scare-quotes are necessary, as you continue to assert that meaning can persist through time, when I’ve already explained why it doesn’t. There is a difference between continuity of meaning and persistent meaning - the original meaning does not persist, it cannot persist because of the nature of meaning. Once the text is created, all we have are relationships between the text within context (including the author’s subjective experience) and ourselves within context. — Possibility
When we talk about meaning persisting, we mistakenly assume that we can extract the original meaning of some texts but not others, when the best we can do is approach it by understanding (often by imagining) the context of the author’s experience.
This is what happens when you make a statement or assertion in this forum, too. The original meaning of your statement exists only in your subjective relationship with what you wrote. You cannot assume that it persists anywhere else, let alone that anyone reading it would understand your meaning as ‘the meaning’ simply because the markings you’ve used to communicate it are regularly in use today. So when they query what you wrote, you can’t just refer back to what you wrote as if ‘the meaning’ is inherent in the markings themselves. You need to give more information about the subjective experience behind what you wrote. You need to offer more context. Otherwise they attribute their own meaning to what you wrote, or dismiss it as nonsense. — Possibility
How does this relate to the ancient text? Well, an ancient text, like all texts, does not stand alone - it exists in context. So it is only potentially meaningless if we are ignorant of context - of the relationships it has with anything and everything we experience and interact with today - not just the language. As long as we can relate to the context surrounding a text, we can begin to approach the original meaning, to imagine it and strive to understand it - although only the author could ever really ‘know’ it. This is not necessarily because it is ancient and the original users of the language are all dead. It’s difficult to assume the original meaning even of a modern text, if we cannot relate to its context. — Possibility
This is what happens when you make a statement or assertion in this forum, too. The original meaning of your statement exists only in your subjective relationship with what you wrote. You cannot assume that it persists anywhere else, let alone that anyone reading it would understand your meaning as ‘the meaning’ simply because the markings you’ve used to communicate it are regularly in use today. So when they query what you wrote, you can’t just refer back to what you wrote as if ‘the meaning’ is inherent in the markings themselves. You need to give more information about the subjective experience behind what you wrote. You need to offer more context. Otherwise they attribute their own meaning to what you wrote, or dismiss it as nonsense. — Possibility
In the language of mathematics the meaning does persist through time. If all trace of it was lost it could still be rediscovered, and in this line of thinking propositional logic could still be rediscovered too. — I like sushi
...the original meaning does not persist, it cannot persist because of the nature of meaning. — Possibility
I argue for my position. — creativesoul
That sort of thinking will impede you. Definitions can be wrong. There is a difference between 'just asserting' a definition and arguing for one. Apparently, you do no see the relevance of justificatory strength either, and all that that involves...
Put down the axe. There are no proper grinding stones around here. — creativesoul
The general point is that an ancient totally unfamiliar text is meaningless if all it's users have perished. As a result, there is no ability to decipher one if that's all that is had. — creativesoul
Why are you stating the obvious by saying if we cannot find meaning in something it has no meaning to us? If you’re suggesting that because we cannot find any meaning in something there isn’t any possible meaning that is no more than a mere assumption.
What “false dichotomy”? You appeared not to know the difference between “history” and “pre-history” so I told you. It is something anyone who knows a reasonable amount anout history and archeology should know. Understand you’re saying something equivalent to the differentiation between “the bronze age” and “the iron age” is a false dichotomy.
Still waiting for what your “argument” is. Hope is dwindling fast so maybe your time would be better spent replying to the other guys here. I’ll take a back seat. — I like sushi
Of course, you are still faced with the meaning of your own words in this thread persisting through time as well... Outright denial doesn't make any sense at all in light of that. — creativesoul
The historical is important. Prehistory is the issue because we tend to assume too much without written evidence/varification... — I like sushi
What “false dichotomy”? You appeared not to know the difference between “history” and “pre-history” so I told you. It is something anyone who knows a reasonable amount anout history and archeology should know. Understand you’re saying something equivalent to the differentiation between “the bronze age” and “the iron age” is a false dichotomy. — I like sushi
Why are you stating the obvious by saying if we cannot find meaning in something it has no meaning to us? — I like sushi
I’m NOT arguing. How can I when I’ve no idea what you are proposing? — I like sushi
The gist I’ve read is that someone writes a text (therefore the act has meaning to them). All the people die and the language dies with them. The meaning is lost. — I like sushi
From here you could argue about the actual existence of “meaning” (by which I assume you mean “stored information”?), but it doesn’t really matter. The information is lost and it would seem impossible to recover - in which case we’d infer some hidden meaning but never be able to know one way or another.
That’s my best guess as to what you mean. Amend/confirm if you can.
I’m under no illusion that there is ‘the meaning’ of my words that persists through time. Whenever I interact with the words I wrote, there is meaning in that interaction, and a sense of continuity between that meaning and the ‘original meaning’ when I wrote it, seen as a relationship. When you interact with the same words, there is potentially a different meaning as a different relationship, and I can only approach your meaning by interacting with the way you then express your relationship with the words, within the context of what I understand about the English language, about this thread discussion and what little I understand about you - just as you can better approach the ‘original meaning’ by interacting with the context of the English language, etc and what you understand about me (eg. what else I have written in this thread). — Possibility
The words persist through time (also debatable as a digital entity), but meaning is found in each interaction with those words. If you talk about persistence of meaning, then you run into assumptions that this meaning exists as an entity instead of a dynamic relationship. I get that you understand what you mean, but it’s not always coming across as clearly as it appears in your mind. I don’t expect anyone to understand what I’m talking about just because I wrote it down. — Possibility
I'm proposing that any and all texts written in language that is completely and totally devoid of users is utterly meaningless. — Creativesoul
I’m NOT arguing. How can I when I’ve no idea what you are proposing?
— I like sushi
Fair enough. Pardon my argumentative posture.
I'm proposing that any and all texts written in language that is completely and totally devoid of users is utterly meaningless. — creativesoul
No need to “propose”. Just say it. We speak English and understand what that means. If you don’t know what this means I’ll tell you. It means “we cannot find meaning in something we cannot find”. Again, obvious. — I like sushi
As to the issue of “meaning” you appear to be conflating this with “information”. That is probably what is causing us to talk past each other.
...Maybe you’d be better off expressing to me what you think the connection between information and meaning is? — I like sushi
...Meaning is not a concept to be given ostensively. The ostenisive giving is the expression of information which provides a shared objective meaning through language. — I like sushi
...Another thing is a “dead text” can still be recognised as a text. There are certain grammatical rules understood by linguistics that can help us differentiate between a string of random squiggles and an actual language. If we know that some markings are from a language, or a means to communicate/express some thought/idea, then archeological terms it provides information. — I like sushi
The intent of the author may be lost for ever, yet the intent can be reasonably assumed or they’d be no markings (of course they could be accidental, but certain marking ae highly unlikely - impossible - to be accidental). — I like sushi
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.