I wasn't saying anything unique about moral utterances re meaning. My comments about meaning applied to all meaning, in general. — Terrapin Station

Meaning is subjective. It's something that occurs in individuals' heads. It's the inherently mental act of making associations. It can't be literally shared, but we can tell others what we're associating in many cases. You can't know how an individual is doing this without asking them. — Terrapin Station

Also, I also think "the ontology of utterances" is a bit funny. What I had said is "what's going on ontologically with utterances (such as 'x is good (morally).')" In other words, what's "functionally" going on, or what's going on in terms of real, or practical, or observable things, which can be quite different than beliefs that people have about what they're saying, what they're doing, etc. — Terrapin Station

So, on your view, can meaning occur without language? — Moliere

Yes, definitely. I do this as a musician all the time, for example.

"When I associate a spout with its vase and see a teapot, is that perception"--that's not a perception, by the way. Perception refers to you taking in data about things external to you. Your association isn't that. It's an activity your brain is performing, and activity that isn't performed by the outside world. So you're conceiving it, not perceiving it.

Anyway, sure, you could do this without any linguistic capabilities. — Terrapin Station

There is no "the" meaning. — Judaka

So, alright. Meaning occurs within the brain, and does not require language. Any old mental association will do -- and, as I understand perception at least, that would include perception. — Moliere

Are you arguing that the meaning of words is not interpreted? — Judaka

I suspect that the difference between what I think your words mean and what you think those words mean is trivial or non-existent. That's what allows language to function. This has not demonstrated objective meaning any more than an objective truth would be demonstrated to be true if it were shown that all souls on Earth believed it was. — Judaka

You're making the common idealist confusion of muddling up what it takes for something to be understood, and what it takes for something to have meaning. Or, more broadly, epistemology and metaphysics. — S

Funny, I would say the same thing to you. — Judaka

You are trying to argue that rules which have been created for the sake of making a language functional have created objective meaning because they are independently coherent and established. — Judaka

Your underlying argument comes back to lots of people agreeing on it. — Judaka

Not only that but definitions aren't sufficient to translate meaning in all contexts by themselves. — Judaka

If I told you I was going to build a great pyramid. You could tell me what every word in the sentence meant but that doesn't mean you understand what I'm talking about.

Because what does the word "great" mean when I use it in the context of talking about a pyramid?

What do the established, coherent rules of language tell you about that? — Judaka

You do need to interpret meaning for it to have meaning and the loop this creates is no different than asking "why" to every answer a person gives.

If I say "X means Y" and "Y means Z" and "Z means X" this creates a loop. You can do this with many things in language.

If I define a chair and define the words I used to define a chair and define the words I used to define the words I used to define a chair and then define those words and define those words then we create a loop. The loop only stops when you stop asking for new definitions because you think you understand what I mean.

Call that what you want but it's just how language works. — Judaka

↪Moliere
The act of explaining what something means. The important thing is that it is a verb. — Judaka

But then, at least if by "interpret" we mean use more words to explain words, there must be more to meaning than interpretation. — Moliere

I would call that more "association". The word "apple" means something to you because you have physical experience of apples. Eventually, words refer back to the experiences they are associated with. — Echarmion

Meaning is the jostle of difference. It resides neither in one place nor another, but flows in-between events of encounter (other meets other). Meaning belongs not to me or you (reading this), but it is shared in-between. — emancipate

If I define a chair and define the words I used to define a chair and define the words I used to define the words I used to define a chair and then define those words and define those words then we create a loop. The loop only stops when you stop asking for new definitions because you think you understand what I mean. — Judaka

There can be no non-reaction to a word you haven't encountered previously. Even if you hadn't the physical experience of apples, the word itself would generate an interpretive experience.

A neologism: qwerpaz. You have had no physical experience of this word, yet it might induce a feeling of confusion or irritation. Perhaps the utterance is euphonic or unpleasant. — emancipate

Nothing can be encountered without invoking a process of interpretation. This is meaning. — emancipate

Can you expand further on what you mean by this? — Judaka

I am not interpreting the meaning of a car horn when I am being startled by one. I might afterward try to interpret it, but this process isn't similar to the initial reaction.

This means "meaning" is equivalent to "experience". Why define terms this way? — Echarmion

SO there is a way of understanding words that does not involve interpretation — Banno