There is often an assumption that there is only the meaning of this ancient text, as if a single meaning was somehow inherent in the text itself. But meaning exists in a relationship between observed text and observer/user. It is not inherent in the text, but neither is it separable from either text or observer.

So, if a text is considered ‘meaningful’, are we saying that the text contains meaning, or that there is a meaningful relationship between the ancient text and any modern user? Conversely, if a text is considered to have no meaning, are we saying that it is meaningless, or that there is no meaningful relationship established between the text and the modern user?

For meaning to ‘persist through time’, there must be a sense of continuity perceived in this particular relationship between texts and users through time. Take the word ‘love’ for instance. While there is a sense of continuity between this text and the same word (using the same symbols) written in English for the last five hundred years, the claim that a similar continuity exists between users (readers and writers) of the word ‘love’ over that same five hundred years is much less certain.

Meaning is a fluid process of seeking continuity in a relationship between various interactions of users and texts. Statements of meaning in a dictionary attempt to ‘shore up’ this sense of continuity from the side of the text, but language and textual meaning does not so much ‘persist’ through time as much as it flows - changing and fluctuating in small, complex ways with each interaction between texts and users. This is why dictionaries need to be regularly updated, and why we cannot even conclude that the meaning of the ancient text ‘persisted’ (without change) throughout the time period during its use.

So, is a newly discovered and completely unfamiliar ancient text still meaningful?

Well, it doesn’t have inherent meaning that persists through time, if that’s what you mean by ‘still’. The original meaning of the text exists only in the moment the chisel was put to stone, so to speak. That meaning may have been intended for a particular audience and in response to a particular experience or interaction, all of which may not be apparent in the text or its context (where it was found, etc). Nor can we be certain that the meaning intended was effectively communicated to any user at all. Incidentally, we can find various ways in which modern users can interact with the text in a meaningful way, but this is not ‘the meaning’ you’re looking for, is it?

If our intention is to approach the original intended meaning of the text, then we need to concentrate not just on our interaction with the symbols (whether or not these symbols are still in use), but with the original users of those symbols - to share in the human experience that motivated that particular use of that particular combination of symbols in the context of the user’s particular sum of human experiences up to that point. This is not a purely logical process, nor is it ever going to be conclusive. We can really only imagine the original meaning from our position, and to share our various perspectives on it, towards further developing the complex web of continuity in relationships between texts and users throughout time. — Possibility

Nice. This touches upon everything I've brought into consideration thus far, and sharpened one aspect in particular; the bit about meaning changing over time.

It seems you agree with me.

History means “written” (“histo”). Prehistory refers to the period before written/writing evidence. We know something about the lives of people in the ancient world because they wrote about it. In anthropology the field has suffered during it’s history because people assumed too much about a given culture through the lens of modern eyes with no actual historical evidence using only archeological evidence and inferring from there.

Of course we’re prone to making misleading assumptions about ancient texts too. The point is there is at least a text to work from... — I like sushi

And what exactly can be known based upon the marks alone if there are no users of the language?

And yet they're still meaningful. And that's the problem with interpreting "meaning is use" in this awful idealist way. — S

Wittgenstein is often implicated but is not guilty by association.

But, like you go on to suggest, you can take away the "for us" and there's still a meaning. — S

I think creativesoul agrees with this but thinks it requires an argument to demonstrate its truth. But then again, although I am a "user" of English, whatever it is he thinks he has so clearly stated evades me.

And yet they're still meaningful. And that's the problem with interpreting "meaning is use" in this awful idealist way.
— S

Wittgenstein is often implicated but is not guilty by association. — Fooloso4

:up:

But, like you go on to suggest, you can take away the "for us" and there's still a meaning.
— S

I think creativesoul agrees with this but thinks it requires an argument to demonstrate its truth. But then again, although I am a "user" of English, whatever it is he thinks he has so clearly stated evades me. — Fooloso4

The problem isn't that it requires an argument, because prior to this discussion there have been at least three discussions with pages upon pages of argument for just that. It has been the hot topic on the forum for weeks. Two of my discussions on this topic are the two most viewed discussions of the month, and my third more recent one is the most viewed of the week.

Who writes in hieroglyphs? Who writes or speaks in Demotic or any form of ancient Greek? There are a few people who know how to read these languages but no one "uses" them. — Fooloso4

We've been over this already. I gave argument. You ignored it. You offer gratuitous assertions.

Reading presupposes understanding the meaning of a text. One cannot possibly understand the meaning of a text without using it. One cannot possibly read a text without using it.

All readers of a text are users of it's language.

I think that meaning must be considered alongside context, as indicated here. The OP focusses tightly on meaning, but does not even mention context. I think this is an oversight that could usefully be corrected. — Pattern-chaser

Just because it has not been mentioned, does not mean it hasn't been accounted for.

We've been over this already. I gave argument. You ignored it. You offer gratuitous assertions.

Reading presupposes understanding the meaning of a text. One cannot possibly understand the meaning of a text without using it. One cannot possibly read a text without already understanding the language it is written in.

All readers of a text are users of it's language. — creativesoul

@Fooloso4, apparently you can't understand a text without reading it or knowing the language, and reading it makes you a user of the language. I know, I don't see the logical relevance either. At least not outside of his little world with all of his implicit assumptions that not everyone shares.

His argument is a success... so long as you share all of his implicit assumptions, which you and I and others do not.

Meaning is a fluid process of seeking continuity in a relationship between various interactions of users and texts. Statements of meaning in a dictionary attempt to ‘shore up’ this sense of continuity from the side of the text, but language and textual meaning does not so much ‘persist’ through time as much as it flows - changing and fluctuating in small, complex ways with each interaction between texts and users. This is why dictionaries need to be regularly updated, and why we cannot even conclude that the meaning of the ancient text ‘persisted’ (without change) throughout the time period during its use. — Possibility

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.

Orwell...

The difference in "senses" of a mark is determined by what it is correlated to/with. All this is relevant to misunderstandings between people who use the same marks but do not understand one another.

I'm unsure how this applies to the ancient text, in general. It may have had different meanings throughout it's use. If the last actual users of the text did not draw the same correlations between it and other things, then they themselves would not be using the text to talk about the same things as the original users. While the ancient text could have meant lots of things to different people who used the text, or the language therein, it still seems to be the case that after all the users perished, so too did the all of the correlations drawn between the marks and other things.

Fooloso4, apparently you can't understand a text without reading it or knowing the language, and reading it makes you a user of the language. — S

The last point is the problem. It depends on the meaning of 'use'. I use it in the same sense that Wittgenstein does - use in practice. Reading a text is not practicing a language. A dead language is by definition no longer practiced.

Reading a text and looking at marks.

The difference?

Understanding the meaning.

We've been over this already. I gave argument. You ignored it. You offer gratuitous assertions. — creativesoul

Okay. I think this says all that needs to be said.

You assume that the ancient text is still meaningful despite it's users all having perished. That needs argued for in my book. In yours, evidently not. That's fine by me. However, all you've done is fallen prey to confirmation bias.

The Rosetta Stone is not all problematic for anything I've said here. It fits right in.

A dead language is by definition no longer practiced. — Fooloso4

And yet Latin is still used...

The last point is the problem. It depends on the meaning of 'use'. I use it in the same sense that Wittgenstein does - use in practice. Reading a text is not practicing a language. A dead language is by definition no longer practiced. — Fooloso4

I agree, except that I don't actually think that it's a problem either way in the broader context of what this discussion is supposed to be about, because the text would continue to have meaning, in my sense, either way. It doesn't have to be read or practised if the meaning depends on the language rules, and the language rules don't die with the language, which is just to say that it has fallen out of use. I still go by "meaning is use" when suitably interpreted or qualified. I count historic use as a use. That would be what it means in this case. A simple and easy resolution. Meaning by language rules and meaning by use are compatible. You can't have meaning as use without implicit language rules.

There are texts that no living person knows how to read. They are for us meaningless. If someone were able to decipher the texts, however, then some sense of their meaning would be understood, unless they never had a meaning to begin with. The marks might be practice in writing the letters or words, but a series of letters or words has no coherent meaning as a text. Someone might unwittingly attribute meaning to this, but whoever wrote the marks may have meant no such thing. Or what was written did mean something to the author and its readers, but has come to mean something else. And this might mean different things - misinterpretation, giving significance to things did not have the same significance for the author, meaningful to us because it gives a glimpse into the world of the author. — Fooloso4

The author's world does not amount to your misattribution of meaning to his/her words...

If one misattributes meaning to an author's words, the author's world is not understood.

Reading a text and looking at marks.

The difference?

Understanding the meaning. — creativesoul

And the relevance...? :yawn:

The text has meaning, whereas the marks could either have meaning or not, but that can't be known either way if all we know through your unclear comment above is that they're marks. The marks could be text. They could even be the text: the one you're referring to. The text could be in English. It could be meaningful. Or it could just be random meaningless marks. You'd need to clarify.

You ignored it. You offer gratuitous assertions. — creativesoul

However, all you've done is fallen prey to confirmation bias. — creativesoul

So much projection. Anyway, I think I'll join the bandwagon by vacating this discussion and leaving you in peace to argue with yourself. Have fun!

I agree, except that I don't actually think that it's a problem either way in the broader context of what this discussion is supposed to be about, because the text would continue to have meaning, in my sense, either way. — S

The question of what this thread is about has been foremost in my mind from the beginning. I still haven't figured it out. It may be there is no figuring it out. It may all be a dance of the defensive. I think I stepped into an ongoing argument and will step out.

The question of what this thread is about has been foremost in my mind from the beginning. I still haven't figured it out. It may be there is no figuring it out. It may all be a dance of the defensive. I think I stepped into an ongoing argument and will step out. — Fooloso4

Jamalrob hit the nail on the head early on. It is and it isn't. It depends.

If no one understands it then the meaning is lost. What is your point? This is obvious?

If no one understands it then the meaning is lost. What is your point? This is obvious? — I like sushi

That's a better way of wording it. There's a meaning, only it's lost to us.

He's a slowcoach at getting to the point. I often have to try to make an informed guess at the logical connections that he leaves inside his head instead of making explicit. Prepare to be disappointed, as it will probably just be the trivial point that if there are no users of the language, then there's no meaning by his definition.

By his definition, you couldn't rightly say that there's a meaning, but it's lost to us. There just wouldn't be a meaning at all.

His definition isn't very useful. It's limiting and counterproductive.

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. 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.

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.

If no one understands it then the meaning is lost. What is your point? This is obvious? — I like sushi

My point - once again - is that you are presupposing something to be lost.

I do not.

I argue for my position.

Another point is that you refuse to address any argument in lieu of serving up fish. We Iike 'em raw.

You're arguing with yourself, and the idiot over your shoulder is distracting your thought. Click on my avatar. Clink on comments. Read my arguments. Address my arguments.

Incorrect. You set the proposition of “ancient text” not “ancient squiggles”. Either way I assume we’re dealing with an archeological artifact (manmade or orherwise - as it may have been a natural occurance). Given that it appears as a manmade product, say on sheets of hide with obviously intentional markings, we can assume it’s at the very least a representation of a writing system even if it’s a pseudo one.

The term "proposition" does not belong here. My position will show you what's wrong with the notion itself. It will also show you What's Really Going On With Gettier....

All of that is for another thread. This one deals with my position. My position is set out on my terms. "Proposition" is your term, not mine. Explain it's relevance.

Either way I assume we’re dealing with an archeological artifact (manmade or orherwise - as it may have been a natural occurance). Given that it appears as a manmade product, say on sheets of hide with obviously intentional markings, we can assume it’s at the very least a representation of a writing system even if it’s a pseudo one. — I like sushi

To start a line of thinking with "either way" misleads the reader.

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.

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? If I miss your point assume for a second it may be due to the manner in which you’ve presented it and not just the manner in which I am reading it.

...I assume we’re dealing with an archeological artifact (manmade or orherwise - as it may have been a natural occurance). Given that it appears as a manmade product, say on sheets of hide with obviously intentional markings, we can assume it’s at the very least a representation of a writing system even if it’s a pseudo one. — I like sushi

I readily grant that it was meaningful to it's users.

“Either way” is miselading how? I simply said squiggles or not there is physical presence (therefore an archeological artifact).

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.

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? If I miss your point assume for a second it may be due to the manner in which you’ve presented it and not just the manner in which I am reading it. — I like sushi

The last point was well made and well taken.