What a boring bunch.

:mask: :smirk: :mask:

Meaning.

What are you hoping to discuss here?

My only quibble that I can see is that it emerges by virtue of drawing correlations, full stop.

My only quibble that I can see is that it emerges by virtue of drawing correlations, full stop — Possibility

Cool. I'm listening. Quibble away.

:wink:

Potentially more Lounge material but.. is it a tongue? lol. speech?

Edit: or words?

Ok - given that meaning exists before it emerges, are we in agreement first of all that its existence is not necessarily as a ‘thing’?

There is an aspect of existence, then, that exists not necessarily as a ‘thing’ regardless of correlation.

To say that meaning emerges by virtue of drawing correlations only ‘between different things’ rules out the possibility of meaning emerging from a correlation between a ‘thing’ and some undiscovered existence of meaning.

I hope this is clear enough.

I am inclined to wonder if you are speaking of the imaginary or imagination.

...given that meaning exists before it emerges... — Possibility

That's not a given. How can something exist before existing? Emergence is coming into existence.

To say that meaning emerges by virtue of drawing correlations only ‘between different things’ rules out the possibility of meaning emerging from a correlation between a ‘thing’ and some undiscovered existence of meaning. — Possibility

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Could you provide an example of some undiscovered existence of meaning?

Those are meaningful things.

...given that meaning exists before it emerges...
— Possibility

That's not a given. How can something exist before existing? Emergence is coming into existence. — creativesoul

Ok, clearly I’ve misunderstood you, then. My interpretation of ‘emerge’ was this, from Google Dictionary:

1. move out of or away from something and become visible.

Or perhaps this:

2. become apparent or prominent.

Either way, I misinterpreted your statement here:

It exists in it's entirety long before we've acquired the means to discover and/or take proper account of it. — creativesoul

as existing prior to emerging.

Can't wait for the disappointing answer to this hot mess of a riddle.

But will it be kept from us forever because the answer would ruin the point behind the question? Is this just a charade to generate conversation?

Once the donkey gets the carrot, the donkey stops.

Purpose.

Either way, I misinterpreted your statement here:

It exists in it's entirety long before we've acquired the means to discover and/or take proper account of it.
— creativesoul

as existing prior to emerging. — Possibility

I see. Understandable.

"Meaning exists in it's entirety long before we've acquired the means to discover and/or take proper account of it" was just making the point that (some)meaning exists in it's entirety prior to language.

In the above, we could exchange "exists" with "emerges" and lose nothing meaningful. Emergent meaning is newly formed. I would not agree that meaning exists prior to being formed, although I realize that several schools of thought believe otherwise.

Can't wait for the disappointing answer to this hot mess of a riddle. — Nils Loc

A nice bit of rhetoric. Lacks quite a bit of meaning. Enough to sound profound to some, I'm sure. Not I.

It's also poisoning the well.

To say that meaning emerges by virtue of drawing correlations only ‘between different things’ rules out the possibility of meaning emerging from a correlation between a ‘thing’ and some undiscovered existence of meaning. — Possibility

This deserves revisitation.

That's not what I said.

Purpose.

It's the aim of all translation... — creativesoul

Aside from the bit above, I'd say that that's as close as any other besides...

Meaning. All purpose is full of meaning. Not all meaning is full of purpose.

Hey Praxis!

Hope this finds you well.

I see. Understandable.

"Meaning exists in it's entirety long before we've acquired the means to discover and/or take proper account of it" was just making the point that (some)meaning exists in it's entirety prior to language.

In the above, we could exchange "exists" with "emerges" and lose nothing meaningful. Emergent meaning is newly formed. I would not agree that meaning exists prior to being formed, although I realize that several schools of thought believe otherwise. — creativesoul

So you’re saying that meaning may exist prior to language, but we have no means to discover it as such. How would you know that it exists fully formed, then? And what form could this meaning have?

FWIW, I am of the school of thought in which meaning exists prior to being formed. Language enables a suggestion of possible forms, allowing a meaningful relation to emerge as potentially significant.

To say that meaning emerges by virtue of drawing correlations only ‘between different things’ rules out the possibility of meaning emerging from a correlation between a ‘thing’ and some undiscovered existence of meaning.
— Possibility

This deserves revisitation.

That's not what I said. — creativesoul

Ok, I think I’m with you now. So, would you agree that any possible relation is meaningful?

All purpose is full of meaning. Not all meaning is full of purpose. — creativesoul

Meaning without purpose, aye? Can you explain, show or demonstrate that?

"Meaning exists in it's entirety long before we've acquired the means to discover and/or take proper account of it" was just making the point that (some)meaning exists in it's entirety prior to language. — creativesoul

So you’re saying that meaning may exist prior to language, but we have no means to discover it as such. — Possibility

I'm saying that meaning exists prior to language, and language is the means by which we can discover and take proper account of that.

How would you know that it exists fully formed, then? — Possibility

Well...

We can know that meaning exists in it's entirety prior to language use(naming and descriptive practices) by virtue of using language to acquire knowledge of how all meaningful language use works; how meaningful things become meaningful to us; how successful communication happens; how all successful translation happens; how all meaningful thought and belief that are formed via language use can be, and then discovering that there is a basic autonomous process underlying all this that makes it all possible, and that that process does not require naming and descriptive practices to be a part of it. Rather, we can know that language use becomes part of this already ongoing process, adding to it's complexity.

We can know that meaning exists in it's entirety prior to language use(naming and descriptive practices) by virtue of knowing that language-less creatures form, have, and/or hold thought and belief about what's happened, is happening, and/or is about to happen, in very much the same way we do(by virtue of the same basic process) and knowing that all thought and belief is meaningful to the creature forming, having, and/or holding it.

...would you agree that any possible relation is meaningful? — Possibility

I wouldn't. I would completely agree that many relationships exist prior to any and all language use(causality, spatiotemporal, symbiotic, existential dependency, elemental constituency, significance, familial, biological, etc.); that some relations do not(they depend upon language use for language use is part of the relationship); that some language dependent meaningful relations exist prior to an individual language user's acquisition thereof; that some relationships exist prior to meaning; etc..

...but I would not agree that all relations(or any possible relation) are(is) meaningful.

Meaning without purpose, aye? Can you demonstrate that? — praxis

Well, I'm not sure what would count as a successful demonstration to you, but I could try...

Touching fire causes pain. One can learn that touching fire causes pain by virtue of touching fire, feeling pain, and drawing a correlation between the touching and the resulting pain. The fire becomes meaningful to the creature by virtue of doing so. The creature has attributed/recognized causality, and has done so correctly in this case.

Where would purpose fit into this? The creature didn't aim to get burnt.

Okay, dead end.

How about relationships?

I would completely agree that many relationships exist prior to any and all language use(causality, spatiotemporal, symbiotic, existential dependency, elemental constituency, significance, familial, biological, etc.); that some relations do not(they depend upon language use for language use is part of the relationship); that some language dependent meaningful relations exist prior to an individual language user's acquisition thereof; that some relationships exist prior to meaning; etc..

...but I would not agree that all relations(or any possible relation) are(is) meaningful. — creativesoul

So you say that some relationships exist prior to meaning, but not all, and that some relations do not exist prior to language use. I have to ask: by exist, do you mean in relation to a self-conscious subject?

I do not just mean that things exist in relation to a self-conscious subject, but some meaningful relations certainly do, and cannot exist in absence thereof.

Thought.

I do not just mean that things exist in relation to a self-conscious subject, but some meaningful relations certainly do, and cannot exist in absence thereof. — creativesoul

But can they possibly still exist simply as relations, regardless of meaning?

I should have further qualified... some things... are in relation to a self-conscious subject, and cannot exist in absence thereof.

Edited to add:

Oh, never-mind. I already had properly quantified that claim.

Thought. — Sir2u

:smile:

I should have further qualified... some things... are in relation to a self-conscious subject, and cannot exist in absence thereof.

Edited to add:

Oh, never-mind. I already had properly quantified that claim. — creativesoul

Yes, I got that, but it doesn’t answer my question. If some relations can exist ‘prior to’ meaning, and some cannot exist as a meaningful relation in absence of a self-conscious subject, who’s to say it isn’t the same relation, which exists meaningfully only in the presence of a self-conscious subject, yet also exists in its absence, ‘prior to’ or regardless of meaning?

In other words, is ‘meaningful’ an inherent property of some relations, or a possible attribute of all relations?

If some relations can exist ‘prior to’ meaning, and some cannot exist as a meaningful relation in absence of a self-conscious subject, who’s to say it isn’t the same relation, which exists meaningfully only in the presence of a self-conscious subject, yet also exists in its absence, ‘prior to’ or regardless of meaning? — Possibility

I don't think you grasp what's being written. Some more connections need to be made.

Causality is an example of a relationship that exists in it's entirety prior to meaning. Spatiotemporal relationships are another. Shame is a relationship that cannot exist in the absence of a self-conscious subject.

Are you really asking me who's to say those aren't the same relation?

:brow:

In other words, is ‘meaningful’ an inherent property of some relations, or a possible attribute of all relations? — Possibility

Are those the only options?

:yikes: