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? — creativesoul
Or perhaps I’m just approaching it from a perspective that you’re struggling to relate to - it certainly wouldn’t be the first time... — Possibility
I have to ask: by exist, do you mean in relation to a self-conscious subject? — Possibility
‘Causality’ as signifying a meaningful relation ignores the limited understanding of relationship structure to which it refers, and claims to signify the whole relationship. The ‘relationship that exists in its entirety prior to meaning’ here refers to an ‘event horizon’ of sorts: awareness of a more complex qualitative structure that transcends the meaningful relation we define as ‘causality’. Same with ‘spatio-temporal relationships’. — Possibility
What do the scarequotes mean? Are you talking about the words themselves? — creativesoul
I’m distinguishing between the relationship structure it defines and the more complex relation it refers to. — Possibility
The scare quotes are to note that I’m using the word as a reference... — Possibility
I’m distinguishing between the relationship structure it defines and the more complex relation it refers to.
— Possibility
What does the term "it" pick out here to the exclusion of all else? — creativesoul
The scare quotes are to note that I’m using the word as a reference...
— Possibility
I'm not following. Are you referring to the word? Mentioning the word's earlier use? Are you talking about the word or are you using the word as a means for talking about the referent of the word(what the word picks out)? — creativesoul
It looks like there's been some substantial revisions and/or additions to the last few replies...
I've yet to have re-examined them. Need to prior to saying much more. — creativesoul
...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
The aquarium existed in it's entirety prior to becoming meaningful to my cat. The aquarium was not meaningful to the cat until the cat drew correlations between the water in the aquarium and the satisfaction of her own thirst that drinking water can provide. Now, the cat goes to the aquarium whenever she wants a drink of water. The aquarium existed in it's entirety prior to becoming meaningful(significant) to her. — creativesoul
If something exists meaningfully only in the presence of a self-conscious subject, then it cannot be said to exist in the absence thereof(regardless of any further subsequent qualification). Those are mutually exclusive statements; one the negation of the other. A relationship cannot do both, exist meaningfully only in the presence of a self-conscious subject, and exist in it's entirety in the complete absence thereof. That's an incoherent and/or self-contradictory train of thought. — creativesoul
The aquarium is meaningful to you as an aquarium, but is now meaningful to your cat NOT as an aquarium but as a water source. From your perspective, it’s both an aquarium (existing as such in its entirety prior to becoming meaningful to your cat) and a meaningful relation as a potential water source for your cat. — Possibility
...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... — Possibility
If something exists meaningfully only in the presence of a self-conscious subject, then it cannot be said to exist in the absence thereof(regardless of any further subsequent qualification). Those are mutually exclusive statements; one the negation of the other. A relationship cannot do both, exist meaningfully only in the presence of a self-conscious subject, and exist in it's entirety in the complete absence thereof. That's an incoherent and/or self-contradictory train of thought. — creativesoul
Beg to differ. It cannot be said to either exist or not exist in absence of a self-conscious subject. The key qualification in the statement is ‘meaningfully’. — Possibility
...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
Beg to differ. It cannot be said to either exist or not exist in absence of a self-conscious subject. The key qualification in the statement is ‘meaningfully’. — Possibility
...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
Beg to differ. It cannotbe said toeitherexistor not existin absence of a self-conscious subject. The key qualification in the statement is ‘meaningfully’.
— Possibility
These two contradict one another otherwise, because you said what you claimed could not be... — creativesoul
It can be said to exist - if something exists meaningfully only in the presence of a self-conscious subject, then it possibly exists in the absence thereof - and also possibly doesn’t exist. — Possibility
...there is no way to prove it either way, because proof requires the presence of a self-conscious subject... — Possibility
Are you really saying that there's no way to prove that some things exist in their entirety prior to becoming meaningful to an individual creature capable of attributing meaning/significance to them? — creativesoul
Are you really saying that there's no way to prove that some things exist in their entirety prior to becoming meaningful to an individual creature capable of attributing meaning/significance to them?
— creativesoul
Short answer: no. — Possibility
When it is the case that something exists, it is not possible for that situation to be any other way. Things don't do both, exist and not exist simultaneously. The ONLY possible way to not exist is...
...not existing.
That's what it means to say those things. Saying otherwise ends in self-contradiction. Saying both that something exists, and that that same something possibly doesn't exist is self-contradictory. — creativesoul
It is neither objective nor subjective; neither internal nor external; neither material nor immaterial; neither physical nor non-physical. It does not have a spatiotemporal location. It causes and/or leads to actions. It evokes feelings, and affords memories. It facilitates language creation and it's subsequent use. It's the key of all successful communication. It's the aim of all translation. It emerges by virtue of drawing correlations between different things. It exists in it's entirety long before we've acquired the means to discover and/or take proper account of it. — creativesoul
Existing and existing meaningfully...
Do you draw and maintain that distinction? — creativesoul
I don’t think we can say anything about ‘relations that exist in their entirety prior to meaning’ within the bounds of logic.
But if we can say something... — Possibility
Existing and existing meaningfully...
Do you draw and maintain that distinction?
— creativesoul
Yes - but in terms of relational possibility, not just logical possibility. — Possibility
I don’t think we can say anything about ‘relations that exist in their entirety prior to meaning’ within the bounds of logic.
But if we can say something that appears contradictory...
— Possibility
More self-contradiction. — creativesoul
Yes - but in terms of relational possibility, not just logical possibility.
— Possibility
Not in terms of what it takes in order for something to become meaningful(existing meaningfully)? — creativesoul
we can think about it, and it’s at least possible that we can relate to it prior to language use, beyond the necessity of significance or potential, perhaps even meaningfully - exploring possible distinctions and relational structures between significance and meaning. — Possibility
I don’t think we can say anything about ‘relations that exist in their entirety prior to meaning’ within the bounds of logic. — 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.