I hope that you play here. I like watching.

Whoosh!

The meaning of life is that life is used as a jail...

...used by some judge or another for punishment of our actions, protection of others from our actions, and for our own rehabilitation.

This all presupposes that the actions we're being punished for, that others are being protected from, and that we're being rehabilitated for, were taken - somehow - prior to life itself.

Gibberish.

A. We can't know instances of truth without having a definition of truth/knowledge [methodism]

B. We can't have a definition of truth without knowing instances of truth/knowledge. [particularism] — TheMadFool

I disagree.

Language users can know when some statements are true or not long before they have a definition of truth or knowledge. That much is easily proven.

The idea of "white privilege" is one of those contorted politically correct concepts, confected to cause offence, to divide people and incite the very racist sentiment it is purportedly intended to address. The white working class majority who struggle to make ends meet - cannot but be offended by such a concept, but that's precisely the purpose. — counterpunch

That's not what white privilege is. It's not an idea. It does not require being named. The name "white privilege" is used to pick out something that existed in it's entirety prior to being picked out by the name. Whites do not typically think about the fact that they are not treated unfairly because they are non white, because they are not... treated unfairly as a result of being non white. Whites are exempt from the liability of being non white in America. Being exempt from that liability is white privilege. There's no intent to cause offense. There's no intent to divide people. There's no purpose to offend poor whites.

The intent, the purpose, is to shed some much needed light upon the ongoing mistreatment of non whites in America that stems from the racist foundations that America was built upon.

White privilege is something that requires being discussed because it is something that is ingrained in American culture and needs to be corrected. Such discussions will enlighten those who do not realize the historical extent of the suffering that non whites have been forced to bear simply because they are not white. It brings to light the fact that racism still plays a pervasive role. It forces us to decide whether or not we will look the other way, or at the very least, take a stand against the unfair treatment of others. Make the conversation happen on all the levels that will effect/affect the necessary change.

Trump tried to cancel such free speech, such academic teachings, by executive order nonetheless. It's an American history lesson that needs to be taught to each and every American, not just at the university level.

There is a distinction between meaningful and meaningful TO someone. — Possibility

I missed this. I completely disagree.

If we replace "someone" with "a creature capable of attributing meaning" there is no distinction between being meaningful and being meaningful to a creature capable of attributing meaning.

Your notion of significance blurs the distinction between causality and meaning. Causality is always significant, but not always meaningful. That's part of my rejection of significance being equated to meaning. They are not equivalent.

I’m not saying that Cookie attributes possible meaning, but that possible meaning is attributable (by us)... — Possibility

If we attribute possible meaning to my cat...

Can we be wrong? How could we possibly know that we are? What standard of comparison could we use as a means to know what sort of stuff is meaningful to her, could become meaningful to her, and what sort of stuff cannot possibly be, or cannot ever become meaningful to her?

People seem to have forgotten about all the horrible stuff that has happened to poor white people, usually done by other white people, so the concept of white privilege rings hollow to me. — Book273

It is quite possible to do both, talk about the injustices/plight of poor whites while noting that even poor whites do not have to worry about being shot and killed because they are black, unless that is, they are mistaken as such, which does happen. Poor whites do not get stopped and harrassed for walking black at night, do not get immediately overlooked for a job because their name is unusual, etc.

There's an intersection here of being treated unfairly. Discussion of white privilege does not require ignoring the plight of poor working class whites. It's actually quite sad that so many poor white take immediate offense to the notion as well as Black Lives Matter.

White privilege is what white people do not have to deal with on a daily basis that non whites do. It is injury suffered because one is non white that white people avoid suffering because they are not. It is the exemption from the liability of being non white. It's not a misnomer at all. Some folk misuse it, but some folk run stop signs and misuse free speech as well. The former president's team of attorneys has recently done precisely that, which is hypocritical on it's face given the former president's own speech and actions taken against peaceful demonstrations and Critical Theory.


As white privilege pertains to matters of free speech in academia...

Do you find anything at all wrong with universities teaching extensive in depth classes about the plight of Black people in America, with a particular focus upon the civil war era and afterwards? Dred Scott? Black Code in the south? Redlining? Segregation? Frederick Douglass? The lack of a path to American citizenship for black people(even those born here)? The sustained demonization of public assistance policies? The creation of mythical creatures like 'welfare queens'? The continued demonization of black men?

it was synthesis that called you racist - so why bring it up with me and book273? — counterpunch

Yes. My apologies.

If you agree that the term is a misnomer... — counterpunch

I do not.

Yes, it was another who charged me with being racist. Have you looked at the link I provided? It's about privilege, and much of it is about the notion of white privilege in particular.

Did either of you have a look at the earlier link provided?

Since I've been called a racist here, do I not get my speech protected? You know... the speech that led you to believe I'm racist?

When she’s thirsty, her limited capacity for thought gravitates towards this potentiality. If you empty the tank, she would still consider it, but it may eventually drop in this significance in favour of other water sources with more recently perceived potential to satisfy an allocation of attention and effort toward the relation. — Possibility

When she's thirsty she goes to the place where she drinks. She knows how to get there. If she found it empty, she'd go elsewhere.

I have an overall relational structure in mind that is six-dimensional, with possibility or meaning as six-dimensional structure, value, potential or significance as five-dimensional and physical interaction, events or life as four-dimensional structures of relation. Each dimensional level allows a corresponding level of integrated awareness. — Possibility

I'm suddenly reminded of being charged with using an unnecessarily complicated framework.

Leaves are elemental constituents of the process of raking leaves. A link of existential necessity. Where there have never been leaves, there could have never been leaf-raking.

Leaves are to leaf-raking as some speech is to certain individual action taken.

If we're unable to define a human right we shouldn't insist there is one. — counterpunch

Are you suggesting that there is no such thing as rights afforded to any and all individuals simply because they are human?

My point is that possible meaning is attributed where we recognise variable significance, and potential significance is attributed where we recognise variable attention and effort. — Possibility

This looks like of those times where the narrative gets meta and the authors lose sight of the ground.

The very notion of possible meaning is existentially dependent upon language use. Where there has never been language use, there could have never been anyone hedging their bets upon another's meaning. Possible meaning is only attributed within a language game. Cookie does not play such games.

That’s how you recognise the significance of the relation... — Possibility

'The' relation? As if we've only been discussing one. Clarity... please.

:brow:

There are a plethora of different relations between the aquarium and the cat. Some are meaningful to the cat. Some are not. Some are significant to her. Some are not. Some are both, significant and meaningful to her. Some are significant but not meaningful to her. All things meaningful to her become so by virtue of becoming a part of some correlation or other that she draws between different things. Some meaningful things exist in their entirety prior to ever becoming a part of a correlation she draws between them and other things(prior to ever becoming meaningful to her). Some do not.



WE recognize the life-sustaining relation between water and her(this harks back to the aforementioned "role" that the aquarium plays) as well as a place for her to get a drink. One of these two relations she is aware also of, but the other... not so much. The aquarium is meaningful to her as a place to get a drink. The aquarium is significant to her as a place to get a drink and as an elemental constituent in/of that process. She recognizes the aquarium as a place to get a drink, not as a life sustaining source of drinking water. Not all things that have a significant impact upon her life are meaningful to her as such.

The cat's aquarium is becoming more and more the perfect example for us to use.

Fair enough - not consciously recognised as significant, but nevertheless manifest in her attention and effort towards the aquarium. That’s how you recognise the significance of the relation - because her attention and effort (her integration and manifestation of significance) is not just meaningful but significant TO you. It is not, however significant TO me, although I recognise its potential significance, and that is meaningful to me. — Possibility

The cat is neither you nor I.

You people... — counterpunch

Gotta love that one!

:kiss:

The cat doesn’t need to distinguish purpose or meaning in order for her interactions to be purposeful or meaningful. — Possibility

I concur.

The relation between the cat and the aquarium may not have a particular meaning for the cat - she recognises its significance, and manifests that significance through her actions. But the relation is NOT meaningless, regardless of what the cat does or doesn’t notice or consider.

The life sustaining role is not recognized by her for she does not have the language in order to be able to draw such complex correlations. The relation is meaningful to us, and significant to her by virtue of being life sustaining. She has no clue.

Not all things significant to her are also meaningful to her. Unless something becomes part of a correlation drawn by a candidate under consideration, it is not meaningful to them. That same something may be significant to her without her ever becoming aware of the significance that it has.

Significance is not equivalent to meaning.

Not all things significant to the cat are meaningful to her. All things meaningful to the cat are also significant to her.

I’m proposing that, for those creatures unable to distinguish between meaning and significance, meaning IS that significance. — Possibility

The aquarium plays a life sustaining role in my cat's life. Since water is life sustaining and the aquarium provides water, the aquarium is a significant part of my cat's life. That is never considered by the cat. The aquarium's life sustaining role in my cat's life goes completely unnoticed by my cat.

So, meaning is not that significance.

Some things that make significant impact upon what happens next are not at all meaningful to the creature being significantly impacted.

So,

Significance and meaning are distinct.

There is a naturally occurring process by which all meaningful things become so.

I... ...couldn’t hope to match your grasp of the topic... — Possibility

I appreciate your saying that but I'm still stitching it all together, so to speak.

Damn. It looks like we have a respectful conversation happening. I appreciate that more than these words can possibly convey(pun intended :wink:). Your latest response shows some promise for more detailed explanations than just "different things" to be worth getting into. I'll incorporate significance as well by making the distinctions between it and the attribution of meaning clear.

May be a while though...

Cheers!

And certainty too?

My, my, my...

Have a look at the link I offered above. My position is clear.

What an incredibly racist thing to say — synthesis

Oh dear, yet another person who doesn't know what racism is. Gawd help us.

I did.

My participation begins on page 7. Take a look. you might be surprised at what I say.

Here

There's an older thread called Privilege. I suggest you have a look.

I know exactly what the concept of white privilege is about... — counterpunch

No, I do not think that you do. If you did, you wouldn't have said the things that you have.

The idea of "white privilege" is one of those contorted politically correct concepts, confected to cause offence, to divide people and instigate the very racism it is purportedly intended to address.

The white working class majority who struggle to make ends meet - cannot but be offended by such a concept, but that's precisely the purpose. — counterpunch

Oh dear, yet another white person that does not know what white privilege is, nor the benefits of acquiring such knowledge. So many people equate privilege to being wealthy. It's not about being wealthy.

Freedom of speech has been rather shamelessly invoked as a means to exonerate otherwise completely unacceptable behaviour. If one's speech is used as a tool to intentionally harm an innocent, it needs to be stopped.

Unfettered freedom of speech is a dangerous, potentially world-ending thing.

I'm offended by people who seek to take offence. — counterpunch

Yeah. Let's keep an eye out for those!

:lol:

I can see how a ‘bottom-up’ emergence would appear logical from an evolutionary standpoint. But it just seems unnecessarily complicated, to me. A bit like a geocentric structure of the solar system. — Possibility

Hmm. That strikes me as rather odd. On the one hand, you point out that "things" are much more specific(and rightly so, by the way) than the term implies, but then on the other you claim that an evolutionarily amenable theory of meaning such as the one I've been advocating 'just seems too unnecessarily complicated', and further compare it to Ptolemy???

That sort of comparison - if warranted - ought at least be accompanied by some real life example that somehow shows a lack of explanatory power inherent to the position I'm advocating here. Ptolemy's position failed to be able to account for observation.

Aside from that false analogy and/or false equivalence, there's something else a bit curious about the charge of 'unnecessarily complicated' that becomes clear to one who chooses to compare our explanations here. I mean, to be clear, I would say much the same thing regarding the framework you've been employing - and have if memory serves me.

If you compare our respective positions, what are the benefits of the theory of meaning that you advocate that are found sorely lacking in mine?

...these ‘things’ are more specific than you’re implying with the term. — Possibility

There's a curious thing about both implication and entailment, but that's another topic in it's own right.

When we talk about particular circumstances involving particular individual creatures capable of attributing meaning by virtue of drawing correlations between different things, the things will be stipulated and/or more clearly identified. "Thing", however, I found fits best in a universally applicable description of that basic process(the attribution and/or misattribution of meaning). I used to use "objects of physiological sensory perception", but I become 'painfully' aware of the fact that not all meaningful things are such. In addition, I've a host of other reasons for rejecting object/subject talk. So, as any reasonable critical thinker ought do, I decided to no longer use that description as a result of finding it lacking and/or inadequate for taking proper account of all attribution and misattribution of meaning.

When I'm making the claim that all meaning is the result of drawing correlations between different things, I'm offering a basic outline which can be applied to any and all particular examples of meaning. There are no exceptions to the contrary.

So, with regard to the concern expressed in the quote at the top of this page...

When we begin talking about particular examples, as we did earlier with my cat, those "things" become less vague. It's not a flaw. It's a feature.

So, meaning exists by virtue of a correlation between not just different things, but significant objects, as in the focus or goal of a thinking subject. The potential or capacity for thought, for you, is a precondition to the possibility of meaning, then - not the other way around. — Possibility

I use "things" and not "objects" for good reason. I reject the subject/object dichotomy/framework as well as a few other inherently inadequate, but nonetheless commonly used ones.

As far as the last statement goes, I would tentatively agree, but it's quite a bit more nuanced than that, especially after language use has begun. Along the evolutionary timeline, there are situations where some prior meaning is a precondition for some potential thought. But, as a matter of initial emergence, meaning and thought are co-dependent upon one another.

...at least he said it. — Wayfarer

Indeed. Cannot stand that guy. He is not a sincere person. Very dishonest, in a lies of omission sort of way. He should be impeached for openly admitting that he could not perform his sworn oath to be an impartial witness in a presidential impeachment(the first one). That was ground for recusal, but he stayed and acted as a juror nonetheless.

As far as I'm concerned, each and every public official that fostered the big lie needs to be removed. All of them. McConnell is not one of them though. He was very careful regarding what he said about Trump's right to redress grievance during the whole Trump go fund me lame duck session.