What does it mean for a text to have users? — Fooloso4

People using the language the text is written in.

The user of a text may not be the same thing as a reader of the text.

Reading presupposes understanding. Understanding presupposes use. 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.

Definition of noun

: any member of a class of words that typically can be combined with determiners (see DETERMINER sense b) to serve as the subject of a verb, can be interpreted as singular or plural, can be replaced with a pronoun, and refer to an entity, quality, state, action, or concept

Definition of concept (Entry 1 of 2)
1 : something conceived in the mind : THOUGHT, NOTION

What's the point?

I've no issue with any of this. I stand by everything I've argued thus far.

...we can still say that meaning is always at least originally bound up in a context of social practices, or, if you prefer, is always at least originally located in individual minds. Which means that the question isn't an enlightening one, in that it doesn't do much to resolve that debate.

Or am I missing the issue? — jamalrob

Seems you may be missing the issue.

I take you to mean an ancient text in an unknown language that is as yet undeciphered. — jamalrob

Rather, I'm questioning whether or not it is even able to be deciphered. Moreover, what that would take. I'm considering currently used languages, and what interpretation requires. I think that knowledge gleaned from such considerations is rightfully applicable to the OP.

In English, nouns are persons, places, or things...

"Meaning" is a noun. It is neither a person nor place. I'm not conflating concrete with abstract, nor do I. I reject the reification charge. It is misplaced.

So asking if the meaning was lost when its culture disappeared or is somehow still contained in the stone tablet, waiting to be released again, is ambiguous. It's either, depending on how you're using the word "meaning". — jamalrob

I agree that a coherent answer will follow from one's notion of "meaning". Can one's notion of "meaning" be false, wrong, incomplete, and/or somehow otherwise (mis)conceived? I'm certain of it.

Something to consider...

All notions of "meaning" are meaningful despite the fact that many of them are incommensurate and/or incompatible with one another.

That could not be the case unless being meaningful did not depend upon our notion of "meaning".

Reification of meaning. — jamalrob

Please explain this charge.

What needs to be definitively determined is what it takes for the meaning of this text in this language to persist through time. What is it that is persisting? To answer "the meaning" is not at all helpful. For starters, the written aspect of the language persists. That holds good for the ancient text as well. Secondly, the use of the language. That does not hold good for the ancient text. So, the question then becomes...

Is the meaning of written text existentially dependent upon it's use?

The debate offer extends to you as well...

It is a fact that if you cannot determine whether or not it has been correctly deciphered, then you cannot know whether or not it even has meaning, for you do not know what that meaning consists of.

Intentional patterns presuppose a pattern maker with volition.

Doesn't that deny non-linguistic meaning?

Don't like answering questions about the position you hold?

:worry:

I'm just trying to understand it, and making a well-fitted noose at the same time...

So... when looking at a text how do you know that it's been correctly deciphered?

So... when looking at a text how do you know that it's been correctly deciphered?

So, the pattern itself is all it takes after it is made?

Fair enough. I've not been reading everything you write to everyone.

It might or might not be possible to decipher the text in the future even if it is impossible now. — Janus

Set it out.

What all would have to also be the case in order for us to decipher the meaning of an ancient text?

This is precisely what's at issue. How do you determine whether or not a text has meaning?
— creativesoul

No, it's not what is at issue at all. Whether or not a text has meaning is not dependent on whether we can determine that it does. — Janus

You're right. That's not what is at issue at all. The fact that you do not have a clear cut criterion for what all meaning consists of is at issue.

Logical possibilities are not facts.

Editing...

If there were no meaning their to be deciphered then, of course, it would be meaningless. — Janus

This is precisely what's at issue. How do you determine whether or not a text has meaning? What standard do you use as a means for comparison/contrast when considering all the different candidates?

On the fact that it might be possible to decipher its meaning. — Janus

Logical possibilities are not facts.

Moreover, however unlikely it might be, it's possible it could simply be intentionally produced undecipherable marks that are designed to mimic script, but have no meaning. More likely, though, is that it would be intentionally produced meaningful script. So, that's what should be said about it: it is likely that it is meaningful, even though we cannot say, and may never be able to say, what the meaning is. — Janus

Certainly, we can say - with great likelihood - that the ancient text was meaningful to the language users. Upon what ground do you conclude that it remains meaningful after the language users perish?

That is precisely what's at stake... yes?

I tell ya what Sapientia... If you'd like to, I'd love to...

There has yet to have been a formal debate on this forum. I think that our discussion has shown several conflicts between our respective views regarding linguistic meaning. Let's have a debate. You can call all your friends if you'd like to help you. You'll need it if this thread is any indication...

Does meaning transcend language use?

That would be the debate topic. You could argue in the affirmative, and I in the negative. We could set the parameters up after the agreement is made. Or if you'd like a different topic question... just say so. I'm down...

Whaddaya say? Ready to show everyone how clever you are?

:wink:

Anyone who is willing to assert that a correlation between different things does not always require, include, and depend upon a creature capable of drawing it...

Raise your hand...

Like we're in grade school. Love it.

The meaningfulness and the meaning of intentionally produced marks (heiroglyphics) is embodied in the marks themselves. — Janus

Open them... look for yourself.

The meaningfulness of the word "tree" does not embody the tree nor the utterer of the word. It would need to if what you say were true.

The meaningfulness of the word "tree" is the result of language users uttering "tree" as a means for picking out the referent.

The meaning of "tree" consists of the term, the referent, and the language user uttering the word while talking about the tree(the referent).<-----that is the attribution of meaning.

I have not been doubting your ability to put together a valid argument!

p2.All correlations are existentially dependent upon a creature capable of drawing such correlations
— creativesoul

This is the problem. — S

No. It's not.

There are no examples of a correlation being drawn between language use and something else that do not include a creature drawing the mental correlation between them.

p1.All meaning consists of correlations that have been drawn between different things
p2.All correlations are existentially dependent upon a creature capable of drawing such correlations
C1.All meaning is existentially dependent upon a creature drawing correlations between different things(from p1, p2)
p3.Linguistic meaning is a kind of meaning
C2.All linguistic meaning is existentially dependent upon a creature drawing correlations between different things(from C1, p3)
p4.When more than one creature in a community draws the same correlations, meaning is shared, and linguistic meaning emerges via language creation
C3.Ancient texts were once meaningful solely as a result of being one part of the language users' correlations(from C2, p4)
p5.The language users from whence the ancient text came, to whom it was meaningful, no longer exist
p6.The language users' correlations between the text and other things no longer exist
C4.The ancient text is meaningless(from C3, p5, p6)

The irony...

I just pointed out a case of affirming the consequent.

p1.All meaning consists of correlations that have been drawn between different things
p2.All correlations are existentially dependent upon a creature capable of drawing such correlations
C1.All meaning is existentially dependent upon a creature capable of drawing correlations between different things(from p1, p2)
p4.Linguistic meaning is a kind of meaning
C2.All linguistic meaning is existentially dependent upon a creature capable of drawing correlations between different things(from C1, p4)

And note: this is not to say that natural patterns cannot have any meaning, either; the point is that whatever meaning natural patterns might have is not intentionally produced. Natural patterns are signs, not symbols; so for example fossils are signs of animals or plants that once existed, lava flows are signs of past volcanic activity, and so on. — Janus

Conflating meaning with causality. Equivocating the term "meaning" as well.

Charming insightful reply...

...that they could be wrong about the meaning of an ancient text indicates that there must be a right interpretation; so it follows that the text has meaning, even if we cannot discover what it is. — Janus

Talk of interpreting an ancient text presupposes that it is meaningful. That presupposition is mistaken, as it is based upon an ill conceived notion of meaning. All meaning consists of correlations that have been drawn between different things. All such correlations were made by the language users. The language users are all dead. Without the users there are no correlations. Where there are no correlations, there is no meaning.

Anyone who breaks one of my cardinal rules risks triggering my wrath: — S

During feeding times, a mother duck can be very aggressive towards young males when her ducklings are little. I once watched one of them bite an adolescent male by the wing and get dragged about thirty yards. It was a tug-of-war. Quite funny to witness. The male was not at all alarmed, he had been through this many times before. Par for the course, so to speak. He showed no signs of being in pain. Rather, he simply walked at a slightly faster than normal pace dragging her along with him, while she was literally planting her feet into the ground in a failed attempt to pull him the other direction. She pulled and pulled against the grain, her feet never quite gaining traction...

The funny part was that towards the end of the struggle between the two, he stopped where some food was and took a couple of bites before continuing to drag her a bit farther..

He never missed a beat...

She finally let go.

I think the question is relevant. It's not a matter of whether we can know (in the sense of have absolute certainty) that we have deciphered an ancient text correctly, but of whether it is possible to be wrong or right about whether we have deciphered its meaning. — Janus

Indeed.

If all we have is a previously unknown, never-before-seen, ancient text, then all we can be certain of is that that text was meaningful to the language community from whence it came. We cannot be certain about whether or not we - as interpreters - are drawing the same correlations between the text and other things.

Since all meaning consists of correlations drawn between different things, and all shared meaning consists of a plurality(within a community) of creatures drawing the same correlations between language elements and something else, then it only follows that we - as interpreters - cannot be certain that our correlations have the same content as the people from whence the writings came, because we have only the text.

As a result, we have no way to falsify/verify that we've drawn the same correlations between that text and the corresponding content within the original correlations drawn by the users.

That's an epistemological aspect.

If we accept that there can be unknown, but decipherable meaning, in other words that there can be meaning there to be deciphered, then that would seem to commit us to accepting that meaning is not merely in the human mind.

I am of the position that meaning is not merely of the mind(thought/belief), but there is no meaning without the mind(thought/belief). This could be further explained, if need be. For the purposes here, it seems unnecessary.

All meaning consists of correlations drawn between different things, and the drawing of correlations is existentially dependent upon a creature capable of drawing such. It only follows that all meaning is existentially dependent upon a creature capable of drawing correlations. No creature, no correlations. No correlations, no meaning.

The connection between language elements(signs/symbols/tokens/phrases/movements/what have you) and the corresponding content is made by the creature. When all the language users die, the connection between the text and it's corresponding content ceases to exist. Without the correlations, there is no meaning.

All interpretation is of that which is already meaningful. There is no interpretation possible of an ancient unknown text from a group of long dead language users. Such a text is meaningless.

That's an 'ontological' aspect.

When you learn proper grammar, and when you're capable of logic on my level, get back to me, and we can sensibly continue this — S

If you had any clue...

Shakes head and walks away...

Existential dependency doesn't change with time.

Your 'logic' will inevitably change variables when attempting to set it all out. Save me the trouble of making you look bad here. It will. Trust me.

The correlation depended on the creature for its existence, but it does no longer....

That's an example of how to use the grammar of tenses properly, and how to do logic properly. Perhaps you can learn from my example. — S

That's an example of self contradiction.

Surely you're not claiming that correlations can be drawn between things without a creature capable of drawing the correlations?
— creativesoul

Jesus H. Christ. No. — S

Good.

So all correlations drawn between different things are existentially dependent upon a creature capable of drawing them.

Linguistic meaning consists of correlations that have been drawn between different things.

Linguistic meaning is existentially dependent upon a creature capable of drawing correlations.

The contentious matter is about whether or not the linguistic meaning continues to exist when the language users do not, but the writings do.

That is far more nuanced, but if you cannot accept the basics, that nuance will not be rightly understood.

That's the origen of linguistic meaning.

Surely you're not claiming that correlations can be drawn between different things without a creature capable of drawing the correlations?

You evidently do not understand the difference between assuming and concluding.