All meaning consists of correlations that have been drawn between different things.
Linguistic meaning is a kind of meaning.
Linguistic meaning consists of correlations that have been drawn between different things. — creativesoul

Correlations that have been drawn between different things are themselves existentially dependent upon a creature capable of drawing them. No such creature, no such correlations.

Whatever drawing correlations is existentially dependent upon, so too is linguistic meaning.

All meaning consists of correlations that have been drawn between different things.
Linguistic meaning is a kind of meaning.
Linguistic meaning consists of correlations that have been drawn between different things.

Now...

Whatever drawing correlations between different things is existentially dependent upon, so too is linguistic meaning.

All meaning consists of correlations drawn between different things.

Let's start there.

Do you disagree?

If so, offer me one example to the contrary. That's all it takes.
— creativesoul

It seems a little unclear. I would change it to: all linguistic meaning consists of correlations that have been drawn between different things. That way it makes it clear that only linguistic meaning is being talked about, and it makes it clear that only a past act is required for there to be linguistic meaning. There's a linguistic meaning if it was set, and if nothing of relevance has changed. — S

All meaning consists of correlations drawn between different things.
Linguistic meaning is a kind of meaning.
Linguistic meaning consists of correlations drawn between different things.

"Drawn" is past tense, so the pedantry is unnecessary. It's not about you. It's about linguistic meaning being a kind of meaning. If all meaning consists of a set of necessary elemental constituents, and linguistic meaning is a kind of meaning, then linguistic meaning consists of those necessary elemental constituents.

Those are what linguistic meaning consists of, plus whatever else it takes to be linguistic(in addition to the basic necessary elemental constituents) as compared/contrasted to other kinds of meaning.

All meaning consists of correlations drawn between different things.

Let's start there.

Do you disagree?

If so, offer me one example to the contrary. That's all it takes.

There is only one creature in existence. A creature draws a correlation between this and that: "In this language, this means that". He writes it down. The creature dies a minute later. Why would the linguistic meaning he set die with him? Why wouldn't this mean that in the language?. — S

One person is insufficient for language. The entire scenario is ill conceived.

Linguistic meaning is existentially dependent upon language users. The meaning does not consist of language users. The meaning consists of correlations drawn between different things. The meaning lives or dies along with the users. If someone or other later finds a text, it is possible for them to decipher some of the meaning. That would require that an interpreter draw the same correlations between the marks and whatever else those marks were correlated with by the original actual users of that language...

How would anyone know if they had any of it right if there is no user to verify?

Step one is for you to go back and revisit the post where I did quote you and offered relevant answers...

page 6 maybe?

Look, I'm not saying that you had bad intent, but I really think that you have a tendency to go about involving yourself in a discussion in the wrong way. — S

Pointing out that the methodology(the terminological framework) you're insisting on, is inherently inadequate for the task is the wrong way to involve myself in the discussion?

How else to I tell you that the problems are the inherently inadequate conceptions, language use, and/or the terminological frameworks you're adopting and working from?

Flies and bottles...

It's like insisting that everyone follow Zeno's language use, and refusing to allow anyone to deviate from it, refusing to allow anyone to use calculus. That is refusing to acknowledge that Zeno's linguistic framework is utterly inadequate for taking account of how the rabbit can catch up to and then pass the turtle.

You're doing much the same thing here.

The problem is the historical language use of 'ontology'...

I'm talking about things that need to be talked about in order to acquire knowledge of the origens of linguistic meaning; knowledge of what linguistic meaning consists in/of...

Are you claiming that that is not relevant here?

:worry:

You talk about using outdated positions like logical positivism, while simultaneously using archaic linguistic frameworks. Those frameworks are the problem. They cannot properly account for meaning. The project is to take proper account of a kind of meaning.

The methodology you're insisting that everyone follow is utterly inadequate for the task.

The question directly addresses the situation you put forth. Why don't you try to deal with issues that your position has?

It's a take on Witt's beetle, by the way.

You're such an obtuse brat sometimes.

You could always address the arguments.

You've provided mostly examples of where empathy is not only useless but harmful, such as understand people you've never met, who went through experiences very different from yourself. — Judaka

I understand what you're saying creativesoul.. — Judaka

The first statement above false. As a result, the second is as well.

Introvert/extrovert?

Those are useless for understanding an other...

There is an ancient text found. No one speaks the language. Some jerkoff or another says that they've deciphered the text. How can anyone know if it is translated correctly?

At the end of the universe sits a chair. Upon the chair sits a copy of The Iliad...

Is either meaningful?

You didn't do as I asked, which was to give a proper answer, where that means giving a fully justified answer instead of just asserting a necessary dependence. — S

Fully justified?

:worry:

You want a thesis on existential dependency and what can be gleaned - on an ontological level - by putting it to use?

Is the justification or truth of my assertions existentially dependent upon you?

I think not.

I find that none of those notions can take proper account of meaning.
— creativesoul

Real helpful. It's ontology or nothing. If you refuse to do ontology, then you're just not cooperating. You must think on that level, and begin to categorise in that way. — S

Why would I continue to use terminological frameworks that are inherently incapable of taking proper account of meaning as a means for taking proper account of a kind of meaning?

:yikes:

I'm asking you a direct question...

Do you have an answer?
— creativesoul

My original answer was good enough. — S

Guess not.

There is only one creature in existence. A creature draws a correlation between this and that: "In this language, this means that". He writes it down. — S

Only one...

Let's stick to arguments based upon a bit more than logical possibility alone...

The last speaker of a native tongue carries the meaning of use along with them at the moment of death.

I'm not a realist on physical law, but we weren't talking about physical laws anyway. We were talking about rules that people construct... — Terrapin Station

Elaborate upon the difference between the two in as precise terms as your worldview allows. Please.

I was thinking in terms of how language rules could be established, and for that communication seems necessary. — Echarmion

I'm thinking that there are unspoken rules at work, especially early on during the development of the language. I'm also thinking that some language rules are constructs of language; written instructions.

Rules of grammar. Syntax. Understanding. Truth. Meaning. Logical rules. The rules of correct inference. All of these things are conceptions.

Do any of them point to a referent that exists in it's entirety prior to being named?

Are you disagreeing with me here?

Are you saying that my assertion is false?
— creativesoul

Let me get this straight. You don't even understand that I was saying that you don't understand? — S

I'm asking you a direct question. Simple.

Do you have an answer?

Sometimes...

Imagination is useless in the pursuit of knowledge. Not always. I'm granting some of the things you've argued. Sometimes, that is the case.

However. at other times, it is clearly not the case. That is what you're failing to grasp here.

One can remember previous times. One can remember previous difficulties. One can recognize when another is going through the same sort of thing. All of this consists of thought/belief. One's recollection can match another's experience. One's account of a shared event can be similar enough to another's actual current experience in the same event/situation.

One can use empathy as a means for better understanding an other. Sometimes, it is a successful endeavor without much effort. Other times the success is impeded a bit, and it takes a bit more...

I've offered an argumentative refutation of the OP's title. I've argued that imagination can be knowledge. None of this has been given due subsequent attention.

"Set" is a name used to pick out a group of different particular things.
— creativesoul

No, that talks about a word. My question was about a thing. De re, not de dicto. — S

Are you disagreeing with me here?

Are you saying that my assertion is false?

A set of rules, ontologically, requires meaning assignments, and that only happens via people thinking about the utterances, the text, etc. in specific ways--which is their brain functioning in particular ways. — Terrapin Station

Does gravity require assigning meaning? Does spacetime not govern the behaviour of all mass?

Are there no rules involved?

I hear of a people who are needlessly suffering. I, myself, have needlessly suffered. I imagine what it would be like to be in their shoes. I see pictures, and read reports. I imagine what it would be like to be in their shoes. The outlook is bleak. There is little hope within their words that I read. I imagine what it would be like to be in their shoes, and then have another person whom I do not know genuinely want to help me.

I imagine all this... then I go help. While there I talk to them and hear their story, see their hope return, watch them smile...

Some of my imaginings were true at the time I imagined them. Others became true(prediction/expectations were verified). All were partially grounded upon my own experience, partially grounded upon my imaginings. This was the experience they were still having. It was not a complete understanding of their situation, yet the empathy led to acting, driven by imaginings. The result was greater understanding...

Always is.

Try it sometime.

Suit yourself.

"How" is a better question.

Why?

Why what?

"Why" is a psychological interrogative.

Copernicus

Einstein

Justified(well grounded) true belief.

Well it seems to me you are saying knowledge must be true, imagination need not be. Those are almost opposite things, even if they consist of thought/belief. — Brett

Well, imagination can be false. Knowledge cannot. However, imagination can consist of well-grounded true belief...

Imagination can be knowledge.

But from what I understand here you said our mistake was to dissect imagination from knowledge, to separate them, that it’s not possible to devorce the two. — Brett

Yes...

And?

You tell me I'm working on mistaken notions but you don't say what... — Judaka

May I suggest that you read this page a bit more carefully?

I'm trying to help you formulate a better understanding of what you're talking about.

Well, you may have decided not to leave the thread but I don't have much more to say to you. You tell me I'm working on mistaken notions but you don't say what, I give you the problems of empathy and you don't give counterarguments. — Judaka

That's just not true.

The simple counter-arguments have been given, without subsequent due attention. Those arguments do not negate everything you've claimed. Nor do I disagree with everything you've claimed. I've argued against the parts that I disagree with.

Any and all claims that rest their laurels(that are grounded upon) the mistaken ideas that a)empathy is useless for understanding an other, and b)imagination is useless for understanding an other.

Neither is sufficient, all by itself. Both are necessary.

Close.

Both consist entirely of thought/belief. Not all thought/belief is true. Knowledge must be. Imagination need not be. Not all thought/belief is well grounded. Knowledge must be. Imagination need not be.

So, no...

Imagination and knowledge are not equivalent. Rather, they are both kinds of thought/belief.

I disagree strongly with your position but I know of a lot of smart people who agree with you, no hard feelings. — Judaka

Nah. No hard feelings.

You may feel strongly. But your disagreement does not have strong justificatory ground. The argument you've presented is not strong at all. Full of conviction. Yes. But weak when compared to actual events.

How does it all tie together to result in language use?

It begins simply and grows in it's complexity. By the time one gets to where you are... asking these sorts of questions... one's understanding is steeped in complexity.

Imagine a family of ducks...

Newborn ducklings will quickly learn to avoid getting too close to the drakes, for they often observe an other ending up dead from being grabbed up by the head and violently shaken. The drakes exhibit other aggressive behaviours in such situations as well. The young-uns quickly learn to avoid the drakes and be on guard when they witness these aggressive behaviours.

During feeding times, sometimes the dominant ducks will behave in such a way as to acquire the most food for themselves(and the ducklings if we're talking about a mama).

Are these behaviours rightly called "rules"?

They certain govern/influence the behaviour of others. Are the dominant ones 'laying down the rules', so to speak? They certainly have/hold expectations involving these behaviours, perhaps as a result of them. They behave aggressively and then expect the other to retreat.

It's funny at times when the adolescents start fighting back! They can become quite surprised.

Judaka’s question, to me, is just the eternal question; can we understand the world through our feelings and ideas? — Brett

Judaka and you both seem to me to be working from a few mistaken notions... The position requires a strong, sharp, and complete dissection of imagination from knowledge...

It's quite simply not possible... at all... to divorce the two.

Both consist of thought/belief, as does understanding.