A few notes on meaning
November 18th 2011 01:44
In a sense, there's no such thing as a romantic relationship -- there is no such thing as a relationship. You have two people, their memories of each other, their behavioural dispositions, their environment, their social and legal contracts, etc. But it's not as if the relationship has reality in itself; this is merely a convenient way of speaking.
Well, the same is true, I'd suggest, of "meaning". It's not as if meanings exist -- this is merely a (very) convenient way of speaking. We seem to have an idea that words are containers that carry meaning; words travel from one brain to another and offload their cargo. But do words contain anything? Isn't the more realistic way of thinking to say that words are sounds and images -- physical things -- and they have physical effects that might or might not match my desires?
Is there non-physical "meaning" in addition to words? -- I am caused to produce the words, I produce them, they have effects on you -- is there anything more?
Do people have to have a single intention when they speak? Do they have to have a clear intention?
Judges will sometimes use the "intention" of parliament when interpreting a statute. But the whole thing is legal fiction: that law was drafted by many people, was voted on by many people, was worked through many committees. So, how could there be a single "intention"? It's not as if a parliament is a person.
But is a person a person? Don't people "contain multitudes" in the same way that parliaments do? Don't people have many and contradictory thoughts, and don't they change over time?
Do people have to have a single meaning when they speak?
-- Sometimes people want their words to work on multiple levels simultaneously, for instance literal and metaphorical.
-- Sometimes they want to convey different messages to different audiences simultaneously (to the spy who's bugged your phone as well as the diplomat you're talking to).
-- Sometimes they want words to be open to different interpretations simultaneously, as I did with "life-affirming".
Do people have to "have a meaning" at all?
The idea of "meaning" seems to involve other concepts -- intention, free will, reference, thought, clarity.
But consider:
-- People can begin to speak before they're quite sure what they think, or the words can come in a flash of insight before their sense is understood.
-- Sometimes they speaking without thinking at all, automatically reaching for cliches or favourite words/phrases -- perhaps defensively. Speech can be a conditioned response.
-- Sometimes they've memorised words without knowing the meanings -- national anthems, song lyrics, nursery rhymes, prayers, etc.
-- Sometimes people want the words to be meditated upon, to be explored in their ramifications, as with poetry or koans.
-- Sometimes they use words as causal levers, without regard for reference -- the child that learns "fuck" as a swear word before knowing what fucking is; the bridegroom uttering words as part of a marriage ritual; the actor that knows Shakespeare's words will move her audience, though she can't decode Elizabethan English; the writer that puts words together because they "sound right", regardless of their sense.
-- Sometimes people will just waffle, trying to conceal lack of meaning; or they'll speak in terms so general as to be devoid of meaning.
-- Sometimes people are intentionally vague or ambiguous; and this vagueness can in turn have other effects or communicate other things: coy or flirting ("I'm old enough for a lot of things now"), threatening ("You'll get what's coming to you"), humorously solemn or profound ("Reality exists").
Well, the same is true, I'd suggest, of "meaning". It's not as if meanings exist -- this is merely a (very) convenient way of speaking. We seem to have an idea that words are containers that carry meaning; words travel from one brain to another and offload their cargo. But do words contain anything? Isn't the more realistic way of thinking to say that words are sounds and images -- physical things -- and they have physical effects that might or might not match my desires?
Is there non-physical "meaning" in addition to words? -- I am caused to produce the words, I produce them, they have effects on you -- is there anything more?
***
Do people have to have a single intention when they speak? Do they have to have a clear intention?
Judges will sometimes use the "intention" of parliament when interpreting a statute. But the whole thing is legal fiction: that law was drafted by many people, was voted on by many people, was worked through many committees. So, how could there be a single "intention"? It's not as if a parliament is a person.
But is a person a person? Don't people "contain multitudes" in the same way that parliaments do? Don't people have many and contradictory thoughts, and don't they change over time?
***
Do people have to have a single meaning when they speak?
-- Sometimes people want their words to work on multiple levels simultaneously, for instance literal and metaphorical.
-- Sometimes they want to convey different messages to different audiences simultaneously (to the spy who's bugged your phone as well as the diplomat you're talking to).
-- Sometimes they want words to be open to different interpretations simultaneously, as I did with "life-affirming".
***
Do people have to "have a meaning" at all?
The idea of "meaning" seems to involve other concepts -- intention, free will, reference, thought, clarity.
But consider:
-- People can begin to speak before they're quite sure what they think, or the words can come in a flash of insight before their sense is understood.
-- Sometimes they speaking without thinking at all, automatically reaching for cliches or favourite words/phrases -- perhaps defensively. Speech can be a conditioned response.
-- Sometimes they've memorised words without knowing the meanings -- national anthems, song lyrics, nursery rhymes, prayers, etc.
-- Sometimes people want the words to be meditated upon, to be explored in their ramifications, as with poetry or koans.
-- Sometimes they use words as causal levers, without regard for reference -- the child that learns "fuck" as a swear word before knowing what fucking is; the bridegroom uttering words as part of a marriage ritual; the actor that knows Shakespeare's words will move her audience, though she can't decode Elizabethan English; the writer that puts words together because they "sound right", regardless of their sense.
-- Sometimes people will just waffle, trying to conceal lack of meaning; or they'll speak in terms so general as to be devoid of meaning.
-- Sometimes people are intentionally vague or ambiguous; and this vagueness can in turn have other effects or communicate other things: coy or flirting ("I'm old enough for a lot of things now"), threatening ("You'll get what's coming to you"), humorously solemn or profound ("Reality exists").
| 34 |
| Vote |
Comments (6)
Add Comments
Read More