Yes, a symbol is anything that has meaning but meaning is not always
subjective. I agree meaning is how one thing is in relation to
something else, but this could be one thing in relation to itself.
My understanding of "symbol", is that it translates one thing to
another...or in this context, that it shows a relationship between
things. So, meaning may be "subject" from a materialistic view or
"object" from a subjecive view (so that "symbol is more properly
subject/object-- or "Being"--from a reflexive view).
For example "a man walks" shows meaning in relation to "man" as the one
who walks...shows meaning in relation to walking as the *man* who is
doing this... shows meaning in relation to the observer because the "man
walking" relates to both man-nes and walk-ness in our own symbolic
understanding (since a symbolic man symbolically walks as we reflect
on ourselves walking). Further, this all has meaning because we have
meaning to ourselves (reflect ourself to ourself symbolically as an
object/subject, or Being).
Whether one makes the subjectiveness of this primary, or one makes the
objective nature primary; one sees a relationship which moves from
object to subject to symbol to "being" (symbolic object) backwards
and/or forwards. The object and what it does are just as important to
the meaning as the observation.
Brett Lane Robertson
www.window.to/mindrec
(ICQ under new management)
--WebTV-Mail-118439379-759
Content-Type: MESSAGE/RFC822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
X-Authentication-Warning: maxwell.kumo.com: majordom set sender to
owner-virus@lucifer.com using -f
Message-ID: <i9$dVCAm3V+0Ewus@faichney.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 1998 13:08:54 +0000
To: virus@lucifer.com
From: Robin Faichney <robin@faichney.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Meaning (was Re: virus: New Virus Page)
In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19980227142059.00b557a0@lucifer.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 <pEAKsn0vpZ7L3++1uzfnfP$uLd>
Sender: owner-virus@lucifer.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: virus@lucifer.com
David writes
>At 07:01 AM 2/27/98 +0000, Robin Faichney wrote:
>
>>Meaning is just one aspect of a very particular
>>sort of causation, and it's a subjective aspect.
>
>The only point was to get you to agree that meaning is related
>to causality. Now, is meaning limited to symbols?
No -- unless, of course, you extend the concept of
a symbol to anything that anyone might find
meaningful.
How about this: the meaning of something, for any
particular observer, is the effect of that thing on
them. For the "transmitter", in the case of human
(or other sentient) communications, it's the intended
effect. Given the facts of social interaction,
observers are also interested in the intension, and
transmitters are interested in the actual effects of
their communications. But meaning is always "to
someone" -- otherwise, there's causality, but no
meaning. I think one of the typical problems of
religions is seeking meaning where there is none --
or certainly none of the sort sought. Ultimately,
you could say the whole universe is meaningful (to
those who can find meaning in it), but that doesn't
mean there's an old man with a beard who designed it
that way. We have to accept that meaning is
subjective, and take responsibility for finding it
ourselves. Sure, some meanings that can be found
are more useful than others, but ultimately, that
usefulness is "to someone" too.
-- Robin--WebTV-Mail-118439379-759--