Keith Elis wrote:
>
> FallAwake wrote:
> >
> >
> > [David Pearce]
> > >You mean I've been wasting my time reading Bateson, Bohm, Fodor and
> > > Peirce when the answer was in Webster's all along?
> >
> > um yes. because webster suplies signifigant meaning to more people than
> > bateson bohm fodor and pierce.
>
> I think Webster's definition of "philosophy" might be leaving some
> things out, such as all of human thought. I also think the meaning of
> "God" might actually have a little more to it than Webster lets on.
>
> But these are just smart-ass examples. I suppose I might offer a bit
> more substance.
>
> The dictionary is purported to be a convention utilized to facilitate,
> and standardize communication. A multi-lingual dictionary allows us to
> translate words back and forth between languages, further facilitating
> communication between linguistic groups. Sure, you can look up the word
> "life", but I bet that it won't put you all that much closer to knowing
> the meaning of life.
>
> The dictionary is curious insofar as it defines words using words. These
> definitional words need to be defined as well. So on and so forth until
> by some magical process, all the words in the dictionary are defined
> using words in the dictionary. If it weren't for synonyms, I wonder if
> the dictionary would even be possible. I mean take the verb "to be" for
> instance. Most would define this to mean "exist" or "occur". But
> clearly, that which does not exist and does not occur, can still "be" in
> some sense because we can talk about it.
>
> Very recently (in an entirely different context) I was challenged to
> come up with the smallest number of words that could define each other.
> I came up with three verbs, and they are all synonymous in some way with
> "is".
>
> is equals matches
> matches is equals
> equals matches is
>
> This assumes that a definition takes the form of A=B. But interestingly,
> when we say A=B, B suddenly becomes A, and then A=A. A definition
> purports to equate two words such that the two are really just
> expressions of the same meaning.
>
> For some reason though, not all A equals B. We don't ever say "a dog is
> a cat" do we? Why can't a dog be a cat if we define them that way? For
> that matter, why do we think the statement "a dog is a dog" is any
> better? Or do we? What about "Rover is a dog?" That seems correct in
> some sense.
>
> And how do we really know that 1 = 1? Doesn't 1 = 9/9, too? Well
> obviously we define 1 to be equal to 9/9. So then 1 can be equal to all
> sorts of things, but only because we define it that way.
>
> The problem as I see it in this discussion of meaning (which I have been
> following with some interest), is how meanings are created, and either
> validated or invalidated. Only after deciding how a definition is deemed
> to be correct or "certain" can one argue about the validity of any
> particular definitions.
>
> In testing definitions, logic seems like a pretty good place to start.
> (But what is the definition of logic?)
>
>
> Boat drinks,
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> Hagbard Celine
> >87
> mailto:hagbard@ix.netcom.com
> PGP Public Key at http://pw1.netcom.com/~hagbard/Homepage.htm
> PGP 5.5 Fingerprint EAE3 DD4A 8A64 0099 DAC0 0A8B 472E 69DF 54A8 F34B
-- ______________________________________________________________________ Hagbard Celine >87 mailto:hagbard@ix.netcom.com PGP Public Key at http://pw1.netcom.com/~hagbard/Homepage.htm PGP 5.5 Fingerprint EAE3 DD4A 8A64 0099 DAC0 0A8B 472E 69DF 54A8 F34B