> So H. sees meaning arising because two similar things are compared? Is
> this not simple metaphorical description, and as such an elementary
> statement about the function of language?
> Or is he going for the _third_ level of information produced by this
> comparison- the symbols which can begin to stand for all things
> likely to be this way? and is that not simple pattern finding?
> Even, gasp, statistical reduction?
In a certain sense, yes, the idea IS an elementary statement about the
function of language. However, it goes deeper than that in many places, in
that many religious rituals are designed to be isomorphic to processes in
reality (or interpretations of said processes) (e.g. fertility rites /
rituals with the dying and rising of the god). It is through that
isomorphism that the events achieve meaning.
That said, I'm looking for counter-examples. Are there any instances of
"meaning" which are NOT examples of an isomorphism?
How about "I didn't mean that"?
Does it translate to "you have perceived the wrong isomorphism"?
(also to "I deny the isomorphism I just expounded"; the original is
ambiguous)
Thought I had a counter-example there for awhile... rats.
ERiC