RE: 'Derek would say that 'doggy' "works" in Ohio but not in the Andes because it "has meaning" only where English is regularly spoken. But why is that? Why doesn't it "have meaning" in a non-relevant speech community? '
Because those in the non-relevant speech community have been taught otherwise. (I know that's simplistic but there is no other answer.) RE: ' It's reasonable to ask Derek to describe as precisely as he can what he has in mind when he says, "a word has meaning" -- in particular what he has in mind with the word 'meaning' and the word 'has'. ' If I could do that I would be able to describe human consciousness, which I can't. RE: ' It's very understandable that we slide from ascribing the act of meaning to a person to ascribing it to a non-sentient entity. "John's letter means --" "That road sign means --" "That poem means --" But when we do we're on a slippery slope. If we're not careful we soon find ourselves arguing about "the meaning of" a poem or novel or painting -- and we're not talking about the notion we're convinced the creator "meant" to convey.' But a person can't mean without the thoughts that encapsulate that meaning and the thoughts can't exist without the words to express them. So in a sense a poem does mean - it is the words of the poet who wrote them. DA -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, 23 March 2008 6:50 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: "Signs", "meanings", and associations Derek quoted Cheerskep: "If I utter "doggy" to a shepherd in the remote Andes, no picture of a dog will arise in his mind. But if 'doggy' "has a meaning", why doesn't that happen? Because he hasn't been exposed to repeated association of the sound, "doggy", with real dogs that his parents pointed at when they said the word." Derek then responded: "Isn't the answer to this just that a word has meaning only in its relevant speech community?" But, for openers, this makes the unwarranted assumption that there exists an entity, or property, or action that Derek believes he "refers to" when he says 'meaning'. And he is required to "account for" the fact that this "meaning" of a word exists only in a "relevant speech community". Derek would say that 'doggy' "works" in Ohio but not in the Andes because it "has meaning" only where English is regularly spoken. But why is that? Why doesn't it "have meaning" in a non-relevant speech community? It's reasonable to ask Derek to describe as precisely as he can what he has in mind when he says, "a word has meaning" -- in particular what he has in mind with the word 'meaning' and the word 'has'. In my previous posting, '"Signs", "meanings" and associations', I argued that the alleged "referent" of 'meaning' is a chimera, there are no such things. I claimed to "account for" everything we think of as "communication" without ever having to cite a "meaning". An atheist might say that to assume the existence of "meanings" is as unwarranted as assuming the existence of souls or guardian angels. My argument also "accounts for" why 'doggy' draws a blank in the Andes: The shepherd was never subjected to the repeated juxtaposition of the utterance "doggy" and a parent's pointing at a real dog -- thus affecting an association in the shepherd's mind. Everything about communication that Derek would require three entities to explain -- a sign (e.g. an utterance), a meaning, and a consequently stirred notion -- I'd explain with two: the sign, and the notion summoned up by the associating mind. Derek's would-be explanation of why "'Doggy' has meaning only in English-speaking countries" raises more (unanswerable) questions than it answers. I should spend a moment on a usage of 'to mean' and 'meaning' that will always be with us and is allowable if serviceably restricted. All instances of the verb form, 'to mean', when ascribed to an entity that is non-sentient -- that can't have notions, intentions -- are wrong because they "refer to" a chimerical action, and they are dangerous because they lead us to assume many other chimerical entities. Inert ink, and even the sound waves of utterances, do not "mean". They are the occasion for all sorts of wildly varying notion in our wildly varying minds. (Our minds vary in their receiving apparatus, their store of remembered notions from which the mind will retrieve things to associate with a newly received sensation, and the retrieving apparatus.) Derek cites public signage that, it seems to him, "have meanings which sometimes stretch beyond a given speech community - e.g. a basic image of a man (and not a woman) on what looks like it could be a toilet door can be found in lots of countries. Arrows for pointing are also pretty well universal." But the communicating effectiveness of these signs can all be accounted for by the "associating" mechanism. And the associating explanation avoids the absurd entailment that an inert steel road sign is assiduously "meaning" twenty-four-seven regardless of there being no traffic. The act of "meaning" can, with some safety, be ascribed to a human. We often say, "He means --" or "I mean --." "John means he is penniless." All that one has in mind with a sentence like that is this: "John has in mind some information, a notion, that he wants you to "get". The language he used to convey that notion may not have done the job. I'll rephrase his attempt to articulate his notion." It's very understandable that we slide from ascribing the act of meaning to a person to ascribing it to a non-sentient entity. "John's letter means --" "That road sign means --" "That poem means --" But when we do we're on a slippery slope. If we're not careful we soon find ourselves arguing about "the meaning of" a poem or novel or painting -- and we're not talking about the notion we're convinced the creator "meant" to convey. ************** Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home. (http://home.aol.com/diy/home-improvement-eric-stromer?video=15?ncid=aolhom0 0030000000001) No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.21.8/1338 - Release Date: 21/03/2008 5:52 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.21.8/1339 - Release Date: 22/03/2008 4:43 PM
