Re: [xmca] Re: Word Meaning and Action: What' Plausible branch?

[Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>]

Martin, I say that *meaning *is an *action*, therefore it is *BOTH 
subjective AND objective,    BOTH individual AND universal*.
Vera, yes, I have been waiting to get to the developmental part of this 
discussion, too, because ultimately we can't make sense of any of it 
without development.
I have been struggling to just put one foot on firm, mutually agreed 
ground, before taking the next step. But perhaps that can't be done.
The relation between word and meaning is only comprehensible as parts of 
a joint development.
Andy
Martin Packer wrote:
> Andy, let me take just the first part of your message. Yes, I understand that your position is that a word is just sound, physical form, and that meaning is something attributed to it by the listener, created by the listener, based on their previous experience. This is a very common view of verbal communication. Meaning is subjective, in the consciousness or the mind of the individual. My point, in contrast, is that this view is incorrect and, furthermore, it is nothing like the view LSV presents in T&S. 
>
> First, it's contradictory. You refer to meaning as both "in the word" and as "created by listening to the word." Which is it? What kind of thing is a word such that meaning can be "vested" in it? If it's just a sound, a physical pattern of sound waves, where does the meaning go? To be consistent, you'll need to keep meaning in the attributions of the individual. 
>   


__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca