[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Xmca-l] Question of True Concepts



Haydi,
I have transferred your question to a new thread as I want to follow you
and open up three related questions.
First, I will introduce two concepts:
1] social meaning
2] social interpretation.
Can we differentiate the concept "social meaning" from "social
interpretation"?. When we use different interpretations in our ACCOUNTS of
"social meanings" to INSTANCE differences IN "social meanings" are we then
"realizing" social meanings?
OR
Are these questions REFERENCING two different issues?
1st question: Do "social meanings" EXIST?
2nd question: What are the ADEQUATE or PROPER interpretations of "social
meanings" if "social meanings" do in fact exist?
3rd question: What is the relation between "social meanings" and "social
interpretations"?

Are these questions related in any way to the concept of "true concepts".
Haydi, I am not offering an answer to your question but am playing with the
notion whether "true concepts" have fuzzy or defined boundaries and whether
the "differences" are in fact related.
I can imagine a scholar using the 2x2 grid to assist in focusing and
concentrating on offering plural answers to my question. I wonder if it
would be possible to offer an ADEQUATE AND PROPER account of "social
meaning" from within each of the four quadrants.

If it is possible to offer adequate and proper accounts from within each
quadrant then a further question explores the  the inter/relations between
these quadrants.
Also the question emerges that without the particular 4 quadrants being
imagined by Peg and then created and given "in hand" [as designed figures]
could the particular answers generated "exist" in the form they are here
and now generated and be/come "true concepts"?.

"plural" accounts do not mean "relative" accounts but it does mean
"multi/versal" accounts in contrast to "uni/versal" accounts.
In this plural version of accounts "true concepts" exist within cultural
historical cicumstances that have fuzzy boundaries and to make clear and
distinct outlines is to impose boundary markers and de/cisions that do not
actually "exist" independently of the relations within which the de/cisions
are imposed as particular accounts.

This returns us to "social meanings" as distinct from "social
interpretations" but neither one or the other is independent and existing
as a self contained object IN ITSELF. As concepts they exist only within
relation to each other.
But we do "abide" within the concepts "social meanings" & "social
interpretations.

I know this may be tangential to the main theme of "romantic science" that
generated my thoughts so I chose to think out loud with the puzzles that I
am playing with by deciding to generate another thread and thereby exposing
my fuzzy thinking with porous boundaries.
Larry