Michael mentioned the distinction between spontaneous and scientific
concepts within this discussion of meaning and sense. This reminded me
also that Vygotsky really insisted that the meaning of words is
something in constant development -- it is true for children -- not only
as conceptual development but also as social and emotional development.
It is also true for adults -- especially in the light of the
Aristotelian and Newtonian Physics: meaning -- even the one shared by
the majority of the speakers is cannot be reduced to just a concept.
Even dictionaries give more than one definition (Concept) for each
meaning. What we have to add here is the historical (genetic) dimension
of meaning -- it has its manifestations in time (personal ontological,
and historical time) and it can have more than one manifestation because
of some branching before.
But what I think is most important is Wolff-Michael's relating meaning
to the activity/act/operation. In that light -- words can have
completely different "meanings" (not senses) in two different
activities! Consider a word "cover" -- the meaning is totally different
in the context of restaurant and in the context of insurance. And it
still has nothing personal and concrete to be a personally locally
realized "sense".
Ana
Mike Cole wrote:
> OK, Michael, I think we have pretty good agreement on just this point:
>
> We may get around the problem, if we take meaning as the possible
> senses people can make, not the sum total of all people currently
> living, but the generalized possibility. Then every sense is a concrete
> (personal) realization of meaning, but it is also different--this is
> just the way Il'enkov allows the concrete universal and the many
> concrete particulars to be related, in a genetic way. This way we have
> all people involved in constituting meaning, but none of the people
> actually have to have the same as anyone else. We have a truly
> dialectical articulation of meaning and (personal) sense, fully
> psychological.
>
> -----
> LSV refers to meaning as "the most stable pole of sense". I take
> it to be a polysemic artifact that people use to coordinate with
> each other.
>
> I believe this speaks directly to the issue that Mary raised a couple
> of days
> ago and which my response seems to have killed off. What is the relation
> between artifact and discourse? It also relates to the point I tried
> to make,
> apparently unsuccessefuly, about where meaning disappears to when
> I begin to speak in a language you do not know and where, therefore,
> it came from-- prior experiences of joint activity mediated by "the" word
> ("word" in LSV often has to be interpreted broadly).
>
> So, yes, meaning is more stable over time, a mini "semiosphere" so to
> speak,
> while sense is the concrete/personal realization of meaning. That personal
> realization is likely to have plenty of affect in it, whether or not
> affect was
> visible on the surface of the discourse.
>
> thanks
> mike
>
> On 7/27/05, *Wolff-Michael Roth* <mroth@uvic.ca
> <mailto:mroth@uvic.ca>> wrote:
>
> Hi Bill,
> I am just coming back from a bicycle ride. I have been thinking about
> the same issues. Especially I was sitting down to write about
> majority--this, too, is problematic and here is why:
>
> Most people in this world share the meaning of "force" and velocity
> with Aristotle; few share it with Newton, physicists like myself,
> a few
> chemists, and then a few others, perhaps. Now you (one, we) are in
> trouble, for we would have to accept the majority position as the
> shared meaning, but this is not the scientific one.
>
> The other thing I wanted to say has to do with "the law" (as
> written in
> a law book) and dictionary. This, too, cannot be the meaning you are
> talking about, for, written, the former is reduced to linguistic
> meaning and is no longer psychological, as you, LSV, I etc. want it.
>
> We may get around the problem, if we take meaning as the possible
> senses people can make, not the sum total of all people currently
> living, but the generalized possibility. Then every sense is a
> concrete
> (personal) realization of meaning, but it is also different--this is
> just the way Il'enkov allows the concrete universal and the many
> concrete particulars to be related, in a genetic way. This way we have
> all people involved in constituting meaning, but none of the people
> actually have to have the same as anyone else. We have a truly
> dialectical articulation of meaning and (personal) sense, fully
> psychological. . .
>
> Michael
>
> On 27-Jul-05, at 3:47 PM, Blanton, William E wrote:
>
> > Michael,
> >
> > I suppose it is shared diversity of sense. Like the US citizens,
> > Canada must have agreed to agreed with the meaning established
> by the
> > representative judiciary, parliament, or whatever. The diverse
> senses
> > do exist. But when meaning is contested, the coordinating tool
> is the
> > meaning of the law. I would guess that its meaning rests a vote and
> > even dissenting opinion. that represents sense of the minority. The
> > disent. At that level, majority sets the meaning to coordinate civic
> > behavior. Over generations, senses may be transformed to
> meaning. What
> > a slow process, this thing of meaning.
> >
> > I wonder what the conditions are for having a meaning. We seem
> to get
> > by with sense when we are dealing with very important issues. For
> > example, if we get blown away with the next hurricane and want
> to sue
> > the builder, do we engage in everybody's sense of a building
> code or
> > what the meaning of a building code? A building code might have
> > different meanings from one defined border to another, however.
> >
> > I guess we all get by with sense, but when it becomes important we
> > seek meaning.
> >
> >
> >
> > BB
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > So is this shared meaning of "marriage"? If we believe the
> media, then
> > "most Canadians" share it to be "the union of two people"
> whereas there
> > are, I don't know how many, for whom it is "the union between a
> man and
> > a woman."
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > xmca mailing list
> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>xmca mailing list
>xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
>
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 01 2005 - 01:01:10 PDT