Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > What is "Meaning"?

Forum Quick Jump

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 3/9/2002 7:11 PM (GMT -6)

Couldn't get to sleep last night. Just laid there wondering: What is the meaning of "meaning"?

My friend's collapse this past week got me to thinking about what the mind is and how it works.

Tom

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 3/10/2002 2:21 PM (GMT -6)

A book I would recommend on this topic is David Bohm's "Unfolding Meaning". I think he actually does a reasonable job of attempting an answer to your question.

thanks,
Iconoclast

"being weird is rarely a total waste of time" - Greg Boyd

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 3/10/2002 2:42 PM (GMT -6)

TGB: What is the meaning of "meaning"?

"Meaning of meaning?" What do you mean? I mean, the meaning of meaning can mean most anything. Know what I mean? I don't mean to be mean, but what I mean is that "meaning" means what it means, pure and simple.

Okay, fun aside. Great question.

Let me take a stab.

Lately I've been analyzing the totality of what we do into three (yes THREE

) categories/ levels/ spheres... and (among other things) they affect what MEANING means. The levels arise from the fact that we are (1)individuals who represent reality in our heads and who (2) live in community and discourse with others within various language-games relevant to certain contexts and who (3) live in and try to understand an objective reality. So...

Sphere ONE is the level of our neurological activity. (The mental level). This is how we "do" the meaning of a concept in our head.

Sphere TWO is the level of our social discourse. (The social level). This is how we USE a concept in the community we are part of.

Sphere THREE is the level of our world (the ontological level). This is how we employ a concept to understand the world. (Whenever we make truth claims about the way the world is, we are thinking and speaking within this level.)

Now, consider the word "God." We Christians all use the same word "God," and it has, presumably, roughly the same meaning within the language-game of the general Christian community. To discern this, look at ITS USE (Wittgenstein said, "don't ask for meaning, look for USE").

But at a nuerological level, entirely different pictures and stories of "God" may arise in the representational imagination of various individuals when the word "God" is used. (IN TNT we call this the "deep meaning" or "deep structure" of a concept). The same word might evoke a loving picture or story in one person, evoking a feeling of longing and security, but an angry picture or fearful story in another, evoking a feeling of fear or anger. (This is why, when someone says they "reject God" or "don't love God" etc... we should first find out how they "do God" [e.g. how they represent God in their head.] THIS[/i/ is what they are really rejecting. Most atheists I've ever met reject a God who I myself would reject. )

Similarly, when we are doing metaphysics, or trying to integrate our beliefs with the broader world around us (e.g. science), the word "God" might take on a number of different nuances it doesn't have on either level 1 or level 2. The word "God" now functions as an explanation for (say) how we explain our basic moral intuitions, or how we try to render intelligible the design of the world, or how we understand providence in the light of quantum physics or chaos theory etc... The concept of God functions very differently here. It is more of a hypothesis than a personal reality.

Now, if you think this through, it means that the meaning of the word "God" is contextually dependent. Since most of us live in level 2 -- most of our language is used to communicate with other people in appropriate social contexts -- we assume that the meaning of the word "God" is self-evident. And in a sense it is -- for those who share the same language game and are therefore primarily concerned to communicate a social reality. But the meaning of the word "God" is not self-evident once we consider what representations the word "God" evokes in the neurological network of a person, or how the concept of "God" is used by people or communities interested in explaining the world.

Oddly, people may share the same "God" on one level, yet believe in different "Gods" on other level. For example, two people interested in philosophy may agree that God is necessary to explain x,y, and z, yet have very different representations nuerological when they "do" God. Or, two people may actually represent God similarly on a nuerological level, yet be unable to talk to each other effectively because their spheres of discourse (level 2) are radically different.

Just a thought experiement. I think this threefold distinction (which, note, is not a DIVISION, for the three spheres overlap) may have a number of useful applications. It would, for example, explain why two different people in different religions may find they believe more in the "same God" than they do with some others in their own religious communities. They disagree about the social discourse -- the use of God in a social context : different stories, beliefs, authoritative texts etc. -- but [if they could get past level 2 to get to #1] find out that they agree on a representational level with each other more than some others within their communities. (e.g. Though we disagree over the role of Christ, I have sometimes felt more "neurological/ representational affinity with members of (say) the Bahai faith than with some Calvinists. Yet I share much more central "beliefs" than with members of the Bahai faith (for doctrines are primarily about the social discourse of the Christian community, though they do also make "truth claims" that may be discussed ona level 3 ).

What do ya'll think?

Doc

"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul

Edited by - GregBoyd on 03/10/2002 7:49:12 PM

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 3/10/2002 2:47 PM (GMT -6)

I just recently read Bohm's "Unfolding Meaning" and second Icon's endorsement. Indeed, my above understanding of the three fold distinction of discourse came to me reading this book. His second lecture in this book does a great job of showing how the meaning we give to words is EMBODIED. In other words, he was helpful in getting me to realize the distinctness of level 1.

which, of course, is not to say I endorse everything about this book. (One aspect of social discourse within the evangelical community is that leaders often need to say this). Bohm has an over all paradigm that is, so far as I can see, quasi-pantheistic and (at the very least) certainly goes against the open model of reality I hold to. In other words, I have some issues with Bohm on the levels number 3 and (obviously) 2, though perhaps not so much on level 1.

Blessings

Doc

"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul

Mephi2K
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713

Posted 3/10/2002 3:22 PM (GMT -6)

Sounds cool to me, Doc. I'd only say two things more.

1) It would seem that for reflective people, each level would inform the others, meaning that "findings" in level 3 should somewhat impact ideas found in level 1 and so on. This implies that a "conversion" may take place on any 3 of the levels for greater integrity for a given person. This may include changing communities, personal ideologies, or even wholesale FAITHS. And this should be encouraged, not feared, in my opinion.

2) At base, this is just the subjectivity-objectivity deliberation that individuals-in-community must face. It's kind of simple when you think about it. Unless we are solipsists, the "meaning" that we have is inextricably dependent on the world OUTSIDE of ourselves, including other persons, that form our environment. Natural process for human beings. We do this all the time, though, for many people, this is not a CONSCIOUSLY done activity.

I suppose that it could be argued that level 1 is the "most felt" reality and therefore the most important...in that coherence between levels 2 and 3 won't matter if they don't have some continuity with level 1. I guarantee that if any type of cognitive dissonance occurs between the levels that the ideas in level 1 will be the LAST to be changed. I WOULDN'T say that level 1 was the "truest" level, though, because there is "truth" at all the levels. (It's contextual just like Doc said) It's just the most highly "perceived" and source of ground for personal meaning.

My take.

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 3/11/2002 2:39 PM (GMT -6)

Meph, your "take" is a good one. The domains of reflection and discourse are distinct, but bleed into and even presuppose one another. But each also has its own integrity... which is why a person can continue to "do" their relationship with God (Level 1) even though they are perhaps someone discordant with a community (e.g. not sure about various doctrines on Level 2) and not sure how their representations on level 1 correlate with reality (Level 3).

In other words, among the things this model does is give permission for people to passionately invest in their relationship with God, though they are significantly confused on levels 2 and 3.

Later bro

Doc

"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 3/12/2002 5:50 PM (GMT -6)

Thanks for the help. I'll need to pick up a couple of books and catch up. I was reading Vanhoozer's "Is there Meaning in this Text?" He has a chapter on this sort of thing. Spends a good deal of time on J. Derrida. I thought the differences between nominalism and critical realism would figure in here too. Don't nominalists agree with Derrida that all we have (when it comes to meaning) is convention? All we have is our perception. Is that where you are Mephi? I know Doc's a crticial realist. On what basis do we argue the relationship between our perception of reality and objective reality? Is that just assumed?

Tom

Edited by - TGB on 03/12/2002 10:51:18 PM

Mephi2K
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713

Posted 3/13/2002 2:55 AM (GMT -6)

Tom:

quote:
Don't nominalists agree with Derrida that all we have (when it comes to meaning) is convention? All we have is our perception. Is that where you are Mephi? I know Doc's a crticial realist. On what basis do we argue the relationship between our perception of reality and objective reality? Is that just assumed?

I think that it's assumed. Like I've said before, I believe that we are all naive realists at heart in the beginning. Just thinking as far as human development goes. We grow up thinking that we seen things EXACTLY as they are. We have to be TAUGHT scrutiny...and that everything is not what it seems. All critical realism states is that, though there is an "objective reality" outside of our perception, there is no way to PERCEIVE that reality outside of our senses. (Even if one wants to postulate a non-sensory type of perception like David Ray Griffin, it STILL is the case that the information gained from said perception is MENTALLY PROCESSED by the brain...which necessitates some type of interpretation...which presupposes MENTAL FILTERS by which the interpretation takes place.) Therefore, though we can get "true" information about reality, it is ALWAYS "incomplete." And pragmatically, it works out fine. We often have all the information we need to make day-to-day decisions...like dodging oncoming cars or something like that. (Remember how we've talked about this before?) Critical realism rules, with regard to perception. With respect to CONCEPTUALIZATION, I would say that conceptualism rules.

As far as LITERARY meaning, I don't really know what this would have to do with that. But that's me.

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 10:55 AM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual