TimeSeeker wrote: ↑
Sat Nov 10, 2018 11:44 pm
creativesoul wrote: ↑
Sat Nov 10, 2018 11:42 pm
An example of meaning which is not existentially dependent upon the criterion I've put forth. My claim that there are no exceptions is based upon the fact that the criterion was arrived at by virtue of determining what all attribution of meaning has in common.
The criterion you put forth is correlation. So you are saying that meaning is a function of correlation.
Can you define "correlation" in a way that it has some inclusionary/exclusionary properties? So that when I give you an example which is not correlation you don't move the goalposts?
Don't make my argument for me. I've not mentioned "function". On my view, it is best to avoid unnecessary language use wherever and whenever possible.
On my view, thought, belief, meaning, and the presupposition of correspondence with/to reality are inextricably entwined. They all have precisely the same point of origen. They emerge by virtue of thought/belief formation. My position on this matter is based upon decades long study which includes actively seeking other people who disagree, because I want to know what that disagreement is grounded upon. During my study of epistemology, I realized long ago that philosophy proper had neglected to draw and maintain the crucial distinction between thought/belief and thinking about thought/belief. That's how my project began, by virtue of wanting to set out thought and belief. It led - accidentally - to the discovery and then the ability to situate the origen of meaning. That said... You ought expect me to point it out if and when you conflate what your example of meaning is existentially dependent upon with what your report of that example is existentially dependent upon.
The initial emergence of the attribution of meaning was prior to our awareness and/or knowledge of it. Thus, it existed in it's entirety prior to our report of it. As a result, we can get it wrong. The same is true of any and all things that exist in their entirety prior to our discovery of them. That said...
All attribution of meaning is existentially dependent upon something to become sign/symbol, something to become significant/symbolized, and a creature capable of connecting, associating, and/or otherwise drawing mental correlation(s) between different things. That is a conclusion based upon the fact that all examples of meaning include these things even after all of the subjective particulars are removed. That is what's common to all cases and/or examples of meaning. It is adequate for the attribution of meaning, rudimentary thought/belief formation, and the presupposition of truth(as correspondence). It also effectively serves as an adequate outline by which we can explain how all thought/belief and meaning 'grows' in it's complexity.