I stated quite clearly there is no innate meaning to a word. Words only gain meaning through usage. Words, like things themselves, are transient. They are symbols constructed to communicate what is recognized in the truth of existence. The truth of existence is not dependent on words or the minds that create them. When the truth of existence is observed or experienced, there can be an attempt to share this objective knowledge (a true experience) with another mind, and this is done by the use of subjective language. It is the words themselves which separate the second party from reality. They give a secondary view, a subjective view. The first party has complete, actual interaction and experience with truth. If they hold this understanding separate from other experiences, they can experience, and know truth in a particular manner. This is not scientific truth, for there are other truths, that are not scientific.
Words have a lot of "meanings." For example. When I am writing I can find a great meaning in every word that I am using. Although it not be necessary for many people to find meaning in their words that they use some people for example I find an enormous ammount of actual meaning in words alone; so by that aviar was correct on page one. And pardon for not reading the thread; So yes. Words have a lot of meaning. Sometimes. And sometimes, they don't.
sisyphus__ The usage of words can have meaning. Or not. This is because the meaning of the word is not in the word itself, it is in the mind of the reader or listener. When the word enters the mind, it gains meaning. No mind, no meaning (other than the obvious physical existence of the compositition making the letters). Some words that enter the mind are meaningless (a foreign language, for example).
"Subjective language", would be a language with no objects in it? Would that be because words are objects? A subject uses objects (words) to give a subjective view (to another subject)? How can objects like words be a subjective language? Could objects other than words convey a subjective experience?
Holy deluge.... Well then.. in chronological order.... Not at all. In fact, there's no such implication therein. If there is a relevant agent, it would be the user. The relationship is not one of necessity, merely one of sufficiency. One could easily hold that a singular symbol can convey every possible meaning (e.g., the Tao). Similarly, there are no requirements of context and application; it is the user who defines the symbol's usage. It is also the user(s) who is responsible for any errors in interpretation. Not necessarily. Again, it is entirely contingent upon the user. A vast sea of sand can have momentous meaning: imagine that your observer in question is a displaced Inuit. Conversely, I could find that rock to be utterly insignificant, perhaps even passing notice. Meaning is applied. Well, for one, I would say that it would be the height of arrogance. To believe that there are such entities simply because we can conceive of them?? I'll take Ockham's..... You'll find most of them in the Religion Forum. I pity rather than wonder of them. To elect to disagree with any system that is de facto contingent upon the artifice of the human mind is to elect to beleive in some form of Rationalist (a la Descartes) or Idealist (a la Spinoza) ontology. See above, regarding arrogance. I concur. Or, what is recognized in existence. (I don't believe in 'Truth'.) That's your belief. I don't buy into Rationalist epistemology. ibid ibid
All language is subjective. Words are not objects, they are symbols. Words are not objects. Because words have no absolute meaning. The have no objective meaning. Words are not objects. Symbols other than words can convey an objective experience in a subjective manner
What do you buy into? ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ No. An object may be a symbol, but a symbol need not be an object. We might say some symbols take form, and threrefore are representative of an object, but in their function as symbols, they are not objects. Agreed.
What sort of "form"? You mean some symbols are objects, and some aren't? How can a symbol not be some thing? Are you saying a symbol can be non-physical? If it's not actually there, how is it a symbol? This is the bit I'm struggling with.
BHN is quite correct here. The simplest example would be a number. Depends on what we're discussing. With respect to existence in general, and words in particular, I would say that I take a Materialist position as far as existence goes ( although, from an epistemological POV, I'd say epiphenomenalism) and a nominalist position as far as words (and indeed symbols of all sort) go.
"A symbol can be non-material." "A mental object can be a symbol." "But a symbol is not an object."..huh?
Correct. Read again. BHN said they may not function as an object. Perhaps we're simply having semantical problems here. Can you think of something that cannot be an object?
If I "think of something", it's already an object, because I'm thinking (conceiving) of it. Apparently a word isn't an object, according to BHN A symbol is something that only sometimes "takes form" whatever that means. Again, this is BHN's philosophy. He also says that "(in their function) as symbols" they (objects as symbols) are not objects. That's impenetrable.,,? I can't, by definition think of something that "cannot be an object". This is non sequitur. If I objectivise something, by thinking about it, it's an object - a "mental" object.
Ah. We are in agreement then; it was a semantical issue. Perhaps when BHN says "object" he is meaning to say something more precise....
I'm not sure about this. Unless it is redundant - in the use of the word something, and even then... If you are thinking of something, or thinking about it, this is not the mental object. The mental object is about that thing not the thing itself. Also if I think especially of hypnogic states, etc., I wonder if 'mental object is appropriate. Their can be processes and relationships that are imagined - as a collective feltpictured something in motion. I don't know if that is an object.
