Holy deluge....
Well then.. in chronological order....
A function of context and application, sounds like some kind of agency.
...
Not at all. In fact, there's no such implication therein. If there is a relevant agent, it would be the user.
So, how many symbols are needed to convey "meaning"? What are the requirements of "context", or "application"?
One symbol can convey meaning, but how is unambiguous meaning (like we tried with the Voyager plaque) conveyed...? Or is it impossible?
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.
If you're wandering in a big desert, all you can see is a vast sea of sand. There is no "meaning", no features appear to convey it, just this same surface, a continuous 2-d plane.
Then you see a rock sitting, all by itself? How come there's this hard, lumpy thing where there should be sand? What's it doing here? Did someone else put it here?
What does it mean, this odd, hard lumpy rock thing? What if there's another one nearby (in some direction), is that more meaningful?
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.
I'm going to play the devil's advocate for this one:
What exactly is wrong with the anthropomorphocentric belief in such a 'Ding An Sich' or 'Platonic Form' type of ontology?
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.....
I wonder how come many people have such distrust -and disdain- when it comes to the notion of something being a "convention".
Say "Language use is a convention" or "The way we are supposed to behave at the table is a convention", and they'll maul you, calling you a "pernicious relativist". (To say nothing of suggesting "Religion is a convention".)
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.
Oh. Hmm. I myself prefer platonic idealism, to a level. But I'm not sure how that's anthropomorphocentric. Those ideas actively projected in reality can vary and become more complicated, so it shouldn't conflict with "evolutionary outlook". Maybe platonic idealism includes more elements than I know.
See above, regarding arrogance.
I stated quite clearly there is no innate meaning to a word. Words only gain meaning through usage. Words, like things themselves, are transient.
...
I concur.
...
They are symbols constructed to communicate what is recognized in the truth of existence.
Or, what is recognized in existence.
(I don't believe in 'Truth'.)
The truth of existence is not dependent on words or the minds that create them.
That's your belief. I don't buy into Rationalist epistemology.
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.
ibid
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.
...
ibid
