Re: [Fis] The timings of meaning

Dear FIS colleagues,

When talking about meaning, if one keeps himself within the social
conventions of language, it is difficult not to conclude in an abstract,
formal, 'Platonic' view on the disembodied meaning-relationships between
concepts. Formal logic and the Artificial Intelligence approach to
language could be the paradigm. Then, the personal rhythms, the flows, the
creations, the imprints, the fashions, the sudden disappearances, the
obsolescence... become just imperfections to be filtered out.

However, by dirtying our hands with the biological mechanisms underlying
those very formal imperfections (and there are quite many directions to
explore, apart from the already mentioned rhythms), we could get closer to
new explanatory possibilities about meaning. At least, it would be
conveneint to keep open that problem, and reflect further on the "life
behind meaning" or as Tom Stonier put the "semantic metabolism".

In a more general way, as I argued long ago, communication has to be
contemplated as inseparably entangled with the selfproduction of life. The
living structures, always producing --and degrading, not just 'erasing'--
their own structures out from a generative blueprint, have created multiple
layers of complexity around communication--conspicuously nervous
systems. There, the top level manifestation (formal language--but not only
it) unceasingly goes down and re-ascends throughout those layers in a
percolation insightfully described in some of the latest papers of Michael
Conrad. The neuronal "drums" (Stan's image is so adequate for our inner
neuronal electro-percussionist players) play in parallel their beating in
crescendos and diminuendos of multiple rhythmicities. For Berthoz, the
quotient between the most relevant of those rhythms (cita and gamma) may
precisely relate to the cognitive prevalence of 'number 7'... curious indeed.

Some new developments on 'nets' are worthy for making further sense on the
above rhythms in the structural/generative/communication coupling. For
instance, the conceptualizations on 'grupoids' (Nature 472, 601-604, Ian
Stewart 2004) might be a third way in between sets and groups... perhaps
answering a question that Ted Goranson asked long ago in this very list.
Other comments exchanged these days about 'levels' and the sciences (and
laws of nature) are indeed important --and maybe it is another focused
discussion to consider for the future.

best

Pedro
Received on Tue Mar 23 11:39:34 2004