Re: [Fis] Re: fis Digest, Vol 490, Issue 2

Igor,

Your witty sarcasm is probably closer to the
way-of-things than you would be comfortrable
admitting.

Meaning is not 'created whole-cloth' .. but it
-is- an emergent -- in that it arises when one
system or tier encounters and coordinates information
with itself and environs.

But more explicitly, 'meaning' is -extracted from-
information potentia .. which is or has-been made
.. utile for another system or systemic adjunct .

Meaning arises in situations of purposeful APPLICATION.
And -that- does not require ... 'mind'.

If you want to restrict the definiiton of 'meaning'
to human pertinence only, then of course 'mind' would
be a present component and a likely 'requisite', but,
in generalist standing, 'mind' is not required for
'meaning'.

Jamie Rose
Ceptual Institute
8 Feb 2006

> Igor Rojdestvenski wrote:
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> Something is certainly lost in translation.
> Is there a meaning outside the mind?
> Is it not that WE create a meaning in the
> process of discourse?
>
> If yes, then in the chemical (or any other)
> hierarchies there are no meanings,
> but a possibility of a meaning, should an
> appropriate mind come nearby.
>
> If not, then we need to define meaning before
> we start discussing such involved questions.
>
> Maybe my education is not enough to perceive
> the subtleties, but I think that I am unable to
> understand, whether meaning is preserved or not
> before I receive a clear definition of meaning.
>
> Otherwise it is too vague, and we may as well
> do a very simple trick.
>
> Just find something that is preserved in
> chemical hierarchies, and then call it meaning :))))))
>
> Igor
>
>

_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Wed Feb 8 16:35:49 2006