tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6732615.post111257473543174193..comments2023-09-26T02:09:58.787+10:00Comments on diogenesian discourse: know what I mean...?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6732615.post-1112849166699768912005-04-07T14:46:00.000+10:002005-04-07T14:46:00.000+10:00I don;t know what Link looks like so in visualisin...I don;t know what Link looks like so in visualising her on a white charger, I keep getting images of Julia, Warrior Princess. It's quite disturbing really...<BR/><BR/>Link! Get back to blogging <B><I>right friggin' NOW!!!</I></B>The Editorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03884172849865230486noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6732615.post-1112798756940956542005-04-07T00:45:00.000+10:002005-04-07T00:45:00.000+10:00Chopped liver? She'd probably run over me with the...Chopped liver? She'd probably run over me with the horse. Quick: hemlock, please!Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10788829203519181545noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6732615.post-1112788692217488662005-04-06T21:58:00.000+10:002005-04-06T21:58:00.000+10:00Hemlock - I was cracking a Socratic joke.Link - I ...Hemlock - I was cracking a Socratic joke.<BR/><BR/>Link - I miss reading here blog. I wish she was still blogging.<BR/><BR/>COME BACK LINK, ALL IS FORGIVEN !!! <BR/><BR/>Link will kill you for associating her writing with mine. You're chopped liver, Deirde... :-)The Editorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03884172849865230486noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6732615.post-1112788141025435332005-04-06T21:49:00.000+10:002005-04-06T21:49:00.000+10:00Hemlock, eh? That can't be good.You remind me of L...Hemlock, eh? That can't be good.<BR/><BR/>You remind me of Link. Don't know why, or really <I>how</I>. It's weird. I'm probably hallucinating.Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10788829203519181545noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6732615.post-1112756938138708582005-04-06T13:08:00.000+10:002005-04-06T13:08:00.000+10:00RH, I think Marlowe understood a thing or two abou...RH, I think Marlowe understood a thing or two about meaning... ;-)The Editorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03884172849865230486noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6732615.post-1112755465573007922005-04-06T12:44:00.000+10:002005-04-06T12:44:00.000+10:00"There's nothing neither good nor bad but thinking..."There's nothing neither good nor bad but thinking makes it so."<BR/><BR/>-W Shakespeare.<BR/>(Very concise chap)R.H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04639593801088008224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6732615.post-1112753331402616052005-04-06T12:08:00.000+10:002005-04-06T12:08:00.000+10:00Sorry for the delay, Deirdre, but I had my hands f...Sorry for the delay, Deirdre, but I had my hands full trying to fend off a horde of Sophists trying to force me to drink hemlock. So far I'm still not dead... :-)<BR/><BR/>Reification: I think we're saying the same thing.<BR/><BR/>So, who does my writing remind you of? Or is this question too personal?The Editorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03884172849865230486noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6732615.post-1112685764665875612005-04-05T17:22:00.000+10:002005-04-05T17:22:00.000+10:00My understanding of reification is that a person i...My understanding of reification is that a person isn't aware of "meaning" being involved at all - they're looking at something they believe to have an external reality of its own. It's about the only concept I can recall (fuzzily) from sociology: we create things like language and religion but as the years go by, these things appear to be independent of us. Or something. I've forgotten. <BR/>Eiseley was referring to the concept of "Man": "There are times when it is useful to categorize the creature briefly, his history, his embracing characteristics. From this, if we are not careful of our meanings, it becomes easy to speak of all men as though they were one person. [...] There is no Man; there are only men: good, evil, inconceivable mixtures marred by their genetic makeup, scarred or improved by their societal surroundings. [...] Men are great objects of study, but the moment we say "Man" we are in danger of wandering into a swamp of abstraction."<BR/>Go, Loren.<BR/><BR/>As for your spooky family tree... excellent. Look him up. It'd be interesting. <BR/><BR/>What I find interesting is how much your writing reminds me of someone else. The world is a strange place.Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10788829203519181545noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6732615.post-1112657559907683082005-04-05T09:32:00.000+10:002005-04-05T09:32:00.000+10:00Oh shit! Deirdre. I made a bad typo which invert...Oh shit! Deirdre. I made a bad typo which inverted the meaning of what I meant to say. so here's the corrected sentence: <BR/><BR/>Deirdre, I just read your commnent in more depth and I realise that meaning is a reification only if one <B>doesn't</B> think the meaning subjective. i.e. If one is aware that the meaning is subjective (projected) then whilst it is stll a meaning it is not a reification.The Editorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03884172849865230486noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6732615.post-1112657182857234312005-04-05T09:26:00.000+10:002005-04-05T09:26:00.000+10:00Deirdre, I just read your commnent in more depth a...Deirdre, I just read your commnent in more depth and I realise that meaning is a reification only if one thinks the meaning siobjective. i.e. If one is awar that the meaning is subjective (projected) then whilst it is stll a meaning it is not a reification.<BR/><BR/>For instance, I look at a painting and I feel sad. I realise that my sadness comes either from my own projection of sadness <B>onto</B> the painting, or the skill of the painter to successfully transmit his projection of sadness <B>via</B> the painting.<BR/><BR/>But here's something spooky. I know how you like spooky stuff. Prompted by your use of the word "reify", I went Google. And I found Georg Lukács, a dude I'd never heard of before (look him up if you want to know more). Anyway, I now need to do a genealogical search because there is a distinct possibility that he and I could be hanging off adjacent twigs on the same branch of the family tree. Wouldn't that be a buzz? An intellectual giant in our family? Ooooeee!!! I could manufacture all sorts of meanings from that... :-)The Editorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03884172849865230486noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6732615.post-1112655457164985112005-04-05T08:57:00.000+10:002005-04-05T08:57:00.000+10:00Exacty that, Deirdre. :-)Exacty that, Deirdre. :-)The Editorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03884172849865230486noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6732615.post-1112622869921032682005-04-04T23:54:00.000+10:002005-04-04T23:54:00.000+10:00No, no, got you so far, I think... You're saying t...No, no, got you so far, I think... You're saying the meaning of a "thing" (event, situation, object) is not inherent in the thing itself, it's assigned to the "thing" by people. And the problem is, once that particular meaning is well known and accepted, it's passed from person to person as "knowledge" or as a "fact", rather than as an idea which could change.<BR/><BR/>The Loren Eiseley article I quoted from yesterday actually talks about this: "It is convenient for the thinker to classify an idea with a word. This can sometimes lead to a process called hypostatization or reification." <BR/>Reify = "to consider or make (an abstract idea or concept) real or concrete". <BR/>That's what you're talking about, isn't it?Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10788829203519181545noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6732615.post-1112617737840977002005-04-04T22:28:00.000+10:002005-04-04T22:28:00.000+10:00Deirdre, I'm having trouble trying to understand t...Deirdre, I'm having trouble trying to understand the question. If I get it wrong, please persevere and ask a follow-up question.<BR/><BR/>Preamble: I'll use the word "thing" to mean an event, a situation, an object, or anything to which meaning can be attached. <BR/><BR/>One way I was linking meaning to truth was in the sense that many people seem unaware that meaning is subjective and not objective. <BR/><BR/>We endow a thing with meaning but we seem to be unaware that that's what we're doing, and so we immediately misinterpret what's happening in a way that it appears to us that this meaning is a property of the thing allegedly having this meaning.<BR/><BR/>Does this make sense?<BR/><BR/>Perhaps a better way of saying it is to say that a thing means what it means (to you) because that's the meaning you have assigned to it. <BR/><BR/>Or, alternatively, a thing means what it means (to you) because you accept the meaning assigned to it by someone else.<BR/><BR/>But either way, a thing only means what it means because that meaning is assigned to it by either you or someone else.<BR/><BR/>So, "searching for meaning" is a bit of a joke. A meaning is not an objective truth, it's something that's assigned, bestowed, projected onto a thing by someone.<BR/><BR/>A corollary is that therefore meaning can be challenged, queried, debated, altered, negated, or replaced with a different meaning. There is no absolute truth underpinning a meaning.<BR/><BR/>Should I be trying to give examples or are you getting this?The Editorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03884172849865230486noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6732615.post-1112612010892270192005-04-04T20:53:00.000+10:002005-04-04T20:53:00.000+10:00What's your theory on truth? If we can only questi...What's your theory on truth? If we can only question the world through accepted meanings (I think that's what you're saying?) and those meanings are arbitrary, are we able to detect truth?<BR/>(Btw, I don't know philosophy. If you get technical, my brain will explode.)Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10788829203519181545noreply@blogger.com