Let me tell you something- and where exactly do we end up? What domain but that magic realists world of meaning. For how can the description not ripple with meaning. But this is a strange flat world, for the contours, which appear fixed initially are clearly moving one against the other, as the plan evolves and changes. moreover the dimensions of the plan are far from fixed it might be growing it might be shrinking. Nor are even the dimensions necessarily fixed, what you thought was miles might be an inch, an inch might be a mile: and always watch out - you might far off- this little isle of meaning.
Meaning always creates odd worlds in the telling. There are perhaps five pillars to the strange land. firstly of course everything is weaved by the linear shuffle of sentences that operate backwards and forwards, weaving a meaning that of course at least one more dimension. paths then appear in the process, paths that might be going somewhere or nowhere or perhaps just not where you thought. The temporal reality of reading or speaking translates into an allegory where the very linearity of words reflects the movement of time. except of course the world that forms, the domain of meaning is not formed at one time or an other- it might self consciously straddle many times, and many paths across other times. The line a sentence mirrors time, certainly but is also free from it in itself.
Secondly any domain of meaning is at once self contained and in the spinning at least singular. It will the contain its own set of meaning as a thing apart from the rest of the world. the domains of words, meanings, memory, perception, the light of a mind and the tempest of a passion, are all therein the meaning, and yet as all held under it grasp- all aspects or shining parts of its world. As such meaning will organize its world, it will make its own facts follow there own logic. there are of course in this styles manners, even grammars for meaning - Their are approaches then one might take, and possibly local rues,that define the dimension of this chunk of meanings (and allow it to be articulated to others).
Thirdly these world are real flat earths. they have then their own horizon line - but one that could be reached, and if one does reach, one falls off, and tumbles again in a void beyond meaning. But to where is the problem, it is possible that this world is merely a foot above another or it might be in an abyss. the horizion line is then a place of danger. One might see something there or one might not. One might step or fall, or retrace ones step.Or I might and you might not.
One might even earn (if the meaning allow it) to tread paths between worlds, to thread across the stepping stones of local meanings finding loops, or looking for them. one might then start to capture meaning local worlds in other, world with a dimension of their own. Indeed this is possible, and yet of course if one does thins these other worlds do not contain meaning but are rather self contained world for themselves. The fact this other world of many meanings allows a certain degree of mapping to occur across other domains, does not give it mastery. And way jumping is always risky (in both direction), for it is always possible you will not be where you thought you were .....you might even blow into an abyss.
Fourthly although each are different, each domain also may well have aspects or contours similar to other panes. There might then exist for many planes one way to map out the meaning in any one plane. to map out a scientific hunk is to create a different world from a story chunk, and to do it in a different ways. the spinning of the meaning out, is important as it reflects both the way others can explore the domain, and also articulated this domain against other domains or even the cross domain meaning lumps. each world then might be complete it itself or create bounded voids within itself), and yet be such that the loop to others is made clear - or hopefully is clear.
Finally good meaning tend to reduce both author and reader to an everyman. They inspire both to explore, and to want to explore, both this world (and possibly to inspire a leap into the abyss beyond). To be caught in meaning is then to become the anyone meaning needs to exist, to infuse to share itself with. As I read or learn of a meaning i might be located at a place in the world it creates, and yet that location, in the reading, in the spinning is always also a provocation to look to other places,and let ones mind wander as a sub author on the text, working out other ways other dimensions for the meaning. It is the power the of the truly great meaning domains that as they are unpulled or spin, we feel we are as much as part of the process of the thinking as anyone. Meaning always needs to run between us all and its domains are thought and felt as everyone (rather than a mere transcendental ).
Monday, December 13, 2010
Sunday, December 12, 2010
meaning as that blind teleology
Any large system has them: a significant movement or moment or trend line - a point of no return- where everything is forever different from. The moments of change which complex systems incarnate for themselves- moments that look from elsewhere, from other than the system as point of instruction (hidden or otherwise) - the pointers to a design.
and yet of course the original movement is no such thing- it is merely a movement with rammification beyond if- one that finds a fault line somewhere else,or else sets of a chain of events: The moment the system changed, and yet a moment in itself so typical so unspecial or so random: as DNA is one of the ore inert chemicals in the body, one so very unspecial, an yet one which can be cascades of chemical reaction elsewhere set is trail process which in time create other process which eventual become a life. moreover its ever unspecialness, its very inertness becomes itself power- in that it does not often change- but when it does by random event specs eventual might shift in their nature (but only is of everything else pulls with the change). The minutest inversion chemicals becomes elsewhere the shift from fish to dinosaur....
Something happens somewhere, and a world inhabits that sift- makes it matter- makes it blind certianitude appear to have a purpose. The effect of such changes is to straighten out a system and create a distinct temporal flow within it. That is the blind telelogy is the point the change changes from, the point then a certain series evolved,a series that dominated the entire process, a series that became the unstoppable direction for the system; All its virtual possibilities are then collapsed into an arrow of time- and made to move only in one direction: They shift then into might have beens in the face of this movement the teleology is the blind start of fate - it is what will appear latter to be planned or to the make the plan. and yet as with all fate is starts hidden the merest of small difference that chances everything, so an entire world in unhinged and re-articualted.
But such movement such become purposes in a action (this is why everything changed- the moment) come is two very different forms. there are those whose purpose emerges within the system, and those whose purpose in thrust onto the system (from without). The difference is profound (event though the process is the same.)
The type of blind teleology are the type one finds in history natural or human. In a sense they are the real ones. A change happens hidden and unheard, like a silent thunder clap, or a pebble in the mountain, and yet and yet the cascade builds and changes. the power of that first move is in a sense nothing. it does not modify the whole, so much as set a process moving - leaving ti to other changes elsewhere to modify the cascade- by the same blind process. There is no design in any of this - it i is not even a cookbook, (which implies the instructon are to do stuff), merely a sequence of cascades of changes, that come together in some great water fall, and make a single smoking rain. So it is also is that nailing a fairly standard treatise on the door of a cathedral, where many such other treatise are nailed from tome to time, becomes a spark that ignites a sequecne of revolution in thought...
The second type of teleology arise at the other end of the living process. it is the product of the conscious mind - and the words in inhabits. this is a teleology that operates in creating a word, and becomes later a world. a category then such as sinner or witch or big society or communism is created. a word which has elements attach to it, and yet has not actaully incarnate meaning. That is one knows how one would react if this thing happened- one knows where this is gong, but not what it looks like. one has then in the face for this word and immediate reaction, which keeps the word in ones mind. One impetus that then makes one look for it in the world. And of course one finds it in some form or other . No matter that the original purpose has hidden in defining the world or that the process to which it is attached where merely doing what they were doing (and may very will be a desperate bunch in themselves). Their mere identification is enough to get the teleology whirling. For a sequence of events becomes action that lead somewhere- they become as if they had a goal and a purpose which might be lauded(the market does this, acts this way) or condemned (the poor operate to encourage their poverty). Action are then made into purposes, and re-action caliberate accordingly: We the start to worry and into infere according to this frame work this idea of causation we have foistered onto this little world - and idea that may or may not actually relate directly or indirectly to these change. A sequence of movement sis then seen as anything but innocent: It becomes a moment in that larger picture and to be interfered with accordingly.
Blind teleologies invest meaning. Or perhaps a lot of meaning is merely about looking for those teleologies or noticing as fixed rules those that are in the world. We feel that once the teleology is found, once a teleology is found, we have it- the meaning for the process and the end of thinking it does not matter whether the thought of the order makes sense or whether it is necessarily the way the system operate - for what is that to meaning? Meaning has its own take on reality- it marks after all the point at which one can move on in thinking and start to think a thought in finished and meaning made. ...
Where would meaning be with its teleologies? Teleologies that it will happily fo(i)sture onto the world, and yet which it will joyfully also find in a world and assume that that process has as great a significant to its part as teleology does in the mind. Relatively inert chemicals become the the handbook for life, and random lengths of DNA what evolution is good for...
Teleogy real and imagined becomes the the cause of all things- even though that cause is in any other world other than meaning blind- for its only meaning that gives it the power of sight - a sight that remains of course ours alone.
and yet of course the original movement is no such thing- it is merely a movement with rammification beyond if- one that finds a fault line somewhere else,or else sets of a chain of events: The moment the system changed, and yet a moment in itself so typical so unspecial or so random: as DNA is one of the ore inert chemicals in the body, one so very unspecial, an yet one which can be cascades of chemical reaction elsewhere set is trail process which in time create other process which eventual become a life. moreover its ever unspecialness, its very inertness becomes itself power- in that it does not often change- but when it does by random event specs eventual might shift in their nature (but only is of everything else pulls with the change). The minutest inversion chemicals becomes elsewhere the shift from fish to dinosaur....
Something happens somewhere, and a world inhabits that sift- makes it matter- makes it blind certianitude appear to have a purpose. The effect of such changes is to straighten out a system and create a distinct temporal flow within it. That is the blind telelogy is the point the change changes from, the point then a certain series evolved,a series that dominated the entire process, a series that became the unstoppable direction for the system; All its virtual possibilities are then collapsed into an arrow of time- and made to move only in one direction: They shift then into might have beens in the face of this movement the teleology is the blind start of fate - it is what will appear latter to be planned or to the make the plan. and yet as with all fate is starts hidden the merest of small difference that chances everything, so an entire world in unhinged and re-articualted.
But such movement such become purposes in a action (this is why everything changed- the moment) come is two very different forms. there are those whose purpose emerges within the system, and those whose purpose in thrust onto the system (from without). The difference is profound (event though the process is the same.)
The type of blind teleology are the type one finds in history natural or human. In a sense they are the real ones. A change happens hidden and unheard, like a silent thunder clap, or a pebble in the mountain, and yet and yet the cascade builds and changes. the power of that first move is in a sense nothing. it does not modify the whole, so much as set a process moving - leaving ti to other changes elsewhere to modify the cascade- by the same blind process. There is no design in any of this - it i is not even a cookbook, (which implies the instructon are to do stuff), merely a sequence of cascades of changes, that come together in some great water fall, and make a single smoking rain. So it is also is that nailing a fairly standard treatise on the door of a cathedral, where many such other treatise are nailed from tome to time, becomes a spark that ignites a sequecne of revolution in thought...
The second type of teleology arise at the other end of the living process. it is the product of the conscious mind - and the words in inhabits. this is a teleology that operates in creating a word, and becomes later a world. a category then such as sinner or witch or big society or communism is created. a word which has elements attach to it, and yet has not actaully incarnate meaning. That is one knows how one would react if this thing happened- one knows where this is gong, but not what it looks like. one has then in the face for this word and immediate reaction, which keeps the word in ones mind. One impetus that then makes one look for it in the world. And of course one finds it in some form or other . No matter that the original purpose has hidden in defining the world or that the process to which it is attached where merely doing what they were doing (and may very will be a desperate bunch in themselves). Their mere identification is enough to get the teleology whirling. For a sequence of events becomes action that lead somewhere- they become as if they had a goal and a purpose which might be lauded(the market does this, acts this way) or condemned (the poor operate to encourage their poverty). Action are then made into purposes, and re-action caliberate accordingly: We the start to worry and into infere according to this frame work this idea of causation we have foistered onto this little world - and idea that may or may not actually relate directly or indirectly to these change. A sequence of movement sis then seen as anything but innocent: It becomes a moment in that larger picture and to be interfered with accordingly.
Blind teleologies invest meaning. Or perhaps a lot of meaning is merely about looking for those teleologies or noticing as fixed rules those that are in the world. We feel that once the teleology is found, once a teleology is found, we have it- the meaning for the process and the end of thinking it does not matter whether the thought of the order makes sense or whether it is necessarily the way the system operate - for what is that to meaning? Meaning has its own take on reality- it marks after all the point at which one can move on in thinking and start to think a thought in finished and meaning made. ...
Where would meaning be with its teleologies? Teleologies that it will happily fo(i)sture onto the world, and yet which it will joyfully also find in a world and assume that that process has as great a significant to its part as teleology does in the mind. Relatively inert chemicals become the the handbook for life, and random lengths of DNA what evolution is good for...
Teleogy real and imagined becomes the the cause of all things- even though that cause is in any other world other than meaning blind- for its only meaning that gives it the power of sight - a sight that remains of course ours alone.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Meaning as Bondage and its escape
There is a real sense that meaning - becomes all about slavery and mastery. To know a meaning is after all to predict the future in some manner, and to be able to use that knowledge in some manner. It is to capture a little piece of the world in ones own mind, to assume or to make it ones own. It does not matte if that bit of the world includes other individuals and their action. Read the meaning of there actions and they become merely as a scrap of matter to be predicted and acted upon.
Meaning then invents some level of control or at least prediction a some point in the series. it creates a point where freedom breaks down, and humanity becomes an open predictive book to be read and learnt. Knowledge Then defines point at which be are all the slavs of matter or the mechanics of the eye and brian: It creates a shadow world where are actions are predicted - a world in which chains can be forged to hold us all. Meaning becomes then confused with slavery rather quickly - at least at certain levels.
A slavery that need not be about knowledge as such - it might just be the claim to have such knowledge - the church enslaves just as much if not more than the test tube- it just does it less efficiently
for meaning is also of course the line of escape. If one can define the level at which the binding meaning is built as somehow suspect, if one can inhabit meaning elsewhere n the world, then of becomes free in spite of the slavery of knowledge or institution, church or science. To be free is therefore to deride the existing nets of slavery that bind up minds and holds one down - that control action. Something must be suspect in their meanings the logic runs- something that can be found and ridicules as we set our minds truly free. Meaning becomes also then the great stratagem for meaning in the world. find the level at which meaning is- and one finds a freedom that is real.
But these direction qualities of meaning are not quite so simple as all that. For the passage from slavery as it merely builds a new slavery of its own - where else is it going after all but a new meaning? a new sense of control in the world? likewise as with all slavery it founds elsewhere another freedom- as British home live was founded on west indian slavery. Meaning that escapes is then already at another level in the process of becoming slavery; slavery is serving freedoms elsewhere. And yet these are no symmterical process: The freedom slavery creates is always a freedom of being: One creates a fixed state of freedom - fixed rules. The slaver sets the bounds then in which a sector of the world is free. While the becoming enslaved of the move to freedom is a complex affair- for there are no fixed rules and possibly no iron rule. there are many ways the process might great new chains many dark places, and always the possibility that it actually works, and that at some level the walk to freedom and meaning carries on and on.
Well maybe. What is always a mistake is to simply assume that meaning of the being that implies slavery and the process of meaning as freedom that leads from one into a becoming other slavery are going in the sam direction. They are not - and that is the point and of course if you simply confuse the two or pretend they are the same (the end of history, the trimuph of the west etc) then you end forcing the becoming freedom to conform the the being free - you do so by making that very freedom a form of slavery. That is a system no one is allowed to escape or think beyond in spite of the fact that it does not and cannot work in the situation in which it is found. move that creates states as failures and government as mafia....
Freedom slavery and meaning come then in many guises and many forms.
Meaning then invents some level of control or at least prediction a some point in the series. it creates a point where freedom breaks down, and humanity becomes an open predictive book to be read and learnt. Knowledge Then defines point at which be are all the slavs of matter or the mechanics of the eye and brian: It creates a shadow world where are actions are predicted - a world in which chains can be forged to hold us all. Meaning becomes then confused with slavery rather quickly - at least at certain levels.
A slavery that need not be about knowledge as such - it might just be the claim to have such knowledge - the church enslaves just as much if not more than the test tube- it just does it less efficiently
for meaning is also of course the line of escape. If one can define the level at which the binding meaning is built as somehow suspect, if one can inhabit meaning elsewhere n the world, then of becomes free in spite of the slavery of knowledge or institution, church or science. To be free is therefore to deride the existing nets of slavery that bind up minds and holds one down - that control action. Something must be suspect in their meanings the logic runs- something that can be found and ridicules as we set our minds truly free. Meaning becomes also then the great stratagem for meaning in the world. find the level at which meaning is- and one finds a freedom that is real.
But these direction qualities of meaning are not quite so simple as all that. For the passage from slavery as it merely builds a new slavery of its own - where else is it going after all but a new meaning? a new sense of control in the world? likewise as with all slavery it founds elsewhere another freedom- as British home live was founded on west indian slavery. Meaning that escapes is then already at another level in the process of becoming slavery; slavery is serving freedoms elsewhere. And yet these are no symmterical process: The freedom slavery creates is always a freedom of being: One creates a fixed state of freedom - fixed rules. The slaver sets the bounds then in which a sector of the world is free. While the becoming enslaved of the move to freedom is a complex affair- for there are no fixed rules and possibly no iron rule. there are many ways the process might great new chains many dark places, and always the possibility that it actually works, and that at some level the walk to freedom and meaning carries on and on.
Well maybe. What is always a mistake is to simply assume that meaning of the being that implies slavery and the process of meaning as freedom that leads from one into a becoming other slavery are going in the sam direction. They are not - and that is the point and of course if you simply confuse the two or pretend they are the same (the end of history, the trimuph of the west etc) then you end forcing the becoming freedom to conform the the being free - you do so by making that very freedom a form of slavery. That is a system no one is allowed to escape or think beyond in spite of the fact that it does not and cannot work in the situation in which it is found. move that creates states as failures and government as mafia....
Freedom slavery and meaning come then in many guises and many forms.
Monday, December 6, 2010
Meaning as the Good
The veneer of goodness haunts meaning. It comes from Plato of course- The idea that true knowledge is ought with Go holy light - so that knowing it makes you good- it does good. a good that is external to us all - a good that sweeps us up and along, and makes things happen this way or that. The idea appears to be then that knowledge has a beneficial external life to that which knows - such that the very act of knowing allows the knower to act and think different.
It is at the bedrock of meaning that it allows a mind freedom: A bedrock that defines means peculiar place as the pivot to thought. fid an meaning and you can make thoughts spin around that meaning - setting many things aright or recasting them- making them anew. To think - to find meaning is to step into a warm if corrosive baths beyond your own thoughts.
and yet vitally this bath is collective. We philosophers can jump into together- together we may swim. Meaning is then never owned by any one of us; it is a collective freedom. a freedom that in finding we share - and want to share. Freedom is therefore always ours - always an open invitation for others to join and meaning reflects that fact.
At which point Plato adds an extra beautiful twist. the Good as meaning is open ended. it is seen only in the light of the knowledge it produces. It is the refracted light of thought in all our eyes. As such it dazzles when we first enter a new kingdom- a dazzling that might shock and might overwhelm. But also It is open ended - you cant top the light illuminating this world o us. To see allow its rays is then to see many things, but to also it is to be able to see more and yet more ad infinituum. Knowledge is therefore open ended- as light illumines. The good the emerges is then a freedom that actually knows no bounds- or better in which every light leads on to new thoughts, new lights and so on. Moreover the actual source for this light is of course hidden in what it shows. We see merely how it refracts, and the open ended freedom of that refraction. The source- the meaning of meaning if you like is invisible and must be so for the vivid light to operate as it does. the mind is therefore free insofar as it cannot see the source of its freedom, and cannot simply gravitate towards it. It must rather revel in the open nature of what that light and knowledge that freedom creates and shows.
The very fact then that meaning ought to lie beyond the thinkers nature- sets it up is a position to beneficially challenge that nature. It is the point beyond our nature that challenges us to think anew an so set our mind free from its chains of supposing, and to share that thought and that thinking. to share and to be free and to think are then all tied to the ought shown by good- the light that gives meaning of a world while of itself remaining hidden in what it shows; a light whose actual nature is only deduced in the concord and freedom it creates.
The threefold yardsick of truth is then- that the good involves: A hidden but open ended revealer ; A freedom as pivot; knowledge as collective. no thought can ever be truly finished, and no description of the world is ever simply over and done with. indeed the external world of meaning keeping its otherness throughout. no description however subtle can then finish the picture. ere is always other things to be said, other possible freedoms for thought. The looking to think is therefore open as lights power is to show us new things.
The direct contrast between such a domain and the one in which we live. that s the domain of shadows and refracted occluded light. a word were the impetus is finish with ideas and even more so to attempt to own them outright. This is my feeling my idea- so there runs the mantra. Or worse than that a word where knowledge's own light footed nature becomes dangerous and unstable: We endelessly lurch between new ideas each we feel we own outright and yet do so without an stability or constancy for thought. Finally the collective nature of thought becomes itself a power. it is then not that we are sweeps way by what lies just beyond us all, so much as the actually act of sharing becomes the power. a mob moves this way or that, thinks with a power of its own will and dynamic. worse than that a mob is easily whipped into a hysteria by a some orator, who takes the place of the light - introducing new current to the mob- currents the mob then collective owns and immediately acts upon.
The very elements of the yardstick of meaning become difficult and dangerous when removed fro the light and its power. that is when knowledge ceases to actually address the external world- a world necessarily beyond all humanity, and become rather merely about what humans generate as group or individual together- it becomes difficult and dangerous. Here one needs of course so much care (care Plato at least has). Care to tell apart the freedom of a mob to act or even to create of itself (or have created) and endless profusion of images or dreams or demands, and the freedom of thought itself. the point of the latter freedom is that it is always at every point a pivot. It is then always a question of where the thought stream comes from. I it the question runs a pivot founded in a land beyond us all- a land that cannot be mastered or is merely in the clouds we together create? This Plato actually poses as a question. The point is that conceptually these are different things- and yet and yet it is of course very difficult to tell them apart - as it is difficult to tell Thrasmachylus apart form Socrates in the end: both after all think the powerful should rule, it is just that Thrasmachylus does not have a Good definition of power(and so confuses the mob with the king with the philosopher), while Socrates is very clear that true knowledge and its freedom are real power.
meaning then poses a paradox- it itself it creates an opened kingdom we can all share in - and an idea that sometimes we might be sharing in that ;and, but always have top be aware that we might allow be deluding ourselves - and merely be part of a mob. the differences between the two are rather elusive and subtle if real - and it is of course only the true lover of thought that is likely to bother to tell them apart.
Meaning as the good is therefore at once an allegory of opened modest thought - but also a problem of keeping good and so keeping it creative.
It is at the bedrock of meaning that it allows a mind freedom: A bedrock that defines means peculiar place as the pivot to thought. fid an meaning and you can make thoughts spin around that meaning - setting many things aright or recasting them- making them anew. To think - to find meaning is to step into a warm if corrosive baths beyond your own thoughts.
and yet vitally this bath is collective. We philosophers can jump into together- together we may swim. Meaning is then never owned by any one of us; it is a collective freedom. a freedom that in finding we share - and want to share. Freedom is therefore always ours - always an open invitation for others to join and meaning reflects that fact.
At which point Plato adds an extra beautiful twist. the Good as meaning is open ended. it is seen only in the light of the knowledge it produces. It is the refracted light of thought in all our eyes. As such it dazzles when we first enter a new kingdom- a dazzling that might shock and might overwhelm. But also It is open ended - you cant top the light illuminating this world o us. To see allow its rays is then to see many things, but to also it is to be able to see more and yet more ad infinituum. Knowledge is therefore open ended- as light illumines. The good the emerges is then a freedom that actually knows no bounds- or better in which every light leads on to new thoughts, new lights and so on. Moreover the actual source for this light is of course hidden in what it shows. We see merely how it refracts, and the open ended freedom of that refraction. The source- the meaning of meaning if you like is invisible and must be so for the vivid light to operate as it does. the mind is therefore free insofar as it cannot see the source of its freedom, and cannot simply gravitate towards it. It must rather revel in the open nature of what that light and knowledge that freedom creates and shows.
The very fact then that meaning ought to lie beyond the thinkers nature- sets it up is a position to beneficially challenge that nature. It is the point beyond our nature that challenges us to think anew an so set our mind free from its chains of supposing, and to share that thought and that thinking. to share and to be free and to think are then all tied to the ought shown by good- the light that gives meaning of a world while of itself remaining hidden in what it shows; a light whose actual nature is only deduced in the concord and freedom it creates.
The threefold yardsick of truth is then- that the good involves: A hidden but open ended revealer ; A freedom as pivot; knowledge as collective. no thought can ever be truly finished, and no description of the world is ever simply over and done with. indeed the external world of meaning keeping its otherness throughout. no description however subtle can then finish the picture. ere is always other things to be said, other possible freedoms for thought. The looking to think is therefore open as lights power is to show us new things.
The direct contrast between such a domain and the one in which we live. that s the domain of shadows and refracted occluded light. a word were the impetus is finish with ideas and even more so to attempt to own them outright. This is my feeling my idea- so there runs the mantra. Or worse than that a word where knowledge's own light footed nature becomes dangerous and unstable: We endelessly lurch between new ideas each we feel we own outright and yet do so without an stability or constancy for thought. Finally the collective nature of thought becomes itself a power. it is then not that we are sweeps way by what lies just beyond us all, so much as the actually act of sharing becomes the power. a mob moves this way or that, thinks with a power of its own will and dynamic. worse than that a mob is easily whipped into a hysteria by a some orator, who takes the place of the light - introducing new current to the mob- currents the mob then collective owns and immediately acts upon.
The very elements of the yardstick of meaning become difficult and dangerous when removed fro the light and its power. that is when knowledge ceases to actually address the external world- a world necessarily beyond all humanity, and become rather merely about what humans generate as group or individual together- it becomes difficult and dangerous. Here one needs of course so much care (care Plato at least has). Care to tell apart the freedom of a mob to act or even to create of itself (or have created) and endless profusion of images or dreams or demands, and the freedom of thought itself. the point of the latter freedom is that it is always at every point a pivot. It is then always a question of where the thought stream comes from. I it the question runs a pivot founded in a land beyond us all- a land that cannot be mastered or is merely in the clouds we together create? This Plato actually poses as a question. The point is that conceptually these are different things- and yet and yet it is of course very difficult to tell them apart - as it is difficult to tell Thrasmachylus apart form Socrates in the end: both after all think the powerful should rule, it is just that Thrasmachylus does not have a Good definition of power(and so confuses the mob with the king with the philosopher), while Socrates is very clear that true knowledge and its freedom are real power.
meaning then poses a paradox- it itself it creates an opened kingdom we can all share in - and an idea that sometimes we might be sharing in that ;and, but always have top be aware that we might allow be deluding ourselves - and merely be part of a mob. the differences between the two are rather elusive and subtle if real - and it is of course only the true lover of thought that is likely to bother to tell them apart.
Meaning as the good is therefore at once an allegory of opened modest thought - but also a problem of keeping good and so keeping it creative.
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Meaning as Structure
It is an old adage - find a structure, a forma and you find a meaning. Meaning and structure appear to run together- to run into each other. There is no meaning without cosmology ....
From which it of course follows that the sciences of structure- mathematics, semiotic genetics, always claim the mastery over meaning. Disciplines aspires to hard structures - to beautiful designs, and fairly glow when they have them. Structure be it the good of creation or the code of life,of the structure of a multi-dimension universe becomes the absolute creed of origin. Find a structure primitive enough and beautiful enough and one finds the truth.
the drive for structure is a thought at least as old as them middle ages- with its cosmologies, and criss crosses not only real science but psuedo science and soft science as well. The same drive. The same basic very elements supplied by a structure.
Firstly a structure creates an impression of something - some though external in power an nature to the thinker. A structure is to be drawn as the history of the world is drawn out. The thought becomes then in art something else- visual or perhaps composed of notes. it slips gear and shed one nature- internal thought to become another. the structure then is highly important to thought as it pulls out an idea- renders it objective as an idea in itself, and in doing so opens it up to others to see and understand. structures are then vital in the way we communicate ideas, and understand them as ideas (and so not merely a part in us).
Secondly and arising out of this last fact, structures impose an abstract reality of their own on truth. Once one has a structure it becomes generative - it creates the places one looks for truth- and the messy affairs of evidence and in structured thought slips away within the power of the single structure. The mind the in this kind of abstraction feels the master to the truth. It has its structure and is so in control. Structure marks the true kantian moment- the moment a thought is our idea because we impose order into it: The point after which it is we who drive the thought onwards, we who generate the rules - and drive the idea - according the the depth and richness of the structure we have found for the world. Structures condition thought, but also perception. We look for what is or could be found- for the structure is the net of finding - and the rhythm of thinking. all ant got really wrong as insisting the there was only one structure possible - and that a reasoned one define by Newtonian space and Time...
Thirdly the revealing of myriad differing shifting structures always patterns the debate about knowledge. For it structures describe origins or moments of abstraction, then working out how and why thought structures form becomes the task for thought. structures then define academic but also personal agenda and reasoning. They define not merely not we are looking for but the kind of explaination we can create to explain this explaination. We need to explain the structures we have found - and need a God a mind or perhaps another structure to do so.Structures then become what is explained - what there is to explain and understand. Linked to this explaination is the tendency to assume that the abstract structure is somehow seperate from the rest of reality. It is something complete and in itself: It is its own rhythm. It follow then that its explaination is also complete to itself- caught in its own world. One needs then the explain not the structure in motion, and not as part of the messy world but rather as cosmos complete. Traditionally such a being only has one possible genetic factor - namely some deep reason somewhere else- so great cause for structure. The recent variation of this is the idea that structure comes for free amongst agents of that structure: It is the what they together acting on to the other create and keep. It has not rhyme or reason therefore beyond their interaction - and no cause beyond the structure they create. A move which is in effect a great democratization of structure... And one that opens up all structures to many process - and many orgines or participations: A move that has actually freed up meaning - so that meanings can be found (causal connections) in new places an between new elements- connection that are fairly restiching our world and making us think anew.
Structures matter- therefore for there are traditionally the very matter of meaning itself. They make the point where thought leaves the single mind, and becomes objective both in itself, and its description of the world. the point if you like the world and an abstract Human mind meet and coalesce. They are then the point we think a world other than us (but capable of thinking us) from - and how we describe that thought one to the other; the point the we share of ability to perceive and explain the world with the world itself. Structures are rooted then in that which we have thought and act in common with that we are able also to explain. As such Structures are built as a defiant reply to doctrine or the other and the Thing in itself which would insist the silent world beyond our nature is actually unthinkable- an known only in its effects it us. This might be in absolute form - in a world where the only contrast was between Us and the World, but thought, structure says need not be quite like that. Thought can tear free of an us, and become a something of the world itself, and form from this perspective a structure - an articulation of though as if it were a thing of the world- an articulation of it as something in common with the world. A brave move that, as with all such moves combines fact and fiction in it. Most structures might be illusions or mere mirages of reason; and the world of origins they appear to demand might also merely be a romantic delusion: and yet the need to structure thought, and have thought as something external to our nature- a thing apart; The need to build machine for thinking remains - and structure is where we being to answer that need from.
From which it of course follows that the sciences of structure- mathematics, semiotic genetics, always claim the mastery over meaning. Disciplines aspires to hard structures - to beautiful designs, and fairly glow when they have them. Structure be it the good of creation or the code of life,of the structure of a multi-dimension universe becomes the absolute creed of origin. Find a structure primitive enough and beautiful enough and one finds the truth.
the drive for structure is a thought at least as old as them middle ages- with its cosmologies, and criss crosses not only real science but psuedo science and soft science as well. The same drive. The same basic very elements supplied by a structure.
Firstly a structure creates an impression of something - some though external in power an nature to the thinker. A structure is to be drawn as the history of the world is drawn out. The thought becomes then in art something else- visual or perhaps composed of notes. it slips gear and shed one nature- internal thought to become another. the structure then is highly important to thought as it pulls out an idea- renders it objective as an idea in itself, and in doing so opens it up to others to see and understand. structures are then vital in the way we communicate ideas, and understand them as ideas (and so not merely a part in us).
Secondly and arising out of this last fact, structures impose an abstract reality of their own on truth. Once one has a structure it becomes generative - it creates the places one looks for truth- and the messy affairs of evidence and in structured thought slips away within the power of the single structure. The mind the in this kind of abstraction feels the master to the truth. It has its structure and is so in control. Structure marks the true kantian moment- the moment a thought is our idea because we impose order into it: The point after which it is we who drive the thought onwards, we who generate the rules - and drive the idea - according the the depth and richness of the structure we have found for the world. Structures condition thought, but also perception. We look for what is or could be found- for the structure is the net of finding - and the rhythm of thinking. all ant got really wrong as insisting the there was only one structure possible - and that a reasoned one define by Newtonian space and Time...
Thirdly the revealing of myriad differing shifting structures always patterns the debate about knowledge. For it structures describe origins or moments of abstraction, then working out how and why thought structures form becomes the task for thought. structures then define academic but also personal agenda and reasoning. They define not merely not we are looking for but the kind of explaination we can create to explain this explaination. We need to explain the structures we have found - and need a God a mind or perhaps another structure to do so.Structures then become what is explained - what there is to explain and understand. Linked to this explaination is the tendency to assume that the abstract structure is somehow seperate from the rest of reality. It is something complete and in itself: It is its own rhythm. It follow then that its explaination is also complete to itself- caught in its own world. One needs then the explain not the structure in motion, and not as part of the messy world but rather as cosmos complete. Traditionally such a being only has one possible genetic factor - namely some deep reason somewhere else- so great cause for structure. The recent variation of this is the idea that structure comes for free amongst agents of that structure: It is the what they together acting on to the other create and keep. It has not rhyme or reason therefore beyond their interaction - and no cause beyond the structure they create. A move which is in effect a great democratization of structure... And one that opens up all structures to many process - and many orgines or participations: A move that has actually freed up meaning - so that meanings can be found (causal connections) in new places an between new elements- connection that are fairly restiching our world and making us think anew.
Structures matter- therefore for there are traditionally the very matter of meaning itself. They make the point where thought leaves the single mind, and becomes objective both in itself, and its description of the world. the point if you like the world and an abstract Human mind meet and coalesce. They are then the point we think a world other than us (but capable of thinking us) from - and how we describe that thought one to the other; the point the we share of ability to perceive and explain the world with the world itself. Structures are rooted then in that which we have thought and act in common with that we are able also to explain. As such Structures are built as a defiant reply to doctrine or the other and the Thing in itself which would insist the silent world beyond our nature is actually unthinkable- an known only in its effects it us. This might be in absolute form - in a world where the only contrast was between Us and the World, but thought, structure says need not be quite like that. Thought can tear free of an us, and become a something of the world itself, and form from this perspective a structure - an articulation of though as if it were a thing of the world- an articulation of it as something in common with the world. A brave move that, as with all such moves combines fact and fiction in it. Most structures might be illusions or mere mirages of reason; and the world of origins they appear to demand might also merely be a romantic delusion: and yet the need to structure thought, and have thought as something external to our nature- a thing apart; The need to build machine for thinking remains - and structure is where we being to answer that need from.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Meaning as the the Beer pit of Langauge
It almost goes without saying, that language feels itself to be very very special in its relationship to meaning. It is language after all that is the house of being - the lord of meaning. What would meaning be without the frameworks, the wefts and warps of words. Language then creates the gauzy verbosity in which meaning occurs. I forms the structures and the flows, the aural surface of meaning.
likewise language insists that it has special powers over meaning - the powers of sense and nonsense.
Sense is the claim that it is in words meanings are found. to make real meaning - to have the key then to describing the world and actually saying stuff that is worth saying one needs words and what they say. errors then becomes merely all about words, all about saying the right thing at the right time: all about just getting it right. Purify language and meaning will flow.
Nonsense is the opposite power of language. language will clim it is more than meaning for it has the key to nonsense - it can say things that make no sense at all. more than that it a can create sense from this nonsense. It provides rules rules of repetition and rhythm, rules of grammar that allow near sense, and semi-tomes of meaning to evolve. Language is then clearly greater than its meaning. It is its parent - the rules that allow it meaning to be as a small subdomain within this wider kingdom.
language then pulls itself free of army utilariarrian point of view - and starts to punch for itself: it is the master and meaning i to be contained - and ultimately resolved into dictionaries.
and yet at almost every point in this powergrab meaning is seen struggle to say other things as well: Asserting then a silent freedom for itself. Meaning would then claim that actually words only work it meaning is assumed. it is language then that is the symptom of meaning or at least the idea of sharing ideas which makes meaning. the sharing of sounds and structures which is language and the sharing of minds are then caught up with each other: to treat language as autonomous is then to cut it off from what supports it. Of course one creates then an autonomous structure, but so what? The actual domain of meaning is considerably upstream of any such ragbag structure. Likewise meaning strains against the excessive claims of words to say everything: what about diagrams or sound patterns, or patterns n the starts. There are so many other forms of saying stuff. One might of course talk here about writting - but that is quite another debate. Language in the form of spoken clearly is not half the story of meaning. Writting might then be a name of an element of what is in both our minds allowing language to be - but language - No. Even with writting there is a suspicion that an allegory between is being mistake for reality. That is there is certainly something in the shared fate of writing is relations to language (where it can be mistaken merely as its handmaiden) and the structures of thought that allow language to be possible. Both elements are silent- productive and yet irresovelable into what words say. That much is true. but are they the same in anything more than allegory? that us quite a different matter.
Likewise claims about the powers and rights of nonsense are based ion assumptions about meaning that it might not share. since when meaning wonders has it been simple or fixed? Yes it emerges from nonesense - and once can forge new meanings between individuals as a light fluffy gauge or deep current. Of course one can - so what? The point was not the forging of meaning so much as the way it is forged. that is what extra it is adding, and how that extra allows itself to register across time. meaning is not to be confused then with the truth which is the true target of nonsense....
Meaning quietly resist this powergrab. it say no -actually I am not quite where you think I am. i am lighter than that - in the gap between words and visuals, and part of the very sharing of words in though alone. Meaning insists then it is what is shared in minds and the process of the sharing bound up and bound in allow us in operates to create minds that inhabit worlds. it has nothing to same to the noisy attempt to use formal structure to create a seperate domain. Or at least it will of course inhabit this domain as it has its own meaning- but that does not mean that the domain is special or different. It might create a world - but then so what such creation is cheap. And that is the point - the mystery of meaning - and its independents from truth or words or even formal structure: for it is what lurks inside all of these - allowing them to shared, and so creating the sense they are said at all.
likewise language insists that it has special powers over meaning - the powers of sense and nonsense.
Sense is the claim that it is in words meanings are found. to make real meaning - to have the key then to describing the world and actually saying stuff that is worth saying one needs words and what they say. errors then becomes merely all about words, all about saying the right thing at the right time: all about just getting it right. Purify language and meaning will flow.
Nonsense is the opposite power of language. language will clim it is more than meaning for it has the key to nonsense - it can say things that make no sense at all. more than that it a can create sense from this nonsense. It provides rules rules of repetition and rhythm, rules of grammar that allow near sense, and semi-tomes of meaning to evolve. Language is then clearly greater than its meaning. It is its parent - the rules that allow it meaning to be as a small subdomain within this wider kingdom.
language then pulls itself free of army utilariarrian point of view - and starts to punch for itself: it is the master and meaning i to be contained - and ultimately resolved into dictionaries.
and yet at almost every point in this powergrab meaning is seen struggle to say other things as well: Asserting then a silent freedom for itself. Meaning would then claim that actually words only work it meaning is assumed. it is language then that is the symptom of meaning or at least the idea of sharing ideas which makes meaning. the sharing of sounds and structures which is language and the sharing of minds are then caught up with each other: to treat language as autonomous is then to cut it off from what supports it. Of course one creates then an autonomous structure, but so what? The actual domain of meaning is considerably upstream of any such ragbag structure. Likewise meaning strains against the excessive claims of words to say everything: what about diagrams or sound patterns, or patterns n the starts. There are so many other forms of saying stuff. One might of course talk here about writting - but that is quite another debate. Language in the form of spoken clearly is not half the story of meaning. Writting might then be a name of an element of what is in both our minds allowing language to be - but language - No. Even with writting there is a suspicion that an allegory between is being mistake for reality. That is there is certainly something in the shared fate of writing is relations to language (where it can be mistaken merely as its handmaiden) and the structures of thought that allow language to be possible. Both elements are silent- productive and yet irresovelable into what words say. That much is true. but are they the same in anything more than allegory? that us quite a different matter.
Likewise claims about the powers and rights of nonsense are based ion assumptions about meaning that it might not share. since when meaning wonders has it been simple or fixed? Yes it emerges from nonesense - and once can forge new meanings between individuals as a light fluffy gauge or deep current. Of course one can - so what? The point was not the forging of meaning so much as the way it is forged. that is what extra it is adding, and how that extra allows itself to register across time. meaning is not to be confused then with the truth which is the true target of nonsense....
Meaning quietly resist this powergrab. it say no -actually I am not quite where you think I am. i am lighter than that - in the gap between words and visuals, and part of the very sharing of words in though alone. Meaning insists then it is what is shared in minds and the process of the sharing bound up and bound in allow us in operates to create minds that inhabit worlds. it has nothing to same to the noisy attempt to use formal structure to create a seperate domain. Or at least it will of course inhabit this domain as it has its own meaning- but that does not mean that the domain is special or different. It might create a world - but then so what such creation is cheap. And that is the point - the mystery of meaning - and its independents from truth or words or even formal structure: for it is what lurks inside all of these - allowing them to shared, and so creating the sense they are said at all.
Monday, November 29, 2010
meaning as numbers
Numbers are odd: They take hidden trend lines, or a myriad of half glances little events, and gather them togther in a single create crunched statics - a number for all to see. a number that becomes an even in its own right.
A number that represent a quite distinct mental process. This is not conjunction or synthetics so much as dissolution and resolution. Events are in numbers turned into dissolved into a numerical paste a tic in a box, a thing counted: That glue is the poured into the number- into the bald figure. This figure then exist as a hard point or facts in its own right. It becomes then part in a set of other numbers other facts, which together create the framework of a world of understanding. Understanding then flits across the facts, drawing them his way or that - inhabiting them as a world - or indeed several world as the same facts might mean so very many different things - might open out into differing worlds and patterns.
more than that the world described by these numbers, need to reflect in some gentle way the 'real world' - by which we of course mean our verbal understanding (itself semi-abstract) or the world we regularly inhabit We look to these numbers to comment then on what we are and how we are.
Indeed we go further- the numbers are evidence of our believes about he world. they are what allows abstract mental construction to feel as if they were real and of the world - or else the challenge that world and pull it of its axis. a single figure and even better a mirage of numbers can then be dangerous. Well of course they would be is i were not possible to ensure that the paste one makes, and the number world fashioned reflect a certain view point. After all what the paste is depends on the question asked....
Well to a certain degree anyway. Numbers in fact impose an threefold hurdle on prejudice. Firstly there are established ways to paste reality. One cannot then simply do it any which way - cannot dissolve in the interests of prejudice.
Secondly Statistics clearly create a sword of Damonclese over their would be users. numbers create create ended terriorities that might be used in many ways or forms. Individuals will then always choose the exact path through the number world they use - what we currently call spin but other have called interpretation or narrative. And yet you will always be judged by the path you take - by where you go. Other paths are always possible and can always be seen by those with eyes to judge. numbers are then dangerous tin that they create an interpretive plain with many lines and believes are articulated one against the other.
Finally numbers are quirky and surreal. They have then their greatest power as numbers when they are given their head and allowed to redescribe belief in someway - opening paths not otherwise seen. Numbers then in setting up things to count actually create new unlooked places to pitch belief, new journies in this world. And over stodgy imposition of truth and the figures that prove it, is then likely to flounder as other statistics create other angles unlooked initially, and yet often more telling.
Numbers then create meaning if forming a shadow kingdom- like and yet unlike our won: The surreal world of knowledge - one enters at ones own peril- for it is never clear that one master it and its trendns or patterns.
but enter it of course one must.
Fort his domain of numbers clearly dominates modern life - and does from several angles:
Firstly, democracy is also founded on a number game. What else is democracy but a counting exercise?numbers then animate what we call our freedom. Politics likewise lives and dies but the numbers. the statistics then one uses in poltics are designed t reflect that other great statistic votes: Peoples (squeezed middles or the middle classes) and then conjured up, in the hope that the numbers involved in the conjuring, the individuals so pasted into a figure will eventually reflect in vote. Numbers create then also the inner dynamic for democracy: A world where numbers on the one hand and on the other are meant to be drawn together.
Likewise business clearly works at the junucture of three numbers games; Profit production and sales. In this case of course these streams are not images of each other other much as complex pairs: effect one element in the process and one of the others is effected. Profit increases when production decreases etc. Behind all such couples there lies of course the dominance of the profit figure. as long as that keeps on rising everything is ok. The world of sales is then in a sense atomized by profit. it does into really matter what is sold or how or when as long as that figure keeps on rising (and to a different degree so is production_), There is a real hierarchy here therefore- a real pattern: one figure defines the others- and what can be one. Number streams impose hierachies.
Or again there are the figures used in public policy: figures that pull individual needs of in the direction of the mass. the paste dominates the case - ad the abstract out guns this or that incarnation of the abstract. numbers then allow certain beliefes to be more significant that the storm of passions in the present would wish them to be. It is never simply about oneself, and figures explain why it must not be - or if it is why this might well be a problem.
Numbers the do not merely paste the world and create it anew- but also the very ethic of freedom we espoused is numerical - they are our freedom - our meaning or at least the point that freedom that meaning itself finds its own meaning- where its wheels touch the ground. Truth in numbers is an truisim - as numbers actually a busy creating our world our truth. the battles then for different interpretation of figures are real, for we are fighting over the very way we understand our world our system - and so in a sense the way we understand what of numerical freedom really means...
A number that represent a quite distinct mental process. This is not conjunction or synthetics so much as dissolution and resolution. Events are in numbers turned into dissolved into a numerical paste a tic in a box, a thing counted: That glue is the poured into the number- into the bald figure. This figure then exist as a hard point or facts in its own right. It becomes then part in a set of other numbers other facts, which together create the framework of a world of understanding. Understanding then flits across the facts, drawing them his way or that - inhabiting them as a world - or indeed several world as the same facts might mean so very many different things - might open out into differing worlds and patterns.
more than that the world described by these numbers, need to reflect in some gentle way the 'real world' - by which we of course mean our verbal understanding (itself semi-abstract) or the world we regularly inhabit We look to these numbers to comment then on what we are and how we are.
Indeed we go further- the numbers are evidence of our believes about he world. they are what allows abstract mental construction to feel as if they were real and of the world - or else the challenge that world and pull it of its axis. a single figure and even better a mirage of numbers can then be dangerous. Well of course they would be is i were not possible to ensure that the paste one makes, and the number world fashioned reflect a certain view point. After all what the paste is depends on the question asked....
Well to a certain degree anyway. Numbers in fact impose an threefold hurdle on prejudice. Firstly there are established ways to paste reality. One cannot then simply do it any which way - cannot dissolve in the interests of prejudice.
Secondly Statistics clearly create a sword of Damonclese over their would be users. numbers create create ended terriorities that might be used in many ways or forms. Individuals will then always choose the exact path through the number world they use - what we currently call spin but other have called interpretation or narrative. And yet you will always be judged by the path you take - by where you go. Other paths are always possible and can always be seen by those with eyes to judge. numbers are then dangerous tin that they create an interpretive plain with many lines and believes are articulated one against the other.
Finally numbers are quirky and surreal. They have then their greatest power as numbers when they are given their head and allowed to redescribe belief in someway - opening paths not otherwise seen. Numbers then in setting up things to count actually create new unlooked places to pitch belief, new journies in this world. And over stodgy imposition of truth and the figures that prove it, is then likely to flounder as other statistics create other angles unlooked initially, and yet often more telling.
Numbers then create meaning if forming a shadow kingdom- like and yet unlike our won: The surreal world of knowledge - one enters at ones own peril- for it is never clear that one master it and its trendns or patterns.
but enter it of course one must.
Fort his domain of numbers clearly dominates modern life - and does from several angles:
Firstly, democracy is also founded on a number game. What else is democracy but a counting exercise?numbers then animate what we call our freedom. Politics likewise lives and dies but the numbers. the statistics then one uses in poltics are designed t reflect that other great statistic votes: Peoples (squeezed middles or the middle classes) and then conjured up, in the hope that the numbers involved in the conjuring, the individuals so pasted into a figure will eventually reflect in vote. Numbers create then also the inner dynamic for democracy: A world where numbers on the one hand and on the other are meant to be drawn together.
Likewise business clearly works at the junucture of three numbers games; Profit production and sales. In this case of course these streams are not images of each other other much as complex pairs: effect one element in the process and one of the others is effected. Profit increases when production decreases etc. Behind all such couples there lies of course the dominance of the profit figure. as long as that keeps on rising everything is ok. The world of sales is then in a sense atomized by profit. it does into really matter what is sold or how or when as long as that figure keeps on rising (and to a different degree so is production_), There is a real hierarchy here therefore- a real pattern: one figure defines the others- and what can be one. Number streams impose hierachies.
Or again there are the figures used in public policy: figures that pull individual needs of in the direction of the mass. the paste dominates the case - ad the abstract out guns this or that incarnation of the abstract. numbers then allow certain beliefes to be more significant that the storm of passions in the present would wish them to be. It is never simply about oneself, and figures explain why it must not be - or if it is why this might well be a problem.
Numbers the do not merely paste the world and create it anew- but also the very ethic of freedom we espoused is numerical - they are our freedom - our meaning or at least the point that freedom that meaning itself finds its own meaning- where its wheels touch the ground. Truth in numbers is an truisim - as numbers actually a busy creating our world our truth. the battles then for different interpretation of figures are real, for we are fighting over the very way we understand our world our system - and so in a sense the way we understand what of numerical freedom really means...
Saturday, November 27, 2010
meaning as the gamblers child
To mean is to have a wager made somewhere, by someone - a strange wager- for it is one made in the name of meaning - and yet not in its interest.
The mere fact that there is meaning in the world- means that the world itself is changed. It is warped in the weft of meaning: The meaning that is there - giving it a framework, meaning something ought to follow something.
Meaning is then not only upstream of perception - but also it follow that because of tis the world, the perceived world ought to dance to what meaning say as to what it thinks: from which it follows, that one might very well guess these extra elements, these connections. one might be able to predict where perceptions lead. The downstream of me then becomes transformed- as within that downstream, with its locus one gets predict meanings. and yet this is complex - meaning would say- for what it means if never that simple.
In one way there is a sense where perhaps the world will conform to meaning; The language is precise enough, and the play honest enough - meaning will be a lead - it will open out into the future.
and yet everything in meaning reason needs to be alright for this future cast to work. More than that meaning will need to be being pitched at the right place. it will need to be describing the world itself, and not merely emotions (which have their own meaning - there own rhythm) -
It is very easy then to be mistaken in meaning - or better not to know exactly where and how the meanings truth ought to be applied to the world- exactly where and how it should begin to organize that world.
Meaning then always feels like it opens on other paths- always the futures in - and yet the path is never simple. It is never clear exactly which future is on the way which future is here and now.
And so often the only way to know is to try it - is to wager.
Meaning is constantly then both warped- the glamour it lends to reality borrowed for other purposes, and the result then gambles away: the fact that meaning is,multiplies then the chance that error also is. It makes error real and present - in the wrong gamble, in the too easy assumptions that there is an answer, that there is meaning in the world.
Meaning then creates necessarily not only the patchwork of errors but also half meanings- bits that were right in an idea and bit that were wrong, and all the half measures and ill digested fanatasies that criss cross these facts. The world is not merely right and wrong - not merely about wrong - it is also pock marked with other element mythic half truth, and allegories where more than one truth is caught in the same meaning. Meaning is manifold- it loops many flows together- and allows on to jump, to make make predictions between differing flows.
the point then being that these different flows caught together in the meaning for it all, become then as one in the prediction game. There conjunction and the dual world it gives becomes the fabric for the meaning -an for the wager: The movements of the one flow are then mistaken for the movements it the other or at least become incompossible with it. One moves then effortless thereofore into a supposed future; The movers here lead there - to that is what meaning says.
meaning becomes endless allegory as movements now become infused with what is to come - in an open end gamble: for exactly whether this movement is real or even possible only becomes true, only gains its truth as it is supposed.
The Gamblers child is then an unhappy one; The totem for luck, the crystal that demands the wager, ad so the cipher though which all goes so very wrong.
The mere fact that there is meaning in the world- means that the world itself is changed. It is warped in the weft of meaning: The meaning that is there - giving it a framework, meaning something ought to follow something.
Meaning is then not only upstream of perception - but also it follow that because of tis the world, the perceived world ought to dance to what meaning say as to what it thinks: from which it follows, that one might very well guess these extra elements, these connections. one might be able to predict where perceptions lead. The downstream of me then becomes transformed- as within that downstream, with its locus one gets predict meanings. and yet this is complex - meaning would say- for what it means if never that simple.
In one way there is a sense where perhaps the world will conform to meaning; The language is precise enough, and the play honest enough - meaning will be a lead - it will open out into the future.
and yet everything in meaning reason needs to be alright for this future cast to work. More than that meaning will need to be being pitched at the right place. it will need to be describing the world itself, and not merely emotions (which have their own meaning - there own rhythm) -
It is very easy then to be mistaken in meaning - or better not to know exactly where and how the meanings truth ought to be applied to the world- exactly where and how it should begin to organize that world.
Meaning then always feels like it opens on other paths- always the futures in - and yet the path is never simple. It is never clear exactly which future is on the way which future is here and now.
And so often the only way to know is to try it - is to wager.
Meaning is constantly then both warped- the glamour it lends to reality borrowed for other purposes, and the result then gambles away: the fact that meaning is,multiplies then the chance that error also is. It makes error real and present - in the wrong gamble, in the too easy assumptions that there is an answer, that there is meaning in the world.
Meaning then creates necessarily not only the patchwork of errors but also half meanings- bits that were right in an idea and bit that were wrong, and all the half measures and ill digested fanatasies that criss cross these facts. The world is not merely right and wrong - not merely about wrong - it is also pock marked with other element mythic half truth, and allegories where more than one truth is caught in the same meaning. Meaning is manifold- it loops many flows together- and allows on to jump, to make make predictions between differing flows.
the point then being that these different flows caught together in the meaning for it all, become then as one in the prediction game. There conjunction and the dual world it gives becomes the fabric for the meaning -an for the wager: The movements of the one flow are then mistaken for the movements it the other or at least become incompossible with it. One moves then effortless thereofore into a supposed future; The movers here lead there - to that is what meaning says.
meaning becomes endless allegory as movements now become infused with what is to come - in an open end gamble: for exactly whether this movement is real or even possible only becomes true, only gains its truth as it is supposed.
The Gamblers child is then an unhappy one; The totem for luck, the crystal that demands the wager, ad so the cipher though which all goes so very wrong.
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Meaning as Crime
There is a sense where all meaning is a crime.
Firstly there is an act of murder an impersonation. The rich diverse world of nature, the shifting lights and myriad smells is collapsed into a handful of formulars or an asserted idea. Reality is then sniffed out or replaces with words and their drawn models.
A move that of course involved a confidence hussle - for it really only can work if this secondary world, the one of books and computer screens manages somehow to pretend to be the real world. there is then some trick of confidence here. A a trick that works in both direction. truth is truth because we place our confidence in ti- and pull reality around it and what it says. It is quite literaly then a trick of confidence. At the same time though the entire process only really works if there is something else happening, some other movement afoot. we do not directly learnt or manipulate the world (whatever that might be), so much as have little loops of thought that allow us to predict behaviours, and to be open to exceptions within the world and where they might lead. Anything then stop being self evident. It all becomes a journey somewhere else- a path to...
a predictive hussel we place on the world as we nudge it somewhere rather than.....
Or perhaps better a trick that we play when our confidence merges with our reality - in such a way that we become able to work out what will happen when we do... Or at least believe that we can, and therefore accept the mathematical model that allows for this move.
But meaning is also surely an act of robbery. \We pilfer what we feel to be reality and use it then in our own schemes. What we call nature is then caught in a crystal of robbery and resistance. as humans we feel we have certain rights to resist nature or ignore its rights. we can go and do what we want. and yet we look fearfully over our back all the time, in the best burglar tradition, wondering what nature might do in turn how it might and should retaliate. We govern then in the interest of man's laws, and define nature and its laws merely as the alien to be robbed any which way: Only then fearing the result...
Likewise there is surely a sense that all meaning is tied to forgery. What else to we do but forge a world in our thoughts a world that is the facsimile to the truth - a world that forges a new reality.We then forge and improve or change so that the world is in our befief- seen in our own eyes. The world as it means is always our world, our being-
Meaning is then defined in an illicit move- the world is given in our minds: from the fact that we possess perceptions that cannot by their own light be understood as our ideas purely, our delusion, or madness, we move very quickly to the assumption that we then have the ability to think the entire world as if it were our on, and ac according. Possession becomes ownership in the flick of the eye. the only game then becomes how we then share (or not) what we feel we own. do we share t only with other humans, with the gods or god, or with the world or our perceptions of it itself. how the do we understand our crime? and how and where o we allow other forces, the forces of law and order to retaliate - can they retaliate in our minds? can they reveal then the inadequacy, the illicit nature of our meaning? Or have we sealed our world away from any possibility of external laws? and what then follows?
Firstly there is an act of murder an impersonation. The rich diverse world of nature, the shifting lights and myriad smells is collapsed into a handful of formulars or an asserted idea. Reality is then sniffed out or replaces with words and their drawn models.
A move that of course involved a confidence hussle - for it really only can work if this secondary world, the one of books and computer screens manages somehow to pretend to be the real world. there is then some trick of confidence here. A a trick that works in both direction. truth is truth because we place our confidence in ti- and pull reality around it and what it says. It is quite literaly then a trick of confidence. At the same time though the entire process only really works if there is something else happening, some other movement afoot. we do not directly learnt or manipulate the world (whatever that might be), so much as have little loops of thought that allow us to predict behaviours, and to be open to exceptions within the world and where they might lead. Anything then stop being self evident. It all becomes a journey somewhere else- a path to...
a predictive hussel we place on the world as we nudge it somewhere rather than.....
Or perhaps better a trick that we play when our confidence merges with our reality - in such a way that we become able to work out what will happen when we do... Or at least believe that we can, and therefore accept the mathematical model that allows for this move.
But meaning is also surely an act of robbery. \We pilfer what we feel to be reality and use it then in our own schemes. What we call nature is then caught in a crystal of robbery and resistance. as humans we feel we have certain rights to resist nature or ignore its rights. we can go and do what we want. and yet we look fearfully over our back all the time, in the best burglar tradition, wondering what nature might do in turn how it might and should retaliate. We govern then in the interest of man's laws, and define nature and its laws merely as the alien to be robbed any which way: Only then fearing the result...
Likewise there is surely a sense that all meaning is tied to forgery. What else to we do but forge a world in our thoughts a world that is the facsimile to the truth - a world that forges a new reality.We then forge and improve or change so that the world is in our befief- seen in our own eyes. The world as it means is always our world, our being-
Meaning is then defined in an illicit move- the world is given in our minds: from the fact that we possess perceptions that cannot by their own light be understood as our ideas purely, our delusion, or madness, we move very quickly to the assumption that we then have the ability to think the entire world as if it were our on, and ac according. Possession becomes ownership in the flick of the eye. the only game then becomes how we then share (or not) what we feel we own. do we share t only with other humans, with the gods or god, or with the world or our perceptions of it itself. how the do we understand our crime? and how and where o we allow other forces, the forces of law and order to retaliate - can they retaliate in our minds? can they reveal then the inadequacy, the illicit nature of our meaning? Or have we sealed our world away from any possibility of external laws? and what then follows?
Monday, November 22, 2010
Meaning as switch ride
It i s one of the power houses of meaning - one we surely do all the time. the switch ride.
One has then one series of events- say he throwing of a coin or the drawing of cards - or an attack on a street.
one has a seconds series a man falls, a man runs - or a stranger was seen or a relative dies or a......
and the question always is are these linked in anyway?
They occur in the ind around the same time (in differing forms) - so do they occur in the world as well in looped up form. Are then always linked? Or just this once. What meta-sequence comprehends the pair of them- and is it the only possible one? Are there are such series- other acts of comprehension possible?
to here two series -to hold then in the mind and watch the sparks of consciousness fly - is to know there is meaning or sort in the world; Or better it is to feel the world as emergent meaning. Each spark - each possible loop open out on another world - one where they link, one were they do not one where they do but indirectly one where....
The joy of the game is of course if the series are long enough, then links will open up by necessity in the mind. There simply will be connection if enough things are considered (or other series are added). Or perhaps there will be connection simply because one has thought on the series long enough. the truth is really generated out there. It comes into an actual reality if only you look for it....
Our minds are then necessary full both of series and the loop we draw between them - loops that resolve themselves into meta-series, that then have their own independent lives- their own history of conjunction and breeding.
The mind is then full of traps for meaning. all the more so as we inhabit the series we forge - and the forging of series is the delight of the mind. What is more the more the series is our creation, the more we often delight in it. Error has all the most enjoyable series/fantasies and we know it. Our reality s then caught up with series and the question mark that hangs over whether they are true or it. We attract dodgy series- half true ones, that in making true in ourselves in being the truth of perhaps, we feel alive. our life- our power and our ability to half-error and half truth are no independent concerns. And there is no wonder here- for in live the half lie- we give ourselves freedom. that is we exist in more series that perhaps truth would allow- and can jump between these series, these world. One is then in living the half lie- actually allowing more into life. That is one is making ones very error, and what is says and does not say productive and powerful - or at least it gives us a chance to breadth- and make a choice a choice we of course refer to simply as freedom.
Freedom is the in given in the communication of series of memories- the feeling that we could do something else- that we could resolve the series this way or that. It is seen in the myriads of fire between the series, and the world the one up on
truth evolves. It exists then in possibility that there are always other worlds - no matter whether those worlds are to be shared or mine alone.
However at this point reason demands one tell series apart. The connectivity is true come what may. series spark. but there are clearly differing kinds of series and differing ways that spark might be shared. There are then series hat connect at each terms to something experiences, and whose links (as series) are likewise founded in theory and external truth or some sort or other. Such series are then linked together through forces at all point other than simply my own (at least they are thought hat are true in the fact other can understand them) and the loops I make must likewise be shared - a sharing that then (hopefully gives one power to look back at the initial series and rewrite them in the light of the series that their loops themselves creates. Knowledge then actually is progressive, and reworking itself allows one not merely to be free in the sparks between series, but also in their resolution ( a resolution that creates new series elsewhere, and so opens always out onto new freedoms). That is certain forms of thought actually in their resolution open out onto new series, new freedoms newsparks. Other do not.
All the more so when what is shared is the very quest itself for connections. we might then share the desire for freedom, and look to series to be free within (and imagine a world accordingly). nor would this move be utterly wrong as long as others were caught up in the thought- for we we all share the spark, however the fictious the series are, then the world does of course change or at least our position changes in the delusion.
The truth beyond the freedom i want for myself might then need to be share be- but the mere sharing....
does not make it truth.
The reading of series - and the quest for causes and effects- comes the the driving force for meaning of things- be they gods men or quarks- the method remains the same. Find some series ,and then get implicating.
One has then one series of events- say he throwing of a coin or the drawing of cards - or an attack on a street.
one has a seconds series a man falls, a man runs - or a stranger was seen or a relative dies or a......
and the question always is are these linked in anyway?
They occur in the ind around the same time (in differing forms) - so do they occur in the world as well in looped up form. Are then always linked? Or just this once. What meta-sequence comprehends the pair of them- and is it the only possible one? Are there are such series- other acts of comprehension possible?
to here two series -to hold then in the mind and watch the sparks of consciousness fly - is to know there is meaning or sort in the world; Or better it is to feel the world as emergent meaning. Each spark - each possible loop open out on another world - one where they link, one were they do not one where they do but indirectly one where....
The joy of the game is of course if the series are long enough, then links will open up by necessity in the mind. There simply will be connection if enough things are considered (or other series are added). Or perhaps there will be connection simply because one has thought on the series long enough. the truth is really generated out there. It comes into an actual reality if only you look for it....
Our minds are then necessary full both of series and the loop we draw between them - loops that resolve themselves into meta-series, that then have their own independent lives- their own history of conjunction and breeding.
The mind is then full of traps for meaning. all the more so as we inhabit the series we forge - and the forging of series is the delight of the mind. What is more the more the series is our creation, the more we often delight in it. Error has all the most enjoyable series/fantasies and we know it. Our reality s then caught up with series and the question mark that hangs over whether they are true or it. We attract dodgy series- half true ones, that in making true in ourselves in being the truth of perhaps, we feel alive. our life- our power and our ability to half-error and half truth are no independent concerns. And there is no wonder here- for in live the half lie- we give ourselves freedom. that is we exist in more series that perhaps truth would allow- and can jump between these series, these world. One is then in living the half lie- actually allowing more into life. That is one is making ones very error, and what is says and does not say productive and powerful - or at least it gives us a chance to breadth- and make a choice a choice we of course refer to simply as freedom.
Freedom is the in given in the communication of series of memories- the feeling that we could do something else- that we could resolve the series this way or that. It is seen in the myriads of fire between the series, and the world the one up on
truth evolves. It exists then in possibility that there are always other worlds - no matter whether those worlds are to be shared or mine alone.
However at this point reason demands one tell series apart. The connectivity is true come what may. series spark. but there are clearly differing kinds of series and differing ways that spark might be shared. There are then series hat connect at each terms to something experiences, and whose links (as series) are likewise founded in theory and external truth or some sort or other. Such series are then linked together through forces at all point other than simply my own (at least they are thought hat are true in the fact other can understand them) and the loops I make must likewise be shared - a sharing that then (hopefully gives one power to look back at the initial series and rewrite them in the light of the series that their loops themselves creates. Knowledge then actually is progressive, and reworking itself allows one not merely to be free in the sparks between series, but also in their resolution ( a resolution that creates new series elsewhere, and so opens always out onto new freedoms). That is certain forms of thought actually in their resolution open out onto new series, new freedoms newsparks. Other do not.
All the more so when what is shared is the very quest itself for connections. we might then share the desire for freedom, and look to series to be free within (and imagine a world accordingly). nor would this move be utterly wrong as long as others were caught up in the thought- for we we all share the spark, however the fictious the series are, then the world does of course change or at least our position changes in the delusion.
The truth beyond the freedom i want for myself might then need to be share be- but the mere sharing....
does not make it truth.
The reading of series - and the quest for causes and effects- comes the the driving force for meaning of things- be they gods men or quarks- the method remains the same. Find some series ,and then get implicating.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Meaning as beyond this box
It is of course the quickest way to make value - when all else fail import an idea from another discipline, light the fuse and let the wild meaning rumpus start.
We so i all the time - metaphors from computing beyond neurology and visa versa); lessons of history become the stuff of modern politics and visa versa) - and all the while at ever point everything we do i being reduced to the language of the market - and money.
As disciplines merge we get a surplus of meaning.
This emergence surley comes in various forms, and types.
Firstly, and most deep are the problems of allegory. Problems then in one world are taken into and understood through the modes and manners of thought of another. Here is no direct conversion, so much as a wariness or at least a belief the world are of the same ilk As the porcupine spikes fire near and far, so it comes to represent to embody being here and there: wha else is the fabric of the expanding unverise as an expanding balloon, but an allegory?
Likewise no one but a fool mistakes the brain for a computer - but one one but an idiot does not see the tight allegory between the two. Allegory then allow one to navigate new words, and open new connections within this world. the create new approaches in thought - and allow one approach to bleed across numerous other disciplines.
and between these numerous possible disciplines various rules are then formed- the tool kit for common allegory generation - the rules that allow one not to fluff ones analysis - the what one is looking for. - the rule kit then of thoughts in this vein.
allegory provides a rich means t allow a simple idea many different lives - many different powers to mean.
Looped into this world of allegory - but clearly apart from it, is the world of maths - which both invents methods that support allegories (the mechanics ) of dimensions and networks) - but provides the rules to generating new analogies - new way one can find affinities between distinct forms and shapes and creates then for free a world allegory - and they provides the parallels and the rules by which it might be navigated. it provides then the allegory of allegories- the rules the allow one to navigate and predict within their shifting sands - the rules medieval thought so rich in allegory lacked.
But there are otherway to think beyond that box. One might want to draw direct symbolic analogy between different thoughts. It is not allegory as the connection is direct, fixed and arbitrary. one assigns then each element of the world a sign, and each movement another, and then watches how the signs change, treating them as if they were the thought. The world becomes translated into something else- se other language - in a direct or perhaps way.Meaning becomes the science of transaltion - the movement which shunts on from here to there - from one language to the next. -
this move also has its maths as meaning is clearly created where numbers are. collect numbers and one might see trends (or might not). But of course if one does not the itself might have meaning. The very act then of collecting figures creates extra meanings, and those unintended consequences which blight politics....
Next there rules of fiction which link into meaning - paradox of the now. The that any one piece writing needs to stand for many times - any differnent occasions, some present, some past and some to come. one cannot then simply write the plane truth of it - for the paradox is that truth is already in memory and already by powers of predictions of the future and multiplications of the past. it exists therefore already in many registers of time. the Great writers re then the ones that can encompass and use of these registers, all these powers and parts to time. As one cannot write for the here and now, one cannot write for the now- or if one does its meaning would be of limited pwoer and passion. Writing demands the fiction.
Meaning though is also endless infusing properties with their prime users. individuals or groups and what they do, and how they do it, becomes blended one into the other- caught up in the same same crystalline memory. A move that cuts both ways. On the one hand one has thee world of symbolic order- fast cars means you are successful, and special brew you are a tramp. But one can run just as well the other way, and carry elements from one bit of society into other places. The family then becomes a model for a wider social order- perhaps a society or possibly a community. That is world are made to collide because of their shared elements. This then becomes a principle for organization. Leagues of gentlemen friends become the organizing principle for elements within society, and bits that do not conform are forced into the pattern. So that elements of society actually radiate out, and expect to organize and drive other part other passions.
The cohersion element here can be made even stronger by collective agreement and action. it is of course the dominant myths of our times that the world is but a big market place, where everything ought to be understood through the myths of buying and selling; everything then not only has its price, but also ought to be understood as if it were merely a market stall in this magical kingdom of the market: everything is then trapped in the same paradigm and forced to compete one with the other.. a move tat then self perpetuates as meaning follows money: That is it follows the resources to make and manufacture it. Those then that conform to the rules if finance are give the here with all to manufacture mean meanings and those who lack finance wither and die.
Or again meaning is the stuff of our lives. Everything then that allows one to understand the torrent of feelings and thoughts that make a human from another another angle might be confused with meaning. This element might then be deep and encompass many times or thoughts or feeling or behaviours (psychology is the obvious example here). Or it might be merely shallow gossip that allows one to understand and locate ones current feeling and aspiration though the lives of another.
Behind all these translation is a double theory of meaning. There is general theory that states meaning is the ability to translate one world into another. The very act of translation, if done well conveys meaning; and if done badly is part of a meaning elsewhere.
But there is also a special theory, which states that humans use other humans to think with - either their lives or their thoughts. We then imagine them as us or thinking in our situation, and so change the world.
to look for meaning is then to look for thoughts beyond this mind and this bony box, or this context with this shifting lights, and find a thought that loops into many times, places or worlds - however one does that be it genius or cretinous.
We so i all the time - metaphors from computing beyond neurology and visa versa); lessons of history become the stuff of modern politics and visa versa) - and all the while at ever point everything we do i being reduced to the language of the market - and money.
As disciplines merge we get a surplus of meaning.
This emergence surley comes in various forms, and types.
Firstly, and most deep are the problems of allegory. Problems then in one world are taken into and understood through the modes and manners of thought of another. Here is no direct conversion, so much as a wariness or at least a belief the world are of the same ilk As the porcupine spikes fire near and far, so it comes to represent to embody being here and there: wha else is the fabric of the expanding unverise as an expanding balloon, but an allegory?
Likewise no one but a fool mistakes the brain for a computer - but one one but an idiot does not see the tight allegory between the two. Allegory then allow one to navigate new words, and open new connections within this world. the create new approaches in thought - and allow one approach to bleed across numerous other disciplines.
and between these numerous possible disciplines various rules are then formed- the tool kit for common allegory generation - the rules that allow one not to fluff ones analysis - the what one is looking for. - the rule kit then of thoughts in this vein.
allegory provides a rich means t allow a simple idea many different lives - many different powers to mean.
Looped into this world of allegory - but clearly apart from it, is the world of maths - which both invents methods that support allegories (the mechanics ) of dimensions and networks) - but provides the rules to generating new analogies - new way one can find affinities between distinct forms and shapes and creates then for free a world allegory - and they provides the parallels and the rules by which it might be navigated. it provides then the allegory of allegories- the rules the allow one to navigate and predict within their shifting sands - the rules medieval thought so rich in allegory lacked.
But there are otherway to think beyond that box. One might want to draw direct symbolic analogy between different thoughts. It is not allegory as the connection is direct, fixed and arbitrary. one assigns then each element of the world a sign, and each movement another, and then watches how the signs change, treating them as if they were the thought. The world becomes translated into something else- se other language - in a direct or perhaps way.Meaning becomes the science of transaltion - the movement which shunts on from here to there - from one language to the next. -
this move also has its maths as meaning is clearly created where numbers are. collect numbers and one might see trends (or might not). But of course if one does not the itself might have meaning. The very act then of collecting figures creates extra meanings, and those unintended consequences which blight politics....
Next there rules of fiction which link into meaning - paradox of the now. The that any one piece writing needs to stand for many times - any differnent occasions, some present, some past and some to come. one cannot then simply write the plane truth of it - for the paradox is that truth is already in memory and already by powers of predictions of the future and multiplications of the past. it exists therefore already in many registers of time. the Great writers re then the ones that can encompass and use of these registers, all these powers and parts to time. As one cannot write for the here and now, one cannot write for the now- or if one does its meaning would be of limited pwoer and passion. Writing demands the fiction.
Meaning though is also endless infusing properties with their prime users. individuals or groups and what they do, and how they do it, becomes blended one into the other- caught up in the same same crystalline memory. A move that cuts both ways. On the one hand one has thee world of symbolic order- fast cars means you are successful, and special brew you are a tramp. But one can run just as well the other way, and carry elements from one bit of society into other places. The family then becomes a model for a wider social order- perhaps a society or possibly a community. That is world are made to collide because of their shared elements. This then becomes a principle for organization. Leagues of gentlemen friends become the organizing principle for elements within society, and bits that do not conform are forced into the pattern. So that elements of society actually radiate out, and expect to organize and drive other part other passions.
The cohersion element here can be made even stronger by collective agreement and action. it is of course the dominant myths of our times that the world is but a big market place, where everything ought to be understood through the myths of buying and selling; everything then not only has its price, but also ought to be understood as if it were merely a market stall in this magical kingdom of the market: everything is then trapped in the same paradigm and forced to compete one with the other.. a move tat then self perpetuates as meaning follows money: That is it follows the resources to make and manufacture it. Those then that conform to the rules if finance are give the here with all to manufacture mean meanings and those who lack finance wither and die.
Or again meaning is the stuff of our lives. Everything then that allows one to understand the torrent of feelings and thoughts that make a human from another another angle might be confused with meaning. This element might then be deep and encompass many times or thoughts or feeling or behaviours (psychology is the obvious example here). Or it might be merely shallow gossip that allows one to understand and locate ones current feeling and aspiration though the lives of another.
Behind all these translation is a double theory of meaning. There is general theory that states meaning is the ability to translate one world into another. The very act of translation, if done well conveys meaning; and if done badly is part of a meaning elsewhere.
But there is also a special theory, which states that humans use other humans to think with - either their lives or their thoughts. We then imagine them as us or thinking in our situation, and so change the world.
to look for meaning is then to look for thoughts beyond this mind and this bony box, or this context with this shifting lights, and find a thought that loops into many times, places or worlds - however one does that be it genius or cretinous.
Monday, November 15, 2010
meaning as hope and despair
What else is meaning but the feeling that the world really, really ought to be their for one- and the fear that it is not.
It is then the feeling that that my perceptions are going...
going somewhere-
going where I hope, we i imagine -(or even somewhere better.)
Behind then their lucid veil, lies that path, the paths towards - in a world which has meaning.
Meaning as hope marks the point the world becomes a road somewhere else - and time become the name I give for the journey along that road.
It is the point I as a self gain the right to feel that my place in the world is simple or at least secure - we all know where we are going - and all we have to do is wait while doing the necessary - the world of my perception and feeling will oblige- or at least we hope so.
Now this is not blind faith.
It is not that one does not understand the process here. One the contrary hopes do analysed the loops of the world, clearing out little stanzas, little parts of time that repeat, arranging then as best it can on the path. I do this because this follows, and that - and so one.
The road-hope is then paved with little causal track ways, which lead me on, and tell what i shall do here and now -and so so in no certainty of where they ll lead really- i merely hope. so that the fat that the word is my perception, means that nothing is really that sure-
I hope then the past repeats what it was again- i hope that if i behave myself, or just do stuff, do what i am meant to here and now the world will respond.
Meaning is then given in the sense that the world here how hard it s being my or perhaps how good I am.
My memory- and what i have done in it- how I have worked, how controlled the situation, is what gives me my hope. It is te point from which i feel i am owed by the world a break. If there is any justice in this world I see then...
This is not a craven point or merely a conceit- for ti is true that actually being worthy of what the world does to one is hard. that is if one s a success, and the path goes where one wants it to-comprehending that success, demands that one thinks in terms of meaning an how this was meant to be. or again if things do not quite go to plan, once again then deserves of meaning is called upon to explain the situation. The hope then of meaning is not merely the challenge of the world to behave according to what i need, it is the replying feeling not that one, in that name of that hope ought to change what one is doing.
A perception a meaning, a track way in the mind, and through memory, stars then to punch its own weight - stats to pull both myself as a self, and the world around it.
It see everything need not be about my journey- or the worlds indifference - on the contrary we both, but and move around the same fixed point.
The world has meaning then as I and the torrent of perceptions are moving - caught in the vortex between us both - whisked up - taken towards the same point-
and yet of course there is a twist- by itself this is merely destiny - cold and simple- the pagan world of fixed point to which we all move- what makes it hope or despair is that there is some un-stated relationship between the me and the world in this double meaning- so moral relation or ethical bond perhaps, some loop that links my ambition back into the world around this point. The point is then part of my mind, what i ant fro the world, and the world in moving is reflecting that fact (or else as I despair is rejecting it). The world is becoming then around my career plans- which I am setting up as a destiny.
The Other world then which powerful passions burn into my mind - the feeling that this is not quite enough, this immediate world, there must be other - is then set up as a point of destiny. That power is then invested in a point beyond my immediate knowledge, a point though i go to, and the world comes with me. a point I need to one worthy of, perhaps, but then so does the world,. a point where what i do here and now, now behave, effect the world, and does so as I would have ti effected - so that my life also has meaning. The world then becomes mine at this point beyond my perception, a point I need to be worthy of, and look to here and now. i look then the main chances of the Now, to realize this latter ambition, to realize the point beyond my immediate nature. I look, and expect a world to respond (or despair when it does not).
in the light of an impossible conjunction beyond our immediate identity, we act then; in that light be change what we are here and now, and look to the world also to change. We at it, unite beyond the kink of the known - in the world i already hope or fear- a world I feel is perpetually coming- as my world world has its meaning.
It is then the feeling that that my perceptions are going...
going somewhere-
going where I hope, we i imagine -(or even somewhere better.)
Behind then their lucid veil, lies that path, the paths towards - in a world which has meaning.
Meaning as hope marks the point the world becomes a road somewhere else - and time become the name I give for the journey along that road.
It is the point I as a self gain the right to feel that my place in the world is simple or at least secure - we all know where we are going - and all we have to do is wait while doing the necessary - the world of my perception and feeling will oblige- or at least we hope so.
Now this is not blind faith.
It is not that one does not understand the process here. One the contrary hopes do analysed the loops of the world, clearing out little stanzas, little parts of time that repeat, arranging then as best it can on the path. I do this because this follows, and that - and so one.
The road-hope is then paved with little causal track ways, which lead me on, and tell what i shall do here and now -and so so in no certainty of where they ll lead really- i merely hope. so that the fat that the word is my perception, means that nothing is really that sure-
I hope then the past repeats what it was again- i hope that if i behave myself, or just do stuff, do what i am meant to here and now the world will respond.
Meaning is then given in the sense that the world here how hard it s being my or perhaps how good I am.
My memory- and what i have done in it- how I have worked, how controlled the situation, is what gives me my hope. It is te point from which i feel i am owed by the world a break. If there is any justice in this world I see then...
This is not a craven point or merely a conceit- for ti is true that actually being worthy of what the world does to one is hard. that is if one s a success, and the path goes where one wants it to-comprehending that success, demands that one thinks in terms of meaning an how this was meant to be. or again if things do not quite go to plan, once again then deserves of meaning is called upon to explain the situation. The hope then of meaning is not merely the challenge of the world to behave according to what i need, it is the replying feeling not that one, in that name of that hope ought to change what one is doing.
A perception a meaning, a track way in the mind, and through memory, stars then to punch its own weight - stats to pull both myself as a self, and the world around it.
It see everything need not be about my journey- or the worlds indifference - on the contrary we both, but and move around the same fixed point.
The world has meaning then as I and the torrent of perceptions are moving - caught in the vortex between us both - whisked up - taken towards the same point-
and yet of course there is a twist- by itself this is merely destiny - cold and simple- the pagan world of fixed point to which we all move- what makes it hope or despair is that there is some un-stated relationship between the me and the world in this double meaning- so moral relation or ethical bond perhaps, some loop that links my ambition back into the world around this point. The point is then part of my mind, what i ant fro the world, and the world in moving is reflecting that fact (or else as I despair is rejecting it). The world is becoming then around my career plans- which I am setting up as a destiny.
The Other world then which powerful passions burn into my mind - the feeling that this is not quite enough, this immediate world, there must be other - is then set up as a point of destiny. That power is then invested in a point beyond my immediate knowledge, a point though i go to, and the world comes with me. a point I need to one worthy of, perhaps, but then so does the world,. a point where what i do here and now, now behave, effect the world, and does so as I would have ti effected - so that my life also has meaning. The world then becomes mine at this point beyond my perception, a point I need to be worthy of, and look to here and now. i look then the main chances of the Now, to realize this latter ambition, to realize the point beyond my immediate nature. I look, and expect a world to respond (or despair when it does not).
in the light of an impossible conjunction beyond our immediate identity, we act then; in that light be change what we are here and now, and look to the world also to change. We at it, unite beyond the kink of the known - in the world i already hope or fear- a world I feel is perpetually coming- as my world world has its meaning.
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Meaning as your face
what is a face but the place that meaning is revealed in all its oddity?
We look on each others face- and simply know there is ore and flesh and blood.
we look on them and effortlessly read them- see ideas cross minds, and look at hidden thoughts
The face creates then the patchwork in which it infer something more than matter- in which in another we see their minds.
It creates then the dynamo for meaning.
That is the point the fleshy field that only makes sense- that only is if their is a meaning in the world
what is more is creates two of the mainstays for meaning.
One the one hand meaning is never really exact. We are to sure. there might be something else also happening - or a lie or a stage acting. meaning is not then ever really sacrosanct- ti does not work like that. Meaning is reveling hidden things and yet the hidding might be other than one thought.
On the other hand reading a face carries us as ourselves off in strange ways of our own. we over read faces, or make judgments about the beauty or otherwise of the face- ti becomes then something in its own right- a move that an crowd our own judgement, as it endlessly confuses asethetic and ethical judgement.
more than these two points it is clear that the face provides the basic tool kit for locating meaning.
A read a face is then to look for certain key indicators, such as eyes or mouth.
And yet at the same time these indicators are draw out and across a surface or place- there effect is then limited- seen in relation to other elements on the same plane.
meaning is also in a strange place- pitched between a you and a me. It is all about the world- the world means, and yet we also expect (or even demand) to see in the face of others reflection of our own actions and thoughts. We and they are together then in the face -
more are faces fixed in time - on the contrary they shift and alter- albeit slowly: a history is written on a face - which we can to read or so we might assume. A face is then never merely near and now - as those eyes have looked out on.
a face is also singular in some if not all of its mannerism We have then customs certainly, things that we always see, in all or most faces, but we have also little loops in beings, moment of cause and effect unique to each individual, that we slowly learn.
the face becomes then the giver of the real- or the extra- of meaning itself - a model which endlessly refracts into this world.
We look on each others face- and simply know there is ore and flesh and blood.
we look on them and effortlessly read them- see ideas cross minds, and look at hidden thoughts
The face creates then the patchwork in which it infer something more than matter- in which in another we see their minds.
It creates then the dynamo for meaning.
That is the point the fleshy field that only makes sense- that only is if their is a meaning in the world
what is more is creates two of the mainstays for meaning.
One the one hand meaning is never really exact. We are to sure. there might be something else also happening - or a lie or a stage acting. meaning is not then ever really sacrosanct- ti does not work like that. Meaning is reveling hidden things and yet the hidding might be other than one thought.
On the other hand reading a face carries us as ourselves off in strange ways of our own. we over read faces, or make judgments about the beauty or otherwise of the face- ti becomes then something in its own right- a move that an crowd our own judgement, as it endlessly confuses asethetic and ethical judgement.
more than these two points it is clear that the face provides the basic tool kit for locating meaning.
A read a face is then to look for certain key indicators, such as eyes or mouth.
And yet at the same time these indicators are draw out and across a surface or place- there effect is then limited- seen in relation to other elements on the same plane.
meaning is also in a strange place- pitched between a you and a me. It is all about the world- the world means, and yet we also expect (or even demand) to see in the face of others reflection of our own actions and thoughts. We and they are together then in the face -
more are faces fixed in time - on the contrary they shift and alter- albeit slowly: a history is written on a face - which we can to read or so we might assume. A face is then never merely near and now - as those eyes have looked out on.
a face is also singular in some if not all of its mannerism We have then customs certainly, things that we always see, in all or most faces, but we have also little loops in beings, moment of cause and effect unique to each individual, that we slowly learn.
the face becomes then the giver of the real- or the extra- of meaning itself - a model which endlessly refracts into this world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)