Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 11:38:07 EST
From:         "Bruce E. Nevin" <bnevin@CCB.BBN.COM>
Subject:      o tell me where is meaning bred

[From: Bruce Nevin (Wed 921111 10:59:45)]

(penni sibun 921110.1600) --

> the concept of ``meaning,'' or anything else, is useful in a theory
> only insofar as it has explanatory power.  you seem to be saying here
> that meaning is everything--is inherent.  to say that something is
> everything isn't much different from saying it is nothing:  what good
> does it do to say ``that has property x'' when everything has property
> x?

No, I am not saying that meaning is everything, I am saying that each
thing "has" specific meanings.  Understand that every "thing" is a
perception, and each meaning is another perception.  I am not saying
that a given thing/perception "has property x" i.e. has meaning in some
vague, generalized sense of "the property of meaning." I am saying that
each given thing-perception has associated with it specific other
thing/perceptions, differently for each, and not verifyably the same in
each person.  I believe that this treatment does have explanatory power,
and is very different from denying the existence of meaning, as you seem
to be doing.  Furthermore, since verbal perceptions are distinguished in
important ways from nonverbal perceptions (see below), the meanings that
can be associated with a given language-perception are organized (by the
structure in language) in ways that the meanings that can be associated
with a given nonverbal perception cannot be.

A word W "means" certain other perceptions for a given person at a given
time.

	Word W: all the perceptual and reference signals involved in the
	person saying W, and all of the signals involved in the person
	recognizing W.

	other perceptions: perceptual and reference signals associated
	with the word W in that person (by associative memory, in input
	functions, by some other TBD means).

That person and others are most likely able to come to agreement about
such of those perceptions (separately in each of them) as are involved
in their cooperative action.  That is, they are likely to agree as to
what W means with respect to their cooperative action.  They are likely
to agree even when they think they detect some discrepancies, for the
sake of carrying out those cooperative activities.  (If on the other
hand there is some reference signal for failure of cooperation, such
small differences are likely to be perceived as large and important--
what Freud called the Narcissism of small differences, something we all
know about.  But let's keep it simple.)  In this process, they come to
perceive the meanings as being externalized from themselves, either as
natural facts or as social facts.  In every instance of cooperative action
people perceive themselves as depending upon this seemingly external
framework of meanings.  In fact, during the course of each instance of
cooperative action the participants each individually and privately test
and elaborate their meaning-perceptions, the very ones which they had
presumed a pre-existent external reality to which they must conform.

Here's the kicker, Bill:  insofar as all the other participants are
doing the same, they are correct in this presumption.

>			 it's not clear to me whether you think
>speech actions are distinguished actions or not.  (my argument is that
>they are not distinguished (in any nonincidental way)).

In general, I am not concerned with actions whether verbal or nonverbal,
but with perceptions, the control of which has actions as a byproduct.
Verbal perceptions are distinguished from most nonverbal perceptions in
that they participate in a conventionalized structure by which people
create and transmit information.  There are iconographic systems that
are not so articulate, and there are language-like artifacts (notably
mathematics and logic) that lack the flexibility and informational
capacity of language, which are also distinct from other nonverbal
perceptions insofar as they are structured according to agreed
conventions.  References on request.

I am sure that sometime in the future I will be able to put all this
more clearly and succinctly.

	Bruce
	bn@bbn.com
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU