PALEOFOOD Archives

Paleolithic Eating Support List

PALEOFOOD@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Amadeus Schmidt <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Paleolithic Eating Support List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 5 Aug 2002 17:07:43 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (54 lines)
On Mon, 5 Aug 2002 13:36:51 -0400, Todd Moody <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:


>Of course words have objective meanings.  They would be useless
>if they didn't.

You perfectly outlined the phenomena of meanings said and meanings
understood and how they can be misunderstood.

But furthermore the "objective" meaning of words is not fixed.
Not fixed in time, of course. The "common meaning" can change.
But also not fixed and of the same meaning amoung different people at the
same time. Even in the same conversation.

The meaning of a word is defined by the implied connections of possibilities
and assumptions is has for each human.
These are in many cases identical or similar for different people.
That's what makes them usefull - for communication.
But then the word's implied possibilities and assotiations differ.
Different emotions, sensations and memory films are in each of us.

A "stone" has a fixed meaning of some peace of rock, "hard", "heavy",
"can fall down". "can hurt if is falls down". "can be thrown".
This is common. You think of a kind of stone, in this moment.
But what would each of the following professions have associated with a
stone?
A physician? A diamond cutter? A gardener? a cop? A chemist? A bookkeeper?

Different stones. And all these think of different implications when they
hear "stone".
Dangerous..richness..labour..a formula..measures/counts..
 different worlds emerge.
Unless we don't learn about the assoziations of others we are unable to
communicate. Or we understand more or less what the other ment.
Often giving rise to a similar picture.
But never to the same. What is understood is never identical to what the
other said. Communication is much luck.

There are some words in our list conversations here, which lead to rather
different assotiations.
Cereal. Meat. Vegetable. Carbohydrate.
Quite different understandings and most of all a whole bunch of feelings
assoziated with them. Intentions. Tendencies. Experiences.

Then if what one other writes makes some usefull sense, has a echo and a
place in the reader's picture of the world, that's the good feeling of
understanding.

regards

Amadeus
sorry to have been OT

ATOM RSS1 RSS2