I don't think you grasp what's being written. Some more connections need to be made.

Causality is an example of a relationship that exists in it's entirety prior to meaning. Spatiotemporal relationships are another. Shame is a relationship that cannot exist in the absence of a self-conscious subject.

Are you really asking me who's to say those aren't the same relation? — creativesoul

Or perhaps I’m just approaching it from a perspective that you’re struggling to relate to - it certainly wouldn’t be the first time...

In my view, you’re referring to relationship structure. ‘Causality’ as signifying a meaningful relation ignores the limited understanding of relationship structure to which it refers, and claims to signify the whole relationship. The ‘relationship that exists in its entirety prior to meaning’ here refers to an ‘event horizon’ of sorts: awareness of a more complex qualitative structure that transcends the meaningful relation we define as ‘causality’. Same with ‘spatio-temporal relationships’.

‘Shame’, on the other hand, signifies a meaningful relation that recognises a limited understanding of the relationship structure - it’s subjectively determined. A more complex relationship structure exists prior to meaning, of which ‘shame’ describes our variable (affected), self-conscious perspective.

So, I’m not suggesting that ‘causality’ might be the same relation as ‘shame’. But if you’re after an example, then I might suggest that ‘causality’ and ‘will’ refer to the same relationship structure... but that may be another discussion entirely.

Or perhaps I’m just approaching it from a perspective that you’re struggling to relate to - it certainly wouldn’t be the first time... — Possibility

I thought you were asking about my position...

I have to ask: by exist, do you mean in relation to a self-conscious subject? — Possibility

That's one kind of relationship.

...

‘Causality’ as signifying a meaningful relation ignores the limited understanding of relationship structure to which it refers, and claims to signify the whole relationship. The ‘relationship that exists in its entirety prior to meaning’ here refers to an ‘event horizon’ of sorts: awareness of a more complex qualitative structure that transcends the meaningful relation we define as ‘causality’. Same with ‘spatio-temporal relationships’. — Possibility

What do the scarequotes mean? Are you talking about the words themselves? — creativesoul

I’m distinguishing between the relationship structure it defines and the more complex relation it refers to. The scare quotes are to note that I’m using the word as a reference. You’re effectively defining a meaningful relation with a word, and claiming it exists as defined prior to meaning. But how would we know that from our perspective? Who’s to say the relation exists in the same manner beyond the meaning we attribute to it?

I’m distinguishing between the relationship structure it defines and the more complex relation it refers to. — Possibility

What does the term "it" pick out here to the exclusion of all else?

The scare quotes are to note that I’m using the word as a reference... — Possibility

I'm not following. Are you referring to the word? Mentioning the word's earlier use? Are you talking about the word or are you using the word as a means for talking about the referent of the word(what the word picks out)?

It looks like there's been some substantial revisions and/or additions to the last few replies...

I've yet to have re-examined them. Need to prior to saying much more.

I’m distinguishing between the relationship structure it defines and the more complex relation it refers to.
— Possibility

What does the term "it" pick out here to the exclusion of all else? — creativesoul

In this statement, ‘it’ refers to the word. It wasn’t very clear, though. I’m distinguishing between the meaningful relation (how the word is defined) and the relation that exists prior to meaning (what the word refers to).

The scare quotes are to note that I’m using the word as a reference...
— Possibility

I'm not following. Are you referring to the word? Mentioning the word's earlier use? Are you talking about the word or are you using the word as a means for talking about the referent of the word(what the word picks out)? — creativesoul

I’m using the word as a means for talking about what the word refers to in relation to how the word is defined.

From Wikipedia: “Causality is influence by which one event, process, state or object (a cause) contributes to the production of another event, process, state or object (an effect).”

Here ‘causality’ is defined by a potential relation to spatio-temporal structures. This is the meaningful relation. What ‘causality’ refers to, though, extends beyond this particular potential we meaningfully relate to. So we’re aware (a priori) that the relation exists prior to (or beyond) this meaning, but we have insufficient information to structure that aspect of the relation within the concept. So we assume a uniformly infinite temporal extension to the relational structure based on the information we do have. And all subsequent debate regarding our understanding of causality as a relation has been trying to refine this assumption.

It looks like there's been some substantial revisions and/or additions to the last few replies...

I've yet to have re-examined them. Need to prior to saying much more. — creativesoul

?? No revisions from me...

No revisions from me... — Possibility

Must've been my skimming too quickly...

You began by asking and/or imploring - and rightly so - about my position on all meaning. Just a reminder that the OP is chock full of statements any and all of which are about what I've come to strongly believe about all things meaningful. You picked one of those statements out as something objectionable(a quibble). You've since failed to offer a valid objection to that statement. You realized this and admitted mistranslation. I've acknowledged that admission and found it quite understandable given the different acceptable senses of the term "emerge". No problem...

Now however, I've allowed you to ask the questions. They are supposed to be about my position, or at the very least, about my claims here. Unfortunately it seems we've arrived at a place far away from that. It seems clear to me that the very questions and claims we're considering at this point are so far removed from the OP that a 'reset button' is needed, if I may speak so loosely.

Either you've not understood the OP, or you had far more than a quibble. I suspect it's the latter.

To be clear on the revisitation...

I'm not "defining a meaningful relation with a word"(whatever that is supposed to mean). I am picking several kinds of meaningful relations out, to the exclusion of all the others. Sometimes I do this with a word(the name of a distinct kind of relationship) and sometimes I do so with a description thereof(to tease out the nuances between the kinds).

Some relationships exist in their entirety prior to any of them ever becoming meaningful to any individual creature. Again, some of these are spatiotemporal relationships, others are causal relationships(causality).

The key here - is of course - getting a good grip upon exactly what it takes for something to even be capable of existing in it's entirety prior to becoming meaningful; a need to establish a criterion setting out what it takes in order for something to exist in it's entirety prior to becoming meaningful to any individual creature capable of attributing and/or misattributing meaning.


One more thing...

...who’s to say it isn’t the same relation, which exists meaningfully only in the presence of a self-conscious subject, yet also exists in its absence, ‘prior to’ or regardless of meaning? — Possibility

If something exists meaningfully only in the presence of a self-conscious subject, then it cannot be said to exist in the absence thereof(regardless of any further subsequent qualification). Those are mutually exclusive statements; one the negation of the other. A relationship cannot do both, exist meaningfully only in the presence of a self-conscious subject, and exist in it's entirety in the complete absence thereof. That's an incoherent and/or self-contradictory train of thought.

When we say that something "exists meaningfully", aren't we're talking about something that is meaningful to some creature or another? Some things exist in their entirety prior to even becoming and/or being meaningful to a creature. Some of those things are relationships. Some are not. None of things are meaningful prior to becoming so. All meaningful things become so solely by virtue of becoming and/or being part of a correlation drawn by a creature capable of doing so.

The aquarium existed in it's entirety prior to becoming meaningful to my cat. The aquarium was not meaningful to the cat until the cat drew correlations between the water in the aquarium and the satisfaction of her own thirst that drinking water can provide. Now, the cat goes to the aquarium whenever she wants a drink of water. The aquarium existed in it's entirety prior to becoming meaningful(significant) to her.

Causality existed in it's entirety prior to ever becoming meaningful to a creature capable of the attribution, misattribution, and/or recognition of causal relationships.

Do we at least agree on that?

The aquarium existed in it's entirety prior to becoming meaningful to my cat. The aquarium was not meaningful to the cat until the cat drew correlations between the water in the aquarium and the satisfaction of her own thirst that drinking water can provide. Now, the cat goes to the aquarium whenever she wants a drink of water. The aquarium existed in it's entirety prior to becoming meaningful(significant) to her. — creativesoul

The aquarium is meaningful to you as an aquarium, but is now meaningful to your cat NOT as an aquarium but as a water source. From your perspective, it’s both an aquarium (existing as such in its entirety prior to becoming meaningful to your cat) and a meaningful relation as a potential water source for your cat.

If something exists meaningfully only in the presence of a self-conscious subject, then it cannot be said to exist in the absence thereof(regardless of any further subsequent qualification). Those are mutually exclusive statements; one the negation of the other. A relationship cannot do both, exist meaningfully only in the presence of a self-conscious subject, and exist in it's entirety in the complete absence thereof. That's an incoherent and/or self-contradictory train of thought. — creativesoul

Beg to differ. It cannot be said to either exist or not exist in absence of a self-conscious subject. The key qualification in the statement is ‘meaningfully’.

The aquarium is meaningful to you as an aquarium, but is now meaningful to your cat NOT as an aquarium but as a water source. From your perspective, it’s both an aquarium (existing as such in its entirety prior to becoming meaningful to your cat) and a meaningful relation as a potential water source for your cat. — Possibility

I would agree. That's good improvement.

...who’s to say it isn’t the same relation, which exists meaningfully only in the presence of a self-conscious subject, yet also exists in its absence... — Possibility

If something exists meaningfully only in the presence of a self-conscious subject, then it cannot be said to exist in the absence thereof(regardless of any further subsequent qualification). Those are mutually exclusive statements; one the negation of the other. A relationship cannot do both, exist meaningfully only in the presence of a self-conscious subject, and exist in it's entirety in the complete absence thereof. That's an incoherent and/or self-contradictory train of thought. — creativesoul

Beg to differ. It cannot be said to either exist or not exist in absence of a self-conscious subject. The key qualification in the statement is ‘meaningfully’. — Possibility

Ok, I think I get what you're saying!

You're drawing a distinction between something existing and that same something existing meaningfully. So, in the case of the aquarium, it existed in it's entirety prior to becoming meaningful to my cat. Only after it became significant and/or meaningful to her did it exist meaningfully to her.

I think we are close.

Some things exist in their entirety prior to becoming meaningful to a capable creature(setting aside what counts as that for the time being).

...who’s to say it isn’t the same relation, which exists meaningfully only in the presence of a self-conscious subject, yet also exists in its absence, ‘prior to’ or regardless of meaning? — Possibility

Beg to differ. It cannot be said to either exist or not exist in absence of a self-conscious subject. The key qualification in the statement is ‘meaningfully’. — Possibility

These two contradict one another otherwise, because you said what you claimed could not be...

...who’s to say it isn’t the same relation, which exists meaningfully only in the presence of a self-conscious subject, yet also exists in its absence, ‘prior to’ or regardless of meaning?
— Possibility

Beg to differ. It cannot be said to either exist or not exist in absence of a self-conscious subject. The key qualification in the statement is ‘meaningfully’.
— Possibility

These two contradict one another otherwise, because you said what you claimed could not be... — creativesoul

Sorry - I was getting ahead of myself, and messed it up. :yikes: It can be said to exist - if something exists meaningfully only in the presence of a self-conscious subject, then it possibly exists in the absence thereof - and also possibly doesn’t exist. In other words, there is no way to prove it either way, because proof requires the presence of a self-conscious subject. So your claim that it cannot be said to exist in the absence of a self-conscious subject prompts the question: from what position is this claim being made (who’s to say), if it cannot be made in relation to a self-conscious subject?

It can be said to exist - if something exists meaningfully only in the presence of a self-conscious subject, then it possibly exists in the absence thereof - and also possibly doesn’t exist. — Possibility

Nonsense.



When it is the case that something exists, it is not possible for that situation to be any other way. Things don't do both, exist and not exist simultaneously. The ONLY possible way to not exist is...

...not existing.

That's what it means to say those things. Saying otherwise ends in self-contradiction. Saying both that something exists, and that that same something possibly doesn't exist is self-contradictory.



What would it take for something to both exist and not exist simultaneously?

Nothing.

There is no possible way for that claim to be true.




Would you care to readdress the OP? It may read differently.

Some existence is prior to meaning(Some things exist in their entirety prior to becoming meaningful to a creature capable of drawing correlations between them and other things).

All meaning is attributed to things that already exist in their entirety prior to becoming meaningful to a creature capable of drawing correlations between different things.

Sometimes some of those things are already meaningful(to others), because the aforementioned others have been drawing correlations including those things(between those things and others). That's how language acquisition works(when language use is a part of the correlation). One learns naming practices by virtue of drawing correlations between names and their referents(what they pick out of this world to the exclusion of all else). One learns how to use language as a means for getting what one wants by drawing correlations between language use and what happens afterwards. One learns how to talk about the world and oneself by virtue of language acquisition. One does not construct one's own native tongue. Rather, one learns it.

Some things exist in their entirety prior to an individual's awareness(language use, for example).

Other things exist in their entirety prior to becoming part of any meaningful correlation ever drawn by a human; prior to any and all human awareness of them. Causality, spatiotemporal relations, etc.

All marks become meaningful solely by virtue of becoming part of a correlation drawn between them and something else by a creature capable of doing so.

That's how all things meaningful become so, by virtue of becoming a part of a correlation.

...there is no way to prove it either way, because proof requires the presence of a self-conscious subject... — Possibility

Are you really saying that there's no way to prove that some things exist in their entirety prior to becoming meaningful to an individual creature capable of attributing meaning/significance to them?

My claim(counter) is that things that only exist in the presence of a self-conscious subject cannot possibly exist without being in the presence of a self-conscious subject, because they ONLY exist in the presence thereof.

Your 'argument' was that it could be said(we could say either).

You're right. We can say that something exists only under certain circumstances and yet can exist in other different circumstances. It renders the notion of only meaningless to do so. I mean, if that's what we're saying, then the term isn't adding anything at all to our understanding except unnecessary confusion.

"Only" means under some specific sets of stipulated circumstances and no other.

Are you really saying that there's no way to prove that some things exist in their entirety prior to becoming meaningful to an individual creature capable of attributing meaning/significance to them? — creativesoul

Short answer: no. I’m saying that there’s no way to prove that the meaning/significance attributed is or is not the entirety of its existence without attributing meaning/significance as a limitation. You can say that your cat’s water source is not the entirety of the aquarium’s existence, but in doing so you are attributing your own meaning/significance to the relation.

By the same token, I can be aware that causality as temporally defined is not the entirety of the relation’s existence, but I cannot prove that its entirety exists according to the meaning I then attribute to it as a self-conscious subject.

I will take a look at the many other posts you have added when I have more time.

Are you really saying that there's no way to prove that some things exist in their entirety prior to becoming meaningful to an individual creature capable of attributing meaning/significance to them?
— creativesoul

Short answer: no. — Possibility

Well, I'm not sure what all this has been about then, aside from you explaining to me the limitations of your own position on meaning.

When it is the case that something exists, it is not possible for that situation to be any other way. Things don't do both, exist and not exist simultaneously. The ONLY possible way to not exist is...

...not existing.

That's what it means to say those things. Saying otherwise ends in self-contradiction. Saying both that something exists, and that that same something possibly doesn't exist is self-contradictory. — creativesoul

I’m not arguing that a relation that exists meaningfully does not exist, only that the nature of its existence prior to a creature attributing meaning is indeterminate. I don’t think we can say anything about ‘relations that exist in their entirety prior to meaning’ within the bounds of logic.

But if we can say something that appears contradictory, then we can think about it, and it’s at least possible that we can relate to it prior to language use, beyond the necessity of significance or potential, perhaps even meaningfully - exploring possible distinctions and relational structures between significance and meaning.

Relating all this back to the OP...

It is neither objective nor subjective; neither internal nor external; neither material nor immaterial; neither physical nor non-physical. It does not have a spatiotemporal location. It causes and/or leads to actions. It evokes feelings, and affords memories. It facilitates language creation and it's subsequent use. It's the key of all successful communication. It's the aim of all translation. It emerges by virtue of drawing correlations between different things. It exists in it's entirety long before we've acquired the means to discover and/or take proper account of it. — creativesoul

And I now recognise that it’s not meaning, but thought that you’re referring to.

Thanks for your patience. I got there eventually :blush:

Existing and existing meaningfully...

Do you draw and maintain that distinction?

Existing and existing meaningfully...

Do you draw and maintain that distinction? — creativesoul

Yes - but in terms of relational possibility, not just logical possibility.

I don’t think we can say anything about ‘relations that exist in their entirety prior to meaning’ within the bounds of logic.

But if we can say something... — Possibility

More self-contradiction.

Existing and existing meaningfully...

Do you draw and maintain that distinction?
— creativesoul

Yes - but in terms of relational possibility, not just logical possibility. — Possibility

Not in terms of what it takes in order for something to become meaningful(existing meaningfully)?

Wisdom.

I don’t think we can say anything about ‘relations that exist in their entirety prior to meaning’ within the bounds of logic.

But if we can say something that appears contradictory...
— Possibility

More self-contradiction. — creativesoul

Contradiction positions a relation outside the bounds of logic. It doesn’t eliminate the relational possibility.

Yes - but in terms of relational possibility, not just logical possibility.
— Possibility

Not in terms of what it takes in order for something to become meaningful(existing meaningfully)? — creativesoul

we can think about it, and it’s at least possible that we can relate to it prior to language use, beyond the necessity of significance or potential, perhaps even meaningfully - exploring possible distinctions and relational structures between significance and meaning. — Possibility

Some relations may never become meaningful for us, but it’s possible to relate to them nonetheless, outside the bounds of language. But to most we have attributed meaning (arbitrarily) for the purpose of re-constructing the relation as a concept, and talking about it within the bounds of language, reason, logic, etc. Even though we may be at least vaguely aware, if we’re honest and conscious of how others relate, that this relation at least possibly exists prior to (or beyond) its meaning so attributed. ‘Truth’ is an example of this, and so is ‘existence’. Both of these relations exist in their entirety prior to becoming meaningful, and the relations that we construct within the bounds of language are more accurately understood as an incomplete perspective (an approximation) of the possible relation in its entirety.

I don’t think we can say anything about ‘relations that exist in their entirety prior to meaning’ within the bounds of logic. — creativesoul

I disagree... completely.

It seems that perhaps your framework will not allow us to say something about that which exists in it's entirety prior to meaning, without ending in self-contradiction, but that inevitable result is - I strongly suspect - due to the inherent flaws within that framework.