by Milton Dawes
I saw one of those
"Children say the darnedest things" program last night. A young child
was asked "Do you think we should cut defense spending?"
Response: No. I have a dog, and if you cut the fence, he would get out.
Another was asked: "Should we send arms to foreign countries? "
A proposition: We give
meanings to what we see, hear, touch, experience, smell, etc.
Before humans came
on the scene, there was no meaning in the human sense, to be found anywhere.
We created the notion of meaning. Now typically human, we forget
this, and have been asking ourselves questions about meanings, and
the meaning of meaning for centuries. Will we ever come to our senses,
and take responsibility for the meanings we give? In terms
of "non-allness", how can we say what anything means? To do that,
wouldn't we have to ignore, all the other factors, all the
relationships, all the processes,
etc., that we did not include in our meaning?
When will we realize
that a great deal of our human discord, and poor relationships, are
related to the factor that we each give our own meanings to what we experience?
And that since none of us has the experience of everything,
and live in different 'spaces' and different 'times', our individual
meaning (verb) will of necessity be different?. And that when we
are not aware that we give meanings, and firmly believe that
meanings are out there, this establishes a source of conflict, which often
leads to violence? How so?
When I say with firm conviction "It means this", and you say
quite firmly, "NO. It means that". Where do we go from there?
How could you the reader, demonstrate to someone, what
anything means? And how could anyone demonstrate to you what anything means.
What variables would you consider
as satisfactory criteria for demonstrating a meaning? And how
would you present this in a way that all interested parties will
accept?. ( I write "will" since the criteria might not be accepted when
new information comes along tomorrow, next week , next year......)
I ask this: Aren't
we better off 'thinking' in terms of associations, connectedness, relationships,
structure, etc., than 'thinking' in terms of meanings? What
meanings do you give to what you have read above. Do you 'think'
that's all I meant? Can you be absolutely sure "That's what I meant?" And
if you believe that I communicated a meaning in these words,
where would you point to it?
If the above 'sounds'
strident, Please note, you could be right according to your criteria of
"strident" - but I don't know what you mean by "strident".
And that isn't my intention.
Response. No.
Interviewer: "Why?"
Response: Because I need mine.
Challenge: Show that
there is no truth to this.
