[FoRK] Meaning Re: Worth

[Corinna Schultz]

I don't get much opportunity to try to express these things, so my
thoughts here may come across as a bit clumsy. I don't quite have the
words to express what I mean here, so I apologize in advance.

On Nov 29, 2007 1:49 PM, Dr. Ernie Prabhakar
<drernie at radicalcentrism.org> wrote:
> Do you mean to imply that meaning is a *purely* subjective experience,
> and that any appeals that one "meaning-set" is *objectively* superior
> are automatically false?

My current thinking is that, more-or-less, yes, there is no
"objectively" superior. "Superior" is a comparative concept --
superior according to what standard? I would say that "superior"
means, or should mean, something that has greater coherence with the
body of stuff that we have already agreed is true. I think when people
say "superior" they are appealing to an assumed-common-but-unexamined
standard, and many people get upset when you try to examine that
standard and challenge it's coherency.

To use canonical, and simplified, examples: we (as a society) agree
murder is evil because we have to, since we want to sustain (our)
civilization. We allow certain kinds of killing because we recognize
that there are circumstances where it promotes civilization to allow
such killing (say, self-defense). There are grey areas that we argue
about because we're not sure what the result is (say, euthanasia,
abortion, war)

> Or do some personal definitions of meaning have better correspondence
> with "external reality" than others?

I think this is a basic epistemological problem: external reality is
de facto what more-or-less everyone agrees it is. Science is not
"objective", but is empirical, the intersection of "everyone's"
opinions and observations (imagine a huge Venn diagram here :) )

There are things that we don't have much argument about, because
humans are so similar - blue is blue (unless it's aqua, then it could
be "green"). I think language hides much of the nuance about things
that we differ a little on, which is why married people have so many
arguments, which amount to miscommunication. And then we purposely use
language to obscure meaning, to create the illusion of shared meaning
(like politeness).

When people disagree, it is common for at least one party to make an
appeal to some external reality (or some imagined majority of people
who believe the same) in order to add weight to their side. Instead of
seeking understanding, people try to argue that they're right. I think
that when you look for understanding, when you are able to see how it
might make sense for someone to think a certain way, then both of you
can make your beliefs, and personal meanings, more coherent with your
preexisting ones, and thereby improve each other. This process feels
like coming into greater accord with an "external reality" but it is
actually creating a more consistent/coherent belief/philosophy.

Some further examples/thoughts:
Some people really value social gatherings, with family, friends, or
even strangers (like at a club, or on a train). They derive a lot of
meaning from interacting with people - it makes them feel connected,
it drives their creativity, it helps them think about their problems,
whatever. You can even imagine that this feeling could be strong
enough to develop into a moral sense that you *should* participate in
gatherings (like Thanksgiving or birthdays). The mistake would be in
imposing this morality on someone else:

Some people see social gatherings as superficial, a waste of time and
energy, or even a detriment to themselves. Perhaps they just don't
grok how to be social, or perhaps they find meaning in deep
intellectual conversation (which, of course, you don't get at these
kinds of gatherings). If they participated in the moral sense that
gatherings are to be valued, etc, etc they would actually be hurting
themselves and feeling like a hypocrite. If they take themselves
seriously, they must reject that particular morality. Then they are
free to build meaning in, say, being alone at home, or walking in the
woods, or other activities which serve to rejuvenate them and allow
them to be generous, cheerful, etc or otherwise promote positive
things in the rest of their lives. It is easy to imagine that this
could develop into a moral sense of communing with nature, or even
misanthropy, or whatever.

I think it would be a mistake to assign an "objectively superior"
status to either (admittedly caricatured) scenario. It depends on the
person, so, yeah, I would say it's subjective and personal. Since we
are human and share many characteristics, each type of person could
presumably find others like enough to them to have a sense of "being
right".

We cause ourselves and other people much hurt when we insist on
"objective" moral standards which are actually personal. And I would
say that much of what we argue about is personal moral standards (not
big questions that might affect the stability of civilization -- and
even most of those are really personal questions in disguise).