Meaning over Truth
For Jurgen Habermas it is about language. He chose to use language to clarify the understanding of both sides (or all sides) about what we are saying. We then try to make the words and phrases we use for our arguments useful in order to fully understand each other - and yes - bring about a possible agreement (that is the part that the Left in the USA abhors).
Starry Night
The left in the USA obviously has the intent of making their arguments particularly unacceptable to any opposition. The opposition must be destroyed - not compromised with. The opposition have violated some group because they - don’t jump to orders from the Left, - like some kind of slave. I have been there and know what is going on. That is part of why I retired from academia. It is not fun when hate speech from the Left is encouraged, but defending yourself from imbeciles is punished. They think they have truth (Ultimate Capitalized “Truth”). Meaning is more worthwhile (pragmatic) and it doesn’t end in slavery.
The Three Stooges of Modern European Philosophy
The Three Stooges of Philosophy: Kant, Hegel, and Marx believed that you needed to form a philosophy based on truth (actually Ultimate Capitalized Truth). But Kant's book "Critique of Pure Reason" proved that was impossible. So they went on trying to make a philosophy based on Truth, anyway. And European philosophers continued to try to develop a philosophy based on Truth even into the present. And, it never worked. Lots of dead people because philosophies (or the people who followed them) made massive wars to prove their philosophy was good and other philosophies were bad. They all were bad (just read "Critique of Pure Reason”).
As a programmer I know why it won't work. It is because you can't instantiate an abstract class. But a general philosophy based on Truth requires you to instantiate an abstract class - so the philosophy can be general and not specific. Programmers proved why that does not work - since, when you instantiate an abstract class your whole program is garbage - or in other words - produces garbage. It has to do with what an abstract class is and how it works in use (pragmatics). The Three Stooges of Philosophy were ultimately similar to Groucho; except they needed to add a little humor. With a little humor they could have been a Vaudeville act.
Truth
Truth is deterministic and fixed. That is, whether we have the correct Truth or if we have the incorrect Truth ( which is the more likely case), Truth is fixed (in our minds). If it is not fixed it is not Truth. It is either the Truth or not the Truth.
Philosophers like the hide this fact about Truth by asking questions of Truth or of a Truth. The questioning is called dialectics. Dialectics is supposed to deal with the limitations of Truth by bargaining with it. But rather than solving the problem they collapse it (like collapsing a wave equation by taking a measurement). Then maybe we can’t dialect with Truth. It is beyond our language [Wittgenstein - "The meaning of a word is in it's use."].
The individual is undefined under Truth. That is about referring to abstract Truth as a basis for philosophy. There is no room in Truth for persons. Perhaps mostly because time makes "us" different from moment to moment. So which Truth is True. Or should it be, when is True.
Meaning
Meaning is not so locked and closed. There is freedom in Meaning, (as compared to truth). Meaning is based on the abstract, but is not entirely abstract. In fact the center of a Meaning is a real instance that becomes Meaningful because it is extended in our mind from or to an abstraction (at least one abstraction). The abstract puts life into the Meaning. And the abstract opens the possibility of flexibility ["The means of a word is in its context."].
The Universe is not frozen. As the Universe is constructed it can only become frozen when we reach absolute zero; and I am told, by some, that zero cannot happen. So the pond freezes over; but the molecules are still moving. That is Entropy. We can’t get rid of Entropy without the absolute zero option.
Meaning also has the flexibility of its abstract “part”. The abstract brings with it the relationship with all kinds of things - other extensions of the abstraction [polymorphic]. Those may be True or False (at the moment) but carry an understanding of many real instances of this abstraction. The combined understanding of the extensions provides the Meaning to our mind. This understanding, then, is the context. The Meaning that is in that context is more useful and valuable than the Truth. In fact the Truth (absolute and abstract Truth) abrogates the meaning. You gain some kind of narrow factual recognition from Truth, but lose the structure of Meaning. Meaning is a structure [polymorphic], Truth is a fact [singular].
Previously I have talked about language issues in the process of developing a philosophy (and about developing software). Many philosophers saw the language problem that Wittgenstein talked about in the book “On Certainty”. The languages they designed to solve this problem were necessarily stilted and, mathematical rather than linguistic. That was to allow the total development of the Truth of the philosophical arguments [singular Truths].
They did not get people to accept and use the languages. Wittgenstein portrayed that the issue with such approaches was the fact that the the rules or methods they wanted to use in the language, and word meanings of the language, were not in the "language game". Expressions that are outside of the language game do not work (do not convey the proper meaning) in language. It is not about not asking a question, It is that the answer is not in the language game. But the language game is based on Meaning not Truth.
An image of a new data slot to be interpreted by our mind.
Polymorphic Translating a New Slot
My view is that this is caused by the polymorphic nature of language. In such a polymorphic language, a subject of the language needs to be objectified. That means the subject (or the word for it) carries some attributes and processes into the conversation, These are not the meanings of that objectified subject but define the character of the word or words used to convey that subject in the conversation. The meaning is derived from the polymorphic linkages in the context of associated memory objects in our mind.
In artificial intelligence work, in the beginning, truth is based on truth tables of the design process. These are not abstract truth, but are tedious. But as these build up in complexity we do tend to fall back on philosophical methods of “abstract truth”. When there is a change the truth table needs to be read. But how much of the whole truth table must be read for “this” change? Have those truth table items been corrected with the change? Is that all the things that have changed? I call the truth table or “total processing” methodology the brute force approach. It is brute force coding and all the steps must be covered with each change in the system.
The issue is in the complexity of processing. Meaning is a better way to abstract the relationship with reality than the abstraction of Truth. Meaning has a different way of deciding these issues, The advantage is that the Meaning based cross checks are with reality not with a secondary process that depends on updating the truth table and then reading the truth table. The previous changes that we need to react to are made through the Archetype system so the changes (themselves) update the “reality” references that are part of the system. Any check through Meaning is current and real.
Interpreting a Slot
This is an interpretation step. We interpret the “best” meaning, based on the available polymorphs.
Setting Up the New Memory Object
Polymorphic Translating a New Slot
Meaning - The Real Basis of Processing Language
This is the Mind's default processing:
Polymorphic Language
My view is that polymorphism is the nature of language (all natural language). In such a polymorphic language, an item of the language needs to be objectified. That means the item (or the word for it) carries some attributes and processes into the conversation, These are not the meanings. The Meaning is derived from the polymorphic linkages in the context of associated memory objects in our mind.
In artificial intelligence work Truth based “total processing” methodology or brute force approach; all the steps need to be covered with each change in the system. Meaning based processing is less so.
The issue is in the complexity of processing.
Meaning is a better way to abstract the relationship with reality than the abstraction of Truth. Meaning has a different way of deciding these issues, The advantage is that the Meaning based cross checks are with reality not with a secondary process that depends on updating the truth table and then reading the truth table. Any check through Meaning is current and real.
Meaning [Not Truth] Links Us to Reality
Words are linked to a chain of meaning from the polymorphic process. Meaning is linked to such a set of memory objects (by perception), which are linked to an Archetype (or Archetypes), whose set of memory objects are based on the Shadow providing and extending objects from nerve process information from external reality. This reality (specific) can be extended from this Archetype. This is how Meaning links us to reality.
Truth is a construct to place an authority over all thought. This is a necessary philosophical concept; which does not necessarily link into reality or any other specific base. It is supposed to critique all such thought bases as an authority over the operation of knowing [so using any of these bases to examine Truth is contrary to the basis of the authority of Truth [you cannot ask the professor the question]. But ultimately this concept leaves us connected to nothing [If you cannot ask a question, you are connected to nothing!]. So Truth is a Chinese lantern; and definitely does not link us to reality. Truth links us to a vague concept that seems to be needed for philosophy to work. But since Truth cannot be subordinate to anything - it becomes an enigma.
Thesaurus Meaning
[Archeological layering is proposed by Foucault as a means of recognizing trends in the development of information over time and from different sources. It is important to understand the epistemology of the changes in meaning of terms over time. In my own work I am less concerned with the difference between epistemologies and transformations since the transformations are as important as the epistemology in systems development and since the changes in epistemology are often buried or hidden in the data available. I am concerned with recognizing all the relationships between artifacts of a study as any one of those relationships could be important to the results of the systems development process. Once all the relationships are uncovered the important ones become easier to define and use.]
The advantage of Post-Structuralist layering, as I used it, is that you can separate the words from “common held views" of their meanings, which are often effected and manipulated by local narratives. The commonly held meaning often makes words specify things they do not specify; and ignores important meanings held in the word, as used. It also tends the ignore that the meaning of data changes as we progress through the system.
The structured understanding of the Meaning is more dictionary based but the post-structuralist “layered” Meaning is more thesaurus based. The thesaurus approach allows a more useful understanding of the Meaning of words as shaded by the context (as developed in a thesaurus) whereas the dictionary Meaning sees words as atomic and immutable (specific) in Meaning. Both (atomic and immutable) are not a characteristic of real words in real contexts. Both atomic and immutable define words as though they were like numbers and not words and thus have a specific place in some Meaning cluster (atomic and immutable) as though they were place holders. Whereas in any context the Meaning of the word (in that context) is determined (in some form of shading) by that context. Wittgenstein - The meaning of a word is in its use. Layering allows us to recognize the Meaning and shades of Meaning of the words used in their real context (in this particular project) and also to the whole system as a context. The structured analysis equivalent to this can only produce a first Meaning or, perhaps, a most common (single) Meaning (since, in structured thought, meanings need to be viewed as atomic and immutable). Again post-structuralism is more akin to poetry than prose (since prose is more structural).
The advantage of the post-structuralist layering approach in developing systems is very important. Structurally developed systems are often locked into pathological behavior simply because the meanings of words, titles, names, etc., change within the system, simply because the context of those words changes as we process through the system. If such context problems are missed by the developer the problems are hard to diagnose. Post-structuralist systems can be developed based on a more compete understanding of how meanings of data changes within the system as data is moved (and altered) through the system [Formation Data Context].
Communicative Action
[Juergen Habermas developed a theoretic approach to developing dialog based on a functionalist rather than a normative (i.e. truth based) basis. Thus pragmatics (and usefulness) is more important than the normative process of establishing truth. This does not deny the need for truth but denies the necessity of normative processes that are used mainly to stifle debate.]
Change the Tone by Changing the Word
SEE DEFINITION OF police
Roget's 21st Century Thesaurus, Third Edition Copyright ? 2013 by the Philip Lief Group.
The analysis is then continued in the system through the process of Formation Data Context analysis. This context analysis is not even possible if meanings are considered as atomic (the word used to define something holds a specific Meaning in itself) and immutable (the Meaning of the word used to define something never changes). In formation data context analysis we examine the change in the relationship between different data items as they are processed through the system (formation through the system). Communicative Action of Habermas and the theatrical bases of this method can be used to make the results of formation data context analysis more pragmatic (useful).
Wittgenstein recognized that language itself does not support the force of atomic and immutable definitions. Structured design was specifically developed to create a language that could support such characteristics; but such characteristics do not actually fit into the real world. The real world is actually closer to our language than to structuralism. Our cultures have developed languages that are pragmatic (useful) instead of “perfect”. Structuralism assumed a perfect world (the computer was going to bring about this perfect world), but computer processing really needed to fit the real world “through the looking glass”. Structuralism may have been able to create a perfect world - but, as a matter of fact, that could not have been a real world.
Meaning instead of Truth
Europe found a new and different Critical School leader in Jurgen Habermas. His approach was unique for the Critical School since the important thing was to reach a compromise that worked (pragmatism - now Gramsci often talked about pragmatism, but that did not include any compromise for him). You notice that this is not at all the approach of the left in the USA. Here they need to hurt even destroy opponents (burn them down, bring your pitch forks and torches, you will reap the whirlwind, you will pay the price). This is very much Gramsci hate-filled thinking. Hate Mongers!
Interestingly Jurgen often referred to himself as Communist or Marxist. With his softer approach, this seemed to be accepted. Others referred to Jurgen as Post-Structuralist; but he denied that name for himself. The Post-Structuralist name refers to the Post-Structuralist activity (hermeneutics) of developing language in order to solve a problem. Language analysis and changing the language of discourse is a Post-Structuralist methodology (especially analysis that avoids structured methodology).
For Jurgen Habermas it is about language. He chooses to use language to clarify the understanding of both sides (or all sides) about what we are saying. We, then, try to make the words and phrases we use for our arguments useful in order to fully understand each other - and yes bring about a possible agreement. That is the part that the Left in the USA abhors - we must destroy the evil people who can think (where is the freedom of speech in that).
The left in the USA obviously has the intent of making their arguments particularly unacceptable to any opposition. The opposition must be destroyed - not compromised with. The opposition have violated some group because they - they don’t jump to orders from the Left, - like some slave. Again, I have been there and know what is going on. That is part of why I retired from academia. It is not fun when hate speech from the Left is encouraged, but defending yourself from imbeciles is punished. This is Truth based process.
Habermas’ language techniques (The Theory of Communicative Action) have led to successful negotiations of important issues in Germany and Europe. I have found that when using the Archeological Layering of Foucault, to develop a less bias understanding of the issues, and combining that with Jurgen’s Theory of Communicative Action, will produce a result that is both more understandable and also useful in solving the issues on the problem. The solution is very effective in resolving all of the issues of the problem (See: Hermeneutics in Agile Systems Development). The is Meaning based process. Also see: Gramsci and Habermas.
So - to the Left of the USA - slash and burn may give you jollies, but it does not solve any problem; and it definitely makes everything worse for everyone - including yourself. So quit being imbeciles. Toss Gramsci and his Hegemony in the garbage can. Try Foucault and Habermas. They allow a more open understanding and more useful solutions to problems than the slash and burn of Gramsci’s hate. And yes presently the Left is definitely the hate mongers here.
Note, here Gramsci is on the side of Truth. See: Truth is just a Chinese Lantern. Habermas is on the side of Meaning. See: Gramsci and Habermas.
The problems we are trying to solve are solvable. But the left would rather hurt people than try to find a reasonable solution. You will reap the whirlwind, you will pay the price; if you even try to resolve these problems reasonably. The left shows hate and destruction and tries to blame conservatives, whites, white males, citizens, Americans, the middle class because we don’t just give in to all their hatred. I do not like living under their hatred.
Meaning not Truth.
Truth - The Problem with Language
We have a problem with truth. Not that we are liars, but that truth is hard and sometimes tricky. There are times that we mean to lie, say when truth does not work for our present situation. But for the most part, lies come about because of misinterpretation. Our misinterpretation of the situation, or others misinterpretation of what we expressed [CNN].
Wittgenstein’s book “On Certainty” discusses the problem of truth when it is used for developing a philosophy. It is related to the problems discussed above. Philosophy is about the meaning of everything or the meaning of life. We are supposed to develop that meaning logically and, since it is important, the result must be True. But how do you measure Truth. That in itself requires logical thought. And what is logic (can we define the path of our thought process) or more important, what is logical (pragmatic or useful basis for judging the path of our thoughts authentically)?
Wittgenstein had been part of a school of philosophy that I would call structuralist. They had other names for this school, but to me it was the height of structuralism. Every word had a specific meaning; every sentence (and they all were all numbered) had a specific meaning; and it all went into building a philosophy that was going to be absolute (absolutely true), and final (immutable). To me the effort was based on the idea that words and sentences (and all parts of language) were atomic (they each mean something specific in themselves); and immutable (they could not change meaning over time - including millennia). That is why I like to call their effort structural.
I have seen recent analysis of Wittgenstein that would quote his famous quotes that are based on his more recent philosophical thinking and then say: “See he is a structuralist.” Any reading of his famous quotes from “On Certainty” cannot be viewed as structuralism [the meaning of a word is in its use]. The problem here is that many feel that bright people have to be structuralists and Wittgenstein is bright. Sorry; I think that structuralists are stupid; and, yes, Wittgenstein is bright because he rejected structuralism.
“The meaning of a word is in its use” violates the the structuralist requirement for atomicity and immutability. For the structuralist those are key requirement for the perfect language, and a necessity for their concepts of how language works. For the structuralist correct statements lead to exact understanding for intelligent interpretation (perfect interpretation). The interpretation of a statement must always be exactly what the author meant. The fact that this does not happen, very often, is not because the listener is dumb, or wrong; it is because the concepts of structuralism are wrong.
Meaning - The New Basis of Processing Language
This is the Mind's default processing:
It does not happen as the structuralist define it. The speaker has a context and the listener definitely has a different context (their own mind). To clarify my view of Wittgenstein’s famous quote, I say: “The meaning of a word depends on its context”. And the meaning of a sentence depends on its context. In most cases the listener has an understanding (context) that is close to that of the author. That is because they have similar contexts. They are talking together in the same room, and have other things in common. So the result of the conversation are adequate or even good. But, I would say, never perfect.
I understand this problem more since I have become partially deaf from an infection of the ears. When you don’t hear all the sounds of the conversation you miss a lot of context, and it is difficult to “keep up” with the conversation as it changes context.
Structuralist need to have their narrow minded concepts of reality so that it is easier to find fault with people who don’t agree with them. Today there is a desire to criminalize your discourse opponent. The problem is - if I don’t interpret you, exactly and correctly, I am some kind of evil. Any disagreement with anything (which includes almost everything), political correctness says is evil. That does not (and should not) encourage me to become a structuralist.
A real language is based on context rather than being based on atomic and immutable words and sentences. And how can we interpret this kind of language? All of the language on earth - everyones language - except that of structuralist philosophers - are contextually based. I would say that all languages are based on context and everyone (except structuralists) is quite capable of interpreting statements made in such a language. The problem is that the interpretation of the listener is not guaranteed to be exactly the intent of the originator. This is the rules of real discourse, because language as it was created by our predecessors (and there are a large number of separate languages that all follow these rules) is not structural; it is contextual. The reason it is contextual is that our polymorphic minds are contextual. I would say it is based on meaning rather than truth. The context is the transcendental. We understand contextually. The universe is actually polymorphic due to harmonics. The harmonic processes is the basis of the polymorphic character of things, which our polymorphic minds duplicate.
The polymorphic mind is the “through the looking glass” equivalent for the “harmonics” of nature.
A truth based philosophy actually must be based on structuralism and a structuralist language. Otherwise the requirements for truth, as we define it, fall apart as we talk. Now you can have truth for a specific, particular. Like: “I know this is my hand!”. Or, “I can prove you took the cookie”. But a general philosophy that is consistent and useful cannot be developed on the basis of “truth” in a real language. The language game does not allow it. The language game is based on our method of processing language in our minds. Kant actually proved this with “Critique of Pure Reason”. He showed he could prove that every philosophy known, then, was wrong. And made it clear that logical argument could do the same thing for any new philosophy. But the philosophic community could not except this clear proof as a proof. That would render all philosophers out of business.
The philosophers decided the solution to this truth problem would be to develop a more abstract philosophy or add more abstractness to their philosophy. But it is abstractness that is the problem; adding more abstractness only makes the problem worse (never instantiate an abstract class). It is not just in the language game (note: structuralist language is not a real language). It is deeper than that.
“And when the woman saw that the tree [was] good for food, and that it [was] pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make [one] wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they [were] naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.” [from “https://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen3.pdf”]
I am suggesting that our philosophy, the philosophy of our education, and the basis for Artificial Intelligence, be based on Meaning and not Truth, which would have a completely different “structure” and “tone” than a Truth based philosophy (this is what post-structuralist “structure” is aiming at). The philosophy would be much more pragmatic from the start and less negative. You need to realize that Meaning is based on context and context is based on Meaning (always). The referencing of abstract classes (archetypes) in our real memories (mental objects), links together our thoughts (by polymorphism), which creates Meaning. Polymorphism creates the linkage that allows understanding as a conversation progresses. Words are linked to a chain of meaning from the polymorphic process.
This thought process is linked to our surroundings through our most abstract class (the Shadow), which is the ultimate basis for all thought (the base class of our compiler). Some might consider this class as a blank slate (which it might look like at first glance) but, as the arbiter of all thought, it has to have the capability to arbitrate our thoughts, as we develop them. Then the Shadow as our Thunk is also the Dealer. But the Shadow must be simple because it does not waste time and resources in processing. Remember, from my “Reverse Engineering the Universe” - Chapter 34 - “The Dealer”, entropy under constraint becomes the Dealer. The algorithm may be easier (more natural) than we thought (“Harmonics of Nature” - “Harmonics of the Mind”). A large set of contexts can exist together in the closed system of the mind. Of course all classes (of mental objects) inherit the Dealer capability also.
Family Resemblance
Asia must have taken this picture.
Wittgenstein also talked about the fact that words were like family resemblance. That is, words are cousins. So a word is understood when the thought process loops through a meaning cluster. The cluster is like a reunion of cousins. There are more understood relationships between these word cousins than the structuralist would allow [the context]. The looping is done through polymorphic processes, so it is not that expensive.
Cousins
The programming in artificial intelligence needs to make use of the polymorphic power of object oriented language. Family resemblance is a reference to Wittgenstein's understanding of how polymorphism works in our minds.
Again: the polymorphic mind is the “through the looking glass” equivalent for the “harmonics” of nature.
The main problem with Truth is that the instance it refers to must be singular but the universe is polymorphic and not singular. Meaning is polymorphic.
Meaning not Truth.
Reverse Engineering of the Universe
Hashtags: #philosophical, #meaning #truth #reality #theory #context #structure #contextualism #history #Trump #Iran