? Meaning=Function ? Open Thread [New]
Many of the discussions here and elsewhere often come to a semantic juncture where the participants bemoan the need to use words to convey their message and/or points.
Let’s try to be proactive, eh?
Have at it.
Is “meaning” the same as “function”? If one can elucidate the function of say, a tree (and/or a forest), has one also elucidated it’s meaning? Likewise, do the meanings listed in dictionaries (and/or translated into other languages) reveal the functions of those words?
This is an Open Thread.
(I’ve never really understood that phrase. Aren’t all of the threads open?)
What Do You Think?
15 Responses to '? Meaning=Function ? Open Thread'
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
William Timberman [New]
Wednesday, 6 Apr, 2011 at 8:42 am
Unless function is so broadly defined as to be meaningless, only an engineer could ask this question and expect a meaningful answer — meaningful to an engineer, that is. Anyone else would probably just shake his head and start reciting Jabberwocky.
Years ago, I heard an interview with the pop sculptor Ed Kienholz, famous for Back Seat Dodge ’38 and other oddities.
The interviewer told him that a lot of visitors to his then current show at LACMA found his sculpture puzzling. Yeah, he said. People tell me that my work is weird, and then they go home and mow the lawn.
The Owl and the Pussycat. The engineer and the artist. The classic duopolies of human civilization.
Wednesday, 6 Apr, 2011 at 9:33 am
Interpret the words however you wish. Broadly speaking, I ‘d kind of like to try and bridge the apparent chasm between engineering and Jabberwocky.
What is a “meaningful answer” for an engineer? And what makes you think artists might not find the same meaning in their works?
More personally, why can’t scientists be just as weird as Keinholz or the lawn-mowing hordes? We are anyway, if pop culture is to be trusted. Or is it like celibate priests holding forth on sexuality when rational scientists dabble in whimsy?
William Timberman [New]
Wednesday, 6 Apr, 2011 at 10:36 am
I feel your pain, but form and function can and will be divorced, and meaning remains mysterious, even the small parts of it that scientists have gotten to hold still long enough to entertain certain expectations about them.
This is a good thing. And it’s definitely not just a semantic thing.
pieceofcake [New]
Wednesday, 6 Apr, 2011 at 10:43 am
as long as function follows form I’m not worried…
Wednesday, 6 Apr, 2011 at 1:33 pm
In the sense of an Ouroborous following its tail, you are correct not to worry over the issue. Perhaps. In my opinion.
Maybe.
Wednesday, 6 Apr, 2011 at 11:28 am
We could be wrong, but we might be right.
It may well be that none of it is relevant within the arc of this expanding universe (multiverse?), but it feels good to think about it.
Mark [New]
Wednesday, 6 Apr, 2011 at 12:00 pm
No.
…
What, you want a longer answer??
First of all, ‘meaning’ and ‘function’ always have multiple answers. Think of the question of why you eat. What is the meaning and function of eating.
There are many levels to this. I biologist might say to obtain fuel the body needs. A psychologist might bring up the mind’s desire for food. An cognitive scientist might talk of how evolution has favored genes that build structures in the brain creating desire for food.
All of those answers are scientific and handle both meaning and function.
But a chef may discuss the passion of food or how certain foods bring up memories from childhood. Is the meaning the same a function in this case? Perhaps.
Wednesday, 6 Apr, 2011 at 1:28 pm
Exactly, something roughly approximating such.
What does it mean that our human brain has evolved by favoring genes that encode the structures within it that create a desire for food in context of the (apparently) increasing tendency of humans toward obesity and other metabolic conditions that seem to be related to over-consumption? Have the processes of evolution lead us astray? Or maybe we are have framed the question in an improper way?
You correctly cite the multiplicity of the meanings and/or functions that are assigned to these terms by adherents of different intellectual (thoughtful) perspectives and arenas. I’m not only aiming to distinguish one from the other, i.e. explain how these are not equal, but also in sorting out where they may overlap and thereby, reinforce each other.
Returning the mathematicesque formulation of the title and playing an ages old chemistry trick, allow me to rearrange the equation:
Meaning – Function = definitional differential.
The DD has at least two components, rhetorical/semantic differences and those that are otherwise. Of course, we’ll have consider the influence of biological scale, because the equation only applies when meaning and function are defined within the same scale.
Oaktown Girl [New]
Wednesday, 6 Apr, 2011 at 1:36 pm
Regarding “Open Thread”, here’s my best understanding of it, SpitBall:
When someone takes the time and effort to write a blog post (main post or “diary”, not a comment in a thread), it’s good form for the people commenting on that thread to stick more or less to the subject at hand. If someone’s made a good faith effort to post something for the community that they feel is beneficial (in whatever way), folks should try to respect that by not going off into unrelated or marginally-at-best related tangents that can potentially “hijack” the thread and usually just piss people off and generally depress enthusiasm for participation.
Now, if something is specifically designated an “Open Thread”, people should feel free to write comments on whatever subject they want without being rebuked for not sticking to the subject. You’ve got a very good “Open Thread” post here, as a matter of fact: The post itself it short, stimulates conversation, and the topic is not so deadly serious that people will feel like assholes if they want to talk about something else, such as what they did for the April 4th demonstrations, a recent movie they saw, or the ever-so-delicious 0-4 start by the boston red sox to open the season. So yes while technically all threads are “open”, an “Open Thread” is a specific kind of animal.
The only thing I would recommend is that if you really want an Open Thread, you should put “Open Thread” in the title of the post so folks see it right away. It would look like this:
“Open Thread: ? Meaning=Function ?”
Hey – I think my description of “Open Thread” actually kind of manages to be sort of on-topic for “meaning and function”.
Wednesday, 6 Apr, 2011 at 1:57 pm
Indeed it does. Underscores the value of asking loaded questions and why so many TV lawyers are so disdainfully accused of leading the witness.
I guess I see “threads” more as “blooms” and diaries as seeds, or sparks. Limitation is set by participants as you have summarized and are judged according to community standards.
Back in the days of Open Left I used to get worked up over rudeness and condescending attitudes (subjectively determined, of course), not digression.
Try to take irritation the same way an oyster takes the particles that will become pearls. Pick at the scabs that grow on the open wounds some of the words posted here will induce, the intricate scars may one day become a string of exquisite pearls after all.
Oaktown Girl [New]
Wednesday, 6 Apr, 2011 at 2:24 pm
I can’t tell if that is advice you are giving to me personally, or just a comment on how you try to view things in general. If the former, I’d refer you back to your earlier sentence:
My subjective determination, of course. :)
Wednesday, 6 Apr, 2011 at 3:44 pm
I’m being aspirational perhaps. Or maybe expressing the contradictory nature of my substance. It might even be somewhat true that each of us is as likely described as a Gordian knot of contradiction as by the stable constellation of a Jungian Self.
My intention is not so much to “give advice” as to “trip switches”. In general, I hope to be more a strange cairn, than a Temple full of traditional chants. In colloquial terms: I rather be the drug than the trip. The enzyme, rather than the pathway. The suggestion, not the result. A question not an answer.
David [New]
Wednesday, 6 Apr, 2011 at 2:22 pm
Is “meaning” the same as “function”?
I don’t think so. I think these terms point us in different directions. Function is somewhat more objective (although that term is also opening a can of worms) whereas meaning is about a human response.
If one can elucidate the function of say, a tree (and/or a forest), has one also elucidated it’s meaning?
Well, this is complicated. A tree functions is certain way, biologically speaking. And it has functions for us – they provide beauty, shade, a place to climb, clean air, etc. But a tree also has meaning – it may signify that an urban space is still comforting, or it may have meaning for my family (the tree in our back yard). These may be not instrumental – thus not tied to function (although functions can inform meaning).
Likewise, do the meanings listed in dictionaries (and/or translated into other languages) reveal the functions of those words?
Dictionaries reveal definitions more than meanings. They tell you what a rose is, or what it signifies immediately, not what it signifies more broadly. A rose may mean ‘I’m sorry’ or ‘I love you’ or ‘congratulations’. It may mean a hollow apology or a grand gesture.
The function of words is even trickier. Political language often serves to obfuscate – controversial, political, pragmatic, extreme, socialist, etc. As Kenneth Burke suggested, the purpose of political language is often “to sharpen up the pointless and blunt the too sharply pointed.”
Wednesday, 6 Apr, 2011 at 3:53 pm
Thank you for this, David. My first draft included a digression into this issue, but I cut it out of respect for my community. Your comment causes me to join William in a snoopy dance. (picture that, will ya?)
“I mean, Pat Boone singing Love Letters in the Sand, his ears getting sunburned, told us something about the old ways of delusion”
“I mean, Elvis made us move. I outta know man. I was in his Army.”
John Trudell wrote those, not me.
David [New]
Wednesday, 6 Apr, 2011 at 4:33 pm
I appreciate you continuing this conversation. I join you both in a snoopy dance.