3 added 249 characters in body
source | link

I am basically following up @LuisHenrique, but sandwiching the argument between two recognized 20th-century theories of meaning.

We might create a word like 'Beyoncesque' on the pattern of other words like 'Shavian' or 'Rubenesque' that captured the effects of other artists in other periods. It would bear no meaning twenty years ago. Hopefully, it will bear no meaning again in a few years, except to past fans of an erstwhile celebrity, and when they are dead, it will again have no meaning. So the word itself does not hold meaning. Life and context hold meaning, and the word merely channels it.

One modern way of resolving this whole thing is to look at language as a political process, rather than as a repository of meaning. Human beings are the repository of meaning, and we transmit meaning through interactions that transfer power. Language is one of these kinds of interactions. But since some part of the process is about power, there is competition built into it, and it tries to optimize itself.

In the terminology of Wittgenstein, all interactive thinking takes place via semi-formal exchanges he calls 'language games'. We say things, and those things are linked to other things already said, but not directly, only by association. By But by association they convey meaning, since the other things already said arewere intended to convey meaning.

(By this notion, for instance, the first meaningful grunt did not effectively convey meaning until it had occurred many times in relevant contexts, probably for some anatomical reason. Then it acquired meaning by evoking the relevance of those contexts to this one. Language then begins when meaning becomes intentional, rather than simply referential.)

Adding to that a Critical Theory take, meaning is knowledge, which has power. So we (being engineering animals, obsessed with power and efficiency) maintain the efficiency of language games' ability to convey meaning by constantly tuning the system, diminishing the effects of communications that are about unimportant things and increasing the effects of communications that are about important things, according to the continual power dynamics that determine what is 'important' and 'unimportant' to the society using the language over time.

We might create a word like 'Beyoncesque' on the pattern of other words like 'Shavian' or 'Rubenesque' that captured the effects of other artists in other periods. It would bear no meaning twenty years ago. Hopefully, it will bear no meaning again in a few years, except to past fans of an erstwhile celebrity. So the word itself does not hold meaning. Life and context hold meaning, and the word channels it.

One modern way of resolving this whole thing is to look at language as a political process, rather than as a repository of meaning. Human beings are the repository of meaning, and we transmit meaning through interactions that transfer power. Language is one of these kinds of interactions. But since some part of the process is about power, there is competition built into it, and it tries to optimize itself.

In the terminology of Wittgenstein, all interactive thinking takes place via semi-formal exchanges he calls 'language games'. We say things, and those things are linked to other things already said, but not directly, only by association. By they convey meaning, since the other things already said are intended to convey meaning.

(By this notion, for instance, the first meaningful grunt did not effectively convey meaning until it had occurred many times in relevant contexts, probably for some anatomical reason. Then it acquired meaning by evoking the relevance of those contexts to this one. Language then begins when meaning becomes intentional, rather than simply referential.)

Adding to that a Critical Theory take, meaning is knowledge, which has power. So we (being engineering animals) maintain the efficiency of language games' ability to convey meaning by constantly tuning the system, diminishing the effects of communications that are about unimportant things and increasing the effects of communications that are about important things, according to the continual power dynamics that determine what is 'important' and 'unimportant' to the society using the language over time.

We might create a word like 'Beyoncesque' on the pattern of other words like 'Shavian' or 'Rubenesque' that captured the effects of other artists in other periods. It would bear no meaning twenty years ago. Hopefully, it will bear no meaning again in a few years, except to past fans of an erstwhile celebrity. So the word itself does not hold meaning. Life and context hold meaning, and the word channels it.

I am basically following up @LuisHenrique, but sandwiching the argument between two recognized 20th-century theories of meaning.

We might create a word like 'Beyoncesque' on the pattern of other words like 'Shavian' or 'Rubenesque' that captured the effects of other artists in other periods. It would bear no meaning twenty years ago. Hopefully, it will bear no meaning again in a few years, except to past fans of an erstwhile celebrity, and when they are dead, it will again have no meaning. So the word itself does not hold meaning. Life and context hold meaning, and the word merely channels it.

One modern way of resolving this whole thing is to look at language as a political process, rather than as a repository of meaning. Human beings are the repository of meaning, and we transmit meaning through interactions that transfer power. Language is one of these kinds of interactions. But since some part of the process is about power, there is competition built into it, and it tries to optimize itself.

In the terminology of Wittgenstein, all interactive thinking takes place via semi-formal exchanges he calls 'language games'. We say things, and those things are linked to other things already said, but not directly, only by association. But by association they convey meaning, since the other things already said were intended to convey meaning.

(By this notion, for instance, the first meaningful grunt did not effectively convey meaning until it had occurred many times in relevant contexts, probably for some anatomical reason. Then it acquired meaning by evoking the relevance of those contexts to this one. Language then begins when meaning becomes intentional, rather than simply referential.)

Adding to that a Critical Theory take, meaning is knowledge, which has power. So we (being engineering animals, obsessed with power and efficiency) maintain the efficiency of language games' ability to convey meaning by constantly tuning the system, diminishing the effects of communications that are about unimportant things and increasing the effects of communications that are about important things, according to the continual power dynamics that determine what is 'important' and 'unimportant' to the society using the language over time.

2 deleted 13 characters in body
source | link

One modern way of resolving this whole thing is to look at language as a political process, rather than as a repository of meaning. Human beings are the repository of meaning, and we transmit meaning through interactions that transfer power. Language is one of these kinds of interactions. But since some part of the process is about power, there is competition built into it, and it tries to optimize itself.

In the terminology of Wittgenstein, all interactive thinking takes place via semi-formal exchanges he calls 'language games'. We say things, and those things are linked to other things already said, but not directly, only by association. Since By they convey meaning, since the other things already said are intended to convey meaning.

(By this notion, for instance, the first meaningful grunt did not effectively convey meaning until it had occurred many times in relevant contexts, probably for some anatomical reason. Then it acquired meaning by evoking the relevance of those contexts to this one. Language then begins when meaning becomes intentional, rather than simply referential.)

Adding to that a Critical Theory take, meaning is knowledge, which has power. So we (being engineering animals) maintain the efficiency of language games' ability to convey meaning by constantly tuning the system, diminishing the effects of communications that are about unimportant things and increasing the effects of communications that are about important things, according to the continual power dynamics that determine what is 'important' and 'unimportant' to the society using the language over time.

We might create a word like 'Beyoncesque' on the pattern of other words like 'Shavian' or 'Romanesque''Rubenesque' that captured the effects of other artists or movements in other periods. It would bear no meaning twenty years ago. Hopefully, it will bear no meaning again in a few years, except to past fans of an erstwhile celebrity. So the word itself does not hold meaning. Life and context hold meaning, and the word channels it.

One modern way of resolving this whole thing is to look at language as a political process, rather than as a repository of meaning. Human beings are the repository of meaning, and we transmit meaning through interactions that transfer power. Language is one of these kinds of interactions. But since some part of the process is about power, there is competition built into it, and it tries to optimize itself.

In the terminology of Wittgenstein, all interactive thinking takes place via semi-formal exchanges he calls 'language games'. We say things, and those things are linked to other things already said, but not directly, only by association. Since the other things already said are intended to convey meaning.

Adding to that a Critical Theory take, meaning is knowledge which has power. So we (being engineering animals) maintain the efficiency of language games' ability to convey meaning by constantly tuning the system, diminishing the effects of communications that are about unimportant things and increasing the effects of communications that are about important things, according to the continual power dynamics that determine what is 'important' and 'unimportant' to the society using the language.

We might create a word like 'Beyoncesque' on the pattern of other words like 'Shavian' or 'Romanesque' that captured the effects of other artists or movements in other periods. It would bear no meaning twenty years ago. Hopefully, it will bear no meaning again in a few years, except to past fans of an erstwhile celebrity. So the word itself does not hold meaning. Life and context hold meaning, and the word channels it.

One modern way of resolving this whole thing is to look at language as a political process, rather than as a repository of meaning. Human beings are the repository of meaning, and we transmit meaning through interactions that transfer power. Language is one of these kinds of interactions. But since some part of the process is about power, there is competition built into it, and it tries to optimize itself.

In the terminology of Wittgenstein, all interactive thinking takes place via semi-formal exchanges he calls 'language games'. We say things, and those things are linked to other things already said, but not directly, only by association. By they convey meaning, since the other things already said are intended to convey meaning.

(By this notion, for instance, the first meaningful grunt did not effectively convey meaning until it had occurred many times in relevant contexts, probably for some anatomical reason. Then it acquired meaning by evoking the relevance of those contexts to this one. Language then begins when meaning becomes intentional, rather than simply referential.)

Adding to that a Critical Theory take, meaning is knowledge, which has power. So we (being engineering animals) maintain the efficiency of language games' ability to convey meaning by constantly tuning the system, diminishing the effects of communications that are about unimportant things and increasing the effects of communications that are about important things, according to the continual power dynamics that determine what is 'important' and 'unimportant' to the society using the language over time.

We might create a word like 'Beyoncesque' on the pattern of other words like 'Shavian' or 'Rubenesque' that captured the effects of other artists in other periods. It would bear no meaning twenty years ago. Hopefully, it will bear no meaning again in a few years, except to past fans of an erstwhile celebrity. So the word itself does not hold meaning. Life and context hold meaning, and the word channels it.

1
source | link

One modern way of resolving this whole thing is to look at language as a political process, rather than as a repository of meaning. Human beings are the repository of meaning, and we transmit meaning through interactions that transfer power. Language is one of these kinds of interactions. But since some part of the process is about power, there is competition built into it, and it tries to optimize itself.

In the terminology of Wittgenstein, all interactive thinking takes place via semi-formal exchanges he calls 'language games'. We say things, and those things are linked to other things already said, but not directly, only by association. Since the other things already said are intended to convey meaning.

Adding to that a Critical Theory take, meaning is knowledge which has power. So we (being engineering animals) maintain the efficiency of language games' ability to convey meaning by constantly tuning the system, diminishing the effects of communications that are about unimportant things and increasing the effects of communications that are about important things, according to the continual power dynamics that determine what is 'important' and 'unimportant' to the society using the language.

We might create a word like 'Beyoncesque' on the pattern of other words like 'Shavian' or 'Romanesque' that captured the effects of other artists or movements in other periods. It would bear no meaning twenty years ago. Hopefully, it will bear no meaning again in a few years, except to past fans of an erstwhile celebrity. So the word itself does not hold meaning. Life and context hold meaning, and the word channels it.