If meaning is derived through context, but context can't be pereceived?

from within the system, then meaning is faith based?

Is intelligence something that finds patterns and reflects them or do we create patterns on the inside that we isomorphically remap onto reality?

10 Answers

  • 9 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    You are right that it is "context". One writer said all understanding was "context, context, context." But in the mind in sentence structure, that becomes 'syntax'. 'Syntax' requires a metaphysical base, and often you must go deeper, to the ontological syntax if you can.

    If you can't find the context, then don't accept something on faith, unless doing so will be relatively inconsequential if you are wrong.

    As for people who are looking for "context" in such things as "existence"--well, that is one reason the great philosophical novelist Albert Camus called himself an Absurdist. He couldn't find the context of why existence should exist, or of why life should exist; but he had to accept that they did exist, and he, like his Existentialist counterparts, were able to find meaning that did not endanger them or others.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 9 years ago

    It is absolutely amazing how you continue to ask very intriguing questions that consistently have the fatal flaw of being way too vague/fuzzy/obscure/bleary-eyed.

    Here we go again: I'm the one who must supply a concrete example. Because either you are too lazy to do so, or you are assuming WAY too much that people automatically get what you're talking about just because you do! Hemingway said that good writers have a built-in bullsHt detector...so when they start getting carried away with themselves, an alarm automatically goes off.

    So, here NwG, is my example to illustrate what I BELIEVE you are talking about:

    A SENTENCE READS: "The bear went over the mountain to see what he could see."

    NOW, IF WE REMOVE ALL THE WORDS IN THE SENTENCE, EXCEPT "mountain"....there is no longer any perceivable context. All we have now is the word "mountain".

    So, where there is no context perceived (the sentence has been entirely de-constructed) how could one possibly see any patterns? In my example, a reader of the sentence would have no recourse other than to "create a pattern on the inside" of their mind. Which means, they would have no choice other than randomly constructing an entirely new context based on their experience/intelligence /mood/creativity, and other factors.

    However, if one removes just SOME of the context, but not all of it--only then is it conceivable/possible that the sentence reader can hunt for pre-existing patterns (as opposed to random ones coming from inside his or her mind).

    2ND EXAMPLE: "The bear..........mountain............see." It's just like "Wheel of Fortune". The more context there is, the more likely it will be that an intelligent mind will discover legitimate, pre-existing patterns. When there is less context, then there will necessarily be a greater need for a "faith-based" (or, subjectively fabricated) meaning.

    Source(s): The Dumb Genius Invasion of The Poconos / 1946
    • Login to reply the answers
  • 9 years ago

    Your question implies a rigid system and the hypothesis that meaning is a concept fixed in time, that it does not change. The reality is that our concepts are constantly changing to a lesser or greater degree. Meaning is derived over a sequence of encounters with the environment and ways of perceiving that environmental within our "minds" over time. Essentially, we form hypotheses and then test those hypotheses to see if it matches with our perceptions of reality. Now, we can call these hypotheses articles of faith, but an intelligent human does not crystallize hypotheses such that they do not change, although we all have some hypotheses that we hold onto, base our lives upon them, and we have different levels of rejection for each hypothesis The brain seeks to find order even in random events and we may project hypotheses of order upon events. We have difficulty with the idea that some events are random and we have difficulty working with them. For example, we seek to find a reason for an accident when the accident could have been caused by a random sequence of environmental events.

    So, to wrap up, the "meaning" of anything at any point in time is really a hypothesis that is subject to change when a context arises or when more context is given, but thought is an evolving process.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    9 years ago


    Thank you for that question.

    Here is not an answer, but an appreciation.

    Beginning of Wonder

    Long has been the beginning of wonder

    So halting, still


    Retreat too sad

    To bear for long

    The burning eye

    Did cast its blame

    And spread beseechment

    Receiving only

    What fit set mind

    There was sometimes

    Color without range

    Hues and scents

    Without explanation

    Tiny, tiny question

    Tinkle bell from depth of well

    The pull was there

    Not submitted to or acknowledged

    Not ever gone

    After lives no longer counted

    A moment

    When words stayed home

    Reflection of reasons

    Did open

    Like sparkling veil

    And the endless

    Had no need

    To speak

    Any answer to your question at this stage of humanity is going to be the evaluation of an ant on the day of its first emergence from the nest, in the middle of the Amazon rain forest.

    The Kogi have an approach that makes sense in that their spiritual leaders are kept in a cave for years while they are being trained and then only after the training is complete, taken outside to see the world.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 9 years ago

    yes, it always depends on context. The way I understand is simple. For example, we know a cat. "Cat runs" is not "Cat jumps". There the contexts provided. It can mean "cat plays". But if you make cat plays instead of cat jumps or cat runs, the meaning can change. In this case, context is perceived.

    But sometimes, the author, or speaker, might come short of explanation but believing he/she has explained it all. There the audience can be struggling with what the author/speaker really had to say.

    Also we have different experiences. Our experiences can add some information and change the meaning or context. In this case, you can be seeing your cat that is running, jumping or playing as I see mine - in the mind. Your cat might not play or run the same way my cat does as they can be different breeds or species. So Yes, we do create patterns and their reflections inside our minds.

    But if the author/speaker explains well, about how his/her cat jumps, runs and plays, and how his/her cat looks like, etc, then we need less struggle. Yet, nobody can do it perfectly. We all perceive differently anyway - as we're different. I cannot know about the twins.

    One classic example I know is - someone said 'life is too short to waste'. A religious person thought, that's true he must not waste his time anymore and went to meditate. But a woman who was very reluctant to have an affair heard it and she though that's true, she must not waste her time and had the affair materialized soon.

    Have a nice day,

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 9 years ago

    Context is subjective to the viewer and is based on perception. Without perception, there can be no context. In the case of a differing context, or understanding someone else's context (or point of view), that's simply drawn from personal experience and is defiantly faith based to a degree. Did I answer your question?

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 9 years ago

    There has to be a correlation between context and perception....otherwise context can't be identified. It almost sounds like a religious argument; whether we create a god or not. But I'm sure I'm reading too much into it; or taking it out of context. But the correlation is still there. :]

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 9 years ago

    wow, id love to answer this natasha, but seriously, its still early and im not long up, so its above my pay grade right now ;-D

    i will give it a wee try, meanings arent faith based, unless you have nothing to support the meaning

    but evne then, the support itself, could have its own meaning

    we both see and create patterns

    we usually arent aware of it tho

    its a great q, if its stil open i may try to do abetter answer later :-)

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 9 years ago


    the final frontier

    that is the SPACE

    between human ears!


    • Login to reply the answers
  • 9 years ago

    Everything is faith-based.

    • Login to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.