A Squib on Language and Experience: The meanings of “Meaning”

A Squib on Language and Experience: The meanings of "Meaning"

 

A meaning is a relationship. We have the capacity for memory because experiences when repeated as memories, a past event with a SENSE of context, such as its priorness and hence perhaps its relationship with future experience, which we also remember in the past anticipating in the future, so the past implies the future already.

Nothing is INHERENTLY meaningless, only rhetorically so. We may call an experience "meaningless" so we invest lest time in studying it and exploring the shapes of its event, the details of its experience. In principle, whatever CAN be experienced we have evolved the capacity TO experience, to consciously TOUCH in the dimensions of intimate contact of the mindbody, we may use to open up or close down other related experiences.

An experience as conscious event is related to NEEDS and hence has a value or in-built e-VALUE-ation based on the pleasures and pains of need-fulfilment. There can be no suffering or pleasure outside of a NEEDING ORGANISM. Such "experiences" would be "meaningless" because they do not relate to what NEEDS meaning and MAKES meaning: a living mind.

Needs are the Essence of an Existence. The essence shapes the development, or learning, of a memory-forming mind that may orient the being of the mindbody toward aspects of the All that give a better or worse fit for a given set of NEEDS.

A being that lacked NEED would not EX-ist, or stand out, it would SUB-sist, or lay under, and this passively, it would conform to living agents, or other non-willing beings that happen to take on a difference-making motion, or commotion; since its bliss or happiness did not depend on anything external, it could be said to be indifferent, or "happy either way," which I suspect is the way most "dead" matter is — that is to say, blissfully alive, just passive. So, when a man strikes iron with a hammer, some religions do believe the iron suffers. I would ask only why that being would invest the energy in creating suffering, since suffering is an interpretation added on to an original experience, which, lacking a needset, would lack the capacity for suffering as such. Suffering is a conscious experience, an investment in energy … but to no purpose? Nothing comes from nothing. If a being is going to bother to invest in a suffering or in a pleasure, these make sense only in terms of strategies toward MORE or LESS fulfillment in a Game.

"Motivation," then, as the word itself contains the word MOTION, and implies E-MOTION, or what is in us, our inner needs and the desires we are temperamentally inborn with or trained to change and expand upon this initial set of instincts, temperament, exist necessarily to fulfill a NEED.

A meaning as a conscious experience, and that as an EVENT abstracted from its immediate context into a MEMORY with a sense of prior-ness, and henceforth an EXPECTATION with a sense of anticipation, all this orientation in time shows that the phrase "A meaning without a future" is an ill-formed string, a oxymoron, a confuse-ment. A meaning is ALWAYS a bridge between past and future, and the most meaningful events, to call something "more" or "less" meaningful, is either DESCRIPTIVE of how much of a future-seeking behavior we've based on that experience, or RHETORICAL about how much we SHOULD base our future-seeking behavior on a given Event or that other kind of event: a recognized patten between many non-event but significantly similar experiences.

Rhetorical modes are persuasive strategies when an intelligent mind is "talking with itself" or "other selves" and so is discursive, or in "dia-logue" either way, playing meaning against meaning in a game that is supposed to persuade or win the  uncertainty into a decision for a shard and united action towards ONE goal with ONE strategy with ONE chosen meaning.