Posted by
glen e. p. ropella-2 on
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/Re-Direct-conversation-tp3137870p3149202.html
Thus spake Russ Abbott circa 06/24/2009 01:05 AM:
> A number of people have talked about 1st person vs 3rd person perspectives.
> What I'd like to know is what you all mean by a 3rd person perspective. And
> what I'd really like to know is why what you mean by a 3rd person
> perspective isn't the 1st person experience of that perspective.
>
> [...]
>
> The more abstract way of saying this is that meaning occurs only in a first
> person context. Without meaning, all we have are bits, photons, ink on
> paper, etc. If you want to talk about meaning at all -- whether it's the
> meaning of a first or third person perspective -- one has already assumed
> that there is a first person that is understanding that meaning.
The 1st person assigns an intent or purpose to a context. The 3rd
person simply refers to an attempt to talk about that context admitting
ignorance about the purpose or intent. The 3rd person is a useful
fiction (a.k.a. "model") where we talk about 1st person contexts
ignoring the personhood of the person.
However, that does NOT imply that meaning only occurs in a 1st person
context. The term "mean" is ambiguous, with at least 2 meanings. ;-)
Rewording your claim with one of those meanings of "mean", chosen to
demonstrate my point, we get the following: all grounded symbols are
teleological. And in that form, your claim is false.
Weakly, any extant object _can_ be a symbol or stand-in for any other
extant object. And when one object is a symbol for another object, that
symbol is grounded. So, for example, the domino at the end of a line of
dominoes is grounded by the nearest domino. We don't need a person with
personhood to interpret the first domino. The grounding (meaning,
standing-in-for-ness) exists in the world, objectively, by virtue of the
laws of physics.
Strongly, we can even go further and remember that there is no such
thing as a pure syntax with no semantics. All formal systems are
grounded in larger formal systems. So, ultimately, every symbol must be
grounded, regardless of whether the symbol is "viewed" or not. Hence,
grounding is objective, not subjective.
Now, adopting the other meaning of the term "mean", what you _may_ be
trying to say is that _interpretation_ of symbols (hermeneutics,
semiotics) requires a person (personhood, intent, telos). And that's
certainly true. The interpretation of symbols is subjective.
And that requires the middle ground between the 1st and 3rd persons, the
"transpersonal", by which I intend "(subjective) grounding shared by
more than 1 person". Usage: Science is the effort to discover the
objective grounding of all the symbols around us through transpersonal
interpretation of those symbols.
Usually, when people use the term "3rd person", they are talking about
the convenient fiction described above. Sometimes, however, they are
talking about the objective grounding of the symbols in that context,
i.e. reality or truth, which is only approachable through transpersonal
interpretation.
That's my $0.02 anyway.
--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095,
http://agent-based-modeling.com============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at
http://www.friam.org