Muslim Ban Over Handshake. Whaddayareckon Liberals?

[Exi5tentialist]

I don't trust Jihadis as much as you do.

I don't trust them at all, but Musselmens' views on what the Koran means are pieces of evidence as to what they do mean.

Why are you calling them Musselmen? It's really outdated and silly, and it looks like a deliberate attempt to evoke reactionary responses in people, like saying moslems not muslims.

You say you don't trust them at all yet you trust them enough to take their views as evidence. I don't trust them even that much. I spit in their faces when they say this is the meaning of the koran.

I don't "trust" a Pentacostal minister either, but when the prevailing view of Pentacostals as to the meaning of a passage is X, then that is the meaning they ascribe.

Well yeah, but is it ccorrect?

I don't consider Jihadis to be less Moslem than Moslem.

Oh Gawd, I hadn't actually read this far when I made my comment above about people saying "moslems".

What's the issue, why are you doing all this throwback stuff?

I think they are buying into the same post-religious belief the messages can come from the past. If they stopped and thought for a moment, they would recognise, as I do, that the consciousness that wrote the Koran is dead, therefore the stonings and beheadings are an idea of their own invention. That would leave the meaning of the Koran as a quaint academic speculation, which is what it is. You, and they, are assuming a connection to the past that doesn't exist.

I do not assume a connection to the past. I assume an imperfect understanding of the meaning of words on a page which nevertheless is to one degree or another, depending on the passage in question, reliable and understandable. In other words, when a person writes "Jack kicked the ball" we do, as you say, create the meaning in our heads. But, the reality is that the agreement among all human heads as to what is meant by the sentence "Jack kicked the ball" is so uniformly in agreement, and an argument from common usage so strong, that we can reliably conclude that a person named Jack made contact with a ball with his foot. The mind who wrote the sentence may be long dead, but the words on the page survived. Maybe the author meant that Jack swung a bat and hit a coconut. We can never really know. But, with some reliability we can conclude that the words mean that Jacks foot hit a ball, can't we?

We can conclude that they mean that in our heads, yes. But if you're taking it further. You're saying that past meanings is motivating people to murder people.

[Exi5tentialist]

Just as a building does not disappear because its architect and builders have all died, so too a written work does not disappear.

By the way, the continued existence of buildings is not dependent on a living human consciousness. Meaning is. So it is not "just as". You are comparing a physical object with a dynamic process. The two are completely different.

Nonsense. A building only exists in human consciousness (under your model), just the same as text. Without consciousness there is no building.

As I said earlier, we cannot live a solipsistic life, even if it is true. That does not mean we must plunge headlong in the other direction.

[pErvinalia]

equivocation. You can't have it both ways.

[Forty Two]

I don't trust Jihadis as much as you do.

I don't trust them at all, but Musselmens' views on what the Koran means are pieces of evidence as to what they do mean.

Why are you calling them Musselmen? It's really outdated and silly, and it looks like a deliberate attempt to evoke reactionary responses in people, like saying moslems not muslims.

Whatever meaning your taking is your own mind's invention, isn't it?

You say you don't trust them at all yet you trust them enough to take their views as evidence. I don't trust them even that much. I spit in their faces when they say this is the meaning of the koran.

Why? The meaning of the Qu'ran is whatever is in your mind, and their mind. Surely, your mind is not objectively superior to theirs, or is it?

If, indeed, you are saying we can't know what the meaning of the Koran is, because Mahomet or whomever wrote it is dead, then that applies to you, too. You're just imposing your own biases and creating a meaning in your head, just like the Jihadis are.

Since I'm saying that we can have some reliable interpretation of words that survives the mind that wrote them, I use commonalities and consistencies among interpretations as evidence and indicia of meaning, as well as common usages, and such. Your meaning of a given passage may well be persuasive, but that will be for you to argue. The Jihadis make their argument. They seem to have a good argument that the Koran and Hadith teach that the punishment for apostasy from Islam is death. If you spit at that, then make your case.

I don't "trust" a Pentacostal minister either, but when the prevailing view of Pentacostals as to the meaning of a passage is X, then that is the meaning they ascribe.

Well yeah, but is it ccorrect?

Depends on what "it" is, and so we'd have to look at a given passage and see what the indicia of meaning are. Some passages are vague and confusing, others quite clear. There is no one answer applicable to every writing.

I don't consider Jihadis to be less Moslem than Moslem.

Oh Gawd, I hadn't actually read this far when I made my comment above about people saying "moslems".

What's the issue, why are you doing all this throwback stuff?

Calling it "throwback stuff" is just your own bias and xenophobia being conjured up in your own mind. It's nothing to do with me, the writer, right? Even if I typed what I intended to mean, it's still you just reading words on a page and conjuring your own meaning, right?

I think they are buying into the same post-religious belief the messages can come from the past. If they stopped and thought for a moment, they would recognise, as I do, that the consciousness that wrote the Koran is dead, therefore the stonings and beheadings are an idea of their own invention. That would leave the meaning of the Koran as a quaint academic speculation, which is what it is. You, and they, are assuming a connection to the past that doesn't exist.

I do not assume a connection to the past. I assume an imperfect understanding of the meaning of words on a page which nevertheless is to one degree or another, depending on the passage in question, reliable and understandable. In other words, when a person writes "Jack kicked the ball" we do, as you say, create the meaning in our heads. But, the reality is that the agreement among all human heads as to what is meant by the sentence "Jack kicked the ball" is so uniformly in agreement, and an argument from common usage so strong, that we can reliably conclude that a person named Jack made contact with a ball with his foot. The mind who wrote the sentence may be long dead, but the words on the page survived. Maybe the author meant that Jack swung a bat and hit a coconut. We can never really know. But, with some reliability we can conclude that the words mean that Jacks foot hit a ball, can't we?

We can conclude that they mean that in our heads, yes. But if you're taking it further. You're saying that past meanings is motivating people to murder people.

Sometimes, yes. When a woman was killed because words on a page said thou shalt not suffer a witch to live, then is the interpretation of the passage wrong? Or, is the reality that people in modern times should be concluding that the meaning of the words on the page is that witches should be killed, but that we ought not follow that rule because it is stupid?

From your argument, it sounds like we should be saying "we don't know that they really meant for witches to be killed" because the mind that wrote the passage is dead. However, isn't the reality that they really did mean for witches to be killed, but now that we know there aren't witches, we really ought not be killing witchy women.

[laklak]

Raven hair and ruby lips
sparks fly from her finger tips
Echoed voices in the night
she's a restless spirit on an endless flight
wooo hooo witchy woman, see how
high she flies
woo hoo witchy woman she got
the moon in her eye

[Exi5tentialist]

equivocation. You can't have it both ways.

Well, I'm not really. I'm acknowledging the full horrific truth of solipsism and knowingly agreeing to disregard some of it by following a philosophical model that denies it in part. "Having it both ways," in its purest sense, means to me accepting contradictory truths without acknowledging that they are contradictory. I think the reasons for my compromising are obvious - I do not want to spend the rest of my life in solitary confinement. Make such hay of that as you will xxx

[Exi5tentialist]

I don't trust Jihadis as much as you do.

I don't trust them at all, but Musselmens' views on what the Koran means are pieces of evidence as to what they do mean.

Why are you calling them Musselmen? It's really outdated and silly, and it looks like a deliberate attempt to evoke reactionary responses in people, like saying moslems not muslims.

Whatever meaning your taking is your own mind's invention, isn't it?

Well, you earlier you acknowledged that it was a matter of degree. Now you're saying it's absolute.

I still don't know why you use antiquated terms like moslems and musselmen. It's a really reactionary use of language - that's an invention of my mind, of course, and now you've read it a part of you has invented the same concept, and probably feels a little threatened by it, which is why you're getting all defensive.

You say you don't trust them at all yet you trust them enough to take their views as evidence. I don't trust them even that much. I spit in their faces when they say this is the meaning of the koran.

Why? The meaning of the Qu'ran is whatever is in your mind, and their mind. Surely, your mind is not objectively superior to theirs, or is it?[/quote]
No, it's subjectively superior to the beheaders and stoners. Your mind is too.

If, indeed, you are saying we can't know what the meaning of the Koran is, because Mahomet or whomever wrote it is dead, then that applies to you, too. You're just imposing your own biases and creating a meaning in your head, just like the Jihadis are.

Since I'm saying that we can have some reliable interpretation of words that survives the mind that wrote them, I use commonalities and consistencies among interpretations as evidence and indicia of meaning, as well as common usages, and such. Your meaning of a given passage may well be persuasive, but that will be for you to argue. The Jihadis make their argument. They seem to have a good argument that the Koran and Hadith teach that the punishment for apostasy from Islam is death. If you spit at that, then make your case.

If you send me a message containing solely the number 7, the meaning of number 7 is in your mind. When I read it, I create the meaning of number 7 in my mind too. Number 7 may actually be the number of the left luggage box at Victoria Station where you have secreted a large sum of money for me to pick up, perhaps years later. But that doesn't stop the meaning of number 7 being in your mind, and it doesn't stop me having to invent my own meaning for it.

The Jihadis' meaning of the Koran is theirs. My meaning of the Koran is mine. I always have difficulty attaching meaning to it when I read it. I don't know why.

I don't "trust" a Pentacostal minister either, but when the prevailing view of Pentacostals as to the meaning of a passage is X, then that is the meaning they ascribe.

Well yeah, but is it correct?

Depends on what "it" is, and so we'd have to look at a given passage and see what the indicia of meaning are. Some passages are vague and confusing, others quite clear. There is no one answer applicable to every writing.

Not least because everyone has to invent their own meaning to attach to it.

I don't consider Jihadis to be less Moslem than Moslem.

Oh Gawd, I hadn't actually read this far when I made my comment above about people saying "moslems".

What's the issue, why are you doing all this throwback stuff?

Calling it "throwback stuff" is just your own bias and xenophobia being conjured up in your own mind. It's nothing to do with me, the writer, right?

Yes, it is. I'm just wondering if there's anything else you can write that might enable me to conjure up different meanings.

Even if I typed what I intended to mean, it's still you just reading words on a page and conjuring your own meaning, right?

Yes, of course.

I think they are buying into the same post-religious belief the messages can come from the past. If they stopped and thought for a moment, they would recognise, as I do, that the consciousness that wrote the Koran is dead, therefore the stonings and beheadings are an idea of their own invention. That would leave the meaning of the Koran as a quaint academic speculation, which is what it is. You, and they, are assuming a connection to the past that doesn't exist.

I do not assume a connection to the past. I assume an imperfect understanding of the meaning of words on a page which nevertheless is to one degree or another, depending on the passage in question, reliable and understandable.

That's a connection to the past.

In other words, when a person writes "Jack kicked the ball" we do, as you say, create the meaning in our heads. But, the reality is that the agreement among all human heads as to what is meant by the sentence "Jack kicked the ball" is so uniformly in agreement, and an argument from common usage so strong, that we can reliably conclude that a person named Jack made contact with a ball with his foot. The mind who wrote the sentence may be long dead, but the words on the page survived. Maybe the author meant that Jack swung a bat and hit a coconut. We can never really know. But, with some reliability we can conclude that the words mean that Jacks foot hit a ball, can't we?

As with the number 7, apparent accuracy does not create a communication process.

We can conclude that they mean that in our heads, yes. But if you're taking it further. You're saying that past meanings is motivating people to murder people.

Sometimes, yes. When a woman was killed because words on a page said thou shalt not suffer a witch to live, then is the interpretation of the passage wrong? Or, is the reality that people in modern times should be concluding that the meaning of the words on the page is that witches should be killed, but that we ought not follow that rule because it is stupid?

We should first acknowledge that the meaning of the words was invented by the reader. From that all things flow.

From your argument, it sounds like we should be saying "we don't know that they really meant for witches to be killed" because the mind that wrote the passage is dead. However, isn't the reality that they really did mean for witches to be killed, but now that we know there aren't witches, we really ought not be killing witchy women.

Again, the meaning invented by the reader must inevitably be different from the meaning invented by the writer. The moment you lock the two things together as one meaning, is the moment you open yourself to a sea of bad faith arguments dreamt up by modern reactionaries using heritage as an excuse.

[JimC]

Forty Two wrote:

And, so, when you're looking at an ancient writing -- granted, there will be differences in meaning from what was intended by the writer and what is understood by the reader. That is always the case. But, that's in the nature of writing. You have a thought in the head of Epictetus when he was alive. He writes it down. Only, he is imperfect in his ability to convey his meaning and narrate his intended story. The words themselves admit to subtle variations in meaning, too, so he may use all the right words, but a reader from a different milieu or culture will glean a subtly or not so subtly different meaning than what Epictetus intended. And, both Epictetus and the readers will have memory issues, veracity issues, bias issues, and the like. Nothing is ever perfect. However, being imperfect doesn't mean worthless -- they are still a window into the mind of a person who lived in a different time. Even if the window is foggy and dirty, it's still better than no window. And, some windows are clearer than others.

Well stated!

[Hermit]

Hermit - your meaning of the theory of gravity is in your head, so you have understood it and I congratulate you for inventing it.

The fact that my understanding of the theory of universal gravity appears to be identical to Newton's makes the notion that I invented it nonsensical, particularly since I would not have understood it, had I not learnt about it in school. The fact that my understanding of it is identical to that of Newton's also makes a nonsense of your claim that meanings don't survive their authors' deaths by much. Newton's Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica was published well over three centuries ago.

I know about Newton's publication. But its meaning can only exist in a living human brain.

The fact that the meaning of the theory of gravity can be transmitted via a book disproves your thesis. There is no point in bringing in your particular concept of invention by the receiver of the meaning contained in it. When both meanings are identical invention adds nothing to how we manage to accurately understand the meaning of something that was written down over 300 years ago.

[Hermit]

What you cannot deny is that these meanings exist solely in the heads of living people.

I can. See above.

[JimC]

What you cannot deny is that these meanings exist solely in the heads of living people.

I can. See above.

I think that Exi has a particular view of the word "meaning", in that, for him, it only exists when being actively processed in a human brain.

Even if we were to accept this definition, it remains true that written words, from how ever long ago, can be a message which allows a whole range of people to develop a meaning they would not otherwise have been able to generate. Although everyone's individually constructed meaning of the law of gravity after reading Newton may not be perfectly identical, they will similar enough to be used to predict and calculate, which is all that is required.

In the same vein, modern muslims reading the Koran will not develop absolutely identical internal meanings. However, a certain subset of them have developed a fairly similar set of fundamentalist beliefs, whose details owe a lot to the actual words in the Koran. These collective beliefs held by this sub-set of Islam then (along with other political and economic factors) generate some fairly appalling actions.

[pErvinalia]

All we have to do to debunk his nonsense idea is to point out that it's perfectly possible to transmit some information by text with 100% certainty. If it wasn't we wouldn't all be able to agree that 1 + 1 = 2. Not that I really care, but it would be interesting to hear him explain that one away.

[pErvinalia]

What you cannot deny is that these meanings exist solely in the heads of living people.

I can. See above.

I think that Exi has a particular view of the word "meaning", in that, for him, it only exists when being actively processed in a human brain.

Even if we were to accept this definition, it remains true that written words, from how ever long ago, can be a message which allows a whole range of people to develop a meaning they would not otherwise have been able to generate. Although everyone's individually constructed meaning of the law of gravity after reading Newton may not be perfectly identical, they will similar enough to be used to predict and calculate, which is all that is required.

In the same vein, modern muslims reading the Koran will not develop absolutely identical internal meanings. However, a certain subset of them have developed a fairly similar set of fundamentalist beliefs, whose details owe a lot to the actual words in the Koran. These collective beliefs held by this sub-set of Islam then (along with other political and economic factors) generate some fairly appalling actions.

Exactly. How does he explain the very similar interpretations in disparate populations (not to mention disparate individuals in the same population)?

[JimC]

There are some religious movements not particularly focused on adherence to ancient writings, for example Buddhism, Jainism and some of the more liberal Christian sects, such as the Society of Friends. However, others, like Judaism and Islam (and the more rigid christian faiths) have a very strong adherence to the sacred writings as a guide to both religious observance and general behaviour. For these, the words themselves have a sacred significance. Their may well be bitter arguments over interpretation, but the texts themselves have a massive role in how these folk live their lives.

Denying that influence is rather peculiar...

[Svartalf]

Uh... I don't know about Jainism, but do you know the fucking sheer amount of writings buddhism has generated, and the fact that whole sects have been created around this holy text or other? (just check Nichiren buddhism and their obsession with the Lotus Sutra)