Since the success of this effort depends entirely upon communicating exactly WHAT I believe and WHY I believe it, it is certainly prudent to examine the central means of communication: Language. I know of nothing more used, more abused, and less thought about than words, the component parts of language. Oh yes, there is much taught about nouns, verbs, prepositions, infinitives, participles, etc. This is about rules. The principles of language usage that determine its communicative value are rarely mentioned, if at all. There seems to be a near universal belief that words have some mystical indestructible power to communicate which can never be lost nor diminished by manner of usage. Directly relative to this belief is the belief that the meaning of a word, that is, its definition, is determined by agreement and "common usage." The issue poses two fundamental questions: 1. What does it mean to define a word or term? 2. How does the defining of a word or term relate to your thinking, beliefs, and values and the achievement of the ends that you consciously desire? These questions can be answered only by understanding the principles of language and what happens to thinking, beliefs, and values when these principles are ignored.
What is the purpose of language? To communicate? If so, what is required to accomplish this end? Why is there more than one word in a language? Why are there different words in a language? I dare say, most, if not all, would in their own words answer that the many and different words are needed to separate, to differentiate. Why do we need differentiation? Need for what? What then is to be differentiated? And how is it to be differentiated? Ans: Differentiate one entity from another entity or all other entities. Differentiate one relationship from another relationship and differentiate an entity from a relationship. While we usually talk about defining a subjectively created word, actual definition always connects to something objectively real.
A most popular fallacy is that "one may define his terms anyway he chooses." While original symbolic representation is indeed arbitrary, to fulfill the purpose of communication and/or to communicate truth, certain objective criteria must be met. It all begins, of course, by the invention of language, the connecting of a sound or writing to an entity or a relationship. Then, by definition, i.e. by word arrangements that conform to reality, communication can be achieved. To meet the need of constancy in meaning, a definition is always attached to an objective referent that is not subject to dismissal or alteration by personal preferences. If terms, such as a hamburger, were in one instant held to mean a food product that one may eat, and in the next instant meant a two wheeled conveyance, I dare say there would be much confusion at McDonalds and elsewhere. Yet, when it comes to one's beliefs and philosophical values and one's socio-economic environment, random "shifting meanings" are commonplace without a thought of the contradiction. Indeed, adamantly defended as the "right" to define anyway one chooses." This attitude and many misconceptions about language are so readily accepted as unquestionable truth, that any challenge is likely to be dismissed without examination and consideration. Nevertheless, since language is the primary means to propagate and promote ideas and beliefs, and since distorted language usage (not conforming to reality) is used to promote destructive fallacies without end, I can think of no issue of greater importance. I shall treat it accordingly.
A word has a dual content: Denotation and Connotation. The first is constant. The latter is variable. The denotive content denotes, that is, it expresses or implies the existence of an entity or a relationship outside of the mind. Its basis is objective. The connotative content is individual valuation, individual emotional response to the entity or relationship denoted by the word. Its basis is subjective. Example: Two individuals hear the term, apple pie. To the individual liking apple pie, the term connotes pleasure. To the individual disliking apple pie, the term connotes displeasure. At another time, the personal preferences of one or both of the individuals may change, then so would the connotation. However, regardless of personal preferences, apple pie is still apple pie as determined by its objective content. Its objective identity does not change.
The simplicity of the illustration above may give the impression that the difference between denotation and connotation is so clear and precise that few, if any, would ever confuse the two. Regrettably, it happens quite often, and in most instances is not as easily detected as implied by the apple pie example. Remember, the basis of the denotation and connotation issue is making a distinction between objective identity and one's subjective personal valuation and emotional response. To put it another way, the goal is to always make a distinction between what is inside of the mind and what is outside. Apple pie is one thing. Philosophy (the beliefs and values by which one lives) is another. In philosophical issues, personal subjective valuation is often confused with objective identity. "Common usage" language is much in evidence of this disruptive and destructive practice.
To repeat for emphasis the base criteria stated above: to retain truth in definition and needed constancy in meaning, an objective referent is an absolute requirement. An objective referent is an objective thing in nature that cannot be dismissed nor altered by personal preference. It follows that if a word arrangement called a definition corresponds to a fixed and immutable objective referent, any arbitrary change in the word arrangement dismisses correspondence and identity, and therefore is false. Additional objective discovery may warrant a corresponding change in a definition, but to arbitrarily interject "modifiers" destroying correspondence with the actual is a contradiction, a thinking departure from reality into fallacy. Further, if a specific word, or word arrangement, corresponds to a specific objective referent, the same word or word arrangement, the same definition, cannot logically apply to any other referent with different characteristics. Any attempt to do so is to abandon the differentiation purpose and principle of definition. Rather than mentally abstracting via difference and discovering identity, any application of the same definition to different identities is to imply a sameness that does not exist. It is, in effect, a psychological effort to create reality by subjective words, rather than using words to differentiate objective discoveries.
I am certainly aware of satire, play on words, voice inflections that change meaning conveyed, but this is not at issue. The issue is language principles. In a science lab, or even in mundane daily events, no one would tolerate arbitrary and randomly shifting meanings of terms. Imagine the useless chaos of "shifting definitions" and "shifting referents". It would render language useless. Yet, in the social and philosophical area "anyone can define his terms anyway he chooses" is a common refrain and claim without the slightest thought of, or regard for, a real and constant objective referent to connect the terms to reality and hold the meaning consistent. As such language usage is disconnected from reality, so are the beliefs derived from such thinking and usage. Needless to say, actions taken upon these fallacies will not produce the end result as consciously intended and predicted.
To clarify, and perhaps avoid misunderstanding of what is to follow, a brief glossary of a few central terms set forth now may be of value. Two terms at the center of it all are the terms objective and subjective. Absolute differentiation and clear understanding of these terms is imperative in understanding what is to follow. I use the term, objective, to designate that which exists independently of the mind, and is not altered or influenced by personal preferences, hopes, wishes, dreams, beliefs, or number of believers. Objective means fixed and 100% consistent by virtue of immutable natural laws, i.e., principles. I use the term, subjective, in reference to that which is derived from the mind, and therefore, dependent upon the mind; would not exist except for the mind; which is to say, exists in the mind. That which is subjective is individualistic and infinitely variable. Certainly the mind is a part of objective reality, but to separate mental invention from mental discoveries, differentiating terminology is a necessity.
Although all language is a subjective mental invention, and therefore, abstract in origin, for purposes of differentiation, I use the phrase, abstract term, to denote a relationship and the phrase, concrete term, to denote an entity, an actual objective existent of quantity, of limitation and difference. For instance, a lamp and a table are each an objective existent. Each is an entity. The term, sitting, as in the lamp is sitting on the table, denotes a relationship and can never denote an entity. Language usage that is contrary to the criteria, objective definitive reference, is the product of subjective feelings, not objective identity. In the final analysis, all that I'm saying is the logically obvious. If a word or arrangement of words is not fixed upon and tied to something objective outside of the mind, it is attached only to the subjective mind and personal preference of each user. It is an implicit declaration of no requirement to connect language to objective reality. Such language usage is in contradiction of its declared purpose. It's "definitions" are limitless, infinitely variable in time and circumstance as determined by the feelings and desires of each individual. This unrestricted fluctuation in "meaning" makes it literally useless as a tool of communication. Worse yet, if this condition is not recognized and understood, language often serves not to communicate, but to provoke a response in accordance with each individual's "definitions". Without a common frame of reference as an anchor, verbal chaos is a certainty without intellectual means to peacefully resolve conflicting differences.
Much has been spoken and written about language influencing thinking and beliefs. Political speeches and Madison Avenue advertising techniques are just a couple of examples of the awareness of and the use of this fact. However, little is said about how language usage actually relates to the formulation and expression of beliefs. There is little notice of the fact that language usage is necessarily the reflection of the beliefs held, which may be true, or may be false. If not true, how can beliefs be expressed except by language usage that does not conform to reality, does not adhere to the criteria established above? In other words, such usage is lacking a fixed objective referent and is undefined in defiance of the absolute criteria needed for communication. Sometimes a term, or group of terms, may well have an objective referent, but the actual objective referent is denied in usage. For instance, the term, society, is a valid term denoting a relationship (proximity as opposed to isolation), but "society" is not valid when posited as an "infinite entity." And what of the term, entity? If it is used in one instance to denote an objective existent such as a car, a house, etc. and in the next used to allegedly denote a subjective idea as in "corporate entity", or "government entity", or "mental entity" of any description, does this make definitive sense? Logically, the same term indicates the same thing; at least basically. Here we have the term, entity, allegedly simultaneously denoting a finite objective thing of physical quantity and an infinite idea which is subjectively created and not physical at all; indeed exists only in the mind. All such language usage leaves a term or group of terms alleged to apply to a referent that does not exist: to a mental invention, a non entity. Thus do we arrive at the situation described above wherein a response is provoked, but actual communication is non existent.
The inescapable truth is that if we are to communicate, we must have a common frame of reference. I can see no other way for that needed common frame of reference to be established and maintained except by the criteria set forth above. If you are to pass judgment as true or false upon this idea and the conclusions to follow, you must first know WHAT the conclusions and beliefs are and WHY I hold them to be true. To do this, you must recognize and understand the references that underlie these conclusions. This is where identity and actual definition come in. I endeavor at all times to strictly adhere to the criteria set forth that you may define and know what I mean rather than "interpret" and often guess wrongly.
Copyright at Common Law, Delmar England,
1997
Permission in hereby granted to copy this work for personal
use or for FREE distribution provided that the work is copied or distributed in
its entirety and that this copyright notice accompanies each copy.
