The meaning of meaning II

The beginning of the Gospel of St John. 'In principio erat verbum et verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat verbum' ('In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God'). Source: click here. From:

The St Petersburg Gospels (eighth century)St Petersburg, National Library of Russia, MS. Lat. F.v.I. 8 , a gospel-book written at an unidentified centre, possibly in southern England, perhaps towards the end of the eighth century.

Und doch haben sie recht, die ich schelte:

Denn dasz ein Wordt nicht einfach gelte,

Das müsste sich wohl von selbst verstehen.

Das Wort ist ein Fächer! Zwischen den Stäben

Blicken ein Paar schöne Augen hervor.

Der Fächer ist nur ein lieblicher Flor,

Er verdeckt mir zwar das Gesicht,

Aber das Mädchen verbirgt er nicht,

Weil das Schönste, was sie besitzt,

Das Auge, mir ins Auge blitzt.

And yet they are right, those whom I'm scolding:

Because a word isn't simply valid,

Which of course is clearly obvious.

The word is a fan! Between its sticks

Two beautiful eyes are looking at you.

The fan is only a lovely veil,

I admit, it covers the face,

But it doesn't hide the girl,

Because the most beautiful she possesses,

The eye, flashes into my eye.

Joh. Wolfgang von Goethe

What are you reading, my lord?

- Words, words, words.

Shakespeare

Mankind has always had problems in making a distinction between what is really “true”and what is “only a representation”. I could give numerous examples of it, but let’s restrict ourselves to law. Law pretends to find the truth in cases of crime or conflicts between individuals, and test this truth against the rules. Witnesses have to promise by oath that they will tell “the truth, only the truth and nothing but the truth”. Modern law has been heavily influenced by insights about scientific investigation developed since about 250 years, which gradually grew to the generally accepted conclusion that in science and in law only those events, phenomena, situations etc. belong to “the truth” that (a) are observable by human senses and (b) are agreed upon that they are observable by human senses, by generally accepted “common sense”, i.e. the values and norms of the culture in which the laws and investigation methods take place. Indeed, to avoid disputes and conflicts about what is “generally accepted common sense”, rules to determine what this entails have been codified in law itself, too.

Philosophy of science has invented the concept of “inter-subjectivity” to indicate that 100% “objectivity” cannot be obtained by human senses. Before these about 250 years the ruling cultures of Western civilisation have been aware of this, too, but many decisions of what was “generally accepted common sense about what is observable by human senses” were taken by political and religious power.

So, what could be read in Holy Books was readable, thus these texts were also clear and understandable by everybody who could read. Religions with one or more Holy Books were thus called “revelation religions”, because in these books God Himself is assumed to reveal what is true. In this idea the concept of “inter-subjectivity” is ignored and/or rejected. The early-Medieval Christians were debating about what had to be understood by the gospels, and what gospels could be declared “legitimate” and what gospels could not. Also, what essential dogma’s should be incorporated into the Christian religion had to be codified and made clear to people as “the prescribed Truth”. Dogma’s are elements of truth not observable by human senses, but stated, again, in multi-interpretable words. In Eastern Christianity a dogma is recognised as a mystery that cannot be further discussed or analysed, implicitly recognising its symbolic function (“symbol” interpreted as “symbolic for the Holy Truth”). In the West, however, dogma’s became starting points for extensive theologian debate. The Council of Nicea was a milestone in establishing the legislation of truth for the Christian Church. I believe that, in effect, the Roman Catholic Chuch has been officially founded in the Council of Nicea.

Between people in the West, but also within these people, conflicts arose debating the dogma’s. It is generally assumed that Reformation took place because of misconduct of the Roman Catholic elite, but I think there was more. John Calvin c.s. also applied scientific reasoning to dogma’s in his predestination doctrine, which became a dogma in itself. The dogma-debaters were all erudite scholars, but their theories had to be made clear to the then illiterate masses, who fully had to come to terms with the meaning of life, the opinion of what was true held by their local nobility, and all kinds of uncertainties which are considered “certain” by 21st-century, average-educated people. This created (and still creates) much misery suffered by “orthodox” religious people who ask themselves if they are “truly converted” or not, when they are in their hour of dying.

I hope these words of mine illustrate the confusion when it comes to determine what is “true” or not. My believe is that it is commonly agreed upon that there is a truth or truths, but that mankind doesn’t manage to capture this in language words. Why not? Just because these words are understood in different ways by people, dependent on if, and how, they are learned and understood by children and adolescents in the environment that raises and educates them (if they are educated at all). Some philosophers reason that there is no truth at all, but I think that all philosophy must be stated in words and thoughts in words, and that even truth-deniers have to admit that they exist, and that there is an earth, a moon etc. etc. that everybody can see with their senses.

Recently I read some information about “picture thinking” which I found very interesting in this context. There is a small minority of intelligent people who are not well able to arrange their thoughts in verbal concepts: they are naturally inclined to think in visual representations. Of course they experience much difficulty in school education and verbal reasoning, but they excel in finding solutions for all kinds of difficult situations that verbally thinking people have the greatest problems with. I’m sure I sometimes come across them in the Hotel Management School where I work. They are not able to write a dissertation or assignment according to the standards and reading their products one would ask how this student got admittance to the school in the first place, but when one learns how they perform in their internship job as a management trainee in a 5-star hotel, there is nothing but excellence. No business organisation is more hectic than a big luxury hotel in a metropolis city where our trainees are working as part of their study. One needs people as managers, who can oversee a situation immediately, who are well able to anticipate how situations will look like and what resources and facilities they require, and take the right decisions on the spot. Who are also able to manage, no, to master themselves and keep feeling sure and confident, also when much spending guests are treating them rudely. These people are confident when a verbally thinking individual (like me) would almost die with a dry mouth of stress. On the other hand, they feel often very stressed when they have to hold a presentation before an audience, which takes place at the school quite often and until recently I was wondering how these stress-proof youngsters could be so nervous when they are required to perform a presentation. I don’t say that all these students are picture-thinkers, but I suspect that their number is over-presented in our school, and that picture-thinking is not an either-or characteristic, but follows more or less a gradual scale.

Turning back to the truth and how we humans are dealing with it. I believe we are able, other than animals, to “see” the truth, only we are not able to capture it in language-words or pictures. Next time, before analysing the phenomenon of hospitality, and what we understand by it in its deepest sense (as promised in our posting “the meaning of meaning I”), more about the Truth as it manifests itself in poetry, symbols and human interaction. It will appear that my meaning of meaning is supported by nobody less than Norbert Elias.