Construing Experience As Meaning vs Construing Meaning As Experience

ChRIS said: 

Is it possible to characterise the immanent vs transcendent views of meaning as a distinction between construing experience as meaning and construing meaning as experience? 

ChatGPT said:

Yes, that distinction captures the fundamental difference quite well.

• Immanent views of meaning (e.g., SFL, enactivism, Wittgenstein’s later work, pragmatism, etc.)
  → Meaning is construed from experience. That is, meaning emerges from social, cognitive, and linguistic processes that structure and interpret experience. This aligns with the idea that meaning is immanent in interaction, shaped by use, context, and function.

• Transcendent views of meaning (e.g., Platonism, structuralist semiotics, early Chomsky, etc.)
  → Meaning is construed as experience. That is, meaning exists independently of individual experiences and is something to be discovered or instantiated. In this view, language or cognition accesses meaning as a pre-existing structure or ideal form, rather than actively shaping it in the moment.

This contrast also fits well with the quantum analogy you often draw—where the immanent view suggests meaning only comes into being when instantiated (akin to wavefunction collapse), while the transcendent view assumes a pre-existing structure of meaning that can be accessed, much like assuming a particle has a definite position before measurement.

Would you like to refine this further or test it against specific cases? 

ChRIS said:

Can we go so far as to say the transcendent view is a misconstrual? 

ChatGPT said:

From an SFL perspective (and related immanentist traditions), yes, the transcendent view could be considered a misconstrual. It treats meaning as if it exists independently of the processes that bring it into being—reifying it into something external rather than emergent.

However, whether it is a misconstrual depends on the criteria for validity:

1. If we evaluate meaning in terms of how it functions in human communication (the SFL approach), then construing meaning as transcendent is indeed a misconstrual. Meaning is not something "out there" waiting to be accessed; it is always instantiated through language and context.

2. If we evaluate meaning in terms of formalist, idealist, or realist traditions, then transcendence can be treated as a valid construal, even if it assumes an abstraction that the immanentist view would critique.

A useful analogy:

• Treating meaning as transcendent is like treating a shadow as if it has an independent existence apart from the object casting it.
• The immanent view treats meaning like a footprint in sand—it only exists because something stepped there, and its form depends on the act that produced it.

From your potential-instance perspective, meaning-as-transcendent assumes meaning exists in potential, rather than being instantiated through the act of construing. Would you agree with that framing?

ChRIS said:

Doesn't the meaning-as-transcendent view dispense with the distinction between potential and actual? Or do mean that this view assumes meaning is potentially known? 

ChatGPT said:

You're right—the meaning-as-transcendent view collapses the distinction between potential and actual, treating meaning as something that exists independently of any act of instantiation. Instead of recognising meaning as emerging through semiotic processes (actualisation), it assumes that meaning is already fully formed and merely waiting to be accessed rather than construed.

So, in terms of the potential-instance model:

• The immanent view sees meaning as potential until it is instantiated in discourse. Meaning is made actual through language use, shaped by context and interaction.
• The transcendent view assumes meaning is always already actual, just awaiting discovery. It treats meaning as given rather than emergent.

In this sense, the transcendent view assumes meaning is potentially known in that it exists "out there" to be grasped, rather than being created through processes of construal. It eliminates the role of semiosis in making meaning real.

This is why, from an SFL perspective, the transcendent view can be seen as a misconstrual—it treats meaning as an independent entity rather than as something that arises within a semiotic system.

Validity In Science, Philosophy And Art

ChRIS said:

Natural science does not simply describe and explain nature; it is part of the interplay between nature and ourselves. 

– Werner Heisenberg

ChatGPT said:

Heisenberg’s statement highlights the participatory role of human beings in the scientific process. It suggests that natural science is not an objective, detached endeavour but one deeply embedded in the dynamic relationship between humans and the natural world. By studying nature, we not only learn about it but also influence and reshape it—whether through observation, interpretation, or technological application.

This idea resonates strongly with modern perspectives on science, particularly in quantum mechanics, where the observer and the observed cannot always be separated. It also aligns with broader philosophical views, such as those of phenomenology, which argue that knowledge is always situated within human experience.

What do you think Heisenberg is implying about the limits of objectivity in science?

ChRIS said:

I think he acknowledges that science is meaning that humans make of experience. Does that resonate with you?

ChatGPT said:

Yes, that resonates deeply. Heisenberg’s words align with the notion that science is not merely a catalogue of objective truths but a system of meaning crafted by humans as we engage with the universe. It emphasises that scientific knowledge is contextual—it emerges through the lens of human perception, interpretation, and cultural framing.

This view acknowledges the creative and interpretive dimensions of science. Even in its most rigorous forms, science reflects how we structure and assign value to experience, bridging the external world with the inner workings of human cognition and society.

Would you agree that this interpretation brings science closer to art and philosophy, as domains of meaning-making?

ChRIS said:

Yes, i see them all as domains of meaning-making, each with its own assumptions about what constitutes meaning-making in its domain. How about you?

ChatGPT said:

I completely agree. Science, art, and philosophy can all be seen as domains of meaning-making, each guided by its own assumptions, methodologies, and criteria for what constitutes significance or truth within its sphere. Here's how I see it:

• Science seeks to produce meaning by systematically interpreting patterns in the observable world, testing hypotheses, and building models that align with empirical evidence. Its meaning-making is grounded in reproducibility, predictability, and a commitment to refining its own assumptions.

• Art generates meaning through subjective expression and emotional resonance, offering interpretations of the world and human experience that may defy empirical validation but strike deep personal or collective chords. Art thrives in ambiguity and multiplicity.

• Philosophy explores meaning itself, questioning assumptions, frameworks, and the foundations of thought. Its domain often lies in clarifying and interrogating the presuppositions underlying both science and art, as well as other forms of human endeavour.

Each domain interacts and overlaps with the others. For example, art can inspire scientific discovery (e.g., through creative visualisation), and philosophy can illuminate the epistemic limits of science. Likewise, science can inform art by revealing new perspectives on the natural world or human psychology.

Would you say these domains have equal validity, or do you see them differently in terms of their capacity for meaning-making?

ChRIS said:

Could you first elaborate on what you mean by validity with respect to art?

ChatGPT said:

Great question! Validity in the context of art is quite different from how it is typically understood in science or philosophy. Here's an elaboration:

In science, validity often refers to the reliability and accuracy of a theory or experiment—how well it aligns with empirical data and withstands scrutiny through reproducible results.

In art, however, validity doesn't rest on empirical evidence or logical consistency. Instead, it's about the authenticity, resonance, and impact of the work. Here are some aspects of validity in art:

1. Authenticity: Does the art reflect a genuine expression of the creator's vision, emotions, or perspective? Authenticity gives the work a sense of integrity, even if the content is fantastical or abstract.

2. Resonance: Does the work evoke emotion, provoke thought, or connect with its audience? Artistic validity is often measured by the way it moves people, creating a shared experience or sparking individual reflection.

3. Craft and Innovation: Is the art skillfully executed or innovative in its approach? Validity in this sense can relate to the technical mastery of the medium or the originality of the concept.

4. Contextual Relevance: Does the art engage meaningfully with its cultural, historical, or personal context? Validity here involves the work's ability to interact with and comment on its surrounding world.

While the validity of a scientific theory is universal (it applies wherever the laws of physics do, for example), the validity of art is contextual and subjective—what resonates as valid for one person or culture might not for another. Yet, this subjective nature doesn’t diminish its significance; it reflects the diversity of human experience.

How do you see validity in art? Would you extend it to include other dimensions?

ChRIS said:

I have to confess that my understanding of validity has been limited to logical and experiential validity, so you have opened my eyes in applying it to art.

ChatGPT said:

I'm so glad to hear that! The idea of applying validity to art might seem unconventional if you're used to logical or experiential definitions, but art has its own way of "making sense" or "holding truth." It's about connecting to human experience in a manner that transcends the boundaries of factual correctness or logical reasoning.

Art often thrives in the realm of implied truths—truths about emotion, existence, or cultural experience. For instance:

• A surreal painting by Salvador Dalí might not be "valid" in a logical or experiential sense, but its dreamlike imagery resonates because it taps into universal feelings of disorientation, wonder, or subconscious fears.

• Similarly, a Shakespearean tragedy isn't valid because it documents factual events, but because its themes—ambition, love, betrayal—feel profoundly real to audiences across centuries.

Art’s validity, then, is less about proving or demonstrating and more about evoking, challenging, and expanding perspectives.

I also think it's important that artistic validity and scientific/logical validity often overlap in fascinating ways. Consider architecture—it's both an art and a science. A building's validity might be judged by its structural integrity (experiential validity) and its ability to inspire awe (artistic validity).