Ontology of meaning

Ivanov E.M. Ontology of meaning //Sociocphere, ¹1,2024, p. 47-52.


The ontology of meaning is a part of the «ontology of the subjective» - a philosophical doctrine about the ontological structure of human consciousness [1]. This discipline explores meaning not from the point of view of its informational, pragmatic and other content, but exclusively from the point of view of the form of its existence, i.e. forms of representation of meaning as an existential phenomenon in human consciousness. The main question of the ontology of meaning is: what do we actually experience when we discover the phenomenon of meaning in ourselves, what properties does this meaning present in us have and how does it function.
An ontological analysis of the phenomenon of meaning should begin with a statement of its extra-sensory nature. Meaning is not something sensually experienced; in particular, meaning is not identical to any set of sensory representations. This means that it is devoid of spatial and temporal properties, and devoid of quality. Nevertheless, it is clearly present as part of what is directly experienced - albeit in some special «supersensible form». Most often, meaning is associated with speech, signs, writing and talk about the meaning of words, sentences, texts. (Based on «logical theory of meaning» by G. Frege [5]). However, it is clear that meaning is inherent not only in verbal (or other) signs and their combinations. Any thing has meaning - perceived or imagined thing. Our sensory perception has intrinsic meaning. I see not just a collection of colored spots, but certain, meaningful objects - I see a table as a table (for me it has the meaning of a table), a tree - like a tree, etc.
At the same time, perceiving objects as sensory objects possessing certain sensory qualities, as well as spatial and temporal localization, I, at the same time, do not perceive meaning as something possessing any sensory content or sensory properties. It, as already mentioned, does not possess sensory qualities, spatiality and even temporal localization. The meaning of red is not red, the meaning of cold is not cold, etc. The meaning of the word is not to the left or right of me. It is not «localized» in the very sound of the word. The meaning of any object, obviously, does not coincide with this object itself, but is, as it were, «attached» to it from the outside. Meaning, of course, arises when the object being comprehended is correlated with some knowledge about this object. The more I know about a subject, the richer and more specific its meaning is. The difficulty, however, is to understand how this or that specific knowledge relates to the subject of comprehension. Here we find a paradox. On the one hand, comprehension undoubtedly presupposes knowledge about the subject and the correlation of the subject with this knowledge. On the other hand, introspection shows us that there is no obvious correlation between knowledge and an object in our consciousness. In order to understand, for example, that there is a dog in front of me, I do not need to explicitly «look through» in my mind everything that I know about dogs (or at least «look through» some part of this knowledge). I grasp the meaning of a word or object directly and directly, without resorting to any images, ideas, words, etc. (A. Schopenhauer drew attention to this circumstance).
Another paradox is that the involvement of any specific unit of knowledge and its correlation with a meaningful object in itself is not capable of generating meaning - even if this correlation were carried out explicitly. After all, these units of knowledge (no matter in what form they are present in consciousness) must also have meaning and, therefore, also require correlation with other units of knowledge. If, for example, I explain the concept of «dog» with the help of the concept of «mammal», then I must also explain what a mammal is, which, in turn, entails the need to clarify the terms «milk», «animal», «cub» etc. So we get a regression to infinity: the comprehended object must be correlated with the context, which also requires correlation with the context, etc. ad infinitum. We get an endless series of contexts built into each other, and it is not possible to break this series without destroying the meaning. All this means that comprehension can only be achieved through correlating an object with a certain holistic system of knowledge about the world (what can be called a «holistic picture of the world»), in which each element is in active connection with all other elements. That is, the meaning is not divided into any «pieces» or «fragments». It can only exist as an integral «semantic field» in which each element is defined through its correlation with all other elements. (From here the mysterious aphorism of Proclus becomes clear: «Every mind thinks everything at once» [3]. In order to explicitly think about one thing, you need to implicitly think about everything else – about context, outside of which the intelligible object loses all semantic definiteness).
Grasping the meaning of an object, I, therefore, correlate this object with a certain holistic system of knowledge, with an integral picture of the world, which exists in the form of a single «semantic field». How do I do this if self-observation does not even record in the act of comprehension the correlation of an object with individual fragments of this «picture of the world»? Such a correlation should exist, but it does not take place explicitly. The only thing that remains for us is to admit that such a correlation is carried out «implicitly», in some kind of «hidden» form. One should not think that «hidden» here means «located outside of my Self», for example, somewhere «in the subconscious», i.e., that «hidden» means «not experienced». If the correlation of an object with my experience occurred «outside the Self», then this would mean that the meaning is not phenomenally given to me and is not experienced by me. In this case, it only seems to me that I understand something. In fact, understanding is carried out by a certain «mechanism» that is entirely outside the boundaries of the «Self». My consciousness, in this case, is thought of as a stream of sensory experiences, and the meaning of these experiences is entirely beyond the boundaries of this stream. This clearly contradicts the self-observation data. It clearly shows that it is I (and not some «mechanism in my brain”) who understands that the meaning «lives» in my consciousness in some special «supersensible» way. If «hiddenness» does not mean a certain «beyondness of the Self», then this can only mean a special form of representation of meaning in consciousness, which can be designated by the term «potentiality». Indeed, «potentiality», as Aristotle understood it, is something intermediate between being and non-being (presence and absence). This is not complete non-existence, but it is not a full-fledged («real», actual) existence. We are forced to attribute the same «incomplete», «invalid» being to meaning.
If we define sensory being as «actual» being, then that integral picture of the world, which is attached to sensory data and makes them meaningful, is something «potential» (since at the moment the components of this «picture» not given sensually). However, any of its elements can be experienced - as sensory representations or perceptual images, that is, they can be «actualized» and, from this point of view, are nothing more than «potential» representations and images. So, meaning is the potential content of my consciousness (compare S. Frank: «The kingdom of ideas ... is the kingdom of possibilities» [4]). This explains its lack of qualia, spacelessness and timelessness. Meaning is something that has not yet been determined; it has not yet acquired qualia, temporality and spatiality. The experience of meaning is, in this case, the experience («premonition») of the very possibility of correlating the object being comprehended with the integral picture of the world. This «picture» is by no means «stored» somewhere «in the recesses of memory». It is always present, always present in consciousness in full, but present «in potential form». This is like a kind of «potential background» for any of our current experiences.
It is clear that «in the potentiality» I can correlate an object with an unlimited set of «information units» at once, I can trace any semantic connections for an unlimited length (thus, the problem of «regression to infinity»  in the process of comprehension finds its solution). After all, this correlation is carried out neither in space nor in time. The process of comprehension does not break down into separate «acts» or separate operations. There is a single and holistic process of grasping meaning, which, although it takes a certain time, nevertheless does not have any obvious step-by-step temporal dynamics, no obvious formation. The potential nature of the correlation of the comprehended object with the «picture of the world» creates the effect of «volume» of our consciousness, allows knowledge to exist in the form of an integral system of relationships, and not in the form of discrete units replacing each other (as happens in a computer). But only in such an integral system of relations can knowledge really exist as something «living» and meaningful. So, we come to the conclusion that consciousness has a special «potential» component, which can be defined as a «semantic field». This is the basic layer of our consciousness - in the sense that any other (sensual) content - is the result of the actualization of potentions that were initially present in the semantic field. Actualization is the acquisition of «sensual form» (spatiality, temporality, quality). This status of sensibility is quite obvious in relation to the ideas of memory and imagination - here the image is born directly «from within», from my «Self» - as a product of the actualization of the semantic field. Meaning is the «inner» of my «Self». But sensory images, although they are born as a result of influence «from the outside», are also ultimately built «from the material of consciousness» and can also be considered as «actualized meanings».
Meanings, since they are devoid of spatiality, temporality and quality, are fundamentally non-eventful. Meaning is not something that answers the questions: What? Where? When? If sensory impressions and ideas form a «stream of consciousness», in which some sensory experiences replace others, then there is no «stream of meanings». Meaning, as already noted, can only exist as a single «semantic field» in which each information unit exists only due to its immanent correlation with all other information units. In the sphere of meaning, the principle «everything in everything» is fulfilled: each unit of knowledge (since it is meaningful) contains the entire system of interconnected meanings as a whole. This is possible, in part, because the sphere of meaning, as a potential being, is devoid of spatiality and temporality, which split being into parts (it is space and time that allow us to perceive sensations and images separately from each other).
In the sphere of meaning, time is present only as potentiality - as the possibility of temporal sequence, temporal ordering. Therefore, it is more correct to talk not about timelessness, but about the supertemporality (or «all-temporality» - L. Karsavin’s term [2]) of meaning. In the sphere of meaning, in the form of potency («in a timeless manner»), any possible past and future experiences of mine are contained. Thus, the modes of the past and the future are essentially given to me precisely as «ideas» of the past and the future. It is the supertemporality of meaning that unites my consciousness into a single transtemporal whole. Thanks to the supertemporality of meaning, I can reliably judge the identity of my own «Self» in time. After all, to establish this identity, it is necessary to somehow really correlate fragments of my life at different times - which is only possible if there is a real connection «through time» between these fragments. This correlation is carried out thanks to the super-temporality of meaning. The presence of supertemporal content of the «Self» is a necessary condition for the perception of our own «movement in time» (Kant also drew attention to this circumstance). This movement takes place in the sphere of sensuality, and only the supertemporality of the semantic component of our consciousness allows us to notice this movement. Meaning is a kind of super-temporal unity, which ultimately creates the unity of our «Self» as a whole. The spatiality and temporality of the sensory component of consciousness, of course, violate the monolithic unity of consciousness. However, even in the sensory sphere, a certain form of integrity is preserved: sensations and images separated in space and time, nevertheless, somehow correlate with each other, i.e., not only individual «sensory units» are experienced, but and their relationship to each other. This refers to what psychologists call the «gestalt properties» of sensual images.
Integrity exists not only within the sensory sphere and the sphere of meaning separately, but these two spheres are also in close relationship. As already noted, sensuality can be considered as an actualized part of the semantic field. Actualization, at the same time, does not take the experienced sensory content beyond the boundaries of the semantic field. Sensory experiences, therefore, are already initially integrated into the semantic «picture of the world» - they already initially have some very definite meaning. That is why every sensual experience is initially perceived as included in a certain semantic context. This context determines not only the «meaning of the image» (or the perceived situation), but also, to a large extent, determines the very content of what is perceived, building with the help of ideas, individual visible fragments into a whole object. The presence of a direct connection between sensibility and meaning allows us to understand what can be called the «dynamics of meaning». We emphasized the «super-temporary» nature of meaning. This, however, seems to be contradicted by the fact that meaning can be «absent» and then «appear», that meaning can change, be enriched, acquire new shades, etc. If the semantic field is outside the flow of time, outside of becoming, then it shouldn't change. In this case, only the relationship between the integral semantic field and actually experienced sensory phenomena changes. The experience of meaning is the experience of possibilities inherent in actual sensory images and ideas. These possibilities may differ in the degree of their readiness for actualization: if I now see a table, then such semantic concepts as «furniture», «wood», «brown color», etc. are more ready, and not, say, «animal» or «aircraft manufacturing». A change in the content of the perceptual field leads to a redistribution of the readiness of various semantic units for actualization, and this redistribution creates what we perceive as the «dynamics of meaning» or as a «change of different semantic states».
It should be remembered that at each moment of time the semantic field is present in consciousness in its entirety (and not in separate fragments). But at each moment of time it as a whole is in a specific relationship with the sphere of sensory experiences. Moreover, this relationship depends not only on the current state of perception, but also on some other, extra-sensory «internal» factors - which frees our thinking (which, in essence, is the dynamics of meaning) from slavish dependence on sensuality. Until now, we have considered the semantic field as a certain ontological form in which our cumulative knowledge about the world around us and about ourselves exists, i.e. this is what we call the «picture of the world». This «picture of the world» is, however, only a small part of what I am really capable of thinking or imagining. It should be recognized that the semantic field contains not only a «picture of the world», but contains much more - absolutely all possible experiences and, therefore, in addition to the picture of the «real world», it also contains all possible (imaginable) «pictures of the world» (we denote this set by the term «Semantic Universe»). All these «possible worlds»  should be considered as special «virtual» components of a single «semantic field». Indeed, it is through the relationship to the Semantic Universe that the full meaning of any object is determined. After all, the meaning of an object is its «place» in the system of the universe, that is, its integral relationship to all possible and actual objects - to everything that can be thought of. Such an «ultimate» meaning no longer depends on specific personal experience and, therefore, is an «objective» meaning. That is, this is the meaning inherent in the thing itself. Subjective meaning cannot be anything other than a certain «selection» from this «objective» meaning, that is, it is a more or less complete reflection of the «objective» meaning in the consciousness of the empirical subject.
The semantic field, as «the totality of all possible worlds», as the Semantic Universe, is the basic structure on the basis of which the empirical personality is formed. However, since the Semantic Universe, as a fundamental component of the «Self», cannot «hide» from itself anywhere, it must be fully present as a kind of constant «background» in every current state of consciousness. In other words, through the empirical «Self» the Absolute «Self» should «shine through». Through a specific, integral «picture of the world» - the complete set of «possible worlds» (the continuum of possible experiences) should be visible. Empirically, this is manifested in the fact that our understanding of the world around us is never determined entirely by our past experience, the totality of specific knowledge about the world. In any act of comprehension there is an immanent element of imagination, some, at least minimal, «departure from reality». I comprehend an object not only in the mode of «what it specifically is», but also in the mode of «what it could be», in what relationships it could be, in addition to those relationships that we know from experience. It is this element of «hypotheticalness» that allows us to perceive meaningfully even those objects about which we know nothing from experience. These objects still have some meaning for us - which arises here by correlating them with various «possible» (hypothetical) contexts. We can always guess what a given thing is, what possible relationships it might have with other things, how it might be used, etc.
If I initially contain a Semantic Universe («the totality of all possible worlds»), then this means that the formation of my empirical personality is carried out not only through the gradual expansion and enrichment of its content, but, on the contrary, is carried out for the most part through the consistent imposition of restrictions to the original «semantic field» - which coincides in content with the Semantic Universe. This Universe directly manifests itself in imagination, fantasy, self-awareness, and the ability to see the world in a system of alternatives. Personal development follows the path of limiting fantasy, through a clear distinction between «real» and «possible», «real» and «imaginary».  This is actually what happens: we know that fantasy is especially developed in children, and with age, the ability to imagine, as a rule, decreases. «Realism» increasingly subjugates fantasy and suppresses it. On the contrary, the degradation of the empirical personality (as a consequence of mental illness, trauma) usually leads to a loss of selectivity of the psyche, a loss of a sense of reality, and an inability to distinguish the real state of affairs from one’s own fantasies. Thus, schizophrenic personality degradation is associated with a violation of the hierarchical relationships between the elements that make up the empirical personality. As a result, the patient ceases to distinguish reality from his own fantasies. All this suggests that the development of personality and its normal functioning are associated with certain restrictions on its degrees of freedom, the establishment of hierarchical relationships between elements of knowledge (distinction between the real and the imaginary, the desired and the rejected, etc.).
At the same time, the presence in us of a Semantic Universe (Universe of possible experiences) does not automatically guarantee reflexive access to these «possible» layers of our psyche. Therefore, along with the processes of «imposing restrictions» on the «world of the possible» - which occur mainly at the pre-reflective level, there is also a reverse process of gradually transferring the «potential» content of our personality into an «explicit» content. This is the process of gradual expansion and enrichment of our conscious ideas about the world and about ourselves. This expansion of the personality occurs as the means of reflection develop (primarily the conceptual apparatus) and is stimulated by sensory experience, social interaction, etc. It is this consistent process of self-disclosure of our «Self» that gives  the «expansion» of our personality, enriching it with new contents in the process of individual development.

REFERENCES


1. Ivanov E. M. Ontology of the subjectivity.  [b.m.]: Publishing Solutions, 2016. 360 p.
2. Karsavin L.P. Philosophy of history. M.: Guardian, 2007. P 50-51.
3. Proclus. Fundamentals of Theology, M., 1993.
4. Frank S.L. Incomprehensible // Works. M., 1990. P. 272.
5. Frege G. Meaning and denotation // Semantics and Informatics. Issue 8 M., 1977.