On Communication and Definitions

In the comments of the post called, "Philosophy of Religion" and "Theology": What's the Difference?, r.j.marvin and I have been having an interesting conversation on communication. A concern was expressed: when individuals engage in dialogue, can they rationally discuss topics where the definitions of major points of contention are unclear? For example, assume that an atheist, a Calvinist, and a Muslim were engaged in a dialogue about God. The atheist remarks that the idea of God is internally contradictory, due to the nature of omnipotence and omni-benevolence. The Calvinist remarks that God has mysteries that cannot be explained, such as the nature of the trinity, but is not internally contradictory. The Muslim remarks that the idea of God is not internally contradictory and, while mysterious, has no apparent contradictions. It seems like all three of these discussants have different definitions of God. Can they, thus, rationally discuss the topic?

First, I will argue why they can. Second, I will defend against reasons why they allegedly could not by addressing the initial quandary.

If it were true that individuals can maintain distinct definitions of words without the possibility of harmonization, definitions would be meaningless and devoid of substance, because they would not have any references. Imagine if I defined "Quarorglewoggle" as "Gltheltic-giborglewoggle". If you asked me to define "Gltheltic-jiborglejiggle", I would continue using nonsense words with no real-world references, and would eventually come back to "Quarorglewoggle". We would thus not be able to have any legitimate knowledge of what is being communicated. In other words, if the skeptical concern is legitimate, we would not have legitimate understanding of the references of others' words. Since we do have legitimate understanding of the references of others' words (given that you are reading this), it is not the case that the skeptical concern is true (and, thus, the skeptical concern is false), at least about some words.

"Some words", however, is very different from "all words" (there's a puzzle for you). Could there exist a word that, through the method I outlined above, can be circularly defined in nonsensical terms? Yes-- consider "quarorglewoggle". Here's my question: we have the word "quarorglewoggle". Is there actually a reference of the word? In other words, we can imagine "quarorglewoggle" (the word); can the speaker imagine quarorglewoggle (the reference of the word)? If not, they are either deceiving their fellow discussant (but we're assuming that they're acting in good faith, so this isn't an issue), or there is actually something that the word refers to. There exist many properties that, as we have already established, are not nonsensical (in that they can be meaningfully defined). Each of these properties either do or do not relate to the definition of the word. For example, if I defined the "best flavor of icecream" as "that particular taste of ice cream that is most pleasing to the taster", the property of being "Cherry-Vanilla" does not relate to the definition of the word-- merely the instantiation (the carrying-out) of the definition.

Back to our initial quandary. If a Calvinist claims that the definition of God, via the Trinity, is mysterious but not contradictory, we should tell him/her that they are mistaken. The Trinity is no more a part of the definition of God than Cherry-Vanilla is part of the definition of the best flavor of ice-cream; it's part of the instantiation. The Muslim's claim is coherent. The Atheist's claim, that the definition of God entails a contradiction (omni-benevolence and omnipotence) sets us up for a great topic that could be discussed, but makes the same mistake as a Calvinist. The Greek gods were certainly not omnibenevolent, nor were they omnipotent, and yet they are still referred to as gods. The Atheist concern is with a specific instantiation of the definition of God, not with the definition of God itself.

In conclusion, we must be careful when we distinguish between definitions and instantiations of definitions. There are no true contradictions in reality (assertion on my part, feel free to challenge it), and thus no definition will be contradictory. Instantiations of definitions, however, may be. The definition of "contradiction" is not contradictory, but all instantiations of "contradictions" are, necessarily, contradictory.

Make sense? Share your thoughts, comments, and arguments below. I look forward to your feedback!

The Log Lady

On a less scholarly note, my favorite television show is Lynch's and Frost's masterpiece, Twin Peaks. There's all sorts of really interesting issues raised in the show, and one enigmatic character-- the "Log Lady"-- has some particularly interesting things to say. Consider, as she notes in Episode 10 (of season 2), "Coma":

"Letters are symbols. They are building blocks of words which form our languages. Languages help us communicate. Even with complicated languages used by intelligent people, misunderstanding is a common occurrence."

"We write things down sometimes - letters, words - hoping they will serve us and those with whom we wish to communicate. Letters and words, calling out for understanding."

She continues exploring this topic in Episode 11, "The Man Behind Glass": "Miscommunication sometimes leads to arguments, and arguments sometimes lead to fights. Anger is usually present in arguments and fights. Anger is an emotion, usually classified as a negative emotion. Negative emotions can cause severe problems in our environment and to the health of our body.

"Happiness, usually classified as a positive emotion, can bring good health to our body, and spread positive vibrations into our environment. Sometimes when we are ill, we are not on our best behavior. By ill, I mean any of the following: physically ill, emotionally ill, mentally ill, and/or spiritually ill."

So, let's consider her argument. I'll enclose her arguments in [brackets] rather than "quotes" because I'll paraphrase some. [Letters are symbols which are the building blocks of words]. So far so good. All words are built from letters (although not necessarily exclusively from letters). What is interesting, she notes, is that [letters are symbols]-- and we all know what the symbols signify; I have not met another English speaker who could express a different idea of the letter "a" from my own. Words are composed of letters (and other characters, but which serve similar functions as symbols). However, even though words are composed purely of universally (in the context of a language) accepted characters, miscommunication occurs; this implies that either individuals really disagree on what letters are references of, or that a word is greater than the sum of its characters.

We explicitly use [letters and words to call out for understanding], and this is their explicit purpose. However, [miscommunication is a common occurrence]. Now, she says, consider: sometimes, [miscommunication leads to arguments] (which seems reasonable to me), and [arguments sometimes lead to fights] (which also seems coherent). Additionally, [in both arguments and fights, anger-- which is usually classified as a negative emotion-- is usually present]. By "negative emotion", the "Log Lady" refers to [that which can cause severe problems in our environment and to the health of our body]. This can be understood as that which is not a "positive emotion", an emotion that [can bring good health to our body, and spread positive vibrations into our environment].

So, then, letters are symbols which, when used in words to communicate, usually (being "a common occurrence") end in miscommunication. Miscommunication tends to end in negative emotions, which [can cause severe problems in our environment and to the health of our body]. There is a definite implication here that letters themselves can actually cause negative emotions. What does she suggest as a resolution,

In Episode 15, "Lonely Souls", she argues, "Balance is the key. Balance is the key to many things. Do we understand balance? The word 'balance' has seven letters. Seven is difficult to balance, but not impossible if we are able to divide. There are, of course, the pros and cons of division."

So, then, it would seem that one can overcome the problems of miscommunication through "balance", but there is the epistemological problem of whether one actually understands it, because such an understanding requires division of the primordial references of experience. If one is willing to take a primordial element-- whether a letter in a word or an experience in a memory-- and cut it apart in order to study it, there are problems. She explores this too, in Episode 22, "Double Play": "A death mask is almost an intrusion on a beautiful memory. And yet, who could throw away the casting of a loved one? Who would not want to study it longingly, as the distant freight train blows its mournful tone?" On the one hand, if one one does not seek balance in communication, one risks miscommunication, which can yield negative emotions with detrimental effects. However, if one seeks balance, one finds situations where balancing requires division, and one must decide whether analytical study-- whether of a word such as "balance" or an experience such as the loss of a loved one-- will merit the end result.

The conclusion? As stated in the final episode, Episode 29, "Beyond Life and Death", one finds at the end of this puzzle "...an ending. Where there was once one, there are now two. Or were there always two? What is a reflection? A chance to see two? When there are chances for reflections, there can always be two - or more. Only when we are everywhere will there be just one."

When one takes a word, an experience, or a television show, one can either approach it holistically and take the chance of miscommunication, or divide that which is not naturally divided. Such a division means that, [where there was once one, there are now two]. However, [where there are chances for reflections, there exist chances for division], and one can only avoid such a division if one's approach is completely consistent in its indivisibility can one avoid absolute division. In essence: either approach a situation holistically, or be prepared to encounter a situation where "There is as much space outside the human, proportionately, as inside" (The Log Lady, Episode 9, "Arbitrary Law").

Sorry, quite a bit of talking there. Whether there is anything of significance-- or even philosophical consideration-- is certainly up for debate. I think there's some really interesting issues raised, though. And you should certainly watch Twin Peaks when you have the chance. Unfortunately, the Pilot Episode is only available on the newest version, the "Definitive Gold Box Edition", due to a licensing issue they had, but I can assure you that it's worth picking up, renting, or finding online if you have the chance.

An Attempt at Defining "Art"

Greetings,

On Monday, Philosophia Religioque met and discussed the philosophy of music. One relevant topic that came up was the definition of "art", and what demarcates it from other content. While I am not yet 100% convinced that my definition is necessarily right, I proposed that "art", properly understood, is intentional indirect communication. I'll start by explaining what is meant by those terms, and then get into some of the issues that can be derived from this definition.

At its core level, art is a kind of communication; in fact, I would consider art to fall under the genus of communication. Merriam Webster states that communication is "an act or instance of transmitting". If a painting could only communicate through its visual imagery, and there existed an invisible painting (which I do believe can be understood in concept, even if it's unlikely that one will ever exist), that painting would not be art, because it would be incapable of communication. However, I believe that many things in life qualify as "communications"; thus, this is a broad element, on which I will not say too much more at the moment.

If art is a kind of communication, what kind it? Well, I argue that art is necessarily intentional communication. What is intentional is the communication itself. Say, for example, that I look at the computer monitor in front of me and note its subtly sloping angles, well-rounded curves, and bi-colored palette. While it is true that the monitor might communicate to me a poignant message about the nature of the human condition/experience, such a communication would not have been the intention of the monitor manufacturer, and thus that communication would have been insufficient for the monitor to be considered "art" (although I am not necessarily excluding the possibility of other communications, of course). Even bad art-- whether angsty teenage poetry or annoying pop songs-- serves as intentional communication.

However, while a communication must be intentional to be art, intention is insufficient. For example, if I tell you in a monotone voice, "go outside", that is an intentional communication, and yet is not art (I would argue, and would believe to be non-controversial). This is because that which is communicated through art is necessarily indirect; while direct communication can exist in art, that which transforms an intentional communication into art is its indirectness. In film, for example, certain movies are clearly direct intentional communication, and are thus not understood to be art, while certain movies are very intentional communications-- and yet the communication is entirely indirect, such as in Maya Deren's Meshes of the Afternoon (which you really should watch). As this example hopefully illustrates, direct communication is necessarily not art, whereas indirect communication can be art if it is intentional.

Some interesting things result from this. First, a painting itself would not be art; rather, the communication-- the experience, perhaps, or maybe the performance-- would be the art. This would be in coherence with my understanding of nominalist theory. Additionally, I think that early cave paintings would not be considered art, unless they were doing more than sheer direct illustration. Lastly, good analytic philosophy would necessarily not be art (if I understand correctly), because I think that it attempts to be as direct as possible, whereas continental philosophy-- such as the works of Kierkegaard and Nietzsche-- has the potential for actually being art and philosophy at the same time, as some of their philosophical contributions are intentional, yet indirect.