Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 07:39:02 -0700
From: Mike Staples <mstaples-AT-argusqa.com>
Subject: Meaning


Reading David's question about correspondence and truth, I got to
thinking about meaning in the same way. We know about truth as
correspondence versus Heidegger's version of truth, but I was thinking
that meaning has a similar structure at one level. When we say "What is
the meaning of X" there is in some circles a division between the
literal and the symbolic which I understand as untenable in Heidegger's
presentation (had my hand slapped here before). What strikes me is that
Heidegger's meaning is a pointing-to with no termination in the sense of
"this is it". Meaning here follows the path of showing (Michael E.), but
moves within an interpretive structure of interconnections as, perhaps,
a verb in contrast to a noun. Meaning as correspondence would be similar
in structure to truth as correspondence. Seems reasonable, then, that
the alternative would (as with truth) be meaning as unconcealment
(perhaps because meaning, significance and truth are so strongly related
to one another).

any thoughts?

Michael S.





     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---