"the meaning of a particular thing is enabled by the web of implicit meanings we call the world"
In saying this, Heidegger and Weinberger are saying that without implicit meanings, all the world is just definitions. Specific objects can mean different things to different people based off of their experiences with the object. For example, when I see my dog I don't think 'a domesticated candid, Canis familiaris, bred in many varieties.' And chances are, no one else thinks that. They think about their own dog, or experience with a similar breed. The same goes for nearly every object surrounding us. We apply our own knowledge to an object or idea to give it a meaning, we rarely look up the dictionary (explicit) meaning. I think Weinberger sums the point up really well later in the page after the aforementioned quote when he says "That implicit web of relationships gives the things of our world their meaning."
This is relevant to the third order of order because when we order things now, we can add several tags to things - including implicit definitions. We're giving things more than one definition. We're able to define things in more than one way. We can define things based off of images, articles, videos, dictionary definitions, blogs, etc. There are so many different methods of defining things that we are able to gain an even greater understanding of the world around us.
The song I chose is Three Little Birds by Bob Marley. This song is important to me because I listened to it as a child so it brings me joy to think about my childhood. I also listen to it a lot in the summer when it's sunny out and it brings me happiness year round. It's also very inspiring to me so I like to listen to it when I am doing art or when I want to chill out and relax. My friends and I also listen to it so I have a lot of fond memories of times we've had. A computer could know it is important to me through adding tags like "summertime classic", "childhood" and "inspiring." It would then categorize this song into those tags so when I want to listen to songs from my childhood, this song would come up with other songs I deem memorable from my childhood.
It all comes back to the implicit meaning being important to the third order of order - by adding tags, we're organizing it in the third order of order as well as making the implicit meaning explicit so as to be understood by machines and other people.
I like how you used pictures as well as words to describe your association with your favorite song. I think that is a closer relation to the human brain because when it think of what my song means to me i come up with images rather than words. The implicit meaning must be understood to express it explicitly, you hit the nail on the head.
ReplyDeleteOddly enough I look up words in the dictionary all the time, I think because I rely so heavily on implicit meaning. Whenever I am asked to define a word for someone or if I’m using an unusual word in a paper or post, I find myself unable to give an explicit meaning for the word. I have an idea or an emotional connotation for the word but I always want to make sure that my implicit meaning matches up with the actual definition. Though I suppose that for the most part implicit meaning is not only sufficient but is better/more efficient than explicit meaning. We don’t need to run through “Canis familiaris” etc., because our minds can provide us with the implicit meaning of dog-ness without all the hassle.
ReplyDeleteThat’s a great song by the way; I‘d heard it before but I didn’t know the title. Your pictures are really cute too.
"without implicit meanings, all the world is just definitions."
ReplyDeleteNice. More succinctly than I put it.
I think part of the problem with telling the class what the computer would have to know to understand why you like each song is that it's too individual and never clearly defined until you go looking for answers. It's hard enough to explain to another person why the songs you like are good while you might not like other songs in the same genre, mood, instrumentation, etc. Even harder to explain in explicit terms to a computer.
I liked your example of the dog. I actually read your post before I began mine, and it helped a lot.
ReplyDeleteI liked your illustration as well.
first of all...LOVED your song choice.. I almost picked that one. Second I liked your take on the quote we were given to explain. I don't look at my dog and think of all his definitions or his scientific name either.. I just think about how cute and funny he is:)
ReplyDeleteYou say, "For example, when I see my dog I don't think 'a domesticated candid, Canis familiaris, bred in many varieties.'" Yes, but this makes me think about rhetorical contexts. If you were a scientist talking to other scientists about a study of dogs, then your dog would perhaps be this to you. But in your specific context, with your specific purposes, your dog is something very different. If you were searching for information about dogs, again, the terms you might turn to could switch.
ReplyDeleteAnyhow, good post and nice example. Just something to think about.