from Study Session 1 on “Experiential Processes and the Creation of Meaning RELEVANCE(v1)
- However, there are cases where symbols that are not symbolic of that “one felt meaning” promote understanding - In some cases, symbols that do not symbolize “one felt meaning” facilitate understanding (v1)
- Relevance is “that kind of related felt meaning whereby the symbolization is thereby made intelligible.”
-
relevant felt meanings, from out of which symbolization is understandable
This “understanding” uses UNDERSTAND, which is different from the COMPREHENSION translation “understanding”
-
- Here’s what they say in everyday conversation
-
To understand, we need “past experience”.
-
” context” must be understood
-
-
A set of symbols comes to be understood with the help of many other experienced meanings, not just the one felt meaning they represent (p. 158).
- Example: “A beginner learns a saying; after more than 20 years of experience, he understands the meaning of the saying in a different and more complete way, but when he tries to teach it to his student, he cannot find a better expression (=symbolization) for its meaning than the first word he learned 20 years ago.”
- When I first saw the definition of a certain mathematical concept, I didn’t know what it meant.
- I read various examples and explanations and think, “I see what you mean.
- I took another look at the definition, thinking, “Why didn’t you just write that?” and that’s exactly what it said.
- RELEVANCE is a type of symbolization
- Two Perspectives
- It is possible to say that METAPHOR/COMPREHENSION is also a RELEVANCE, just as it is possible to say
- But instead of doing so, Eugene Gendlin argues, it is better to see it as two perspectives (p. 159).
This page is auto-translated from /nishio/RELEVANCE(v1) using DeepL. If you looks something interesting but the auto-translated English is not good enough to understand it, feel free to let me know at @nishio_en. I’m very happy to spread my thought to non-Japanese readers.