Study Session 2 on "Experiential Processes and the Creation of Meaning

Study group to read “Experiential Processes and the Creation of Meaning”.

• 2022-02-04
• In the last Study Session 1 on “Experiential Processes and the Creation of Meaning” we did up to Chapter 3.
• This time we’ll do chapter four.

Objective.

• Need to put into words the “mumbo-jumbo that hasn’t been put into words yet.”
  • Necessary for personal intellectual production
    • It’s necessary to put thoughts into words in order to improve our thinking and to make it more practical.
  • Necessary for teamwork.
    • It’s hard to communicate to other team members if you don’t put it into words.
• We were only vaguely aware of this “put your mumbo jumbo into words” thing.
  • Eugene T. Gendlin wrote “Experiential Processes and the Creation of Meaning,” an in-depth look at the relationship between mumbo-jumbo and language.
• By reading “Experiential Processes and the Creation of Meaning,” we gain a vocabulary and perspective on “putting mumbo-jumbo into words” that allows us to think with greater resolution.

Previous Review

• Important words
  • felt sense: felt meaning, experienced meaning; a blur. Some people call it felt sense.
  • symbol: A word. Strictly speaking, it includes things that are not words (see previous article), but we won’t talk about that this time.
• Chapter 3, “The Workings of Felt Meaning.”
  • The “felt meaning” and the “symbols” work together (interact) in seven different ways.
  • The first three are parallel relationships
  • Diagram of correspondence between symbols and meanings. - Three parallel relationships 　 Direct matching is the relationship between meaning and semantics.
    • I’m trying to call everything in English because calling it in Japanese causes confusion with the general terminology, but often I just say DIRECT REFERENCE and often I say direct collation.
  • Specific examples “Oh, I was going to say something, but what was it?”, “A?”, “No, no”, “B! (“What I was going to say” is “B”)”
    • 
    • The string “what I was going to say” is S0
    • A poorly articulated blur is pointed to by the symbol S0
  • The latter four are non-parallel relationships
  • - Creative Functional Relationship Summary

Chapter 4: Characteristics of Experienced Meaning as Functioning in New Symbolization

• Chapter 3 explained how “felt meaning” works
• Chapter 4 explains what features of “felt meaning” are at work in the “process of creating new symbols”
  • In other words, when you verbalize moyamoya, what features of moyamoya are influencing your verbalization?
• Divided into A and B. B is by far the longest.
  • A: Experienced Meaning Is Not Determined by Logical Relationship, But Does Not Function Arbitrarily
    • The “felt meaning” is not determined by logical relationships.
    • Nor does “felt meaning” work arbitrarily.
  • B: Characteristics of Experienced Meaning as Functioning in New Symbolization
  • B headings are the same as chapter headings

4A: “Felt meaning” is not determined by logical relationships

• The question about LOGICAL DETERMINATION was left open and unanswered with respect to the four non-parallel relationships in the second half of Chapter 3.

  • METAPHOR
    • What determines the new meaning?
      • (I’ll talk about how “similarity (one of the logical relations) does not decide” later on.)
  • COMPREHENSION
    • Logically, it seems to me that symbolized comprehended meaning = implicit meaning, doesn’t it?
      • (We’ll talk about “not an equal relationship” later on.)
  • RELEVANCE
    • Is some logical relationship determining “what is involved”?
  • CIRCUMLOCUTION
    • Does the meaning that contributes to “incrementally making sense of the present” have any logical relationship to the object that is being made?

• These functional relationships do not depend on another logical relationship

  • Because the “felt meaning” becomes a symbol later and becomes a “concept” such that it is the object of a logical relation.
  • Perceived meaning” is a preconceptual entity

• Q: In the previous example, you had a hidden symbol in your head called S0. Are you saying that S0 is not a concept at a stage where it has not yet been expressed?

  • 
  • A: What is “in your head” or “hidden” is “felt sense” (felt sense)F
  • Q: S0 does not yet exist in this world…
  • A: No, the S0 here is specifically the symbol for “what I want to say.”
    • (= already verbalized and present in the world)
    • When you say, “I had something I wanted to say, but I couldn’t say it right…” the symbol “something I wanted to say” refers to a vague F that has yet to be articulated.
  • Q: Does “something to say” mean that the letter side is “something to say”?
  • A: Yes, the string “something to say” is a symbol, because it is a word. And there is a “felt meaning” that the symbol S0 points to. That is F.
  • Q: Is the SB already present in the mind of this person on the left, but undiscovered, and you are helping him discover it?
  • A: Yes, that’s right. So, of course, the person on the left knows the word B.
    • (Supplement: “I was going to say something… yes, Ελληνικά!” and no one who doesn’t understand Greek will say it.)
    • I know the word B because I can see the symbol B and think of FB, and I have a “felt meaning” that comes to mind when I see B.
  • Q: If B “has not been discovered but exists” in the mind of the person on the left, wouldn’t it “exist as a concept”? Couldn’t a logical relationship to what you are trying to say be argued?
  • A: Uh, I think the word concept is being used in a rough sense in this conversation right now, so I think not…
    • (Supplementary note: Regarding what the symbol “concept” refers to, there is a “direct match” between the perceived meaning Fx, which Nishio thinks is the meaning in Gendlin’s book, and the perceived meaning Fy, which Nishio has determined through this conversation to be the meaning in the questioner’s book, and what is not a match is not yet verbalized. (What is not a match is not yet verbalized.)
  • First, this person has both the concept of A and the concept of B. That part is correct.
  • However, it is not as if some logical relationship has identified what F is.
  • Q: Didn’t we know that S0 is SB by the logical relation that F and SB are equal?
    • 
    • (Addendum)

      • COMPREHENSION

      • logically, it seems to me that symbolized comprehended meaning = implicit meaning, doesn’t it?

        • (We’ll talk about “not an equal relationship” later on.)
  • A: F and FB were not determined to be equal by some logical relationship, but rather by direct matching, and “it just felt right”, instantaneously. It was an instantaneous “ah, that’s it.
  • Q: Is that not a logical relationship?
  • A: This is not a logical relationship. So, after this happens, the person on the left verbalizes, “Oh, that’s it, S0 is SB,” and at that point S0 becomes an identified symbol. Only after that can it be developed using logical relations to S0.
  • Q: Oh, so you are saying that logical relationships are hard to determine between felt senses, that logical relationships are only possible between symbols?
  • A: Yes, the direct matching of F and FB is a relationship expressed by feeling, or a feeling of fit or lack of fit, not a logical relationship.
    • That understanding is absolutely correct, and I’m sure I explained that somewhere further down the line, so I’ll move on.

METAPHOR

My lover is like a red, red rose.

• How do you determine the meaning that comes to your mind when you see this

• The idea that “the meaning of a rose is determined by its similarity to the meaning of a rose.”

  • Is that true?
  • Roses and humans are different.
  • In what sense are they similar?” I ask.
  • There could be a lot of words for this question after the fact.
    • Or, “Lively and blooming.”
    • Or “smells good.”
    • Like, “It’s beautiful to look at, but touch it and you’ll get stung by the spikes.”
  • When you first saw “My lover is like a red, red rose,” did you “get the sense” after the “sense of similarity”?
    • It shouldn’t be.
    • The “similarity” did not come first.
      • The experiencing process (experiencing) of combining “lover” and “rose” to refer to the same thing came first.
      • What does it mean?” The similarity was derived a posteriori in the process of trying to verbalize the meaning of the question “What does it mean?
      • Specific parallels are “found” and “created” a posteriori as aspects of metaphorical meaning.
      • Cats are like the sun.”
      • “Wandering Panda”
        • Here is an experiential process that combines the symbol of “dreary” with the symbol of “panda.”
        • What does this mean? Meaning is created by thinking
          • Is my hair shaggy?” And.
        • After meaning is created, that “meaning” becomes “the similarity of the two symbols.”
        • After meaning is created, it is verbalized.
    • 

• Consider the metaphor-maker’s side of the story.

  • So far, we’ve been on the receiving end of metaphors.
  • There’s an unspoken blur.
  • ‘Can you compare this to something, what does this look like?’
    • Is she an elephant? Is she a bamboo?
  • I think about it a lot, and I think, “Oh, a rose sounds good.
    • There is a “sense of fit” between the “meaning” invoked by the symbol “rose” and the “fuzziness” that I want to put into words now.
    • After you feel the resemblance, an explanation of why it is similar comes up.
      • She is a rose, because when you touch her, her thorns sting.”
  • Vague experience that “discovered,” “created,” or “identified” a particular aspect of the experience.

• What determines the creation of meaning in metaphor (4A2)

  • It’s direct matching (4A2a)
    • We can directly compare the unspoken mumbo-jumbo with the meanings invoked by words and other symbols, and think “yes” or “no.”
  • 

Distinction between concept and perceived meaning (4A2b)

• A clear distinction must be made between concepts (uniquely specified (logical) concepts) and the functioning of felt meaning.
  • This is the section that directly answers the previous question about the concept
• One felt meaning can be symbolized in many ways (COMPREHENSION)
  • These respective uniquely specified concepts are not equivalent.
  • 
  • Even if each of the functioning of felt meaning “fits”, it does not mean that the output symbols are logically identical in meaning.
  • This “fit” is determined by direct matching.
  • Of course these two Ss could be different since they symbolize different aspects of F

Creation of meaning” is neither creation ex nihilo nor arbitrary creation (4A2d).

• The “creation of meaning” here is
  • It is not “creation from nothing.”
  • Nor is it “the creation of anything arbitrary.”
• Each functional relationship has a different degree of creation.
  • In METAPHOR and CIRCUMLOCUTION the felt meaning itself is created
  • In COMPREHENSION and RELEVANCE, the given felt meaning is modified by the symbols
    • It does not create new meaning.
    • However, this given felt meaning is somehow directly referred to, so the whole is involved in the creation of a new meaning.
  • 
    • In no case is it born from scratch.
• Logical relations between linguistic symbols occur after two experienced creations
  • Creation of the concept of the object (symbolization of the felt meaning)
  • Creation of relationships between symbols
    • The one I often say to explain the KJ method.
      • “You put something nearby that you think might have something to do with it, and then you can verbalize ‘what’s the connection’ after the fact.”
      • This way you can verbalize how the relationship is, and then you can deal with it linguistically.
• Gendlin refers to the fact that experience comes first, not logic, and “reversed the order of existing philosophy!” He says.
  • It just looks like an inversion because of the historical emphasis Western philosophy has placed on the linguistic turn of mind.
    • Eastern philosophy is not new to those of us who are familiar with it.
      • Fundamental Ideas of [Zen (Buddhism)

      • Spiritual awakening cannot be experienced with words and letters (furyumonji) is a term used to describe the doctrine of Zen Buddhism that, in addition to the transmission of doctrine by letters and words, what is conveyed through experience is the quintessence. furyuji - Wikipedia

        • The experience is the main body, and words are just a limited power of expression of it.
      • Geitaro Nishida’s “There is ‘pure experience’ before words! and so on.
      • The same is true of Ikujiro Nonaka who said, “In order to share unspoken ‘tacit knowledge’ within an organization, it is beneficial to ‘collaborate’ by sharing the same experiences together”.
      • In Jiro Kawakita’s KJ method, “let chaos be made to speak”, the cards are not logically categorized or organized, but are stocked in a subjective state of “these two seem somehow related, so let’s keep them close” (fitted by direct collation). The words are born after the fact (the chaos speaks).
    • In “The Intellectual Production of Engineers, p.155 Group formation requires a change in thinking,” I wrote what I wrote assuming knowledge of the KJ method, and Gendlin wrote it in a very detailed manner without assumptions.

Summary of 4A

• I tried to translate it without distorting it as much as possible.
• 1: The “felt meaning” can be directly collated when it works
  • I’m not sure about the limitation of “when it works.” It can be directly collated at any time, and it’s working then.
• 2: “Concepts” are logically uniquely identified and symbolized
  • A “concept” is not a “felt meaning.”
  • That “concept” does not have the creative nature of “felt meaning”
  • When we “have” a “concept” it is tied to a “felt meaning”
    • When I read a philosophy book or something and I’m stumped, I don’t connect the words to their meanings.
      • Just because a concept is defined does not mean it can be utilized.
      • So I can’t re-explain it in my own words (I can’t create).
      • concrete example
        • There is no point in skipping the time spent on understanding the definition ── Engineer Shigeo Mitsunari (3) | Cybozu style
        • The concept of an open set is clearly defined
        • But it’s not as if you can read that definition and use it right away.
      • Q: Not limited to philosophy books?
        • A: It’s not limited to philosophy books. I mentioned philosophy books and mathematicians as examples of books that don’t make sense. Other examples are when you read a specification for a programming language that you are unfamiliar with and you think, “What is a class?” or “What is a trace?” and so on.
      • Q: So you’re saying, “When you see and understand a concept, that’s when you connect the symbol with the felt sense”?
        • A: I think maybe the nuance of what you’re trying to say is right, but the word “understanding” is undefined, so it’s hard to say yes or no
          • Well, I think you have understood correctly, oh, I used the word “understand”. I tend to say “understanding” in natural language, but the definition of the word “understanding” is unclear!
          • So, avoiding the use of the word “understanding”, I feel that “the same structure that I believe Eugene Gendlin had” is being created in you!
  • Can be directly collated against its “felt meaning”
  • That “felt meaning” can work creatively on “concepts” without breaking the logical relationship between them.
    • I can break it if I want to.
• 3: The “felt meaning” at work in the process of meaning creation is always directly collated.
  • They are not “indeterminate.”
  • There is already some symbolization in place, and further symbolization is possible.
  • The workings of “felt meaning” in symbolization are the subject of this book’s exploration

neither determined nor indeterminate. - Its “function” is not logically determined, but it is not indeterminate either. - I think it’s easy to understand if you compare it to a probability distribution. - - When one “felt meaning” worked, you would get a different result than when another “felt meaning” worked. - That is, “these two distributions are different.”

- This is the end of 4A.

• The next section delves into what features of “felt meaning” are at work in the “process of creating new symbols”
• Q: What is a logical decision?
  • A: That when you combine a symbol A with a symbol B, you do not get only one way C.
• Q: What is this vertical line diagram?
  • A: Probability distribution that only one point is returned
    • For example, 1+2 is 3, which is a logical decision in a way.
    • On the other hand, roses + lovers are not decided one way or another.
• Q: On the process by which a person learning something comes to “fully understand” it and then goes “I still don’t get it”.
  • A: When you have a “complete understanding,” you are choosing one interpretation of the distribution, and that interpretation is consistent and consistent with all the facts you were observing at the time, so you feel that you have a “complete understanding.” But there is no guarantee that this understanding is correct.
  • After reading sentences A and B and “fully understanding” them, when you read another sentence C, you may think, “Huh? That doesn’t add up with my earlier interpretation?” This is “I still don’t get it.
  • And then you go back and say, “So that means this interpretation, this makes sense with A, B, and C.” This is how the understanding is updated.
  • At the point of “fully understood,” “an interpretation that is consistent with what the person has read up to that point.”
  • If you keep reading further, you’ll encounter sentences that contradict that interpretation.
  • Think about this to add up, and when you find it, your understanding will be updated.
• Q: What is the identification of the “concept is logically uniquely identified and symbolized” and was the felt sense identified?
  • A: For example, when the concept of “open set” is used in a book, it is clearly specified as “a set that satisfies the following three conditions is called an open set” and used as a symbol that refers to only one meaning
    • Symbols in this state are called “concepts.”
    • On the other hand, whether that symbol is tied to a felt sense in the individual is another story.
      • It is one thing to say that a symbol is a “concept” and another to say that an individual “has” that concept.
      • The open set symbol is “a concept” because it is clearly defined in a mathematical dictionary, but it doesn’t mean that you can take a random person and ask him or her to do a creative activity using the concept of an open set.
    • Concepts are not felt sense within a person, but symbols outside of a person
      • And I want to use this symbol to refer to the same thing by more than one person, because that’s useful in advancing the discussion.
      • So we do our best to “specify” the concept with various words and examples, saying “this is what this concept means” to make it mean one way or unique meaning!
    • Q: When you say “identified” it sounds like “to identify with something”.
      • A: That’s just a bad translation. “Specify” is used in parallel with “select” and “create,” etc., and is not “specific” in such a strong sense.

        • Uniquely identified and described concept

• Q: Is “wandering panda” a metaphor?
• A: The “wandering panda” is a metaphor.
  • It may not be a metaphor in the world’s general terms, but in the context of this book it is.
  • Because the two symbols are combined to create the experience process.
    • 
  • Q: I think the “wabash” in “wabash panda” modifies the panda.
    • I get the feeling that “lover” and “rose” are juxtaposed…
    • A: What if it’s “wasabi” and “panda”? I just changed this to the noun form now.
      • The same composition can be seen in the way I think “wabi-sabi” and “panda” don’t go together, and the way I think “sweetheart” and “rose” don’t go together.
      • If you think, “A dreary panda is normal,” then you just didn’t make the right choice in your example.
        • I wanted to show an example of attaching two symbols of some kind.
        • It doesn’t matter if it’s “Dreary Television” or “Televisual Panda.”
        • I created “Wasted Panda” on a random combination site because I wanted to create an example that did not include my prejudice.
• Q: Am I correct in understanding that a metaphor is a felt sense created from two symbols?
  • A: Yes

What features of “felt meaning” are at work in “the process by which new symbols are produced” (4b)

• There are 9 subsections, but unlike the description of the 7 functional relationships, it’s not like “there are 9 individual X’s”
  • What’s in front of us is developing and becoming the next thing and so on.
• I’ll look at the headlines in case you’re interested.
  • (1) The non-numerical character of experience
  • (2) The “multischematic” character of experience
  • (3) Meanings are likenesses and vice versa
  • (4) Relation or relata
  • (5) Multiplicity
  • (6) Any concept is one of many
  • (7) Any experienced meaning can (partly) schematize (creatively determine) a new aspect of another experienced meaning
  • (8) Every experience is capable of havinng an aspect schematize by any other experience
  • (9) Creative regress
  • Sometimes it’s one word, sometimes it’s a long sentence, sometimes it’s a few sentences.

Twin danger

• There are two diametrically opposed dangers.
  • Danger 1: You give importance to only one particular one of the seven functional relationships explained in the previous section, and ignore the fact that “felt meaning” is also a function of the remaining six functional relationships.
  • Danger 2: Discussing “felt meaning” on its own, divorced from the seven functional relationships between symbols and
• To avoid the second danger, we can use one of the seven functional relationships, “direct matching”
  • But by doing this, the first danger is that one particular “direct match” becomes too important.
  • So it is not TWO DANGERS, but TWIN DANGERS. Not “two separate dangers” but “two sides of one coin” kind of danger.
• Danger 2: Another way to put it is that it makes no sense to talk about “felt meaning” in isolation from the functional relationship between the symbol and the
  • Moya-moya” exists, doesn’t it? What is “moyamoya”? and it does not make much sense to focus only on moyamoya,
  • We need to pay attention to how moyamoya becomes words and how words affect moyamoya.
  • This should not separate the “felt meaning” from the “symbol”.
  • Q: What are the dangers?
    • A: I’m just saying that if readers make that mistake, it’s not going to be a useful discussion, so be careful.

(1) The non-numerical character of experience

• In Japanese, “innumerable characteristics.”
• I’ve been using “gray circles” to describe “felt meaning,” but I’m telling you that’s not appropriate. - Meaning is not a set.
  • It’s hard to draw though, so I’ll continue to use gray circles to represent it.
  • This is what it looks like when you paint hard
  • 
  • How many are these? One? Two? Many?
    • When seen dimly, it appears to be two strokes; at a distance, it appears to be a single doughnut-like shape; when seen clearly, it appears to be a series of strokes.
    • The metaphor Nishio came up with: experience is a curve on a higher dimensional space, and that curve itself does not overlap because we never repeat exactly the same experience. When we look back on our past experiences, we do not treat all axes equally, so they are projected onto a lower dimensional space (two dimensional in this picture) based on our interests at the time, as appropriate. At this time, the images overlap and become dense in some areas and not in others. We look at it, cut out a part of it, and think a posteriori, “This is one. - Experience is a curve on higher dimensional space
  • There is no UNIT (one unit of mass) in “felt meaning” or “experience,” so it cannot be counted.
• Gendlin’s expression
  • 
  • It contrasts experiencing with AN EXPERIENCE.
  • Experiencing (=experiencing process) is countless
  • By specifying, selecting, and creating symbols for it, it becomes “an experience” (= an experience).
    • AN EXPERIENCE COUNTED
    • In English, you can clearly tell which one is being referred to by whether it is an “experience with an or s” or an “experience without an s”.
      • Difficult to understand when put into Japanese
• 
  • The same “experience process” can be symbolized as “two experiences A and B” or as “one experience AB
  • So there is no essential difference between being “between” A and B and being “in” AB.
  • This will come out in a little more detail later.

(2) The “multischematic” character of experience

• First, to be faithful to the original: there is more than one scheme when symbolizing an experience, multischemic multischematic.
  • I’ll try to come up with a concrete example since it’s abstract.
    • scheme will be called “structure” for once.
    • 
    • When talking about an experience, we can structure it temporally as “first A happened, then B happened, and finally C happened.”
    • It could be in a form that isn’t a temporal structure, like “I’ve experienced X and Y in conflict many times before.”
    • There could be any number of structures.
  • Another example
    • 
    • I read a book by an author and experienced symbols A, B, and C. ABC has a structure created by that author.
    • I read another author’s book and experienced symbols X, Y and Z. XYZ has a structure created by that author.
    • One reader might ask, “Doesn’t A=X?” I think
      • Originally two separate reading experiences, but in my mind they tied together.
      • The “felt meaning” F was created
      • It was represented as one
    • Hereafter, F can be represented as A in the structure ABC or as X in the structure XYZ
    • If you acquire the structure of ABCDE by reading more books by the author of ABC, you can acquire the relationship between X and D or E at the same time

Definition of “Aspects of Experience - Aspects of Experience :aspect of experience

• 
  • The gray area in this figure
• The term “aspects of experience” is used to refer to the objects that result when experience is SPECIFIED through creative symbolism.
• Creative symbolization creates=specifies certain “aspects (aspects)” of “fuzzy experiences” that are myriad and multi-scheme.
• At this time, aspects are created, depending not only on the experience X that is the focus of attention, but also on other experiences Y, Z… At this time, aspects of Y, Z as well as experience X are created.
• One can explain (creatively specify) a posteriori which other experiences besides experience X were “included” in this “creation of aspects”. If the “creation of aspects” has already taken place, this explanation is COMPREHENSION.
• I say included and “was” here because it is in the past. This explanation is timed to COMPREHENSION (and COMPREHENSION takes place after the “creation of aspects”), so the “aspects” are “already there” at that time.
• The concept of “aspects” will come up so often that if I go on without explaining it, you might ask, “What is the definition?” so I’ve specified it clearly.
  • But I’m not saying anything particularly new.
  • These pictures came up again and again.
    • 
    • This gray area has not had a dedicated name until now.
    • I would describe this as “aspects of F1 were created by F2, and at the same time aspects of F2 were created by F1”.

Experience includes time (4B2a)

• Since we live in time, our experience can be placed in a [temporal scheme
  • However, it is not always placed in a temporal scheme, nor is the temporal scheme superior to other schemes
  • Just one of many different schemes.
  • I just adopted it to explain the scheme because it is a scheme that can be used reliably.
  • Other schemes are next on the list.
• Associated with.
  • It is a time scheme to store conversations on the chat as they are in a chronological chat log.
  • Suppose I look back at what I wrote in Scrapbox and see line X and think of something new to add.
    • There are two ways to write it.
      • How to write hanging as a bulleted child on X
      • Writing at the end of a page or on another page that mentions X with a line link or citation
    • The former wants to have all the topics on the same subject in one place, regardless of time.
      • So I’ll add that in its place.
    • I’m thinking the latter doesn’t want to break the structure of the written out timeline.
      • So instead of adding to that place, point to it with a link and write elsewhere.
    • This time I did the former.
      • I thought about why I did it and found that I chose one of several schemes.
    • One community on Scrapbox describes this as /villagepump/time-oriented v.s. /villagepump/context-orientedor[/sta/topic-oriented
      • There is an opposition between the “felt meaning” pointed to by the symbol “theme, context, topic” and the “felt meaning” pointed to by the symbol “time frame.”
    • Perhaps the ideal groupware should not only allow discussions to be stored and searched over time, but also facilitate organization by topic
      • Scrapbox “can do both” by making every page editable by anyone
        • Add to that the author’s philosophy that it should not be “a warehouse of dead texts” and that simply storing chat logs is using them as a warehouse of dead texts, and it only encourages organization by topic among those who share that philosophy.
        • It’s not a constraint as a system, so I’m sure in many cases if you introduce it into a random organization, it would become a minute book repository.
  • Q: Mailing lists can also be viewed in time or in a tree.
    • A: But it’s hard to use a topic that was spoken about in another tree
    • That’s what I get for trying to somehow organize a topic-oriented organization with the very limited functionality of email.
    • It’s a process of quoting everything and then cutting and pasting…
  • Q: I’m afraid of losing information on the time line, so I’m going to work hard to add it, and with Git and Scrapbox, I feel like I can break it.
    • A: You are trying to retain time-based information in the form of human-readable text, and you are also trying to retain the speaker, which results in severe restrictions.
    • In the case of Scrapbox, if you are a community in a culture of collaborative editing of bulleted trees, everyone grows a tree
  • Q: Is Kozaneba a tool that is both time-oriented and topic-oriented?
    • A: I wonder. First of all, I think that when the sentences in a book are chopped up and arranged, it is a temporal scheme based on the order in which they appear in the book. Then, during the phase of shaping the text, I think the scheme changes to one that reflects the syntactic structure of the sentence.
    • That’s all I’m going to use in the process of making this presentation, so I’m going to read the explanations in order.
      • There are some “chunks” that are lumped together, such as twin dangers and side definitions.
    • Kozaneba is a “tool that can do both” after all, so it depends on how users feel about using it.
  • Q: Is it ideal to be able to move freely between temporal and contextual schemes?
    • A: I think it would be ideal for me to be able to come and go.
    • When I’m organizing, I want to organize on the topic axis, but when I don’t understand a fragment by itself, I want to shuffle around and see the time line where it came from, and then I see, and then I want to go back to the topic axis and organize again.
    • I have been thinking that it would be nice if Kozaneba had such a function, but now “position” is a two-dimensional vector, which is just a higher dimensional vector mapped to two dimensions, with a time axis behind it. But that’s ok.
      • Not implemented yet because it is not a high priority.
  • Q: Essentially what we need is a dependency of information, and I think temporal relationships are a substitute for that
    • A: When expressed as a sentence, dependencies naturally tend to be in close proximity in a sentence
    • So when you read it, you need to read it once you have preserved the information about the time frame, and then afterwards you need to read it and wonder what the structure would have been like in the author’s mind.
  • Q: The way information is organized depends on the application, such as hiding instead of sorting.
    • A: If it’s a warehouse application where you want to keep what was said as it was spoken, it’s fine because you keep it in chronological order, but for applications where you need to create a common understanding, you need to be able to do something more topic-oriented.
    • B: In source code and Github
    • C: Not likely to be a single repository
    • A: If you are going to spit out all the thoughts of each individual, it is difficult to divide them into repositories in advance, and a mechanism is needed to pick up useful things after the fact from the repository containing all of them.
• Unspecified experience does not carry credit.
• The unit is identified at the time it is identified, and the schematic relationship is identified at the same time.
• The same can be said about time.
• Temporal pre- and post-relationships and moments are a type of scheme and have no relationship in the time scheme until they are identified
• For example, there is “an experience X”, then there is “an experience Y”, and then you look back from Y and say that something Z was “already there in X”.
  • This was first,” explains more than just “this.”

Object” and “process” (4B2b)

• Examples of non-time schemes
• 
• The word “process” doesn’t sit well with me personally.
  • The “felt meaning” I recall from the word “process” does not fit well with the symbol (many places in one time) that is written as being associated with it.
  • The parable of the “river” and the expression “motion” juxtaposed with process elsewhere.
    • When we think of the “movement” of “water moving downstream,” all the water in various parts of the river is “moving downstream” at a certain point in time.
  • Well, this is just one example of “there are several schemes,” so let’s move on.

I prepared solidly through B5 and ran through B6-9, but ran out of time in the middle of B2.

• Next time, we will look back at B1 and B2 and start with B3.
• Schedule: Study Session 3 on “Experiential Processes and the Creation of Meaning

We didn’t make as much progress as planned, but I think it’s better to continue like this in the future, because it’s more important to have a two-way exchange than a one-way transfer of knowledge. I would describe this in terms of the experience process and the creation of meaning…

• The “concepts (symbols)” in the book are not yet connected to the “felt meaning” in study group viewer X

• By quoting parts of the book or looking at another symbolization by Nishio, in X, “Is this what you mean?” and “connection with the felt meaning” is made. (A)

  • This will allow for creative activities using the concepts.

• But I don’t know if this “felt meaning” matches the “felt meaning” in the book or in Nishio.

• So X symbolizes the “felt meaning” in a different way and throws it to Nishio. Nishio can use the stimulus to create a new symbolization or return the result of a direct match with “it feels right, it doesn’t feel right”.

• This process of interaction creates a common “state of connection of a particular symbol to some felt meaning” between Nishio and X. (B)

  • This makes it easier for the other to understand the new things created by the work of that “felt meaning” in the one person
  • This is Institutionalized language.
    • (6.2.5.5) Public Words and Private Words

• Study Session 3 on “Experiential Processes and the Creation of Meaning

---

This page is auto-translated from /nishio/「体験過程と意味の創造」勉強会2 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.