Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This article develops a conception of meaning in the sense of “meaning as interbeing,” i.e., meaning as an emerging property in the intersection between proto-meaning and epistemic frames. The foundational basis of this argument is built on two streams of thought, Deguchi’s relational ontology of the WE-turn and the meta-ontological perspective of what is discussed in this article as Meta-Science. The article first discusses the problem of the emergence of meaning based on the limitations of subjectivist and materialist conceptions of meaning. It then builds upon the WE-turn’s incapability theses to define ontologies and their limitations, specifically their propositional incompleteness. Finally, it develops the concept of proto-meaning, i.e., the non-epistemic relational structures that underlie experiences and explain how the non-epistemic and the epistemic are bridged through interbeing to form meaning proper. The argument presented here, thereby, reframes meaning as emergent from irreducible interdependencies between objects (both epistemic and non-epistemic) and the recognition of their semblance to non-epistemic archetypal structures that are engraved in all relationships as proto-meaning. Meaning is, thus, conceived as interbeing: a layered, relational emergence grounded in archetypal patterns and conditioned and filtered by ontological premises.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Andrej Zwitter (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: