by Milton Dawes

Reprinted with permission from ETC: A Review of General Semantics, Spring & Fall 1991.

Proposition 1

“Whenever we agree or disagree with someone–or, to be more specific, with something–we have heard or read, we are to a great extent agreeing or disagreeing with ‘ourselves’.” (I invite you to pause for a moment and take special notice of your reactions to this proposition at this time.) This proposition, at first hearing or reading, may seem to you to be a silly, irresponsible, and totally un-acceptable thing for anyone to suggest. And you may also think that an idea such as this is designed simply to discourage genuine criticisms, undermine self-confidence, and put a damper on debates, discussions, and everyday conversations. I doubt that any of this will happen; but in any case, those are not my intentions. I am merely stating what seems to me to be a valid proposition, based on my acceptance, interpretations, and applications of some general semantics principles and formula-tions. 

Proposition 2

The aim of Proposition 1 is mainly to provide supporting arguments for Proposition 2. Proposition 2 states that “If we are concerned to improve our relationships with our ‘selves’ and each other, and create healthier environments in homes, in the places we work, and wherever we socialize, we could start by becoming more alert to how we as individuals contribute to and create the kinds of societies we live in, as a consequence of the ways we interpret and give meanings to our experi-ences. And since language constitutes a great deal of our thinking related to our everyday personal, social and professional experiences and interactions, we could take more responsibility for the ways we interpret, and the meanings we give to, what we hear, read, see, experience, etc.” 

Specifically, we could take more responsibility for how we as individuals interpret and give mean-ings to what our experts, gurus, scientists, religious authorities, politicians, teachers, friends, report-ers, writers, relatives, and others say or write. For the kinds of values we hold, the ways we relate to each other, and the kinds of societies we create for ourselves and our children are, to a great extent, based on the ways we interpret, and the meanings we give to, what we read and hear. 

The Principle of Non-Identity

To return to Proposition 1: One of the general-semantics principles alluded to earlier is the “princi-ple of non-identity.” This principle states that no two things are identical, that no things are the same, that no two things are similar in all respects. The principle of non-identity further states that “In a world of change, growth, process, changing relationships . . . a thing is not even identical with itself.” Now if things are not identical with themselves, if they are continuously changing ever so imperceptibly from moment to moment–changing position, changing relationships, changing inter-nally, and so on–how can they ever be identical with each other? In which instant, for example, could we look at the sweep hands of a watch and say it is exactly such and such time? 

The principle of non-identity is valid on both logical and empirical grounds. If any two things were similar in all respects, then, by definition and observation, they could not occupy or be seen to oc-cupy two different space-time positions. If two things were identical (similar in all respects), we would not in any way be able to distinguish one from the other. We would not be able to point to one and say, “There is this one,” then point to the other and say, “There is that one.” To do that would be tantamount to admitting that one could be distinguished from the other and that they were seen in different places. But if each one occupied a different place, then their positional and func-tional relationships with other things would be different. So one could not honestly claim that they were similar in all respects. 

We are strongly inclined, each one of us, to ignore these inescapable differences between the inter-pretations and meanings we give to what we hear and read, and the words, intentions, expectations, and meanings of a speaker or writer. If we accept the principle of non-identity, then the meanings and interpretations of a listener or reader cannot be identical with–cannot be the same as–the meanings of another individual, speaking or writing in a different place and at a different time. We choose, interpret, and understand words according to our individual life experiences-and we each have different life experiences. Of course we do understand each other, to a certain degree, and we can follow instructions reasonably closely. We are able to communicate mainly because our mean-ings have overlapping features. But except for those who claim to be mind-readers, our interpreta-tions come between what is said and heard and what is written and read. To be fair to a speaker or writer, as listeners or readers, we should take some responsibility for the interpretations we make and the meanings we give to what we hear or read. 

The Principle of Non-Allness

The principle of non-allness is another general-semantics principle advanced in support of Proposi-tion 1. Briefly put, this principle states, “We cannot know, understand, become acquainted with, all of–nor say, describe, imagine,. . . all about anything,” and this includes ourselves. The principle implies that, as interpreters, evaluators, and assigners of meanings, we cannot be absolutely certain of every aspect of our own evaluation processes; consequently, we cannot be sure of the accuracy of our own interpretations, nor can we know all that’s behind the words of others. Accepting and re-membering the principle of non-allness, we have the responsibility at least to make allowances for the possibility of errors, misevaluations, and misinterpretations. It is our responsibility to remind ourselves that all was not said or written, and that all could not have been said or written. It is our responsibility to remember that any interpretation we make, any meaning we give to what we hear or read, is based on very small samplings of whatever else could have been said or written. And it is our responsibility to remind ourselves that our agreements as well as disagreements are based on our evaluations of our interpretations of these small samplings. 

The General Principle of Uncertainty

This principle is more general than Heisenberg’s principle of uncertainty. It states, “Living as we do, in a dynamic world of change, growth, process, etc., and in a world where no two things, situa-tions, etc., are identical, the ‘truth’ value of the relatively static and general statements we make should be evaluated in terms of degrees of probability ranging from impossibility to certainty.” As an exercise, how, for instance, would you evaluate the truth value of the following statements? (The first one was  seen in a bank.) “I pay back my loan the way I want.” “He is on the permanent staff.”  “Till death do us part.”  “Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?”  “Your car will be ready tomorrow.” “Five hundred dollars cash back.” 

If you refer to what was mentioned above regarding the principles of non-identity and non-allness, you may notice that these two principles (among others) ‘make” a general principle of uncertainty inexorable. The principle of non-identity implies that to understand anything there have to be some prior interpretations. And, following this, we cannot be absolutely sure that what we understand is precisely what was meant. The principle of non-allness implies that all our understanding is based on limited analysis of limited input of limited information. So we cannot be absolutely sure that the way we have interpreted a statement precludes all other possible interpretations. (The “allness”–that is, all our understanding–in the above statement and implied in other general-semantics princi-ples is not a contradiction or paradox if one includes a date.) 

The principle of uncertainty, together with those of non-identity and non-allness, “suggest” that we develop in ourselves certain attitudes, habits, orientations, approaches in our conversations, discus-sions, listenings, and readings. Such a habitual approach would include the following considera-tions. (1) We cannot not interpret, we cannot not make assumptions. (2) We should expect some degree of inaccuracy in our interpretations–based as they are on our individual experiences, stan-dards, assumptions, beliefs, and training. (3) We should acknowledge these inaccuracies, assump-tions, and uncertainties as unavoidable aspects of our communication processes. 

In support of this “uncertainty approach,” we could change our agreement or disagreement re-sponses to something along the following lines: “As far as I know; as much as I understand; based on the little information I have; not knowing what was left out; realizing that I had to make a few guesses and projections; I agree (or disagree) with my own interpretations of this that I am hearing (or reading); furthermore, since I do not expect people to say or write ‘meanings’ instead of ‘words,’ I take responsibility for the meanings I give to whatever I hear or read.” (Remember, we are talking about an attitude, so we don’t have to actually say the above.) 

The societies we have inherited, help to create, and to a great extent support, do not usually encour-age values pertaining to uncertainty and probability. So it is understandable if at this point you find that your thoughts include such words and phrases as ludicrous, idealistic, academic, philosophical, nothing would ever get done. We have been conditioned to believe, we are inclined to believe, and we have abundant evidence that leads us to believe that a person with an uncertainty approach will be seen, described, thought of, and treated something like this: “She or he is the kind of person who is unsure of herself or himself; can’t be relied upon; is wimpish; splits hairs; lacks self-confidence; seems a weak character or a fence sitter; cannot make decisions.” 

Despite our social and cultural conditionings, we can also consider the following positive aspects of uncertainty. The principle of uncertainty is not an absolute law of the universe, stating what must occur, what we must do at every single instant of our existence. Without some degree of certainty, there would be no science or mathematics as we know them. To recognize a principle of uncer-tainty is to learn to live our lives with a certain degree of uncertainty. In a world of change, process, and diversity, to be always certain is to be at a disadvantage. Following a map of certainty will sooner or later lead one up a path to increasing distress, while being uncertain helps us to acknowl-edge errors and to seek improvements. Being certain discourages creative approaches to solving problems; it promotes intolerance, prejudices, conflicts, and violence. Without doubts, there would be little advancement in knowledge. A recognition of the possibility of uncertainty helps us to ac-cept more responsibility for our guesses, expectations, theories, and opinions. An individual or so-ciety that has no doubts about its certainties will sooner or later discover, to its dismay, that the world around it, and the people it encounters, cannot always be relied upon to meet its expectations. 

Words as Variables

There are other general semantics premises and formulations that could be cited in support of Proposition 1. For now, those mentioned above will suffice. Let’s return for a moment to Proposi-tion 1: “Whenever we agree or disagree with something we have heard or read, we are to a great extent agreeing or disagreeing with ourselves.” The “truth” value of this proposition has very little to do with whether one person is right and another wrong, or whether what is heard or read can be shown to be true or false. The “truth” value of the proposition has to be evaluated in terms of inter-pretations understandings, and meanings, not in terms of facts per se. 

Apart from the premises referred to, Proposition 1 can be supported using the mathematical notion of “the variable.” The variable has been defined as “a symbol that can represent any one of a set of values.” Words can be considered as “semantic variables.” In terms of process, time, space, context, frame of reference, interpreters (anything, for that matter) can be thought of in terms of variables. Any thing, situation, experience, or event is usually given a wide variety of interpretation and meaning values. As an unavoidable consequence of our unique life experiences, words mean differ-ent things to each of us. If you can recall situations where you thought you were misquoted or mis-understood, or followed directions to an unfamiliar place, or struggled with an instruction manual, you will have a good understanding of words as variables. 

Interpreting: An Automatic process

We are not usually aware that we give our own meaning values to our experiences, or to what we hear or read. We make interpretations and give meanings without being aware that we are doing so. We are constantly making interpretations–it is an automatic process. Our nervous systems seem to work more efficiently by not requiring us at self-conscious levels to be constantly engaged in ob-serving that we are making interpretations. Try to imagine what it would be like if every time we had an experience, or heard or read something, we immediately became aware that we were in a process of interpreting! This awareness would now in its turn become an experience to be inter-preted. And this new awareness . . . get the picture? This extreme, self-reflexive mode of interpret-ing our experience of interpreting would probably put us in a trance-like state. It would be very dif-ficult to make decisions or act. 

The complexities of modern living require us to become more mindful of the fact that we interpret and give meanings. As diverse societies and cultures come together; as individuals and groups speaking different languages meet, intermix, and interact; as individuals with different training and skills communicate and work with each other–their different meaning-based values clash. Not un-expectedly, confusions, prejudices, tensions, and conflicts tend to increase. 

Increasing our awareness that things are not what we say they are, that the meanings we give to our experiences and to situations we find ourselves in are uniquely our meanings, that words mean dif-ferent things to different people, would do much to lower tensions, clarify differing viewpoints, and improve the quality of our relationships with ourselves and each other. 

No Direct Access to Meanings

We have no direct way of knowing what others mean by their words. We have no way of bypassing the intrusive, selective, differentiating, integrating, representational processes of our nervous sys-tems. Nor do we presently have any way of knowing how much, and to what degree, we may or may not have added to, subtracted from, reconstructed, reshaped, distorted, or created any such meaning. How can we know how much our fears, hopes, expectations, prejudices, or values have contributed to the particular ways we observe, think about, and respond to situations? If we can’t be sure that what we understand is what was meant, shouldn’t we take some responsibility for the meanings we give? 

Exploring “Meaning”

If we are to take responsibility for the meanings we give to what we read or experience, it would be helpful to do some explorations into the realms of meaning. Such explorations would deepen our understandings of meaning and sharpen our sensitivities to the importance of meaning in diverse areas of our everyday living. What follows is a very brief account of some of my explorations. The statements, however else they may be interpreted, should not be taken as conclusions but rather as propositions. They represent some aspects of what “meaning” means to me at the time of writing. 

Dictionaries give the “meanings” of words through references to other words.  But remembering the times we have felt hurt, angry, put down, encouraged, or complimented by what someone said or wrote, we suspect that meanings have more to do with our lives than merely with other words in a dictionary. 

“Meaning” is a high-order abstraction label for our attempts to build bridges between what we know (or think we know) and what we know we don’t know–bridges between the data that come to us through our senses and whatever else we suspect is going on in and around us.  Our unceasing and pervasive search for meanings provides us with undeniable clues–messages from “our-selves” to “our-selves”–that we do not know it all. 

Meaning represents our search for patterns that would provide us with some sort of continuity be-tween events and our experiences, in different times and different places.  Meaning has to do with our individual attempts to make sense of what we experience going on in our inner and outer worlds. We look for relationships, patterns, and connections to satisfy our need to know and under-stand what’s going on; we look for clues that will help us get along better, obtain what we want, avoid problems, lessen stress, improve performance, and make better plans and decisions. 

Nothing in or of itself has meaning.  No thing, event, experience, situation, or word is its own meaning.  Meanings cannot be divorced from interpretations and interpreters.  The meaning or meanings of anything will not be found in the thing.  The meaning of a sound, painting, piece of music, dream, or statement will not be found in the sound, or music, or statement.  If the meaning of a thing was a part of the thing, how would we know where the “meaning” ended and the thing began?  “Meaning” refers to processes in psycho-physiological environments.  Features of these en-vironments include curiosity, surprise, anger, prejudice, opinions, beliefs, humor, fear, attitudes, values, and so on.  Meaning does not exist in geographical environments as such; we cannot point to a meaning. 

Each one of us creates our own meanings. And since each of us has our own unique ways of seeing, experiencing, and thinking about things and situations, no two of us will give the same meanings to situations we find ourselves in or to words we have heard or read.  In view of all this, it would seem more reasonable for us to ask, “What does this mean to me?” than to ask, “What does this mean?” 

Because words do not have meanings in themselves, we attempt to bridge the enormous gap be-tween what we hear or read and what is intended by a speaker or writer.  Frequently, we confuse and identify what we feel and understand, generated by what we hear or read, with whatever mes-sage a speaker or writer intended to convey. 

In a world of infinite numbers of relationships, where everything (as far as we know) is dynamically interrelated with other things, a world where not all of these relationships are known or can be known, human meanings (despite our tendencies to hang onto the familiar and traditional) cannot be final or complete.  As we get to know more about ourselves, our world, and ourselves-in-our-world, what things mean to us changes.  As we see more, hear more, travel to new places, meet and talk with people, and acquire skills, the ways we “see” things change–despite our beliefs that we are the “same” persons. 

If we accept that situations, behaviors, or statements do not have meanings in and of themselves, then we cannot reasonably and responsibly say that anything is “meaningless.” Saying that some-thing is meaningless is another way of saying that it does not mean anything to us at this time. We can, if sufficiently motivated, make sense of and give meanings to anything we choose. 

Because meaning has to do with our deep need to find continuity and consistency in ourselves and in our worlds, the meanings we give are interrelated,  integrated, and coordinated. The meanings we give to our experiences, or to what we hear or read, depend a great deal on the meanings we have given both to other experiences and to other things we have heard and read. This integration and consistency of meanings makes it extremely difficult for us to change attitudes, prejudices, beliefs, values, and behaviors, even when we realize that it is to our advantage to 
do so. 

Recognizing that meaning is so vital in all areas of our lives, that things are not what we or others say they mean, that we have the inalienable option to change our interpretations as we please, could greatly increase our levels of self-confidence and personal power. We could accelerate our personal development, increase our intelligence, and improve our personal and professional relationships by being more sensitive to , more sensible about, and more responsible for the ways we interpret and the meanings we give to our experiences and to what we hear or read. “Easier said than done,” you may be thinking. (Since I said it myself, I agree with me.) As mentioned before, making interpreta-tions and giving meanings are basically automatic processes. But with some practice, we can be-come more aware of these goings-on. It requires catching ourselves doing such things as explaining, giving opinions, criticizing, expecting things to happen in particular ways, and agreeing and dis-agreeing. 

Meaning plays an enormous role in our lives. To repeat, meaning is not just a matter of words. Our values, prejudices, beliefs, sciences, philosophies, religions, and artistic activities are based on meanings. We live our lives in terms of meanings. The kinds of societies we create and support de-velop from the interpretations and meanings we give to our experiences, especially to what we hear and read. “Meanings,” to a great extent, direct our lives. But since we are capable, to some degree, of recognizing, reviewing, and modifying our interpretations, we can also direct our meanings to some extent. 

The Guessing Game

Let’s return once again to Proposition 1: Whenever we agree or disagree with something we heard or read, we are to a great extent agreeing or disagreeing with ourselves. How do you now feel about Proposition 1? Do you agree? If your answer is “Yes,” here is another question. What are you agreeing or disagreeing with–the words as you have read them or the words as you now understand them? Suppose Proposition 1 were expressed in a foreign language with words you could pro-nounce but did not understand. Would you agree or disagree? If you are still puzzled, here is how I arrived at Proposition 1. 

When I read or listen to someone speaking, I am aware (sometimes) that I do not and cannot know what message or messages the words are intended to convey. I am aware (sometimes) that I do not know the feelings, expectations, motives, or attitudes represented by the words. So I make some guesses (without necessarily being aware that I am doing this). I arrive at some understanding based on my past experiences as well as my present beliefs and expectations. (This takes place at non-self- conscious levels.) My agreement or disagreement expresses my evaluation of my understand-ing. (This I am sometimes aware of.) 

If you disagree with the communication processes as outlined above (as you understand from the words), consider this: How comfortable would you be if you knew that anyone could read your mind” and know exactly what you were thinking or feeling? It certainly would be a different kind of world, “don’t you think?” 

Taking Responsibility

If we could read each other’s minds directly and completely, our human worlds would probably be healthier places. But as this is not the case, we’ll have to do the best with what we have. As far as we know, our communication processes necessarily involve interpretations. Based on our interpre-tations, we arrive at meanings. Our meanings are expressed through our feelings, attitudes, preju-dices, beliefs, values, etc. The kind of society we help to create and support, our relationships, our social institutions, and so on, all depend on our attitudes, beliefs, values, and the like. We are not 
 animals. We do not live our lives entirely according to instinctive urges. Our societies are based on interpretations and meanings. We have some measure of control over the ways we interpret things. With a certain degree of alertness, we can recognize and, if necessary, review, modify, and change our interpretations. We are self-reflexive beings. We have the abilities to correct and improve our interpretations toward probable higher “truth” values. 

It is easy for us to blame the politicians, the system, the corporations, the media–anyone but our-selves–for our social and other problems. We don’t usually acknowledge the parts we play–how we, through the meanings we give, contribute to the problems we complain about. We could put much more effort into improving our thinking toward becoming more critical thinkers and inter-preters. Applying such general-semantics principles as non-identity and non-allness could help us a great deal to improve our thinking about our thinking. We need to ask “our-selves” more often the question, “How do I know that what I believe is so?” For our own well-being, we need to remind “our-selves” more often that there are intrinsic differences between what we believe and what is going on.