The Meaning of Meaning by C.K. Ogden
My rating: 2 of 5 stars
In many ways, this is a very unsatisfying book. Since it is written in the early 20th century, coming with this book is a reading of structuralism that is not quite formed, but definitely in full swing. The title is apt, but also guaranteed to be a let down, because if anything the book doesn’t come close to providing any meaning of meaning, although that is what it is about.
As considered, the text was revolutionary for its time. You can see that the two rhetoricians went far in their attempt to flesh out the topic of their book. But given its inconclusiveness, what were they hoping to do? How can anyone write a book with this little conclusion? Nonetheless, apparently this text was highly influential for its time. I gave it two stars because I am reading it today, although if I read this 70 years ago (I wasn’t alive 70 years ago) I may have felt differently.
Nonetheless the title is apt, because they are looking at the whole of language for meaning. Despite their formalistic leanings, they fail to recognize that meaning is inherent only within a logic when viewed from the outside. Meaning in this sense is orientation — but it is not a fixture of a system. When you are within a system, the very rituals and gestures attain a meaninglessness about it. So they do recognize this; but also fail to reconcile that meaning is produced when you are in one logic moving within a different logic. In other words, within the logics of language there is transcendence and there is immanence. The dialectical interaction between these two, respectively “inside” and “outside” create the experience of meaning.
Still, there is much information to be gained here, although it is a preliminary text. In this sense, as an influential marker of the time, it is well worth studying, although our grasp on the subject has passed this book up. I suppose in this sense, as a relic, it is more like an open letter; some experts writing to any other experts out there, who might care to respond. And in that sense, it is meaningful. But as a precise marker of the conversation today, it is meaningless since it doesn’t add anything — it presents no new logic, no new formalistic relations we might use, so to speak.
Given my curiousity on the subject, I can’t pass up reading a title like this. So I’m glad I read it. But it added very little to my understanding on the one hand, but also helped me shore up the understanding that I do have, on the other.
