The Divergence of Symbolic Representation
Suppose four individuals visit a supermarket to buy ingredients for dinner. One person suggests eating “ramen.” At this moment, each person forms a mental image of ramen. One might imagine shoyu (soy sauce) ramen, another miso, and another tonkotsu (pork bone). Each individual, as a Self (the perceiving subject), evokes “ramen” in their mind. This can be termed Memory, or the “abstract reproduction of a relationship.”
In this context, a “relationship” refers to a state where a symbol indicates an abstraction among at least three entities, viewed from an arbitrary reference point. Here, the reference point is the individual who evokes the image (the Self). If memory is the abstract reproduction of a relationship, it requires the virtual alignment of three entities within the mind. For four people to eat the same meal, the symbol “ramen” must point to the same object. Thus, this mental reproduction implies a virtual consensus between the Self (one person) and the Others (the other three). The symbol “ramen” is being projected in each mind as a placeholder for what they currently desire to eat.
Physical Action and the Sophistication of Memory
Now, someone asks, “What kind of ramen should we have?” While each person has a different image in mind, another suggests, “Let’s just start by getting the ingredients—first, the noodles.” At this point, everyone envisions the location of the noodle aisle and heads there together. If all four arrive at the same spot, it confirms their shared perception and consensus that “this is the noodle section.”
However, consensus is not guaranteed. Since these four individuals initially associated the symbol “ramen” with different toppings, they may not reach the same topping aisle without discourse (speech, writing, etc.). All discourse involves physical action. This suggests that even when symbols differ, consensus can be reached through physical actions like discussion.
Furthermore, as I defined memory as the “abstract reproduction of a relationship,” it implies that at the stage of “symbolic overlap,” physical action is not always strictly necessary. This is because previous physical actions have already refined our memory and our ability to reproduce abstract relationships.
The Ambiguity of Symbols and the Creation of New Relations
Nevertheless, reaching a consensus on every matter through discourse remains difficult. One reason is that symbols possess polysemy (multiplicity of meaning), as seen with “ramen.” As discourse grows more complex, it necessitates increasingly diverse symbolic manipulations.
These manipulations do more than just facilitate consensus; they can generate entirely new relationships. For instance, while the four individuals desire different types of ramen, one might spot natto during the discussion and wonder, “I wonder if natto-ramen is any good?” In this moment, based on prior physical actions, he has created a new relationship of ramen—a new synthesis between “noodles” and “toppings.”
Note on My Logical Framework
The logic of my philosophy diverges from the systems originating with Frege. Put simply, my perspective is that words are inherently polysemic. Their meaning is not fixed but is formed through their parallel arrangement with other words within the static structure of a sentence or text. This process is essentially dynamic.
