What Words Do – Literal Meaning vs Manifest Meaning

 “Actions speak louder than words,” the saying goes. And it is quite clearly true. If someone says “I love you,” and another person gives you a gift that shows they have been paying attention to your likes and interests, the second person’s intention comes across much more strongly. But there is a deeper level to the phrase “actions speak louder than words:” words are a kind of action.

In our culture, we think of words as a tool for communicating ideas based on the words’ literal definitions. If I say, “Light is an electromagnetic wave,” it is natural to assume I am communicating the physical structure of light, and that is the end of the story. But if we are in a group of people talking about cultivating an inner light to share with the world, and I say “Light is an electromagnetic wave,” then the group would give me dirty looks. This might frighten me, and I would say, “What? It’s true.” This would drive a wedge between me and the rest of the group, and they might ask me to leave.

Here is what just happened. If we look at the literal meanings of the words, “Light is an electromagnetic wave,” and, “What? It’s true,” we find a true story. Light is physically an electromagnetic wave, and it is indeed true. But the actions of these words, what I call their manifest meaning, is to say “I do not buy into your spiritual metaphor and neither should you,” and then, “You shouldn’t be upset, because I am not trying to get you to change your beliefs.” In the realm of actions, these true phrases are, in fact, deceitful.

If you think about it, we never say anything simply because it is true. There is always a reason behind what we say. I have never mentioned before that there is a large parasol in the yard outside my window, even though it is true. This is because I have never had a reason to bring it up. Even now the reason I am telling you about it is not because it is true (although it is), but because it illustrates the point of this blog post. The reason we say words is not because of their literal meaning, but because what we say and when and how we say it is an action.

In order to understand other people, we must not only look at the literal meanings of the words they say, but at the actions they are performing by saying them. If we get too caught up in the literal meanings of the words, we get confused and do not understand. This is true not only for others, but for ourselves as well. In the above example, the person who says “Light is an electromagnetic wave” does not understand their own actions, because they are fixated on the literal meanings of their words. The exchange is not about physics, it’s about personal growth and its effects on others.

So we see that for words to be true, they must not only be literally true, but manifestly true. Yet I would go even further and say manifest truth is more important than literal truth. There are times when what someone needs to hear is not what is true, but something motivational. For instance, if someone is going through a hard time, we can tell them, “Hang on, everything will be okay soon,” even if there is no sign of when things will be okay. Maybe it’s literally true, and maybe it’s not, we don’t know. But the manifest truth, “You don’t have to suffer as much if you think positively,” is. However, straight-up telling someone “You don’t have to suffer as much if you think positively” is not nearly as motivating, and for some people it has its own manifest meaning, “You are to blame for making yourself suffer.” This is obviously not the message we want to get across, so instead we say, “Hang on, everything will be okay soon.” Everybody knows this statement’s literal truth is uncertain, but it is still sometimes the right thing to say; its manifest meaning is true.

Knowledge is power, and with power comes responsibility. The positive value of recognizing words as actions is immense. It can help us understand and make peace with one another, especially regarding sensitive topics. But there are those who use manifest meaning to manipulate others for their own gain, and understanding the idea of manifest meaning helps us guard against their influence. In politics, manifest meaning is prioritized over literal meaning, no matter what party, no matter what country. Nowhere is this more apparent than with the current United States President, Donald Trump.

It is no secret that Trump spouts nonsense all the time. There’s no point beating around the bush; he does not care about literal truth, and everyone can see it as plainly as the Emperor’s New Clothes. Some people point to the nonsense he says and call him an idiot. But this interpretation is wrong, as evidenced by this one damning fact: Trump got elected President of the United states. You don’t bumble your way into that position. Trump’s ejaculations of the mouth may be nonsense when taken literally, but it all has the same manifest meaning: “Life is a status game, and I’m the winner.” If we interpret his words under this lens, it all clicks into place.

You may be wondering, what is the manifest meaning of this blog post? That, my dear reader, is the question you should ask anytime you read a text. In this case, it can be summed up in this simple idea: words are not just words, they are actions. They have effects and consequences, sometimes independent from their literal meanings. If we want to understand others and navigate through the maze of human communication, we must internalize this and practice speaking and interpreting in terms of manifest meaning rather than getting caught up in the endless, needless tangles of literal meanings. When we do, we will discover life to be so much clearer than it appeared before.

Keeping Science Accountable – The Sokal Affair

In 1996, a physicist named Alan Sokal submitted a paper to a non-physics academic journal. The paper argued that the idea of an objective physical reality was a social construct to keep scientific power in the hands of the elites. The paper was accepted and published. Three weeks later, Sokal publicly announced that the paper had been a joke, its logic and technical language either made up or used nonsensically, and the reason he submitted it was to test the integrity of the journal. This became known as the Sokal Affair.

Sokal exposed a fact that can sometimes make scientists uncomfortable: science is not inherently superior to all other collaborative methods of determining truth. It has to earn that status by being intellectually rigorous, which means defining terms clearly, making hypotheses that are falsifiable, accounting for all variables, taking unbiased data, and analyzing the data with the best, most applicable statistical methods available. If a journal allows papers that do not live up to these standards, that journal is no longer a vehicle of science, but of dogma.

After Sokal revealed the paper to be a hoax, there were cries of foul play. He had, after all, intentionally published a paper with false data and results. Fabrication is considered profane among scientists, and can result in the author being ostracized from the scientific community. However, the reason for this is because it spreads false information. Sokal’s purpose was not to spread false information, but exactly the opposite: to expose and prevent the spreading of false information by the journal.

Within the past few years, a team of academics followed in Sokal’s footsteps by submitting several bogus papers to a few different journals. Many of these papers, including a passage from Mein Kampf with key words swapped out, were accepted. Luckily, the Mein Kampf plagiarism wasn’t actually published. This became known as Sokal Squared, and also received blowback. It should be noted that Sokal Squared was not meant to discredit the fields being studied, but to expose the fact that it was being done wrong in these particular journals.

I believe the authors in the Sokal and Sokal Squared affairs did absolutely nothing wrong. In fact, what they did is perfectly in line with the scientific process, which is to continually test ideas from every different angle to see whether they can stand up to it. I think that every academic journal, from the natural sciences to the humanities, from the most prestigious to the peripheral, should be regularly put to a Sokal Test. By this, I mean that people from different fields of study, or who are not professional academics, should write nonsense papers using the journals’ jargon, and see if they get accepted. Anyone writing a hoax paper should be required to reveal the hoax within a reasonable amount of time. Journals that fail the Sokal Test will lose reputation points, and those that pass will gain prestige.

Science is an amazing vehicle for understanding the universe and what happens within it. It is naturally competitive, its scholars each putting forth their own theories and doing their best to prove everybody else wrong. To do this, they use every legitimate trick in the book: making sure all significant variables are accounted for, checking the data collection methods for bias, and many others. But these feedback processes are largely self-contained within each discipline, which means they can become corrupted and watered down. Instituting a Sokal Test would be an effective and equitable way to keep journals accountable to scientists in other disciplines, and to everyone who is interested in true scientific knowledge.

Miscommunication and Mental Dictionaries

When you speak the same language as someone, it is assumed that you understand each other. After all, that is the point of language in the first place. However, the process is not nearly as smooth as we might believe. To understand this, let’s look at the mechanisms behind how language works. First, the person who wants to speak has a thought, and they want to produce the same thought in the other person’s mind. They translate the thought into words, and then speak those words. The person on the receiving end hears the words, and translates them into their own thoughts. If all goes well, the thoughts the second person ends up with are the same thoughts the first person started with.

Many of us naively assume everyone who speaks the same language has common definitions of the words in that language. After all, words mean what they mean, right? Well, let’s look at how dictionaries work. If you want to know the definition of a word, you look it up and the dictionary tells you. However, it tells you using other words, all of which can be found in the same dictionary. It is entirely self-referencing; it does not relate any word to any kind of objective meaning. When translating between thoughts and words, we use our own mental dictionaries, which are constructed by what we think words mean. Our beliefs about the meanings of words are not built around any kind of objective meaning, but are shaped by our own experiences. Thus, since everybody’s personal experiences are different, everybody’s mental dictionary ends up slightly different from everybody else’s.

Because of this, people can use the same words, but speak different languages in a sense. This is what happens when people “talk past each other,” or try to have a conversation, but feel like the other person does not understand a word they say. In order to solve this problem, we need to remember that the purpose of a conversation is to communicate a message, not to convince the other person that their definition is wrong. We might try using different words, but sometimes there aren’t enough words held in common to do so. If we want to be the most effective, we should concede to temporarily use the other person’s definition. The skill of being able to jump between definitions depending on who you are talking with can make it much easier to get along with lots of different people.

Let’s consider some examples of people using the same words with different meanings. First, “reality.” When a physicist talks about reality, they mean the objective aspects of the world that exist and have properties independently of anyone’s beliefs, knowledge, or perception. However, when a psychologist or philosopher talks about reality, they might mean that which affects one’s behavior and conscious experience. These people would say the pulled muscle in my hip is more real to me than the extreme poverty of a child in Nigeria, whereas a physicist would say they are equally real.

Another word that is used differently by different people, and which is the cause of much animosity among people these days, is “racism.” When most people talk about racism, they mean judging a person by their skin color instead of their individual characteristics. This, of course, can be done by anyone toward anyone. But when people in social justice circles talk about racism, they are referring to the extra hardships of life that are put on some groups of people and not others. To these people, being racist means participating, knowingly or not, in the features of the social system that allow these unfair hardships to happen. This kind of racism only flows in the direction of the underprivileged groups. If someone says, “it’s impossible to be racist against white people,” and the person they are talking to says, “that statement is racist,” they are talking about two different things, and must realize this quickly or their friendship will be in jeopardy.

There is little point arguing over whose definitions are correct. After all, it is not the words themselves that have meaning, but rather the meaning is produced when the words are translated by people into thoughts. If this idea seems strange, imagine speaking English to someone who only knows French. Before your words have any meaning to them, they must be taught to understand them. The same is true for someone who speaks the same language, but uses words differently.

In order to get along with people, you will want to practice listening for signs that you are using words differently. The most obvious is when the other person seems to make no sense at all. If an otherwise intelligent person says something that is ridiculously stupid, chances are that what they mean to say actually makes sense, and they used words that you use differently. A less obvious sign is if they say something that seems hurtful or prejudiced, especially if it is unprovoked. If you can’t tell by their words, check their mannerisms, because it is easier to tell someone’s intentions that way. Always remember that it’s not the words that are important, it’s the communication of one person’s thoughts to another.