I suppose the ambivalence may be at least partly due to the fact that we don't know absolutely everything about anything, that knowledge is never a complete, "final possession" of man. Yet the fact seems to be that a man must often act, even where his knowledge is incomplete, imperfect.... And often, he needs to communicate. So even if the "symbol" cannot possibly penetrate and contain its external referrent, stable meanings -- meanings that do not change willy-nilly over time -- are a practical necessity. Otherwise, communication would be impossible. And if it were impossible, that would make us all "monads" in the Voegelinian sense of the term (as I understand it; i.e., discrete, subjective consciousness radically disengaged from anything external to itself).
Of course, rationalists tend to be loathe to admit this, which may be explained by their main "antirationalistic tendency" -- their refusal to admit any limit to the human mind; or among the extreme cases, to admit that anything exists independently of the mind; or, as corollary, independently of personal will and desire.
These folks just give me a headache. :^) Surely they must appreciate at some level that we do need to "signify" things in order to communicate with others. And that requires more-or-less stable significations that are at least roughly, mutually intelligible to the communicating parties. To "deconstruct" meaning into nothingness is analogous to going into the lobotomy business.... JMHO, FWIW. Thanks so much for writing, cornelis. All my best -- bb.
Yes, as for example the U.S. Constitution, or the O.T. Law. There is no irony involved in the fact these "stabilizing significations" are now hotly disputed. I enter the conversation above pointing to the fact that too many do not understand why because they are hanging on the pendulum swing of ignorance, which now claims the word as absolute (or, Constitution is king) and now as ultimate irrelevance, in resignation to the lost center: "the center cannot hold, mere anarchy is loosed upon the world."
This is why the first primer in this matter is to understand the bankruptcy of rational-ism which makes claims beyond measure in the simplicity of its naivete: A is A. But that is merely a relation of identity. One must go beyond that identity to give it meaning. One must go beyond the Constitution to give it meaning. And those who merely accept the requirement of "stabilizing significations" are not strong enough to defend it. "Stabilizing significations" only get their stability in a meaning that transcends it. If that cord is broken, then shattered is the pitcher at the well.
Thanks for your response. As I'm sure you understand, I am quite earnest about the wholescale ignorance that shows in our popular parlance and I am grieved as well to be unable to have others see with new eyes.