Mean, Means, and Meaning

Musings on the mysteries of metrics, mediators, and messages…

“Persian fruits and rubs…” —what on Earth does that odd set of words mean?

Let’s explore this and have some fun.

In particular, when we say “meaning”… what do we mean? And is it connected to the mathematical definition of “mean”? What about “means”, as in a method?

What is the meaning of this?!

Mean-dering Down Etymology Lane

Actually, this connection isn’t merely at the level of how these words sound (they’re almost homophones).

There’s a linguistic connection where “mean” (average), “means” (method / way), and “meaning” (significance) share etymology, and that traces back to the Proto-Indo-European meino- (opinion, intent).

Let me break this down explicitly:

• “Mean” (average): The middle or central value / What the numbers “point to” collectively

• “Means” (method / way): The path or instrument through which something is achieved / How we get from point A to point B?

• “Meaning” (significance / meaning): The intended message or purpose / What something points to or indicates

These pointed definitions share a meaning to “point.”

Okay, so what’s the point? Let’s continue to explore…

The Message Is the Medium

“Means” can also be thought of as a “medium” (as in using something as a mediator to accomplish a goal), and interestingly “mean” in the mathematical sense means “average,” which some people think of as “medium”, so is there a connection between these uses of medium as well?

Medium in both senses can be traced to an altogether different Proto-Indo-European root (medhyo-), which means “between”.

“Okay Curt, but between-ness sounds different than pointed-ness. Are they the same in some sense?”

Well, let’s examine them in dappled contexts:

A mean points toward a central tendency (that “middle” part of a distribution), a means points toward an end, while a meaning points toward significance.

Each of these has a direction to them!

Between-ness is a positional relationship, though, so how could it have anything to do with this sort of pointing / direction?

It’s because a medium exists between entities (just as a mediator stands between conflicting sides).

“Ah, so I see it now… Is it just like how a mean sits between numerical extremes? And how a means is a path that sits between intention and achievement? And how “meaning” is what sits between a symbol and what that symbol symbolizes?”

Yup. You got it.

The very act of pointing creates a relationship between pointer and what’s pointed-at.

Points Along The Path

“Okay, Curt, but who cares? What does this mean? It’s unkind of the universe to have all these different sorts of meaning. It’s sort of mean!”

Consider this… My friend Matthew Widen mentioned to me that the means justify the ends.

For instance, prayer shouldn’t be thought of as a means to get an end, but as an end itself.

Don’t think instrumentally, but instead think in terms of means being valuable in and of themselves. You don’t get to murder millions because it will be better in the long run. Mathematically, your integral from A → B must have the dx as the good part, and not the B.

\(\text{medhyo}\left(\int_A^B dx\right) > \text{meino}(B-A) \implies \int_A^B f(x) dx \neq f(B)-f(A)\)

\( \text{ where } f: \text{Experience} \to \text{Value}\)

In other words, look locally at the moment-to-moment and do a sum of only “good” actions. Not “morally questionable” actions in favor of some idyllic pleasant end.

Furthermore, one shouldn’t besmirch or debase language as merely modes of transmission.

Words aren’t vehicles with meaning as a passenger.

One Size Fits None

Mean-while, over Iain McGhilchrist land, we can relate this to the left hemisphere vs. right hemisphere approach (which I call the Monolith vs. Manifold approach as I believe this to more aptly capture Iain’s research).

Mean as a statistical averaging is a perfect example of Monolithic thinking. Why? Because:

• It takes distinct data points and collapses them to a single “representative” value

• The act of averaging itself assumes these points are “similar enough” to be combined

• Individual variation becomes “noise” to be eliminated

• We lose the texture and particularity of the individual

To put it differently, the Monolithic (“left-brain”) mode tries to find meaning through reduction / averaging and assumes truth lies in what’s common rather than what’s unique.

Indeed, just as an average removes “noise” to find the “signal”, the Monolithic mode removes “irrelevant” details to find some “essence.”

This is why bureaucracies (which epitomize Monolithic / left-brained thinking) treat people as statistics rather than individuals. It’s also why racism exists. “You’re not a distinct person, rather I will abstract you to a representation of a larger class.”

Words About Words About Words

While we’re here, why not make like Zuck and get meta: What is the etymology of etymology itself?

Well, “etymology” comes from: Greek “etymon” (true sense, original meaning) and of course + “logia” (study of) which comes from logos ultimately.

This means to find the “etymology” of something is to study its “true, real, actual” meaning.

However, the etymological analysis itself is one of a Monolithic viewpoint!

How so? Because since etymology seeks to find some one true original meaning, it’s implicitly assuming a singular root that branches out, treating later meanings as “derivations” from a more pure source.

This is the left-brained view, in Iain McGilchrist’s lingo. From the more right-brained / Manifold view, you would instead see:

• Words carry their whole history of meanings

• Each usage context creates unique shades of meaning

• The “original” meaning is just one node in a rich network

• Later meanings aren’t “corruptions” but enrichments or at least just differences

From Abstract To Apricot

To bring us back to our original question… What does it mean to have a rub of Persian fruits? Well, peaches come from a word meaning Persian fruit, and cream comes from a word meaning to rub.

So, it’s peaches and cream… know what I mean?

- Curt Jaimungal