META: Again my response to the original message will be in two parts
since the original has two unrelated content portions. This message is
a response to the content portion that diverges from the original
subject because it stems from a meta-comment in the message previous
to that. My response to the other content portion of the original,
which continues the same subject, will be delayed for a week in accord
with the group policy concerning moderator response.

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Ólafur Páll Ólafsson <olafurpall@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@> wrote:

[snip of text related to the message subject - response separated]

> > META: I had hoped that Olafur would respond to this part since he
> > certainly knows the area.
>
> Paul I am familiar with the noun "meta" which you have used a lot in
> your writings, but I can't figure out what the term "META" means. I
> did not find it in any dictionary (including the unabridged Merriam
> Webster dictionary). Is it an abbreviation for something? Please
explain.

I am not sure about your meaning in the first sentence above, partly
because I don't understand how you can be familiar with the usage of
"meta" (which is always an adjective and never a noun, as far as I am
aware) and yet not understand why I had prefixed my statement with
"META:". Therefore, I will take some time to explain the usages of
"meta", in general, and, specifically, why I chose to prefix my
statement with "META:", have done so again related to the note at the
start of this message and plan to continue using for this purpose.

What Olafur appears to have missed is that the major use of "meta" in
English is as a "combining form", specifically as a prefixed modifying
adjective to other words such as with "metaphysics", "metamorphosis"
and "meta-analysis" (sometimes written without the hyphen) to name
three of the most commonly known ones. However, as with so many words
in the English language its meaning becomes somewhat ambiguous because,
over time, its meaning has been multiplied into variations, some of
which are quite distinct from the original.

Below are the pertinent (for my purposes) parts of the current
Merriam-Webster Online Unabridged Dictionary entry for "meta-".

Function: prefix
1 a : occurring later : in succession to : after <metachronism>
<metabiosis> <metagenesis> <metainfective> b : situated behind :
posterior <metapore> <metanephron> c : later or more highly organized
or specialized form of <Metazoa> <metaphyte> d : with : occurring with
<metacinnabar>
2 a [Middle French & Latin; Middle French, from Latin, from Greek,
from meta] : change in : transformation of <metamorphosis>
<metaplasia> b : produced by metamorphism <metadiorite> <metasediment>
3 a [Middle English, from Medieval Latin, from Greek meta after, as
used in ta meta ta physika the (works) after the physics -- more at
METAPHYSICS] : beyond : transcending <metaphysics> <metapsychosis>
<metageometry> <metabiological> <metempirics> b : of a higher logical
type -- in nouns formed from names of disciplines and designating new
but related disciplines such as can deal critically with the nature,
structure, or behavior of the original ones <metalanguage>
<metatheory> <metasystem>

My preferred meaning of "meta-" and the meaning that I always intend
when I use the term, either as a prefix modifier (as in "Social
Meta-Needs") or as a prefix to a set of remarks and to clearly
separate them from the content (as with "META:"), is mostly related
to the meanings given in 3 above, but also includes the meaning given
in 1.a. above, as I will explain. In particular, the meaning 3.b. -
"of a higher logical type", is a major part of the meaning that I use
for "meta-" at the start of the Natural Social Contract definitions
(see: http://selfsip.org/solutions/NSC.html#existent).

With respect to my usage "META:", the capitalization was for emphasis
(as I have previously done with "NOTE:") and the colon was to signify
that the description (adjective) applied to the entire following set
of statements. Technically the META tag should have had a closing tag
(perhaps "/META" as with text markup commands) to show clearly where
the meta text ended and non-meta text (directly relating to the
message content) began. I will do this in future so that things are
clearer.

[Perhaps there would have been no confusion for Olafur (or at least
none after researching in MW unabridged) had Paul's comment, unrelated
to the message content, started like this "[META-TEXT: ....]" or
"[META-COMMENT:...]". Simply leaving out the word "text" or "comment"
was a short form, since "meta-" - outside of, with a step away from,
the original content was the important aspect. **Kitty]


Clearly, the meanings of "beyond" and "transcending" are closely
related to that of "of a higher logical type" and all those are also
related to "above" or "outside of", which I also think of when I use
the term "meta-". Note also the description "of a higher logical
type", as dealing "critically (and analytically) with the nature,
structure, or behavior of the original" - "the original" being the
subject matter described by the noun that is prefixed with "meta-"
(generally a hyphen after a prefixed modifier gets dropped once the
word combination has been in usage for a long enough time). So in that
sense one can think of "form" being "meta-" with respect to "content"
- ie. form = meta-content. Similarly in describing language one could
(and should) think of syntax (with grammar as a subset) as being a
meta-language concept - it describes and enables analysis of the
structure of the language elements. This is just as metamathematics is
the study of the form and structure of mathematics - a branch of the
philosophy of mathematics. Actually, meta subjects are generally
always part of the philosophy ("study of") the respective subject from
an outside, "distanced" and logically separated position.

Alright then, so how does the meaning "occurring later" relate to what
I have just described? The answer is that one cannot study the form
and structure of subject A unless subject A already exists! Thus,
meta-subjects must come after (wrt time) the subjects they study. Even
from a logical point of view, A must exist at some logical level,
before one can even imagine looking at A from outside or above at a
"higher" logical level.

However, I regard the meanings of 1.b., 1.c. (the later with the
meaning of "more highly organized") and 1.d. as distortions and I do
not use them except if I need to use a word that has already
incorporated them. OTOH, even though I don't use the meanings given in
2.a. and 2.b. above, I can understand how they came about since change
and transformation can only come *after* the initial existence of what
is changing or transforming. Also since some metamorphoses (as a
caterpillar to a moth) are so total in character, it is reasonable
that the originators of that usage thought of it as an above and
beyond, change of state, type of situation.

I will now examine and analyze some usages of the meta prefix.

At the beginning of the NSC, I define: "Meta-Realities are disjoint
sets of Elements that are necessary in order to describe, communicate,
Control and alter the Elements of Reality." This usage is taken
directly from that of "metaphysics" meaning "analysis of the relations
obtaining between the underlying reality and its manifestations" (here
"physics" is used in the original meaning of everything relating to
reality, rather than meaning a specific branch of the sciences) and
"metamathematics" meaning "the analysis of the meaning and
relationship of such mathematical concepts as "function", "variable",
"real number, etc, which form the elements of all mathematics".

In the paragraph at:
http://selfsip.org/fundamentals/socialmetaneeds.html#ref14 of the
essay on Social Meta-Needs, is the sentence:
"I define the term Meta-Needs as the class of those Environmental
conditions without which it is impossible to obtain the more direct
and immediate requirements for the normal functioning of the life-form
- ie. they are above and prior to (Meta) direct and immediate life needs."
My use of the word "prior" in the above may have been confusing to
some because it appears to be in direct conflict with the meaning of
meta as "occurring later". The confusion arises because, while the
"occurring later" relates to time, the usages of "prior" or "before"
relates more to understanding, logical analysis and fundamental
nature. In that sense metaphysics can be seen as prior to any attempt
to operate in reality because one cannot do well that of which one
does not understand the fundamentals. And similarly with
metamathematics - if one does not understand the meaning and
relationship of the elements of mathematics, then one will not be very
good at mathematics. It should be seen that this is true of any
subject - if you don't understand what you are talking about, then
your talking is of little value. So in that sense, meta-needs form the
grounding upon which any understanding of obtaining more direct needs
must rely.

With regard to the field of medical sciences one finds many "meta-analyses"
of previously conducted clinical trials. Clearly these analyses come
later and are "above" in the sense of being an overviewing and combining
of data and/or results from the whole set of specific trials that fall
into the category being analyzed.

Well, I think that is enough for now. If anyone has other usages of
"meta", that they would like me to help them analyze, then please bring
them up here.

One last thought. The prefix "meta" should not be confused with the
phrase "a priori", which has the following meanings given in the
Merriam-Webster Online Unabridged Dictionary:

Function: adverb
Etymology: Latin, literally, from the former
1 : by reasoning from definitions formed or principles assumed : DEDUCTIVELY
2 : without examination or analysis : PRESUMPTIVELY
3 : independently or[sic] experience : INTUITIVELY

META: As written the above meaning, 3, makes no sense. I have
contacted Merriam-Webster to suggest that it should read
"independently of experience". /META

It should be clear that meanings 2 and 3 are useless activities and
should never be pursued. However, even meaning 1 cannot stand in a
vacuum before anything else. Rather, there must be some abstraction of
properties, characteristics or essences from some other domain about
which one is then making definitions and stating principles relating
those definitions, all for the purpose of reasoning about those
abstractions within a realm absent and devoid from all their
potentially confusing and distracting other characteristics left
behind. This is precisely what is done in mathematics.

Think of simple arithmetic. One examines reality and sees that, while
no two elements of reality are ever identical, nevertheless, one can
see that such things as apples have certain common characteristics and
they can then reasonably be thought of a equivalent to one another
with respect to those characteristics - the wholeness of each being
the simplest characteristic of the individual apple and the number of
apples sitting in a group being the simplest possible characteristic
of that group. So one abstracts this idea of number from the reality
of just what things are being enumerated and, behold! - one gets the
metalanguage called arithmetic!

It is at this point that one can apply the term "a priori" to
something that is a definition of "number", some methods of operating
with numbers and relating them to each other; the principles (or
axioms) that govern these definitions and manipulations; and the
results obtained from them. Once that is done, the deductive method may
produce some result that was not apparent from a direct examination of
the underlying reality of the abstraction and such a result (prediction)
can then be tested for its validity in the underlying reality. If it
fails then the principles applied to the abstracted entities simply do
not apply to the underlying reality (the model is not valid). If it
succeeds then something important and beneficial has been achieved.
Such testing must continually be done in order to revalidate the model
as more information about reality is discovered. This is precisely how
the Newtonian model of physical reality was shown to be not valid in
certain areas of values of the underlying variables and was replaced
by relativity theory on the one hand and quantum theory on the other.

[snip of additional text related to the message subject - response
separated]

--Paul

[Reading through parts of Paul's explanation above may require more
than 1 reading for understanding - it did for me with the very last,
but now it is clear. But making it simpler - "dumbing it down" - will
eliminate the essentials for true understanding of the concept. It is
"dumbing down" that occurs in virtually all educational institutions
rather than assistance for individuals in expanding their mental
abilities, learning how to assess from their observations and
experiences. Prior to university, the main reason is the compulsion
factor (attendance laws); at the university it is generally either
assumed that this skill has been learned or that it is unnecessary.

All too often students in S-chools (as John Holt refers to formal,
compulsory schools) are taught primarily by way of examples and
analogies, never learning to generalize. It is like learning only that
2+2=4 and 10+10=20 and 500+500=1000 but never understanding that
a+a=2a.

At MoreLife Yahoo, readers are challenged to think by me and Paul, and
indirectly also by some of the posts from others. I and Paul do not
think that "dumbing down" material is helpful in the wide view long
term. This does not mean that we use jargon or phrasing to confuse or
impress. So if something either of us has written still does not
become clear after 2 or 3 readings, and possibly some reference to
another item we've written and/or a good dictionary, feel free to post
a message asking for clarification. **Kitty]