as with all philosophy-centric problems, the problem Always stems from definitions (a muti-way language problem, specifically with definitions).

i don't know where your starting point is so it's difficult to discuss it. that's why i asked for a guide, etc. so i can read for myself, and determine from there. what you wrote doesn't make sense to me.

==
ok, so we agree that those words (wearing, socks) has an understandable meaning in common usage, and was (originally) culturally constructed by society (meaning schools, home-school books, just other people that is not you, but which you may be part of). this was not "first origin," (the very very probably untraceable meaning) -- this was evolved origin (the meaning as it changed over time)

that culturally constructed meaning for each of those two words has the embedded meaning (the current meaning as to when you first, not heard, but actually understood it) that we were taught.

now that sentence was "constructed" by society, someone that is not me, namely you. it defaults automatically at zero meaning.

from that point, you and I may feel that I try "interpret" the embedded meaning from your sentence, but that's impossible because the embedded meaning is solely associated with each corresponding word, Y1 to Y1. so instead, i construct the meaning of your sentence from what i know thus far.

now what i did here is what you would call "interpreting." you may say, "Well, why are you using the word, "construct" when you know I mean to say "interpret". That is because the word "construct" is a much more precise and correct and accurate word for this understanding.

in common usage, with friends and such, people like me, would never (at least consciously) use the word "interpret" or "interpretation" and related. you don't say, "how do i interpret God or Buddha or whatever objects of our creation?" you say, "how do i make (which means construct) meaning out of this Thing, this concept (that other people, society, have created for me to believe in)?" which is what i did in my first post on this thread. i offered two sets of meaning for what these meaningless data points could mean.

"Phil Goetz's question is meaningful" only when i decide it has meaning to me, which it does not. i could not "interpret" meaning from it as there was none to be had. and nobody offered (by constructing one) a meaning that was sufficient for my values.

as is the same pattern, a "masterpiece" artwork only has meaning to me when i decide it deserves meaning. when i read the best book there is on that particular masterpiece, and for the sake of argument, let's say i took it at face value, that is when i didnt construct the meaning myself. whatever the book said was fine to me. that is when the meaning was constructed for me (which won't last long because most intelligent people will alter and mold that meaning soon enough). BUT i never ever, could ever, "interpret" that meaning.

(not sure if the downvote was for this post) now, when i was pretty much done with the touchups to this, someone named "Pavitra" sent this pm, "Downvoted because I hate you. (Nothing personal; I'm using the anti-kibitzer.)" i think this is super cute, because i know where i stand, and if ppl disagree or whatever, that's cool =) most likely it was due to my religious reference that i added in pretty late in the edits. im not sure but the point is... i read this. i didn't "interpret" this. what i tired to do was "make sense" (construct meaning) from the sentence, "I'm using the anti-kibitzer," which, after googling, i still could not due to lack of knowledge on what that person was talking about (embedded meaning, as we know, are the units we use for construction of meaning from what we know thus far)

my goal here wasn't to please anyone, my goal was for me to understand. and to understand, i only care for what is true. and this was the truest that i knew on this topic. just because human animals have a not cultural (based on what we create, like society), but natural (based on biology and the natural world) desire for meaning does not mean that there is, without constructing it first, and continuously =)

im interested on this topic: please link a guide or other resource preferably from this so-called "constructionist" where they argue it is "possible to interpret meaning in a particular context" -- this is wrong. you just "feel" like you're interpreting, but it was really constructed (i didnt see anything directly relevant to your claim on the plato site). when neuroscience advance far enough, ppl like me will be right.

as an aside (i feel this unwarranted need to pretentiously "talk up"..................), i got bored of begging for the same thing which wasnt effective (not that it was expected).