Theory of Meaning in Intellectual Modeling Methodology
Theory of Meaning in MANHAJ
Trading name: MANHAJ | Intellectual Modeling Methodology
Theory: Theory of Meaning (Theory of Meaning).
This page presents the theoretical structure of the Theory of Meaning within Intellectual Modeling Methodology, defining its subject, concepts, abstract levels, mathematical representation, and mechanisms of meaning movement.
This document is the reference presentation of the theory and is not a closed list of all models or applications that may subsequently derive from it.
Version reference: Faouzi Messeoud, “Theory of Meaning in Intellectual Modeling Methodology”, MyPortail, Version 1.0, 09 September 2026.
The Theory of Meaning was not formulated in its present form all at once. Its elements gradually took shape and were distributed across a number of writings by Faouzi Messeoud published on MyPortail over nearly two decades, then strengthened and expanded in his two books, “Immaterial Linkage” and “Doctrinal Centrality”, and in the conceptions relating to the conceptual domain.
This theory, formulated and developed by Faouzi Messeoud within Intellectual Modeling Methodology, brings these conceptions together and reorganizes them within a single methodological structure, revealing the relationships that connect them and making their modeling possible within Intellectual Modeling Methodology.
The Theory of Meaning in Intellectual Modeling Methodology starts from treating meaning as a subject of modeling in its own right, rather than merely as a property dependent on a concept, language, or action.
The theory approaches meaning in terms of its material, its path, and the dialectic operating within its material, making it possible to study its content, the change in its value over time, and the processes that produce and reproduce this change.
The treatment of meaning here is not limited to its existence in the linguistic or mental domain; it extends to its movement within thought, knowledge, mental configuration, immaterial linkage, action, and reality.
Meaning is the content of a concept.
A concept in itself is non-temporal. Therefore, a change in meaning does not result from a change in the concept as a conceptual entity, but from a change in its content.
The concept is the framework within which the content of meaning is determined, while meaning is the content of the concept.
When a concept is deployed within a defined conceptual domain, a specific meaning content is determined for it and can be identified and studied. For example, the concept of “dignity” can be examined to trace the value of its meaning content within a defined conceptual domain and then study the changes that occur in this content over time.
The non-temporal nature of the concept does not mean that its content remains fixed; the value of meaning content may change according to the domain, relationships, and processes within which it operates.
Intellectual Modeling Methodology approaches the same meaning through three abstract levels. These levels do not represent three different types of meaning, but three perspectives on the same meaning according to the function to be modeled.
Meaning is approached in terms of its content, as the material that can be determined at a given reference point.
Meaning is approached in terms of the change in the value of its content over time, using time as a coordinate to trace the path.
Meaning is approached in terms of the process operating in its material and producing a change in the value of its content.
When meaning is viewed as material, the object of inquiry is the content of meaning in its initial reference form.
The initial meaning is the meaning associated with the origin determined by Doctrinal Centrality, not the first meaning in chronological order.
Thus, \(\mathbf M_0\) represents the content taken as the basis for examining meaning before tracing changes occurring along its path. If the concept studied is “dignity”, \(\mathbf M_0\) represents the reference content of the meaning of dignity within the conceptual domain initially defined.
The origin associated with \(\mathbf M_0\) is not understood as a temporally prior result, but as a deliberate determination of the reference origin.
Doctrinal Centrality determines the reference around which the conceptual domain is organized; within this domain the content of the concept is determined, and from it the initial meaning that can be adopted as modeling material is determined.
Accordingly, \(\mathbf M_0\) is not a selection of a first meaning from a prior sequence of meanings; it is the determination of meaning at the reference origin on which the model is based.
Describing meaning as material does not mean that it is fixed or static; it means determining it in terms of its modelable content before studying it as a changing path or through the processes operating in its material.
At the second level of abstraction, attention turns to the change in the value of meaning content over time.
\(t\) is the temporal variable that makes it possible to locate meaning on its path, while the object of inquiry is the value of meaning content at each temporal position. Time is not the object of study in itself; it is the coordinate used to trace changes in the value of meaning content.
The general representation of meaning is vector-based from the outset. The vector may be one-dimensional or multidimensional according to the nature of meaning content and the requirements of modeling.
Thus, the one-dimensional case is not an independent model, but a special case of the general vector representation.
The origin of meaning is referential, whereas the origin of path tracking is temporal.
At the third level of abstraction, meaning is approached not only in terms of its content or the change in the value of that content over time, but in terms of the process operating in the material of meaning and producing a change in the value of its content.
\(F\) represents the dialectical process of meaning; it does not represent another meaning, but the process through which change operates in the material of meaning.
Intellectual Modeling Methodology does not assume that meaning change always proceeds in one direction, from an influencing factor to an affected meaning.
A factor may affect meaning, and meaning may in turn affect the actor, action, reality, or relationships in which it participates, so that the results of the process return to influence subsequent meaning.
The relationship is therefore capable of reciprocity and feedback and is not necessarily reducible to a linear, one-way causal relationship.
Describing the process as dialectical does not mean that every relationship between meaning and surrounding factors is necessarily reciprocal. It means that the model does not impose a single direction of influence in advance, but determines the directions of the relationship according to the phenomenon studied.
Meaning is not determined independently of the conceptual domain in which the concept is deployed. Therefore, the conceptual domain represents the measurement frame within which the meaning of the concept and its coordinate representation are determined.
When a concept is deployed within a defined conceptual domain, its meaning content can be represented by coordinates, with the coordinates representing the value and position of meaning content within the domain.
Thus, the vector \(\mathbf M(t)\) simultaneously represents the value of meaning content and the coordinate position of that content within the conceptual domain.
This does not mean that the concept itself is a point or a vector; the concept in itself is a shared, non-temporal linguistic common. Rather, deploying its meaning content within a defined conceptual domain makes its coordinate representation possible.
The mathematical formulation of meaning is valid within a defined conceptual domain. The conceptual domain is the initial condition within which the meaning of the concept and its coordinate representation are determined.
If the conceptual domain itself changes, a change in \(\mathbf M(t)\) cannot be interpreted directly as a change in meaning alone; one must first distinguish a change in meaning content from a change in the domain within which its coordinates are determined.
Meaning change is not measured before defining the conceptual domain within which the comparison is made.
If the conceptual domain changes, this becomes a separate modeling subject, and coordinates are not transferred automatically from one domain to another.
In the general structure of Intellectual Modeling Methodology, the conceptual domain remains a moving domain under a Doctrinal Centrality. However, movement of the domain itself is not the subject of the meaning path in the basic model; it may be introduced into specific applied models when needed.
The general model of the Theory of Meaning is based on a single reference representing the initial reference content of meaning:
This uniqueness follows from the need for a single reference point against which the value of meaning content, its change, and its path can be determined and studied.
Accordingly, subsequent values are measured against the same reference, and the measurement reference does not change from one case to another within the general model.
Multiple references may appear in reality. Each reference can then be studied within an independent conceptual domain and a specific model can be built for it.
This does not mean multiple \(\mathbf M_0\) values within the general model, but multiple models and conceptual domains to which the theory can be applied.
If reference meaning is represented by the vector \(\mathbf M_0\), and its content at time \(t\) by the vector \(\mathbf M(t)\), then change relative to the reference is represented by the vector:
This vector does not represent a new meaning; it represents the change in the value of meaning content relative to the reference content.
If the objective is to measure the magnitude of change without its direction, one may define:
The fact that \(\mathbf M(t)\neq\mathbf M_0\) establishes change relative to the reference, but does not establish deviation. Deviation requires a criterion that determines the normative relationship between the value under study and the reference value.
Meaning content can also be compared between two points in time:
If \(\mathbf M(t)\) is differentiable, the rate of change of meaning content can be studied:
Meaning content is determined when a concept is deployed within a given conceptual domain and enters into a relation with an existent, event, or action that can be perceived and addressed, then undergoes processing, perception, and evaluation according to the case under study.
Meaning can become material for transmission between an actor and a recipient, or between two or more domains. Transmission does not necessarily mean that the content itself is transferred without change.
Meaning may retain its content; its content may change while its direction remains; or both content and direction may change together.
Meaning reception is not necessarily neutral; the recipient receives meaning within a conceptual domain and conditions of perception, evaluation, and mental configuration that may affect the value taken by the content for that recipient.
The path of meaning does not end when it reaches the recipient. The recipient may become a new actor who reuses or transmits the meaning or introduces it into new actions and relationships, so that what was received becomes part of a new process of meaning production.
Meaning reproduction may therefore stabilize the content, modify it, expand it, reduce it, or change its direction, according to the process under study.
The actor is not always merely a source of meaning. Just as the actor can influence meaning content, the meaning the actor carries or reproduces can influence the actor’s actions, function, relationships, and position within the domain.
Reality is likewise not viewed as the final result of meaning. Meaning can influence action, action can produce new reality, and the new reality can then become an object of perception, evaluation, and new meaning production.
The Theory of Meaning is therefore not reduced to a linguistic or mental theory; it addresses the movement in which meaning operates within thought, knowledge, mental configuration, immaterial linkage, action, and reality.
The Theory of Meaning does not constitute a level parallel to the levels of Intellectual Modeling Methodology. Rather, it addresses a material that traverses the levels, in which these levels operate and through which they interact.
Determines the reference and origin around which the conceptual domain is organized.
Addresses meaning in terms of its material, path, and dialectic, as well as its representation and change in value.
Addresses the links through which influence and meanings can move between actors and existents.
The Theory of Meaning is also connected with thought, knowledge, mental configuration systems, action, and reality, without replacing any of them.
The theory provides a general framework for modeling meaning, but it does not prescribe in advance all the mathematical properties of the applied model.
The general model does not determine the number of dimensions of the meaning vector, prescribe the type of norm or distance used to measure change or deviation, or assume that \(\mathbf M(t)\) is differentiable in every case.
Studying changes in the conceptual domain itself, or moving between different conceptual domains, requires specific applied models that determine the nature of the relationship between domains and the possibility of comparing them.
The general mathematical formulation therefore remains open to more specialized models, provided that each study defines the vector dimensions, measurement conditions, relationships, and factors entering the function according to the nature of the phenomenon studied.
Theoretical Conclusion:
The Theory of Meaning, formulated and developed by Faouzi Messeoud, constitutes an independent theoretical component within Intellectual Modeling Methodology. It approaches the same meaning through three abstract levels: meaning as material, meaning as a path, and meaning as dialectic.
Reference content is represented by \(\mathbf M_0\), meaning content at time \(t\) by the vector \(\mathbf M(t)\), while \(F\) represents the dialectical process involving the factors and relationships that produce changes in content.
The conceptual domain defines the measurement frame within which the meaning of the concept and its coordinate representation are determined, with the basic model adopting the equivalence \(\mathbf M(t)\equiv\mathbf P(t)\) within the conceptual domain initially defined.
Meaning can therefore be studied by moving from determining its material, to tracing its path, to modeling its dialectic and measuring changes in its content, without reducing meaning to the word, the concept, or the action alone.