Re Cheerskep['s comment below, he cultural theory folks agree except they want to insist that even the responses of the subjects are shaped by received, and previously shaped, subjective cultural opinions. So when we apply meaning to something we don't really apply our own meaning/s but simply pass on how we've been shaped by others and the culture/s we represent. History, reality, and meanings are defined by the "consumer" not by the "producer" for the cultural theorists...and they are many, and they have almost total power these days. I'm sick of them. For me, and old-fashioned sort who thinks something truthful remains unexplained by cultural theory, something inherent in objective reality and in human consciousness/unconsciousness (this reminds me of Kirby's pro Surrealist stance) that is crucial.
Objects embody an essence of spiritual animation, a life form. When we notice that we are at the point of making meanings. But we don't create it. This sounds crazy or superstitious to cultural theorists but they just don't notice reality because they're too busy pretending to create it. WC > > So I'd get into the line something that conveys > there are as many "meanings" > as there are responders. The phrase "the" meaning > should be qualified. Perhaps > something like: "The meaning of a thing will vary > from one observer to > another. It does not lie in the thing itself, but in > our varying responses. Its > meaning for you may not be its meaning for me."
