One aspect of meaning is imitation. People decide what things mean by imitating what others say they mean. Most of what comes to mind, "stirred" to imitate Cheerskep, is what we remember from what others have said or what we've read or what we recognize as preferred in cultural ambiance. So there's not really very much room for wildly diverse associations as we live moment to moment.
Trying to undo the bounds of such habitual, imitative associations is one of the ambitions of creativity and it's a very hard, Olympian, thing to do. One way is to try to ignore the ususal associative habit by devising means that undercut it, contradict it, perversely alter it, and render it as blankly as possible. To seek blankness, meaninglessness, is merely the effort to open up associative cognition, to make all associations seemingly equal, to pretend to return to some primitive state of mind when everything external to it was "anything at all". I've said many times that this state of mind is doubtless impossible, given our fetal stage neural development at least, but it is a worthy quest for the sake of opening our minds to newness. At any moment everything in existence is without any meaning whatsoever and at any moment everything in existence has all potential meanings. Then we choose and mostly we choose to imitate. Except in art where "make-believe" is the most wonderous adventure possible. WC --- On Sun, 8/24/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: "Meaning" is always in a mind, never in an object. > To: [email protected] > Date: Sunday, August 24, 2008, 5:34 PM > Mike Brady writes: > > > Or perhaps, "I don't know what it's > supposed to mean." I.e., I > > recognize that it has been intentionally devised, but > I do not know how to > > access whatever was intended. > > > What the creator had in mind is one thing (a notional > thing), but it's folly > to figure his intention becomes a property somehow inhering > in the object -- > ITS "meaning". > > > > BTW, how does one know whether a translation is > "accurate," "good," > > "reliable," etc.? How can one compare the > quality of two translations > > of the same passage? > > > All those JUDGMENTS are notional, and often a function of > stipulative > criteria, and thus it's wrong to believe they are > qualities that "are" or "are > not" > inherent properties of the translation. Moncrief's > Proust, Garnet's > Dostoievsky > et al, Lowe-Porter's Mann eventually were dismissed as > being inaccurate to > some degree or other. This allowed other translators to > turn a dollar. The > overwhelming current consensus of people of sensibility is > that the original > three > have always been the "best". > > > > > ************** > It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find > your travel > deal here. > > (http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)
