The meeting of two people, however separated by culture, is not like the meeting of a frog and a gazelle. People have much in common, more in common than uncommon. People can communicate ideas and feelings regardless of minor differences -- or even major differences are quickly resolved -- and history is replete with convincing examples. In other words, the likelihood that two strangers will have quite similar ideas or feelings about a shared experiences is high. Very high. Extremely high.
WC --- On Tue, 8/26/08, [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], [email protected] > Date: Tuesday, August 26, 2008, 6:37 PM > In a message dated 8/26/08 4:31:52 PM, Brady writes: > > > > You regularly claim that the "meaning" is > re- > > created or evoked in the listener's mind. IF that > is so, does not the > > presence of different translations of the same work > imply that the act > > of recreating or evoking the author's > "meaning" in the mind of the > > other person is imperfect (and hence, there cannot be > "the" meaning of > > anything)?" > > > Because the act of evoking meaning in another's mind is > imperfect doesn't > imply that there is no meaning. Unfortunately for us it > does imply that if > imperfect, then perfect. This is not a state of > communication we are likely to > reach. An object often implies a variety of meanings within > a culture-and we > cannot claim to view objects without dragging our culture > along with us. This > claim that the object is meaningless unless someone comes > along and thinks it > means something,and that even then the meaning only resides > within the someone's > mind doesn't take into account that objects are of > themselves cultural,wh > ich renders the claim specious since it has not > acknowledged the circumstances > of the object's making. Any attempt to claim that only > natural objects were > intended,or to confuse the question by embarking on > discussions of what culture > was intended can be defused by pointing out that it is only > the culture that > the somebody coming along brings with them that is meant > here, and that > consequently it is only what that somebody's culture > arouses about the object in > their mind that can produce meaning,Peruvian shepherds > not withstanding. If > an object has been made within a culture and is then viewed > by someone within > that culture then it is not the same action as when an > object is made within > one culture and viewed from another culture. It is also not > the same action as > when someone from one culture views a natural object and > someone from another > culture views that same natural object. Nor does the > somebody coming along > necessarily place the same meaning in the object at > different times,large or > small. However, within a culture, in a general sense, > someones coming along do > tend to place the same sort of meaning in objects, > whether natural or > made, and that meaning placed is modified by the > someone's > experience,education,whether their feet hurt, etc. This > placement of meaning is imperfect only if one > expects communication to be a mirror of what was intended > by the author, and > there seems to be something strange about that ideal,maybe > even sublime. > Kate Sullivan > > > > > > ************** > 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)
