That is precisely why I stay with "one universal subject" that
potentially symbolize
the meanings from yesterdays, todays and tomorrows. The nude female
form in
unlimited designs.
mando
On Aug 26, 2008, at 4:37 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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)
