I infer frm the abrupt mid-sentence termination of my last posting that my
garrulity overtaxed the host computer's patience.
Here's how it continued and ends:
"Nor does the somebody coming along
necessarily place the same meaning in the object at different times,large or
small."
That's right. My view of John Edwards is different from what it was a while
ago. I should report that my mind replaces Kate's phrase "place the same
meaning in the object" with something like "finds different associations with
the
object arising". A strict reading of "place a meaning in" suggest all sorts of
notion I can't agree with -- e.g. that a "meaning" somehow resides IN the
object after it is "placed" there.
"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."
I agree with the spirit of this.
"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."
Again, I'll address this as though it were saying something like, "It's a
mistake if you ever expect to somehow convey an exact replica of your notion to
someone else's mind (Though such an effort is often serviceably successful."
I'll take Kate's line here as talking about "placing" a notion in someone
else's
mind. I'll go along with that. I can never go along with the idea that it
is in some way "placed in" the object.
-- Cheerskep
**************
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)
