William writes: "Cheerskep wants to agree with me but can'tb&"
William, there's some truth to what you say. Which is to say, I wish I didn't have to disagree with you, but when I think you're wrong, I have to disagree. And, alas, I think you're wrong a good deal in this current exchange. For example: "b&because he's still insisting that the creation of meaning is a one way process instead of two way, organic and creative. The writer can't create word meaning alone." I'll temporarily put aside your usage of "meaning" there. Here's what I said in my last posting about the legitimacy of frequently expecting the reader to do a lot of work in certain "communication": "I had to bend long and hard over some textbooks in college, and not always because the writers were inadequateb&. Some ideas in physics, math, chemistry and philosophy are intrinsically difficult. No matter how well written [about] they are, they take effort, time, and concentration while the receiving apparatus in my head processes the ideas. In other words a good writer may do all he can, but the material is so difficult that learning it can never be simple." I have multiple times described the brain/mind's effort to "make sense" of the sounds/scriptions it is receiving. I've talked about the necessity for the brain to retrieve stored associations, rearrange them, combine them, invent - in other words to THINK while reading. William, when you continue to say I seem to think "communication" is a one-sided effort, all on the sender's part, none on the receiver's part, you give the impression that either you don't read my responses, or, worse, that that you do read them but if they're not what you want to hear your mind blanks them out. Further examples: When I say, " No, William - just the opposite. The trouble with ambiguous words is that no single "meaning" is very clearly asked for. So all sorts of possibilities tumble into mind," you don't address my counterpoint. When I write, "I did not say that no idea whatever comes to my mind. In fact, the trouble with ambiguous words is that too many interpretations come to mind. What I said was that I have no surety about what the WRITER has in mind," I'm pointing out that you misquote me, and that you still don't seem to have taken on board the inadequacy of a single word like 'rules' to convey what you have in mind. When you also wrote: "We can still communicate with signs we create; in this case "rules", I responded with this: 'Believe this: I have no clear idea what "he is saying" here. The line appears to assert that "rules" are "signs". I can't follow that at all (in part because I'm not sure how much William's notion of "signs" coincides with Frances's recent description of her notion of "signs"). But also because at least some signs don't begin to feel like "rules" to me. If I see a billboard sign that says, 'Clausthaler is the world's best non-alcoholic beer,' that doesn't feel like a rule to me. "Again I think I should stress this: I am not playing games here, I'm not pretending. I honestly don't know what the heck William has in mind." You did not respond at all to this attempt, imperfect thought it may be, to convey why your readers are justified in their claim that you, as the writer, have not held up your end. I'm willing to work like hell to assemble a notion in my mind that I can believe is serviceably close to what you have in mind with 'rules'. You convey the impression that you're sure it's my failing when loads of possible notions come to my mind when I hear the word 'rules'. You convey it should be obvious why that single word should do the job, and your description of your notion is quite unneeded. I imagine you're ready to give up on this other guy. I know that feeling.
