People learn to share certain interpretations within their own culture and across other cultures in both place and like. Some such 'agreements' could be limited to two people who signal to each other about something they are sharing --as when one hunter waves to another that he has a clear shot at the deer on the meadow. To casual onlooker such a signal might be interpreted differently. Other agreements cover a broader span but are still limited to say, a group of fifty. And, obviously, you can see how this can be expanded to identify an agreement among millions or tens of millions, or more. We can also notice likenesses in objects or habits that are not a part of our 'agreement' context and when that happens we surmise or interpret as best we can. That's where your arrowheads come in. They have similarities to modern implements so make reasoned guesses. Yet a trained archaeologist may know that some pointy flints are not arrowheads but engravers or awls, etc. None of this requires that ay object has something inherent that will guarantee one interpretation over another. That's why it's more sensible to say something is 'about' something else. The word 'about' is a stand-in for culturally shared interpretations of a few to many, that's all. wc
----- Original Message ---- From: Michael Brady <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sun, December 9, 2012 11:59:15 AM Subject: Re: Kate's excellent queries; Barthes; etc On Dec 9, 2012, at 12:25 PM, William Conger <[email protected]> wrote: > Why do so many folks insist that inanimate things 'contain' meaning or can > 'communicate' meaning? This must be a carry-over from our primitive, magical > past history. But we've talked about this before, and it recalls the first chapter of Danto's "Transfiguration of the Commonplace." Upon seeing a square of canvas stretched across a wooden frame and painted red, the viewer ponders what it "means" (in Danto's phrasing, what it is "about"). There is something evient in the object that strongly conveys to the viewer that (a) it was made intentionally, and (b) that there are characteristics in its physical appearance that can be connected to a "meaning" or intention. The meaning isn't contained in the object, but the object's form can reliably evoke that meaning ("notion in someone's head," or NISH) if one is receptive (understands the language, e.g.) Consider things unearthed in paleolithic digs. I'm not thinking of the Venus of Willendorf or abstruse inscriptions carved in ivory but of rudimentary stone arrowheads and hand-axes. I've seen photos of them. The arrowheads look like random chips of stone and the axes look like ovoid rocks with a pointed end. I do not see the "evidence" of workmanship in many of them but trained archaeologists do and claim that these objects are intentionally made, not just rubble in a gravesite. The objects contain the physical properties that call forth an interpretation by a viewer. No animist magic. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Michael Brady
