Date:         Mon, 17 Mar 1997 14:03:13 EST
From: what tink? <mbarker@MIT.EDU>
Subject:      TECH: Constructs of Meaning

[harried, hurried, and probably not too well thought out, but I
thought I would contribute something...]

I don't have the reference handy, but one of the psychological tomes
I've pondered suggested that people have various approaches to
constructs--meaningful things.

For example, some constructs are impermeable--there is a list of
members, and these and only these members belong to the construct.

Others are more permeable--anything like this "belongs" to the
construct.

Some constructs are preemptive--if this, then it cannot be anything
else.

Other constructs are constellatory--"belonging" to this construct
implies that the objects has these characteristics.  It does not
further restrict membership...

And, he suggested, the most recent type of construct is
propositional--this and others may be appropriate.

Part of what I came away with was an appreciation for the various
kinds of meanings; for the ways that meaning, objects, and labels
might relate; and for avoiding the absolutism and black-and-white
thinking that "is" so often seems to promote (that old aristotalian
equalization of non-identity).

I suggest that this may relate to the current discussion.  For
example, if one believes that the "meaning" of a piece is
well-defined, with sharp clear edges and so forth, then it becomes
important to connect the piece with the correct "meaning" and crush
other "false" meanings.  If one believes that the meaning of a piece
is more fluid, something that develops and changes depending on where
one stands and what background the piece is viewed against, then it
may be more important to try out and explore various ways that the
piece could mean.

Does the writer have a different relationship to the writing than
others?

Suppose, for the sake of the argument, that we let a writer write
something, and immediately killed them.  Their intention, that
internal subjectivity that gave rise to the expression, is gone.

Does this mean the writing has lost all meaning?

It seems quite odd to suggest that.

Suppose we carefully have large numbers of people read a work, noting
down, classifying, and otherwise keeping track of what they consider
the work to "mean."

Is there a point where we will "exhaust" the meanings which the work
has, and we can definitely say that the next reader cannot develop a
new meaning?  (where the meaning is their internal response, it seems
quite clear that the "meanings" of the work are as infinite and varied
as the readers.)

For that matter, does the "meaning" of a work shift and change as the
reader lives?  Suppose you read something this week, and then read it
again next week--does it say the same thing?  Let a few more years
settle, and read it again--is it still the same?

Is it interesting to find out what the author thought they were
expressing?  Certainly.

Is it possible for other people to have interesting views about what
was expressed?  Of course.

Can we make fun of academic pomposity?  I certainly hope so.

Do we have to crush the views of others, declaring them unreal,
unjustified, and utterly hateful?  No.

Let's admit that there may be useful and interesting views in many
places.

okay?
tink