Meaning is between : is 'motivated' within particular historical and
cultural frames. Far from being arbitrary, meaning is produced by specific
details, of varying ephemeralities. Like 'truth', it is far from uniform.
As Stuart Hall writes, 'there is thus no single, unchanging universal "true
meaning".' There is then, no absolute world to form the subject of
mimesis. Much of what passes for meaning however, is mimesis of the chimera
of 'true meaning'. It presumes concensus.
Meaning is not limited to the conduits of spoken and written language, as
they are commonly understood. Meaning is also constructed pictorially,
spatially, through gesture and posture, 'habitus'; through manipulation of
sounds not based in speech (including the domain of music). Meaning is
certainly thereby not limited to representation as 'message'.
Meaning is transient, socially dispersive and ephemeral, it is continually
reconstructed. The sense that there is an engagement which moblises
sesne(s) for me, is what suggests there is 'mreaning' to be had from
reading a particular text.
There are many writings that evidently mean a lot to many readers, but that
don't 'mean' much to me. This idea of 'meaning' is largely local, mediated
through advocacy to others, made local to others. It is apprehension of
'value'. What worries this writer, is the idea that to have more readers
engaged with the meaning-making that is reading of one's work, somehow
attributes 'value' to the writing. In other words, more rteaders means that
it means more. It patently doesn't.
The obverse doesn't work either. Difficulty, per se, can be denial of
possibility.
love and love
cris
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|