I have understood some members of the list to assert that nothing means
anything. I can only conclude that there is a degree of ambiguity intended,
inasmuch as there would, for example, be no point in asserting the
meaninglessness of words if there was no possiblity that that meaning could
be conveyed. Another position (less ambiguous to me) could be that meaning
does not inhere in words but in our processing or interpreting of words, or
works of art. I would accept that there is no meaning outside of our minds.
We determine our meanings. Although, I would submit that there is a lot of
ambiguity in T.S. Eliot's writing and less, in say, messages from the IRS.
Alfhough I claim credentials as a psychologist, I am not a
neuropsychologist. A neuropsychologist might answer that electrochemical
events/processes in our brains mediate the experience of meaning in our
mind. The meaning is not in the electrochemical process but in the
implication grasped, or created, with our mind as a result of the
electrochemical process. The "process" is an essential but insufficient
component in the grasping of meaning. I would discriminate between brain and
mind - the brain being the physical object inside our skulls and the
electrochemical processes by which it functions; the mind inhering less in a
physical location and being somewhat beyond physical examination currently
(although brain imaging research can illustrate parts of the brain
animated/exercised/operative when a stimulus is presented) but referring
(somewhat metaphorically)to our experience of having a brain. Our minds may
find meaning in inanimate objects. The meaning isn't in the object - not
everyone finds meaning, or the same meaning in an object, or play, or ...
but may be in our mind. The meaning is not reality - I tend to agree that it
is difficult to grasp reality - other than when an anvil has just landed on
my head - in which case, were I still conscious, I would claim furiously
that I knew for sure what pain was. I'm not sure what line is to be drawn
("where do we draw the line?") but as brain functioning decreases with
declines in intelligence, physical deterioration, lack of opportunity for
stimulation, species deficiencies (dogs hear better than we do) then, the
mind's capacity to detect/create meaning is compromised. Or, was some other
point being proposed?
Geoff Crealock
From: William Conger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Inspirations and intentions
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 15:48:15 -0700 (PDT)
Maybe I erred but I thought I was commenting on a post by Miller, not --
this time -- Cheerskep.
I am not at all the in the least disgruntled. Most of the time I in fact
do agree with the comments of other listers. However, the fun about the
list is its criticality and we are all here to sharpen our views not, I
hope, to pat each other on the back for glimpses of truth now and then.
I do want to make a distinction between using the word ambiguity in its
poetical sense, that is, to signify multiple allusions, each one possibly
precise and clear, and the more common use of the word to signify
vagueness, indistinctness, blurriness, muddledness and so on. I do realize
that the two uses of the word can be mingled as for instance when a very
vague allusion actually reveals a rather precise state of mind. In text,
er see "er..." as vague prefix to to suggest a speaker's hesitant state of
mind.
I am impressed by Cheerskep's thought that what he perceives as my
disgruntled behavior ("cantankerously confrontational" is the better
phrase to stir the notion he seems to have in mind), severe enough to
warrant a visit to a psychotherapist. I am an avid advocate of
psychoanalytic process and have even published short commentary in the
field (Psychoanalytic Perspectives on Art, and others). If I could afford
it I'd be happy to undergo thorough psychoanalysis.
Cheerskep just can't stand being confronted by anyone who wants to dig into
the superficial truth we all agree with -- that meaning is not in anything.
He wants to be the final authority on that little issue and I say fine.
But there is still the problem of meaning being conveyed. Should we call
it opinion? How does one convey one's opinion to another, including we may
conjecture, himself or herself. Don't we all have the hesitant "er..."
prefixing our every thought we have or hear? I say, er, yes. Does meaning
exist in some chemical/electro brain function? Is that how we act on
cognition? If so, does it exist 'in" our brains? If so, where do we draw
the line...when people are too handicapped, when we get to dog and cat
brqains, frog brains, where? Can electrical currents, as in computer
functioning, convey meaning or opinion? Can inaminate objects thus convey
meaning or opinion? If so, what's the dividing line between those that can
and those
that can't?
I'm not mad (an ambiguous term of the second type). I just want to know
stuff.
WC
--- On Thu, 9/4/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Inspirations and intentions
> To: [email protected]
> Date: Thursday, September 4, 2008, 10:49 AM
> William writes:
>
> "The use of the word ambiguity in art, esp. poetry, is
> to call attention to
> THE MULTIPLE INTERPRETATIONS EVOKED by an image or
> allusion, phrase, or word.
> It does not specify vagueness. While the word ambiguity
> can be properly
> used to denote vagueness, in poetry it simply means many,
> as with layers. THE
> ARGUMENTS BELOW MISS THAT POINT. (Stresses are mine. --
> Cheerskep)
> WC"
>
> I can't ask readers to read again something I've
> written -- unless they are
> commenting on it. So I do ask William to read again my last
> message because it
> says exactly the opposite of what he seems to think it
> does. I wrote:
>
> "Certainly if anyone thinks any work of art, or any
> > utterance at all, is
> > "perfectly clear" he is failing to recognize
> > ambiguity in this sense: He
> > doesn't
> > realize NO TWO VIEWERS CONTEMPLATING THE SAME WORK
> WILL BE ENTERTAINING THE
> EXACT SAME NOTION."
>
> William does not describe what he has in mind with
> 'vague'.
> What most people have in mind is perhaps conveyed by such
> words as these:
> Indistinct, imprecise, dark, lacking clear outline or
> borders. These notions were
> not what I had in mind in my last posting, and that's
> why I did not use
> 'vague' at all in that posting.
>
> I explicitly conveyed that there are times in my work when
> I wanted viewers
> to entertain different possible interpretations of what
> they've just seen or
> heard.
>
> Perhaps I confused William with my assertion that both
> clarity and ambiguity
> are a matter of degree. All lines are to a degree
> ambiguous. The writer can
> never fully prevent lines from occasioning interpretations
> alien to his
> intentions, but with effort he can cut down on their likely
> number. I should have made
> clearer that what I also had in mind was the relative
> frequency of ambiguous
> lines compared to those when I want viewers to have no
> doubt about a "fact" in
> the storyline. Some playwrights, like Pinter, have a much
> higher percent of
> intentionally ambiguous lines than I ever do.
>
> William continues to dismay by how infrequently his general
> disgruntlement
> allows him to cite something he agrees with.
> Psychotherapists talk about a
> patient-type they term a "grievance collector",
> and they try to point out to those
> patients the various ways that conduct hurts them in the
> end.
>
>
>
>
> **************
> 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)
