I completely disagree with Kate's comment below. Any mark whatsoever when seen by a sentient human -- or even, perhaps, some other life-forms- -always resembles a small part of something else and many somethings since the recognition of resemblance is always independent of the object itself. I think it is impossible to look at anything and not have associative thoughts provoked by the conscious act of seeing it. One can give priority to the traits of the mark itself but that is also packed with associative thoughts. Also, I disagree that any mark can contain memories or carry them.
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. All primitive cultures would attribute 'animation and consciousness' to inanimate objects. Maybe our language structures simply enfold that residual mode of thought. Finally, a mark can be regarded as a word or a face or a stone or a mark of such and such subjectively imposed traits, like straight, splotchy, etc. There is no such thing as a mark being a mark and nothing else , either, because the word mark is independent of whatever it is said to name. WC ----- Original Message ---- From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sun, December 9, 2012 11:10:25 AM Subject: Re: Kate's excellent queries; Barthes; etc A mark is not a word. A mark shaped to resemble a small part of something is not intended to carry memories or notions and if the viewer insists that it brings memories and notions he is not looking at the mark itself in a field of other marks . He is you might say missing the mark. Kate Sullivan -----Original Message----- From: Cheerskep <[email protected]> To: aesthetics-l <[email protected]> Sent: Fri, Dec 7, 2012 11:13 am Subject: Re: Kate's excellent queries; Barthes; etc In a message dated 12/7/12 9:17:00 AM, [email protected] writes: > I also think that "memories" is a very blurry word to use. > Kate Sullivan > > Right, it is. But then, almost every "word" (in scription or sound) put before my mind occasions "notion", and all notion is more or less "blurry" (i.e. it is more or less indeterminate, indefinite, multiplex and transitory). Still, it can sometimes be serviceable -- i.e. close enough to be useful in conveying what's on our mind. Earlier I wrote:: "When I say "apelsin", or "milk", "democracy", "designate" -- or even "Cleopatra!" -- what comes into your head are solely bits of memory retrieved and mosaicked by your racy brain as it frisks the familiar sound, and creates new me-meaning." What I was trying to convey was that whatever thought or image comes mind when I hear "Cleopatra" is not the sound's "real" "mind-independent meaning" shafted into our heads by a bolt from Plato or Zeus. Someone in, say, remote western China, however innately intelligent, who had never heard or read a thing before now about Cleopatra (or heard or read the English 'designate', etc) could conjure effectively no notion at all (and certainly nothing "informational") now if exposed solely to the sound or scription 'Cleopatra'. The only possible source of notion would be from earlier scraps of associated notion stored in the person's "memory". Granted, what comes to our various (English-speaking) minds when we hear the sound "memory" will have a vast and blurry variety, but I've judged that, for most, its use here will be serviceble enough. If I ask an English-speaking person the blurry question, "How good is your memory?" I don't fear he'll "think" I'm asking if he can swim or if he has a million dollars.
