Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 14:18:57 -0600 (CST)
From: Leonardo Raggo <ac857-AT-sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca>
Subject: Re: PLC: Meanings and Meanings




On Tue, 4 Nov 1997 Saicho-AT-aol.com wrote:

> 
> 2) Is it possible for a writer or artist to inscribe all of their meaning in
> a work, and do so unequivocally?
> 

> To the second question I answer a conditional No since in the case of some
> artists they will undoubtedly believe they have left out nothing. (I have the
> suspicion Mozart might have felt that way about his music.) I believe that
> most of us would have to admit that what we present is certainly not EXACTLY
> AND WHOLLY representative of what we wish to impart -- unless, perhaps we are
> a scientist. 
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Saicho
> 


Interesting, as always to consider what remains the same, that the
unequivocal meaning misses the necessity of an active interpretation. It
has the absoluteness of truth which science has adopted and baptized unto
itself. 

Perhaps to the equivocal belongs an inherent deferrance to a subject
totally unmanagable, to death, for example, that literature like love must
tackle without reserve..

If the impossible object becomes the source of literature it cannot but be
equivocal, projecting its own success as demise. 

What's also at issue is the stability of a tradition, its transmission as
a continuation of itself, undeformed but reaffirmed. The essential role is
played by the concept of translation and interpretation that we might wish
to put forward. Active interpretation would be transformative but adhering
to the creative impulses that makes the original something unique, this or
that peculiar inscription, challanging the text at its own kind of
positing.


Leo Raggo
ac857-AT-sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca










     --- from list phillitcrit-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---