Nate said:
"So, for me, saying meaning is in the text or meaning is in the individual
(or group) misses the point that meaning is in the Activity itself. Where
sense and meaning become joined, where the objective and subjective become
joined, where the individual and the collective become joined etc."
Martin said:
"largely because we have this "singular" meaning. Meaning is something
which is being shifted and changed throughout all these processes. The
text is a snapshot of a mediated moment of meaning making for an
indivudual. This meaning becomes mediated, and changed again and again as
it is read, uttered, heard, re-written (is this the "activity" itslef???)."
I think I would consider that Activity. I see Activity as a dynamic process
in which meaning is dynamic, transformative, transforming. My comment about
Activity was in reference to it being dynamic as apposed to onjectifying it
in the text or individual(s).
I don't think this means that meaning is not in the text or individual, but
rather those divisions are not useful (for me). I also do not think this
implies a neo-instrumental view that meaning is whatever an activity makes
of it. The fact remains (in my mind) that meaning is not as dymanic as we
might assume.
In going back to Hamelet it seems if meaning was solely in the text and
historically specific it would not be around today. I would suppose the
"life" it invokes today is different than 100 years ago, and even more so in
Shakespear's time.
Nate
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 23 2000 - 09:21:17 PDT