Deriving meaning from structure?

[Philo]

Ok, this is a different facet of the question of meaning than Eileen's post a little while ago, or at least I hope it is. If not, I'm sure someone will tell me. :D

Some of the discussions I've been in both here in the forums and in class started me thinking about where we find meaning. In discussions of poetry, it seemed that the most liked poetry was that which had some sense of rythm and meter, while more archaic forms weren't. Certain forms of music were felt "better" for much the same reason as poetry. Where there is dissonance, we seem to search for a way to order it. As a result, it seems that it is structure that gives meaning to our experiences, or at least it plays a significant part in it. Now the questions: why do you think structure gives meaning to our experience, and how?

[Lee]

I think we gain satisfaction from understanding and applying rules we have developed to predict and control our enviroment and the dangers in it. Danger could be the key driving force, this urge we all carry to create structure helps us avoid danger, due to it's nature randomness is dangerous and unpredictable. We are programmed from the ground up to survive, eat, sleep, procreate and all these things are best achieved through undertsanding and manipulating the structures of the universe. all our emotions, feelings, desires and needs revolve and arose out of this very structure of the universe, it is no surprise that we as beings have developed this desire to derive and find meaning from structure.

This desire may be more pronounced in people such as us, those who are apart from the norm and therefore facsinated and resentful of it.

[Geoff]

I think Lee has some good points, that we strive for structure because of a need to manipulate and understand, and that we see patterns as a means to understand and manipulate.

I would also think that part of it is just the way our brains/personalities are ordered. Our thoughts flit across a multitude of ideas seeking for that interesting 'it' and for a pattern or common link that suggests an underlying meaning. We are just ordered in that way - it flows from a lack of being tied to rules, perhaps. And then when we find our 'own' rule - our self discovered pattern, it gives us pleasure. Because as introverts we wish to determine it for ourselves. The introverted, seeking for self-determined patterns that allow us to stay 'alone' from society and yet find our own meaning and therefore self justification.
Does that make sense? It is a little difficult to articulate. I do know what when I have found my own pattern or meaning to something it gives me a pleasure and it feels like it does so because it is me, and not some external order. Conversely when I get someone do the opposite - impose a pattern on me with their own rules, it grates against the free flowing 'ideas' based drive in my brain.
Hmm, I am rambling now, so I'll stop. Just my thoughts, anyway
-Geoff

[Philo]

So we create a set of rules from the dangers we encounter (i.e. placing your hand on a hot stove will burn you, so don't do that). Once we have a set of these, we have a structure to aid in our survival. This structure we then impose on the world, or adapt it to fit where we can't. Is that basically it?

I like the word manipulate, because I think there's a crucial piece hidden in there. Let's see, until the time we started making tools, we basically weren't much different than the other animals. All creatures had these rules systems that allowed them to survive. However, when man began making tools, we began to realize we could manipulate the world around us, thus imposing our structures on the world. Not quite sure where to go with this, but it's a start.

I keep coming back to the idea of the birth of a child when I think about this. Here's a being that, for all it's life so far, has been somewhere warm, comfy, and quiet, and is suddenly thrust into a cold, bright, and noisy environment. I think it's reasonable to assume that the shock of that creates some sort of dissonance. I'm also reasonably convinced we have no structures in place at that time, otherwise a baby probably wouldn't be so shocked immediately after birth. There are some clues here as well, but they're not quite yielding to analysis, yet.

I need to go think about this some more. Ok, a lot more. :D

[Google Monster]

Adaptation is whats it's all about. Bringing order to such chaotic surroundings. That is why there is music, art and teddy bears.

You can't create rules but you can manipulate them.

[CreativeChaos]

Ok, this is a different facet of the question of meaning than Eileen's post a little while ago, or at least I hope it is. If not, I'm sure someone will tell me. :D

Some of the discussions I've been in both here in the forums and in class started me thinking about where we find meaning. In discussions of poetry, it seemed that the most liked poetry was that which had some sense of rythm and meter, while more archaic forms weren't. Certain forms of music were felt "better" for much the same reason as poetry. Where there is dissonance, we seem to search for a way to order it. As a result, it seems that it is structure that gives meaning to our experiences, or at least it plays a significant part in it. Now the questions: why do you think structure gives meaning to our experience, and how?

Okay. This is a different twist. I don't really know much about poetry, except from this one book I have and that is all I want to know. It has "explanations" about poetry and the usage of "tricks" to make things sound better.

I also compose music. There are common "tricks" to composing music. You must create "limitations" for yourself. There are "tricks" of limiting yourself, creating certain boundaries. It has been said and I have read numerous times, in the creative process this is a good thing. That in limiting yourself to a certain "form" you in fact enhance the creative process.

That's all I'll say for now, unless anyone is curious. It gets really involved.

GREAT TOPIC PHILO!!! :D

[ApeTheDog]

I guess you could extend this to rhythm in music as well. And maybe... the heartbeat you hear as a baby?

[Sackanaka]

the heartbeat you hear as a baby?
I've heard that somewhere long ago; interesting speculation!
And everyone pretty much said my thoughts so-

[Hypnos]

[...] Now the questions: why do you think structure gives meaning to our experience, and how?
I think our experience has structure because there are competing phenomena and personal urges. Pondering the structure is an entry point for the intellect, so dear to us INTPs. This seems to be almost the sole province of art, because art specializes in exploring the inexplicable by making it tangible.

My currently favorite example of this model is Schubert's "Ave Maria."

[Miss Anthropic]

I believe structure is comfortable in some ways to all of us, even those who are hard core Ps. I know I would get more out of life, if I would just let the J out..Or maybe its forcethe J out. I am rather miserable without structure, but at times feel nearly as negative with structure. If I have a scedule an am obligated to do some specific things, I am happier with the whole perspective of it.

[nBT]

i am because i can manipulate

you confuse meaning and your personality. structure is your goal, or your means of making the world manitulatable. structure therefore has meaning that it is one of your (my) most important survival tool. a persons view of himself can give him or her meaning.

on creation. i like cc. you have to indeed limit your options, set a goal. only by fencing off an area in wich you will work, your creative powers will be usefull. see it as pressure. in N/cm2. less surface=more pressure. you need full control though.

[s0978]

I think we gain satisfaction from understanding and applying rules we have developed to predict and control our enviroment and the dangers in it. Danger could be the key driving force, this urge we all carry to create structure helps us avoid danger, due to it's nature randomness is dangerous and unpredictable. We are programmed from the ground up to survive, eat, sleep, procreate and all these things are best achieved through undertsanding and manipulating the structures of the universe. all our emotions, feelings, desires and needs revolve and arose out of this very structure of the universe, it is no surprise that we as beings have developed this desire to derive and find meaning from structure.

This desire may be more pronounced in people such as us, those who are apart from the norm and therefore facsinated and resentful of it.

I would never have thought to use the word "danger," but I think this is a great description. There may be nothing more terrifying to me than something happening which goes against my understanding of the world, the universe, everything inside and outside of me. (Especially outside. And maybe that has a cause/effect relationship with being an introvert - I don't want to find out data that would indicate I've been wrong about how things are, at least in the realm of my most fundamental understandings. Because this would throw into question everything I know, or think I know.)

I think it was Hume who make an epistemological inquiry about cause and effect. He distinguished between knowing and understanding. If a pencil rolls off my desk, we are pretty sure it will fall to the ground. But we don't KNOW that it will, we just expect (understand) it to, based on consistent empirical evidence. But that's why INTPs like Newton come along and think up notions like gravity and "laws" of physics to impose a "structure" on the way things are. (Not saying that Newton was reacting to Hume, just relating their work to tell my story.)

Just think, what if a pencil rolled off your desk and one day it didn't fall? OK, that's a dumb example, but I think I've illustrated what I'm trying to say.

What you call structure I typically call "framework." (A framework of a body or type of knowledge.) And also, I have a need to look at the same thing from different frameworks to try and better understand what the "real truth" is. I like to overlay and superimpose the structures. That's probably why it takes me so goddamn long to get my head around something that others may find self-evident and not so deep at all.

[edited a bit for clarity]

[Lee]

What you call structure I typically call "framework." And also, I have a need to look at the same thing from different frameworks to try and better understand what the "real truth" is. I like to overlay and superimpose the structures. That's probably why it takes me so goddamn long to get my head around something that others may find self-evident and not so deep at all.

I desire as many frameworks as possible, it all gets quite comlicated.

Framework is a much better word then structure and few things can be as interesting and potentially terrifying as those which seemingly fall outside our framework.


I believe structure is comfortable in some ways to all of us, even those who are hard core Ps. I know I would get more out of life, if I would just let the J out..Or maybe its forcethe J out. I am rather miserable without structure, but at times feel nearly as negative with structure. If I have a scedule an am obligated to do some specific things, I am happier with the whole perspective of it.

I think the problem is not that P's do not have structure but rather they have too much structure especially NP's, J's are quite content with one framework that suites them more so than P's.

[waxwing]

"Where there is dissonance, we seem to search for a way to order it."


I'm not so sure I agree. I don't think order can be forced on a composition, although it helps to have a knowledge of theory to understand the inherent structure in a musical/literary work.

Dissonace can be beautiful if a person understands the progression of the music. I don't equate listening for chordal resolution (even composing to achieve it) with ordering/structuring....necessarily.

"Why do you think structure gives meaning to our experience, and how?"

Perhaps this is an issue of semantics, but I don't think "structure" gives meaning to our experience, at least not in the sense that your examples suggest. Yes, the structure of how an individual person's mind works helps him/her to make sense of what seems incomprehensible, uncomfortably dissonant, or soley experiential. But I don't think the structure is what makes something meaningful. There are too many levels of structure, so many that I'm not sure what you even mean by "structure" any more ---> 1. There is an inherent structure that may not be evident in the art, but that still must exist simply because the "composition" has been "composed." It is now a separate entity. 2. There is structure that seems forcibly imposed by the reader/listener, 3. structure that simply emerges from the perspective of an active reader/listener/player/observer (e.g. a horn player listening, playing, watching conductor, and reading music at the same time), 4. the (il)logical structure of the person writing/composing, and...I'm getting sick of listing types of structure. Perhaps you're right. We may derive meaning from a combination of all of these structural forms/methods, but I still like to think that a work of art should stand on its own. Any analysis should only serve to draw out its implicit meaning. Vantage point is very important in determining what is actually structure and what simply emerges because of one's point of view, intellectual understanding, and emotional response.

"Like all true believers, I am truly skeptical of all that I have said" (above).

[songbird36]

I think we gain satisfaction from understanding and applying rules we have developed to predict and control our enviroment and the dangers in it. Danger could be the key driving force, this urge we all carry to create structure helps us avoid danger, due to it's nature randomness is dangerous and unpredictable. We are programmed from the ground up to survive, eat, sleep, procreate and all these things are best achieved through undertsanding and manipulating the structures of the universe. all our emotions, feelings, desires and needs revolve and arose out of this very structure of the universe, it is no surprise that we as beings have developed this desire to derive and find meaning from structure.

This desire may be more pronounced in people such as us, those who are apart from the norm and therefore facsinated and resentful of it.

Yes the main purpose of structure is to control an otherwise random world, and to provide a level of needed safety and predictability.

We start to become accustomed to structure as children, with routines such as family mealtimes, school, bed time stories, and so on. For children, this is the way in which they learn the world is a safe place to be in.

Later on as we become adults structure becomes vital for a number of other reasons. Some of these are:

* To allow us to function efficiently (e.g. in a work context, we need systems);
* To give us a reason to get up in the morning (the unemployed, for example, suffer high levels of depression and are prone to commit crime because of lack of structure);
* Structure and order in our political and social systems helps to promote social harmony by providing an "underpinning" for our society

[s0978]

Perhaps this is an issue of semantics, but I don't think "structure" gives meaning to our experience, at least not in the sense that your examples suggest. Yes, the structure of how an individual person's mind works helps him/her to make sense of what seems incomprehensible, uncomfortably dissonant, or soley experiential. But I don't think the structure is what makes something meaningful. There are too many levels of structure, so many that I'm not sure what you even mean by "structure" any more

We are definitely all running around with different notions of "structure" in our heads. Moi, I'm using "structure" to indicate a framework of knowledge, eg philosophy, anthropology, psychology, etc, or even different methodologies within each human/social science. And for better or worse, these systems are how meaning has been derived, at least since "Age of Reason." I do think of these frameworks as abstractions we humans impose upon the world, as they would not exist without our having creating them. (This is kind of Foucault-ish, he was the guy who pointed out that these systems of understanding were culturally derived, almost arbitrary, and also confining, but also necessary.)


There are too many levels of structure, so many that I'm not sure what you even mean by "structure" any more ---> 1. There is an inherent structure that may not be evident in the art, but that still must exist simply because the "composition" has been "composed." It is now a separate entity.
2. There is structure that seems forcibly imposed by the reader/listener, 3. structure that simply emerges from the perspective of an active reader/listener/player/observer (e.g. a horn player listening, playing, watching conductor, and reading music at the same time), 4. the (il)logical structure of the person writing/composing, and...I'm getting sick of listing types of structure. Perhaps you're right. We may derive meaning from a combination of all of these structural forms/methods, but I still like to think that a work of art should stand on its own. Any analysis should only serve to draw out its implicit meaning. Vantage point is very important in determining what is actually structure and what simply emerges because of one's point of view, intellectual understanding, and emotional response.

Now I'm jumping ship to your notions about "structure." As I undertand them, you're operating on a crtical theory sort of level. (I was running around in a metacritical sort of place.) I don't believe that a work of art can have an inherent meaning. If it's not apparent to anyone, who could say it exists? (It's clear you're not saying some concept of "THE meaning" is derived from author's intentionality.) I do believe it is possible that someone somewhere down the road may eventually find it to signify something, perhaps something terribly significant, but I can't see how the piece actually has meaning until then? Can't see how meaning could ever exist without an agent to fabricate it.

[waxwing]

I think I see your point, s0523

Okay, maybe conceptual framework is a better term in this case? An example: The composer of an early 20th century poem obviously had several different conceptual frameworks of his own, and within them, some separate framework within which he constructed the work. He had his “world of meaning,” both looking “out” in an expansive way and looking inward to process ( to filter the world through his brain and his emotional trigger system(Wow, that’s vague, sorry); his societal context and group of historical allusions that possessed meaning to him (again, on a personal level) and then to his contemporaries, whether artists or general public, who simply knew the allusion by virtue of their position in history/geography. Then… his literary references, his personal life references, his own beliefs and ideas that must factor into his composition, perhaps unintentionally. Through the process of creating the poem, the poet is existing within many frameworks, but in order to become something that future readers can interact with, it must take on a life of its own. It must be its own “frame” in which to work.

In fiction and poetry writing classes, and then in literature and music comp. classes, I found that teachers were always saying things like, “You need to let the characters speak for themselves,” “The poem should need no preface or explanation.” Okay, so you may say, but that doesn’t mean that meaning exists without someone to flesh it out….Perhaps I’ll call it a latent meaning then. There are so many ways that meaning can be drawn from a poem. Yes, it may be true that the intentions of the poet may never be understood, but I’m talking more about the implications of the poem, the mood that it conveys, the people it speaks to. I agree that without the poet, we cannot ascertain his original meaning, given the vastness of his source-field (and this is only a small part of the meaning I’m talking about). However, someone in a coffeehouse this weekend might hear a poem by W.H. Auden and find it meaningful. Yes, of course, the person obviously has a new “world of meaning” (different from the poet’s, but also different from the person drinking coffee next to him, and still different from the person reading the poetry) but without any intrinsic poetic meaning, how can a very specific set of lines and stanzas transform him/her at that moment? Orientation in the moment seems important. The power of art to transform and transport, its timelessness, and the very fact that a poem has the potential to be passed from one person to the next, one era to the next, one critic to the next. I am not denying the importance of an “agent to fabricate” meaning (nicely put), but I do believe that the work of art becomes its own interactive agent, in a sense. Not even in some mystical way, but because: if I could only draw this out on paper:

1. On the far left side of the paper, we’ve got “the “world of meaning” of thinking/feeling poet.” 2. On the far right side of the paper, we could write “the“world of meaning” of reader/listener in coffeehouse.” 3. In the middle is a sort of mediator, the poem and it’s “world of meaning,” drawn from the poet’s world of meaning and the coffeeboy’s “world of meaning,” (so yes, often latent and even subjective). But, I believe that the only way that a combination of words and symbols on a page can possibly interact with a reader’s “world of meaning” in the present is if the poem can be appreciated from a very different set of conceptual frameworks (left side of paper versus right side of paper). It stands on its own at the moment the guy hears it for the first time in the coffeehouse, considering that he has no prior knowledge of the poet or even the literary period/specific genre of poetry, but that he DOES have his own set of ideas, literary references, and experiences that “play with” the words, images, and rhythm of the poem. Perhaps it could be pictured like this: You’ve got a bunch of squares drawn inside each other. If you were to grab the smallest square and pull it out (making it into a 3-D tower-like structure) towards your face, you’d have something like the “frame”-“work” of the poem I’m getting at… maybe, but I’m sure it’s not the best picture…..

[s0978]

And I think I get what you're saying, waxwing! (Interesting stuff, but a little hard to talk about.)

I think that when you talk about its inherent meaning, you're saying that there is some aspect about a work of Art which translates from one cultural context to another, that this meaning transcends place and time. This "meaning" therefore resides permanently in the work.

I get that. I've often thought that something is often, if not always, ascribed status as Art (with a capital 'A') when someone decides that a work somehow speaks about the human condition in some essentialist way. It's Art if 1) it speaks about its cultural context, and 2) it transcends its cultural context.

I think you were making an aethetic theory type of observation. I was looking at what you said through a semiotic sort of framework. I think I'd still say the work has no meaning between poet and coffeehouse dude - but that's not a terribly interesting discussion... I'll go along with "latent meaning."

Anything I missed?

[Philo]

Wow! I go away for a day to get some work done and come back to find all these great responses!


I guess you could extend this to rhythm in music as well. And maybe... the heartbeat you hear as a baby?

This is very interesting, and links into some things I talked about in a previous paper for my class. I thought that the act of being born creates dissonance/confusion (to put it mildly :) ) that the child then has to resolve in some way. This, I tried to argue, was our introduction, if you will, to the concept of dualities. The idea of hearing the heartbeat would probably create, at a very deep level in the brain, the idea/understanding of a regular, repeating experience, or a form of structure. I like it!

[waxwing]

s0523...

You did a good job of streamlining my basic argument. Thanks.

Your talk of frameworks is interesting and probably accurate, that is, if I am understanding you and your framework orientation (hehe).

I still think there's something about the meaning of the poem as discovered by the coffeehouse dude, but I can't make it work right now. I disagree...what could be more interesting than talking about whether a work of art has meaning between the artist and a possibly intelligent, talented coffeehouse dude?? (smile) He might even play guitar. Or drums.

Actually, I agree that this kind of discussion involving various, overlapping reference points and frameworks is very difficult to talk about, but maybe even more difficult to write about online. I'm sitting here using my computer table to map out ideas. Problem is it's kind of hard to diagram on this forum.

Finally, what have you read by Foucalt? It's interesting that you brought his name up earlier because I was just looking over sections of The Archaeology of Knowledge this morning without even connecting them to this discussion.

(I watched Vanilla Sky last night. Interesting, but it probably doesn't apply here so I'll shut up now).

[mgb]

I hesitate to jump in at the risk of not making much sense but one thing struck me here.

I don't think there is an inherency in something that spans generations. Call it a reader response take, but when I think about a song or book or what have you, I automatically put it into a context. I love the song "Steal My Sunshine" by Len. It reminds me of a friend of mine that I don't talk to anymore (for no reason) and a trip I took to Oregon with a friend of mine in about 1999. It doesn't mean those things to anyone else, just me.

In that same way I think we have trouble putting things into the same context as someone else, particularily someone from a different time than our own. I guess, and to confuse this thread more, "This is not a pipe."

[waxwing]

I hesitate to jump in at the risk of not making much sense but one thing struck me here.

I don't think there is an inherency in something that spans generations. Call it a reader response take, but when I think about a song or book or what have you, I automatically put it into a context. I love the song "Steal My Sunshine" by Len. It reminds me of a friend of mine that I don't talk to anymore (for no reason) and a trip I took to Oregon with a friend of mine in about 1999. It doesn't mean those things to anyone else, just me.

In that same way I think we have trouble putting things into the same context as someone else, particularily someone from a different time than our own. I guess, and to confuse this thread more, "This is not a pipe."

I think I do the same thing. That's basically what I was getting at by the poet's "world of meaning" and the reader/listener's "world of meaning." At the same time, though, doesn't there need to be another term in the equation? Something like,

[(poet's world of meaning --> basically all those things that factored into his poem acquiring mean through its progression)

+ ( poem?????? )

+ (reader's world of meaning (emerges out of many different contexts)) ].

**I think you raise a good point about intuition as well. I would agree "what art propels us to think of or imagine..." is a crucial aspect of discovering meaning in a work of art or even in the artistic process itself.

[s0978]

...a possibly intelligent, talented coffeehouse dude?? (smile) He might even play guitar. Or drums.
:)

...Foucalt? It's interesting that you brought his name up earlier because I was just looking over sections of The Archaeology of Knowledge this morning without even connecting them to this discussion.
Chunks of 'Discipline' and 'Order of Things,' only smatterings of 'Archaeology." It's been a really really long time since I've read that stuff, but I think he was one of the coolest. In fact, when he crossed my mind up there, I thought "hey, MF was probably INTP!" (eh, could be f-ish tho)

...Actually, I agree that this kind of discussion involving various, overlapping reference points and frameworks is very difficult to talk about, but maybe even more difficult to write about online. I'm sitting here using my computer table to map out ideas. Problem is it's kind of hard to diagram on this forum.
Well we can keep up the meaning stuff, loved it way back in college, but I would also like to talk about diagrams one day if you're game - it's something I have no coherent opinions about, but I find fascinating...I don't physically diagram a lot myself, but I think in vague diagrams, and rather wish I were more rigorous with that. :blink:

[Philo]

I'm not so sure I agree. I don't think order can be forced on a composition, although it helps to have a knowledge of theory to understand the inherent structure in a musical/literary work.

Dissonace can be beautiful if a person understands the progression of the music. I don't equate listening for chordal resolution (even composing to achieve it) with ordering/structuring....necessarily.

You're right, we can't force an order on anything. I think, though, that we will search for an order, either until we find one or we give up due to lack of a "starting point", or a framework from which we can derive a new framework that we can use to understand the piece, if that makes any sense.

As to your second point, I would agree that dissonance can be beautiful, but doesn't the idea of a progression naturally infer a "structure" to the work?



Perhaps this is an issue of semantics, but I don't think "structure" gives meaning to our experience, at least not in the sense that your examples suggest.
You may be right. I was still groping my way around the question when I wrote that bit, so I was a bit more lose with terms that I should have been. Lee had, I think, the concept I was after when he talked about danger. By this, I mean "meaning" was that feeling of "wellness", "contentment", "synchronicity" (I think) that we all feel when we "get it". This still is groping around the concept, but maybe it'll serve to help understand what I was driving at.

<sigh>It's getting late, and the battery on the laptop is running down. Guess I'll have to finish going through this tomorrow. :(

[s0978]

I hesitate to jump in at the risk of not making much sense but one thing struck me here.

I don't think there is an inherency in something that spans generations. Call it a reader response take, but when I think about a song or book or what have you, I automatically put it into a context. I love the song "Steal My Sunshine" by Len. It reminds me of a friend of mine that I don't talk to anymore (for no reason) and a trip I took to Oregon with a friend of mine in about 1999. It doesn't mean those things to anyone else, just me.

In that same way I think we have trouble putting things into the same context as someone else, particularily someone from a different time than our own. I guess, and to confuse this thread more, "This is not a pipe."

Yeah well you - given your take in the objectivity thread, I can't see you arguing for inherent meanings. Consciousness is even subjective for you. (And for me.)

Why you wanna bring in "Not a Pipe"?

[mgb]

I think I do the same thing. That's basically what I was getting at by the poet's "world of meaning" and the reader/listener's "world of meaning." At the same time, though, doesn't there need to be another term in the equation? Something like,

[(poet's world of meaning --> basically all those things that factored into his poem acquiring mean through its progression)

+ ( poem?????? )

+ (reader's world of meaning (emerges out of many different contexts)) ].

**I think you raise a good point about intuition as well. I would agree "what art propels us to think of or imagine..." is a crucial aspect of discovering meaning in a work of art or even in the artistic process itself.

I suppose that I would say that a writer is somewhat a reader as well. I mean that they also have a context for a piece of work that means something to them. After a few art history classes I think you can try and peg down what the artist was getting at, but their context is never yours because neither can truly span any length of time. The contexts exist in that instant and not in more or less time.

So van Gogh may have been grieving when he painted his self portrait but the person studying that painting can never experience his grief because it was his and no one else's. They can look at the painting and experience grief as well, but the grief is their own and not van Gogh's and is much different than van Gogh's grief.

[mgb]

Yeah well you - given your take in the objectivity thread, I can't see you arguing for inherent meanings. Consciousness is even subjective for you. (And for me.)

Why you wanna bring in "Not a Pipe"?

I know it's associated with Foucault, but it reminds me of Derrida, Deconstruction (which I think I am leaning towards) and Derrida's always complicated and sometimes insane ramblings.

[songbird36]

Deconstruction can be a bit bogus (especially in the context of poetry), for the following reason.

Poetry is not purely about meaning (or what meaning the poet intended to convey by writing a poem). Poetry is a little like art - it is partly stylistic and aesthetic. It is partly "painting a picture with words" and part of what speaks to us is the way the words are put together and they way they *look and flow* on the page (not simply what meaning they convey).

This doesn't lend itself very well to deconstructionism.

[waxwing]

I suppose that I would say that a writer is somewhat a reader as well. I mean that they also have a context for a piece of work that means something to them. After a few art history classes I think you can try and peg down what the artist was getting at, but their context is never yours because neither can truly span any length of time. The contexts exist in that instant and not in more or less time.

So van Gogh may have been grieving when he painted his self portrait but the person studying that painting can never experience his grief because it was his and no one else's. They can look at the painting and experience grief as well, but the grief is their own and not van Gogh's and is much different than van Gogh's grief.


"...but their context is never yours because neither can truly span any length of time."

Yes, but I'm talking about a separate framework, the poem. I agree that the poet and the reader cannot share the same context. But like I suggested, neither can one coffeedude share an exact contextual and/or conceptual framework with the neighboring coffeedude.


"The contexts exist in that instant and not in more or less time."

Yes...if I'm getting you right, context has so many levels that if we're talking about finding meaning in a poem, we must consider the context of the poem itself, the context of the poet in his society, the context of the reader in location, society, experience, knowledge of experience, and in terms of the progression of ideas/emotions potentially relating to the poem, etc..

But I still think that contexts overlap and frameworks (conceptual) shift so much that the poem needs to, through the process of being written, read, responded to, pondered, and perhaps most of all, through the process of being conceived in the mind of the poet (then newly, differently conceived by the reader) have intrinsic meaning. The contexts and frameworks are already too different (bw reader and original poet) for mutual understanding and synchronization to be the goal. I think I've run out of vocabulary to try to explain my thinking right now.

Maybe later.

[waxwing]

As to your second point, I would agree that dissonance can be beautiful, but doesn't the idea of a progression naturally infer a "structure" to the work?
(

Dissonance-- Yes, it can be beautiful. The idea of a progression naturally inferring a "structure" to the work makes sense theoretically, in terms of studying music theory, understanding chord progressions, key and time signature changes, and listening, and at times, even predicting how a piece of particular chord or the work as a whole will resolve. However, what I have difficulty with is the idea of imposing structure (extrinstically) on a work of art that already has intrinsic order (and this imposition is often very subtle as is the intrinsic order). The seemingly chaotic, largely dissonant 20th century work is extremely well ordered, brilliantly ordered, perhaps. Just because we may not understand the order or be able to deconstruct the piece to workable parts does not necessarily mean that it does not already possess order. This is not to say that I think we should or can connect with the original order understood by the composer; what I am saying is that allowing the music to progress as we listen often reveals an order that does not result from deconstructing the piece. It also does not stem directly from the composer's construction of a disarray of frameworks.

It almost seems like we've got the construction of the music to start,but then in addition we've got the way in which the composer constructed his moving,shifting, expanding frameworks. Then, we've got our own frameworks to factor in some how. To expect a listener to construct all of these frameworks to the point of an exact configuration (one that could be replicated) seems very unlikely at best. On the other hand, there seems to be the potential for a reordering, a recreation, and a reconstruction that does not undermine the original work, but makes it beautiful and comprehensible to the listener. I suppose expansion is a better word. There are limitless ways in which music can take on form. The content, while possibly replete with inherent form and order, only stands alone upon consideration of what came before its creation and what will follow it. En medias res....like an epic poem. Again, it's the process.

Perhaps this is an idealist view of music. Letting the structure emerge while actively listening and interacting. Is it possible? I'm not sure. It could be the case that while listening to a musical work we almost automatically send it to our logical processor as input and spit out something that makes more sense to us. Part of this cannot be avoided because, as has already been mentioned, we as listeners/observers/readers, naturally have our own contexts and concepts through which we filter art. But, what do you think? Is filtering different from ordering? Or can it be? Is there such a thing as connecting ourselves with order that transcends the order of our minds, our experience, and our limited emotional range? Enhancing order and allowing it to develop instead of limiting it and stunting musical and artistic growth?