After our discussion on Monday regarding the seemingly objective nature of texts, I have to say that I am somewhat inspired. The neo-platonic tradition is so unique in their practices, and I can see how this carries over into Christianity. This whole notion of the text taking on, not a life of its own, but rather, a life in the marriage of reader and text sounds ludacris, but I am inclined to agree that this is the case. In writing a text, the author has one thing in mind. If the text is never read, does it carry any weight or meaning, though? Clearly the neoplatonists would argue that it does not. Initially, I thought, "Hell yeah it does. What are you talking about?" I was so bothered by the notion that a book, novel, poem, or even article carries no meaning unless read. I don't think that is to say, though, that there is absolutely NO meaning whatsoever to the text. I think that is to say that its potential is only partially actualized in being written. In being read, however, the text takes on a completely different dynamic. Not only the first time it is read, but every time a text is read, a new relationship is built between text and reader. This gives the text a sort of limitless potential and eternal quality, and, to me, that is jsut delightful =)
No comments:
Post a Comment