"There is no such thing as what Leo meant"

[Something Funny]

Can someone please clarify this point from the postmodernism video to me.

I don't understand how postmodernism can reject the existence of the original intent behind the text.

If we establish that "whether Leo is wrong or right doesn't really matter", then what is the issue with saying that "there is such a thing as what Leo meant objectively"?

An argument that a person doesn't have a full transperency over their mind doesn't seem strong enough and kind of falls under "it doesn't matter if their intention is wrong or right".

If there was a specific intent behind the video, book, etc., it shouldn't really matter where this intent is coming from or why does a person have such intent and not another. All that matters is that there was this particular intent.

Am I wrong?

[Something Funny]

I also don't understand what "co-creative process" and needs of the audience have to do with whether there was an original meaning behind the video or not.

Edited October 1 by Something Funny

[Something Funny]

If I say:

The bible is not a blank slate and that it is not "however we decide that it is". That there is an original intent behind it, we just don't know what it was.

So the answer is that we don't know how it is, not that it could be anything.

Is this me misunderstanding postmodernism or is it a valid critique of it?

[Atb210201]

There is always an objective answer in everyone's minds.

It's just that sometimes they think it's subjective and not objective but actually they've made their mind about it so it's objective for them.

Even if they're thinking everything is subjective then that's what they concluded as being an objective truth.

You can do it both ways either everything is subjective or everything is objective or both or none.

Or even beyond.

Edited October 1 by Atb210201

[Something Funny]

@Atb210201 this doesn't really answer my question, tbh. I just don't understand this particular argument that Leo has made.

[Atb210201]

2 hours ago, Something Funny said:

@Atb210201 this doesn't really answer my question, tbh. I just don't understand this particular argument that Leo has made.

Yes sorry.

I didn't think it was relevant to your question that much either.

I don't know why I wrote it.

Forget about it.

Peace my friend.

Edited October 1 by Atb210201

[Something Funny]

@Atb210201 it's okay. Thank you. 

[Leo Gura]

The point is that your understanding of what I say is always mediated by your interpretations and needs.

Even if there is such a thing as what I mean, you will never know it for sure.

What PM is pointing out is the foolishness of people who naively go around thinking they understand the original intent of authors, as if this is some objective scientific thing.

Edited October 1 by Leo Gura

[Something Funny]

@Leo Gura okay, I get that. Thank you. 

[ryandesreu]

Postmodernism correctly points out the foolishness of thinking we can fully understand an author's true meaning. However, it might overlook the chance for shared meaning through conversation.

[Keryo Koffa]

Communication is a symbolic exchange, symbols link to cues, cues to encoded experiences, experiences to feelings.

Intent spawns of feeling, is artfully translated into symbols, in hope of cueing similar experiences to evoke feelings.

But its a mess of infinitillions of disparate holons trying to capture the original infinitely contextualized significance.

Speak of finding a needle in a haystack, yet shared meaning approaches infinity and expands it through its own self.

Feelings themselves can be quite illusive, complex as they are, gradients of lifetimes expressed in a single tendency.

And on top of all of that, there's also the consideration of consciousness' metaphysics and the nature of reality itself.

[DocWatts]

17 minutes ago, ryandesreu said:

Postmodernism correctly points out the foolishness of thinking we can fully understand an author's true meaning. However, it might overlook the chance for shared meaning through conversation.

Also interpretations can be a better or worse fit for the subject matter. 

Regardless of what they say on the matter, I imagine most postmodernists would be dismayed if I started using thier work to advocate for Nazi ideology.

In reality, no one adheres to Postmodernism without an implicit belief that it's a more valid perspective than the ideas it's critiquing (otherwise, why even embrace postmodernism over some other viewpoint)?

[Leo Gura]

24 minutes ago, DocWatts said:

In reality, no one adheres to Postmodernism without an implicit belief that it's a more valid perspective than the ideas it's critiquing (otherwise, why even embrace postmodernism over some other viewpoint)?

PM is more correct than say a religious fundamentalist who reads the Bible literally and thinks his interpretation is the only objectively valid one.

Or a scientist who thinks that science is the best and most objective way to see reality.

That's what PM is pointing out as a mistake.

Edited October 1 by Leo Gura

[LoseYourvelf]

4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

The point is that your understanding of what I say is always mediated by your interpretations and needs.

Even if there is such a thing as what I mean, you will never know it for sure.

What PM is pointing out is the foolishness of people who naively go around thinking they understand the original intent of authors, as if this is some objective scientific thing.

You make me feel sick...jk

Edited October 2 by LoseYourvelf

[Hojo]

@Someone here You might be able to think of it as like a personality. Your personality you think you have and are is specific to you and only exists in your mind. You as a person will come off as a completely different person in another persons mind. Who is right? The idea of what you are and how you perceive yourself only exists to you and that's just one objectified view of who and what you are. But there probably 1000 other objective views of who and what you are and probably more agree that you are something you think you are not since your view is only 1 view. Is your view more real? Probably not because we do unconscious things all day long, its probably close to impossible to completely identify yourself unless you stop thinking and identify with nothing.

This type of thinking will spread across every single thing we define in reality. You cant know what people see hear and feel and we only guess. Then we create societies to force people into certain 'frequencies' of thinking. The human is brain is so insanely intelligent it is beyond being able to comprehend what is going on with yourself let alone other people. We just guess through getting bazillions of feedback from reality. Ultimately you are just taking peoples words and reflecting them on yourself, not only that but your relationship with the people will effect the way you perceive what they are saying.

I only watched half the post modernism video so maybe this is not the answer.

[Someone here]

@Hojo you tagged me . I think you're mistaken. You should tag OP.