"be consistent" | |
PerlMonks |
comment on |
( [id://3333]=superdoc: print w/replies, xml ) | Need Help?? |
It seems at first obvious that the value and truth of something is in what it says, and so the speaker becomes irrelevant and any logical mind knows this and proceeds onward. I would disagree with you here. It, namely this bunch of 1's and 0's that resolve themselves into language, say nothing in and of themselves. Meaning is created by the reader, and not the text. In short, there can be no single objective meaning. It is true that some nodes will be largely open in meaning, and others relatively closed, but context always plays a part. The identity of the author also plays a large role in determining the truth-value of a node. No node can be true in and of itself, but only through the acceptance of that node as true by those who read it. The identity of the author factors in to this determination. "There is no truth, only regimes of truth articulated with power." (Michel Foucault) That being said, none of the above is true. Beware the lurking post-modernist... ;) </ajdelore> In reply to Re: Examine what is said, not who speaks." -- from BrowserUK's sig
by ajdelore
|
|