Saturday, March 26, 2005

Deconstructionism, Meaning, and Madness

My limited understanding of deconstructionism is that it results in making words (and experiences) completely subjective to the individual. Every word and act is subjective to a degree, but just because we can't have prefect objectivity does not mean we throw it out and replace it with complete subjectivism. It is like throwing a tantrum and saying, “Because I can't have it all, I don't want any.” That is what I call deconstructionism. If I am misusing the term, someone give me a better one.

A word delivers a field of ideas (but not all ideas) and an idea expresses a field of words (but not all words). Words are inexact at best. We need context and restatement of the same idea with different words so that the field of meanings for each word overlaps in a way that points to the idea.

If we strip words of their meanings (a word can mean anything), and then we are back to the tower of Babel (a word means nothing to the hearer). The more agreement we have about the meaning of words, the better we are able to transmit our ideas and effect change.


Blogger Steph said...

Hi, found you from the emergentwesleyan forum.
I agree, words need meaning so that we can communicate, but meaning can come directly out of context. I may say the same word in two conversations nd mean something completely different. I think effective communication means defing words together. Pushing and pulling, describing connotations and such until we see what the other person sees. ONly problem is that this takes time and a lot of listening skills.

9:39 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home