On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 12:01:12PM +0800, Andrew Bailey wrote: > "In my opinion, you will be very fortunate to get this person to work > for you." > > This statement has two distict and contradictory meanings, > hence it is up to the reader to interpret. But only two meanings. It does not mean "I just saw an elephant fly into the White House" or any other of an infinite possibility of meanings. There has been communication, even if the missing bit of data in this case is crucial for your hiring decision... > If the reader is intrepreting a statement, does that not mean, > by definition, that the statement is subjective? The statement, as a string of words someone uttered, is an objective fact. The intention of the speaker is usually an objective fact (leaving aside complications of competing mental processes within one brain) although not necessarily an objectively determinable fact, until brain scans get much better. The meaning the listener derives from interpreting the sentence is a third objective fact. The process of interpretation is yet another objective fact, but one operating within the listener's brain, and one which is not necessarily the same as the process which produced the statement in the first place, thus original intention and derived meaning may not be the same. Thus subjectivity. But for communication to happen the two processes should be highly similar, leading to similarity or identity between intention and meaning. That _is_ communication. (At least, of facts, and even of fiction and poetry, leaving aside complications of deception and emotional reassurance.) > So is it time to start talking about "relative truths" and > post-modernism yet? My relative truth is "post-modernism is a crock of shit". Refute! -xx- Damien X-)