Weinberger, in chapter 8 of Everything is Miscellaneous, discusses the ideas of implicit and explicit meaning. To do this he brings in German philosopher Martin Heidegger. Wikipedia has an excellent (and long) article about Heidegger, and while his history only partly plays a role in Weinberger's suggestions, it is important to know that Heidegger is known well for his existential ideas.
If you have never picked up any Sartre, it will be hard to describe existential thought. While Wikipedia could again provide direction, I find that existentialism is best described as something of an opposite thought process to what we would consider 'normal' in Western culture. In Western culture objects have meaning by existing. An apple on a desk would have a weight, color, size, and many different values that define it. For example, living in a consumerist society we often think about objects in terms of their price. Existentialism proposes that objects are not so much their physical selves as they are an idea, or abstract concept that has no set definition. There are of course many different peculiarities to existentialism, but I believe it can be tied directly to the concept of the implicit in Weinberger's work.
The text in question, "the meaning of a particular thing is enabled by the web of implicit meanings we call the world" (170), means to me that we do not define any one thing singular to itself. Everything is tied to something else. The apple on a desk is not just an arrangement of objects; it can be a gift for a teacher, or a representation of a classroom. Maybe it is a healthy snack for an overworked employee, a forgotten lunch. "Ah," you would say, "you simply didn't describe the apple and desk very well; if you did it would be less connected." Possibly, but I believe no description can fully capture the idea of an apple. All the associations we make with that apple, as individuals, branch out beyond the physical into the abstract. It is within that abstraction that the third order of orders is realized.
Weinberger makes the argument, across many chapters, that organizing the world around us has changed forever. Objects are no longer singular, they can be represented across many dimensions. Those representations are also no longer mutually exclusive due to recent technology such as tagging or databases. The implicit can be categorized, and while it might be blasphemy to Heidegger, the abstract can now be made explicit.
Below is a quick sketch I drew about I'm Gonna Be by The Proclaimers.
I like your example with the apple, it made your post very clear and concise. Although I do wish you explained your drawing a bit because Im not sure that I understand its meaning.
ReplyDeletePrevious comment omitted by Caimen Nguyen
ReplyDeleteThat was rather deep. I'm sure that your description was on the right track but you may have lost me for a piece or two of that. I agree with the idea that in western culture, we label the physical and rarely identify the existential nature of items in question. However, this lack of identification is a lack of explicitness because most western thinkers utilize the implicit meanings of things as a form of communication, albeit cryptic and overused.
ReplyDeleteI like how you point out on your apple example "...but I believe no description can fully capture the idea of an apple" I agree with you because everyone will think about the apple differently if you decided to have a bunch of people choose words (tag) for the apple.
ReplyDeleteYou say, "The implicit can be categorized, and while it might be blasphemy to Heidegger, the abstract can now be made explicit." I ask, "can it really be, for everyone?" I think Weinberger thinks we're on our way, but we're not there yet.. Good post, just make sure to consider the role of participation in making the implicit explicit.
ReplyDelete