Comments on: Meaninglessness in the Desert of the Real. Arguing for a Form of Meaning and Unpretentious Objects. | Rebecka Molin http://feministtechnoscience.se/2008/06/04/meaninglessness-in-the-desert-of-the-real-arguing-for-a-form-of-meaning-and-unpretentious-objects-rebecka-molin/ Open Peer Review Journal ISSN 1654-6792 Fri, 30 Jul 2010 11:46:01 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: Peter Giger http://feministtechnoscience.se/2008/06/04/meaninglessness-in-the-desert-of-the-real-arguing-for-a-form-of-meaning-and-unpretentious-objects-rebecka-molin/#comment-18 Peter Giger Wed, 11 Jun 2008 04:47:39 +0000 http://feministtechnoscience.se/2008/06/04/meaninglessness-in-the-desert-of-the-real-arguing-for-a-form-of-meaning-and-unpretentious-objects-rebecka-molin/#comment-18 The concept of 'meaning' is difficult. As a materialist, I view objective meaning as an almost supernatural word, belonging either in religion or in the center Jacques Derrida called logos. I am not sure it is possible to sustain the concept of objective meaning in a secular world. And I don't think we need it. On the other side, 'meaning' is a very important concept in the construction of the 'person'. A person without meaning is a mere individual, an algorithmic entity in the hands of administrative rationalism. If Baudrillard only refers to semiotic meaning, I am not sure there can be 'meaninglessness', since semiotic meaning is basically pragmatic. Ontological meaning in semiotics is difficult to sustain after Saussure - at least. After Saussure, 'meaninglessness', is arbitrary, as all words are. Or, is it possible that B objects to all kinds of meaning, even pragmatic, constructed meaning? I am not sure I understand the location of Baudrillard's 'meaninglessness'. The concept of ‘meaning’ is difficult. As a materialist, I view objective meaning as an almost supernatural word, belonging either in religion or in the center Jacques Derrida called logos. I am not sure it is possible to sustain the concept of objective meaning in a secular world. And I don’t think we need it.

On the other side, ‘meaning’ is a very important concept in the construction of the ‘person’. A person without meaning is a mere individual, an algorithmic entity in the hands of administrative rationalism.

If Baudrillard only refers to semiotic meaning, I am not sure there can be ‘meaninglessness’, since semiotic meaning is basically pragmatic. Ontological meaning in semiotics is difficult to sustain after Saussure - at least. After Saussure, ‘meaninglessness’, is arbitrary, as all words are.

Or, is it possible that B objects to all kinds of meaning, even pragmatic, constructed meaning?

I am not sure I understand the location of Baudrillard’s ‘meaninglessness’.

]]>