The rule of pragmatic reader-response
That is, for the purpose of an evaluated subject, what matters is only what the evaluating body interprets or understands. While there is no correct answer as to the meaning of "meaning"—that is, as to what the real or true meaning of a text is, which differs depending on which perspective on an interaction you take—there are, nonetheless, systemic realities. One such reality is the irrelevance of intent within the confines of an expression game.
One implication of this rule is that appeals to an observer or evaluator can only be made via channels, and using symbols, which are "fitted" to the evaluator's interpretive inputs. What can be got across is limited by and to the receiver's schematic affordances. If I wish to succeed in their evaluation, I must make my appeal in the language they speak; that is, using the meanings of the words as the evaluator understands them, and my success in being evaluated depends in large part on how well I am able to simulate the observer's meaning schemas. The "full truth" of the communication, insofar as it exists as a complex, multiperspectival relationship between signaler and signaled, will and can never be fully accessed. In such cases, the only reality that counts is the receiver's.
- 0 回复