LogFAQs > #965440109

You visit the same place every day. So do many others, and everyone spends different amounts of time here. As time passes, you might notice in greater detail the parochial specificity of the place. A common problem of language is that the same message may be interpreted differently by different readers. So everyone responds to a singular thing in a different way, supposedly proximate in time, and this creates the appearance of novelty. Someone who spends an hour or less here daily can see the same thing a million times and be none the wiser, because the message will be interpreted differently every time. But eventually this process succumbs to entropy and repetitious identities begin to draw the ire of the visitors. This can be mitigated by presenting the same message by different people, although this also has an inverse effect whereby one repetitious visitor will become repetitious despite a broad array of subject matter being presented as message. What does it mean? Once a message begins to be interpreted in a singular manner by its audience, and the death of its myriad semantic possibilities leaves only a singular monolith in its wake, the message becomes anathema and is transposed to the status of enemy. A common enemy is one that is familiar and eludes definition as consequence of the heterogeneous experience one has with it. Because there is only one way to experience an enemy, deferral to a rigid space for understanding is rendered impossible because the object is only experienced from one perspective. In fact this is the source of monism as a method for understanding: indeed it is impossible to view as singular the thing that we experience differently every day. Returning to the temple, when the static element is set into a form of dynamism through wrought controversy, there is once again an inverse ratio which will violently place things back into familiar order once they have been disturbed and chaos becomes the order of the previous day. The monism of singular, repetitious experience- the kind that exists when a person is subjected to unmediated semantic content, published with the express intent of being interpreted and responded to. Because there is only an abstract identity fixed to the message, claims pertaining to the agency of the temple visitor lose force because the message is tied to previous messages, which can be interpreted such that the proper interpretation of the repetition becomes impossible. The monist element appears after any possibility of multiple interpretations is exhausted, leaving only the remainder of what is repeated as being the motor of the process. There is the message, then, which invites the temple visitor to craft a semantic space which can be interpreted. The message is interpreted as being novel enough to merit interaction, and the combined result will be such that it will be different upon being repeated. However to a point the message will solicit repetition because the only remaining thing to do is modify the exchange until all involved parties are satisfied with the result. And then once the topic is repeated it can be glossed as having been effectively competed, requiring no further attention, and drawing only ire rather than novelty. It must be said that the monist result, which leaves only the mere experience of the message, namely what it is like to experience and participate in that message, namely once more the message being for experience, is effectively the board itself, and the activity of completing messages such that there is only the matter of them being experienced by temple visitors is such that one might conclude the thread itself is a progressive act of creativity, and to the extent that there is some artistry in prolonging the novelty of interpretation, the topic in itself can be said to replace the written textual narrative as the apotheosis of the literary experience.