Subject: Re: Deeper meaning of TP-NOT!
From: riacmt@ubvmsa.cc.buffalo.edu (Carol Miller-Tutzauer)
Date: 1991-04-19, 11:09
Newsgroups: alt.tv.twin-peaks
Reply-to: riacmt@ubvmsa.cc.buffalo.edu

In article <1991Apr18.012204.227@mac.cc.macalstr.edu>, sdbeck@mac.cc.macalstr.edu writes...
> >I just thought I'd put in my own theory on Twin Peaks and symbolism, etc.
> > 
> >IT DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING!!! And if it does, it's not intentional!!!

Baseball doesn't MEAN anything either, but that doesn't mean 
that it isn't fun or that I shouldn't try to "read" something
into the players' performance.

There is an assumption you seem to be making that entertainment,
communication, meaning, whatever is formed in the mind of the
originator of the message and then it is "transmitted" 
(admittedly a Shannon & Weaver Information Theory word) undistorted
to the receiver who does not "interpret" that message in any 
way other than that intended by the sender.  This is a very
shallow view of "meaning" or communication.

Instead, why not view entertainment or any other form of 
communicated message as being emergent -- emanating from a 
sender and shaped by his/her own personal experiences and 
intentions for influencing the receiver.  The message can 
be shaped (or distorted) along the way (editing, broadcasting,
noise, etc.) and once it is received the person uses his/her
own personal experience to "interpret" the message consistent
with his/her own world view.

I have a friend who is a student in art design.  She was in town
just last week and talked about a presentation she made where 
she claimed that the artist's purpose is not necessarily to
communicate his/her own thoughts and emotions, but to trigger
the very individual experiences of his/her audience.  And from
the standpoint of the person viewing the artwork, she asks 
"How can anyone know what was in the mind of the artist when
s/he created a piece of artwork; how can one know what his/her
true intentions were?  Does it matter?  That the artist stirred
thoughts, experiences, emotions of an individual viewer, then
the artist has succeeded."  

I, of course paraphrase her words, but that is her view.  I must
also say that the prevailing thought in the Communications 
discipline (my background is in Interpersonal Communication
specifically) is that meaning is emergent, not inherent in either
the message itself.  Meanings of messages are shaped both by
the sender and the receiver, not to mention many ambient influences
during transmission.

Perhaps Lynch does not wish to comment *himself* on "what he
meant" because he takes a similar view, that viewing entertainment
episodes are also personal and emergent.

Just a thought.  Besides, all of this is fun.  So buzz off and
put us in your kill file if we are annoying you.  Otherwise, 
join us and have a bit of fun.

Carol

</pre>
<hr><a target="right" href="/index.txt">Return</a></body></html>