Morally Neutral Representation

[Bandwraith at aol.com]

The problem, of course, with Not interpreting potentially
meaningful representations is that it turns artistic
productions into mere design. Some would say this is
what the best science attempts to do with the "elements" 
of the universe, which it measures and "discovers."
Oedipa poised in the hills above San Narciso might
suggest another way of knowing- revelation.

The Taj Mahal is beautiful in and of itself, but without
knowledge of its original intention- how to integrate it
meaningfully into the history of the culture of which it 
is a product- it might be just another fractal image. 
This is especially true of Islamic representations, which 
are forbidden to represent any of god's creations. 
But that interdiction itself lends meaning to Islamic "art."

In more general terms, is there meaning without agency?
Unless you believe that non-living matter possesses a soul, 
it's hard to refute the idea that seeking meaning is the 
sine qua non of agency. On the most basic level, seeking 
meaning might include such behavior as eating and its 
consequences.

Pynchon produces some really good stuff. His work 
challenges me to ask the converse of the above, i.e., 
whether agency without meaning is possible, or obversely,
is meaning "meaningful" excepting within the purview
of some individual agent. Is all meaning local? What is
the relationship between the local and the whole shebang?

Open questions, for now, at any rate.

regards