kogo / EZE, 2025

 

Poly-Variance / EZE, 2025

The non-immediacy of meaning is that meaning in its totality is not usually available all at once. We have polysemy, but we do not have the multiple meanings of polysemy in play all at the same time. We do have encapsulation as a means to reduce the polysemy to a single term in that we are able to index this multiplicity, but this index does not itself encapsulate the polysemy of experienced meaning. Such experience is serial and thereby disjoint as it is available as a narrative, not usually as a single moment, as an encapsulated instant. 

Perhaps this desire for encapsulation of meaning drives our love of memes, a smiley, simple and complete. 

And why we should seek the totality of  a moment is a question in itself.

Yet, for some reason or another, we have chosen to call this multiplicity an illusion, most often an optical illusion, as in the case of the duck-rabbit image or the my wife and my mother-in-law image (old lady-young lady) ... .

But where is the illusion? 

The illusion seems to be in the bias that experience and the representation of experience is not true if it is not singular as related to image processing. But why should we believe that our reading/processing of images is (always) instantaneous? We usually do not expect a reading of a text to be instantaneous so why not extend this understanding of textual processing to other types of processing as well? The mechanics of our sight and of our mental processing interpret/produce meaning serially, but this serial construct is not an illusion, just a limitation of our capacity for processing.

The Poly-Variance of Pronunciation

Thanks to Diana Magallón for the link.

And what happens when we allow experience to be multiple in its meanings?

refe / EZE, 2025

 

subterfuge / EZE, 2025

 

hurk / EZE, 2025

 

mumtn / EZE, 2025

 

mumt / EZE, 2025

 

emerge / EZE, 2025

 

veg / EZE. 2025

 

sgosge / EZE, 2025

 

goge / EZE, 2025

 

Jim Wittenberg Asemics / EZE, 2025

asemitoons

Grey Asemic

100 Asemics of Summer

...

ÔÔôôô

Asemic Net

fope / EZE, 2025

 

fopef / EZE, 2025

 

Hermeneutics of Scale / EZE, 2025

 Background Theory

On Asemics and Polysemics

On Scale

On Genre Theory

On Hybrids

On Scale

Using Asemics and Polysemics as a Basis for Hermeneutics

Hermeneutics

Basis

Asemics

Polysemics

Genre

Mode of Representation

Interpretative Genre

Nexus

One purpose of representation is to give meaning.

With asemics, a representation fails to give meaning in a particular way. 

For example, asemic writing is about writing without meaning as writing. It constitutes its own interpretative genre. However, though the asemic writing may not have meaning as writing, asemic writing often emerges as having meaning by way of an interpretative genre other than the one that  initially defines it. 

Writing implies that the basis for meaning is in language, and writing thereby calls for its audience to read it. Hence, language serves, at least initially, as the interpretative genre. But should the writing prove unreadable as is often the case with asemic writing, the basis for meaning shifts. Indeed, this shift allows asemic writing to function as art rather than as writing, but nonetheless, asemic writing is a hybrid form of writing and of art.

The Asemic and the Polysemic as Hermeneutic

Asemics starts with null meaning and finds meaning through re-interpretation via a different basis.

Polysemics starts with a surplus of meaning, but it functions much like asemics when its multiplicity, rather than converging to a meaning with an interpretative basis, collapses to null meaning, in which case the polysemic also develops through re-interpretation, often developing as a series of meanings rather than remaining in play as an immediate multiplicity.

For the asemic and the polysemic, difference is a matter of scale.

For both the asemic and the polysemic, meaning is immediately null.

For both the asemic and the polysemic, meaning is non-immediate until an interpretative basis emerges to create meaning.

The partial basis for meaning that emerges both for the asemic and the polysemic often generates a multiplicity.

For example, the writing of asemic writing may yet be interpretable as writing, even if only partially, and this mixture of writing and non-writing often requires its own genre to substantiate meaning.

The asemic and the poysemic thereby form a nexus, which generates a hermeneutic.