Decoherence***
As an unperfect actor on the stage
Who with his fear is put besides his part,
Or some fierce thing replete with too much rage,
Whose strength’s abundance weakens his own heart;
So I, for fear of trust, forget to say
The perfect ceremony of love’s rite,
And in mine own love’s strength seem to decay,
O’ercharged with burden of mine own love’s might.
O, let my books be then the eloquence
And dumb presagers of my speaking breast,
Who plead for love and look for recompense
More than that tongue that more hath more expressed.
O, learn to read what silent love hath writ;
To Hear with eyes belongs to Love’s Fine Wit.
Q it's all coated>Q it's all coded
What is a TEXT about? We will never know, says the American philosopher Richard Rorty: "it is wrong to think that it is something that a text really deals with, something that will be revealed by the rigorous application of a method". The critic betrays the work he thinks he is interpreting. The work itself, indicated by the subject it perceives, is a simple chimera.
But a text is not a picnic where the author brings the words and the readers the meaning: to assume that the only decision is up to the interpreter has, in the history of thought, a name: magical idealism. The critic is not an artist who freely reinterprets what he analyzes. Reader-oriented theories that shift attention from the work to the interpreter, kill the text, transform critical activity into an excess of pseudo-creative rewriting.
It is therefore a question of building a method starting from the concept of limit, a scientific practice that is such without crossing its own borders. To obtain this result, the concept of Model Author can be introduced, that is, the one who organizes the text in order to solicit certain interpretations and not others. In other words, the writer imagines their reader and leads him by the hand through the story.
How then to realize that the interpretation of the text is the correct one? Simple. Putting himself in the shoes of the Model Reader, that is, of the one whom the author wanted as his ideal reader. The Model Reader, knowing that the Author has left him a message, will try to decipher it. To this end, he will accumulate, with the precision of a detective, the textual clues and compare them to see if they end up squaring together, giving the whole a coherent and unitary image. Only then will he be certain that he has been a good reader.
The text is an object built by interpretation in a circular effort to validate itself on the basis of what it constitutes as its own result ". Just like in a detective story: where the author makes the murderer disseminate clues that allow the detective to find out. Or perhaps as in the story of Hop-o'-My-Thumb that leaves the breadcrumbs to be found. But if the author who wrote the text didn't want to be a Model Author at all, if he didn't want to leave clues? Impossible. In reality, the Model Author is a fiction. Behind this non-existent character hides the organization through which a text must be given to be transmissible and no text can do without this organization. Even if I don't want to say anything, the organization of the text must be such as to give at least this counter-message. In short, no one can escape the obligation of communication.
The work is in fact an organized whole. If it were not all the clues would not make a system and, to put it with the example I have already used, the detective could never get an overview and trace the culprit. From here, however, the difficulty arises: a structure, like a mathematical law, is in some way independent of the intentions that determined its formulation and therefore from the creator, from the Empirical Author.
For a structure only its internal consistency is relevant.
It follows that everything that is consistent with it must be considered relevant. Consequent paradox: the Empirical Author must recognize the text of the possibility of meanings which he himself has NEVER THOUGHT of, as long as these fit perfectly into the whole. But there is more: reconstructions that bind a certain number of data coherently can yield many, even incompatible with each other. Interpreting, therefore, does not mean reconstructing a single image, let alone the truth of the work. The interpreter can only have at least one negative certainty: he will know which reconstructions are unreliable, but he will never know which is the exact one. In line with what Popper said in relation to the logic of scientific discovery, it can in fact be stated that there are criteria to falsify theories, but none exist to verify them.
In short, if there are no rules to ascertain which interpretations are the best, there is at least ONE rule to ascertain which are the WORST.
Or in other words I am convinced that the three little pigs are three and not two or four, is of some substance…