a better term

Professor Landow wrote in his critique of my web:

I think you need a better term than 'contextless resonance' since you seem to be dealing with multiple contexts overriding a single expectable, obvious one rather than with the absence of context. Can one have any meaning, resonance, signification without context - even if the only context possible consists of the perceiver's original associations that derive, in turn, from memories of by-definition past experiences that may be inaccessible to others or (even) to the conscious self?"

So we both agree that "contextless resonance" needs work. Upon further reflection, and having seen Steve's web, I realize that these words are parasitic. All words are context parasites to some degree, drawing life/meaning from the contexts in which they exist. Perhaps they are symbiotes because they undoubtedly contribute to the common pool of context. However, these phrases I have selected seem to be a particularly aggressive and hardy strain, because not only do they work well in their original homes, but can seize upon other peoples' inner contexts and flourish in these alien environments. There the difference between parasite and symbiote blurs because one can never tell how their hosts will react to this foreign invader. Obviously, they are beneficial symbiotes to me, because they made this project possible.

Perhaps we can use the term "contextual organisms."

This lexia brings up an interesting point about time. Did I identify "contextless resonance" as a problem term before Professor Landow pointed it out? Or did I note his point, agree, and go back and change my web around to make it look like I noticed it first?

Back to Theory
Back to The Center