at first glance a deceptively simple reply, upon further examination as intricate as the master himself. can dostoyevsky really mean to someone whatever another wants? or in other words - do we need three parties to decide upon one meaning? and doesnt Dostoyevsky have a meaning independant of desire?
Yo anonimnyi, now you're getting all Derrida on my arse, hey?Here's my reckonen:I reckon 'dostoevsky' can and does mean to someone whatever another wants.For example, to me, 'dostoevsky' means the derogation of the impoverished.But in a Japanese man's opinion, 'dostoevsky' means to me the elevation of the impoverished.And at face value, both opinions can be simultaneously true.But when I consistently behave as if 'dostoevsky' means the derogation of the impoverished, and am never sighted behaving as if 'dostoevsky' means the elevation of the impoverished, it's probably time for the Japanese man to review his opinion of what he believes 'dostoevsky' means to me.Otherwise his beliefs and his perception of the outside world are bound to clash.Whaddya reckon of my reckonen?
In regard to your pondering of whether 'dostoevsky' has a meaning independent of desire, I should think it helps to break down the process of arriving at a meaning:1. Gain the framework of a conception of 'dostoevsky'2. Formulate a meaning on the basis of this framework.3. Fill out the framework with further selective conceptualisation of 'dostoevsky'.4. Desire that this conception of 'dostoevsky' is true.5. Believe it to be true.I think that if I've formulated that correctly, then no, 'dostoevsky' doesn't have a meaning independent of desire. This is because every possible meaning of 'dostoevsky' is inherently imbued with the desire that it be a true meaning. We're hardly likely to wander around hoping that the meaning of 'dostoevsky' is untrue, no?But now we're getting all Derridal again. Where's bertie russell when I need him?