Misato killed Kaji

[Allemann]

Perhaps.

As DoT is a text itself, we can interpret it as we see it fit.

[Bagheera]

Honestly, this tangent is OT anyway but since the topic was troll job to begin with this whole thing is pretty pointless. To even parade "lol Misato killed Kaji" around is pure intellectual masturbation that has no basis on the original work (unless it's subjected to some twisted "interprepting" aka seeing what one wants to see there). Or a troll, like here. It's sad that people seriously start to debate about stuff like this.

And yet here you are, an active participant in the thread!

[NemZ]

edit: damn topic is growing faster than I can respond!

@Xard:

SPOILER: Show

When language is treated as relative system where any signs are malleable in meaning and there's no author who purposefully used them in certain sense to reader (in Eva's case viewer) any text can pretty much mean anything.

To varying degree, yes, but only to the extent that it doesn't contradict the text itself.

And no, no absolute meaning exists in the text

Of course it doesn't. The text itself is meaningless, but it's existence as a specific object that provokes meanings within observers is absolute, and any such meaning must be built around and on that unchanging framework.

In such discussions it's presumed that there is inherent, definitive meaning imbued to the text (law). If the text of law could mean anything at all it's silly to even talk about "unconstitutional".

That's a rather big tangent (letter of the law vs. spirit of the law), but I submit that the 'spirit' side of the argument is subjective and relative to each reader of the law, while the letter is fixed... or at least as fixed as anything reliant on the vagueries of grammar can be. The best answer to the needs of justice is probably a bit of both, but undoubtedly the letter of the law MUST be dominant because without it there is no continuity for people to live by, merely the whims of the court.

And as we all know Smurfs are communists and Gargamel antisemitic caricature of Jew.

under DotA there's no meaningful distinction between seeing things that aren't there and the text itself.

I thought Gargamel was more of a Rasputin character, but otherwise I can see where that reading is coming from, yeah.

Meaning is only in the mind, but for it to be worth discussing it has to be somehow predicated on the framework of the text so that a common benchmark for comparison can be established. Just saying whatever the hell you want is pointless, but in the Smurf example there definately are parallels, unintentional or not, to be seen.

I also fails the verificationist criteria of meaning.

It's all predicated on absolutes (which DotA denies) so this isn't really a surprise. The only senses in which meaning can be verified are the dry facts of a text and what it means to the viewer personally. Everything else is subjective.

Well, at that point it just becomes the viewer not understanding what it was the author was trying to say, which could be either the fault of the viewer or the author. Miscommunication, if you will.

Yes, but you're also assuming that communication of the author to the audience is the only message that matters. Rather, I think that the messages from audience members to each other and back to the author with regards to the original work can be just as important, if not more so. A perfectly clear communication (for example, a stop sign) isn't all that interesting; it's the works that aren't clear that people dwell on and really care about... eva, for example.

That's how unimportance Anno thought showing the character was.

Counterpoint: "Akagi Ritsuko, I truely-"

Besides, you're still thinking in terms of what Anno cares about as the only things that are important, which leads me to suspect you don't understand this whole DotA thing at all.

As to the rest, I suspect the mods aren't anxious to start up yet another "god exists: y/n?" thread.

[CJD]

Besides, you're still thinking in terms of what Anno cares about as the only things that are important, which leads me to suspect you don't understand this whole DotA thing at all.

But how can you say that the viewers perspective is just as important as the authors? I'm not fluent on DotA (But I do enjoy LoL ), but it seems to me that it's saying the viewers opinion is just as important as the authors. Am I mistaken? When I look at a work, I see that there's a core intent, because there is a core intent: what the author intended.

I can pretend all I want that the Star Wars prequels aren't canon, but the fact is they are. When it comes to Star Wars lore, Lucas is God, he's Judge and Jury. If he says that Jedi are an allegory for the navy Seals, that's the truth. It may be stupid, it may make no sense, but the fact is that it's the intended message.

[esselfortium]

But how can you say that the viewers perspective is just as important as the authors? I'm not fluent on DotA (But I do enjoy LoL ), but it seems to me that it's saying the viewers opinion is just as important as the authors. Am I mistaken? When I look at a work, I see that there's a core intent, because there is a core intent: what the author intended.

I can pretend all I want that the Star Wars prequels aren't canon, but the fact is they are. When it comes to Star Wars lore, Lucas is God, he's Judge and Jury. If he says that Jedi are an allegory for the navy Seals, that's the truth. It may be stupid, it may make no sense, but the fact is that it's the intended message.

I think this only really goes so far. Lucas (or Anno) can say or do anything he wants, but it doesn't retroactively alter the original work as it was released.

First, I should say a few words about authorship. In organized internet fandom, there is a tendency to talk about popular works as if they were not self-contained texts, but windows into an alternate universe to which the "author" or director has privileged access. Although, of course, everyone knows intellectually that this is not true, this way of thinking persists on in fan circles as if the past hundred years of literary theory had not happened. The very term "canon" suggests that suggests that the religious metaphor is in full force; NGE is not a sci-fi series, but a divinely received text whose meaning can only be determined by the author-God.

[CJD]

I think this only really goes so far. Lucas (or Anno) can say or do anything he wants, but it doesn't retroactively alter the original work as it was released.

Truthfully speaking, I'm not sure how I feel about that. If Anno came out and said "Eva's are actually 100% robotic, the blood and organic parts was a mistake, it's now not canon", I don't know what I'd do.

[Xard]

edit: damn topic is growing faster than I can respond!

Fundamentally the reason why I've dropped out of all religious debate threads sooner or later. You guys post too much and there are too many participators and it's pure chaos. This isn't even bad thread in comparison.

To varying degree, yes, but only to the extent that it doesn't contradict the text itself.

If the text can mean pretty much anything (and it can under DotA) it's pretty hard to contradict the "text itself". One can read even stuff that "obviously happens" on-screen as hallucinations. Perhaps Shinji never got out of Eva-01 in ep 20 and rest of the series is his fantasy of how his life would've gone on if he had.

Meaning is only in the mind, but for it to be worth discussing it has to be somehow predicated on the framework of the text so that a common benchmark for comparison can be established. Just saying whatever the hell you want is pointless, but in the Smurf example there definately are parallels, unintentional or not, to be seen.

But if the "meaning" of the text is entirely subjective and only in people's minds I don't see why any comparisons and discussion would NOT be pointless as far as uncovering "truths" of the text are discussed; everyone is equally correct (regardless of their level of argumentation and just how well they can cite the text)


Interesting discussion, I guess but I'm getting kind of tired of it. What's even the point of this thread, anyway?

[Bagheera]

Interesting discussion, I guess but I'm getting kind of tired of it. What's even the point of this thread, anyway?

Luc likes trolling and people were bored.

[Xard]

Well, I'm bored again so might as well pull agreement here because I'm too lazy to continue

yeah NemZ, I agree with you :P

[NemZ]

yeah NemZ, I agree with you :P

I'm tempted to sig that.

[symbv]

Well, I'm bored again so might as well pull agreement here because I'm too lazy to continue

yeah NemZ, I agree with you :P

Xard finally lost the battle of attrition. Interestingly he was too bored to continue though one would think being bored provides more reason for pursuing pointless things like the current discussion 　

Just a final word:
For DotA it is hard to say whether it is necessarily all subjective, because at the end those believe in DotA believe in the "objective" text.

[Sun Stealer]

If my Fan-fu is correct, Anno never intended to convey that Misato killed Kaji in the first place. It was just fanwank to begin with. I think it was meant that just some nameless mook from Nerv, Seele, or the JDA was his killer.

Then they later retconned it, so that they gave a name and a full game centering around Kaji's Killer, Kyouya or something.

[tomrule123]

If my Fan-fu is correct, Anno never intended to convey that Misato killed Kaji in the first place. It was just fanwank to begin with. I think it was meant that just some nameless mook from Nerv, Seele, or the JDA was his killer.

Good god, this topic is still in discussion? ...and to think we would've clarified what really happened like what Sun Stealer had described.

[Trajan]

I think this might have been a joke topic since the beginning, but since this is EGF...

[chee]

For once I'm in agreement with NemZ here. People have so fundamentally misinterpreted DoA to mean a kind of anything-goes, textual nihilism, and this misinterpretation which is a diseased strain of lazy black-and-white thinking that's led to so many retarded strawman misapprehensions of so-called "post-modernism" (which is a term that outside the work of specific thinkers like Jameson and Lyotard, or in specific fields like architecture, is a non-word that ultimately signifies a grand total of jack and shit), that its led to a godawful racket of moronic, intellectual mudslinging. (like the IQ-destroying cacophony of retarded, jaundiced blithering and petty trolling that was the Sokal Affair, which ironically enough was basically the retarded grandfather of this thread)

[Xard]

For once I'm in agreement with NemZ here. People have so fundamentally misinterpreted DoA to mean a kind of anything-goes, textual nihilism, and this misinterpretation which is a diseased strain of lazy black-and-white thinking that's led to so many retarded strawman misapprehensions of so-called "post-modernism" (which is a term that outside the work of specific thinkers like Jameson and Lyotard, or in specific fields like architecture, is a non-word that ultimately signifies a grand total of jack and shit), that its led to a godawful racket of moronic, intellectual mudslinging. (like the IQ-destroying cacophony of retarded, jaundiced blithering and petty trolling that was the Sokal Affair, which ironically enough was basically the retarded grandfather of this thread)

Well won't you define DoA here then? As far as you can base your interprepation on the source text it should be acceptable under DoA - at least I have no idea how you can reach any other conclusion from Barthes's text. But you seem to be the expert on the subject so please, go ahead

Secondly post-modernism being nigh-meaningless umbrella term is no news and has nothing to do with the subject. No one is discussing "post-modernism" overall here.

[NemZ]

Let me lay it all out clear as possible - for any message in any medium, there are basically 3 parts:

1. The message as intent in the mind of the author
   
2. The message as text given external existence (though it might be a movie, painting, song, etc rather than written words)
   
3. The message as experience in the mind of the audience.

Classically the intent was seen as primary, the rest being rough transcriptions of the original thought behind it. This intent was enshrined in literary scholarship as a sort of divine revelation from the mind of genius-as-author, the holy of holies that cannot be entered directly by mere readers but whom should strive to penetrate with alternate means to gain as complete a picture of the one true message as possible. Alleluia!

DotA breaks this ridiculous situation apart by placing the emphasis on the text instead, the only piece of the puzzle that is accessible to all and that has an absolute existence outside of the whims of individual, subjective minds. This is preferable for the following reasons:

1. A text can actually be the product of many authors and editors, each with their own intents that may conflict
   
2. Authors don't always fully understand their intent or it's sources from their own unconsciousness and from the milieu of culture and history upon which they draw
   
3. Authors aren't always successful in putting their intentions into a text
   
4. Authors may intentionally obscure part or all of their intent
   
5. Experiences are still valid even with they don't conform to the intent
   
6. Experience may be much more interesting than the original intent, so much so that some authors might try and pretend this was intentional after-the-fact
   
7. The author might purposefully make a text vague in the hopes that it will create different meaningful experiences in different audiences, none of which are really contained in the original intent.
   
8. In many cases it is the conflict between experiences rather than the purity of the intent that makes a text worth studying in the first place

It is only because the text itself is treated as the fixed point about which all other facets of the message orbit that meaningful discussion is even possible. This is not to say that all experiences are equal, however; Those that contract the text should be discarded unless they can show that the text is itself in conflict. Of those that conform with the text, the more direct and indirect support for an experience there is within the text the more validity it carries.

It is precisely because of the text as fixed point that the author must be considered 'dead' to any finished work. An author may attempt to make revisions of a text to clarify intent, remove subconscious or merely unpopular elements of the the intent or to purposefully reject formerly valid experiences, but in so doing the text must be treated as a new work because it can no longer claim the same fixed point of reference as the original.

[Xard]

all fine points in general, of course. But you didn't provide new (for me) definition of "Death of the Author" concept as none of that conflicts with my understanding of the term. And chee seems to be implying I don't know what I'm talking about. If I'm wrong I'm glad to learn more so chee explaining what he means would be beneficial in any case.

[NemZ]

it would probably help if you clarified you understanding of the term then.

[Xard]

it would probably help if you clarified you understanding of the term then.

uhh, I'm pretty sure I've done that enough times already during the course of this thread.