On Infinite Perspectives, Post 5

[damian hunt]

                It is a paradox within a paradox though.  How can we ever form an infinite perspective theory if everyone follows it?  We would have everyone perpetually recycling all these theories without ever knowing if the full story can ever be understood, until someone says hey, maybe they missed a spot. The limited perspectives are what create the bigger picture.  It is similar to the art style of pointillism, if we stop dotting our painting, then the collage can never be finished.  You need the stubborn theorists to continually be stubborn so more theories can be formed, and the bigger picture becomes closer to being complete.  I don’t think anyone will ever understand a work better than its creator though.  If a theory can be formed where you delve into the subconscious of the author with some special machine, then I still think you will find discrepancies.  Literature has an outstanding depth to it.  It flows out of the authors mind into 26 characters that are supposed to contain within them a whole world imagined up the author that is perfectly synchronized and intertwined with the author personality, attitudes and life.  And the crazy part is that it is all in there.  It’s the most insightful code anyone ever has to crack.  In each letter and word there are clues, peepholes into the authors mind.  And sometimes what you find is better than what the author intended you too find.  All of this comes along with the thrill of reading and writing, understanding and relating.  As long as people continue to create, new discoveries will be found.  That is why the best thing an author can do is release their work to the people, because at that point, the readers may teach the author something about themselves that they may never have known.

wc: 302