(at least for the kind of text that usually has this problem, i.e. academic or philosophical text) is to be understood, rarely this is the case with literature, which would be more understandable, or more justifiable. I do understand that the goal is to reach a textual manifestation without a possibility of misinterpretation, in a matter of speaking to grasp the "truth". Interestingly enough the way eastern philosophers pursued the same goal of seizing the "truth" was (is) quite opposite. Let us take koans for example. A koan is a question, a very simple question, but also in a way absurd. It usually brings forth more questions than answers. Something like: "does a tree falling in the forest create a sound if there is nobody hearing it?" Japanese poetry would be another example, such as Haiku's, consisting of only three lines, with 17 syllables, they sometimes capture something unique and beautiful. It seems as if the way to approach the whole quest of communication is inverse; not even trying to eliminate all possibilities of misapprehensions, but rather believing in the capability of the reader, or in this case rather, the interpreter. Not saying the other is better than the other but the diversity is interesting. 5.0 Something generalI have given a rather questioning and somewhat negative picture about this whole thing. It is time to lighten things up a bit, as nothing is as simple as it might seem on the first glance. Returning to the small notation on subtext, to the "hidden" or not obvious messages sent through language. It is almost as if language is doing more than it is supposed to do. Looking at the case from this direction makes the tool (again it being language) expand it's qualities as a communicative factor. So while defining oneself through language (or by other means) the subtext gives out a message that is closer to an image than it is to a word, and an image says more than a thousand words. Thus the falsities in human ...
