Jordans' Post

My comment that Barthes’ theory of the Third Meaning was essentially “useless” was perhaps a bit premature. Upon further thought I feel as though the notion of a third meaning is personally effective in understanding a deeper sense of oneself as well as the direction of humanity. However I am still troubled by the kind of “black hole” effect of Barthes’ theory. It feels as though Barthes theory occurs in a vacuum; that is to say that there is no tangible evidence only a surreal feeling that said meaning exists. The Third Meaning can then be described as alive, evolving and in constant flux. The reason I said “useless” is because of this definition precisely. Without a concrete example it becomes very difficult to not only discuss the Third Meaning, but to even explain why something fits in such an abstract category. The danger is that without context anything becomes susceptible to claims of Third Meaning. The problem then stems from Barthes claim that the Third Meaning is a luxury, an exchange without gain, and therefore becomes hazardous to ignorance when it goes unchecked. How then do we “check” the Third Meaning? Barthes’ himself is unsure whether or not it is even justified to articulate a Third Meaning. I believe the Third Meaning MUST be articulated but with a vigorous attention to detail as well as a wholehearted effort at exhausting all limits of said meaning. Third Meaning should only be discussed in extremely controlled situations where content, and purpose of said consultation, is crystal clear to all those involved. Without a clear understanding there is no way of expanding beyond superficial assertions of symbols and meaning.
With this mind I will attempt to explain my choice image for this week. It is a still from Michael Man’s cops and robbers saga, Heat. The reason I chose this image? In a word, subtlety. The scene pits two men from opposite sides of the law having a casual conversation in a quiet coffee shop. The shear magnitude of two of the greatest actors in film history sitting across from each as detective and criminal runs shivers down my spine. This spark ignited from said image doesn’t necessarily constitute Third Meaning for me but something about how the entire film as a whole is represented by this single image is significant. The way an entire film can be exemplified by a single image is representative of Barthes’ Third Meaning. Still I feel as though Barthes’ theory leaves much to be desired in terms of application. How can something so subjective and abstract be worthy of extended usage in objective style discussion? I know that there is a way to connect these notions in apparent contradiction but what that is I am quite unsure how to clarify. I commend Barthes’ attempt to express the inexpressible but his theory is not immune from critical response.