"If it includes everything, it becomes meaningless."

[alixtii]

There is a claim I've seen being made a lot lately, in a lot of different places (but part of the same overall argument) by different people, that if a word applies to everything it becomes meaningless. Can anyone explain this claim to me?

If I say "everything is made up of atoms" does that mean "made up of atoms" is a meaningless category?

I remember having a conversation on the OTW FAQ and the language it uses, referring to what I would call source texts as "original works" and thus inadvertently imply intentionality which isn't truly there in the case of many RPF canons, in the comments of this post, with jadelennox, in which she said:

The jargon term "text" encompasses the idea that all objects, experiences, encounters, etc. are analyzable under the same lens is we would use to analyze the non-jargon "texts". There really isn't any jargon-free way to say "I mean everything in the world, except everything in the world from the point of view that you can look at everything in the world as a text". I'm not even explaining it well when I try to translate it into a whole lot of English words. *shakes tiny fist*

Is the "except [. . .] from the point of view that you can look at everything in the world as a text" part of her definition really lacking any semantic content?

If I say everything is about sex, or the death-drive, or the means of production, or the will-to-power, am I making meaningless statements?

If everything is X then, a) that may say something meaningful about the state of everything, and b) that doesn't eliminate the possibility that some things are more X than others, closer to the center of the conceptual web, less problematically X, while others lurk in the fuzzy boundaries.

Or am I just insane?

Comments

[tacky-tramp.livejournal.com]

I don't think anyone is up to date on what OTW's definition is.

Seriously. I've asked them how they're defining "fandom," and Naomi (I think) dismissed the question out of hand. Um, okay.

I was pleased to see that the FAQ apparently includes mention of machinima. Though that transformative fan practice has a decided unfemale history.

[princessofg.livejournal.com]

i'm just on the very edges of the OTW thing, but it's my impression that the definition/name issue is/was actually being discussed. i think it's worth trying to define, beyond the band fic discussion.

i know they picked "transformative" because of some very specific legal language in copyright law, but the edges of the definitions are always trickiest, yes? hence this very thread...

*cheers*