Thank you for your very thoughtful and insightful reply.
> what is a written message that isn't read?
Imagine an ancient civilization that left written symbols, but the people are long gone, there's no one that knows how to interpret them anymore.
During the time the symbols were not being seen or interpreted by anyone, what would you call them?
But more important than that, is not that the symbols can't mean anything, rather that the meaning will be assigned by the reader when they read it (not just by the syntax of the symbols, which is what the article seemed to imply). And that meaning can be very very different than what the writer intended it to be.
What I'm basically saying is that meaning/interpretation of communication/messages is fluid/dynamic. It depends on the writer, the symbols, the reader and a lot of context. It is not fully contained or captured just by the symbols in which we express it.
Using your comment as an example, your "rereadings are also colored by the contexts shifts".
> what is a written message that isn't read?
Imagine an ancient civilization that left written symbols, but the people are long gone, there's no one that knows how to interpret them anymore.
During the time the symbols were not being seen or interpreted by anyone, what would you call them?
But more important than that, is not that the symbols can't mean anything, rather that the meaning will be assigned by the reader when they read it (not just by the syntax of the symbols, which is what the article seemed to imply). And that meaning can be very very different than what the writer intended it to be.
What I'm basically saying is that meaning/interpretation of communication/messages is fluid/dynamic. It depends on the writer, the symbols, the reader and a lot of context. It is not fully contained or captured just by the symbols in which we express it.
Using your comment as an example, your "rereadings are also colored by the contexts shifts".