On the scalability of intentionality and interpretability

The qualities of intentionality and interpretability as mentioned in the previous post are not understood to be absolute or a binary. There exists the potential within this burgeoning theory for greater or wider intentionality and interpretability between two texts. However, the scaling of these qualities exists within a theoretical understanding that allows no upper limit to either, and in fact rejects the notion that either could be capped.

Applying this idea to specific texts, within postmodern thought it is reasonable to say that a shopping list can be a site of meaning-making, can be thought to have infinite intentions and used as a site for creating infinite meaning. The same could be said for Finnegan's Wake. But while neither has a limit to the meaning they can take part in making, it seems reasonable to say that Finnegan's Wake provide more material, is a more fecund site to make meaning, has a greater, richer level of intentionality and interpretability than the shopping list.

Therefore, the scalability I posit is not expressed as different peaks, as different levels of meaning-making that different texts can achieve, but might be understood as differences in the speed by which each reaches to infinity.

Indulge me a few examples, becausem frankly, I can't decide which I like best.

A subroutine that adds one to itself ad infinitum reaches the same theoretical "end," that being infinity, as a subroutine that adds one million to itself at each iteration, yet the one-million-adding subroutine can be seen as more "robust."

A human couple, a rabbit couple, and a fruit fly couple, all immortal, could each produce infinite offspring, but at wildly different rates.

Given infinite time, both the room full of monkeys and a single monkey would eventually pen Hamlet, yet would clearly demonstrate a scalable emasure of "monkeyness."

This distinction is important, is an underpinning of my thinking, especially given that I feel that the relative strength of a text meaning-making ability, as expressed by scalable intentionality and interpretability, may be a measure of a text's "literariness."

While, of course, accepting that any such measurement will be influenced by the measurer, just as a text's actual made meaning is dependant on the actual individuals that make up the artist-in-fact and audience-in-fact. This is, after all, quantum, and not a refutation but refinement on postmodernity.