There is a familiar mistake that appears whenever care becomes explicit.
Once we recognise that meaning does not maintain itself — that it requires attention, labour, endurance — we are tempted to secure it. To hold it firmly. To keep it safe. To protect it from erosion, misunderstanding, misuse.
Care slides, almost imperceptibly, into possession.
This is not a moral failure. It is a structural temptation.
Meaning feels fragile because it is relational. And what is relational can always be lost — not through destruction, but through withdrawal of participation. Possession promises relief from this vulnerability. If meaning can be owned, stabilised, enclosed, then perhaps it can be preserved without continual labour.
But possession is precisely what meaning cannot survive.
To possess meaning is to close it.
Closure need not be doctrinal. It need not announce itself as dogma or authority. It can appear gently, even lovingly: this is what it really means; this is how it should be understood; this is the correct way to carry it forward.
What is lost is not flexibility but relation.
Possessed meaning no longer asks anything of its holders. It no longer requires listening, adjustment, or risk. It becomes an object that can be transmitted, defended, or displayed — but not one that can be encountered.
Care without possession begins with accepting that this loss of control is not a problem to be solved, but the very condition of meaning’s life.
We can see this most clearly in shared practices.
A story retold across generations does not survive because someone guards its correct interpretation. It survives because people continue to inhabit it differently — sometimes awkwardly, sometimes irreverently, sometimes with misunderstanding. The story lives not in fidelity to an original meaning, but in repeated relational re‑entry.
Music offers an even starker example.
A score does not contain the music. It constrains a space in which music may occur again. Each performance risks distortion. Each listener hears something else. Attempts to preserve the music by freezing it — the definitive recording, the authoritative interpretation — produce not care, but embalming.
Meaning persists only where it is allowed to vary.
Care, then, is not stewardship of content.
It is stewardship of conditions.
To care for meaning is to keep open the relational field in which it can continue to be actualised. This includes making room for misreadings, partial engagements, refusals, and returns. It includes resisting the urge to settle disputes prematurely. It includes tolerating the discomfort of not knowing how others will take what we offer.
This is why care cannot be individual heroics.
Possession flatters the individual: I understand, I carry it correctly, I will protect it. Care, by contrast, disperses responsibility. It requires trust in others’ capacity to re‑actualise meaning without supervision.
There is an ethical cost here.
Care without possession means accepting that meaning will sometimes be used in ways we dislike, misunderstand, or even reject. It means living with the risk that what matters to us will be taken somewhere we would not have taken it ourselves.
This is not relativism. It is restraint.
The alternative is worse: a world where meaning survives only by narrowing, where vitality is exchanged for correctness, and where relation is sacrificed to certainty.
At this point, the series has closed off many familiar exits.
What remains is neither system nor doctrine, but practice.
The work of keeping meaning alive is not to secure it.
It is to keep returning to it — together — without claiming it as ours.
No comments:
Post a Comment