Umberto Eco: Texts, sign systems and the risks of over-interpretation

Could not agree more.

In fact, I find Foucault's Pendulum, in many ways, very strongly supports skepticism in all realms. And adds the sort of lovely literary tinge that if anything can be made to "prove" anything (in "The Plan"), then of course nothing truly proves anything. And so the age of modernity/reason leaves us flailing in uncertainty (science is always skeptical, never certain).

And it's such a hoot to boot.

At one point, the article suggests that Eco himself had his disagreements with Derrida et. al. Maybe that is what the "risks of over-interpretation" in the title is referring to.

Everyone involved in the "discovery" of the conspiracy (Which was random words applied to Rosicrucians dogma?), and those who claimed that the conspiracy really did unravel the secrets of the grail, everyone (except the girlfriend, but including the protagonist) were idiots. Skepticism, rational thought, and a little application of evidence should have stopped the process in it's tracked. They all got carried away, and the lies, begat lies, that became 'a truth'. Much like fake news of today etc. Another novel of his Baudolino comes at this from a different angle, everything the protagonist says is a lie (unreliable narrator plus), yet it all comes true. I love a good Eco conversation, and all the wonderful ways you can pull it apart.

He also wrote a short piece comparing operating systems to religion which is is quite amusing. It boils down to:

Windows = Protestantism Macs = Christian Unix = Talmudic

(if i recall correctly)

It's also quite relevant for anyone with a morbid interest in those "logical" conlangs that try to divide the world into some sort of rational categories (Lojban, Ithkuil etc.). Though perhaps demotivating for those who attempt to create/learn one ;-)

Also, be sure to read Borges' "The analytical language of John Wilkins" if you like this sort of thing :)