Pertaining to Lewis's "Are You Receiving Me?" reading, there were a couple of things that particularly stuck out to me.
One thing was the part in which he states tries to explain semiotics: that "there is no natural relation between a thing (whether that thing is a sound, an image, or the kitchen table) and the meaning of that thing (the concepts we use to understand it)" (159). The example that Lewis uses is that television consumption is a learned behavior. He writes, "watching TV...requires learning and skill. We need to learn both the codes or rules of the world it communicates and the codes/rules of the way it communicates them" (160). I believe that these rituals are so ingrained into our culture that I forget that at one point in time they have to be learned. Anyways, after I read the Lewis reading, I went to the gym where I stared at a television and exercised simultaneously and thought, Wow this is so weird that I know how to watch television and I'm not horribly bored by staring at a box with moving pictures.
The second thing was Lewis's finding in that "the images and words we select when we decode TV programmes will be based upon the meaning systems available in our heads. This, in turn, forces us to construct different stories" (162-163). This made me think of Mitt Romney's use of the phrase "Binders full of women" during the second presidential debate. While Romney used the phrase to illustrate his desire for equal opportunity for both sexes within his Cabinet, his phrase has been largely taken out of context since the debate. Those who are not well-informed on the context of Romney's use of the phrase would definitely derive a different meaning than those people that actually watched the debate. Moreover, those that come from a feminist point of view, would find Romney's choice of words somewhat offensive in comparison to those that come from, say, a misogynist point of view. Each derives their own meaning depending on the "meaning systems" in their heads.