Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

24578Re: the nameless

Expand Messages
  • Mary Jo Malo
    Jan 30, 2004
      squeak

      Yes.

      Jo

      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "iambiguously" <iambiguously@y...>
      wrote:
      > From Simon Critchley's "Very Little...Almost Nothing":
      >
      > "We cannot speak of that which we would like to speak...and yet we
      > cannot not speak, blissful though this might seem: 'you must go on,
      I
      > can't go on, I'll go on'. There is only this voice, this
      meaningless
      > voice 'which prevents you from being nothing' and all it has are
      > words 'and not many of them'. And even when Malone writes 'I am
      lost,
      > not a word..or Krapp says 'Nothing to say, not a squeak', this is
      not
      > yet silence, it is yet a word, a squeak."
      >
      > Yet lots and lots of things can be named, of course. And with a
      > rather high degree of objectivity: rock, tree, mountain, gravity,
      > molecule, arm, lightning, tornado, felatio, flute, rape, fetus,
      Iraq,
      > Congress, dictionary.
      >
      > Most of the words we use from day to day, in fact, are merely
      > understood to mean what they do and almost no one questions it. Nor
      > should they. They simply describe what is.
      >
      > But there are also words that name only what we think they mean---
      and
      > can never name more; words that can never be denoted objectively:
      > freedom, justice, right, wrong, good, bad...truth...being and
      > nothingness. In fact, many of the words used to discuss human moral
      > and political interaction, emotional and psychological states,
      > identity, aesthetics, ontology, teleology etc. really are just
      > squeaks for all intents and purposes. Yet these, alas, are the most
      > important words of all in venues like this one.
      >
      > Right?
      >
      > Biggie
    • Show all 12 messages in this topic