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

Re: bow wow....the dog never shuts up.

Expand Messages
  • nothing@theabsurd.com
    ...
    Message 1 of 29 , Sep 3, 2001
      --- In existlist@y..., "Diana" <da-sein@e...> wrote:
      << So there's no point in trying to understand the original author?
      It still seems to me that such an attempt is not entirely artificial
      and useless. I may never understand that person completely, but
      the very attempt takes me deeper.>>

      It would seem to me that attempting to understand a
      multi-faceted einstien in a clown-suit type personality might --
      might, mind you -- lead no closer to the meaning of the words
      than the words themselves. Understand that coming from my
      perspective (if I can make anything whatso-ever clear), you are
      creating a fictional account of the person whom you consider to
      be author anyway from what you do and don't know (in absurd,
      that would be don't and don't, but who's counting?). using this
      backdrop to understand the wording as to what you think the
      perspective might be could indeed compound errors even if
      trying to understand the author were the imperative (and I am not
      convinced that it is).

      I do believe this is similarly stated in deconstructive theory, but I
      understand it as: If you are to place the author and the author's
      meaning above the words and what you derive from them (the
      latter of which to me is far more interesting), you are putting your
      intellect lower than the author's -- or at least in comparison to. I
      feel that would only lead to the academic tit-for-tat (which is
      popular, but to me, useless) where you compare your thought to
      the authors and declair it right/wrong; in the reading I like to do
      there is much less disrespect -- or potential disrespect -- of the
      ideas, and no need to develop a heirarchy. In essence, the ideas
      become yours as you understand them, and to me that is much
      more involving -- and interesting. I am not much for history (in
      fact, I don't believe in it); the historical idea of attribution becomes
      a bit meaningless.

      On the other hand, I didn't mean to say that someone else needs
      to read the way I do (though doubtless it came out that way). I
      just think that there is no way for me to know another personality
      when mine changes so as per my discovery (and heap all my
      other absurd ideas in the mess -- and you get a mess). I could
      see how the exercise of creating a construct of the author
      mentally may be valuable to some. However, I could never
      consider my conclusions valid.

      Read like poetry? Perhaps. I think that won't fly with many though
      because of some attribute or perspective attached to these
      things that are called poems. I might simply suggest that it is
      just read -- that the unfolding of ideas is the thing that I watch for
      not unlike a movie. It allows for broader interpretations...and
      popcorn.

      What kind of fool am I
      -----------------------------
    • gamine22@aol.com
      In a message dated 9/3/01 3:55:29 PM, da-sein@excite.com writes:
      Message 2 of 29 , Sep 3, 2001
        In a message dated 9/3/01 3:55:29 PM, da-sein@... writes:

        << So there's no point in trying to understand the original author? It
        still seems to me that such an attempt is not entirely artificial and
        useless. I may never understand that person completely, but the very
        attempt takes me deeper.
        >>

        in understanding the original author, you can also gain a deeper perspective
        or gain facts that embellish your original thoughts on the author's work. you
        can only gain from other people's knowledge and insight.

        dubstar
      • nothing@theabsurd.com
        Message 3 of 29 , Sep 3, 2001
          << you can only gain from other people's knowledge and insight. >>

          Following that to a logical conclusion, there would never be any
          original thought. I would hope this is not the case.

          Quite often I learn either by writing or discussing. If I feel I gain
          something from my own meditations, are you suggesting I am deceiving
          myself? (I can't really argue the point that I wouldn't be anyway.)
          Limiting it to gain only from another source sort-a saps the internal
          mechanism, eh?

          Going nowhere.
          ---------
        • gamine22@aol.com
          In a message dated 9/3/01 8:00:32 PM, nothing@theabsurd.com writes:
          Message 4 of 29 , Sep 4, 2001
            In a message dated 9/3/01 8:00:32 PM, nothing@... writes:

            << Quite often I learn either by writing or discussing. If I feel I gain
            something from my own meditations, are you suggesting I am deceiving
            myself? (I can't really argue the point that I wouldn't be anyway.)
            Limiting it to gain only from another source sort-a saps the internal
            mechanism, eh? >>

            surely you can gain from yourself as well as gain from others. just because
            you have some added depth from another's perspective does not mean that you
            cannot speculate or develop upon your own ideas at the same time. i suppose i
            did not make my statement clear enough. there is always original thought, it
            cannot be helped. yet, suppose you read a poem plus an additional author's
            interpretation. not only would you gain the added insight of the author, but
            you would also retain your own first impressions and then further developed
            thoughts upon reading the addtional interpretation.

            consequently, one can gain from another's knowledge by choosing to oppose it.
            for example, take the knowledge of hitler. entire civilizations are
            benefitted by the knowledge that genicide is not and will not be tolerated.
            the knowledge of hitler, his theories, and his added insight on those
            theories all help us to understand and further see the wrong in his actions
            and visions.

            without the knowledge of others we could all certainly think and move forward
            in life. we would be able to function normally and discover theories of our
            own. yet, with the knowledge of others our own knowledge only expands,
            picking and choosing what we accept, reject, and feel indifference too. the
            thoughts of others build within us character and intellect, compounded with
            our own original foundations.

            dubstar
          • gamine22@aol.com
            In a message dated 9/3/01 8:00:32 PM, nothing@theabsurd.com writes:
            Message 5 of 29 , Sep 4, 2001
              In a message dated 9/3/01 8:00:32 PM, nothing@... writes:

              << << you can only gain from other people's knowledge and insight. >> >>

              the only in that sentence was not meant to single out other people's
              knowledge as the only source of insight. it was meant to say that your
              intellect cannot be detracted from by other's insight. i suppose i should
              have said the knowledge and insight of others can only add to your own
              knowledge.
            • William Harris
              I like pop music. More than once I have misunderstood lyrics and relagated a meaning to the song which was quite innapproiate. Yet I like my meaning so I will
              Message 6 of 29 , Sep 4, 2001
                I like pop music. More than once I have misunderstood lyrics and relagated a
                meaning to the song which was quite innapproiate. Yet I like my meaning so I
                will keep it, after all, Its only rock and roll. Bill

                gamine22@... wrote:

                > In a message dated 9/3/01 8:00:32 PM, nothing@... writes:
                >
                > << << you can only gain from other people's knowledge and insight. >> >>
                >
                > the only in that sentence was not meant to single out other people's
                > knowledge as the only source of insight. it was meant to say that your
                > intellect cannot be detracted from by other's insight. i suppose i should
                > have said the knowledge and insight of others can only add to your own
                > knowledge.
                >
                >
                > Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
                > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
                >
                > TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
                > existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                >
                > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
              • Diana
                Message 7 of 29 , Sep 4, 2001
                  << ... you are creating a fictional account of the person whom you
                  consider to be author anyway from what you do and don't know (in
                  absurd, that would be don't and don't, but who's counting?) >>

                  I understand that I can never know if my account of that person is
                  valid. Though creating such an account is part of my experience when
                  I read the text.

                  But I like what I take to be the essence of what you are saying. I
                  think that preserving some of the mystery of the author's personality
                  is the greatest tribute you could pay to that person – instead of
                  subjecting him to a description and evaluation of your own,
                  classifying him to a particular type of personality etc.


                  To everyone: I'll be away from the list for the next few months –
                  need to get into some urgent things. Have fun all of you here
                  meanwhile. I look forward to being with you again at a later time.

                  Love,
                  Diana
                • nothing@theabsurd.com
                  Message 8 of 29 , Sep 4, 2001
                    << I think that preserving some of the mystery of the author's
                    personality is the greatest tribute you could pay to that person –
                    instead of subjecting him to a description and evaluation of your
                    own, classifying him to a particular type of personality etc.>>

                    While I wasn't thinking specifically of 'mystery' that is a fair
                    description. You can't claim to know every thought and inuendo
                    of an author noo matter how well studied...and there is nothing
                    wrong with the author jumping out of character to relate a point --
                    yet failing because it is not consistent. The author will always be
                    mysterious, no matter who claims to have the answer, key or
                    blueprint.

                    mystery me...
                    ------------------
                  • james tan
                    in psychiatric practice, it is done quite a lot of the time, i.e. to subjecting him to a description and evaluation of your own, classifying him to a
                    Message 9 of 29 , Sep 4, 2001
                      in psychiatric practice, it is done quite a lot of the time, i.e. to
                      "subjecting him to a description and evaluation of your own,
                      classifying him to a particular type of personality etc." we do it by
                      looking for evidences in the person's behavioural & cognitive patterns.
                      depending on context, sometimes it does serve a function for assessment
                      purposes. it may not be very nice according to diana, but it is done in such
                      professional setting. of course, the issue is not about 'paying tribute to
                      the person' as in the context of the authorship. it is a different ball game
                      altogether.

                      james.






                      From: "Diana" <da-sein@...>
                      Reply-To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: [existlist] Re: bow wow....the dog never shuts up.
                      Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2001 23:32:15 -0000

                      << ... you are creating a fictional account of the person whom you
                      consider to be author anyway from what you do and don't know (in
                      absurd, that would be don't and don't, but who's counting?) >>

                      I understand that I can never know if my account of that person is
                      valid. Though creating such an account is part of my experience when
                      I read the text.

                      But I like what I take to be the essence of what you are saying. I
                      think that preserving some of the mystery of the author's personality
                      is the greatest tribute you could pay to that person � instead of
                      subjecting him to a description and evaluation of your own,
                      classifying him to a particular type of personality etc.


                      To everyone: I'll be away from the list for the next few months �
                      need to get into some urgent things. Have fun all of you here
                      meanwhile. I look forward to being with you again at a later time.

                      Love,
                      Diana




                      _________________________________________________________________
                      Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
                    • nothing@theabsurd.com
                      Message 10 of 29 , Sep 4, 2001
                        <<we do it by looking for evidences in the person's behavioural &
                        cognitive patterns. >>

                        Not to play with your profession (as I quite play with my own,
                        mind you), but is it not an assumption that you come to know a
                        person and perspective at all even in clinical study? Or have you
                        mapped out some sort of exacting science of mind?

                        curious, plus.
                        -------------------
                      • Eduard Alf
                        I have been following this discussion and this has really gotten to the point of absurdity. a person publishes a particular point of view [e.g. all cats are
                        Message 11 of 29 , Sep 4, 2001
                          I have been following this discussion and this has
                          really gotten to the point of absurdity.

                          a person publishes a particular point of view
                          [e.g. all cats are black at night]. So what if
                          you cant know every thought and innuendo of the
                          author. Perhaps he/she likes to drink pasteurized
                          milk. Or perhaps he/she is secretly the clown at
                          MacDonald's. You are broadening this out to the
                          point where it makes no sense. If an author says
                          something in print then that is what is of
                          importance. You can even label it such as Mr.
                          Smith's "Law of Cat Colour in the Night".

                          Now we are into "preserving some of the mystery of
                          the author's personality". Why even get into
                          this? Yes, perhaps Mr. Smith has a particular
                          inclination towards cats, and this may be
                          something that we wish to know, in order to assess
                          the basis his proposing the law, and our own
                          inclination to accept or reject it. All of that
                          is valid and is part of the manner in which one
                          might take into consideration an author's
                          pronouncements, but surely "mystery" with respect
                          to the author is going too far.

                          eduard

                          -----Original Message-----
                          From: nothing@...
                          [mailto:nothing@...]
                          Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 10:12 PM
                          To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                          Subject: [existlist] Re: the mystery shuts up...


                          << I think that preserving some of the mystery of
                          the author's
                          personality is the greatest tribute you could pay
                          to that person –
                          instead of subjecting him to a description and
                          evaluation of your
                          own, classifying him to a particular type of
                          personality etc.>>

                          While I wasn't thinking specifically of 'mystery'
                          that is a fair
                          description. You can't claim to know every thought
                          and inuendo
                          of an author noo matter how well studied...and
                          there is nothing
                          wrong with the author jumping out of character to
                          relate a point --
                          yet failing because it is not consistent. The
                          author will always be
                          mysterious, no matter who claims to have the
                          answer, key or
                          blueprint.

                          mystery me...
                          ------------------


                          ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups

                          Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
                          (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)

                          TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
                          existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                          http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                        • james tan
                          hi nothing (are u the one who is previously known as bookdoc?), to answer your question, yes, it is an assumption or perspective. but 1) there have to be some
                          Message 12 of 29 , Sep 4, 2001
                            hi nothing (are u the one who is previously known as bookdoc?),

                            to answer your question, yes, it is an assumption or perspective.

                            but 1) there have to be some assumptions to do any work 2) if those
                            assumptions u base your work keep producing reliable results, u just have
                            more faith in those assumptions, until such times when the assumptions do
                            not work in some new or special cases, then u just admit the limitation of
                            those assumptions. but that doesn't mean those assumptions are entirely
                            useless.

                            well, well, this is not related to the existential, i suppose?! just to
                            satisfy your curiousity.

                            james.




                            From: nothing@...
                            Reply-To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                            To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                            Subject: [existlist] Re: shuts up.
                            Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2001 04:04:13 -0000

                            <<we do it by looking for evidences in the person's behavioural &
                            cognitive patterns. >>

                            Not to play with your profession (as I quite play with my own,
                            mind you), but is it not an assumption that you come to know a
                            person and perspective at all even in clinical study? Or have you
                            mapped out some sort of exacting science of mind?

                            curious, plus.
                            -------------------



                            _________________________________________________________________
                            Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
                          • nothing@theabsurd.com
                            Dear Sir Duard simplifier extraordinaire, It always seems to,
                            Message 13 of 29 , Sep 5, 2001
                              Dear Sir 'Duard simplifier extraordinaire,

                              <<I have been following this discussion and this has really
                              gotten to the point of absurdity.>>

                              It always seems to, to me...

                              << So what if you cant know every thought and innuendo of the
                              author...If an author says something in print then that is what is
                              of importance... All of that is valid and is part of the manner in
                              which one might take into consideration an author's
                              pronouncements, but surely "mystery" with respect to the author
                              is going too far.>>

                              If you can't know every thought and innuendo, some of the
                              author's meaning is necessarily hidden or 'mysterious.' As
                              words are perhaps sometimes adequate -- yet more often
                              inexact vehicles of meaning (we have examined this before in
                              color -- where you said red was red, but I pointed out that red is
                              not inate, it is a measure which someone -- or some group of
                              someones -- decided on, and which there can be variance from
                              in experience. Of course none of that set you wavering). And
                              further, meaning...is it entirely the author's, or is it flecked with
                              hints of other things the author has read and experienced and/or
                              heard -- whether directly attributable or not? And then might word
                              choice be affected, at times containing the author's meaning,
                              and at others containing internal referants -- which perhaps even
                              the author may be unaware? (And I will do us all the favor of not
                              getting into genetic transfer of thought, experience and idea.)

                              Quite honestly I wish I could take everything as cut and dried and
                              hang it all neatly on my clothes-line. But to pretend I know what
                              the author meant is pretentious -- even if I do a very long study of
                              his work, life, etc.. The only thing I can think I know is what I think
                              I am reading, and how my experience reflects on my
                              interpretation of what it seems to me the author was doing, and
                              even that may be pushing it (depending on how absurd you want
                              to get). and in the long run, what of the thing which the author
                              meant? Perhaps the writing has meaning for me which is far
                              more interesting than whatever the intent was (if either of those
                              can be defined). Should I shun what I think and seek out the idea
                              of the author which I can never attain? And should I attain it
                              (though I think it impossible) there I have grabbed the flag on the
                              mountain, and no one cares, knows, agrees or even
                              acknowledges...so the purpose is exactly what? Why is the
                              author important at all?

                              I can't help but reduce it to the absurd...It just happens.

                              Reduxio
                              -----------
                            • nothing@theabsurd.com
                              Message 14 of 29 , Sep 5, 2001
                                << 1) there have to be some assumptions to do any work ... until
                                such times when the assumptions do not work in some new or
                                special cases, then u just admit the limitation of those
                                assumptions. but that doesn't mean those assumptions are
                                entirely useless ... well, well, this is not related to the existential, i
                                suppose?! >>

                                I think it is related.

                                If one tries not to make assumptions, where does that lead?

                                ------------------------
                              • Eduard Alf
                                If you can t know every thought and innuendo, some of the author s meaning is necessarily hidden or mysterious. that is true, but as james implied, there is
                                Message 15 of 29 , Sep 5, 2001
                                  "If you can't know every thought and innuendo,
                                  some of the author's meaning is necessarily hidden
                                  or 'mysterious."

                                  that is true, but as james implied, there is point
                                  at which you have to get off the pot and deal with
                                  what the author actually said, rather than to try
                                  to delve forever into the multitude of layers of
                                  the "mysterious". I do not suggest that there can
                                  not be a further level of understanding, to either
                                  accept, reject, or amend the statement. But this
                                  reduction to absurdity does not provide any
                                  benefit to the discussion.

                                  As you say "I can't help but reduce it to the
                                  absurd...It just happens." I am finding this not
                                  only frustrating but quite pointless.

                                  eduard



                                  -----Original Message-----
                                  From: nothing@...
                                  [mailto:nothing@...]
                                  Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 9:51 AM
                                  To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                  Subject: [existlist] Re: the mystery shuts up, and
                                  can see and hear no
                                  more...


                                  Dear Sir 'Duard simplifier extraordinaire,

                                  <<I have been following this discussion and this
                                  has really
                                  gotten to the point of absurdity.>>

                                  It always seems to, to me...

                                  << So what if you cant know every thought and
                                  innuendo of the
                                  author...If an author says something in print then
                                  that is what is
                                  of importance... All of that is valid and is part
                                  of the manner in
                                  which one might take into consideration an
                                  author's
                                  pronouncements, but surely "mystery" with respect
                                  to the author
                                  is going too far.>>

                                  If you can't know every thought and innuendo, some
                                  of the
                                  author's meaning is necessarily hidden or
                                  'mysterious.' As
                                  words are perhaps sometimes adequate -- yet more
                                  often
                                  inexact vehicles of meaning (we have examined this
                                  before in
                                  color -- where you said red was red, but I pointed
                                  out that red is
                                  not inate, it is a measure which someone -- or
                                  some group of
                                  someones -- decided on, and which there can be
                                  variance from
                                  in experience. Of course none of that set you
                                  wavering). And
                                  further, meaning...is it entirely the author's, or
                                  is it flecked with
                                  hints of other things the author has read and
                                  experienced and/or
                                  heard -- whether directly attributable or not? And
                                  then might word
                                  choice be affected, at times containing the
                                  author's meaning,
                                  and at others containing internal referants --
                                  which perhaps even
                                  the author may be unaware? (And I will do us all
                                  the favor of not
                                  getting into genetic transfer of thought,
                                  experience and idea.)

                                  Quite honestly I wish I could take everything as
                                  cut and dried and
                                  hang it all neatly on my clothes-line. But to
                                  pretend I know what
                                  the author meant is pretentious -- even if I do a
                                  very long study of
                                  his work, life, etc.. The only thing I can think I
                                  know is what I think
                                  I am reading, and how my experience reflects on my
                                  interpretation of what it seems to me the author
                                  was doing, and
                                  even that may be pushing it (depending on how
                                  absurd you want
                                  to get). and in the long run, what of the thing
                                  which the author
                                  meant? Perhaps the writing has meaning for me
                                  which is far
                                  more interesting than whatever the intent was (if
                                  either of those
                                  can be defined). Should I shun what I think and
                                  seek out the idea
                                  of the author which I can never attain? And should
                                  I attain it
                                  (though I think it impossible) there I have
                                  grabbed the flag on the
                                  mountain, and no one cares, knows, agrees or even
                                  acknowledges...so the purpose is exactly what? Why
                                  is the
                                  author important at all?

                                  I can't help but reduce it to the absurd...It just
                                  happens.

                                  Reduxio
                                  -----------


                                  ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups

                                  Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
                                  (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)

                                  TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
                                  existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                                  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                                  http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                • nothing@theabsurd.com
                                  Message 16 of 29 , Sep 5, 2001
                                    << that is true, but as james implied, there is point at which you
                                    have to get off the pot and deal with what the author actually said
                                    >>

                                    I am sorry but I don't believe it is true that what the author intends
                                    makes any difference. And to some extent, the reader would not
                                    be required to 'deal' with anything. One would assume that be
                                    the act of reading one is involving themselves with words only --
                                    NOT that they give a hoot what the author intends.

                                    << But this reduction to absurdity does not provide any benefit to
                                    the discussion...As you say "I can't help but reduce it to the
                                    absurd...It just happens." I am finding this not only frustrating but
                                    quite pointless.>>

                                    So I am asked to follow the 'Duard-o-meter to the magical land of
                                    benefit? I must say, I am also not convinced that there can be a
                                    benefit to discussion. I'm afraid I am attached to the hip of
                                    frivolity, or that I cannot judge benefit. If you could explain to me
                                    just once what 'beneficial' is and how one goes about having a
                                    'productive' discussion, I would be grateful, because then I can
                                    achieve better things.

                                    I suppose saying that my intended contributions are pointless is
                                    somehow a benefit? And I suppose i should see your
                                    suggestion as beneficial and flag my own, logically, as
                                    detriment? And the suggestion is that my repeatedly absurd
                                    posts are nothing but pests on the flystrip as it were? And
                                    everyone who utters here utters for purpose -- as such great
                                    musings about ducks and mountains I have heard that seem to
                                    this limp chimp to have no tangent to the discussion at all?
                                    Forgive me for responding ... it obviously was and is
                                    inconsiderate. I should type to myself and not post as I can never
                                    gauge the worth before I do, and I would assume, as I am
                                    unable to do so, I should assume the restraint will be more
                                    healthy than endulgence -- and therefore not saying anything at
                                    all would be the greater benefit?

                                    Sounds absurd to me...shutting up benefits the discussion? If
                                    we all shut up, what a wonderful discussion we would have as
                                    we might all benefit the more — another scoop of benefit for
                                    every mouth that closes! The less we say, the better the
                                    discussion?!

                                    Please clarify, as I do not have your wealth of vision.

                                    clueless in blindness and hock
                                    -------------------------------------------
                                  • james tan
                                    have not been following this tread closely, but let me just throw in my two cents worth. of course it is not meant to be factual , only my interpretation, & i
                                    Message 17 of 29 , Sep 5, 2001
                                      have not been following this tread closely, but let me just throw in my two
                                      cents worth. of course it is not meant to be 'factual', only my
                                      interpretation, & i can't seems to see anything beyond my own perception or
                                      interpretation, & i've no way to guarantee my perception is the same as
                                      'reality'. as for reader reading a text by an author: as for scientific
                                      reading, it is paramount that clarity of meaning is maintained at all time,
                                      so that any disagreement is only a disagreement of the hypothesis, & not on
                                      what does the hypothesis says. before one can reject or fail to reject any
                                      hypothesis, it is assumed that one knows what the hypothesis is saying in
                                      the first place. aspects of the hypothesis is operationalized & measurable
                                      (a number can be attached to it). there is no ambiguity of meaning here. as
                                      for literary reading, things are not so clear cut, i think. some authors are
                                      pretty straightforward, such as charles dicken, but some are very ambiguous,
                                      such as kafka. as for me, i am always puzzled by what kafka was 'really'
                                      trying to say, & end up as confused as the characters inside his novels,
                                      such as "the trial", "the castle", etc. there are social critique novel,
                                      such as dickens, orwell or jane austen, existentialist novelist such as
                                      camus & dostoyevski, phenomenologist such as sartre, etc, etc, but i can
                                      never quite put my finger on kafka. kafka's mystery did not shut up, & most
                                      probably will never; there is a mysterious horizons he seemed compelled to
                                      search, but never quite get it, & like the land surveyor (in "the castle")
                                      tried to measure, hence comprehend, the horizons of truth. there is a
                                      certain richness in the possibilities to interpret his works, so that it
                                      allows various perspectives on it. in the end, whether eduard or nothing
                                      read it, both are legitimate in their interpretation, because quite apart
                                      from the key chosen to read it or just because of the very choice that the
                                      interpretation makes, it reveals itself to be the secret way of bringing an
                                      author close to one's inner world. his texts challenges the readers to
                                      understand it on a level that goes beyond the simple & immediate reading.
                                      kafka speaks in parables & metaphors, if only because any attempts to
                                      describe it directly is bound to fail. words block our paths. truth changes
                                      into deceit just as soon as one tries to interpret it rationally, to put
                                      into a objective framework. truth is subjectivity. illusion is thick. the
                                      problem comes when one attempts to impose the paradigm of science onto
                                      everything else, but it doesn't work because reality is much richer than
                                      what that framework allows. man need models, frameworks, or paradigm to
                                      understand the world or reality, & although they are useful in certain
                                      respects, they are inherently limited, & it is ridiculous & blind to make
                                      sweeping judgment about reality based on those models. if one is not blind,
                                      one always admits one's strength together with one's limitation. there are
                                      no facts, only interpretations, to quote nietzsche. this goes for text
                                      reading as well, especially one like kafka.

                                      james.




                                      From: "Eduard Alf" <yeoman@...>
                                      Reply-To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                      To: <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
                                      Subject: RE: [existlist] Re: the mystery shuts up, and can see and hear no
                                      more...
                                      Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 16:12:20 -0400

                                      "If you can't know every thought and innuendo,
                                      some of the author's meaning is necessarily hidden
                                      or 'mysterious."

                                      that is true, but as james implied, there is point
                                      at which you have to get off the pot and deal with
                                      what the author actually said, rather than to try
                                      to delve forever into the multitude of layers of
                                      the "mysterious". I do not suggest that there can
                                      not be a further level of understanding, to either
                                      accept, reject, or amend the statement. But this
                                      reduction to absurdity does not provide any
                                      benefit to the discussion.

                                      As you say "I can't help but reduce it to the
                                      absurd...It just happens." I am finding this not
                                      only frustrating but quite pointless.

                                      eduard



                                      -----Original Message-----
                                      From: nothing@...
                                      [mailto:nothing@...]
                                      Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 9:51 AM
                                      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                      Subject: [existlist] Re: the mystery shuts up, and
                                      can see and hear no
                                      more...


                                      Dear Sir 'Duard simplifier extraordinaire,

                                      <<I have been following this discussion and this
                                      has really
                                      gotten to the point of absurdity.>>

                                      It always seems to, to me...

                                      << So what if you cant know every thought and
                                      innuendo of the
                                      author...If an author says something in print then
                                      that is what is
                                      of importance... All of that is valid and is part
                                      of the manner in
                                      which one might take into consideration an
                                      author's
                                      pronouncements, but surely "mystery" with respect
                                      to the author
                                      is going too far.>>

                                      If you can't know every thought and innuendo, some
                                      of the
                                      author's meaning is necessarily hidden or
                                      'mysterious.' As
                                      words are perhaps sometimes adequate -- yet more
                                      often
                                      inexact vehicles of meaning (we have examined this
                                      before in
                                      color -- where you said red was red, but I pointed
                                      out that red is
                                      not inate, it is a measure which someone -- or
                                      some group of
                                      someones -- decided on, and which there can be
                                      variance from
                                      in experience. Of course none of that set you
                                      wavering). And
                                      further, meaning...is it entirely the author's, or
                                      is it flecked with
                                      hints of other things the author has read and
                                      experienced and/or
                                      heard -- whether directly attributable or not? And
                                      then might word
                                      choice be affected, at times containing the
                                      author's meaning,
                                      and at others containing internal referants --
                                      which perhaps even
                                      the author may be unaware? (And I will do us all
                                      the favor of not
                                      getting into genetic transfer of thought,
                                      experience and idea.)

                                      Quite honestly I wish I could take everything as
                                      cut and dried and
                                      hang it all neatly on my clothes-line. But to
                                      pretend I know what
                                      the author meant is pretentious -- even if I do a
                                      very long study of
                                      his work, life, etc.. The only thing I can think I
                                      know is what I think
                                      I am reading, and how my experience reflects on my
                                      interpretation of what it seems to me the author
                                      was doing, and
                                      even that may be pushing it (depending on how
                                      absurd you want
                                      to get). and in the long run, what of the thing
                                      which the author
                                      meant? Perhaps the writing has meaning for me
                                      which is far
                                      more interesting than whatever the intent was (if
                                      either of those
                                      can be defined). Should I shun what I think and
                                      seek out the idea
                                      of the author which I can never attain? And should
                                      I attain it
                                      (though I think it impossible) there I have
                                      grabbed the flag on the
                                      mountain, and no one cares, knows, agrees or even
                                      acknowledges...so the purpose is exactly what? Why
                                      is the
                                      author important at all?

                                      I can't help but reduce it to the absurd...It just
                                      happens.

                                      Reduxio
                                      -----------


                                      ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups

                                      Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
                                      (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)

                                      TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
                                      existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                                      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                                      http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




                                      _________________________________________________________________
                                      Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
                                    • Eduard Alf
                                      hi james, the fact is what the author puts forth as his/her opinion. You may wish to make an interpretation of
                                      Message 18 of 29 , Sep 5, 2001
                                        hi james,

                                        << there are no facts, only interpretations>>

                                        the "fact" is what the author puts forth as
                                        his/her opinion. You may wish to make an
                                        interpretation of this opinion or accept/reject it
                                        outright. But ultimately, one has to come the
                                        point of recognizing that this opinion is
                                        something which is attached to the author. It is
                                        the author's opinion and on that basis can be
                                        taken to be a "fact". The discussion had gotten
                                        off onto a tangent, in trying to focus upon some
                                        "mystery" behind the fact or perhaps some yet
                                        unknown characteristic of the author which may
                                        help us to understand this "fact".

                                        I do not disagree with the idea that one should
                                        get to know the author. This may indeed be
                                        beneficial understanding facts/opinions that may
                                        be stated in the form of parables. But the
                                        tangent that we got on, was that there could never
                                        be an understanding, because instead we would be
                                        too busy trying to find out more and more about
                                        the mystery. This leads to absurdity.

                                        eduard
                                      • nothing@theabsurd.com
                                        ... I find this a claustrophobic situation, limiting, and horrifically disinteresting. If this were made law, I would never read again. ... I do. I don t see
                                        Message 19 of 29 , Sep 6, 2001
                                          > the "fact" is what the author puts forth as
                                          > his/her opinion. You may wish to make an
                                          > interpretation of this opinion or accept/reject it
                                          > outright. But ultimately, one has to come the
                                          > point of recognizing that this opinion is
                                          > something which is attached to the author. >>

                                          I find this a claustrophobic situation, limiting, and horrifically
                                          disinteresting. If this were made law, I would never read again.

                                          > I do not disagree with the idea that one should
                                          > get to know the author. >>

                                          I do. I don't see the point or benefit. Except in satisfying an
                                          interest or curiosity -- if you have it.

                                          > But the tangent that we got on, was that there could never
                                          > be an understanding, because instead we would be
                                          > too busy trying to find out more and more about
                                          > the mystery. This leads to absurdity.

                                          There is nothing wrong with admitting to the impossible.

                                          What I think many fail with and why they continually search to
                                          something else is that they find their perspective and interest not
                                          good enough and not well justified on its own. For some reason
                                          it needs validation. Validation can be saught by capturing what
                                          the author meant as that is the ultimate is it not? I suggest it isn't.
                                          And I suggest I can add far more to a work without the limitation
                                          of the author as 'god' having devine right over meaning.

                                          I think the need for security in 'vision' is what forces so many to
                                          find an umbrella...and there consistently miss the joys of the
                                          rain.

                                          unthinking.
                                          ---------------
                                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.