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

Re: [existlist] Re: snails bow wow...elephants chirp

Expand Messages
  • gamine22@aol.com
    In a message dated 9/3/01 8:00:32 PM, nothing@theabsurd.com writes:
    Message 1 of 29 , Sep 4, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 29 , Sep 4, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 29 , Sep 4, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 29 , Sep 4, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            << ... 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 5 of 29 , Sep 4, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              << 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 6 of 29 , Sep 4, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                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 7 of 29 , Sep 4, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  <<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 8 of 29 , Sep 4, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    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 9 of 29 , Sep 4, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      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 10 of 29 , Sep 5, 2001
                      • 0 Attachment
                        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 11 of 29 , Sep 5, 2001
                        • 0 Attachment
                          << 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 12 of 29 , Sep 5, 2001
                          • 0 Attachment
                            "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 13 of 29 , Sep 5, 2001
                            • 0 Attachment
                              << 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 14 of 29 , Sep 5, 2001
                              • 0 Attachment
                                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 15 of 29 , Sep 5, 2001
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  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 16 of 29 , Sep 6, 2001
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    > 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.