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:

      << << 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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.