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

Re: shuts up.

Expand Messages
  • nothing@theabsurd.com
    Message 1 of 29 , Sep 4, 2001
      <<we do it by looking for evidences in the person's behavioural &
      cognitive patterns. >>

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

      curious, plus.
      -------------------
    • Eduard Alf
      I have been following this discussion and this has really gotten to the point of absurdity. a person publishes a particular point of view [e.g. all cats are
      Message 2 of 29 , Sep 4, 2001
        I have been following this discussion and this has
        really gotten to the point of absurdity.

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

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

        eduard

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
        http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      • james tan
        hi nothing (are u the one who is previously known as bookdoc?), to answer your question, yes, it is an assumption or perspective. but 1) there have to be some
        Message 3 of 29 , Sep 4, 2001
          hi nothing (are u the one who is previously known as bookdoc?),

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

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

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

          james.




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

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

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

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



          _________________________________________________________________
          Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
        • nothing@theabsurd.com
          Dear Sir Duard simplifier extraordinaire, It always seems to,
          Message 4 of 29 , Sep 5, 2001
            Dear Sir 'Duard simplifier extraordinaire,

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

            It always seems to, to me...

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

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

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

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

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

              I think it is related.

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

              ------------------------
            • Eduard Alf
              If you can t know every thought and innuendo, some of the author s meaning is necessarily hidden or mysterious. that is true, but as james implied, there is
              Message 6 of 29 , Sep 5, 2001
                "If you can't know every thought and innuendo,
                some of the author's meaning is necessarily hidden
                or 'mysterious."

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

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

                eduard



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


                Dear Sir 'Duard simplifier extraordinaire,

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

                It always seems to, to me...

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

                Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
              • nothing@theabsurd.com
                Message 7 of 29 , Sep 5, 2001
                  << that is true, but as james implied, there is point at which you
                  have to get off the pot and deal with what the author actually said
                  >>

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

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

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

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

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

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

                  clueless in blindness and hock
                  -------------------------------------------
                • james tan
                  have not been following this tread closely, but let me just throw in my two cents worth. of course it is not meant to be factual , only my interpretation, & i
                  Message 8 of 29 , Sep 5, 2001
                    have not been following this tread closely, but let me just throw in my two
                    cents worth. of course it is not meant to be 'factual', only my
                    interpretation, & i can't seems to see anything beyond my own perception or
                    interpretation, & i've no way to guarantee my perception is the same as
                    'reality'. as for reader reading a text by an author: as for scientific
                    reading, it is paramount that clarity of meaning is maintained at all time,
                    so that any disagreement is only a disagreement of the hypothesis, & not on
                    what does the hypothesis says. before one can reject or fail to reject any
                    hypothesis, it is assumed that one knows what the hypothesis is saying in
                    the first place. aspects of the hypothesis is operationalized & measurable
                    (a number can be attached to it). there is no ambiguity of meaning here. as
                    for literary reading, things are not so clear cut, i think. some authors are
                    pretty straightforward, such as charles dicken, but some are very ambiguous,
                    such as kafka. as for me, i am always puzzled by what kafka was 'really'
                    trying to say, & end up as confused as the characters inside his novels,
                    such as "the trial", "the castle", etc. there are social critique novel,
                    such as dickens, orwell or jane austen, existentialist novelist such as
                    camus & dostoyevski, phenomenologist such as sartre, etc, etc, but i can
                    never quite put my finger on kafka. kafka's mystery did not shut up, & most
                    probably will never; there is a mysterious horizons he seemed compelled to
                    search, but never quite get it, & like the land surveyor (in "the castle")
                    tried to measure, hence comprehend, the horizons of truth. there is a
                    certain richness in the possibilities to interpret his works, so that it
                    allows various perspectives on it. in the end, whether eduard or nothing
                    read it, both are legitimate in their interpretation, because quite apart
                    from the key chosen to read it or just because of the very choice that the
                    interpretation makes, it reveals itself to be the secret way of bringing an
                    author close to one's inner world. his texts challenges the readers to
                    understand it on a level that goes beyond the simple & immediate reading.
                    kafka speaks in parables & metaphors, if only because any attempts to
                    describe it directly is bound to fail. words block our paths. truth changes
                    into deceit just as soon as one tries to interpret it rationally, to put
                    into a objective framework. truth is subjectivity. illusion is thick. the
                    problem comes when one attempts to impose the paradigm of science onto
                    everything else, but it doesn't work because reality is much richer than
                    what that framework allows. man need models, frameworks, or paradigm to
                    understand the world or reality, & although they are useful in certain
                    respects, they are inherently limited, & it is ridiculous & blind to make
                    sweeping judgment about reality based on those models. if one is not blind,
                    one always admits one's strength together with one's limitation. there are
                    no facts, only interpretations, to quote nietzsche. this goes for text
                    reading as well, especially one like kafka.

                    james.




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

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

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

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

                    eduard



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


                    Dear Sir 'Duard simplifier extraordinaire,

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

                    It always seems to, to me...

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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




                    _________________________________________________________________
                    Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
                  • Eduard Alf
                    hi james, the fact is what the author puts forth as his/her opinion. You may wish to make an interpretation of
                    Message 9 of 29 , Sep 5, 2001
                      hi james,

                      << there are no facts, only interpretations>>

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

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

                      eduard
                    • nothing@theabsurd.com
                      ... I find this a claustrophobic situation, limiting, and horrifically disinteresting. If this were made law, I would never read again. ... I do. I don t see
                      Message 10 of 29 , Sep 6, 2001
                        > the "fact" is what the author puts forth as
                        > his/her opinion. You may wish to make an
                        > interpretation of this opinion or accept/reject it
                        > outright. But ultimately, one has to come the
                        > point of recognizing that this opinion is
                        > something which is attached to the author. >>

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

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

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

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

                        There is nothing wrong with admitting to the impossible.

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

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

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