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

Re: [existlist] Re: shuts up.

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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.