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

Re: spits out.

Expand Messages
  • nothing@theabsurd.com
    Message 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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.