>>
>>What are you talking about? At the moment I only have what Nate quoted,
>>but isn't it clear that Prynne is talking about the *human use* of language
>>and not *words themselves*?
>
>That may be true, but I was objecting to the way it was phrased - portentously
>opposing a concept of innocent language with a concept of language tainted
>by its historical usage. As if words themselves were guilty by association.
>It's a sort of poetical concept. I called it medieval because it reminded
>me of anthropomorphic allegorizing (Sin is a big ugly oaf, Beauty is a
>lovely goddess, Language is a guilty actor, etc...).
>
>I'm saying words have neither consciousness nor free will in themselves.
>They are tools, neither guilty nor innocent. People are guilty & innocent.
>Prynne's phrases reminded me of all the rest of the mountain of stylized
>rhetorical blarney written in the name of "Language" from Heidegger through
>Derrida & the language poets etc. and so on. That's what I meant by
>extremely tiresome. They are platonic projections or idealizations of
>language which sometimes sound almost allegorical.
>
Yes, Henry, I've read Richard Rorty's critique of Heidegger and Derrida
too; I take it that's where your rhetoric comes from, or from some
pragmatist source. But Prynne is not Heidegger, Derrida, or the language
poets, and you've insulted an essay after (mis)reading two sentences of it.
best
Keith
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|