I've left my copy of QUID at the orifice, so can't offer a very sensible
reflection on the thoughts here. But one thing that stopped me in my tracks
on first reading was what is meant by guilt or innocence in this context,
and who exactly is being addressed. It's a super piece and I would recommend
that folk who haven't yet caught up with QUID to go buy and read it.
I share the view that Prynne is actually situating language in terms of
human conduct, surely not abstracting it. He is arguing for a sense
connection, where we are not removed from what we speak or share in
speaking, but he also indicates our inability to control or be accountable
for our experience of meaning. I suppose I'm being equivocal of the choice
his choice of word, "innocence", where I would prefer . . . well I'll leave
that alone.
Finally Prynne I think quite neatly raises the issue of accountability,
where mind and body are not ultimately controlled by us, and where we cannot
be responsible for our actions (a rather determinisitic view). In this way I
find the real challenges of the piece lie in questions of freedom,
intention, conduct and behaviour. And the alienation that lies at the heart
of each body.
Meanwhile the rain pours down. The garden is smashed with leaves . . .
Best
C
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|