> Only in real life.
Chris
I thought that where we were, are.
I feel confident about that statement as it feels so unreal much of the time
it has to be real.
I'll have to ponder awhile on what you say - I'm very nervous y'know about
the usages of 'either' and 'or' of late, as in 'with us or against us' - but
I appreciate yr point about not looking for closure/s.
Best
Dave
David Bircumshaw
Leicester, England
Home Page
A Chide's Alphabet
Painting Without Numbers
www.paintstuff.20m.com/index.htm
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/david.bircumshaw/index.htm
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Walker" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 11:26 PM
Subject: Re: montaigne
> Dave:
>
> <snip>
> Surely, Christopher, it is _both_. And neither and more.
> <snip>
>
> Only in real life.
>
> In the passage of mine you quote (below) I was trying to open up another
> possibility, not to close anything down. Against the view, implied rather
> than expressed directly, that texts were complete in themselves,
constrained
> by the individuality of their authors and by those authors' historical and
> economic circumstances, I proposed a dynamical view in which texts are
added
> to, join with or are placed next to other texts, in unforeseeable ways.
>
> Either view (static or dynamical) is obviously partial, incomplete. But
they
> _are_ mutually exclusive, in the normal sense of those terms.
>
> CW
>
> > It depends upon the view one takes of text and its
> > boundedness. Either the past is simply a graveyard full of dead people
> > clutching their separate, static texts or the history of ideas, cultural
> > history, is a _dynamical_ process in which (Cf. Eliot's *Tradition and
the
> > Individual Talent*) the _whole_ system changes, in which 'the existing
> > monuments form an ideal order among themselves, which is modified by the
> > introduction of the new.'
>
|