Hi Daniel,
> If you really want to use language for the purposes of freedom, you will
> see that the structure of language is the basis for all the rules and
hence
> it is in playing the game of language well that one is then able to find
> the tools to effectively challenge the structures of the State, which
> include Society. One must master language in order to use it with force.
I don't quite follow this, which is more a comment on my reading skills than
your note! Are you saying that freedom is a linguistic concept and that the
rules of language define what freedom is? I find that rather hard to
believe. I don't really think of language as a game, and I wonder what rules
we are trying to uncover here. The last sentence is patently false, often
the most forceful language is not language mastered, it's often submitted
to. I would never claim to have mastered language, and I would hate to
consider myself impotent in the face of that inevitability. People do have
power and can exert it.
I read your note as an almost circular statement that one cannot discuss
what one opposes because by doing so one supports what one denigrates.
Surely that's not true. John Kinsella's work does not betray any of the
qualities you seem to be inferring; John is hardly a nationalist. And we
mustn't forget that not all man-made structures are filled with shameful
intentions. I got a bit lost here. Nor must we forget that women are in the
world too. Truth doesn't belong to our species either.
All best
C
|