----- Original Message -----
From: "cris cheek" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 14 July 2002 21:23
Subject: Re: Speech Pro

This won't do cris. Of course I am sorry. But I wonder if *you understand.
You imply some kind of duty of care within the formulation of email
communication! Tell me, is this a duty of right or of virtue? (I am making
the Kantian distinction, of course)

Your demand for absolute sorrow suggests some final purpose on your part,
projected - by you - upon the pair of us as an entity of individuals in
communication. Now this is the very area in which Kant demonstrates that
external legislation is impossible. So by what means am I judged?

It seems to me that you understand me no better than you claim I
misunderstand you. Surely Kant's response to that would be increased
communication.

Please clarify, and with a little more courtesy please, if you are sincere
yourself. Let's go for a less grand but larger and more inclusive scheme of
things.


L

| c - you've quite obviously given the subject a sincere run about the
| block, for which I have nought but admiration. It just won't do however.
In
| the grander scehem of things I mean. Either you are absolutely sorry for
| the hurt and confusion that your careless use of emphasis has caused or
| else you are not fit for the subtleties of remote conversation. Do we
| really understand each other? I sometimes wonder.
|
| >It's an interesting question, cris
| >
| >and please don't apologise about the delay
| >i understand the need to deal with flocks before the sabbath
| >
| >considering your question, i returned to my text, in so far as it is
textual
| >as we would generally understand that term, and i see that my asterisk
| >there, the one to emphasise _is_ rather than the one you refer to, is on
| >_fault_, surely not insignificantly
| >
| >but, turning to your question, I believe _ironising_ would _precede_
| >undermining. That is *processually. I mean, *can (and I only seek to
| >emphasise the interrogation there, I think,) one ironise what has been
| >undermined? I imagine such an attempt would bring derision from the
peanut
| >gallery. That proves nothing, of course, they roll out - and drop
| >sometimes - sometimes as part of the same multiple mental and verbal
| >gesture - all manner of provocations, quite often for the provocation and
no
| >more; but then that is rhetorically necessary they'd say, or at least
| >justified. Nevertheless, and I am sorry to find fault before I have
provided
| >an answer of any kind, though this response is a mode of answer as I am
sure
| >you will agree, I think that what you intended to say is
| >
| >to ironise - even undermine - its implied sincerity
| >
| >I am not, as you know, a post-modernist. So, for me, the asterisk remains
a
| >multi-valent symbol, but one which is not in itself polysemous. I think
| >that's clear. One might even suggest it is a priori, the analysis of the
| >symbol, I mean, not the symbol itself, but only in a contingent sense and
| >applicability. (One thinks of Barthes.)
| >
| >Emphasis *was needed, I felt, because sincerity is always doubted,
perhaps
| >because the possibility of consensual meaning has been challenged so
| >thoroughly, not only by politically-motivated verbicide but also by those
in
| >whom what T S Eliot called The Tribe placed their trust in the survival
of
| >the language. Yes? I am tempted to bring in Kristeva here... One is
almost
| >led to posit the death of the lexicographer.
| >
| >I am a little surprised that such assertion, particularly in this
| >circumstance, could be, however tentatively, confused for what had
brought
| >about the necessity of emphasis, especially in what was so much concerned
| >with courtesy and so little with the communication of a critical position
as
| >to be hardly endowed with semiotic content. If I misread you, then I am
| >sorry
| >
| >L
| >
| >----- Original Message -----
| >From: "cris cheek" <[log in to unmask]>
| >To: <[log in to unmask]>
| >Sent: 13 July 2002 14:05
| >Subject: Re: Speech Pro
| >
| >
| >| c - Lawrence, I don't have time to answer you more fully as today has
| >| become unexpectantly hectic. I'll try to pick up my mail later.
Meanwhile
| >I
| >| must attend the opening of 'Flocks' - sorry for the break in
| >| communincation. In haste, my concern is with that asterisk by
genuinely.
| >Is
| >| it for the sake of emphasis, or to undermine - even ironise - its
| >implied
| >| sincerity?
| >|
| >| > sorry, cris, i thought it was clear...
| >| >
| >| > look, i'm sorry, but i *don't think you've been very helpful; but, of
| >| > course, the fault* is mine; and i can only say that i am *genuinely
| >sorry
| >| >
| >| > sorry
| >| >
| >| > L
| >| >
| >| > ----- Original Message -----
| >| > From: "cris cheek" <[log in to unmask]>
| >| > To: <[log in to unmask]>
| >| > Sent: 13 July 2002 13:32
| >| > Subject: Re: Speech Pro
| >| >
| >| >
| >| > | c - Lawrence, are you saying sorry or what are you saying? Did I
do
| >| > | something wrong?
| >| > |
| >| > | > i suppose i do
| >| > | >
| >| > | > sorry,cris
| >| > |
| >| > | > | c - what you mean is no, isn't it?
| >| > | > |
| >| > | > | > sorry
| >| > | > | >
| >| > | > | > | c - sorry can be a catch-all can't it?
| >| > | > | > |
| >| > | > | > | is as does in its generic representation of a perceived
| >| > | > | > | interpretative guilt
| >| > | > | > | a token to a potential sleight
| >| > | > | > |
| >| > | > | > | > well that's ok for that
| >| > | > | > | > but are you sorry for the original offence to me
| >| > | > | > | > i dont see any evidence that you are
| >| > | > | > | > you just keep rolling out "sorry"
| >| > | > | > | > it's beginning to look as though it's personal
| >| > | > | > | >
| >| > | > | > | > if this goes on I may have to become really sorrow to
make
| >up
| >| > for
| >| > | > your
| >| > | > | > lack
| >| > | > | > | > of sorrow
| >| > | > | > | >
| >| > | > | > | > L
| >| > | > | > | >
| >| > | > | > | > | - sorry again
| >| > | > | > | > |
| >| > | > | > | > | > That's no good
| >| > | > | > | > | >
| >| > | > | > | > | > That's somebody else's sorrow; it has quotation marks
on
| >it
| >| > | > | > | > | >
| >| > | > | > | > | > L
| >| > | > | > | > | >
| >| > | > | > |
| >| > | > | > | > | >
| >| > | > | > | > | > | c - all I can say is "sorry"
| >| > | > | > | > | > |
| >| > | > | > | > | > | > just as long as you are
| >| > | > | > | > | > | >
| >| > | > | > | > | > | > (I may ask for evidence)
| >| > | > | > | > | > | >
| >| > | > | > | > | > | > L
| >| > | > | > | > | > |
| >| > | > | > | > | > | >
| >| > | > | > | > | > | > | - sorry
| >| > | > | > | > | > | > |
| >| > | > | > | > | > | > | > Now it's *my turn to ask you why you are
sorry
| >| > | > | > | > | > | > | >
| >| > | > | > | > | > | > | > L
| >| > | > | > | > | > | > | >
| >| > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > this is absolutely democratic!
| >| > | > | > | > | > | > | > |
| >| > | > | > | > | > | > | > | Hi Lawrence
| >| > | > | > | > | > | > | > |
| >| > | > | > | > | > | > | > | - sorry
| >| > | > | > | > | > | > | > |
| >| > | > | > | > | > | > | > | love and love
| >| > | > | > | > | > | > | > | cris
| >| > | > | > | > | > | > |
| >| > | > | > | > | > |
| >| > | > | > | > |
| >| > | > | > |
| >| > | > |
| >| > |
| >|
|