 |
 |
>> >>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. > >I've never read Rorty; just drawn my own conclusions. Moreover, I don't >think it's possible to "insult" an essay; this phrase seems to partake >of the problem I was pointing out. Finally, I was responding to the >sentences as posted, not to the essay; I think that's perfectly >legitimate. Please don't try to scold me for stating an opinion. > >Henry A figure of speech, Henry, if you will. We use them all the time. But I'll rephrase: You've insulted Prynne. You write in your second post yesterday: 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. You have yet to convince me that this characterization--"platonic projections," "blarney"-- has anything to do with the work of any of the authors named or that the sentences quoted from Prynne have anything to do with the work of these authors. I wonder, for instance, if you heard the "glasshouse of language" as an allusion to Heidegger's "language is the house of being" or however it goes. Or if you merely found the prose style, as you said, "portentous." I thought you were just blowing smoke (to state an opinion). You are, of course, perfectly entitled to do so. But I see you have just now come in with something of a clarification. I'll take that for a peace pipe and leave it alone now as I scan the new post. Keith %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%