 |
 |
Whoops, Peter, I forgot to mention point (d) about inviting Muller to dinner. He's dead. Makes it hard, dunnit? Now what I'd like to hear, as I believe you have a background in the sciences, are your views on the status of what is peddled as 'theory' in literature. I can think of many ways in which theory could occur, this debate about 'stupidity' opens up one of them, but what I see never seems to be any of them. 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: "Peter Howard" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 10:08 PM Subject: Re: Back on Planet Earth > On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, david.bircumshaw wrote... > > >But too > >there is an element, a strong element, of something like autism, of being > >willy-nilly unable to grasp what others take for granted, of being thrown > >back on one's own resources because you can't understand the jabber of easy > >understanding, its smoothtalk comprehension and comfortable categorisation. > > Well, that was one of the possible interpretations I pondered, but I > rejected it on the grounds that it's an *ability* to be able to refuse > to grasp what others take for granted, rather than an inability. > > And autism isn't the same thing as stupidity, though it may appear so > from some perspectives. > > I'm glad Candice doesn't think I'm stupid. Sometimes I am, though. > > I'm afraid Alison's posting of the interview extract has made me agree > that Heiner isn't stupid. He has that brittle, self-regarding cleverness > that's only tolerable in Oscar Wilde. I have already struck him off my > dinner-party invitation list. > > I liked the Pasternak quote though. > > Best, > -- > Peter > > http://www.hphoward.demon.co.uk/poetry/ >