> (first and last theories of the sentence that silliman addresses there

probably not true, sorry, had already mentioned quine, wittgenstein, new criticism... just highlighted those as good in my notes.

all the best,

Luke

On Sat, 1 Sep 2018 at 11:56, Luke <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Ha! Great.

The new sentence thing is from a reconstruction of my notes on that book... in full they just read:

In the new sentence wholes can be made by any number of envisionments because shifts  don't cohere but make a (felt experience of a) world (page pending)

The general idea in the new sentence is that shifts only cohere into a felt sense due to theories of the sentence. So maybe e.g. Todorov's claim about higher level meaning coupled with the idea of the sentences combining like a syllogism (frst and last theories of the sentence that silliman addresses there) Then nothing can be inferred about anything outside the sentence, yet the sentence can still make sense at that higher level: they are illogical but create semantic shifts (syllogism pending).

This involves the reader in the text, is open, and non-referential, only the feeling of a world (syllogism pending)

Luke

On Sat, 1 Sep 2018 at 11:06, Tim Allen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

I'm going with it too - for now anyway, a little along the path...

On 1 Sep 2018, at 10:17, Luke wrote:

bernstein = satire of closure

prynne = parody of closure

new sentence = rejection of closure

I'm going with it!

---

To unsubscribe from the BRITISH-IRISH-POETS list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=BRITISH-IRISH-POETS&A=1