 |
 |
Hi Roger, Hi Jon, How does reading irony as text appears on screen in an e-mail message differ from reading irony from text appearing on a page, in a magazine or in a book? You're not the first by far who's expressed this, that's why i asked. I'm curious to understand how it happens, what the diff is. Is it not clear a signla enough, that terms are at least contestable, if not being ironised, when they appear in 'quotation' marks? Doesn't that at least create a suspening pause? As to 'unequivocally believing what one reads', how do you 'read' news? It's not surely a question of disbelieveing everything from this source, but having a healthy sense that everything constructed through language reveals bias, that terms (such as truth / beauty / pure / musical / narrative / performance / natural / soulful / and so on) can become contestable and if left ill-defined carry unwieldy cutural baggae that needs unpacking before discussion can proceed. I take 'feelings' to be one such term, as Ric suggests, receivers will differ. Feeling full, after a hearty lunch suggests that your repository for feelings is located in physical sensation - I'm surely wrong, but I ask the question again. What are these feelings that are being untended for in these particular readings? Is this received opinions? Are we into tawdry territory of the 'individual' - as in ideas lumped onto Cage and MacLow, for example, that aleatoric procedures did away with 'individuality'. 'Cause I'd contest that they did, they revealed their individuality through the conspicuous choices that they made about territory they engaged with, and through processes for material transformation they applied. love and love cris %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%