"Wil, your comments, also, unavoidably perhaps, display an attitude. I grant
that my remarks about Derrida et al were melodramatic rhetorical baits,
which happily were taken. "
Well that was missed by me,I am sorry.
Its damn difficult to distinguish a virtual fish from a live sprat.
I took you fora full blooded representative of a point of view
but now you tell me,ipso facto, that you were only kidding..so no
worries,lets sail on!-:)
You made some statements
which appeared as derogatory,and in doing so you cut such a broad swathe of
that I had to respond to this dastardly skullduggery.
Now the jig is up and you own your
piracy of reason,I can only welcome you on board as we splice the mainbrace..
My point in response was to suggest
that there is an on-going body of work and its best communicated by
Henry continues his post thusly:
"Your attitude is that once a certain ongoing
body-of-work reaches a certain stage of academic authority, opinions like
mine are out of order and obviously uninformed. "
Henry,I don't know how you get that-possibly you are interpreting from my
having detailed some of the current whereabouts and doings of one of our
figures(henceforth to be alluded to only as "D")
I only did that to point out the varied nature of the D beast and his
over time-and how its impossible to label Authority Figure marked "D"-and
certainty what you are pointing to.To be honest,Academic authority is the
that I would look for to locate relevance or justification.
It is just that a good deal of the edge of this work finds itself within
the "Academic"-but I have not made
a leap from that to either the endorsement of pointy-headedness as a sine
qua non,nor the
dismissal of views other than ivory encased as being out of order.
Henry:" My comments
are based on serious reading of my own; my point about the mystification
of "language" in the writers I mentioned is a reasoned, if broad, position
Well,I have no problem with this,Henry-my point is in order to make
progress into the more interesting clearing that awaits us beyond assertion
is that specific evidences might be helpful-rather than global
The problem is that your statements were "broad"-and were responded
Henry:" I suppose if listmembers overlook that, because of my use of
terms like "gobbledy-gook", the consequence is my own fault, & I'm paying for
the rhetorical exaggeration in that case. "
Well quite-how the heck do you expect me to distinguish between
and the employment of the transparently fallacious?If we were in the room
these devices would be clear-but there is a confounded literalness and
flattening of tone in
this blasted brave new world of e-media that does... things......
"But on the other hand, just because
Derrida is the focus of serious on-going complex attention does not mean
a basic thrust of his position is beyond critique."
In complete agreement.But "philosophical
goobledygook" etc isn't critique.And contentious bantering is finally not
as a hesitant holding of perspectives,that might find a politics of
-sidestepping the dreary logicalities of philosophy for the poetical
embrace that celebrates the discovery that meaning is not always to be
hostage to the word as given,but invents itself ever fresh
beyond all categories of limitation...vive La Differance!