--- cris cheek <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Perhaps what's at issue is
> a generosity of
> possibility.
>
Generosity and possibility are words which matter to
me deeply - but - surely sometimes a plethora of
choices can be disabling. Too many and the illusion
of choice seems to vanish altogether. Like dilemmas
in a supermarket between six brands of korma sauce.
Somehow this links up to Paul's quotations of Sokal et
al. Certainly Sokal illuminated for me why I've never
been able to read Lacan, apart from my
(mis)adventuring in that locale bringing me up short
against something I take to be a kind of misogyny -
sorry to all the Lacanian feminists out there - I
don't get it...
but this particular desire for theory to claim the
authority of science has often seemed to me
symptomatic of arguments which seem like the Daddy of
all closures. As if all questions are answered in
advance as soon as you enter the terms of the
argument. There's more freedom for me in reading a
lyric by Herbert which assumes my presence as
listener, and therefore otherwise to the poem and
poet. A complementary companionableness, perhaps,
though often more intense than that implies. As if
what is supposedly enclosed there plucks the
possibilities of all sorts of openness.
Best
Alison
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|