Stephen,
First off, I will admit to not reading Neitzsche, Deleuze, Derrida, etc. What
I know of Deconstruction comes out of some criticism I've read, as well as
Arch History courses I've taken. In the gun battle of existential philosphy,
I'm armed with a broken pop-gun. I'll admit it, but I sense you know this and
have elected to "baffle me with brilliance."
You feel you need to tell me "language works harder than we think." That's
pretty strong stuff to say, coming from a position that states all language is
ambiguous and meaning is subjective. I work very hard to establish PRECISE
meaning. Don't always get it, mind you, but I try. It's difficult to practice
when the cultural condition no longer values precise meaning---in fact, I could
look at your statement sideways and say exactly that: LANGUAGE WORKS HARDER
THAN WE THINK; that is, we don't think in proportion to language's ability to
communicate meaning.
What cultural vacuity am I trying to compound through my symptomatic approach?
And who are you to claim it deficient?
How am I a myopic liberal? All I did was take issue with your denegration of
those who do not subscribe to your approach. I've seen this attitude before;
you call David (or his type) lazy; one of my profs calls another
"anti-intellectual" because he doesn't believe in the decon/critlit teachings.
Doesn't sound like "taking someone in" to me...
Mark
First off, I will admit to not reading Neitzsche, Deleuze, Derrida, etc. What
I know of Deconstruction comes out of some criticism I've read, as well as
Arch History courses I've taken. In the gun battle of existential philosphy,
I'm armed with a broken pop-gun. I'll admit it, but I sense you know this and
have elected to "baffle me with brilliance."
You feel you need to tell me "language works harder than we think." That's
pretty strong stuff to say, coming from a position that states all language is
ambiguous and meaning is subjective. I work very hard to establish PRECISE
meaning. Don't always get it, mind you, but I try. It's difficult to practice
when the cultural condition no longer values precise meaning---in fact, I could
look at your statement sideways and say exactly that: LANGUAGE WORKS HARDER
THAN WE THINK; that is, we don't think in proportion to language's ability to
communicate meaning.
What cultural vacuity am I trying to compound through my symptomatic approach?
And who are you to claim it deficient?
How am I a myopic liberal? All I did was take issue with your denegration of
those who do not subscribe to your approach. I've seen this attitude before;
you call David (or his type) lazy; one of my profs calls another
"anti-intellectual" because he doesn't believe in the decon/critlit teachings.
Doesn't sound like "taking someone in" to me...
Mark