... also, if this is that IS, then why agonize over it? We'll have a nice chat over some brews, come to some pleasant agreements (now that we know that these are), or not ... and move on. The only change from a classical view is the hardness of the edges between or among us. These were supported doctrinally; the doctrines are now revoked, but art persists.
On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 6:39 PM, William Conger <[email protected]> wrote: > So why are you dismissing Barthes and Foucault and, I presume, Derrida, too? > What you say below is the first rule of poststructuralism. > wc > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Sat, September 29, 2012 5:17:11 PM > Subject: The Incompleteness of Language > > To sum up the language, mind and ontology ruminations I've inflicted on > this forum for the last year or three: > > If there are no meanings except me-meanings -- your own personal notions -- > and if, as my mantra says, all notions are indeterminate, indefinite, > multiplex and transitory, morphing like a writhing cloud, then > communication that's perfect mutual understanding is forever beyond our reach. > Like so > > much, it's improvable, but it will always be incomplete. (They might seem > to come close, but if, against trillions-to-one odds, two people ever did > entertain totally identical notions, they could never know it.) Devious little > suckers our notions. Making fun of us constantly. > -- -Lew Schwartz
