Been away at my Mother's funeral and had the opportunity to sit down and
read this conversation almost from beginning to end.
Yes Tim there is an excellent archive very easily accessed.
I followed each post with a kind of admiration for the various positions
but basically it seems in my opinion to boil down to one premise. A
premise that is as true of "posts" as it was about my first sexual experience.
Over forty years ago an Elder told me the old "saw" about how many
people were going to be in bed together on that first encounter.
She stated that there were six. The person I thought I was, the person I
thought
my mate to be and the person I really was. The same was true of my mate as
well.
Since that time I have, in my own work, determined that for every word there
are at
least three denotative and four connotative meanings. In a seven word sentence
that makes the possible numbers of interpretations run seven to the seventh
power
and some say more. Given my reservation math I can't dispute either way. But
it all does seem quiet amazing that anything being written can be truly
interpreted
without constant redefining by the original writer as he is questioned about
what
he meant to say.
That any of us did not "get it" is not a reflection on anything other than the
fact
that we do not share his/her brain or experience and thus their unique
expressivity.
That makes questioning necessary unless we are going to be reduced to simple
pre-judgement. At another time we might discuss the root of stereotype and
convention as positives rather than as rhetoric but not tonight.
You may be just having "fun" but fun can sometimes be like putting graffiti on
windows
and then breaking them just to bust up the various group's reason for a
convention.
Then again you may be being severely misunderstood. But either way it us up to
you
to say that, just as Ed did when you interpreted him with one of the several
thousand
possible meanings of his various combinations of morphemes. Which brings up
another
cogent question written earlier by Arthur Cordell:
Is writing up to expressing what is truly meant without the added elements of
tone,
inflection, body language and rhythm that makes a singular interpretation
reasonable
most of the time? I don't know. But I am sure that given the various cultural
and
linguistic perspectives brought to this list, it can become hopeless chaos if
reduced to
chatting.
We each have to admit that the only person who knows what Ed meant
or even said is Ed himself. Then it follows that we can demand the same
respect
for ourselves. Tit for Tat games are often played in academic circles and
happens
here as well. The list knows I'm guilty, but zero/sum thought is not worth
much. It
just causes the list to stop for a while and is very unsatisfying. Primarily
because
it is not up to describing much of anything.
I apologize for going on about this but the word for "chat" is related, in my
background,
to "chatpile" which is a pile of "tailings" from the lead and zinc mines that
is so
chemically contaminated as to be useless for much of anything. So when one
wants
to "chat" and when I use the word it has a visceral meaning in my life
experience,
since today I suffer from the results of that pollution (gained in childhood
play) in
my lungs and life expectancy. But who would know that was what I meant
unless
I told them my specific connotation?
In short, the "word" for me is respect BEFORE you attack AND have the ability
to ask questions
clearly and with intelligence in order to ascertain correct meaning. That then
can be examined
and might even cause change and growth.
I gave you the respect of reading all of the various
interactions before I entered this discussion. I am still unclear about your
intent. It seems about
"winning" rather than examining. Lord knows I've gotten into it with Ed before
but this time I don't
get your point. How can what you have said bring change? Do you wish a
confession of the
accuracy of your reading from the original author? He has said that what
you read and what he
meant was in conflict as have many others. It seems to me that he is the
authority on what he
wrote.
It also seems to me that his denial of your judgement means that either A) he
didn't say it
well or B) he is lying by his denial. Neither seems correct because in A) the
rest of the list didn't
get your reading and B) since they got his "reading" a simple "no that is not
what I said or meant"
should be sufficient. Once that is said you should get on with the "meat" of
the discussion and
help the list in its learning. I believe that organizations (including
lists) have the ability to grow
as a consensus evolves. In fact the believe in that growth is only possible
reason I can ascertain
for writing to this or any other list at this time in my life.
Ray Evans Harrell, artistic director
The Magic Circle Opera Repertory Ensemble Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tim Rourke wrote:
> Holy shit, the responses I am getting offlist to me about this
> anti-semitic, or really anti- everyone who expects justice, nonsense, are
> getting wierd. Someone wants to inform me that the protocols of the Elders
> of Zion is reputed to be a forgery, and conspiratorial, and that his jewish
> friend claims that it is hotly debated.
>
> Then someone else wants to tell me that I can't read and write. I dunno. I
> think that is another form of the 'deny the meaning of language' tactic
> resorted to by psychotic or sociopathic personalities when they are
> confronted and have no other way out of their own contradictions. What the
> guy wrote, he wrote.
>
> And of course, if these jokers keep up the attack on me, people will listen
> to their interpretation of what I said and not read carefully what was
> said in the first place and think for themselves about what it is really
> saying. I wonder if its all in the list archives? If I had the time...
>
> So what is in it for these people? We have too many people espousing the
> most degraded form of rationalism on this list, and they all band together
> when somebody challenges one of them.
>
> And so to bed. zzzzz.
>
> Tim R.
