Re: Fw: Salinger and Buddhism as promised
J J R (jrovira@juno.com)
Mon, 29 Jun 1998 15:54:18 -0400 (EDT)
<<Because as you noted in your definition of language, everything
contains its
own contradiction! Very funny again! But if
lanugage-played-by-the-rules
(common sense definition of language here) contains its own contradiction
why resort to *tricks* (which the rabbit noted long ago are "for kids").
--Curits>>
First off, the more clearly and precisely you try to define the "common
sense rules of language" the more slippery you will find them to be. But
I won't expand on that now. Just try it.
A lot of this has to do with post-structuralist thought and I think
that's where the confusion lies. Rather than talking about "language,"
I'll talk about a "text." A "text" contains, according to
post-structuralist premises, both its surface meaning and the
contradiction of the surface meaning. Both are attained by reading the
text "according to the rules," if you've done a good deconstruction of
the text (and this should involve more than just playing tricks with
language, although at times it does not).
When we approach a text we usually do so with some consideration for its
origin. We talk about Salinger being a mid twentieth century Western
Thinker--specifically American--writing in Standard Written English or
representing one of America's many dialects (usually with a great deal of
acumen). In other words, we consider Origin of the text--and its
context--when we talk about meaning. That's why we are asking what
specific strains of buddhism Salinger studied and what were its
characteristics, etc.
Now, imagine interpreting a text without ANY regard for origin. Better
yet, put it in different people's mouths and interpret it THEN. You will
get ALL KINDS of FREAKING different meanings THEN, lemme tell ya :)
Imagine "Teddy" was written by a turn of the century Tibetan monk who
had, by some weird coincidence, seen a luxury liner. Pretend it was
written in Sanskrit and translated. How would you interpret it then?
Wouldn't that shift the meaning of the text somewhat? Suppose you found
out Salinger HATED buddhism and wrote "Teddy" as a satire. Couldn't it
possibly give you an OPPOSITE meaning than the one we would normally
attribute to "Teddy" when we think of Salinger as a westerner sympathetic
to Eastern thought?
The idea of interpreting text through the filter of origins is, in part,
what Derrida (origin thinking writing again :) ) meant by the word
"logocentrism," and the very thing he set out to subvert by his
philosophy, because he believed logocentrism was the basis of
ethnocentrism in our thinking. All this is in the exergue to "Of
Grammatology." Check it out.
Let me give you a specific, concrete example--very simple. I am in a
doctor's office, and I hear one nurse say to the other, "Lois is Green."
Now, I can expect one of three things:
1. That Lois is a martian.
2. That Lois is inexperienced.
3. That Lois is envious.
If Lois were my nurse or Doctor, I would hope for number three, be afraid
of the possibility of number 2, and drop dead if number one were the case
:)
But you see how context determines meaning--a context provided by facts
completely outside the domain of language. Seeing that, you should also
see how removing language from all reference to a single context allows
for a seemingly limitless possibility of meanings for a text.
That is post-structuralist thought. Partly.
Jim
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]