Fw: Fw: Salinger and Buddhism as promised

Curtis Maxwell Perrin (cmperrin@fas.harvard.edu)
Mon, 29 Jun 1998 16:39:35 -0400

-----Original Message-----
From: J J R <jrovira@juno.com>
>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).


I'm not sure whether you're agreeing or disagreeing with me.  I was merely
pointing out that a text (Salinger's for instance) may contain both its
meaning and its contradiction.  I'm not saying anything about methodologies
of interpretation; rather, at the point of composition, an author doesn't
need to use "tricks" to include contradictory meanings in his text.  I'm
talking about composition, not interpretation.  Someone (Salinger) can
compose Zen texts without being absurd.  My point is that simple.

Some very conventional appearing texts may be entirely revolutionary.  I'm
saying Salinger doesn't need to resort to "tricks" for there to be a
contradictory meaning in his text.  Even those things written with the most
respect for precision, with the most attention to the "rules of style," with
the greatest attempt at being "one-sided," will necessarily contain their
contradiction.  That's all I'm pointing out.  I am arguing Salinger may be a
Zen author *even though* he appears quite "conventional" on the surface.
Even the "common sense" rules of language contain their
contradiction--That's my point.  I AM NOT trying to argue there are actual
common sense rules; I couldn't care one way or the other (though it is
certainly more easy to have discussions when we don't consider every single
possible meaning of a word simultaneously!).  And I am not arguing that
Salinger's language should be removed from its context; rather, as I said,
Salinger didn't *need* to remove his language from the context of Standard
Written English for him to be a Zen author.  I am merely pointing out that
the conditions for the creation of Zen texts do not depend on writing
nonsense.  How one interprets a Zen text (or any other text) is a wholly
different matter, and something on which I haven't given an opinion.  I
agree with you in that context is highly determinative of meaning.  I don't
see where you think I disagree with you.  Also, don't assume that you have a
monopoly on reading Derrida.  ;-)

Curtis Perrin
cmperrin@fas.harvard.edu