-----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