Re: Before the Law

So much of this is repetition I see the point of John O. not wanting to
waste his breath.

No, denying authorial intent does _not_ mean that words are meaningless
or that they can be made to mean whatever the reader wants them to mean.
 It just means that language is bigger than any one person using it.

I never denied the existence of authorial intent either. I question
sometimes if it really exists, but I don't think this is the case with
most texts. I have said it was almost always inaccessible or at least
irrelevant to the meaning of the words on the page. Many authors will
think one dimensionally about what their texts can mean, while the texts
themselves are three dimensional. Or they'll think three dimensionally
about a 5 dimensional text. You get the picture.

Jim

Yocum Daniel GS 21 CES/CEOE wrote:

>Jim, john didn'y say there was no authorial intent just that he couldn't
>discern it in the example he presented, which to his credit he didn't deny
>just said it was not important to him. Ok fair, but never the less it
>exists despite any inability to discern or care about it.
>
>On second thought you win and in the true french tradition I throw down my
>Katana and raise up my arms. How are we to answer you? You can now pour
>your meaning into my words, wait a minute, your words now since I have made
>them orphans by clicking the send button and you have adopted them by
>clicking in your in-box. Who am I to tell you how to raise your children
>now? Poor Kafka, all his fecundity is only an illusion.
>
>Daniel
>-
>* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
>* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
>
>
>

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Thu Mar 6 11:25:20 2003