RE: Before the Law

It reminds me of that movie, _The Gods Must Be Crazy_, where a coke bottle
is flung out the window of an airplane and a bushman finds it and they are
confused as to what it is. The clan immediately uses it for all kinds of
purposes and eventually it is used as a weapon so it is flung off the end of
the earth. Yet in all its myriad uses it remained a coke bottle. It's
only repetitive in that I am putting meaning out there and it seems as if it
is misunderstood, (of course your ideology would have this consequence since
my intent is irrelevant) and you repeat your reply and I see your point but
who decides how many dimensions it has, some one with a good imagination
could see a million dimensions, but what is really there? In John's Kafka
example it is 'ultimately inaccessible' because either Kafka was only
communicating mood/emotion or he just plain failed in communicating his
intent with economy turned incomplete (I don't think so) or he was
intentionally being vague or writing open ended, (common in Jewish mystical
discussions) so all those meanings John wrote were intended. So is it a
cigar box if I keep my baseball cards in it? That is the point Jim, some of
us believe that the writer matters as much as the object. Ask a Swiss watch
maker what he thinks of the idea of using the finest Swiss watch as a nut
cracker. Don't you see that saying authorial intent is irrelevant has the
same consequences as saying that they don't exist, Am I the only one who
sees this? Jim, I want to if possible to see the three dimensions AND the
five dimensions. The 'almost always' is a new battleground that we can meet
upon. You didn't think that a surrendered prisoner can be so annoying. AND
rent the picture.
Daniel

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
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Thu Mar 6 12:21:21 2003