Re: no problem

J J R (jrovira@juno.com)
Sun, 22 Nov 1998 18:12:50 -0500 (EST) 

On Sun, 22 Nov 1998 10:42:56 +0000 Scottie Bowman <rbowman@indigo.ie>
writes:
>I think my easiness with the idea of a writer’s intentions
>must have grown through all those decades working as a
>psychoanalyst.  Though I’m sure the gift was there long
>before any formal training began.  But there it is.  It happens
>all the time, every day of the week.  Someone gazing
>across at me, the stars shining in her eyes, as she breathes:
>‘Gosh, Dr Bowman, how well you read my mind.....’

So, what you're telling me is that you're used to dealing with weak
minded people, and resent those who aren't? :)

SERIOUSLY, isn't what's happening at that moment is that the words used
by your patients DO NOT convey the speaker's intent, while the words you
use do?  

It's just a case of you having a better command of the language than your
patients.  Which I believe.  

>
>On that other point.
>The Oxford Dictionery defines *affectation* as -
>  b) an ‘ostentatious fondness for, or display of,’
>And *religiosity* as -
>  b) ‘affected or excessive religiousness’.

Geez, I knew you were gonna pull a dictionary on me, Scottie :)  See, the
problem I had with taking the phrase according to its formal definition
is that two types of religion are required here--

1. A pretense or sham.

2. A sincere expression.

Nothing in your posts seemed to allow for the second type of religion--I
thought you defined all religion as "ostentatious affectation."  So I
thought all reference to religion at all would be seen as false--

indicating a bias, of sorts.  

>
>These definitions may not coincide with your particular ideas, Jim,
>but is your problem.  For most of the English speaking world these
>are the simple meanings. 

You still don't understand my point of view.  Dictionaries are just the
records of our agreements, and help stabilize the langugae from
generation to generation.  

But, eh, how is it that dictionaries come to change so much over time?
(though I do recognize that English has changed much more slowly since
the first dictionaries came out).

 The words conveyed well enough that
>awful feeling of: ‘Look at me, Ma, I’m being mystical....’ which,
>for me at least, permeates the endless anguishings of the Glass 
>family.
>

Alright, if you think the Glass family members are simply a bit too Self
Absorbed in their expression of religious sentiments, well, what would be
a legitimate expression?

I actually think you could argue your point here from the text.  I could
almost agree with this--though I'd probably just chalk it up to youth. 
But, eh, do you think that was Salinger's intent?

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/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]