Percy-L: Literary, Religious, Scientific, and Philosophical Discussion of Walker Percy

["Parlin, Steven" <PARLINS AT culver.org>]

Interesting point Jim, but then according to your position isn't every utterance egocentric, even your posting? 

 

I really don't think so.  

 

Yes, misunderstandings sometimes happen for a variety of reasons.  But, it is mostly true that the vast majority of the time we use language with a common understanding. We do share common interpretations. And, we know this because most of the time we communicate quite naturally and without thinking.

 

For example, nearly all of our daily discourse goes something like this:

 

Customer: May I please have a cup of coffee?

Server: Regular or Decaf?

Customer: Regular, no cream.

 

Not like this:

 

Customer: May I please have a cup of coffee

Server: I was in Africa last year, thank you.

Customer: Orange.

 

I mean....c'mon....in your posting here aren't you assuming, quite naturally, that WE will UNDERSTAND you?

 

Steve

 

PS: It's worth noting also that 99% of my students just don't get it, the very concept of deconstruction, when I try to tell them that some people argue that words have no reference points outside of the text. Why don't they get it? Because it's not a part of their real world experience. It's like asking them to meditate on the idea of "one hand clapping". They don't get it. They go about their daily lives using language quite naturally as if everyone else shares, more or less, the same real world reference points. And, they do this naturally, without monitoring themselves, and without any anxiety that they will not be able to communicate.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: James Piat [mailto:piat1 AT bellsouth.net]
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 9:56 PM
To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion
Subject: Re: [percy-l] Does Deconstruction Have a Future?

Dear Ken,

 

Thanks for your comments.  I think you make a good point.  However,  it seems to me one could as well argue that the naive realists take a partial truth (that the ability to communicate depends in part upon a shared or common interpretation of events) and generalize it into an absurdity  -- i.e. what is self evidently the "real" meaning of events for oneself is also self evidently the meaning of events for everyone.  Such egocentrism reminds me of the joke that professor Bloom appears to have mistaken his own bowel sounds for the rumblings of the universe.  

 

Best as always,

Jim Piat

 

Jim,

   Deconstruction tries to take a partial insight and stretch it into the whole truth. The humorous thing about it is not where it will finish, but where will it start? It must appeal to what it supposedly undermines in order to get the first word out. It is too much a tool for an ideology and too little a tool for thought. As for harshness, things happen in a context. I think that is what Percy recognized in his denunciatory remarks about deconstruction.

Ken A.