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

[Ken Armstrong <armstron AT ohiou.edu>]

At 10:56 PM 10/7/2003 -0400, Jim Piat wrote:
> 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.

  OK by me to make the argument against naive realists, I don't know who 
they are ( Bloom?) and how they get into this mix. But let's do call out 
anyone who tries to subdue the whole truth to a partial truth. Only let's 
not excuse the deconstructionists because the naive realists are doing it, 
too (and, of course, vice versa).

> Such egocentrism reminds me of the joke that professor Bloom appears to 
> have mistaken his own bowel sounds for the rumblings of the universe.

  On the other hand, if Blake could see the universe in a grain of sand, 
why shouldn't Bloom hear it....

Cheers,
 Ken A.