To: "'Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion'" <percy-l AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Subject: RE: [percy-l] Does Deconstruction Have a Future?
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 19:58:08 -0500
"On the other hand, if Blake could see the universe in a grain of sand,
why shouldn't Bloom hear it...."
Bravo Ken!
-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Armstrong [mailto:armstron AT ohiou.edu]
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 1:34 PM
To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion
Subject: Re: [percy-l] Does Deconstruction Have a Future?
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....