GR's Chipco Stomp Preview

[andrew at cee.hw.ac.uk]

MASCARO at humnet.ucla.edu writes:

> Provocative post, Andrew. Feeling our warmth across the pond?
> Correct me if I am wrong, but as I kabbalistically twist and turn
> the warp and woof of your gnostic comment, it appears that you are
> going a long way around (to come in the back door?) to set up your
> *cheap parting shot.* Your idea seems to me to boil down to a
> dichotomy you are positing between (1) some sort of
> reasoning/perceptual mode that recognizes the ultimate
> sufficiency--in all human and natural phenomena apparently--of what
> you somewhat gnostically call *well known and
> perfectly-clear-thank-you-very-much meanings* and (2) on the other
> hand, some pseudo-mystical self-obsessed and ultimately, perhaps,
> evil, mode of reasoning that seeks meaning along many dimensions,
> signified through form, implicit, multiple.  Of course you couldn't
> be reducing it to such simplistic and obviously false dichotomies,
> could you? You don't know what art is but you know what you like?
> But if you are, could you please post me (privately if you don't
> want to share it with the world) the *well known and perfectly clear
> thank you very much* meaning of life?

No, I am not reducing the matter to a simple two-dimensional problem.
And I am not suggesting that formal analysis and abstraction are
dead-end activities. There is much to be said (little of which really
needs saying, never mind overstating) for looking at how something is
stated rather than what it states - I'm assuming that you are riled by
my criticism of criticism rather than that of scientists so the
dichotomy is between the meaning of words and the way they are strung
together rather than the significance of phenomena and the myriad ways
those phenomena can be counted, recounted, ordered and reordered to
yield some other sugnificance. Whatever, however much one considers
matters of form, much of the time language *is* employed to
communicate - a brute fact I will assume you require no philosophical
complication to explain - and divorcing the formal analysis from
considerations of meaning is utterly crass. Now I am not going to
suggest that all lit crit does any such thing, nor am I going to
suggest that `the meaning' of a piece of prose is i) a profoundly
useful and ii) a totally coherent concept. Of course, meanings are not
always clear and there are many meanings one could attach to a piece
of prose and many aspects of it which transcend any question as to its
`meaning' (or even the presence of such). But I would suggest that
some lit-critters sometimes overemphasise the amount of ambiguity in
prose and the significance of such ambiguity where it exists.

> On a further puzzling note, Pointsman and the *art critics* in your
> post seem to be on the same side!  How odd.  Do you really think the
> kind of truth Pointsman is after is anything like the kind of truth
> posited by either the existence or the study of art, of any medium?
> (BTW,, who sez the kabbalists and gnostics were--wrong? (speaking of
> paranoia!))

I do indeed equate what Pointsman does with what some `art critics'
do. And much as I acknowledge that his sin is the besetting sin of
science I don't see that that implies any contradiction. Yes there are
those whose criticism is a piece of kabbalistic juggling with the
elements of a piece rather than an evaluation of the artist's act of
synthesis. All of which might very well help one aboard a flight of
fancy but is of little use to those who appreciate and wish to learn
more about an author's writing.

As to those kabbalists and gnostics I don't think I said they were
wrong, merely that in many, if not most, cases their aproach was not
as apropos the matter in hand as those who took an attempt to
communicate at face value. If you were to reply to this note by
building a theory on statistical distribution of Christian terminology
in my postings, interesting as the subject might be, I don't think I
would bother to reply in turn, suspecting as I do that I could spend
the time more profitably. As with most matters involving metaphysical
prejudices it's not a question of truth or even right and wrong
(please note the implied divorce) rather one of what makes the wheels
of my world (and those who are in it alongside me) spin faster.


Andrew Dinn
-----------
And though Earthliness forget you,
To the stilled Earth say:  I flow.
To the rushing water speak:  I am.