Intentional Phallacy

[William Karlin]

On Mon, 22 Sep 1997 3DEM11 at QUCDN.QueensU.CA wrote:

> Intention is a fallacy, Charlie.  There is no ontology preceeding
> speech and writing.
> D.
> 

  I'm no Derrida scholar (the address sez it all) but I'm going to take a
stab at the meaning of this and go on to make a few points about this
thread that has simmering on....


  I think this is saying that what is writen or said stands on its own. 
>From the text/speech comes a message, and that message can only be found
in the text/speech -- not in the "intent."  Hence, there is no ontology,
no being, before what is said/writen.  I know this debate occurs (has
occured, at least) when the Supreme Court reviews legislation.  The
argument is made that the "legislative intent" is the criteria that should
be used in judging the legality of a statute...not necessary what the law
actually says.  You can see what this allows...legislature wants to "fix"
some problem but the wording of the law is so vague that it may violate
the constitution.  Those fighting for the law say it is the spirit of the
legislation that matters, while those against it say it is the possible
uses (read, interpretations) that truly matter.


  Obviously, I'm no legal scholar either but I think that is the gist of
it...please correct if I'm mistaken. But the parallel with the (ab)use of
metaphor is clear.  

 Maybe we can't entirely discount intent, but (as has been said many times
before) it is what *is* WRITEN/SAID that we make our judgements from -- as
we rarely have true insight into the full scope of "intent."  I think all
certain people (Dana, this time around) have been asking for is that we
are aware of the implications of what we are saying...nothing more.  No
call for the "correct speech police" just some forethought...  Say, say
away to your heart's content, but people will be making judgements based
on what you (plural) say.  


   cheers,

 will