Identifying the Problem.2

[Terrance]

Dave Monroe wrote:
> 
> Walter Pater I'm not so familiar with, save what's
> filtered down to me in discussions of him, though I do for
> reasons I can't recall have his book on "the" Renaissance
> on my current "to get" list, so there must have been
> something resonant. But "knowing" anything "as it really
> is" resonates for me here not only with that Kantian ding
> an sich, er, thing, but in and of itself seems
> diametrically opposed to my usual emphasis (I THINK) on
> the essentially mediated nature of all experience, i.e.,
> my antiessentialism. 

 Yes, The Renaissance, that's it.  Anyway, the first step,
step number one, as Pater says, in The Renaissance, is to
know one's own impression as it really is," and the reason I
invoked Pater was because I was speaking to the apparent
contradiction in your critical position. I think the
argument you are having here involves this first step and
questions of textual openness and constraint. Why don't we
deal with step one, then we can discuss all these other
things. You keep mentioning Hollander. I like his work, take
that JFK  essay you keep hawking, I like it, but doesn't it
strike you as not so much an essay,  a critical essay on
Pynchon's CL49 as a work of art by Charles Hollander about
the JFK assassination that uses Pynchon's text as a pallet?
It's not one to one, but as told jbor a while back, work a
Hollander essay backwards, take out Dallas, one word, what
have you got?