Identifying the Problem.2

[Terrance]

Dave Monroe wrote:

> But I have argued, I think, that any text can be read
> productively via a infinite set of "methodologies" (or
> lack thereof)--therein lies my "democracy"? 

OK. 



Anyway, there
> is much of relevance "in" any text, that is, much of
> relevance to any text, that any given author thereof might
> not have intended, might not have been aware of, might not
> have devoted much thought to, might have some interest,
> vested or otherwise, in dissimulating the relevance of,
> and so forth. Contexts, texts, intertexts, subtexts,
> urtexts, a textual superego, ego, unconscious
> ("collective" or otherwise), preconscious, id, even.
> Whatever ... But I do not believe I am attributing
> responses to "the text." 

Not to the author and not to the text. 



Nor to any individual reader,
> much less any idealized Reader. To possible-to-probable
> readers (one of whom is, no doubt, myself, but that is
> true of any commentary here, no? They are all first and
> foremost "our" "own" readings) interacting with an actual
> (!) text in possible-to-probable contexts. Is this
> consistent? Need it be? Maybe, maybe not, depending, in
> the first case, not necessarily, in the second.

To what? Not the author, not the text, not the reader. To
what? Each readers interaction with the text? Is this your
democracy? I don't know. 

So are we now to  require methodological purity tests from
all posting here?


hmmmmmmmmm



> Will you be so kind as to explicate from whence the very
> intresting line(s?) of thought you seem to be developing
> came, and perhaps to where they might be proceding? No,
> seriously, am interested ...


I blew them out my ass this morning, captured them in a jar,
I took the jar to the east river, I tossed it in, it floated
into a 48 inch sewer pipe, and would you believe, someone
called my this afternoon and translated the shitty mess to
what you got here. 
No, just shitting you, but of course you knew that.