Down these mean streets ...

[Terrance]

Paul Nightingale wrote:
The
> question you now ask is rather more serious (as indeed I said/implied in
> my first response). I'll get back to you later.


Why bother? You guys are obviously not into the same stuff. 

maybe of there wuz a text in this argument? 

I know! Beckett! 

You've both, no doubt, read SB. 

OK, just to keep the jargon thing going, Derrida too. 

The conclusions offered by this study do not point to any meaning
Beckett has found in absence or the ontological ramifications of
Derrida’s insistence that the meaning lies without the text. Beckett’s
work examined as an exercise in narrative and textual representation
exposes traditional constructs of language and rules of the narrative as
so grossly inclusive as to strip language of its significance, leaving
it devoid of
meaning.  With no other tool for communication, the ludic summation of
Beckett’s discourse and narrative is ironic— we are forever subject and
confined to linguistic laws which compromise the ability of a word to
name or signify, to exactly say.