Humpty Dumpty

[Terrance]

> >
> > Otto wrote:
> > >
> > > No, the world is not a text. The world is chaotic energy in different
> forms.> > > But you and I can only speak about the world in the form of some text,
> ie> > > some kind of representation.


> >
> > And when my apprentice is sitting on his ass with his thumb in his mouth
> > and I'm up on a ladder, a mouth full of nails, and I kick a rung so as
> > to cause the mud to be loosened from the soles of my boots onto his
> > daydreaming skull is that chaotic energy in  different form (the world)
> > or my speaking about the world in which I want my apprentice to get off
> > his ass and get me another piece of lumber?


> 
> Depends on the apprentice how he interprets it. Does he get the message or
> not?
> 
> Otto

OK, let's say, yes. He gets the message. He gets the piece of lumber. 

But how did he know that  the mud loosened from my boots onto his skull
was a message instructing him to get off his ass and get me a piece of
lumber? How does my apprentice know  "mud" as message and "mud" as
merely mud? 

Or, how do we know that "broiling" is a word and "brillig" is not? 

Why have theorists appropriating S's idea that we do not perceive words
as words but as differences between words?  

Are they attracted to negative thinking? 

Negative Liberties in the works of Morrison and Pynchon and so on? 

Difference in Saussure is a purely negative concept. Tit is not tat. It
is not top, tet, set, wet, net, met, metempsychosis or any other
meaningful utterance. 

So what? 

Difference really doesn't tell us a hell of a lot. 

We need to consider it with its counterpart, Opposition. 

When we chose to oppose mat to met we are guided by a perception of
difference (m?t), but we are also guided by a perception of a relation:
mat and met are alike in a way that does not apply to met and
metempsychosis. 


Is this making sense?