Was Reading and discussing Pynchon's texts

[Michael Joseph]

Thanks for your attention to the matter jbor. It's clear now that you
misunderstood my initial query, which V. sort of anticipated in his
Descartes question, didn't he, and rather than critique the larger point,
you seem content to recast it as an ego-a-ego dispute, assume a wounded
tone, and drop the matter. I understand you disagree, but I'm not sure you
understand what it is you're disagreeing with. I never advocated the
superiority of what you are calling an approach, but what I would call a
premise. I pointed out that, once one accepted your interpretive premise,
one relinquished any rational basis for deprecating any other premise.
Never mind.

Michael



 > > The discussion was never about
> > agreement.
>
> Indeed it is. I disagree with the approach which says that talking about the
> "artist's process" is more valid than, or different from, talking about
> "what the text means". (This is an expression of my opinion about the
> methodological principles which were being advocated.) Rather than defending
> the approach, or applying it to actual texts in order to substantiate it,
> you simply jumped in and accused me of doing something which I wasn't doing,
> which is what you continue to do now:
>
> > The discussion was about why you chose to assert the presumed
> > superiority of your position, and how you defended it. In fact, you have
> > been content to repeat, essentially, that you are justified because you
> > feel free to interpose your point of view. Your argument seems to be, my
> > interpretation is that my interpretation is superior to V.'s
> > interpretation because I say so, although it's also my initerpretation
> > that no interpretation is actually superior. Well, if I disagree with the
> > utility and force of this argument, at least I understand why you describe
> > it as "empty semantics."
>
> best
>
>
>