pynchon agnostic? II

[jbor]

> on 2/3/03 9:18 PM, thomas kyhn rovsing hjoernet at tkrh at worldonline.dk wrote:
> 
> In order to operate with this Œtruth,¹ you depend on concepts such as
> Œphysical,¹ Œbullet,¹ Œhole,¹ Œchest,¹ not to mention Œtruth.¹

Well, I think we are on pretty solid ground with those four terms, unless
you want to contest the existence of matter. Of course, "truth", as a
philosophical abstraction, is completely subjective, is in a totally
different "category", and thus earns the inverted commas I gave it.

And it's actually lexical items, and grammar -- notions like "to be", and
verb tenses -- which are most slippery as you move from language to
language.

best