pynchon agnostic? II

[jbor]

on 3/3/03 7:59 AM, 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.
> 
> Without contesting or affirming the existence of matter, those four terms are
> established and defined in langauge;

Well, no, there's blood and guts and an ambulance siren to establish and
define "bullet", "hole" and "chest", and these are the "physical"
consequences, or "truth", of the material event.

To speak of religious or philosophical "truth" is another thing entirely.
It's the difference between a concrete and an abstract noun.

Language can be divided into categories too. It's called grammar.

best


> whatever is outside of language is not in itself divided into distinct
> entities.