pynchon agnostic? II

[Mutualcode at aol.com]

In a message dated 3/9/2003 7:36:28 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
tkrh at worldonline.dk writes:


> > Rubbish. 
> 
> Impressive argument.
> 
> 

The bottom line, Tom, is, although language is quite flexible and plastic,
one trick it is incapable of pulling off is the representation of
meaninglessness. Even "rubbish" or gibberish, in a linguistic sense,
still has traces of meaning that any expression can't quite shake
loose from- There's always gonna be that telltale shitstain, dingleberry
or dribble- no matter how dligently a critter wipes, shakes or dances.

The interesting question for me is whether the silent empire that
preceded language, that great dark land of nod, or, ocean of potential from
out of which homo lingus crawled- and which can still be integrated back 
to, in a sense, from all these differentiated babbles- is that huge engulfing
silent potential presided over by a single magistrate, or, is that notion 
just 
another version of our collective paranoia?

keep it bouncing...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20030309/3587aad3/attachment.html>