pynchon agnostic? II

[S.R. Prozak]

> > I am not rejecting (what we would call) difference outside of language, but
> > that is not the same as to say that such an 'outside' is already divided
> > into the 'parts' that language names.
> 
> So you're saying that difference outside language is divided into "parts"
> other than the ones which language names? Aren't you just setting up an
> alternative language by doing this?

This is why Schopenhauer's "The World as Will and Representation" was such an eye-opener for European philosophers schooled in Judeo-Christian ethics. Wasn't a brainchild for the Hindus, though. Hmm.


-- 
__________________________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup