Allegoresis

[Paul Mackin]

On Oct 8, 2005, at 4:01 PM, John Doe wrote:

> Wellllllllllllll....kinda sorta yeah...but the problem
> is, the range of interpretations that are
> "meaningfull" in a certain case can be great or very
> limited;and that basic diference matters a lot - it's
> one thing to interpret the meaning of a sarcastic
> remark, or a passage from Gilgamesh, it's quite
> another to Interpret the observation that EVERY SINGLE
> TIME anyone, anywhere, throws a stone up in the air
> within a uniform terrestrial level gravitational
> field, it ALWAYS comes down...very intelligent people
> like Derrida who nonetheless have NO feel or ability
> in physics think it's fine and dandy to treat such
> evaluations from observation as just more "text" -
> oh,- excuse me; I meant "Text" - and thousands of
> humanities people who simply CAN'T admit they have no
> clue and should not make pronouncements on such
> things, go right along with him...I can't understand
> such over the top egotism; but I do understand the
> easy smugness it must bring to Derrida worshippers to
> be able to relegate all science to the "domain of
> language" and/ or "textuality", ....I have met Derrida
> in person twice,and listened to him field questions
> from the audience, and this guy is a twit; he does the
> most obvious form of evasion : " oh- no no no no - you
> zimply dohn't uhnderstand my wurk "...apparently, his
> way of "interpreting" legitimate questions from bad
> ones is to not address the question fairly in the
> first place....I doubt Nietzsche had anything like
> this in mind when he wrote that, and I wish French
> Theory Heads would ponder that once in a while...

Nietzsche probably had moral facts (dictums) in mind, not physical ones.

But if he'd been a mind to he could have said that it was Newton's  
head that smacked into the apple as an alternative interpretation.

Reminds me of  Dixon's fist and the slave driver. It's all in the  
interpretation.


>
> --- Paul Mackin <paul.mackin at verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> On Oct 8, 2005, at 2:25 PM, Keith McMullen wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The phrase "what it literally says" is best
>>>
>> understood allegorically.
>>
>> There are no facts, only interpretation.
>>
>> --Neitzsche
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> On Oct 8, 2005, at 10:57 AM, Dave Monroe wrote:
>>>
>>> Longxi, Zhang.  Allegoresis:
>>>    Reading Canonical Literature East and West.
>>>    Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP, 2005.
>>>
>>> Why is it that a text, particularly a canonical
>>>
>> text,
>>
>>> is often said to contain a meaning different from
>>>
>> what
>>
>>> it literally says?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>