From: "Christopher Honey" <ch1745-AT-pluto.aum.edu>
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 19:08:39 +600
Subject: Re: Language?


> Date:          Wed, 13 May 1998 10:25:04 -0700
> To:            heidegger-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU
> From:          RTG <guevara-AT-rain.org>
> Subject:       Re: Language?
> Reply-to:      heidegger-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU

> >There is no 
> >agreed upon system of signs and signifiers.  I'm not talking about 
> >notes on a sheet, but performed music does not match the definition 
> >of language as a symbolic system of signs.
> 
> really?
> can you say more about this?
> 
> so i get that you mean; when i read e.e. cummings, for example, he is
> communicating stricty by "agreement."  is this correct?  is it an
> "agreement reality" that evokes that which is new?  i mean that i see
> poetry as a calling from "the nothing."  no?
> 
> i'm just trying to get a better feel for your assertion Chistopher.  i'm
> not defending a position.
> 
> 
> Robert T. Guevara   | guevara-AT-rain.org
> Electrical Engineer | guevarb-AT-mugu.navy.mil
> Camarillo CA, USA   | http://www.rain.org/~guevara
> 
> 
>      --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> 
The notes on the page signify certain sounds.  But the sounds do not 
necessarily refer to any specific thing.   A b-flat note played 
on a violin (I don't know anything about violins or b-flats, but 
bear with me) doesn't "mean" anything.  However much e.e. cummings 
(or Pynchon, Simic, etc.) plays with the language, he is merely 
stretching the boundaries of the system, not working outside it.  I 
think.

Christopher Honey


     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---