tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7461948747659071092.post3370232784281767875..comments2023-09-29T02:49:02.989-07:00Comments on An Emphatic Umph: The Deed, and Nothing ButDaniel Coffeenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03912050391869734890noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7461948747659071092.post-70190345816924391522016-10-26T09:50:22.352-07:002016-10-26T09:50:22.352-07:00An emphatic Yes!
In the comments, you mention Burr...An emphatic Yes!<br />In the comments, you mention Burroughs, Borges, and Nabokov.<br />I know self-deconstructing texts attempt to do away with the subject.<br />I know E-prime is an attempt to write without the verb "to be".<br />Can you provide specific example sentences that attempt the intertwined middle voice - of your own or from others? Perhaps something literary, and something we might see on a self-deprecating t-shirt?<br />Thanks Daniel,<br />JonathonJonathon Nevillehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14870298982394619067noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7461948747659071092.post-3728125115392347982011-12-21T09:42:59.775-08:002011-12-21T09:42:59.775-08:00@ Dr: I think the trick is to supersede grammar vi...@ Dr: I think the trick is to supersede grammar via the performative: to make language do rather than say. If we write well, we can break the grammar, rearrange it, make it speak otherwise. This is what WS Burroughs devoted all his writing to; it's what Borges manages to do over, 5 pages at a time (language becomes a labyrinth); it's what Nabokov does when the prose prances down your tongue.<br /><br />@ Elliot's: I think a morality/nature split gets us in trouble and raises unnecessary questions. Let's just say that everything is natural — these pixels, those trees, these words, those thoughts. So in this big mish mash of stuff, what propels us to do things or not do things? Need it be a code set from on high (a version of morality)? Or can it emerge from the muck? Nietzsche is amoral but he has a rigorous ethics built on health, on vitality, on respect for Life. <br /><br />Perhaps you can think about the difference between morality and ethics. Ethics is what happens between us, how best to negotiate this life. Morality is a code that wants to sit outside this life. Can we dispense with morality and still have ethics? I think so.Daniel Coffeenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03912050391869734890noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7461948747659071092.post-3724904310460934622011-12-20T12:59:33.792-08:002011-12-20T12:59:33.792-08:00Interesting stuff. I have little understanding of ...Interesting stuff. I have little understanding of philosophy but I can't help but be horrified by living a life without morality. <br />I wonder if morality plays a roll in nature? Is the "bird of pray" being cruel or kind? Lightning can't be blamed for striking but animals do show signs of compassion and guilt. <br />Anyway, It was an interesting read and I thoroughly enjoyed your post. <br />Thanks :)Elliot's Picture Studiohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07146739601689798843noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7461948747659071092.post-9512044325482085572011-12-15T17:10:20.571-08:002011-12-15T17:10:20.571-08:00That damn subject/object dichotomy has and will pl...That damn subject/object dichotomy has and will plague thought, least Western thought, forever. <br /><br />And your right - it's built into the grammar. I remember the first time I read that grammar was metaphysical. I was like - crap. I know this must be true, but I can't see it. And then you see it. And then you realize the implications. <br /><br />I mean the world is obviously not "out there" somewhere. We are the world - this post is adding to the world. But when I sit back and put my thinking cap on I want to think of the world as an object, which i believe is the death of thought. <br /><br />I love the idea of in-the-world-being (I actually like that order better than being-in-the-world) because it shows syntactically what is really going on. <br /><br />I mean I can't read 12 pages of Husserl without wanting to claw my eyes out, but I love the idea that consciousness is always consciousness of something. There is no "as such." <br /><br />I guess the question would be how to use the English language - which I absolutely fucking love - in ways that compromise and complicate the inherent metaphysical distinctions that reside within it. <br /><br />As a side not - since I have to take another Spanish class to get a PhD in English, I've been thinking of this - how weird is it that other languages actually engender things like pencils and pens and bathrooms and beer bottles?drwatsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16184322472302989822noreply@blogger.com