There you go again, violating rule number 7, sec 1A, para. 3, of the Rules for Argument. A/c to the Constitution of Anal-lytic Philosophy, that merits a whacking.
Your comment is informed, or should I say, misinformed by such outmoded, magniloquent and presumptuous Notions as transparency, immediacy and Presence.
Please report to the Terror-Dome (i.e., Le Grande Dispositif), where you will be forced to transcribe, in French, the following phrase, 10,000 times: "We think plain prose is a cheat."
PS This was an attempt at irony, nay humor to boot, and as such, was doomed to fail. But in the spirit of Brother Baudrillard, someone had to try.
Ich bin ein Anti-Modernist. & I feel bad for Gunder Frank today.
--dfv
At 04:00 PM 1/25/00 -0500, you wrote:
>>The long and short of it is that I think I've read enough to say without
>>being ignorant about it that there's not much there there.
>
>But the "not much there" will be all too much here on the list, forever it
>seems :-(
>
>Carl
>______________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------ Daniel F. Vukovich Dept. of English; The Unit for Criticism University of Illinois Urbana, IL 61801 ------------------------------------------------------