> He said that, in order for language to even function, there has to be
> a certain kind of play in it--like the play in the parts of a machine.
> That play has limits and functions as a limit for interpretation, but
> not the only one, because the play involved in any text is partly
> historically circumscribed. It is an utterly sensible position: texts
> don't mean just anything, but don't just mean one thing, either.
If that's all he was saying, what's the big fuss? That's not only utterly sensible, but utterly platitudinous.
Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org __________________________________ A sympathetic Scot summed it all up very neatly in the remark, 'You should make a point of trying every experience once, excepting incest and folk-dancing.' -- Sir Arnold Bax