Kevin,
One thing is certainly clear from your quite self-assured comment: for you,
as apparently for Dianne and Martin, there is nothing but text and you feel
no need to ground this further. (of course the notion of grounding is
antithetical to the purposes of deconstruction which is rather to dissolve).
I suppose it is impossible, and probably pointless, to discuss it , since
the discussion becomes one of: "Yes it is" "No it isn't" "yes it is" etc.
even if one party is attempting to provide more complete responses. I
won't go there, and in each of my preceding posts I have presented quite
specific positions that you find convenient to overlook.
Nevertheless, allow me to point out that in my several posts in this thread,
I certainly have indicated an entire range of processes, structures, and
perpsectives to indicate why history shouldn't be considered as text any
more than gravity should, and that to reduce my position to being something
about the events I used in one of the first posts on the topic to dramatize
a point, is not deconstruction, it is decontextualization.
Paul H. Dillon
----- Original Message -----
From: Kevin Rocap <krocap@csulb.edu>
To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2001 11:31 AM
Subject: Re: history-text relations
> Dear Martin, Diane and Paul,
>
> And any history we can write or talk about is certainly "text;" to
> deconstruct "history" one must be very, very quiet.
>
> And my sense is that Paul is evoking the primal experiences of being
> shot or bombed or colonised, the "what happens to us" or to others when
> we are not talking or writing about it, which perhaps you (Diane and
> Martin) are right is not-history.
>
> In Peace,
> K.
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 01 2001 - 01:01:36 PDT