[lit-ideas] Context Is Everything

  • From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 18:04:58 -0400 (EDT)

W. O. claims that 

(i) Context is  everything.

is self-contradictory. This renders:

(ii) Context is  nothing 

a tautology -- which _is_ self-contradictory.

O. T. O. H.  

In a message dated 7/27/2012 4:52:03 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
rpaul@xxxxxxxx writes:
for the 'law of contexts,' see Paul v.  Anscombe, Nebraska CR0W0416
A1396Z5, in which it was held that 'I'd like a  cup of mud,' uttered in a 
crowded theater, needed no Anscombian context in  order to have sense, 
and that those passages in Intention, which held that  it did, were 
themselves null, void, and part of das Mystische.  


In fairness to Anscombe, she distinguishes  between

"the text proper" -- as in a 'text message' (not a tautology if  'message' 
is understood cryptically).

"the co-text" -- where the 'n' is  "intrusive".


the "pre-text".

"Literally, the pre-text  is what I call an intention".

So, in

Paul intends that he desires  a cup of mud -- the pretext becomes textual, 
"I want a cup of mud" uttered in  the co-text of a crowded theatre. And so 


(i) x is  everything

is contradictory, then who would want to be pantheist or a  materialist?



To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: