--- On Sat, 20/12/08, Phil Enns <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > From: Phil Enns <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxx> > "What is not contained in these quotations is any > explicit statement > that shows that, for W, 'elements' contribute > nothing to the 'sense' > of a picture" > > My goal is not to convince Donal but rather to show the > reasoning for > my argument. Ah! And I thought my point above was not "merely" that you had failed to convince me but that you had failed to provide a quotation in the text where W explicitly states that "'elements' contribute nothing to the 'sense'of a picture" (with the by-product perhaps being that I remain unpersuaded - but of course this is secondary to the point). Hoping to do you the courtesy of a more detailed response but meantime noting that, on a cursory glance, no such explicit statement as asked for is given. Perhaps you might have made clear in this lenghthy post whether in your view there is such an explicit statement somewhere by W, or whether the 'exegesis' offered is simply interpretation, and your view of how contestable that interpretation is etc.? Given the above it might be understood why I might pass by the following irrelevant and misleading Aunt-Sallying comments in dignified silence. >If Donal disagrees that the texts I provide > lead to the > conclusions I draw, that is fine. However, merely stating > that he is > not convinced is insufficient, since his being convinced is > not the > point. This is doubly so since my argument is in response > to his > initial post. What I would like to see from Donal is > textual support > for his initial argument. I would be interested to see > Donal defend > his own argument, since I assume this space is about the > interaction > of ideas rather than convincing Donal. Donal Must dash Train arrive Fifteen coaches long ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html