[lit-ideas] Russell--"good for bikers & divorce lawyers?"

  • From: Scribe1865@xxxxxxx
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 03:31:57 EDT

O wrote that "if you have nothing against my views or personality but do not 
. . . .  I will understand."
If O didn't know about it, how could he understand it? 
Can one understand the unknown? Can one hold a grudge against the unknown? Or 
maybe one makes predictions about how one would understand new things so that 
the unknown becomes more easily parceled out? The one thing certain about our 
predictions is that we claim to have made them.

For example, I have nothing against O 's personality. But unless I state my 
opinion about subscription or his list's proposed focus--how would he 

O implies that he views the list subscription choices of others without any 
personal resentment toward those making existentially genuine choices. This 
"understanding" has "forgiveness" written right into it. The word use seems to 
turn on the maxim, "to understand all is to forgive all" with the "forgiving" 
part elided so that its very elision becomes its tacit meaning, i.e., "I 
understand people will have different responses, and I will not be offended by 
instead, I will forgive them in advance for their choices" becomes, "I will 

Seems like the kind of thing JL Speranza could untangle, were he moved to do 
so, into related semantic deep structures.


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: