Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | BULLAMANKA-PINHEADS The historic preservation free range. |
Date: | Mon, 22 Dec 1997 15:33:11 EST |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
In a message dated 97-12-19 22:00:49 EST, [log in to unmask]
writes:
> My confusion might be that the "gem" was not your dialogue, but one that
> you were forwarding as an example of something (now, I'm not sure of what).
Was not my dialogue, exactly. I tend to borrow and distort - collage therapy.
But I suppose the avocation of Lyotard would aptly serve the needs of a
political savant or two ie. L. Kestenbaum's Ann Arbor opponent. I'd be more
apt to parody the dialogue than take it seriously. Meant more as a sampling of
a philosophe with mad squirrel disease, or a mad squirrel with philisophe
disease.
I guess the lesson for historic preservation is that we need to understand the
connection between concept and built-environment, as well as find a way to
artfully expose the insanity of the "development" crowd. Mary Krugmans' take
on LAW as being arbitrary fits here, as language is a pain to get ahold of.
I think Olato (or was it Neanthus?) said something about the written word, as
opposed to discourse, as being a poor man's fakery. Unfortunately, the
confusion of words between humans are as well resulting in the tearing down of
buildings as preserving a few of them.
The obvious choices regarding Wittgenstein's rationalism are that we either
engage in discourse, or that we engage in silence. I'm looking forward to
reviewing his text, yet am in continual wonder at the magic of discourse.
][<en
|
|
|