X-Envelope-to: politics@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 18:50:35 -0500
From:         ANTHLAL@UMNACVX.BITNET
Subject:      symbols, metaphors, tropes (and the art of motorcycle maintenance)

whew.  don't you people have, like, jobs?  what is this?  day five of
logging in at 5 o'clock (central, for those of you keeping score at home)
to find upwards of 200 messages. and, like the masochist i am (..i have
this characterization on authority from mr. president johnson), i
of course read them all, not wanting to miss a single breathtaking and
world-altering phrase.  golly, i don't even know where to begin.

uh, the flag, i seem to remember some nonsense about the flag...okay,
rich, whatever your name is, you are certainly entitled to your
opinion:  julie, kerry, linda et al. have given a spirited defense of
the position i myself hold.  see, here's the wonderful thing:  you can
have your opinion, and we can have ours, and everybody's happy.  it's
just when you try to legislate what an opinion ought to be that things
get sticky.  here's the watchword of the night (look for it later
in the post, too.  collect and save for valuable prizes):
old-fashioned jeffersonian democracy is a pain in the ass, but ends
up being worth a host of tribulations.
all i can assume is that you are unfamiliar with, as linda pointed
out, the conception of 'symbol'.  fortunately for all of us,
i (she said modestly, with a demure, sly smile) happen to be an
anthropologist, with a rather substantial background in the study of
symbolism, having done fieldwork oriented towards folklore.  i will
assume you *can* read.  your deductive reasoning skills show promise.
in my opinion, you have confused the involvement of the signifier
with that of the signified, and misconstrued the reciprocity which
exists between text-interpretation and self-interpretation.  it's okay...
lots of people do that, especially logical positivists and romanticists,
since it is opposed to the kind of objectivity and lack of self-involvement
that is supposed to characterize nomothetic explanatory motifs.
i can recommend to you the work of paul ricoeur:
"metaphor and the main problem of hermeneutics,"  _new literary history_6
(1974-1975): 95-110.
"structure, word, event", _philosophy today_ 12 (1968): 116-126.
"expliquer et comprendre," _revue philosophique de louvain_ 75 (1977):
126-147.
"the hermeneutics of symbols and philosophical reflection", translated
by denis savage, _international philosophical quarterly_ 2 (1962): 191-
218.

other treatments of symbolism are to be found in the work of victor
turner (say, _the forest of symbols_) and mary douglas.  geertz does a
nice bit on metaphor in his essay "deep play".  and let us not
forget pierre bourdieu:  _outline of a theory of practice_ and
_the logic of practice_ (uh, the first is a cambridge paperback, the
second is still in hardback i think, also a cambridge pressing)
contains a well-informed study of the meanings of how we construct
realities to stand for other, equally profound interpretational realities.

and that's the warm-up round.

god, look at me!  i was really all steamed up about that post when i started
this, and now look at me.  all my righteous indignation ground into dust.
all courtesy of that wonder of wonders, academic obfuscation.


i will now point out that richard fyfe (not a doctor ;-) and valentine
michael smith are my heroes of the week.

i just get so upset sometimes.  i mean this.  robert, et al., take heed.
no doubt this is what you are trying to do.  but...mind if i ask you all
a personal question?
what does it feel like to hate so much?
where do you keep it?
how deep is it?  how wide is it?
do you dream in black and white?

it's armistice day.  time to think about peace.
turn off the terminal and go home.

anneliese.