Re: Desinvolture et al.

[fs6y097@public.uni-hamburg.de (John King)]

> Yes, in EJ's texts, the desinvolture is itself a characteristic
>of the
>acting and not of any goings-on accompanying the actions. Curiously
>enough, EJ's texts could be cited in an orthodox account of
>Wittgenstein's and Ryle's views on the matter.
>
>Larbaud Jr.

Not having a philosophical background, I'm not at all sure what you mean or
how J fits in. I wonder if you might care to elaborate as EJ is not someone
who traditionally inhabits the orbits of people like Wittgenstein for
instance. If anything, do not EJ's view on authorship, on writing, on
reading the world (and not just in the "writing" of the pen and the press)
in the form of the infinite play of forms within morphological regularities
(Linneus' classification of nature as a form of metaphysical encoding of
Platonic certainties is very important to EJ's later world view) stand in
some contrast to Wittgenstein who (in my very primitive understanding)
places the divine and the metaphysical outside the sphere of language? And
indeed reduces language from something revelatory to various games played by
their own rules...

JK