Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1997 :: January ::
Re: Ideology
Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0101.  Wednesday, 22 January 1997.

(1)     From:   Gabriel Egan <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 21 Jan 1997 18:14:30 +0000 (GMT)
        Subj:   Re: Teaching British to the Englanders

(2)     From:   Roger Schmeeckle <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 21 Jan 1997 10:53:25 -0800 (PST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0096  Re: Ideology and Soliloquys


(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Gabriel Egan <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 21 Jan 1997 18:14:30 +0000 (GMT)
Subject:        Re: Teaching British to the Englanders

John Lee writes

> It's a small point, but I would think that few who have passed
> through the English Educational System would recognize it from
> Gabriel Egan's description.

I hope I made it clear that I was referring to the British system, and not
whatever the 'English' system is. (English is taught as a subject in Britain,
but not, even mutatis mutandis, vice versa).

> And Rhodes Boyson isn't Minister for Education.  Gillian Shepherd is.

Again, I'd hoped to make it clear (by using the words 'the 1980s') that Boyson
was the minister, and not that he is.

Gabriel Egan

(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Roger Schmeeckle <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 21 Jan 1997 10:53:25 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 8.0096  Re: Ideology and Soliloquys
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0096  Re: Ideology and Soliloquys

>"The postulate itself, however, cannot be proven; it is merely a prejudice,"
>writes Sean Lawrence--I think--correctly.  Meaning is postulated, not proven.
>So I believe; I don't really know.
>
>Dale Lyle is apparently fed up with my insistence that entities and actions are
>not innately meaningful.  So let me make my point:  it seems to me that the
>Marxist Shakespeareans first postulate that there is no innate meaning, no
>inherent truth. They then go on to postulate that certain categories (e.g.,
>economics, ideology) have innate meanings and are inherently true.
>
>I don't think anyone can have it both ways.  If entities and actions are not
>innately meaningful, then they are not innately meaningful. Full stop.

And, if it is postulated that there is no innate meaning, does that apply to
the statement that there is no innate meaning, thereby rendering it
meaningless, and leading to the conclusion that there is or might be innate
meaning, that to deny it is self-contradictory, and therefore untenable?

    Roger Schmeeckle
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.