The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 9.0281  Monday, 30 March 1998.

[1]     From:   W. L. Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Saturday, 28 Mar 1998 12:32:17 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.0271  Re: Postmodernism

[2]     From:   Piers Lewis <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Saturday, 28 Mar 1998 16:24:41 -0600
        Subj:   Postmodernist Studies of Shakespeare


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           W. L. Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Saturday, 28 Mar 1998 12:32:17 -0500
Subject: 9.0271  Re: Postmodernism
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.0271  Re: Postmodernism

>A long s is only a long s within a system of letters. When I say to a
>student, "Oh, that's really an s," I think I mean something quite
>different than when I say, "Oh yes, there's 'really' some sort of
>physical world out there that functions without respect to my
>perceptions of it." In the student's case, I'm making an ultimately
>rhetorical point, "Your reading will be easier and make more sense if
>you understand that mark as we do." I firmly believe the two statements
>are fundamentally different.  One urges us to join the conventions of a
>linguistic system. The other expresses faith in something that causes
>our perceptions and the knowledge we build out of them.

I don't think the statements are fundamentally different, merely
superficially different. Both the Folio and the physical world are part
of external reality (to subjective old me).  In both cases, I perceive
the external world with my sensory perceptual system (flawed as it is).
I could describe the long s without calling it a long s, just as I could
describe a random mark on a piece of paper.  In both cases, I construe
possible meanings from these marks. In construing these meanings, I tend
to use humanly constructed categories that I have learned, and so on. In
the case of both marks, I can only assume that they are there.  My
sensory perceptual system may be deluding me even under 10 power
magnification.  Bibliographers do make mistakes.

Gabriel Egan describes as off-plant event (the disappearance of the sun)
and says that Einstein and Newton come to different conclusions about
what would happen to this planet if the sun disappeared.  I said merely
that Newtonian physics works fine on this planet, and I suppose I should
have added "given the fact that the solar system remains stable, etc.,
etc." And, yes, let's not talk about physics on this list ever again!

Yours, Bill Godshalk

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Piers Lewis <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Saturday, 28 Mar 1998 16:24:41 -0600
Subject:        Postmodernist Studies of Shakespeare

Would some kind soul be willing to recommend a few postmodernist books
and essays on Shakespeare?  I'd be especially interested in
postmodernist discussions of the tragedies.

Thanks in advance,
Piers Lewis