From a.rosta@ntlworld.com Thu Feb 14 14:40:49 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@ntlworld.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 14 Feb 2002 22:40:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 95954 invoked from network); 14 Feb 2002 22:40:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m5.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 14 Feb 2002 22:40:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta03-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.43) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 14 Feb 2002 22:40:49 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.253.86.231]) by mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020214224047.UZCT305.mta03-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 22:40:47 +0000 To: "lojban" Subject: RE: [lojban] [OT]Argumentum ad elephantum Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 22:39:48 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <3C6C0DF0.2020209@reutershealth.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=77248971 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin John: > And Rosta wrote: > > > You are in effect saying that the narrator is claiming that the text has > > the status of a historical document. > > > Not necessarily as such: the story can be true or false. But within > the story, the authorial voice claims that the six blind men are > referring to the same object, *and* that it is an elephant. This > is rank metaphysical spookery. > > The point of the parable, surely, is that we all see things from > our own limited perspectives. But the poem is self-undermining, because > of the existence of an authorial voice who uses "the Elephant" = > lobi'e xanto, and says "all of them are wrong". This voice can > only be the voice of omniscience, and if there is such a perspective, > then the notion of limited perspectives falls apart. I understand this argument, but unless the omniscient narrator is subjectivized (so that we perceive a narratorial point of view), I dispute that every tale implies a teller. We can read the poem as a description without supposing it to be a description provided by a (fallible and arrogant) describer. I'm sure you have read more narratology than I have, and can rephrase what I've said into more standard terms. To clarify, I am trying to draw a distinction between an omniscient narrator that has an individual voice, or an individual point of view, or an individual cognition, and a virtual or pseudo- narrator that has none of these properties. --And.