(Untitled)

[outkast_3000]

of course "i" wrote this - there are those individuals simple-minded enough to dismiss entirely the concept of the "death of the author" with seemingly witty one-liners such as "well such and such collected royalties on their book, didn't they?"; or "why did they even bother copyrighting the material if they believed such utter nonsense?". what

Comments

[anonymous]

okay, but what if the author's intent was not the 'what' but the 'how' or experience of reading... what if the author was explicitly after the higher experience... nothing specific, but a general experience... that all s/he merely wanted was the reader to FEEL something profoundly... a discarding of the subject-object relation, of symbollogy, and an intent of the isolated yet shared heideggerian verbality of beingness b/w two minds, regardless of time/space limitations--a sharing in the clearing/openness that's primary to or more primordial than whatever socio-cultural 'public/private' grasp there is in both author/reader... like an after the fact banalization of the text after it's been interpretted, like smoking a joint and having lost the joint yet in the high, in the trace of the joint, which is the verbal higher experience...

then, isn't intent important here, now that intent and soul are simultaneous, where soul is a verbality? i'm thinking of, say, what the poet has to say to all of this...

does this make sense?

[all_too_late]

oops, that was me

okay, i'm now SERIOUSLY reading empire... haha... does this book get more... hands-on? i'm through the first 70 pages and it's hard to apply the ideas, at least for me