On Feb 3, 2009, at 12:52 PM, Jerzy Zak wrote: > So you both think ''deconstruction'' as a method is bad. Hm, I > wonder if we all think about the same. But I fear you are > permanently deconstructing the music lying on your music stand and > joining up together some way..., aren't you?
Well, let's see...a piece of paper lying on a music stand; most probably therefore a piece of music; letters arranged in such ways that I can recognize lute tablature; the words "Allemande" and "Robert De Visee" at the top tell me it's French Baroque lute music; my efforts to understand it further lie in trying to interpret this music in accordance with some generally-accepted very broad-brush "French Baroque" paradigm. Or, in an even more "priviledged" mode of interpretation, they would lie in my own personal response to what I perceive as a sub-text peculiar to French Baroque. Perhaps the sub- text is entirely my own, in which case I may be excluding any number of possible ways to play De Visee in favor of that particular way that fits my own perceptions i.e. my own experience impacting upon itself to produce "meaning." Unless I'm not reading the gifted bard(s) aright, wouldn't deconstructionists argue against most of that? Davidr dlu...@verizon.net -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
