Comments on: “Have your own fun.” http://htmlgiant.com/behind-the-scenes/have-your-own-fun/ the internet literature magazine blog of the future Thu, 24 May 2012 01:13:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Jason Allen Ashlock http://htmlgiant.com/behind-the-scenes/have-your-own-fun/comment-page-1/#comment-52226 Jason Allen Ashlock Fri, 29 Jan 2010 03:56:38 +0000 http://htmlgiant.com/?p=25054#comment-52226 The limits to our own comprehension are inspiring, and oddly comforting. I'm not entirely sure, but I wonder if perhaps this is because, as Karen Armstrong has argued, "the human mind is able to have ideas and experiences that exceed our conceptual grasp. We constantly push our thoughts to an extreme, so that our minds seem to elide naturally into an apprehension of transcendence." The British critic George Steiner seems appropriate here, who said: "It is decisively the fact that language does have frontiers, that gives proof of a transcendent presence in the fabric of the world. It is just because we can go no further, because speech so marvelously fails us, that we experience the certitude of a divine meaning surpassing and enfolding ours ...." That sounds rather too "religious" for this discussion, but it seems to explain somewhat why we are so drawn to that which exceeds our grasp in literature. The limits to our own comprehension are inspiring, and oddly comforting. I’m not entirely sure, but I wonder if perhaps this is because, as Karen Armstrong has argued, “the human mind is able to have ideas and experiences that exceed our conceptual grasp. We constantly push our thoughts to an extreme, so that our minds seem to elide naturally into an apprehension of transcendence.”

The British critic George Steiner seems appropriate here, who said: “It is decisively the fact that language does have frontiers, that gives proof of a transcendent presence in the fabric of the world. It is just because we can go no further, because speech so marvelously fails us, that we experience the certitude of a divine meaning surpassing and enfolding ours ….”

That sounds rather too “religious” for this discussion, but it seems to explain somewhat why we are so drawn to that which exceeds our grasp in literature.

]]> By: Jason Allen Ashlock http://htmlgiant.com/behind-the-scenes/have-your-own-fun/comment-page-1/#comment-136772 Jason Allen Ashlock Fri, 29 Jan 2010 03:56:00 +0000 http://htmlgiant.com/?p=25054#comment-136772 The limits to our own comprehension are inspiring, and oddly comforting. I'm not entirely sure, but I wonder if perhaps this is because, as Karen Armstrong has argued, "the human mind is able to have ideas and experiences that exceed our conceptual grasp. We constantly push our thoughts to an extreme, so that our minds seem to elide naturally into an apprehension of transcendence." The British critic George Steiner seems appropriate here, who said: "It is decisively the fact that language does have frontiers, that gives proof of a transcendent presence in the fabric of the world. It is just because we can go no further, because speech so marvelously fails us, that we experience the certitude of a divine meaning surpassing and enfolding ours ...." That sounds rather too "religious" for this discussion, but it seems to explain somewhat why we are so drawn to that which exceeds our grasp in literature. The limits to our own comprehension are inspiring, and oddly comforting. I’m not entirely sure, but I wonder if perhaps this is because, as Karen Armstrong has argued, “the human mind is able to have ideas and experiences that exceed our conceptual grasp. We constantly push our thoughts to an extreme, so that our minds seem to elide naturally into an apprehension of transcendence.”

The British critic George Steiner seems appropriate here, who said: “It is decisively the fact that language does have frontiers, that gives proof of a transcendent presence in the fabric of the world. It is just because we can go no further, because speech so marvelously fails us, that we experience the certitude of a divine meaning surpassing and enfolding ours ….”

That sounds rather too “religious” for this discussion, but it seems to explain somewhat why we are so drawn to that which exceeds our grasp in literature.

]]> By: jesusangelgarcia http://htmlgiant.com/behind-the-scenes/have-your-own-fun/comment-page-1/#comment-51816 jesusangelgarcia Wed, 27 Jan 2010 16:18:09 +0000 http://htmlgiant.com/?p=25054#comment-51816 ja. no stink. no rules rule. ja. no stink. no rules rule.

]]> By: jesusangelgarcia http://htmlgiant.com/behind-the-scenes/have-your-own-fun/comment-page-1/#comment-136771 jesusangelgarcia Wed, 27 Jan 2010 16:18:00 +0000 http://htmlgiant.com/?p=25054#comment-136771 ja. no stink. no rules rule. ja. no stink. no rules rule.

]]> By: Blake Butler http://htmlgiant.com/behind-the-scenes/have-your-own-fun/comment-page-1/#comment-51814 Blake Butler Wed, 27 Jan 2010 16:12:10 +0000 http://htmlgiant.com/?p=25054#comment-51814 true that jesus. but the word 'over' doesn't mean 'should be replaced by'. simply tendencies that lead the way. certainly all those latter qualifiers have a place too, as you've pointed out, but can lead, for me, if not altered by the former qualifiers, to a stink of course, in the end, no rules rule true that jesus. but the word ‘over’ doesn’t mean ‘should be replaced by’. simply tendencies that lead the way. certainly all those latter qualifiers have a place too, as you’ve pointed out, but can lead, for me, if not altered by the former qualifiers, to a stink

of course, in the end, no rules rule

]]> By: Blake Butler http://htmlgiant.com/behind-the-scenes/have-your-own-fun/comment-page-1/#comment-136770 Blake Butler Wed, 27 Jan 2010 16:12:00 +0000 http://htmlgiant.com/?p=25054#comment-136770 true that jesus. but the word 'over' doesn't mean 'should be replaced by'. simply tendencies that lead the way. certainly all those latter qualifiers have a place too, as you've pointed out, but can lead, for me, if not altered by the former qualifiers, to a stink of course, in the end, no rules rule true that jesus. but the word ‘over’ doesn’t mean ‘should be replaced by’. simply tendencies that lead the way. certainly all those latter qualifiers have a place too, as you’ve pointed out, but can lead, for me, if not altered by the former qualifiers, to a stink

of course, in the end, no rules rule

]]> By: mjm http://htmlgiant.com/behind-the-scenes/have-your-own-fun/comment-page-1/#comment-51782 mjm Wed, 27 Jan 2010 13:45:52 +0000 http://htmlgiant.com/?p=25054#comment-51782 he wrote "the eat". he wrote “the eat”.

]]> By: mjm http://htmlgiant.com/behind-the-scenes/have-your-own-fun/comment-page-1/#comment-136769 mjm Wed, 27 Jan 2010 13:45:00 +0000 http://htmlgiant.com/?p=25054#comment-136769 he wrote "the eat". he wrote “the eat”.

]]> By: jesusangelgarcia http://htmlgiant.com/behind-the-scenes/have-your-own-fun/comment-page-1/#comment-51747 jesusangelgarcia Wed, 27 Jan 2010 06:07:05 +0000 http://htmlgiant.com/?p=25054#comment-51747 lastly (really this time), I have no problem with indescribability, and I appreciate rebecca wolff and blake (butler)'s words on this. however, I respectfully submit: >>>>>> narrative containment doesn't need to toss intuitive interplay off the bus. >>>>>>>>>> multilayered cake trumps a flexing baker. >>>>> there can be resonance in immediacy (or in the accumulation of immediacies). >>>>>> ‘What the fuck?’ over 'Oh, neat,' yes. 'What the fuck?... THAT was fucking neat!' is best. lastly (really this time), I have no problem with indescribability, and I appreciate rebecca wolff and blake (butler)’s words on this. however, I respectfully submit:

>>>>>> narrative containment doesn’t need to toss intuitive interplay off the bus.

>>>>>>>>>> multilayered cake trumps a flexing baker.

>>>>> there can be resonance in immediacy (or in the accumulation of immediacies).

>>>>>> ‘What the fuck?’ over ‘Oh, neat,’ yes. ‘What the fuck?… THAT was fucking neat!’ is best.

]]> By: jesusangelgarcia http://htmlgiant.com/behind-the-scenes/have-your-own-fun/comment-page-1/#comment-136768 jesusangelgarcia Wed, 27 Jan 2010 06:07:00 +0000 http://htmlgiant.com/?p=25054#comment-136768 lastly (really this time), I have no problem with indescribability, and I appreciate rebecca wolff and blake (butler)'s words on this. however, I respectfully submit: >>>>>> narrative containment doesn't need to toss intuitive interplay off the bus. >>>>>>>>>> multilayered cake trumps a flexing baker. >>>>> there can be resonance in immediacy (or in the accumulation of immediacies). >>>>>> ‘What the fuck?’ over 'Oh, neat,' yes. 'What the fuck?... THAT was fucking neat!' is best. lastly (really this time), I have no problem with indescribability, and I appreciate rebecca wolff and blake (butler)’s words on this. however, I respectfully submit:

>>>>>> narrative containment doesn’t need to toss intuitive interplay off the bus.

>>>>>>>>>> multilayered cake trumps a flexing baker.

>>>>> there can be resonance in immediacy (or in the accumulation of immediacies).

>>>>>> ‘What the fuck?’ over ‘Oh, neat,’ yes. ‘What the fuck?… THAT was fucking neat!’ is best.

]]>