sean desilets, valuable as always, suggests an interesting analogy betwen the
difficult discourse of contemporary physics and the [perhaps] equally
discourse [or discourses] of contemporary literary study . . . what is so
suggestive about this analogy is that:
 
        in the discourse of physics (however much a cultural construct it is
and however much the field itself expresses a will to power, purity, hegemony
or anything else) there remains--by the standards of the discourse community,
a standard of falsifiability - - that is to say, some ideas turn out to be
"wrong" and to that extent esttablish reciprocally a notion of [or horizon
for] the "correct"
 
        my own question [or quest] deals with the possible location for such a
notion or horizon in literary study . . .  it certainly cannot be
competely within the discipline itself, or by defintion the discipline would
not ever be able to do anything wrong . . .
 
        . . . or is my desire for this horizon just another fascist serach
for purity?
 
mike frank
 
----
To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]