Ahhh... but this implies that character is synonymous with strength. By omission, it negates the importance of things like Truth, Loyalty, Acceptance, Honour, Peacemaking, and Humility, among other things, when referencing character.
That's why i'm a writer and not a philosopher Hon. Imply isn't 'is'. If you feel that my omission (as it were) negates the virtues you list then you've reached your own delightful interpretation of what I wrote.
This is why William and a lot of folks smarter than me love that whole Roland Barthes the 'Author is dead' line of reasoning. What I intended is moot compared to how you choose to interact with what I wrote.
Cool.
For me I simply sought the most aesthetically pleasing way of expressing this idea: An invocation of strength within the sphere of our exsistence for we need that strength to carry the weight of our own personal experiences that make up our character (including Truth, Loyalty, Acceptance, Honour, Peacemaking, and Humility which are really a subset of character for me and not a mutually exclusive part of it and also the very opposite Lies, deciet, prejudice, greed, avarice and pride which also form a burden of character to be carried).
But I know you love to debate and that for some, for arguements sake is sake enough.
But, for me, in this instance the author is not dead, thank the Goddesses... the Author is YOU, a Character that I care very much about. You, who can be strong when needed, but also have Truth, Loyalty, Acceptance, Honour, Peacemaking, and Humility, wrote this, so what you intended is not only not moot, it is all that really matters. Afterall, this one is tagged as "real life".
Me, love to debate??? Nooooooooo!!! You have me confused with that other cowgirl!
"the author is dead" is a metaphor hon, a statement that the authority of the author to set the definitive meaning of the text (s)he produced is no longer valid in the context that each reader brings in their own meanings & translations to the written work.
I understood that. BTW, I appreciate your total lack of confidence in my ability to comprehend such a complicated concept. How is it that you can make me giggle even, when I'm quite sure, you had no intention of making me giggle.
It was a public post. I am happy to let you see it. And put the comment back. It was very sweet...and not embarassing. So, since I am not using myspace as much as I used to do you want back on the list? I'm happy to add ya. Then you can icon eyecandy galore. :-)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
ninetydegrees
no subject
on 2006-11-29 05:01 pm (UTC)no subject
on 2006-11-29 05:44 pm (UTC)... sending you warmth for your chill...
xxx
no subject
on 2006-11-29 05:56 pm (UTC)no subject
on 2006-11-29 06:13 pm (UTC)This is why William and a lot of folks smarter than me love that whole Roland Barthes the 'Author is dead' line of reasoning. What I intended is moot compared to how you choose to interact with what I wrote.
Cool.
For me I simply sought the most aesthetically pleasing way of expressing this idea: An invocation of strength within the sphere of our exsistence for we need that strength to carry the weight of our own personal experiences that make up our character (including Truth, Loyalty, Acceptance, Honour, Peacemaking, and Humility which are really a subset of character for me and not a mutually exclusive part of it and also the very opposite Lies, deciet, prejudice, greed, avarice and pride which also form a burden of character to be carried).
But I know you love to debate and that for some, for arguements sake is sake enough.
no subject
on 2006-11-29 08:30 pm (UTC)Me, love to debate??? Nooooooooo!!! You have me confused with that other cowgirl!
Are we debating tomorrow?
*sends more warmth*
xxx
no subject
on 2006-11-29 08:43 pm (UTC)Not a literal death.
no subject
on 2006-11-29 09:27 pm (UTC)Here, I'll just cut to the chase... You okay?
Tomorrow, oui ou non?
xxx
no subject
on 2006-11-29 06:46 pm (UTC)I know a few that dont seem to have to
Off topic...
on 2006-11-29 10:20 pm (UTC)And put the comment back. It was very sweet...and not embarassing.
So, since I am not using myspace as much as I used to do you want back on the list? I'm happy to add ya. Then you can icon eyecandy galore. :-)
Re: Off topic...
on 2006-11-29 10:23 pm (UTC)Re: Off topic...
on 2006-11-29 10:26 pm (UTC)