« Why do I listen to so much rap music? If you have any idea, let me know. | Main | The Melvilleian (Villian? What?)! Poetic Justice Becomes Melville »

January 29, 2007

Keesey: Making Complexity Slightly Simpler Through Cunning Use Of Extended Philosophical Theories Of Reality: Or, The General Introduction

First, I must address - I enjoy this Keesey fellow already. For a change, I was actually somewhat engaged in the introduction. Keesey presented his ideas in a logical fashion (this, of which, is all debatable based entirely on the principal which he was writing; there is a rhyme and reason for each thing's placement, but upon inspection through one lens or another, the finite reason for "X" and "Y," is strictly interpretive).

Given this, as well as my aside, I point to the text:

Page 5, in the next to last paragraph:
"Furthermore, the contexts themselves tend to shade into each other as we move from their central to their peripheral concerns."

Keesey's explanation, at least to me, appeared to follow the model of the classic Venn Diagram - concepts overlapping with one another without a feeling of exclusivity. In addition to the overlap, or "shade" as Keesey calls it, Keesey notes the "peripheral concerns," which, I thought, was indicative of tertiary and tangential theory and ideas within a work.

These items which can be found in the thematic and interpretive periphery are those which can fully close an argument. We've all had that moment where we were fighting a point about something and deep in the recesses of our minds we knew there was a connection - these peripheral, or semi-seen, ideas are the proverbial synapses connecting the ideas.

Or, of course, I could be totally off-base.

Posted by KevinMcGinnis at January 29, 2007 9:36 PM


I don't think that you are off-base at all Kevin. I think that there are many spectrums that are separate from each other. The only concept that I disagreed with in the diagram, is that Formalism is central. Personally, I believe that Formalism should be on its on spectrum, that is opposite from platonic criticism. Platonic criticism focuses more on morals and judgments, rather than the text itself. It delves underneath, I guess you can say. Think of Chaucer, he was a simple reporter, but underneath the text exposed many different personalities and character flaws. While one can focus on the writing, and how artistic it is, others should see that there is a moral being brought into the literature by the audience. I think that you are right on track Kevin, so don't back off of what you are saying. They are all interconnected, but there is a bit of separatism between them.

Posted by: Jason Pugh at February 1, 2007 2:19 PM

Post a comment

Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)