Hence the broad claim that all the world, at least as it can be known to homo significans, is "text," and all understanding, all deciphering, is "intertextual" (Keesey 344).
I have a question, is this deconstructiong to find orgin, which then would be like intertextuality to better understand a text from what came before? This bit by Keesey, the whole intro confused me to no end. I have no clue what he was talking about. So I was wondering if someone could shed a little light my way to help me see.
Comments (2)
Mitch,
Keesey goes on to explain that this is probably a stretch. He really is pointing out the methods used by structuralist's in determining the meanings of texts. He goes on to punch holes in their methods and then moves on to his description of poststructuralist criticism. I would focus more of my time comprehending this last section of Keesey's intro.Begin in the middle of Page 346 and read closely from there.
Posted by Dave Moio | March 25, 2007 3:39 PM
Posted on March 25, 2007 15:39
Thanks, I'll try that and let you know how it works-peace
Posted by Mitchell Steele | March 25, 2007 8:52 PM
Posted on March 25, 2007 20:52