Satoshi Akima, who seems to have low expectations of my reasoning,
writes:

>Len Fehskens, who surprises with the astuteness of his observations
>
>This is precisely the point of the Marllame quotation.  Ask any two people
>who decided they enjoyed Marllame what they think of the quotation and you
>will encounter the same problem as in music.

I suspect that there is rather less ambiguity in most poetry than in most
music.

>Call it consistency, precision, or exactness I think it amounts to the same
>thing.

Perhaps *I* am being overly precise, but consitency requires neither
precision or exactness.

>Derrida's critics come up with exactly the criticism that Len comes up
>with.

I knew there was a reason I didn't care for poststructuralism!

>I have argued that "meaning" does not necessarily require
>consistency, exactness, or precision.

I have no problems with not requiring exactness or precision, but without
consistency, just what might the *point* (or value) of meaning be?

>That meaning in music should be abstract is something
>already implied by the idea of Absolute Music,

I deal (as a systems architect) with abstraction on a routine basis.  There
is no doubt in my mind that meaning can be abstract, and that abstractions
can have meaning.  But that meaning is generally consistent over time and
space, i.e., it can be, and is, shared.  Indeed, much of my work has to do
with the question of making sure the meaning of abstractions is
consistently shared.

>but it is true that if you follow my argument to the letter then I extend
>this abstraction to verbal language as well.

And I have no problem with this either.

>I do not agree that lack of consistent meaning "in itself" outside of
>its necessary context always means mindless chaos as Derrida's critics
>suggest.

I must not be one of those critics, for I don't insist on this conclusion.
Again, my assertion is:

If meaning is to be more than solipsism, it must be consistently sharable.
And I *assume* that the purpose of language is to share meaning.  If you
define language otherwise, then we are, I observe, not sharing its meaning,
and our conversation is pointless, because we cannot be responsive to one
another.

len.