On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 07:47:58PM -0400, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Essentially the same logic applies to your above statement. "Neutral point-of-view" is not a point-of-view, it is the absence of any point-of-view.
I don't think there is much support in contempory critical theory for the idea that a writer can write without presenting a point of view, or that a reader can read without a point of view. Trying to pretend that we have no point of view will only make us blind to our own viewpoint.
- Carl
--
It is useful to make the following three observations about language games. The first is that their rules do not carry within themselves their own legitimation, but are the object of a contract, explicit or not, between players (which is not to say that the players invent the rules). The second is that if there are no rules, there is no game, that even an infinitesimal modification of one rule alters the nature of the game, that a “move” or utterance that does not satisfy the rules does not belong to the game they define. The third remark is suggested by what has just been said: every utterance should be thought of as a “move” in a game.
Jean-François Lyotard, The Postmodern Condition