Can you express this in English...?
Damn and I thought I was being quite pithy (1) But, for one obscure moment in time and place, I get to play at Charles Kinbote(2).
Beware the marriage of extremism(3) and gnosticism(4) as it tends to blurs all the nuance. (5)<...>Say what?(8) <...>
(1) tersely cogent and concise, for example, saying in one word what a footnote might express in seventeen.
(2) A Character in Nabokov's "Pale Fire" - A Novel where much of the story actually takes place in the annotations of a rather unusual poem. One of the greatest novels of the 20th century but see (4) for the explanation of my bias. Charles is both imaginary and pompous...and, perhaps insane, but see: libraries.psu.edu for his continued body of work. As a commentator, Kinbote's footnotes often occur at unusual places where there is no apparent need of clarification(6) Also see: gradesaver.com. where they use the word “ekphrasis”(9)
(3) the quality or state of being radical. Note that as I am a liberal/moderate there was no direct subtle subtext to Goldwater's famous quote either implied or intended.
(4) A sort of proto-religion characterized by the concept that followers had to be "of the knowledge" to gain salvation. If one lacked "The Knowledge" then he or she would unable to understand the nature of the world. See: religioustolerance.org "Gnosticism is a philosophical and religious movement which started in pre-Christian times. The term is derived from the Greek word gnosis which means "knowledge". It is pronounced with a silent "G" (NO-sis). Gnostics claimed to have secret knowledge about God, humanity and the rest of the universe of which the general population was unaware." (No mention of whether these secrets included Bush's role in (9/11)
(5) blurs all the nuance means removes all subtle distinctions by smudging one color into another. Shades of grey become either black or white. Ok with all the parts in place then here is a paraphrase: If your beliefs get far out there and you also believe that only another who is "of the faith", so to speak, can interpret or understand those same beliefs, then with no one to challenge or moderate your assumptions, one might tend to see "exact" parallels where subtle, but defining, distinctions remain.
(6) Sometimes not needed in circular self-parody(7)
(7) See (2) also (9) and Message 19917216
(8) Now re-read the rest of the original message as all of my postings are meant to be interpreted as classic expository writing (See: geocities.com with an introduction, body and conclusion...and your subsequent comments indicate that you were not following along because you were missing (4)
(9) A new one on me! Someday I would like to have an excuse to use it here at SI, at which point I'll try to remember to reference this post...uh...See (7) |
