/lit/ - Literature

2

>>8110049
this ride's almost up, boys

>>8098995

>>5809263
Let me spell it out for you.

I said in the post you referenced that OP did not include the intention in the scenario.

You then said, "yeah but OP did not include the intention in the scenario"

Well no shit I just said that.

I then went on to say why OP didn't include the intention in the scenario in the exact same post you referenced. The reason was

because any semi-literate fuck can combine the sentences together. The first sentence. The next. And the next.

The scenario does not exist in some vacuum, why do you think everyone else besides you immediately understood what OP was trying to say?

>>5754674
Its been a while since I've read Being and Time so I wont be able to use the jargon as freely

>>5758832
How can you understand equipmentality but not solicitude?

Think of ready to hand. You cant undo the history you have that allows you to do this. If you didnt have that history, you wouldnt do it, you would be reacting with the object in the same way. Its the same with people.

I mean, think about how you are talking to me right now. I want you to try and talk to me as if you had no history of language or interaction with people. You cant undo it.

There is a point where we should've stopped. We have clearly passed it.

If The Crying Lot of 49 has Torquato Tasso, what does V. have?

I read somewhere (I wish I could remember where) that Pynchon admitted to have 'tried something' with both Lot 49 and V. that nobody had exactly caught on to and that he abandoned with later novels—hence my suspicion.

pic related

>>3810804

>>3749202