Fantastic economies: Flann O’Brien and James Stephens

No abstract available

Namelessness, Irony, and National Character in Contemporary Canadian Criticism and the Critical Tradition

Recent Canadian literary and cultural criticism has emphasized the view that Canadians share no single, definable national identity, other than, perhaps, an awareness of multiplicity and difference and the sense of irony that comes from the recognition of the plural, differential, discursive, and therefore unstable nature of identity itself. Such assertions (proposed particularly in the Canadian context by Linda Hutcheon and Robert Kroetsch) concerning the essentially ironic quality of a particular nation's identity is in fact a longstanding, recurring feature of the discourse of nation. In fact, to assert an ironic identity or an absence of identity may be a very traditional method of aestheticizing a particular nation's character and of privileging this people as the more universal people and the nation of the future

Review of \u3cem\u3eSpectral Readings: Towards a Gothic Geography,\u3c/em\u3e edited by Glennis Byron and David Punter

Spectral Readings: Towards a Gothic Geography edited by Glennis Byron and David Punter is reviewed

Nobody\u27s Business: A Novel Theory of the Anonymous First Amendment

Namelessness is a double-edged sword. It can be a way of avoiding prejudice and focusing attention on one\u27s ideas, but it can also be a license to defame and misinform. These points have been widely discussed. Still, the breadth of these discussions has left some of the depths unplumbed, because rarely is the question explicitly faced: what is the normative significance of namelessness itself, as opposed to its effects under different conditions? My answer is that anonymity is an evasion of responsibility for one\u27s conduct. Persons should ordinarily be held responsible for what they do, but in some cases, where there is sufficient justification, they may enjoy a privilege not to be. One such privilege--the privilege to participate in community thinking--is based in the First Amendment interest that persons have in developing their thinking with others without having to be held responsible for it. I argue that this privilege was not applicable eleven years ago to the challengers in Doe v. Reed and is, for somewhat similar reasons, not applicable to the challengers in the Supreme Court\u27s most recent anonymity case: Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta. I argue it was wrongly decided

Philosophy of Language in Third Century China: on the argument ‘language does/does not exhaust the meaning of words’

In third century China there was a discussion of whether language does or does not exhaust the meaning of words. There were three positions on language. First, that intuitive knowledge, which Confucian sages can acquire, cannot be expressed in language, that is language does not exhaust the meaning of words. Second, that there could be a gradual grasp of meaning through language and symbol. Third, that something which reaches into the mind is necessarily accompanied by language, that is to say language does exhaust the meaning of words. Each position reflects the view taken by each of the three scholars: He Yan 何晏; Wang Bi 王弼 of the Wei 魏 dynasty; and Ou Yangjian 欧陽建 of the Jin 晋 dynasty. The aim of this article is to consider their arguments in the context of contemporary epistemological knowledge. 要旨 三世紀の中国では「言尽意・言不尽意（言は意を尽くすか否か）」という主題をめぐって議論がなされていた。この議論には、言語に関する三つの捉え方があった。第一の立場は、儒教的聖人が体得できる直観的な知は、言語に依拠しては説明可能ではない、すなわち「言不尽意（言は意を尽くさず）」とするものである。第二の立場は、言語と象（『易』の卦象）とによって段階的に意を捉えようと試みるものである。第三の立場は、所与として心に直接与えられた認識は、必然的に言語をともなって把捉される、すなわち「言尽意（言は意を尽くす）」というものである。これらの立場は、それぞれ魏の何晏、王弼、そして晋の欧陽建によって示されている。本論文の目的は、当時の認識論を背景とするこの三者の行論を検討することにある

Naming and Namelessness in Jose Ruibal\u27s La Maquina de Pedir

In lieu of an abstract, here is the introductory paragraph of the article. During the nearly forty-year regime of Generalissimo Francisco Franco, Spain\u27s literary production entered a period of semi-dormancy occasioned by severe limitations of censorship and repression of creative energies, particularly in the area of the theater.1 While theaters, especially in Madrid, were economically solvent and successful, the dramatic offerings presented onstage in the main afforded audiences inoffensive fare of bourgeois superficiality with scant, or virtually no probing of the complex realities of post-Civil War Spain.2 Writers who remained in Spain following the devastation were constrained to a depiction of the anodyne situations of urban life, while those who accepted forced, or self-imposed exile, found limited access in foreign lands- even in Latin America- for the staging of their productions. While repertory theaters were to be found in major capitals like Buenos Aires, Santiago and Havana, impresarios were more interested in mounting productions of the classics or translations of tested European dramatists than in offering their audiences the novel creations of a new generation of Spanish playwrights. One writer whose career has suffered the vicissitudes of mid-twentieth century Spanish history is Jose Ruibal

研究ノート 赤瀬川原平と《山手線事件》―〈匿名性〉を手がかりとして―

In 1963, Akasegawa Genpei formed Hi-Red Center (HRC) with Nakanishi Natsuyuki and Takamatsu Jirô. The “anonymity” that characterizes their activities can be considered an important element in Akasegawa’s own individual activities. This article indicates how the Yamanote Line Incident carried out by Nakanishi, Takamatsu and others played an important role in Akasegawa’s recognition of anonymity as a characteristic. With his participation in Neo-Dada as opportunity, the 1960s marked a time when Akasegawa turned away from his previous involvement with traditional paintings and began to create objects from trash and discarded materials. However, starting in 1963, around the time of the founding of the HRC, Akasegawa turned to works using model 1,000-yen notes and wrapping arts. This was the period in which Akasegawa, Nakanishi and Takamatsu participated in the discussion meeting of the Keishô magazine, held to summarize the Yamanote Line Incident of the previous year. From the manifesto recorded in the invitation to the Yamanote Line Incident and the interchange between speakers in the discussion meeting, we can discern at least two types of anonymity. One is the literal meaning of anonymity related to naming, and the other is the anonymity gained when agitation extinguishes differences between the self and the other, when individuality is stripped away. These concepts also appear in Akasegawa’s essay “Spy Rules” published the following year, and in his model 1,000-yen notes and wrapping art. And yet, noteworthy in all cases is the fact that anonymity does not mean total namelessness. As can be seen in the critiques at the time by Miyakawa Atsushi and Ishiko Junzô, the difference between namelessness and anonymity, this remaining in the vague state before namelessness, is one of the characteristics found in Akasegawa’s activities. While Akasegawa may have been interested in the potential of anonymity prior to HRC, at the very least it was the Yamanote Line Incident that made him aware of this interest. This vague form of anonymity can be recognized as one of the original and personal aspects of Akasegawa’s later activities