Normal
Sarah Jane
hands and feet are numb, and I've had the same cold for a month. My
test results came in today, and everything they checked is normal.
Should that make me feel better?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Hit1Hard
>
> I went to the doctor last week. I'm cold and tired all the time, my
> hands and feet are numb, and I've had the same cold for a month. My
> test results came in today, and everything they checked is normal.
> Should that make me feel better?
>
Nope..
It's all in the definition of "normal". (And how steadfast it is)
Do some searching on the web for "contrails" or "chemtrails".
--
Hit1Hard
Sarah Jane
Hit1Hard <Hit.On...@iaehv.nl> wrote:
> Sarah Jane wrote:
> >
> > I went to the doctor last week. I'm cold and tired all the time, my
> > hands and feet are numb, and I've had the same cold for a month. My
> > test results came in today, and everything they checked is normal.
> > Should that make me feel better?
> >
>
> It's all in the definition of "normal". (And how steadfast it is)
> Do some searching on the web for "contrails" or "chemtrails".
>
> --
> Hit1Hard
>
I went back to the doctor today. Now she thinks I may be anemic, so she
sent me back to the lab, where they took some more blood. If I'm
anemic, don't I really need that blood? Okay, that was just
more sarcastic silliness. Yes I need my blood, but what I really need
is to know what the hell is wrong with me. Being sick and not knowing
why or if it can be fixed is making me depressed, which just makes me
more tired and kills my appetite, and of course not eating doesn't make
me feel any better.
I haven't been to the gym in weeks, because when I get home from work
I barely have enough energy to walk my dog. Last night I dreamed about
lifting weights. That's normal, isn't it?
buk...@baileylink.net
Sarah Jane <sbril...@my-deja.com> was grumping about:
> I went back to the doctor today. Now she thinks I may be anemic, so
> she sent me back to the lab, where they took some more blood. If I'm
> anemic, don't I really need that blood? Okay, that was just
> more sarcastic silliness. Yes I need my blood, but what I really need
> is to know what the hell is wrong with me. Being sick and not knowing
> why or if it can be fixed is making me depressed, which just makes me
> more tired and kills my appetite, and of course not eating doesn't
> make me feel any better.
> I haven't been to the gym in weeks, because when I get home from work
> I barely have enough energy to walk my dog. Last night I dreamed
> about lifting weights. That's normal, isn't it?
Hi Sarah!
Have you considered the possibility that you have repressed anxiety from
your days as a you-know-what?
Perhaps discussing these activities in detail on USENET would be just
the thing for you!
You are a writer. Writers need readers. People would be interested in
this. Honest.
You can be famous.
Wisteria
I offend. Is it possible that you may be pregnant? I only ask because when
I was pregnant with my first child I was in and out of the hospital for a
couple of months thinking I was going to drop dead from some unknown/unnamed
disease before any of the doctors that I saw thought to give me a pregnancy
test. Sure enough, the test came back positive and I am not sure who was
more surprised, the doctors or the father. (I was on the pill and he
thought condoms were a religion.) Not only was I not going to die, I didn't
even have a disease, just a common every day fact of life. Can anybody tell
me what those doctors spend all those years in school for?
Wisteria
Sarah Jane wrote:
> In article <3A1B8759...@iaehv.nl>,
> Hit1Hard <Hit.On...@iaehv.nl> wrote:
> > Sarah Jane wrote:
> > >
> > > I went to the doctor last week. I'm cold and tired all the time, my
> > > hands and feet are numb, and I've had the same cold for a month. My
> > > test results came in today, and everything they checked is normal.
> > > Should that make me feel better?
> > >
> >
> > Nope..
> > It's all in the definition of "normal". (And how steadfast it is)
> > Do some searching on the web for "contrails" or "chemtrails".
> >
> > --
> > Hit1Hard
> >
>
> I went back to the doctor today. Now she thinks I may be anemic, so she
> sent me back to the lab, where they took some more blood. If I'm
> anemic, don't I really need that blood? Okay, that was just
> more sarcastic silliness. Yes I need my blood, but what I really need
> is to know what the hell is wrong with me. Being sick and not knowing
> why or if it can be fixed is making me depressed, which just makes me
> more tired and kills my appetite, and of course not eating doesn't make
> me feel any better.
>
> I haven't been to the gym in weeks, because when I get home from work
> I barely have enough energy to walk my dog. Last night I dreamed about
> lifting weights. That's normal, isn't it?
>
shebr...@my-deja.com
Sarah Jane <sbril...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <3A1B8759...@iaehv.nl>,
> Hit1Hard <Hit.On...@iaehv.nl> wrote:
> > Sarah Jane wrote:
> > >
my
> > > hands and feet are numb, and I've had the same cold for a month.
My
> > > test results came in today, and everything they checked is normal.
> > > Should that make me feel better?
> > >
> >
> > It's all in the definition of "normal". (And how steadfast it is)
> > Do some searching on the web for "contrails" or "chemtrails".
> >
> > --
> > Hit1Hard
> >
>
> I went back to the doctor today. Now she thinks I may be anemic, so
she
> sent me back to the lab, where they took some more blood. If I'm
> anemic, don't I really need that blood? Okay, that was just
> more sarcastic silliness. Yes I need my blood, but what I really need
> is to know what the hell is wrong with me. Being sick and not knowing
> why or if it can be fixed is making me depressed, which just makes me
> more tired and kills my appetite, and of course not eating doesn't
make
> me feel any better.
>
> I haven't been to the gym in weeks, because when I get home from work
> I barely have enough energy to walk my dog. Last night I dreamed
about
> lifting weights. That's normal, isn't it?
You might look up Fibromyalgia and CFS if it hasn't already been ruled
out.
Sarah Jane
Wisteria <wisteri...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> This may sound just a little silly or too obvious or whatever, so
pardon if
> I offend. Is it possible that you may be pregnant?
I suppose it's possible, but if I am, someone needs to call the Pope.
Or perhaps Agents Scully and Doggett.
> I only ask
because when
> I was pregnant with my first child I was in and out of the hospital
for a
> couple of months thinking I was going to drop dead from some
unknown/unnamed
> disease before any of the doctors that I saw thought to give me a
pregnancy
> test. Sure enough, the test came back positive and I am not sure who
was
> more surprised, the doctors or the father. (I was on the pill and he
> thought condoms were a religion.) Not only was I not going to die, I
didn't
> even have a disease, just a common every day fact of life. Can
anybody tell
> me what those doctors spend all those years in school for?
> Wisteria
>
> Sarah Jane wrote:
>
> > In article <3A1B8759...@iaehv.nl>,
> > Hit1Hard <Hit.On...@iaehv.nl> wrote:
> > > Sarah Jane wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I went to the doctor last week. I'm cold and tired all the
time, my
> > > > hands and feet are numb, and I've had the same cold for a month.
My
> > > > test results came in today, and everything they checked is
normal.
> > > > Should that make me feel better?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Nope..
> > > It's all in the definition of "normal". (And how steadfast it is)
> > > Do some searching on the web for "contrails" or "chemtrails".
> > >
> > > --
> > > Hit1Hard
> > >
> >
> > I went back to the doctor today. Now she thinks I may be anemic, so
she
> > sent me back to the lab, where they took some more blood. If I'm
> > anemic, don't I really need that blood? Okay, that was just
> > more sarcastic silliness. Yes I need my blood, but what I really
need
> > is to know what the hell is wrong with me. Being sick and not
knowing
> > why or if it can be fixed is making me depressed, which just makes
me
> > more tired and kills my appetite, and of course not eating doesn't
make
> > me feel any better.
> >
> > I haven't been to the gym in weeks, because when I get home from
work
> > I barely have enough energy to walk my dog. Last night I dreamed
about
> > lifting weights. That's normal, isn't it?
> >
Sarah Jane
Well, the second round of test results is in. The nurse, or whoever she
was, called me at work this evening to tell me that my platelet count is
high, but this is obviously a lab error since the rest of my results
were normal. Never mind that I still feel like crap. The way the
patient actually feels seems to be irrelevant.
Since this is just a lab error, our course of action is to wait a month
and redo the test. I asked what the high platelet count could mean, and
she wouldn't tell me, saying that they don't like to make people worry
since it's probably nothing. I mentioned that I was already worried,
because I was sick and didn't know why. Then she asked me if I had been
sick last week when I went to the doctor and had the tests done. What
did she think? Do people have blood drawn just for kicks?
David 'Cuddles' O'Bedlam
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 29 Nov 2000, Sarah Jane asked:
[...]
> Do people have blood drawn just for kicks?
I do. By some kind of Qualified Blood-Drawing Professional though, as
opposed to erstwhile angstresses Jenny "I'm really gay! Really!" Mabe
and Debbie "Sine Llaminatee" Martinson -- who draw it themselves with
pieces of broken mercury thermometers or whatever's close at hand. So
Vince Furnier was wrong, it isn't only women.
By the way, is there anybody out there who does NOT know that back in
the '70s I was a TEENAGED HOMO-HOOKER? I'd say the relevant documents
should be on some "cultural literacy" list for every neo-netizen, but
then I -- an adept at SHAMELESS SELF-POMO -- would think so.
Buzzedly,
Thuddles
- --
"The Higgs boson is the cause of Gulf War syndrome." NY Times 12 Sept 00
(C) 2000 by TheDavid(TM) | David, P.O. Box 21403, Louisville, KY 40221
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBOiXZpBz40he1RakNEQIGzACfUtrpVVmi7qSoQuHSOQX/GxSVj4sAoLCi
FrsGvAUB/aLBKbHREc/MSAKZ
=vnha
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
David 'Cuddles' O'Bedlam
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 30 Nov 2000, Sarah Jane wrote:
> David 'Cuddles' O'Bedlam <thed...@tsoft.com> wrote:
>
>
> > By the way, is there anybody out there who does NOT know that back in
> > the '70s I was a TEENAGED HOMO-HOOKER?
>
> You were a teenager in the '70s? Geeeez, you're ooooold.
I meant, of course, the NINETEEN-seventies. Not THAT long ago.
Defensively,
Cuddles
- --
"The Higgs boson is the cause of Gulf War syndrome." NY Times 12 Sept 00
"I'm the lamest drama queen I've ever heard of." -Oluwa "Layo" Lehmann
(C) 2000 by TheDavid(TM) | David, P.O. Box 21403, Louisville, KY 40221
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBOiXzMhz40he1RakNEQLd7wCdE/2sVlk9PfCAvHC6M27JFERKRg4AoLU6
6pheUwXAQJHMpYAbreCxsA1n
=vYpb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Sarah Jane
David 'Cuddles' O'Bedlam <thed...@tsoft.com> wrote:
> By the way, is there anybody out there who does NOT know that back in
> the '70s I was a TEENAGED HOMO-HOOKER?
You were a teenager in the '70s? Geeeez, you're ooooold.
newsgroups
--
"Do not take the jester lightly, for amusing antics are merely distraction
for deception, and a master of slight of hand will have a knife at your
throat before you can breathe for the next laugh. Then you will be the
jest, and they will all laugh at you, because you were fooled by the fool."
TheGrimJester A.K.A me
David 'Cuddles' O'Bedlam <thed...@tsoft.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.BSF.4.10.100112...@shell.tsoft.com...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Thu, 30 Nov 2000, Sarah Jane wrote:
> > David 'Cuddles' O'Bedlam <thed...@tsoft.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > By the way, is there anybody out there who does NOT know that back in
> > > the '70s I was a TEENAGED HOMO-HOOKER?
> >
> > You were a teenager in the '70s? Geeeez, you're ooooold.
>
> I meant, of course, the NINETEEN-seventies. Not THAT long ago.
30 years ago. that would mean you're atleast 43, while when you're 43 you
may not feel old, the rest of us 19 year olds and such thing you're old as
fuck. twice our age. 4+ decades of living is quite a while. as far as
life spans go, up until oh 6+ decades ago, you where well past your prime
and going to die soon. >=-)
buk...@baileylink.net
Sarah Jane <sbril...@my-deja.com> gasped out:
> You were a teenager in the '70s? Geeeez, you're ooooold.
Uh Sarah, if you want to get friendly with David, it would probably help
a lot if you could give us some of that information on life as an exotic
dancer we are so anxious to hear!
Bukvich
Sarah Jane
buk...@baileylink.net wrote:
> In article <904oa0$ael$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Sarah Jane <sbril...@my-deja.com> gasped out:
>
>
help
> a lot if you could give us some of that information on life as an
exotic
> dancer we are so anxious to hear!
>
Why do I have to give the info to all of you? David has my email
address - the _real_ one, as that's the one I've been lazily stalking
him from - and he can ask me privately whatever he wants to know.
Really, Bukky, you're starting to seem desperate, which totally negates
any sexiness I had previously perceived you to be emanating.
Sarah
buk...@baileylink.net
Sarah Jane <sbril...@my-deja.com> was grumping about:
> Why do I have to give the info to all of you?
No reason at all. My point (I guess I didn't make it too good) is:
you are a writer
writers need readers
people would be interested in reading this
ergo, you Might Want to write it up.
> David has my email address - the _real_ one, as that's the one I've
> been lazily stalking him from - and he can ask me privately whatever
> he wants to know.
See, this is how you find stuff out.
> Really, Bukky, you're starting to seem desperate, which totally
> negates any sexiness I had previously perceived you to be emanating.
These both are your own projections.
Bukvich
[ ' it's ok -- it's normal ' ]
Sarah Jane
buk...@baileylink.net wrote:
> In article <906l57$shq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Sarah Jane <sbril...@my-deja.com> was grumping about:
>
> > Why do I have to give the info to all of you?
>
> No reason at all. My point (I guess I didn't make it too good) is:
>
> you are a writer
> writers need readers
> people would be interested in reading this
>
> ergo, you Might Want to write it up.
Yes, of course people will be interested. That's why when I'm ready to
share, I'm going to put it into book form and sell it. Have you ever
heard of a stripper (or a used-car salesperson) giving anything away?
> > David has my email address - the _real_ one, as that's the one I've
> > been lazily stalking him from - and he can ask me privately whatever
> > he wants to know.
>
> See, this is how you find stuff out.
Find what stuff out? You're confusing me again. But then brain fog is
one of the many symptoms of my mystery illness, which, as you may
remember, is what this thread was originally about.
> > Really, Bukky, you're starting to seem desperate, which totally
> > negates any sexiness I had previously perceived you to be emanating.
>
> These both are your own projections.
>
I wouldn't say projections, I would say more like interpretations.
> Bukvich
>
> [ ' it's ok -- it's normal ' ]
>
You angsters are so silly. I gripe about mud on my carpet and a bad
date, and I get outpourings of sympathy and advice. Now that I have a
real problem that's making my daily life miserable, almost to the point
of being unlivable, all I get is "tell us more about when you were a
stripper." What up with that?
Sarah
Mica
> You angsters are so silly. I gripe about mud on my carpet and a bad
> date, and I get outpourings of sympathy and advice. Now that I have a
> real problem that's making my daily life miserable, almost to the
> point of being unlivable, all I get is "tell us more about when you
> were a stripper." What up with that?
I think the idea is that it's more fun to focus on silly meaningless
problems than the significant ones. An angster of old once told me
that people don't respond as much to True Angst. Your mother died? You
have a terminal illness? You've taken to cutting? What on earth is
there to say about such things? Otoh, you had a bad date? You have the
urge to whine about your job? People can pontificate and be silly or
cruel about the small stuff without feeling bad. Or so the theory goes.
Mica
Melia
On Fri, 1 Dec 2000, Sarah Jane wrote:
> You angsters are so silly. I gripe about mud on my carpet and a bad
> date, and I get outpourings of sympathy and advice. Now that I have a
> real problem that's making my daily life miserable, almost to the point
> of being unlivable, all I get is "tell us more about when you were a
> stripper." What up with that?
I would have thought that at least that much was really obvious.
muddy carpet vs. stripping? no contest.
You should have seen the "debate" (circa 1996) about whether stripping was
empowering (or, in the converse, degrading) to those who were involved in
it. It went on for several weeks, if I remember correctly.
Sarah Jane
100...@shell2.bayarea.net>,
Oh, I'm sure that was enlightening. But actually, it wasn't
even "muddy carpet vs. stripping" it was "muddy carpet vs. mystery
illness" and muddy carpet won, in a way. The silly stuff got addressed,
but the mystery illness was ignored and the stripping revived in what
was supposed to be the illness thread.
By the way, not that anyone cares, but I've been to the doctor two more
times and had more blood taken and more goddam tests done and still no
diagnosis. I also seem to have a new and ever more bizarre symptom
almost every day. The latest is that my taste buds seem to be
malfunctioning. They barely work at all. I made a grilled cheese
sandwich last night and it was like eating paste. Have you ever
noticed how gross the texture of some foods is, even the ones that
usually taste good?
buk...@baileylink.net
Sarah Jane <sbril...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> By the way, not that anyone cares, but I've been to the doctor two
> more times and had more blood taken and more goddam tests done and
> still no diagnosis.
Most doctors that I have known would say that no physical indicator
implies that your problem is almost certainly stress. I am amazed you
haven't been offerred a prozac scrip (or a different SSRI, if you are
already taking one.)
I had a complete nervous breakdown about five years ago and could make a
suggestion or two. I gave up driving and it was even better than losing
my virginity.
> I also seem to have a new and ever more bizarre symptom
> almost every day. The latest is that my taste buds seem to be
> malfunctioning. They barely work at all. I made a grilled cheese
> sandwich last night and it was like eating paste. Have you ever
> noticed how gross the texture of some foods is, even the ones that
> usually taste good?
Cheese has a perfect texture. Not just on intake, but on output as
well!
Taste bud anomie is quickly cured with loads of garlic and jalapenos.
Jalapeno behaves very dicily on output.
Bukvich
[ ' i care i really do ' ]
David 'Cuddles' O'Bedlam
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 1 Dec 2000, Sarah Jane wrote:
[...]
> By the way, not that anyone cares, but I've been to the doctor two
> more times and had more blood taken and more goddam tests done and
> still no diagnosis.
Uh, um...I hope I'm not the first to bring this up, but has anybody
thought to check for MS (however that's checked for)? When in doubt
try neurology. (Were you in the Persian Gulf War, maybe?)
And aren't you glad all those blood tests have (probably) ruled out
tertiary syphilis by now?
> I also seem to have a new and ever more bizarre symptom almost
> every day.
That must bite. I don't know if it's better than my symptomological
complaint, that my various physical and mental symptoms of all the
stuff that's wrong with me keep recombining in mixtures old and new
to make me even more difficult to get along with and less likely to
feel up to having sex; I doubt I'd welcome the novelty of a New and
Improved symptom that doesn't involve priaprism and charm, however.
> The latest is that my taste buds seem to be malfunctioning. They
> barely work at all. I made a grilled cheese sandwich last night
> and it was like eating paste.
Sounds like a crappy way to inadvertantly diet, but then I get so
Oprahishly desperate sometimes.
(If your salivary glands still work, think neurology. Brain tumor?)
> Have you ever noticed how gross the texture of some foods is, even
> the ones that usually taste good?
Yes. But I try not to dwell on it. I have enough troubles already.
Have you noticed how some fat old net.geeks who don't care what you
used to do for a living (and who ain't much fun in the sack lately)
have nonetheless a ver droll sense of humor?
Cuddlingly,
The
P.S. I would check for something neurological if I were you though.
- --
"The Higgs boson is the cause of Gulf War syndrome." NY Times 12 Sept 00
"I'm the lamest drama queen I've ever heard of." -Oluwa "Layo" Lehmann
(C) 2000 by TheDavid(TM) | David, P.O. Box 21403, Louisville, KY 40221
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBOihRexz40he1RakNEQI6lwCg33aUcqp7+yEz/GP4WiADC7H1WmUAnAzf
gS+XEqu2+GsydhwS5kghXoVK
=leJn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Sarah Jane
buk...@baileylink.net wrote:
> In article <9099eb$sp$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Sarah Jane <sbril...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > By the way, not that anyone cares, but I've been to the doctor two
> > more times and had more blood taken and more goddam tests done and
> > still no diagnosis.
>
> implies that your problem is almost certainly stress.
Actually, there was one abnormality in the tests, it's just that no one
could explain what it meant. And stress doesn't generally cause one to
feel cold all the time or numbness and tingling in one's extremities.
The doc did ask me if I had a lot of stress at work, and all I could do
was laugh. If my boss were any mellower, he'd be in a coma, and if I
had any less work to do, I would be. I really don't think it's stress.
Of course, my symptoms are so numerous, bizarre and seemingly unrelated
that if I were 10 years younger, I would suspect schizophrenia.
> I am amazed you
> haven't been offerred a prozac scrip (or a different SSRI, if you are
> already taking one.)
My doctor assures me that my symptoms are not all in my head, which is
something of a comfort, but a diagnosis and subsequent treatment would
be even better.
I'm at least as surprised as you are that I haven't yet been offered an
SSRI, but even if I were, I wouldn't take it. I've never been sure if
I'm actually bipolar (according to my abnormal psych book I'm not,
because bipolars are never more manic than depressive) but I just don't
think it would be a good idea.
>
> I had a complete nervous breakdown about five years ago and could make
a
> suggestion or two. I gave up driving and it was even better than
losing
> my virginity.
>
Give up driving? That would kill me.
> > I also seem to have a new and ever more bizarre symptom
> > almost every day. The latest is that my taste buds seem to be
> > malfunctioning. They barely work at all. I made a grilled cheese
> > sandwich last night and it was like eating paste. Have you ever
> > noticed how gross the texture of some foods is, even the ones that
> > usually taste good?
>
> Cheese has a perfect texture. Not just on intake, but on output as
> well!
>
Yes, well, thank you for sharing that with me.
> Taste bud anomie is quickly cured with loads of garlic and jalapenos.
>
When my recruiter called me this morning and asked me where I wanted to
go for lunch today (she and her manager take me out to lunch once a
month to see how I'm doing - see how stressful my job is? It's a
nightmare, I tell you) I suggested a place that serves pseudo-Cajun
food. Lots of cayenne, so at least I could taste _something_.
> Jalapeno behaves very dicily on output.
>
Once again, thanks for sharing.
> Bukvich
>
> [ ' i care i really do ' ]
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Sarah Jane
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Fri, 1 Dec 2000, Sarah Jane wrote:
> [...]
>
> > more times and had more blood taken and more goddam tests done and
> > still no diagnosis.
>
> thought to check for MS (however that's checked for)? When in doubt
> try neurology. (Were you in the Persian Gulf War, maybe?)
>
that because I had an aunt who had MS. But then I realized that it only
happened when I was cold (which is all the time unless I'm at home where
I can crank up the heat) and I think with MS it's more random as to when
it happens, and less symmetrical. I also don't have any of the muscle
weakness and loss of coordination associated with MS. (I think walking
a high-spirited 75 pound dog I would have noticed that kind of thing
pretty quickly.) However, I have been referred to a neurologist just to
rule that out.
> And aren't you glad all those blood tests have (probably) ruled out
> tertiary syphilis by now?
>
Yes dear, I've been really concerned about that.
> > I also seem to have a new and ever more bizarre symptom almost
> > every day.
>
> That must bite. I don't know if it's better than my symptomological
> complaint, that my various physical and mental symptoms of all the
> stuff that's wrong with me keep recombining in mixtures old and new
> to make me even more difficult to get along with and less likely to
> feel up to having sex; I doubt I'd welcome the novelty of a New and
> Improved symptom that doesn't involve priaprism and charm, however.
>
But variety, they say, is the spice of life.
> > The latest is that my taste buds seem to be malfunctioning. They
> > barely work at all. I made a grilled cheese sandwich last night
> > and it was like eating paste.
>
> Sounds like a crappy way to inadvertantly diet, but then I get so
> Oprahishly desperate sometimes.
>
The sad part is that I've been eating a lot less lately, as even before
I lost my sense of taste I had less of an appetite, but I'm not losing
any weight. In fact I think I've gained back the few pounds I had
lost. Not fair, is it?
> (If your salivary glands still work, think neurology. Brain tumor?)
>
Thanks, you're making me feel so much better.
> > Have you ever noticed how gross the texture of some foods is, even
> > the ones that usually taste good?
>
> Yes. But I try not to dwell on it. I have enough troubles already.
>
Yes dear, we know.
> Have you noticed how some fat old net.geeks who don't care what you
> used to do for a living (and who ain't much fun in the sack lately)
> have nonetheless a ver droll sense of humor?
>
If they didn't care they wouldn't mention it at all, now would they?
Hmmmmm?
> Cuddlingly,
> The
>
> P.S. I would check for something neurological if I were you though.
> - --
> "The Higgs boson is the cause of Gulf War syndrome." NY Times 12 Sept
00
> "I'm the lamest drama queen I've ever heard of." -Oluwa "Layo"
Lehmann
> (C) 2000 by TheDavid(TM) | David, P.O. Box 21403, Louisville, KY 40221
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
> Charset: noconv
>
> iQA/AwUBOihRexz40he1RakNEQI6lwCg33aUcqp7+yEz/GP4WiADC7H1WmUAnAzf
> gS+XEqu2+GsydhwS5kghXoVK
> =leJn
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
buk...@baileylink.net
Sarah Jane <sbril...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Give up driving? That would kill me.
I hear this reaction a lot. This is not a very reassuring message to be
sending down to the little woman living in your head, you know. The
logic of the subconscious is mysterious and volatile.
I go fewer places than nearly everybody I know. A feature of this is
that when I go someplace, I know for a fact that I want to be there.
The bus-passenger view of the commute is a very interesting one. This
morning there were three people sitting around me in the rear of the bus
(two women and a man) discussing who is in jail, who the police have
been looking for, who is with who, and much other delightful (for the
voyeur) dish. Did you know that a large fraction (at least a quarter)
of the men who drive around alone have their free hand on their crotch?
> Once again, thanks for sharing.
You might find this hard to believe, but I could go on at great length
on this topic. Like, corn is practically my favorite food!
Bukvich
portia
> > Give up driving? That would kill me.
>
> sending down to the little woman living in your head, you know. The
> logic of the subconscious is mysterious and volatile.
wouldnt the wrong subconscious message be that driving will kill her?
> I go fewer places than nearly everybody I know. A feature of this is
> that when I go someplace, I know for a fact that I want to be there.
I drive and I go few places and seldom want to be there.
> The bus-passenger view of the commute is a very interesting one. This
> morning there were three people sitting around me in the rear of the bus
> (two women and a man) discussing who is in jail, who the police have
> been looking for, who is with who, and much other delightful (for the
> voyeur) dish. Did you know that a large fraction (at least a quarter)
> of the men who drive around alone have their free hand on their crotch?
how do you know this incredibly gross fact?
it's a fact that large women driving around alone never think of men
crotches.
> > Once again, thanks for sharing.
>
> You might find this hard to believe, but I could go on at great length
> on this topic. Like, corn is practically my favorite food!
except iowa corn, yes? I was quite dismayed when I realized that corn and
soy are the most genetically altered foods around. I mean, what is left to
eat if we cant have tortillas and tofu pups?
targa
Sarah Jane
buk...@baileylink.net wrote:
> In article <909i1b$7rs$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
be
> sending down to the little woman living in your head, you know. The
> logic of the subconscious is mysterious and volatile.
The little woman living in my head? What kind of crap is that?
>
> I go fewer places than nearly everybody I know. A feature of this is
> that when I go someplace, I know for a fact that I want to be there.
>
Me too, and it has nothing to do with driving or not driving.
> Did you know that a large fraction (at least a quarter)
> of the men who drive around alone have their free hand on their
crotch?
>
I didn't know, but I don't find it at all surprising.
When I lived in New Orleans, I was without a car for several periods of
varying lengths, the longest being a year and a half. I did okay
walking, riding my bicycle, taking the streetcar, or, if I wasn't in a
hurry, taking the bus. But I don't live there anymore. I live in
Austin. Not downtown Austin, Northwest Austin. I have to drive
something. If I didn't have a truck, I'd have to have a tractor. I'm
in the boonies here. There are cows living across the street for
Chrissakes. There are no buses out here. And don't say bicycle because
first of all, it's in Houston somewhere in storage (long story) and
secondly, I'm not strong enough, especially in my current condition, to
handle all these hills. It's not flat like N'Awlins.
And besides, I love my purple truck too much to let her go. I call her
Mary Lou you know.
> Bukvich
buk...@baileylink.net
portia <ta...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> wouldnt the wrong subconscious message be that driving will kill her?
The right subconscious message is between her con and her sub. Using
the predicate "would kill me" is not a good idea except for something
like "shooting myself in the head with a .357 magnum . . ."
> I drive and I go few places and seldom want to be there.
A lot of people who drive do it because they need more more more. They
need to see more people go to more stores see more movies get more beer.
It leads to a blur and they are like so unhappy being where they are
that they have to get someplace else that they do shit like run
redlights and tailgate and drive while intoxicated. Existential dread
on wheels.
> how do you know this incredibly gross fact?
When you are riding in a bus you can see down into an SUV where a bunch
of the drivers think they are like invisible or something. Or maybe
they think the bus passengers are sub humans and it doesn't matter what
they see. Like you probably do stuff in front of the dog you would
never do in front of your mother. There is a lot of nose picking going
on out there too.
> except iowa corn, yes? I was quite dismayed when I realized that corn
> and soy are the most genetically altered foods around. I mean, what is
> left to eat if we cant have tortillas and tofu pups?
I don't know what to tell you. Not eating is not an option. Prometheus
and Pandora have done their thing and so here we are . . .
B
Katroberts
around alone have their free hand on their crotch?<
Wouldn't surprise me a bit, since a larger fraction of the men in the building
I work in think nothing of walking through the lobby rearranging their crotches
constantly. One in particular has to lift a leg while doing it. It's like
walking through Michael Jackson videos.
KJ
slate
<buk...@baileylink.net> wrote in message
news:90b3kg$9bb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
| In article <909i1b$7rs$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
to be
| sending down to the little woman living in your head, you know. The
| logic of the subconscious is mysterious and volatile.
|
is
| that when I go someplace, I know for a fact that I want to be there.
|
This
| morning there were three people sitting around me in the rear of the
bus
| (two women and a man) discussing who is in jail, who the police have
| been looking for, who is with who, and much other delightful (for
the
quarter)
| of the men who drive around alone have their free hand on their
crotch?
I've long associated with the sorts of people who often find owning a
car completely uneccesary. I also find that the people I know who do
not drive often tend to be happier people in general. It all falls
back on the minimalist lifestyle. I do not own anything, I do not
have any bills, and I require very little to survive - income wise. I
have as much or sometimes more money to burn than people who make
twice or more what I do, and in general, a whole lot less to worry
about.
I'm really pretty fussy about where I choose to live though. I need
to have a decent record store, bookstore, hole-in-the-wall bar, and
grocery store within a few blocks, otherwise I will never be happy.
Beyond that, driving is required and I do not like to feel reliant
upon the health of my car (as I am inevitably my own mechanic). I
live a mile from work, and sometimes it is simply quicker to walk
anyway. Earlier this week, it took me a solid half an hour to drive
that mile. Were it not for the hills and the constant drizzle, I'd
really have a difficult time justifying driving the distance.
Riding the bus spares the hassle of finding or paying for parking. In
Mpls, I never drove to work because the cost of parking was often
simply too expensive. (There, only about half of the people I knew
actually owned a car.) Heck, taking a cab home only cost me five
bucks, so that was sometimes an option (particularly if I wound up
really fucked up).
Besides, a person who relys on anything but there own car to get
around, is inevitably thrown into the mix, closer to the pulse of the
city. I've always relished that, as opposed to the detachment of
actually driving. I like having a smaller, more contained universe,
but also, I need to have a car since I also relish being able to bust
free at any time. I only love the open road. (There isn't nearly
enough of it in Washington...)
Melia
On Fri, 1 Dec 2000, Sarah Jane wrote:
> Melia <me...@bayarea.net> wrote:
> > You should have seen the "debate" (circa 1996) about whether
> stripping was
> > empowering (or, in the converse, degrading) to those who were
> involved in
> > it. It went on for several weeks, if I remember correctly.
>
> Oh, I'm sure that was enlightening. But actually, it wasn't
> even "muddy carpet vs. stripping" it was "muddy carpet vs. mystery
> illness" and muddy carpet won, in a way.
What, precisely, do you think angsters would have to contribute to the
mystery illness discussion besides stories of their own mystery
illnesses? Support? This news group is hardly the place for that, although
some posters can be really wonderful in email or in person. Muddy carpet
is more tangible and universal (except in our house...I hate carpet). It's
also much more accesible. After someone hears a tale of a mystery illness
(which tends to make people feel a little oogy about their own mortality,
by the way), and after they say "That's terrible" or whatever platitude
they feel applies, what are they supposed to say? What are they supposed
to do?
Perhaps if you made very clear how you feel people should respond to such
declarations, they might respond more appropriately (by your definition).
The problem is, however, that people are so contrary. I know there's a
quote somewhere about how people are all so boringly similar when they're
happy and predictably unique in their suffering. I know that there are
several angsters who have, themselves, suffered from mystery illnesses,
but they know as well as I do that telling you about it would not help
yours. That I don't see anyone flaming you for complaining about the types
of reactions you have received tells me that they: a) don't care what you
think or feel; or (and this is more likely) b) don't have anything to add
that they feel would be constructive, and they don't want to add to the
situation by making you feel worse than you already claim to.
> The silly stuff got addressed,
> but the mystery illness was ignored and the stripping revived in what
> was supposed to be the illness thread.
Ah, but stripping is much more compelling than illness for most people,
because it very often has no personal relevance to the lives of the
posters. It does for some people, but that's not so terribly
important. Everyone has an opinion about it, and very rarely are these
weak or centrist opinions. It makes for lively discussion, despite the
fact that it's really not an important topic at all.
Illness, on the other hand, is something in everyone's life, but no one
thinks "Ah, that illness, I just LOVE that stuff. There's nothing like
thoughts of death and suffering for myself and others to help me get out
of bed in the morning." It hits too close to home, and there's no conflict
there.
Angst is very often personal, and you might, instead of complaining that
no one posts about your illness, appreciate their restraint and the
respect it shows for your personal suffering.
Someone used to say that the best and most angst-filled posts often get no
response. I have found that this extends to the point that such posts,
when they do get responses, get little more than "Yeah, that's bad, but
listen to what happened to me..." posts and posts that only address a
small fragment of the original, because addressing the complexity of
issues involved in truly angst-filled posts would require too much effort
and/or too much "Uh-huh" and nodding of heads.
I don't know if your post was one of those posts, of course, but this is a
general observation.
> By the way, not that anyone cares, but I've been to the doctor two more
> times and had more blood taken and more goddam tests done and still no
> diagnosis. I also seem to have a new and ever more bizarre symptom
> almost every day. The latest is that my taste buds seem to be
> malfunctioning. They barely work at all.
See, "not that anyone cares" is a healthy attitude, but it does show a
fundamental failure to understand the situation. Some people care, and
some people don't, but what do you expect those who do care to do about
it? And why would you expect a bunch of strangers on a newsgroup called
alt.angst to care in the first place? Clearly, we all have our own
problems anyway.
Sarah Jane
<Pine.NEB.4.21.001204...@shell2.bayarea.net>,
Melia <me...@bayarea.net> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 1 Dec 2000, Sarah Jane wrote:
>
> > Melia <me...@bayarea.net> wrote:
> > > You should have seen the "debate" (circa 1996) about whether
> > stripping was
> > > empowering (or, in the converse, degrading) to those who were
> > involved in
> > > it. It went on for several weeks, if I remember correctly.
> >
> > Oh, I'm sure that was enlightening. But actually, it wasn't
> > even "muddy carpet vs. stripping" it was "muddy carpet vs. mystery
> > illness" and muddy carpet won, in a way.
>
> What, precisely, do you think angsters would have to contribute to the
> mystery illness discussion besides stories of their own mystery
> illnesses? Support? This news group is hardly the place for that,
although
> some posters can be really wonderful in email or in person. Muddy
carpet
> is more tangible and universal (except in our house...I hate carpet).
I hate carpet too. Hate it hate it hate it. Can we talk about carpet
instead of mystery illness or stripping?
> It's
> also much more accesible. After someone hears a tale of a mystery
illness
> (which tends to make people feel a little oogy about their own
mortality,
> by the way), and after they say "That's terrible" or whatever
platitude
> they feel applies, what are they supposed to say? What are they
supposed
> to do?
>
> Perhaps if you made very clear how you feel people should respond to
such
> declarations, they might respond more appropriately (by your
definition).
>
I wasn't really thinking that anyone would "care", as none of you knows
me personally, but I think what I was hoping was that some of you might
enjoy the mysterious aspect of it. I mean, if I were sick and knew
exactly what it was, I probably wouldn't have bothered to say anything
at all. I thought some of you might be compulsive problem-solvers.
Actually, I have gotten a couple of interesting suggestions, just not as
many as I had expected or hoped for.
> The problem is, however, that people are so contrary. I know there's a
> quote somewhere about how people are all so boringly similar when
they're
> happy and predictably unique in their suffering. I know that there are
> several angsters who have, themselves, suffered from mystery
illnesses,
> but they know as well as I do that telling you about it would not help
> yours.
Well, it might help if there's any symptom overlap and if their mystery
illnesses were diagnosed at any point. It can't be treated until we
figure out what it is, so another possible diagnosis, and some more
tests to suggest to my doctor(s) could actually be helpful.
>That I don't see anyone flaming you for complaining about the
types
> of reactions you have received tells me that they: a) don't care what
you
> think or feel; or (and this is more likely) b) don't have anything to
add
> that they feel would be constructive, and they don't want to add to
the
> situation by making you feel worse than you already claim to.
>
I don't think I was seriously complaining. For the most part I got the
exact reaction or non-reaction I expected. I was just a little
surprised that I didn't get a couple more suggestions.
> > The silly stuff got addressed,
> > but the mystery illness was ignored and the stripping revived in
what
> > was supposed to be the illness thread.
>
> Ah, but stripping is much more compelling than illness for most
people,
> because it very often has no personal relevance to the lives of the
> posters. It does for some people, but that's not so terribly
> important. Everyone has an opinion about it, and very rarely are these
> weak or centrist opinions. It makes for lively discussion, despite the
> fact that it's really not an important topic at all.
>
> Illness, on the other hand, is something in everyone's life, but no
one
> thinks "Ah, that illness, I just LOVE that stuff. There's nothing like
> thoughts of death and suffering for myself and others to help me get
out
> of bed in the morning." It hits too close to home, and there's no
conflict
> there.
>
Again, you're absolutely right, and if I knew exactly what it was, I
wouldn't have said much of anything about it. I know people don't much
like to talk about deathly illness, but I was hoping more of you might
have some fun making suggestions. You know, like David telling me I had
a brain tumor. That was fun.
> Angst is very often personal, and you might, instead of complaining
that
> no one posts about your illness, appreciate their restraint and the
> respect it shows for your personal suffering.
>
> Someone used to say that the best and most angst-filled posts often
get no
> response. I have found that this extends to the point that such posts,
> when they do get responses, get little more than "Yeah, that's bad,
but
> listen to what happened to me..." posts and posts that only address a
> small fragment of the original, because addressing the complexity of
> issues involved in truly angst-filled posts would require too much
effort
> and/or too much "Uh-huh" and nodding of heads.
>
> I don't know if your post was one of those posts, of course, but this
is a
> general observation.
>
Sorry, I guess you guys don't know me. I don't really want "respect
for my personal suffering", I want to stop suffering. I'd like
suggestions about what it might be so I can find out what it is and
get it fixed, or I'd like to be distracted from it. See, I would like a
"listen what happened to me" kind of thing. It would temporarily
distract me from my own problem (see below), and maybe make it seem
smaller. It's like when I say that I love you guys because compared to
some of you, I'm the picture of mental health.
> > By the way, not that anyone cares, but I've been to the doctor two
more
> > times and had more blood taken and more goddam tests done and still
no
> > diagnosis. I also seem to have a new and ever more bizarre symptom
> > almost every day. The latest is that my taste buds seem to be
> > malfunctioning. They barely work at all.
>
> See, "not that anyone cares" is a healthy attitude, but it does show a
> fundamental failure to understand the situation. Some people care, and
> some people don't, but what do you expect those who do care to do
about
> it?
Be amused? Make suggestions? I don't know. Really I don't think I
would have said anything about the lack of response to the illness thing
if *someone* hadn't insisted on doing the redirect to stripping.
> And why would you expect a bunch of strangers on a newsgroup
called
> alt.angst to care in the first place? Clearly, we all have our own
> problems anyway.
>
>
I certainly agree that no one here should care about me, and it's very
clear that you all have your own problems. However, one thing I've
noticed about some people who have their own nasty problems is that
they'd much rather deal with someone else's than their own. My sister,
who is generally not overly concerned about anyone else, was recently
diagnosed with a chronic and serious (but usually not deadly) illness of
her very own. When we spoke on the phone the other night, she was
uncharacteristically intrigued and sympathetic. When her biggest
problem was that her roommate didn't clean the coffeemaker, that was way
more important than my broken bones. But when she has an icky disease,
she wants to hear more about how I'm doing. Go figure. And
incidentally, by asking questions about what was going on with me, she
was also lucky enough to get the benefit of some of my research. We
have one particularly distressing symptom in common that she hadn't
realized was actually part of her already-diagnosed illness until I
mentioned it. She didn't even know there was a name for it.
Really, I don't expect you people to do anything at this point. It's
not as though I'm relying on you for emotional support or for
information. I have plenty of other resources for both of those. Do
what you want, okay? I probably won't post about it anymore anyway.
Even *I'm* getting bored with it.
Melia
On Mon, 4 Dec 2000, Sarah Jane wrote:
> I hate carpet too. Hate it hate it hate it. Can we talk about carpet
> instead of mystery illness or stripping?
Well, sure! Just let me go check on some...stuff in the thing...and I'll
get right back with you.
> I wasn't really thinking that anyone would "care", as none of you knows
> me personally, but I think what I was hoping was that some of you might
> enjoy the mysterious aspect of it.
Okay. It's cancer of the pituitary gland. Does that help? (I'm just trying
to narrow down theD's earlier hypothesis.)
> Well, it might help if there's any symptom overlap and if their mystery
> illnesses were diagnosed at any point. It can't be treated until we
> figure out what it is, so another possible diagnosis, and some more
> tests to suggest to my doctor(s) could actually be helpful.
Oh, but that's never the case. It's the story about the broken arm, or
mine about the CTS that went misdiagnosed as a sprain by my first three
doctors because I was "too young and otherwise healthy" to have it, so
they wouldn't test...eventually it turned into bilateral RSD also, which
(if you are unfamiliar with it) is one of the most painful conditions
people can develop. The catch is that there's no real treatment for
it. You just wait and go to therapy and hope it goes away. Whee. See, that
wasn't helpful.
You don't want a bunch of nutcases helping diagnose you, but you might
want to try a different doctor. I would recommend a neurologist, but
that's just because I ended up dating mine after he diagnosed the
problem. I think I thought he must be exceptionally smart, but he was
really just the first one who listened to what I said.
> I don't think I was seriously complaining. For the most part I got the
> exact reaction or non-reaction I expected. I was just a little
> surprised that I didn't get a couple more suggestions.
Seriously or unseriously, it sounded like complaining when I read it, and
if you got the reaction you expected, why did you comment on it in a post
as being not what you wanted/expected?
> Again, you're absolutely right, and if I knew exactly what it was, I
> wouldn't have said much of anything about it. I know people don't much
> like to talk about deathly illness, but I was hoping more of you might
> have some fun making suggestions. You know, like David telling me I had
> a brain tumor. That was fun.
Yes, I can see how that might be amusing...to anyone who has not known
anyone who had a brain tumor, particularly.
> Sorry, I guess you guys don't know me.
Don't apologize. Those of us who do know eachother are not always sure
it's a good thing anyway.
> I don't really want "respect
> for my personal suffering", I want to stop suffering.
Line forms to the right, hence alt.ANGST.
I'd like
> suggestions about what it might be so I can find out what it is and
> get it fixed, or I'd like to be distracted from it.
Start making random guesses as to what part of your body is involved, and
go about systematically having each of those parts removed. This is my
suggestion. I further suggest that you ignore it.
> See, I would like a
> "listen what happened to me" kind of thing. It would temporarily
> distract me from my own problem (see below), and maybe make it seem
> smaller. It's like when I say that I love you guys because compared to
> some of you, I'm the picture of mental health.
Well, in that case, you should have asked. Maybe Dirk could tell you about
his worsening diabetes. I could go on for days about my hands, since they
still cause quite a bit of pain, and I lost complete use of them for a
year in one case and six months in the other. (Imagine, if you will, how
you address those certain urges...)
> Be amused? Make suggestions? I don't know.
I believe I have done both. Let me know how it works for you.
Really I don't think I
> would have said anything about the lack of response to the illness thing
> if *someone* hadn't insisted on doing the redirect to stripping.
Yes, but then there's the whole alt.angst stripping digression pattern,
which is much larger than your post or the thread that evolved from it.
> I certainly agree that no one here should care about me, and it's very
> clear that you all have your own problems. However, one thing I've
> noticed about some people who have their own nasty problems is that
> they'd much rather deal with someone else's than their own.
Ah...you're an enabler! I get it. Thanks for the clarification.
> Really, I don't expect you people to do anything at this point. It's
> not as though I'm relying on you for emotional support or for
> information. I have plenty of other resources for both of those.
This is a Good Thing.
> Do
> what you want, okay?
Okay.
Sarah Jane
Melia <me...@bayarea.net> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 4 Dec 2000, Sarah Jane wrote:
>
> > I hate carpet too. Hate it hate it hate it. Can we talk about
carpet
> > instead of mystery illness or stripping?
>
I'll
> get right back with you.
But I like to talk about how much I hate carpet. How about if I just
ramble on about it and nobody responds? That'll work.
>
> > I wasn't really thinking that anyone would "care", as none of you
knows
> > me personally, but I think what I was hoping was that some of you
might
> > enjoy the mysterious aspect of it.
>
> Okay. It's cancer of the pituitary gland. Does that help? (I'm just
trying
> to narrow down theD's earlier hypothesis.)
>
Probably a something of the pituitary, yes. Seems like it should be.
> > Well, it might help if there's any symptom overlap and if their
mystery
> > illnesses were diagnosed at any point. It can't be treated until we
> > figure out what it is, so another possible diagnosis, and some more
> > tests to suggest to my doctor(s) could actually be helpful.
>
> Oh, but that's never the case. It's the story about the broken arm, or
> mine about the CTS that went misdiagnosed as a sprain by my first
three
> doctors because I was "too young and otherwise healthy" to have it, so
> they wouldn't test...eventually it turned into bilateral RSD also,
which
> (if you are unfamiliar with it) is one of the most painful conditions
> people can develop. The catch is that there's no real treatment for
> it. You just wait and go to therapy and hope it goes away.
>
But if I knew what I had and knew it was untreatable I could at least
stop wasting my time looking for diagnosis and treatment, right? And by
the way what are CTS and RSD? And is it just me or are misdiagnosing
and refusing to do the proper tests more common than competence? (Can
you just agree with me about how stupid and stubborn most doctors are?
That might help.)
> Whee. See, that
> wasn't helpful.
Yes it was. Tell me more!
> You don't want a bunch of nutcases helping diagnose you, but you might
> want to try a different doctor.
I think an open-minded nutcase is just as likely to come up with an
accurate diagnosis as a seemingly sane stubborn semi-competent doctor.
And the pituitary tumor you suggested, cancerous or benign, could easily
cause the kind of symptoms and results I have. It could suppress
thyroid function (as well as the function of several other crucial
glands), which would account for all of my symptoms, but the thyroid
stimulating hormone test result would be normal (or low-normal), as it
was. So there you go, a nutcase can diagnose another nutcase just as
well as any doctor.
> I would recommend a neurologist, but
> that's just because I ended up dating mine after he diagnosed the
> problem. I think I thought he must be exceptionally smart, but he was
> really just the first one who listened to what I said.
>
Oh, now I really want to hear more. But I don't think I'll be dating my
neurologist. I haven't met her yet so I don't know how smart or nice
she is, but I just don't go that way.
> > I don't think I was seriously complaining. For the most part I got
the
> > exact reaction or non-reaction I expected. I was just a little
> > surprised that I didn't get a couple more suggestions.
>
> Seriously or unseriously, it sounded like complaining when I read it,
and
> if you got the reaction you expected, why did you comment on it in a
post
> as being not what you wanted/expected?
>
Just cause I was annoyed that *someone* couldn't seem to get over that
stripping thing. I should have known better.
> > Again, you're absolutely right, and if I knew exactly what it was, I
> > wouldn't have said much of anything about it. I know people don't
much
> > like to talk about deathly illness, but I was hoping more of you
might
> > have some fun making suggestions. You know, like David telling me I
had
> > a brain tumor. That was fun.
>
> Yes, I can see how that might be amusing...to anyone who has not known
> anyone who had a brain tumor, particularly.
>
Well it wasn't funny at the time when my mother did have one, but I was
both frightened and amused by the suggestion that I had one. Actually my
mother's tumor wasn't _in_ her brain it was way inside her ear right
_on_ her brain so I'm not sure if it counts as a brain tumor. (In case
anyone is _interested_, not that anyone _cares_, it was benign, they
took it out, and she's had about a 90% recovery.)
> > Sorry, I guess you guys don't know me.
>
> Don't apologize. Those of us who do know eachother are not always sure
> it's a good thing anyway.
>
> > I don't really want "respect
> > for my personal suffering", I want to stop suffering.
>
> Line forms to the right, hence alt.ANGST.
>
A lot of people don't want to stop suffering, they just want to whine
about it.
> I'd like
> > suggestions about what it might be so I can find out what it is and
> > get it fixed, or I'd like to be distracted from it.
>
> Start making random guesses as to what part of your body is involved,
and
> go about systematically having each of those parts removed. This is my
> suggestion. I further suggest that you ignore it.
>
Now that was a helpful suggestion. I wonder if my insurance will cover
an elective lobotomy.
> > See, I would like a
> > "listen what happened to me" kind of thing. It would temporarily
> > distract me from my own problem (see below), and maybe make it seem
> > smaller. It's like when I say that I love you guys because compared
to
> > some of you, I'm the picture of mental health.
>
> Well, in that case, you should have asked. Maybe Dirk could tell you
about
> his worsening diabetes. I could go on for days about my hands, since
they
> still cause quite a bit of pain, and I lost complete use of them for a
> year in one case and six months in the other. (Imagine, if you will,
how
> you address those certain urges...)
>
Well if you could go on go on then. Gory details, please.
> > Be amused? Make suggestions? I don't know.
>
> I believe I have done both. Let me know how it works for you.
>
Yes you have. Thanks. I do appreciate it.
> Really I don't think I
> > would have said anything about the lack of response to the illness
thing
> > if *someone* hadn't insisted on doing the redirect to stripping.
>
> Yes, but then there's the whole alt.angst stripping digression
pattern,
> which is much larger than your post or the thread that evolved from
it.
>
> > I certainly agree that no one here should care about me, and it's
very
> > clear that you all have your own problems. However, one thing I've
> > noticed about some people who have their own nasty problems is that
> > they'd much rather deal with someone else's than their own.
>
> Ah...you're an enabler! I get it. Thanks for the clarification.
>
Of course I'm an enabler. Always have been. Didn't I say that in my
intro post?
> > Really, I don't expect you people to do anything at this point.
It's
> > not as though I'm relying on you for emotional support or for
> > information. I have plenty of other resources for both of those.
>
> This is a Good Thing.
>
> > Do
> > what you want, okay?
>
> Okay.
>
> I probably won't post about it anymore anyway.
> > Even *I'm* getting bored with it.
>
> Do what you want, okay?
>
Okay.
Melia
On Mon, 4 Dec 2000, Sarah Jane wrote:
> Melia <me...@bayarea.net> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 4 Dec 2000, Sarah Jane wrote:
>
> But I like to talk about how much I hate carpet. How about if I just
> ramble on about it and nobody responds? That'll work.
Seems to work fine for many posters. Give it a shot!
> > > I wasn't really thinking that anyone would "care", as none of you
> knows
> > > me personally, but I think what I was hoping was that some of you
> might
> > > enjoy the mysterious aspect of it.
> >
> > Okay. It's cancer of the pituitary gland. Does that help? (I'm just
> trying
> > to narrow down theD's earlier hypothesis.)
> >
>
> Probably a something of the pituitary, yes. Seems like it should be.
That's what I figured. I really should have finished med school (of
course, that would have been easier had I actually *started* med school).
> > > Well, it might help if there's any symptom overlap and if their
> mystery
> > > illnesses were diagnosed at any point. It can't be treated until we
> > > figure out what it is, so another possible diagnosis, and some more
> > > tests to suggest to my doctor(s) could actually be helpful.
> >
> > Oh, but that's never the case. It's the story about the broken arm, or
> > mine about the CTS that went misdiagnosed as a sprain by my first
> three
> > doctors because I was "too young and otherwise healthy" to have it, so
> > they wouldn't test...eventually it turned into bilateral RSD also,
> which
> > (if you are unfamiliar with it) is one of the most painful conditions
> > people can develop. The catch is that there's no real treatment for
> > it. You just wait and go to therapy and hope it goes away.
>
> But if I knew what I had and knew it was untreatable I could at least
> stop wasting my time looking for diagnosis and treatment, right?
It's really just a mutation of the same condition...unless you're
beginning to think that it's all psychosomatic, in which case it's not the
same thing at all.
And by
> the way what are CTS and RSD?
CTS = Carpal Tunnel Syndrome (bilateral, meaning in this case "both
hands")
RSD = Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy (Sympathetic reflexes--like pure pain,
constriction of the capillaries, and release of oil through glands in the
skin--stop functioning. Skin was peeling off my arm in sheets from the
elbow down. It felt like my entire lower arm was on fire, and
the pain was rapidly spreading, making it to my shoulder in
only three weeks. Constricted capillaries trapped fluid in my hand,
causing it to swell grotesquely. There was a real risk of the entire
lower arm going gangrenous (sp?) if they weren't able to get the fluids
moving quickly. In other words: ouch.)
And is it just me or are misdiagnosing
> and refusing to do the proper tests more common than competence? (Can
> you just agree with me about how stupid and stubborn most doctors are?
> That might help.)
I agree. This does not, however, make me feel any better about the
situation. If it helps you though, we'll call it a Christmas present.
> > You don't want a bunch of nutcases helping diagnose you, but you might
> > want to try a different doctor.
>
> I think an open-minded nutcase is just as likely to come up with an
> accurate diagnosis as a seemingly sane stubborn semi-competent doctor.
But how would you know if the doctor didn't confirm it?
> And the pituitary tumor you suggested, cancerous or benign, could easily
> cause the kind of symptoms and results I have. It could suppress
> thyroid function (as well as the function of several other crucial
> glands), which would account for all of my symptoms, but the thyroid
> stimulating hormone test result would be normal (or low-normal), as it
> was. So there you go, a nutcase can diagnose another nutcase just as
> well as any doctor.
<blush> <blink> <blink>
> > I would recommend a neurologist, but
> > that's just because I ended up dating mine after he diagnosed the
> > problem. I think I thought he must be exceptionally smart, but he was
> > really just the first one who listened to what I said.
>
> Oh, now I really want to hear more. But I don't think I'll be dating my
> neurologist. I haven't met her yet so I don't know how smart or nice
> she is, but I just don't go that way.
He was married. He wasn't too smart at all. Turned out that my mom knew
people who knew his wife...and who knew about the girlfriend he was
already supporting. That was in the days when I could *really* pick 'em.
[brain tumor...ha ha]
> > Yes, I can see how that might be amusing...to anyone who has not known
> > anyone who had a brain tumor, particularly.
>
> Well it wasn't funny at the time when my mother did have one, but I was
> both frightened and amused by the suggestion that I had one. Actually my
> mother's tumor wasn't _in_ her brain it was way inside her ear right
> _on_ her brain so I'm not sure if it counts as a brain tumor. (In case
> anyone is _interested_, not that anyone _cares_, it was benign, they
> took it out, and she's had about a 90% recovery.)
I'm not sure that counts, but you're closer than me to actually knowing
someone who had brain cancer...I was just making a public service
statement.
> > > I don't really want "respect
> > > for my personal suffering", I want to stop suffering.
> >
> > Line forms to the right, hence alt.ANGST.
>
> A lot of people don't want to stop suffering, they just want to whine
> about it.
A lot of people are stupid. I didn't get to be the part-time misanthrope
that I am by liking people, of course.
> > I'd like
> > > suggestions about what it might be so I can find out what it is and
> > > get it fixed, or I'd like to be distracted from it.
> >
> > Start making random guesses as to what part of your body is involved,
> and
> > go about systematically having each of those parts removed. This is my
> > suggestion. I further suggest that you ignore it.
>
> Now that was a helpful suggestion. I wonder if my insurance will cover
> an elective lobotomy.
They ought to. It's not like you'll be making a lot of frivolous claims
after that.
> > > Be amused? Make suggestions? I don't know.
> >
> > I believe I have done both. Let me know how it works for you.
>
> Yes you have. Thanks. I do appreciate it.
Whew.
> > Ah...you're an enabler! I get it. Thanks for the clarification.
>
> Of course I'm an enabler. Always have been. Didn't I say that in my
> intro post?
I don't read intro posts as a rule. Hell, I don't read the newsgroup as a
rule anymore. I just happen to be particularly bored today.
> > > Do
> > > what you want, okay?
> >
> > Okay.
> >
> > I probably won't post about it anymore anyway.
> > > Even *I'm* getting bored with it.
> >
> > Do what you want, okay?
>
> Okay.
Okay.
buk...@baileylink.net
Sarah Jane <sbril...@my-deja.com> was grumping about:
> But if I knew what I had and knew it was untreatable I could at least
> stop wasting my time looking for diagnosis and treatment, right? And
> by the way what are CTS and RSD?
CTS = Carpal Tunnel Syndrome
RSD = Repetitive Stress Disorder
These are epidemic in people who hit computer keys and mouse buttons all
day long. I know a couple dozen guys who are completely miserable. I
know a few who have had operations. I know a couple who have had
operations on both wrists.
Workstation ergonomics is almost as important as medication management
for a successful technology career.
> And is it just me or are misdiagnosing and refusing to do the proper
> tests more common than competence?
You are in your thirties, right? If it isn't obvious what the problem
is, the problem is almost certainly *stress*. If you are doing
something your body does not want you doing, your body is infinitely
resourceful in concocting a method to make you stop.
The way you fix this (assuming it is indeed your problem)
Block off some time, at least three hours, where you will not be
interrupted and think about every thing you do habitually or routinely.
Make a list. Examine each item as to its necessity to your life and
possible negative effect on your body.
Try doing something regenerative (yoga, meditation, self-hypnosis)
instead of suspicious items on your list. If it is indeed stress, you
may find your problem will just go away, as if by magic, given enough
time.
The important thing to keep in mind in this area is this: Nerves take a
long time to heal.
>(Can you just agree with me about how stupid and stubborn most doctors
> are? That might help.)
They are people too. They are really good at setting bones and
delivering babies. Diagnosing the stress-related maladies of new
millennium psycho-hosebeasts is too much a stretch for most of them.
> I think an open-minded nutcase is just as likely to come up with an
> accurate diagnosis as a seemingly sane stubborn semi-competent doctor.
But have you met Doctor Pangloss?
> And the pituitary tumor you suggested, cancerous or benign, could
> easily cause the kind of symptoms and results I have.
The likelihood of this is quite remote. Do you know anything about
Bayesian statistics?
> Oh, now I really want to hear more. But I don't think I'll be dating
> my neurologist. I haven't met her yet so I don't know how smart or
> nice she is, but I just don't go that way.
This increases my own interest in the question of whether you ever sold
a lap dance to a woman.
Just thought I would mention that.
Bukvich
Sarah Jane
<Pine.NEB.4.21.001204...@shell2.bayarea.net>,
Melia <me...@bayarea.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > But I like to talk about how much I hate carpet. How about if I
just
> > ramble on about it and nobody responds? That'll work.
>
> Seems to work fine for many posters. Give it a shot!
Okay, I'll start a new thread for it. Trembling with anticipation,
aren't you?
> >
> > Probably a something of the pituitary, yes. Seems like it should
be.
>
> That's what I figured. I really should have finished med school (of
> course, that would have been easier had I actually *started* med
school).
>
Did you do all the stuff you need to do before you even start med
school? You know, the uhhh, whaddyacallit, pre-med. It all sounded
like too much work to me. That's why I went the liberal arts route and
graduated with a B.A. that qualified me to be an over-educated waitress.
> It's really just a mutation of the same condition...unless you're
> beginning to think that it's all psychosomatic, in which case it's not
> the same thing at all.
If it's pychosomatic, does that mean a placebo will "cure" it?
> And by
> > the way what are CTS and RSD?
>
> CTS = Carpal Tunnel Syndrome (bilateral, meaning in this case "both
> hands")
>
> RSD = Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy (Sympathetic reflexes--like pure
pain,
> constriction of the capillaries, and release of oil through glands in
the
> skin--stop functioning. Skin was peeling off my arm in sheets from the
> elbow down. It felt like my entire lower arm was on fire, and
> the pain was rapidly spreading, making it to my shoulder in
> only three weeks. Constricted capillaries trapped fluid in my hand,
> causing it to swell grotesquely. There was a real risk of the entire
> lower arm going gangrenous (sp?) if they weren't able to get the
fluids
> moving quickly. In other words: ouch.)
>
Eeeeewwww. Gross. And I'm just tired cold numb and tingly. I feel
much better now. Thank you.
> And is it just me or are misdiagnosing
> > and refusing to do the proper tests more common than competence?
(Can
> > you just agree with me about how stupid and stubborn most doctors
are?
> > That might help.)
>
> I agree. This does not, however, make me feel any better about the
> situation. If it helps you though, we'll call it a Christmas present.
>
I'm Jewish, so how about we call it a Hanukah present?
> > > You don't want a bunch of nutcases helping diagnose you, but you
might
> > > want to try a different doctor.
> >
> > I think an open-minded nutcase is just as likely to come up with an
> > accurate diagnosis as a seemingly sane stubborn semi-competent
doctor.
>
> But how would you know if the doctor didn't confirm it?
>
Yes, well, getting them to do the tests to confirm it is still an issue.
I doubt they would do it on your say-so, as knowledgable as you seem to
be.
> > And the pituitary tumor you suggested, cancerous or benign, could
easily
> > cause the kind of symptoms and results I have. It could suppress
> > thyroid function (as well as the function of several other crucial
> > glands), which would account for all of my symptoms, but the thyroid
> > stimulating hormone test result would be normal (or low-normal), as
it
> > was. So there you go, a nutcase can diagnose another nutcase just
as
> > well as any doctor.
>
> <blush> <blink> <blink>
>
I like making people blush. Almost as much as I like confusing the hell
out of them or making them cry. Uh-oh, did I type that out loud?
> > > I would recommend a neurologist, but
> > > that's just because I ended up dating mine after he diagnosed the
> > > problem. I think I thought he must be exceptionally smart, but he
was
> > > really just the first one who listened to what I said.
> >
> > Oh, now I really want to hear more. But I don't think I'll be
dating my
> > neurologist. I haven't met her yet so I don't know how smart or
nice
> > she is, but I just don't go that way.
>
> He was married. He wasn't too smart at all. Turned out that my mom
> knew people who knew his wife...and who knew about the girlfriend he
> was already supporting. That was in the days when I could *really*
> pick'em.
>
Heheh. You sound like my sister. She can still *really* pick 'em. But
then she's one of those people who loooove being miserable.
> [brain tumor...ha ha]
> > > Yes, I can see how that might be amusing...to anyone who has not
known
> > > anyone who had a brain tumor, particularly.
> >
> > Well it wasn't funny at the time when my mother did have one, but I
was
> > both frightened and amused by the suggestion that I had one.
Actually my
> > mother's tumor wasn't _in_ her brain it was way inside her ear right
> > _on_ her brain so I'm not sure if it counts as a brain tumor. (In
case
> > anyone is _interested_, not that anyone _cares_, it was benign, they
> > took it out, and she's had about a 90% recovery.)
>
> I'm not sure that counts, but you're closer than me to actually
knowing
> someone who had brain cancer...I was just making a public service
> statement.
>
And everyone who ever had a brain tumor, or knew someone who did, and
was never able to see any humor in it thanks you, I'm sure. My mother
was and still is able to laugh about certain aspects of her ordeal. I
think that's much healthier, and that people who can do that recover
much better than people who can't, but I suppose we should still try to
respect those who fail to see the humor in potentially fatal illnesses.
> >
> > A lot of people don't want to stop suffering, they just want to
whine
> > about it.
>
> A lot of people are stupid. I didn't get to be the part-time
misanthrope
> that I am by liking people, of course.
>
Only a part-time misanthrope? Scheduling constraints?
> > Now that was a helpful suggestion. I wonder if my insurance will
> > cover an elective lobotomy.
>
> They ought to. It's not like you'll be making a lot of frivolous
> claims after that.
>
Another damn good point.
> > > > Be amused? Make suggestions? I don't know.
> > >
> > > I believe I have done both. Let me know how it works for you.
> >
> > Yes you have. Thanks. I do appreciate it.
>
> Whew.
>
> > > Ah...you're an enabler! I get it. Thanks for the clarification.
> >
> > Of course I'm an enabler. Always have been. Didn't I say that in
my
> > intro post?
>
> I don't read intro posts as a rule.
I don't think I really did an intro post, but in one of my first posts
here I think I told a story that vividly illustrated my enabling
tendencies. Or maybe that's just my imagination, but I'm not quite
bored enough to do the Deja search.
> Hell, I don't read the newsgroup
as a
> rule anymore. I just happen to be particularly bored today.
>
Me too. Bored bored bored. Can you tell?
> > > > Do
> > > > what you want, okay?
> > >
> > > Okay.
> > >
> > > I probably won't post about it anymore anyway.
> > > > Even *I'm* getting bored with it.
> > >
> > > Do what you want, okay?
> >
> > Okay.
>
> Okay.
>
Well okay then.
Sarah Jane
buk...@baileylink.net wrote:
> In article <90gv81$igm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Sarah Jane <sbril...@my-deja.com> was grumping about:
>
> is, the problem is almost certainly *stress*. If you are doing
> something your body does not want you doing, your body is infinitely
> resourceful in concocting a method to make you stop.
>
> The way you fix this (assuming it is indeed your problem)
>
> Block off some time, at least three hours, where you will not be
> interrupted and think about every thing you do habitually or
routinely.
> Make a list. Examine each item as to its necessity to your life and
> possible negative effect on your body.
>
> Try doing something regenerative (yoga, meditation, self-hypnosis)
> instead of suspicious items on your list. If it is indeed stress, you
> may find your problem will just go away, as if by magic, given enough
> time.
>
> The important thing to keep in mind in this area is this: Nerves take
a
> long time to heal.
>
How many times do I have to say this? It is not stress. Even the doctor
who can't figure out what it is agrees that it isn't stress.
> >(Can you just agree with me about how stupid and stubborn most
doctors
> > are? That might help.)
>
> They are people too. They are really good at setting bones and
> delivering babies. Diagnosing the stress-related maladies of new
> millennium psycho-hosebeasts is too much a stretch for most of them.
>
I am not a psycho-hosebeast. I don't know what one is, but I know I'm
not one. I may be semi-psycho, but I am not a hosebeast of any degree
of sanity.
> > And the pituitary tumor you suggested, cancerous or benign, could
> > easily cause the kind of symptoms and results I have.
>
> The likelihood of this is quite remote. Do you know anything about
> Bayesian statistics?
>
Remote likelihood does not mean I don't have it. After all,
since they do exist, someone must get them, why not me? That actually
seemed to be what my doctor was thinking when she ordered that last
batch of tests.
> > Oh, now I really want to hear more. But I don't think I'll be
dating
> > my neurologist. I haven't met her yet so I don't know how smart or
> > nice she is, but I just don't go that way.
>
> This increases my own interest in the question of whether you ever
sold
> a lap dance to a woman.
>
> Just thought I would mention that.
>
Just to annoy me, right? Okay, I'll answer. Yes and no. I once took
money from a woman to dance for her husband. Does that count?
> Bukvich
J. Thomas
> I live in
> Austin. Not downtown Austin, Northwest Austin. I have to drive
> something.
I live in Northwest Austin too. I am anti-driving and
I can vouch for what you say. There is nothing within
walking distance and no buses here at all. There are
gated communities and/or huge tech buildings every
mile or so, and cows and forests in between.
It's kinda surreal.
Actually, there is a huge-ass Wal Mart within walking
distance, but who the hell would want to walk to Wal Mart?
David 'Cuddles' O'Bedlam
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, 2 Dec 2000, Sarah Jane wrote:
[...]
> The little woman living in my head? What kind of crap is that?
What? You mean you do NOT hear voices?
Appalled,
The
- --
"The Higgs boson is the cause of Gulf War syndrome." NY Times 12 Sept 00
(C) 2000 by TheDavid(TM) | David, P.O. Box 21403, Louisville, KY 40221
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBOixQyhz40he1RakNEQJr3ACg5mi7Msrioj+K4rG6yI3vs+ZZLGUAoLP6
J8anJAlKF9ZC0blc4G1vNP9M
=IFxZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
J. Thomas
> portia <ta...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> >except iowa corn, yes? I was quite dismayed when I realized that corn and
> >soy are the most genetically altered foods around. I mean, what is left to
> >eat if we cant have tortillas and tofu pups?
> Why do people have this negative knee-jerk reaction to anything
> "genetically altered?"
> Corn and soybeans are the two largest crops in the US.. why not
> genetically alter them to be insect resistant, mold resistant, &c?
My concern is about the lack of diversity. We get these things that
have tremendously high yields -- in the right circumstances -- that
are all the same. Twenty years ago we got a corn blight that affected
something like 40% of the crop and it was a big deal. Did we learn
not to keep planting the same strains everywhere? No, we just developed
something that was resistant to that blight and seeded it everywhere.
The genetic engineering is just more of the same, taken to a higher
level. When you breed corn on test farms and notice which genes you
want, you at least find out some about what they do on some farms.
When you bring in genes from other plants and test them in the lab
you have no idea how they'll work in production and you aren't likely
to do enough field testing before the marketing. Oh well.
David 'Cuddles' O'Bedlam
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 4 Dec 2000, Melia wrote:
[...]
> Ah, but stripping is much more compelling than illness for most people,
I just think it more fun to watch.
[...]
> Illness, on the other hand, is something in everyone's life, but no one
> thinks "Ah, that illness, I just LOVE that stuff. There's nothing like
> thoughts of death and suffering for myself and others to help me get out
> of bed in the morning."
No one? Not even Layo?
> Angst is very often personal
And a GREAT way to meet HOT NET.BABES!
[...]
> Someone used to say that the best and most angst-filled posts often
> get no response.
So how did Layo & me get to be such LUST DEITIES then?
[...]
> Clearly, we all have our own problems anyway.
Hey! Speak for yourself!
Cuddlingly,
The
- --
"I'm the lamest drama queen I've ever heard of." -Oluwa "Layo" Lehmann
(C) 2000 by TheDavid(TM) | David, P.O. Box 21403, Louisville, KY 40221
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBOixX7Bz40he1RakNEQL8lACeIba2ITT2QAW0hG82fS+i4f0kji8AoNmC
Oluo26c2s2wkbphNQo+fLmhK
=YX6Z
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
David 'Cuddles' O'Bedlam
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 4 Dec 2000, J. Thomas wrote:
> but who the hell would want to walk to Wal Mart?
Me me me! I would, I would! It would be even better if they stay
open 24/7 too!
The
- --
"The Higgs boson is the cause of Gulf War syndrome." NY Times 12 Sept 00
"I'm the lamest drama queen I've ever heard of." -Oluwa "Layo" Lehmann
(C) 2000 by TheDavid(TM) | David, P.O. Box 21403, Louisville, KY 40221
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBOixYZhz40he1RakNEQKu+gCgq5KWCX5akTBboAmM1aNxtKuLkD4AoJg+
lC3I3a4r+HH7drZ4zAlW+C0/
=O4yk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
David 'Cuddles' O'Bedlam
Hash: SHA1
I never said Sarah Jane had a brain tumor. I recommended she get
CHECKED OUT for one, just in case. Strange symptoms, those.
And Melia said to see a neurologist TOO. Neener neener.
Cuddles
- --
"The Higgs boson is the cause of Gulf War syndrome." NY Times 12 Sept 00
"I'm the lamest drama queen I've ever heard of." -Oluwa "Layo" Lehmann
(C) 2000 by TheDavid(TM) | David, P.O. Box 21403, Louisville, KY 40221
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBOixZ3Bz40he1RakNEQKm4gCfV7TUZ+Ch8ycmchThXM/EfsvapNMAnAwS
+o3T7b5E+vj+ktl/KARr3s82
=ezK/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Patrick Vest
sollilja wrote:
> Why do people have this negative knee-jerk reaction to anything
> "genetically altered?"
I'm with you. In fact, I wonder why everyone isn't demanding genetically
altered food.
Pat...genetically imperfect.
Patrick Vest
Sarah Jane wrote:
> I mean, if I were sick and knew
> exactly what it was, I probably wouldn't have bothered to say anything
> at all. I thought some of you might be compulsive problem-solvers.
I can tell you this much. If it doesn't kill you, something else will.
Pat...or the thing after that.
Patrick Vest
Sarah Jane wrote:
> That's why I went the liberal arts route and
> graduated with a B.A. that qualified me to be an over-educated waitress.
If you went the liberal arts way, you're not over-educated for anything.
Pat...am there done that.
Sarah Jane
David 'Cuddles' O'Bedlam <thed...@tsoft.com> wrote:
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> > but who the hell would want to walk to Wal Mart?
>
> Me me me! I would, I would! It would be even better if they stay
> open 24/7 too!
They do, they do! I love my Wal-Mart. I missed them terribly when I
was living in NJ.
>
> The
>
> - --
> "The Higgs boson is the cause of Gulf War syndrome." NY Times 12 Sept
00
> "I'm the lamest drama queen I've ever heard of." -Oluwa "Layo"
Lehmann
> (C) 2000 by TheDavid(TM) | David, P.O. Box 21403, Louisville, KY 40221
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
> Charset: noconv
>
> iQA/AwUBOixYZhz40he1RakNEQKu+gCgq5KWCX5akTBboAmM1aNxtKuLkD4AoJg+
> lC3I3a4r+HH7drZ4zAlW+C0/
> =O4yk
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
Sarah Jane
Patrick Vest <tho...@flash.net> wrote:
>
>
> Sarah Jane wrote:
>
> > That's why I went the liberal arts route and
> > graduated with a B.A. that qualified me to be an over-educated
waitress.
>
> If you went the liberal arts way, you're not over-educated for
anything.
Where I come from, a waitress who knew how to wait tables was considered
smart enough to be suspect. I not only knew how to do my job, I knew
Keats from Yeats, and Monet from Manet. I could explain the difference
between macro- and microeconomics, and at some point could even have
pointed out the differences between Camusian and Sartrean
existensialism. I was obviously some sort of evil genius.
>
> Pat...am there done that.
buk...@baileylink.net
Sarah Jane <sbril...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> I could explain the difference
> between macro- and microeconomics, and at some point could even have
> pointed out the differences between Camusian and Sartrean
> existensialism.
Camus was not an existentialist.
Pendantically,
B
Jyeshtha
>In article <Pine.BSF.4.10.100120...@shell.tsoft.com>,
> David 'Cuddles' O'Bedlam <thed...@tsoft.com> wrote:
>> Me me me! I would, I would! It would be even better if they stay
>> open 24/7 too!
>They do, they do! I love my Wal-Mart. I missed them terribly when I
>was living in NJ.
Once upon a time, a few huge corporations ruled the earth, driving
everyone else out of business. They sold cheap merchandise manu-
factured overseas by workers earning $0.20/hour which made Americans
very happy. Since they had so many stores covering the land, they
could afford small losses in a few by keeping them open 24/7. Yes,
they could afford small losses, in revenue and the occasional
clerk killed by robbers, because they bought their merchandise so
very cheaply and could sell it at a huge profit that Americans
thought was affordable, and since they had so many other stores
making so much money, they could afford to keep stores that made
less, and maintain their empire. The end.
Sarah Jane
buk...@baileylink.net wrote:
> In article <90j1qc$6ds$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Sarah Jane <sbril...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > I could explain the difference
> > between macro- and microeconomics, and at some point could even have
> > pointed out the differences between Camusian and Sartrean
> > existensialism.
>
> Camus was not an existentialist.
Oh, whatever. Why ya tellin' me anyway? I don't give a rat's ass who
is or who isn't an existentialist. I can't even spell "existentialist"
anymore.
I'm not in school anymore and don't have to classify everything. If I
like it I like it and if I don't I just don't read it. SO THERE.
>
> Pendantically,
> B
Melia
On Mon, 4 Dec 2000, David 'Cuddles' O'Bedlam wrote:
> I never said Sarah Jane had a brain tumor. I recommended she get
> CHECKED OUT for one, just in case. Strange symptoms, those.
>
> And Melia said to see a neurologist TOO. Neener neener.
...but not to date one.
just had to clear that up.
Patrick Vest
Sarah Jane wrote:
>
> Where I come from, a waitress who knew how to wait tables was considered
> smart enough to be suspect. I not only knew how to do my job, I knew
> Keats from Yeats, and Monet from Manet. I could explain the difference
> between macro- and microeconomics, and at some point could even have
> pointed out the differences between Camusian and Sartrean
> existensialism. I was obviously some sort of evil genius.
Ah yes, but do you know what's in Pesto?
Pat...or the five varietals in a meritage?
Patrick Vest
buk...@baileylink.net wrote:
> Camus was not an existentialist.
Wow, he could've fooled me.
Pat...the myth of platypus.
Melia
On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Patrick Vest wrote:
> Ah yes, but do you know what's in Pesto?
>
> Pat...or the five varietals in a meritage?
OoohOoohOooh! Pick me! Pick me!
I still read nineteenth-century British novels voluntarily! There is
virtually no end to my worthless knowlege and cocktail-party banter
material...oh to be back in academia, where it is still valued (but keep
my non-academia paycheck).
Melia
On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Patrick Vest wrote:
> buk...@baileylink.net wrote:
>
> > Camus was not an existentialist.
>
> Wow, he could've fooled me.
The crafty bastard even fooled my highly-respected existentialism
professor.
I WAS ROBBED!
J. Thomas
> buk...@baileylink.net wrote:
> > Sarah Jane <sbril...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > I could explain the difference
> > > between macro- and microeconomics, and at some point could even have
> > > pointed out the differences between Camusian and Sartrean
> > > existensialism.
> > Camus was not an existentialist.
> Oh, whatever. Why ya tellin' me anyway?
Lots of people think Camus was an existentialist. There's no commonly
accepted definition of existentialism or of existentialists, so by
telling you this he's telling you about his concept of it all. He's
telling you about himself.
Anya McGrory
Patrick Vest <tho...@flash.net> wrote:
Ummm...basil, oil, parmesan/romano and pinenuts?
Do I get a prize?
>
> Ah yes, but do you know what's in Pesto?
>
> Pat...or the five varietals in a meritage?
>
>
catu...@my-deja.com
> Why do people have this negative knee-jerk reaction to anything
> "genetically altered?"
I guess they're afraid they'd catch whatever was done to the thing's
genes.
Sarah Jane
Right. That was my point, which you snipped. What he's telling me is
that he feels the need to classify and unclassify things, which I
don't. Yes, I was taught that Camus was an existentialist, and from
what I read of his work and from what I read about existentialism that
made sense to me. I could discuss "Camus the existentialist" in class
and on tests, but now that I'm out of school, it doesn't matter to me
"what" he was. I enjoy reading his work, and that's all that matters
now.
Patrick Vest
Anya McGrory wrote:
> In article <3A2D7B84...@flash.net>,
> Patrick Vest <tho...@flash.net> wrote:
> Ummm...basil, oil, parmesan/romano and pinenuts?
>
> Do I get a prize?
No, but if you're ever in town, you can cook for me.
Pat...hmm, I see you scored a zero on the wine portion of the
quiz...I'll pick it.
buk...@baileylink.net
Sarah Jane <sbril...@my-deja.com> was grumping about:
> Right. That was my point, which you snipped. What he's telling me is
> that he feels the need to classify and unclassify things, which I
> don't. Yes, I was taught that Camus was an existentialist, and from
> what I read of his work and from what I read about existentialism that
> made sense to me. I could discuss "Camus the existentialist" in class
> and on tests, but now that I'm out of school, it doesn't matter to me
> "what" he was. I enjoy reading his work, and that's all that matters
> now.
Fine. Except your point is wrong. I said I was being pedantic, and you
could have just Let It Go, but you didn't, so I won't.
Existentialism =
post WW2 continental philosophy =
( Sartre's stuff + Beauvior's stuff + Marceau's stuff + the stuff of a
bunch of people you have never heard about ( NOT including Camus, who
was Not Even a Philosopher ) )
Camus was a journalist, then a novelist and playwriter. Some of his
novels which were written during and after WW2 included fashionable
philosophical themes of the times, i.e. existentialist themes. He is
often taught in courses on existentialism because he is easy to read,
unlike anything which is, in fact, existentialist philosophy.
Camus explicitly rejected Sartre and existentialism, being far too
individualistic to allow himself to be associated with an Academic
Fashion.
To refer to Camus as an existentialist is simply ignorance.
Sheesh.
Bukvich
[ ' ask Matisse if you don't believe me ' ]
Sarah Jane
buk...@baileylink.net wrote:
> In article <90kcac$bqe$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>
> Fine. Except your point is wrong. I said I was being pedantic, and
you
> could have just Let It Go, but you didn't, so I won't.
You're just snippy with me cause I won't tell you more about when I did
that thing at that place.
> Camus explicitly rejected Sartre and existentialism, being far too
> individualistic to allow himself to be associated with an Academic
> Fashion.
>
Oh, in much the same way that I insist that I am not an angster?
>
> Sheesh.
>
Yeah. This I completely agree with. Sheesh.
> Bukvich
>
> [ ' ask Matisse if you don't believe me ' ]
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
slate
<buk...@baileylink.net> wrote in message
news:90lj6h$8hm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
| In article <90kcac$bqe$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
| Sarah Jane <sbril...@my-deja.com> was grumping about:
|
| > Right. That was my point, which you snipped. What he's telling
me is
| > that he feels the need to classify and unclassify things, which I
| > don't. Yes, I was taught that Camus was an existentialist, and
from
| > what I read of his work and from what I read about existentialism
that
| > made sense to me. I could discuss "Camus the existentialist" in
class
| > and on tests, but now that I'm out of school, it doesn't matter to
me
| > "what" he was. I enjoy reading his work, and that's all that
matters
| > now.
|
| Fine. Except your point is wrong. I said I was being pedantic, and
you
| could have just Let It Go, but you didn't, so I won't.
|
| Existentialism =
|
| post WW2 continental philosophy =
|
| ( Sartre's stuff + Beauvior's stuff + Marceau's stuff + the stuff of
a
| bunch of people you have never heard about ( NOT including Camus,
who
| was Not Even a Philosopher ) )
|
| Camus was a journalist, then a novelist and playwriter. Some of his
| novels which were written during and after WW2 included fashionable
| philosophical themes of the times, i.e. existentialist themes. He
is
| often taught in courses on existentialism because he is easy to
read,
| unlike anything which is, in fact, existentialist philosophy.
|
| Camus explicitly rejected Sartre and existentialism, being far too
| individualistic to allow himself to be associated with an Academic
| Fashion.
|
| To refer to Camus as an existentialist is simply ignorance.
|
| Sheesh.
|
| Bukvich
|
| [ ' ask Matisse if you don't believe me ' ]
|
|
buk...@baileylink.net
"slate" <street...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Camus accepted the Nobel prize. Sartre declined his.
An excellent point. Prolly Al needed the money.
Melia
On Wed, 6 Dec 2000 buk...@baileylink.net wrote:
> Fine. Except your point is wrong. I said I was being pedantic, and you
> could have just Let It Go, but you didn't, so I won't.
[...]
Oh come ON. You LOVE going off like this.
[...]
> ( Sartre's stuff + Beauvior's stuff + Marceau's stuff + the stuff of a
> bunch of people you have never heard about ( NOT including Camus, who
> was Not Even a Philosopher ) )
I'll give you that. However, it's important to note that not all of de
Beauvoir's stuff was what could be considered "philosophy" either. To
discuss her in this sense might require a much more focused discussion of
particular works...but I digress into some pedantry of my own, I'm
afraid. Tsk-tsk.
> Camus was a journalist, then a novelist and playwriter. Some of his
> novels which were written during and after WW2 included fashionable
> philosophical themes of the times, i.e. existentialist themes. He is
> often taught in courses on existentialism because he is easy to read,
> unlike anything which is, in fact, existentialist philosophy.
This is wholly true. People are wusses when it comes to reading,
especially in this country. A bunch of illerate poseurs, dammit.
However, I am going to have to disagree with you on one point. I don't
believe that "because he is easy to read" is the only reason that Camus is
included in courses in existentialism. It is a contributing factor to his
selection, but also, much like parables in the Bible illustrate
biblical/Christian philosophy, his works are illustrative of
existentialist ideas, providing a more concrete basis for comprehension of
the more abstract works by those such as Kierkegaard, Husserl, (probably
butchered the spelling of both of those...spelling be damned!) and so
on. One would not read Camus to understand existentialism, but one could
definitely read Camus to HELP understand an existentialist writer's work
and ideas.
It's an important distinction, I think. Of course, I haven't had my coffee
yet, so I might just be talking crap. It's tough to tell sometimes.
> Camus explicitly rejected Sartre and existentialism, being far too
> individualistic to allow himself to be associated with an Academic
> Fashion.
Yes. You've read that he thought he was "special." We all know how
well that works. Unfortunately, most people never recognize anyone else's
specialness in that way. People get lumped into groups of one sort or
another. It reminds me of all the "alternative" kids who look just like
one another. Yes, they are so very individual in their sameness.
There are likely to be at least as many scholars who associate Camus with
existentialism as there are those who do not. What he himself might have
said or done is another matter, but it does not override generations of
inspection of his works. (...and yes, I think 90% of literary theory is
intellectual wanking, and I actually agree with you, but I disagree with
your attitude about it...ignorance, indeed.)
There are some writers about whose work I have a really unbelievable
passion. I have a greater insight, I believe, into their motivations and
their works than I think most people could manage (or would wish to). For
other writers, I am perfectly happy to accept the shorthand offered by
others, because it takes a lot of time and effort to develop a well-formed
opinion of my own through research and reflection and
readinguponreadinguponreading. It's hardly a condemnation of someone to
note that he or she has done the same, now is it?
> To refer to Camus as an existentialist is simply ignorance.
Sort of. Canonically speaking, he is most closely associated with that
group, so it could be a lazy shorthand (referred to above) also.
> Sheesh.
You just like a little intellectual wanking. Admit it.
No one makes you do it.
buk...@baileylink.net
Melia <me...@bayarea.net> was grumping about:
> However, I am going to have to disagree with you on one point. I don't
> believe that "because he is easy to read" is the only reason that
> Camus is included in courses in existentialism. It is a contributing
> factor to his selection, but also, much like parables in the Bible
> illustrate biblical/Christian philosophy, his works are illustrative
> of existentialist ideas, providing a more concrete basis for
> comprehension of the more abstract works by those such as Kierkegaard,
> Husserl, (probably butchered the spelling of both of those...spelling
> be damned!) and so on. One would not read Camus to understand
> existentialism, but one could definitely read Camus to HELP understand
> an existentialist writer's work and ideas.
I agree Camus presents accessible examples of existential ideas.
K. and H. were not existentialists; they were sources. K. is probably
the ultimate angst person of letters. <- nice and p.c., eh?
> It's an important distinction, I think. Of course, I haven't had my
> coffee yet, so I might just be talking crap. It's tough to tell
> sometimes.
Not that often. It is usually easy to see when people are talking crap.
> Yes. You've read that he thought he was "special."
He was special to me. The Myth of Sysyphus was a rite of passage for
entire generations. Who does not know that the only important
philosophical question is suicide? I mean now, that is.
To be or not to be . . .
> We all know how well that works. Unfortunately, most people never
> recognize anyone else's specialness in that way. People get lumped
> into groups of one sort or another. It reminds me of all the
> "alternative" kids who look just like one another. Yes, they are so
> very individual in their sameness.
The lumping is sometimes ill-founded. Who on earth could you ever lump
Ilya Shambat amongst? The man is (probably a good thing) really beyond
categorization.
> There are likely to be at least as many scholars who associate Camus
> with existentialism as there are those who do not.
I would say the ones who make that association are lumping too broadly.
A precondition of being an existentialist philosopher is that first one
must be a philosopher.
> What he himself might have said or done is another matter, but it does
> not override generations of inspection of his works. (...and yes, I
> think 90% of literary theory is intellectual wanking, and I actually
> agree with you, but I disagree with your attitude about
> it...ignorance, indeed.)
If you would prefer a descriptor such as laziness or simplification to
the term ignorance, I shall not quibble.
> There are some writers about whose work I have a really unbelievable
> passion.
You could start a new thread. I get dibs on Shakespeare.
> You just like a little intellectual wanking. Admit it.
Well if nobody is going to talk about strippers, it's just as well this
topic as any other.
> No one makes you do it.
I suppose you believe in free will?
How existentialist of you!
Bukvich
[ ' I've lost my faith in nihilism ' ]
cut by a penny from heaven
> I would say the ones who make that association are lumping too broadly.
> A precondition of being an existentialist philosopher is that first one
> must be a philosopher.
and i would say that you have made an association which is not supported. SJ
originally said that she could explain the difference between camusian and
sartrean existentialism, not that camus was a philosopher. many writer's
works have been used as the basis for philosophical thought and epistemology,
without those authors being named philosophers.
now sartre, on the other hand, had such a poor, crude way of expressing his
ideas, remains at best a signpost to ideas released withing the context of
postmodernism, mainly that there is no such thing as philosophy (from "search
for a method.") and the notion (my personal fave) that in any consistent
discussion about morality and ethics, we are doomed to suffer at the hands of
the other (a lot of people have simply decided that this means "hell is other
people"). i think that the main part of what is lasting but less refined of
his ideas are drawn directly from hegel and his notion of rational = real.
this makes sartre a man who seemingy would not and perhaps cannot absract the
ultimate irony that is a fart (all hot stinky hot air, for those of you
playing at home).
i also find it interesting that hegel had goethe (i think they were friends
even) and that sartre had camus. and that nobody cares to make goethe a
philosopher.
lord clod
whose personal opinion is
camus (esp. _the_plague_)
is the greatest existential writer, bar none
--
The world I mock still breaks my heart.
-Layo
buk...@baileylink.net
cut by a penny from heaven <lord...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> and i would say that you have made an association which is not
> supported. SJ originally said that she could explain the difference
> between camusian and sartrean existentialism, not that camus was a
> philosopher.
Well this is another angle. I said I was being pedantic.
Existentialism is a subset of philosophy. It is not a literary genre.
Camus was a man of letters; he was not a philosopher.
Therefore, Camus was not an existentialist; there is no such thing as
Camusian existentialism.
Camus said he was not an existentialist.
I don't understand how anybody could want to argue this. This is not
much less definitive than: "the earth is not flat", though I grant it is
pedantic.
> many writer's works have been used as the basis for philosophical
> thought and epistemology, without those authors being named
> philosophers.
This is a red herring.
> now sartre, on the other hand, had such a poor, crude way of
> expressing his ideas, remains at best a signpost to ideas released
> withing the context of postmodernism, mainly that there is no such
> thing as philosophy (from "search for a method.") and the notion (my
> personal fave) that in any consistent discussion about morality and
> ethics, we are doomed to suffer at the hands of the other (a lot of
> people have simply decided that this means "hell is other people").
This is pretty mangled, but I would suggest a couple things:
a.) postmodernism is a complete mess; to bring it up postpones our
ability to arrive at a conclusion beyond the horizon of a usenet
discussion. It is a fine topic for cafe metaphysics, maybe someday . .
b.) "hell is other people" is from a work of dramatic fiction. Sartre's
achilles heel in making a lasting philosophical contribution may have
been the self-dilution involved in his shapeshifting from writing
serious academic stuff, then novels, then plays, etc. Immanuel Kant
wouldn't have dreamt of writing a play. If you are going to entertain
masses, you limit your ability to address the most serious people in
your field. Fact is you chop off your legs.
c.) if you understand Sartrean ethics, you have a lot more time on your
hands than I do. Being and Nothingness is V E R Y S L O W going.
All of which is kind of beside the point above (Camus was NOT an
EXISTENTIALIST you silly rabbit) but I figured I would read your whole
post and submit some reply here.
> i think that the main part of what is lasting but less refined of
> his ideas are drawn directly from hegel and his notion of rational =
> real. this makes sartre a man who seemingy would not and perhaps
> cannot absract the ultimate irony that is a fart (all hot stinky hot
> air, for those of you playing at home).
His epistimology is a little easier going. I always thought of Sartre
as a pretty regular Cartesian, but in a state of PTSD from having his
entire world torn apart by war. To get Hegelian is like to get
postmodern, except you are going in the opposite direction now.
> i also find it interesting that hegel had goethe (i think they were
> friends even) and that sartre had camus. and that nobody cares to
> make goethe a philosopher.
You have gone into infrared herring territory here. Have I ever told
you that sometimes you sort of remind me of Jonah?
> lord clod
> whose personal opinion is
> camus (esp. _the_plague_)
> is the greatest existential writer, bar none
Camus was a great writer. He was not an existentialist.
cut by a penny from heaven
buk...@baileylink.net wrote:
> Well this is another angle. I said I was being pedantic.
but what does that have to do with making up statements that you then
attribute to another person?
> Existentialism is a subset of philosophy. It is not a literary genre.
> Camus was a man of letters; he was not a philosopher.
> Therefore, Camus was not an existentialist; there is no such thing as
> Camusian existentialism.
the point here is that philosophers have taken his writing and made what
could be loosely termed camusian existentialism, meaning perhaps an
existential philosophy which is informed by the sense that in the absurdity
of the world, sometimes all the really matters is the human connections, and
the people who make them having the courage and the fortitude to stick to
their connectedness and their convictions.
> Camus said he was not an existentialist.
camus said he didn't want to be associated with the trendy movement known as
existentialism. that might not be the same thing.
> I don't understand how anybody could want to argue this. This is not
> much less definitive than: "the earth is not flat", though I grant it is
> pedantic.
it's not so much the argument, it's the way that you are making it. pedantic
is one thing, but you aren't even close on accurately reflecting what people
are saying. and in that way, did you know that you remind me of jonut?
> This is a red herring.
not at all. you seem to think that all philosophers need be as miserable and
inaccessible as wittgenstein. well, hobbes was a big fat ass and drank
almost all the time but lived to be almost one hundred, sorta like a
precursor to ben franklin. he prolly died happy enough.
> This is pretty mangled, but I would suggest a couple things:
you're right.
> a.) postmodernism is a complete mess; to bring it up postpones our
> ability to arrive at a conclusion beyond the horizon of a usenet
> discussion. It is a fine topic for cafe metaphysics, maybe someday . .
ah, i was not trying to bring up postmodernism, other than to say that there
were a lot of things being thought about during that time, and that the
underlying zeitgeist of critical human thought seemed to be evolving in that
time which has come to be referred to as postmodern.
> b.) "hell is other people" is from a work of dramatic fiction. Sartre's
> achilles heel in making a lasting philosophical contribution may have
> been the self-dilution involved in his shapeshifting from writing
> serious academic stuff, then novels, then plays, etc. Immanuel Kant
> wouldn't have dreamt of writing a play. If you are going to entertain
> masses, you limit your ability to address the most serious people in
> your field. Fact is you chop off your legs.
once again, your pedanticism is merely an espousal of your own preference and
prejudice. plato wrote the *crito*, hobbes *leviathan*, orwell _1984_, rand
_atlas_shrugged_. what is your point -- that dramatic works have no real
philosophical worth?
> c.) if you understand Sartrean ethics, you have a lot more time on your
> hands than I do. Being and Nothingness is V E R Y S L O W going.
agreed. and i'm not really into sartre. enjoyed *the flies* a few summers
ago in a park, and was "the valet" from *no exit* once at a very weird party.
> All of which is kind of beside the point above (Camus was NOT an
> EXISTENTIALIST you silly rabbit) but I figured I would read your whole
> post and submit some reply here.
i consider him to be but never argued with you about it. you were the one
who missed the orginal point and are now trying to shore up your position.
> His epistimology is a little easier going. I always thought of Sartre
> as a pretty regular Cartesian, but in a state of PTSD from having his
> entire world torn apart by war. To get Hegelian is like to get
> postmodern, except you are going in the opposite direction now.
to get hegelian is to get hobbesian, which is not cartesian at all. i think
(ha!) that the cartesian idea of reality would go more with a postmodernist
informed view of how we relate to reality and our place in it, whereas hobbes
had very clear and concise beliefs on the way in which we react to our
reality. so, i do agree that sartre may have been suffering from PTSD but he
wasn't really a cartesian (i believe he had more in common with hobbes -- and
hegel -- who i consider to be the anti-cartesian).
> > i also find it interesting that hegel had goethe (i think they were
> > friends even) and that sartre had camus. and that nobody cares to
> > make goethe a philosopher.
>
> You have gone into infrared herring territory here. Have I ever told
> you that sometimes you sort of remind me of Jonah?
i was making a sort of general connection between the two philosophers (hegel
and sartre) and the two novelists they befriended.
> Camus was a great writer. He was not an existentialist.
um, if it means that much to you, i believe you are entitled to your opinion.
lord clod
he was
when i
went to school
--
The world I mock still breaks my heart.
-Layo
Melia
On Wed, 6 Dec 2000 buk...@baileylink.net wrote:
> K. is probably the ultimate angst person of letters. <- nice and p.c.,
eh?
<pat on the head for Bukvich>
I agree about K, especially when he writes about love. He would have made
an amazing angster. <sniff>
> > It's an important distinction, I think. Of course, I haven't had my
> > coffee yet, so I might just be talking crap. It's tough to tell
> > sometimes.
>
> Not that often. It is usually easy to see when people are talking crap.
It's my default assumption that most people are talking crap, so when they
are not, I am indeed surprised. I find it much easier to determine when
people are *not* talking crap. Most people talk so much crap that they
don't even realize they're doing it.
> > Yes. You've read that he thought he was "special."
>
> He was special to me. The Myth of Sysyphus was a rite of passage for
> entire generations. Who does not know that the only important
> philosophical question is suicide? I mean now, that is.
True. I also find that to be one of the best stories I've ever read. It is
not, however, a story which Camus invented. It is more of a universal
theme than that. He just wrote about it better than anyone else who comes
to mind.
> To be or not to be . . .
Careful. Pat's sleeping. You could wake him up if you go on like that.
> > We all know how well that works. Unfortunately, most people never
> > recognize anyone else's specialness in that way. People get lumped
> > into groups of one sort or another. It reminds me of all the
> > "alternative" kids who look just like one another. Yes, they are so
> > very individual in their sameness.
>
> The lumping is sometimes ill-founded. Who on earth could you ever lump
> Ilya Shambat amongst? The man is (probably a good thing) really beyond
> categorization.
It's almost always ill-founded, yet somewhat necessary given the breadth
of knowlege and understanding that the failure to classify and
generalize would require. It's unmanageable without some attempts at
reasonable comparison and the associated generalizations. Drill down at
will, of course.
Oh, and Ilya, even at his cutest and cuddliest best, is a nutbar. It's a
broad classification, but he definitely fits it...or it fits him.
> > There are likely to be at least as many scholars who associate Camus
> > with existentialism as there are those who do not.
>
> I would say the ones who make that association are lumping too broadly.
You not only would say it, you *did* say it, and here you have repeated
it. I agree, somewhat, but I recognize the value of at least saying "Camus
has much to do with existentialist philosophy". It allows those who are
familiar with existentialism (or who think they are, which is more often
the case) to share a very general understanding of his works, even
if they don't intend to read them. Yes, there is more to his work, but I
am again drawn (it's been a while, I suppose, but this one comes up often
for me) to the character in Whit Stillman's _Metropolitan_, who feels for
a long time as if reading the critiques of books is better than reading
them himself, because the people writing them are
professionals. Eventually, he reads a book...I believe _Mansfield
Park_...and he determines that the critic and he disagree quite a bit
about the work. The same often holds true for the generalizations made by
scholars in an attempt to make lofty concepts, or even basic ones, more
accesssible to the non-academic folks. Any attempt to generalize an
experience, particularly one associated with the perception words on a
page, is doomed, but there are more logical places to begin then others,
and lumping (if you must) Camus with existentialism makes reasonable
sense.
> A precondition of being an existentialist philosopher is that first one
> must be a philosopher.
True. But is being an "existentialist" the same thing as being an
"existentialist philosopher"?
> > What he himself might have said or done is another matter, but it does
> > not override generations of inspection of his works. (...and yes, I
> > think 90% of literary theory is intellectual wanking, and I actually
> > agree with you, but I disagree with your attitude about
> > it...ignorance, indeed.)
>
> If you would prefer a descriptor such as laziness or simplification to
> the term ignorance, I shall not quibble.
Done.
> > There are some writers about whose work I have a really unbelievable
> > passion.
>
> You could start a new thread. I get dibs on Shakespeare.
No, but I would claim George Eliot, Thomas Hardy, and Edna St. Vincent
Millay...as well as having to arm-wrestle you for Shakespeare and Pat for
Thoreau (or possibly just take Emerson instead). I might even have to go
with Kingsley Amis, although I would have to make apologies for a few of
his works, which just can't compete with _Lucky Jim_. Oh, and there's
Evelyn Waugh for some excellent social commentary.
> > You just like a little intellectual wanking. Admit it.
>
> Well if nobody is going to talk about strippers, it's just as well this
> topic as any other.
You know, I used to be a stripper. <wink> <wink>
> > No one makes you do it.
>
> I suppose you believe in free will?
>
> How existentialist of you!
Yes, well...
> [ ' I've lost my faith in nihilism ' ]
heh.
Anya McGrory
Patrick Vest <tho...@flash.net> wrote:
>
>
> Anya McGrory wrote:
>
> > In article <3A2D7B84...@flash.net>,
> > Patrick Vest <tho...@flash.net> wrote:
> > Ummm...basil, oil, parmesan/romano and pinenuts?
> >
> > Do I get a prize?
>
>
> Pat...hmm, I see you scored a zero on the wine portion of the
> quiz...I'll pick it.
Meritage is a bordeaux blend, yes? So where do you live?
Anya, snob
David 'Cuddles' O'Bedlam
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, Mica wrote:
> Anya McGrory <anya_m...@my-deja.com> wrote:
[...]
> > Meritage is a bordeaux blend, yes?
Then what's "Melungeon"?
> Cabernet sauvignon, cabernet franc, malbec, merlot and petit verdot.
Uh, sounds like "Hawaiian Punch." (Does Marie come with it?)
> (I just *knew* all this wine geek knowledge could be used for something
> other than increasing my credit card debt.)
Yup: some of us can again go "Whoop-de-doo, REAL drunks drink WHISKEY."
Whoopily,
The
P.S. What's the difference between a "lush" and a "drunk", anyway?
- --
"A stinker is somebody who stinks." -Jonah Thomas <jeth...@ix.netcom.com>
(C) 2000 by 'TheDavid(TM)' | David, P.O. Box 21403, Louisville, KY 40221
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBOjAsMxz40he1RakNEQLmKQCfcDE9txU4Z6P0U4fN4mNJuGsPtAYAoIX7
fKdT8SqK1brGN5POQDdX/w6d
=q5YA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Jonah Thomas
> Existentialism is a subset of philosophy. It is not a literary genre.
> Camus was a man of letters; he was not a philosopher.
People here have mostly agreed with you that Camus was not a philosopher
but a journalist. Since you've widened the discourse I'd like to ask
about that.
What does it take to be a philosopher? Do you have to be a
professional,
who does philosophy for money? Can one be a part-time philosopher and
supplement one's income some other way?
Occasionally I meet shopgirls or grocery clerks who's say "I'm not a
philosopher but..." and then they'll say something profound. I say
they are philosophers whether they admit it or not. I say that a
philosopher is somebody who does philosophy, just like a murderer is
somebody who murders and a stinker is somebody who stinks, regardless
whether it's their main or only source of income.
> This is pretty mangled, but I would suggest a couple things:
> a.) postmodernism is a complete mess; to bring it up postpones our
> ability to arrive at a conclusion beyond the horizon of a usenet
> discussion. It is a fine topic for cafe metaphysics, maybe someday . .
Do you hope to arrive at a conclusion with us beyond the horizon of a
usenet discussion here? Do you have any idea how to do so?
> b.) "hell is other people" is from a work of dramatic fiction. Sartre's
> achilles heel in making a lasting philosophical contribution may have
> been the self-dilution involved in his shapeshifting from writing
> serious academic stuff, then novels, then plays, etc.
So was sarte a philosopher and a playwright, or did he stop being a
philosopher when he took up novels?
> Immanuel Kant
> wouldn't have dreamt of writing a play. If you are going to entertain
> masses, you limit your ability to address the most serious people in
> your field. Fact is you chop off your legs.
I didn't parse that. If you sometimes talk to low-brow people does that
limit your ability to talk to others? Is it that the other people, the
good people, will refuse to take you seriously because they've seen you
tell jokes etc in the past?
Mica
Anya McGrory <anya_m...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <3A2E135D...@flash.net>,
> Patrick Vest <tho...@flash.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Anya McGrory wrote:
> >
> > > In article <3A2D7B84...@flash.net>,
> > > Patrick Vest <tho...@flash.net> wrote:
> > > Ummm...basil, oil, parmesan/romano and pinenuts?
> > >
> > > Do I get a prize?
> >
> >
> > Pat...hmm, I see you scored a zero on the wine portion of the
> > quiz...I'll pick it.
>
Cabernet sauvignon, cabernet franc, malbec, merlot and petit verdot. (I
just *knew* all this wine geek knowledge could be used for something
other than increasing my credit card debt.)
Mica
buk...@baileylink.net
cut by a penny from heaven <lord...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> but what does that have to do with making up statements that you then
> attribute to another person?
We are getting into those extra innings here, but this is my
recollection of how the current discussion got disputatious. Ms. Sarah
Jane, soon-to-be-world-famous-ex-stripper, attempted to bluff her way
into some pose of academic experience by saying that she "knew the
difference between Sartrean existentialism and Camusian existentialism."
I called her bluff. I didn't call her a moron. I did say that the
above statement was simply ignorant, which to be honest it is.
> the point here is that philosophers have taken his writing and made
> what could be loosely termed camusian existentialism, meaning perhaps
> an existential philosophy which is informed by the sense that in the
> absurdity of the world, sometimes all the really matters is the human
> connections, and the people who make them having the courage and the
> fortitude to stick to their connectedness and their convictions.
You speak of existentialism as if it has a present tense reality. It
really does not. It came out of the utter destruction of French
civilization in 1942, and very nearly everybody who experienced that as
an adult is now dead. The truth of the collaborationists and the deadly
family quarrels they plunged into is so unspeakable that it will
probably never be told. Imagine your wife shacked up with an SS
officer, that type thing.
> camus said he didn't want to be associated with the trendy movement
> known as existentialism. that might not be the same thing.
Camus said he was not an existentialist.
> it's not so much the argument, it's the way that you are making it.
> pedantic is one thing, but you aren't even close on accurately
> reflecting what people are saying. and in that way, did you know that
> you remind me of jonut?
Funny I thought the exact same thing! Ha ha funny, not peculiar funny.
> not at all. you seem to think that all philosophers need be as
> miserable and inaccessible as wittgenstein.
Sartre and the existentialists were every bit as miserable as
Wittgenstein. For the same reason. War. It may make for great
American TV, but it is like hell, dude.
> once again, your pedanticism is merely an espousal of your own
> preference and prejudice. plato wrote the *crito*, hobbes
> *leviathan*, orwell _1984_, rand _atlas_shrugged_. what is your point
> -- that dramatic works have no real philosophical worth?
Plato was one of a kind. Leviathan is not a drama in my mind. Orwell
was not a philosopher. Rand was only a philosopher in her own extremely
muddled mind.
My point was that Sartre diluted his staying power by dilly-dallying
around with plays and novels and political propaganda and philosophical
treatises and screwing half the women in France and the drinking and the
late nights and on and on and on.
The man was a war hero in a nation of tens of millions of cowards and
could get away with any thing he felt like. This isn't Marcus Aurelius
here; this is an egomaniac who lived in a world where he never heard the
word "no."
> i consider him to be but never argued with you about it. you were the
> one who missed the orginal point and are now trying to shore up your
> position.
I started it I admit it.
> to get hegelian is to get hobbesian, which is not cartesian at all.
I think S's epistimology is cartesian in the sense that knowledge is
reliable only self-referentially, that knowledge of anything outside the
self is to be suspect, that knowledge of other people is ultimately
impossible.
> i think (ha!) that the cartesian idea of reality would go more with a
> postmodernist informed view of how we relate to reality and our place
> in it, whereas hobbes had very clear and concise beliefs on the way in
> which we react to our reality. so, i do agree that sartre may have
> been suffering from PTSD but he wasn't really a cartesian (i believe
> he had more in common with hobbes -- and hegel -- who i consider to be
> the anti-cartesian).
I am kinda lost here.
> um, if it means that much to you, i believe you are entitled to your
> opinion.
>
> lord clod
> he was
> when i
> went to school
My other point was that your teachers defrauded you on this point.
Bukvich
buk...@baileylink.net
<Pine.NEB.4.21.001207...@shell2.bayarea.net>,
Melia <me...@bayarea.net> wrote:
> Yes, there is more to his work, but I am again drawn (it's been a
> while, I suppose, but this one comes up often for me) to the character
> in Whit Stillman's _Metropolitan_, who feels for a long time as if
> reading the critiques of books is better than reading them himself,
> because the people writing them are professionals.
An interesting subject in a fine movie. What is often at work there is
people with extremely monolingual faculties cannot comprehend another
style. A commentary on Aristotle by a modern American English speaker
like Mortimer Adler is comprehensible, whereas the master is not. This
is self-limiting. Go beyond "what did they say"? Go for "what did they
see"?
Have you read Julian Jaynes?
> Eventually, he reads a book...I believe _Mansfield Park_...and he
> determines that the critic and he disagree quite a bit about the work.
Good literary fiction is richly ambiguous. Interpretation,
hermeneutics, all that. There are as many ways to play Hamlet as there
are thoughtful skilled actors.
> The same often holds true for the generalizations made by
> scholars in an attempt to make lofty concepts, or even basic ones,
> more accesssible to the non-academic folks.
This is fine. I have no quarrel with somebody who wants to access
existentialism, or even if they think they are doing so by reading
Camus. What is bullshit is when they turn around and presume some
expertise they don't have.
> But is being an "existentialist" the same thing as being an
> "existentialist philosopher"?
Absolutely. To refer to existentialist literature or existentialist
filmmaking or existentialist poetry is to make up your own term. People
do this all the time, of course. A necessity of keeping it real is that
you be aware you are doing it.
I am not making this up.
> No, but I would claim George Eliot, Thomas Hardy, and Edna St. Vincent
> Millay...as well as having to arm-wrestle you for Shakespeare and Pat
> for Thoreau (or possibly just take Emerson instead). I might even have
> to go with Kingsley Amis, although I would have to make apologies for
> a few of his works, which just can't compete with _Lucky Jim_. Oh, and
> there's Evelyn Waugh for some excellent social commentary.
You like novelists. OK. I would love to talk Don Delillo and William
Faulkner and Fyodor Dostoyevsky. All that class stuff in English
novelists adds to my existential nausea. And William Gibson. I love
William Gibson.
Bukvich
cut by a penny from heaven
> In article <90mkjk$727$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> cut by a penny from heaven <lord...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > but what does that have to do with making up statements that you then
> > attribute to another person?
>
> We are getting into those extra innings here, but this is my
> recollection of how the current discussion got disputatious. Ms. Sarah
> Jane, soon-to-be-world-famous-ex-stripper, attempted to bluff her way
> into some pose of academic experience by saying that she "knew the
> difference between Sartrean existentialism and Camusian existentialism."
>
> I called her bluff. I didn't call her a moron. I did say that the
> above statement was simply ignorant, which to be honest it is.
okay, two things stand out at this point. one, i'm sorry that you seem to
have decided that my previous posting history precludes me from being able to
decide when enough is enough. that attitude prevents an open discussion of
things. selah, if that's the way it's gotta be.
two, i think that it's sort of disingenuous to hide your hostility to SJ by
berating and belittling her at every turn, while at the same time practically
begging her to tell you stories. i agree with you, she should finish what
she started (she may be lying and may be embarassed to complicate that lie
with another) but can't you get over it? i think that my posts were more of
a way to say "calm down, are you sure you meant to say that?" than a pure
inquiry into that particular subject material, but also feel that it became a
legitimate conversation of its own. therefore, my original motivation taken
care of, i settled down to talk about my man camus.
> You speak of existentialism as if it has a present tense reality. It
> really does not. It came out of the utter destruction of French
> civilization in 1942, and very nearly everybody who experienced that as
> an adult is now dead. The truth of the collaborationists and the deadly
> family quarrels they plunged into is so unspeakable that it will
> probably never be told. Imagine your wife shacked up with an SS
> officer, that type thing.
hmmm, i never knew you were so rigid in your classification systems. i take
all that people have learned to this point and try and apply it in this time
and space. the stories haven't changed all that much, even though the ways
in which we end them has.
> Funny I thought the exact same thing! Ha ha funny, not peculiar funny.
i can't parse this.
> My point was that Sartre diluted his staying power by dilly-dallying
> around with plays and novels and political propaganda and philosophical
> treatises and screwing half the women in France and the drinking and the
> late nights and on and on and on.
but do you feel that works that have a dramatic nature or underpinning have
no real philosophical worth? that's the essential question.
> The man was a war hero in a nation of tens of millions of cowards and
> could get away with any thing he felt like. This isn't Marcus Aurelius
> here; this is an egomaniac who lived in a world where he never heard the
> word "no."
actually, sartre was a person convinced only of his own mental prowess. he
was short and ugly, so much so that when he was a child his mother grew out
his hair to hide his face. most of the things that he became involved with
were reactions to being picked upon in school -- he early on began writing
plays and puppet shows in order to make rough friendships. his dramatic
urges stayed with him all his life.
> I started it I admit it.
thanks.
> I think S's epistimology is cartesian in the sense that knowledge is
> reliable only self-referentially, that knowledge of anything outside the
> self is to be suspect, that knowledge of other people is ultimately
> impossible.
okay, i'll take those three premises as given. but don't you think that most
of his ideas on the ethical side of things come from a sense which is more
hobbes and hegel than anything else?
> I am kinda lost here.
hobbes: that which is beneficial is what a being should strive for. [my
extrapolation] if you want it, reach for it -- and don't feel bad if it
hurts someone else.
descartes: that which is inside is the only thing worth basing a decision
on. [my extrapolation] therefore, if you feel an altruistic urge, by all
means follow what is in your mind. the mind can influence the body.
sartre: hey, watch out, nothing means anything outside of your mind, so ally
yourself with the things which bring you the most internal pleasure.
we see this time and time again, a man with so fragile a sense of self-esteem
that he continually made alliances with the best thing for him, according to
his desires.
> My other point was that your teachers defrauded you on this point.
i wouldn't really call it a point -- it's more your reasoned opinion. as for
my teachers defrauding (deluding?) me, maybe -- but it sure wasn't the first
time.
lord clod
poor
poor
sartre
--
The world I mock still breaks my heart.
-Layo
Jyeshtha
In <90r03p$l23$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> cut by a penny from heaven
<lord...@my-deja.com> writes to bukvich:
>two, i think that it's sort of disingenuous to hide your hostility to SJ by
>berating and belittling her at every turn,
That just means he wuvs her. Poor Bukky, bitten at last...
buk...@baileylink.net
cut by a penny from heaven <lord...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> okay, two things stand out at this point. one, i'm sorry that you
> seem to have decided that my previous posting history precludes me
> from being able to decide when enough is enough.
Actually I find it very interesting. People will soon heckle, though.
> two, i think that it's sort of disingenuous to hide your hostility to
> SJ by berating and belittling her at every turn, while at the same
> time practically begging her to tell you stories.
This is an interesting interpretation. I rarely am evaluated as a
person who conceals their hostility. Further, I am not at all hostile
to her, I just pointed out an instance where she was full of baloney.
That is such an intrinsically human activity (both being full of it and
pointing it out) that hostile seems a bit exaggerated.
The set of [ people I really feel hostile to around here ] does not
include her.
I wasn't begging her for the information, more like attempting to
convince her that it was to her own advantage.
"Never apeal to a persons better nature, they may not have one.
Appeal to their self intrest, it gives you more leverage."
--Robert Heinlein.
> i agree with you, she should finish what she started (she may be lying
> and may be embarassed to complicate that lie with another) but can't
> you get over it?
By definition, I will be done writing about it when there is something
else which I am more interested in. My attention span is usually pretty
short.
> i think that my posts were more of a way to say "calm down, are you
> sure you meant to say that?" than a pure inquiry into that particular
> subject material, but also feel that it became a legitimate
> conversation of its own. therefore, my original motivation taken
> care of, i settled down to talk about my man camus.
> hmmm, i never knew you were so rigid in your classification systems.
Taking words literally actually helps you to communicate.
> i take all that people have learned to this point and try and apply
> it in this time and space. the stories haven't changed all that much,
> even though the ways in which we end them has.
Hopefully I will never have to go through what Sartre went through. It
is very difficult for me to imagine what it was like.
> > Funny I thought the exact same thing! Ha ha funny, not peculiar
> > funny.
>
> i can't parse this.
I laughed when you said I sometimes remind you of Jonah. The other day,
before I read this, I wrote that you sometimes remind me of Jonah.
> but do you feel that works that have a dramatic nature or underpinning
> have no real philosophical worth? that's the essential question.
Philo = love + sophia = wisdom
No real philosophical worth is an extremum, but I care a great deal
about literature, and I care a great deal about philosophy, and I think
that usually they are best kept separate.
Perhaps an example will illustrate this best. The other day a friend of
mine was complaining about getting older, encroaching enfeeblement and
so forth. I recommended Shakespeare's sonnets, a large fraction of
which are about the topic of your young beautiful lover evolving into an
old and no-longer-beautiful, but hopefully still loving person. This is
a topic which is important, but it is much better to dance around it, to
parry and faint with it. To just come right out and explicitly go
through the facts from a to z is downright depressing. You could say
that this is a philosophical topic. I would say that it is a better
literary topic than a philosophical one.
I would offer that my viewpoint of why a novel isn't philosophy is
fairly in line with Camus' viewpoint of why his novels are not
existentialism.
> actually, sartre was a person convinced only of his own mental
> prowess. he was short and ugly, so much so that when he was a child
> his mother grew out his hair to hide his face. most of the things
> that he became involved with were reactions to being picked upon in
> school -- he early on began writing plays and puppet shows in order to
> make rough friendships. his dramatic urges stayed with him all his
> life.
So imagine that recipe thrown into an environment where you are
practically the only war hero in sight. It is the stuff of mythology.
> okay, i'll take those three premises as given. but don't you
> think that most of his ideas on the ethical side of things come from a
> sense which is more hobbes and hegel than anything else?
His ethics place freedom above everything. Hegel did not believe in
individual free will. He believed we were all part of some
superorganism functioning like organelles.
Hobbes in my view was a royalist. Again, very anti-freedom. He feared
anarchy more than anything else, a condition of nature of war of all
against all.
This is all very caricatured. There are shelves of books in the library
debating these topics ad nauseum. Matisse has read a bunch of them, and
I have only read a few. I can't believe she hasn't weighed in with her
opinion. She must be on the wagon or something!
> hobbes: that which is beneficial is what a being should strive for.
> [my extrapolation] if you want it, reach for it -- and don't feel
> bad if it hurts someone else.
That is the desire and fear thing. Well he certainly got that right.
He appears to me to be paranoid of getting hurt by other people reaching
out for things and squashing him in the process.
He lived in a time of civil war in England, you know.
> descartes: that which is inside is the only thing worth basing a
> decision on. [my extrapolation] therefore, if you feel an altruistic
> urge, by all means follow what is in your mind. the mind can
> influence the body.
Descartes is a winner for where he started (doubt everything), more than
for where he ended. He is the father of French philosophy, which if you
have read much of it, you know that is nothing to brag about.
> sartre: hey, watch out, nothing means anything outside of your mind,
> so ally yourself with the things which bring you the most internal
> pleasure.
I don't read that in Sartre. I read a man humbled by warfare, obsessed
with freedom and dignity, and fully possessed of duty.
I think duty is mostly a crock of shit. I am more like the anarchist
that made Hobbes tremble. Of course, I have grown up in peace and
prosperity and comfort. I have been to Manilla and Mexico City and I
cannot imagine what my world view would be if I was unlucky enough to be
a citizen of a place like that.
> we see this time and time again, a man with so fragile a sense of
> self-esteem that he continually made alliances with the best thing for
> him, according to his desires.
Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky!
> lord clod
> poor
> poor
> sartre
yupper there.
Miriam Theotokos
> I laughed when you said I sometimes remind you of Jonah. The other day,
> before I read this, I wrote that you sometimes remind me of Jonah.
You both remind me of Jonah. That's why I like you so much.
I like lame pedants. Of course, neither of you are as good
at it as Jonah. I would never marry anyone less than the lamest
pedant around.
Sarah Jane
buk...@baileylink.net wrote:
> In article <90mkjk$727$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> cut by a penny from heaven <lord...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > but what does that have to do with making up statements that you
then
> > attribute to another person?
>
> We are getting into those extra innings here, but this is my
> recollection of how the current discussion got disputatious. Ms.
Sarah
> Jane, soon-to-be-world-famous-ex-stripper, attempted to bluff her way
> into some pose of academic experience by saying that she "knew the
> difference between Sartrean existentialism and Camusian
existentialism."
That's not what I said. If you remember the post in which I even
mentioned it,it was a jokey response about what it means to have been an
"over-educated waitress." What I said was that at one point in time I
could have _explained_ the difference between S and C existentialism,
and then after that in another post I joked that I can't even spell
existentialism anymore! I never said that I know it now, or even that I
knew it then, just that I could have spewed some stuff about it.
>
> I called her bluff. I didn't call her a moron. I did say that the
> above statement was simply ignorant, which to be honest it is.
>
It was not a bluff, it was pure silliness. Go back to where I also
said, in that same post I believe, that a waitress who knew how to wait
tables was considered smart enough to be suspect. Did that sound
serious to you?
<snip lots of IW>
Sarah
buk...@baileylink.net
Sarah Jane <sbril...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> That's not what I said. If you remember the post in which I even
> mentioned it,it was a jokey response about what it means to have been
> an "over-educated waitress." What I said was that at one point in
> time I could have _explained_ the difference between S and C
> existentialism, and then after that in another post I joked that I
> can't even spell existentialism anymore! I never said that I know it
> now, or even that I knew it then, just that I could have spewed some
> stuff about it.
ok fine. everybody in full retreat.
group hug.
cut by a penny from heaven
> In article <90r03p$l23$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> cut by a penny from heaven <lord...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Actually I find it very interesting. People will soon heckle, though.
up the people! or something.
> This is an interesting interpretation. I rarely am evaluated as a
> person who conceals their hostility. Further, I am not at all hostile
> to her, I just pointed out an instance where she was full of baloney.
> That is such an intrinsically human activity (both being full of it and
> pointing it out) that hostile seems a bit exaggerated.
okay. but hopefully you can see that the pattern indicated this:
she posts about being a stripper.
you increase your already not-inconsiderable attention towards her.
she rebuffs your request for more information.
you start telling her she's full of it.
that, from the outside, looks like retaliation. since you say that this is
not the case, i'm inclined to take you at your word.
> The set of [ people I really feel hostile to around here ] does not
> include her.
same here. i thought, excitedly i might add, that the subject line "dead
father = no more angst" might lead one of the more odious posters to leave
this week. alas, 'tis not so.
> I wasn't begging her for the information, more like attempting to
> convince her that it was to her own advantage.
> "Never apeal to a persons better nature, they may not have one.
> Appeal to their self intrest, it gives you more leverage."
> --Robert Heinlein.
_now_ i know where jonut got that approach! did you see "starship troopers"?
four decapitations!
> Taking words literally actually helps you to communicate.
hmmm. it certainly didn't seem helpful. i'd like to think that a discussion
of things past can have relevance in the present, or future...
> Hopefully I will never have to go through what Sartre went through. It
> is very difficult for me to imagine what it was like.
maybe one day a discussion will arise about the survivors of the drug war.
> I laughed when you said I sometimes remind you of Jonah. The other day,
> before I read this, I wrote that you sometimes remind me of Jonah.
yep. i get it now.
> No real philosophical worth is an extremum, but I care a great deal
> about literature, and I care a great deal about philosophy, and I think
> that usually they are best kept separate.
okay, the discussion of why delillo's _white_noise_ is one of the greatest
american novels is now in order:
first, why that title? is it the bald comment that it seems to be, or is it
more of a comment on how the calamitous events which can occur in modern life
fade into the background like the destruction of pompei?
> Perhaps an example will illustrate this best. The other day a friend of
> mine was complaining about getting older, encroaching enfeeblement and
> so forth. I recommended Shakespeare's sonnets, a large fraction of
> which are about the topic of your young beautiful lover evolving into an
> old and no-longer-beautiful, but hopefully still loving person. This is
> a topic which is important, but it is much better to dance around it, to
> parry and faint with it. To just come right out and explicitly go
> through the facts from a to z is downright depressing. You could say
> that this is a philosophical topic. I would say that it is a better
> literary topic than a philosophical one.
i would say that i feel that literary works always inform philosophical
inquiries. that's not to say that every literary work is one worthy of
philosophical inquiry; it's just i feel that there is no definitive inquiry
into a philosophical idea until a writer breaks it down into a literary work.
i'll give an example. hobbes was born into the upper class of society in
england. he developed a theory which would maintain power for himself and
people like him, and rationalized away higher ethical considerations like
mercy and kindness and sharing the wealth. but i submit that until his ideas
were expressed in "leviathan" no one could grok his meaning, which meant that
it was mostly meaningless. (please do NOT grab me by the balls asking for an
a priori explanation of this).
it is not until an idea is disassembled and discussed, then distributed does
it begin to be an idea which has passed through the crucible of philosophical
thought. i can feel you squirming out there, buk, and i know what you are
thinking. but look at the historical examples -- has anyone ever thought it
all out the first time by themselves? or have we reached most (if not all)
conclusions based on a back-and-forth discussion of the idea, which can, and
often does, include literary works?
one of the things that i really hate about [mostly fiction] books now is that
most of them are concerned with plot twists and turns over content, comment
and perspective. as a matter of fact, when tom clancy can write books that
inspires people (i know, it was a long time ago) to fund rescue operations,
you know that something is wrong.
nine books are open on my nighttable:
the passion son of rosemary hannibal (third time through) sudden prey the
plague (started last night) the sparrow acid house rules the book of laughter
and forgetting (this book keeps me from killing myself every year at this
time) [the captain's verses (yeah, i'm gettin' hitched)] amazin' (about the
'69 mets)
any ones you can recommend adding to the list?
> I would offer that my viewpoint of why a novel isn't philosophy is
> fairly in line with Camus' viewpoint of why his novels are not
> existentialism.
once again, i feel the literary work is the only way in which philosophy is
honed, carved by the writer to fit the contours of human experience.
> So imagine that recipe thrown into an environment where you are
> practically the only war hero in sight. It is the stuff of mythology.
i think the whole arc of his life shows that he was more given to looking out
for his own self interests than being concerned with looking to define
himself with the mantle of war hero.
> His ethics place freedom above everything. Hegel did not believe in
> individual free will. He believed we were all part of some
> superorganism functioning like organelles.
> Hobbes in my view was a royalist. Again, very anti-freedom. He feared
> anarchy more than anything else, a condition of nature of war of all
> against all.
hegel was indeed very loyal to the ruling class. the only thing that i have
exception with is that he fully approved of the individual in charge dealing
from the bottom of the deck if necessary, or at any time that individual felt
was warranted.
> That is the desire and fear thing. Well he certainly got that right.
> He appears to me to be paranoid of getting hurt by other people reaching
> out for things and squashing him in the process.
>
> He lived in a time of civil war in England, you know.
>
> > descartes: that which is inside is the only thing worth basing a
> > decision on. [my extrapolation] therefore, if you feel an altruistic
> > urge, by all means follow what is in your mind. the mind can
> > influence the body.
>
> Descartes is a winner for where he started (doubt everything), more than
> for where he ended. He is the father of French philosophy, which if you
> have read much of it, you know that is nothing to brag about.
"i may not believe in what you are saying, but i will defend to the death
your right to say it." -voltaire
> I don't read that in Sartre. I read a man humbled by warfare, obsessed
> with freedom and dignity, and fully possessed of duty.
you'll have to reference his early life to be able to see that in him.
okay, on to delillo. but remember, i never angst on the weekends.
lord clod
they are too
short
for that
--
The world I mock still breaks my heart.
-Layo
David 'Cuddles' O'Bedlam
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, Bukvich opined:
[...]
> Ms. Sarah Jane [...] attempted to bluff her way into some pose of
> academic experience by saying that she "knew the difference between
> Sartrean existentialism and Camusian existentialism."
> I called her bluff.
"Bluff"? Bukky, produce your no-doubt-net-shaking proof that Camus
was not an existentialist -- and/or that there's no such thing as
"Camusian existentialism."
> I didn't call her a moron.
You did, by implication.
> I did say that the above statement was simply ignorant, which to
> be honest it is.
Uh, no. You're just being pedantic, and wrong in two ways, again.
[...]
> You speak of existentialism as if it has a present tense reality.
> It really does not.
Prove it. For that matter, prove the Manichean "heresy" is over.
> It came out of the utter destruction of French civilization in 1942,
To be pedantic -- and correct -- at you, French civilization did *not*
end in 1942, nor in 1940 when the Nazis rolled over Frogdom like some
perverse dweeb *intentionally* stepping in dog shit; it's just that a
few hundred thousand of the "best sort" of Frenchies saw an opportunity
to avenge themselves on the Dreyfusards at last and make a few sou off
it while they were at it, and still be able to appease their Catholic
consciences with a Gallic shrug of "Don't blame me, I was CONQUERED!"
[...]
> Camus said he was not an existentialist.
Citation, please?
A-N-Y-W-A-Y...
The
- --
"A stinker is somebody who stinks." -Jonah Thomas <jeth...@ix.netcom.com>
(C) 2000 by 'TheDavid(TM)' | David, P.O. Box 21403, Louisville, KY 40221
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBOjFq9Rz40he1RakNEQL5RQCgkVSsf46X0fHy0Ywonv3tjtp8c2MAoJgx
5ylCHccqKWE1YsxfMkuvcdJu
=Fgn0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
David 'Cuddles' O'Bedlam
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, Bukvich confessed:
[...]
> I love William Gibson.
And you presume to hold the keys to existentialism, yet.
Case-restingly,
The
- --
"A stinker is somebody who stinks." -Jonah Thomas <jeth...@ix.netcom.com>
(C) 2000 by 'TheDavid(TM)' | David, P.O. Box 21403, Louisville, KY 40221
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBOjFrpxz40he1RakNEQJcQQCg8lUbaxFdQy5Xno2L1yjSCu0TK6cAnRa7
eKhV2nTgDJO83S3AJ60Kn9UY
=EOTF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
David 'Cuddles' O'Bedlam
Hash: SHA1
_Mao II_, you dipshits. If DeLillo at all.
The
- --
"A stinker is somebody who stinks." -Jonah Thomas <jeth...@ix.netcom.com>
(C) 2000 by 'TheDavid(TM)' | David, P.O. Box 21403, Louisville, KY 40221
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBOjFsmhz40he1RakNEQJTfgCg50SVrpObia3opmduVTqi2IDPD5oAnivk
aMv2dyoxGradtJK2mAIGB2RS
=QaYD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
buk...@baileylink.net
David 'Cuddles' O'Bedlam <thed...@tsoft.com> wrote:
> > Camus said he was not an existentialist.
>
> Citation, please?
It took me like 60 seconds to find it in my own library. It is in a
paperback published by Vantage in circa 1975 entitled "Literary and
Critical Essays" by Albert Camus. It is not an obscure footnote. It is
a freakin' chapter title.
Just because you don't know what you are talking about should not drive
you to project your own ignorance onto others.
You moron.
buk...@baileylink.net
cut by a penny from heaven <lord...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> up the people! or something.
I suppose they can always skip to the next post.
> okay. but hopefully you can see that the pattern indicated this:
> she posts about being a stripper.
I remember that quite well.
> you increase your already not-inconsiderable attention towards her.
My recollection was that she made it as an offhand comment and I
insisted that this would not do.
> she rebuffs your request for more information.
Actually she invited me to Austin in front of you and everybody.
> you start telling her she's full of it.
All I said was that Camus was not an existentialist, which sort of
initiated an avalanche.
> that, from the outside, looks like retaliation.
Nah. Retaliation is what I did to poor Melia back in like April that I
still owe her an apology for.
> since you say that this is not the case, i'm inclined to take you at
> your word.
The existentialists would insist that you do so, since your knowledge of
another is so profoundly limited.
> _now_ i know where jonut got that approach! did you see "starship
> troopers"? four decapitations!
No. Decapitation can be pretty cool in a movie though.
> hmmm. it certainly didn't seem helpful. i'd like to think that a
> discussion of things past can have relevance in the present, or
> future...
Sure it can. But like looking at subtext and implication and other such
whatnot, it is a fallback when direct discourse is at impasse. Just say
what you mean; if you say it clearly, most people will get your meaning
with a minimum of fuss. (See Wittgentstein's Tractatus.)
> maybe one day a discussion will arise about the survivors of the drug
> war.
Bell Hooks Outlaw Culture and Luc Sante Low Life.
> okay, the discussion of why delillo's _white_noise_ is one of the
> greatest american novels is now in order:
Well the main reason it is such a great novel is that the novel is in a
rather dreary state at the moment. Gabriel Garcia Marquez is the only
living novelist who can consistently make me go: Like Wow Man.
White Noise is a very fine book; I cannot classify it as a great novel
because Delillo is not good at characterization. All his characters act
too much like Don Delillo. All his characters talk too much like Don
Delillo. His children talk like Don Delillo, which is very weak.
Nevertheless, the other parts of the book overcome this.
> first, why that title?
It is a television screen broadcasting a dead channel. See the first
sentence of Neuromancer " the sky above the port was the color of a
television set, tuned to a dead channel "
One of the great ironies of modern life is that the white noise on a
dead television channel is usually the best thing on TV.
> is it the bald comment that it seems to be, or is it more of a comment
> on how the calamitous events which can occur in modern life fade into
> the background like the destruction of pompei?
The disaster becomes banal because there is always some sort of a
disaster occuring someplace, and CNN will send a video camera there and
broadcast it into your living room. This makes epic art impossible.
The siege of Troy, and the dispute between Achilles and Agamemnon,
became art sentence by sentence over ten thousand re-tellings when the
memory of this thing that happened long ago was the most interesting
thing to talk about.
> i would say that i feel that literary works always inform
> philosophical inquiries.
I gave this point a lot of thought.
Camus said that the only meaningful philosophical question was suicide.
I disagree. To me the only meaningful philosophical question is: why
study philosophy anyway?
It is a lot of work, and does it have value that justifies this great
expenditure of effort required to examine it? Perhaps to Socrates the
unexamined life is not worth living, but most people I know think that
Socrates is not worth examining, notwithstanding the fact that they do
not want to die. Philosophy is definitely not for everybody. I recall
writing a few months ago that the editors of the New York Times and the
Wall Street Journal did have a philosophy, and its name was William
James' Pragmatism. On second thought I want to retract that. James'
work is not sophia; it is really phronesis. The editors of the WSJ and
the NYT do not have a philosophy; they are not philosophers. To the
extent that they engage in reflection, it is philo-phronesis, not
philo-sophia.
Do I have a philosophy? I don't have a favorite living philosopher,
although I do read Rorty and Putnam and Searle. I do have favorite dead
philosophers: Wittgenstein and Plato. If you must label me, I am a
Wittgentseinian Platonist or a Platonic Wittgentsteinite.
Now, although philosophy is not for everybody, literature most
definitely ought to be. If no literary art whatsoever can move you, you
are almost certainly suffering a major personality disorder.
So although I believe you are wrong, you are wrong in a most thought
provoking fashion and I applaud you.
> that's not to say that every literary work is one worthy of
> philosophical inquiry; it's just i feel that there is no definitive
> inquiry into a philosophical idea until a writer breaks it down into a
> literary work.
> i'll give an example. hobbes was born into the upper class of society
> in england. he developed a theory which would maintain power for
> himself and people like him, and rationalized away higher ethical
> considerations like mercy and kindness and sharing the wealth. but i
> submit that until his ideas were expressed in "leviathan" no one could
> grok his meaning, which meant that it was mostly meaningless.
I don't look at Leviathan as a literary work, and I don't believe his
contemporaries did either. More like parable.
> it is not until an idea is disassembled and discussed, then
> distributed does it begin to be an idea which has passed through the
> crucible of philosophical thought.
I agree with this a hundred percent. This is precisely why Plato said
in the Phaedrus that dialogue was a superior philosophical instrument to
written text. In vigorous debate, the truth comes to the top. This is
the Socratic method. This is also why we have the adversarial
jurisprudence and division of state power. The Federalist Papers guys
elaborate on this at great length.
> i can feel you squirming out there, buk, and i know what you are
> thinking. but look at the historical examples -- has anyone ever
> thought it all out the first time by themselves? or have we reached
> most (if not all) conclusions based on a back-and-forth discussion of
> the idea, which can, and often does, include literary works?
I would say you are half right. What literature does is take words and
stimulate your imagination. In that sense it can do anything. The more
it stimulates your imagination the better it is. An overstimulated
imagination almost always makes for crap philosophy. Most great
philosophers have modest literary gifts. Call it the law of
conservation of genius. Think of Michael Jordan as a .220 singles
hitter for a modern example.
> one of the things that i really hate about [mostly fiction] books now
> is that most of them are concerned with plot twists and turns over
> content, comment and perspective. as a matter of fact, when tom
> clancy can write books that inspires people (i know, it was a long
> time ago) to fund rescue operations, you know that something is wrong.
Imagine the mind of a person that can read Tom Clancy.
I snipped a bunch.
Bukvich
JThomas
> > > Camus said he was not an existentialist.
> > Citation, please?
> It took me like 60 seconds to find it in my own library. It is in a
> paperback published by Vantage in circa 1975 entitled "Literary and
> Critical Essays" by Albert Camus. It is not an obscure footnote. It is
> a freakin' chapter title.
> Just because you don't know what you are talking about should not drive
> you to project your own ignorance onto others.
> You moron.
Wait a minute, why should you take Camus's word about it?
Nixon said he wasn't a crook, do you believe him?
You've been deciding for yourself what existentialism is and who
qualifies,
why stop now? Surely you're a better judge of whether Camus was an
existentialist
than Camus was. No need for you to appeal to the authority of a famous
existentialist, just tell us what's so and let it go at that.
slate
As it usually goes, most often labels are
applied by others. We have something of a
love/hate relationship with
categorization. Camus really only had two
(major) philosophical works, neither of
which was really long enough to hammer out
an encompassing philosophy. The rest of
it resides embedded within works of
fiction. If he had committed more to
paper along the lines of hard philosophy
(which didn't seem to be a high priority
of
his), he most likely would have sacrificed
some flexibility in his fiction. In
Sartre, for example, the development of
the story is so bound by the strictures of
his philosophy, that if you know his works
well enough, the course of the story may
even seem predictible. For
Sartre, the fiction seems to supplement
the philosophy, for Camus it is
vice-versa.
Anyway, I think it would have made perfect
sense for Camus to maintain an arm's
length distance from hard existentialism,
if he was not inclined to assert a
position as a definitive authority of it.
To do so would only create limits, and he
would undoubtedly find himself under the
shadow of more prominent existentialists,
intellectually. Matters such as the
Nobel Prize thing would be brought to
light as something that he would need to
answer for. Who needs it? What was to be
gained by becoming a full member of the
existential philosopher club? He won a
position as one of the great existential
thinkers regardless of the fact that he
may very well have been a philosophical
hack in reality. Could anyone say
that he definitely wasn't? Do we know
that he would have had the stamina for a
600 page dense, philosophical text, were
he so inclined? Doubtful. His assertion
of 'suicide as most important
philosophical question' read as a
presumptuous point of departure to me. I
suppose the blunt, presumptuous delivery
of it is what has made it so memorable.
He was
perhaps gunning more for effect than depth
and detail.
He fancied himself an existential artist,
a tag that others might have won only if
it were thrown at them. For Camus, art
was to be directly correlated with freedom
of consciousness, or something like that.
In that respect, I think that philosophy
was secondary to art in his eyes.
Whatever.
JThomas
> > hmmm. it certainly didn't seem helpful. i'd like to think that a
> > discussion of things past can have relevance in the present, or
> > future...
> Sure it can. But like looking at subtext and implication and other such
> whatnot, it is a fallback when direct discourse is at impasse. Just say
> what you mean; if you say it clearly, most people will get your meaning
> with a minimum of fuss. (See Wittgentstein's Tractatus.)
Yes, and the way you know you said it clearly is when most people get
the
meaning easily. Say something they aren't expecting to hear, though,
and
it may be extremely difficult to find a way to say it that will be clear
to them.
> The disaster becomes banal because there is always some sort of a
> disaster occuring someplace, and CNN will send a video camera there and
> broadcast it into your living room. This makes epic art impossible.
> The siege of Troy, and the dispute between Achilles and Agamemnon,
> became art sentence by sentence over ten thousand re-tellings when the
> memory of this thing that happened long ago was the most interesting
> thing to talk about.
We could easily get that sort of thing out of the Civil War. Brothers
fighting brothers. Lee, offered command by both sides, choosing the
losers. Lincoln, staying the course, systematically dismantling
everything he ever believed in. A generation ensorceled by arthurian
romance, fighting a war whose technology could hardly be farther
removed.
POWs freed on their word of honor that they would not fight again.
Confederates behind the union lines, destroying the telegraph lines
that let Lincoln stupidly micromanage the war. No attempt to hide
officers' wives and children, no attempt to capture them and hold them
hostage. Poor Quantrill, bent out of shape because the yankees had
raped his wife, fighting to the very end. If people go on caring about
it for another 200 years we might eventually get some good literature.
> > i would say that i feel that literary works always inform
> > philosophical inquiries.
> I gave this point a lot of thought.
> Camus said that the only meaningful philosophical question was suicide.
> I disagree. To me the only meaningful philosophical question is: why
> study philosophy anyway?
That's the first question, but if you come up with an afirmative
answer then there may be other questions that follow. What makes this
the only meaningful philosophiclal question for some people is that
they get a negative answer.
> Do I have a philosophy? I don't have a favorite living philosopher,
> although I do read Rorty and Putnam and Searle. I do have favorite dead
> philosophers: Wittgenstein and Plato. If you must label me, I am a
> Wittgentseinian Platonist or a Platonic Wittgentsteinite.
It's been plain for some time that you are a platonist. The W influence
is harder -- sure you quote W but so do lots of people who don't think
about it. How does somebody who follows W show it in their thinking?
I haven't seen any way to tell.
> > that's not to say that every literary work is one worthy of
> > philosophical inquiry; it's just i feel that there is no definitive
> > inquiry into a philosophical idea until a writer breaks it down into a
> > literary work.
That makes a kind of sense. When the ideas are popularised then people
respect philosophers who have deep thoughts about them. But before the
popularisation it all seems ivory-tower stuff. And popular appeal makes
a big difference in the attention it gets from other philosophers. The
same thing happens in science. S J Gould has little respect among his
peers; his work was partly a rehash of trite old ideas and partly a
reinterpretation that has proven sterile, it has led to no useful
insights
and no interesting questions. But he was so good at expressing it in
the
popular media that it has gotten far more academic attention than it
could
possibly deserve.
> > it is not until an idea is disassembled and discussed, then
> > distributed does it begin to be an idea which has passed through the
> > crucible of philosophical thought.
> I agree with this a hundred percent. This is precisely why Plato said
> in the Phaedrus that dialogue was a superior philosophical instrument to
> written text. In vigorous debate, the truth comes to the top.
That would be true if the debate is carefully recorded, and then
redebated,
and recorded, and redebated etc. But who redebates the same topic
dozens of
times with the same people or people who have studied the old results?
It's
absurd. (Although I can imagine it would be valuable. Say, we devoted
6
months of CSPAN or something similar to 8 hours a day of debates between
the
leading presidential candidates, before the election. It would be hard
for
them to avoid substantial issues for that long. They couldn't prepare
much
beyond their preparation for the Presidency; we'd see them at their
worst.
And it would keep them off the streets.
> This is
> the Socratic method. This is also why we have the adversarial
> jurisprudence and division of state power. The Federalist Papers guys
> elaborate on this at great length.
We inherited "adversarial jurispudence" from the british, who got it
from
the romans. It's ideally suited to the needs of patricians who're
running
an empire. We also inherited division of power from the british; each
state
had it that way before the revolution and the federal system was built
on
the existing model. Jefferson argued that it would help keep the
government
from *doing* anything, and that this was good. But whatever arguments
people made in favor didn't much matter -- it was what everybody was
used to
and nobody had a plausible alternative.
matisse
buk...@baileylink.net wrote:
>
> White Noise is a very fine book; I cannot classify it as a great novel
> because Delillo is not good at characterization. All his characters act
> too much like Don Delillo. All his characters talk too much like Don
> Delillo. His children talk like Don Delillo, which is very weak.
>
> Nevertheless, the other parts of the book overcome this.
>
i don't like delillo, don't ask me why. my father likes him, though --the
books must be read, even if i cannot stand them.
>
> Do I have a philosophy? I don't have a favorite living philosopher,
> although I do read Rorty and Putnam and Searle. I do have favorite dead
> philosophers: Wittgenstein and Plato. If you must label me, I am a
> Wittgentseinian Platonist or a Platonic Wittgentsteinite.
>
I have a daft question, is Plato philosophy or literature?
I have another, can an artist be a philosopher or must he always remain in
literature, i.e. camus, nietzsche?
besides, buk, you are wrong. while the oxford companion doesn't outright
categorize camus as being an existentialist, they do link him to
existentialism. besides, even if camus is more a literary genius than
anything else, his concept of 'the absurd' is an essential notion in
existentialism whether we want to recognize it or not. how can one think of
existentialism without thinking of the 'absurd.' i just don't see it, but
then again, i don't know what my life would be like without camus.......
i have no idea what you guys were discussing, but i just had to throw my two
cents in.....
J
----
i could never finish -the plague-, it made my skin crawl too much......
David 'Cuddles' O'Bedlam
Hash: SHA1
Plato was a proto-fascist scum-sucking pig. "Platonist" is an insult.
The
- --
"A stinker is somebody who stinks." -Jonah Thomas <jeth...@ix.netcom.com>
(C) 2000 by 'TheDavid(TM)' | David, P.O. Box 21403, Louisville, KY 40221
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBOjRVGBz40he1RakNEQJRqgCgsDXRUHiOj7gEHUrO14vV3EAZPwUAnA5M
mZKxDCM4r8uTUYKNYblG/Voa
=oLSG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
David 'Cuddles' O'Bedlam
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 10 Dec 2000, that *Platonist* Bukvich wrote:
[...]
[snip he has better books than I do]
> Just because you don't know what you are talking about should not
> drive you to project your own ignorance onto others.
Why not? It never stopped you. Or Clod. Or Jonah.
> You moron.
- From a (self-admitted!) *Platonist* "moron" can't be an insult.
Kisses,
Cuddles
- --
"A stinker is somebody who stinks." -Jonah Thomas <jeth...@ix.netcom.com>
(C) 2000 by 'TheDavid(TM)' | David, P.O. Box 21403, Louisville, KY 40221
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBOjRWNhz40he1RakNEQKmEgCg7/pL3NFycKd72aikRRC/HvtRf8EAoLLd
/udwgaAziVfTA52n3Ex2zQP7
=g+lK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
matisse
matisse
JThomas wrote:
>
>
> > Do I have a philosophy? I don't have a favorite living philosopher,
> > although I do read Rorty and Putnam and Searle. I do have favorite dead
> > philosophers: Wittgenstein and Plato. If you must label me, I am a
> > Wittgentseinian Platonist or a Platonic Wittgentsteinite.
>
> It's been plain for some time that you are a platonist. The W influence
> is harder -- sure you quote W but so do lots of people who don't think
> about it. How does somebody who follows W show it in their thinking?
> I haven't seen any way to tell.
>
lack of explanation, taking things for what they are....staying within the
immediate context within a conversation....etc.etc.etc. bad attempts to talk
oneself out of the bottle.
>
>
> We inherited "adversarial jurispudence" from the british, who got it
> from
> the romans. It's ideally suited to the needs of patricians who're
> running
> an empire. We also inherited division of power from the british; each
> state
> had it that way before the revolution and the federal system was built
> on
> the existing model. Jefferson argued that it would help keep the
> government
> from *doing* anything, and that this was good. But whatever arguments
> people made in favor didn't much matter -- it was what everybody was
> used to
> and nobody had a plausible alternative.
Jet, Jefferson thought that it was at the very heart of democracy and
progress. He also liked the classical notions of happiness and progress. Part
of this is the idea that without free public 'debate', we would not only not
be able to determine what our actual real interests would be, but we also
wouldn't have progress, i.e. dogma would rule and not intellectual freedom
--which is essential to scientific progress. in short, 'adversary
jurisprudence' is education in Jefferson's eyes.
J
matisse
buk...@baileylink.net wrote:
>
> Camus said that the only meaningful philosophical question was suicide.
> I disagree. To me the only meaningful philosophical question is: why
> study philosophy anyway?
>
> It is a lot of work, and does it have value that justifies this great
> expenditure of effort required to examine it?
over the years, you have thrown enough detractors my way to get me all
confused around this question. I have asked myself that question far more
often than any other supposedly meaningful philosophical question.
At the end of the day, though, i have a real reason for reading philosophy.
There is a way in which it opens up new ways of being. Unlike most
literature, certain philosophers are able to force us to get outside our
current framework and to see concepts in other ways. Just look at
Wittgenstein. He opened up a completely different way of being in the world
to me, and at the end of the day, it might be one of the most important
influences in my life, besides reading N, of course.
While both philosophy and literature (and film, etc.) invite you into new
worlds, there is a way in which good philosophy, and good literature (which
i don't see as being all that different) get you to see different, to take
into account new frames and new ways of seeing. Concepts we usually live
with get disrupted and new doors become open.
To get out of the fly bottle. The work is worth it to me if i can see just
a little bit differently, if i can see some concept i live with as being
filled with different possibilities of ways of being. It is about
disrupting, and thereby opening up different roads.
It is about choosing your life as opposed to just being in life. You
already know this, of course, and just say such daft, critical things
because you like to tease me.
A philosophical approach can, in fact, be very practical. One of the things
i always focused on in my classroom was the way in which ideology, concepts,
etc. shape and colour the way we think about and approach education in many
of its aspects. The teacher who fails to recognize their own class bias,
bias concerning intelligence, etc. isn't one who is going to be a very fair
teacher. To introduce and critique common notions and ideas is to open up
new worlds to potential teachers. A little reflectivity can go a long way
in preventing unnecessary failure and wounds.
At the end of the day, it is about ethics.
J
Melia
On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Patrick Vest wrote:
> Sarah Jane wrote:
>
> > That's why I went the liberal arts route and
> > graduated with a B.A. that qualified me to be an over-educated waitress.
>
> If you went the liberal arts way, you're not over-educated for anything.
ouch.
> Pat...am there done that.
<sigh>
Melia
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Anya McGrory wrote:
> Patrick Vest <tho...@flash.net> wrote:
> >
> > Pat...hmm, I see you scored a zero on the wine portion of the
> > quiz...I'll pick it.
>
> Meritage is a bordeaux blend, yes? So where do you live?
A blend of which grapes? That was the question.
Oh, and Pat lives in ever-exciting LA. (which you would know if you had
paid attention)
> Anya, snob
Nah. You're trying, but you're just not there yet.