I Went In Search of Minimalism
The Apprentice
cloud of disintegrating thought*, an echo began to haunt the halls of the
college wing of my mind where dusty references lay, long forgotten in the
pursuit of life itself. Nay, reference is too studious a term for the mere
word that flitted along those dimly remembered corridors. Too quick to be
likened to Pastorio's swallow gliding after its dinner, instead moving with
the staccato beat of a dragonfly* as it zips to and fro on an October's day,
the word once again echoed...minimalism.
What is minimalism? Minimalism is just what it implies, stripping away to
the bare essentials in order to make a point, to create a work of art, to
teach a lesson. What is this I now hear echoing? My own words, recently
spoken, "[referential knowledge] may bring more colors to the palette, but
any artist worth his salt knows what to do with red, yellow and blue and
requires no other colors."
Encyclopedia Britannica describes the art movement called minimalism in this
way:
"The Minimalists, who believed that Action painting was too personal and
insubstantial, moved in the opposite direction, adopting the point of view
that a work of art should not refer to anything other than itself."
Robert Morris, an artist in the movement said, "Simplicity of shape does not
necessarily equate with simplicity of experience," which gives rise to my
own thought that simplicity of expression does not necessarily equate with
shallowness of understanding.
In the music world minimalism is the art of limiting oneself to only a small
amount of music material, be it only 12 notes, or notes of a particular
variety, and creating, not a melody, but a mood. It is the overall effect
and not the notes themselves that are of import.
To carry this further (from
http://home.earthlink.net/~kgann/postminimalism.html)
"And thus we have the common wisdom about minimalism: that it was a
historical dead end, a moment in which a superficial new brand of music
achieved a quick but ephemeral surge of public acceptance.
What the common wisdom leaves out of account, of course, is the dozens and
even hundreds of young composers on whom minimalism acted as an energizing
electric shock. The Deutsche Grammophon recording of Reich's Drumming
appeared in 1973; Glass's Einstein on the Beach hit the Metropolitan Opera
in 1976. At that moment an entire generation was beginning its musical
education. The music schools, the established composers, had been telling
youngsters that music, to be valid, should be complex, dissonant, difficult
to understand. Throughout the '60s the world of musical composition had been
hermetically cut off, by its own choice, from the rest of society. The
atmosphere was arid, the motivations were competitive, and few had anything
but contempt for non-musicians too faint of heart to follow the avant-garde.
Then Terry Riley's In C came out, and Drumming, and Glass's Music in Fifths.
Unlike the official new music (whether serialist or post-Cage
conceptualist), these pieces were easy to understand on first hearing. Yet
they also sounded new and different, which the official music tried to do
and often failed. Minimalism's first appeal was its audaciousness, its
in-your-face refusal to seek conventional subtlety or variety...
Then the question becomes, was minimalism really a dead end? or was it
simply the initial stage of a whole new musical language?"
In education, J. Carroll defines a minimalist style of teaching for computer
users that relies on the minimum of instruction, expecting the student to
grasp what's necessary based on what they already know. That would seem to
actually encourage the necessity of outside reference, yet one of the
principles of minimalist teaching is to "make all learning activities
self-contained and independent of sequence."
In linguistics, Noam Chomsky has attempted to formulate a "universal
grammar" that he calls The Minimalist Program that emerged in the 1990's. He
believed that "It was beginning to become possible to find what at some
level we know must be true: that they're [languages] all cast in the same
mold, otherwise you couldn't learn any of them. And though they look
extremely different, you began to see how they really were variations on the
same theme."
Not only is minimalism a recurring theme in art, music, education and
linguistics, but philosophy, too, must have its say with the Deflationary
Theory of Truth, also known as the minimalist theory. I haven't been able to
truly understand exactly what this theory really means other than
comprehending that "snow is white" means "snow is white."
So what is this about human nature that wants to K.I.S.S. (keep it simple
stupid)? Throughout the world's history, movements seem to swing back and
forth between the extremes of absurd embellishment and the stripping away of
all but the basics-schools of thought in continual conflict.
"By day, Structuralists constructed the structure of meaning and pondered
the meaning of structure. By night, Deconstructivists pulled the cortical
edifice down. And the next day the Structuralists started in again." Tom
Wolfe
Pastorio has essentially said enough is never enough and has quoted
Maimonides, a Jewish physician and philosopher of Cordova, Spain, in the
1100s to make his point that he will fill his writing with everything that
he can of all that he has learned and experienced:
"When I find the road narrow, and can see no other way of teaching a
well-established truth except by pleasing one intelligent man and
displeasing ten thousand fools - I prefer to address myself to the one man."
So he and the one man make a majority of two. How...whelming. <g>
And then one has a man like John Marin, an American modernist painter say,
"Don't everlastingly read messages into paintings -- there's the Daisy --
you Don't rave over or read messages into it -- you just look at that bully
little Flower -- isn't that enough?"
"Everywhere one seeks to produce meaning, to make the world signify, to
render it visible. We are not, however, in danger of lacking meaning; quite
the contrary, we are gorged with meaning and it is killing us." Jean
Baudrillard
I believe that it is this feeling of being overwhelmed with all that exists
that drives the movements that seek for ways of finding a universal truth, a
universal language, a back to the basics way of doing and being, and yet,
even in doing so, it would appear that one movement needs the previous
movement either to inspire or reject.
No, man cannot live without his references. They are part and parcel of his
culture, they are what define the world he lives in. However, part of that
culture, part of the referential knowledge are those many, many people who
wish to do away with it.
Two approaches, two ways of looking at the world-one a filling with all that
is, one an emptying.
arleen
*indicates references to works of my own.
Releasing false beliefs...
Amorphous cloud
of disintegrating thought
hovers above my head,
its shapeless fingers clenched,
indisposed to flirt
with the expanse of emptiness
it fears.
The grasping digits
slowly unfurl,
the cloud scatters,
to take with it
its binding cogitation.
Release! cries the mind,
hastening the unclenching,
and the last vestige
of doubt
floats harmlessly
into the void
of lies uncovered.
© Arleen Marliese Janz
February 1999
--
Never be afraid to try something new.
Remember: amateurs built the ark.
Professionals built the Titanic.
nancy
misc.writing on 31 Jul 2000 here.
<arleen wrote a thoughtful, reference-filled post
concerning minimalism>
i am not a minimalist.
--
n (imagine jowls shaking, fingers held up in victory signs)
There are two credit cards for every person in the United
States.
Peter Hickman
nancy wrote:
> insert cutesy lead-in concerning The Apprentice posting in
> misc.writing on 31 Jul 2000 here.
>
> <arleen wrote a thoughtful, reference-filled post
> concerning minimalism>
>
> i am not a minimalist.
Well....but you obviously are a bit minimal in some respects (such
as minimal responses to posts about minimalism)........
You never can tell..................................Pete
Peter Hickman
The Apprentice wrote:
>
<snip>
> Then the question becomes, was minimalism really a dead end? or was it
> simply the initial stage of a whole new musical language?"
>
From what I've seen, it wasn't a dead end, but it evolved rather quickly
into something much less minimal, as in Glass's recent work or minimalist "Folk"
groups like The Rachels or those Kids from Galaxy 500 who are rapidly moving
from late Punk to minimalism to Psychedelic Folk. So, not exactly a dead end,
not exactly minimalism and not exactly a new musical language...but if anything,
music that is more sophisticated than anything in the last century or so.
You never can tell.......................................Pete
Zero
nancy
on 31 Jul 2000 here.
>870i
>
>
>Re: I Went In Search of Minimalism
>
>
>Peter Hickman Peter....@rtp.ppdi.com wrote:
>
>>nancy wrote:
>>
>>> insert cutesy lead-in concerning The Apprentice
>>> posting in misc.writing on 31 Jul 2000 here.
>>>
>>> <arleen wrote a thoughtful, reference-filled post
>>> concerning minimalism>
>>>
>>> i am not a minimalist.
>>
>> Well....but you obviously are a bit minimal in some
>>respects (such as minimal responses to posts about
>>minimalism)
>>........
>>
>>You never can tell..................................Pete
>
>
>-$Zero...
>
>
mine was better.
--
n
Speaking on composers: Intellect without emotional
connection is like an elephant with no legs: impressive, but
unmoving. --Stan Yoder, 1 July 1996
Zero
Re: I Went In Search of Minimalism
na...@gekkografx.com (nancy) wrote:
>insert cutesy lead-in concerning Zero posting
>in misc.writing on 31 Jul 2000 here.
>
>>870i
>>
>>
>>Re: I Went In Search of Minimalism
>>
>>
>>Peter Hickman Peter....@rtp.ppdi.com wrote:
>>
>>>nancy wrote:
>>>
>>>> insert cutesy lead-in concerning The Apprentice
>>>> posting in misc.writing on 31 Jul 2000 here.
>>>>
>>>> <arleen wrote a thoughtful, reference-filled post
>>>> concerning minimalism>
>>>>
>>>> i am not a minimalist.
>>>
>>> Well....but you obviously are a bit minimal in some
>>>respects (such as minimal responses to posts about
>>>minimalism)
>>>........
>>>
>>>You never can tell..................................Pete
>>
>>
>>-$Zero...
>>
>
>mine was better.
>
>--
>n
[...]
-$Zero...
The Apprentice
news:8F826243...@24.1.240.74...
> insert cutesy lead-in concerning The Apprentice posting in
> misc.writing on 31 Jul 2000 here.
>
> <arleen wrote a thoughtful, reference-filled post
> concerning minimalism>
but, of course. because i love y'all, i did it your way. while explaining my
way. besides, i used the references as references ought to be used-to
explain things. <g>
>
>
> i am not a minimalist.
>
>
> --
> n (imagine jowls shaking, fingers held up in victory signs)
hmmph! such gloating is not polite.
arleen
<g>
Paine Ellsworth
Zero
Zero
"The greatest commandment is Love"
-- Jesus
Re: I Went In Search of Minimalism
na...@gekkografx.com (nancy) claimed:
>insert cutesy lead-in concerning Zero posting
>in misc.writing on 31 Jul 2000 here.
>
>>870i
[...]
>>Peter Hickman Peter....@rtp.ppdi.com wrote:
>>>nancy wrote:
>>>> insert cutesy lead-in concerning The Apprentice
>>>> posting in misc.writing on 31 Jul 2000 here.
>>>> <arleen wrote a thoughtful, reference-filled post
>>>> concerning minimalism>
>>>>
>>>> i am not a minimalist.
>>>
>>> Well....but you obviously are a bit minimal in
>>>some respects (such as minimal responses to posts
>>>about minimalism)
>>>........
>>>
>>>You never can tell......[...].....Pete
>>
>>
>>-$Zero...
>>
>
>mine was [...]
>--
>n
apparently, nancy's still able to
hear the words of music but not
the music of words, huh?
-$Zero... I'mNotAtAllNotImpressed...
(^)
/ (
( )
ooo0
(^)
( \
( )
0ooo
(^)
/ (
( )
ooo0
(^)
( \
( )
0ooo
>Speaking on composers: Intellect without
>emotional connection is like an elephant
>with no legs: impressive, but unmoving.
>--Stan Yoder, 1 July 1996
"what's the matter, nancy?
metaphor got your tongue?
the music analogy got you all
tangled up in blue?"
-- $Zero... <Zero...@aol.com> 873o
Re: Semantic Bingo! (was: Sound and Fury...)
<20000725102726...@ng-me1.aol.com>
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/threadmsg_ct.xp?AN=650554559
Copyright © 2000 Global Suggestion Box
All Rights Reserved and Writes Reversed
NUDE PHOTOS!!!:
http://users.aol.com/zeroisms/0/copyright/
http://users.aol.com/talklurkers/
nancy
31 Jul 2000 here.
>[...]
you hurt, zero. and i'm sorry. it was not so
much my intention to hurt you as it was to shake
you awake, a wee bit.
i understand. and it's okay. i truly truly do
not pass a value judgement on you because you
didn't "get" the references. it's hilarious as
all hell that you're passing value judgements on
the rest of us for not "getting" your references,
but ... <shrug>
--
n
It's easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to
them.
Bob Pastorio
>
> No, man cannot live without his references. They are part and parcel of his
> culture, they are what define the world he lives in. However, part of that
> culture, part of the referential knowledge are those many, many people who
> wish to do away with it.
Remove the definition and what is left...?
> Two approaches, two ways of looking at the world-one a filling with all that
> is, one an emptying.
Empty=empty.
Pastorio
Zero
"It's all Greek to me."
-- Pete Hickman?
Re: I Went In Search of Minimalism
Hello, My Name is Bob, and... I'm an Elitist
yet again, Bob Pastorio Past...@rica.net
managed to utter the fantastic:
>The Apprentice wrote:
>>
>> No, man cannot live without his references.
>> They are part and parcel of his culture, they
>> are what define the world he lives in. However,
>> part of that culture, part of the referential
>> knowledge are those many, many people who
>> wish to do away with it.
>
>Remove the definition and what is left...?
elitist idjit references
(which can only be understood by a random handful
of people -- depending on which elitist idjit references
you choose to bury in your work)
like i said... enjoy. whatever floats your boat.
i still find it hysterically amusing how much you feel
the need to defend that which is surely right and correct
and "true and clean" as you so arrogantly charcterized
yourself and your untouchable theory of elitism.
>> Two approaches, two ways of looking at the world-
>> one a filling with all that is, one an emptying.
>
>Empty=empty.
elitist = elitist
c'mon, Bob, you can say it.
here, just take a peek at the words first:
Hello, My Name Is Bob, and I'm an Elitist
now look in the mirror, and try to confess to yourself.
we won't watch. you can do it in privacy of your bathroom.
(we'll even turn off the bathroom web cam).
try comprehending the words during a few trial runs.
ok... ready?
here 'ya go... confessions of an elitist:
Hello, My Name Is Bob, and I'm an Elitist
I cherish thinking that I'm superior to everyone.
Hell, I _earned_ it. I read lots of books and studied hard.
I need people to admire me, or else... what good is my elitism?
No illiterate smart-ass (without any of the proper credentials)
is gonna get away with making me look silly and pompous.
No way!!! I'm educated. I have more wisdom than some
monkey, or child, or anyone else that does not share my
precise knowledge and reference base.
I can talk in codes, man. Whoopie! Take that, illiterates!
And semi-literates alike!!! I'm a quality person.
I am smart enough, and superior enough, and dammit,
people admire me.
Stewart Smally's got nothing on me. Daily affirmations.
that wasn't so hard, now.... was it?
let us know...
>Pastorio
-$Zero... EmptyEverything?... Nope... NotMyIntentAtAll...
It'sJustWiseToTakeAWalkInTheDesertOccasionally...
ItGivesOnePerspective... FlushesTheBullshitFromYourMind...
AndHeart... 'LestYouGetTooFullOfYourself...
come to think of it, almost all the artists i admire
have this dualistic minimalistic/flamboyant style.
a few examples:
Neil Young goes from gentle acoustic guitar/voice solos
to hard-driving crazy horse distortions...
Brian Eno goes from extreme sparcity to the richest
walls of sound i've heard.
Frank Sinatra, even.
i can't think of any literary equivalents, because,
well... you know... <g>
but... there's also the wide-ranging work of Woody Allen,
Martin Scorcesie, Stanley Kubrick, Orson Welles, etc.
hmm... i woder what the connection is.
"LOL. you're grasping at straws, now.
>there are a lot of examples of folk music buried within
>symphonic pieces, of places where the composer specifies
>a specific instrument for specific passage because it is
>intended to evoke the memory of a common tale ...
yeah, and i'm sure soooo many people listen to music on
such a "literate" elitist referential level. i suppose
next you'll be claiming that [most] people evaluate other
people's cooking based on traditional canons?
get real. come back to planet earth.
have some cake. (and eat it too)."
-- $Zero... <Zero...@aol.com> 873t
"Canon" Balls Fired (Re: References and Stuff)
<20000724211923...@ng-cp1.aol.com>
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=650364675
phil
> > Two approaches, two ways of looking at the world-one a filling with all that
> > is, one an emptying.
>
> Empty=empty.
through
> Pastorio
Peter Hickman
Zero wrote:
<snip of stuff identifying "references" as elitist>
Zero, dude, man, I don't think you are making as much sense as you
seem to think you are these days. What's an elitist in terms of
understanding something about the culture you live in?
Also, I really don't think you can separate "references" from the
general process of thinking about something.
I also cannot really see what bothers you about the fact that
civilization as we know it (and writing) has been chugging along for a
few thousand years. What's the big deal?
You never can tell..................................................Pete
The Apprentice
news:20000801023334...@ng-co1.aol.com...
> 870c
>
> -$Zero... EmptyEverything?... Nope... NotMyIntentAtAll...
nor mine, actually. my exercise in reference writing about a subject that
rejects references had a different purpose entirely. but there is no need to
belabor it further.
> It'sJustWiseToTakeAWalkInTheDesertOccasionally...
> ItGivesOnePerspective... FlushesTheBullshitFromYourMind...
> AndHeart... 'LestYouGetTooFullOfYourself...
>
what he said.
arleen
cunnin...@my-deja.com
> February 1999
Minimalism, yah? Just as Hitler's style in "Mein Kampf"?...haha :)
Just kidding......Interesting article!
>
> --
> Never be afraid to try something new.
> Remember: amateurs built the ark.
> Professionals built the Titanic.
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
The Apprentice
news:398658F0...@rica.net...
> Empty=empty.
>
i see you favor the deflationary theory of truth.
arleen
wpenro...@my-deja.com
"The Apprentice" <amj...@netzero.net> wrote:
amorphous
> cloud of disintegrating thought*,
I went in search of minimalism too, but there was hardly anything there.
Bill
ing
Uh, in your wish to write in a minimalist non-referential
fashion, you've used a reference here that I don't
understand. I do not want to feel left out so, could you
explain, please, for me and perhaps those others of us who
may not have gotten this?
ing
Bob Pastorio
>
> yet again, Bob Pastorio Past...@rica.net
> managed to utter the fantastic:
>
> >The Apprentice wrote:
> >>
> >> They are part and parcel of his culture, they
> >> are what define the world he lives in. However,
> >> part of that culture, part of the referential
> >> knowledge are those many, many people who
> >> wish to do away with it.
> >
>
> elitist idjit references
When the defining characteristics are removed, there is *nothing*
left. By definition.
> i still find it hysterically amusing how much you feel
> the need to defend that which is surely right and correct
> and "true and clean" as you so arrogantly charcterized
> yourself and your untouchable theory of elitism.
Peter, I described *information* as true and clean. Not me and not
anyone else. It is profoundly pitiful that you think getting and
using the products of education is elitist. It would really be better
for the spurious arguments you offer if you at least understood the
gist of what you think you're rebutting.
> >> Two approaches, two ways of looking at the world-
> >> one a filling with all that is, one an emptying.
> >
> >Empty=empty.
>
> elitist = elitist
And, for you, Peter, uneducated=uneducated.
But, let's carry it further to try to help Peter understand the degree
of his debility.
Uneducated=limited
Limited means not having a well-appointed tool box. In this case,
Peter has only a hammer. Nothing for subtle adjustments of meaning -
just a blunt instrument for smashing anything he doesn't understand.
A Vandal in a glassworks.
> I cherish thinking that I'm superior to everyone.
> Hell, I _earned_ it. I read lots of books and studied hard.
> I need people to admire me, or else... what good is my elitism?
Peter, it's very interesting that only you have asserted superiority
in this thread. You have said you feel superior to others. And your
past notes here corroborate that impossible conceit.
And, because you have those unfortunately limited reading and writing
abilities you have shown (once again here), let me try once again to
make some basic notions clear.
Writing without references to common cultural material is possible but
pointless. It's an exercise in seeing how *clever* one can be - like
Clever Hans was clever. It must need be longer and more explanatory
(the most boring kind of writing) than the normal writing of normal
people. There is no elitist connotation to writing for educated
people who will understand more remote references. It is often
playtime for writers, like crossword puzzles, math puzzlers and the
like. I guess the daily crossword is also elitist because it's for
those with larger than usual vocabularies, right? Scientific American
puzzlers are elitist - have you ever seen them? Anything that demands
knowledge not included in the work is elitist? Jeopardy? Wheel of
Fortune? Who wants to be a millionaire? All elitist because they
demand more than the basic information you think sufficient? Because
that's all you have.
> No illiterate smart-ass (without any of the proper credentials)
> is gonna get away with making me look silly and pompous.
> No way!!! I'm educated. I have more wisdom than some
> monkey, or child, or anyone else that does not share my
> precise knowledge and reference base.
>
> I can talk in codes, man. Whoopie! Take that, illiterates!
> And semi-literates alike!!! I'm a quality person.
>
> I am smart enough, and superior enough, and dammit,
> people admire me.
>
> Stewart Smally's got nothing on me. Daily affirmations.
I left this in entirely because it bears showing once again how little
you understand of what's been going on in this thread. Peter, you are
lamentably undereducated. The reason we have schools in to minimize
that problem - and it is a problem. It's your problem that you don't
get references in writing. The reason it's your problem is because
you have influence with others. And you will, by example and by
default, try to convince them that your way is good and reasonable.
And in so doing, you pass on your handicap. And, make no mistake, you
are handicapped here. And you will handicap your children when they
see you disparage (by words and example) learning and education.
I'm sorry that this is such an ego problem for you. I'm sorry that
you have to defend your condition with such deep and diversionary
insult and raging. I'm sorry you feel the need for this bravado and
swaggering to mask what must be a serious feeling of inadequacy. I'm
sorrier that you dig in your heels and circle your wagons (and other
references to indicate mindless stubbornness) instead of enriching
your life and the lives of those around you.
> that wasn't so hard, now.... was it?
>
> let us know...
Peter, it hasn't mattered to you that several people have tried to let
you know. For whatever your reasons, it is more important for you to
justify, explain away, spin, twist, wriggle and otherwise avoid the
profound reality that your lack of education is a simple handicap.
It's just a simple limit to how fully you can participate in this
culture. And it's just as simple-minded that you want the rest of us
to write to your limits no matter what the rest of the world daily
consumes.
It is further instructive how you have raged against brainwash and the
effects of societal action and inaction. How you have raged against
what you perceive as the flaws of the culture and the society. And
then repeatedly and rather deeply demonstrate how little you know of
the culture and the society. It makes all your toiling and troubling
suspect. The logic goes like this: If you don't know much about the
culture (by your own admission), how can you condemn or condone what
it does? If you don't see the bases for what happens, how can you
know what it means? If you don't understand the problems already
solved, how can you know what needs to be done? Ignorance=emptiness.
Emptiness=ignorance.
>
> >Pastorio
>
> -$Zero... EmptyEverything?... Nope... NotMyIntentAtAll...
> It'sJustWiseToTakeAWalkInTheDesertOccasionally...
> ItGivesOnePerspective... FlushesTheBullshitFromYourMind...
> AndHeart... 'LestYouGetTooFullOfYourself...
>
> come to think of it, almost all the artists i admire
> have this dualistic minimalistic/flamboyant style.
Being able to sing without an orchestra is hardly minimalist music.
> a few examples:
>
> Neil Young goes from gentle acoustic guitar/voice solos
> to hard-driving crazy horse distortions...
>
> Brian Eno goes from extreme sparcity to the richest
> walls of sound i've heard.
>
> Frank Sinatra, even.
Frank had the biggest orchestras in the business behind him. Nelson
Riddle, Gordon Jenkins... Big deal arrangers. Minimalist. Right.
>
> i can't think of any literary equivalents, because,
> well... you know... <g>
>
> but... there's also the wide-ranging work of Woody Allen,
> Martin Scorcesie, Stanley Kubrick, Orson Welles, etc.
Ooops. These guys aren't even remotely minimalists. It's just that
you didn't get them.
> hmm... i woder what the connection is.
Whatever you construct in your lack of understanding.
> "LOL. you're grasping at straws, now.
And, you're so eager to keep this noise barrage alive that you
attribute someone else's words to me, here below. But, anyway, maybe
you want to listen to some of Aaron Copeland's works. Even you will
recognize melodies that he wove into the larger works. And, if I
thought for a moment that you would ever listen to music that wasn't
pop radio-play stuff, I'd suggest you listen to a bunch of European
composers who lifted popular themes from their cultures and used them
in "classical" compositions. BUt that would require you to spend some
time learning.
> >there are a lot of examples of folk music buried within
> >symphonic pieces, of places where the composer specifies
> >a specific instrument for specific passage because it is
> >intended to evoke the memory of a common tale ...
>
> yeah, and i'm sure soooo many people listen to music on
> such a "literate" elitist referential level. i suppose
> next you'll be claiming that [most] people evaluate other
> people's cooking based on traditional canons?
Peter, it's just too much for you to even consider that other people
understand things differently than you do. Since you have *NO*
experience at these levels and events, your view is necessarily an
outsider's view. A small picture through a glass darkly. You have no
more idea of how other people listen to music any more than you
understand how aspirin works. Anything beyond the surface levels -
anything requiring any sort of scholarship - is simply past you.
Certainly by some choice, but, apparently, also by the clear lack of
educational foundations.
Only you have ever talked about "most" people. Only you have talked
about how the writers who want to include references "should" remove
them so more people can understand what they're trying to say - as
though everyone has some responsibility beyond the creation itself.
As though people will understand everything if only references are
deleted. As though everyone has the capacity to understand at the
same levels.
Different strokes for different folks. You write how you write -
posts replete with references, some reinforcing, some clarifying, some
apparently for the sheer sake of references. And I will write as I
do, with my material including references -although usually fewer
references than you use.
"Most" people have hugely divergent interests and needs. That's why
we have such a vast range of choices about how we can and do live. As
for cooking being evaluated against this obsessive "canon" of yours, I
will say that there is a significant minority of people who know a lot
of culinary science, history and lore and who derive pleasure from
that knowledge. Maybe look at the newsgroups with "food" in the title
and see what and how deeply some folks like to go with it. See how
many culinary magazines there are, not just in the US, but worldwide.
See how many cookbooks are published each year and how many books
about the details of the kitchen and its products. See how many
newspapers carry culinary information. Haw many magazines devoted to
other subjects also carry culinary info. Radio programs.
Newsletters. CD's. TV programs. A whole TV channel in the US. And,
each person consuming any of that information does so at the level
they like, no matter what the originator did with his information.
Just as in any written, spoken or otherwise disseminated materials.
And, as people become more informed about any subject, they get more
deeply into the corpus of work in that field. I have hundreds of
books and publications about bonsai. Many, many music books (from
folk to rock, jazz, classical, etc.). Hundreds of books about
language, writing and publication. Thousands of books about every
aspect of food and feeding. Books in the hundreds about things that
I'm not particularly interested in, but find the information useful or
interesting enough to go round it once or twice. Engineering.
Plastics. Architecture. Japanese poetry. Home repairs. Plus scores
of reference books covering language, history, art, literature,
business, physics, psychology... lots of others. Thousands of records
from old 78's to CD's covering a perfectly vast range of music forms
and artists. I have art in my house that I bought and that I made
(and some that I sold and now reside in the homes and offices of
others). They collectively contribute substance to who and what I
am. Coupled with experience and the lessons of practical living, this
consciousness is what I filter everything I do through. Just like
everybody else.
It's neither humble nor elitist, as these are irrelevant value
judgements. It just is. The products of the range of experience are
what they are. If the writing of the person who has this collection
of background notes includes references to it, well, that's just how
we all work. We are each the sum of our learning, whether through
experience or vicarious information. It makes sense to include the
more broadly known ones in communications because those elements are
the binding ties for all humans. Just like references to song lyrics
can be.
I like writing. I'm told by paying consumers that they like what I
write. It could be better. It could always be better. But I'll let
the people who pay my rent decide that, not someone who didn't finish
high school and who is proud of not being curious and acting on it.
I'd rather deal with the folks who are eager for new experience, new
information, new ideas, new actions and new values. People who
question their knowledge and their values and strive for balance and
fullness. Those who can, do. The rest throw stones.
"Criticism comes easier than craftsmanship."
Pastorio
The Apprentice
"ing" <ing.b...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3986E4D5...@sympatico.ca...
since bob was replying to my original post that mentioned the deflationary
theory of truth, i know that bob read what i wrote, and i was replying to
bob, specifically. i also indicated that such was a theory in the field of
philosoply when i wrote of it originally, so anyone wishing to discover it
and dig deeper could do so. it was not hidden, it was not alluded to, there
was no foreknowledge of any references needed in order to understand my
original post.
i am not the one hung up on throwing *all* references out (though i chose as
my subject a view that leans in that direction in order to underscore a
point that opposing viewpoints does not make one or the other right or
wrong). i am only wanting references to be used in a manner that allows
people to actually gain something from them. bob has indicated he mainly
writes for those with the same understanding he has. i don't write that way.
it may be true that my understanding is not as high as his in some areas,
but in those areas in which my understanding might be higher than another's,
i prefer being understood than sounding lofty and eloquent.
oth, i do appreciate loftiness and eloquence when handled skillfully. so i
guess i could be considered the kind of audience that bob writes for-if i
happen to know his latest reference.
arleen
Bob Pastorio
>
> "Bob Pastorio" <Past...@rica.net> wrote in message
> news:398658F0...@rica.net...
>
> > Empty=empty.
>
> i see you favor the deflationary theory of truth.
Among certain circles, it's called the "Whoopee Cushion" theory. As
are so many other things. With such good reason.
Read any of Zero's posts today? See what I mean?
Sound and flurble...
Pastorio
The Apprentice
news:8m6onq$thn$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <8m4c04$5ia17$1...@ID-39564.news.cis.dfn.de>,
> "The Apprentice" <amj...@netzero.net> wrote:
> amorphous
> > cloud of disintegrating thought*,
>
>
LOL!
arleen
Zero
"[...] contributed yet another post to a topic that,
if it were so true, would hardly require so many
defenders, unless... wait... are you all trying to
convince the avowed non-book-reader that he should
read books? is that what this is all about?
talk about sound and fury. sheesh."
-- $Zero... <Zero...@aol.com> 870w
Zero's Puzzle (was: Re: Sound and fury... )
<20000729102725...@ng-cp1.aol.com>
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=652157856
Re: Hello, My Name is Bob, and... I'm an Elitist
NOTE:
Peter Hickman Peter....@rtp.ppdi.com did not
lose his mind and post an ALL CAPS attack:
>Zero wrote:
>
><snip of stuff identifying "references" as elitist>
well... that's stretching the gist quite a bit, but as
i've indicated, and i'm sure you'll agree, we all
have our own way of interpretting the exact same words.
and by extension, the exact same references.
it's all a matter of our own context. and very likely,
it always will be.
to the extent that we can agree about what various words mean,
we can carry on interesting conversations. we can inspire thoughts
in eachother. of course, this happens when we misinterpret eachother
as well. unfortunately, people tend to demonize eachother based
almost exclusively on their misinterpretations (well... some people
are far more prone to doing this than others).
yes... i'm rambling here a bit... going off on a few tangents
here and there, but the shape of this discussion warrants such
rambling. at least in my opinion. i cannot think of a more
writing-related topic than the one we're engaged in. as such,
it tends to spark many tangential ideas.
> Zero, dude, man, I don't think you are making as much
>sense as you seem to think you are these days.
you don't _think_ i'm making as much sense as i seem to think
i am? LOL. that's almost as bizarre a thought as anything
i've seen Pastorio lay claim to. don't tell me that you
subscribe to the psychic polling/mind-reading service that
nancy and Bob and the others do?
surely, a person of your level of understanding realizes the
role of contextual disparity between any two individuals.
regardless, we two can attempt to understand eachother's
bullshit without losing our cools. see, Pete, you're
an elitist, no doubt, but... you're mind is still open.
i can sense that.
you seem to be still entertaining the concepts being expressed
because they intrigue you on several levels. you don't come
across as being threatened by such discussion. to you, it's
another interesting complexity/simplicity to put in context
with the rest of your seemingly vast learning.
basically, i think that there's three types of elitists:
1] the curious
2] the defensive
3] the indifferent
the curious never stop learning.
the defensive never stop defending.
the indifferent rarely start caring.
some elitists fall into more than one category.
BTW: i just made that elitist model up right now...
yet, when i look at it, it sure makes sense.
care to tweak it?
see? that's where i'm coming from. is that so bad?
instead of relying on whatever model has been "settled upon"
by thousands of years of conventional wisdom (which may well be
based on some flawed initial principle that everyone's become
unwittingly and/or sentimentally and/or logistically attached to),
i look at every situation with fresh eyes.
now, surely, anyone can see that i'm not an idiot. (just as
they can see that Pastorio is no idiot). however, many may
think that my approach to life is ridiculously impractical, but
i sure don't. for one thing, it's led me to many practical
discoveries.
>What's an elitist in terms of understanding something about
>the culture you live in?
nothing, really. it's a great aspiration. except when the
elitist truly believes that they are exclusively correct.
such as Bob. anyone who thinks they could possibly understand
our modern culture is a bit deluded. there's just way too
many variables. one can understand certain segments or trends,
but not the larger picture, because, the larger picture is
all out of context. while you seem to grasp that. others don't.
> Also, I really don't think you can separate "references"
>from the general process of thinking about something.
well... i'll have to think about that.
but... my first instinct is that... you're wrong. <g>
> I also cannot really see what bothers you about the fact
>that civilization as we know it (and writing) has been chugging
>along for a few thousand years. What's the big deal?
there is no big deal. the only thing that "bothers me" about it
is the extent that large numbers of the civilization are complacent,
self-satisfied elitists who delude themselves into thinking that
they are somehow royalty. that they know better than the rest
(and they just might in most disciplines -- but art is never one
of them). then, of course, there's those other groups in our
civilization who don't even rise to that inane level of futility.
as far as the "writing" part of this whole discussion, i just
think that using uncommonly known literary/art references is
pretty lazy. particularly when same is indistinguishable from
the rest of ones' words, and could very well have the opposite
effect than what is seemingly desired (particularly fascinating
is how this contradiction applies to writing for money).
but again, i resort to the same laziness myself. and, i too,
enjoy reference heavy writing (especially when i recognize
the references). my point (which you seemed to understand
when you responded to my "Zero's Puzzle" post) is that, in
our modern world, no mere mortal could possibly keep everything
in context. it's utterly impossible. there have been far too
many works created within too many lost contexts across space
and time. therefore, there is much merit in creating works of
art which are richly expressive without relying on readers to
understand an individual writer's own particular reference set.
why is this so hard to grasp?
ironically, Shakespear[e] seemed to understand this better than most.
for instance, why would so many see the need to write exclusively
for the benefit of Steven Hawkings? why wouldn't they, instead,
try to create works derived from their understanding of Hawkings
(reworded for the largest "tent" of understanding)?
substitute Hawkings for Jesus, Buddha, Einstein, Shakespear[e],
Faulkner, etc..
then again, rather than others, writers can certainly write works
based on their own life's context, whatever that might be, but i
still don't see the intrinsic need or benefit in alluding to things
that most people couldn't possibly understand. sure, it's fun,
but it's just frosting, or a silly game.
or it's poetry. which i also enjoy.
i guess what i have trouble understanding is why people like
Bob don't seem to want to be direct. why they want to create
"nebulousness." it appears to contradict everything they claim
that they want: coherent precise writing. it really makes
me laugh. outloud. seriously.
i refer you to nancy's interpretation of the "sound and fury"
soliliquy in macbeth. is that the only interpretation? is
it the _right_ interpretation? not from my reading. how about
yours?
have scholars "decided" what everything means? are they all
in agreement? or... perhaps, did Shakespear[e] write a separate
thesis explaining the whole work? and even if he did, what would
that really mean?
get it?
"It's all Greek to me."
-- Pete Hickman?
>You never can tell......[...].............Pete
BTW: i could respond to your single post here hundreds of
times and come up with completely different commentary.
but that's just me. that's just how i think.
my preconceptions are few, but my heart is true (at least,
i want it to be -- except when i'm playing poker, that is <g>)
but, at the end of the game, if you've lost, i'll buy you dinner.
BTW2: if you are also the one who posts as Bob Pastorio,
my compliments. where's Marty when you need him?
-$Zero... AnteUp... Joker'sWild...
"people disagreeing everywhere you look...
makes you wanna stop... and, read a book..."
-- Bob Dylan
[song: "Watching the River Flow"]
http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/
nancy
on 01 Aug 2000 here.
>The Apprentice wrote:
>>
>> "Bob Pastorio" <Past...@rica.net> wrote in message
>> news:398658F0...@rica.net...
>>
>> > Empty=empty.
>> >
>>
>> i see you favor the deflationary theory of truth.
>>
>
>Uh, in your wish to write in a minimalist non-referential
>fashion, you've used a reference here that I don't
>understand. I do not want to feel left out so, could you
>explain, please, for me and perhaps those others of us who
>may not have gotten this?
<clapping hands>
wonderful, ing! thank you! see, zero? there's
nothing *wrong* with not understanding a reference,
and with asking for clarification! it's how those
of us who choose to use this method broaden our
minds.
we *cannot* know all, understand all. and there
is *so* much that goes whooshing over my head
that i delight in the few times that i can grasp
things, and look forward to those instructional times
when i can learn new things.
i learned what an antimaccassar (sp?) is. what
an enormous, glorious word for such a mundane thing!
someone in e-mail was talking about yet another
children's show, The Big Couch, or something like
that (totally unfamiliar with it) that has a
character whose name is Auntie McCassar.
way, way, cool.
they're like puzzles, these things.
so. lemme grab a snack, and arleen, you
tell us what you meant by "deflationary
theory of truth".
--
n
Duct tape is like the force. It has a light side, and a
dark side, and it holds the universe together ... -- Carl
Zwanzig
Peter Hickman
Zero wrote:
> <snippage>
>
> > Zero, dude, man, I don't think you are making as much
> >sense as you seem to think you are these days.
>
> you don't _think_ i'm making as much sense as i seem to think
> i am?
It was a round-about way of saying that some of what you are saying
is not very sensible...in my view.
> LOL. that's almost as bizarre a thought as anything
> i've seen Pastorio lay claim to. don't tell me that you
> subscribe to the psychic polling/mind-reading service that
> nancy and Bob and the others do?
I was just trying to sound polite. I could be more blunt, but I
don't see the point.
> surely, a person of your level of understanding realizes the
> role of contextual disparity between any two individuals.
Disparity? What would contextual parity be? Exact sameness? There
would be no need for language or references or anything in that case
would there?
>
> regardless, we two can attempt to understand eachother's
> bullshit without losing our cools. see, Pete, you're
> an elitist, no doubt, but... you're mind is still open.
> i can sense that.
Well, I'm an elitist in the sense that I think very few people have a
clear grasp of such things as just how bad the current state of the
biosphere is...for example...but those who understand such things aren't
in any elite, unfortunately...the elites think (like you do) that direct
experience gives you the whole truth. I guess they and you think that
because it is the easiest thing to think and because doubting the value
of direct experience in generating convincing truthlike situations will
lead you to doubt Modernism and then where are you? You'd have to start
trying to figure things out. And then you'd be thinking and well...then
anything could happen.
<Snip>.
>
> basically, i think that there's three types of elitists:
>
> 1] the curious
> 2] the defensive
> 3] the indifferent
>
> the curious never stop learning.
> the defensive never stop defending.
> the indifferent rarely start caring.
>
> some elitists fall into more than one category.
>
> BTW: i just made that elitist model up right now...
> yet, when i look at it, it sure makes sense.
> care to tweak it?
Sure. An elitist thinks that (for some reason) a few people should
control something or other of social significance. In my view, people
who understand the world should control the world. In the general view,
as far as I can tell, people who have a lot of money or large armed
forces should control the world. So I am an elitist, but the elite I
would back is relatively powerless at the moment.
> see? that's where i'm coming from. is that so bad?
>
> instead of relying on whatever model has been "settled upon"
> by thousands of years of conventional wisdom (which may well be
> based on some flawed initial principle that everyone's become
> unwittingly and/or sentimentally and/or logistically attached to),
> i look at every situation with fresh eyes.
You look at the situation with the usual Modernist eyes.
>
> now, surely, anyone can see that i'm not an idiot.
No. But you are just like millions of other non-idiots who think
that there is something morally wrong with knowing what is going on.
> <snip>
>
> >What's an elitist in terms of understanding something about
> >the culture you live in?
>
> nothing, really. it's a great aspiration. except when the
> elitist truly believes that they are exclusively correct.
Ah...But what's wrong with being correct if you remove the
"exclusively"? the notion of "exclusion" is something you've introduced
to make the point that it is morally wrong to know what is going on.
>
> such as Bob. anyone who thinks they could possibly understand
> our modern culture is a bit deluded. there's just way too
> many variables. one can understand certain segments or trends,
> but not the larger picture, because, the larger picture is
> all out of context. while you seem to grasp that. others don't.
So? An adequate model or aesthetic or methodology doesn't have to
describe all cases of everything...it just has to provide a useful
approach.
>
> > Also, I really don't think you can separate "references"
> >from the general process of thinking about something.
>
> well... i'll have to think about that.
>
> but... my first instinct is that... you're wrong. <g>
However...I am correct.
>
>
> > I also cannot really see what bothers you about the fact
> >that civilization as we know it (and writing) has been chugging
> >along for a few thousand years. What's the big deal?
>
> there is no big deal. the only thing that "bothers me" about it
> is the extent that large numbers of the civilization are complacent,
> self-satisfied elitists who delude themselves into thinking that
> they are somehow royalty.
This is just you way of making it seem morally wrong to have some
idea of what is going on.
> that they know better than the rest
> (and they just might in most disciplines -- but art is never one
> of them). then, of course, there's those other groups in our
> civilization who don't even rise to that inane level of futility.
Why is that? What do you mean?
>
> as far as the "writing" part of this whole discussion, i just
> think that using uncommonly known literary/art references is
> pretty lazy.
If it is the way you think, then what is the problem? Should a
person always systematically mis-represent themselves? Again, you're
just making it seem morally wrong to know what is going on.
>
> the references). my point (which you seemed to understand
> when you responded to my "Zero's Puzzle" post) is that, in
> our modern world, no mere mortal could possibly keep everything
> in context. it's utterly impossible. there have been far too
> many works created within too many lost contexts across space
> and time. therefore, there is much merit in creating works of
> art which are richly expressive without relying on readers to
> understand an individual writer's own particular reference set.
> why is this so hard to grasp?
That is precisely why people have canons. Such things allow for more
useful communication than otherwise.
> ironically, Shakespear[e] seemed to understand this better than most.
How so?
>
> for instance, why would so many see the need to write exclusively
> for the benefit of Steven Hawkings?
<snip>
Are you referring to some sort of technical literature?
> <snip>
>
> i refer you to nancy's interpretation of the "sound and fury"
> soliliquy in macbeth. is that the only interpretation? is
> it the _right_ interpretation? not from my reading. how about
> yours?
>
> have scholars "decided" what everything means? are they all
> in agreement? or... perhaps, did Shakespear[e] write a separate
> thesis explaining the whole work? and even if he did, what would
> that really mean?
>
> get it?
I hope not. Surely you aren't trying to tell me that the fact that
various interpretations of a text exist is any reason to believe that
looking into the context of a text is counterproductive. It would seem
to be the other way around: the fact that different interpretations
exist shows that it is always worthwhile to look more deeply into the
context of a text.
You never can tell.......................Pete
<snip>
Bob Pastorio
>
> bob has indicated he mainly
> writes for those with the same understanding he has.
No. Bob has indicated he writes for an audience that can understand a
good percent of the references used. No sameness. I don't deal in
this sort of absolute. You're dealing with abstractions and I'm
talking about what I do every week in small-town newspapers in rural
Virginia where the general educational level is hardly upscale. I've
been writing here since the 80's and operated restaurants since the
70's. This is farm country I live in. My radio program has a share
that hangs just over 30, if you know what that means. Yes, it is
astonishing. These folks seem to understand what I have to say, each
to his own level. Certainly enough to keep coming back year after
year.
> i don't write that way.
> it may be true that my understanding is not as high as his in some areas,
> but in those areas in which my understanding might be higher than another's,
> i prefer being understood than sounding lofty and eloquent.
Would you please go out on the net and find some of what I write? It
isn't lofty and it most assuredly is comprehensible. The research
over the years with readers shows that. It's about food, cooking,
feeding and the serious and silly components of it all. You make it
sound like "references" can only be to some high-falutin pomposity.
I've already described to you what I mean by them in relation to what
your family does. Daily stuff. Background stuff we all are exposed
to one way or another. You cast that aside. You keep trying to make
them into what they aren't and you keep trying to make the category
smaller and more to your prejudged condemnation.
> oth, i do appreciate loftiness and eloquence when handled skillfully. so i
> guess i could be considered the kind of audience that bob writes for-if i
> happen to know his latest reference.
Listen, you damage your own position when you do this kind of
distortion. When you deliberately misstate what I mean and try to use
it against me. I write about the commonality of the meal. The
ubiquitousness of the dining table. I write about satisfying needs
and wants. I write stuff that people can take to their kitchens and
use in very practical ways. I write about how silly we can be when we
take it all too seriously. I write about my mistakes and the triumphs
of others. Before you think you know what I do, go read some. Before
you're so sure of what you think I do, go read some. Go read some.
The rule in our house is this: Before you can say "yuck," you have to
taste it. If you do taste it and say "yuck," you never have to taste
any again.
But you have this fully-formed opinion about my writing without ever
tasting. And you spare no effort being critical of what you haven't
seen. If you had read my work, you'd find a preponderance of
Germanic-root words (the ones most Americans use most). Of short
sentences (average 5-7 words). Short paragraphs, usually of three
sentences. Sharp and deliberate changes of rhythm and style for
interest and pacing. Information that is specifically intended to be
useful and immediate. Humor to hold readers' attention. Sentence
fragments like most of us use in speaking. Historical notes that help
readers understand sources for them to pursue, if they wish.
Variations in the basic concepts so readers can change and tailor what
I do to their preferences. So they can make it their own. And lots
more.
But you have invested so much in this idea that referential writing
has to be some kind of snooty upper-upper that you can only see it
this one way. You will be perfectly able to understand any of my
columns without absorbing all the references. But those people - that
includes you - that do will get a bit more out of them. It's just
that simple.
And I write columns in essentially the same voice I use here. Same
style, tempered for publication. I don't use any more or less of what
I know there than I do here. Do you get what I write here? Is it
lofty and hard to understand?
You don't have to like it, but you do have to know what you're
criticizing if you want to be considered honest.
Go read what you're so sure is "lofty" and somehow hard to
understand. You might understand it. And maybe even like it. But
first, you have to taste.
Pastorio
nancy
misc.writing on 01 Aug 2000 here.
>And, you're so eager to keep this noise barrage alive that
>you attribute someone else's words to me, here below. But,
>anyway, maybe you want to listen to some of Aaron Copeland's
>works. Even you will recognize melodies that he wove into
>the larger works. And, if I thought for a moment that you
>would ever listen to music that wasn't pop radio-play stuff,
>I'd suggest you listen to a bunch of European composers who
>lifted popular themes from their cultures and used them in
>"classical" compositions. BUt that would require you to
>spend some time learning.
>
bob, i already told him to do this, but he got
hung up on proving some other "musical" non-point
to me that was never in contention.
the man just doesn't get it.
or he refuses to admit that he does, and he's just
trolling you.
--
n (and i really don't care for philip glass, at all.)
Hardware: The part you kick.
Hound of Cullen
: n (and i really don't care for philip glass, at all.)
:
:
A couple of years ago, the American Repertory Theater did an opera
version of Jean Cocteau's "Orphee." The music was by Philip Glass, and
the set design was by John Conklin (one of the big names in set design,
he teaches at NYU and does lots of high-profile work on the east coast).
I walked into one of the local cafes to get a cup of joe, and thought the
two guys in front of me were some homeless fellas who came in for a hot
meal. Nope, it was Conklin and Glass. Both of them tend to be kind of
ratty dressers.
Hound (my brush with greatness) of Cullen
--
Not a demographic -- Do not measure
Bob Pastorio
>
> insert cutesy lead-in concerning Bob Pastorio posting in
> misc.writing on 01 Aug 2000 here.
>
> >you attribute someone else's words to me, here below. But,
> >anyway, maybe you want to listen to some of Aaron Copeland's
> >works. Even you will recognize melodies that he wove into
> >the larger works. And, if I thought for a moment that you
> >would ever listen to music that wasn't pop radio-play stuff,
> >I'd suggest you listen to a bunch of European composers who
> >lifted popular themes from their cultures and used them in
> >"classical" compositions. BUt that would require you to
> >spend some time learning.
>
Um, yes. I think the words he attributed to me were yours. Good
stuff.
> but he got
> hung up on proving some other "musical" non-point
> to me that was never in contention.
>
> the man just doesn't get it.
>
> or he refuses to admit that he does, and he's just
> trolling you.
Nah. He just doesn't get it.
While insisting that everybody else doesn't get it. And demanding
that we conform to his small universe. Sure thing. Let's all bonsai
our brains to fit his tinfoil hat.
> n (and i really don't care for philip glass, at all.)
Et al. Me neither.
The music I like best is deeply melodic and rhythmically interesting.
Suite Judy blue eyes. Un bel di vedremo. Grand canyon suite. 5th
and 9th symphonies. Take 5 (and most of that album). (Where are you
going) my little one. Nashville Skyline (much of it). Lotsa Jacques
Brel. Big, lush orchestrations - Celine, Whitney. Elaborate
harmonies and good vocal blends - Manhattan transfer, etc. Stuff
like that...
Pastorio
ing
>
> "ing" <ing.b...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:3986E4D5...@sympatico.ca...
> > The Apprentice wrote:
> > >
> > > i see you favor the deflationary theory of truth.
> > >
> >
> > Uh, in your wish to write in a minimalist non-referential
> > fashion, you've used a reference here that I don't
> > understand. I do not want to feel left out so, could you
> > explain, please, for me and perhaps those others of us who
> > may not have gotten this?
> >
> > ing
>
> since bob was replying to my original post that mentioned the deflationary
> theory of truth, i know that bob read what i wrote, and i was replying to
> bob, specifically.
Oh, I'm sure that's absolutely true. But since you posted
it here in a public newsgroup where *others* can read it,
perhaps gain from it and respond to it -- I'm just asking
what it means? It's a reference *I* don't get. Whose
theory is it?
> i also indicated that such was a theory in the field of
> philosoply when i wrote of it originally, so anyone wishing to discover it
> and dig deeper could do so.
Well, I'm having difficulty looking it up. None of my
reference books mention it. So since you wrote about it, am
assuming you're familiar with it. So what's it mean? It
must have something to do with minimalism, whatever that is.
Rereading your original post doesn't help me, somehow.
> it was not hidden, it was not alluded to, there
> was no foreknowledge of any references needed in order to understand my
> original post.
I never said it was hidden or alluded to. But *some*
foreknowledge is definitely required in order to understand
your original post... foreknowledge I don't have experience
with, or I'd have got what you meant.
As one of your audience members/readers here in this group,
and having read your position that "references" used in
posts should not go over the heads of your readers, it was
my understanding that you'd be writing for the masses of us
here. That you'd aim for a common chord of understanding.
So now I find this reference to something I don't
understand. That's why I'm asking, what's it mean?
>
>
> .....i am only wanting references to be used in a manner that allows
> people to actually gain something from them.
I didn't gain anything from this reference of yours. Does
this mean you've failed in your communication?
> bob has indicated he mainly
> writes for those with the same understanding he has. i don't write > that way.
So *you* write for those with less understanding than you
have -- or maybe more??? But definitely not those with the
SAME understanding, right? But then, I gotta ask it one
more time -- how could you know, in the end? I am really
and truly confused here.
> it may be true that my understanding is not as high as his in some areas,
> but in those areas in which my understanding might be higher than another's,
> i prefer being understood than sounding lofty and eloquent.
Am not saying what you wrote was lofty or eloquent ... I'm
saying I didn't understand it. It seems you have missed here
on both points.
You know, arleen, I get the feeling you're actually evading
explaining to me what this "deflationary theory of truth"
means.
Do you actually know?
>
> oth, i do appreciate loftiness and eloquence when handled skillfully. so i
> guess i could be considered the kind of audience that bob writes for-if i
> happen to know his latest reference.
And if you don't understand his latest reference, then he
has somehow "failed" in his communication? Is that what
you're saying?
And if others get it and you alone don't -- does that still
mean he has failed?
Exactly what audience were YOU aiming for when you wrote the
original post in this thread?
ing <who didn't get it>
Zero
"You're a scientist, but more important,
you're a New Yorker. You were born with
an innate skepticism, a natural sense of
superiority in the way of the world."
-- Maurice Minnifield [from the televison
program: "Northern Exposure" (1990-1995)]
Re: Hello, My Name is Bob, and... I'm an Elitist
Peter Hickman Peter....@rtp.ppdi.com wrote:
>Zero wrote:
[...]
>> you don't _think_ i'm making as much sense as i seem to
>> think i am?
>
> It was a round-about way of saying that some of what
>you are saying is not very sensible...in my view.
ditto. hence, this conversation.
>> LOL. that's almost as bizarre a thought as anything
>> i've seen Pastorio lay claim to. don't tell me that you
>> subscribe to the psychic polling/mind-reading service that
>> nancy and Bob and the others do?
>
> I was just trying to sound polite. I could be more blunt,
>but I don't see the point.
you mean like saying: "Zero, you're wrong." ??
>> surely, a person of your level of understanding realizes the
>> role of contextual disparity between any two individuals.
>
> Disparity? What would contextual parity be? Exact sameness?
>There would be no need for language or references or anything in
>that case would there?
please don't resort to broadening the focus to "all" references.
it has never been a position i've taken (not seriously anyway, and
certainly not in this discussion we've been having regarding the
use of uncommonly known literary/artistic references).
>> regardless, we two can attempt to understand eachother's
>> bullshit without losing our cools. see, Pete, you're
>> an elitist, no doubt, but... you're mind is still open.
>> i can sense that.
>
> Well, I'm an elitist in the sense that I think very few
>people have a clear grasp of such things as just how bad the
>current state of the biosphere is...for example...but those
>who understand such things aren't in any elite, unfortunately...
>the elites think (like you do) that direct experience gives
>you the whole truth.
_i_ never said that. i only said that rich truths are available
to us on a direct basis... that rich truths are not the sole
domain of elitists and their canons. i never implied that the
body of information which mankind has compiled to date is useless,
only that it was not infallible. not by a longshot. i'm sure
you agree. ok... you'll claim that the "longshot" characterization
is meaningless in the context of practical applications. i agree.
for the most part, anyway.
>I guess they and you think that because it is the easiest thing
>to think and because doubting the value of direct experience in
>generating convincing truthlike situations will lead you to doubt
>Modernism and then where are you? You'd have to start trying to
>figure things out. And then you'd be thinking and well...then
>anything could happen.
again, let me clarify. i don't suggest that we, as a society,
should abandon what we have already learned, merely that each
individual is incapable of knowing it all. in regards to science,
there is great benefit for intelligent people to know nothing of
a given specific scientific "canon." they can be brought in to
help solve problems which those who know the "canon" would likely
miss (simply by virtue of being too familiar with what they believe
to be the truth). intelligent people with few preconceptions
inevitably ask much more useful and different questions than those
who believe they already understand a given dynamic. it's called
brainstorming. the more brains that are present with the least
preconceptions, the better those with thorough understanding can
think in new ways about a given problem once the brainstorming
begins (unless they totally dismiss the "ignoramouses" due to
their often-frustrating "ignorance").
trying to solve a weird astronomy problem? bring in some very
intelligent oceanographers or science fiction writers or
computer designers, historians, etc.. describe the situation
as best you can and let the brainstorm begin.
><Snip>.
>
>> basically, i think that there's three types of elitists:
>>
>> 1] the curious
>> 2] the defensive
>> 3] the indifferent
>>
>> the curious never stop learning.
>> the defensive never stop defending.
>> the indifferent rarely start caring.
>>
>> some elitists fall into more than one category.
>>
>> BTW: i just made that elitist model up right now...
>> yet, when i look at it, it sure makes sense.
>> care to tweak it?
>
> Sure. An elitist thinks that (for some reason) a few
>people should control something or other of social significance.
you mean, like a moderated writing group? <g>
BTW: you're simply defining what an elitist is, and not how
they may fit into the various models i've spontaneously defined.
you're not a very cooperative brainstormer.
>In my view, people who understand the world should control
>the world.
well... that's a bit of a problem since there is usually
much disagreement about who really understands the world.
(even among the elitists).
>In the general view, as far as I can tell, people who have a
>lot of money or large armed forces should control the world.
>So I am an elitist, but the elite I would back is relatively
>powerless at the moment.
you mean, we're all at the mercy of Geno? what a nightmare.
>> see? that's where i'm coming from. is that so bad?
>>
>> instead of relying on whatever model has been "settled upon"
>> by thousands of years of conventional wisdom (which may well be
>> based on some flawed initial principle that everyone's become
>> unwittingly and/or sentimentally and/or logistically attached to),
>> i look at every situation with fresh eyes.
>
> You look at the situation with the usual Modernist eyes.
you mean i'm not a Realist Idealist? darn.
>> now, surely, anyone can see that i'm not an idiot.
>
> No. But you are just like millions of other non-idiots
>who think that there is something morally wrong with knowing
>what is going on.
what gives you that bizarre idea? what have i ever said that
would imply such a thing?
>> <snip>
>>
>> >What's an elitist in terms of understanding something about
>> >the culture you live in?
>>
>> nothing, really. it's a great aspiration. except when the
>> elitist truly believes that they are exclusively correct.
>
> Ah...But what's wrong with being correct if you remove the
>"exclusively"? the notion of "exclusion" is something you've
>introduced to make the point that it is morally wrong to know
>what is going on.
no, i think it is intellectually improbable to know what is
going on. in any case, i follow what's going on far more
than most people probably do. i just don't know the literary
canon, that's all (and i probably know much of it by osmosis
anyway -- the substance therein, if not the references).
>> such as Bob. anyone who thinks they could possibly understand
>> our modern culture is a bit deluded. there's just way too
>> many variables. one can understand certain segments or trends,
>> but not the larger picture, because, the larger picture is
>> all out of context. while you seem to grasp that. others don't.
>
> So? An adequate model or aesthetic or methodology doesn't
>have to describe all cases of everything...it just has to provide
>a useful approach.
i agree. but to claim that it is mandatory to know a given model
in order to function in society or to contribute to society is
nothing less than deluded arrogance.
for instance, regarding music: one doesn't need to use a piano
or a violin, or a saxaphone, etc. to compose a musical work.
one can use absolutely anything that makes sound. just because
a given composition does not use some given "adequate" model
does not mean that the approach is not useful or valuable.
does it?
>> > Also, I really don't think you can separate "references"
>> >from the general process of thinking about something.
>>
>> well... i'll have to think about that.
>>
>> but... my first instinct is that... you're wrong. <g>
>
> However...I am correct.
nope. i've since given it further thought and have
officially confirmed that you are incorrect.
>> > I also cannot really see what bothers you about the fact
>> >that civilization as we know it (and writing) has been chugging
>> >along for a few thousand years. What's the big deal?
>>
>> there is no big deal. the only thing that "bothers me" about it
>> is the extent that large numbers of the civilization are complacent,
>> self-satisfied elitists who delude themselves into thinking that
>> they are somehow royalty.
>
> This is just you way of making it seem morally wrong to have
>some idea of what is going on.
i don't what model you're using to make such a wrong determination,
but, whatever it is, get your money back. it's broke.
>> that they know better than the rest
>> (and they just might in most disciplines -- but art is never one
>> of them). then, of course, there's those other groups in our
>> civilization who don't even rise to that inane level of futility.
>
> Why is that? What do you mean?
1] that art is beyond any elitism
2] that many (most) people never even consider making
any such errored elitist judgments about "art."
>> as far as the "writing" part of this whole discussion, i just
>> think that using uncommonly known literary/art references is
>> pretty lazy.
>
> If it is the way you think, then what is the problem?
there is none for me. i'm trying to understand what the problem
is with what i'm saying, as well.
>Should a person always systematically mis-represent themselves?
not necessarily. well, let's just say that i don't see much
use in such a thing. anyway, i don't see how that applies, at all.
>Again, you're just making it seem morally wrong to
>know what is going on.
again, i don't see how you can make such baseless leaps.
i merely posit that not knowing "what's going on" in art
does not preclude mone from creating same.
i never said or implied that it was morally wrong to know
what art exists, it's just lazy (and often distracting) to
base one's work on existing art. art can stand-alone using
existing language and/or tools without refering to other works.
and, in all practical senses, most art does this anyway when
a given individual experiences it, simply by virtue of that
person's unique and finite reference set at that given moment.
(see my example of using Skakespear[e]'s Macbeth solilioquy
as a stand-alone text).
>> the references). my point (which you seemed to understand
>> when you responded to my "Zero's Puzzle" post) is that, in
>> our modern world, no mere mortal could possibly keep everything
>> in context. it's utterly impossible. there have been far too
>> many works created within too many lost contexts across space
>> and time. therefore, there is much merit in creating works of
>> art which are richly expressive without relying on readers to
>> understand an individual writer's own particular reference set.
>> why is this so hard to grasp?
>
> That is precisely why people have canons. Such things
>allow for more useful communication than otherwise.
or less useful communication when undelineated references
distort the meaning. which has been my whole point.
>> ironically, Shakespear[e] seemed to understand this better than most.
>
> How so?
well, from what i've been exposed to, his writing evokes incredible
richness, in and of itself.
>> for instance, why would so many see the need to write exclusively
>> for the benefit of Steven Hawkings?
>
><snip>
>
> Are you referring to some sort of technical literature?
nope. just making an analogy.
>> <snip>
>>
>> i refer you to nancy's interpretation of the "sound and fury"
>> soliliquy in macbeth. is that the only interpretation? is
>> it the _right_ interpretation? not from my reading. how about
>> yours?
>>
>> have scholars "decided" what everything means? are they all
>> in agreement? or... perhaps, did Shakespear[e] write a separate
>> thesis explaining the whole work? and even if he did, what would
>> that really mean?
>>
>> get it?
>
> I hope not.
LOL.
>Surely you aren't trying to tell me that the fact that various
>interpretations of a text exist is any reason to believe that
>looking into the context of a text is counterproductive.
no. i'm sure that it can be a rather instructive exercise in
discovering what may have been intended, but i'm also saying
that it's almost a futility. afterall, brilliant as he was,
Shakespear[e] was just some guy. if we ALL spent years trying
to deduce precisely what he specifically had in mind:
1] no one would ever have the time to read anyone else
2] we'd simply end up perhaps knowing something about
some guy named Shakespear[e] -- we'd understand
a lot about him but not necessarily much about ourselves.
OTOH, i believe that it _is_ useful that a few or even several
scholars _do_ study Shakespear[e], and then summarize their
findings for anyone who may have some interest in his psyche,
motivations, meanings, etc.. but beyond that, i don't think
that it's feasable for most people to be scholars regarding
Shakespear[e] or any other of the thousands of contributors
to the various cannons.
>It would seem to be the other way around: the fact that
>different interpretations exist shows that it is always
>worthwhile to look more deeply into the context of a text.
only to discover that everyone makes their own leaps?
>You never can tell.......................Pete
anyway, who is gonna believe which scholar?
><snip>
-$Zero... MyHeadHurts... <g>
"i began wondering...
i began to go off on
my usual tangents."
-- $Zero... <Zero...@aol.com> 884g
How To Write Something Sublime/Beautiful [Part I]
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=632807168
The Apprentice
> The Apprentice wrote:
> >
> > "Bob Pastorio" <Past...@rica.net> wrote in message
> > news:398658F0...@rica.net...
> >
> > > Empty=empty.
> >
>
LOL
> As
> are so many other things. With such good reason.
>
> Read any of Zero's posts today?
need you ask? i always read zero's posts. <g>
> See what I mean?
while i may not always agree with him, i always tend to get something out of
them for myself. perhaps it's this rebellious stage i've been going through.
his words can resonate an answering chord in me. but i get a lot out of much
of what i read in mw. i carry these discussions with me in my mind,
rethinking them, acknowledging other's points of views, and gaining a better
understanding of myself and how i'm relating to the world around me.
what have i gotten from this particular discussion? you all goaded me into
doing some digging of my own, and i took pleasure in the digging and
the writing. one point i find worth considering was pete hickman's in
his insistence on discovering the context within which things were written.
that it's not so much what is said, or who said it, but when and where and
why. i recognize that pete's point was also threaded throughout the points
others were making, and i also recognize that knowing what came before gives
us an understanding of why things are as they are now. that i never debated.
>
> Sound and flurble...
>
as to sound and flurble (i really like that phrase, btw), my perception is
that just about everything can be reduced to nothing more than sound and
flurble. and when i think back on some of your arguments with bonnie...<g>
my present opinion is that we seem to like nothing better than a good sound
and flurble.
macbeth laments this brief life of ours, lived upon this stage of planet
earth, appearing as nothing more than an idiot's tale of sound and fury,
blown out as easily as a candle. your approach to seizing the day, and
zero's approach to seizing the day do not change the fact that in the end it
all signifies...nothing.
but we can continue the play, and say our lines, and make it seem "real" and
"meaningful" until the curtain falls. and, perhaps, we'll have contributed
to the lines of the players that cross our paths or come after us, though
they, too, signify nothing.
arleen
(keeping it all in perspective-mine, of course <g>)
--
(please note: all uses of the word we and its derivatives are to indicate
humankind in general and not the posters and responders specifically,
unless otherwise indicated.)
----
http://ajartworks.com
Hound of Cullen
says...
[snip]
: . . . Uncultured swine.
This is good, isn't it? Swine culture is, like, trichinosis.
: Have you listened to any of Glass's recent stuff? He's getting closer to
: John Adams <whose work I really, really like>.
*I* like Sam Adams, especially the "Bahst'n Laggah"
Hound
The Apprentice
> 870a
<snip of an interesting exchange>
> 1] that art is beyond any elitism
are you kidding????
>
> 2] that many (most) people never even consider making
> any such errored elitist judgments about "art."
>
bzzzzt! people make elitist judgements about art all the time.
now, if you mean that art _should_ be beyond such elitist considerations, i
agree. and innovators will go ahead and break all past models just to prove
this, but then, as time passes, and the innovations become accepted, the
elitists come in and try to explain it all for the rest of us peons. have
you ever read any art magazines that include essays or criticisms on modern
pieces in the latest high fashion gallery?
good grief. when it comes to elite, the art world has more than its share.
oth, while i despise the kind of thinking that causes people to look down
their noses on differences in thinking (oh dear, and here i am basically
looking down my nose on that very difference of thinking <g>), i appreciate
comprehensive, serious study that attempts to explain why a particular trend
in art took place. the why of a thing always helps to give a better
appreciation for it.
for example, when looked at alone, the art of minimalism doesn't seem to
have any meaning. it says nothing. and yet, when one understands that it
began as a rejection of abstract expressionism, which placed more importance
on the artist and the act of creation than it did on the result, and that
minimalists wished to take out all reference to the artist and allow the
onlooker to make up their own minds about meaning, it helps us to understand
why it's even considered art in first place.
and back to those elitist judgements. how many times have you stood in front
of a work of art and wondered why it's considered art or whether or not it's
"good"?
arleen
(oops. i'm probably asking the wrong person. i have this feeling that you
can stand in front of anything and see it as art. <g>)
The Apprentice
> Before you think you know what I do, go read some. Before
> you're so sure of what you think I do, go read some. Go read some.
my most sincere apologies. you are correct. i only know what you write here,
and here you often times sound lofty and eloquent. you are a master at what
looks like putting people in their places, and you have, to me, often
sounded pompous when doing so.
i did, at one time, search for articles of yours, but found only one, which
was, as you say, well written and did not come across as lofty or pompous or
elitist, but was, instead filled with interesting tidbits of information to
interest the reader besides a straightforward how to do such and such in the
kitchen. i cannot recall the topic, but i do recall the impression i had of
it.
it gets to us, doesn't it, the way other people see us here? all of a sudden
our words come back to us in ways we never intended, and we see ourselves
through the eyes of other people. now you know the impression you have given
me in this year past, though you have managed, in this week, to undo much of
it with your heartfelt posts on what you write and how you view the world.
and you are correct in the rest, in that i have invested much energy in my
argument, but i am not truly intransigent, bob. if anything, i am probably
the most wishy washy, most compromising person there could be. i was simply
enjoying the debate and gaining much insight into myself as i went along,
but i apologize again for making the assumptions that i did, thereby
essentially denigrating your craft. your craft, and your excellence in it,
has never been in question as far as i'm concerned.
and ingrid, if you're reading this, i would like you to know that i am not
going to read your reply to my post. i have gained the impression that i set
your teeth on edge, and, in consequence, i don't seem to respond well to
your posts. had nancy written what you wrote about explaining the whatever
it is theory, i would have laughed and shot back, "good one!" clapping my
hands as she did, because i fully recognize the irony of all of this, but i
assumed that you were not responding in fun and not just enjoying the give
and take as i have with most of the others who have responded, but were,
instead, as gleeful as i once was in seeing a point you could score against
me. for that assumption, i apologize. i have taken others to task for
assuming, and yet here i have been doing the same.
arleen
if anyone wishes to make a further response, i welcome your email.
Sunbeam the Deacon
Zero wrote:
<snip>
> >> surely, a person of your level of understanding realizes the
> >> role of contextual disparity between any two individuals.
> >
> > Disparity? What would contextual parity be? Exact sameness?
> >There would be no need for language or references or anything in
> >that case would there?
>
> please don't resort to broadening the focus to "all" references.
Why? Do you distinguish between privileged references to certain
snippets of language and other, less meaningful references to humble
turns of shrubbery? I don't . A reference is a reference, whether to a
tree or a wind or a text.
> it has never been a position i've taken (not seriously anyway, and
> certainly not in this discussion we've been having regarding the
> use of uncommonly known literary/artistic references).
So you actually place any old arty crap on a higher referential plane
than say a technical reference to the distribution of say alligator
junipers? Gad, you Modernists can be an odd bunch.
>
> >> regardless, we two can attempt to understand eachother's
> >> bullshit without losing our cools. see, Pete, you're
> >> an elitist, no doubt, but... you're mind is still open.
> >> i can sense that.
> >
> > Well, I'm an elitist in the sense that I think very few
> >people have a clear grasp of such things as just how bad the
> >current state of the biosphere is...for example...but those
> >who understand such things aren't in any elite, unfortunately...
> >the elites think (like you do) that direct experience gives
> >you the whole truth.
>
> _i_ never said that. i only said that rich truths are available
> to us on a direct basis...
What does that mean?
that rich truths are not the sole
> domain of elitists and their canons.
But you would exclude a reference to the distribution of alligator
junipers?
<snip>
>
> >I guess they and you think that because it is the easiest thing
> >to think and because doubting the value of direct experience in
> >generating convincing truthlike situations will lead you to doubt
> >Modernism and then where are you? You'd have to start trying to
> >figure things out. And then you'd be thinking and well...then
> >anything could happen.
>
<snip of a methodologically worthless context>
>
> trying to solve a weird astronomy problem? bring in some very
> intelligent oceanographers or science fiction writers or
> computer designers, historians, etc.. describe the situation
> as best you can and let the brainstorm begin.
Apparently this would be the only possible example that might in some
way support the Modernist Version of truth as direct experience. One
must have A) absolute ignorance and B) absolute information....well this
is not a useful example...in fact it is about as misleading as possible.
>
> ><Snip>.
> >
> >> basically, i think that there's three types of elitists:
> >>
> >> 1] the curious
> >> 2] the defensive
> >> 3] the indifferent
> >>
> >> the curious never stop learning.
> >> the defensive never stop defending.
> >> the indifferent rarely start caring.
> >>
> >> some elitists fall into more than one category.
> >>
> >> BTW: i just made that elitist model up right now...
> >> yet, when i look at it, it sure makes sense.
> >> care to tweak it?
> >
> > Sure. An elitist thinks that (for some reason) a few
> >people should control something or other of social significance.
>
> you mean, like a moderated writing group? <g>
>
> BTW: you're simply defining what an elitist is, and not how
> they may fit into the various models i've spontaneously defined.
> you're not a very cooperative brainstormer.
I'm trying to be polite, okay?
>
> >In my view, people who understand the world should control
> >the world.
>
> well... that's a bit of a problem since there is usually
> much disagreement about who really understands the world.
> (even among the elitists).
>
> >In the general view, as far as I can tell, people who have a
> >lot of money or large armed forces should control the world.
> >So I am an elitist, but the elite I would back is relatively
> >powerless at the moment.
>
> you mean, we're all at the mercy of Geno? what a nightmare.
In some brutal "alternative allegorical universe" sort of way, sure.
><snip>
>
> >> now, surely, anyone can see that i'm not an idiot.
> >
> > No. But you are just like millions of other non-idiots
> >who think that there is something morally wrong with knowing
> >what is going on.
>
> what gives you that bizarre idea? what have i ever said that
> would imply such a thing?
What's the point in all this Modernist epistemology and theories of
elitism them?
>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> >What's an elitist in terms of understanding something about
> >> >the culture you live in?
> >>
> >> nothing, really. it's a great aspiration. except when the
> >> elitist truly believes that they are exclusively correct.
> >
> > Ah...But what's wrong with being correct if you remove the
> >"exclusively"? the notion of "exclusion" is something you've
> >introduced to make the point that it is morally wrong to know
> >what is going on.
>
> no, i think it is intellectually improbable to know what is
> going on.
That's probably a very bad methodological assumption: ie. that you
can't know anything therefore any method is as good as another.
in any case, i follow what's going on far more
> than most people probably do.
So you think there is some degree of knowing that is possible?
i just don't know the literary
> canon, that's all (and i probably know much of it by osmosis
> anyway -- the substance therein, if not the references).
Well...I'm sure I don't "know the literary canon" either, but this
doesn't stop me from trying to figure things out.
>
> >> such as Bob. anyone who thinks they could possibly understand
> >> our modern culture is a bit deluded.
Why? What's the point of starting from the point of view that your
understanding is useless?
there's just way too
> >> many variables. one can understand certain segments or trends,
> >> but not the larger picture, because, the larger picture is
> >> all out of context. while you seem to grasp that. others don't.
> >
> > So? An adequate model or aesthetic or methodology doesn't
> >have to describe all cases of everything...it just has to provide
> >a useful approach.
>
> i agree. but to claim that it is mandatory to know a given model
> in order to function in society or to contribute to society is
> nothing less than deluded arrogance.
No one has specified a model. I have noted this repeatedly in
discussions like this one. There appears to be no such model. In the
absence of an explicit model everybody falls back on Modernism with the
absurd results that I noted in January with regard to poetic genres.
> for instance, regarding music: one doesn't need to use a piano
> or a violin, or a saxaphone, etc. to compose a musical work.
> one can use absolutely anything that makes sound. just because
> a given composition does not use some given "adequate" model
> does not mean that the approach is not useful or valuable.
> does it?
This may be true in theory, but in practice people try to sing in tune
and in the right key if they want to produce consistant results.
>
> >> > Also, I really don't think you can separate "references"
> >> >from the general process of thinking about something.
> >>
> >> well... i'll have to think about that.
> >>
> >> but... my first instinct is that... you're wrong. <g>
> >
> > However...I am correct.
>
> nope. i've since given it further thought and have
> officially confirmed that you are incorrect.
Lucky you. You can go abck to being a Modernist.
>
> >> > I also cannot really see what bothers you about the fact
> >> >that civilization as we know it (and writing) has been chugging
> >> >along for a few thousand years. What's the big deal?
> >>
> >> there is no big deal. the only thing that "bothers me" about it
> >> is the extent that large numbers of the civilization are complacent,
> >> self-satisfied elitists who delude themselves into thinking that
> >> they are somehow royalty.
> >
> > This is just you way of making it seem morally wrong to have
> >some idea of what is going on.
>
> i don't what model you're using to make such a wrong determination,
> but, whatever it is, get your money back. it's broke.
I've described why I made this assessment.
>
> >> that they know better than the rest
> >> (and they just might in most disciplines -- but art is never one
> >> of them). then, of course, there's those other groups in our
> >> civilization who don't even rise to that inane level of futility.
> >
> > Why is that? What do you mean?
>
> 1] that art is beyond any elitism
This is just the super-privileged Modernist Model/Aesthetic all over
again.
> 2] that many (most) people never even consider making
> any such errored elitist judgments about "art."
Most Modernists. In an aesthetic mood.
>
> i merely posit that not knowing "what's going on" in art
> does not preclude mone from creating same.
>
> i never said or implied that it was morally wrong to know
> what art exists, it's just lazy (and often distracting) to
> base one's work on existing art. art can stand-alone using
> existing language and/or tools without refering to other works.
In the Modernist aesthetic, yes.
>
> and, in all practical senses, most art does this anyway when
> a given individual experiences it, simply by virtue of that
> person's unique and finite reference set at that given moment.
In the Modernist aesthetic, yes.
>
> (see my example of using Skakespear[e]'s Macbeth solilioquy
> as a stand-alone text).
>
> >> the references). my point (which you seemed to understand
> >> when you responded to my "Zero's Puzzle" post) is that, in
> >> our modern world, no mere mortal could possibly keep everything
> >> in context. it's utterly impossible. there have been far too
> >> many works created within too many lost contexts across space
> >> and time. therefore, there is much merit in creating works of
> >> art which are richly expressive without relying on readers to
> >> understand an individual writer's own particular reference set.
> >> why is this so hard to grasp?
> >
> > That is precisely why people have canons. Such things
> >allow for more useful communication than otherwise.
>
> or less useful communication when undelineated references
> distort the meaning. which has been my whole point.
No, your whole point is a rehash of Modernist Aesthetics.
<snip>
> >>
> >> have scholars "decided" what everything means? are they all
> >> in agreement? or... perhaps, did Shakespear[e] write a separate
> >> thesis explaining the whole work? and even if he did, what would
> >> that really mean?
> >>
> >> get it?
> >
> > I hope not.
>
> LOL.
>
> >Surely you aren't trying to tell me that the fact that various
> >interpretations of a text exist is any reason to believe that
> >looking into the context of a text is counterproductive.
>
> no. i'm sure that it can be a rather instructive exercise in
> discovering what may have been intended, but i'm also saying
> that it's almost a futility. afterall, brilliant as he was,
> Shakespear[e] was just some guy.
And the Modernist Aesthetic would demand some more privileged being as
the originator of valuable items, I suppose.
if we ALL spent years trying
> to deduce precisely what he specifically had in mind:
>
> 1] no one would ever have the time to read anyone else
>
> 2] we'd simply end up perhaps knowing something about
> some guy named Shakespear[e] -- we'd understand
> a lot about him but not necessarily much about ourselves.
>
> OTOH, i believe that it _is_ useful that a few or even several
> scholars _do_ study Shakespear[e], and then summarize their
> findings for anyone who may have some interest in his psyche,
> motivations, meanings, etc.. but beyond that, i don't think
> that it's feasable for most people to be scholars regarding
> Shakespear[e] or any other of the thousands of contributors
> to the various cannons.
Why not? It is possible to look pretty deeply into things without its
taking all of your time.
>
> >It would seem to be the other way around: the fact that
> >different interpretations exist shows that it is always
> >worthwhile to look more deeply into the context of a text.
>
> only to discover that everyone makes their own leaps?
Why is that a problem? Because in Modernism, direct experiences should
all produce the same truth in everyone...but that's not how things
really are?
>
> >You never can tell.......................Pete
>
> anyway, who is gonna believe which scholar?
You'll have to give up Modernism and give the matter some thought.
--
Then Pallas breath'd in Tydeus' sonne --
to render whom supreame
To all the Greekes at all his parts she cast a hoter beame
On his high mind, his body fild with much superior might
And made his compleate armor cast a farre more complete light.
(Chapman's Homer: Iliad, Fifth Book, first lines)
............Pete
Sunbeam the Deacon
Zero wrote:
<snip>
> >> surely, a person of your level of understanding realizes the
> >> role of contextual disparity between any two individuals.
> >
> > Disparity? What would contextual parity be? Exact sameness?
> >There would be no need for language or references or anything in
> >that case would there?
>
> please don't resort to broadening the focus to "all" references.
Why? Do you distinguish between privileged references to certain
snippets of language and other, less meaningful references to humble
turns of shrubbery? I don't . A reference is a reference, whether to a
tree or a wind or a text.
> it has never been a position i've taken (not seriously anyway, and
> certainly not in this discussion we've been having regarding the
> use of uncommonly known literary/artistic references).
So you actually place any old arty crap on a higher referential plane
than say a technical reference to the distribution of say alligator
junipers? Gad, you Modernists can be an odd bunch.
>
> >> regardless, we two can attempt to understand eachother's
> >> bullshit without losing our cools. see, Pete, you're
> >> an elitist, no doubt, but... you're mind is still open.
> >> i can sense that.
> >
> > Well, I'm an elitist in the sense that I think very few
> >people have a clear grasp of such things as just how bad the
> >current state of the biosphere is...for example...but those
> >who understand such things aren't in any elite, unfortunately...
> >the elites think (like you do) that direct experience gives
> >you the whole truth.
>
> _i_ never said that. i only said that rich truths are available
> to us on a direct basis...
What does that mean?
that rich truths are not the sole
> domain of elitists and their canons.
But you would exclude a reference to the distribution of alligator
junipers?
<snip>
>
> >I guess they and you think that because it is the easiest thing
> >to think and because doubting the value of direct experience in
> >generating convincing truthlike situations will lead you to doubt
> >Modernism and then where are you? You'd have to start trying to
> >figure things out. And then you'd be thinking and well...then
> >anything could happen.
>
<snip of a methodologically worthless context>
>
> trying to solve a weird astronomy problem? bring in some very
> intelligent oceanographers or science fiction writers or
> computer designers, historians, etc.. describe the situation
> as best you can and let the brainstorm begin.
Apparently this would be the only possible example that might in some
way support the Modernist Version of truth as direct experience. One
must have A) absolute ignorance and B) absolute information....well this
is not a useful example...in fact it is about as misleading as possible.
>
> ><Snip>.
> >
> >> basically, i think that there's three types of elitists:
> >>
> >> 1] the curious
> >> 2] the defensive
> >> 3] the indifferent
> >>
> >> the curious never stop learning.
> >> the defensive never stop defending.
> >> the indifferent rarely start caring.
> >>
> >> some elitists fall into more than one category.
> >>
> >> BTW: i just made that elitist model up right now...
> >> yet, when i look at it, it sure makes sense.
> >> care to tweak it?
> >
> > Sure. An elitist thinks that (for some reason) a few
> >people should control something or other of social significance.
>
> you mean, like a moderated writing group? <g>
>
> BTW: you're simply defining what an elitist is, and not how
> they may fit into the various models i've spontaneously defined.
> you're not a very cooperative brainstormer.
I'm trying to be polite, okay?
>
> >In my view, people who understand the world should control
> >the world.
>
> well... that's a bit of a problem since there is usually
> much disagreement about who really understands the world.
> (even among the elitists).
>
> >In the general view, as far as I can tell, people who have a
> >lot of money or large armed forces should control the world.
> >So I am an elitist, but the elite I would back is relatively
> >powerless at the moment.
>
> you mean, we're all at the mercy of Geno? what a nightmare.
In some brutal "alternative allegorical universe" sort of way, sure.
><snip>
>
> >> now, surely, anyone can see that i'm not an idiot.
> >
> > No. But you are just like millions of other non-idiots
> >who think that there is something morally wrong with knowing
> >what is going on.
>
> what gives you that bizarre idea? what have i ever said that
> would imply such a thing?
What's the point in all this Modernist epistemology and theories of
elitism them?
>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> >What's an elitist in terms of understanding something about
> >> >the culture you live in?
> >>
> >> nothing, really. it's a great aspiration. except when the
> >> elitist truly believes that they are exclusively correct.
> >
> > Ah...But what's wrong with being correct if you remove the
> >"exclusively"? the notion of "exclusion" is something you've
> >introduced to make the point that it is morally wrong to know
> >what is going on.
>
> no, i think it is intellectually improbable to know what is
> going on.
That's probably a very bad methodological assumption: ie. that you
can't know anything therefore any method is as good as another.
in any case, i follow what's going on far more
> than most people probably do.
So you think there is some degree of knowing that is possible?
i just don't know the literary
> canon, that's all (and i probably know much of it by osmosis
> anyway -- the substance therein, if not the references).
Well...I'm sure I don't "know the literary canon" either, but this
doesn't stop me from trying to figure things out.
>
> >> such as Bob. anyone who thinks they could possibly understand
> >> our modern culture is a bit deluded.
Why? What's the point of starting from the point of view that your
understanding is useless?
there's just way too
> >> many variables. one can understand certain segments or trends,
> >> but not the larger picture, because, the larger picture is
> >> all out of context. while you seem to grasp that. others don't.
> >
> > So? An adequate model or aesthetic or methodology doesn't
> >have to describe all cases of everything...it just has to provide
> >a useful approach.
>
> i agree. but to claim that it is mandatory to know a given model
> in order to function in society or to contribute to society is
> nothing less than deluded arrogance.
No one has specified a model. I have noted this repeatedly in
discussions like this one. There appears to be no such model. In the
absence of an explicit model everybody falls back on Modernism with the
absurd results that I noted in January with regard to poetic genres.
> for instance, regarding music: one doesn't need to use a piano
> or a violin, or a saxaphone, etc. to compose a musical work.
> one can use absolutely anything that makes sound. just because
> a given composition does not use some given "adequate" model
> does not mean that the approach is not useful or valuable.
> does it?
This may be true in theory, but in practice people try to sing in tune
and in the right key if they want to produce consistant results.
>
> >> > Also, I really don't think you can separate "references"
> >> >from the general process of thinking about something.
> >>
> >> well... i'll have to think about that.
> >>
> >> but... my first instinct is that... you're wrong. <g>
> >
> > However...I am correct.
>
> nope. i've since given it further thought and have
> officially confirmed that you are incorrect.
Lucky you. You can go abck to being a Modernist.
>
> >> > I also cannot really see what bothers you about the fact
> >> >that civilization as we know it (and writing) has been chugging
> >> >along for a few thousand years. What's the big deal?
> >>
> >> there is no big deal. the only thing that "bothers me" about it
> >> is the extent that large numbers of the civilization are complacent,
> >> self-satisfied elitists who delude themselves into thinking that
> >> they are somehow royalty.
> >
> > This is just you way of making it seem morally wrong to have
> >some idea of what is going on.
>
> i don't what model you're using to make such a wrong determination,
> but, whatever it is, get your money back. it's broke.
I've described why I made this assessment.
>
> >> that they know better than the rest
> >> (and they just might in most disciplines -- but art is never one
> >> of them). then, of course, there's those other groups in our
> >> civilization who don't even rise to that inane level of futility.
> >
> > Why is that? What do you mean?
>
> 1] that art is beyond any elitism
This is just the super-privileged Modernist Model/Aesthetic all over
again.
> 2] that many (most) people never even consider making
> any such errored elitist judgments about "art."
Most Modernists. In an aesthetic mood.
>
> i merely posit that not knowing "what's going on" in art
> does not preclude mone from creating same.
>
> i never said or implied that it was morally wrong to know
> what art exists, it's just lazy (and often distracting) to
> base one's work on existing art. art can stand-alone using
> existing language and/or tools without refering to other works.
In the Modernist aesthetic, yes.
>
> and, in all practical senses, most art does this anyway when
> a given individual experiences it, simply by virtue of that
> person's unique and finite reference set at that given moment.
In the Modernist aesthetic, yes.
>
> (see my example of using Skakespear[e]'s Macbeth solilioquy
> as a stand-alone text).
>
> >> the references). my point (which you seemed to understand
> >> when you responded to my "Zero's Puzzle" post) is that, in
> >> our modern world, no mere mortal could possibly keep everything
> >> in context. it's utterly impossible. there have been far too
> >> many works created within too many lost contexts across space
> >> and time. therefore, there is much merit in creating works of
> >> art which are richly expressive without relying on readers to
> >> understand an individual writer's own particular reference set.
> >> why is this so hard to grasp?
> >
> > That is precisely why people have canons. Such things
> >allow for more useful communication than otherwise.
>
> or less useful communication when undelineated references
> distort the meaning. which has been my whole point.
No, your whole point is a rehash of Modernist Aesthetics.
<snip>
> >>
> >> have scholars "decided" what everything means? are they all
> >> in agreement? or... perhaps, did Shakespear[e] write a separate
> >> thesis explaining the whole work? and even if he did, what would
> >> that really mean?
> >>
> >> get it?
> >
> > I hope not.
>
> LOL.
>
> >Surely you aren't trying to tell me that the fact that various
> >interpretations of a text exist is any reason to believe that
> >looking into the context of a text is counterproductive.
>
> no. i'm sure that it can be a rather instructive exercise in
> discovering what may have been intended, but i'm also saying
> that it's almost a futility. afterall, brilliant as he was,
> Shakespear[e] was just some guy.
And the Modernist Aesthetic would demand some more privileged being as
the originator of valuable items, I suppose.
if we ALL spent years trying
> to deduce precisely what he specifically had in mind:
>
> 1] no one would ever have the time to read anyone else
>
> 2] we'd simply end up perhaps knowing something about
> some guy named Shakespear[e] -- we'd understand
> a lot about him but not necessarily much about ourselves.
>
> OTOH, i believe that it _is_ useful that a few or even several
> scholars _do_ study Shakespear[e], and then summarize their
> findings for anyone who may have some interest in his psyche,
> motivations, meanings, etc.. but beyond that, i don't think
> that it's feasable for most people to be scholars regarding
> Shakespear[e] or any other of the thousands of contributors
> to the various cannons.
Why not? It is possible to look pretty deeply into things without its
taking all of your time.
>
> >It would seem to be the other way around: the fact that
> >different interpretations exist shows that it is always
> >worthwhile to look more deeply into the context of a text.
>
> only to discover that everyone makes their own leaps?
Why is that a problem? Because in Modernism, direct experiences should
all produce the same truth in everyone...but that's not how things
really are?
>
> >You never can tell.......................Pete
>
> anyway, who is gonna believe which scholar?
You'll have to give up Modernism and give the matter some thought.
Towse
> And, you're so eager to keep this noise barrage alive that you
> attribute someone else's words to me, here below. But, anyway, maybe
> you want to listen to some of Aaron Copeland's works. Even you will
> recognize melodies that he wove into the larger works. And, if I
> thought for a moment that you would ever listen to music that wasn't
> pop radio-play stuff, I'd suggest you listen to a bunch of European
> composers who lifted popular themes from their cultures and used them
> in "classical" compositions. BUt that would require you to spend some
> time learning.
...from a "modern" perspective, listen to Billy Joel.
'nuff said.
Sal
Hugh Watkins
>basically, i think that there's three types of elitists:
>
>1] the curious
>2] the defensive
>3] the indifferent
>
>the curious never stop learning.
>the defensive never stop defending.
>the indifferent rarely start caring.
all wannabees
Hugh W
Zero
"I'm climbin' this laaaddderrrr...
My headddd... in the cloudssss
I hope that it maaaatttterrrrs...
I'm havin' my doooubbbtsss."
-- Neil Young (circa 1976)
[song: "Borrowed Tune" from:
"Tonight's The Night"]
Re: Hello, My Name is Bob, and... I'm an Elitist
Towse se...@towse.com suggested:
>Bob Pastorio wrote (to Zero) in a gazillion line post:
>
>> And, you're so eager to keep this noise barrage alive that
>> you attribute someone else's words to me, here below.
i did no such thing. you'll do anything to create a smokescreen.
the words were attributed to me. read them again. the quoted
words i was responding to were not attributed to anybody.
(that was an oversight on my part -- regardless, i did not
attribute those words to you, smokescreen man). i even
provided the message id and deja link. sheesh.
>> But, anyway, maybe you want to listen to some of Aaron
>> Copeland's works. Even you will recognize melodies that
>> he wove into the larger works.
Bob, i have no doubt that "some" composer's may use
music in the way you suggest. my point is that hardly
anyone _listens_ to music with that in mind. i challenged
nancy to tell me the tales of various music, she never
responded. however, if you'd like to meet that challenge,
let me know. the video crew is on standby.
in any case, i restate my observation:
apparently, they can easily
hear the words of music,
but not the music of words.
[nancy grasped at straws]
">stravinksi wove plenty of stories into his
>(then cutting-edge) music. a lot of music was
>written as ballets ... stories put to music, and
>the music was intended to convey the tale as much
>as the dance was.
>
i'd love to have you evaluate some instrumental music
for me in person and tell me what it is saying.
what a hoot. i'll play you some jazz records,
and you tell me what each story is, ok? same with
classical music, and rock, and other stuff. even folk
music without lyrics. it'll be fun. i'll video tape
the event and put it on the web. it should resolve
this reference question quite beautifully."
-- $Zero... <Zero...@aol.com> 873t
"Canon" Balls Fired (Re: References and Stuff)
<20000724211923...@ng-cp1.aol.com>
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=650364675
BTW: wanna hear some minimalistic Sinatra? for a great
example, listen to:
"When I Was Seventeen, It Was a Very Good Year"
yes, there's even orchestration inbetween the acappella
verses... (hmm... maybe you can tell me "the tale" the
orchestration is based on)... and the words paint a very
rich picture... regardless, i wasn't saying that Sinatra
was "a minmalist," just that he wavered between minimalistic
and flamboyant styles. just like Neil and many other great
artists do whom i admire. read my post again, without your
Zero blinders on.
regarding the directors, i'd also say that "Raging Bull" and
"Taxi Driver" were minimalistic as compared to the flamboyant
"Goodfellas." (for one example)
>> And, if I thought for a moment that you would ever
>> listen to music that wasn't pop radio-play stuff,
Bob, i used to listen to this great all-nite show originating
out of Quebec called "Brave New Waves" hosted by a very
interesting DJ woman by the name of Augusta LePay.
there was an amazing range of music of ALL genres played
and various musicians interviewed. i listened to that show
for several years. hardly pop radio top 40 stuff.
i forget most of it. i mostly listened to it as background.
some of the stuff featured was crap to me. i'd tune out on
those nights. but i could always count on that show to
seriously broaden my musical horizons.
>> I'd suggest you listen to a bunch of European composers
>> who lifted popular themes from their cultures and used
>> them in "classical" compositions. BUt that would require
>> you to spend some time learning.
>
>...from a "modern" perspective, listen to Billy Joel.
yeah, and i suggest Bob listen to Joel's "Captain Jack"
>'nuff said.
indeed.
>Sal
-$Zero... "BottleOfRed... BottleOfWhite...
WhateverMood... You'reIn... Tonight...
We'llGetATableForTwo... InOurItaliannnnnRestaurant..."
"love is a rose
but you better not pick it...
it only grows
when it's on the vine...
a handful of thorns and
you'll know you've missed it...
you lose your love when
you say the word: mine..."
-- Neil Young
[song: "Love is a Rose"]
Zero
Re: Hello, My Name is Bob, and... I'm an Elitist
Towse se...@towse.com suggested:
>Bob Pastorio wrote (to Zero) in a gazillion line post:
[...snip Bobfusc's smokescreen...]
>> I'd suggest you listen to a bunch of European
>> composers who lifted popular themes from their
>> cultures and used them in "classical" compositions.
>> BUt that would require you to spend some time learning.
>
>...from a "modern" perspective, listen to Billy Joel.
>
>'nuff said.
>
>Sal
BTW: if you're refering to the new classical kick
that Joel is on, i didn't miss that.
funny how he started off though, ain't it?
-$Zero... TheGreatOscilationTheoryOfArt...
The Apprentice
news:39874DD4...@worldnet.att.net...
>
>
> Zero wrote:
>
<snip>
> >
> > please don't resort to broadening the focus to "all" references.
>
> Why? Do you distinguish between privileged references to certain
> snippets of language and other, less meaningful references to humble
> turns of shrubbery? I don't . A reference is a reference, whether to a
> tree or a wind or a text.
we have been arguing getting rid of allusions to references that people
might not know from a hypothetical "canon" of works within the literary/art
world, while ignoring all other references. by doing this, we are, in
effect, being elitist (or perhaps prejudiced) ourselves by singling out this
particular area of thought while ignoring all the many other sources of
knowledge out there that can be used referentially.
and yet, while we have focused on literary/artistic type stuff, any
reference used without considering whether or not one's audience has an
understanding of it, can hinder communication-at least according to the
argument zero and i have put forth. what others argue back is that by not
understanding a reference that is culturally accepted as well-known in
general (the "canon" as it has been referred to), we perhaps consign
ourselves to a limited understanding of the world around us, and possibly
even reinventing the wheel.
you keep saying that zero is a modernist, yet you do not explain what that
means. if zero does not know what that means, your reference to a label used
to define a movement away from accepted cultural standards is lost on him,
and therefore your entire argument is lost on him. communication hasn't been
served. and if he truly is a modernist by definition (put in extremely
simple terms-one who has no use for the established practices within his
field/religion), you shouldn't be surprised that he might not get your
reference to modernism because he has no use for academic labels.
oth, if zero doesn't know about modernism, he also doesn't know that his
viewpoint is nothing new, but is, instead (when speaking academically of
art/literary/religious movements anyway) over one hundred years old.
but does it really matter whether or not he knows such a movement existed or
how old the movement is? chances are that even if he did know of it, he
would still be among its number. hypothetically. if he truly fits the
paradigm of a modernist. which changes according to who describes it and
which, of the many movements within the scope of modernism, he follows.
begin zero:
>
> > it has never been a position i've taken (not seriously anyway, and
> > certainly not in this discussion we've been having regarding the
> > use of uncommonly known literary/artistic references).
>
> So you actually place any old arty crap on a higher referential plane
> than say a technical reference to the distribution of say alligator
> junipers? Gad, you Modernists can be an odd bunch.
<g> i'm not sure what i am, but i do not place any old arty crap on a higher
referential plane. all referential planes are equal in that anyone who uses
references of any kind in an allusional manner, believing it to be
culturally accepted knowledge can find himself faced with a blank look on
the face of the one he is communicating with.
but i have come to accept that this is simply the way it is. it is not
possible to know what another may or may not know, and one will speak from
one's own reference points. as long as we do not consider those who do not
know what we know as somehow lesser beings, and are able to still dialogue
back and forth and share experience and knowledge, well, let it be so...
is knowledge of alligator junipers culturally accepted as common knowledge?
something else i must add to my deficient education. <sigh>
begin zero:
>
> >
> > >> regardless, we two can attempt to understand each other's
> > >> bullshit without losing our cools. see, Pete, you're
> > >> an elitist, no doubt, but... you're mind is still open.
> > >> i can sense that.
> > >
> > > Well, I'm an elitist in the sense that I think very few
> > >people have a clear grasp of such things as just how bad the
> > >current state of the biosphere is...for example...but those
> > >who understand such things aren't in any elite, unfortunately...
> > >the elites think (like you do) that direct experience gives
> > >you the whole truth.
> >
> > _i_ never said that. i only said that rich truths are available
> > to us on a direct basis...
>
> What does that mean?
>
> that rich truths are not the sole
> > domain of elitists and their canons.
>
> But you would exclude a reference to the distribution of alligator
> junipers?
no. if someone mentioned alligator junipers, expecting me to understand what
he was talking about, and looking down his nose if i don't, he's expecting
too much.
oth, if he wishes to discuss alligator junipers and is willing to clue me in
a bit on what they are, i have no problem at all with that.
begin pete:
> >
> > >I guess they and you think that because it is the easiest thing
> > >to think and because doubting the value of direct experience in
> > >generating convincing truthlike situations will lead you to doubt
> > >Modernism and then where are you?
where are you, pete? how do you view the world of today? where are we
headed?
<snip>
> > >
> > > Sure. An elitist thinks that (for some reason) a few
> > >people should control something or other of social significance.
> > >In my view, people who understand the world should control
> > >the world.
i can't help but echo what zero says below. how do we know who truly
understands it? and even then, is it really right for the world to be
controlled by any one group, no matter how well they may understand it? they
are still prone to all the human foibles and error as anyone else.
> >
> > well... that's a bit of a problem since there is usually
> > much disagreement about who really understands the world.
> > (even among the elitists).
> >
> > >In the general view, as far as I can tell, people who have a
> > >lot of money or large armed forces should control the world.
did you need to know anything historically to come to this conclusion?
or is this your direct experience of the world?
> > >So I am an elitist, but the elite I would back is relatively
> > >powerless at the moment.
can you place your opinion in some sort of context? have there been
movements in the past that would indicate that what you suggest (people with
understanding having control of the world) might succeed? or is this from
personal brainstorming? thinking about what you know and rejecting the
established order (people who have a lot of money or large armed forces
control the world) as a workable model, describing something that you
believe would work better?
> >
> > >> now, surely, anyone can see that i'm not an idiot.
> > >
> > > No. But you are just like millions of other non-idiots
> > >who think that there is something morally wrong with knowing
> > >what is going on.
> >
> > what gives you that bizarre idea? what have i ever said that
> > would imply such a thing?
>
> What's the point in all this Modernist epistemology and theories of
> elitism them?
it's fun to talk about?
okay, so let me see if i really am understanding this. the modernist
paradigm is a failure. the struggle to throw off the past in order to create
something that can stand alone within the context of the present moment is a
useless way of thinking. according to you, this struggle seems to require no
thought. everything must be taken within the context of culture and its many
changing faces in order to gain an understanding of...what exactly?
<snip>
> That's probably a very bad methodological assumption: ie. that you
> can't know anything therefore any method is as good as another.
as far as methodology goes, you are probably correct. then again, there are
those that would say all paths lead to the same place, and that everyone can
know everything once there.
i guess that doesn't help much while we're _here_ though, does it?
anyway, does it help to stick to a present methodology if it's flawed, yet
we don't know that it's flawed? until, perhaps, it's too late?
>
>
> in any case, i follow what's going on far more
> > than most people probably do.
>
> So you think there is some degree of knowing that is possible?
do you?
>
>
> i just don't know the literary
> > canon, that's all (and i probably know much of it by osmosis
> > anyway -- the substance therein, if not the references).
>
> Well...I'm sure I don't "know the literary canon" either, but this
> doesn't stop me from trying to figure things out.
do you think that modernists have stopped?
begin zero:
> > >> anyone who thinks they could possibly understand
> > >> our modern culture is a bit deluded.
>
> Why? What's the point of starting from the point of view that your
> understanding is useless?
> there's just way too
> > >> many variables. one can understand certain segments or trends,
> > >> but not the larger picture, because, the larger picture is
> > >> all out of context. while you seem to grasp that. others don't.
> > >
> > > So? An adequate model or aesthetic or methodology doesn't
> > >have to describe all cases of everything...it just has to provide
> > >a useful approach.
who decides what's adequate? useful to whom? and for what? and how do you
know it's useful? i know, this is no reason to throw it out. one can't know
until it's tried. but, how long is long enough in the trying? until it
works? until it proves false? what if it never really works, in that it
never accomplishes all that we wish it to, yet never really fails, either,
in that society still keeps chugging along in the best way it can?
> >
> > i agree. but to claim that it is mandatory to know a given model
> > in order to function in society or to contribute to society is
> > nothing less than deluded arrogance.
>
> No one has specified a model. I have noted this repeatedly in
> discussions like this one. There appears to be no such model.
no. not any one model. many models (is model really the correct word for
this?) in the minds of many different people, some of them very difficult to
live up to. it is the idea that one must meet some sort of nebulous standard
(set arbitrarily by a variety of people who have already achieved some
portion of the standard and then look down on those who haven't) in order to
be considered of value that chafes.
> In the
> absence of an explicit model everybody falls back on Modernism
to hell with what came before and what anyone else thinks, i will be
valuable in my own way! i will be a work of art that can stand alone,
without context!
am i even close, pete, in understanding what you're saying?
> with the
> absurd results that I noted in January with regard to poetic genres.
i'm sorry, i missed that discussion, so i don't know what absurd results you
concluded.
<snip>
starting with pete:
> > >> > I also cannot really see what bothers you about the fact
> > >> >that civilization as we know it (and writing) has been chugging
> > >> >along for a few thousand years. What's the big deal?
> > >>
> > >> there is no big deal. the only thing that "bothers me" about it
> > >> is the extent that large numbers of the civilization are complacent,
> > >> self-satisfied elitists who delude themselves into thinking that
> > >> they are somehow royalty.
> > >
> > > This is just you way of making it seem morally wrong to have
> > >some idea of what is going on.
> >
> > i don't what model you're using to make such a wrong determination,
> > but, whatever it is, get your money back. it's broke.
>
> I've described why I made this assessment.
let me recap, to see if i got it. because one (the modernist) determines
that it is impossible to understand everything, one then throws off all that
is up to that point understood in order to live relativistically in the
moment, thereby making it morally wrong to believe that more than the moment
is important to understanding anything?
ummm. if that _is_ modernism, and if that _is_ what you have deduced from
what zero has said, well, i guess i'm not a modernist. although i do
recognize some modernist leanings within myself.
<snip>
begin zero:
> >
> > 1] that art is beyond any elitism
>
> This is just the super-privileged Modernist Model/Aesthetic all over
> again.
why super-privileged?
<snip>
> > i never said or implied that it was morally wrong to know
> > what art exists, it's just lazy (and often distracting) to
> > base one's work on existing art. art can stand-alone using
> > existing language and/or tools without referring to other works.
>
> In the Modernist aesthetic, yes.
yes, in the modernist aesthetic, what zero says is true.
(although, do modernists believe it's laziness?) and this is a bad thing?
>
> >
> > and, in all practical senses, most art does this anyway when
> > a given individual experiences it, simply by virtue of that
> > person's unique and finite reference set at that given moment.
>
> In the Modernist aesthetic, yes.
again i ask, is this bad?
<snip>
begin pete:
> >
> > >Surely you aren't trying to tell me that the fact that various
> > >interpretations of a text exist is any reason to believe that
> > >looking into the context of a text is counterproductive.
> >
> > no. i'm sure that it can be a rather instructive exercise in
> > discovering what may have been intended, but i'm also saying
> > that it's almost a futility. afterall, brilliant as he was,
> > Shakespear[e] was just some guy.
>
> And the Modernist Aesthetic would demand some more privileged being as
> the originator of valuable items, I suppose.
the modernist aesthetic, if i understand it, would seem to demand nothing
from anyone other than the individual creating in the moment. no privilege,
no one originator of valuable items.
<snip>
begin pete:
> > >It would seem to be the other way around: the fact that
> > >different interpretations exist shows that it is always
> > >worthwhile to look more deeply into the context of a text.
> >
> > only to discover that everyone makes their own leaps?
>
> Why is that a problem? Because in Modernism, direct experiences should
> all produce the same truth in everyone...
is that what modernists thought when they chose direct experience over what
went on before? that it would lead to some ultimate truth that would hold
true for everyone? interesting. i wish that were true. maybe, on some level,
i do believe that it is.
> but that's not how things
> really are?
and how are things, really?
arleen
for your further reading pleasure:
(don't be put off by the URL, this is a very good overview)
http://www.oneopinionatedbitch.com/I/love/modernism/
Modernism was a movement that took hold with the coming of the 20th century
and lasted up until the end of World War II. There is no clear cut
definition due to Modernism's erratic nature and countless contextual
meanings. It contains so many facets that even today we are still refining
many of it's concepts. It was based on the belief that through enlightenment
we could figure out many of the problems related to living with ourselves
while considering others and rejecting hundreds of years of traditions and
superstitions.
http://jefferson.village.virginia.edu/elab/hfl0255.html
Modernism is often derided for abandoning the social world in favour of its
narcissistic interest in language and its processes. Recognizing the failure
of language to ever fully communicate meaning ("That's not it at all, that's
not what I meant at all" laments Eliot's J. Alfred Prufrock), the modernists
generally downplayed content in favour of an investigation of form.
http://www.vnc.qld.edu.au/curric/Year%2012%20Art/Modernism/Modernism.htm
In the Beginning.
Before "Modernism", artists were very academic in their approach to light
and colour..Painting was an academic test where you were not permitted to
stray from the path...Only a professional painter would receive paid
commissions, the amateur painted for him/herself. Around the late 1860s,
many artists were sick of the elite academic painters and were "revolting"
against this academic approach to Art. Academic painting institutions had
been popular since the Renaissance (c. 1500) and four hundred years later,
many thought it was time for a change.
New advancements in technology... The camera, was portable,...
Artists were curious how they could apply this new science to their work,
and this lead to the beginnings of Modernism: Impressionism.
<ahhhh, impressionism. my absolute fave of all painting styles.>
http://www.artchive.com/74nadar.htm
In the former studio of the photographer Nadar at 35 boulevard des
Capucines, Paris, April 15, 1874, a group of artists, rejected by the juries
of the Salon, offer their work for public view. Although some critics
appreciate the "new painting", most subject the artists to ridicule. The
work of the "Impressionists" will eventually lead to what is now recognized
as Modern Art.
The Manhattan Institute of Arts
http://www.artsmia.org/modernism/
The term Modernism commonly appllies to those forward-looking architects,
designers and artisans who, from the 1890s on, forged a new and diverse
vocabulary principally to escape Historicism, the tyranny of previous
historical styles.
--
Never be afraid to try something new.
Remember: amateurs built the ark.
Professionals built the Titanic.
Alex Jay Berman
Yes, but you can see a classical bent in much of Joel's work.
"Nocturne" on COLD SPRING HARBOR, the Beethoven quote in the chorus of
"This Night", the Debussy influence on songs like "Summer, Highland
Falls", and lots of other stuff that, sadly, I'm not well-versed
enough in classical music to pinpoint ...
But note that these references have driven me to find out what the
classical stuff Joel's referencing is ...
Alex Jay Berman
"I like criticism, but it must be my way."--Mark Twain
Peter Hickman
The Apprentice wrote:
> "Sunbeam the Deacon" <artemu...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:39874DD4...@worldnet.att.net...
> >
> >
> > Zero wrote:
> >
> <snip>
> > >
> > > please don't resort to broadening the focus to "all" references.
> >
> > Why? Do you distinguish between privileged references to certain
> > snippets of language and other, less meaningful references to humble
> > turns of shrubbery? I don't . A reference is a reference, whether to a
> > tree or a wind or a text.
>
> we have been arguing getting rid of allusions to references that people
> might not know from a hypothetical "canon" of works within the literary/art
> world, while ignoring all other references. by doing this, we are, in
> effect, being elitist (or perhaps prejudiced) ourselves by singling out this
> particular area of thought while ignoring all the many other sources of
> knowledge out there that can be used referentially.
Yes. You're also entering into the rather paradoxical, dysfunctional realm
of Modernist Aesthetics....presumeably without quite knowing it.
>
> and yet, while we have focused on literary/artistic type stuff, any
> reference used without considering whether or not one's audience has an
> understanding of it, can hinder communication-at least according to the
> argument zero and i have put forth. what others argue back is that by not
> understanding a reference that is culturally accepted as well-known in
> general (the "canon" as it has been referred to), we perhaps consign
> ourselves to a limited understanding of the world around us, and possibly
> even reinventing the wheel.
>
> you keep saying that zero is a modernist, yet you do not explain what that
> means. if zero does not know what that means, your reference to a label used
> to define a movement away from accepted cultural standards is lost on him,
> and therefore your entire argument is lost on him. communication hasn't been
> served. and if he truly is a modernist by definition (put in extremely
> simple terms-one who has no use for the established practices within his
> field/religion), you shouldn't be surprised that he might not get your
> reference to modernism because he has no use for academic labels.
Sorry. I haven't seen a good discussion of Modernism anywhere so I just
have to go straight to the problem. It is my contention -- and no one else's
that I know of that Modernism adopted the Romantic idea of the Artist as ideal
experiencer, who by colliding directly with Reality is able to articulate what
others may feel but not quite know how to explain.
This gives Modernism a very Zero-esque relation with "earlier art"...ie. you
can use it as needed because after all everybody is human etc. etc. etc....but
it doesn't necessarily "mean anything to me"...and of course -- as an Artist
meaning and experience are the same (which is confusing?)...you get the idea, I
hope...you end up with Zero's mishmosh and this mishmosh is in fact more or less
Modernism (in Aesthetic terms anyway).
>
> oth, if zero doesn't know about modernism, he also doesn't know that his
> viewpoint is nothing new, but is, instead (when speaking academically of
> art/literary/religious movements anyway) over one hundred years old.
Yes, well this is one of the interesting things about Modernism: it keeps
getting reinvented because the basic Romantic thing of the artist as exemplary
experiencer tends to reproduce Modernism in the absence of any more balanced
views of the world...as in Zero.
> but does it really matter whether or not he knows such a movement existed or
> how old the movement is? chances are that even if he did know of it, he
> would still be among its number. hypothetically. if he truly fits the
> paradigm of a modernist. which changes according to who describes it and
> which, of the many movements within the scope of modernism, he follows.
Yes, well....he's a Modernist.
<snip>
I'll address the rest of your interesting post as quickly as I can.
You never can tell......................Pete
Bob Pastorio
>
> BTW: wanna hear some minimalistic Sinatra? for a great
> example, listen to:
>
> "When I Was Seventeen, It Was a Very Good Year"
Ervin Drake wrote that song against a basic flamenco-form chord
progression. A rather sophisticated bit of writing, I think. When I
used to perform it, I used a very, very spare guitar background so
that haunting melody could be at the fore (I did it in E and shifted
between minor and major through the verse and in the chorus.).
It was first recorded by the Kingston Trio with Bob Shane singing the
lead. The Sinatra background is what Drake wrote, filtered through
the Trio and *enlarged* by the orchestral arrangement that Sinatra
used. The orchestral break between verses is a considerable expansion
of the single-voice whistling that the trio did. You're trying to say
that the orchestration that Sinatra used behind that song is less lush
- less fully complex - than some other of his works, and that's true.
But it can hardly be considered minimalist, much less "minimalistic."
I'd suggest you learn the difference between minimal (as in scant) and
Minimalist. You'll be surprised by what the latter is about.
Anybody can use words that others understand, in the ways they
understand them. Everybody else is a creative genius.
Pastorio
Peter Hickman
The Apprentice wrote:
> <snip>
What follows is Pete:
>
> > So you actually place any old arty crap on a higher referential plane
> > than say a technical reference to the distribution of say alligator
> > junipers? Gad, you Modernists can be an odd bunch.
>
Then Arleen:
>
> <g> i'm not sure what i am, but i do not place any old arty crap on a higher
> referential plane. all referential planes are equal in that anyone who uses
> references of any kind in an allusional manner, believing it to be
> culturally accepted knowledge can find himself faced with a blank look on
> the face of the one he is communicating with.
>
> but i have come to accept that this is simply the way it is. it is not
> possible to know what another may or may not know, and one will speak from
> one's own reference points. as long as we do not consider those who do not
> know what we know as somehow lesser beings, and are able to still dialogue
> back and forth and share experience and knowledge, well, let it be so...
>
> is knowledge of alligator junipers culturally accepted as common knowledge?
> something else i must add to my deficient education. <sigh>
>
I guess this is sort of my point at this point: one of the problematic
aspects of Modernism is that it needs some canon to reject...ie there is
something that comes between the experience that the Real Artist is going to
give us and our as yet-befuddled view of the world...ie, we are trapped in
experience as determined by a canon and the Artist frees us from this with his
more direct and complete experience. So Modernism demands a canon in several
ways: to be rejected and yet to mark out the special realm of Art.
I reject this model and this Aesthetic. If the distribution of junipers is
as noteworthy as a poem, then the canon of Art as qualitatively different from
say biology is already problematic and we don't need no stinking artists to do
arty things because we can't do them ourselves. We do our
perceptive/experiential work ourselves in reading or viewing and it is not
direct, but mediated by language and so on...and so is the work of the fellow
who makes paintings or poems.ie. there are lots of canons and they are used as
necessary.
You never can tell........................................Pete
Bob Pastorio
>
> while we have focused on literary/artistic type stuff, any
> reference used without considering whether or not one's audience has an
> understanding of it, can hinder communication-at least according to the
> argument zero and i have put forth. what others argue back is that by not
> understanding a reference that is culturally accepted as well-known in
> general (the "canon" as it has been referred to), we perhaps consign
> ourselves to a limited understanding of the world around us, and possibly
> even reinventing the wheel.
Not completely accurate. I've also raised the question about how one
is to know what readers know and don't know. How is one to evaluate
what readers' educational levels are.
> you keep saying that zero is a modernist, yet you do not explain what that
> means. if zero does not know what that means, your reference to a label used
> to define a movement away from accepted cultural standards is lost on him,
> and therefore your entire argument is lost on him. communication hasn't been
> served.
It is also incumbent on Zero to keep up. Enough references have been
offered to him that if he truly were interested in discourse rather
than mere disagreement, he'd go do that research he claims to be so
good at.
> oth, if zero doesn't know about modernism, he also doesn't know that his
> viewpoint is nothing new, but is, instead (when speaking academically of
> art/literary/religious movements anyway) over one hundred years old.
>
> but does it really matter whether or not he knows such a movement existed or
> how old the movement is? chances are that even if he did know of it, he
> would still be among its number.
And, in his ignorance, reinvents wheels ever more often...
> begin zero:
> >
> > > it has never been a position i've taken (not seriously anyway, and
> > > certainly not in this discussion we've been having regarding the
> > > use of uncommonly known literary/artistic references).
And, again, he truncates the discussion to only literary and artistic
references.
> it is not
> possible to know what another may or may not know, and one will speak from
> one's own reference points. as long as we do not consider those who do not
> know what we know as somehow lesser beings, and are able to still dialogue
> back and forth and share experience and knowledge, well, let it be so...
Ever was it so and ever will it be so. We are a species that dwells
partly in the past and partly in the present. It is a wise,
pro-survival characteristic to know history so we don't repeat the
mistakes and so we don't waste our brief candle redoing what has
already been done.
Hickman says:
> > > > Sure. An elitist thinks that (for some reason) a few
> > > >people should control something or other of social significance.
> > > >In my view, people who understand the world should control
> > > >the world.
If this is a definition we can accept, I am most surely not elitist.
I don't care who runs things as long as they leave me alone. I'm a
virtual hermit when I'm not doing business with the public and I like
that just fine. I don't want to control anything and I don't want
anyone to try to control me.
I will grant some people a measure of control over how I behave
because they're important to me. Otherwise, get in line and take your
chances.
> i can't help but echo what zero says below. how do we know who truly
> understands it? and even then, is it really right for the world to be
> controlled by any one group, no matter how well they may understand it? they
> are still prone to all the human foibles and error as anyone else.
>
> > >
> > > well... that's a bit of a problem since there is usually
> > > much disagreement about who really understands the world.
> > > (even among the elitists).
Hmmm. If we can't understand who understands, how are we to formulate
communications? Readers might know *more* than we do. Where does
that leave us?
Zero, then Peter speak:
> > > >> now, surely, anyone can see that i'm not an idiot.
> > > >
> > > > No. But you are just like millions of other non-idiots
> > > >who think that there is something morally wrong with knowing
> > > >what is going on.
> > >
> > > what gives you that bizarre idea? what have i ever said that
> > > would imply such a thing?
Choosing to not know the background information that provides the "big
picture" against which small events can be measured. Not reading.
Not absorbing the broad range of references that define our culture.
> begin zero:
> > > >> anyone who thinks they could possibly understand
> > > >> our modern culture is a bit deluded.
> >
> > Why? What's the point of starting from the point of view that your
> > understanding is useless?
Only if, as zero has in other places in this thread, only if you
define understand as including *everything* there is to know.
> > > >> there's just way too
> > > >> many variables. one can understand certain segments or trends,
> > > >> but not the larger picture, because, the larger picture is
> > > >> all out of context. while you seem to grasp that. others don't.
> > > >
> > > > So? An adequate model or aesthetic or methodology doesn't
> > > >have to describe all cases of everything...it just has to provide
> > > >a useful approach.
We don't have to understand *everything* to survive. Just *enough* to
make our individual ways. Some people like or need to know the
elements of Cultural Literacy they encounter, knowingly or
unknowingly, on a daily basis. Some don't. Or can't.
> who decides what's adequate? useful to whom? and for what? and how do you
> know it's useful? i know, this is no reason to throw it out. one can't know
> until it's tried. but, how long is long enough in the trying? until it
> works? until it proves false? what if it never really works, in that it
> never accomplishes all that we wish it to, yet never really fails, either,
> in that society still keeps chugging along in the best way it can?
You've just described the scientific method. Sorta. Underlying the
questions in this paragraph is the desire to know the outcome *before*
exposing it to the real world. I suggest the daily walking-around
experience we all have is the crucible in which these ideas and
actions are tested. The process is like this: a problem or desire
becomes obvious. A solution comes to mind. It's tested. IF it works
OK, end of consideration and life goes on. Or, it doesn't work as
well as hoped and it's tweaked. Or scrapped. Or folded into a more
complex notion. Then it's tested again. The process repeats until it
a) works, or b) doesn't work and becomes worth less than the benefits
of continuing.
> > > i agree. but to claim that it is mandatory to know a given model
> > > in order to function in society or to contribute to society is
> > > nothing less than deluded arrogance.
> >
> > No one has specified a model. I have noted this repeatedly in
> > discussions like this one. There appears to be no such model.
>
> no. not any one model. many models (is model really the correct word for
> this?) in the minds of many different people, some of them very difficult to
> live up to. it is the idea that one must meet some sort of nebulous standard
> (set arbitrarily by a variety of people who have already achieved some
> portion of the standard and then look down on those who haven't) in order to
> be considered of value that chafes.
I think that Hickman is using "model" to mean something like what zero
means with "canon." Model being the collected references. You're
mixing two things here: a) the idea that there is some "standard"
against which literacy and fitness are measured; and, b) that having
attained some degree of familiarity with the "model," that people
desprize those who have only climbed part way up this undefined
edifice.
Of course, it's arrogant to look down on those less educated. It's
arrogant to look down, period. But there's a bit of interesting stuff
going on when the less educated say that the education is a waste of
time and energy. Sounds like sour grapes - "I can't do it, so nobody
should."
> starting with pete:
> > > >> > I also cannot really see what bothers you about the fact
> > > >> >that civilization as we know it (and writing) has been chugging
> > > >> >along for a few thousand years. What's the big deal?
> > > >>
> > > >> there is no big deal. the only thing that "bothers me" about it
> > > >> is the extent that large numbers of the civilization are complacent,
> > > >> self-satisfied elitists who delude themselves into thinking that
> > > >> they are somehow royalty.
So where does that silly conclusion lead? Besides, it avoids the
entire question the thread is about. It's about references - all
references - that aren't entirely explained within a work. zero seems
to be saying that people who write and speak with references
unexplained in the moment are somehow all those things in that
characterization. When you're outside looking in, it's easy to
misunderstand.
> begin pete:
> > >
> > > >Surely you aren't trying to tell me that the fact that various
> > > >interpretations of a text exist is any reason to believe that
> > > >looking into the context of a text is counterproductive.
> > >
> > > no. i'm sure that it can be a rather instructive exercise in
> > > discovering what may have been intended,
Good, so far.
> > > but i'm also saying
> > > that it's almost a futility.
Because we can't know *exactly* what was intended? Not necessary.
It's only a futile exercise if the understand has to be absolute.
Otherwise, anything is better than nothing.
> > > afterall, brilliant as he was,
> > > Shakespear[e] was just some guy.
Everybody is finally, "just some guy." SOme are brilliant, most
aren't. This is irrelevant.
> begin pete:
> > > >It would seem to be the other way around: the fact that
> > > >different interpretations exist shows that it is always
> > > >worthwhile to look more deeply into the context of a text.
> > >
> > > only to discover that everyone makes their own leaps?
> >
> > Why is that a problem? Because in Modernism, direct experiences should
> > all produce the same truth in everyone...
>
> is that what modernists thought when they chose direct experience over what
> went on before? that it would lead to some ultimate truth that would hold
> true for everyone? interesting. i wish that were true. maybe, on some level,
> i do believe that it is.
>
> > but that's not how things
> > really are?
>
> and how are things, really?
Things are really like the meetings at Camp David. We don't and can't
all come to the same truths. It simply isn't possible if millennia of
human action is any predictor of the future.
> arleen
>
> for your further reading pleasure:
It is valuable to note that Modernism is not a very vital school of
thought these days. There are some vestiges in several areas of art,
architecture and literature, but it has largely disappeared or, at
least, given way to a blend of old and new. The realization that
context is important in the same way as content made for a short life
of this philosophical viewpoint. Modernists adopted technology rather
more willingly than their predecessors, but many became caught up in
it for its own sake (look at architectural materials and systems). In
their eagerness to dispense with the past, they forged a body of work
that's all but incomprehensible. Their canon only fires blanks.
I like the self-serving language describing their vision. I guess it
makes them human, after all.
> (don't be put off by the URL, this is a very good overview)
> http://www.oneopinionatedbitch.com/I/love/modernism/
> Modernism was a movement that took hold with the coming of the 20th century
> and lasted up until the end of World War II. There is no clear cut
> definition due to Modernism's erratic nature and countless contextual
> meanings. It contains so many facets that even today we are still refining
> many of it's concepts. It was based on the belief that through enlightenment
> we could figure out many of the problems related to living with ourselves
> while considering others and rejecting hundreds of years of traditions and
> superstitions.
>
> http://jefferson.village.virginia.edu/elab/hfl0255.html
> Modernism is often derided for abandoning the social world in favour of its
> narcissistic interest in language and its processes. Recognizing the failure
> of language to ever fully communicate meaning ("That's not it at all, that's
> not what I meant at all" laments Eliot's J. Alfred Prufrock), the modernists
> generally downplayed content in favour of an investigation of form.
And, an excerpt from that site that asserts that Modernism is *harder*
to understand than what came before and after:
Modernist formalism, however, was not without its political cost. Many
of the chief Modernists either flirted with fascism or openly espoused
it (Eliot, Yeats, Hamsun and Pound). This should not be surprising:
modernism is markedly non-egalitarian; its disregard for the shared
conventions of meaning make many of its supreme accomplishments (eg.
Eliot's "The Wasteland," Pound's "Cantos," Joyce's Finnegan's Wake,
Woolf's The Waves) largely inaccessible to the common reader. For
Eliot, such obscurantism was necessary to halt the erosion of art in
the age of commodity circulation and a literature adjusted to the
lowest common denominator.
Pastorio ("...the tyranny of previous historical styles." Um,
right...)
Zero
[nancy grasped at straws]
">stravinksi wove plenty of stories into his
>(then cutting-edge) music. a lot of music was
>written as ballets ... stories put to music, and
>the music was intended to convey the tale as much
>as the dance was.
>
i'd love to have you evaluate some instrumental music
for me in person and tell me what it is saying.
what a hoot. i'll play you some jazz records,
and you tell me what each story is, ok? same with
classical music, and rock, and other stuff. even folk
music without lyrics. it'll be fun. i'll video tape
the event and put it on the web. it should resolve
this reference question quite beautifully."
-- $Zero... <Zero...@aol.com> 873t
"Canon" Balls Fired (Re: References and Stuff)
<20000724211923...@ng-cp1.aol.com>
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=650364675
Re: Hello, My Name is Bob, and... I'm an Elitist
smeg...@erols.com (Alex Jay Berman) musically noted:
>zero...@aol.com (Zero) wrote:
>>869x
>>Towse se...@towse.com suggested:
>>
>>>Bob Pastorio wrote (to Zero) in a gazillion line post:
>>
>>[...snip Bobfusc's smokescreen...]
>>
>>>> I'd suggest you listen to a bunch of European
>>>> composers who lifted popular themes from their
>>>> cultures and used them in "classical" compositions.
>>>> BUt that would require you to spend some time learning.
>>>
>>>...from a "modern" perspective, listen to Billy Joel.
>>>
>>>'nuff said.
>>>Sal
>>
>>BTW: if you're refering to the new classical kick
>>that Joel is on, i didn't miss that.
>>
>>funny how he started off though, ain't it?
>>
>>-$Zero... TheGreatOscilationTheoryOfArt...
>>
>Yes, but you can see a classical bent in much of Joel's work.
well... according to an interview i saw with him on Bravo,
he got interested in classical music much later in his career.
(after he had sold zillions of copies of his own music).
then he was hooked. that was my point. (if i'm remembering
the interview correctly, that is -- "Inside the Actor's Studio")
>"Nocturne" on COLD SPRING HARBOR, the Beethoven quote
>in the chorus of "This Night", the Debussy influence on songs
>like "Summer, Highland Falls", and lots of other stuff that, sadly,
>I'm not well-versed enough in classical music to pinpoint ...
sometimes, it's hard to tell which came first,
the chicken or the egg.
"doc, my brother-in-law is crazy,
he thinks he's a chicken,
we'd have him committed, but...
we need the eggs."
i first heard that joke in Woody Allen's "Annie Hall"
somewhere along the line, i accidentally found out that
that the joke started somewhere in vaudeville or something.
maybe even the three stooges. none of this makes it less
funny to me. nor more funny. regardless, i don't feel
compelled to study vaudville. i just don't have the time.
[ba'doom' chisssh.]
>But note that these references have driven me to find out
>what the classical stuff Joel's referencing is ...
and Kubrick's 2001 got me interested in _listening_ to
classical music. however, i still don't know the origninal
significance of "The Blue Danube" so... to me, it paints a
vivid picture of millions of years of evolution culminating
in an elegant dance of space travel.
will someone please destroy that imagery for me?
tell me what "The Blue Danube" _really_ means.
NOTE:
over in another post, Bob has yet again earned the
name of this subject line (but he changed the prefix).
>Alex Jay Berman
>"I like criticism, but it must be my way."--Mark Twain
ok, Mr. Twain, you're too damned sarcastic...
but... if you weren't, you wouldn't be so funny.
you figure it it out.
-$Zero... Beethoven's9th... TheEncoreMovieNetworkTheme?...
Nope... WhatAWorld... MoviesMovies... MoviesMovies...
MoviesMoviesMoooooovies....
"It's all Greek to me."
-- Pete Hickman?
Peter Hickman
The Apprentice wrote:
<snip>
The only point I have here is that I'm some sort of a nebulous elitist, I
think. The vague idea that I had was that it might be nice if the rulers of the
world (the elite, right?) knew what they were doing in a broader sense...so this
is relatively vacuous speculation on my part. The concept of "elitism" doesn't
interest me much.
<snip>
You never can tell.......................................Pete
Peter Hickman
The Apprentice wrote:
> > >Zero says:
> > > >> now, surely, anyone can see that i'm not an idiot.
> > > >
> > > > No. But you are just like millions of other non-idiots
> > > >who think that there is something morally wrong with knowing
> > > >what is going on.
> > >
> > > what gives you that bizarre idea? what have i ever said that
> > > would imply such a thing?
> >
> > What's the point in all this Modernist epistemology and theories of
> > elitism them?
>
> it's fun to talk about?
Sure...but one would assume that Zero brought up his brainstorm epistemology
for some reason.
>
> okay, so let me see if i really am understanding this. the modernist
> paradigm is a failure. the struggle to throw off the past in order to create
> something that can stand alone within the context of the present moment is a
> useless way of thinking. according to you, this struggle seems to require no
> thought.
No. I just don't assign any Aesthetic value to "the struggle to throw off
the past"...I'm not a Modernist. The struggles of Great Artists to throw off
the past are just another interesting Mythological Motif. Sure you have to work
to make something worthwhile, but that's true of anything.
> everything must be taken within the context of culture and its many
> changing faces in order to gain an understanding of...what exactly?
Sorry, I'm not a Modernist. I don't have to know what the Big Meaning is.
It's just another Mythological Item among many. I seek to understand things
that happen to grab my interest...I don't assign them any cosmic arty
significance.
>
>
> <snip>
>
You never can tell...................Pete
Bob Pastorio
>
> and Kubrick's 2001 got me interested in _listening_ to
> classical music. however, i still don't know the origninal
> significance of "The Blue Danube" so... to me, it paints a
> vivid picture of millions of years of evolution culminating
> in an elegant dance of space travel.
>
> will someone please destroy that imagery for me?
>
> tell me what "The Blue Danube" _really_ means.
Well, once upon a time, there was a river called "Duna" that was blue,
as most water is in its natural, unpolluted state. Some English
speaking people decided to call it "The Danube" river instead of what
the locals called it. Some composer wrote a bit of snappy music
called "The Blue Danube Waltz" and aided and abetted the shocking
dance that scandalized so many of the local citizenry. Why, partners
actually touched each other while dancing.
Nowadays, the river is brown. So the title you seek has no meaning.
I'd suggest you simply forget it since it relies on some reference you
don't know. Since you don't know it, it probably isn't worth
anything.
> NOTE:
> over in another post, Bob has yet again earned the
> name of this subject line (but he changed the prefix).
I changed the prefix because you're so desperately deficient in
education and so astonishingly lazy. You use terms you simply don't
understand as though you know what you're talking about. You may sit
far to the side like this and cast aspersions, but the words paint all
the picture necessary.
Here's the post and I'm sorry it makes you look the clown again. But
you're so helpful in providing the source material for it.
Interesting how refuting your ignorance can be suddenly transformed
into elitism. As though you represent some sort of Everyman and
anyone who has actually read a book is condescending to you. In my
case, of course, it's true. But Peter, you don't seem to understand
the basic premise here: It's just you. It's about you. Not others
who recognize that empty=empty. Only you who are crippled and proud
of it.:
Subject: Get the terms right WAS:Re: Hello, My Name is Bob, and... I'm
an Elitist
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 10:38:29 -0400
From: Bob Pastorio <Past...@rica.net>
Organization: Bond. 20# Bond...
Newsgroups: misc.writing
References: 1 , 2
The Apprentice
news:39883061...@rtp.ppdi.com...
>
>
> The Apprentice wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> What follows is Pete:
>
> >
> > > than say a technical reference to the distribution of say alligator
> > > junipers? Gad, you Modernists can be an odd bunch.
> >
>
>
> >
> > <g> i'm not sure what i am, but i do not place any old arty crap on a
higher
> > referential plane. all referential planes are equal in that anyone who
uses
> > references of any kind in an allusional manner, believing it to be
> > culturally accepted knowledge can find himself faced with a blank look
on
> > the face of the one he is communicating with.
> >
> > but i have come to accept that this is simply the way it is. it is not
> > possible to know what another may or may not know, and one will speak
from
> > one's own reference points. as long as we do not consider those who do
not
> > know what we know as somehow lesser beings, and are able to still
dialogue
> > back and forth and share experience and knowledge, well, let it be so...
> >
> > is knowledge of alligator junipers culturally accepted as common
knowledge?
> > something else i must add to my deficient education. <sigh>
> >
>
problematic
> aspects of Modernism is that it needs some canon to reject...ie there is
> something that comes between the experience that the Real Artist is going
to
> give us and our as yet-befuddled view of the world...ie, we are trapped in
> experience as determined by a canon and the Artist frees us from this with
his
> more direct and complete experience. So Modernism demands a canon in
several
> ways: to be rejected and yet to mark out the special realm of Art.
> I reject this model and this Aesthetic. If the distribution of
junipers is
> as noteworthy as a poem, then the canon of Art as qualitatively different
from
> say biology is already problematic and we don't need no stinking artists
to do
> arty things because we can't do them ourselves. We do our
> perceptive/experiential work ourselves in reading or viewing and it is not
> direct, but mediated by language and so on...and so is the work of the
fellow
> who makes paintings or poems.ie. there are lots of canons and they are
used as
> necessary.
>
oh, joy! i think it has finally clicked, and i have nothing to argue. your
view seems eminently sensible. i like things that are sensible (even if i do
have modernist tendencies of thought).
thanks, pete, for sticking this out with me.
arleen
Bob Pastorio
>
> Towse se...@towse.com suggested:
>
> >Bob Pastorio wrote (to Zero) in a gazillion line post:
> >> Copeland's works. Even you will recognize melodies that
> >> he wove into the larger works.
>
> Bob, i have no doubt that "some" composer's may use
> music in the way you suggest. my point is that hardly
> anyone _listens_ to music with that in mind.
Peter, the reason I know those musical references are in there is
because I recognized them. I didn't set out to find them; I
recognized them as they came. I likely missed some but that isn't the
point. I didn't listen to it with that in mind. The music itself put
me there by including familiar folk melodies.
> BTW: wanna hear some minimalistic Sinatra? for a great
> example, listen to:
>
> "When I Was Seventeen, It Was a Very Good Year"
>
> yes, there's even orchestration inbetween the acappella
> verses...
The verses aren't a capella.
> (hmm... maybe you can tell me "the tale" the
> orchestration is based on)...
The music is based on an old Flamenco thematic approach. It has a
detailed historical reference package. It isn't a tale, it's a form
like blues and fado. The words vary, but the central themes are few.
The orchestration is expanded from the original music written as
background for the song as interpreted by the Kingston Trio (!).
> and the words paint a very
> rich picture... regardless, i wasn't saying that Sinatra
> was "a minmalist," just that he wavered between minimalistic
> and flamboyant styles. just like Neil and many other great
> artists do whom i admire. read my post again, without your
> Zero blinders on.
Y'know, Peter. You are profoundly careless with your words.
Flamboyant and minimalistic are bozo words when it comes to describing
music. You might want to learn the vocabulary real musicians use.
But that would mean work. Sorry. I didn't mean to suggest you should
actually try to learn something old. That would tarnish your "Noble
Savage" self-image.
> >> And, if I thought for a moment that you would ever
> >> listen to music that wasn't pop radio-play stuff,
>
> Bob, i used to listen to this great all-nite show originating
> out of Quebec called "Brave New Waves" hosted by a very
> interesting DJ woman by the name of Augusta LePay.
>
> there was an amazing range of music of ALL genres played
> and various musicians interviewed. i listened to that show
> for several years. hardly pop radio top 40 stuff.
Serious, deep music. Replete with references, no doubt. Big music.
Tall and high music. Brightly colored music. So you paid careful
attention and learned a lot of stuff that has stayed with you, I bet.
> i forget most of it. i mostly listened to it as background.
Oh. Well then. I can see why you cite it as one of the serious
sources of your musical knowledge. "...seriously broaden" your
musical horizons. Yep. Mine too.
> some of the stuff featured was crap to me. i'd tune out on
> those nights. but i could always count on that show to
> seriously broaden my musical horizons.
Except for the "most of it" that you forgot. Right. I see how that
works. So if not absorbing it = empty, and you forget most of it but
that broadened your musical horizons, then empty=full. Ok. I
misunderstood.
Pastorio (Reject not just the brainwash, also logic and meaning...)
Peter Hickman
The Apprentice wrote:
> "Peter Hickman" <Peter....@rtp.ppdi.com> wrote in message
> news:39883061...@rtp.ppdi.com...
> >
> >
> > The Apprentice wrote:
> >
> > > <snip>
> >
> > What follows is Pete:
> >
> > >
> > > > So you actually place any old arty crap on a higher referential plane
> > > > than say a technical reference to the distribution of say alligator
> > > > junipers? Gad, you Modernists can be an odd bunch.
> > >
> >
> > Then Arleen:
> >
> > >
> > > <g> i'm not sure what i am, but i do not place any old arty crap on a
> higher
> > > referential plane. all referential planes are equal in that anyone who
> uses
> > > references of any kind in an allusional manner, believing it to be
> > > culturally accepted knowledge can find himself faced with a blank look
> on
> > > the face of the one he is communicating with.
> > >
> > > but i have come to accept that this is simply the way it is. it is not
> > > possible to know what another may or may not know, and one will speak
> from
> > > one's own reference points. as long as we do not consider those who do
> not
> > > know what we know as somehow lesser beings, and are able to still
> dialogue
> > > back and forth and share experience and knowledge, well, let it be so...
> > >
> > > is knowledge of alligator junipers culturally accepted as common
> knowledge?
> > > something else i must add to my deficient education. <sigh>
> > >
> >
Hey, you're welcome. You're one of the first people to show much interest
in my gripes about Modernism. Couldn't have griped without you.
You never can tell...............................Pete
nancy
[on lunch break ... for those e-stalkers who seem
to care about such things.]
"That'll show them!" Zero grinned and sent this message to
misc.writing:
> [nancy grasped at straws]
>
> ">stravinksi wove plenty of stories into his
> >(then cutting-edge) music. a lot of music was
> >written as ballets ... stories put to music, and
> >the music was intended to convey the tale as much
> >as the dance was.
> >
> i'd love to have you evaluate some instrumental music
> for me in person and tell me what it is saying.
> what a hoot. i'll play you some jazz records,
> and you tell me what each story is, ok? same with
> classical music, and rock, and other stuff. even folk
> music without lyrics. it'll be fun. i'll video tape
> the event and put it on the web. it should resolve
> this reference question quite beautifully."
>
is *THIS* the thing you've been nattering at me over the
past week or more?
geez, i'm glad i missed it the first time, and wish dearly
i'd missed it this time!
you have SO totally missed my point, it's a wonder your
brain is still in this universe, zero.
good golly moses.
first you misconstrue (deliberately?) this, then you
miscronstrue (deliberately?) what i said concerning
shakespear, fools, and bob's message ...
you're a flaming moron, you know that? forget about
this "creative genius" crappola. you're an idiot.
--
n
Consciousness: That annoying time between naps.
nancy
"That'll show them!" Zero grinned and sent this message to
misc.writing:
>Bob, i have no doubt that "some" composer's may use
>music in the way you suggest. my point is that hardly
>anyone _listens_ to music with that in mind.
cite.
and, while you're at it, define that oh-so-quantitative
term "hardly anyone" ...
also explain why people need to listen/read with the
thought in mind that they ought to be looking for
references, or trying to see the story. all that
needs to happen in that "a ha!" moment is that they
recognize the influence, the reference ... and find
their enjoyment a little more enriched because of
it.
--
n (convinced this self-deluded twit is deliberately missing
all the points, making up his own "points", just for the
attention.)
Hugh Watkins
>Nowadays, the river is brown. So the title you seek has no meaning.
>I'd suggest you simply forget it since it relies on some reference you
>don't know. Since you don't know it, it probably isn't worth
>anything.
actually the introduction is a tone poem describing a misty morning on the
river as everything wakes up little by little
any water appears blue if the sky is blue
and the angle of incidence of the reflected light is fairly low
look for a video of the Viennese New Years day concert for a visual
interpretation with ballet dancers and all that
Hugh W
Hugh Watkins
>you keep saying that zero is a modernist, yet you do not explain what that
>means. if zero does not know what that means, your reference to a label
>used
>to define a movement away from accepted cultural standards is lost on him,
if he does not know how to use a dictionary and an encyclopedia
he is wasting his time and ours
particularly if English is not his mother tongue
If I do not tackle new ideas and words every day,
I feel I am wasting my life
we all teach ourselves from discourse and reading which really can be as
entertainment or as self development or both
communication requires active participation both ways
-isms change their definitions over the years
and the sure thing about any book with "Modern" in the title is to start
by reading the publication date
modernism is in my 1929 Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English 2nd
Edn - first was 1911
so we have a concept at least 75 years old and worn a bit threadbare!
Hugh W
Alma Hromic
wrote:
>> tell me what "The Blue Danube" _really_ means.
>
>Well, once upon a time, there was a river called "Duna" that was blue,
>as most water is in its natural, unpolluted state. Some English
>speaking people decided to call it "The Danube" river instead of what
>the locals called it. Some composer wrote a bit of snappy music
>called "The Blue Danube Waltz" and aided and abetted the shocking
>dance that scandalized so many of the local citizenry. Why, partners
>actually touched each other while dancing.
>
>Nowadays, the river is brown. So the title you seek has no meaning.
the local called it Dunav. and it was beautiful. in my grandfather's
day you could cup your hand in the water and drink from it - yes,
still. in my mother's day you could swim in it freely. in my day,
before March 24 1999, you could still swim in it but you ran the risk
of a handful of dysenterical diseases if you swallowed the wrong
mouthful of water (people still swim in it, though...) after March 24
1999, especially downstream from where i grew up, you go near the
river with the chemical equivalent of a geiger counter these days, and
you no longer eat the river fish.
yes, it is brown. brown with an odd glint of deep moss green to it, a
hearkening back to the days when it was blue, perhaps. it has been
brown in my memory of it - old river, full of silt, rich chocolate
coloured mud on the banks under the ancient willow trees. it smells of
river, of damp leaves, of fish and of willow leaves. it used to smell
of diesel, occasionally, when ships came through here.
you know what that title means to me? a whispering river, full of
secrets, full of life. the glint of summer sunlight on the water.
great slow catfish meandering along the river bottom, sometimes unwary
enough to be caught by a dangling baited hook and hauled up into the
air to be oohed and aahed over by the spectators on the banks. the
whilte sand beach now in the shadow of a crippled bridge.
it means an echo of a song of childhood.
no, i don't remember it blue and i don't think it has been in living
memory. but its spirit is - young and blue and quick like a mountain
brook. the danube, wise and quiet, waits like one of those ancient
wrinkled grannies who so often surprise you with the glint of devilry
in their eye.
what, you didn't know i loved that place...? <smile>
A.
*********************
Here on the level sand
Between the sea and land,
What shall I build or write
Against the fall of night?
--A. E. Housman
Zero
"The greatest commandment is Love"
-- Jesus
Re: Hello, My Name is Bob, and... I'm an Elitist
na...@gekkografx.com (nancy) still hasn't accepted my
challenge to interpret the various "tales" of music,
but has found it worthwhile to post the following:
>"That'll show them!" Zero grinned and sent this message
>to misc.writing:
>
>>Bob, i have no doubt that "some" composer's may use
>>music in the way you suggest. my point is that hardly
>>anyone _listens_ to music with that in mind.
>
>cite.
well, see nancy, that's where common sense comes in.
that's where you elitists are so handicapped.
for instance, i can state without any fear of contradiction
that the vast majority of people who listened to, and
thoroughly enjoyed and understood the Frank Sinatra's song:
"It Was A Very Good Year"
have absolutely no clue regarding the following facts
which Bobfusc enriched us with:
Ervin Drake wrote that song against a basic flamenco-form
chord progression. A rather sophisticated bit of writing,
I think. [...] (I did it in E and shifted between minor and
major through the verse and in the chorus.).
It was first recorded by the Kingston Trio with Bob Shane
singing the lead. The Sinatra background is what Drake wrote,
filtered through the Trio and *enlarged* by the orchestral
arrangement that Sinatra used. The orchestral break between
verses is a considerable expansion of the single-voice whistling
that the trio did.
[and from a later post, Bob elaborated further]
The music is based on an old Flamenco thematic approach.
It has a detailed historical reference package.
[gee... i'll ask my parents and all their freind's how much
of this detailed historical reference package they know]
It isn't a tale, it's a form like blues and fado.
[it isn't a tale? you mean there are no specific tangible
references one needs to first understand in order to experience
the unique quality of the music?]
The words vary, but the central themes are few.
[Bob, what are these "few themes"?]
The orchestration is expanded from the original music written
as background for the song as interpreted by the Kingston Trio (!).
now, "some" of those people who bought, listened to, and enjoyed
the richness of the song _may_ have known the Kingston Trio version,
but it was not necessary or relevant to the Sinatra version.
just like Petula Clark's version of "Downtown" is irrelevant to
Frank Sinatra's version. just like Sinatra's version of "Something"
does not require anyone to know the Beatles' version. just like
Brazil 66's version of "Fool on the Hill" doesn't require anyone
to know the Beatle's original version. the songs stand on their
own... as performed by each artist.
speaking of the Beatles, the song "All you need is Love" has an
interesting collage of music within it: Glen Miller's "In the Mood";
that "Green Gables" melody; some british anthem; and some others.
(including Paul singing echos of the Beatles' "She loves me").
but... guess what? nobody needs to know any of that stuff to
understand and appreciate the song for what it is. All you
need is love. get it?
(see quote at top of this post)
speaking of quotes, here's another amazing bit from
that word-elitist Bobfusc Pastorio:
"Flamboyant and minimalistic are bozo words when it comes
to describing music."
bozo words? LOL. ok. whatever you say. i can only use
the words in the official musical canon to describe music?
wow... talk about stifling.
anyway, the artistic term "minimalism" applies to music just
as well as any other art. but i was using the word as a
descriptive adjective (which certainly applies if you look up
the word "minimalism"), not a genre description. the basic
idea of "minimalism" is "simplicity." i'm so "demanding"
aren't i?
back to nancy:
>and, while you're at it, define that oh-so-quantitative
>term "hardly anyone" ...
very few. a very small minority. anywhere between 0 and 5%
of those who actually are fond of a particular piece of music.
(10% on the outside).
see, what you elitists miss is that most people are not scholars.
if you want to write for scholars, go ahead. i'm not stopping you.
it just seems to me that a writer is better served to create
work which is able to be as widely understood as possible. YMMV.
you may prefer to be lofty and self-congratulatory. i certainly
am lazy in that way a lot too. it's not like i don't understand
your reluctance to discipline yourself.
anyway, here's a simple method for broadening the audience for
your work. write as freely as possible in the way you understand
yourself. crank it out with reckless abandon. then... proof it
and ask yourself a few simple questions regarding any references
you've made.
and/or... have a few others of varying backgrounds read it...
and quiz them about your intended theme, points, etc. you'll
quickly find out (in a general sense) what works and what is
pointlessly elitist (unless you don't care about being randomly
elitist -- in which case, you need not ask anyone anything).
it's really quite simple. coherent writing is no mystery.
>also explain why people need to listen/read with the thought
>in mind that they ought to be looking for references, or
>trying to see the story.
well... that'd be something you'd be much more qualified to
describe, since you are the one who seems to think that
knowledge of references to other works is so important to
the listening/reading experience. if you don't know,
ask Harwood to explain it to you. he originally claimed
that any writing about inter-racial marriage would necessarily
be expected to reference Othello, that audiences would _expect_
such references. _that_ idea really blew _me_ away. <g>
anyway, i'm the one who claims that such works should stand
on their own, remember? so don't ask me to argue your point.
>all that needs to happen in that "a ha!" moment is that
>they recognize the influence, the reference ... and find
>their enjoyment a little more enriched because of it.
aha! a breif Glen Miller melody inside a Beatle's song.
i'm so enriched.
>n (convinced this self-deluded twit is deliberately
>missing all the points, making up his own "points",
>just for the attention.)
funny. the same thought has occured to me in regards
to you and Bob (all throughout this discussion).
whereas, Pete Hickman at least seems genuine in his points.
>Consciousness: That annoying time between naps.
so... when 'ya gonna wake up?
again, to summarize, i don't belive that the artist needs
to involve the audience in the mechanics of creating the work.
the artist's responsibility is to create something that speaks
largely, if not entirely, on its own.
-$Zero... SureWishIHadTimeToPostTheDayAway...
There'sBeenSomeRealGemsHereLately... Whoa...
"love... love... love...
there's nothing you can do
that can't be done...
nothing you can sing
that can't be sung...
nothing you can say
but you can learn
how to play the game...
it's eeeaasy...
[...]
all you need is love"
-- Lennon/McCartney
[Copyright 1967 Northern Songs]
nancy
>na...@gekkografx.com (nancy) still hasn't accepted my
>challenge to interpret the various "tales" of music,
>but has found it worthwhile to post the following:
>
>
>>"That'll show them!" Zero grinned and sent this message
>>to misc.writing:
>>
>>>Bob, i have no doubt that "some" composer's may use
>>>music in the way you suggest. my point is that hardly
>>>anyone _listens_ to music with that in mind.
>>
>>cite.
>
>well, see nancy, that's where common sense comes in.
give me numbers. count the number of people who
listen to music. count the number who listen
*with some idea that the music may mean something*
in mind.
give me percentages.
on second thought, don't bother. you won't, first
of all, despite your obsession with numbers. and
it's meaningless in this entire context because
the whole argument has NOT been about who or how many
get what out of which.
quoted bob here:
> The words vary, but the central themes are few.
>
>[Bob, what are these "few themes"?]
he's using music terminology, zero. something you
are demonstrating you know very little about.
leave it.
>now, "some" of those people who bought, listened to, and
>enjoyed the richness of the song _may_ have known the
>Kingston Trio version, but it was not necessary or relevant
>to the Sinatra version.
*the* point, which you are ignorantly evading,
time after time, is NOT that it was necessary or
relevant. *the* point, is that *if* you know about
these references, or these histories, or the musicology
behind the song, or the literary influences behind
the story, *if* you happen to know them, you now
have a fuller, richer appreciation for them.
that is *the* single point that bob and i and others
have been attempting to hammer into that mush brain
of yours.
if *you* are not so enriched (doubtless, due to
your desire to never, ever, admit that you are wrong,
wrong, wrong, and due also to your wish to remain
ignorant), that has NO bearing on the fact that
people, in general, are enriched by these things.
<snip a bajillion irrelevancies>
>see, what you elitists miss is that most people are not
>scholars. if you want to write for scholars, go ahead. i'm
>not stopping you.
you don't *have* to be a scholar to enjoy the layers
of references, interpretation, or meaning. i am
hardly a scholar, and i get a lot out of those
few references i encounter.
<snip remaining irrelevant, off-the-point drivel>
--
n
I couldn't repair your brakes, so I made your horn louder. --
Steven Wright
Bob Pastorio
Listen, zero. This is over now. The selective editing you've done
here and your apparent inability to learn anything is overwhelmingly
obvious.
It's a form like blues or fado, not a single specific story. Of
course there are references you need to understand to know the form.
Of course you don't need to know the mechanics to appreciate the song.
No one has said that either of these conditions were germane except
you. You keep changing the terrain of the discourse to suit your
immobile opinion.
> The words vary, but the central themes are few.
>
> [Bob, what are these "few themes"?]
Peter, here's where you have to do some of your own work. I know you
hate to do that. It isn't my job to instruct you in everything you
don't know. You have a responsibility to yourself. Go do a fast
search for flamenco and look it up yourself. Like you say everybody
else should do when they don't get one of your loony toons references.
> The orchestration is expanded from the original music written
> as background for the song as interpreted by the Kingston Trio (!).
>
> now, "some" of those people who bought, listened to, and enjoyed
> the richness of the song _may_ have known the Kingston Trio version,
> but it was not necessary or relevant to the Sinatra version.
>
> just like Petula Clark's version of "Downtown" is irrelevant to
> Frank Sinatra's version. just like Sinatra's version of "Something"
> does not require anyone to know the Beatles' version. just like
> Brazil 66's version of "Fool on the Hill" doesn't require anyone
> to know the Beatle's original version. the songs stand on their
> own... as performed by each artist.
>
> speaking of the Beatles, the song "All you need is Love" has an
> interesting collage of music within it: Glen Miller's "In the Mood";
> that "Green Gables" melody; some british anthem; and some others.
> (including Paul singing echos of the Beatles' "She loves me").
>
> but... guess what? nobody needs to know any of that stuff to
> understand and appreciate the song for what it is.
Sorta. They can appreciate it at the first and smallest level. The
obvious one with no meaning not contained in the song itself. (But
who knows what that is? You keep saying we all interpret things
differently so anything =anything else. Try that on a logic teacher.)
> All you
> need is love. get it?
Speaking of bozo words...
> (see quote at top of this post)
>
> speaking of quotes, here's another amazing bit from
> that word-elitist Bobfusc Pastorio:
>
> "Flamboyant and minimalistic are bozo words when it comes
> to describing music."
>
> bozo words? LOL. ok. whatever you say. i can only use
> the words in the official musical canon to describe music?
> wow... talk about stifling.
Sure Peter. Just like when you use words that only you have clear
meaning for. Really good communications. Bozo.
> anyway, the artistic term "minimalism" applies to music just
> as well as any other art. but i was using the word as a
> descriptive adjective (which certainly applies if you look up
> the word "minimalism"), not a genre description. the basic
> idea of "minimalism" is "simplicity." i'm so "demanding"
> aren't i?
Peter, you are such an uneducated clod as to defy characterization
further. And you apparently can't use a dictionary, either.
Minimalism as an artistic concept has no such connotation. It doesn't
refer to what you see or hear, it refers to what is omitted. Like
history. Or color. Simplicity is absolutely not a necessary
ingredient in minimalism. Use the word to mean something other than
the common philosophical definition and then scurry away from it when
you're shown to be a poseur and clown. Nice move, weasel.
> back to nancy:
>
> >and, while you're at it, define that oh-so-quantitative
> >term "hardly anyone" ...
>
> very few. a very small minority. anywhere between 0 and 5%
> of those who actually are fond of a particular piece of music.
> (10% on the outside).
What you miss is that small thing called proof. You seem to think
that your blunted opinion is, like, fact. You aren't a consumer of
classical music. You aren't entitled to an authoritative opinion
because you aren't connected to it at all. Citing your likely equally
illiterate friends offers no consolation. You're talking through your
hat.
> see, what you elitists miss is that most people are not scholars.
> if you want to write for scholars, go ahead. i'm not stopping you.
>
> it just seems to me that a writer is better served to create
> work which is able to be as widely understood as possible. YMMV.
So why don't you do that? Why these obscure references? Why these
sloppily conceived and written posts? Why don't you do what you say
the rest of us should do?
> you may prefer to be lofty and self-congratulatory.
Writing so it's over your head - like, lofty, man - is the work of
small children with a few minutes on their hands. You can't keep up
with people who have more exposure to the meat and matter of the
culture. Period. You show that daily.
You are crippled and you want us all to walk the funny way you do.
I'd rather stride along taking life in great gulps and savoring what's
out there. You can sit home and do whatever it is you do instead of
soaking up all the glorious richness there is out here. Hermetically
and hermitically sealed.
> i certainly
> am lazy in that way a lot too. it's not like i don't understand
> your reluctance to discipline yourself.
And as well you demonstrate your lack of discipline daily. And your
lack of focus. And your lack of skill. And your lack of ability.
And your lack of self-examination.
> anyway, here's a simple method for broadening the audience for
> your work. write as freely as possible in the way you understand
> yourself. crank it out with reckless abandon. then... proof it
> and ask yourself a few simple questions regarding any references
> you've made.
>
> and/or... have a few others of varying backgrounds read it...
> and quiz them about your intended theme, points, etc. you'll
> quickly find out (in a general sense) what works and what is
> pointlessly elitist (unless you don't care about being randomly
> elitist -- in which case, you need not ask anyone anything).
I ask thousands of readers every week in a few publications. They are
my critics and they speak with their wallets and their voices. They
call me on the radio. They stop me and Carla on the street and talk
to us. They come to the markets where I sell foods and ask me
questions and joke and play with us. They range from children to
oldsters. From barely literate to professorial. My writing cuts
across the entire demographic spectrum. If any of your spurious
criticisms were worth the electrons they cost, none of this would be
the case. I do it in real life. You don't do it at all.
You're such a preacher for ideas with no practical application.
Teacher Zero. Them that can, do. Them that can't rail and rant on
the internet telling the folks who do it how they should act. I'm a
writer. You aren't.
> it's really quite simple. coherent writing is no mystery.
Peter Zero. The poster boy for coherence speaks. Hee hee hee hee...
> >also explain why people need to listen/read with the thought
> >in mind that they ought to be looking for references, or
> >trying to see the story.
>
> aha! a breif Glen Miller melody inside a Beatle's song.
> i'm so enriched.
Peter, understand another thing. No one expects you to ever be
enriched. You already know everything important. You tell us that
daily when you swagger around here and presume to tell practitioners
how to do what you only imagine. Tell us again how to write
coherently. Tell us how to hold an audience...
> >n (convinced this self-deluded twit is deliberately
> >missing all the points, making up his own "points",
> >just for the attention.)
>
> funny. the same thought has occured to me in regards
> to you and Bob (all throughout this discussion).
>
> whereas, Pete Hickman at least seems genuine in his points.
See, Peter, that's because your reading skills are in the same sorry
state as your writing skills. Peter has told you in several specific
references that he's restraining himself to be polite. Not that his
points were any less strong than nancy's and mine. He just i has more
patience. I suspect he's also nice to small furry creatures.
I'm genuine in my points. I mean it when I say you haven't any idea
what the feeling of being educated is. ANd you have no prayer of
understanding the richness of multi-levelled art - whether writing,
music, graphics, dance or anything else that requires informed
appreciation. You don't think it's good because you can't do it.
> again, to summarize, i don't belive that the artist needs
> to involve the audience in the mechanics of creating the work.
> the artist's responsibility is to create something that speaks
> largely, if not entirely, on its own.
Again, to summarize what *everyone* else has been saying. First, no
one else has said, implied, suggested or otherwise included anything
about mechanics in anything they've said. Either you're being
deliberately obtuse or you're simply incapable of staying close to the
topic.
You who are not an artist in any sense and who don't know about art in
any sense have this definition that only a dunce or young child would
defend. Art is to educate. From the Latin e (out from) duco (draw).
To draw out from the consumer some responsive response. The more
there is going on in that reaction, the richer is the art and the
richer is the feeling that comes from it.
But now, you've taken a simple discussion about communication and
brought it to art. Not all communications are art. Few are,
actually. But they all demand the same rigor to be effective and
appreciated. Neither criterion is much in evidence in what you write
here.
> "love... love... love...
> there's nothing you can do
> that can't be done...
> nothing you can sing
> that can't be sung...
> nothing you can say
> but you can learn
> how to play the game...
> it's eeeaasy...
It's eeeaasy for most people. You don't get the game at all. Pity.
And, for you, it can only be a game. Not enough content to make it
serious.
> [...]
> all you need is love"
> -- Lennon/McCartney
> [Copyright 1967 Northern Songs]
You need more than love. You need a work ethic that transcends your
sloth and unwillingness to see beyond what you can touch. You're
lazy.
Pastorio
Towse
>
> 869s
>
> [nancy grasped at straws]
You OK, Peter? You don't seem to be grokking whereof I and others
are speaking.
> smeg...@erols.com (Alex Jay Berman) musically noted:
>
> >zero...@aol.com (Zero) wrote:
> >>869x
> >>Towse se...@towse.com suggested:
> >>
> >>>Bob Pastorio wrote (to Zero) in a gazillion line post:
> >>
> >>[...snip Bobfusc's smokescreen...]
> >>
> >>>> I'd suggest you listen to a bunch of European
> >>>> composers who lifted popular themes from their
> >>>> cultures and used them in "classical" compositions.
> >>>> BUt that would require you to spend some time learning.
> >>>
> >>>...from a "modern" perspective, listen to Billy Joel.
> >>>
> >>>'nuff said.
> >>>Sal
> >>
> >>BTW: if you're refering to the new classical kick
> >>that Joel is on, i didn't miss that.
> >>
> >>funny how he started off though, ain't it?
> >>
> >>-$Zero... TheGreatOscilationTheoryOfArt...
I wasn't speaking of Joel's new gig, although I think it's great
he's finally trying something out he was meant to try twenty
years past.
I was speaking of Joel in his pop years.
Billy Joel is a genius, a piano man with a classical background
and a way of incorporating references to Andy Devine, Ricky
Ricardo and the Duke of Earl into songs that range from ballads
to rock to songs that give me a feel of (heck-I'll-say-it)
Buffalo Springfield and Richie Furay.
Billy Joel is terrific, a Renaissance man, a genius. Truly.
Alex points out a bit here whereof I was referring, which you
failed to grasp.
> >Yes, but you can see a classical bent in much of Joel's work.
Peter responds:
> well... according to an interview i saw with him on Bravo,
> he got interested in classical music much later in his career.
> (after he had sold zillions of copies of his own music).
> then he was hooked. that was my point. (if i'm remembering
> the interview correctly, that is -- "Inside the Actor's Studio")
*cough* *sputter* *snort*
Billy Joel started playing the piano at age four.
He *has* sold zillions of copies of his own music, but...
"he got interested in classical music much later in his career"
means he got interested in writing in the classical (what the
uninformed call "classical") music form later in his career, but
this guy knows his classical stuff--all that 'musical literacy'
stuff Pastorio has been throwing out to the crowds.
Joel is learned, Peter. When he throws a riff that has a back
drumbeat that sounds like Goffin-King in Goodbye to Hollywood, he
knows what he's doing. When he does his Frankie Valli falsetto in
Uptown Girl, he's riffing.
Peter, don't you get it?
Billy Joel makes it all so easy. You like Uptown Girl? Like it.
Hear the back side of Frankie Valli? Find the second level? Find
it entertaining as I do when I pop the cassette in on my way to
work.
Don't notice the reference to Valli? You'll like it anyway
without recognizing what the guy was doing.
Billy Joel sings in layers and layers and layers because he has
the background and has his literacy.
Oh, Peter.
My reference was, as Alex Jay made some mention of, to Billy
Joel's use of the masters, his use (what I was specifically
thinking of when I wrote my brief note) of a lead in from
Beethoven, a chorus used in "This Night", from An Innocent Man.
I loved it when I first heard the use. I love it whenever I
listen to the LVB piece. I hear it sometimes on the radio and
think of Joel; I love it whenever I listen to Joel and think of
LVB.
> >"Nocturne" on COLD SPRING HARBOR, the Beethoven quote
> >in the chorus of "This Night", the Debussy influence on songs
> >like "Summer, Highland Falls", and lots of other stuff that, sadly,
> >I'm not well-versed enough in classical music to pinpoint ...
>
> sometimes, it's hard to tell which came first,
> the chicken or the egg.
In Joel's case, Beethoven came first.
...and he knows it.
If you listened and knew where Joel was coming from, your
appreciation of what he does and what he is capable of would make
you realize that this guy is not just a piano man.
Sal
Zero
"what's the matter, nancy?
metaphor got your tongue?
the music analogy got you all
tangled up in blue?"
-- $Zero... <Zero...@aol.com> 873o
Re: Semantic Bingo! (was: Sound and Fury...)
<20000725102726...@ng-me1.aol.com>
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/threadmsg_ct.xp?AN=650554559
Re: Zero gets... well, zero WAS:Re: Hello, My Name is Bob, and... I'm an
Bob Pastorio Past...@rica.net ranted on for:
>Lines: 286
MWM Denigration 12 Stepper Bob Pastorio Past...@rica.net
is living in so much denial it'd almost be persuasive...
were it not for the irrefutable nature of substance itself:
[...major whack...]
>But now, you've taken a simple discussion about
>communication and brought it to art.
yep, i've artfully exposed all of your "sound and fury."
[...minor whack...]
>You need more than love. You need a work ethic that
>transcends your sloth and unwillingness to see beyond
>what you can touch. You're lazy.
you need a bit more self-esteem. then you would
be able to handle the smallest of criticisms without
resorting to weeks of smokescreens and diversions.
i'll deconstruct your absolute bullshit later.
(you must have posted about 20,000 lines so far on this
so-called non-topic) i look forward to handing you
a comprehensive analysis of your alleged "education."
but, i'll sum it up right now:
you... are a defensive, deceptive, elitist idjit.
>Pastorio
-$Zero... Presently... IOnlyHaveTime... ToBeConcise...
"WhenYou'reACreativeGenius...
ThereAreNoDifficultQuestions...
There'sOnlyDifficultPeople..."
-- $Zero... <Zero...@aol.com> 873g
Re: Semantic Bingo! (was: Sound and Fury...)
<20000725140740...@ng-me1.aol.com>
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=650630830
Bob Pastorio
>
> Re: Zero gets... well, zero WAS:Re: Hello, My Name is Bob, and... I'm an
>
> Bob Pastorio Past...@rica.net ranted on for:
>
> >Lines: 286
This from zero? Mr overkill himself. Hilarious. Instead of dealing
with the content, Peter, you deal with how many lines it is? Very
persuasive in explaining your great creative genius and intellectual
vastness.
Maybe just half-vast, huh?
> MWM Denigration 12 Stepper Bob Pastorio Past...@rica.net
> is living in so much denial it'd almost be persuasive...
> were it not for the irrefutable nature of substance itself:
Peter, this is just more of your content-free noise. It's plain and
simple namecalling instead of dealing with the issues you raised that
were so soundly rebutted.
This has nothing to do with MWM and yet you persist in dragging it in
as though it demonstrates anything except your desperate anger at
being shown to be a clown. I've explained why you look so silly doing
this and so have others. Still, you treat us to your perfect way of
writing so your readers will grasp everything and not have to refer to
things not in evidence in the post itself. It's rather telling that
you choose to use pat lines again and again. Same old same old.
Creative genius who can't come up with new stuff. And new stuff that
has even a remote correlation with reality.
Namecalling. Period.
> [...major whack...]
>
> >But now, you've taken a simple discussion about
> >communication and brought it to art.
>
> yep, i've artfully exposed all of your "sound and fury."
Not quite. You've restricted it, decreased it, made it smaller than
where it started. And in so doing, you still didn't deal with the
central issues which include your trifling education and how you are
incapable of seeing a larger picture because you're unequipped to do
so. You aren't educated enough and you aren't perceptive enough.
The subject is this: Do references in communications drawn from the
context of the culture make it richer for those who know enough to
apprehend them? The answer is inescapably, yes. Literature is
richer. Music is richer. Art is richer. Architecture is richer.
Poetry is richer. Dance is richer. Good communications work on many
levels simultaneously. At the most basic level, it transmits basic
information. As the degree of complexity and the layers of meaning
accrue, the person who can grasp more of them will come away with a
more profound understanding. The person who can't may still come away
with *some* understanding. Just not as much.
Very simple.
Anything else is sophistic prattling.
> [...minor whack...]
>
> >You need more than love. You need a work ethic that
> >transcends your sloth and unwillingness to see beyond
> >what you can touch. You're lazy.
>
> you need a bit more self-esteem. then you would
> be able to handle the smallest of criticisms without
> resorting to weeks of smokescreens and diversions.
Peter, this is *still another* of your "smokescreens and diversions"
that you use to avoid dealing with your pitifully small education and
the impossible position you've put yourself in by insisting that
empty=full. Your criticisms are namecalling. Not critical thinking
at all. Knee-jerk responses.
> i'll deconstruct your absolute bullshit later.
You haven't a prayer of doing it well. You just are unequipped to
perform this "deconstruction" without considerably more information
than you have or know how to retrieve. You are too small to even
grasp the edges.
> (you must have posted about 20,000 lines so far on this
> so-called non-topic) i look forward to handing you
> a comprehensive analysis of your alleged "education."
Peter, poor little man. My education is somewhat on display every
time I write something here. As is yours. You have so little
understanding how wide the world is. How deep the world is. You
think that a casual glance equips you to have an opinion to be taken
seriously. Poor little man.
Get an engineer to solve an astronomy problem, why don't you. That
silliness shows that you have never studied anything in any depth.
You don't know how much you don't know. That isn't bad. What is bad
is insisting that you *do* know and demonstrating that you don't.
Insisting that your shallow view is enough. If the world were full of
people like you, we'd still be living in caves rooting for edibles in
competition with lizards.
> but, i'll sum it up right now:
>
> you... are a defensive, deceptive, elitist idjit.
See, Peter, I'm not defending anything. There's so little of any
substance in what you've written that there's no peril of equal
contention. You simply don't have the stones to carry this one off.
You don't know what you're talking about. You pose as some sort of
analyst yet you don't know the various vocabularies you throw around
so poorly. You don't know enough of your mythical/undelineated canon
to know how little you know.
What I've said here is precisely what I mean. For you to talk about
deception here is patently silly. I've said what I meant. Nothing
more, nothing less. I've detailed why you're a lame creature in a
world of strong people. It's been spelled out by me and others with
whom I've not discussed it. What you saw is what there was. Your
wacko interpretations don't become truth just because you believe
them.
Peter, anyone who has read without moving lips is an elitist to you.
You keep inventing descriptions of these elitists that have nothing to
do with the people you so describe. You don't know what elitist
means, if your posts explaining how you see them is any indication.
Once again, the genius information retrieval wizard doesn't know how
to use the reference materials to find the substance to make a clear
statement.
Idjit, of course, only has meaning in your tinfoil-hatted fevers. It
sorta sounds like idiot, and you know that's not the case, so it must
be just another example of your namecalling.
Just namecalling. Namecalling instead of acting like a man.
> -$Zero... Presently... IOnlyHaveTime... ToBeConcise...
No, you only have time to call names. Brevity isn't necessarily a
good thing unless it has content. You only have time to call names.
This is probably an example of your steely-hard self-discipline you
want everyone else to observe.
> "WhenYou'reACreativeGenius...
> ThereAreNoDifficultQuestions...
> There'sOnlyDifficultPeople..."
You just keep telling yourself that. If you say it enough times,
you'll still be full of shit.
I think it's a sign of great intellectual powers to continuously quote
oneself.
Peter, I haven't done anything much here in this thread except to pin
you down in your wiggling and evasions. You've provided all the
information anyone needs about you. You've said that references are
bad. You've said that writers should delete references or at least
not include ones that are "uncommon" whatever the hell that could
mean. You want simplified writing that is easy for you to grasp.
It's once again about your unfortunately near-in limits. The rest of
the world wants to be able to savor and plunge and quaff. You don't
have to, but you also can't posit that it would be good for everyone
if you were the standard. That's simply laughable.
You can't always get what you want. If you see the reference here,
good. If not, the meaning is still small enough for you to swallow in
one bite.
I've had enough of this, Peter. You haven't contributed anything
substantial to this thread beyond being a catalyst. Kind of like the
buzzing insect that prompts someone to get the swatter. You have
devolved to merely namecalling. No real issues, no real substance.
Your stunted opinions. That's all.
Bye.
Pastorio
Zero
Re: Zero gets... well, zero WAS:Re: Hello, My Name is Bob, and... I'm
Bob Pastorio Past...@rica.net denigrated out another:
>Lines: 179
[...]
>> Bob Pastorio Past...@rica.net ranted on for:
>>
>> >Lines: 286
>> MWM Denigration 12 Stepper Bob Pastorio Past...@rica.net
>> is living in so much denial it'd almost be persuasive...
>> were it not for the irrefutable nature of substance itself:
>
>Peter, this is just more of your content-free noise. It's plain
>and simple namecalling instead of dealing with the issues you
>raised that were so soundly rebutted.
no Bob, it simply fits your every post.
>Namecalling. Period.
LOL. again. i am absolutely humbled by your hypocrisy.
[...major whack...]
and here you demonstrate that you still can't admit what
the subject is:
>The subject is this: Do references in communications drawn
>from the context of the culture make it richer for those who
>know enough to apprehend them? The answer is inescapably, yes.
bzzzt. wrong question. typical Bobfuscation.
i'll, clarify later. right now, you're the subject here.
[...another major whack...]
>> you need a bit more self-esteem. then you would
>> be able to handle the smallest of criticisms without
>> resorting to weeks of smokescreens and diversions.
>
>Peter, this is *still another* of your "smokescreens and diversions"
>that you use to avoid dealing with your pitifully small education
>and the impossible position you've put yourself in by insisting that
>empty=full. Your criticisms are namecalling. Not critical thinking
>at all. Knee-jerk responses.
Bob, you are so deep in denial that you cannot even think clearly
enough to rise above parroting my keen observations of your sad
pathetic behavior. it doesn't shock me that people are willing to
pay you to write, afterall, the National Enquirer is a best seller.
[...another whack...]
>> i'll deconstruct your absolute bullshit later.
>
>You haven't a prayer of doing it well. You just are unequipped to
>perform this "deconstruction" without considerably more information
>than you have or know how to retrieve. You are too small to even
>grasp the edges.
your mind is so narrow, you cannot begin to conceive any
concepts other those you have been taught by other "official"
twits. this is your biggest problem, by far. i can play you
like a violin. unfortunately, all your instrument can yield
is a rather sad tune. but i'm not giving up hope on you... yet.
though my patience is wearing thin in regards to your absolute
refusal to consider anything outside your poor shattered ego.
>> (you must have posted about 20,000 lines so far on this
>> so-called non-topic) i look forward to handing you
>> a comprehensive analysis of your alleged "education."
>
>Peter, poor little man. My education is somewhat on display
>every time I write something here.
sadly, yes. you are very flowery with your insults, but you have
shown yourself incapable of honest discourse regarding anything
of substance. you are an intellectual coward. intellectually empty.
>As is yours. You have so little understanding how wide the
>world is. How deep the world is. You think that a casual glance
>equips you to have an opinion to be taken seriously. Poor little
>man.
if you only knew how much you're missing by embracing your
blind conformity, you'd weep for months.
>Get an engineer to solve an astronomy problem, why don't you.
>That silliness shows that you have never studied anything in
>any depth.
and that shows how stupid you really are. how shallow is
your grasp of your own limits. you certainly are not an
inventor, that is painfully clear. you are nothing more
than a mouthpiece for history. a parrot. the gloves are off,
idjit. you have begging for this for several weeks and so
now you shall recieve it.
>You don't know how much you don't know. That isn't bad.
>What is bad is insisting that you *do* know and demonstrating
>that you don't.
well, see Bob, i'm not terrified of my ignorance like you are
of yours. but i do know how much i don't know. infinity.
stupid you, you believe you're correct about so much trivial
nonsense because you can find others who agree with you.
why? because all you do is parrot history. you are an empty
shirt. i'm a visionary... and i'm not afraid to say so. you
pretend to be humble, but everyone can see what an absolute
lie that is.
>Insisting that your shallow view is enough.
your typical wrong-headed characterization. SOP.
>If the world were full of people like you, we'd still be living
>in caves rooting for edibles in competition with lizards.
if the world were full of people like me,
you'd have a much better chance.
[...another whack...]
>What I've said here is precisely what I mean.
that's the saddest thing about you.
[...another whack...]
>Just namecalling. Namecalling instead of acting like a man.
[...another whack...]
>> but, i'll sum it up right now:
>>
>> you... are a defensive, deceptive, elitist idjit.
>Brevity isn't necessarily a good thing unless it has content.
guess what, idjit? 200+ line posts barren of any substance are
much worse than brief, on-target encapsulations of sad men like
yourself.
[...another whack...]
>> "WhenYou'reACreativeGenius...
>> ThereAreNoDifficultQuestions...
>> There'sOnlyDifficultPeople..."
>I think it's a sign of great intellectual powers to continuously
>quote oneself.
well, see... if you were a _real_ writer, you'd be able to do
that too. but, alas, the only quotable stuff of yours is either
denigration or self-contradiction. i've seen almost no wisdom
worth quoting of yours. try breaking free from being an historian
parrot and you just may think some new thoughts for yourself.
you just may create someting worth quoting.
>Peter, I haven't done anything much here in this thread except
>to pin you down in your wiggling and evasions.
you've done nothing but provide smokescreens and denigration.
you have backed down from every initial argument.
you are a fraud.
you are incapable of actual discussion, because, unless the
words can be found elsewhere, you cannot think them. you
are woefully unsuited for any kind of debate. instead, you
are skilled at evasion and diversion, and only because you
have had so much practice -- due to your inability to think
for yourself combined with your bizarre proclivity for getting
into arguments you can't possibly contribute to.
>You've provided all the information anyone needs about you.
yes, i am uncertifiably sane. those are my full credentials.
>You've said that references are bad.
yet another lie.
>You've said that writers should delete references
yet another lie.
>or at least not include ones that are "uncommon" whatever
>the hell that could mean.
i can't believe anyone lets you write for a newspaper, Bob.
really. when you say something as stupid as that, it really
makes me question the validity of your various and many
claims.
>You want simplified writing that is easy for you to grasp.
no. i can "grasp" any writing. i just think that writers who write
with the philosophy that you are endorsing are inherently failures.
any writer who cannot be bothered to consider communicating
on the widest scale is extrememly handicapped. those who use
bizarre references thinking everyone shares their knowledge/
reference base are lazy and ridiculous.
>It's once again about your unfortunately near-in limits.
>The rest of the world wants to be able to savor and plunge
>and quaff.
there you go again, talking for the rest of the world.
what's your name again? Napolean?
[...]
>I've had enough of this, Peter.
too bad for you.
>You haven't contributed anything substantial to this thread
>beyond being a catalyst.
heh. how extrememly contradictory.
shows your complete lack of logic.
not to mention your lack of comprehension, for... were it not
for my regular input and tangents, this thread would have
died with your first MWM style rant, it would have died long
before your ill-fated, foreshadowing "sound and fury" comment.
>Kind of like the buzzing insect that prompts someone to get
>the swatter.
yeah, i imagine that's what it must be like to a pea-brain
historian junkie like yourself. any kind of thought that
challenges your perception of history must seriously irritate
someone of your limited capacity for explorational thinking.
i can see why you'd choose to lash out so violently.
what i don't understand is why you haven't learned from
all that history, anyone with any grasp of history knows
how history gets made. clue: it's not by historians.
>You have devolved to merely namecalling.
i have resisted your idjit attacks for as long as i could.
in any case, a spade is a spade.
>No real issues, no real substance.
>Your stunted opinions. That's all.
what a laugh. read your original post and see if you can
find any substance at all among the hundreds of lines of
spew... among your hundreds of lines of stunted opinons...
good luck, idjit.
>Bye.
>
>Pastorio
-$Zero... MakingTime... JustForYou... BecauseYouSoRichlyDeserveIt...
Zero
Re: Hello, My Name is Bob, and... I'm an Elitist
Towse se...@towse.com said:
>Zero wrote:
>>
>> 869s
>>
>> [nancy grasped at straws]
>
>You OK, Peter? You don't seem to be grokking whereof I
>and others are speaking.
surely you're not refering to what nancy wrote? LOL.
she was claiming that music told stories. actual
stories. then she lied about missing my post
which challenged her in this regard.
anyway, i forgot to ask Alex a specific question.
how do you know there's other references in the music
if you've never heard them elsewhere? hmm?
ok... let's continue:
>> smeg...@erols.com (Alex Jay Berman) musically noted:
>> >zero...@aol.com (Zero) wrote:
>> >>869x
>> >>Towse se...@towse.com suggested:
>> >>>Bob Pastorio wrote (to Zero) in a gazillion line post:
>> >>
>> >>[...snip Bobfusc's smokescreen...]
>> >>
>> >>>> I'd suggest you listen to a bunch of European
>> >>>> composers who lifted popular themes from their
>> >>>> cultures and used them in "classical" compositions.
>> >>>> BUt that would require you to spend some time learning.
>> >>>
>> >>>...from a "modern" perspective, listen to Billy Joel.
>> >>>
>> >>>'nuff said.
>> >>>Sal
>> >>
>> >>BTW: if you're refering to the new classical kick
>> >>that Joel is on, i didn't miss that.
>> >>
>> >>funny how he started off though, ain't it?
>> >>
>> >>-$Zero... TheGreatOscilationTheoryOfArt...
>
>I wasn't speaking of Joel's new gig, although I think it's
>great he's finally trying something out he was meant to try
>twenty years past.
>
>I was speaking of Joel in his pop years.
in my other post, so was i. see below.
>Billy Joel is a genius, a piano man with a classical background
personally, i'm not sure about that part... but it's possible.
in any case, i'm sure you've verified this. you're not one
to talk freely and openly and loosely... i am.
i'm not afraid to be wrong.
>and a way of incorporating references to Andy Devine, Ricky
>Ricardo and the Duke of Earl into songs that range from ballads
>to rock to songs that give me a feel of (heck-I'll-say-it)
>Buffalo Springfield and Richie Furay.
>
>Billy Joel is terrific, a Renaissance man, a genius. Truly.
for what he does, i agree.
>Alex points out a bit here whereof I was referring, which you
>failed to grasp.
it wasn't a matter of not grasping it, it was a matter of
not recognizing any classical bent in the stuff i was
familiar with (from distant memories -- late 1970's)
>> >Yes, but you can see a classical bent in much of Joel's work.
>
>Peter responds:
>
>> well... according to an interview i saw with him on Bravo,
>> he got interested in classical music much later in his career.
>> (after he had sold zillions of copies of his own music).
>> then he was hooked. that was my point. (if i'm remembering
>> the interview correctly, that is -- "Inside the Actor's Studio")
>
>*cough* *sputter* *snort*
>
>Billy Joel started playing the piano at age four.
so? look, i saw an interview (i believe it was a special
two hour-long installment) where Joel explained his revelations
later in life that some of his music had classical roots.
he said he never noticed it before that. so... if he did
compose it in that way, it was completely unconscious.
(which tends to go against the flow of sentiment here
regarding such creations of art being purposeful).
>He *has* sold zillions of copies of his own music, but...
>
>"he got interested in classical music much later in his career"
>means he got interested in writing in the classical (what the
>uninformed call "classical") music form later in his career, but
>this guy knows his classical stuff--all that 'musical literacy'
>stuff Pastorio has been throwing out to the crowds.
1] pastorio don't know diddley. he's a 90% fraud.
if he didn't work in a radio station, he'd be 100% fraud.
2] Joel only knew it subconsciously (according to him)*
* according to my vague memory of an interview i saw
several months ago.
>Joel is learned, Peter.
so am i. just not in a classical sense. so sue me.
>When he throws a riff that has a back drumbeat that sounds
>like Goffin-King in Goodbye to Hollywood, he knows what
>he's doing.
maybe unconsciously. anyway, i'm no Billy Joel student.
i know a lot of his music, from the Piano Man album,
to the Stranger album, and the 52nd Street album, to a
scattering of his top hits after that.
anyway, there's many great artists who never read music.
the Beatles for one.* of course, they had George Martin.
but they also had raw talent, without which George would
not have been able to produce such rich music.
* if i'm not mistaken
>When he does his Frankie Valli falsetto in Uptown Girl,
>he's riffing.
Frankie Valli is no Beethoven.
>Peter, don't you get it?
i get what i get. no need to patronize, sweety.
>Billy Joel makes it all so easy. You like Uptown Girl? Like it.
>Hear the back side of Frankie Valli? Find the second level?
>Find it entertaining as I do when I pop the cassette in on my
>way to work.
>
>Don't notice the reference to Valli? You'll like it anyway
>without recognizing what the guy was doing.
my point exactly. but i do recognize the similarities there.
>Billy Joel sings in layers and layers and layers because he
>has the background and has his literacy.
watch the interview. or read a transcript if one is available.
he claims he was unaware of what he was doing, if i recall.
nevertheless, if he had much training when he was younger,
which i don't recall, then, you're right about him being
classically literate, but only unconsciously.
seems to me i recall from the interview that his first
bands were anything but "classical." more Led Zepplin-like.
now, if he was doing Jethro Tull or Genesis-like stuff,
that'd be much closer to classical music than Zepplin.
but again, he said he realized it later. he demonstrated
how some of his arrangements were almost identical
to some classical stuff. some from The Stranger album,
too. i think.
>Oh, Peter.
Oh, Sal....
>My reference was, as Alex Jay made some mention of, to
>Billy Joel's use of the masters, his use (what I was specifically
>thinking of when I wrote my brief note) of a lead in from
>Beethoven, a chorus used in "This Night", from An Innocent Man.
that's further into his career than i'm fanmilar with.
>I loved it when I first heard the use. I love it whenever I
>listen to the LVB piece. I hear it sometimes on the radio and
>think of Joel; I love it whenever I listen to Joel and think of
>LVB.
cool.
>> >"Nocturne" on COLD SPRING HARBOR, the Beethoven quote
>> >in the chorus of "This Night", the Debussy influence on songs
>> >like "Summer, Highland Falls", and lots of other stuff that, sadly,
>> >I'm not well-versed enough in classical music to pinpoint ...
>>
>> sometimes, it's hard to tell which came first,
>> the chicken or the egg.
>
>In Joel's case, Beethoven came first.
>
>...and he knows it.
duh... it was an analogy lead-in, not a dispute of who came first.
i have full grasp of the chronology in that regard.
regardless, musical influences converge. it's not always linear.
>If you listened and knew where Joel was coming from, your
>appreciation of what he does and what he is capable of would
>make you realize that this guy is not just a piano man.
watch the interview. anyway, i never said he was just a
piano man. he's gone beyond that. he's extremely talented.
one of my favorite Joel songs was on 52nd Street. a great
arrangement called "Until the Night" or something like that.
it's really beautiful. great transitions. very rich.
>Sal
-$Zero... CaughtInAUsenetTimeSuck...
Lorrill Buyens
heaven, and on their tombstone was carved:
>instead of relying on whatever model has been "settled upon"
>by thousands of years of conventional wisdom (which may well be
>based on some flawed initial principle that everyone's become
>unwittingly and/or sentimentally and/or logistically attached to),
>i look at every situation with fresh eyes.
Unfortunately, you also appear to reject the fact that some such
models are still in place precisely because of their usefulness and
truth. A model of how gravity works, for example. A modern model
of the solar system. A model of genetics.
>now, surely, anyone can see that i'm not an idiot. (just as
>they can see that Pastorio is no idiot). however, many may
>think that my approach to life is ridiculously impractical, but
>i sure don't. for one thing, it's led me to many practical
>discoveries.
So it works *for you*. But that doesn't mean it'd work for everybody
who tried it.
>>What's an elitist in terms of understanding something about
>>the culture you live in?
>
>nothing, really. it's a great aspiration. except when the
>elitist truly believes that they are exclusively correct.
>such as Bob.
I have seen nothing in Bob's posts which leads me to believe that he
thinks he's the only one who has a handle on truth. Furthermore, I
*wish* you'd stop putting words in his, or anyone else's mouth.
>as far as the "writing" part of this whole discussion, i just
>think that using uncommonly known literary/art references is
>pretty lazy. particularly when same is indistinguishable from
>the rest of ones' words, and could very well have the opposite
>effect than what is seemingly desired (particularly fascinating
It ain't just in writing. A Bullwinkle episode that centered on the
Ruby Yacht of Omar Khayam was a favorite of mine when I was
a kid, at least partly `cause I Understood The Pun. (I didn't learn
what a "bar sinister" was until years after Underdog, OTOH - but
I appreciated it all the more once I did...)
>but again, i resort to the same laziness myself. and, i too,
>enjoy reference heavy writing (especially when i recognize
>the references).
So why all the commotion about people using it?
> my point (which you seemed to understand
>when you responded to my "Zero's Puzzle" post) is that, in
>our modern world, no mere mortal could possibly keep everything
>in context.
No one could in the Victorian era, either, but that didn't stop
them or their children from enjoying stuff like _Alice_ or Robert
Browning's poetry.
>it's utterly impossible. there have been far too
>many works created within too many lost contexts across space
>and time.
And a great many that were lost completely, except for a tantalizing
fragment or two.
>therefore, there is much merit in creating works of
>art which are richly expressive without relying on readers to
>understand an individual writer's own particular reference set.
And equal merit in creating works that do.
>why is this so hard to grasp?
Because what a person writes, and how, is deeply rooted in when
and who they are, unless they're writing a historical.
>for instance, why would so many see the need to write exclusively
>for the benefit of Steven Hawkings? why wouldn't they, instead,
>try to create works derived from their understanding of Hawkings
>(reworded for the largest "tent" of understanding)?
Are you saying that a physicist writing for physicists, for example,
should speak as if they were writing for laymen?
>substitute Hawkings for Jesus, Buddha, Einstein, Shakespear[e],
>Faulkner, etc..
With literary and religious writing, you might have a point. In
scientific and historical writing, however, references are
*absolutely necessary*. A lack of references means that
nobody has any idea whether the author knows what they're
talking about.
Which would you trust - an author who said "Animals evolve,
but I can't prove it," or one who said "Animals evolve, as proven
by the experiments of X, the observations of Y and the discoveries
of Z"?
>then again, rather than others, writers can certainly write works
>based on their own life's context, whatever that might be, but i
>still don't see the intrinsic need or benefit in alluding to things
>that most people couldn't possibly understand. sure, it's fun,
>but it's just frosting, or a silly game.
If you don't like it, don't do it. But don't try to discourage those
of us who *do* enjoy it from doing it or reading it.
--
| Doctor Fraud |Always believe six|
|Mad Inventor & Purveyor of Pseudopsychology |impossible things |
| Weird Science at Bargain Rates |before breakfast. |
Support the Jayne Hitchcock HELP Fund
http://www.geocities.com/hollywood/6172/helpjane.htm
Lorrill Buyens
went to heaven, and on their tombstone was carved:
>Bob Pastorio wrote (to Zero) in a gazillion line post:
>
>> And, you're so eager to keep this noise barrage alive that you
>> attribute someone else's words to me, here below. But, anyway, maybe
>> you want to listen to some of Aaron Copeland's works. Even you will
>> recognize melodies that he wove into the larger works. And, if I
>> thought for a moment that you would ever listen to music that wasn't
>> pop radio-play stuff, I'd suggest you listen to a bunch of European
>> composers who lifted popular themes from their cultures and used them
>> in "classical" compositions. BUt that would require you to spend some
>> time learning.
>
>...from a "modern" perspective, listen to Billy Joel.
I've got a 2-CD set of his "greatest hits" coming in the mail. I
accepted one o' those "<x> CDs for the price of one" dealies,
`n' for my first seven freebies I picked that, a 2-CD Beegees
set, Elton John, Simon & Garfunkel an' the Eagles.
(I also (re)joined the Quality Paperback Book Club. For about
seven bucks I'm getting _100 Banned Books_, _Peanuts: The
Golden Years_ (a 2-book selection, that), an encyclopedia of
medievalism, an' a book that tries to answer interesting sex
questions...)
Alex Jay Berman
>869i
>
>
>Re: Hello, My Name is Bob, and... I'm an Elitist
>
>
>Towse se...@towse.com said:
<...>
>>Billy Joel is a genius, a piano man with a classical background
>
>personally, i'm not sure about that part... but it's possible.
>in any case, i'm sure you've verified this. you're not one
>to talk freely and openly and loosely... i am.
>
>i'm not afraid to be wrong.
I don't have the citations, but he's spoken often about his
childhood--about how he was teased by the other kids when he'd come
out of his piano lessons, taunted, and crapbeatout. It got so bad
that, right before puberty, he begged his parents to let him qquit.
They made a compromise: He kept up the piano lessons.
But also got boxing lessons.
Peter Hickman
Hugh Watkins wrote:
Threadbare....well, I think Modernism and post-Modernism are essentially ever
more threadbare versions of Romanticism. You can throw out the canon over and
over and even toss out the Artist, but you still get that special realm of
experience-transcription...
You never can tell....................................Pete
nancy
on 02 Aug 2000 here.
<snip bulk of post, to which the *appropriate* response
should be an "amen"...>
>If you listened and knew where Joel was coming from, your
>appreciation of what he does and what he is capable of would
>make you realize that this guy is not just a piano man.
>
... but i cannot resist commenting:
"music appreciation" or "literature appreciation" or
whatever the geeks in college took to fulfill their
liberal arts requirements ... it was considered laughable.
and easy "A". just go, sit, listen to a few tunes,
take a test ... no brainer.
except, if you actually paid attention, you gained
some understanding of just how rich and meaty a lot
of this so-called "elitist" and "artsy-fartsy" stuff
is. and hopefully you are imbued with a hunger to
learn more.
there's a lot of schlock out there, true. performers who
riff off of others without truly knowing what they're
doing, or why. it "sounds" good. it "feels" good.
it sells well.
but when you encounter an artist who actually *does*
know what he or she is doing, and when you, yourself,
understand what that artist is doing ... it moves
beyond "sounds good" or "feels good" to ...
... words fail me.
zero, you cannot know whereof you speak because you
have not even attempted it. you truly *can* go your
entire life, enjoying all manner of things, even
without knowing what goes into them. you truly can.
but you cannot say that no-one needs to derive
deeper enjoyment from understanding those references that
go into our everyday living, because you have
self-admittedly never even tried.
so.
um, amen.
--
n
Writing is easy. All you do is stare at a blank sheet of
paper until drops of blood form on your forehead. --Gene
Fowler
nancy
03 Aug 2000 here.
>she was claiming that music told stories. actual
>stories.
liar. bender of truth. there's a difference between
saying there are stories in many pieces of music
and saying that "music told stories", you doink.
>then she lied about missing my post
>which challenged her in this regard.
wrong again, twink. i said i didn't see
your stupid challenge.
how *do* you manage to go through life with only one brain
cell firing?
gekko
misc.writing on 02 Aug 2000 here.
>If the world were full of
>people like you, we'd still be living in caves rooting for
>edibles in competition with lizards.
>
watch it!
--
gekko
Wise men argue causes, and fools decide them. --
Anacharsis
The Apprentice
news:398841DB...@rica.net...
i had a reply to this post that i wrote offline before reading yesterday
afternoon's and this morning's posts, but most of what i said is now
outdated, you have all gone way beyond my comments. i'm posting this, just
so you don't think i was ignoring what you had to say.
arleen
Alma Hromic
neat. an "i'm listening" post. i like.
Zero
Re: modernism (was: Re: Hello, My Name is Bob, and... I'm an Elitist)
ang...@earthlink.net (Alma Hromic) applauded:
>"The Apprentice" <amj...@netzero.net> wrote:
>>"Bob Pastorio" <Past...@rica.net> wrote:
>>
>>i had a reply to this post that i wrote offline before reading
>>yesterday afternoon's and this morning's posts, but most of what
>>i said is now outdated, you have all gone way beyond my comments.
>>i'm posting this, just so you don't think i was ignoring what you
>>had to say.
>
>neat. an "i'm listening" post. i like.
LOL. you guys are pretty perceptive.
you've got us dumb dagos nailed pretty good.
the last couple of days, whenever i've read Bob's replies
to me, all i saw were 200+ lines of PastOreo meltdown.
imagine my surprise when i checked back and read Bob's post here.
he actually went on for over 300 lines with only mild moments
of denigration. he almost made some actual points, but, as
is typical with Bobfusc, he points to references instead of making
any direct points himself. reminds me of that whole copyright
argument we had where he could not cite a specific law which
applied, but instead insisted he was right by simply citing
the entire copyright library.
LOL. what a concept. here's a refresher:
[Bobfusc says:]
">Copyright law is a big thing but it isn't a "mysterious
>'code' of ethics" at all unless you want to continue to
>hang out those smelly red herrings.
>
well, Bobbie, if it _ain't_ mysterious, and you _know_ that
i'm a "thief," it should be a piece of cake for you to specify
your evidence, no? but you want to put that burden on moi?
LOL. that's rich.
>
>Go read and see the issues.
>
go ahead, we'll wait. you make allegations, _you_ back
them up. unless you're one who is comfortable issuing
defamation whenever the mood strikes you?"
-- $Zero Flagrante Delicto <Zero...@aol.com> [930a]
Re: Surrender Your Sigs!
(The Complete Commercialization of Freedom is upon us)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=525303591
1999/09/15
then there's this classic example of Bobfuscation:
">As far as no one seeming to be able to provide a
>quote, go to the copyright office and read it all.
>Neatly, in one place.
>
LOL. yeah. wouldn't it be wonderful if the legal system
worked that way? just make wild accusations of some alleged
crime... and then [require] the accused to research the issue
for the prosecuter. that even goes beyond fascism. at least
those pigs are willing to provide trumped-up charges. they
don't send the accused to the law library to find something
that the accused did wrong."
-- $Zero Flagrante Delicto <Zero...@aol.com> [930a]
Re: Surrender Your Sigs!
(The Complete Commercialization of Freedom is upon us)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=525303591
1999/09/15
i suppose it comforts Bobfusc to rely on such abstractions,
thus avoiding any substantive demands on his mind (which would
be required if he chose to actually express the ideas he often
claims prove his various points -- that would put the actual
ideas up for scrutinity. apparently, such scrutiny must be
avoided at all costs).
in any case, the whole discussion going on here with regards
to Modernists does not apply to what i've been saying at all,
since i'm not a Modernist. i'm a Zeroist. i'm a Realist Idealist.
i don't advocate rejecting any knowledge, only brainwash.
i don't advocate rejecting all references, only nebulous
undelinated references in order to better communicate.
(the most nebulous being those in the literary/art canon --
for reasons that are all too self-evident as described in my
"Zero's Puzzle" post). [and the question i posed to Alex
regarding recognizing musical references he's never heard
before].
i suppose i share some traits with Modernists, but not enough
to consider myself a Modernist. maybe Zeroism is the evolution
of Modernism. i don't know. not my problem. <g>
-$Zero... HoHum...
Peter Hickman
Zero wrote:
<snip>
>
> in any case, the whole discussion going on here with regards
> to Modernists does not apply to what i've been saying at all,
> since i'm not a Modernist. i'm a Zeroist. i'm a Realist Idealist.
What's that in Aesthetic Terms?
>
> i don't advocate rejecting any knowledge, only brainwash.
How do you tell the difference without a methodology?
> <snip>
>
> i suppose i share some traits with Modernists, but not enough
> to consider myself a Modernist. maybe Zeroism is the evolution
> of Modernism. i don't know. not my problem. <g>
No, it isn't your problem. I just thought my Aesthetic Notes on
Modernism might interest you.
You never can tell..................................Pete
Bob Pastorio
>
> i don't advocate rejecting all references, only nebulous
> undelinated references
Like, um, "nebulous undelineated references" would be, uh, nebulous
and undelineated? That means cloudlike and without lines, right?
> in order to better communicate.
> (the most nebulous being those in the literary/art canon --
> for reasons that are all too self-evident as described in my
> "Zero's Puzzle" post).
Translation: I haven't read anything since that last box of Post
Toasties and you shouldn't either.
Pastorio (one size fits all, and all for ignorance for the
multitudes...)
The Apprentice
> Zero wrote:
> >
> > i don't advocate rejecting all references, only nebulous
> > undelinated references
>
> Like, um, "nebulous undelineated references" would be, uh, nebulous
> and undelineated? That means cloudlike and without lines, right?
>
> > in order to better communicate.
> > (the most nebulous being those in the literary/art canon --
> > for reasons that are all too self-evident as described in my
> > "Zero's Puzzle" post).
>
> Translation: I haven't read anything since that last box of Post
> Toasties and you shouldn't either.
>
that is not the correct translation. he has never, ever said that we
shouldn't read just because he doesn't. not once. ever.
ever.
arleen
Bob Pastorio
Nope. He hasn't said *those words.* What he has said is that we
should omit references that people like him wouldn't get. As though
anyone can know this sort of information in advance. What he has said
is that we shouldn't include our learning in our writing.
Since humans use references in all communications (any sort of look at
any communications medium will demonstrate that), stopping their use
can only happen if they don't know any. To not know any is to not
have encountered any. The only way to get there is to not read.
The salient "facts" about zero's position is that writers (and by
extension all "artists") should eschew "nebulous and undelineated"
references. Whatever that could mean in the real world to anyone but
him. In actual practice, what it boils down to is dumbing down the
tapestry of information possible to offer readers. It means reducing
the layers of possible meaning because he doesn't read. So *he* won't
miss anything.
It is a patent absurdity for him to tell experienced writers how to do
their business when he hasn't a clue about references, the writing
life, the sheer joys of wordplay and reference play, and the broader
vista of the developed mind. He wants us to diminish the depths of
the work so he won't miss things. That's precisely opposite what the
human race has been doing since we first climbed down from the trees.
We've learned things and preserved that information so future
generations didn't have to begin anew each time.
We developed civilizations of all sorts to foster security and
development. Development of trade and revenues, arts, entertainment,
culture, support. Learning. And, as we have seen that life is,
indeed, very complex, we've made the detailing of it just as complex
so our understandings are congruent with the realities we encounter.
Deliberately curtailing that continuing growth is just zero's way of
trying to make the rest of the world conform to his shallowness. Like
trying to get MWM to be the way he wanted it to be and when that was
rejected, to go on his after-the-fact crusade. Like evading the hard
questions that people post to him. Like the many ways he skitters
away from the commitments of ideas. How he sprints away from the
solid work of compromise and the common good rather than merely his
selfish and self-absorbed whining.
Zero would like the whole world to be just like him. He tells us
daily that we're acting badly and thinking badly and understanding
badly and expressing ourselves badly. Obviously if we all acted the
way he does, his life would be, um, wonderful.
Uh, never mind. That wouldn't work, either. He's already shown that
if we act like he does that we're deceivers, and idjits and liars and
stuff like that. I guess there's no hope.
So, hey. Go right ahead and grab a book he'd approve of.
Tell 'em zero sent ya...
Pastorio (and bring your crayons...)
Lorrill Buyens
heaven, and on their tombstone was carved:
>how do you know there's other references in the music
>if you've never heard them elsewhere? hmm?
The liner notes tell you. Or you hear what was referenced later on
and recognize it then.
Bob Pastorio
>
> On 03 Aug 2000 07:59:18 GMT, zero...@aol.com (Zero) died and went to
> heaven, and on their tombstone was carved:
>
> >if you've never heard them elsewhere? hmm?
>
> and recognize it then.
>
> --
> | Doctor Fraud |Always believe six|
> |Mad Inventor & Purveyor of Pseudopsychology |impossible things |
> | Weird Science at Bargain Rates |before breakfast. |
I bet one of the six things are that you think zero will ever
acknowledge that he has less than a complete understanding of...well,
anything. Or that an alternate perspective has any merit. Stuff like
that.
Pastorio
The Apprentice
> It is a patent absurdity for him to tell experienced writers how to do
> their business when he hasn't a clue about references, the writing
> life, the sheer joys of wordplay and reference play, and the broader
> vista of the developed mind. He wants us to diminish the depths of
> the work so he won't miss things. That's precisely opposite what the
> human race has been doing since we first climbed down from the trees.
> We've learned things and preserved that information so future
> generations didn't have to begin anew each time.
>
> We developed civilizations of all sorts to foster security and
> development. Development of trade and revenues, arts, entertainment,
> culture, support. Learning. And, as we have seen that life is,
> indeed, very complex, we've made the detailing of it just as complex
> so our understandings are congruent with the realities we encounter.
>
this right here, rings so wrong with me, but i don't have the words i need
to be able to explain why beyond this gut feeling that we have made our
lives so much more complex than need be. i don't share your worldview. oh,
certainly, i see that this is the way the world is, but it's a world that i
have felt so very at odds with for quite awhile now, without quite knowing
what to do about it personally, other than the best i could under the
circumstances.
i do not eschew learning. i keep hoping that by reading what i can i'll
perhaps come across some ideas that will help me to better cope with this
feeling of frustration that i have with "the way things are," or find a way
to use my abilities in a way that might bring about a change-if i could just
see my way clear to what kind of changes need to be made-either outwardly or
inwardly.
perhaps it's just the indoctrination of my faith that i still operate under.
1Jn:2:15: Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If
any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
1Jn:2:16: For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust
of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the
world.
1Cor:1:27: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound
the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the
things which are mighty;
1Cor:1:28: And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath
God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that
are:
(i recognize a certain irony here that i am using a reference point, a
canon, a standard to base my feelings on, but at the same time, am i using
the canon, am i truly indoctrinated, or do the words ring true for me simply
because of who i am and how i view the world? does the canon simply say what
i already feel in a better way than i could? and i'm sure that there are
many levels and contexts to place these words in, but just those words, as
they stand, hold meaning for me.)
you seem to place all that mankind has been and done on some sort of
pedestal of worship. while it all may be interesting, and while it may help
to give us some insight into ourselves, it is, indeed, as far as i'm
concerned, futile in the end. for now, i haven't been able to find anyone
who seems to know why we're here or what the point is, and so we make
meaning for ourselves wherever, however we can. i read for the enjoyment of
it, for the delight in seeing different viewpoints, and for discovering what
i might need to know in order to accomplish a task that i have set for
myself. i am thankful that the knowledge is out there. but if it weren't,
what would change? i would still be me, on this planet, doing what i could
to give meaning to my life.
aaaarggghhh! i am not expressing myself well. which just shows that my
feelings and opinions are not fully formed yet. i sense that there is some
overlap in what i'm saying, and what you've been saying, at least in terms
of what our knowledge brings us, and the way our culture gives us a common
bond in order to be able to communicate and share with one another, but at
the same time, i can see that we diverge at other points that we are likely
to never agree on.
> Deliberately curtailing that continuing growth is just zero's way of
> trying to make the rest of the world conform to his shallowness. Like
> trying to get MWM to be the way he wanted it to be and when that was
> rejected, to go on his after-the-fact crusade. Like evading the hard
> questions that people post to him. Like the many ways he skitters
> away from the commitments of ideas. How he sprints away from the
> solid work of compromise and the common good rather than merely his
> selfish and self-absorbed whining.
>
> Zero would like the whole world to be just like him. He tells us
> daily that we're acting badly and thinking badly and understanding
> badly and expressing ourselves badly. Obviously if we all acted the
> way he does, his life would be, um, wonderful.
>
> Uh, never mind. That wouldn't work, either. He's already shown that
> if we act like he does that we're deceivers, and idjits and liars and
> stuff like that. I guess there's no hope.
>
> So, hey. Go right ahead and grab a book he'd approve of.
>
> Tell 'em zero sent ya...
>
> Pastorio (and bring your crayons...)
it's obvious that i don't share the way you see zero. how could i possibly
look down on a man who encourages me to speak out, to let my thoughts be
known and not be afraid to show my ignorance or who i really am, with the
ultimate goal being communication and the tweaking of my ideas to see if
they truly serve me well? if i don't express them, how will i know if they
hold up? if i am afraid of those parts of myself that i don't feel are
measuring up, how will i ever conquer and change them?
no. i do not see zero the way you do.
arleen
Peter Hickman
The Apprentice wrote:
<snip of Pastrio on the inherent complexities of civilizations and the codes
that are wound up in them>
> this right here, rings so wrong with me, but i don't have the words i need
> to be able to explain why beyond this gut feeling that we have made our
> lives so much more complex than need be.
Well...you can have a simple life and still feel at home with certain types
of complexity. Indeed, some complexities are soothing and entertaining. Music
for example...novels...flirtations with people who are just visiting the
neighbors for the week-end and who don't like your shoes anyway.
> <snip of Arleen's spiritual world-weariness>
>
> perhaps it's just the indoctrination of my faith that i still operate under.
>
> 1Jn:2:15: Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If
> any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
> 1Jn:2:16: For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust
> of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the
> world.
> 1Cor:1:27: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound
> the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the
> things which are mighty;
> 1Cor:1:28: And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath
> God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that
> are:
>
> (i recognize a certain irony here that i am using a reference point, a
> canon, a standard to base my feelings on, but at the same time, am i using
> the canon, am i truly indoctrinated, or do the words ring true for me simply
> because of who i am and how i view the world?
Oops...there's that complexity again. It is worth noting (at least in
passing) that even placing a low value on "the world" is not as simple as it
seems. It is certainly a basic topos for the Gnostics and Paul writing to the
Corinthians and the notion of Love of the Father are charged with Gnostic echos
or precursorial reverberations.
> does the canon simply say what
> i already feel in a better way than i could? and i'm sure that there are
> many levels and contexts to place these words in, but just those words, as
> they stand, hold meaning for me.)
I'm sure that's true, but one wonders just how dumb-founded St. Paul would
be if you interrupted him and said, "Yes, but it's the complexity that gets me
down..."He being a person who seems to have reveled in intrigues and wierd
distinctions and formulations.
>
> you seem to place all that mankind has been and done on some sort of
> pedestal of worship.
That seems to me to be more of a Modernist thing to do....and after all St.
Paul was also a man addressing Mankind and perhaps placing a greater value on
Mankind as a whole than many other people of his time
> while it all may be interesting, and while it may help
> to give us some insight into ourselves, it is, indeed, as far as i'm
> concerned, futile in the end. for now, i haven't been able to find anyone
> who seems to know why we're here or what the point is, and so we make
> meaning for ourselves wherever, however we can.
Well....this is the Modernist dilemma. As I've said, the topos of
"i haven't been able to find anyone
who seems to know why we're here or what the point is, and so we make
meaning for ourselves wherever, however we can" is more or less a piece of dead
Mythology as far as I'm concerned. People who find the Big Meaning seem to me
to be just like everyone else except that instead of saying they can't find a
Big Meaning, now they say they have. It seems to make very little difference
one way or the other and, once you reject Modernist models of experience and
meaning, it makes more sense that the Big Meaning or its absence makes no
particular sense.
> i read for the enjoyment of
> it, for the delight in seeing different viewpoints, and for discovering what
> i might need to know in order to accomplish a task that i have set for
> myself. i am thankful that the knowledge is out there. but if it weren't,
> what would change? i would still be me, on this planet, doing what i could
> to give meaning to my life.
Exactly, and the same with all meanings. Every single one.
<snip of several views of the same still life of Zero with a Bowl of
Modernism>
You never can tell.......................................................Pete
The Apprentice
news:398AEAE8...@rtp.ppdi.com...
>
>
> The Apprentice wrote:
>
>
> > while it all may be interesting, and while it may help
> > to give us some insight into ourselves, it is, indeed, as far as i'm
> > concerned, futile in the end. for now, i haven't been able to find
anyone
> > who seems to know why we're here or what the point is, and so we make
> > meaning for ourselves wherever, however we can.
>
> who seems to know why we're here or what the point is, and so we make
dead
> Mythology as far as I'm concerned. People who find the Big Meaning seem
to me
> to be just like everyone else except that instead of saying they can't
find a
> Big Meaning, now they say they have. It seems to make very little
difference
> one way or the other and, once you reject Modernist models of experience
and
> meaning, it makes more sense that the Big Meaning or its absence makes no
> particular sense.
>
LOL! pete, you are an absolute delight. i need someone like you around more
often, i think, to "slap" some sense into me. you do it in a way that
tickles my funny bone and allows me to laugh at how seriously i take myself
sometimes.
i don't know if i'll ever be able to stop searching for a big meaning,
though. i don't know if i even want to stop. maybe it's an addiction? <g>
arleen
The The
>
> Nope. He hasn't said *those words.* What he has said is that we
> should omit references that people like him wouldn't get. As though
> anyone can know this sort of information in advance. What he has said
> is that we shouldn't include our learning in our writing.
>
> Since humans use references in all communications (any sort of look at
> any communications medium will demonstrate that), stopping their use
> can only happen if they don't know any. To not know any is to not
> have encountered any. The only way to get there is to not read.
>
> The salient "facts" about zero's position is that writers (and by
> extension all "artists") should eschew "nebulous and undelineated"
> references. Whatever that could mean in the real world to anyone but
> him. In actual practice, what it boils down to is dumbing down the
> tapestry of information possible to offer readers. It means reducing
> the layers of possible meaning because he doesn't read. So *he* won't
> miss anything.
[...]
in other words something very similar to this
[quoting by heart <bg>]
"[...] im not aware of too many things
i am what i am if you know what i mean [...]"
- - - edie brickell & the new bohemians - "what i am"(1989)
regards!
thth
--
"one can own a mirror does one then own the reflection that can be seen
in it?" / ludwig wittgenstein [in zettel] 1930-48
Paine Ellsworth
>
> Tenochca Bob wrote:
> >
> > Tell 'em zero sent ya...
> >
> > Pastorio (and bring your crayons...)
>
> it's obvious that i don't share the way you see zero. how could i possibly
> look down on a man who encourages me to speak out, to let my thoughts be
> known and not be afraid to show my ignorance or who i really am, with the
> ultimate goal being communication and the tweaking of my ideas to see if
> they truly serve me well? if i don't express them, how will i know if they
> hold up? if i am afraid of those parts of myself that i don't feel are
> measuring up, how will i ever conquer and change them?
>
> no. i do not see zero the way you do.
>
> arleen
'Lo Arleen --
Bob appears to see Zero in the same manner as the ancient Aztecs...
He's discovered him, but he is as yet unsure what to do with him --
And your wonderfully human doubts about yourself are noted -- it
seems that i have more faith in your wisdom than you do <g> --
-- "pro bono publico"
Indelibly yours,
Paine (the frustrated modern repudemocrat)
xoxoxox ** NEW ** update --
http://home.att.net/~Paine_Ellsworth/
KMadeleine
[snip all to get to sig]
>-- "pro bono publico"
>Indelibly yours,
> Paine (the frustrated modern repudemocrat)
i wackyparsed that last word as 'repodemocrat' and
wondered, 'is that when you haven't paid your taxes,
so they come and repossess your bleeding heart?'
thanks for the giggle, even though it was unintended!
--
KMadeleine
Bob Pastorio
>
> you seem to place all that mankind has been and done on some sort of
> pedestal of worship.
I worship nothing. I collect the history and actions of our species
as grist for our ongoing mill. Nothing is sacred except my kids and
they most assuredly aren't on any sort of pedestal. History is
information. Only information. The best of it helps me to avoid
making the same mistakes as others have in the past. And helps me to
succeed where success has happened before. But that isn't limiting,
nor is it glorification of the past. It's using the gathered data as
sources for today and as a stepping stone for innovation and
creation. That standing on the shoulders of giants thing.
I see it as learning from the successes and failures of others -
cumulatively and analytically. This is the difference between people
and the rest of the animal kingdom. No great mystery, no secret
wisdom, no woo-woo stuff. It's all data to factor in to the equations
that govern daily, walking-around life. Not mystical. Not distant
and lofty. Nope. Somebody a long time go invented a screwdriver. I
happily use that information to make my life easier.
Now take that to the level of concepts and philosophy and art and
writing and it falls into place. Rather than pieces of steel, it's
ideas strong enough to stand scrutiny and efforts to rebut. Starting
from that, extend the notions. Add to the cumulative package. write
deeper and wiser. Compose music that extends or even denies that
history. Still need it to start from. Beginning with the definition
of music. And even that can be rejected, but first that definition
needs to be in place.
> while it all may be interesting, and while it may help
> to give us some insight into ourselves, it is, indeed, as far as i'm
> concerned, futile in the end. for now, i haven't been able to find anyone
> who seems to know why we're here or what the point is, and so we make
> meaning for ourselves wherever, however we can.
This assumes that there is a point. I don't believe there is one. I
yam cuz I yam. You seem to be looking for *The Meaning Of Life* and
there are any number of real and false prophets who have opinions.
The problem with this is that no one can prove any part of it. We are
all doubting Thomases, and likely should be. It's a pro-survival
characteristic. We each believe what feels best to us in this context
and no one's information is any more provable or durable than anyone
else's. It's the proof part that's so unsettling. Or rather the
absence of it.
But the journey itself may be worth the price of admission. The
search, for me, is reason enough. The creation of a code of ethics.
The establishment of a style of dealing with others. The setting of
boundaries. The creation of what is uniquely the governing philosophy
we each need. That's the journey. You may adopt or adapt someone
else's notions or try to create your own. In either event, it's what
feels right and I don't expect much more from this world than that. I
don't think there is a reason why we're here. It's just happy
physics.
YMMV.
> i sense that there is some
> overlap in what i'm saying, and what you've been saying, at least in terms
> of what our knowledge brings us, and the way our culture gives us a common
> bond in order to be able to communicate and share with one another, but at
> the same time, i can see that we diverge at other points that we are likely
> to never agree on.
The points we don't agree on still need to be communicated back and
forth between us. It's that process that demands history. Otherwise,
we have no words. And the stringing together of those words demand
history. Or we have no ideas. No means of expression. All the way
back at the beginning of this thread, I said that language is a
construct that we have to agree on or nothing can be communicated.
The agreement is millennia and centuries and decades and years old.
Passed through the minds and expressions of hundreds of millions of
people in that time. The agreed upon definitions are the bricks we
use to make the edifices of our ideas. The agreed upon forms are what
we use to communicate the ideas to others. Without shared information
we may not even be aware of directly, we can't offer each other any
communications beyond the most basic pantomime. I have to pee. I'm
hungry.
> it's obvious that i don't share the way you see zero. how could i possibly
> look down on a man who encourages me to speak out, to let my thoughts be
> known and not be afraid to show my ignorance or who i really am, with the
> ultimate goal being communication and the tweaking of my ideas to see if
> they truly serve me well?
Try to offer strong disagreement and see how supportive he'll be.
Contradict him and see. Seriously disagree with him and ask him hard
questions. Maybe try not to be so accommodating as your usually
generous self.
No one has discouraged you from speaking out or tried to, so far as I
can see. Offering disagreement isn't trying to shut you up. It's
offering disagreement. Offer your ideas and see what the responses
are. Disagreement isn't censorship. Disagreement isn't an effort to
silence you. There's no way to do that here. It's a moot point.
As for showing ignorance, we all do. The sin is not to be ignorant,
it's to be *willfully* ignorant. Proudly ignorant. Lazily ignorant.
Everyone here is ignorant about much, much more than they are
knowledgeable about. No crime there and merely an element of the
definition about what being human is. Ignorance of the sort that
revels in itself is right next to prejudice. Makes judgements on
inappropriate criteria. Wants writing truncated in the name of some
democratic ideal. Wants it simpler and less laden and wrought. Wants
life in general to be easily apprehended because it seems like it
should be.
But it isn't. And that fact is indictment enough. Life isn't
simple. Never has been.
> if i don't express them, how will i know if they
> hold up?
Um, if you mean that they need an audience, this isn't necessarily how
ideas are checked for strength. It's *one* way. Another, for the
sake of the discussion, is to write them and then go back and see if
they're strong.
> if i am afraid of those parts of myself that i don't feel are
> measuring up, how will i ever conquer and change them?
Conquer? Afraid? Too much baggage to attach to those parts. See
them, decide you want them changed and do it. This, of course, isn't
easy, but fear and conquest make it sound so... external. How can you
be afraid of something about yourself? I don't understand this. Not
happy about some component of who you are? Scrutinize it and make
some decisions. See how it goes. Make whatever corrections are
necessary in that course of action. Repeat as needed. This isn't
smart-alec stuff. It's how virtually everything gets done. Formulate
the idea, try it and fix what needs fixing. Keep doing that until it
either works well enough or it doesn't.
> no. i do not see zero the way you do.
Fine. Here's a place we don't agree.
Pastorio
nancy
misc.writing on 04 Aug 2000 here.
>LOL! pete, you are an absolute delight.
aw, arleen! you just have a thing for peters!
--
n
I don't know. I'm not in shape yet. -- Yogi Berra, when asked
his cap size
The Apprentice
news:8F86B49D...@24.1.240.74...
> insert cutesy lead-in concerning The Apprentice posting in
> misc.writing on 04 Aug 2000 here.
>
> >LOL! pete, you are an absolute delight.
>
>
> aw, arleen! you just have a thing for peters!
>
<G> yep. ever since i read about the one that jumped out of the boat and
walked on water. only to sink when he realized where he was. that
combination of fearlessness and fallibility gets to me every time.
arleen
The Apprentice
i snip isn't because i don't think it merits commenting on, but because i
have nothing to contribute at this time.
"Bob Pastorio" <Past...@rica.net> wrote in message
news:398B8D9E...@rica.net...
> The Apprentice wrote:
> >
> > you seem to place all that mankind has been and done on some sort of
> > pedestal of worship.
>
> I worship nothing. I collect the history and actions of our species
> as grist for our ongoing mill. Nothing is sacred except my kids and
> they most assuredly aren't on any sort of pedestal. History is
> information. Only information. The best of it helps me to avoid
> making the same mistakes as others have in the past. And helps me to
> succeed where success has happened before. But that isn't limiting,
> nor is it glorification of the past. It's using the gathered data as
> sources for today and as a stepping stone for innovation and
> creation. That standing on the shoulders of giants thing.
okay. i accept that sometimes preconceived notions of mine interfere with
what i hear people saying.
<snip>
> Now take that to the level of concepts and philosophy and art and
> writing and it falls into place. Rather than pieces of steel, it's
> ideas strong enough to stand scrutiny and efforts to rebut. Starting
> from that, extend the notions. Add to the cumulative package. write
> deeper and wiser. Compose music that extends or even denies that
> history. Still need it to start from. Beginning with the definition
> of music. And even that can be rejected, but first that definition
> needs to be in place.
i believe i made a comment something like this in the minimalist post, where
i mentioned that movements seemed to need what came before to either inspire
to another level, or to reject completely.
>
> > while it all may be interesting, and while it may help
> > to give us some insight into ourselves, it is, indeed, as far as i'm
> > concerned, futile in the end. for now, i haven't been able to find
anyone
> > who seems to know why we're here or what the point is, and so we make
> > meaning for ourselves wherever, however we can.
>
> This assumes that there is a point.
exactly. i want there to be a point. i seem to need there to be a point.
this is where much of my struggle to find my own meaning lies.
<snip>
>
> But the journey itself may be worth the price of admission. The
> search, for me, is reason enough.
and i want it to be enough for me. when looked at in this way, it makes life
a wondrous adventure, with so many options available. not that they aren't
available anyway, even with some big meaning, but it would seem that having
that big meaning would help to make some of the frustrations of the
adventure more bearable.
<snip>
> > i sense that there is some
> > overlap in what i'm saying, and what you've been saying, at least in
terms
> > of what our knowledge brings us, and the way our culture gives us a
common
> > bond in order to be able to communicate and share with one another, but
at
> > the same time, i can see that we diverge at other points that we are
likely
> > to never agree on.
>
> The points we don't agree on still need to be communicated back and
> forth between us.
<g> agreed.
> It's that process that demands history. Otherwise,
> we have no words. And the stringing together of those words demand
> history. Or we have no ideas. No means of expression. All the way
> back at the beginning of this thread, I said that language is a
> construct that we have to agree on or nothing can be communicated.
> The agreement is millennia and centuries and decades and years old.
> Passed through the minds and expressions of hundreds of millions of
> people in that time.
so much of which has been lost, changed, continues to evolve so that we
still don't always agree on the same meaning. our own experiences bring
filters to the meanings. and if i don't know your references, when you say
sound and fury, i may think noise and anger. and no, you aren't required to
guess what i know, and the process of communication allows me to question
what you mean, just as we are doing now, but sometimes pulling in history
can confuse as much as it can clarify. <my mind's taking a tangent now that
i prefer not to get into, so i'll leave it at that, unsatisfactory as that
is.>
> The agreed upon definitions are the bricks we
> use to make the edifices of our ideas. The agreed upon forms are what
> we use to communicate the ideas to others. Without shared information
> we may not even be aware of directly, we can't offer each other any
> communications beyond the most basic pantomime. I have to pee. I'm
> hungry.
yes. i see this.
>
> > it's obvious that i don't share the way you see zero. how could i
possibly
> > look down on a man who encourages me to speak out, to let my thoughts be
> > known and not be afraid to show my ignorance or who i really am, with
the
> > ultimate goal being communication and the tweaking of my ideas to see if
> > they truly serve me well?
>
> Try to offer strong disagreement and see how supportive he'll be.
about as supportive as anyone else i might offer strong disagreement with.
in point of fact, i have offered strong disagreement, just none that i've
aired publically. and we still manage to communicate with each other. i call
him an idiot, he calls me a fraud, and then we get on with sharing ideas.
<g>
> Contradict him and see.
i have.
> Seriously disagree with him and ask him hard
> questions.
i have.
> Maybe try not to be so accommodating as your usually
> generous self.
well, by being accomodating i receive greater reward with my questions. less
head butting.
>
> No one has discouraged you from speaking out or tried to, so far as I
> can see. Offering disagreement isn't trying to shut you up. It's
> offering disagreement.
yes. that's not what i meant. i am not normally very gregarious or
forthcoming with opinion in the presence of disagreement. it has been a
personal area of struggle that i am continually working on. zero has proved
helpful with that-even when he doesn't realize he's being so.
<snip>
>
> > if i don't express them, how will i know if they
> > hold up?
>
> Um, if you mean that they need an audience, this isn't necessarily how
> ideas are checked for strength. It's *one* way. Another, for the
> sake of the discussion, is to write them and then go back and see if
> they're strong.
>
> > if i am afraid of those parts of myself that i don't feel are
> > measuring up, how will i ever conquer and change them?
>
> Conquer? Afraid? Too much baggage to attach to those parts. See
> them, decide you want them changed and do it. This, of course, isn't
> easy, but fear and conquest make it sound so... external.
believe me, the fear is all too internal.
> How can you
> be afraid of something about yourself? I don't understand this.
i don't know. i just know it's so.
> Not
> happy about some component of who you are? Scrutinize it and make
> some decisions. See how it goes. Make whatever corrections are
> necessary in that course of action. Repeat as needed. This isn't
> smart-alec stuff. It's how virtually everything gets done. Formulate
> the idea, try it and fix what needs fixing. Keep doing that until it
> either works well enough or it doesn't.
very good advice. practical advice. advice that i give myself on a daily
basis. and sometimes succeed in taking.
<g> i just realized something. here i am, wanting, advocating simplicity,
yet i personally make things harder than they need to be, while you, who
continues to underline the complexity of life, seem to make things as simple
as they can be.
there is a lesson in this. somewhere.
arleen
Zero
Re: modernism (was: Re: Hello, My Name is Bob, and... I'm an Elitist)
dumb down? no. smarten up.
Bob Pastorio Past...@rica.net wrote in denial:
>The Apprentice wrote:
>>
>> you seem to place all that mankind has been and done on
>> some sort of pedestal of worship.
>
>I worship nothing.
semantics.
>I collect the history and actions of our species as grist for
>our ongoing mill. Nothing is sacred except my kids and they
>most assuredly aren't on any sort of pedestal. History is
>information. Only information.
if that were true, you would not worship it so. you would not
say the silly things you say about history. you would not have
the level of reverence you have for your education. you would
not be so deeply bothered by someone like myself saying: "hey,
idjit, i've got some new information you've never thought of."
instead, you'd convince yourself that any such information is
old news (precisely because you worship your eductation model).
>The best of it helps me to avoid making the same mistakes as
>others have in the past.
LOL. you're funny Bob. i've seen you make the exact same mistakes
over and over and over again. mistakes that others have made, over
and over and over again. you demonstrate quite beautifully that
knowing "history" is not nearly enough. not even close.
>And helps me to succeed where success has happened before.
i've yet to see this from you, but if you say so.
>But that isn't limiting, nor is it glorification of the past.
nor is it any value to you at all. in any case, you DO glorify
the past. you're just living in denial in that regard. and that
most definitely limits you.
>It's using the gathered data as sources for today and as a
>stepping stone for innovation and creation.
ideally, yes. but not in your case. because you glorify
the conclusions regarding the wide disparity of information
which has been gathered over thousands of years.
>That standing on the shoulders of giants thing.
it's more like jumping off the shoulders of midgets.
>I see it as learning from the successes and failures of
>others - cumulatively and analytically.
pfft. you just glorify history. you have learned nothing except
some of the zillion conclusions others have made about varied
"facts" (which constitute merely a small percentage of all "facts").
>This is the difference between people and the rest of the
>animal kingdom.
one of the differences between people and animals is that people
have a much greater capacity to change their negative behaviors...
using their own free will... within their own lifetime. but, for
most people, this rarely, if ever, occurs. at best, they simply
embrace the brainwash of their ancestors.
>No great mystery, no secret wisdom, no woo-woo stuff.
you're right.
>It's all data to factor in to the equations that govern daily,
>walking-around life. Not mystical. Not distant and lofty.
>Nope.
yet more exquisite denial.
>Somebody a long time go invented a screwdriver. I happily use
>that information to make my life easier.
and with that poor analogy as a basis, herein, you show the
weakness of the rest of your flawed "philosophy."
here, consider this: most people use a screwdriver to tighten
or loosen screws. those who are more daring might even use it
as a prying tool. regardless, most people don't see a screwdriver
for what it really is. for all that it is. this is the biggest
problem with conventional education.
now, here's where you really screw yourself up:
>Now take that to the level of concepts and philosophy and art
>and writing and it falls into place.
yep. it sure does.
>Rather than pieces of steel, it's ideas strong enough to stand
>scrutiny and efforts to rebut.
how utterly ironic coming from you. you who lazily and cluelessly
points to the tool-shed for answers instead of the tool-making shop.
you, who has been demonstratably unable to identify the tool that
you claim is already in the tool-shed.
>Starting from that, extend the notions.
yikes.
>Add to the cumulative package. write deeper and wiser.
yes, please do.
>Compose music that extends or even denies that history.
here is another indication that you just don't get it.
there is no reason to deny history. cumulative history,
at best, is something that runs parallel to reality. it
is not reality iteslf. one doesn't need to deny history
at all in order to identify new realities, or to create
new realities. your thinking in that regard is a complete
fallacy. a brainwash so deep you cannot seem to even fathom
it. you glorify history so much that you believe that the
only way to add to it is to either know or deny part of it.
that's another way in which your "knowledge" of history
severely limits you and most others.
>Compose music that extends or even denies that history.
>Still need it to start from.
bzzt. absolutely and utterly wrong.
>Beginning with the definition of music.
bzzt.
>And even that can be rejected, but first that definition
>needs to be in place.
bzzt. reject this definition. it's entirely wrong.
you're thinking is so limited, but you can't see it because
you're stuck with your definitions. you can only evaluate
"new data" in the context of "historic data." you're missing out
on all the possible data which has _nothing_ to do with the finite
set of data you've elected to consider as important, relevant
historical data.
BTW: i've invented thousands of things in my life. very few,
if any, were a case of "reinventing the wheel." how do i know?
because i know enough about what "is" to know that these things
don't exist yet. or rather, if they do exist, they are largely
unknown. if they were largely known, i'd know about them. get it?
>> while it all may be interesting, and while it may help to give
>> us some insight into ourselves, it is, indeed, as far as i'm
>> concerned, futile in the end. for now, i haven't been able to
>> find anyone who seems to know why we're here or what the point is,
>> and so we make meaning for ourselves wherever, however we can.
>
>This assumes that there is a point. I don't believe there is one.
hmm... that's an interesting point you're making... <g> why?
because, everything you write here contradicts this denial of yours.
your clueless glorifying of history being among the most evident
of these contradictions.
>I yam cuz I yam.
you are... cuz... you're screwed.
because you've screwed yourself in... (and out). day in, day out.
you've willfully screwed yourself up. because you embrace the
screwdriver. because you embrace the screw.
lazily relying on the screw... you've ignored the idea of glue.
>You seem to be looking for *The Meaning Of Life* and there are
>any number of real and false prophets who have opinions.
indeed. yet, it's rather easy to tell them apart. but first,
you need to unscrew yourself. false prophets have ulterior motives.
>The problem with this is that no one can prove any part of it.
says you, (and with such bizarre contradictional certainty).
>We are all doubting Thomases, and likely should be.
ahhh... but why don't you doubt your doubt?
want to find the meaning of life? start doubting your doubts.
>It's a pro-survival characteristic. We each believe what feels
>best to us in this context and no one's information is any more
>provable or durable than anyone else's.
so you claim. so you have convinced yourself. so you're screwed.
>It's the proof part that's so unsettling.
>Or rather the absence of it.
exactly what proof are you looking for?
>But the journey itself may be worth the price of admission.
there is no "price of admission." it doesn't work that way.
the meaning of life is not for sale. there's no profit.
there's no competition (except between truth and lies).
the meaning of life is free. free admission. <g>
>The search, for me, is reason enough.
now, _that_ was a big clue for you to contemplate.
>The creation of a code of ethics. The establishment of a style
>of dealing with others. The setting of boundaries. The creation
>of what is uniquely the governing philosophy we each need.
more clues as to why you (and society in general) are always in turmoil.
the obsessional focus on rules and self-imposed limits instead of
following the guiding lifeforce of beauty within you (which you've
been systematically screwed out of, through deception).
>That's the journey. You may adopt or adapt someone else's notions
>or try to create your own.
or both.
>In either event, it's what feels right and I don't expect much
>more from this world than that.
hence your attitude. and your lot in life. your driven screws.
>I don't think there is a reason why we're here.
>It's just happy physics. YMMV.
happy? interesting.
anyway, the reason many of us are "here" is because many of us have
been convinced that we have "jobs" to do. we have been convinced of
this by people far more clever than us. people who use "history" to
convince us what our jobs are. happy physics? YMMV. LOL.
>> i sense that there is some overlap in what i'm saying, and what
>> you've been saying, at least in terms of what our knowledge brings
>> us, and the way our culture gives us a common bond in order to be
>> able to communicate and share with one another, but at the same
>> time, i can see that we diverge at other points that we are likely
>> to never agree on.
>
>The points we don't agree on still need to be communicated back
>and forth between us.
heh. and i thought all you had to say was "go read history."
>It's that process that demands history. Otherwise, we have no words.
really? do tell.
>And the stringing together of those words demand history.
hmmm...
(BTW: i see you're issuing "demands" again <g>)
>Or we have no ideas. No means of expression.
is that so?...
>All the way back at the beginning of this thread, I said that
>language is a construct that we have to agree on or nothing can
>be communicated.
yes, indeed, these were your most ironic words of all.
>The agreement is millennia and centuries and decades and years old.
look, Bobfusc, every day, zillions of children learn language without
knowing ANY "history" whatsover. get a major clue.
>Passed through the minds and expressions of hundreds of millions
>of people in that time.
yes, that's how language evolves in the larger context. irrelevant.
>The agreed upon definitions are the bricks we use to make the
>edifices of our ideas. The agreed upon forms are what we use
>to communicate the ideas to others.
this assumes that, for instance, music has some universal meaning.
i think i've proven that such thinking is utterly false. music is
a beauty which speaks in many tongues, beyond any agreed upon form,
just as flowers, birds, clouds, kisses, smiles, revelations, etc..
>Without shared information we may not even be aware of directly,
>we can't offer each other any communications beyond the most basic
>pantomime. I have to pee. I'm hungry.
which has been my point all along regarding esoteric references.
anyway, shared information can take many forms. however, by far,
the most prevalent of these forms is misinterpretation. yet,
regardless of these misinterpretations, we keep communicating.
why you insist that we make communication vague and puzzling
as a means for making it more coherent is beyond me.
>> it's obvious that i don't share the way you see zero. how could
>> i possibly look down on a man who encourages me to speak out,
yo, better consult Joe Scmoe <g>
>> to let my thoughts be known and not be afraid to show my ignorance
>> or who i really am, with the ultimate goal being communication
>> and the tweaking of my ideas to see if they truly serve me well?
>
>Try to offer strong disagreement and see how supportive he'll be.
funny you should imply some sort blind antagonism on my part. in
all the strong disagreements we've all ever had in this forum, i've
never once killfiled or shunned a single individual. that should
tell you something about how i react to strong disagreement as
compared to almost everyone else here.
people are so brainwashed that they can't even talk about various
topics. that's how frustrated they get with my disagreements with
them. that should tell any intelligent person a whole lot about how
i react to strong disagreement.
>Contradict him and see. Seriously disagree with him and ask
>him hard questions.
Bob, i've never shyed away from any so-called "hard questions."
quite the opposite. just because you don't like my verbal
assessments of those with whom i disagree, does not make said
assessments necessarily wrong (or right). in any case, i'm the
one who asks the hard questions, here. and man oh man, have
my hard questions been avoided. go ahead, ask me some "hard"
questions. watch what happens. watch the smokescreens fly
from dozens of people who disagree with my answers. watch the
intellectual cowards flee.
>Maybe try not to be so accommodating as your usually generous self.
Bob, what does it tell you that there's usually only one person
"brave" enough to even consider taking my side of an argument?
that i'm insane? or that most people are hopelessly brainwashed?
from a logical standpoint, i hope you can at least admit that both
of these two options is completely plausible. and if you think
me insane, i think _you're_ insane for continuing any discussions
with me (going on over four years, now). so, with that in mind,
what conclusion can you reasonably make in regards to which is
more likely true? are you brainwashed?... or i'm insane?
or... are you insane? <g>
>No one has discouraged you from speaking out or tried to, so far
>as I can see.
LOL. Arleen has been "advised" by various people not to take my side.
in fact, i can recall you, in particular, being among them.
>Offering disagreement isn't trying to shut you up. It's offering
>disagreement.
that's not all that has happened.
it's gone way beyond that, and you know it.
>Offer your ideas and see what the responses are. Disagreement
>isn't censorship.
but censorship is censorship... isn't it?
>Disagreement isn't an effort to silence you. There's no
>way to do that here. It's a moot point.
actually, there are many ways to censor posts, but you've
resorted to more than simple cancel bots. you and others
have taken your brainwash causes to email, for one.
>As for showing ignorance, we all do.
some more than others. some never realizing how much they show.
>The sin is not to be ignorant, it's to be *willfully* ignorant.
Bob, are you not willfully ignorant of any number of complex
disciplines?
>Proudly ignorant. Lazily ignorant.
and this shows how ignorant you are about my particular willful
ignorance. and shows how ignorant you are about the knowledge
that my willful ignorance brings me (which totally escapes you).
>Everyone here is ignorant about much, much more than they are
>knowledgeable about. No crime there and merely an element of
>the definition about what being human is. Ignorance of the
>sort that revels in itself is right next to prejudice.
who is prejudiced here? me or you? you confidently claim that
my willful ignorance of literature is nothing to revel in.
how have you made this determination? have you ever tried it?
can you even begin to understand the benefits? nope. instead
you condemn it. like a red-necked bigot. you attribute it to
"sour grapes." LOL. you're so ignorant of your own shortcomings
in this regard it eclipses all the "information" you've ever
gathered and utilized (or ever will).
>Makes judgements on inappropriate criteria.
see? bigotry. elitism. idjit. inappropriate? says who?
>Wants writing truncated in the name of some democratic ideal.
i never said anything about democracy in this discussion. i've
simply tried to tell you all how to stop wasting your time in your
deluded masturbational laziness (and only because most of you have
claimed to want to write coherently -- to use "agreed upon bricks
of language"). personally, i enjoy random poetry. i enjoy thinking
for myself, so i have no problem at all with how you choose to
communicate. i can get lots out of it. maybe not what you
intended, but that's your fault, not mine.
>Wants it simpler and less laden and wrought.
only regarding elitist references. not substance.
>Wants life in general to be easily apprehended because it
>seems like it should be.
wrong again. i'm merely trying to educate you educated idjits.
i revel in all manner of complexities (as well as simplicities).
you just want me to admire you for what you believe you've
accomplished. it irritates you that i don't. it irritates you
that i see your "educated" smokescreens for what they are, laziness.
it irritates you when i suggest that writers ought to discipline
themselves into writing in such a way as to actually better
articulate the complexities that they've learned from others,
to translate these complexities into rich language that almost
anyone can understand (instead of lazily citing or alluding
to references that hardly anyone knows -- merely to avoid
articulate writing). that's what distinguishes great writing
from the mediocre.
>Wants life in general to be easily apprehended because it
>seems like it should be. But it isn't. And that fact is
>indictment enough. Life isn't simple. Never has been.
all evidence to the contrary. anyway, if you want your life to
be so bizarrely complicated, there's no shortage of ways to do so.
if you wish to complicate yours and others' lives further, you're
free to do so. it's all a matter of personal preference.
dumb down? no. smarten up.
[...]
>Pastorio
-$Zero... WhoPrefersComplexities... WhichInspire... NotObfuscate...
Paine Ellsworth
>
> 868u
>
> Re: modernism (was: Re: Hello, My Name is Bob, and... I'm an Elitist)
>
> dumb down? no. smarten up.
>
> Bob Pastorio Past...@rica.net wrote in denial:
>
> >The Apprentice wrote:
> >>
> >> you seem to place all that mankind has been and done on
> >> some sort of pedestal of worship.
> >
> >I worship nothing.
>
> semantics.
LOL! -- i picked up on the "I worship nothing" as a possible
Pastoriofreudian slip --
(Nothing = Zero) --
> dumb down? no. smarten up.
>
> [...]
>
> >Pastorio
>
> -$Zero... WhoPrefersComplexities... WhichInspire... NotObfuscate...
Deep down in the pit of his plexus, Bob really likes you, Peter --
-- "pro bono publico"
Indelibly yours,
Paine (but you already knew that)
Bob Pastorio
>
> Zero wrote:
> >
> > 868u
> >
> > Re: modernism (was: Re: Hello, My Name is Bob, and... I'm an Elitist)
> >
> > dumb down? no. smarten up.
> >
> > Bob Pastorio Past...@rica.net wrote in denial:
> >
> > >The Apprentice wrote:
> > >>
> > >> you seem to place all that mankind has been and done on
> > >> some sort of pedestal of worship.
> > >
> > >I worship nothing.
> >
> > semantics.
>
> Pastoriofreudian slip --
>
> (Nothing = Zero) --
Even for reference and symbolism junkies, this is a stretch. And, I'm
antisemantics from way back.
> > dumb down? no. smarten up.
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > >Pastorio
> >
> > -$Zero... WhoPrefersComplexities... WhichInspire... NotObfuscate...
>
> Deep down in the pit of his plexus, Bob really likes you, Peter --
>
> -- "pro bono publico"
> Indelibly yours,
> Paine (but you already knew that)
Like pit-cooked BBQ.
One needs ones recreations.
Pastorio (try that one for levels...)
nancy
>>The best of it helps me to avoid making the same mistakes as
>>others have in the past.
>
>LOL. you're funny Bob. i've seen you make the exact same
>mistakes over and over and over again. mistakes that others
>have made, over and over and over again. you demonstrate
>quite beautifully that knowing "history" is not nearly
>enough. not even close.
>
one has to agree on what constitutes a "mistake", yes?
--
n
You know you're addicted to the 'net when you decide to stay in
college for an additional year or two, just for the free
Internet access.