Drummond's Anagram Rules
richard kennedy
collected works, published long after his death, 1711. This is the
best contemporary essay on anagrams that I've see, and he gives the
rules of anagrams, as the rules were in those days of Jonson and
Shakespeare.
In 1612 there was published a book called "Minerva Britanna" by
another man who wrote on anagrams, and invented anagrams. On the
title page of that book is printed out, quite plainly,
MENTE VIDEBOR = By the mind shall I be seen.
This is taken to be an anagram, the context is very convincing, and
the Oxfordians make it out to read:
TIBI NOM DE VERE = My name is De Vere.
The question is this, and let David Kathman answer to it, or let Webb
answer for him, it makes no difference, they are joined at the mouth.
The question is:
ACCORDING TO DRUMMOND'S RULES, IS THERE ANY FAULT IN THE ABOVE
ANAGRAM?
Here are Drummond's rules as known to the Elizabethans and Jocobeans.
-------------------------------------------------
1. In an Anagram there must not be fewer nor more nor other Letters,
but the same, and as many as in the name. It is named also by the
Greeks [Greek], which is the transposition of letters.
2. >Anagramma est clausula quae ex artificiosa literarum omnium, neque
plurium, alicujus nominis transpositione componitur. Dicitur proprie
clausula, id quod aliquid claudit.< It is called a sentence. >Est
Anagrammatismus particula orationis, & quatuor plus minus dictiones
continet,cum tamen unam persaepe contineat. This is the Law of an
Anagram, That no Letter be added, nor any taken away. This admitteth
some Exceptions, which is, That some one or other Letter may be
omitted; but with great Judgment, That that Letter be no principal
Letter of the Name, which is omitted: But such, without which the Name
may consist. For when the same Letters occur many times in the Name,
then the Omission of one or more is pardonable; especially for some
excellent Sense that agreeth to the Person, as in that of Auratus
PIERRE DE RONSARD, ROSE DE PINDARE, of four R s, two are omitted.
3. A Letter may easily be omitted, without whose Help, the Name by it
self may stand; as H, which placed behind, after Consonants, seemeth
not much to alter the Power of the Name; which Letter some of the
Latins have abolished, thinking it rather an Aspiration than a Letter
4. It was said, that no Letter should be taken away; yet, if there be
any great Reason, a Letter may be added as >relligio, repperit<; or
rather a Letter may be doubled, as when two Letters occur in the Name,
one may be abolished, so one of Necessity may be doubled.
5. All Diphthongs may be separated >per Diaeresin<; and even so, two
Vowels >per Synaeresin<, may be conjoin d, which Auratus practiced in
the Name of Jesus, [Greek].
6. So some think, the Diphthong being forgot, we may use and take only
the last and founding Letter: But, for the most part, we must keep
Orthography, as it is vulgarly and by approved Authors used; and if we
adjoin a Letter, let us add one of these which make up the Name, that
we seem not so much to have adjoined one, as doubled it. So a Jesuit
doubled the Letter S, in the Anagram of >Ignatius de Loyola; O iguis a
Deo illatus<; and another turn d it, >Lita ei anguis doli<.
7. If it be asked, Whether adjecting or omitting be more to be
tolerated? I answer, Adjecting; for so by Nature we are prepared
rather to take, than have an Loss.
8. It is sometime lawful to change one Letter into another, That is,
for one letter to put another, which is the admitting of one, and
omitting of another: Yet, I would think, these Letters must be such as
may change into others, as D. into T. which the Spaniards use in the
Latine Cado for Cato.
9. A double Letter, not unhappily, may be changed into a simple, as Z.
into S. I would say, divided as Z into S D.
10. But the Conclusion is, the Anagrammatism is so much the more
perfect, the farther it be from all License.
11. The Definition says, >Alicujus nominis<, which is to be understood
of proper Names, yet not only in Persons, but in Names of other
Things, may an Anagrammatism be made. By Name, here is to be
understood generally the Sirname, Fore-name, affixed Name, as Publius
Cornelius Scipio Africanus; or the Name of any Dignity.
12. Ye may use one Name, as Valesius, Laus Jesu; for many Nations have
but one Name, but oftner the Name and Sirname are turned.
13. It is to be observed, That not only Names of Men, but the Names of
any other Thing, as Trees, Floods, Towns, may be turned, as Roma,
Mora. Cur varios tamdiu remoratur Roma clientes, Forte quod inverso
nomine Roma Mora est.
14. There is in the Definition, (Transposition) because if any Sense
be in the Name of Letters not transposed it is not so much an Anagram
as >equivoque<, as Anna Grame, Anagram, - - - What needs an Anagrame,
Since that her very Name is Anna Grame.
Peter Groves
news:32b2d000.03082...@posting.google.com...
> Ben Jonson's friend, William Drummond, has an essay on anagrams in his
> collected works, published long after his death, 1711. This is the
> best contemporary essay on anagrams that I've see, and he gives the
> rules of anagrams, as the rules were in those days of Jonson and
> Shakespeare.
>
> In 1612 there was published a book called "Minerva Britanna" by
> another man who wrote on anagrams, and invented anagrams. On the
> title page of that book is printed out, quite plainly,
>
> MENTE VIDEBOR = By the mind shall I be seen.
>
> This is taken to be an anagram, the context is very convincing, and
> the Oxfordians make it out to read:
>
> TIBI NOM DE VERE = My name is De Vere.
>
> The question is this, and let David Kathman answer to it, or let Webb
> answer for him, it makes no difference, they are joined at the mouth.
> The question is:
>
> ACCORDING TO DRUMMOND'S RULES, IS THERE ANY FAULT IN THE ABOVE
> ANAGRAM?
>
I wonder why the moron persists in displaying his stupidity and ignorance in
public in this fashion. Many times it has been pointed out to him that
"tibi" is the dative of "tu" and in this context (if "nom" were a Latin
word) would mean "your", not "my". Amusingly, it's only two weeks since
David Webb wrote that "Other anti-Stratfordians (e.g., Richard Kennedy) can
see their comic blunders corrected -- but even if they understood and even
acknowledged the correction at the time, after a few weeks have elapsed they
will have generally forgotten it completely and will post the same
discredited canard *again*! (One wonders how long it will be before Kennedy
once again hallucinates Eva Turner Clark's nonexistent "Nom tibi de Vere
"anagram.")"
Peter G.
Bob Grumman
> >
> > This is taken to be an anagram, the context is very convincing, and
> > the Oxfordians make it out to read:
> >
> > TIBI NOM DE VERE = My name is De Vere.
> >
> > The question is this, and let David Kathman answer to it, or let Webb
> > answer for him, it makes no difference, they are joined at the mouth.
> > The question is:
> >
> > ACCORDING TO DRUMMOND'S RULES, IS THERE ANY FAULT IN THE ABOVE
> > ANAGRAM?
> >
>
> I wonder why the moron persists in displaying his stupidity and ignorance in
> public in this fashion. Many times it has been pointed out to him that
> "tibi" is the dative of "tu" and in this context (if "nom" were a Latin
> word
And there were two i's in MENTE VIDEBOR--though, as I recall, Clark imagined one.
richard kennedy
Vere" rather than "My name is de Vere," all same-same in the context,
which is the secret hand reaching out from behind the curtain.
So, you may have it in the Latin you wish, but the question was to
find out something wrong in the anagram according to the contemporary
rules given by Drummond. You haven't touched on this.
Incidently, it doesn't do your paragraph any good to insert "I wonder
why the moron persists in displaying his stupidity and ignorance in
public in this fashion." Nor to speak of "hallucinations". Do your
work, leave out the name-calling, and we'll see who wins.
------------------------------------
"Peter Groves" <Monti...@NOSPAMbigpond.com> wrote in message news:<Jsw2b.63006$bo1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
Peter Groves
news:32b2d000.03082...@posting.google.com...
> Vere" rather than "My name is de Vere," all same-same in the context,
> which is the secret hand reaching out from behind the curtain.
>
Not really; even if your anagram were lausible, DeVere would no longer be
the secet man behind the curtain.
> So, you may have it in the Latin you wish, but the question was to
> find out something wrong in the anagram according to the contemporary
> rules given by Drummond. You haven't touched on this.
>
Where exactly do the rules permit an anagrammed message to be macaronic--and
in no fewer than three languages?
> Incidently, it doesn't do your paragraph any good to insert "I wonder
> why the moron persists in displaying his stupidity and ignorance in
> public in this fashion."
It seems like a reaonable thing to wonder about (I'm still puzzled). And
the word "moron" seems quite apt for someone who is not simply ignorant, but
pontificates from the depth of his ignorance, and seems incapable of
learning from the repeated correction of that ignorance. As a dog returneth
to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.
> Nor to speak of "hallucinations".
I realize this is about as careful and accurate as your reading ever gets,
but I'm afraid that was David Webb. If you can't attribute authorship
accurately in a post that's under your nose, why do you suppose anyone
should take seriously your attribution of works that are four centuries old?
Peter G.
Peter Groves
David L. Webb
"Peter Groves" <Monti...@NOSPAMbigpond.com> wrote:
> "richard kennedy" <stai...@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:32b2d000.03082...@posting.google.com...
> > It's quite all right with me if the translation is "Your name is de
> > Vere" rather than "My name is de Vere," all same-same in the context,
> > which is the secret hand reaching out from behind the curtain.
> Not really; even if your anagram were lausible, DeVere would no longer be
> the secet man behind the curtain.
> > So, you may have it in the Latin you wish,
It is complete gibberish in Latin -- but regrettably Kennedy doesn't
know Latin from laudanum, so he has no way of knowing this. More
accurately, he does have some means of knowing it; indeed, he has been
told -- repeatedly -- by those who do know the tongue that the phrase is
meaningless, macaronic gibberish, but Kennedy's acute amnesia insures
that even endless repetitions of the same information never penetrate
his skull, except perhaps very briefly, and even then only in a
thoroughly garbled state.
> > but the question was to
> > find out something wrong in the anagram according to the contemporary
> > rules given by Drummond. You haven't touched on this.
> Where exactly do the rules permit an anagrammed message to be macaronic--and
> in no fewer than three languages?
Since the lesser Kennedy knows NONE of the three languages required
to make any sense (such as there is) of this absurd non-anagram, and
since he can never remember what he is told for more than five minutes
in any case, he is blissfully unaware that it is utter nonsense.
> > Incidently, it doesn't do your paragraph any good to insert "I wonder
> > why the moron persists in displaying his stupidity and ignorance in
> > public in this fashion."
> It seems like a reaonable thing to wonder about (I'm still puzzled).
As am I -- even though I predicted that this would happen.
> And
> the word "moron" seems quite apt for someone who is not simply ignorant, but
> pontificates from the depth of his ignorance, and seems incapable of
> learning from the repeated correction of that ignorance. As a dog returneth
> to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.
> > Nor to speak of "hallucinations".
> I realize this is about as careful and accurate as your reading ever gets,
> but I'm afraid that was David Webb.
Misattributions are the lesser Kennedy's stock in trade.
> If you can't attribute authorship
> accurately in a post that's under your nose, why do you suppose anyone
> should take seriously your attribution of works that are four centuries old?
As far as I know, nobody does.
richard kennedy
"even if your anagram were plausible"
Very plausible, given that Peacham favored anagrams, and gave us
several in his book, some invented by himself, and he also wrote an
essay on their construction. The idea of anagrams is that the prompt
can be turned to a name. In the case of MENTE VIDEBOR, it's not only
plausible that the hidden person is spelling out a name in the phrase,
it's reasonable. Your notion that it isn't so, is NOT plausible.
Of course the solution might not be TIBI NOM DE VERE, since you don't
like pasta. If not, then what might be the solution otherwise?
Stonehouse knows some Latin, let him give it a try.
richard kennedy
that was okay with Peacham. This was posted some time ago.
--------------------------------------------------------
Not that I expected anything to come of my suggestion about God being
behind the curtain. The point is, the Stratfordians here have failed
to dismiss TIBI NOM DE VERE as a workable anagram for MENTE VIDEBOR,
and they need a way to get away from the question.
So who does that arm belong to? And why are the first three words of
the first emblem in the book, "A SECRET ARM"? Even Dr. Watson would
twig that something was going on here.
Watson: I say, Holmes, do you suppose that Peacham was asking us to
consider that secret arm on the title page? Uh?
Holmes: Elementary, my dear Watson, and if I were not totally stoned,
I'd work out some anagram to discover whose arm it is.
Watson: Uh, an anagram you say? Harumph, harumph.
Holmes: Hardly to be doubted, my dear fellow, Peacham being somewhat
gamesome in that way, a maker of anagrams throughout his book.
Watson: Good show, Holmes. Great Scot, you do astound me!
Holmes: Child's play, Watson, but none the less, deucedly clever.
Watson: A riddle, Holmes? A poser, what? God knows, eh?
Holmes: Ah, I think you've hit upon it, Watson! The figure behind the
curtain is God! There's our name. Pass me that Latin dictionary, old
chap. The games afoot, the noun is God, and now to smoke out the verb.
Watson: Confound it, Holmes, smoking those herbs will ruin your health
.
In a very short time, with space to walk about the parlor scratching
upon his violin, Holmes comes up with MENTE VIDEBOR to play out as
VERBO, DI MENTE, and he is satisfied, something about the "word" being
in the mind of God, and he settled down with his pipe.
Watson, meanwhile, has taken to pen and paper and has come up with a
different anagram. "Here it is, Holmes, I set it down in English, the
mother tongue of Minerva Britanna. Might as well, you know - this
fellow Pecham went from German to Latin, ICH DIEN to HIC INDE on the
dedication page, you see. Why not Latin to English, eh? - what's good
for the goose, you know. Here it is, Holmes. Harumph, I say Holmes,
are you listening?
"Entirely," my dear Watson, "what have you got there? Pass me that
cannister, will you, old chap. Go ahead, Watson."
"Huh, yes - quite. You see Holmes, it's in English, if you can read my
scribbling. I take it that the figure behind the curtain is Minerva
Brit anna, whomever that might be. M.B., shall we name him, eh? Then
we're called to notice those scrolls circling the fellow, saying how
genius lives forever. So there you have it, Holmes, MENTE VIDEBOR
might be an anagram to say, ah, let me have that paper, Holmes. Yes,
there we have it, I should venture, MENTE VIDEBOR comes out to say MB:
NEVER TO DIE."
Holmes, however, has been looking out the window, and remarks: "Hello.
There's a curiosity, Watson. That duck crossing the street, disguised
as a man, mark the webbed feet. Wait - he's asking a Bobby for an
address. Now he's looking toward our door. Do you have your revolver
about you, Watson? Good. Listen. Mrs. Hudson is letting him in below.
When he knocks, I'll open the door. Don't be deceived, old fellow,
it's Dr. Moriarity. When he starts quacking, shoot him at once."
Terry Ross
> Groves wrote:
>
> "even if your anagram were plausible"
>
> Very plausible, given that Peacham favored anagrams, and gave us several
> in his book, some invented by himself, and he also wrote an essay on
> their construction.
There is no reason to think that Peacham had any anagram whatsoever in
mind for MENTE VIDEBOR. Nor is there any reason to think that the title
page of *Minerva Britanna* has anything whatsoever to do with Shakespeare
or his works or the authorship of anything except *Minerva Britanna*
itself, which was written by Henry Peacham. The only element on the title
page that was also the subject of one of Peacham's anagrams was his own
name. He modestly devotes an emblem to himself on page 177 of *Minerva
Britanna* and from "Henricus Peachamus" creates the anagram "Hinc super
haec Musa."
Peacham in his references to the Vere family name in *Minerva Britanna*
and *The Compleat Gentleman* always uses "Vere" and never uses "de Vere"
(Camden does the same in his *Remains*, which was a work Peacham seems to
have consulted for his own anagramming). When Peacham uses "Vere" it is
never in reference to Edward the Seventeenth earl of Oxford but always to
some other member of that illustrious family, so even if you come up with
anagrams including "Vere" or "De Vere" you still have not identified any
particular Vere. Based on Peacham's usage, IF he had intended to create
an anagram for your man, it would probably have been based on something
like "Eduuardus Verus Comes Oxfordiensis," a phrase from which hundreds of
anagrams could be formed. However, Peacham left us no anagrams whatsoever
about your man, so there's really no point in trying to guess which of
those hundreds of possibilities he might have meant IF he had created an
anagram.
Peacham gives us 15 anagrams based on names in *Minerva Britanna* (and one
that is "ICH DIEN" = "HIC, INDE") and another 15 or so in *The Compleat
Gentleman* (there are two that he uses in each). Every single time
Peacham forms the anagram on a person's name or title. There are NEVER
words that are not part of the name or title.
From a name or title Peacham then constructs an anagram using every letter
of that name or title, and he gives us the anagram (several of the
anagrams in *Minerva Britanna* are taken from other authors, and Peacham
identifies the author each time). To my knowledge Peacham nowhere in any
of his works creates an anagram out of the letters in MENTE VIDEBOR, nor
does he ever give us a name or title that is an anagram of that phrase.
You may play with the letters of MENTE VIDEBOR all you want, but there is
no reason to believe that there is an anagram that Peacham had in mind or
that such an alleged anagram would be recoverable even if Peacham had
meant to insert some private puzzle for his own amusement.
As the Friedmans say,
"In the absence of a key, any lengthy sequence of letters with the normal
proportions of high, medium, and low-frequency vowels and consonants may
be anagrammed in a large number of ways. Hence there may be as many
'solutions' as the solver's ingenuity can produce and each will be as
valid as any other, but none will carry any objective conviction. There is
always room for doubt unless the man who composed the anagram recreates
his own message from it; for only he knows for certain what message he
intended to conceal."
In the case of Peacham, we have dozens of genuine anagrams. We know this
because in each case he gave us the "solution" to the anagrammed name or
title. Sometimes he gives multiple "solutions": he provides two anagrams
on "Theodosia Dixon" and six anagrams on "Amie Mordount" in *The Compleat
Gentleman*. He does not, however, provide any anagrams on MENTE VIDEBOR.
There is no reason to suspect that he meant for us to look for an anagram
in that phrase, and even if we pretend that he did, there is no way to say
which of the hundreds of possible anagrams would be among the "solutions"
he would have favored.
> The idea of anagrams is that the prompt can be turned to a name. In the
> case of MENTE VIDEBOR, it's not only plausible that the hidden person is
> spelling out a name in the phrase, it's reasonable. Your notion that it
> isn't so, is NOT plausible.
Anyone who wishes may try to form anagrams on any strong of letters.
There is no reason to believe that Peacham intended readers to form
anagrams on MENTE VIDEBOR, and there is no way to determine 400 years
later which of the many possible anagrams Peacham might have approved of.
>
> Of course the solution might not be TIBI NOM DE VERE, since you don't
> like pasta. If not, then what might be the solution otherwise?
> Stonehouse knows some Latin, let him give it a try.
>
What solution? There is no reason to suppose Peacham thought MENTE
VIDEBOR was a phrase that should be anagrammed. We CAN be pretty sure
that he would not have considered TIBI NOM DE VERE a valid anagram of the
letters in MENTE VIDEBOR, but there is no reason to think he had any valid
anagram of the letters in mind at all.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross Visit the SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP home page
http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
richard kennedy
an anagram, I understand that. The reason, if I may guess at it, would
be that the name De Vere can be got from the letters.
In the first place, I think it to be obvious that we are dealing here
with some person who can't be known from the picture shown to us. Does
Peacham mean that secret to be kept to himself alone? No. Peacham is
giving us a mystery to solve, some sort of puzzle. And what better to
answer the mystery than an anagram. He was charmed by the toy, and
adept in its use.
Peacham has hidden someone behind the curtain, showing us only his arm
writing those words MENTE VIDEBOR. Ross says in effect, "Pay no
attention to that man behind the curtain." He takes this to be an
argument.
Following the front material of Minerva Britanna, Peacham gives us
some 200 emblems with poems beneath. The first poem beneath the first
emblem, has for the very first words: "A secret arm..." If we might
want a "key" to assure that he has a "secret" to share, this would
suffice for the Jacobeans. Ross takes a unlikely position, saying that
the title page picture is nothing more than a decoration, do I have
that right?
Of course another name might be got out of MENTE VIDEBOR, and someone
might work at that who knows a bit of Latin. Even to make an English
anagram out of it would do, such as Peacham did himself with ICH DIEN
going to the Latin, HIC INDE. Maybe De Vere was not intended at all,
but >something< was intended, and it won't do to say "Pay no attention
to that man behind the curtain," which is Ross's argument,
essentially.
Terry Ross <tr...@bcpl.net> wrote in message news:<Pine.GSO.4.55.0308261402420.25029@mail>...
Robert Stonehouse
wrote:
>Groves wrote:
>"even if your anagram were plausible"
>Of course the solution might not be TIBI NOM DE VERE, since you don't
>like pasta. If not, then what might be the solution otherwise?
>Stonehouse knows some Latin, let him give it a try.
VERE TIMENDO B - by being truly afraid of B (who he?)
DEO TRIBE NUME(N) - to God attribute divinity
BREVI METENDO - by briefly cutting the grass
DUM ENTE EBRIO - while, with a drunken entity
A job lot, I fear.
David L. Webb
stai...@charter.net (richard kennedy) wrote:
There are several solutions that are manifestly superior to the
lesser Kennedy's proposed "solution." These solutions are superior in
several respects:
(1) They are *genuine* anagrams, not inane near-anagrams in which the
solution text doesn't even have the same number of letters as the
initial text to be anagrammed;
(2) They make sense, unlike the gibberish "Nom tib[i] de Vere";
(3) They use only a single language, not a moronic, macaronic mixture of
words from three languages.
In addition, Richard Kennedy should acknowledge their clear superiority
because they even pertain to Edward de Vere.
One such solution, which I diffidently proposed the last time Kennedy
hallucinated this nonexistent "anagram," is
"Bend over time,"
a locution no doubt addressed to Orazio Cogno by de Vere whenever the
latter was feeling amorous -- no wonder Peacham depicted him concealed
behind a curtain!
Another solution, proposed by Kennedy's idol and anagrammatic mentor,
Art Neuendorffer, is
"De Vere in tomb."
Or, since Kennedy appears to think that repeating or dropping letters is
permissible, perhaps the most obvious solution is
"I'm not de Vere."
Peter Groves
news:david.l.webb-7EC1...@merrimack.dartmouth.edu...
By Kennedy's Rules it could be *anything* -- including "William Shakespeare
wrote his own plays, wacks."
--
Peter G., Pistori nostro quem rescivimus planum esse.
Bob Grumman
> > Art Neuendorffer, is
> >
> > "De Vere in tomb."
> >
> > Or, since Kennedy appears to think that repeating or dropping letters is
> > permissible, perhaps the most obvious solution is
> >
> > "I'm not de Vere."
>
> By Kennedy's Rules it could be *anything* -- including "William Shakespeare
> wrote his own plays, wacks."
Don't get too mad at me for saying it, Peter, but it's interesting how
rigorous you are about anagrams compared with how loose about iambic
pentameters.
--Bob G.
Peter Groves
news:5f7d2eb3.03082...@posting.google.com...
Bob, the two cases aren't really comparable. Anagrams are very simple, and
exist on one level: they are just transpositions of letters into new
meaningful arrangements of letters, so that X counts as an anagram of Y if
and only if it has the same selection of letter-tokens (as opposed to
letter-types). Meter is a lot more complicated because many more things
(and levels of things) are involved: at one (rather abstract) level all
*metrical* pentameters are the same (they can be related in a definable way
to an underlying paradigm), and different from all unmetrical ones; at the
concrete level of actual performance all actual utterances of metrical
pentameters are different, like all snowflakes or fingerprints. The written
forms we bandy about lie somewhere between these two extremes.
And thanks for 'wacks' -- it's such an appropriate word here.
John W. Kennedy
> Don't get too mad at me for saying it, Peter, but it's interesting how
> rigorous you are about anagrams compared with how loose about iambic
> pentameters.
You still fail to understand that, in thousands of years of Western
culture, terms such as "iambic pentameter" have never been literally
applied in the manner that you wish to. To take the most obvious
example, "dactylic hexameter", the meter of the Iliad, the Odyssey, and
the Aeneid, is _never_ composed of six dactylic feet. It is, rather,
four dactyls-or-spondees, one dactyl (or, for a very rare special
effect, a spondee), and one spondee. A line of six dactyls would be
outright wrong, and more than two or three successive lines of five
dactyls and one spondee would be comical.
Not to mention that the application of the word "iamb" to English verse
is wrong in the first place, because it really means "short-long" (as in
"toweled" or "begrimed"), not "weak-strong" (as in "dissolved" or "flambé").
--
John W. Kennedy
"You can, if you wish, class all science-fiction
together; but it is about as perceptive as classing the
works of Ballantyne, Conrad and W. W. Jacobs together
as the 'sea-story' and then criticizing _that_."
-- C. S. Lewis. "An Experiment in Criticism"
Bob Grumman
> > rigorous you are about anagrams compared with how loose about iambic
> > pentameters.
> >
> > --Bob G.
>
> Bob, the two cases aren't really comparable.
I dunno, Peter. I see it as two terms, one of which you want
rigorously defined, the other of which you're satisfied (perhaps
properly) with a loose definition, and both of which I want rigorously
defined. I grant you that metrical lines are more complex than
anagrams. Now, no more. I have to work on my monograph concerning
the Crowleyan pun, any word whose synonym can be shown to be a pun for
something connected in any way to Edward DeVere and is totally
unconnected to the text involved.
--Bob G.
richard kennedy
and then 8 through 14.
8. It is sometime lawful to change one Letter into another, That is,
> for one letter to put another, which is the admitting of one, and
> omitting of another: Yet, I would think, these Letters must be such as
> may change into others, as D. into T. which the Spaniards use in the
> Latine Cado for Cato.
>
> 9. A double Letter, not unhappily, may be changed into a simple, as Z.
> into S. I would say, divided as Z into S D.
>
> 10. But the Conclusion is, the Anagrammatism is so much the more
> perfect, the farther it be from all License.
>
> 11. The Definition says, >Alicujus nominis<, which is to be understood
> of proper Names, yet not only in Persons, but in Names of other
> Things, may an Anagrammatism be made. By Name, here is to be
> understood generally the Sirname, Fore-name, affixed Name, as Publius
> Cornelius Scipio Africanus; or the Name of any Dignity.
>
> 12. Ye may use one Name, as Valesius, Laus Jesu; for many Nations have
> but one Name, but oftner the Name and Sirname are turned.
>
> 13. It is to be observed, That not only Names of Men, but the Names of
> any other Thing, as Trees, Floods, Towns, may be turned, as Roma,
> Mora. Cur varios tamdiu remoratur Roma clientes, Forte quod inverso
> nomine Roma Mora est.
>
> 14. There is in the Definition, (Transposition) because if any Sense
> be in the Name of Letters not transposed it is not so much an Anagram
> as >equivoque<, as Anna Grame, Anagram, - - - What needs an Anagrame,
> Since that her very Name is Anna Grame.
stai...@charter.net (richard kennedy) wrote in message news:<32b2d000.03082...@posting.google.com>...
Peter Groves
> > > rigorous you are about anagrams compared with how loose about iambic
> > > pentameters.
> > >
> > > --Bob G.
> >
> > Bob, the two cases aren't really comparable.
>
> I dunno, Peter. I see it as two terms, one of which you want
> rigorously defined, the other of which you're satisfied (perhaps
> properly) with a loose definition,
You've done a little bit of a Crowley on me here, Bob, by snipping my
argument. I'm not satisfied with a loose definition of pentameter: it was
precisely the unsatisfactory looseness of the traditional definition that
fuelled my research. What I have provided is a complex but rigorous
definition, sufficiently complex to require a whole book to set it forth.
--
Peter G., Pistori nostro quem rescivimus planum esse.
> and both of which I want rigorously
Peter Groves
news:32b2d000.03082...@posting.google.com...
> collected works, published long after his death, 1711. This is the
> best contemporary essay on anagrams that I've see, and he gives the
> rules of anagrams, as the rules were in those days of Jonson and
> Shakespeare.
>
> In 1612 there was published a book called "Minerva Britanna" by
> another man who wrote on anagrams, and invented anagrams. On the
> title page of that book is printed out, quite plainly,
>
> MENTE VIDEBOR = By the mind shall I be seen.
>
> This is taken to be an anagram, the context is very convincing, and
> the Oxfordians make it out to read:
>
> TIBI NOM DE VERE = My name is De Vere.
>
> The question is this, and let David Kathman answer to it, or let Webb
> answer for him, it makes no difference, they are joined at the mouth.
> The question is:
>
> ACCORDING TO DRUMMOND'S RULES, IS THERE ANY FAULT IN THE ABOVE
> ANAGRAM?
The poor drunken old sod has forgotten this exchange (admittedly it was
earlier in the week, putting a severe strain on his gin-sodden memory):
Groves: "I wonder why the moron persists in displaying his stupidity and
ignorance in
public in this fashion. Many times it has been pointed out to him that
"tibi" is the dative of "tu" and in this context (if "nom" were a Latin
word) would mean "your", not "my". Amusingly, it's only two weeks since
David Webb wrote that "Other anti-Stratfordians (e.g., Richard Kennedy) can
see their comic blunders corrected -- but even if they understood and even
acknowledged the correction at the time, after a few weeks have elapsed they
will have generally forgotten it completely and will post the same
discredited canard *again*! (One wonders how long it will be before Kennedy
once again hallucinates Eva Turner Clark's nonexistent "Nom tibi de Vere
"anagram.")"
Kennedy, the moron: "It's quite all right with me if the translation is
"Your name is de
Vere" rather than "My name is de Vere," all same-same in the context,
which is the secret hand reaching out from behind the curtain."
It's sad, really; he should be in some sort of institution.
Peter G.
Bob Grumman
> Bob Grumman wrote:
> > Don't get too mad at me for saying it, Peter, but it's interesting how
> > rigorous you are about anagrams compared with how loose about iambic
> > pentameters.
>
> You still fail to understand that, in thousands of years of Western
> culture, terms such as "iambic pentameter" have never been literally
> applied in the manner that you wish to.
No, I don't care. Most words in all languages are used less
rigorously than I would want them to be.
> To take the most obvious
> example, "dactylic hexameter", the meter of the Iliad, the Odyssey, and
> the Aeneid, is _never_ composed of six dactylic feet. It is, rather,
> four dactyls-or-spondees, one dactyl (or, for a very rare special
> effect, a spondee), and one spondee. A line of six dactyls would be
> outright wrong, and more than two or three successive lines of five
> dactyls and one spondee would be comical.
So? I would say that it was poorly named. What is so horrible about
deciding that the meter of Homer, etc., is not dactylic hexameter, but
something else that has been miscalled dactylic hexameter for
centuries? Why is it wrong to distinguish regular dactylic hexameter
from irregular dactylic hexameter or mixed meters, and regular iambic
from irregular? Perhaps we can just use adjectives like "regular" and
"irregular." I prefer trying to find names.
> Not to mention that the application of the word "iamb" to English verse
> is wrong in the first place, because it really means "short-long" (as in
> "toweled" or "begrimed"), not "weak-strong" (as in "dissolved" or "flambé").
I think it has meant an unstressed syllable followed by a stressed one
long enough for it to be called that--but I think we need a better
name for unaccented/accented.
(I'd pronounce "toweled" as one syllable; if I had to do it in two
syllables, they'd be long/short, and strong/weak. "Begrimed" is
surely weak/strong?)
--Bob G.
richard kennedy
collected works, published long after his death, 1711. This is the
best contemporary essay on anagrams that I've see, and he gives the
rules of anagrams, as the rules were in those days of Jonson and
Shakespeare.
In 1612 there was published a book called "Minerva Britanna" by
another man who wrote on anagrams, and invented anagrams. On the
title page of that book is printed out, quite plainly,
MENTE VIDEBOR = By the mind shall I be seen.
This is taken to be an anagram, the context is very convincing, and
the Oxfordians make it out to read:
TIBI NOM DE VERE = My name is De Vere.
The question is this, and let David Kathman answer to it, or let Webb
answer for him, it makes no difference, they are joined at the mouth.
The question is:
ACCORDING TO DRUMMOND'S RULES, IS THERE ANY FAULT IN THE ABOVE
ANAGRAM?
Here are Drummond's rules as known to the Elizabethans and Jocobeans.
-------------------------------------------------
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net (Bob Grumman) wrote in message news:<5f7d2eb3.03082...@posting.google.com>...
Peter Groves
was
earlier in the week, putting a severe strain on his gin-sodden memory):
Groves: "I wonder why the moron persists in displaying his stupidity and
ignorance in
public in this fashion. Many times it has been pointed out to him that
"tibi" is the dative of "tu" and in this context (if "nom" were a Latin
word) would mean "your", not "my". Amusingly, it's only two weeks since
David Webb wrote that "Other anti-Stratfordians (e.g., Richard Kennedy) can
see their comic blunders corrected -- but even if they understood and even
acknowledged the correction at the time, after a few weeks have elapsed they
will have generally forgotten it completely and will post the same
discredited canard *again*! (One wonders how long it will be before Kennedy
once again hallucinates Eva Turner Clark's nonexistent "Nom tibi de Vere
"anagram.")"
Kennedy, the moron: "It's quite all right with me if the translation is
"Your name is de
Vere" rather than "My name is de Vere," all same-same in the context,
which is the secret hand reaching out from behind the curtain."
It's sad, really; he should be in some sort of institution.
--
Peter G., Pistori nostro quem rescivimus planum esse.
"richard kennedy" <stai...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:32b2d000.03082...@posting.google.com...
David L. Webb
"Peter Groves" <Monti...@NOSPAMbigpond.com> wrote:
> The poor drunken old sod Kennedy has forgotten this exchange (admittedly it
> was
> earlier in the week, putting a severe strain on his gin-sodden memory):
>
> Groves: "I wonder why the moron persists in displaying his stupidity and
> ignorance in
> public in this fashion. Many times it has been pointed out to him that
> "tibi" is the dative of "tu" and in this context (if "nom" were a Latin
> word) would mean "your", not "my". Amusingly, it's only two weeks since
> David Webb wrote that "Other anti-Stratfordians (e.g., Richard Kennedy) can
> see their comic blunders corrected -- but even if they understood and even
> acknowledged the correction at the time, after a few weeks have elapsed they
> will have generally forgotten it completely and will post the same
> discredited canard *again*! (One wonders how long it will be before Kennedy
> once again hallucinates Eva Turner Clark's nonexistent "Nom tibi de Vere
> "anagram.")"
>
> Kennedy, the moron: "It's quite all right with me if the translation is
> "Your name is de
> Vere" rather than "My name is de Vere," all same-same in the context,
> which is the secret hand reaching out from behind the curtain."
>
> It's sad, really; he should be in some sort of institution.
>
> --
> Peter G., Pistori nostro quem rescivimus planum esse.
You know the old adage, Peter -- you can lead a horse (or in
Kennedy's case, the hindquarters thereof) to water, but you can't make
him think.
John W. Kennedy
> "John W. Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:<IJr3b.3974$yg.15...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
>>Bob Grumman wrote:
>>>Don't get too mad at me for saying it, Peter, but it's interesting how
>>>rigorous you are about anagrams compared with how loose about iambic
>>>pentameters.
>>You still fail to understand that, in thousands of years of Western
>>culture, terms such as "iambic pentameter" have never been literally
>>applied in the manner that you wish to.
> No, I don't care. Most words in all languages are used less
> rigorously than I would want them to be.
Which is all very well if you wish to observe that "flaunt" does not
mean "flout". But it's no good saying that technical jargon oughtn't to
mean what it _does_, in fact, mean when used by professionals in the
field. You will never get chemists to use "oxygen" to mean "substance
that gives rise to acids". You will never get Christian theologians to
use "person" to mean "mask" (and let's not get into "hypostasis").
Even, despite great effort by the IEEE and other official organizations,
stopping computer programmers from using "kilo-" to mean "1024" is an
uphill fight that looks as though it may well lose, even though "kilo-"
is still actively used in its correct meaning of "1000" and "kibi-" has
been provided as a substitute.
>>Not to mention that the application of the word "iamb" to English verse
>>is wrong in the first place, because it really means "short-long" (as in
>>"toweled" or "begrimed"), not "weak-strong" (as in "dissolved" or "flambé").
> I think it has meant an unstressed syllable followed by a stressed one
> long enough for it to be called that--but I think we need a better
> name for unaccented/accented.
...which would make classical scholars very happy. So would the
abolition of the abominable misuse of "long vowel" and "short vowel" as
taught and used in Anglophone elementary schools. But it's not going to
happen.
> (I'd pronounce "toweled" as one syllable; if I had to do it in two
> syllables, they'd be long/short,
"taooowww-wl'd"? Not in any MnE dialect I know of!
> and strong/weak. "Begrimed" is
> surely weak/strong?)
I didn't say it wasn't.
Bob Grumman
should yield on "toweled." I've always pronounced "towel" as "towl"
without thinking about it. So my two syllable pronunciation of
"toweled" would be the old-poetic "towl--ed." It should be
"tow--uld," with --"uld" (or whatever) the longer syllable.
--Bob G.
Bob Grumman
English word that has ever been successfully reformed? That is,
brought back to one exact meaning after corruption by the masses--as,
say, "verbal" seems not to be (it means both related-to-words and oral
for most people now). Or of an English word with a widely-used
meaning that was made more concise.
--Bob G.
richard kennedy
Peter Groves
was earlier in the week, putting a severe strain on his gin-sodden memory):
Groves: "I wonder why the moron persists in displaying his stupidity and
ignorance in public in this fashion. Many times it has been pointed out to
him that "tibi" is the dative of "tu" and in this context (if "nom" were a
Latin word) would mean "your", not "my". Amusingly, it's only two weeks
since
David Webb wrote that "Other anti-Stratfordians (e.g., Richard Kennedy) can
see their comic blunders corrected -- but even if they understood and even
acknowledged the correction at the time, after a few weeks have elapsed they
will have generally forgotten it completely and will post the same
discredited canard *again*! (One wonders how long it will be before Kennedy
once again hallucinates Eva Turner Clark's nonexistent "Nom tibi de Vere
"anagram.")"
Kennedy, the moron: "It's quite all right with me if the translation is
"Your name is de
Vere" rather than "My name is de Vere," all same-same in the context,
which is the secret hand reaching out from behind the curtain."
It's sad, really; he should be in some sort of institution.
--
Peter G., Pistori nostro quem rescivimus planum esse.
"richard kennedy" <stai...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:32b2d000.03083...@posting.google.com...
John W. Kennedy
Some words have drifted down from multiple meanings into one, such as
"wit", but "wit" today is not at all what Chaucer meant by it. I don't
know offhand of any case of a word spreading out from one meaning and
then being reduced again to its original, except in cases of short-lived
and forgotten slang.
I recommend C. S. Lewis's "Studies in Words" (ideally the second
edition, which posthumously adds several chapters that he had intended
for a second volume) for a number of case histories. It is especially
interesting because he shows that the very same semantic shifts often
happen in parallel in multiple languages, a phenomenon that is rarely
studied.
Paul Crowley
> One last thought regarding language use:
Your notion of the way language works is
fundamentally nonsense.
> does anyone know of any
> English word that has ever been successfully reformed? That is,
> brought back to one exact meaning
'Brought back' . . . . ? Do you think that words
come into existence from great definitions
plastered across the sky (presumably by God)?
You also seem to think that the rules for the
writing of poetry originated in much the same
way.
> after corruption by the masses--as,
> say, "verbal" seems not to be (it means both related-to-words and oral
> for most people now). Or of an English word with a widely-used
> meaning that was made more concise.
Glance at the OED and you will find numerous
words which used to have multiple meanings
but now have many fewer, sometimes only one.
Looking at Sonnet 124 (for example) 'bastard'
(excluding the general term of abuse) now has
one meaning whereas it had a more general
sense around 1600. 'Accidence' was created
from 'accident' -- although that's a bit technical.
'Thrall' was in common and much wider use.
Today, it's virtually unknown. 'Fool' was more
widely used with a greater range of senses . .
. . and so on and on . . .
However, I am sure that any answer here will
relate to what you will find is an unpleasantly
messy real world -- and not one of 'pure
language' such as you imagine should exist.
Your concept of language derives from some
ancient scholastic or Platonic model -- under
which words originally came in a 'pure form'
from something like an oracle. They were then
'contaminated' by ordinary folk when they
started to use them in the real world.
Weird. (And what a perfect example of classic
rigidnikry.)
> Or of an English word with a widely-used
> meaning that was made more concise.
How do you think this process would take
place? What you want is an 'Academé
Americana' which would rule on the precise
meaning of all words. (You'd want to be a
founder member, of course.) You'd impose
severe penalties on anyone abusing your
rules. We'd have a 'word police' (not for the
first time, of course). Then we'd have
everyone speaking properly, and writing
correct (Grummanian) poetry.
Oh, Brave New World! This nightmare
vision has often been thought a 'good idea'
by low-grade minds in the past -- e.g. Sidney,
Harvey, the French Academicians, by Chinese
Arabic and Persian authorities, by
Revolutionaries and Communists. It's never
begun to work of course, but the application
of such rules (usually self-imposed) has often
killed off any possibility of a genuine literature.
It is utterly anti-Shakespearean.
But then we'd never expect a Stratfordian to
understand that.
Paul.
richard kennedy
example I put out -- according to Drummond's rules? I'll post them
again if you'd like.
----------------------------------------------
"Peter Groves" <Monti...@NOSPAMbigpond.com> wrote in message news:<jKG4b.76774$bo1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
richard kennedy
Drummond's rules. If there's an objection, let's have it. Shall I
post those rules again?
"Peter Groves" <Monti...@NOSPAMbigpond.com> wrote in message news:<jKG4b.76774$bo1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
Bob Grumman
> Drummond's rules. If there's an objection, let's have it. Shall I
> post those rules again?
No. Not that that will keep you from posting them at least ten more
times. Drummond's rules allow non-anagrams to count as anagrams. But
the fact that the anagram you conjure up is a non-anagram is only ONE
reason it is not taken as a anagram by anyone but a fool determined to
find trivial possible supports for his delusion anywhere he can while
ignoring all the evidence against it.
--Bob G.
Richard Nathan
letters to change it into something else.
Your example takes a phrase, and claims that by changing the letters,
and dropping the letters, you've changed it into another phrase.
Thus you've broken rules 11 and 13.
stai...@charter.net (richard kennedy) wrote in message news:<32b2d000.03090...@posting.google.com>...
Peter Groves
news:fe178efa.03090...@posting.google.com...
> The rules you posted refer to taking a NAME and transposing the
> letters to change it into something else.
>
> Your example takes a phrase, and claims that by changing the letters,
> and dropping the letters, you've changed it into another phrase.
>
> Thus you've broken rules 11 and 13.
>
On top of which it's not even a phrase in any language, and (moreover)
wouldn't mean what he wants it to mean even if it were. The illiterate
moron still thinks (after innumerable correction) that "tibi" (to you, your)
means "my". Or perhaps he's just confused about the distinction -- in which
case, if he ever comes round to dinner (remote as that contingency may seem)
you'd better count the spoons before he goes.
--
Peter G., Pistori nostro quem rescivimus planum esse.
> stai...@charter.net (richard kennedy) wrote in message
Richard Nathan
anagram may only be made from a name. Richard Kennedy's anagram is
made from a phrase. Therefore, it violates Drummond's rules.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net (Bob Grumman) wrote in message news:<5f7d2eb3.03090...@posting.google.com>...
richard kennedy
find that MENTE VIDEBOR can't anagram as TIBI NOM DE VERE, according
to those rules, let us all know about it, otherwise you are just
complaining about something that hurts.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net (Bob Grumman) wrote in message news:<5f7d2eb3.03090...@posting.google.com>...
richard kennedy
ICH DIEN
to be HIC INDE, he ignored rule 11 and 14, and it's Peacham's anagrams
we're examining. No credit for this reply.
Look closely. There's someone behind that curtain. Don't the Strats
have a curiousity bone? No understanding of Elizabethan word games,
or emblem books? I'd pity them except I'm certain they're kidding us
and are only thrashing about to find a way out of the solution
offered.
---------------------------------------
richard...@att.net (Richard Nathan) wrote in message news:<fe178efa.03090...@posting.google.com>...
Richard Nathan
has admitted that the supposed anagram in Peacham's book violates the
rules that Richard Kennedy has claimed again and again were NOT
violated.
Of course, Richard Kennedy still won't come out and admit he was
wrong. He never does.
Terry Ross
> > Evidently you haven't compared the Minerva Britanna t.p. anagram with
> > Drummond's rules. If there's an objection, let's have it. Shall I
> > post those rules again?
>
> No. Not that that will keep you from posting them at least ten more
> times. Drummond's rules allow non-anagrams to count as anagrams.
Quite apart form the fact that Peacham's standards are stricter than
Drummond's is the fact that Kennedy does not understand Drummond. Drummond
allows some exceptions, but (as Richard Kennedy might know if he had read
the very material from Drummond that he has posted) he would never offer
"TIBI NOM DE VERE" as an anagram of "MENTE VIDEBOR." Posting the material
again would do not good, as Richard Kennedy does not appear to be able to
read it.
> But
> the fact that the anagram you conjure up is a non-anagram is only ONE
> reason it is not taken as a anagram by anyone but a fool determined to
> find trivial possible supports for his delusion anywhere he can while
> ignoring all the evidence against it.
Even the licentiate Drummond offers no support for Richard Kennedy.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross Visit the SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP home page
http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Grumman
Right. And my rules on what iambic pentameter is are the rules that apply now.
SNIP
--Bob G.
Bob Grumman
> "Bob Grumman" <bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote in message
> news:5f7d2eb3.03083...@posting.google.com...
>
> > One last thought regarding language use:
>
> Your notion of the way language works is
> fundamentally nonsense.
I'm deeply sorry to hear that, Paul.
> > does anyone know of any
> > English word that has ever been successfully reformed? That is,
> > brought back to one exact meaning
> 'Brought back' . . . . ? Do you think that words
> come into existence from great definitions
> plastered across the sky (presumably by God)?
I have coined words with exact meanings and seen them very quickly
misused. For instance, I used "otherstream" as the opposite of
"knownstream," but the first user of it after me used it as the
opposite of "mainstream." Not a horrible misuse, and understandable.
Still, it loosened my word away from what it was originally meant to
do. (I consider "knownstream" to cover both "mainstream" art, or art
that appears in widely-circulated magazines, is written about by the
known critics, is taught in colleges, etc., and
"lesserstream" art--for which I want to find a better name--which is
art using received techniques, subjects, etc., but is disdained by
bigCirc magazines, critics with names, colleges--because considered
out-of-date, or trivial; haiku, for example. "Otherstream" art is
also disdained but because not yet comprehended by the middle-brows.)
> You also seem to think that the rules for the
> writing of poetry originated in much the same way.
You have no idea how I think "the rules for the writing of poetry
originated," nor are you capable of understanding my tentative
theories concerning that.
> > after corruption by the masses--as,
> > say, "verbal" seems not to be (it means both related-to-words and oral
> > for most people now). Or of an English word with a widely-used
> > meaning that was made more concise.
>
> Glance at the OED and you will find numerous
> words which used to have multiple meanings
> but now have many fewer, sometimes only one.
>
> Looking at Sonnet 124 (for example) 'bastard'
> (excluding the general term of abuse) now has
> one meaning whereas it had a more general
> sense around 1600. 'Accidence' was created
> from 'accident' -- although that's a bit technical.
> 'Thrall' was in common and much wider use.
> Today, it's virtually unknown. 'Fool' was more
> widely used with a greater range of senses . .
> . . and so on and on . . .
>
> However, I am sure that any answer here will
> relate to what you will find is an unpleasantly
> messy real world -- and not one of 'pure
> language' such as you imagine should exist.
I revel in the messiness of the world, but want to be able to
communicate my thoughts about it as effectively as possible.
> Your concept of language derives from some
> ancient scholastic or Platonic model -- under
> which words originally came in a 'pure form'
> from something like an oracle. They were then
> 'contaminated' by ordinary folk when they
> started to use them in the real world.
>
> Weird. (And what a perfect example of classic
> rigidnikry.)
What? Your insanely incorrect understanding of what I believe?
> > Or of an English word with a widely-used
> > meaning that was made more concise.
>
> How do you think this process would take place?
I doubt that it could take place. Ideally, a few intelligent people
would demand a useful definition of a word that was used in too many
contradictory ways--"poetry," for instance--and someone would provide
such
a definition, and others would support it.
> What you want is an 'Academé
> Americana' which would rule on the precise
> meaning of all words. (You'd want to be a
> founder member, of course.)
I won't say that's no truth in that.
> You'd impose severe penalties on anyone abusing your
> rules. We'd have a 'word police' (not for the
> first time, of course). Then we'd have
> everyone speaking properly, and writing
> correct (Grummanian) poetry.
That would be better than everyone's writing variously, and you and
your
High Judges telling us the one thing they were all saying. But if you
knew anything at all about me, you would know that I believe, as I've
stated at HLAS more than once, in Total Freedom of Expression. But I
WOULD be tempted to imprison anyone writing any kind of correct
poetry.
> Oh, Brave New World! This nightmare
> vision has often been thought a 'good idea'
> by low-grade minds in the past -- e.g. Sidney,
> Harvey, the French Academicians, by Chinese
> Arabic and Persian authorities, by
> Revolutionaries and Communists. It's never
> begun to work of course, but the application
> of such rules (usually self-imposed) has often
> killed off any possibility of a genuine literature.
> It is utterly anti-Shakespearean.
>
> But then we'd never expect a Stratfordian to
> understand that.
Right. People like us can't understand anything. But tell me, I ask
again, what of significance have you ever gotten credit from ANYONE
but yourself for understanding?
--Bob G.
> Paul.
Bob Grumman
> has admitted that the supposed anagram in Peacham's book violates the
> rules that Richard Kennedy has claimed again and again were NOT
> violated.
>
> Of course, Richard Kennedy still won't come out and admit he was
> wrong. He never does.
>
> stai...@charter.net (richard kennedy) wrote in message news:<32b2d000.03090...@posting.google.com>...
> > It was Peacham who broke Drummond's rules, not me. When he wrote out
> > ICH DIEN
> > to be HIC INDE, he ignored rule 11 and 14, and it's Peacham's anagrams
> > we're examining. No credit for this reply.
Haw, so he did. And I have to admit that I didn't realize it! Thanks
for pointing this out, Richard.
--Bob G.
Toby Petzold
reincarnation of Noah Webster:
<snip>
> I have coined words with exact meanings and seen them very quickly
> misused. For instance, I used "otherstream" as the opposite of
> "knownstream," but the first user of it after me used it as the
> opposite of "mainstream." Not a horrible misuse, and understandable.
Yes, because, unlike your own meaning, that one was logical.
> Still, it loosened my word away from what it was originally meant to
> do.
Which was to trap the innocent bystander into asking you what you
REALLY mean.
> (I consider "knownstream" to cover both "mainstream" art, or art
> that appears in widely-circulated magazines, is written about by the
> known critics, is taught in colleges, etc., and
> "lesserstream" art--for which I want to find a better name--which is
> art using received techniques, subjects, etc., but is disdained by
> bigCirc magazines, critics with names, colleges--because considered
> out-of-date, or trivial; haiku, for example.
Who is supposed to know what you mean by some word that you have
basically extracted from your kiester? Look at all of those oh-so
common criteria by which one might [accurately] employ the term
lesserstream! Bob, would you say that your philosophy of language was
unduly influenced by the lobby card-glossaries handed out during the
theatrical release of the movie Dune?
> "Otherstream" art is
> also disdained but because not yet comprehended by the middle-brows.)
Right on, man!
> > You also seem to think that the rules for the
> > writing of poetry originated in much the same way.
>
> You have no idea how I think "the rules for the writing of poetry
> originated," nor are you capable of understanding my tentative
> theories concerning that.
That is the epitome of Grummaniacality: berating someone because of
that person's [inability] to understand some [concept] that not even
Bob himself has worked out yet. Sheer hosiery!
<snip>
> I revel in the messiness of the world, but want to be able to
> communicate my thoughts about it as effectively as possible.
I don't believe you on this. You are FAR too hung up on pigeonholing
and labeling to revel in anything messy (and I say this as someone who
once UNmixed an entire bag of Meow Mix cat food on the trunk of his
father's '71 Olds 98 for no apparent reason).
<snip>
Toby Petzold
Bob Grumman
> reincarnation of Noah Webster:
Noah Webster was just a definer of known words. I am a philosopher
who finds it necessary to make up words--as have most philosophers and
many theoretical scientists.
> <snip>
>
> > I have coined words with exact meanings and seen them very quickly
> > misused. For instance, I used "otherstream" as the opposite of
> > "knownstream," but the first user of it after me used it as the
> > opposite of "mainstream." Not a horrible misuse, and understandable.
>
> Yes, because, unlike your own meaning, that one was logical.
Logical in some ways, not logical in others. Logical or not, a user
of a word should use it as its creator defined it.
> > Still, it loosened my word away from what it was originally meant to
> > do.
>
> Which was to trap the innocent bystander into asking you what you
> REALLY mean.
I defined it when I introduced it, and several times when I used it
thereafter.
The point here, though, is how language evolves.
> > (I consider "knownstream" to cover both "mainstream" art, or art
> > that appears in widely-circulated magazines, is written about by the
> > known critics, is taught in colleges, etc., and
> > "lesserstream" art--for which I want to find a better name--which is
> > art using received techniques, subjects, etc., but is disdained by
> > bigCirc magazines, critics with names, colleges--because considered
> > out-of-date, or trivial; haiku, for example.
>
> Who is supposed to know what you mean by some word that you have
> basically extracted from your kiester?
Those who read what I write, moron.
> Look at all of those oh-so
> common criteria by which one might [accurately] employ the term
> lesserstream! Bob, would you say that your philosophy of language was
> unduly influenced by the lobby card-glossaries handed out during the
> theatrical release of the movie Dune?
>
> > "Otherstream" art is
> > also disdained but because not yet comprehended by the middle-brows.)
>
> Right on, man!
>
> > > You also seem to think that the rules for the
> > > writing of poetry originated in much the same way.
> >
> > You have no idea how I think "the rules for the writing of poetry
> > originated," nor are you capable of understanding my tentative
> > theories concerning that.
>
> That is the epitome of Grummaniacality: berating someone because of
> that person's [inability] to understand some [concept] that not even
> Bob himself has worked out yet. Sheer hosiery!
You're way out of context, moron. Read what I'm responding to of
Crowley's.
> <snip>
>
> > I revel in the messiness of the world, but want to be able to
> > communicate my thoughts about it as effectively as possible.
>
> I don't believe you on this. You are FAR too hung up on pigeonholing
> and labeling to revel in anything messy (and I say this as someone who
> once UNmixed an entire bag of Meow Mix cat food on the trunk of his
> father's '71 Olds 98 for no apparent reason).
>
> <snip>
>
> Toby Petzold
You won't understand this, Toby, but it's possible for a person to
both love complexity and yearn for simplicities. I'm an extremist in
both my passion for wilderness and my desire to understand. Another
thing you won't understand is that PHILOSOPHICAL dissection is not
necessarily murder: I perceive myself as taking reality apart as best
I can, but only in my mind and on paper. The (hoped for) result is
reality in all its complexity outside my mind and paper PLUS an
understanding of it. In my personal life, I'm very messy but would
prefer my house to be extremely organized and tidy--in a world more
chaotic than not. In other words, I want both untamed jungle and
ultimate civilization. In the arts, I love Pollock, but also the
simplest minimalist poems. Etc. If you based your analysis of me on
more than your impressions of me as a proponent of snaity at HLAS so,
among other things, read my poetry, you would see how wrong you are
about me. My poetry, for instance, ranges from extreme simplicty to a
complexity no one can make final sense of including me. It's said
that the best artists are usually those who use their art to conduct
wome kind of war with themselves. I can't say for sure whether I'm
among any best artists but I would say that a main war I conduct with
myself as an artist is between the scientist in me and the artist.
--Bob G.
Toby Petzold
> > Grumman to Crowley, on the former's delusion that he is the
> > reincarnation of Noah Webster:
>
> Noah Webster was just a definer of known words. I am a philosopher
> who finds it necessary to make up words--as have most philosophers and
> many theoretical scientists.
How can you refer to yourself as a philosopher and deny that
Shakespeare was one, too? There isn't a single participant in this
newsgroup who would support you in this conceit. You're absolutely
full of crap on that, as well as on the necessity of your neologizing,
which I have cut, dried, and smoked many times now.
> > <snip>
> >
> > > I have coined words with exact meanings and seen them very quickly
> > > misused. For instance, I used "otherstream" as the opposite of
> > > "knownstream," but the first user of it after me used it as the
> > > opposite of "mainstream." Not a horrible misuse, and understandable.
> >
> > Yes, because, unlike your own meaning, that one was logical.
>
> Logical in some ways, not logical in others. Logical or not, a user
> of a word should use it as its creator defined it.
I disagree, unless your interlocutor is speaking directly from the
context of your own imaginings, which means that your terminology will
remain peculiarized to what you write. That's not any kind of free
coinage, but just sophisticated baby-talk.
> > > Still, it loosened my word away from what it was originally meant to
> > > do.
> >
> > Which was to trap the innocent bystander into asking you what you
> > REALLY mean.
>
> I defined it when I introduced it, and several times when I used it
> thereafter.
> The point here, though, is how language evolves.
What do you know about that? Do you think that linguistic evolution
involves the supervision of the coiners of words? That's
proprietariness gone mad. You haven't earned that.
> > > (I consider "knownstream" to cover both "mainstream" art, or art
> > > that appears in widely-circulated magazines, is written about by the
> > > known critics, is taught in colleges, etc., and
> > > "lesserstream" art--for which I want to find a better name--which is
> > > art using received techniques, subjects, etc., but is disdained by
> > > bigCirc magazines, critics with names, colleges--because considered
> > > out-of-date, or trivial; haiku, for example.
> >
> > Who is supposed to know what you mean by some word that you have
> > basically extracted from your kiester?
>
> Those who read what I write, moron.
Aren't you embarrassed by your egocentrism?
> > Look at all of those oh-so
> > common criteria by which one might [accurately] employ the term
> > lesserstream! Bob, would you say that your philosophy of language was
> > unduly influenced by the lobby card-glossaries handed out during the
> > theatrical release of the movie Dune?
> >
> > > "Otherstream" art is
> > > also disdained but because not yet comprehended by the middle-brows.)
> >
> > Right on, man!
> >
> > > > You also seem to think that the rules for the
> > > > writing of poetry originated in much the same way.
> > >
> > > You have no idea how I think "the rules for the writing of poetry
> > > originated," nor are you capable of understanding my tentative
> > > theories concerning that.
> >
> > That is the epitome of Grummaniacality: berating someone because of
> > that person's [inability] to understand some [concept] that not even
> > Bob himself has worked out yet. Sheer hosiery!
>
> You're way out of context, moron. Read what I'm responding to of
> Crowley's.
No thanks.
> > <snip>
> >
> > > I revel in the messiness of the world, but want to be able to
> > > communicate my thoughts about it as effectively as possible.
> >
> > I don't believe you on this. You are FAR too hung up on pigeonholing
> > and labeling to revel in anything messy (and I say this as someone who
> > once UNmixed an entire bag of Meow Mix cat food on the trunk of his
> > father's '71 Olds 98 for no apparent reason).
> >
> > <snip>
>
> You won't understand this, Toby, but it's possible for a person to
> both love complexity and yearn for simplicities.
Oh, you philosophers and all your sophisticated thinking!
> I'm an extremist in
> both my passion for wilderness and my desire to understand.
Let me guess: you're using the term wilderness in some way that no
normal person would. Right?
> Another
> thing you won't understand is that PHILOSOPHICAL dissection is not
> necessarily murder: I perceive myself as taking reality apart as best
> I can, but only in my mind and on paper.
Hold on! I'm making a flow-chart.
> The (hoped for) result is
> reality in all its complexity outside my mind and paper PLUS an
> understanding of it.
*blank stare*
> In my personal life, I'm very messy but would
> prefer my house to be extremely organized and tidy--in a world more
> chaotic than not.
Conception without execution earns you no credit.
> In other words, I want both untamed jungle and
> ultimate civilization.
That's very suburbanite of you.
> In the arts, I love Pollock, but also the
> simplest minimalist poems. Etc.
I never understood why people were so smitten with Pollock. His lack
of talent is pretty clear, especially when you compare him to his
teacher Thomas Hart Benton.
> If you based your analysis of me on
> more than your impressions of me as a proponent of snaity at HLAS so,
> among other things, read my poetry, you would see how wrong you are
> about me.
But I DON'T regard you as a proponent of snaity. You are a gargoyle on
the cornice of the Dogmatic Pigeonholers corporate headquarters
building. You make safe and superficial concessions to diversity of
thought because that's as far as you CAN go. But to go through life
believing that those who see the world differently from you are
mentally ill is just the most incredible kind of egocentric bullshit
imaginable.
> My poetry, for instance, ranges from extreme simplicty to a
> complexity no one can make final sense of including me.
It's all very safe. Who will know the difference? You live in a world
where even the very terminology of your belief has to be devised and
supervised by YOU. Who wants to have to obey your rules when debating
you?
> It's said
> that the best artists are usually those who use their art to conduct
> wome kind of war with themselves.
Is it so dire as that?
> I can't say for sure whether I'm
> among any best artists but I would say that a main war I conduct with
> myself as an artist is between the scientist in me and the artist.
Speaking as an extreme introvert and a very selfish man, I would
strongly recommend that you stand back and recognize how very
self-involved you've become. It's simply not healthy.
Toby Petzold
p.s. I think you should begin this period of self-correction by
admitting that Anti-Stratfordianism is a rational belief system.
Bob Grumman
> > > reincarnation of Noah Webster:
> >
> > Noah Webster was just a definer of known words. I am a philosopher
> > who finds it necessary to make up words--as have most philosophers and
> > many theoretical scientists.
>
> How can you refer to yourself as a philosopher and deny that
> Shakespeare was one, too?
I have written essays on aesthetics and other philosophical subjects,
wack. I have constructed a full-scale theory of how the human mind
works and written it down. That, regardless of the value of my
theory, makes me a philosopher. Shakespeare did not write philosophy.
He sometimes, like ALL writers of narrative, had characters express
ideas. This would not make him a philosopher even if they ever
expressed complex, orginal ideas, which they do not (unless they did
little else but express and discuss ideas, as in Plato's dialogues).
> There isn't a single participant in this
> newsgroup who would support you in this conceit. You're absolutely
> full of crap on that, as well as on the necessity of your neologizing,
> which I have cut, dried, and smoked many times now.
Actually, there may be one or two who would support my claim to being
a philosopher. As for my neologizing, no new words are necessary--but
many people find it convenient to occasionally make up one like my
"culturateur" to take the place of a long phrase like "one who creates
significant works of art, science, history, and philosophy." I rather
doubt that ALL HLAS participants are so reactionary as to oppose that.
And some have defended words of mine. Crowley hasn't but he seems to
love "rigidnik," in spite of not understanding, or being capable of
understanding, its meaning.
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > > I have coined words with exact meanings and seen them very quickly
> > > > misused. For instance, I used "otherstream" as the opposite of
> > > > "knownstream," but the first user of it after me used it as the
> > > > opposite of "mainstream." Not a horrible misuse, and understandable.
> > >
> > > Yes, because, unlike your own meaning, that one was logical.
> >
> > Logical in some ways, not logical in others. Logical or not, a user
> > of a word should use it as its creator defined it.
>
> I disagree, unless your interlocutor is speaking directly from the
> context of your own imaginings, which means that your terminology will
> remain peculiarized to what you write. That's not any kind of free
> coinage, but just sophisticated baby-talk.
No. It's a means to make a complex theory or the like easier to
navigate.
> > > > Still, it loosened my word away from what it was originally meant to
> > > > do.
> > >
> > > Which was to trap the innocent bystander into asking you what you
> > > REALLY mean.
> >
> > I defined it when I introduced it, and several times when I used it
> > thereafter.
> > The point here, though, is how language evolves.
>
> What do you know about that? Do you think that linguistic evolution
> involves the supervision of the coiners of words? That's
> proprietariness gone mad. You haven't earned that.
Stop trying to bring me down to your level and read what I say, wack.
Linguistic evolution has to do with the coining of new words and their
subsequent use and misuse. I gave an example of this from my own
experience.
> > > > (I consider "knownstream" to cover both "mainstream" art, or art
> > > > that appears in widely-circulated magazines, is written about by the
> > > > known critics, is taught in colleges, etc., and
> > > > "lesserstream" art--for which I want to find a better name--which is
> > > > art using received techniques, subjects, etc., but is disdained by
> > > > bigCirc magazines, critics with names, colleges--because considered
> > > > out-of-date, or trivial; haiku, for example.
> > >
> > > Who is supposed to know what you mean by some word that you have
> > > basically extracted from your kiester?
> >
> > Those who read what I write, moron.
>
> Aren't you embarrassed by your egocentrism?
It's not egocentric to introduce words, moron.
Why would you think that, wack?
> > Another
> > thing you won't understand is that PHILOSOPHICAL dissection is not
> > necessarily murder: I perceive myself as taking reality apart as best
> > I can, but only in my mind and on paper.
>
> Hold on! I'm making a flow-chart.
>
> > The (hoped for) result is
> > reality in all its complexity outside my mind and paper PLUS an
> > understanding of it.
>
> *blank stare*
Right. That's why you shouldn't get into serious discussions with
intelligent people, Toby.
> > In my personal life, I'm very messy but would
> > prefer my house to be extremely organized and tidy--in a world more
> > chaotic than not.
>
> Conception without execution earns you no credit.
>
> > In other words, I want both untamed jungle and
> > ultimate civilization.
>
> That's very suburbanite of you.
>
> > In the arts, I love Pollock, but also the
> > simplest minimalist poems. Etc.
>
> I never understood why people were so smitten with Pollock. His lack
> of talent is pretty clear, especially when you compare him to his
> teacher Thomas Hart Benton.
Only to rigidniks, one of whose many defects is literal-mindedness.
> > If you based your analysis of me on
> > more than your impressions of me as a proponent of SANITY at HLAS so,
> > among other things, read my poetry, you would see how wrong you are
> > about me.
(correction in caps.)
> But I DON'T regard you as a proponent of snaity. You are a gargoyle on
> the cornice of the Dogmatic Pigeonholers corporate headquarters
> building. You make safe and superficial concessions to diversity of
> thought because that's as far as you CAN go. But to go through life
> believing that those who see the world differently from you are
> mentally ill is just the most incredible kind of egocentric bullshit
> imaginable.
Right. If I consider you, a person who has a different opinion of
mine as to who wrote the plays William Shakespeare of Stratford wrote,
insane, it follows that I consider ANYONE who sees the world
differently from the way I do as insane. Anti-Stratfordian logic in a
nutshell.
> > My poetry, for instance, ranges from extreme simplicty to a
> > complexity no one can make final sense of including me.
>
> It's all very safe. Who will know the difference? You live in a world
> where even the very terminology of your belief has to be devised and
> supervised by YOU. Who wants to have to obey your rules when debating
> you?
I lay down no rules whatever, moron. There is no requirement that
others use my terminology. If its meaning is unclear to them, they
need but ask, and I will do my best to clarify it.
> > It's said
> > that the best artists are usually those who use their art to conduct
> > SOME kind of war with themselves.
>
> Is it so dire as that?
It depends on the artist.
> > I can't say for sure whether I'm
> > among any best artists but I would say that a main war I conduct with
> > myself as an artist is between the scientist in me and the artist.
>
> Speaking as an extreme introvert and a very selfish man, I would
> strongly recommend that you stand back and recognize how very
> self-involved you've become. It's simply not healthy.
> Toby Petzold
I find it interesting how you anti-Stratfordians (that's twice I've
used YOUR word in this post) bounce our arguments and insults back at
us. We tell you you have no evidence for your beliefs, so you tell us
the same thing, which is nonsense. I call you mentally defective, so
you fire the characterization back at me.
> p.s. I think you should begin this period of self-correction by
> admitting that Anti-Stratfordianism is a rational belief system.
I've been comparing it in my mind to anti-Imhotepism, the belief that
Imhotep did not design the stepped pyramid, but aliens did. I find no
significant difference between the two. Both start with the
assumption that a non-demi-god could have produced something the world
considers Great, and ignore all the evidence against their delusion.
There are many more parallels. The rejection of Shakespeare as the
author of the plays attributed to him is not a rational belief system
unless the rejection of Imhotep (or some other Egyptian) as the father
of the Egyptian pyramids is. (Try not to get too upset with the word
I coined in this paragraph, wack.)
--Bob G.
Toby Petzold
> > > > reincarnation of Noah Webster:
> > >
> > > Noah Webster was just a definer of known words. I am a philosopher
> > > who finds it necessary to make up words--as have most philosophers and
> > > many theoretical scientists.
> >
> > How can you refer to yourself as a philosopher and deny that
> > Shakespeare was one, too?
>
> I have written essays on aesthetics and other philosophical subjects,
> wack.
So have most undergrads.
> I have constructed a full-scale theory of how the human mind
> works and written it down.
How is that philosophy? I would be very surprised if your theory
incorporates even a fraction of the science such an endeavor would
require. If your understanding of the mind is as crippled and stunted
as it's expressed here, "wack," I wouldn't put any stock in it
whatsoever.
> That, regardless of the value of my
> theory, makes me a philosopher.
Aye, in the catalogue.
> Shakespeare did not write philosophy.
This belief of yours is actually stupid. Do you understand what I mean
by that? I mean that, if all beliefs could be objectively and
qualitatively assessed, yours would literally translate to stupidity.
> He sometimes, like ALL writers of narrative, had characters express
> ideas.
The banality of it!
> This would not make him a philosopher even if they ever
> expressed complex, orginal ideas, which they do not (unless they did
> little else but express and discuss ideas, as in Plato's dialogues).
A little learning is a dangerous thing, indeed.
> > There isn't a single participant in this
> > newsgroup who would support you in this conceit. You're absolutely
> > full of crap on that, as well as on the necessity of your neologizing,
> > which I have cut, dried, and smoked many times now.
>
> Actually, there may be one or two who would support my claim to being
> a philosopher.
Let's put them on the spot. Will someone step forward and approve
Bob's title for him ---and deny it to Shakespeare? Anyone? C'mon,
don't be shy.
> As for my neologizing, no new words are necessary--but
> many people find it convenient to occasionally make up one like my
> "culturateur" to take the place of a long phrase like "one who creates
> significant works of art, science, history, and philosophy."
As you have been told before, synonymity is no substitute for
originality. This impulse to neologize is the bane of the
pseudo-intellectual.
> I rather
> doubt that ALL HLAS participants are so reactionary as to oppose that.
> And some have defended words of mine. Crowley hasn't but he seems to
> love "rigidnik," in spite of not understanding, or being capable of
> understanding, its meaning.
Keep on playing your 8-track tapes, Bob. They're sure to make a
comeback someday.
> > > > <snip>
> > > >
> > > > > I have coined words with exact meanings and seen them very quickly
> > > > > misused. For instance, I used "otherstream" as the opposite of
> > > > > "knownstream," but the first user of it after me used it as the
> > > > > opposite of "mainstream." Not a horrible misuse, and understandable.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, because, unlike your own meaning, that one was logical.
> > >
> > > Logical in some ways, not logical in others. Logical or not, a user
> > > of a word should use it as its creator defined it.
> >
> > I disagree, unless your interlocutor is speaking directly from the
> > context of your own imaginings, which means that your terminology will
> > remain peculiarized to what you write. That's not any kind of free
> > coinage, but just sophisticated baby-talk.
>
> No. It's a means to make a complex theory or the like easier to
> navigate.
No, it's an affectation that forces your correspondents and opponents
to play by your superfluous rules.
> > > > > Still, it loosened my word away from what it was originally meant to
> > > > > do.
> > > >
> > > > Which was to trap the innocent bystander into asking you what you
> > > > REALLY mean.
> > >
> > > I defined it when I introduced it, and several times when I used it
> > > thereafter.
> > > The point here, though, is how language evolves.
> >
> > What do you know about that? Do you think that linguistic evolution
> > involves the supervision of the coiners of words? That's
> > proprietariness gone mad. You haven't earned that.
>
> Stop trying to bring me down to your level and read what I say, wack.
Your constant presumption that I am incapable of understanding what
you've written is a fucking laugh. Your egocentrism is appalling.
> Linguistic evolution has to do with the coining of new words and their
> subsequent use and misuse. I gave an example of this from my own
> experience.
Your definition of linguistic evolution is much too profound for me.
Can't you put a neologism in there somewhere that will make it all
clear? And what do our resident linguists think of this definition?
> > > > > (I consider "knownstream" to cover both "mainstream" art, or art
> > > > > that appears in widely-circulated magazines, is written about by the
> > > > > known critics, is taught in colleges, etc., and
> > > > > "lesserstream" art--for which I want to find a better name--which is
> > > > > art using received techniques, subjects, etc., but is disdained by
> > > > > bigCirc magazines, critics with names, colleges--because considered
> > > > > out-of-date, or trivial; haiku, for example.
> > > >
> > > > Who is supposed to know what you mean by some word that you have
> > > > basically extracted from your kiester?
> > >
> > > Those who read what I write, moron.
> >
> > Aren't you embarrassed by your egocentrism?
>
> It's not egocentric to introduce words, moron.
It is when the only purpose to do so is to strengthen the hand of the
coiner. See, no matter how correctly your opponent uses one of your
little terms, you can always debate the point by shifting the
definition. You've done this with me before and you'll do it again
with others. But let's be clear about what it is: egocentrism. And,
without merit, it's nothing but narcissism.
Nice try, navel-gazer.
> > > Another
> > > thing you won't understand is that PHILOSOPHICAL dissection is not
> > > necessarily murder: I perceive myself as taking reality apart as best
> > > I can, but only in my mind and on paper.
> >
> > Hold on! I'm making a flow-chart.
> >
> > > The (hoped for) result is
> > > reality in all its complexity outside my mind and paper PLUS an
> > > understanding of it.
> >
> > *blank stare*
>
> Right. That's why you shouldn't get into serious discussions with
> intelligent people, Toby.
Get real, Socrates.
> > > In my personal life, I'm very messy but would
> > > prefer my house to be extremely organized and tidy--in a world more
> > > chaotic than not.
> >
> > Conception without execution earns you no credit.
> >
> > > In other words, I want both untamed jungle and
> > > ultimate civilization.
> >
> > That's very suburbanite of you.
> >
> > > In the arts, I love Pollock, but also the
> > > simplest minimalist poems. Etc.
> >
> > I never understood why people were so smitten with Pollock. His lack
> > of talent is pretty clear, especially when you compare him to his
> > teacher Thomas Hart Benton.
>
> Only to rigidniks, one of whose many defects is literal-mindedness.
Thank goodness you coined that term. Otherwise, no one would know what
to call a literal-minded person.
> > > If you based your analysis of me on
> > > more than your impressions of me as a proponent of SANITY at HLAS so,
> > > among other things, read my poetry, you would see how wrong you are
> > > about me.
>
> (correction in caps.)
>
> > But I DON'T regard you as a proponent of snaity.
[Grumman's neo-orthographism unretouched]
> > You are a gargoyle on
> > the cornice of the Dogmatic Pigeonholers corporate headquarters
> > building. You make safe and superficial concessions to diversity of
> > thought because that's as far as you CAN go. But to go through life
> > believing that those who see the world differently from you are
> > mentally ill is just the most incredible kind of egocentric bullshit
> > imaginable.
>
> Right. If I consider you, a person who has a different opinion of
> mine as to who wrote the plays William Shakespeare of Stratford wrote,
> insane, it follows that I consider ANYONE who sees the world
> differently from the way I do as insane. Anti-Stratfordian logic in a
> nutshell.
If I cared to know, I'd ask for an example to the contrary.
> > > My poetry, for instance, ranges from extreme simplicty to a
> > > complexity no one can make final sense of including me.
> >
> > It's all very safe. Who will know the difference? You live in a world
> > where even the very terminology of your belief has to be devised and
> > supervised by YOU. Who wants to have to obey your rules when debating
> > you?
>
> I lay down no rules whatever, moron. There is no requirement that
> others use my terminology. If its meaning is unclear to them, they
> need but ask, and I will do my best to clarify it.
But that's the deal, isn't it? There's a little bit of power in that,
isn't there? Make them ask.
> > > It's said
> > > that the best artists are usually those who use their art to conduct
> > > SOME kind of war with themselves.
> >
> > Is it so dire as that?
>
> It depends on the artist.
>
> > > I can't say for sure whether I'm
> > > among any best artists but I would say that a main war I conduct with
> > > myself as an artist is between the scientist in me and the artist.
> >
> > Speaking as an extreme introvert and a very selfish man, I would
> > strongly recommend that you stand back and recognize how very
> > self-involved you've become. It's simply not healthy.
>
> I find it interesting how you anti-Stratfordians (that's twice I've
> used YOUR word in this post)
See? I told you I would win.
> bounce our arguments and insults back at
> us. We tell you you have no evidence for your beliefs, so you tell us
> the same thing, which is nonsense. I call you mentally defective, so
> you fire the characterization back at me.
But never forget: I can make a Shakespeare out of plausibility,
whereas you can't.
> > p.s. I think you should begin this period of self-correction by
> > admitting that Anti-Stratfordianism is a rational belief system.
>
> I've been comparing it in my mind to anti-Imhotepism, the belief that
> Imhotep did not design the stepped pyramid, but aliens did.
Only dumbasses believe aliens built the Pyramids.
> I find no
> significant difference between the two.
Then you're unqualified to speak to either.
> Both start with the
> assumption that a non-demi-god could have produced something the world
> considers Great, and ignore all the evidence against their delusion.
Huh?
> There are many more parallels.
One would hope. For your sake.
> The rejection of Shakespeare as the
> author of the plays attributed to him is not a rational belief system
> unless the rejection of Imhotep (or some other Egyptian) as the father
> of the Egyptian pyramids is.
Since it is not possible that you could provide to me a full and
substantiated chronology of the Shakespeare Canon, it is equally
impossible to deny an alternative explanation for the actual
authorship and dates for those plays.
> (Try not to get too upset with the word
> I coined in this paragraph, wack.)
Do yourself a favor and find another way to address me, you old poser.
Toby Petzold
Bob Grumman
> > > > > reincarnation of Noah Webster:
> > > >
> > > > Noah Webster was just a definer of known words. I am a philosopher
> > > > who finds it necessary to make up words--as have most philosophers and
> > > > many theoretical scientists.
> > >
> > > How can you refer to yourself as a philosopher and deny that
> > > Shakespeare was one, too?
> >
> > I have written essays on aesthetics and other philosophical subjects,
> > wack.
>
> So have most undergrads.
Okay, I have written SERIOUS essays on aesthetics and other
philosophical subjects UNCOMPELLED.
> > I have constructed a full-scale theory of how the human mind
> > works and written it down.
>
> How is that philosophy?
Actually, I'm not sure what it is. It includes epistemology,
aesthetics, ethics, probably other kinds of philosophy. Mostly
accurately, it is theoretical psychology, but I have trouble telling
psychology from philosophy.
> I would be very surprised if your theory
> incorporates even a fraction of the science such an endeavor would
> require. If your understanding of the mind is as crippled and stunted
> as it's expressed here, "wack," I wouldn't put any stock in it whatsoever.
Well, Wack, I conceived most of its main points at a time when I had
no more formal education than Shakespeare had, so there's no way a
moron like you could put ANY stock in it. I would say that what I've
said about it here is a fair approximation of parts of it.
> > That, regardless of the value of my
> > theory, makes me a philosopher.
>
> Aye, in the catalogue.
>
> > Shakespeare did not write philosophy.
>
> This belief of yours is actually stupid. Do you understand what I mean
> by that? I mean that, if all beliefs could be objectively and
> qualitatively assessed, yours would literally translate to stupidity.
Right.
If you understand me, how could you ask, for instance, if I think that
linguistic evolution involves the supervision of the coiners of words?
> > Linguistic evolution has to do with the coining of new words and their
> > subsequent use and misuse. I gave an example of this from my own
> > experience.
>
> Your definition of linguistic evolution is much too profound for me.
> Can't you put a neologism in there somewhere that will make it all
> clear? And what do our resident linguists think of this definition?
Learn to read. Where did I define linguistic evolution?
I just disagreed with John Kennedy and Peter Groves and several others
about
iambic pentameter. I don't consider any of them insane. I disagreed
recently with Terry Ross about the value of calling wacks wacks but
don't consider him insane. I disagree with all manner of people on
what the best poems are, and what music's best, etc., etc., and don't
consider any of them insane (except possibly a few I consider insane
for other reasons). Etc. etc. I only consider people whose
interpretation of reality seems to me irrational and/or extremely
illogical to be insane (and then not necessarily insane in any area
but the one they apply their warped interpretations to). As I've said
many times, I mostly use the term hyperbolically. Informally. When
formal, I prefer terms more exact than "insane" and "wack." Rigidnik
is one. There are degrees of it. Most rigidniks are mere neurotics,
but some are quite insane in some areas.
> > > > My poetry, for instance, ranges from extreme simplicty to a
> > > > complexity no one can make final sense of including me.
> > >
> > > It's all very safe. Who will know the difference? You live in a world
> > > where even the very terminology of your belief has to be devised and
> > > supervised by YOU. Who wants to have to obey your rules when debating
> > > you?
> >
> > I lay down no rules whatever, moron. There is no requirement that
> > others use my terminology. If its meaning is unclear to them, they
> > need but ask, and I will do my best to clarify it.
>
> But that's the deal, isn't it? There's a little bit of power in that,
> isn't there? Make them ask.
Gaining power over others is very low on my list of ambitions.
Expressing myself as clearly as I can about reality as I understand it
is very high. I won't say more on that topic.
So vicious you are!
> > I find no
> > significant difference between the two.
>
> Then you're unqualified to speak to either.
>
> > Both start with the
> > assumption that a non-demi-god could have produced something the world
> > considers Great, and ignore all the evidence against their delusion.
>
> Huh?
>
> > There are many more parallels.
>
> One would hope. For your sake.
>
> > The rejection of Shakespeare as the
> > author of the plays attributed to him is not a rational belief system
> > unless the rejection of Imhotep (or some other Egyptian) as the father
> > of the Egyptian pyramids is.
>
> Since it is not possible that you could provide to me a full and
> substantiated chronology of the Shakespeare Canon, it is equally
> impossible to deny an alternative explanation for the actual
> authorship and dates for those plays.
Since you can't tell me exactly how the sun came to be what it is, it
is impossible for you to deny that Crowley farted it into being.
> > (Try not to get too upset with the word
> > I coined in this paragraph, wack.)
>
> Do yourself a favor and find another way to address me, you old poser.
>
> Toby Petzold
Sorry, wack: I want to reserve the word "asshole" for Justice Stevens.
--Bob G.
Toby Petzold
> > > > > > Grumman to Crowley, on the former's delusion that he is the
> > > > > > reincarnation of Noah Webster:
> > > > >
> > > > > Noah Webster was just a definer of known words. I am a philosopher
> > > > > who finds it necessary to make up words--as have most philosophers and
> > > > > many theoretical scientists.
> > > >
> > > > How can you refer to yourself as a philosopher and deny that
> > > > Shakespeare was one, too?
> > >
> > > I have written essays on aesthetics and other philosophical subjects,
> > > wack.
> >
> > So have most undergrads.
>
> Okay, I have written SERIOUS essays on aesthetics and other
> philosophical subjects UNCOMPELLED.
Fair enough.
> > > I have constructed a full-scale theory of how the human mind
> > > works and written it down.
> >
> > How is that philosophy?
>
> Actually, I'm not sure what it is. It includes epistemology,
> aesthetics, ethics, probably other kinds of philosophy. Mostly
> accurately, it is theoretical psychology, but I have trouble telling
> psychology from philosophy.
And, yet, you deny Shakespeare the title of philosopher. Fascinating
(in the Spockian sense).
> > I would be very surprised if your theory
> > incorporates even a fraction of the science such an endeavor would
> > require. If your understanding of the mind is as crippled and stunted
> > as it's expressed here, "wack," I wouldn't put any stock in it whatsoever.
>
> Well, Wack, I conceived most of its main points at a time when I had
> no more formal education than Shakespeare had, so there's no way a
> moron like you could put ANY stock in it.
I don't know what you're saying. Even the most dyed-in-the-wool
Stratfordian can't put the deer-poacher past about 8th grade, so is
that where you were educationally when you cooked up your theory of
human psychology (which may be philosophy)? I find the enthusiasm and
natural insights of 12 and 13 year-olds to be exciting ---and then you
realize that not one of them has read 1/1000th of what he MUST or
lived a millionth of what he MUST to give his beliefs any authority at
all.
Because it seems entirely possible that you might not be too clear on
that point.
> > > Linguistic evolution has to do with the coining of new words and their
> > > subsequent use and misuse. I gave an example of this from my own
> > > experience.
> >
> > Your definition of linguistic evolution is much too profound for me.
> > Can't you put a neologism in there somewhere that will make it all
> > clear? And what do our resident linguists think of this definition?
>
> Learn to read. Where did I define linguistic evolution?
"Has to do with" is a general, colloquial way of prefacing a
definition. But you can't go blaming me because your definition was
deficient.
> > > > > > > (I consider "knownstream" to cover both "mainstream" art, or art
> > > > > > > that appears in widely-circulated magazines, is written about by the
> > > > > > > known critics, is taught in colleges, etc., and
> > > > > > > "lesserstream" art--for which I want to find a better name--which is
> > > > > > > art using received techniques, subjects, etc., but is disdained by
> > > > > > > bigCirc magazines, critics with names, colleges--because considered
> > > > > > > out-of-date, or trivial; haiku, for example.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Who is supposed to know what you mean by some word that you have
> > > > > > basically extracted from your kiester?
> > > > >
> > > > > Those who read what I write, moron.
> > > >
> > > > Aren't you embarrassed by your egocentrism?
> > >
> > > It's not egocentric to introduce words, moron.
> >
> > It is when the only purpose to do so is to strengthen the hand of the
> > coiner. See, no matter how correctly your opponent uses one of your
> > little terms, you can always debate the point by shifting the
> > definition. You've done this with me before and you'll do it again
> > with others. But let's be clear about what it is: egocentrism. And,
> > without merit, it's nothing but narcissism.
<snip>
> > > [...] If I consider you, a person who has a different opinion of
> > > mine as to who wrote the plays William Shakespeare of Stratford wrote,
> > > insane, it follows that I consider ANYONE who sees the world
> > > differently from the way I do as insane. Anti-Stratfordian logic in a
> > > nutshell.
> >
> > If I cared to know, I'd ask for an example to the contrary.
>
> I just disagreed with John Kennedy and Peter Groves and several others
> about
> iambic pentameter. I don't consider any of them insane. I disagreed
> recently with Terry Ross about the value of calling wacks wacks but
> don't consider him insane. I disagree with all manner of people on
> what the best poems are, and what music's best, etc., etc., and don't
> consider any of them insane (except possibly a few I consider insane
> for other reasons). Etc. etc. I only consider people whose
> interpretation of reality seems to me irrational and/or extremely
> illogical to be insane (and then not necessarily insane in any area
> but the one they apply their warped interpretations to).
THAT right there is why you're a dope. RIGHT there, Grumman. People
whose interpretation of reality SEEMS IRRATIONAL or ILLOGICAL to YOU
are INSANE. Well, Mr. PhD, that is a SHIT-AWFUL understanding of what
mental illness is. The truth is that you don't have any idea what
mental illness is, but feel free to charge it to everyone around you.
THAT is unacceptable. THAT is unscientific and ungentlemanly and
chickenshit.
> As I've said
> many times, I mostly use the term hyperbolically. Informally.
No, what you do is you USE it. You USE it all the time. It's not up to
you to describe HOW you USE it; that can be done well enough by people
who have to endure the misuse you make of the English language. The
truth is that you DON'T KNOW WHAT MENTALL ILLNESS IS. The very idea
that you style yourself a philosopher of the human mind (an
achievement you explicitly deny to SHAKESPEARE, for Christ's sake!) is
just an outrage against logic, taste, and nature herself.
> When
> formal, I prefer terms more exact than "insane" and "wack." Rigidnik
> is one. There are degrees of it. Most rigidniks are mere neurotics,
> but some are quite insane in some areas.
Amateur hour's over. You wear no clothes, Mr. PhD.
> > > > > My poetry, for instance, ranges from extreme simplicty to a
> > > > > complexity no one can make final sense of including me.
> > > >
> > > > It's all very safe. Who will know the difference? You live in a world
> > > > where even the very terminology of your belief has to be devised and
> > > > supervised by YOU. Who wants to have to obey your rules when debating
> > > > you?
> > >
> > > I lay down no rules whatever, moron. There is no requirement that
> > > others use my terminology. If its meaning is unclear to them, they
> > > need but ask, and I will do my best to clarify it.
> >
> > But that's the deal, isn't it? There's a little bit of power in that,
> > isn't there? Make them ask.
>
> Gaining power over others is very low on my list of ambitions.
> Expressing myself as clearly as I can about reality as I understand it
> is very high. I won't say more on that topic.
Oh, but what pearls of ineptitude you've surely thrown away!
<snip>
> > > (Try not to get too upset with the word
> > > I coined in this paragraph, wack.)
> >
> > Do yourself a favor and find another way to address me, you old poser.
>
> Sorry, wack: I want to reserve the word "asshole" for Justice Stevens.
I think "uncle" is your only option now.
Toby Petzold
Bob Grumman
> > > > > Shakespeare was one, too?
> > > >
> > > > I have written essays on aesthetics and other philosophical subjects,
> > > > wack.
> > >
> > > So have most undergrads.
> >
> > Okay, I have written SERIOUS essays on aesthetics and other
> > philosophical subjects UNCOMPELLED.
>
> Fair enough.
What kinda trick is this???
> > > > I have constructed a full-scale theory of how the human mind
> > > > works and written it down.
> > >
> > > How is that philosophy?
> >
> > Actually, I'm not sure what it is. It includes epistemology,
> > aesthetics, ethics, probably other kinds of philosophy. MOST (correction)
> > accurately, it is theoretical psychology, but I have trouble telling
> > psychology from philosophy.
>
> And, yet, you deny Shakespeare the title of philosopher. Fascinating
> (in the Spockian sense).
Psychology and many fields of philosophy focus on determining truths
about the human mind and explicitly, systematically expressing them.
Playwrights use what they take to be truths to construct artworks.
> > > I would be very surprised if your theory
> > > incorporates even a fraction of the science such an endeavor would
> > > require. If your understanding of the mind is as crippled and stunted
> > > as it's expressed here, "wack," I wouldn't put any stock in it whatsoever.
> >
> > Well, Wack, I conceived most of its main points at a time when I had
> > no more formal education than Shakespeare had, so there's no way a
> > moron like you could put ANY stock in it.
>
> I don't know what you're saying. Even the most dyed-in-the-wool
> Stratfordian can't put the deer-poacher past about 8th grade, so is
> that where you were educationally when you cooked up your theory of
> human psychology (which may be philosophy)?
I suspected you'd say something like that. I got through twelfth
grade--which is probably less formal education than Shakespeare got,
and--I believe--I had less hours of formal education than he did. I
think children then spent more hours per day than we did, and their
school year lasted longer. Rob posted on this, I think. I'm hazy on
it all.
I was in my middle twenties when I cooked up my theory.
It was not a definition. Or is "reading has to do with words" a
definition of reading? I'd call it a partial description. My
dictionary says a definition is a statement of the essential nature of
something.
Sorry. I left out that insane people also twitch a lot.
> The truth is that you don't have any idea what
> mental illness is, but feel free to charge it to everyone around you.
> THAT is unacceptable. THAT is unscientific and ungentlemanly and
> chickenshit.
Gracious me. But it's okay for you to charge people without having
any idea of something--when you disagree with them. Frankly, I'd much
rather be called insane than stupid. But I suppose a person with your
background would be the reverse.
> > As I've said
> > many times, I mostly use the term hyperbolically. Informally.
>
> No, what you do is you USE it. You USE it all the time. It's not up to
> you to describe HOW you USE it; that can be done well enough by people
> who have to endure the misuse you make of the English language. The
> truth is that you DON'T KNOW WHAT MENTALL ILLNESS IS. The very idea
> that you style yourself a philosopher of the human mind (an
> achievement you explicitly deny to SHAKESPEARE, for Christ's sake!) is
> just an outrage against logic, taste, and nature herself.
Just how long have you been out of the institution, anyway?
> > When
> > formal, I prefer terms more exact than "insane" and "wack." Rigidnik
> > is one. There are degrees of it. Most rigidniks are mere neurotics,
> > but some are quite insane in some areas.
>
> Amateur hour's over. You wear no clothes, Mr. PhD.
No clothes! That's a good one, wack!
> > > > > > My poetry, for instance, ranges from extreme simplicty to a
> > > > > > complexity no one can make final sense of including me.
> > > > >
> > > > > It's all very safe. Who will know the difference? You live in a world
> > > > > where even the very terminology of your belief has to be devised and
> > > > > supervised by YOU. Who wants to have to obey your rules when debating
> > > > > you?
> > > >
> > > > I lay down no rules whatever, moron. There is no requirement that
> > > > others use my terminology. If its meaning is unclear to them, they
> > > > need but ask, and I will do my best to clarify it.
> > >
> > > But that's the deal, isn't it? There's a little bit of power in that,
> > > isn't there? Make them ask.
> >
> > Gaining power over others is very low on my list of ambitions.
> > Expressing myself as clearly as I can about reality as I understand it
> > is very high. I won't say more on that topic.
>
> Oh, but what pearls of ineptitude you've surely thrown away!
>
> <snip>
>
> > > > (Try not to get too upset with the word
> > > > I coined in this paragraph, wack.)
> > >
> > > Do yourself a favor and find another way to address me, you old poser.
> >
> > Sorry, wack: I want to reserve the word "asshole" for Justice Stevens.
>
> I think "uncle" is your only option now.
>
> Toby Petzold
Hmmm. If you have indeed proved me as mentally incompetent as you've
tried to, how can I be expected to understand that you have done so?
--Bob G.
Toby Petzold
> > > > > > How can you refer to yourself as a philosopher and deny that
> > > > > > Shakespeare was one, too?
> > > > >
> > > > > I have written essays on aesthetics and other philosophical subjects,
> > > > > wack.
> > > >
> > > > So have most undergrads.
> > >
> > > Okay, I have written SERIOUS essays on aesthetics and other
> > > philosophical subjects UNCOMPELLED.
> >
> > Fair enough.
>
> What kinda trick is this???
>
> > > > > I have constructed a full-scale theory of how the human mind
> > > > > works and written it down.
> > > >
> > > > How is that philosophy?
> > >
> > > Actually, I'm not sure what it is. It includes epistemology,
> > > aesthetics, ethics, probably other kinds of philosophy. MOST (correction)
> > > accurately, it is theoretical psychology, but I have trouble telling
> > > psychology from philosophy.
> >
> > And, yet, you deny Shakespeare the title of philosopher. Fascinating
> > (in the Spockian sense).
>
> Psychology and many fields of philosophy focus on determining truths
> about the human mind and explicitly, systematically expressing them.
> Playwrights use what they take to be truths to construct artworks.
Maybe Shakespeare's philosophical genius is so ubiquitous that you
don't even recognize it as such. That is the only possible excuse I
can make for your otherwise incredibly ignorant position.
> > > > I would be very surprised if your theory
> > > > incorporates even a fraction of the science such an endeavor would
> > > > require. If your understanding of the mind is as crippled and stunted
> > > > as it's expressed here, "wack," I wouldn't put any stock in it whatsoever.
> > >
> > > Well, Wack, I conceived most of its main points at a time when I had
> > > no more formal education than Shakespeare had, so there's no way a
> > > moron like you could put ANY stock in it.
> >
> > I don't know what you're saying. Even the most dyed-in-the-wool
> > Stratfordian can't put the deer-poacher past about 8th grade, so is
> > that where you were educationally when you cooked up your theory of
> > human psychology (which may be philosophy)?
>
> I suspected you'd say something like that. I got through twelfth
> grade--which is probably less formal education than Shakespeare got,
> and--I believe--I had less hours of formal education than he did.
Equivalences are hard to determine.
> I
> think children then spent more hours per day than we did, and their
> school year lasted longer. Rob posted on this, I think. I'm hazy on
> it all.
>
> I was in my middle twenties when I cooked up my theory.
That's the time I cooked up Neognosticism, but I abandoned it as a
formal belief system because I was not observing its primary tenets. I
lost the right to prophesy to the unlearned masses by [virtue] of my
own laziness.
<snip>
> > > > Your definition of linguistic evolution is much too profound for me.
> > > > Can't you put a neologism in there somewhere that will make it all
> > > > clear? And what do our resident linguists think of this definition?
> > >
> > > Learn to read. Where did I define linguistic evolution?
> >
> > "Has to do with" is a general, colloquial way of prefacing a
> > definition. But you can't go blaming me because your definition was
> > deficient.
>
> It was not a definition. Or is "reading has to do with words" a
> definition of reading? I'd call it a partial description. My
> dictionary says a definition is a statement of the essential nature of
> something.
Fine.
<snip>
> > > I just disagreed with John Kennedy and Peter Groves and several others
> > > about
> > > iambic pentameter. I don't consider any of them insane. I disagreed
> > > recently with Terry Ross about the value of calling wacks wacks but
> > > don't consider him insane. I disagree with all manner of people on
> > > what the best poems are, and what music's best, etc., etc., and don't
> > > consider any of them insane (except possibly a few I consider insane
> > > for other reasons). Etc. etc. I only consider people whose
> > > interpretation of reality seems to me irrational and/or extremely
> > > illogical to be insane (and then not necessarily insane in any area
> > > but the one they apply their warped interpretations to).
> >
> > THAT right there is why you're a dope. RIGHT there, Grumman. People
> > whose interpretation of reality SEEMS IRRATIONAL or ILLOGICAL to YOU
> > are INSANE. Well, Mr. PhD, that is a SHIT-AWFUL understanding of what
> > mental illness is.
>
> Sorry. I left out that insane people also twitch a lot.
>
> > The truth is that you don't have any idea what
> > mental illness is, but feel free to charge it to everyone around you.
> > THAT is unacceptable. THAT is unscientific and ungentlemanly and
> > chickenshit.
>
> Gracious me. But it's okay for you to charge people without having
> any idea of something--when you disagree with them. Frankly, I'd much
> rather be called insane than stupid. But I suppose a person with your
> background would be the reverse.
I have plenty of an idea about what you think since you do nothing but
write about it. And my verdict? You don't know what mental illness is.
It doesn't matter whether YOU understand me.
Toby Petzold
Bob Grumman
> > about the human mind and explicitly, systematically expressing them.
> > Playwrights use what they take to be truths to construct artworks.
>
> Maybe Shakespeare's philosophical genius is so ubiquitous that you
> don't even recognize it as such. That is the only possible excuse I
> can make for your otherwise incredibly ignorant position.
Refer to my definition and state what's wrong with it, or how it
applies to Shakespeare's works.
By the way, I just checked two histories of philosophy I have, one of
them Bertrand Russell's. Neither lists Shakespeare as a philosopher.
Russell was so incredibly ignorant that he doesn't even MENTION him in
his history. The other author occasionally mentions him (and other
creative writers) as having
been influenced by certain philosophers (as most creative writers
are).
> > >
> > > THAT right there is why you're a dope. RIGHT there, Grumman. People
> > > whose interpretation of reality SEEMS IRRATIONAL or ILLOGICAL to YOU
> > > are INSANE. Well, Mr. PhD, that is a SHIT-AWFUL understanding of what
> > > mental illness is.
> >
> > Sorry. I left out that insane people also twitch a lot.
> >
> > > The truth is that you don't have any idea what
> > > mental illness is, but feel free to charge it to everyone around you.
> > > THAT is unacceptable. THAT is unscientific and ungentlemanly and
> > > chickenshit.
> >
> > Gracious me. But it's okay for you to charge people without having
> > any idea of something--when you disagree with them. Frankly, I'd much
> > rather be called insane than stupid. But I suppose a person with your
> > background would be the reverse.
>
> I have plenty of an idea about what you think since you do nothing but
> write about it. And my verdict? You don't know what mental illness is.
Which is calling me stupid. Which I don't mind but point out only
because you so self-righteously condemn me calling you and others
insane.
As for my not knowing what mental illness is, I wonder what you think
it is if irrationality is not part of its definition, as I've said it
is.
SNIPs galore above and here.
--Bob G.
Toby Petzold
> > > Psychology and many fields of philosophy focus on determining truths
> > > about the human mind and explicitly, systematically expressing them.
> > > Playwrights use what they take to be truths to construct artworks.
> >
> > Maybe Shakespeare's philosophical genius is so ubiquitous that you
> > don't even recognize it as such. That is the only possible excuse I
> > can make for your otherwise incredibly ignorant position.
>
> Refer to my definition and state what's wrong with it, or how it
> applies to Shakespeare's works.
The first sentence of this post? One half of it is too indefinite to
be sufficient and the other half is too formal to be relevant.
Philosophy is the love of wisdom and few people can match Shakespeare
in this respect. He is the all-time master of the contemplative
moment; THAT is above contradiction. Therefore, he is an authority on
existential thought. Are you telling me, in a world where the
Cartesian axiom "Cogito, ergo sum" holds such sway, that Shakespeare
is not entitled to the distinction of philosopher?
> By the way, I just checked two histories of philosophy I have, one of
> them Bertrand Russell's. Neither lists Shakespeare as a philosopher.
Well, that's on them. Is Russell's definition so formalized that he
can't bring himself to regard anything but unindented Teutonic bricks
with lots of Latin and Greek phrases interspersed as philosophy?
Shakespeare supersedes all of that crap because of his applicability
and humanity. He demonstrates the human consequences of all political
and moral philosophy ---not with footnotes and [erudition], but in the
rise and fall of his characters.
> Russell was so incredibly ignorant that he doesn't even MENTION him in
> his history. The other author occasionally mentions him (and other
> creative writers) as having
> been influenced by certain philosophers (as most creative writers
> are).
Why aren't you mentioning the "other author's" name?
> > > >
> > > > THAT right there is why you're a dope. RIGHT there, Grumman. People
> > > > whose interpretation of reality SEEMS IRRATIONAL or ILLOGICAL to YOU
> > > > are INSANE. Well, Mr. PhD, that is a SHIT-AWFUL understanding of what
> > > > mental illness is.
> > >
> > > Sorry. I left out that insane people also twitch a lot.
> > >
> > > > The truth is that you don't have any idea what
> > > > mental illness is, but feel free to charge it to everyone around you.
> > > > THAT is unacceptable. THAT is unscientific and ungentlemanly and
> > > > chickenshit.
> > >
> > > Gracious me. But it's okay for you to charge people without having
> > > any idea of something--when you disagree with them. Frankly, I'd much
> > > rather be called insane than stupid. But I suppose a person with your
> > > background would be the reverse.
> >
> > I have plenty of an idea about what you think since you do nothing but
> > write about it. And my verdict? You don't know what mental illness is.
>
> Which is calling me stupid. Which I don't mind but point out only
> because you so self-righteously condemn me calling you and others
> insane.
No, just righteously.
> As for my not knowing what mental illness is, I wonder what you think
> it is if irrationality is not part of its definition, as I've said it
> is.
Irrationality also encompasses counter-intuition, instinct, and
emotion (although, the more we learn of neurochemistry, the less
rationality figures into it). Are you going to call these aspects of
mental illness, too?
> SNIPs galore above and here.
Toby Petzold
Bob Grumman
> > > > about the human mind and explicitly, systematically expressing them.
> > > > Playwrights use what they take to be truths to construct artworks.
> > >
> > > Maybe Shakespeare's philosophical genius is so ubiquitous that you
> > > don't even recognize it as such. That is the only possible excuse I
> > > can make for your otherwise incredibly ignorant position.
> >
> > Refer to my definition and state what's wrong with it, or how it
> > applies to Shakespeare's works.
>
> The first sentence of this post? One half of it is too indefinite to
> be sufficient
Then tell me what other fields FOCUS on determining truths about the
human mind besides philosophy and psychology. Shakespeare NEVER does.
and the other half is too formal to be relevant.
Speaking of being explicit (as in A = 6) and systematic (as in we are
ruled by four humours; the first is A, the second B, which is
distinguish from A by HF.)
> Philosophy is the love of wisdom and few people can match Shakespeare
> in this respect.
Now, THAT'S really sufficient.
> He is the all-time master of the contemplative
> moment; THAT is above contradiction.
I contradict it. It's plain silly. Montaigne beats him, even if you
consider only literary writers of around Shakespeare's time. His
characters sometimes are mildly, unrigorously contemplative for short
periods of time. His sonnets are specimens of short-term
contemplation, but rarely in any sane sense philosophical.
> Therefore, he is an authority on
> existential thought. Are you telling me, in a world where the
> Cartesian axiom "Cogito, ergo sum" holds such sway, that Shakespeare
> is not entitled to the distinction of philosopher?
Yes, wack. If he's entitled to it, what creative writer is not? What
PERSON is not? Is he also a mathematician because he counted lines
when he made sonnets?
> > By the way, I just checked two histories of philosophy I have, one of
> > them Bertrand Russell's. Neither lists Shakespeare as a philosopher.
>
> Well, that's on them. Is Russell's definition so formalized that he
> can't bring himself to regard anything but unindented Teutonic bricks
> with lots of Latin and Greek phrases interspersed as philosophy?
I suspect he is influenced by everyone who ever wrote seriously about
the history of philosophy in believing that philosophers are those who
focus on finding out what reality is and systematically and explicitly
express their findings.
> Shakespeare supersedes all of that crap because of his applicability
> and humanity. He demonstrates the human consequences of all political
> and moral philosophy ---not with footnotes and [erudition], but in the
> rise and fall of his characters.
Hogwash. He illustrates a good many political and moral truths, as do
many other writers. But certainly not "all."
> > Russell was so incredibly ignorant that he doesn't even MENTION him in
> > his history. The other author occasionally mentions him (and other
> > creative writers) as having
> > been influenced by certain philosophers (as most creative writers
> > are).
>
> Why aren't you mentioning the "other author's" name?
I wasn't sure exactly what it was and didn't think it worth checking.
It's Dagobert Runes.
That's right, moron. And irrationality also "encompasses" the use of
words, so I'm going to call the use of words an aspect of mental
illness, too.
I note that you failed to tell me whether irrationality is part of
mental illness's definition or not.
--Bob G.
Toby Petzold
> > > > > Psychology and many fields of philosophy focus on determining truths
> > > > > about the human mind and explicitly, systematically expressing them.
> > > > > Playwrights use what they take to be truths to construct artworks.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe Shakespeare's philosophical genius is so ubiquitous that you
> > > > don't even recognize it as such. That is the only possible excuse I
> > > > can make for your otherwise incredibly ignorant position.
> > >
> > > Refer to my definition and state what's wrong with it, or how it
> > > applies to Shakespeare's works.
> >
> > The first sentence of this post? One half of it is too indefinite to
> > be sufficient
>
> Then tell me what other fields FOCUS on determining truths about the
> human mind besides philosophy and psychology. Shakespeare NEVER does.
First of all, why did you tell me that you can't tell the difference
between psychology and philosophy? I don't know why that bugs me, but
it does. Second, I think there's too much to be said about Truth for
you to claim that Shakespeare does not address it. There is a subtext
running through many of the plays dealing with appearance and reality;
mistaken identities; misplaced personalities; misperceived actions,
etc. In each of these situations, the consequences of deception and
delusion are manifested in the actions of very human characters. Some
lovers of Shakespeare will swear to you that certain of his characters
seem more real to them than do actual people that they know. Why
should that be? Because there is a genius that informs and makes
archetypal representations of them. Moral and political philosophy is
best expressed through such types. They're like allegorical beings
because they are logical extensions of the essential story.
> > and the other half is too formal to be relevant.
>
> Speaking of being explicit (as in A = 6) and systematic (as in we are
> ruled by four humours; the first is A, the second B, which is
> distinguish from A by HF.)
I don't understand what you're saying.
> > Philosophy is the love of wisdom and few people can match Shakespeare
> > in this respect.
>
> Now, THAT'S really sufficient.
Why do I have to explain to you Shakespeare's basic wisdom? Why would
his words give so many people so much comfort and resonate so deeply
through the centuries if he were not, in fact, a philosopher? He gave
words to the simplest and most complex sentiments humans can know. He
is quoted about as often as the Bible; that, in itself, seals it for
me. Philosophers of his kind are accessible and have applicability,
unlike some kraut wordmonger like Hegel, whom you have to be an
unemployed bachelor philologist to understand.
> > He is the all-time master of the contemplative
> > moment; THAT is above contradiction.
>
> I contradict it. It's plain silly.
No, having to reply to you on this is silly. You're just contradicting
me for the sake of it.
> Montaigne beats him, even if you
> consider only literary writers of around Shakespeare's time.
Oh, okay.
> His
> characters sometimes are mildly, unrigorously contemplative for short
> periods of time.
Observe the Stratfordian at work, ladies and gentlemen. It is in his
nature to tear down genius to make it fit the confines of the box he
has settled on.
> His sonnets are specimens of short-term
> contemplation, but rarely in any sane sense philosophical.
Right. That's why people respond to them so warmly and take comfort in
their grasp of human nature.
> > Therefore, he is an authority on
> > existential thought. Are you telling me, in a world where the
> > Cartesian axiom "Cogito, ergo sum" holds such sway, that Shakespeare
> > is not entitled to the distinction of philosopher?
>
> Yes, wack. If he's entitled to it, what creative writer is not?
Oh, I can think of at least ONE who isn't.
> What
> PERSON is not?
Dumbasses, illiterates, mouth-breathers, book-burners (sorry,
bookburn!), homogenists, anti-intellectuals, Floridians, retards, et
al. In fact, the vast majority of all human beings who have ever lived
cannot lay claim to such a distinction, which is why it is reserved
for the special few who have recreated the world by the light of their
own exceptional standards.
> Is he also a mathematician because he counted lines
> when he made sonnets?
No. Only a dumbass would say such a thing.
> > > By the way, I just checked two histories of philosophy I have, one of
> > > them Bertrand Russell's. Neither lists Shakespeare as a philosopher.
> >
> > Well, that's on them. Is Russell's definition so formalized that he
> > can't bring himself to regard anything but unindented Teutonic bricks
> > with lots of Latin and Greek phrases interspersed as philosophy?
>
> I suspect he is influenced by everyone who ever wrote seriously about
> the history of philosophy in believing that philosophers are those who
> focus on finding out what reality is and systematically and explicitly
> express their findings.
As I say, your understanding of philosophy is stunted. It is in no way
necessary to systematize one's definition of reality by the formal
standards that Russell insists upon. That's simply wrong. Art raises
its head where Science cannot come to any final conclusion on the
nature of reality. That's because Art can express and reflect the
subjective, whereas Science, which strives to be objective, is often
superseded by a more complete reckoning of some factual domain. Go dig
out a 20 year-old college textbook on neurochemistry and compare it to
one of today's. You will notice countless changes. Does a great poem
or play suffer the same outmodedness? Not if it is a true and human
account of subjective being.
> > Shakespeare supersedes all of that crap because of his applicability
> > and humanity. He demonstrates the human consequences of all political
> > and moral philosophy ---not with footnotes and [erudition], but in the
> > rise and fall of his characters.
>
> Hogwash. He illustrates a good many political and moral truths, as do
> many other writers. But certainly not "all."
That's the extent of your contradiction? Pretty pathetic, Bob. But I
am thinking of Hamlet's existential dialogue within himself and
Macbeth's seizing the throne against his own conscience. What about
Prospero's self-abnegation and Shylock's struggle to be recognized?
Each of these characters represents the philosophical nature of man in
ways that TEACH people. And that is better than any rigid system of
laws and bylaws.
> > > Russell was so incredibly ignorant that he doesn't even MENTION him in
> > > his history. The other author occasionally mentions him (and other
> > > creative writers) as having
> > > been influenced by certain philosophers (as most creative writers
> > > are).
> >
> > Why aren't you mentioning the "other author's" name?
>
> I wasn't sure exactly what it was and didn't think it worth checking.
> It's Dagobert Runes.
<unnoted snippage by Grumman>
Why are you being so shockingly stupid? Just admit you got taken to
school and get over it.
> I note that you failed to tell me whether irrationality is part of
> mental illness's definition or not.
I note you failed to acknowledge that your responses suck.
Toby Petzold
Bob Grumman
>
> > > > > > Psychology and many fields of philosophy focus on determining truths
> > > > > > about the human mind and explicitly, systematically expressing them.
> > > > > > Playwrights use what they take to be truths to construct artworks.
> > > > >
> > > > > Maybe Shakespeare's philosophical genius is so ubiquitous that you
> > > > > don't even recognize it as such. That is the only possible excuse I
> > > > > can make for your otherwise incredibly ignorant position.
> > > >
> > > > Refer to my definition and state what's wrong with it, or how it
> > > > applies to Shakespeare's works.
> > >
> > > The first sentence of this post? One half of it is too indefinite to
> > > be sufficient
> >
> > Then tell me what other fields FOCUS on determining truths about the
> > human mind besides philosophy and psychology. Shakespeare NEVER does.
>
> First of all, why did you tell me that you can't tell the difference
> between psychology and philosophy?
I have trouble with telling exactly what psychology is because so much
of it is not scientific. A lot of recent empirical psychology is
scientific but too trivial to qualify as a field, in my view. But I
was speaking of my own theory of psychology which is intended to be
scientific but may contain too many theoretical brain-parts to be so,
in which case, it is philosophy.
> I don't know why that bugs me, but
> it does. Second, I think there's too much to be said about Truth for
> you to claim that Shakespeare does not address it. There is a subtext
> running through many of the plays dealing with appearance and reality;
> mistaken identities; misplaced personalities; misperceived actions,
> etc. In each of these situations, the consequences of deception and
> delusion are manifested in the actions of very human characters. Some
> lovers of Shakespeare will swear to you that certain of his characters
> seem more real to them than do actual people that they know. Why
> should that be? Because there is a genius that informs and makes
> archetypal representations of them. Moral and political philosophy is
> best expressed through such types. They're like allegorical beings
> because they are logical extensions of the essential story.
Simple reply: philosophy is explicitly, systematically and
conceptually about Reality. Shakespeare's plays are not.
> > > and the other half is too formal to be relevant.
> >
> > Speaking of being explicit (as in A = 6) and systematic (as in we are
> > ruled by four humours; the first is A, the second B, which is
> > distinguishED from A by HF.)
>
> I don't understand what you're saying.
You described the first half of my definition as too indefinite. I'm
showing it was quite definite.
> > > Philosophy is the love of wisdom and few people can match Shakespeare
> > > in this respect.
> >
> > Now, THAT'S really sufficient.
>
> Why do I have to explain to you Shakespeare's basic wisdom? Why would
> his words give so many people so much comfort and resonate so deeply
> through the centuries if he were not, in fact, a philosopher?
Toby, face it: you simply don't know what a philosopher is. But you
apparently are contemptuous of playwriting, so can't allow your
demigod to be nothing but a playwright, or a poet and a playwright.
> He gave
> words to the simplest and most complex sentiments humans can know. He
> is quoted about as often as the Bible; that, in itself, seals it for
> me. Philosophers of his kind are accessible and have applicability,
> unlike some kraut wordmonger like Hegel, whom you have to be an
> unemployed bachelor philologist to understand.
> > > He is the all-time master of the contemplative
> > > moment; THAT is above contradiction.
> >
> > I contradict it. It's plain silly.
>
> No, having to reply to you on this is silly. You're just contradicting
> me for the sake of it.
No. I go on to support my contradicttion.
> > Montaigne beats him, even if you
> > consider only literary writers of around Shakespeare's time.
>
> Oh, okay.
>
> > His
> > characters sometimes are mildly, unrigorously contemplative for short
> > periods of time.
>
> Observe the Stratfordian at work, ladies and gentlemen. It is in his
> nature to tear down genius to make it fit the confines of the box he
> has settled on.
Observe the wack at work: he has to assume that a playwright who
doesn't make his characters Geniuses of Contemplative Philosophy can't
be a genius. No matter, I guess, how much eloquence, psychological
depth, and narrative size he gives them.
> > His sonnets are specimens of short-term
> > contemplation, but rarely in any sane sense philosophical.
>
> Right. That's why people respond to them so warmly and take comfort in
> their grasp of human nature.
You don't know what philosophy is, but you like its cachet.
> > > Therefore, he is an authority on
> > > existential thought. Are you telling me, in a world where the
> > > Cartesian axiom "Cogito, ergo sum" holds such sway, that Shakespeare
> > > is not entitled to the distinction of philosopher?
> >
> > Yes, wack. If he's entitled to it, what creative writer is not?
>
> Oh, I can think of at least ONE who isn't.
Ah, you cannot find any philosophy underlying my work (which you've
read in its entirety)?
> > What
> > PERSON is not?
>
> Dumbasses, illiterates, mouth-breathers, book-burners (sorry,
> bookburn!), homogenists, anti-intellectuals, Floridians, retards, et
> al. In fact, the vast majority of all human beings who have ever lived
> cannot lay claim to such a distinction, which is why it is reserved
> for the special few who have recreated the world by the light of their
> own exceptional standards.
So someone with whose opinions on what you consider important subjects
is a philosopher, but not the rest of us. Right.
> > Is he also a mathematician because he counted lines
> > when he made sonnets?
>
> No. Only a dumbass would say such a thing.
Not a mathematician! My God, how you demean the fellow!?
> > > > By the way, I just checked two histories of philosophy I have, one of
> > > > them Bertrand Russell's. Neither lists Shakespeare as a philosopher.
> > >
> > > Well, that's on them. Is Russell's definition so formalized that he
> > > can't bring himself to regard anything but unindented Teutonic bricks
> > > with lots of Latin and Greek phrases interspersed as philosophy?
> >
> > I suspect he is influenced by everyone who ever wrote seriously about
> > the history of philosophy in believing that philosophers are those who
> > focus on finding out what reality is and systematically and explicitly
> > express their findings.
>
> As I say, your understanding of philosophy is stunted. It is in no way
> necessary to systematize one's definition of reality by the formal
> standards that Russell insists upon.
I don't know that Russell insists upon anything like that.
> That's simply wrong. Art raises
> its head where Science cannot come to any final conclusion on the
> nature of reality. That's because Art can express and reflect the
> subjective, whereas Science, which strives to be objective, is often
> superseded by a more complete reckoning of some factual domain. Go dig
> out a 20 year-old college textbook on neurochemistry and compare it to
> one of today's. You will notice countless changes. Does a great poem
> or play suffer the same outmodedness? Not if it is a true and human
> account of subjective being.
I'm not going into all this. Too large a topic. Will just ask why
you think there are the two words, "science" and "art?"
> > > Shakespeare supersedes all of that crap because of his applicability
> > > and humanity. He demonstrates the human consequences of all political
> > > and moral philosophy ---not with footnotes and [erudition], but in the
> > > rise and fall of his characters.
> >
> > Hogwash. He illustrates a good many political and moral truths, as do
> > many other writers. But certainly not "all."
>
> That's the extent of your contradiction? Pretty pathetic, Bob. But I
> am thinking of Hamlet's existential dialogue within himself and
> Macbeth's seizing the throne against his own conscience. What about
> Prospero's self-abnegation and Shylock's struggle to be recognized?
> Each of these characters represents the philosophical nature of man in
> ways that TEACH people. And that is better than any rigid system of
> laws and bylaws.
Just as I said: he illustrates a good many political and moral truths,
as do many other writers. But certainly not all. You said he did;
it's up to you to show it by listing all the political and moral
questions and showing that Shakespeare considered them.
My point would be obvious to a SANE person, wack: that irrationality
has virtues do not mean it doesn't have defects, nor that it is not
part of any SANE definition of mental illness.
> > I note that you failed to tell me whether irrationality is part of
> > mental illness's definition or not.
>
> I note you failed to acknowledge that your responses suck.
If that is so, you should be able to demonstrate it. One way in this
case would be to show that mental illness has nothing to do with
irrationality.
--Bob G.
Toby Petzold
> > First of all, why did you tell me that you can't tell the difference
> > between psychology and philosophy?
>
> I have trouble with telling exactly what psychology is because so much
> of it is not scientific.
Right. A lot of it is psychoanalytical and/or pop. Useful for playing
head games and giving pep talks, but it is all being subsumed by our
understanding of neurochemistry.
> A lot of recent empirical psychology is
> scientific but too trivial to qualify as a field, in my view.
I'm not sure what that means.
> But I
> was speaking of my own theory of psychology which is intended to be
> scientific but may contain too many theoretical brain-parts to be so,
> in which case, it is philosophy.
Since the brain is an organic entity, it is subject to all the laws of
physics and chemistry. It, along with other physical systems that
comprise a living body, is the source of consciousness ---a
self-perceiving state of organic being that may embrace the belief in
its own spiritual or supernatural existence. Any "theory of
psychology" that does not originate in the physical reality of the
brain and our various glands is invalid. Cartesian dualism, as I
understand it, is inexact: mind/spirit is a subset of matter and not
its equal. My evidence of this lies in the fact that even quantum
physicists stop at intersections.
> > I don't know why that bugs me, but
> > it does. Second, I think there's too much to be said about Truth for
> > you to claim that Shakespeare does not address it. There is a subtext
> > running through many of the plays dealing with appearance and reality;
> > mistaken identities; misplaced personalities; misperceived actions,
> > etc. In each of these situations, the consequences of deception and
> > delusion are manifested in the actions of very human characters. Some
> > lovers of Shakespeare will swear to you that certain of his characters
> > seem more real to them than do actual people that they know. Why
> > should that be? Because there is a genius that informs and makes
> > archetypal representations of them. Moral and political philosophy is
> > best expressed through such types. They're like allegorical beings
> > because they are logical extensions of the essential story.
>
> Simple reply: philosophy is explicitly, systematically and
> conceptually about Reality.
Objective, empirical Reality? The tree-falling-in-the-woods kind?
> Shakespeare's plays are not.
Inasmuch as existential thought is an approach to the refinement and
validation of self-perception in a physical reality, Shakespeare
demonstrates that stuff all the time. Think about the dialogue between
Romeo and Juliet in their famous balcony scene where she asks why he
is "Romeo" and not some other name and why being known by some other
name wouldn't be just as good. Is essence defined and confined in a
word ---oops! YOU probably think SO.
> > > > and the other half is too formal to be relevant.
> > >
> > > Speaking of being explicit (as in A = 6) and systematic (as in we are
> > > ruled by four humours; the first is A, the second B, which is
> > > distinguishED from A by HF.)
> >
> > I don't understand what you're saying.
>
> You described the first half of my definition as too indefinite. I'm
> showing it was quite definite.
With polynomial algebra? Yecchhh!
> > > > Philosophy is the love of wisdom and few people can match Shakespeare
> > > > in this respect.
> > >
> > > Now, THAT'S really sufficient.
> >
> > Why do I have to explain to you Shakespeare's basic wisdom? Why would
> > his words give so many people so much comfort and resonate so deeply
> > through the centuries if he were not, in fact, a philosopher?
>
> Toby, face it: you simply don't know what a philosopher is.
Sez you.
> But you
> apparently are contemptuous of playwriting, so can't allow your
> demigod to be nothing but a playwright, or a poet and a playwright.
Nonsense.
Are we talking about some other playwright?
> > > His sonnets are specimens of short-term
> > > contemplation, but rarely in any sane sense philosophical.
> >
> > Right. That's why people respond to them so warmly and take comfort in
> > their grasp of human nature.
>
> You don't know what philosophy is, but you like its cachet.
It means love of wisdom, right? And when people make reference to the
very same thoughts and ideas that Shakespeare expressed 400 years ago
to validate some aspect of their own experience, that is a
demonstration of the rarity of his wisdom. What does a man mean when
he yells "My kingdom for a horse!" (Yeah, I know he borrowed that from
an earlier R3). He's saying that he will take what is essential to his
needs in exchange for what is possible to possess. What is the
consequence of Othello's squeezing the life out of his beloved
Desdemona? Is he not beyond wretchedness when he realizes that he has
deliberately thrown away (murdered) the thing that meant the most to
him because of his own misperceptions? Now, you can say that your
understanding of Philosophy is superior to mine because it is all
about "Reality," but if you can doubt that there are such things as
moral and political philosophy, then you are the one who is most in
need of remedial help.
> > > > Therefore, he is an authority on
> > > > existential thought. Are you telling me, in a world where the
> > > > Cartesian axiom "Cogito, ergo sum" holds such sway, that Shakespeare
> > > > is not entitled to the distinction of philosopher?
> > >
> > > Yes, wack. If he's entitled to it, what creative writer is not?
> >
> > Oh, I can think of at least ONE who isn't.
>
> Ah, you cannot find any philosophy underlying my work (which you've
> read in its entirety)?
It's always about YOU. What an egomaniac!
> > > What
> > > PERSON is not?
> >
> > Dumbasses, illiterates, mouth-breathers, book-burners (sorry,
> > bookburn!), homogenists, anti-intellectuals, Floridians, retards, et
> > al. In fact, the vast majority of all human beings who have ever lived
> > cannot lay claim to such a distinction, which is why it is reserved
> > for the special few who have recreated the world by the light of their
> > own exceptional standards.
>
> So someone with whose opinions on what you consider important subjects
> is a philosopher, but not the rest of us. Right.
Thanks.
> > > Is he also a mathematician because he counted lines
> > > when he made sonnets?
> >
> > No. Only a dumbass would say such a thing.
>
> Not a mathematician! My God, how you demean the fellow!?
It would have been more demeaning had I called him one.
> > > > > By the way, I just checked two histories of philosophy I have, one of
> > > > > them Bertrand Russell's. Neither lists Shakespeare as a philosopher.
> > > >
> > > > Well, that's on them. Is Russell's definition so formalized that he
> > > > can't bring himself to regard anything but unindented Teutonic bricks
> > > > with lots of Latin and Greek phrases interspersed as philosophy?
> > >
> > > I suspect he is influenced by everyone who ever wrote seriously about
> > > the history of philosophy in believing that philosophers are those who
> > > focus on finding out what reality is and systematically and explicitly
> > > express their findings.
> >
> > As I say, your understanding of philosophy is stunted. It is in no way
> > necessary to systematize one's definition of reality by the formal
> > standards that Russell insists upon.
>
> I don't know that Russell insists upon anything like that.
Well, then YOU do. And then you use him for cover/authority. You
apparently believe that philosophy is only philosophy when it is a
systematized and explicit accounting of Reality (but I dread knowing
your definition of THAT!). If you can fit the other kinds of
philosophy into that rubric, great. But they cannot be excluded just
because, once again, you wish to kill creation with your neurotic urge
to delimit and define.
> > That's simply wrong. Art raises
> > its head where Science cannot come to any final conclusion on the
> > nature of reality. That's because Art can express and reflect the
> > subjective, whereas Science, which strives to be objective, is often
> > superseded by a more complete reckoning of some factual domain. Go dig
> > out a 20 year-old college textbook on neurochemistry and compare it to
> > one of today's. You will notice countless changes. Does a great poem
> > or play suffer the same outmodedness? Not if it is a true and human
> > account of subjective being.
>
> I'm not going into all this. Too large a topic. Will just ask why
> you think there are the two words, "science" and "art?"
Science is our best hope of achieving objective certainty. Art is our
best hope of manifesting subjective reality. As in: See what was in my
head? Now you get to read it or play it or hear it or dig it in
whatever way. It was all just flying and flittering about, but now
it's made flesh, like the Word or the Image.
> > > > Shakespeare supersedes all of that crap because of his applicability
> > > > and humanity. He demonstrates the human consequences of all political
> > > > and moral philosophy ---not with footnotes and [erudition], but in the
> > > > rise and fall of his characters.
> > >
> > > Hogwash. He illustrates a good many political and moral truths, as do
> > > many other writers. But certainly not "all."
> >
> > That's the extent of your contradiction? Pretty pathetic, Bob. But I
> > am thinking of Hamlet's existential dialogue within himself and
> > Macbeth's seizing the throne against his own conscience. What about
> > Prospero's self-abnegation and Shylock's struggle to be recognized?
> > Each of these characters represents the philosophical nature of man in
> > ways that TEACH people. And that is better than any rigid system of
> > laws and bylaws.
>
> Just as I said: he illustrates a good many political and moral truths,
> as do many other writers.
Did you say TRUTHS?
> But certainly not all.
Ah, how hard I strived against invalidation!
> You said he did;
> it's up to you to show it by listing all the political and moral
> questions and showing that Shakespeare considered them.
Yeah, I'm getting right on it.
<snip>
Grumman:
> > > > > As for my not knowing what mental illness is, I wonder what you think
> > > > > it is if irrationality is not part of its definition, as I've said it
> > > > > is.
> > > >
> > > > Irrationality also encompasses counter-intuition, instinct, and
> > > > emotion (although, the more we learn of neurochemistry, the less
> > > > rationality figures into it). Are you going to call these aspects of
> > > > mental illness, too?
> > >
> > > That's right, moron. And irrationality also "encompasses" the use of
> > > words, so I'm going to call the use of words an aspect of mental
> > > illness, too.
> >
> > Why are you being so shockingly stupid? Just admit you got taken to
> > school and get over it.
>
> My point would be obvious to a SANE person, wack: that irrationality
> has virtues do not mean it doesn't have defects, nor that it is not
> part of any SANE definition of mental illness.
Oh, poor Bob. You've got your tail wrapped around the flagpole of
wackery too tightly. I see now how important it is for you to screw
yourself to that post, but what are you going to do when you've
already given it all away? You say irrationality has its virtues, but
that it is also an aspect of mental illness. Well, that's what the
reality of human being is all about, wanker. You take the good and the
bad and the clear and the mad and you live THROUGH it.
> > > I note that you failed to tell me whether irrationality is part of
> > > mental illness's definition or not.
> >
> > I note you failed to acknowledge that your responses suck.
>
> If that is so, you should be able to demonstrate it. One way in this
> case would be to show that mental illness has nothing to do with
> irrationality.
I never said it didn't. I suggested, if that, that the two are not
mutually exclusive.
Toby Petzold
John W. Kennedy
> Since the brain is an organic entity, it is subject to all the laws of
> physics and chemistry. It, along with other physical systems that
> comprise a living body, is the source of consciousness ---a
> self-perceiving state of organic being that may embrace the belief in
> its own spiritual or supernatural existence. Any "theory of
> psychology" that does not originate in the physical reality of the
> brain and our various glands is invalid. Cartesian dualism, as I
> understand it, is inexact: mind/spirit is a subset of matter and not
> its equal. My evidence of this lies in the fact that even quantum
> physicists stop at intersections.
Nice to see that your argument-by-assertion methods don't stop at
telling lies about Shakespeare.
--
John W. Kennedy
"You can, if you wish, class all science-fiction
together; but it is about as perceptive as classing the
works of Ballantyne, Conrad and W. W. Jacobs together
as the 'sea-story' and then criticizing _that_."
-- C. S. Lewis. "An Experiment in Criticism"
Bob Grumman
> > > between psychology and philosophy?
> >
> > I have trouble with telling exactly what psychology is because so much
> > of it is not scientific.
>
> Right. A lot of it is psychoanalytical and/or pop. Useful for playing
> head games and giving pep talks, but it is all being subsumed by our
> understanding of neurochemistry.
We agree on something.
> > A lot of recent empirical psychology is
> > scientific but too trivial to qualify as a field, in my view.
>
> I'm not sure what that means.
I'm speaking of several decades of puerile empirical studies, full of
statistics, not one of which I can remember.
> > But I
> > was speaking of my own theory of psychology which is intended to be
> > scientific but may contain too many theoretical brain-parts to be so,
> > in which case, it is philosophy.
>
> Since the brain is an organic entity, it is subject to all the laws of
> physics and chemistry. It, along with other physical systems that
> comprise a living body, is the source of consciousness
Sorry, Toby, but this latter is not an established fact. In any case,
my theory accepts that consciousness exists, but its existence is
irrelevant to my theory.
> ---a self-perceiving state of organic being that may embrace the belief in
> its own spiritual or supernatural existence. Any "theory of
> psychology" that does not originate in the physical reality of the
> brain and our various glands is invalid.
Mine does, but I certainly wouldn't require all theories of psychology
to do the same in order to be valid.
> Cartesian dualism, as I
> understand it, is inexact: mind/spirit is a subset of matter and not
> its equal. My evidence of this lies in the fact that even quantum
> physicists stop at intersections.
I don't follow you here--but it has nothing to do with my theory.
> > > I don't know why that bugs me, but
> > > it does. Second, I think there's too much to be said about Truth for
> > > you to claim that Shakespeare does not address it. There is a subtext
> > > running through many of the plays dealing with appearance and reality;
> > > mistaken identities; misplaced personalities; misperceived actions,
> > > etc. In each of these situations, the consequences of deception and
> > > delusion are manifested in the actions of very human characters. Some
> > > lovers of Shakespeare will swear to you that certain of his characters
> > > seem more real to them than do actual people that they know. Why
> > > should that be? Because there is a genius that informs and makes
> > > archetypal representations of them. Moral and political philosophy is
> > > best expressed through such types. They're like allegorical beings
> > > because they are logical extensions of the essential story.
> >
> > Simple reply: philosophy is explicitly, systematically and
> > conceptually about Reality.
>
> Objective, empirical Reality? The tree-falling-in-the-woods kind?
Yes. Among other things, including metaphysics.
> > Shakespeare's plays are not.
>
> Inasmuch as existential thought is an approach to the refinement and
> validation of self-perception in a physical reality, Shakespeare
> demonstrates that stuff all the time. Think about the dialogue between
> Romeo and Juliet in their famous balcony scene where she asks why he
> is "Romeo" and not some other name and why being known by some other
> name wouldn't be just as good.
This is mainly dramatic, not philosophical: "him Montague; me want
him; why
should me not have him because of him's name?" Reread what I've said
about the difference between philosophy and poetry.
> Is essence defined and confined in a
> word ---oops! YOU probably think SO.
I marvel at how confidently you and Crowley and RKennedy reveal, in
detail, the workings of your opponents' minds. I think reality
exists, period. I think words name parts of reality. I think
effective words name and define what they name sufficiently for
communication, and to facilitate remembering and analysis, names being
easier to deal with mentally than the messier retroceptual complexes
(memories, to you, Toby) that the brain also forms for what it names.
> > > > > and the other half is too formal to be relevant.
> > > >
> > > > Speaking of being explicit (as in A = 6) and systematic (as in we are
> > > > ruled by four humours; the first is A, the second B, which is
> > > > distinguishED from A by HF.)
> > >
> > > I don't understand what you're saying.
> >
> > You described the first half of my definition as too indefinite. I'm
> > showing it was quite definite.
>
> With polynomial algebra? Yecchhh!
Okay, change "(as in A = 6)" to "as in 'gold is an element,'" and in
the next parenthesis, replace A with "sanguine," replace B with
"choleric" and replace HF with "causing optimism, among other things."
Okay, now?)
> > > > > Philosophy is the love of wisdom and few people can match Shakespeare
> > > > > in this respect.
> > > >
> > > > Now, THAT'S really sufficient.
> > >
> > > Why do I have to explain to you Shakespeare's basic wisdom? Why would
> > > his words give so many people so much comfort and resonate so deeply
> > > through the centuries if he were not, in fact, a philosopher?
> >
> > Toby, face it: you simply don't know what a philosopher is.
>
> Sez you.
You confue it with wisdom, which most of us agree Shakespeare had.
I was talking about you.
> > > > His sonnets are specimens of short-term
> > > > contemplation, but rarely in any sane sense philosophical.
> > >
> > > Right. That's why people respond to them so warmly and take comfort in
> > > their grasp of human nature.
> >
> > You don't know what philosophy is, but you like its cachet.
>
> It means love of wisdom, right?
No. It is a word derived from two Greek words that mean "love" and
"knowledge" that means something more definite, to the sane, than you
want it to.
> And when people make reference to the
> very same thoughts and ideas that Shakespeare expressed 400 years ago
> to validate some aspect of their own experience, that is a
> demonstration of the rarity of his wisdom. What does a man mean when
> he yells "My kingdom for a horse!" (Yeah, I know he borrowed that from
> an earlier R3). He's saying that he will take what is essential to his
> needs in exchange for what is possible to possess. What is the
> consequence of Othello's squeezing the life out of his beloved
> Desdemona? Is he not beyond wretchedness when he realizes that he has
> deliberately thrown away (murdered) the thing that meant the most to
> him because of his own misperceptions? Now, you can say that your
> understanding of Philosophy is superior to mine because it is all
> about "Reality," but if you can doubt that there are such things as
> moral and political philosophy, then you are the one who is most in
> need of remedial help.
If I say I gotta take a piss, I am philosophically expressing man's
need to take care of bodily functions. And that (I truly hope) is all
I'm going to say against your continuing and obviously unalterable
conviction that philosophy is saying things that you consider wise.
> > > > > Therefore, he is an authority on
> > > > > existential thought. Are you telling me, in a world where the
> > > > > Cartesian axiom "Cogito, ergo sum" holds such sway, that Shakespeare
> > > > > is not entitled to the distinction of philosopher?
> > > >
> > > > Yes, wack. If he's entitled to it, what creative writer is not?
> > >
> > > Oh, I can think of at least ONE who isn't.
> >
> > Ah, you cannot find any philosophy underlying my work (which you've
> > read in its entirety)?
>
> It's always about YOU. What an egomaniac!
I thought it was in this case since ain't nobody here by you, me and
Shakespeare. Note: one instance is not enough to generalize on,
something very philosophical that you wacks hardly ever seem to
understand.
> > > > What
> > > > PERSON is not?
> > >
> > > Dumbasses, illiterates, mouth-breathers, book-burners (sorry,
> > > bookburn!), homogenists, anti-intellectuals, Floridians, retards, et
> > > al. In fact, the vast majority of all human beings who have ever lived
> > > cannot lay claim to such a distinction, which is why it is reserved
> > > for the special few who have recreated the world by the light of their
> > > own exceptional standards.
> >
> > So someone with whose opinions on what you consider important subjects
> > is a philosopher, but not the rest of us. Right.
>
> Thanks.
>
> > > > Is he also a mathematician because he counted lines
> > > > when he made sonnets?
> > >
> > > No. Only a dumbass would say such a thing.
> >
> > Not a mathematician! My God, how you demean the fellow!?
>
> It would have been more demeaning had I called him one.
Sorry, you'll never catch up to Crowley as a moronic insulter of your
superiors.
> > > > > > By the way, I just checked two histories of philosophy I have, one of
> > > > > > them Bertrand Russell's. Neither lists Shakespeare as a philosopher.
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, that's on them. Is Russell's definition so formalized that he
> > > > > can't bring himself to regard anything but unindented Teutonic bricks
> > > > > with lots of Latin and Greek phrases interspersed as philosophy?
> > > >
> > > > I suspect he is influenced by everyone who ever wrote seriously about
> > > > the history of philosophy in believing that philosophers are those who
> > > > focus on finding out what reality is and systematically and explicitly
> > > > express their findings.
> > >
> > > As I say, your understanding of philosophy is stunted. It is in no way
> > > necessary to systematize one's definition of reality by the formal
> > > standards that Russell insists upon.
> >
> > I don't know that Russell insists upon anything like that.
>
> Well, then YOU do.
I suppose so. I think we should be able to distinguish philosophers
from those who are not philosophers.
> And then you use him for cover/authority.
Not really. I use ALL HISTORIES OF PHILOSOPHY THAT I KNOW OF, naming
two that I own and was able to find quickly.
> You apparently believe that philosophy is only philosophy when it is a
> systematized and explicit accounting of Reality (but I dread knowing
> your definition of THAT!). If you can fit the other kinds of
> philosophy into that rubric, great. But they cannot be excluded just
> because, once again, you wish to kill creation with your neurotic urge
> to delimit and define.
What would you say if I called Hegal a great poet? I'm sure he has
admirers who have. How about my calling Newton a great poet, too, and
Beethoven.
> > > That's simply wrong. Art raises
> > > its head where Science cannot come to any final conclusion on the
> > > nature of reality. That's because Art can express and reflect the
> > > subjective, whereas Science, which strives to be objective, is often
> > > superseded by a more complete reckoning of some factual domain. Go dig
> > > out a 20 year-old college textbook on neurochemistry and compare it to
> > > one of today's. You will notice countless changes. Does a great poem
> > > or play suffer the same outmodedness? Not if it is a true and human
> > > account of subjective being.
> >
> > I'm not going into all this. Too large a topic. Will just ask why
> > you think there are the two words, "science" and "art?"
>
> Science is our best hope of achieving objective certainty. Art is our
> best hope of manifesting subjective reality. As in: See what was in my
> head? Now you get to read it or play it or hear it or dig it in
> whatever way. It was all just flying and flittering about, but now
> it's made flesh, like the Word or the Image.
Why distinguish one from the other?
> > > > > Shakespeare supersedes all of that crap because of his applicability
> > > > > and humanity. He demonstrates the human consequences of all political
> > > > > and moral philosophy ---not with footnotes and [erudition], but in the
> > > > > rise and fall of his characters.
> > > >
> > > > Hogwash. He illustrates a good many political and moral truths, as do
> > > > many other writers. But certainly not "all."
> > >
> > > That's the extent of your contradiction? Pretty pathetic, Bob. But I
> > > am thinking of Hamlet's existential dialogue within himself and
> > > Macbeth's seizing the throne against his own conscience. What about
> > > Prospero's self-abnegation and Shylock's struggle to be recognized?
> > > Each of these characters represents the philosophical nature of man in
> > > ways that TEACH people. And that is better than any rigid system of
> > > laws and bylaws.
> >
> > Just as I said: he illustrates a good many political and moral truths,
> > as do many other writers.
>
> Did you say TRUTHS?
It looks to me like I did. I probably meant "beliefs." But I don't
care what I meant.
Oh.
> > > > I note that you failed to tell me whether irrationality is part of
> > > > mental illness's definition or not.
> > >
> > > I note you failed to acknowledge that your responses suck.
> >
> > If that is so, you should be able to demonstrate it. One way in this
> > case would be to show that mental illness has nothing to do with
> > irrationality.
>
> I never said it didn't.
You seemed to indicate that there was something wrong with my
definition of mental illness as having to do with irrationality.
> I suggested, if that, that the two are not mutually exclusive.
>
> Toby Petzold
I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about. Can a person be
mentally ill and not irrational (I mean more irrational than most
people are)?
--Bob G.
Toby Petzold
> > > > First of all, why did you tell me that you can't tell the difference
> > > > between psychology and philosophy?
> > >
> > > I have trouble with telling exactly what psychology is because so much
> > > of it is not scientific.
> >
> > Right. A lot of it is psychoanalytical and/or pop. Useful for playing
> > head games and giving pep talks, but it is all being subsumed by our
> > understanding of neurochemistry.
>
> We agree on something.
>
> > > A lot of recent empirical psychology is
> > > scientific but too trivial to qualify as a field, in my view.
> >
> > I'm not sure what that means.
>
> I'm speaking of several decades of puerile empirical studies, full of
> statistics, not one of which I can remember.
>
> > > But I
> > > was speaking of my own theory of psychology which is intended to be
> > > scientific but may contain too many theoretical brain-parts to be so,
> > > in which case, it is philosophy.
> >
> > Since the brain is an organic entity, it is subject to all the laws of
> > physics and chemistry. It, along with other physical systems that
> > comprise a living body, is the source of consciousness
>
> Sorry, Toby, but this latter is not an established fact.
Only supernaturalists would deny it.
> In any case,
> my theory accepts that consciousness exists, but its existence is
> irrelevant to my theory.
Whether consciousness exists is irrelevant to your theory of human
psychology. I just can't bring myself to ask if you meant to type
that.
> > ---a self-perceiving state of organic being that may embrace the belief in
> > its own spiritual or supernatural existence. Any "theory of
> > psychology" that does not originate in the physical reality of the
> > brain and our various glands is invalid.
>
> Mine does, but I certainly wouldn't require all theories of psychology
> to do the same in order to be valid.
Then you are a supernaturalist. Hmm. Maybe you DO know more about
mental illness than I thought.
> > Cartesian dualism, as I
> > understand it, is inexact: mind/spirit is a subset of matter and not
> > its equal. My evidence of this lies in the fact that even quantum
> > physicists stop at intersections.
>
> I don't follow you here--but it has nothing to do with my theory.
I meant to say that, even though the most abstract-minded physicist
might believe what he knows, he will still obey the laws of everyday
physics and not think to theorize away the impact an SUV might have on
his beat-up old Honda if he chooses to not stop at the red light at an
intersection.
> > > > I don't know why that bugs me, but
> > > > it does. Second, I think there's too much to be said about Truth for
> > > > you to claim that Shakespeare does not address it. There is a subtext
> > > > running through many of the plays dealing with appearance and reality;
> > > > mistaken identities; misplaced personalities; misperceived actions,
> > > > etc. In each of these situations, the consequences of deception and
> > > > delusion are manifested in the actions of very human characters. Some
> > > > lovers of Shakespeare will swear to you that certain of his characters
> > > > seem more real to them than do actual people that they know. Why
> > > > should that be? Because there is a genius that informs and makes
> > > > archetypal representations of them. Moral and political philosophy is
> > > > best expressed through such types. They're like allegorical beings
> > > > because they are logical extensions of the essential story.
> > >
> > > Simple reply: philosophy is explicitly, systematically and
> > > conceptually about Reality.
> >
> > Objective, empirical Reality? The tree-falling-in-the-woods kind?
>
> Yes. Among other things, including metaphysics.
You're nothing but a supernaturalist.
> > > Shakespeare's plays are not.
> >
> > Inasmuch as existential thought is an approach to the refinement and
> > validation of self-perception in a physical reality, Shakespeare
> > demonstrates that stuff all the time. Think about the dialogue between
> > Romeo and Juliet in their famous balcony scene where she asks why he
> > is "Romeo" and not some other name and why being known by some other
> > name wouldn't be just as good.
>
> This is mainly dramatic, not philosophical: "him Montague; me want
> him; why
> should me not have him because of him's name?" Reread what I've said
> about the difference between philosophy and poetry.
Is there some purpose behind making Juliet's language into Tarzan's?
> > Is essence defined and confined in a
> > word ---oops! YOU probably think SO.
>
> I marvel at how confidently you and Crowley and RKennedy reveal, in
> detail, the workings of your opponents' minds. I think reality
> exists, period. I think words name parts of reality. I think
> effective words name and define what they name sufficiently for
> communication, and to facilitate remembering and analysis, names being
> easier to deal with mentally than the messier retroceptual complexes
> (memories, to you, Toby) that the brain also forms for what it names.
You've suggested several times now that you are a supernaturalist.
Therefore, your assertion that (physical) reality exists is belied by
your denial of the true source of consciousness.
<snip>
Petzold:
> > > > > > Philosophy is the love of wisdom and few people can match
> > > > > > Shakespeare
> > > > > > in this respect.
> > > > >
> > > > > Now, THAT'S really sufficient.
> > > >
> > > > Why do I have to explain to you Shakespeare's basic wisdom? Why would
> > > > his words give so many people so much comfort and resonate so deeply
> > > > through the centuries if he were not, in fact, a philosopher?
> > >
> > > Toby, face it: you simply don't know what a philosopher is.
> >
> > Sez you.
>
> You confue it with wisdom, which most of us agree Shakespeare had.
I am right on this and you are wrong. You have some idea that
philosophers are, properly, those who draw up a set of laws describing
reality. That may be some part of philosophy, but it is plainly
crapola to insist on some rigidly systematic scheme. Lao-tzu, the
poet-philosopher behind Taoism, did no such thing. Neither did
Nietzsche, who was also a master of the aphorism and axiom. Are you
going to sit there and deny that these two hugely influential thinkers
were NOT philosophers? Did you have a good laugh at what a simpleton
George W. Bush was when he was asked who his favorite philosopher was
and he answered "Jesus Christ"? Jesus didn't write down some
systematic deconstruction of reality, either, but he did teach a love
of wisdom through allegories. Socrates never recorded his own belief
system, either. Are you going to withhold the title of philosopher
from him, too? It's a joke. Your understanding of philosophy is, as I
say, stunted.
<snip>
Grumman:
> > > You don't know what philosophy is, but you like its cachet.
> >
> > It means love of wisdom, right?
>
> No. It is a word derived from two Greek words that mean "love" and
> "knowledge" that means something more definite, to the sane, than you
> want it to.
How typical of you to give the wrong answer to a rhetorical question.
The Greek words for wisdom and knowledge are Sophia and Gnosis,
respectively. Does that have any more DEFINITE an influence over your
own [understanding] now?
<snip>
> If I say I gotta take a piss, I am philosophically expressing man's
> need to take care of bodily functions. And that (I truly hope) is all
> I'm going to say against your continuing and obviously unalterable
> conviction that philosophy is saying things that you consider wise.
Well, first, it is LOVING that which expresses or manifests WISDOM.
People who love Shakespeare's language are responding to something
philosophical in it. Are they looking for something overtly systematic
with footnotes and college boy bullshit attached to it? No: they are
tracing the rise and fall of a man's life or purpose or scheme in a
soliloquy. They are listening in to the innermost thoughts of the
hopelessly in love or of the calculatedly ambitious: there's moral and
political philosophy to consider.
<snip>
> > > > As I say, your understanding of philosophy is stunted. It is in no way
> > > > necessary to systematize one's definition of reality by the formal
> > > > standards that Russell insists upon.
> > >
> > > I don't know that Russell insists upon anything like that.
> >
> > Well, then YOU do.
>
> I suppose so. I think we should be able to distinguish philosophers
> from those who are not philosophers.
The first thing we have to do is learn what the word philosophy means.
> > And then you use him for cover/authority.
>
> Not really. I use ALL HISTORIES OF PHILOSOPHY THAT I KNOW OF, naming
> two that I own and was able to find quickly.
>
> > You apparently believe that philosophy is only philosophy when it is a
> > systematized and explicit accounting of Reality (but I dread knowing
> > your definition of THAT!). If you can fit the other kinds of
> > philosophy into that rubric, great. But they cannot be excluded just
> > because, once again, you wish to kill creation with your neurotic urge
> > to delimit and define.
>
> What would you say if I called Hegal a great poet?
It wouldn't seem right.
> I'm sure he has
> admirers who have.
I never knew him to have written poetry. Just some very thick and
oppressive TOMES.
> How about my calling Newton a great poet, too,
No, he was more of a numerologist.
> and
> Beethoven.
Nope. That just doesn't work.
<snip>
> > Science is our best hope of achieving objective certainty. Art is our
> > best hope of manifesting subjective reality. As in: See what was in my
> > head? Now you get to read it or play it or hear it or dig it in
> > whatever way. It was all just flying and flittering about, but now
> > it's made flesh, like the Word or the Image.
>
> Why distinguish one from the other?
Because they are different disciplines.
> > > > > > Shakespeare supersedes all of that crap because of his applicability
> > > > > > and humanity. He demonstrates the human consequences of all political
> > > > > > and moral philosophy ---not with footnotes and [erudition], but in the
> > > > > > rise and fall of his characters.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hogwash. He illustrates a good many political and moral truths, as do
> > > > > many other writers. But certainly not "all."
> > > >
> > > > That's the extent of your contradiction? Pretty pathetic, Bob. But I
> > > > am thinking of Hamlet's existential dialogue within himself and
> > > > Macbeth's seizing the throne against his own conscience. What about
> > > > Prospero's self-abnegation and Shylock's struggle to be recognized?
> > > > Each of these characters represents the philosophical nature of man in
> > > > ways that TEACH people. And that is better than any rigid system of
> > > > laws and bylaws.
> > >
> > > Just as I said: he illustrates a good many political and moral truths,
> > > as do many other writers.
> >
> > Did you say TRUTHS?
>
> It looks to me like I did. I probably meant "beliefs." But I don't
> care what I meant.
Hmm. That's a mighty rich vein there. Kinda got it all blurred and
indistinct, don't you?
<snip>
Petzold:
> I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about. Can a person be
> mentally ill and not irrational (I mean more irrational than most
> people are)?
A person can be severely depressed and still be rational. The reality
of a sad man's circumstances (financial, romantic, physical, etc.) can
crush him as surely as any delusions he might harbor. And look at your
basic neurotic hand-washing, silverware-counting, oven-checking
basketcase: he may be experiencing an excess of rational behavior that
he can call good hygiene, watchfulness, and prudence. Who cares what
to call it? The bottom line is that I don't care to categorize or
analyze or stigmatize the mentally ill. Our minds are our sancta
sanctorum and to insult a man there should never be done unless the
insulter's willing to get as good as he gives. And, from where I sit,
Grumman, you've got a lot to answer for.
Toby Petzold
Bob Grumman
> > > Since the brain is an organic entity, it is subject to all the laws of
> > > physics and chemistry. It, along with other physical systems that
> > > comprise a living body, is the source of consciousness
> >
> > Sorry, Toby, but this latter is not an established fact.
>
> Only supernaturalists would deny it.
I am not a supernaturalist, and I deny it. There is no way to
determine what the source of consciousness is. How do you know a
stone is not conscious?
> > In any case,
> > my theory accepts that consciousness exists, but its existence is
> > irrelevant to my theory.
>
> Whether consciousness exists is irrelevant to your theory of human
> psychology. I just can't bring myself to ask if you meant to type
> that.
The idea is nothing new. Read up on Watson and his many followers.
> > > ---a self-perceiving state of organic being that may embrace the belief in
> > > its own spiritual or supernatural existence. Any "theory of
> > > psychology" that does not originate in the physical reality of the
> > > brain and our various glands is invalid.
> >
> > Mine does, but I certainly wouldn't require all theories of psychology
> > to do the same in order to be valid.
>
> Then you are a supernaturalist. Hmm. Maybe you DO know more about
> mental illness than I thought.
You do not know less about psychology than I thought. You're also, as
ever, an anti-continuumist. Consider the possibility of a naturalist
theory of psychology that does not originate in the physical reality
of the brain and our various glands. Also consider the possibility
that I, not a supernaturalist, do not feel able to claim that any
supernaturalist theory is ipso facto invalid, even though I know of
none that I accept.
> > > Cartesian dualism, as I
> > > understand it, is inexact: mind/spirit is a subset of matter and not
> > > its equal. My evidence of this lies in the fact that even quantum
> > > physicists stop at intersections.
> >
> > I don't follow you here--but it has nothing to do with my theory.
>
> I meant to say that, even though the most abstract-minded physicist
> might believe what he knows, he will still obey the laws of everyday
> physics and not think to theorize away the impact an SUV might have on
> his beat-up old Honda if he chooses to not stop at the red light at an
> intersection.
I believe that his Honda is too large to be driven in the zones he
applies his theories to. But, as I said, this has nothing to do with
my theory of psychology.
> > > > > I don't know why that bugs me, but
> > > > > it does. Second, I think there's too much to be said about Truth for
> > > > > you to claim that Shakespeare does not address it. There is a subtext
> > > > > running through many of the plays dealing with appearance and reality;
> > > > > mistaken identities; misplaced personalities; misperceived actions,
> > > > > etc. In each of these situations, the consequences of deception and
> > > > > delusion are manifested in the actions of very human characters. Some
> > > > > lovers of Shakespeare will swear to you that certain of his characters
> > > > > seem more real to them than do actual people that they know. Why
> > > > > should that be? Because there is a genius that informs and makes
> > > > > archetypal representations of them. Moral and political philosophy is
> > > > > best expressed through such types. They're like allegorical beings
> > > > > because they are logical extensions of the essential story.
> > > >
> > > > Simple reply: philosophy is explicitly, systematically and
> > > > conceptually about Reality.
> > >
> > > Objective, empirical Reality? The tree-falling-in-the-woods kind?
> >
> > Yes. Among other things, including metaphysics.
>
> You're nothing but a supernaturalist.
Still trying to find some worthless tag that will bother me as much as
"wack" bothers you? I was defining philosophy, by the way, not
judging the validity of the fields it covers.
> > > > Shakespeare's plays are not.
> > >
> > > Inasmuch as existential thought is an approach to the refinement and
> > > validation of self-perception in a physical reality, Shakespeare
> > > demonstrates that stuff all the time. Think about the dialogue between
> > > Romeo and Juliet in their famous balcony scene where she asks why he
> > > is "Romeo" and not some other name and why being known by some other
> > > name wouldn't be just as good.
> >
> > This is mainly dramatic, not philosophical: "him Montague; me want
> > him; why
> > should me not have him because of him's name?" Reread what I've said
> > about the difference between philosophy and poetry.
>
> Is there some purpose behind making Juliet's language into Tarzan's?
Yes. I emphasizing that her words are emotional/dramatic, not
philosophical. From her reptile brain, not her cerebrum (except
inasmuch as it gives her words).
> > > Is essence defined and confined in a
> > > word ---oops! YOU probably think SO.
> >
> > I marvel at how confidently you and Crowley and RKennedy reveal, in
> > detail, the workings of your opponents' minds. I think reality
> > exists, period. I think words name parts of reality. I think
> > effective words name and define what they name sufficiently for
> > communication, and to facilitate remembering and analysis, names being
> > easier to deal with mentally than the messier retroceptual complexes
> > (memories, to you, Toby) that the brain also forms for what it names.
>
> You've suggested several times now that you are a supernaturalist.
> Therefore, your assertion that (physical) reality exists is belied by
> your denial of the true source of consciousness.
Fine, we've established that you are as ignorant of the meaning of
"supernaturalist" as you are of "philosopher."
> <snip>
> Petzold:
>
> > > > > > > Philosophy is the love of wisdom and few people can match
> > > > > > > Shakespeare
> > > > > > > in this respect.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Now, THAT'S really sufficient.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why do I have to explain to you Shakespeare's basic wisdom? Why would
> > > > > his words give so many people so much comfort and resonate so deeply
> > > > > through the centuries if he were not, in fact, a philosopher?
> > > >
> > > > Toby, face it: you simply don't know what a philosopher is.
> > >
> > > Sez you.
> >
> > You confue it with wisdom, which most of us agree Shakespeare had.
>
> I am right on this and you are wrong. You have some idea that
> philosophers are, properly, those who draw up a set of laws describing
> reality. That may be some part of philosophy, but it is plainly
> crapola to insist on some rigidly systematic scheme. Lao-tzu, the
> poet-philosopher behind Taoism, did no such thing. Neither did
> Nietzsche, who was also a master of the aphorism and axiom. Are you
> going to sit there and deny that these two hugely influential thinkers
> were NOT philosophers?
I don't know much about Lao-tzu, but Neitzsche, as a philosopher (and
often he wasn't) WAS quite systematic. You don't have to be Euclidean
to be systematic. He was also focussed on the search for truth. Even
in Zarathrustra, his characters don't incidentally discuss ideas, they
do it all the time--as do Plato's.
>Did you have a good laugh at what a simpleton
> George W. Bush was when he was asked who his favorite philosopher was
> and he answered "Jesus Christ"?
Bush IS a simpleton but not for the above. Jesus was not a
philosopher, he was a village moralist--and brilliant stylist.
> Jesus didn't write down some
> systematic deconstruction of reality, either, but he did teach a love
> of wisdom through allegories. Socrates never recorded his own belief
> system, either.
Philosophers needn't write down their systems, merely indicate them.
> Are you going to withhold the title of philosopher
> from him, too? It's a joke. Your understanding of philosophy is, as I
> say, stunted.
> <snip>
>
> Grumman:
>
> > > > You don't know what philosophy is, but you like its cachet.
> > >
> > > It means love of wisdom, right?
> >
> > No. It is a word derived from two Greek words that mean "love" and
> > "knowledge" that means something more definite, to the sane, than you
> > want it to.
>
> How typical of you to give the wrong answer to a rhetorical question.
> The Greek words for wisdom and knowledge are Sophia and Gnosis,
> respectively. Does that have any more DEFINITE an influence over your
> own [understanding] now?
No. For me, knowledge and wisdom are synonyms, but mostpeople believe
that wisdom is some form of non-knowledge (supernaturalists, are
they?) But replace "knowledge" with "wisdom" in what I said if you
want to.
I notice that once again you ignore my point, this time to quibble.
> <snip>
>
> > If I say I gotta take a piss, I am philosophically expressing man's
> > need to take care of bodily functions. And that (I truly hope) is all
> > I'm going to say against your continuing and obviously unalterable
> > conviction that philosophy is saying things that you consider wise.
Ooops, I forgot I said this, and here I've contested your refusal to
accept that philosophy has a rigorous meaning.
> Well, first, it is LOVING that which expresses or manifests WISDOM.
> People who love Shakespeare's language are responding to something
> philosophical in it.
In that case they would be responding to his ideas. This kind of
confusion is typical of you. People who love his language are
responding to its POETRY. (Its sounds; sensual effects as imagery,
equaphor (my word), connotative complex; freshness of word-use;
archetypal resonance; connection to literature-as-a-whole.)
> Are they looking for something overtly systematic
> with footnotes and college boy bullshit attached to it?
Note: you can be systematic without footnotes and college boy
bullshit.
> No: they are
> tracing the rise and fall of a man's life or purpose or scheme in a
> soliloquy. They are listening in to the innermost thoughts of the
> hopelessly in love or of the calculatedly ambitious: there's moral and
> political philosophy to consider.
Sure. So what? In Lear we have to consider the weather: does that
make Shakespeare a meteorologist? For you wacks it would if
meteorology had the cachet philosophy does.
> <snip>
>
> > > > > As I say, your understanding of philosophy is stunted. It is in no way
> > > > > necessary to systematize one's definition of reality by the formal
> > > > > standards that Russell insists upon.
> > > >
> > > > I don't know that Russell insists upon anything like that.
> > >
> > > Well, then YOU do.
> >
> > I suppose so. I think we should be able to distinguish philosophers
> > from those who are not philosophers.
>
> The first thing we have to do is learn what the word philosophy means.
Tell us.
> > > And then you use him for cover/authority.
> >
> > Not really. I use ALL HISTORIES OF PHILOSOPHY THAT I KNOW OF, naming
> > two that I own and was able to find quickly.
> >
> > > You apparently believe that philosophy is only philosophy when it is a
> > > systematized and explicit accounting of Reality (but I dread knowing
> > > your definition of THAT!). If you can fit the other kinds of
> > > philosophy into that rubric, great. But they cannot be excluded just
> > > because, once again, you wish to kill creation with your neurotic urge
> > > to delimit and define.
> >
> > What would you say if I called Hegal a great poet?
>
> It wouldn't seem right.
He came up with some great metaphors.
> > I'm sure he has
> > admirers who have.
>
> I never knew him to have written poetry. Just some very thick and
> oppressive TOMES.
If we define poetry as you do philosophy, why should he have written
texts dubbed poems?
> > How about my calling Newton a great poet, too,
>
> No, he was more of a numerologist.
>
> > and
> > Beethoven.
>
> Nope. That just doesn't work.
But you WOULD agree that he was a philosopher.
> <snip>
>
> > > Science is our best hope of achieving objective certainty. Art is our
> > > best hope of manifesting subjective reality. As in: See what was in my
> > > head? Now you get to read it or play it or hear it or dig it in
> > > whatever way. It was all just flying and flittering about, but now
> > > it's made flesh, like the Word or the Image.
> >
> > Why distinguish one from the other?
>
> Because they are different disciplines.
Like poetry and philosophy?
I'll give you this one, although I would say depression is not a
mental illness if rational.
> And look at your
> basic neurotic hand-washing, silverware-counting, oven-checking
> basketcase: he may be experiencing an excess of rational behavior that
> he can call good hygiene, watchfulness, and prudence.
He's irrational. Regardless of the fact that HE thinks he is not.
> Who cares what
> to call it? The bottom line is that I don't care to categorize or
> analyze or stigmatize the mentally ill.
You just did. "The mentally ill" is a category. That you don't want
to do this is no reason I should not want to. Obviously, even you
would agree, I'm pretty sure, that categorizing and analyze mental
illness, as various people like psychologists, physiologists, etc., do
is worthwhile.
> Our minds are our sancta
> sanctorum and to insult a man there should never be done unless the
> insulter's willing to get as good as he gives. And, from where I sit,
> Grumman, you've got a lot to answer for.
Gracious. But I don't consider myself stigmatizing so much as
describing--because I don't consider insanity necessarily bad. And I
doubt that you can show that I am unwilling to get as good as I give,
though I haven't gotten as good as I've given yet. Your insults have
been more mean-minded than mine, though: I direct mine mainly at your
powers of reasoning; you direct yours mainly at both my powers of
reasoning and my morality.
--Bob G.
--Bob G.
Toby Petzold
> > > > physics and chemistry. It, along with other physical systems that
> > > > comprise a living body, is the source of consciousness
> > >
> > > Sorry, Toby, but this latter is not an established fact.
> >
> > Only supernaturalists would deny it.
>
> I am not a supernaturalist, and I deny it. There is no way to
> determine what the source of consciousness is.
head and watch the activity change in response to the various stimuli.
> How do you know a
> stone is not conscious?
fire off sequences of neurotransmitted electrical charges in response
to stimulation.
> > > In any case,
> > > my theory accepts that consciousness exists, but its existence is
> > > irrelevant to my theory.
> >
> > Whether consciousness exists is irrelevant to your theory of human
> > psychology. I just can't bring myself to ask if you meant to type
> > that.
>
> The idea is nothing new. Read up on Watson and his many followers.
> > > > ---a self-perceiving state of organic being that may embrace the belief in
> > > > its own spiritual or supernatural existence. Any "theory of
> > > > psychology" that does not originate in the physical reality of the
> > > > brain and our various glands is invalid.
> > >
> > > Mine does, but I certainly wouldn't require all theories of psychology
> > > to do the same in order to be valid.
> >
> > Then you are a supernaturalist. Hmm. Maybe you DO know more about
> > mental illness than I thought.
>
> You do not know less about psychology than I thought. You're also, as
> ever, an anti-continuumist.
> Consider the possibility of a naturalist
> theory of psychology that does not originate in the physical reality
> of the brain and our various glands.
> Also consider the possibility
> that I, not a supernaturalist, do not feel able to claim that any
> supernaturalist theory is ipso facto invalid, even though I know of
> none that I accept.
it.
> > > > > Shakespeare's plays are not.
> > > >
> > > > Inasmuch as existential thought is an approach to the refinement and
> > > > validation of self-perception in a physical reality, Shakespeare
> > > > demonstrates that stuff all the time. Think about the dialogue between
> > > > Romeo and Juliet in their famous balcony scene where she asks why he
> > > > is "Romeo" and not some other name and why being known by some other
> > > > name wouldn't be just as good.
> > >
> > > This is mainly dramatic, not philosophical: "him Montague; me want
> > > him; why
> > > should me not have him because of him's name?" Reread what I've said
> > > about the difference between philosophy and poetry.
> >
> > Is there some purpose behind making Juliet's language into Tarzan's?
>
> Yes. I emphasizing that her words are emotional/dramatic, not
> philosophical. From her reptile brain, not her cerebrum (except
> inasmuch as it gives her words).
source of anything. Except for that reptilian and cerebral stuff.
> > > > Is essence defined and confined in a
> > > > word ---oops! YOU probably think SO.
> > >
> > > I marvel at how confidently you and Crowley and RKennedy reveal, in
> > > detail, the workings of your opponents' minds. I think reality
> > > exists, period. I think words name parts of reality. I think
> > > effective words name and define what they name sufficiently for
> > > communication, and to facilitate remembering and analysis, names being
> > > easier to deal with mentally than the messier retroceptual complexes
> > > (memories, to you, Toby) that the brain also forms for what it names.
> >
> > You've suggested several times now that you are a supernaturalist.
> > Therefore, your assertion that (physical) reality exists is belied by
> > your denial of the true source of consciousness.
>
> Fine, we've established that you are as ignorant of the meaning of
> "supernaturalist" as you are of "philosopher."
supernaturalism, too?
of whom are explicable only through the totality of their work. This
is how I would classify Shakespeare.
> >Did you have a good laugh at what a simpleton
> > George W. Bush was when he was asked who his favorite philosopher was
> > and he answered "Jesus Christ"?
>
> Bush IS a simpleton but not for the above. Jesus was not a
> philosopher, he was a village moralist--and brilliant stylist.
> > Jesus didn't write down some
> > systematic deconstruction of reality, either, but he did teach a love
> > of wisdom through allegories. Socrates never recorded his own belief
> > system, either.
>
> Philosophers needn't write down their systems, merely indicate them.
>
> > Are you going to withhold the title of philosopher
> > from him, too? It's a joke. Your understanding of philosophy is, as I
> > say, stunted.
>
> > <snip>
> >
> > Grumman:
> >
> > > > > You don't know what philosophy is, but you like its cachet.
> > > >
> > > > It means love of wisdom, right?
> > >
> > > No. It is a word derived from two Greek words that mean "love" and
> > > "knowledge" that means something more definite, to the sane, than you
> > > want it to.
> >
> > How typical of you to give the wrong answer to a rhetorical question.
> > The Greek words for wisdom and knowledge are Sophia and Gnosis,
> > respectively. Does that have any more DEFINITE an influence over your
> > own [understanding] now?
>
> No. For me, knowledge and wisdom are synonyms, but mostpeople believe
> that wisdom is some form of non-knowledge (supernaturalists, are
> they?) But replace "knowledge" with "wisdom" in what I said if you
> want to.
the same word.
> I notice that once again you ignore my point, this time to quibble.
>
> > <snip>
> >
> > > If I say I gotta take a piss, I am philosophically expressing man's
> > > need to take care of bodily functions. And that (I truly hope) is all
> > > I'm going to say against your continuing and obviously unalterable
> > > conviction that philosophy is saying things that you consider wise.
>
> Ooops, I forgot I said this, and here I've contested your refusal to
> accept that philosophy has a rigorous meaning.
knew how rigorous these things would prove to be.
> > Well, first, it is LOVING that which expresses or manifests WISDOM.
> > People who love Shakespeare's language are responding to something
> > philosophical in it.
>
> In that case they would be responding to his ideas. This kind of
> confusion is typical of you. People who love his language are
> responding to its POETRY. (Its sounds; sensual effects as imagery,
> equaphor (my word), connotative complex; freshness of word-use;
> archetypal resonance; connection to literature-as-a-whole.)
Shakespeare's language reveals the depth and quality of his thought,
which I believe was schooled in every sense. It is, essentially,
poetic. It is always aware of its own etymological origins and its own
AESTHETIC continuity.
<snip>
Grumman, on Hegel:
> If we define poetry as you do philosophy, why should he have written
> texts dubbed poems?
> > > How about my calling Newton a great poet, too,
> >
> > No, he was more of a numerologist.
> >
> > > and
> > > Beethoven.
> >
> > Nope. That just doesn't work.
>
> But you WOULD agree that he was a philosopher.
unaware of any formal or even informal essays on music). I do have
some personal beliefs about the existential significance of the Ninth,
and if someone wishes to think of that symphony as a philosophical
"statement" on the disintegration of conscious being, then that's cool
by me.
> > <snip>
> >
> > > > Science is our best hope of achieving objective certainty. Art is our
> > > > best hope of manifesting subjective reality. As in: See what was in my
> > > > head? Now you get to read it or play it or hear it or dig it in
> > > > whatever way. It was all just flying and flittering about, but now
> > > > it's made flesh, like the Word or the Image.
> > >
> > > Why distinguish one from the other?
> >
> > Because they are different disciplines.
>
> Like poetry and philosophy?
Science and vice versa. But why would you, the master of the
pigeonhole, need to be reminded of the importance of preserving these
distinctions?
<snip>
Grumman:
> > > I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about. Can a person be
> > > mentally ill and not irrational (I mean more irrational than most
> > > people are)?
> >
> > A person can be severely depressed and still be rational. The reality
> > of a sad man's circumstances (financial, romantic, physical, etc.) can
> > crush him as surely as any delusions he might harbor.
>
> I'll give you this one, although I would say depression is not a
> mental illness if rational.
I disagree.
> > And look at your
> > basic neurotic hand-washing, silverware-counting, oven-checking
> > basketcase: he may be experiencing an excess of rational behavior that
> > he can call good hygiene, watchfulness, and prudence.
>
> He's irrational. Regardless of the fact that HE thinks he is not.
Fair enough.
> > Who cares what
> > to call it? The bottom line is that I don't care to categorize or
> > analyze or stigmatize the mentally ill.
>
> You just did. "The mentally ill" is a category. That you don't want
> to do this is no reason I should not want to.
No foolin'.
> Obviously, even you
> would agree, I'm pretty sure, that categorizing and analyze mental
> illness, as various people like psychologists, physiologists, etc., do
> is worthwhile.
Not for the purposes you pursue.
> > Our minds are our sancta
> > sanctorum and to insult a man there should never be done unless the
> > insulter's willing to get as good as he gives. And, from where I sit,
> > Grumman, you've got a lot to answer for.
>
> Gracious. But I don't consider myself stigmatizing so much as
> describing--because I don't consider insanity necessarily bad.
Right. You just like to use it against people like a slur.
> And I
> doubt that you can show that I am unwilling to get as good as I give,
> though I haven't gotten as good as I've given yet.
Invitation accepted.
> Your insults have
> been more mean-minded than mine, though: I direct mine mainly at your
> powers of reasoning; you direct yours mainly at both my powers of
> reasoning and my morality.
You once said you don't respond to charges drawn on morality. I say
that's a reckless course to take.
Toby Petzold
Bob Grumman
> > determine what the source of consciousness is.
>
> Sure there is. Just hook up some brainwave detectors to a person's
> head and watch the activity change in response to the various stimuli.
>
> > How do you know a
> > stone is not conscious?
>
> Because a stone is an unvariegated and inorganic object that does not
> fire off sequences of neurotransmitted electrical charges in response
> to stimulation.
So what?
> > Consider the possibility of a naturalist
> > theory of psychology that does not originate in the physical reality
> > of the brain and our various glands.
>
> I can't. I went to college.
And you accept what your college told you about psychology but not
what it told you about who wrote Shakespeare.
snip of evasions via "wit"
> > Still trying to find some worthless tag that will bother me as much as
> > "wack" bothers you? I was defining philosophy, by the way, not
> > judging the validity of the fields it covers.
>
> So being called a superntauralist really gets under your skin, huh?
No. It's a misrepresentation but no worse than any of the many
misrepresentations you've tried to apply to me.
> > > Is there some purpose behind making Juliet's language into Tarzan's?
> >
> > Yes. I AM emphasizing that her words are emotional/dramatic, not
> > philosophical. From her reptile brain, not her cerebrum (except
> > inasmuch as it gives her words).
>
> Well, it's a good thing you don't believe in the organic brain as the
> source of anything. Except for that reptilian and cerebral stuff.
That I can believe in the possibility of a psychology not founded on
nerves, brain, hormones, blood supply, etc., does not mean I didn't
mean what I said when I said my own theory is based on those things.
snip
> You've already been corrected on philosophy/-er. Why not try for
> supernaturalism, too?
Ah, you mean it's anything you say it is? Okay.
> > I don't know much about Lao-tzu, but Neitzsche, as a philosopher (and
> > often he wasn't) WAS quite systematic. You don't have to be Euclidean
> > to be systematic. He was also focussed on the search for truth. Even
> > in Zarathrustra, his characters don't incidentally discuss ideas, they
> > do it all the time--as do Plato's.
>
> The point being that there are different kinds of philosophers, many
> of whom are explicable only through the totality of their work. This
> is how I would classify Shakespeare.
How about Mickey Spillane?
> > >Did you have a good laugh at what a simpleton
> > > George W. Bush was when he was asked who his favorite philosopher was
> > > and he answered "Jesus Christ"?
> >
> > Bush IS a simpleton but not for the above. Jesus was not a
> > philosopher, he was a village moralist--and brilliant stylist.
>
> Okay. I would call Jesus a moral philosopher.
He never presented a system of philosophy, nor--really--did anything
but state moral dogmas.
> > > Jesus didn't write down some
> > > systematic deconstruction of reality, either, but he did teach a love
> > > of wisdom through allegories. Socrates never recorded his own belief
> > > system, either.
> >
> > Philosophers needn't write down their systems, merely indicate them.
> >
> > > Are you going to withhold the title of philosopher
> > > from him, too? It's a joke. Your understanding of philosophy is, as I
> > > say, stunted.
Hey, not only that, but I'm going to withhold the title of poet from
him, too.
> > No. For me, knowledge and wisdom are synonyms, but mostpeople believe
> > that wisdom is some form of non-knowledge (supernaturalists, are
> > they?) But replace "knowledge" with "wisdom" in what I said if you
> > want to.
>
> Wisdom depends on knowledge. They are not the same thing. They are not
> the same word.
Wisdom is the knowledge of the best way to use other kinds of
knowledge.
> > I notice that once again you ignore my point, this time to quibble.
> >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > > If I say I gotta take a piss, I am philosophically expressing man's
> > > > need to take care of bodily functions. And that (I truly hope) is all
> > > > I'm going to say against your continuing and obviously unalterable
> > > > conviction that philosophy is saying things that you consider wise.
> >
> > Ooops, I forgot I said this, and here I've contested your refusal to
> > accept that philosophy has a rigorous meaning.
>
> I guess when you started forgetting to use "Shakespeare-denier," we
> knew how rigorous these things would prove to be.
Ah, if I'm not rigorous in ALL my remarks to HLAS, it means I can't
require the term, "philosophy" to have a rigorous meaning.
> > > Well, first, it is LOVING that which expresses or manifests WISDOM.
> > > People who love Shakespeare's language are responding to something
> > > philosophical in it.
> >
> > In that case they would be responding to his ideas. This kind of
> > confusion is typical of you. People who love his language are
> > responding to its POETRY. (Its sounds; sensual effects as imagery,
> > equaphor (my word), connotative complex; freshness of word-use;
> > archetypal resonance; connection to literature-as-a-whole.)
>
> Language and philosophy are inextricably linked. The sophistication of
> Shakespeare's language reveals the depth and quality of his thought,
> which I believe was schooled in every sense.
The sophistication of Mozart's music reveals the depth and quality of
his thought. So he was a philosopher?
> It is, essentially,
> poetic. It is always aware of its own etymological origins and its own
> AESTHETIC continuity.
What is his theory of any philosophical subject, such as aesthetics?
> <snip>
>
> Grumman, on Hegel:
>
> > If we define poetry as you do philosophy, why should he have written
> > texts dubbed poems?
>
> I don't know why anyone would call what Hegel wrote poetry.
It's as close to poetry as Shakespeare's poetry is to philosophy.
> > > > How about my calling Newton a great poet, too,
> > >
> > > No, he was more of a numerologist.
> > >
> > > > and
> > > > Beethoven.
> > >
> > > Nope. That just doesn't work.
> >
> > But you WOULD agree that he was a philosopher.
>
> Don't know enough about his writings (i.e., letters and such, as I am
> unaware of any formal or even informal essays on music). I do have
> some personal beliefs about the existential significance of the Ninth,
> and if someone wishes to think of that symphony as a philosophical
> "statement" on the disintegration of conscious being, then that's cool
> by me.
I'm sure someone has.
> <snip>
>
> Grumman:
>
> > > > I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about. Can a person be
> > > > mentally ill and not irrational (I mean more irrational than most
> > > > people are)?
> > >
> > > A person can be severely depressed and still be rational. The reality
> > > of a sad man's circumstances (financial, romantic, physical, etc.) can
> > > crush him as surely as any delusions he might harbor.
> >
> > I'll give you this one, although I would say depression is not a
> > mental illness if rational.
>
> I disagree.
>
> > > And look at your
> > > basic neurotic hand-washing, silverware-counting, oven-checking
> > > basketcase: he may be experiencing an excess of rational behavior that
> > > he can call good hygiene, watchfulness, and prudence.
> >
> > He's irrational. Regardless of the fact that HE thinks he is not.
>
> Fair enough.
>
> > > Who cares what
> > > to call it? The bottom line is that I don't care to categorize or
> > > analyze or stigmatize the mentally ill.
> >
> > You just did. "The mentally ill" is a category. That you don't want
> > to do this is no reason I should not want to.
>
> No foolin'.
>
> > Obviously, even you
> > would agree, I'm pretty sure, that categorizing and analyzING mental
> > illness, as various people like psychologists, physiologists, etc., do
> > is worthwhile.
>
> Not for the purposes you pursue.
Motives are irrelevant, Toby.
> > > Our minds are our sancta
> > > sanctorum and to insult a man there should never be done unless the
> > > insulter's willing to get as good as he gives. And, from where I sit,
> > > Grumman, you've got a lot to answer for.
> >
> > Gracious. But I don't consider myself stigmatizing so much as
> > describing--because I don't consider insanity necessarily bad.
>
> Right. You just like to use it against people like a slur.
>
> > And I
> > doubt that you can show that I am unwilling to get as good as I give,
> > though I haven't gotten as good as I've given yet.
>
> Invitation accepted.
As if it weren't previously accepted long ago.
> > Your insults have
> > been more mean-minded than mine, though: I direct mine mainly at your
> > powers of reasoning; you direct yours mainly at both my powers of
> > reasoning and my morality.
>
> You once said you don't respond to charges drawn on morality. I say
> that's a reckless course to take.
>
> Toby Petzold
I'm not sure that's exactly what I said. But I don't want to get into
THAT again.
--Bob G.
richard kennedy
one is about Drummond's rules for anagrams, which "Shakespeare" made
use of, perfectly with Hamlet/Amleth, and casually with
Caliban/cannibal. Therefore, Mente Videbor/ Tibi nom de Vere is
excellent. Being a Gumbonian, I don't believe that Oxford wrote
everything, but he was a large force behind the literature of the day,
he and his relatives who sponsored the first folio and had in hand the
manuscripts that made up that book.
> Ben Jonson's friend, William Drummond, has an essay on anagrams in his
> collected works, published long after his death, 1711. This is the
> best contemporary essay on anagrams that I've see, and he gives the
> rules of anagrams, as the rules were in those days of Jonson and
> Shakespeare.
>
> In 1612 there was published a book called "Minerva Britanna" by
> another man who wrote on anagrams, and invented anagrams. On the
> title page of that book is printed out, quite plainly,
>
> MENTE VIDEBOR = By the mind shall I be seen.
>
> This is taken to be an anagram, the context is very convincing, and
> the Oxfordians make it out to read:
>
> TIBI NOM DE VERE = My name is De Vere.
>
> The question is this, and let David Kathman answer to it, or let Webb
> answer for him, it makes no difference, they are joined at the mouth.
> The question is:
>
> ACCORDING TO DRUMMOND'S RULES, IS THERE ANY FAULT IN THE ABOVE
> ANAGRAM?
>
> Here are Drummond's rules as known to the Elizabethans and Jocobeans.
>
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> 1. In an Anagram there must not be fewer nor more nor other Letters,
> but the same, and as many as in the name. It is named also by the
> Greeks [Greek], which is the transposition of letters.
>
> 2. >Anagramma est clausula quae ex artificiosa literarum omnium, neque
> plurium, alicujus nominis transpositione componitur. Dicitur proprie
> clausula, id quod aliquid claudit.< It is called a sentence. >Est
> Anagrammatismus particula orationis, & quatuor plus minus dictiones
> continet,cum tamen unam persaepe contineat. This is the Law of an
> Anagram, That no Letter be added, nor any taken away. This admitteth
> some Exceptions, which is, That some one or other Letter may be
> omitted; but with great Judgment, That that Letter be no principal
> Letter of the Name, which is omitted: But such, without which the Name
> may consist. For when the same Letters occur many times in the Name,
> then the Omission of one or more is pardonable; especially for some
> excellent Sense that agreeth to the Person, as in that of Auratus
> PIERRE DE RONSARD, ROSE DE PINDARE, of four R s, two are omitted.
>
> 3. A Letter may easily be omitted, without whose Help, the Name by it
> self may stand; as H, which placed behind, after Consonants, seemeth
> not much to alter the Power of the Name; which Letter some of the
> Latins have abolished, thinking it rather an Aspiration than a Letter
>
> 4. It was said, that no Letter should be taken away; yet, if there be
> any great Reason, a Letter may be added as >relligio, repperit<; or
> rather a Letter may be doubled, as when two Letters occur in the Name,
> one may be abolished, so one of Necessity may be doubled.
>
> 5. All Diphthongs may be separated >per Diaeresin<; and even so, two
> Vowels >per Synaeresin<, may be conjoin d, which Auratus practiced in
> the Name of Jesus, [Greek].
>
> 6. So some think, the Diphthong being forgot, we may use and take only
> the last and founding Letter: But, for the most part, we must keep
> Orthography, as it is vulgarly and by approved Authors used; and if we
> adjoin a Letter, let us add one of these which make up the Name, that
> we seem not so much to have adjoined one, as doubled it. So a Jesuit
> doubled the Letter S, in the Anagram of >Ignatius de Loyola; O iguis a
> Deo illatus<; and another turn d it, >Lita ei anguis doli<.
>
> 7. If it be asked, Whether adjecting or omitting be more to be
> tolerated? I answer, Adjecting; for so by Nature we are prepared
> rather to take, than have an Loss.
>
> 8. It is sometime lawful to change one Letter into another, That is,
> for one letter to put another, which is the admitting of one, and
> omitting of another: Yet, I would think, these Letters must be such as
> may change into others, as D. into T. which the Spaniards use in the
> Latine Cado for Cato.
>
> 9. A double Letter, not unhappily, may be changed into a simple, as Z.
> into S. I would say, divided as Z into S D.
>
> 10. But the Conclusion is, the Anagrammatism is so much the more
> perfect, the farther it be from all License.
>
> 11. The Definition says, >Alicujus nominis<, which is to be understood
> of proper Names, yet not only in Persons, but in Names of other
> Things, may an Anagrammatism be made. By Name, here is to be
> understood generally the Sirname, Fore-name, affixed Name, as Publius
> Cornelius Scipio Africanus; or the Name of any Dignity.
>
> 12. Ye may use one Name, as Valesius, Laus Jesu; for many Nations have
> but one Name, but oftner the Name and Sirname are turned.
>
> 13. It is to be observed, That not only Names of Men, but the Names of
> any other Thing, as Trees, Floods, Towns, may be turned, as Roma,
> Mora. Cur varios tamdiu remoratur Roma clientes, Forte quod inverso
> nomine Roma Mora est.
>
> 14. There is in the Definition, (Transposition) because if any Sense
> be in the Name of Letters not transposed it is not so much an Anagram
> as >equivoque<, as Anna Grame, Anagram, - - - What needs an Anagrame,
> Since that her very Name is Anna Grame.
richard kennedy
--------------------------------------
stai...@charter.net (richard kennedy) wrote in message news:<32b2d000.03082...@posting.google.com>...
Richard Nathan
acknowledged that the supposed "anagram" in "Minerva Britanna"
violates rules 12 and 13, since what Richard Kennedy claims is the
answer is not a name.
stai...@charter.net (richard kennedy) wrote in message news:<32b2d000.03092...@posting.google.com>...
Peter Groves
explanation.
--
Peter G., Pistori nostro quem rescivimus planum esse.
"richard kennedy" <stai...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:32b2d000.0309...@posting.google.com...
Dave Kathman
> Kennedy must be suffering from Korsakoff's Syndrome--it's the only
> explanation.
I've suggested that explanation numerous times in the past.
A physical debility would be better, in some sense, than a
purely psychological one.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
Richard Nathan
that the supposed "anagram" violates rules 12 and 13 of Drummond's
Anagram Rules, he has also forgotten that if "Tibi Nom De Vere" can be
said to mean anything, it means "your name is De Vere," not "My name
is De Vere."
The fact that Richard Kennedy would post again something that he
himself has admitted is wrong shows that Richard Kennedy is
absolutely, beyond any doubt, seriously mentally unbalanced.
richard kennedy
curtain, and that he has a name. For a long time they have either
denied that, or said "pay no attention to that man behind the
curtain." Their admission is all I wanted for the case, and I'm glad
they have seen the obvious trick on the title page of the Minerva
Britanna. There is a man behind the curtain, and men have names.
Therein lies the mystery and the puzzle Peacham puts up to us. Who is
that man? Mente videbor works nicely into Tibi nom de Vere, that's
concluded, and I thank the Strats for recognizing that at last.
However, I don't claim that Tibi nom De Vere is the only possible
solution, and the Strats should not depend too heavily on that,
either. If Nathan, Kathman, or others are at their private work on
the anagram, I'd appreciate to know how else they have worked out the
puzzle.
richard...@att.net (Richard Nathan) wrote in message news:<fe178efa.03092...@posting.google.com>...
Peter Groves
news:fe178efa.03092...@posting.google.com...
> See responses below:
>
>
> Kennedy: > It's good that the Strats admit that there is someone
> behind that curtain, and that he has a name.
>
> think it would be logical to assume that there is a body attached to
> that arm. I don't believe anyone has claimed this is a floating arm,
> unattached to any body.
>
>
> Kennedy: > For a long time they have either denied that, or said "pay
> no attention to that man behind the curtain."
>
> body?
>
> Kennedy: >Their admission is all I wanted for the case, and I'm glad
> they have seen the obvious trick on the title page of the Minerva
> Britanna.
>
I'm afraid that under new HLAS rules he must be referred to as an
addle-pated sot.
> Acknowledging that there is
> in all probability a body attached to the arm has NOTHING to do with
> your raving lunatic notion that there must be an anagram involvded.
>
> Kennedy: >There is a man behind the curtain, and men have names.
> >
>
> Nathan: I assume the man behind the curtain is Peacham, the author of
> "Minnerva Britanica," - although I assume a case can be made for God
> being behind the curtain. It sure as hell isn't De Vere writing out a
> message that says, "Your name is De Vere." That makes no sense at
> all.
>
> Kennedy: >Therein lies the mystery and the puzzle Peacham puts up to
> us. Who is
> that man? Mente videbor works nicely into Tibi nom de Vere, that's
> concluded, and I thank the Strats for recognizing that at last.
>
> Nathan: No, you lying half-wit. It makes no damned sense at all.
As impartial referee I feel bound to intervene here. Under the new rules he
must be described as a truth-stretching lackbrains, and (in any case)
invoking sense, logic and similar standards is raising the bar unfairly high
for people like Kennedy, Weir and Crowley. Is this not an Equal Opportunity
news-group? Are we to be accused of being mendacity-intolerant and
folly-averse?
Peter G., moderator.
> Why would the being behind the curtain be saying "Your name is De
> Vere." What would be the point of that? It doesn't fit at all. I
> suppose a lunatic could argue that God or Peacham is telling De Vere
> that he is the author of Shakespeare's plays, except the book
> "Minnerva Britanica" has nothing to do with Shakespeare's plays - so
> that makes no sense.
>
>
> Kennedy: > However, I don't claim that Tibi nom De Vere is the only
> possible solution, and the Strats should not depend too heavily on
> that, either. If Nathan, Kathman, or others are at their private work
> on the anagram, I'd appreciate to know how else they have worked out
> the puzzle.
> >
>
> Nathan: You have YET to give any convincing reason to believe there
> is an anagram involved. Why not just assume the arm belongs to
> Peachum, or perhaps God. Why go looking for anagrams, where none are
> necessary?