Semantic Underload? (was: Re: Sal's Puzzle (was: Re: I am puzzled))
Zero
[while running for dear life on the deck of
the sinking Titanic, the token Irishman
comments about the sophisticated ambience]
"music to drown by...
now i _know_ i'm in first class"
-- Token Irishman
[from the movie: "Titanic" (1997)]
Re: Sal's Puzzle (was: Re: I am puzzled)
Semantic Underload? (was: Re: Sal's Puzzle (was: Re: I am puzzled))
Paul Harwood Pa...@computerbits.com _finally_
"complied" with one of my many "demands":
>Zero said in misc.writing:
>
>>in any case, i challenge you to produce a single
>>"demand" i've made.
ok, here's what Paul considers a demand:
>On 29 May 2000 20:39:29 GMT, Zero said in misc.writing:
>
>========================
>>887u
>
><snip>
>
>>Re: Yahoo! MWM Passes!
>>
>>
>>Paul Harwood Pa...@computerbits.com
>>celebrated almost as much as i:
>>
>>>Results are in.
>>>
>>>The vote was 155:45
>>>
>>>Time to celebrate!
>>
>>yeah... _i'll_ say.
>>
>>now skat. be gone.
>>
>>get your manipultive lying slimy ass outta here.
>>
>>go play in your sterile incestuous
>>mindf/*\k playground.
>
>=====================
>
>Looks like a demand to me ...
heh.
this interpretation from the main MWM proponent guy
who claimed that he didn't know what a "split" was in
regards to newsgroup proposals. someone who headed
the MWM effort and had the help and advice (and critiques)
of an expert newsgroup mentor, besides. for almost a year.
a mentor who combed proponents posts to mw making
suggestions for various restraints, etc..
anyway, wow. if you seriously think _that_ was
any kind of "demand," i feel kinda sorry for you.
perhaps you should define just what a "demand" is.
(as you seem to have trouble with what words actually
mean -- as well as what constitutes a personal attack).
"Disagreeing with *ideas* is perfectly fine; personal
attacks are not. Calling an idea crapola is acceptable;
calling you a name for accepting that idea is not."
-- Paul Harwood
which would mean that one could say any of the following in MWM:
oh, you're a christian? well, i think
that christianity is a bunch of foolish
crap that attracks assholes.
oh, you're gay? well, i think that
the concept of homosexuality is a
bunch of foolish crap that attracks
assholes.
oh, you're liberal? well, i think that
the concept of linberalism is a bunch of
foolish crap that attracks assholes.
oh, you're an atheist? well, i think that
the concept of athiesm is a bunch of
foolish crap that attracks assholes.
as well as many other infinite variations of insultuous
formats about a multitude of ideas, all of which would
fit your silly criteria for "not attacking the individual"
but rather "an idea." an idea which an individual
cherrished, and by implication, would insult the individual.
again, you should define just what a "demand" is since
you seem to have a history of trouble regarding what
words actually mean:
[re: the proposal for the creation of misc.writing.moderated]
"it's NOT a split"
-- Paul Harwood (main MWM proponent)
[about a zillion times (in "err") <g>]
i suppose perhaps piranha missed all those denials
of "splits" that you posted, huh?
"The implication is that we have been lying."
-- Paul Harwood
>>take your time. think hard. check deja even.
>
>Who needs Deja?
you're right. my mistake. i forgot that one would
need to be capable of making sense out of what they
found there. that seems to be too "demanding" of a
task for you.
>>no, on second thought, i DEMAND that you produce a
>>single shred of evidence that i have ever made a
>>demand of anyone here.
>
>Okay. Done. Now what?
"split." skat. be gone. and make it fast.
(before you finally learn something)
>Paul Harwood
-$Zero... BTW: PleaseBeNiceToMe... It'sMyBirthdayTomorrow... <g>
"You know what you need? Shakubuku.
It's a swift, spiritual kick to the head
that alters your reality forever."
-- Debi Newberry [actor: Minnie Driver; from
the movie: "Grosse Pointe Blank" (1997)]
Copyright © 2000 Global Suggestion Box
All Rights Reserved and Writes Reversed
NUDE PHOTOS!!!:
http://users.aol.com/zeroisms/0/copyright/
http://users.aol.com/talklurkers/
nancy
zero...@aol.com (Zero) said:
Paul H. quoted zero's demand, which zero made after
he learned that MWM passed:
>>>now skat. be gone.
>>>get your manipultive lying slimy ass outta here.
>>>
>>>go play in your sterile incestuous
>>>mindf/*\k playground.
>heh.
>
>this interpretation from the main MWM proponent guy
>who claimed that he didn't know what a "split" was in
>regards to newsgroup proposals. someone who headed
>the MWM effort and had the help and advice (and critiques)
>of an expert newsgroup mentor, besides. for almost a year.
>a mentor who combed proponents posts to mw making
>suggestions for various restraints, etc..
>
>anyway, wow. if you seriously think _that_ was
>any kind of "demand," i feel kinda sorry for you.
hello. i'm having a small problem here. see, i'm
writing this column, and it has to do with bicycling,
see? and there's this activity that one sometimes
engages in while going downhill ... actually, it
takes place while the cyclist is coasting down a hill.
see, on most of the sorts of bicycles that a serious
cycler would be riding, pressing one's feet in a
*forward* cycling motion causes the gears to turn
and thus the wheels to turn. of course, while going
downhill, one doesn't necessarily *need* to turn
the gears, and so one might let one's feet rest.
however, i've noticed that some cyclers (and i've
been one such), actually feel some bizarre need to
keep one's feet moving. perhaps it gives one a sense
of balance, or it keeps one's feet from growing too
bored -- if feet can grow bored, that is.
the cyclist, rather than pedalling *forward*, pedals
in a backward motion. the bicycle gearing permits
this, and the effect is a null one ... it does not
propel the cycle, nor does it necessarily slow
the cycle down.
it just ... well, just exercises the feet uselessly.
so. my question is this: what does one *call*
that motion?
thank you, and have a lovely evening. i've just had
sex, and am now eating a container of Godiva Dark
Belgian Chocolate ice cream and sipping a glass of
nearly room temperature french pinot noir.
i would like to note that while sex and chocolate
go together, and while sex and pinot noir may go
together, pinot and dark belgian chocolate do NOT
necessarily go together.
ah, well. c'est la vive, as they say in spain!
--
n
Always remember you're unique, just like everyone else.
Zero
"NOTING THE OBVIOUS:
IOnlyWroteThisPost...
Because...
ItDidn'tReallyInterestMe..."
-- $Zero... <Zero...@aol.com> 879l
Re: Sal's Puzzle (was: Re: I am puzzled)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=644405267
<20000709194155...@ng-cc1.aol.com>
Re: Semantic Underload? (was: Re: Sal's Puzzle (was: Re: I am puzzled))
frustrated with my usual flashes of insight
na...@gekkografx.com (nancy) resorted
to desperate flaunts of irrelevancies in hopes of...
demoralizing? who knows... one can only presume...
>zero...@aol.com (Zero) said:
>
>Paul H. quoted zero's demand, which zero made after
>he learned that MWM passed:
LOL. you people aren't too "demanding" with your
comprehension skills, are you?
>>>>now skat. be gone.
>>>>get your manipultive lying slimy ass outta here.
>>>>
>>>>go play in your sterile incestuous
>>>>mindf/*\k playground.
>
>>heh.
>>
>>this interpretation from the main MWM proponent guy
>>who claimed that he didn't know what a "split" was in
>>regards to newsgroup proposals. someone who headed
>>the MWM effort and had the help and advice (and critiques)
>>of an expert newsgroup mentor, besides. for almost a year.
>>a mentor who combed proponents posts to mw making
>>suggestions for various restraints, etc..
>>
>>anyway, wow. if you seriously think _that_ was
>>any kind of "demand," i feel kinda sorry for you.
>
>
>hello. i'm having a small problem here.
that's obvious. hence your irrelevant response.
>see, i'm writing this column, and it has to do with
>bicycling, see? and there's this activity that one
>sometimes engages in while going downhill ... actually, it
>takes place while the cyclist is coasting down a hill.
>
>see, on most of the sorts of bicycles that a serious
>cycler would be riding, pressing one's feet in a
>*forward* cycling motion causes the gears to turn
>and thus the wheels to turn. of course, while going
>downhill, one doesn't necessarily *need* to turn
>the gears, and so one might let one's feet rest.
hint: some people use their feet in lieu of their brains.
>however, i've noticed that some cyclers (and i've
>been one such), actually feel some bizarre need to
>keep one's feet moving. perhaps it gives one a sense
>of balance, or it keeps one's feet from growing too
>bored -- if feet can grow bored, that is.
>
>the cyclist, rather than pedalling *forward*, pedals
>in a backward motion. the bicycle gearing permits
>this, and the effect is a null one ... it does not
>propel the cycle, nor does it necessarily slow
>the cycle down.
how utterly fascinating.
>it just ... well, just exercises the feet uselessly.
>
>so. my question is this: what does one *call*
>that motion?
backpedaling? yeah, so... get your brains in gear.
try facing the truth about yourselves. it's fun stuff.
a little painful at first, but what a pay out!
>thank you, and have a lovely evening. i've just had
>sex, and am now eating a container of Godiva Dark
>Belgian Chocolate ice cream and sipping a glass of
>nearly room temperature french pinot noir.
great! so... then, i don't have to bother to tell
you to go f/*\k yourself? <g>
>i would like to note that while sex and chocolate
>go together, and while sex and pinot noir may go
>together, pinot and dark belgian chocolate do NOT
>necessarily go together.
gee... you're _so_ fortunate... and sophisticated...
i don't know whether to feel green with jealousy...
or green with nausea...
>ah, well. c'est la vive, as they say in spain!
if you say so.
>n
anyway, sorry i keep challenging you so....
with all these hard to ignore contradictions
you've all created for yourselves...
i never meant to interupt your chocolate affairs.
-$Zero... InTheFuture... I'llTryToBeLessDemanding...
i'll try to post about concepts that don't make you
all so darn' defensive.
The Penniless Apprentice
Zero
"Never underestimate the power of denial."
-- Ricky Fitts [actor: Wes Bentley;
from the film: "American Beauty" (1999)]
Re: Semantic Underload? (was: Re: Sal's Puzzle (was: Re: I am puzzled))
Paul Harwood Pa...@computerbits.com split up the
previous post and selected from the remains:
>Zero said in misc.writing:
>
>>ok, here's what Paul considers a demand:
>>
><snip>
>
>>anyway, wow. if you seriously think _that_ was
>>any kind of "demand," i feel kinda sorry for you.
>>
>>perhaps you should define just what a "demand" is.
>
>From Merriam-Webster Online: Demand: an act of demanding
>or asking especially with authority.
>
>Yep. Looks like a demand to me.
oh, so... i suppose you're now disingenuously claiming
that you think that Pastorio was leaning towards the
almost-never-used mild connotation? yeah, sure.
Bob would never dream of implying that i was i was
issuing authoritative demands like a delusional little
tyrannt. right. i getcha.
i demand to know by what authority you delude yourself
into thinking that i have any authority over anyone
on Usenet? and you'd better answer, or there'll be
hell to pay, mister. <g>
"I talked entirely about your behavior and why I think
others react to you and your silly "challenges" and
demands the way they do. They ignore them. That's
what the post was about. Your behavior and theirs in
return. Or rather the silence that greets most of your
vituperative demands that people jump through your hoops.
[...]
Good job in yet another technique to create smoke and
sound and fury, as ever."
-- Bob Pastorio
"fury"? yet yet another interesting characterization.
says alot about how certain people interpret things.
so... Bob and Paul see me as some sort of _authority_
issues demands in a fury. how sad for them.
OTOH, if Bob simply meant to imply that i sometimes
"ask" people to do things, i concede... i make all sorts
of suggestions, i'm "a writer."
but to claim that i was "demanding" DEMOs is a bit of
a stretch. perhaps it felt like a demand to those who
feared the consequences of being brave enough to
post them, but it was no demand. neither the first or
second time i challenged the proponents to such an
exercise.
in any case, patricia and richard and arleen and carol
(not to mention all those disenfranchised lurkers!)
joined me in my "demands." i suppose that when one
doesn't want to deal with revealing requests, one might
be prone to characterize same as furious "demands,"
but... it's not very credible. it tips your hand even more.
>>>>no, on second thought, i DEMAND that you produce a
>>>>single shred of evidence that i have ever made a
>>>>demand of anyone here.
>>>
>>>Okay. Done. Now what?
>>
>>"split." skat. be gone. and make it fast.
>
>Heh. Caught you, didn't I?
trying to teach you something, yep.
>Just fess up, Zero. Admit that you made a
>mistake and move on.
ROTFLMAO. Paul, if you would have simply admitted
that you were misleading people by denying a "split"
for over a year... (so that those overprotective types
like ingrid wouldn't "panic" and feel "threatened" that
their cherished newsgroup was being split),
you could have avoided all the grief of seeing that
split-denial quote of yours every so often which
shows how uncredible you are.
hasn't anyone learned from Bill Clinton?
he was a leader in this regard.
his wife is still paying for his Nixonisms
so, when are you gonna admit it, Paul? never?
>Paul Harwood
-$Zero... Sure... I'veMadeMistakes... Many...
IfIEverGetASpareDecade... I'llListThem...
ButIDon'tMake"DEMANDS"OfPeopleHere...
IMake_Suggestions_... (SeeTheBottomOfMySig...)
I'mNotAPower-HungryCensorWhoIssues"Demands"...
I'mJustAGuySpeakingHisMind...
IRealiseThatThisConceptUpsetsSome...
AndThat'sCertainlyOneMistakeI'veMadeOften...
(BelievingThatItWasOkToExpressMyOpinions...)
MyApologies... <g>
Paul Harwood
>Paul Harwood Pa...@computerbits.com
>>From Merriam-Webster Online: Demand: an act of demanding
>>or asking especially with authority.
>>
>>Yep. Looks like a demand to me.
>
>oh, so... i suppose you're now disingenuously claiming
>that you think that Pastorio was leaning towards the
>almost-never-used mild connotation?
Er, no. I'm just pointing out that you have indeed issued demands here. Your
spittle-soaked invective aimed at me is just one instance.
--
Paul Harwood
Zero
"if i had a million dollars...
we wouldn't have to walk to the store...
if i had a million dollars...
we'd take a limo 'cause it costs more..."
-- Bare Naked Ladies
[song: "If I had a Million Dollars"]
Re: Semantic Underload? (was: Re: Sal's Puzzle (was: Re: I am puzzled))
Paul Harwood Pa...@computerbits.com split up the
previous post and selected from the remains to
selectively focus on the following:
>Zero said:
>
>>Paul Harwood Pa...@computerbits.com
heh. he even snipped out the part describing his snipping.
so it's no surprise that he selectively chose which
definiton of "demand" he should focus on:
>>>From Merriam-Webster Online:
>>>Demand: an act of demanding
>>>or asking especially with authority.
>>>
>>>Yep. Looks like a demand to me.
>>
>>oh, so... i suppose you're now disingenuously claiming
>>that you think that Pastorio was leaning towards the
>>almost-never-used mild connotation?
>
>Er, no. I'm just pointing out that you have indeed issued
>demands here. Your spittle-soaked invective aimed at me is
>just one instance.
look, here's a more definitive definition of what "issuing
a demand" actually is (as intuitively understood by most
english-speaking writers and readers everywhere):
From Merriam-Webster Online (same source Paul used):
demand [1] (noun)
First appeared 13th Century
1 a : an act of demanding or asking esp. with authority
b : something claimed as due
2 archaic : QUESTION
first, notice definition #1b. then, notice the use of
the word "archaic" in reference to definition #2.
do you actually think that i was _demanding_ that you
leave the misc.writing group? if so, you need help.
now, let's look at the verb "demand" to see the connotation
normally associated with someone who is issuing demands:
as in:
"Zero demanded that i be gone",
or... converting the same sentiment Paul claims to noun form:
"Zero issued demands that i leave"
demand [2] (verb)
[Middle English demaunden, from Old French demander,
from Medieval Latin demandare, from Latin, to entrust,
charge, from de- + mandare to enjoin -- more at MANDATE]
verb intransitive
First appeared 14th Century
: to make a demand : ASK
verb transitive
1 : to ask or call for with authority :
claim as due or just <demanded to see a lawyer>
2 : to call for urgently, peremptorily, or insistently
<demanded that the rioters disperse>
3 a : to ask authoritatively or earnestly to be informed of
b : to require to come : SUMMON
4 : to call for as useful or necessary
notice the examples used:
<demanded to see a lawyer>
<demanded that the rioters disperse>
do these imply a certain authority (or right that is due), or what?
anyway, let's skim over the given related words and their various
distinctions as given by Merrium Webster Online:
synonym DEMAND, CLAIM, REQUIRE, EXACT mean to ask or call
for something as due or as necessary. DEMAND implies
peremptoriness and insistence and often the right to make
requests that are to be regarded as commands
<demanded payment of the debt>.
did you see peremptory in there? and "command." LOL.
wow. and again, look at the example given:
<demanded payment of the debt>.
does anyone remember the first time i suggested
(oops... "demanded") that we try some MWM Demos?
did i make some claim that it was _due_?
that it was _required_? nope. i simply said that
it would be educational. how about the second time?
was the request made with some sort of notion that
it was absolutely required or due? was it a "command"?
nope.
how about when i "demanded" that Paul "scat"?
did i do so with any kind of authority or "right"?
or was that just some sort of ironic sarcasm on my part?
duh...
anyway, here's the other synonyms for "demand"
ccoring to Merrium Webster Online:
CLAIM implies a demand for the delivery or concession of
something due as one's own or one's right <claimed the
right to manage his own affairs>. REQUIRE suggests the
imperativeness that arises from inner necessity, compulsion
of law or regulation, or the exigencies of the situation
<the patient requires constant attention>. EXACT implies
not only demanding but getting what one demands <exacts
absolute loyalty>.
>Paul Harwood
gee.. you sure snip a lot.
still don't want to admit anything about your usuage of
the word "split" huh? or the bullshit behind MWM's
selective personal-attack moderation policy, aye?
well, in any case, i must extend my gratitude to you and Bob
and nancy for showering me with such pleasent semantic gifts
on my birthday (since everyone knows how much i like to expose
evasive hypocrites and all, you guys couldn't have been more
generous). again, thanks, but you really shouldn't have gone
to such trouble. you're all just too generous.
-$Zero... I'mBlushingWithHumility...
Paul Harwood
>gee.. you sure snip a lot.
Gee. You sure blather a lot.
--
Paul Harwood
Zero
[Paul takes issue with patricia's "implications" in a post
prescribing acceptable ways to craft personal insults in MWM]
"The implication is that we have been lying.
[...]
Disagreeing with *ideas* is perfectly fine; personal
attacks are not. Calling an idea crapola is acceptable;
calling you a name for accepting that idea is not."
-- Paul Harwood
Re: Semantic Underload? (was: Re: Sal's Puzzle (was: Re: I am puzzled))
Paul Harwood Pa...@computerbits.com split up the
previous post and selected from the remains to
selectively focus on the following:
>Zero said:
>
>>gee.. you sure snip a lot.
>
>Gee. You sure blather a lot.
gee.. you sure snip a lot.
>Paul Harwood
anyway, i can see why you snipped so much in these cases
since... all these posts had much to do with writing:
semantics, connotations, definitions and such.
too much writing-related stuff for you, huh? you'd
much rather focus on making thinly-veiled personal
attacks, like:
"you sure do blather a lot"
(granted, it's not very thinly-veiled, but it's certainly
not writing-related)
it's utterly sublime.
again, i thank thee for your generosity.
-$Zero... CreativeGenius... AnUnlimitedSupply...
nancy
>HAPPY BIRTHDAY, ZERO!!!
>
>
sorry, penni, but we're busy flaming his elderly
ass. you'll have to do your birthday happy stuff
in another thread. maybe the garden cam one?
( <g> )
--
n
A critic is like a eunuch: he knows exactly how it ought to be
done.
Bob Pastorio
>
> 876d
>
> "Never underestimate the power of denial."
> -- Ricky Fitts [actor: Wes Bentley;
> from the film: "American Beauty" (1999)]
>
>
> others react to you and your silly "challenges" and
> demands the way they do. They ignore them. That's
> what the post was about. Your behavior and theirs in
> return. Or rather the silence that greets most of your
> vituperative demands that people jump through your hoops.
> [...]
> Good job in yet another technique to create smoke and
> sound and fury, as ever."
> -- Bob Pastorio
>
> "fury"? yet yet another interesting characterization.
> says alot about how certain people interpret things.
Sorry, Peter. Once again, as so often, it got past you. The phrase
is "sound and fury" taken together. Reference in part of that
education you claim not to have missed or need. I honestly expected
you to get it. Oh, well. Overestimated you again. And that's not an
easy thing to do.
> so... Bob and Paul see me as some sort of _authority_
> issues demands in a fury. how sad for them.
Contrary to your patently silly assertion, I see you as utterly
lacking in any authority - not intellectual, moral, spiritual or
experiential. But, of course, you misinterpret what both of us have
said separately, why not misinterpret them together.
You say you're a creative genius. It's only the evidence that's
lacking. You say we're all brainwashed, but most of us are doing well
enough in our lives. You claim to have deeper insights, but you miss
the point more often than not - partly because you don't stop to think
and partly because people talk over your head. You tell us how many
businesses you've started and yet you have no job or business now.
Authority? What authority?
Your insistent demands for a demo (supported by fewer people than the
number of fingers you keep up your nose) - yes, demands - were met
with casual brushing aside. That's the final point. And see how few
rushed to your assistance...?
Contrasted with how many disputed or ignored you? See the balance of
things?
Have a lovely day.
Pastorio
w.d. greene
Bob Pastorio wrote to Zero:
> [snip] You say we're all brainwashed, but most of us are doing well
> enough in our lives.
Well, in this regard Zero is probably correct. I'm pretty sure that we're
all brainwashed, Zero included. Being human, undergoing to processes of
cognitive development that makes us human, requires that each of us be
brainwashed to some degree in all kinds of ways. The folly comes when
someone claims to be free of this.
Just MHO.
(Obviously, I've been reading too many pschology books lately.)
nancy
(Zero) said:
>i'll try to post about concepts that don't make you
>all so darn' defensive.
>
'kay.
everyone who *got* what my meandering was all about,
raise your hands.
(strains of Queen's "Bicycle Races")
(note: no sex tonight, no chocolate ice cream, but 2 more
glasses of pinot. what a crappy night!)
--
n
Stop repeat offenders. Don't re-elect them! -- bumpersticker
Zero
"You know what you need? Shakubuku.
It's a swift, spiritual kick to the head
that alters your reality forever."
-- Debi Newberry [actor: Minnie Driver; from
the movie: "Grosse Pointe Blank" (1997)]
Re: Semantic Underload? (was: Re: Sal's Puzzle (was: I am Puzzled))
Re: Sound and fury...
wow... good thing i signed on again tonight, else...
i would have missed all these other birthday gifts
from Bob Pastorio Past...@rica.net who offered:
>Zero wrote:
>>
>> 876d
>>
>> "Never underestimate the power of denial."
>> -- Ricky Fitts [actor: Wes Bentley;
>> from the film: "American Beauty" (1999)]
>>
>> "I talked entirely about your behavior and why I think
>> others react to you and your silly "challenges" and
>> demands the way they do. They ignore them. That's
>> what the post was about. Your behavior and theirs in
>> return. Or rather the silence that greets most of your
>> vituperative demands that people jump through your hoops.
>> [...]
>> Good job in yet another technique to create smoke and
>> sound and fury, as ever."
>> -- Bob Pastorio
>>
>> "fury"? yet yet another interesting characterization.
>> says alot about how certain people interpret things.
>
>Sorry, Peter. Once again, as so often, it got past you.
yep. it did. actually, i misread the whole thing.
even while missing the Sound and Fury reference,
the fact is that you you weren't even talking about
_me_ being furious, at least not in that paragraph.
you would have been refering to your reaction.
like i said, i misread it.
>The phrase is "sound and fury" taken together.
yeah, sorry, i missed the pun. i misread it.
originally i thought it was simply a list of
characterizarions of how you view me posting.
>Reference in part of that education you claim
>not to have missed or need.
to be honest, i don't know the reference. i've heard
of the "sound and the fury", but i have no idea what
the official symbolism is that you're painting here.
i've never seen a movie of such a thing nor have
i read a book in that regard.
so yes, it is part of the education that i missed,
but it is certainly not education that i need.
that's where we part company significantly, Bob.
you seem to believe that it is important to know some
standard "canon" of work. i disagree. i believe that
the universal themes in literature and philosophy and
science seep into one's understanding of things without
having to know specific origins, but even more importantly,
the universal themes of life itself do so. i suppose such
trivia as you surely know might be useful if one were a
contestant on "who wants to be a millionaire" but... i
have no obsession with such irrelevancies.
my blissful ignorance is one of my most cherished
sources of creative power. kees me thinking like
a child.
understand? or does that kinda "reject the brainwash"
thinking go beyond your conformist comprehension?
>I honestly expected you to get it. Oh, well.
oh... please DO explain your implication so i can
show you how wrong you likely are.
>Overestimated you again. And that's not an easy thing to do.
hey, you made a funny. congradulations.
but, let's get back to your inability to refrain from
making personal-attacks:
>> so... Bob and Paul see me as some sort of _authority_
>> [who] issues demands in a fury. how sad for them.
>
>Contrary to your patently silly assertion, I see you as
>utterly lacking in any authority
yes. i noted that fact in the part you conveniently snipped.
i said that you often paint me as some sort of tyrannical
ignoramous "issuing demands."
>- not intellectual, moral, spiritual or experiential.
hah!
>But, of course, you misinterpret what both of us have
>said separately, why not misinterpret them together.
i like grouping all you hypocritical censor types together.
you all engage in precisely the same behavior you supposedly
condemn. it's quite a treat. it's almost tempting enough to
make me consider reading and posting to MWM. but, i won't,
because i don't want to enable you guys by making the place
interesting.
>You say you're a creative genius.
yes. that's my biggest mistake. rule number one of being
a creative genius is to never tell anyone.
once you tell someone, one of two things usually happen:
1] they never stop haunting you for favors
2] they resent you for the rest of their lives.
sometimes 1, then 2.
>It's only the evidence that's lacking.
LOL.
>You say we're all brainwashed, but most of us are doing
>well enough in our lives.
see what i mean?
>You claim to have deeper insights, but you miss the point
>more often than not
i miss references, not points. get real.
>- partly because you don't stop to think and partly because
>people talk over your head.
the only people who talk "over my head" are those who use
specific references i don't know. that includes the dogs
barking in my neighborhood.
>You tell us how many businesses you've started and yet
>you have no job or business now.
bzzt... wrong.
>Authority? What authority?
Bob, the authority thing was in relation to yours and nancy's
and Paul's absurd assertions that i have issued "demands."
you can't evade the facts here by all your smoke and mirrors.
you can try, but i'm much too swift for you. whether the
"lurkers" can keep up is another matter entirely. the smart
ones can, the dumb ones voted YES. <g>
>Your insistent demands for a demo
my insistent _requests_, Bob. requests. learn English, will ya?
>(supported by fewer people than the number of fingers you
>keep up your nose)
add Billo and probably Bonnie and Silly Billy as well as
arleen and patricia and prince richard (and... let's not
forget all those silent disenfranchised lurkers)
anyway, i can only fit one finger up my nose.
> - yes, demands - were met with casual brushing aside.
my requests for Demos were met with utter panic. because
you proponents knew that your silly moderation policy could
not possibly survive the light of day.
you didn't want to lose the few recognizable YES votes you
had.
>That's the final point. And see how few rushed to your
>assistance...?
well... censorship-mongers like yourself took care of that
untidy problem.
>Contrasted with how many disputed or ignored you?
only a small few of the proponents dared speak on the matter
at all. what was it? two? three? they didn't want to draw
ANY attention to it. Billo had already made minced meat of
the proponents and moderators in news.groups, they certainly
didn't want to talk about Demos in misc.writing, let alone
ever provide any.
>See the balance of things?
oh yes, i see.
as clear as the absence of MWM Demos.
anyway, you're all providing a good show right now.
great MWM promo ads.
>Have a lovely day.
thanks. i did. homemade chocolate cake and pasta.
it was a beautiful gorgeous crystal blue-sky day
with not a cloud in sight. very inspirational.
and, again... i appreciate your additional contributions
to my hypocrisy exposing fetish.
>Pastorio
gee... you sure like to snip a lot. so selective.
with me responding, i don't blame you in the least.
so anyway, just out of curiosity now, as a Demo, would
Bob's post here have been considered a personal attack?
or just mine?
-$Zero... PleaseGuys... StopSpoilingMeSo...
[after reviewing a tv news story about his grandstanding
puppeteer "competitor," he says to his wife's chimp, Elijah]
"Gimmicky bastard...
you don't know how lucky you are to be a monkey...
consciousness is a terrible thing...
i think... i feel... i suffer...
and all i ask in return...
is the opportunity to do my work...
and they won't allow it... because...
i raise issues..."
-- Craig Schwartz [actor: John Cusack;
from the near-masterpiece film:
"Being John Malkovich" (1999)]
Paine Ellsworth
>
> the voices are telling me that The Penniless Apprentice said:
> >
> > HAPPY BIRTHDAY, ZERO!!!
>
> sorry, penni, but we're busy flaming his elderly
> ass. you'll have to do your birthday happy stuff
> in another thread. maybe the garden cam one?
>
> ( <g> )
>
> --
> n
>
> A critic is like a eunuch: he knows exactly how it ought to be
> done.
Well shit then -- and here i thought all this great stuff
from you and Bob and Paul and gangbangee Peter was his
surfuckinprise party --
He doesn't seem to have a problem blowin' out the candles --
--
Indelibly yours, "pro bono publico"
Paine <bfg> Ellsworth
xoxoxox ** NEW ** update --
http://home.att.net/~Paine_Ellsworth/
Zero
"You know what you need? Shakubuku.
It's a swift, spiritual kick to the head
that alters your reality forever."
-- Debi Newberry [actor: Minnie Driver; from
the movie: "Grosse Pointe Blank" (1997)]
WAS: Re: Semantic Underload? (was: Re: Sal's Puzzle...)
Re: Sound and fury...
Paul Harwood Pa...@computerbits.com wrote:
>Zero said in misc.writing:
>
><in a back-n-forth with Pastorio>
>
>>>> Good job in yet another technique to create smoke
>>>> and sound and fury, as ever."
>>>> -- Bob Pastorio
>>>>
>>>> "fury"? yet another interesting characterization.
>>>> says alot about how certain people interpret things.
>>>
>>>Sorry, Peter. Once again, as so often, it got past you.
>>
>>yep. it did. actually, i misread the whole thing.
>>even while missing the Sound and Fury reference,
>
><snip>
>
>>>The phrase is "sound and fury" taken together.
>>
>>yeah, sorry, i missed the pun.
>
>It's not a pun. It's a reference to Shakespeare:
so what's the "smoke" about? just pastorio rambling?
"Good job in yet another technique to create smoke and
sound and fury, as ever."
regardless, i take the following "sound and fury"
metaphor as a compliment (since it mocks life itself):
>"Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
>That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
>And then is heard no more: it is a tale
>Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
>Signifying nothing."
>
>cf Macbeth V 5
of course, i don't know the entire context of this
passage as it relates to the overall tale of Macbeth.
hmm... anyway... what a weird coincidence.
i actually heard that exact quote a couple days ago
in the movie "The Postman" with Kevin Costner.
it was on TNT. world televison premiere or something.
i enjoyed the movie. particularly this quote:
"stuff is getting better"
i can relate to the protaganist regarding his struggles
and choices, particularly his unwanted battles with the
"people of the 8 rules." <g>
>>to be honest, i don't know the reference. i've heard
>>of the "sound and the fury", but i have no idea what
>>the official symbolism is that you're painting here.
>
>Can't say that any more.
nope. i now have it branded in mind forever. thanks Paul.
ya know, i kinda got the gist of what it meant on its own,
but i appreciate your putting it into full context for me.
i think it's pretty funny how i sensed the implication without
actually knowing the specific reference and context.
the sound and fury "signifying nothing" implication.
but i disagree that there was no pun.
i am, after all... Zero. that signifies something. <g>
>>i've never seen a movie of such a thing nor have
>>i read a book in that regard.
heh. i was wrong about that too. LOL.
i wonder if the reason i kinda understood the meaning
was that i just saw the movie recently... hm...
>Read Shakespeare.
he was quoted a lot in that movie. interesting device.
for humor too. especially the way The Postman's
quoting of Shakespeare was so meek compared to
the villian's (who read yet... burned all the books to
keep the people ignorant).
>Everyone with aspirations to writing should, if only to
>know how high the bar has been set.
i read some in 8th grade. Othello, for one. Iago was
quite a character. (one of the first scum spin-doctors.)
i remember being fascinated by the complexities and
depths of the stories. the tangled webs that were weaved.
anyway, i already know how high the bar is...
i admire many, many artists.
(though few actual "writers" because
i don't really like reading books)
personally, i'm striving to simplify all these
complexities that understand either intuitively
or indirectly.
i believe that the best writing uses the
least references. (though i love using
references too).
but i know that references end up alienating
those who don't know them, and... even those
that DO know them will interpret them however
they choose. (understatement)
so, the less references, the better.
still... just for fun... i always include references. <g>
>Paul Harwood
-$Zero... "TakingThingsOutOfContext...
IsTheLargestContext..." - me (circa 1979)
"Never feel sorry for a man who owns a plane."
-- Charles Morse (plane-owner)
[actor: Anthony Hopkins; from
the movie: "The Edge" (1997)]
John Ashby
Paul Harwood <Pa...@computerbits.com> wrote in message
news:2b5dnsg60d3796chg...@4ax.com...
> On 20 Jul 2000 03:46:45 GMT, Zero said in misc.writing:
>
> <in a back-n-forth with Pastorio>
> >
> >yeah, sorry, i missed the pun.
>
>
>
> cf Macbeth V 5
>
Paul, you just quoted the Scottish Play. Go out of the newsgroup, turn round
three times clockwise and knock to be let back in.
john (And you said the name. All together: Hot potato, Openshaw, Puck will
make amends)
nancy
Pa...@macbeth.computerbits.com (Paul Harwood) said:
>Read Shakespeare. Everyone with aspirations to writing
>should, if only to know how high the bar has been set.
>
yes. not only do you grasp the richness of language,
of punnery, or imagery, of humor and wit as done
by a master -- you gain a new dimension in your own
language. you will then be able to converse with
*more* understanding of what people around you may
be saying to you.
you would have immediately grasped the nuances behind
what pastorio alluded.
the scene is just after MacBeth has learned that his
wife had killed herself.
he then launches into one of the most famous soliloquys
from the shakespeare repertoire (and there are many).
it speaks of the futility of life, of the sad situations
we place ourselves into. "life's but a walking
shadow ..."
and, zero, is speaks most eloquently of and to you.
get yourself a nice copy of shakespeare, along with
some liner notes to help explain some of the archaic
references. *study* it. you'll be enriched.
--
n (yeah, like how likely is he to do THAT?)
An error? Impossible! My modem is error correcting.
MaBear
> > enough in our lives.
>
> Well, in this regard Zero is probably correct. I'm pretty sure that
we're
> all brainwashed, Zero included. Being human, undergoing to processes
of
> cognitive development that makes us human, requires that each of us be
> brainwashed to some degree in all kinds of ways. The folly comes when
> someone claims to be free of this.
>
> Just MHO.
>
> (Obviously, I've been reading too many pschology books lately.)
Well, it's always amused me quite a lot that He Who Claims To Reject The
Brainwash has always filled his posts with quotes from *other*
people.....
Ironic, isn't it?
MaBear
(yes, of course I'm brainwashed - you certainly didn't think I had a
dirty mind or anything, did you?)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
The Penniless Apprentice
"nancy" <na...@gekkografx.com> wrote in message
news:8F76AB47...@24.1.240.74...
> the voices are telling me that on 18 Jul 2000,
>
> >HAPPY BIRTHDAY, ZERO!!!
> >
> >
>
>
> sorry, penni, but we're busy flaming his elderly
> ass. you'll have to do your birthday happy stuff
> in another thread. maybe the garden cam one?
>
> ( <g> )
>
<g>
no, no, no. it had to be in this one, because he brought it up himself.
arleen
--
(please note: all uses of the word we and its derivatives are to indicate
humankind in general and not the posters and responders specifically,
unless otherwise indicated.)
----
http://ajartworks.com
The Penniless Apprentice
news:8l6ffp$15...@newton.cc.rl.ac.uk...
>
> Paul Harwood <Pa...@computerbits.com> wrote in message
> news:2b5dnsg60d3796chg...@4ax.com...
> > On 20 Jul 2000 03:46:45 GMT, Zero said in misc.writing:
> >
> > <in a back-n-forth with Pastorio>
> > >
> > >yeah, sorry, i missed the pun.
> >
> >
> [snip, snip, snip, oh God, snip as fast as you can]
> >
> > cf Macbeth V 5
> >
>
> Paul, you just quoted the Scottish Play. Go out of the newsgroup, turn
round
> three times clockwise and knock to be let back in.
>
> john (And you said the name. All together: Hot potato, Openshaw, Puck will
> make amends)
>
this use of imperatives when replying to paul has got to STOP. the poor man
is being inundated with demands, and it just cannot be tolerated any longer.
<g>
arleen
The Penniless Apprentice
"MaBear" <kitt...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8l6vns$ju0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <01bff1ef$e19cf160$3148...@tag.HiWAAY.net>,
> "w.d. greene" <t...@hiwaay.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Bob Pastorio wrote to Zero:
> > > [snip] You say we're all brainwashed, but most of us are doing well
> > > enough in our lives.
> >
> > Well, in this regard Zero is probably correct. I'm pretty sure that
> we're
> > all brainwashed, Zero included. Being human, undergoing to processes
> of
> > cognitive development that makes us human, requires that each of us be
> > brainwashed to some degree in all kinds of ways. The folly comes when
> > someone claims to be free of this.
> >
> > Just MHO.
> >
> > (Obviously, I've been reading too many pschology books lately.)
>
>
> Well, it's always amused me quite a lot that He Who Claims To Reject The
> Brainwash has always filled his posts with quotes from *other*
> people.....
>
> Ironic, isn't it?
>
>
i don't think so. he finds quotes that have to do with the points he wants
to make, how he happens to be feeling, etc. the quotes reflect his thoughts,
not necessarily his thoughts that reflect the quotes. i do this myself. i'll
come across quotes, or writings that reflect my own thoughts on the matter,
and i may find them much better suited to making my point than my own words.
arleen
Paul Harwood
>this use of imperatives when replying to paul has got to STOP. the poor man
>is being inundated with demands, and it just cannot be tolerated any longer.
>
><g>
It's okay. It's all part of being <ahem> in demand.
--
Paul Harwood
MaBear
Oh, I wouldn't think it the least bit ironic were it anyone but
Zero. What with all of his years of railing about brainwashing
and such, I should think he'd be extremely wary of using quotes,
lest someone might think or attempt to assert maybe he's been
brainwashed by those he quotes......
MaBear
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
The Penniless Apprentice
"MaBear" <mabearN...@earthlink.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:31ab5721...@usw-ex0106-045.remarq.com...
<g> i see your point.
arleen
The Penniless Apprentice
news:20000719234645...@ng-co1.aol.com...
> 875y
>
<snip>
> from Bob Pastorio Past...@rica.net who offered:
>
<snip>
> >The phrase is "sound and fury" taken together.
>
> yeah, sorry, i missed the pun. i misread it.
> originally i thought it was simply a list of
> characterizarions of how you view me posting.
>
>
> >Reference in part of that education you claim
> >not to have missed or need.
>
> to be honest, i don't know the reference. i've heard
> of the "sound and the fury", but i have no idea what
> the official symbolism is that you're painting here.
me neither. i've seen Macbeth (in Stratford on Avon by the Royal
Shakespearean actors even), but the line didn't stay in my memory. i know
that there is a book called _The Sound and the Fury_ (i had the vague
impression that it was by hemingway, but i just looked it up and discovered
it was by faulkner). obviously, i've never read it. though i don't
necessarily remember the names of the authors of the books i've read unless
it's an author i particularly enjoy, and i read more than one book by that
author.
> i've never seen a movie of such a thing nor have
> i read a book in that regard.
>
> so yes, it is part of the education that i missed,
> but it is certainly not education that i need.
> that's where we part company significantly, Bob.
>
> you seem to believe that it is important to know some
> standard "canon" of work. i disagree. i believe that
> the universal themes in literature and philosophy and
> science seep into one's understanding of things without
> having to know specific origins, but even more importantly,
> the universal themes of life itself do so. i suppose such
> trivia as you surely know might be useful if one were a
> contestant on "who wants to be a millionaire" but... i
> have no obsession with such irrelevancies.
i can understand what you are saying here. when it comes to relating to one
another, the specifics of particular writings are only of interest to those
who are so interested. oth, because some of these works are so embedded in
our culture, it's like trying to understand the jokes of a foreign country.
one cannot unless one is familiar with the culture and the references that
are commonly understood.
i was thinking about this the other day with reference to jokes that people
make that are take offs from commonly known references such as tv shows,
movies, the latest political news, etc. five years ago those same jokes, or
allusions would be irrelevant. a hundred years from now, all references to
authors that we hold in reverence could disappear completely.
in other words, what's more important, that one understand the universal
"truths" expressed by the authors, or that one knows who said what? it is
possible for a writer, never having read or heard a word of shakespeare, but
simply by being a keen observer of the human condition and possessing the
talent to create vivid pictures with words to write a work comparable to any
past master. how did shakespeare do it? who was *his* shakespeare? or did he
even have one?
i know, perhaps those scholars of you out there who know everything there is
to know about shakespeare can tell me who his muses were, but that's not the
point. while i believe that it can certainly be beneficial to be widely read
(i love to read, of course i'm going to espouse that belief), it is not a
necessity to living a full, productive, meaningful life on this planet. nor
should a person be sneered at for not knowing the cultural references that
certain groups of people are more familiar with than others.
>
> my blissful ignorance is one of my most cherished
> sources of creative power. kees me thinking like
> a child.
>
> understand? or does that kinda "reject the brainwash"
> thinking go beyond your conformist comprehension?
i can understand this, because i have been, and often continue to be a
conformist extraordinaire. i have often wondered in recent years how many of
my beliefs are truly my beliefs, or are a result of what i have absorbed
from my culture and my readings?
i already know how easily swayed i can be. in some instances this is a good
thing, because i am able to see all sides of an issue, but when it comes to
the sticking point of declaring what i, myself, believe, i can find myself
in a quandary. and reading a diverse amount of what *others* believe can
only make it worse for me. of course, i guess that would be considered a
personal problem and not the fault of being widely read on a subject.
someone of an opposite nature to mine could read all those same things and
still be able to definitively declare an opinion of their own.
however, if a culture as a whole relies on the writings of the past as a
certain standard, will it move beyond those standards as quickly as it would
if it didn't have them? or are the standards necessary in order to move
beyond them? would it be like being stuck reinventing the wheel over and
over again because we didn't know it had already been done?
nancy
amj...@netzero.net (The Penniless Apprentice) said:
>in other words, what's more important, that one understand
>the universal "truths" expressed by the authors, or that one
>knows who said what? it is possible for a writer, never
>having read or heard a word of shakespeare, but simply by
>being a keen observer of the human condition and possessing
>the talent to create vivid pictures with words to write a
>work comparable to any past master. how did shakespeare do
>it? who was *his* shakespeare? or did he even have one?
>
and yet, with a few deft phrases, a person can paint
an incredibly complex picture based on the *context*
of those phrases. the listener/reader can attain
a richer, fuller enjoyment of or enlightenment from
the work ... all because the reader and the author
share the bond of a common language. that language
stems from a knowledge of the classics ... because many
phrases have come from that common lexicon.
"sound and fury" ... it embodies so much more than
a picture of someone making angry noise *if* you
have studied the source, or at least have an understanding
of its source, its context.
the full import of bob's statement was totally lost on
zero, because he has refused to embrace this lesson.
a shame, i think. clear communication is important.
--
n
If it's tourist season, why can't we shoot them?
Zero
"You know what you need? Shakubuku.
It's a swift, spiritual kick to the head
that alters your reality forever."
-- Debi Newberry [actor: Minnie Driver; from
the movie: "Grosse Pointe Blank" (1997)]
WAS:Re: Semantic Underload? (was: Re: Sal's Puzzle (was: Re: I am puzzled))
Re: Sound and fury...
MaBear mabearN...@earthlink.net.invalid
provided me with some possible future quoting material:
>Oh, I wouldn't think it the least bit ironic were it anyone but
>Zero. What with all of his years of railing about brainwashing
>and such, I should think he'd be extremely wary of using quotes,
>lest someone might think or attempt to assert maybe he's been
>brainwashed by those he quotes......
like i care? LOL.
anyway, are you refering to all those Paul Harwood
quotes i sometimes litter my posts with? you think he's
brainwashed me? you think that's why i quote him?
and Bob Pastorio? and the others?
you make no sense. or you miss the point of the
nature of my usage of quotes.
anyway... i don't know anyone who is arrogant
enough to quote themselves regularly. that _should_
help clear up the brainwash thing for you nicely.
(as far as the extent that i may be brainwashed.)
[writer's characteristics #0]
"real writers
don't give
a flying f/*\k
what real writers do."
-- $Zero... <Zero...@aol.com> 924j
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=534447737
>MaBear
certainly, i'm not 100% free of brainwash,
but at least _i'm_ trying. <g>
actually, there's some brainwashes i'm not even sure
i _want_ to reject. depends on the consequences
and/or on how i view the _extremism_ of such a rejection
and/or how i view the benefits of such a brainwash.
mostly, i'm striving for the truth which is good.
and since i currently believe that the truth is good
(by its very nature), i've rarely found brainwash to
be preferable.
-$Zero... IPurchaseOnlySelectiveTruth...
(AsIfAnyOtherBrandWillDo...)
"Science proves that there is no life on Mars."
-- TV Announcer excitedly restates the negative
(barely audible in the background)
[from the movie: "Avalon" (1990)]
w.d.greene
[snip]
>
> certainly, i'm not 100% free of brainwash,
> but at least _i'm_ trying. <g>
>
> actually, there's some brainwashes i'm not even sure
> i _want_ to reject. depends on the consequences
> and/or on how i view the _extremism_ of such a rejection
> and/or how i view the benefits of such a brainwash.
>
> mostly, i'm striving for the truth which is good.
>
> and since i currently believe that the truth is good
> (by its very nature), i've rarely found brainwash to
> be preferable.
You've been brainwashed into believing that truth exists and that it
is inherently good.
<g>
w.d.greene
>
> The Penniless Apprentice said:
>
> >me neither. i've seen Macbeth (in Stratford on Avon by the Royal
> >Shakespearean actors even), but the line didn't stay in my memory. i know
> >that there is a book called _The Sound and the Fury_ (i had the vague
> >impression that it was by hemingway, but i just looked it up and discovered
> >it was by faulkner). obviously, i've never read it. though i don't
> >necessarily remember the names of the authors of the books i've read unless
> >it's an author i particularly enjoy, and i read more than one book by that
> >author.
>
> rather tragic incidents in a family, parts of which are told from three
> different perspectives. One of those perspectives is that of an idiot.
> Apropos, no?
>
> It's a superb piece of writing. I highly recommend it.
IMHO, it was one of the best books of the 20th century
(But then so were "As I Lay Dying" and "Light in August.")
Paul Harwood
>me neither. i've seen Macbeth (in Stratford on Avon by the Royal
>Shakespearean actors even), but the line didn't stay in my memory. i know
>that there is a book called _The Sound and the Fury_ (i had the vague
>impression that it was by hemingway, but i just looked it up and discovered
>it was by faulkner). obviously, i've never read it. though i don't
>necessarily remember the names of the authors of the books i've read unless
>it's an author i particularly enjoy, and i read more than one book by that
>author.
Faulkner's "The Sound and the Fury" is aptly named; it's the story of some
rather tragic incidents in a family, parts of which are told from three
different perspectives. One of those perspectives is that of an idiot.
Apropos, no?
It's a superb piece of writing. I highly recommend it.
--
Paul Harwood
Zero
"I've just picked up a fault in the AE35 unit.
It's going to go 100% failure in 72 hours."
-- HAL 9000
WAS:Re: Semantic Underload? (was: Re: Sal's Puzzle
Re: Sound and fury...
"w.d.greene" William...@msfc.nasa.gov misinterpreted
my poorly-stated, mostly brainwash-free beliefs:
obviously not, just read my posts about the truth
regarding police corruption.
let me restate.
firstly:
i believe that there are many relative "truths" contained
within one overall "objective' truth. IOW: there IS an
objective truth, but there are infinite interpretations of
same. (depending on one's perspective).
secondly:
i believe that seeking the objective truth is inherently good.*
i believe that exposing the objective truth is inherently good.*
in that, yes, i probably _am_ a bit brainwashed. however,
that, i willingly and knowingly accept such a brainwash
(until such time that i may or may not decide that it would
be better to NOT know the objective truth -- which i _have_
been tempted to choose -- at least a few times in my life <g>)
[*] except to the extent that such activities are dangerous <g>
-$Zero... SwiftKicks-R-Us...
"You know what you need? Shakubuku.
It's a swift, spiritual kick to the head
that alters your reality forever."
-- Debi Newberry [actor: Minnie Driver; from
the movie: "Grosse Pointe Blank" (1997)]
The Penniless Apprentice
> the voices are telling me that on 20 Jul 2000,
> amj...@netzero.net (The Penniless Apprentice) said:
>
> >the universal "truths" expressed by the authors, or that one
> >knows who said what? it is possible for a writer, never
> >having read or heard a word of shakespeare, but simply by
> >being a keen observer of the human condition and possessing
> >the talent to create vivid pictures with words to write a
> >work comparable to any past master. how did shakespeare do
> >it? who was *his* shakespeare? or did he even have one?
> >
>
> an incredibly complex picture based on the *context*
> of those phrases. the listener/reader can attain
> a richer, fuller enjoyment of or enlightenment from
> the work ... all because the reader and the author
> share the bond of a common language. that language
> stems from a knowledge of the classics ... because many
> phrases have come from that common lexicon.
>
> "sound and fury" ... it embodies so much more than
> a picture of someone making angry noise *if* you
> have studied the source, or at least have an understanding
> of its source, its context.
>
> the full import of bob's statement was totally lost on
> zero, because he has refused to embrace this lesson.
>
> a shame, i think. clear communication is important.
>
i certainly understand what you are saying, but not everyone cares for
shakespeare. not everyone cares for hemingway. or dickens. or austen. etc.
now, who _does_ zero care for in the way of a common cultural figure who has
contributed in some way to our society? if his quotes are anything to go by,
bob dylan would be one. i can't remember at the moment others he has quoted,
i'm experiencing a brain cramp. dang! as many times as i've read them you'd
think i'd remember.
actually this fits in well with the point i'm wanting to make. i have no
head for remembering artists and their accomplishments. make that any
commonly known figure and their accomplishments-including political. and
even though i've studied art history (painting sculpture, etc.) i can only
remember the artists that have truly impressed me in some way. so i am
useless in any kind of discussion regarding musicians, their
accomplishments, and any kind of contribution that they have made with
regards to our society or our language in the same way that "sound and fury"
has contributed.
but i bet that zero would have no problem grasping "an incredibly complex
picture based on the *context*" of any phrase of a song lyric that has
become a part of our cultural understanding that anyone happened to mention
in the process of painting that picture with those few deft phrases. i, on
the other hand would be the one that would be standing there clueless. so
how is his special knowledge any different than the special knowledge that
others can claim from the "classics?" it's all cultural-shakespeare, bob
dylan, <insert a famous quality movie director here>.
it is, of course, impossible for people to know everything about everything
(and i know that you are not suggesting this), and to conclude that someone
is missing out because their tastes in what they choose to absorb don't meet
some kind of educational or cultural standard is, imo, without basis. i may
think he's missing out because of what i have received from what i've read
and how it has helped me in my own chosen path of life, but he might believe
that i'm missing out because i have absolutely no desire to further my
education in the direction of the musicians he finds so inspiring.
my father, for example, has stated that he can count on the fingers of one
hand how many fiction books he has read. if he has ever read shakespeare for
anything other than a college course (and whether he even took such a
college course would be up for debate), it would be news to me. yet he has
read many, many books on electrical engineering, cameras, philosophy,
psychology, and the physical sciences. his only reference point about sound
and fury would be as zero's.
my father is a highly intelligent man. an inventor. an innovator. he
currently works at heading up projects for setting up simulators at air
bases,and he can tell you anything you could possibly want to know about
anything electrical. that is his field, his love, and his life. he could
care less who sang what, who wrote what, who did what, unless it relates in
some manner to what he needs to know to accomplish what he wishes to do. he
is also a guitar player and knows quite a bit about classical guitarists and
the history of classical guitar. because it interests him. my father is also
a high school dropout. he later (much later) went on to take college courses
that interested him, and altogether they might garner him a degree if he
chose to use them that way, but at age 64 he really doesn't care.
we fill ourselves with what interests us. and if someone doesn't care to be
interested by shakespeare (or any other cultural literary icon)-well, so it
is. that does not make it a bad thing. perhaps, because this is a writer's
forum, and because most writers are readers, this seems like heresy, at
least within this particular cultural group named "writers."
every field of study has its perceived standards, i suppose. one assumes
that writers would be interested in other writers, especially the masters of
the past and present, just as biologists would be interested in those who
have made great discoveries in that field. but, as is sometimes the case,
assumptions can turn out to be in error.
do i think that zero should read shakespeare? no. i think he should attend
his plays instead. when you consider it, this is very ironic that we are
discussing shakespeare as someone zero should read, when shakespeare was an
advocate of audio/visual communication just as zero is-otherwise he would
have spent most of his time writing novels instead of plays.
so, zero, there are some pretty good movies made of ol' will's plays.
i highly recommend _much ado about nothing_ with kenneth brannaugh. the
opening scene itself will grab you. <g> (if i haven't gotten my plays
confused)
arleen
The Penniless Apprentice
> 875u
>
>
> "You know what you need? Shakubuku.
> It's a swift, spiritual kick to the head
> that alters your reality forever."
> -- Debi Newberry [actor: Minnie Driver; from
> the movie: "Grosse Pointe Blank" (1997)]
>
>
puzzled))
>
> Re: Sound and fury...
>
>
> MaBear mabearN...@earthlink.net.invalid
> provided me with some possible future quoting material:
>
>
> >Oh, I wouldn't think it the least bit ironic were it anyone but
> >Zero. What with all of his years of railing about brainwashing
> >and such, I should think he'd be extremely wary of using quotes,
> >lest someone might think or attempt to assert maybe he's been
> >brainwashed by those he quotes......
>
> like i care? LOL.
>
> anyway, are you refering to all those Paul Harwood
> quotes i sometimes litter my posts with? you think he's
> brainwashed me? you think that's why i quote him?
> and Bob Pastorio? and the others?
>
> you make no sense. or you miss the point of the
> nature of my usage of quotes.
>
i understood her to mean the quotes you use by musicians, or from the
various movies that you quote.
arleen
nancy
amj...@netzero.net (The Penniless Apprentice) said:
>i certainly understand what you are saying, but not everyone
>cares for shakespeare. not everyone cares for hemingway. or
>dickens. or austen. etc.
you say you understand, but by this and the comments
that follow, i can see that you don't *quite* get
the gist. or, perhaps you do, but are unwilling to
pursue that and, instead, are pursuing a different
course. regardless, i feel i *must* make one more
effort to "communicate" my meaning:
see, it does not matter if one "cares for" the classics.
the point is simply this: a rich level of communication
has been built upon these classics. in order to get
the most out of communicating with others, one needs
to have at least a rudimentary familiarity with them,
or the point of communications gets lost. you end
up speaking only american while living in spain.
"two dollah for thee cerveza, senor" is the height of your
comprehension.
doubtless, as time moves forward, other "classics" are
becoming incorporated into the lexicon, and the expectation
will be that people, moving forward, will also need
to become familiar with these ... bob dylan, to
use your example.
familiarity with only those things you "like" causes
you to miss out on wholesome, toothy, stimulating
communcation with others.
i am not saying, nor have i ever said that zero *must*
embrace the classics. i am not saying, nor have i
ever said, that he is a dummy for not doing it. i am
only saying that those who claim they do not need
the classics are choosing a more starved path to follow.
capice?
--
n
The main accomplishment of almost all organized protests is to
annoy people who are not in them.
Paul Harwood
>i certainly understand what you are saying, but not everyone cares for
>shakespeare. not everyone cares for hemingway. or dickens. or austen. etc.
But writers aren't "everybody". Writers should have an appreciation for
literature, I think, if only to know where current trends originated and how
personal style fits into the larger picture. John Gardner in one of his
writing books -- probably "The Art of Fiction" -- talks about this far more
eloquently than I can. Basically, to know what you're doing, you have to
know what others have done.
Of course, if you have no aspirations to write, then it's all academic.
>every field of study has its perceived standards, i suppose. one assumes
>that writers would be interested in other writers, especially the masters of
>the past and present, just as biologists would be interested in those who
>have made great discoveries in that field. but, as is sometimes the case,
>assumptions can turn out to be in error.
This is a little off the beam. One studies the work of the masters not to
know them, but to appreciate their art.
>do i think that zero should read shakespeare? no. i think he should attend
>his plays instead. when you consider it, this is very ironic that we are
>discussing shakespeare as someone zero should read, when shakespeare was an
>advocate of audio/visual communication just as zero is-otherwise he would
>have spent most of his time writing novels instead of plays.
There are a couple of problems with this. As far as I know, novels didn't
exist as a viable art form for nearly a century after Shakespeare's death;
plays and epic poetry were the rage when he was writing, and he tried his
hand at both. Second, as *writers*, I think it behooves us to read the plays
rather than see them performed. When we see them performed, we are seeing
them through the twin lenses of a director's vision and an actor's
interpretation; when we read the plays, we are receiving Shakespeare in his
essence.
You're right that the plays were written to be performed; they stand on
their own, however, as magnificent literature. Shakespeare's combination of
poetic genius and clear insight into the workings of the human soul is
pretty much unparalleled. We owe any number of linguistic tropes to him.
It's hard for me to imagine any serious writer of fiction who doesn't have
at least a passing acquaintance with his work.
But, then, I freely admit that I'm prejudiced :-)
--
Paul Harwood
The Penniless Apprentice
"Paul Harwood" <pa...@computerbits.com> wrote in message
news:JmZ3OQbKNt16aI...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 15:29:58 -0400, The Penniless Apprentice said:
>
> >me neither. i've seen Macbeth (in Stratford on Avon by the Royal
> >Shakespearean actors even), but the line didn't stay in my memory. i know
> >that there is a book called _The Sound and the Fury_ (i had the vague
> >impression that it was by hemingway, but i just looked it up and
discovered
> >it was by faulkner). obviously, i've never read it. though i don't
> >necessarily remember the names of the authors of the books i've read
unless
> >it's an author i particularly enjoy, and i read more than one book by
that
> >author.
>
> rather tragic incidents in a family, parts of which are told from three
> different perspectives. One of those perspectives is that of an idiot.
> Apropos, no?
>
now, paul, how am i to take this? are you suggesting that _i'm_ an idiot?
surely, you're not suggesting that i believe that zero is one? perhaps it's
bob? no, that can't be. sometimes a bit verbose (which i've never seen as a
drawback among people here in mw-these are writers, after all), but not an
idiot.
nancy? do you mean nancy? i know she tends to be on the fluffy side, but an
idiot??? no, you can't mean nancy, either.
<g>
i know i've called people idiots when i'm frustrated with them, but there
isn't anyone in mw that i truly believe to be one. sometimes misguided,
sometimes foolish people (myself included), perhaps, but not idiots.
i suppose i'll have to eventually sample something from both faulkner and
hemingway one day. the last time i tried reading something just because i
thought i ought to was when i read the great gatsby. i don't remember
anything of it except for some reason i have a picture of a man dressed all
in white and a light, airy room with lots of windows. if i stretch my mind a
bit, let's see, there was a rich guy, who was friends with the guy staying
in the house next door? that's it. that's all that comes to mind.
arleen
Paul Harwood
>
>"Paul Harwood" <pa...@computerbits.com> wrote in message
>> Faulkner's "The Sound and the Fury" is aptly named; it's the story of some
>> rather tragic incidents in a family, parts of which are told from three
>> different perspectives. One of those perspectives is that of an idiot.
>> Apropos, no?
>now, paul, how am i to take this? are you suggesting that _i'm_ an idiot?
>surely, you're not suggesting that i believe that zero is one? perhaps it's
>bob? no, that can't be. sometimes a bit verbose (which i've never seen as a
>drawback among people here in mw-these are writers, after all), but not an
>idiot.
Good grief, no. It goes back to the Shakespeare: "It is a tale told by an
idiot / Full of sound and fury but signifying nothing". Faulkner had his
idiot tell a tale in the book, "The Sound and the Fury". That's all. No
aspersions intended.
>i suppose i'll have to eventually sample something from both faulkner and
>hemingway one day. the last time i tried reading something just because i
>thought i ought to was when i read the great gatsby. i don't remember
>anything of it except for some reason i have a picture of a man dressed all
>in white and a light, airy room with lots of windows. if i stretch my mind a
>bit, let's see, there was a rich guy, who was friends with the guy staying
>in the house next door? that's it. that's all that comes to mind.
Read Faulkner, and then read Hemingway. They're pretty good at cleansing the
other from your palate. As Mr. Greene suggested, "Light in August" and "As I
Lay Dying" are both good places to start with Faulkner if you find "The
Sound and the Fury" a little much. For Hemingway, read "A Farewell to Arms".
It's a love story written for macho men. It's deeply moving.
--
Paul Harwood
Zero
"You know what you need? Shakubuku.
It's a swift, spiritual kick to the head
that alters your reality forever."
-- Debi Newberry [actor: Minnie Driver; from
the movie: "Grosse Pointe Blank" (1997)]
WAS:Re: Semantic Underload? (was: Re: Sal's Puzzle (was: Re: I am puzzled))
Re: Sound and fury...
"The Penniless Apprentice" amj...@netzero.net clarified?:
>"Zero" <zero...@aol.com> wrote:
>> 875u
[...]
>> MaBear mabearN...@earthlink.net.invalid
>> provided me with some possible future quoting material:
>>
>> >Oh, I wouldn't think it the least bit ironic were it anyone but
>> >Zero. What with all of his years of railing about brainwashing
>> >and such, I should think he'd be extremely wary of using
>> >quotes, lest someone might think or attempt to assert maybe
>> >he's been brainwashed by those he quotes......
>>
>> like i care? LOL.
>>
>> anyway, are you refering to all those Paul Harwood
>> quotes i sometimes litter my posts with? you think he's
>> brainwashed me? you think that's why i quote him?
>> and Bob Pastorio? and the others?
>>
>> you make no sense. or you miss the point of the
>> nature of my usage of quotes.
>
>i understood her to mean the quotes you use by musicians,
>or from the various movies that you quote.
the distinction being?
"why ask why?"
-- Brian Eno
[song: "Needles in the Camel's Eye"
from the album: "Here Come the Warm Jets"]
look, on usenet, i use quotes to augment my posts.
i quote tv, movies, song lyrics, commercials, politicians,
religious figures, myself, my relatives, usenet posters,
famous people, birds, wind, whatever...
each usage of a quote is unique. it can either indicate
agreement on my part, irony, an interesting contrasting
idea in reference to the post's subject matter, or... it
could just be something totally unrelated which i felt like
including just because i found it interesting or amusing.
most of the time, there _is_ some sort of relationship
to the subject matter. but, sometimes, as in the case of
my current intro-quote, it's just a general idea i feel like
promoting or repeating.
in any case, the inclusion of a quote is by no means
any endorsement of the actual words in said quote.
as to whether the movies, music, politicians,
religious leaders, commercials, usenet posters,
journalists, relatives or others in my life have
brainwashed me in some way by virtue of my
simply being exposed to them... i'm sure there
has been some sort of effect, but... in that i have
consciously chosen to reject brainwashes for
several decades, such effects are minimal.
-$Zero... AtLeast... That'sWhatI'veBeenLeadToBelieve... <g>
sure, there _are_ certain artists whose ideas i tend to
embrace.
"keeps me search-ing
for a hearrrrrt of gold...
and i'm getting old..."
-- Neil Young
it's mostly because i've determined that they are brainwash
rejectors themselves.
"Sooner or later...
it all gets real...
walk on."
-- Neil Young
or i simply like their style. or i find them consistently
good-hearted, intelligent, talented and credible.
"ain't singing for Pepsi...
ain't singing for Coke...
i don't sing for nobody...
makes me look like a JOKE...
*this* note's for _YOU_."
-- Neil Young
The Penniless Apprentice
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 18:11:37 -0400, The Penniless Apprentice said:
>
> >i certainly understand what you are saying, but not everyone cares for
> >shakespeare. not everyone cares for hemingway. or dickens. or austen.
etc.
>
> literature, I think, if only to know where current trends originated and
how
> personal style fits into the larger picture. John Gardner in one of his
> writing books -- probably "The Art of Fiction" -- talks about this far
more
> eloquently than I can. Basically, to know what you're doing, you have to
> know what others have done.
<g> paul, i have been, and continue to be, in general agreement with
this-for myself. i do not have the creative, imaginative ability to think
"outside of the box." i need the box to begin with, and sometimes, just
sometimes, i can build my own triangle on top of it. but there are people
who have an intuitive ability to create without ever knowing anything of
what has gone on before. it is when thinking of those people, that i can see
zero's point of view of not needing to read what other writers have written.
did mozart need to know what others had done before composing his own music
at the age of 5? i seriously doubt it. had he lived in the wilds of some
never never land that had no music, he would probably still have composed
music. he would have been the inventor of it.
also, i can't help but ask myself, am i less creative because i do depend on
what has gone on before? i believe i need the box, but is it just a crutch?
what would i do without it? the old "necessity is the mother of invention"
thing perhaps?
>
> Of course, if you have no aspirations to write, then it's all academic.
true.
>
> >every field of study has its perceived standards, i suppose. one assumes
> >that writers would be interested in other writers, especially the masters
of
> >the past and present, just as biologists would be interested in those who
> >have made great discoveries in that field. but, as is sometimes the case,
> >assumptions can turn out to be in error.
>
> This is a little off the beam. One studies the work of the masters not to
> know them, but to appreciate their art.
wouldn't a biologist appreciate the discoveries of those who came before?
build on them? study them? stand in awe over them and the thought processes
that must have gone into figuring out the conclusion that developed? how is
that different from appreciating artforms within their own context of being
art?
>
> >do i think that zero should read shakespeare? no. i think he should
attend
> >his plays instead. when you consider it, this is very ironic that we are
> >discussing shakespeare as someone zero should read, when shakespeare was
an
> >advocate of audio/visual communication just as zero is-otherwise he would
> >have spent most of his time writing novels instead of plays.
>
> There are a couple of problems with this. As far as I know, novels didn't
> exist as a viable art form for nearly a century after Shakespeare's death;
> plays and epic poetry were the rage when he was writing, and he tried his
> hand at both.
<g> i thought of this as i wrote what i did, but i still stand by my
conclusion. if shakespeare were a true innovator, he wouldn't have cared
about what was the rage, he would have struck off to do his own thing-if he
were interested in writing a story rather than a play. i suppose the reason
he didn't stick to epic poetry was because it didn't pay well? or did he
stink at it?
> Second, as *writers*, I think it behooves us to read the plays
> rather than see them performed. When we see them performed, we are seeing
> them through the twin lenses of a director's vision and an actor's
> interpretation; when we read the plays, we are receiving Shakespeare in
his
> essence.
through our own lens. but i see your point. well, the best of both, then.
read him and see him. personally, i find seeing his plays much better than
reading them. i understand them better. i do not do well when reading one of
his plays while continually reading the side notes to help me understand
what he's saying. yet when watching his plays, i seem to pick up on and
understand those areas that i don't understand when reading him. it may be
an attention thing.
>
> You're right that the plays were written to be performed; they stand on
> their own, however, as magnificent literature.
so we are told. i even believe it. <g>
> Shakespeare's combination of
> poetic genius and clear insight into the workings of the human soul is
> pretty much unparalleled. We owe any number of linguistic tropes to him.
i'm sure we do. but how many people know which ones they are?
> It's hard for me to imagine any serious writer of fiction who doesn't have
> at least a passing acquaintance with his work.
perhaps. that doesn't mean there aren't some out there, though.
and now, if you, or any others, have any comments to make on what i've said
thus far, you'll have to wait a couple of days for my answer. i have a
wrevel to get ready for. <g> it's as sal once said (or was it jensen?),
instead of waiting for your house to be clean before inviting people over,
just go ahead and invite people over and the house will get clean.
The Penniless Apprentice
> the voices are telling me that on 20 Jul 2000,
> amj...@netzero.net (The Penniless Apprentice) said:
>
> >i certainly understand what you are saying, but not everyone
> >cares for shakespeare. not everyone cares for hemingway. or
> >dickens. or austen. etc.
>
yes, i truly do. but though i have read many of the classics, i will always
miss out on toothy, stimulating discussion regarding them because i never
remember them for very long after having read them unless i truly liked the
story. which i guess is one of my points, and really has nothing to do with
what you're saying. it's more a commentary on how my mind works.
also, when you say that in order to get the most out of communicating with
others it is to one's benefit to be familiar with the classics, you are
assuming that one will be communicating with others just as familiar. while
i agree that there is much we have within our culture that has been built on
them, we are continually evolving (as you note). of course one will get the
most out of communication if one knows something in common with the person
that one is communicating with. perhaps literature is something that most
people have in common, but i don't know. has it ever been studied, verified?
how many people truly do "know" the classics? how common of a communication
tool is it anymore, other than among people who are interested in them?
even if much of what we take for granted in our language or ideas came from
them, how long will it matter for us to have to know where it came from?
just think of the many expressions that we have lost the history to. and
where the history remains, how many people actually look the expressions up
to know where they came from? it's enough to understand what they mean and
how they're used today. (though i personally find it fascinating to discover
the meanings of our expressions.)
i am inclined to say that those with a higher level of education are more
likely to find the classics to be common ground, though not necessarily due
to any interest those being educated may have in them, but because they are
a required part of the curriculum.
i guess what i'm getting from zero's perspective is that in order to
communicate well, one ought to be able to do it without some kind of frame
of reference necessary to understand, so that, even if one is speaking to
someone from another country who may know english, but not our cultural
heritage, we are understood. assuredly, communication based on references,
when done among those who come from the same frame of reference can be very
"stimulating and toothy," and one can make plays on words, and jokes and
inferences that everyone understands.
why, look at the rich cultural heritage of mw itself. <g> newbies can get
lost in the references to reindeer, and solstices and whatnot. but in true
communication, is it necessary that the newbie know the references? or, by
using the references, do we, the holders of mw tradition and culture,
somehow place ourselves above the newbies until they catch on, requiring
them to communicate from our frame of reference.
<g> i can already see the argument forming. yes, it is just the nature of
humankind and communication, and culture, and all of that that frames of
reference be utilized, and they are not a bad thing. i'm not saying that at
all. i am simply saying that one person's frame of reference is another
person's trash. <g>
the same can be said about a group of mechanics communicating together in a
garage about auto mechanics. or electrical engineers debating some new
discovery. if one is outside the frame of reference, one will just not get
it. (which is what you've said). but one cannot be within all frames of
reference at all times. and just because one has been reared in an english
speaking country does not necessarily mean that one understands where the
language has been, nor that it's even necessary to know.
will one be richer for knowing? it is my opinion that one will be. but we'd
all be richer for knowing any number of things. i wish i knew what my father
knew. but my head just can't get around that kind of stuff.
The Penniless Apprentice
> 875s
> "The Penniless Apprentice" amj...@netzero.net clarified?:
>
> >"Zero" <zero...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> 875u
>
> [...]
>
> >> MaBear mabearN...@earthlink.net.invalid
> >> provided me with some possible future quoting material:
> >>
> >> >Oh, I wouldn't think it the least bit ironic were it anyone but
> >> >Zero. What with all of his years of railing about brainwashing
> >> >and such, I should think he'd be extremely wary of using
> >> >quotes, lest someone might think or attempt to assert maybe
> >> >he's been brainwashed by those he quotes......
> >>
> >> like i care? LOL.
> >>
> >> anyway, are you refering to all those Paul Harwood
> >> quotes i sometimes litter my posts with? you think he's
> >> brainwashed me? you think that's why i quote him?
> >> and Bob Pastorio? and the others?
> >>
> >> you make no sense. or you miss the point of the
> >> nature of my usage of quotes.
> >
> >i understood her to mean the quotes you use by musicians,
> >or from the various movies that you quote.
>
> the distinction being?
the distinction being that those would be the quotes most likely to have
brainwashed you, since those are the ones you repeat the most often, thereby
leading one to believe that you find value in them.
>
>
> "why ask why?"
> -- Brian Eno
> [song: "Needles in the Camel's Eye"
> from the album: "Here Come the Warm Jets"]
>
>
> look, on usenet, i use quotes to augment my posts.
>
> i quote tv, movies, song lyrics, commercials, politicians,
> religious figures, myself, my relatives, usenet posters,
> famous people, birds, wind, whatever...
>
> each usage of a quote is unique. it can either indicate
> agreement on my part, irony, an interesting contrasting
> idea in reference to the post's subject matter, or... it
> could just be something totally unrelated which i felt like
> including just because i found it interesting or amusing.
>
> most of the time, there _is_ some sort of relationship
> to the subject matter. but, sometimes, as in the case of
> my current intro-quote, it's just a general idea i feel like
> promoting or repeating.
look <g> you don't have to explain this to me. unless you're doing it for
the benefit of others. i have always understood this about your quoting.
never thought otherwise. i have gained the impression that you most often
quote things that have something to do with the subject matter of your post,
but i have also recognized the times when you quoted just because it suited
you to do so that day. i've sometimes wondered if it gave an indication of
the mood you might be in. whatever. quote away. i've sometimes laughed at
the appropriateness of some of them.
<snip>
> sure, there _are_ certain artists whose ideas i tend to
> embrace.
>
>
> "keeps me search-ing
> for a hearrrrrt of gold...
> and i'm getting old..."
> -- Neil Young
this is the one!!! the one i brain cramped earlier on. i've been to amazon's
site to listen to some of these artists you've quoted just out of curiosity.
i prefer reading your quotes from them. <g>
>
>
> it's mostly because i've determined that they are brainwash
> rejectors themselves.
i figured that out long ago, as well.
>
>
> "Sooner or later...
> it all gets real...
> walk on."
> -- Neil Young
>
>
> or i simply like their style. or i find them consistently
> good-hearted, intelligent, talented and credible.
that, too.
arleen
The Penniless Apprentice
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 18:47:06 -0400, The Penniless Apprentice said:
>
> >
> >"Paul Harwood" <pa...@computerbits.com> wrote in message
>
some
> >> rather tragic incidents in a family, parts of which are told from three
> >> different perspectives. One of those perspectives is that of an idiot.
> >> Apropos, no?
>
> >now, paul, how am i to take this? are you suggesting that _i'm_ an idiot?
> >surely, you're not suggesting that i believe that zero is one? perhaps
it's
> >bob? no, that can't be. sometimes a bit verbose (which i've never seen as
a
> >drawback among people here in mw-these are writers, after all), but not
an
> >idiot.
>
> Good grief, no. It goes back to the Shakespeare: "It is a tale told by an
> idiot / Full of sound and fury but signifying nothing". Faulkner had his
> idiot tell a tale in the book, "The Sound and the Fury". That's all. No
> aspersions intended.
oops. forgive me. but with so many zero aspersions flying in this thread, i
guess i read something that wasn't there.
>
> >i suppose i'll have to eventually sample something from both faulkner and
> >hemingway one day. the last time i tried reading something just because i
> >thought i ought to was when i read the great gatsby. i don't remember
> >anything of it except for some reason i have a picture of a man dressed
all
> >in white and a light, airy room with lots of windows. if i stretch my
mind a
> >bit, let's see, there was a rich guy, who was friends with the guy
staying
> >in the house next door? that's it. that's all that comes to mind.
>
> Read Faulkner, and then read Hemingway. They're pretty good at cleansing
the
> other from your palate. As Mr. Greene suggested, "Light in August" and "As
I
> Lay Dying" are both good places to start with Faulkner if you find "The
> Sound and the Fury" a little much. For Hemingway, read "A Farewell to
Arms".
> It's a love story written for macho men. It's deeply moving.
>
i will take your recommendations under advisement. anyone who sees 6 ft.
tall rabbits, has to know good reading material. <g>
arleen
Bob Pastorio
There is a good notion called "Cultural Literacy" that helps to define
how deeply and effectively one can be integrated into any given
society or culture. You don't have to have deep knowledge of any one
subject or two subjects. What the condition asserts is that no one
can be a fully functional member of a society without knowing *about*
the basic matter of that culture. The famous historic figures.
Something of the schools of thought through its history. Some pieces
of the literature and philosophy. The kinds of things we pick up
through school, family doings, reading, movies and tv, friends and the
general info we pick up as we travel through the normal details of
being alive.
Those that accumulate more of these pieces gain a fuller understanding
of the actions of those around them and generally have a fuller
capacity to grasp subtlety and nuance.
> now, who _does_ zero care for in the way of a common cultural figure who has
> contributed in some way to our society? if his quotes are anything to go by,
> bob dylan would be one. i can't remember at the moment others he has quoted,
> i'm experiencing a brain cramp. dang! as many times as i've read them you'd
> think i'd remember.
>
> actually this fits in well with the point i'm wanting to make. i have no
> head for remembering artists and their accomplishments. make that any
> commonly known figure and their accomplishments-including political. and
> even though i've studied art history (painting sculpture, etc.) i can only
> remember the artists that have truly impressed me in some way. so i am
> useless in any kind of discussion regarding musicians, their
> accomplishments, and any kind of contribution that they have made with
> regards to our society or our language in the same way that "sound and fury"
> has contributed.
Do you know who Patrick Henry is? Henry Miller. Miller Huggins?
Where is Ticonderoga? What is 54-40 or fight? Who lived first, Plato
or Julius Caesar? Who is the "sad eyed lady of the lowlands?"
Specific and fine detail isn't necessary for the basis of cultural
literacy. Familiarity is often enough. And references will then
resonate, even if not fully. Some is good, more is better, a lot is
better still.
> but i bet that zero would have no problem grasping "an incredibly complex
> picture based on the *context*" of any phrase of a song lyric that has
> become a part of our cultural understanding that anyone happened to mention
> in the process of painting that picture with those few deft phrases. i, on
> the other hand would be the one that would be standing there clueless. so
> how is his special knowledge any different than the special knowledge that
> others can claim from the "classics?" it's all cultural-shakespeare, bob
> dylan, <insert a famous quality movie director here>.
The knowledge has to do with utility and universality. Dylan is
brilliant, no doubt in my mind, but hardly a figure for the ages.
He's a voice of his (our) time.
> it is, of course, impossible for people to know everything about everything
> (and i know that you are not suggesting this), and to conclude that someone
> is missing out because their tastes in what they choose to absorb don't meet
> some kind of educational or cultural standard is, imo, without basis. i may
> think he's missing out because of what i have received from what i've read
> and how it has helped me in my own chosen path of life, but he might believe
> that i'm missing out because i have absolutely no desire to further my
> education in the direction of the musicians he finds so inspiring.
Not an issue of taste. Not an issue of what one likes or dislikes.
Not an issue of whether one source is "better" than any other. The
mark of an educated person is breadth and not necessarily depth. Wide
view about many things is more important than a deep view about one
thing.
> my father, for example, has stated that he can count on the fingers of one
> hand how many fiction books he has read. if he has ever read shakespeare for
> anything other than a college course (and whether he even took such a
> college course would be up for debate), it would be news to me. yet he has
> read many, many books on electrical engineering, cameras, philosophy,
> psychology, and the physical sciences. his only reference point about sound
> and fury would be as zero's.
>
> my father is a highly intelligent man. an inventor. an innovator. he
> currently works at heading up projects for setting up simulators at air
> bases,and he can tell you anything you could possibly want to know about
> anything electrical. that is his field, his love, and his life. he could
> care less who sang what, who wrote what, who did what, unless it relates in
> some manner to what he needs to know to accomplish what he wishes to do. he
> is also a guitar player and knows quite a bit about classical guitarists and
> the history of classical guitar. because it interests him. my father is also
> a high school dropout. he later (much later) went on to take college courses
> that interested him, and altogether they might garner him a degree if he
> chose to use them that way, but at age 64 he really doesn't care.
And he seems to have had a life that pleased him. But that, too,
isn't what the references are about. He cannot be said to have a
"liberal" education in the sense that liberal arts means it. In that
sense, he has a lower cultural literacy standard than others who
pursued broader paths. Not better or worse. But shortchanged.
> we fill ourselves with what interests us. and if someone doesn't care to be
> interested by shakespeare (or any other cultural literary icon)-well, so it
> is. that does not make it a bad thing. perhaps, because this is a writer's
> forum, and because most writers are readers, this seems like heresy, at
> least within this particular cultural group named "writers."
>
> every field of study has its perceived standards, i suppose. one assumes
> that writers would be interested in other writers, especially the masters of
> the past and present, just as biologists would be interested in those who
> have made great discoveries in that field. but, as is sometimes the case,
> assumptions can turn out to be in error.
Not the point. Not interested in the writer - in the writing. Just
as biologists are interested in the discoveries of the past.
> do i think that zero should read shakespeare? no. i think he should attend
> his plays instead. when you consider it, this is very ironic that we are
> discussing shakespeare as someone zero should read, when shakespeare was an
> advocate of audio/visual communication just as zero is-otherwise he would
> have spent most of his time writing novels instead of plays.
There weren't novels then. He wrote in the fields that paid. He
wasn't an advocate for audio visual matters any more than any other
writer who wrote poetry nor for reading any more than any other
playwright. He wrote to earn a living. Brilliantly.
Shakespeare and the Bible are the two most quoted sources in English
(I read somewhere and absolutely can't defend) and anyone without some
fair exposure to both is handicapped in this culture. References get
past, important contextual information simply slides by without notice
or, worse, is misunderstood.
> so, zero, there are some pretty good movies made of ol' will's plays.
I beg to differ. These aren't what he wrote. These are versions of
versions filtered through many other eyes before they reach ours.
Read it in the original and have a study guide with you when you do.
It's great, fat stuff.
Maybe too much toil and trouble...
Pastorio
nancy
amj...@netzero.net (The Penniless Apprentice) said:
>yes, i truly do. but though i have read many of the classics,
>i will always miss out on toothy, stimulating discussion
>regarding them because i never remember them for very long
>after having read them unless i truly liked the story. which
>i guess is one of my points, and really has nothing to do
>with what you're saying. it's more a commentary on how my
>mind works.
i'm talking about more than just reading them. studying
them. learning what they are about. what the author
meant with that twist of phrase, that little bit
inserted there. and if you're like me, you probably
*won't* get it all. but you will hopefully absorb enough
so that when someone puts a little zinger in that comes
from a *very* famous soliloquy of a *very* famous
play (one that was *required* reading in my HS english
class, btw ... all of the tragedies were), you'll
immediately grasp the full impact of his message. he
won't need to follow up with an explanation.
but i digress from my main point ...
>also, when you say that in order to get the most out of
>communicating with others it is to one's benefit to be
>familiar with the classics, you are assuming that one will be
>communicating with others just as familiar.
<snip>
and my main point is really very quite simple.
if you refuse to learn some material, you *inherently*
limit yourself.
if i refuse to learn about country music, i am limiting
myself. if i refuse to learn about rap, i limit myself.
if i refuse to learn about the conditions in bangladesh
at turn-of-the-seventeenth century, i limit myself.
plain and simple.
if the society with which i choose to associate has
learned somewhat of the classics, and i roundly refuse
to learn them, i am limited in comparison to them
in that regard.
i miss out.
i lose.
perhaps i have gained elsewhere, in places they have
eschewed, and *they* miss out on stuff that enriches
me.
in fact, this is likely, since no-one can truly absorb
all.
even so, one should not scoff at "learning the classics",
because you are scoffing at limiting your knowledge. it
surprises me that zero subscribes to the theory that he
is a creative genius *because* he has limited his
knowledge.
<shrug>
my point remains. he has accepted a particular brainwash,
and in so doing, has limited himself.
the *correct* response to this is "so what?"
and to that, i have no answer.
--
n (who notes that mr. creative genius failed to get
my bicycle joke)
At work, the authority of a person is inversely proportional to
the number of pens that person is carrying.
nancy
movie versions of the Bard's works:
>I beg to differ. These aren't what he wrote. These are
>versions of versions filtered through many other eyes before
>they reach ours. Read it in the original and have a study
>guide with you when you do. It's great, fat stuff.
>
>Maybe too much toil and trouble...
they are great fun ... better still to see them on
stage, rather than the sterile silver screen. but
i concur with pastorio here (for a change).
the *richness* of it all! just from a writer's
standpoint, to grasp a tiny bit of what this man
(or these men, or whatever) did with language, with
nuance, with shading, with rhythm and dialect, with
characterisation, with *pacing* ...
with *pacing* ...
some of the great comedians of today would do well
to study shakespeare, if they have not.
after all, all the world's a stage ...
--
n
ing
>
> The Penniless Apprentice wrote:
> >
> >
> > i certainly understand what you are saying, but not everyone cares for
> > shakespeare. not everyone cares for hemingway. or dickens. or austen. etc.
They do if they're writers, or hope to be. These are the
basics -- at the same time they're amongst the cream of the
crop. You have to care, surely, if you hope to have any
insight into writing and any topic you want to address!
If you don't care about Shakespeare, Hemingway, Dickens or
Austen or a whole bunch of other recognized classic writers
-- you are SOOOOOOOO missing out on such incredible
literature. Who are your classic writers, then, if none of
the ones you mentioned? Who do you rely on to point you in
directions and give you inspiration?????
>
> There is a good notion called "Cultural Literacy" that helps to define
> how deeply and effectively one can be integrated into any given
> society or culture. You don't have to have deep knowledge of any one
> subject or two subjects. What the condition asserts is that no one
> can be a fully functional member of a society without knowing *about*
> the basic matter of that culture. The famous historic figures.
> Something of the schools of thought through its history. Some pieces
> of the literature and philosophy. The kinds of things we pick up
> through school, family doings, reading, movies and tv, friends and the
> general info we pick up as we travel through the normal details of
> being alive.
>
> Those that accumulate more of these pieces gain a fuller understanding
> of the actions of those around them and generally have a fuller
> capacity to grasp subtlety and nuance.
>
I agree. Only I'd change "those that" to "those who" in
your last paragraph, tsk tsk tsk! <g> (we are talking
Shakespeare after all!) .... otherwise -- perfectomundo and
well said!
ing
<who drives to Stratford every year to catch at least one
Shakespearean play in the round -- and who reads it first,
and studies it thoroughly before she goes! Billy
Shakespeare was a bloody genius! And last year's King Lear
was awesome!>
Paul Martin
fascinating in the latest NEWSWEEK. They were reviewing the "X-Men" movie and were
commenting on the villian, and said that the thing that thy found the most
disturbing about him was that only a small twist prevented him from being a
sympathetic character.
To me, that was what made that character truly great! A really good villian in
a story is someone like that- a character whose viewpoint is not only rational,
but one that the reader (or viewer) can sympathize with. After all, people that we
condemn as evil are not acting as they do because they love being unpleasant- they
just have different reasons than the rest of us. To them, their actions are not
only rational, but the only reasonable move that they could make! To them, our
good guys are evil!
This is a principal that I try to incorporate into my own fiction as a rule. I
try to make the bad guy a sympathetic character whose motivations are at odds with
the good guy. I only wish that more authors understood that...
Paul
Zero
"You know what you need? Shakubuku.
It's a swift, spiritual kick to the head
that alters your reality forever."
-- Debi Newberry [actor: Minnie Driver; from
the movie: "Grosse Pointe Blank" (1997)]
Re: Sound and fury... WAS:Re: Semantic Underload? (was: Re: Sal's Puzzle
Semantic Bingo! (was: Sound and Fury...)
na...@gekkografx.com (nancy) elited:
>amj...@netzero.net (The Penniless Apprentice) said:
[...]
>i'm talking about more than just reading them. studying
>them. learning what they are about. what the author
>meant with that twist of phrase, that little bit
>inserted there. and if you're like me, you probably
>*won't* get it all. but you will hopefully absorb enough
>so that when someone puts a little zinger in that comes
>from a *very* famous soliloquy of a *very* famous
>play (one that was *required* reading in my HS english
>class, btw ... all of the tragedies were), you'll
>immediately grasp the full impact of his message. he
>won't need to follow up with an explanation.
and you don't see this whole dynamic as promoting
misunderstanding? especially given that no two people
interpret the same thing from the classics? as an
example, recall Deck's interpretion of the Godfather
movies. and the disagreements between those of us
who DID see them.
>but i digress from my main point ...
>
>>also, when you say that in order to get the most out of
>>communicating with others it is to one's benefit to be
>>familiar with the classics, you are assuming that one will
>>be communicating with others just as familiar.
>
><snip>
>
>and my main point is really very quite simple.
and i believe we have a Semantic Bingo!
>if you refuse to learn some material, you *inherently*
>limit yourself.
Semantic Bingo!
>if you refuse to learn some material, you *inherently*
>limit yourself.
precisely. now, one can see this limitation as a limitation,
or one can see this limitation as a disciplining mechanism
which promotes writing/communicating that is _understood_.
if i don't use references, it is more likely i will be understood.
especially given the fact that no two people have the same
reference set, heck... it's _demanding_ enough of a _challenge_
to get people to agree on the meaning of widely used words...
like: "indifference"
<g>
so why clutter up your communication with references that are
even _more_ prone to a great disparity of interpretations?
i find it sublimely ironic that Pastorio, who has initiated this
line of elitist thinking in this thread, has been one of those
people who complain about my posts having "all those nonsense
non sequiter quotes". apparently, he doesn't share my reference
set and gets frustrated with what i'm trying to imply. a lot
of people don't like poetry for the same basic reason. me?
i just read it and make my own interpretations. i don't care
whether these interpreatations are what the writer intended.
i also find it funny that most writers/artists don't write
detailed explanations about their own writings/creations.
instead, scholars do. now, why do you think that is?
<g>
>if i refuse to learn about country music, i am limiting
>myself. if i refuse to learn about rap, i limit myself.
>if i refuse to learn about the conditions in bangladesh
>at turn-of-the-seventeenth century, i limit myself.
yes, you do. but. as a writer, this self-limiting can be
a major source of advantage. get it? once you learn
about something, you end up believing that others share
your understanding to some degree. this leads to
writing which is full of meaningless references.
personally, meaningless references never bother me,
in fact, i rather like interpretating things for myself.
OTOH, i also like learning what was supposedly
originally intended and compare that to my interpretation.
it's like a song lyric i mishear. then, years later, i read the
actual lyrics. sometimes i end up thinking:
"hey! my lyrics were better."
>plain and simple.
yes, it's plain and simple. if your desire is to be understood,
use less references. if you want to be elitist, use references
to alienate your readers. either way, it makes no difference to
me because i'm going to interpret your words the way i will.
but, i'm sure you can see why the world is in such a mess.
many cultures share the same basic values but put too much
value in their icons, their symbolisms. this situation
promotes misunderstanding, hate and war.
>if the society with which i choose to associate has
>learned somewhat of the classics, and i roundly refuse
>to learn them, i am limited in comparison to them
>in that regard.
or you've become more of universal person. depends on
how you look at it.
>i miss out.
>
>i lose.
that's debatable.
>perhaps i have gained elsewhere, in places they have
>eschewed, and *they* miss out on stuff that enriches
>me.
>
>in fact, this is likely, since no-one can truly absorb all.
understatement.
>even so, one should not scoff at "learning the classics",
>because you are scoffing at limiting your knowledge.
or you are intentionally rejecting the brainwash.
>it surprises me that zero subscribes to the theory that
>he is a creative genius *because* he has limited his
>knowledge.
give it some more thought. and consider this:
in general, who is more creative? a child... or an adult?
someone who is bogged down with "knowledge" and "protocols"?
or someone that sees the world as an open adventure?
note, i'm not against gaining knowledge, it's more of a
state of mind regarding said "gained knowledge."
i can tell you this, _my_ mode of thinking has created an
environment which promotes invention. i've invented
thousands of things and concepts. and very rarely is
it a case of reinventing the wheel. anyway, if i compare
myself to my formally educated pals, i find that they have
invented almost nothing. though, they _are_ great assets
to those people who _have_ invented things.
><shrug>
>
>my point remains. he has accepted a particular brainwash,
>and in so doing, has limited himself.
not really. i'm always free to learn the classics.
OTOH, you have limited yourself BY spending your
time learning the classics.
>the *correct* response to this is "so what?"
>
>and to that, i have no answer.
i do.
>n (who notes that mr. creative genius failed to get
>my bicycle joke)
the *correct* response to this is "so what?"
-- nancy
-$Zero... Like... YouThinkIHaveSomeNeedForMoreJokes?...
TellThatToJoeSchmoe... <g>
[creative-geniusly ending with a reference which can only
be understood by the few people who've read my posts.]
"learning what they are about. what the author
meant with that twist of phrase, that little bit
inserted there. and if you're like me, you probably
*won't* get it all."
-- nancy
[exasperated:]
"have you,
in fact,
got...
any...
cheese...
here...
at all?"
-- John Cleese
[from the "Cheese Shop" sketch]
John Ashby
> na...@gekkografx.com (nancy) elited:
> >i'm talking about more than just reading [the classics]. studying
> >them. learning what they are about. what the author
> >meant with that twist of phrase, that little bit
>
> and you don't see this whole dynamic as promoting
> misunderstanding? especially given that no two people
> interpret the same thing from the classics? as an
> example, recall Deck's interpretion of the Godfather
> movies. and the disagreements between those of us
> who DID see them.
>
Which neatly makes nancy's point, since Deck had deliberately not seen the
film /read the books.
john (I know Shakespeare, Shakespeare is my friend, Mr Puzo, you're no
Shakespeare)
w.d.greene
>
[snip]
>
> ing
> <who drives to Stratford every year to catch at least one
> Shakespearean play in the round -- and who reads it first,
> and studies it thoroughly before she goes! Billy
> Shakespeare was a bloody genius! And last year's King Lear
> was awesome!>
Lear is my favorite. I've never had the opportunity to see if
performed live though I did hear a record version of it when I was in
high school (reading along). Has anyone ever made it into a decent
screen adaptation?
Zero
"You know what you need? Shakubuku.
It's a swift, spiritual kick to the head
that alters your reality forever."
-- Debi Newberry [actor: Minnie Driver; from
the movie: "Grosse Pointe Blank" (1997)]
Re: Semantic Bingo! (was: Sound and Fury...)
"John Ashby" J.V....@rl.ac.uk claimed:
>Zero <zero...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> na...@gekkografx.com (nancy) elited:
>> >i'm talking about more than just reading [the classics].
>> >studying them. learning what they are about. what the
>> >author meant with that twist of phrase, that little bit
>> >inserted there [snip]
>>
>> and you don't see this whole dynamic as promoting
>> misunderstanding? especially given that no two people
>> interpret the same thing from the classics? as an
>> example, recall Deck's interpretation of the Godfather
>> movies. and the disagreements between those of us
>> who DID see them.
>
>Which neatly makes nancy's point, since Deck had deliberately
>not seen the film /read the books.
no, actually, that part makes my point, since Deck is obviously
not some village idiot just because he didn't see the Godfather
movies. his life is not tragic because he hasn't seen this
classic tragedy.
OTOH, being that there was (and always be) disagreement
about the import, meaning and value of the Godfather movies,
that also proves my point.
the only thing that someone will miss out on if they don't see
the masterpiece Godfather movies is... the masterpiece
Godfather movies. sure, they'll be less able to recognize
the many popular references. (yet still... just as Deck
indicated, they'll still be able to recognize some references
and their meaning).
just like i can recognize popular references of things i've
never watched on TV. like: "who shot JR?"
the best thing about audio/visual communication is that, in
such mediums, there's less likely to be misinterpretations.
(unfortunately, this is also the worst thing about the medium)
especially since it's a pretty convincing, persuasive medium.
>john (I know Shakespeare, Shakespeare is my friend, Mr Puzo,
>you're no Shakespeare)
you really out to be making a comparison to Francais and his
merry band of actors. and they are certainly no Dan Quayle.
as far as where the money is, it's script-writing, not novel
writing (as Bill Quick has verified firsthand).
the overall point is, humans are audio/visual beings. reading books,
while useful for logistical reasons over the past 500+ years, is
still an unnatural mode of communication and/or storytelling.
-$Zero... HenceThePopularityOfAllTheAudio/VisualMediums...
"and i think to myself....
what a wonderful world"
-- Louis Armstrong (singing)
Hound of Cullen
: You know, for some reason this whole thing reminds me of something that I found
: fascinating in the latest NEWSWEEK. They were reviewing the "X-Men" movie and were
: commenting on the villian, and said that the thing that thy found the most
: disturbing about him was that only a small twist prevented him from being a
: sympathetic character.
: To me, that was what made that character truly great! A really good villian in
: a story is someone like that- a character whose viewpoint is not only rational,
: but one that the reader (or viewer) can sympathize with. After all, people that we
: condemn as evil are not acting as they do because they love being unpleasant- they
: just have different reasons than the rest of us. To them, their actions are not
: only rational, but the only reasonable move that they could make! To them, our
: good guys are evil!
I saw that film and, yes, the villain is one of the best things about it.
His personal history *informs* his choices. Because of that, the central
conflict is, essentially, a philosophical one. It doesn't hurt having the
villain played by Ian Mackellan (and his rival by Patrick Stewart), both
actors bring a lot of subtext to this comic-book film.
Hound
--
Not a demographic -- Do not measure
Hound of Cullen
William...@msfc.nasa.gov says...
Kurosawa's "Ran" is pretty close, although it is set in Feudal Japan (and
the daughters have been changed to sons).
I want to see Paul Scofield do Lear, 'cause he rocks.
The best lear I saw was at the American Repertory Theater in Cambridge,
Mass. They had F. Murray Abram (Salieri in "Amadeus) playing lear. He was
quite good. But the scene where Gloucester is blinded... Wow. I don't
know if I can even describe it well...
They blind him downstage center, four guys holding him in a chair while
his eyes are pierced with a hot poker. There's all this noise: shouting,
animalistic noises from the participants, cries and wailing. Then the let
him go and push him away. The act ended in total silence, with Gloucester
staggering upstage, alone, arms out in front of him, as snow began to
fall from overhead.
The contrast between the brutality of the blinding and the odd, quiet
beauty of the end of the act, was haunting. I doubt I'll ever forget it.
The Penniless Apprentice
"Bob Pastorio" <Past...@rica.net> wrote in message
news:3977A5CB...@rica.net...
what you are suggesting in this paragraph comes to anyone then through our
educational system. we are exposed to the famous historic figures, schools
of thought, literature, etc. as we grow up. you are speaking of the general
knowledge that we absorb willy nilly. i thought the point revolved around
knowing a bit more than this.
>
> Those that accumulate more of these pieces gain a fuller understanding
> of the actions of those around them and generally have a fuller
> capacity to grasp subtlety and nuance.
yes, i understand this. no argument.
>
> > now, who _does_ zero care for in the way of a common cultural figure who
has
> > contributed in some way to our society? if his quotes are anything to go
by,
> > bob dylan would be one. i can't remember at the moment others he has
quoted,
> > i'm experiencing a brain cramp. dang! as many times as i've read them
you'd
> > think i'd remember.
> >
> > actually this fits in well with the point i'm wanting to make. i have no
> > head for remembering artists and their accomplishments. make that any
> > commonly known figure and their accomplishments-including political. and
> > even though i've studied art history (painting sculpture, etc.) i can
only
> > remember the artists that have truly impressed me in some way. so i am
> > useless in any kind of discussion regarding musicians, their
> > accomplishments, and any kind of contribution that they have made with
> > regards to our society or our language in the same way that "sound and
fury"
> > has contributed.
>
> Do you know who Patrick Henry is?
"give me liberty or give me death" i have absolutely no idea what he was
doing when he said this, and only know that it's in reference to the
american revolution. other than those two points, the man means nothing to
me.
> Henry Miller.
he wrote a book? don't know which one/ones.
> Miller Huggins?
i have no idea.
> Where is Ticonderoga?
somewhere in the eastern coastal states? (<sadly shaking head> and i taught
this stuff a mere 3 years ago. it's as i said, i have no head for keeping
this kind of information for very long after it's needed.) another american
revolution reference, i know that, and after looking it up i do, indeed,
remember teaching about the green mountain boys. but i had to look it up.
before that it held no meaning for me other than something that i knew i
ought to know, but couldn't remember.
> What is 54-40 or fight?
don't know.
> Who lived first, Plato
> or Julius Caesar?
i'm going to say plato because he's greek and julius caesar was a roman
emperor and the greeks were at their height of power before the romans. and
the _only_ reason i know this is because i had courses in art history
because that was required for my degree in art education, which is what i
was interested in. also, it's kind of hard to not know who julius caesar is.
he's one of those historical figures that one would absorb knowledge of
simply by living in our culture. people may not know that shakespeare wrote
a play about him, though. and do you know why i know that plato was greek?
because of the historical romance novels i read. the hero was always well
learned in the greek classics.
which brings up another point. how many people are well learned in the greek
classics these days? there was a time in history when that was very
important if one aspired to being considered educated. i have a copy of
plato's writings sitting in my bookcase gathering dust. another one of
those, "i ought to read this but never got around to it" books.
so i may know that plato was a greek writer, but i have absolutely no idea
what he said or how much of what he said is a part of our culture.
> Who is the "sad eyed lady of the lowlands?"
don't know. never heard of her. sounds like it's from a poem, probably
english or scottish, but possibly american as well. also sounds like it may
have been written around the 17 or 18 hundreds.
>
> Specific and fine detail isn't necessary for the basis of cultural
> literacy. Familiarity is often enough. And references will then
> resonate, even if not fully. Some is good, more is better, a lot is
> better still.
i can't argue this. as i said in another post, i believe we all benefit from
more knowledge.
>
> > but i bet that zero would have no problem grasping "an incredibly
complex
> > picture based on the *context*" of any phrase of a song lyric that has
> > become a part of our cultural understanding that anyone happened to
mention
> > in the process of painting that picture with those few deft phrases. i,
on
> > the other hand would be the one that would be standing there clueless.
so
> > how is his special knowledge any different than the special knowledge
that
> > others can claim from the "classics?" it's all cultural-shakespeare,
bob
> > dylan, <insert a famous quality movie director here>.
>
> The knowledge has to do with utility and universality. Dylan is
> brilliant, no doubt in my mind, but hardly a figure for the ages.
> He's a voice of his (our) time.
<g> so you say now. you have no idea what's going to happen in the years to
come. and yet, all i know of bob dylan is that he sings with a scratchy
voice and his songs are a chore for me to listen to. so i don't. that's it.
that's all i know. if it weren't for zero's quotes i'd have no idea what his
songs were about. do i care? do i feel like i've missed something? not at
all. though i can appreciate having a better understanding of him, it
matters not a whit to the fullness or richness of my life.
>
> > it is, of course, impossible for people to know everything about
everything
> > (and i know that you are not suggesting this), and to conclude that
someone
> > is missing out because their tastes in what they choose to absorb don't
meet
> > some kind of educational or cultural standard is, imo, without basis. i
may
> > think he's missing out because of what i have received from what i've
read
> > and how it has helped me in my own chosen path of life, but he might
believe
> > that i'm missing out because i have absolutely no desire to further my
> > education in the direction of the musicians he finds so inspiring.
>
> Not an issue of taste. Not an issue of what one likes or dislikes.
i beg to differ. i believe that one will retain the references much better
if one has a liking or interest in them. i have been exposed to tons of this
cultural stuff, but my mind discards anything that holds no interest for me.
it is rare that i retain what, to me, is useless information. which is why
i'm so terrible at trivia games.
> Not an issue of whether one source is "better" than any other. The
> mark of an educated person is breadth and not necessarily depth. Wide
> view about many things is more important than a deep view about one
> thing.
i have often said that i know a little about a lot of things. it has not
served me well in this life because i don't know enough of any one thing to
enter into in depth conversation on very many subjects. i am a reasonably
well educated person, not a highly educated person.
this, then, changes the subject, though, and we are no longer speaking of
communication, but education, as i alluded to in another post. yes,
education can bring about better communication, but the knowledge of all
this "stuff" isn't necessary to communicating well. it may bring more colors
to the palette, but any artist worth his salt knows what to do with red,
yellow and blue and requires no other colors.
(do i know where the expression worth his salt came from? i do not. it's
enough that i know what it means and how it's used within my culture.)
<snip my father>
>
> And he seems to have had a life that pleased him. But that, too,
> isn't what the references are about. He cannot be said to have a
> "liberal" education in the sense that liberal arts means it.
who's talking about having a liberal education? we're talking about knowing
cultural references and whether they're necessary to communicating well.
> In that
> sense, he has a lower cultural literacy standard than others who
> pursued broader paths. Not better or worse. But shortchanged.
shortchanged sounds worse to me. well, i agree with you. because i'm an
educator at heart and because i love learning and i love books. (though you
wouldn't know it to watch me these days) i feel i've shortchanged myself by
not pursuing more avenues of learning. i'm taking french and creative
writing this coming semester since my husband's job now allows me to do so
for free, and i will continue to take classes that i feel i'm lacking
knowledge in just because i want to. but that's me. i'd probably be a
professional student if i could get away with it.
the point is, one _can_ communicate effectively without the use of cultural
references. that's it in a nutshell. though i suspect that many people
communicate using those cultural references without ever knowing where they
come from. they are simply accepted through the natural absorption you spoke
of.
>
> > we fill ourselves with what interests us. and if someone doesn't care to
be
> > interested by shakespeare (or any other cultural literary icon)-well, so
it
> > is. that does not make it a bad thing. perhaps, because this is a
writer's
> > forum, and because most writers are readers, this seems like heresy, at
> > least within this particular cultural group named "writers."
> >
> > every field of study has its perceived standards, i suppose. one assumes
> > that writers would be interested in other writers, especially the
masters of
> > the past and present, just as biologists would be interested in those
who
> > have made great discoveries in that field. but, as is sometimes the
case,
> > assumptions can turn out to be in error.
>
> Not the point. Not interested in the writer - in the writing.
extrapolate, bob. if interested in the writer, if interested in the
biologist, why so? because of the writing. because of the discovery.
> Just
> as biologists are interested in the discoveries of the past.
>
> > do i think that zero should read shakespeare? no. i think he should
attend
> > his plays instead. when you consider it, this is very ironic that we are
> > discussing shakespeare as someone zero should read, when shakespeare was
an
> > advocate of audio/visual communication just as zero is-otherwise he
would
> > have spent most of his time writing novels instead of plays.
>
> There weren't novels then. He wrote in the fields that paid.
i addressed this with paul.
> He
> wasn't an advocate for audio visual matters any more than any other
> writer who wrote poetry
perhaps. have you asked him? were he alive today, do you know whether he
would choose to write novels, or screenplays? i bet he'd choose screenplays.
but, of course, i don't know, either.
> nor for reading any more than any other
> playwright. He wrote to earn a living. Brilliantly.
i agree.
>
> Shakespeare and the Bible are the two most quoted sources in English
> (I read somewhere and absolutely can't defend)
i can believe this without the backup.
> and anyone without some
> fair exposure to both is handicapped in this culture.
i don't agree. 50 years ago, maybe. not anymore.
> References get
> past, important contextual information simply slides by without notice
> or, worse, is misunderstood.
the evolving nature of culture and language. how many expressions from the
past have we lost the history to, or use wrongly because they've been
misquoted over the ages?
>
> > so, zero, there are some pretty good movies made of ol' will's plays.
>
> I beg to differ. These aren't what he wrote. These are versions of
> versions filtered through many other eyes before they reach ours.
> Read it in the original and have a study guide with you when you do.
blech!!! i feel in my heart that this is good advice, and i have sat down
and read through about 4 of them before seeing them on stage or in film. it
is hard, hard going. that takes all the enjoyment out of the plays for me. i
don't gain anything from the exercise other than pure frustration. but once
i've seen the play, and _then_ go back and read it, the world opens up.
understanding comes. i see things i missed when i first tried reading.
not all people's minds are wired the same way, and that is just as much a
part of this argument as anything else. certain people's minds are wired to
see the benefit of reading shakespeare. other's aren't. and those who
haven't read him will do just fine in this society of ours. and if they
never feel the lack, they'll never miss it. i know that sounds too
simplistic, and like i don't care about the potential gained by acquiring
more knowledge. that's not it at all.
i just don't see this in terms of right, wrong, good, better,
best-shortchanged (apart from myself and what i desire in my own life).
each person has his own path to follow, and if he chooses
to stay away from the classics, he will be no poorer than my decision to
stay away from the sciences. interest and the way our minds are wired play a
very large part in this. all i get out of technical/scientific material is
heartache and frustration, all my husband gets out of language learning is
heartache and frustration. we study these things because we're told they're
good for us-and i can't deny that i have appreciated everything that i've
learned, yet we just as quickly forget the majority of the material.
so what good is it with respect to cultural references if they're forgotten?
i know that you said all that is required is a familiarity, yet who gets to
determine which parts of what i remain familiar with are the culturally
relevant ones? what if the culturally relevant parts are the parts that went
the way of the black hole of forgetfulness? i did my part. i tried. i
learned. yet i remain culturally ignorant in many areas. all, of course,
depending on the group of people i find myself in the midst of.
remember the days when it was required to learn latin? how many of our words
come from this language? do we even care anymore?
The Penniless Apprentice
> 875n
<snip>
> the overall point is, humans are audio/visual beings. reading books,
> while useful for logistical reasons over the past 500+ years, is
> still an unnatural mode of communication and/or storytelling.
>
oh, gracious, no!!! and no, again. while we may be first and foremost
audio/visual beings, there is nothing unnatural in curling up with a good
book and visiting unknown places and people in one's imagination. nothing
unnatural AT ALL. we are also thinking beings, and the system of making
marks on a surface came about through the process of thinking of a new way
to communicate that was portable and lasting. (if one excludes writings in
the sand, of course.)
arleen
don't tell me that my favorite activity is unnatural. you'll give me a
complex...of some kind...or another.
The Penniless Apprentice
"Paul Harwood" <Pa...@computerbits.com> wrote in message
news:16gfns0of2tgtncu7...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 20:40:21 -0400, The Penniless Apprentice said in
> misc.writing:
>
> >"Paul Harwood" <pa...@computerbits.com> wrote in message
>
> >but there are people
> >who have an intuitive ability to create without ever knowing anything of
> >what has gone on before.
>
> I'm only aware of a few. Ramanujan comes to mind: He invented most of
> mathematics on his own. Creative genius like this is exceptionally rare.
>
> >it is when thinking of those people, that i can see
> >zero's point of view of not needing to read what other writers have
written.
>
> A writer who doesn't bother to educate himself about the artists who have
> gone before is inherently limited.
>
> >did mozart need to know what others had done before composing his own
music
> >at the age of 5?
>
> AFAIK, yes. Leopold Mozart, Wolfgang's father, was an accomplished
> violist, and he tutored Wolfgang from a precocious age. Wolfgang had an
> astounding memory of and capacity for music, but he studied the masters
> diligently. He is credited with re-discovering JS Bach.
i thought his father taught him, but i did not know to what extent. i stand
corrected.
>
> >i seriously doubt it. had he lived in the wilds of some
> >never never land that had no music, he would probably still have composed
> >music. he would have been the inventor of it.
>
> Good point. He likely would still have been a musician. But would his
> music have been so perfect had he been less well schooled?
<g> we'll never know, will we? of course, what to one is "perfect" to
another is....
>
> >also, i can't help but ask myself, am i less creative because i do depend
on
> >what has gone on before? i believe i need the box, but is it just a
crutch?
> >what would i do without it? the old "necessity is the mother of
invention"
> >thing perhaps?
>
> There's an interesting essay by TS Eliot that you might want to look up:
> It's called "Tradition and the Individual Talent". Eliot's position is
> that no artist can excel without drawing on the efforts of those who have
> gone before.
perhaps. this goes to my question of would we be doomed to reinventing the
wheel without what went on before.
and yet, why is it, then, with all the knowledge of what has gone on before,
people still make war on one another? <rabbit trail>
>
> >> >every field of study has its perceived standards, i suppose. one
assumes
> >> >that writers would be interested in other writers, especially the
masters of
> >> >the past and present, just as biologists would be interested in those
who
> >> >have made great discoveries in that field. but, as is sometimes the
case,
> >> >assumptions can turn out to be in error.
> >>
> >> This is a little off the beam. One studies the work of the masters not
to
> >> know them, but to appreciate their art.
> >
> >wouldn't a biologist appreciate the discoveries of those who came before?
>
> Of course, but you said that biologists would be interested in "those who
> have made great discoveries". This is not necessarily the case; AFAIK,
> scientists are far more interested in the discovery than the person behind
> the discovery. That's all I was saying :-)
>
> >build on them? study them? stand in awe over them and the thought
processes
> >that must have gone into figuring out the conclusion that developed? how
is
> >that different from appreciating artforms within their own context of
being
> >art?
>
> It's actually significantly different: In science, there is a clear trail
> of methodology that leads to a given result; for a result to be
> meaningful, it must be repeatable. Artistry is exactly the opposite: While
> the influence of previous masters may be clear, an artist is always
> original, and imitations are always just that.
okay. i accept this difference. i didn't think of it in those terms, i was
just giving out an example of people wanting to know what went on before in
their own fields of interest.
>
> >> >do i think that zero should read shakespeare? no. i think he should
attend
> >> >his plays instead. when you consider it, this is very ironic that we
are
> >> >discussing shakespeare as someone zero should read, when shakespeare
was an
> >> >advocate of audio/visual communication just as zero is-otherwise he
would
> >> >have spent most of his time writing novels instead of plays.
> >>
> >> There are a couple of problems with this. As far as I know, novels
didn't
> >> exist as a viable art form for nearly a century after Shakespeare's
death;
> >> plays and epic poetry were the rage when he was writing, and he tried
his
> >> hand at both.
> >
> ><g> i thought of this as i wrote what i did, but i still stand by my
> >conclusion. if shakespeare were a true innovator, he wouldn't have cared
> >about what was the rage, he would have struck off to do his own thing-if
he
> >were interested in writing a story rather than a play. i suppose the
reason
> >he didn't stick to epic poetry was because it didn't pay well? or did he
> >stink at it?
>
> Uh ... actually, my impression of Shakespeare was that he wanted to make a
> living by writing, so he got himself into the most lucrative form of it
> that he could. He was, essentially, a capitalist pig.
so he'd probably be doing screenplays today. <g>
>
> He wrote two epic poems -- "Venus and Adonis" and "The Rape of Lucrece" --
> but, AFAIK, they were written early in his career, to prove his literary
> chops, and once he broke into playwrighting he never looked back.
> Basically, he went where the money was. Can't blame him for that.
no, not at all. do you know who his muses were?
>
> >> Second, as *writers*, I think it behooves us to read the plays
> >> rather than see them performed. When we see them performed, we are
seeing
> >> them through the twin lenses of a director's vision and an actor's
> >> interpretation; when we read the plays, we are receiving Shakespeare in
his
> >> essence.
> >
> >through our own lens.
>
> Of course.
>
> >but i see your point. well, the best of both, then. read him and see him.
>
> I agree with this.
>
> >personally, i find seeing his plays much better than
> >reading them. i understand them better.
>
> You understand them better because a director has digested the story for
> you, and is regurgitating it through some actors. A good director will be
> completely invisible to you, and the story will seem crystal clear -- but
> it's still just one interpretation among many. Here's an example for you:
> I'm currently directing a play that contains a campy version of "As You
> Like It". In it, the country rustics are presented as Arkansas hillbillies
> <think Gomer Pyle meets Pa Kettle>. People seeing this play will come away
> with a very distinct notion of As You Like It. Is it the correct one?
>
> >i do not do well when reading one of
> >his plays while continually reading the side notes to help me understand
> >what he's saying. yet when watching his plays, i seem to pick up on and
> >understand those areas that i don't understand when reading him. it may
be
> >an attention thing.
>
> No, it's because the actors have understood the play for you. Their
> readings make the lines clear.
yes. that's my point. sort of. well, in all events, it's important that
*someone* read him for his legacy to continue, isn't it? <g> i'm not against
reading him, and i'm not scoffing at those who do as though it's an
unnecessary exercise. i guess i'm just fighting this seeming insistence that
it _is_ necessary for communication or a well-balanced mind or something of
that nature.
Hearing a good actor do Shakespeare is a
> marvelous experience.
yes, it is.
>
> >> Shakespeare's combination of
> >> poetic genius and clear insight into the workings of the human soul is
> >> pretty much unparalleled. We owe any number of linguistic tropes to
him.
> >
> >i'm sure we do. but how many people know which ones they are?
>
> People who read Shakespeare :-)
exactly. and then it all depends on if you've read that particular play.
have you read all of his plays? if not, do you think that you should? which
plays are the culturally relevant ones? does it depend on the group one is
interacting with? i'd say romeo and juliet would be the most culturally
relevant, most required during those first 12 years of education.
>
> There's an old joke about his plays: "Who ever said this guy could write?
> His plays are filled with cliches." The joke, of course, is that he
> invented them.
<g>
>
> >> It's hard for me to imagine any serious writer of fiction who doesn't
have
> >> at least a passing acquaintance with his work.
> >
> >perhaps. that doesn't mean there aren't some out there, though.
>
> I have no doubt that you're right. I'm not saying that it's impossible to
> take your writing seriously if you don't have a passing knowledge of
> Shakespeare; just that he touched on just about all of the universal
> themes, and that, for you to explore them yourself, you're well-advised to
> know where the high-water mark is.
>
or, strike out on your own first with no preconceived notions, and _then_
see how you fared in comparison. one can always improve if necessary, but it
would be interesting to see how one did without the benefit of knowing what
went before. i can see benefits to both ways of thinking. on the one hand
it's like a pole vaulter needing to know what the world record is before
being able to beat it, and on the other it's like being the first person to
discover that a pole could be used to jump so high.
arleen
The Penniless Apprentice
"ing" <ing.b...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3977E59A...@sympatico.ca...
> Bob Pastorio wrote:
> >
> > The Penniless Apprentice wrote:
> > >
>
>
> > >
> > > shakespeare. not everyone cares for hemingway. or dickens. or austen.
etc.
>
>
>
> basics -- at the same time they're amongst the cream of the
> crop. You have to care, surely, if you hope to have any
> insight into writing and any topic you want to address!
>
> If you don't care about Shakespeare, Hemingway, Dickens or
> Austen or a whole bunch of other recognized classic writers
> -- you are SOOOOOOOO missing out on such incredible
> literature. Who are your classic writers, then, if none of
> the ones you mentioned? Who do you rely on to point you in
> directions and give you inspiration?????
>
different way of thinking, ing. different way of thinking, that's all. i
happen to love all of austen, some of dickens, and the lighter, funnier
plays of shakespeare. other authors that i enjoy? robert louis stevenson,
baroness orczy, alexandre dumas, mary shelley. but as inspiration? sorry. i
don't read with the thought in mind of how their technique could help me in
my own writing. my writing is my own. i wish to keep it that way.
should i ever decide to write something for public consumption for a
lucrative reason, i have no doubt that i will be influenced by what i've
read. i am already. i sometimes write using phrases better suited to the
18th or 19th century, but i do not choose to study them a'purpose to make my
writing "better." perhaps i'm wrong. time will tell.
arleen
Zero
"You know what you need? Shakubuku.
It's a swift, spiritual kick to the head
that alters your reality forever."
-- Debi Newberry [actor: Minnie Driver; from
the movie: "Grosse Pointe Blank" (1997)]
Re: Semantic Bingo! (was: Sound and Fury...)
"The Penniless Apprentice" amj...@netzero.net "wrote":
>"Zero" <zero...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> 875n
><snip>
>
>> the overall point is, humans are audio/visual beings.
>> reading books, while useful for logistical reasons over
>> the past 500+ years, is still an unnatural mode of
>> communication and/or storytelling.
>
>oh, gracious, no!!! and no, again.
LOL.
"don't panic"
-- Life, The Universe and Everything
>while we may be first and foremost audio/visual beings,
>there is nothing unnatural in curling up with a good
>book and visiting unknown places and people in one's
>imagination. nothing unnatural AT ALL.
well, nothing that man does is unnatural, by nature.
not even watching TV.
at the same time, some things are more natural than others. <g>
but it IS true that the written word is a simply a mechanism
invented to communicate. it's not something that a human being
knows how to do without training. yet, a child does know how
to watch and understand tv, or appreciate music, with no training
whatsoever. in that sense, reading is extremely unnatural.
capiche?
>we are also thinking beings, and the system of making marks
>on a surface came about through the process of thinking of
>a new way to communicate that was portable and lasting.
yep. and that mechanism has brought us some great stuff, too.
but... if "portability and lasting" is the only distinction,
um... portable recordable DVDs and mini-cams will
certainly eventually make this form of commuication
obsolete. of course, they'll have to figure out some
way to "index" sounds and images first. especially
because, now are now addicted to keyword searches
and such. right now, the written word "chocolate" is
much easier to locate than the zillion different possible
spoken versions of the word "chocolate." but that's
certainly not an impossible obstacle to overcome.
anyway, many people can speak the language without
knowing how to read or write, true? see where i'm going
with this?
illiterates armed with portable DVD recorders and mini-cams
would be able to both "read and write" without having to learn
very much in the way of systematic stuff. the world may
eventually become more intuitive than mechanical.
imagine the shift in the types of literature which would be
created if the mechanisms of communication could be just
as easily used by three-yr-olds as they could by cynical adults.
we might get a glimpse of some very interesting beauty.
HG Well's "Time Machine" vision didn't take recordable DVDs
into consideration. what would a future world be like with
that added tool? of course, it ALL the DVDs and mini-cams
broke, or otherwise became unusable, things could get hairy.
but there's the same basic problem with book burnings, though.
however, assuming that these machines evolve to a point
where they are as reliable as paper and pen, and assuming
that their power source could be water or air or some other
widely available resource, there would always be a DVD title
that could teach you how to build more DVDs.
really, our embracing of the written word is more sentimental
than anything. (and that's an understatement).
>(if one excludes writings in the sand, of course.)
sound and fury. <g>
anyway, you actually think that the written word is lasting?
think: "super nova."
>arleen
>don't tell me that my favorite activity is unnatural.
>you'll give me a complex...of some kind...or another.
heh. calm down... take a deep breath...
and unleash your imagination.
-$Zero... ForYourReadingPleasure(Fetish)...
ThisPostWasConvertedToText...
UsingInvention#20176290338...
"It can only be attributed to human error.
These types of things have cropped-up before...
and it has always been attributed to... human error."
-- HAL 9000
Peter Hickman
The Penniless Apprentice wrote:
> "Bob Pastorio" <Past...@rica.net> wrote in message
> news:3977A5CB...@rica.net...
> > The Penniless Apprentice wrote:
> > >
> >
>
> > Who lived first, Plato
> > or Julius Caesar?
>
> i'm going to say plato because he's greek and julius caesar was a roman
> emperor and the greeks were at their height of power before the romans. and
> the _only_ reason i know this is because i had courses in art history
> because that was required for my degree in art education, which is what i
> was interested in. also, it's kind of hard to not know who julius caesar is.
> he's one of those historical figures that one would absorb knowledge of
> simply by living in our culture.
I think this whole line of discussion (and especially this interesting
exposition) shows at least one thing that no one has mentioned, though it seems
strongly implied here and there: things have some context. Julius Caesar, for
example, isn't just a historical figure, he was a real person and one of the
finest writers of Classical Latin prose. His real context is reality, not
anyone's culture. For me (and not necessarily for anyone else) not knowing much
about something is roughly the same as not having any way to place it in its
original context. The notion of J. Caesar as "Roman Emperor" shows just how
helpful a little application of the "put it in context" side of knowledge can
be. After all one would think that one of the bits of info that would come
along with the historical figure (ie the name out of context) of
J. Caesar is that he was murdered for aiming to take on an "Imperial
Role"...this is why I suspect that the notion of "Cultural literacy" is
misleading and its results generally far from constructive. It is really pretty
counter-productive to have a picture of the world based on little snippets of
information with no useful context. Far better I would think, to have a firm
gasp of some historical process and never have heard of J. C. than to have heard
of J. C. but assume that Imperial Rome some how emerged from the back lots of
Hollywood to conquer Greece at the appointed hour.
Far better to have some firm knowledge of how fortresses were stormed or
beseiged in the 18th century than to know anything about the Green Mountain
Boys.
Far better to have read some philosophy than to know that Plato was "a Greek"...
Of course better still to have some picture of the emergence of Philosophy in
Athens......and omit Plato on grounds of his tedious lateness and the fact that
his main influence was via Neoplatonism for the last 2000 years....
> people may not know that shakespeare wrote
> a play about him, though. and do you know why i know that plato was greek?
> because of the historical romance novels i read. the hero was always well
> learned in the greek classics.
Was he? When did these paragons flourish?
>
> which brings up another point. how many people are well learned in the greek
> classics these days?
How many have ever been? The notion used to be that one needed to know some
Greek to be fully educated, but as near as I can tell, only specialists in
philology or Early Church History went so far as to actually read a lot of
non-school texts.
> there was a time in history when that was very
> important if one aspired to being considered educated. i have a copy of
> plato's writings sitting in my bookcase gathering dust. another one of
> those, "i ought to read this but never got around to it" books.
And yet a reasonable history of Greek Philosophy written in the last 30
years or so would tell you far more about reality and even Plato in some ways
than the supposedly well-educated of say 100 years ago would have known.
>
> so i may know that plato was a greek writer, but i have absolutely no idea
> what he said or how much of what he said is a part of our culture.
It is Neoplatonism that is part of our culture, though no one is aware of
it. You have to be very context-oriented indeed to notice such things.
You never can tell...................................................Pete
Dick Harper
> you seem to believe that it is important to know some
> standard "canon" of work. i disagree. i believe that
> the universal themes in literature and philosophy and
> science seep into one's understanding of things without
> having to know specific origins, but even more importantly,
> the universal themes of life itself do so. i suppose such
> trivia as you surely know might be useful if one were a
> contestant on "who wants to be a millionaire" but... i
> have no obsession with such irrelevancies.
This is the response of an irritable ditch digger when
confronted by an educated man.
It is neither polite nor smart to belittle what you cannot
have.
I'm an engineer; my curriculum did not include the
classical education that many others have. I do not regard that
as a badge of honor. Rather, it's a deficit I have had to
overcome, sometimes unsuccessfully.
That you or I write without knowing "the standard canon"
means that we either reinvent the wheel every time we assemble
thought or we miss allusions that would make our words more rich
and our meaning more full. Personally, I hate to reinvent
something someone else toiled over.
Some years ago I taught a high school honors English class
for a day. 24 seniors had read Aldous Huxley's *Brave New
World* and were semi-eager to discuss it. That's a polite way
of saying they didn't snore in the classroom.
Published in 1932, *World* paints a bleak picture of a
utopia based on assembly line principles in the year of
stability, A.F. 632. Huxley's Director of Hatcheries and
Conditioning would disagree about the desolation of the picture:
"Ford's in His Flivver
"All's well with the world!"
Not one kid in that classroom knew what a flivver was.
Robert Browning wasn't on their reading list. And they had
little knowledge of the angst Huxley and his peers experienced
over the assembly line.
Knowing Ford, Browning, and Huxley gives the student a far
richer experience and understanding of *World.*
"The sound and the fury" quotation is very much the same.
With one's nose pressed wistfully against the window looking in,
or with one's nose presed firmly out of joint and looking in
(Zero's position here) it is just an angry noise. Knowing the
play and the subsequent Faulkner gives a far richer experience
and understanding.
Dick (I have a joke to tell. #37)
Harper (Bwaaa haaaa haaaa. That's a good one!)
--------------------
That fellow seems to me to possess but one idea, and that is a
wrong one.--Samuel Johnson
Dick Harper
> my father, for example, has stated that he can count on the fingers of one
> hand how many fiction books he has read. if he has ever read shakespeare for
> anything other than a college course (and whether he even took such a
> college course would be up for debate), it would be news to me. yet he has
> read many, many books on electrical engineering, cameras, philosophy,
> psychology, and the physical sciences. his only reference point about sound
> and fury would be as zero's.
Would your father belittle someone who has read Shakespear
or Proust, Faulkner or Hemingway? I didn't think so.
--Dick
nancy
zero...@aol.com (Zero) wrote:
> "John Ashby" J.V....@rl.ac.uk claimed:
> >> >i'm talking about more than just reading [the classics].
> >> >studying them. learning what they are about. what the
> >> >author meant with that twist of phrase, that little bit
> >> >inserted there [snip]
> >>
> >> and you don't see this whole dynamic as promoting
> >> misunderstanding?
not even close. it *fosters* understanding. that can't
be THAT hard to grasp, zer'.
> >> especially given that no two people
> >> interpret the same thing from the classics? as an
> >> example, recall Deck's interpretation of the Godfather
> >> movies. and the disagreements between those of us
> >> who DID see them.
zero, it's not a matter of interpretation. it's a matter
of having a common language. had you read and understood
MacBeth, you would have immediately twigged to pastorio's
use of "sound and fury" ... you would have had a frame of
reference. as it was, you went off half-cocked and LOLing
on his use of "fury" as though he were saying you were
furious (angry), as opposed to grandstanding on a futility.
the "grandstanding on a futility" understanding of that
passage is nearly universal, unless you're a moron.
> >
> >Which neatly makes nancy's point, since Deck had deliberately
> >not seen the film /read the books.
yes.
>
> no, actually, that part makes my point, since Deck is obviously
> not some village idiot just because he didn't see the Godfather
> movies. his life is not tragic because he hasn't seen this
> classic tragedy.
oh for pity's sake! it has *nothing* to do with someone
being considered an "idiot" because he had chosen not to
read something! if that's what you got out of what i'm saying,
then you *are* an idiot! if you got out of this that i'm
saying someone's life is *tragic* because they have chosen
to limit themselves, then you are *definitely* an idiot.
you're just proving over and over and over again how narrow
you are!
deck deliberately chose to limit himself. if someone had,
in a conversation with deck, inserted a phrase from that
series of books that had some meaning that was germane to
the conversation, deck *might* have lost out on that meaning
unless he could glean it from the over all context. if
he were as blind to other possibilities of meanings as you
were with pastorio's reference to "sound and fury", then he
would have gleaned the *wrong* meaning. thus, communications
were not served because deck was not familiar with as
much as he could be familiar with. further clarification
would be necessary, and an element of richness to the conversation
would have been lost.
is it tragic? no! in fact, potentially the opposite, as
hopefully in the course of explaining things, deck may have
learned something. (note: we hold no such hopes for you, zero)
does it make deck an idiot for not knowing Puzo's work? hardly!
it makes him *limited* in that respect. but, hell! everyone
is limited in many respects ... some willingly, some out of
ignorance (irony alert!) and some just from lack of opportunity ...
they haven't gotten to it yet and may never.
>
> OTOH, being that there was (and always be) disagreement
> about the import, meaning and value of the Godfather movies,
> that also proves my point.
yeah, but your point is pointless. it has nothing
to do with what i am saying.
> the best thing about audio/visual communication is that, in
> such mediums, there's less likely to be misinterpretations.
> (unfortunately, this is also the worst thing about the medium)
oh, this is a laugh. there are going to be misinterpretations
regardless, but, more laughably, mr "i'm not brainwashed" ...
you're swallowing the whole load of that *one* possible
interpretation ... that of the director/producer/actor. swallowing
it, smacking your lips and begging for "more, please."
and you're not brainwashed? LOL!
--
nancy
sig file temporarily down for repairs
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
The Penniless Apprentice
"Dick Harper" <RBHa...@together.net> wrote in message
news:39788d73...@news.onemain.com...
have you read all of my posts in this thread? have you seen me belittle
anyone? i didn't think so.
arleen
The Penniless Apprentice
> Zero Apprentice eloquently commented in misc.writing
>
who the hell is zero apprentice?
arleen
The Penniless Apprentice
news:8la4p4$3uge0$1...@ID-39564.news.cis.dfn.de...
oops. probably misread. again. are you trying to make the point that you
think that zero is belittling those that read them? was it his use of the
word trivia with regards to such knowledge? well, in essence, most knowledge
is just that-trivia. how useful is it in day to day living to know the
classics? that they make our lives richer, just as any other art form would
doesn't change the nature of the subject matter. trivia. unimportant. except
to those who find it important. that doesn't mean that he is belittling
those who do find it important, simply that he has a different viewpoint.
imo, if there was anything that he was belittling in the other post you
responded to it was what he believed to be a conformist attitude regarding
the importance of knowing the classics.
arleen
Zero
"You know what you need? Shakubuku.
It's a swift, spiritual kick to the head
that alters your reality forever."
-- Debi Newberry [actor: Minnie Driver; from
the movie: "Grosse Pointe Blank" (1997)]
WAS:Re: Semantic Underload? (was: Re: Sal's Puzzle)
Re: Sound and fury...
Universal Themes (was: Re: Sound and fury... )
RBHa...@together.net (Dick Harper) spoketh:
>The Penniless Apprentice eloquently commented in misc.writing
>
>>my father, for example, has stated that he can count on the
>>fingers of one hand how many fiction books he has read. if
>>he has ever read shakespeare for anything other than a
>>college course (and whether he even took such a college
>>course would be up for debate), it would be news to me. yet
>>he has read many, many books on electrical engineering,
>>cameras, philosophy, psychology, and the physical
>>sciences. his only reference point about sound and fury
>>would be as zero's.
>
>Would your father belittle someone who has read Shakespear
>or Proust, Faulkner or Hemingway? I didn't think so.
and your implication is that i am?
wrong.
i've never belittled anyone for reading any of "the classics."
i'm only suggesting that NOT reading any of the above (or others)
is not a reason to belittle anyone, nor is it even remotely a necessity
for being, or becoming, a writer (or other artist). i'm suggesting
that those who think otherwise are simply brainwahed. does that
come across as denigration? it's not meant to.
i mean, look... have any Chinese writers read Proust? or Shakespear?
for the sake of argument, how about the "writers" on Mars?
have all the "real" Martian writers read Proust, Faulkner or
Hemingway?
people here seem to think that there is only one reasonable
way to "enlightenment." or that there's only one reasonable
way to "evolve." i think that this is a very limited way to think
and strongly suggests brainwash.
Pastorio posted about successfully "integrating" into a culture.
that kind of talk concerns me. it suggests that only certain
predetermined opinions will be "tolerated." this is not a
formula for the betterment of mankind. quite the opposite.
>--Dick
-$Zero... ThereAreMore"UniversalThemes"... ThanWeCurrentlyKnow...
(AndThatIncludes...
The"HighlyEducated"AmongUs)...
"see this?!
this is this.
this ain't something else...
THIS is THIS..."
-- Mike [actor: Robert De Niro; from
the movie: "The Deer Hunter" (1978)]
Alma Hromic
<amj...@netzero.net> wrote:
>
>"Dick Harper" <RBHa...@together.net> wrote in message
>news:3978932c...@news.onemain.com...
>> Zero Apprentice eloquently commented in misc.writing
>>
>
>who the hell is zero apprentice?
>
>arleen
>
zero tends to vary his moniker with ZeroSomethingorother. i dunno why.
A. (who's always just A.)
*********************
Here on the level sand
Between the sea and land,
What shall I build or write
Against the fall of night?
--A. E. Housman
The Penniless Apprentice
news:8la5ln$pjc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
yet, if pastorio had not used that phrase, assuming that it would be
understood, there would have been no misunderstanding in the first place.
(though i concede that being among writers that assumption is a valid one.)
>
> the "grandstanding on a futility" understanding of that
> passage is nearly universal, unless you're a moron.
should we take a poll and see how many morons we have here? <g> when i hear
the term sound and fury, i interpret it as thrashing about uselessly. i
guess that would be close to grandstanding on a futility.
but, nancy, this is entirely zero's point. he's saying that if we would cut
out the references that only particular groups might be familiar with, we
can communicate with one another more clearly, rather than saying things
that go over people's heads. there is value to be seen on both sides of this
issue. i don't like it when things go over my head, so i prefer to be more
knowledgable, but that's just not possible. well, it is possible, but not
knowledgable enough to always be clueful no matter who i'm with discussing
what. which you have reiterated, as well. we can't know everything.
but while you and i may prefer knowing the context of the references and
what they may mean, zero is stressing that if we stopped communicating in
those terms, and communicated in a more universal manner, i.e. using terms
that no one could (i was going to say misinterpret, but that, too, is
impossible <g>)... using terms that everyone could understand, there might
be a better level of communication all around. i say might. i don't know. is
it even possible to communicate without the common references that litter
our culture?
arleen
Peter Hickman
Zero wrote:
> 875k
>
> "You know what you need? Shakubuku.
> It's a swift, spiritual kick to the head
> that alters your reality forever."
> -- Debi Newberry [actor: Minnie Driver; from
> the movie: "Grosse Pointe Blank" (1997)]
A truly great movie. I can't remember the "shakubuku" scene...oh well.
<big snip>
> i'm only suggesting that NOT reading any of the above (or others)
> is not a reason to belittle anyone, nor is it even remotely a necessity
> for being, or becoming, a writer (or other artist). i'm suggesting
> that those who think otherwise are simply brainwahed. does that
> come across as denigration? it's not meant to.
I think you're trying to get too much milage out of a not very useful
idea of people's being "brainwahed"...People get more or less taught
certain things by circumstances that may more or less amount to a
"culture"...but so what?
>
> i mean, look... have any Chinese writers read Proust? or Shakespear?
I'm not a Chinese writer. I've read Proust and Shakespear. So?
>
> for the sake of argument, how about the "writers" on Mars?
I'm not a Martian Writer and neither are you.
> have all the "real" Martian writers read Proust, Faulkner or
> Hemingway?
No. There are no Martian writers, so they haven't been reading
anything.
>
> people here seem to think that there is only one reasonable
> way to "enlightenment." or that there's only one reasonable
> way to "evolve." i think that this is a very limited way to think
> and strongly suggests brainwash.
Or Brainwah. I can only think of one method for enlightenment: getting
brainwahed to some degree and then learning to think critically about
brainwah.
>
> Pastorio posted about successfully "integrating" into a culture.
> that kind of talk concerns me. it suggests that only certain
> predetermined opinions will be "tolerated." this is not a
> formula for the betterment of mankind. quite the opposite.
Of course it is the formula. You have to get some brainwah to get some
enlightenment. You can't get enlightened by having nothing to do with
brainwah. There is always some brainwah. You have to learn to deal with
brainwah in an enlightened way.
You never can tell..................................................Pete
The Penniless Apprentice
"Alma Hromic" <ang...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3979ec7...@news.earthlink.net...
> On Fri, 21 Jul 2000 14:28:12 -0400, "The Penniless Apprentice"
> <amj...@netzero.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Dick Harper" <RBHa...@together.net> wrote in message
> >news:3978932c...@news.onemain.com...
> >> Zero Apprentice eloquently commented in misc.writing
> >>
> >
> >who the hell is zero apprentice?
> >
> >arleen
> >
> zero tends to vary his moniker with ZeroSomethingorother. i dunno why.
>
this was not zero's doing, it was dick's. he took zero's moniker, and my
moniker and put them together to make us look like the same person. i may
think it's funny when people have suggested in the past that they thought
zero and i were the same person, and i may like zero considerably well, but
i DO NOT wish to be definitively seen as him, thank you very much.
arleen
KMadeleine
>
>On Fri, 21 Jul 2000 14:28:12 -0400, "The Penniless Apprentice"
><amj...@netzero.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Dick Harper" <RBHa...@together.net> wrote in message
>>news:3978932c...@news.onemain.com...
>>> Zero Apprentice eloquently commented in misc.writing
>>>
>>
>>who the hell is zero apprentice?
>>
>>arleen
>>
>zero tends to vary his moniker with ZeroSomethingorother. i dunno why.
>
except when you're confusing us by making us think you're
deck!
KMadeleine
>
>> The Penniless Apprentice wrote:
>> >
>> > i certainly understand what you are saying, but not everyone cares for
>> > shakespeare. not everyone cares for hemingway. or dickens. or austen. etc.
>
>They do if they're writers, or hope to be. These are the
>basics -- at the same time they're amongst the cream of the
>crop. You have to care, surely, if you hope to have any
>insight into writing and any topic you want to address!
caring _for_ is not the same as caring _about_. i care about
hemingway in that i know who he was, some of what he wrote,
and i know that there are a bunch of folks that consider him
great at what he did. i don't care for his writing style,
though; bores me to tears.
>If you don't care about Shakespeare, Hemingway, Dickens or
>Austen or a whole bunch of other recognized classic writers
>-- you are SOOOOOOOO missing out on such incredible
>literature. Who are your classic writers, then, if none of
>the ones you mentioned? Who do you rely on to point you in
>directions and give you inspiration?????
[snip]
Zero
"You know what you need? Shakubuku.
It's a swift, spiritual kick to the head
that alters your reality forever."
-- Debi Newberry [actor: Minnie Driver; from
the movie: "Grosse Pointe Blank" (1997)]
Re: Semantic Bingo! (was: Sound and Fury...)
nancy nancy...@my-deja.com missed the point:
> zero...@aol.com (Zero) wrote:
>> "John Ashby" J.V....@rl.ac.uk claimed:
>>
>> >Zero <zero...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> >> na...@gekkografx.com (nancy) elited:
>> >> >i'm talking about more than just reading [the classics].
>> >> >studying them. learning what they are about. what the
>> >> >author meant with that twist of phrase, that little bit
>> >> >inserted there [snip]
>> >>
>> >> and you don't see this whole dynamic as promoting
>> >> misunderstanding?
>
>not even close. it *fosters* understanding. that can't
>be THAT hard to grasp, zer'.
well... if everyone studied the exact same "canon"
using the exact same interpretation as given by the
exact same teacher... your studying "the classics"
would be successful in that regard. of course, everyone
would be brainwashed beyond belief, but... there'd be
little in the way of misunderstandings. <g>
my point was that, as writers, we should strive to
use the least possible references. that is the best
way to create a work which stands on its own.
even if it re-tells some other "classic" story.
the more references a writing includes, the less it is
likely to be understood for what it is. get it?
i notice that you skipped answering me directly.
that youi piggybacked on someone else's post.
is it because the other post contained ideas that
you were so opposed to considering that you didn't
even want to snip them directly? LOL.
i'm not sure, 'cause i haven't checked back to the
original post yet, but it wouldn't surprise me.
[nancy's ego-meter blips to the red]
>> >> especially given that no two people interpret
>> >> the same thing from the classics? as an example,
>> >> recall Deck's interpretation of the Godfather
>> >> movies. and the disagreements between those of us
>> >> who DID see them.
>
>zero, it's not a matter of interpretation. it's a matter
>of having a common language.
are you making "demands"?
or are you merely making "suggestions" here?
NOTE: the above is a joke in reference to what started
this whole interesting discussion.
anyway, a common language is difficult enough to accomplish.
and you want to litter writings with specific references and
you see this as promoting understanding?
perhaps in our hyperlinked world, making various references
is not so self-defeating for a writer. but, on the whole
i still think a writer's work is better served by making
as few references as possible. just my opinion.
look, before you blow a gasket, i enjoy the reference-heavy
work of Monty Python, Woody Allen, Dennis Miller, etc..
but, at the core of their work is a basic talent for
expression.
i may not get all their references, but they provide such
a great "spine" that i don't need to. i concede the value
of references. i use them myself. however, the best way
to do so is as frosting, not meat.
the core of a writer's work should be able to express
itself without any references. that's where the best
writers/communicators/artists succeed.
>had you read and understood MacBeth, you would have
>immediately twigged to pastorio's use of "sound and fury"
nancy? that may not have been intentional on Bob's part.
he may have just as well been rambling away...
let's not treat his little string of nouns as some sort
of literary accomplishment. he's just not that clever.
>... you would have had a frame of reference. as it was,
>you went off half-cocked and LOLing on his use of "fury"
>as though he were saying you were furious (angry), as
>opposed to grandstanding on a futility.
i understood that implication without knowing the source.
that's Bob's standard mode of opinion regarding me and
some others whenever what he says is challenged in any
way.
>the "grandstanding on a futility" understanding of that
>passage is nearly universal, unless you're a moron.
i must be a moron, then.
i still dispute that it was intentional on his part.
regardless, i wasn't "grandstanding on a futility."
(if i had been, i highly doubt that Pastorio would
have bothered to respond).
i was writing my opinions of the hypocrisy of the proponents
of MWM. there's simply no getting around that. even with
this interesting tangent, the truth remains. and the fact is
that i don't consider discussing said hypocrisy a futility.
i consider it a public service. <g>
>> >Which neatly makes nancy's point, since Deck had
>> >deliberately not seen the film /read the books.
>
>yes.
no
>> no, actually, that part makes my point, since Deck is obviously
>> not some village idiot just because he didn't see the Godfather
>> movies. his life is not tragic because he hasn't seen this
>> classic tragedy.
>
>oh for pity's sake! it has *nothing* to do with someone
>being considered an "idiot" because he had chosen not to
>read something! if that's what you got out of what i'm saying,
>then you *are* an idiot!
sorry, but that's where the discussion went. i took absolutely
no offense, mind you. i just started debating the nonsense.
>if you got out of this that i'm saying someone's life is
>*tragic* because they have chosen to limit themselves,
>then you are *definitely* an idiot.
well... _i_ think it's tragic when people choose to limit
themselves (but not all self-imposed limitations are equal
in this regard). i was simply explaining the brainwash
behind what most here believe is essential to being, or
becoming, a good writer. YMMV.
>you're just proving over and over and over again how
>narrow you are!
am i?
>deck deliberately chose to limit himself.
as have i.
>if someone had, in a conversation with deck, inserted a
>phrase from that series of books that had some meaning
>that was germane to the conversation, deck *might* have
>lost out on that meaning unless he could glean it from
>the over all context. if he were as blind to other
>possibilities of meanings as you were with pastorio's
>reference to "sound and fury", then he would have
>gleaned the *wrong* meaning.
what a tragedy.
regardless, _i_ understood Pastorio's position.
i just didn't know the source of my understanding.
so what?
>thus, communications were not served because deck was
>not familiar with as much as he could be familiar with.
nobody is. which is why i say that, the least references
a writer uses, the better. in conversational mode, the
use of references is not so "damaging" to communications
due to the fact that it is a conversation and there is a
feedback which occurs. like this one, for instance.
>further clarification would be necessary, and an element
>of richness to the conversation would have been lost.
oh my.
anyway, i disagree. otherwise, we'd all be talking like so:
YMMV. LOL. IOW... ROTFLMAO. BTW: NIMHO. HTH.
>is it tragic? no! in fact, potentially the opposite, as
>hopefully in the course of explaining things, deck may have
>learned something. (note: we hold no such hopes for you, zero)
that is wise. <g>
>does it make deck an idiot for not knowing Puzo's work?
>hardly! it makes him *limited* in that respect.
agreed. i never disputed that. i only suggested that
such limitations are not important in the grand scheme
of things. and certainly not in writing. in fact, just
the opposite. it is you and the others that imply otherwise.
>but, hell! everyone is limited in many respects ...
>some willingly, some out of ignorance (irony alert!)
>and some just from lack of opportunity ... they haven't
>gotten to it yet and may never.
i'm glad you're finally arguing my point for me.
it's much less taxing.
>> OTOH, being that there was (and always be) disagreement
>> about the import, meaning and value of the Godfather movies,
>> that also proves my point.
>
>yeah, but your point is pointless. it has nothing
>to do with what i am saying.
yes it does, because, if deck is having a conversation
with someone who makes a godfather reference and deck
HAS seen the movie, BUT... deck has a different _take_
on the meaning of the reference, deck may believe that
the person making the reference shares his opinion
about said reference, thus, deck will have lost the same
"richness" you spoke of, but in a different way.
six of one, half dozen of another.
>> the best thing about audio/visual communication is that, in
>> such mediums, there's less likely to be misinterpretations.
>> (unfortunately, this is also the worst thing about the medium)
>
>oh, this is a laugh. there are going to be misinterpretations
>regardless,
there's far less room for misinterpretation when a story
is expressed audio/visually (assuming its expressed even
remotely well using that rich platform).
>but, more laughably, mr "i'm not brainwashed" ...
>you're swallowing the whole load of that *one* possible
>interpretation ... that of the director/producer/actor.
of course. but that doesn't mean that i _buy_ that one
interpretation as _representative_ of the absolute truth.
(assuming your talking about biographical or historical
films -- or even films based on books)
duh...
i mean, look at "Cape Fear" there was Hitchcock's version,
and then there was Scorces' version. and look at
"The Ten Commandments." there was Cecil B Demille's
original version (in B&W) and then Chuck Heston's.
>swallowing it, smacking your lips and begging for
>"more, please."
if they did a good job, yes. certainly. "more, please."
>and you're not brainwashed? LOL!
that's for me to know and for you to ponder. <g>
>nancy
-$Zero... AmazingTheSmokeAndMirrors... AndSoundAndFury...
ThatSomePeopleWillResortTo... ToAvoidTalkingTurkey..
"whatever colors you have...
in your mind...
i show them to you...
and you see them shine..."
-- Bob Dylan
[song: "Lay Lady Lay"]
http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/
Paul Harwood
<Back-n-forth twixt me-n-her>
>> There's an interesting essay by TS Eliot that you might want to look up:
>> It's called "Tradition and the Individual Talent". Eliot's position is
>> that no artist can excel without drawing on the efforts of those who have
>> gone before.
>
>perhaps. this goes to my question of would we be doomed to reinventing the
>wheel without what went on before.
The answer, I think, is yes. Didn't someone once say that those who ignore
history are doomed to repeat it? Of course, Henry Ford once said "History is
bunk", so take your pick.
>> He wrote two epic poems -- "Venus and Adonis" and "The Rape of Lucrece" --
>> but, AFAIK, they were written early in his career, to prove his literary
>> chops, and once he broke into playwrighting he never looked back.
>> Basically, he went where the money was. Can't blame him for that.
>
>no, not at all. do you know who his muses were?
Not sure what you mean by this. Muses?
>> >i do not do well when reading one of
>> >his plays while continually reading the side notes to help me understand
>> >what he's saying. yet when watching his plays, i seem to pick up on and
>> >understand those areas that i don't understand when reading him. it may be
>> >an attention thing.
>>
>> No, it's because the actors have understood the play for you. Their
>> readings make the lines clear.
>
>yes. that's my point. sort of. well, in all events, it's important that
>*someone* read him for his legacy to continue, isn't it? <g>
At this point, I doubt it. So many of his aphorisms and tropes have found
their way into common usage that he could arguably live forever without
anyone ever reading another of his plays. The difference is that those who
have read his plays know where the aphorisms and tropes originate. They have
a slightly different understanding of the meaning of the language.
> i'm not against
>reading him, and i'm not scoffing at those who do as though it's an
>unnecessary exercise. i guess i'm just fighting this seeming insistence that
>it _is_ necessary for communication or a well-balanced mind or something of
>that nature.
I hope I haven't implied that. Communication can always find a lowest common
denominator. What knowledge of Shakespeare <and the classics> gives us, I
think, is richer appreciation of our culture and deeper insight into human
nature. If we are writers, then we see how the masters have carried it off
and we attempt to learn from them. And I still think that it's difficult to
be an exceptional writer without at least a passing acquaintance with the
classics.
>> >> Shakespeare's combination of
>> >> poetic genius and clear insight into the workings of the human soul is
>> >> pretty much unparalleled. We owe any number of linguistic tropes to him.
>> >
>> >i'm sure we do. but how many people know which ones they are?
>>
>> People who read Shakespeare :-)
>
>exactly. and then it all depends on if you've read that particular play.
>have you read all of his plays?
Nope.
>if not, do you think that you should?
Well, maybe not. Some of his early stuff isn't that great. Stuff like Henry
VI pt I, for example, can be thuddingly dull.
>which plays are the culturally relevant ones?
Good grief. Want to learn about love in difficult circumstances? Read Romeo
& Juliet. Father-daughter relationships? Read Lear. Jealousy? Read Othello.
The limits of ambition? Read Macbeth and Richard III. What it means to lead
in difficult circumstances? Read Henry V. Revenge? Read Hamlet. How
indecision can bring you down? Read Richard II. And the list goes on and on.
>does it depend on the group one is interacting with?
Not in the least. It depends on how curious you are about human nature, and,
I think, how much cultural resonance you want to build into your writing. If
you want to write about a young man whose uncle murdered his father and
married his mother, then you are absolutely crippled if you don't know
Hamlet -- not because you are in some way a lesser writer, but because your
*readers* will expect the resonance.
>i'd say romeo and juliet would be the most culturally
>relevant, most required during those first 12 years of education.
I'd say that any number of them are culturally relevant, and I'd be hard
pressed to pick one as "most relevant". I think it depends on your situation
:-)
--
Paul Harwood
Paul Harwood
>my point was that, as writers, we should strive to
>use the least possible references. that is the best
>way to create a work which stands on its own.
>
>even if it re-tells some other "classic" story.
Blech. If you write fiction about jealousy in an interracial marriage, your
readers will think you an illiterate boob if it isn't clear that you know
Othello. Why? Because Othello is an archetype, and all such stories will
contain echoes, however, faint, of Othello and Desdemona. Just because *you*
are ignorant of our cultural archetypes doesn't mean that your *readers*
will be.
>the more references a writing includes, the less it is
>likely to be understood for what it is. get it?
No. In fact, I disagree with this pretty much completely.
--
Paul Harwood
Paul Harwood
>my point was that, as writers, we should strive to
>use the least possible references. that is the best
>way to create a work which stands on its own.
>
>even if it re-tells some other "classic" story.
This is so completely wrongheaded that I can't get past it. Here's a chunk
from Eliot's "Tradition and the Individual Talent":
"Yet if the only form of tradition, of handing down, consisted in following
the ways of the immediate generation before us in a blind or timid adherence
to its successes, "tradition" should positively be discouraged. We have seen
many such simple currents soon lost in the sand; and novelty is better than
repetition. Tradition is a matter of much wider significance. It cannot be
inherited, and if you want it you must obtain it by great labour. It
involves, in the first place, the historical sense, which we may call nearly
indispensable to anyone who would continue to be a poet beyond his
twenty-fifth year; and the historical sense involves a perception, not only
of the pastness of the past, but of its presence; the historical sense
compels a man to write not merely with his own generation in his bones, but
with a feeling that the whole of the literature of Europe from Homer and
within it the whole of the literature of his own country has a simultaneous
existence and composes a simultaneous order. This historical sense, which is
a sense of the timeless as well as of the temporal and of the timeless and
of the temporal together, is what makes a writer traditional. And it is at
the same time what makes a writer most acutely conscious of his place in
time, of his contemporaneity.
"No poet, no artist of any art, has his complete meaning alone. His
significance, his appreciation is the appreciation of his relation to the
dead poets and artists. You cannot value him alone; you must set him, for
contrast and comparison, among the dead. I mean this as a principle of
æsthetic, not merely historical, criticism."
You can find the entire essay at
http://www.bartleby.com/200/sw4.html
--
Paul Harwood
KMadeleine
says...
>
>On Fri, 21 Jul 2000 12:04:23 -0400, The Penniless Apprentice said:
[snip]
>> i'm not against
>>reading him, and i'm not scoffing at those who do as though it's an
>>unnecessary exercise. i guess i'm just fighting this seeming insistence that
>>it _is_ necessary for communication or a well-balanced mind or something of
>>that nature.
>
>I hope I haven't implied that. Communication can always find a lowest common
>denominator. What knowledge of Shakespeare <and the classics> gives us, I
>think, is richer appreciation of our culture and deeper insight into human
>nature. If we are writers, then we see how the masters have carried it off
>and we attempt to learn from them. And I still think that it's difficult to
>be an exceptional writer without at least a passing acquaintance with the
>classics.
[snip]
>
>>i'd say romeo and juliet would be the most culturally
>>relevant, most required during those first 12 years of education.
>
>I'd say that any number of them are culturally relevant, and I'd be hard
>pressed to pick one as "most relevant". I think it depends on your situation
>:-)
has anybody here read jacques barzun's 'from dawn to
decadence: 500 years of western cultural life'? i've read
_about_ it in at least four places, but haven't read the
book itself...it lists at $36 and is more than 800 pages
long.
it does sound really interesting though.
nancy
in <8la78b$40r7p$1...@ID-39564.news.cis.dfn.de>:
>yet, if pastorio had not used that phrase, assuming that it would
>be understood, there would have been no misunderstanding in the
>first place. (though i concede that being among writers that
>assumption is a valid one.)
yes, let us all dumb down our language, our cultural
influences, because zero doesn't understand them.
(deliberate exaggeration ... you see where i'm going
with this?)
sorry, but i'm talking to two points here:
1) i don't give a fuck if zero undestood it. i *do*
give a fuck that someone is suggesting that people should
NOT take the time to learn as much as they can, out of
some fear that such learning will 'brainwash' us and
reduce our creativity. i *do* give a fuck that that
same person is suggesting that he is somehow superior
to us because we know that reference and he does not.
at the same time, this person (and you) is suggesting
that *we* are acting somehow "elitist" when we note
that someone unfamiliar with the passages in question
is unfamiliar with the intended meaning of a large
body of work which is founded on those passages and
archtypes.
2) pastorio made the reference drawing on the cultural
and educational standards a body of writers would be
expected to have. for the most part, those writers
*do* share those standards. the outliers are left out,
by definition. there is no moral judgement on this statement.
it is a plain fact.
>
>>
>> the "grandstanding on a futility" understanding of that
>> passage is nearly universal, unless you're a moron.
>
>should we take a poll and see how many morons we have here? <g>
>when i hear the term sound and fury, i interpret it as thrashing
>about uselessly. i guess that would be close to grandstanding on a
>futility.
snipped out of context. had you been familiar with the
works (studied them) and did not get the reference, then
you may be "educationally challenged" ... as it is, you
are "reference challenged" ... you have not studied the
works in question.
thrashing about uselessly is a good enough interpretation.
"zero is angry" is not.
>> deck deliberately chose to limit himself. if someone had,
>> in a conversation with deck, inserted a phrase from that
>> series of books that had some meaning that was germane to
>> the conversation, deck *might* have lost out on that meaning
>> unless he could glean it from the over all context. if
>> he were as blind to other possibilities of meanings as you
>> were with pastorio's reference to "sound and fury", then he
>> would have gleaned the *wrong* meaning. thus, communications
>> were not served because deck was not familiar with as
>> much as he could be familiar with. further clarification
>> would be necessary, and an element of richness to the
>> conversation would have been lost.
>>
>
>but, nancy, this is entirely zero's point. he's saying that if we
>would cut out the references that only particular groups might be
>familiar with, we can communicate with one another more clearly,
>rather than saying things that go over people's heads.
those "particular groups" are heavily represented in this
forum, arleen.
and for those who are unfamiliar, they get the opportunity
to infer from context, or, better, to ask questions and thus
*learn*.
since, in addition to self-entertainment, i use usenet
to learn something ... well ...
>there is
>value to be seen on both sides of this issue.
you keep trying to put "value" on this. i'm telling
you that there is just plain fact.
you either "got" what pastorio was saying, or you didn't.
you either expand your knowledge, or you limit yourself.
>but while you and i may prefer knowing the context of the
>references and what they may mean, zero is stressing that if we
>stopped communicating in those terms, and communicated in a more
>universal manner, i.e. using terms that no one could (i was going
>to say misinterpret, but that, too, is impossible <g>)... using
>terms that everyone could understand, there might be a better
>level of communication all around. i say might. i don't know. is
>it even possible to communicate without the common references that
>litter our culture?
>
that's bullshit. dumb down your talk so that anyone
can understand you? no way, babe. first of all, there
is no way to do that without resorting to grunts and
points, and even THOSE would be misinterpreted! secondly,
there is merit in raising the bar, understanding the
archtypes and cultural heritage, and making the effort
to learn as much as possible.
else, what the hell are we here for?
--
n
Ultimate office automation: networked coffee.
Keltic
<pa...@computerbits.com> wrote:
>The answer, I think, is yes. Didn't someone once say that those who ignore
>history are doomed to repeat it? Of course, Henry Ford once said "History is
>bunk", so take your pick.
He also said "Any colour you like as long as it's black" so he might
not be a great authority :)
Cheers, Keltic
nancy
na...@gekkografx.com (nancy) said:
arleen had written:
>>but while you and i may prefer knowing the context of the
>>references and what they may mean, zero is stressing that if
>>we stopped communicating in those terms, and communicated in
>>a more universal manner, i.e. using terms that no one could
>>(i was going to say misinterpret, but that, too, is
>>impossible <g>)... using terms that everyone could
>>understand, there might be a better level of communication
>>all around. i say might. i don't know. is it even possible
>>to communicate without the common references that litter our
>>culture?
>>
>
>that's bullshit. dumb down your talk so that anyone
>can understand you? no way, babe. first of all, there
>is no way to do that without resorting to grunts and
>points, and even THOSE would be misinterpreted! secondly,
>there is merit in raising the bar, understanding the
>archtypes and cultural heritage, and making the effort
>to learn as much as possible.
>
>else, what the hell are we here for?
>
let me give it another crack:
let's pretend we have established this "universal
mode of communication" ... it is a language, and must
draw on everything that a language draws on. that
is to say ... cultural influences of some "agreed
upon" nature, mixed in with "commonly understood
historical lexicographical terminology" ... and
everything else that goes into a language.
somehow or other, we have *all* agreed to this
universal language. everyone understands it, right?
we've all been educated from the day we were born
to understand this language.
now. along comes a person who goes by the moniker
"One". "One" is a "differently thinking" individual.
"One" doesn't believe she should have to have
studied all the nuances of that commonly agreed
upon universal communication mode. she finds it
stilts her creativity to be forced to learn it.
she learns just enough to get by, but leaves out
huge ragged chunks of it because they are "brainwash".
and along comes another person, who goes by the
moniker "WealthyJourneyman" ... he kind of, sort
of, sees where One is coming from. and he now
proposes that we all settle on yet *another*
"universal language", one that does not depend
on the influences that One disagrees with, one that
dispenses with common references that litters our
culture because not everyone might be that familiar
with that culture. after all, hundreds of years
have passed since that language was formed and
those old moldy cultural influences are just
so much brainwash, aren't they?
what do we do next?
do we subscribe to the theory of impoverishing our
culture and our language because some people are
either too lazy to learn the references, or too
enamored of their philosophical "puritanism" to
bother to learn them, or are *against* the elitism
that goes into learning these references?
how does one come up with a "universal mode of
communication" that dispenses with all cultural
influence?
and, finally, how destitute ... how *barren* is
that mode of communication?
--
n
If one synchronized swimmer drowns, do the rest have to drown
too?
Zero
"...and that, my liege,
is how we know the Earth
to be banana-shaped."
-- Bedevere [actor: Terry Jones, from the movie:
"Monty Python and the Holy Grail" (1974)]
Re: Universal Themes (was: Re: Sound and fury... )
>Zero wrote:
>
>> 875k
>>
>> "You know what you need? Shakubuku.
>> It's a swift, spiritual kick to the head
>> that alters your reality forever."
>> -- Debi Newberry [actor: Minnie Driver; from
>> the movie: "Grosse Pointe Blank" (1997)]
>
> A truly great movie. I can't remember the
> "shakubuku" scene...oh well.
the best scene is when he looks into the baby's eyes
and has a revelation.
>> i'm only suggesting that NOT reading any of the above (or others)
>> is not a reason to belittle anyone, nor is it even remotely a
>> necessity for being, or becoming, a writer (or other artist).
>> i'm suggesting that those who think otherwise are simply [brainwashed].
>> does that come across as denigration? it's not meant to.
>
> I think you're trying to get too much milage out of a not
>very useful idea of people's being "brainwahed"...
you may be right.
BTW: what is "milage"? is it like brainwah several miles away?
>People get more or less taught certain things by circumstances
>that may more or less amount to a "culture"...but so what?
well... when you put it THAT way...
but brainwash goes beyond just cultural styles, it's in science too.
like... long ago "scientists" were certain that the world was flat,
etc.. but, science is much better at recognizing it's brainwashes
than other "institutions." it attempts to reject them by it's very
nature.
in a cultural sense though, i think we'd all benefit if we were
a bit more skeptical of the value of some of our beliefs which
are clearly bad for us. if we were, we'd probably make much better
use of our time. we'd evolve quicker. and have more fun.
but maybe we shouldn't. i have no idea.
are our erroneous prejudices good for us?
(try saying that aloud -- and fast. <g>)
are our erroneous prejudices good for us?
personally, i don't think so. but i may be wrong.
>>i mean, look... have any Chinese writers read Proust? or Shakespear?
>
> I'm not a Chinese writer. I've read Proust and Shakespear. So?
i'm not a Chinese writer either.
and i've only read some Shakespear. So?
i know you get my point, but i'll elaborate anyway for those who didn't.
500 years ago in China, there was no Shakespear.
did that stop Chinese writers from writing? no. furthermore, how
much different are Buddhism's principles compared to Judeo-Christian
values? some radicals might argue that there's no similarities
at all, that Buddhists are hell-bound heathens. maybe they're right.
god only knows. <g>
(not to mention those godless atheists).
do all the writers and artists in all the cultures on earth follow
the same idea as has been expressed here: the concept of stressing
the importance of learning classical "canons" before embarking on
creating works. do they? all of them? maybe. i have no idea
whatsoever. because i've never considered it until now.
(at least not on a global scale). if true, it seems weird to me,
but that's me. i guess i'm the odd one out here.
in any case, Shakespear had to happen at some point, right?
what if he was never born? or what if his mother accidently
dropped him on his head when he was an infant? what would
have happened to western civilization?
hmm... that'd be an interesting idea for a science fiction premise.
probably already done, right?
>> for the sake of argument, how about the "writers" on Mars?
>
> I'm not a Martian Writer and neither are you.
i see your point, but do you see mine?
>> have all the "real" Martian writers read Proust, Faulkner or
>> Hemingway?
>
> No. There are no Martian writers, so they haven't been
>reading anything.
well... suppose that there was another planet somewhere in
the vast universe with intelligent beings on it. do you
seriously think that they would evolve just like us?
would they have a "canon" of literature to base all future
literature on?
what proof do you have? is the proof (or theory) based on
how other cultures here on earth have evolved in what seems
to be a pretty similar fashion?
that _seems_ reasonable.
but is it really the only way to work? to "stand on the
shoulders of giants"? is it so strange to think that
art or literature can be created independent of conventional
wisdom? i would say that conventional wisdom should be
wise enough to recognize that most innovation occurs
pretty much spontaneously... limited only by the resources
and tools available to the artists/inventors... not necesarily
the artist's knowledge of existing art. (though, that can
certainly be a tool/resource as well.)
obviously, many inventions are based on previous inventions.
but does anyone actually think that every inventor (or even most),
was a well-read scholar in his/her field? i would say that most
inventions to date were more likely due to some inventive
person being in an inventive frame of mind while some random
occurrence of some sort happened which the inventor then
employed into some sort of new concept.
true, Thomas Edison puposely set out to create the electric
lightbulb. but what gave him the original inspiration?
afterall, darkness had been around for quite some time. <g>
sure, without the existence of controlled electricity, wires,
and gas lanterns... it probably would have never occurred
to him. but these things were all there for many other people
to contemplate. something sure clicked... and voila! lightbulb.
of course, finding the right element to use as a filament was
no easy task. much research was probably done at _that_ point.
so what is the analogy to literature? well... there are
ten million stories in the big city... <g>
>> people here seem to think that there is only one reasonable
>> way to "enlightenment." or that there's only one reasonable
>> way to "evolve." i think that this is a very limited way to
>> think and strongly suggests brainwash.
>
> Or Brainwah.
<g> yeah... brainwah.
>I can only think of one method for enlightenment: getting
>brainwahed to some degree and then learning to think
>critically about brainwah.
yeah, but what if the method for obtaining enlightenment
is just the opposite? <g>
>> Pastorio posted about successfully "integrating" into a culture.
>> that kind of talk concerns me. it suggests that only certain
>> predetermined opinions will be "tolerated." this is not a
>> formula for the betterment of mankind. quite the opposite.
>
> Of course it is the formula. You have to get some brainwah
>to get some enlightenment. You can't get enlightened by having
>nothing to do with brainwah. There is always some brainwah.
>You have to learn to deal with brainwah in an enlightened way.
i don't know... seems like a lot of work for nothing.
it's much easier to just stay brainwashed.
>You never can tell......[...]........Pete
-$Zero... Hey... ThanksPete...
NowI'm_ALL_Confused...
Mommy!... IWantMyMommy!...
<g>
"paradise... is exactly like...
where you are _right_ now...
only... much... _much_... *Betterrrr*..."
-- Laurie Anderson
[song: "Language is a Virus"; from
the album: "Home of the Brave"]
Zero
Re: Semantic Bingo! (was: Sound and Fury...)
Paul Harwood pa...@computerbits.com disproved my concept:
well... that settles that.
>You can find the entire essay at
>http://www.bartleby.com/200/sw4.html
>
>Paul Harwood
-$Zero... WhenI'mWrong... I'mWrong...
TSEliot... WouldCertainlyKnowForSure...
FurtherDebateIsOnThisTopicIsThereforePointless...
Cody A. Stanley III
"Zero" <zero...@aol.com> wrote: :
:
: "...and that, my liege,
It is possible, that a Chinese writer of 500 years ago innovated something
new in reaction to a shakespearean-like writer of six hundred years ago.
: furthermore, how
: much different are Buddhism's principles compared to Judeo-Christian
: values? some radicals might argue that there's no similarities
: at all, that Buddhists are hell-bound heathens. maybe they're right.
: god only knows. <g>
:
<snipped interesting Shakespeare X-files episode and contemplation of
Martian writers>:
: would they have a "canon" of literature to base all future
: literature on?
They would at least develop a system of folklore which reflects the
evolution of their culture since remembered time (this of course presumes
that Matians jhave a memory).
: what proof do you have? is the proof (or theory) based on
: how other cultures here on earth have evolved in what seems
: to be a pretty similar fashion?
Yes.
: that _seems_ reasonable.
Yes.
: but is it really the only way to work?
Not necesarily. A good example: Ezra Pound pretty much rejected the Western
Canon. He insteadm coincidentally delved into the Chinese canon. But still
a canon, nonetheless, though not of his own cultutre. His study of the
Chinese writers and the reflection of it in his work did (at least
momentarily) alter the canon of his own culture.
: to "stand on the
: shoulders of giants"? is it so strange to think that
: art or literature can be created independent of conventional
: wisdom? i would say that conventional wisdom should be
: wise enough to recognize that most innovation occurs
: pretty much spontaneously...
: limited only by the resources
: and tools available to the artists/inventors...
not necesarily
: the artist's knowledge of existing art. (though, that can
: certainly be a tool/resource as well.)
I beleive you have argued aginst yourself here. Usually, the tools and
resources available are 'the canon'. Now, to help prove your point I offer
Picasso. His work is seemingly disconected from what came before it. We
all know he could paint regular, but he choose not too. What he did as an
artist did not really follow a typical evolution(one movement leading into
the next) and seemed not to rely on previous inventions. This makes sense
until you read Gertrude Stein who is doing almost the same thing in
writing. So now there seems to be at least some contemplation(and possible
conspiricy?) on behalf of Picaso and Stein as to what will be the next
'thing', manner of comunicating ideas. The reason Picaso was unsucessful
for so long was because the rest of the world did not speak the language of
his art. Evenetually, because of more exposure to similar artist expression
whether in writing or art proper, the masses learned the language and his
work was accepted as part of the canon.
See, the thing is, the canon is always changing. (See TS Eliot's essays)
:
: obviously, many inventions are based on previous inventions.
But more importantly, are based on new information which has become a part
of 'science' or engineering through the establishment and testing of a group
of ideas and theories.
:
<snipped bit that confused me>
: true, Thomas Edison puposely set out to create the electric
: lightbulb. but what gave him the original inspiration?
: afterall, darkness had been around for quite some time. <g>
So had candles and gas lights. He applied inspiration with the knowledge of
chemistry and other sciences as established in the 'canon' of scientific
knowledge.
Here I will admit the falibilty of any such canon of knwoledge. Of course
world flatness was once a part of this canon. Stauncly believed to be true.
The scientist proved that this was false only because part of this canon
also held true. It's a double edged sword sometimes.
<snip>
:
: so what is the analogy to literature? well... there are
: ten million stories in the big city... <g>
Perhaps more, but a formalist critic could probably narrow them down to a
few hundred(if not fewer) general kinds.
:
:
: >> people here seem to think that there is only one reasonable
: >> way to "enlightenment." or that there's only one reasonable
: >> way to "evolve." i think that this is a very limited way to
: >> think and strongly suggests brainwash.
I beleive it is limited as well. however I don't think its quite brainwash.
For instance, if you have a problem with Shakes peare, you could write a
novel which confronts through plot and character development how Hamlet as a
charcter is a failure. This book might be so widely understood and accepted
that eventually Hamlet is dropped from the canon. The megalanguage of
literature must be consistent in order for conversation and
change/eveolution to occur within an art form.
: > Or Brainwah.
:
: <g> yeah... brainwah.
:
:
<snipped something here but I think I was hypnotized into doing and don't
recall exactly what I did.>
:
: >You never can tell......[...]........Pete
Unless it smells then throw it away.
:
: -$Zero... Hey... ThanksPete...
: NowI'm_ALL_Confused...
:
: Mommy!... IWantMyMommy!...
:
: <g>
:
:
: "paradise... is exactly like...
: where you are _right_ now...
: only... much... _much_... *Betterrrr*..."
: -- Laurie Anderson
: [song: "Language is a Virus"; from
: the album: "Home of the Brave"]
:
:
--
Cheers--
Cody A. Stanley III
"There is never any end. There are always new sounds to imagine;
new felings to get at. And always, there is the need to keep purifying
these feelings and sounds
so that we can really see what we've discovered in it's pure state.
So that we can see more and more clearly what we are.
In that way, we can give to those who listen the essence, the best of what
we are.
But to do that at each stage we have to keep on cleaning the mirror."
The Penniless Apprentice
news:8F78A9B8...@24.1.240.74...
normally, i would be inclined to laugh with enjoyment at your analogy and
applaud a good argument on your second crack at it, but the first crack
dulled the inclination.
sometimes grunts and points are preferable. other times, silence is bliss. i
think this is one of those other times. let the sound and fury cease.
what are we here for? i honestly wish i knew.
arleen
The Penniless Apprentice
> 875l
>
>
> "You know what you need? Shakubuku.
> It's a swift, spiritual kick to the head
> that alters your reality forever."
> -- Debi Newberry [actor: Minnie Driver; from
> the movie: "Grosse Pointe Blank" (1997)]
>
>
>
>
> ><snip>
> >
> >> the overall point is, humans are audio/visual beings.
> >> reading books, while useful for logistical reasons over
> >> the past 500+ years, is still an unnatural mode of
> >> communication and/or storytelling.
> >
> >oh, gracious, no!!! and no, again.
>
>
> LOL.
>
> "don't panic"
> -- Life, The Universe and Everything
i only panic on fridays. that gives me the weekend to recover. <g>
>
>
> >while we may be first and foremost audio/visual beings,
> >there is nothing unnatural in curling up with a good
> >book and visiting unknown places and people in one's
> >imagination. nothing unnatural AT ALL.
>
> well, nothing that man does is unnatural, by nature.
<g>
>
> not even watching TV.
>
> at the same time, some things are more natural than others. <g>
>
> but it IS true that the written word is a simply a mechanism
> invented to communicate. it's not something that a human being
> knows how to do without training. yet, a child does know how
> to watch and understand tv, or appreciate music, with no training
> whatsoever. in that sense, reading is extremely unnatural.
>
> capiche?
capiched.
>
> >we are also thinking beings, and the system of making marks
> >on a surface came about through the process of thinking of
> >a new way to communicate that was portable and lasting.
>
> yep. and that mechanism has brought us some great stuff, too.
>
> but... if "portability and lasting" is the only distinction,
> um... portable recordable DVDs and mini-cams will
> certainly eventually make this form of commuication
> obsolete. of course, they'll have to figure out some
> way to "index" sounds and images first. especially
> because, now are now addicted to keyword searches
> and such. right now, the written word "chocolate" is
> much easier to locate than the zillion different possible
> spoken versions of the word "chocolate." but that's
> certainly not an impossible obstacle to overcome.
>
> anyway, many people can speak the language without
> knowing how to read or write, true? see where i'm going
> with this?
oh, yes. but i fear you're going to put people in a tizzy with it. don't you
watch star trek? they're still reading. an oversight on the part of the
writers, do you think? <g>
>
> illiterates armed with portable DVD recorders and mini-cams
> would be able to both "read and write" without having to learn
> very much in the way of systematic stuff. the world may
> eventually become more intuitive than mechanical.
more intuitive? i think i see what you're saying, but not sure.
>
> imagine the shift in the types of literature which would be
> created if the mechanisms of communication could be just
> as easily used by three-yr-olds as they could by cynical adults.
> we might get a glimpse of some very interesting beauty.
<g> or some very interesting...something.
>
> HG Well's "Time Machine" vision didn't take recordable DVDs
> into consideration. what would a future world be like with
> that added tool? of course, it ALL the DVDs and mini-cams
> broke, or otherwise became unusable, things could get hairy.
i sometimes wonder what today's students would do without calculators.
>
> but there's the same basic problem with book burnings, though.
>
> however, assuming that these machines evolve to a point
> where they are as reliable as paper and pen, and assuming
> that their power source could be water or air or some other
> widely available resource, there would always be a DVD title
> that could teach you how to build more DVDs.
>
> really, our embracing of the written word is more sentimental
> than anything. (and that's an understatement).
at this point, i don't think so. our embracing of the way the written word
is now commonly produced-books-may be sentimental. it's a sensual thing for
me. i love the feel, texture, smell, etc. which is why i don't think that
i'd like some portable computer book thingy. i like turning pages. it feels
good.
but the written word itself? it's still vitally necessary beyond sentiment
until other ways, such as what you suggest, are invented.
i would hope that all the books written would be recorded somehow with
instructions on how to interpret them correctly, otherwise the ability to
read could well be lost. i don't think that would necessarily be a good
thing.
>
>
> >(if one excludes writings in the sand, of course.)
>
> sound and fury. <g>
>
> anyway, you actually think that the written word is lasting?
>
> think: "super nova."
you know what i meant. don't you be going semantical on me now.
>
>
> >arleen
> >don't tell me that my favorite activity is unnatural.
> >you'll give me a complex...of some kind...or another.
>
> heh. calm down... take a deep breath...
> and unleash your imagination.
if i could find what's been keeping it leashed and release it, i'd be only
too happy to do as you suggest.
oh, hey, wait. i found a challenge for your suggestion. how would one skim
through material? with visual equipment one could use a rewind and fast
forward that was adjustable for speed, but one wouldn't recognize what one
was skimming by fast forwarding or rewinding auditory inventions. and what
about blind or deaf people? they'd be more handicapped in such an
environment, wouldn't they?
arleen
Zero
"You know what you need? Shakubuku.
It's a swift, spiritual kick to the head
that alters your reality forever."
-- Debi Newberry [actor: Minnie Driver; from
the movie: "Grosse Pointe Blank" (1997)]
Re: Semantic Bingo! (was: Sound and Fury...)
Paul Harwood Pa...@computerbits.com wrote:
>Zero said in misc.writing:
>>-$Zero... WhenI'mWrong... I'mWrong...
>>TSEliot... WouldCertainlyKnowForSure...
>>FurtherDebateIsOnThisTopicIsThereforePointless...
>Glad we can agree on something.
well... that depends.
are you talking about line 1, 2 or 3?
if it's line 2, then we are in agreement only if
you concede to being sarcasticly-impaired.
if it's line 3, then we are not in agreement.
(for the same reason: your sarcasm deficiency)
if it's line 1, then we are definitely in agreement...
(except we probably disagree about any specifics.)
>Paul Harwood
-$Zero... ButIDon'tWantTo"Split"HairsHere...
LestIBePerceivedAs... OrAccusedOf... "IssuingDemands"...
AndBThuseConsidered... A"Cassandra"... ForEverMore...
"may you build a ladder to the stars...
and climb on... every rung...
and may you stayyy... forever young"
-- Bob Dylan
[song: "Forever Young"]
http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/
Dick Harper
> 500 years ago in China, there was no Shakespear.
>
> did that stop Chinese writers from writing? ...
No, but it's reasonable to assume that most Chinese writers
do write within their own cultural experience. A Chinese writer
wouldn't use the Huxley but certainly would draw on thousands of
years of his or her own traditions.
> do all the writers and artists in all the cultures on earth follow
> the same idea as has been expressed here: the concept of stressing
> the importance of learning classical "canons" before embarking on
> creating works. do they? all of them? maybe. i have no idea
> whatsoever. because i've never considered it until now.
> (at least not on a global scale).
Of course not. That doens't make it less important.
> if true, it seems weird to me,
> but that's me. i guess i'm the odd one out here.
<g>
--Dick
Dick Harper
> this was not zero's doing, it was dick's. he took zero's moniker, and my
> moniker and put them together to make us look like the same person. i may
> think it's funny when people have suggested in the past that they thought
> zero and i were the same person, and i may like zero considerably well, but
> i DO NOT wish to be definitively seen as him, thank you very much.
Mea culpa.
I didn't see Zero's original post, merely Arleen's quote.
When I responded to Zero, I lopped off 'Penniless' and didn't
notice that I had left 'Apprentice.' I apologize.
--Dick
Dick Harper
> > > Would your father belittle someone who has read Shakespear
> > > or Proust, Faulkner or Hemingway? I didn't think so.
> oops. probably misread. again. are you trying to make the point that you
> think that zero is belittling those that read them?
Yes. I thought I made that clear in another post. When
Zero wrote:
'i suppose such trivia as you surely
know might be useful if one were a
contestant on "who wants to be a
millionaire" ... '
I took that to mean he considers studying cultural literacy
useless.
> was it his use of the
> word trivia with regards to such knowledge? well, in essence, most knowledge
> is just that-trivia. how useful is it in day to day living to know the
> classics? that they make our lives richer, just as any other art form would
> doesn't change the nature of the subject matter. trivia. unimportant. except
> to those who find it important. that doesn't mean that he is belittling
> those who do find it important, simply that he has a different viewpoint.
> imo, if there was anything that he was belittling in the other post you
> responded to it was what he believed to be a conformist attitude regarding
> the importance of knowing the classics.
Culture depends on a lot of such "trivia."
Elvis died August 16, 1977. On August 17, 1977, our kids
asked, "Who's Elvis?"
The knives, the forks, the spoons, and the lapwear of our
lives have time-honored positions. The problems with silver and
snails in Pretty Woman made clear that we are slowly losing that
bit of our culture.
Should we care that Gardiner was the Bishop of Winchester
in Henry the Eighth or that Gardiner was Mrs. Bennett's brother
in Pride and Prejudice? Is it important what Holden Caulfield
did? Or why Frank thinks the Algonquin Round Table is on
mescaline? What about the invention of cavorite? A material
that is opaque to gravity is pretty important to the growth of
an entire genre of popular literature.
Belittling culture or cultural literacy diminishes us.
Each time Zero or Bart Simpson or [pick-the-public-figure-of-
your-choice] grunts that we need not study or that the smart
kids are dorks, Tom and Mabel, Lance and Brittany tune out in
history or pass by a classic in the library. When your children
and mine know less, we prove Santayana right once again.
Culture depends on what was here called trivia.
Without shared beliefs, shared knowledge, and shared
tradition we might as well just root around in our asphalt
jungle.
--Dick
Dick Harper
> the overall point is, humans are audio/visual beings. reading books,
> while useful for logistical reasons over the past 500+ years, is
> still an unnatural mode of communication and/or storytelling.
I'm not sure how Zero got here from disparaging cultural
literacy, but he has a point.
Our early newsbearers and storytellers were certainly
announcers. With the increasing literacy of the population, the
printed word became the easiest way to disseminate information.
Today, audio broadcasts, video broadcasts, and printed
broadcasts all vie for our attention.
Right here, of course, we are using the _printed_ word
despite the electronic boradcast.
When I teach, I prefer lecture over all other forms of
imparting information. That fits Zero's suggestion that simply
publishing a textbook is not a natural way of communicating.
Unfortunately, when I study, I prefer a combination of hands-on
practice, visual aids, and reading. I would posit that these
different _learning_ styles drive all the media choices we have
today. Some people prefer action video, others listen, or
practice. Some prefer reading.
--Dick
Zero
[after repeating his third or fourth Feb. 2nd]
"I'm not gonna play...
by their rules...
anymore..."
-- Bill Murray
[movie: "Groundhog's Day"]
Re: Universal Themes (was: Re: Sound and fury... )
"Cody A. Stanley III" cas...@yahoo.com wrote:
>"Zero" <zero...@aol.com> wrote: :
>: >Zero wrote:
>: >> 875k
[...]
>: in a cultural sense though, i think we'd all benefit if we were
>: a bit more skeptical of the value of some of our beliefs which
>: are clearly bad for us. if we were, we'd probably make much better
>: use of our time. we'd evolve quicker. and have more fun.
>:
>: but maybe we shouldn't. i have no idea.
>:
>: are our erroneous prejudices good for us?
>: (try saying that aloud -- and fast. <g>)
>:
>: are our erroneous prejudices good for us?
>: personally, i don't think so. but i may be wrong.
>:
>:
>: >>i mean, look... have any Chinese writers read Proust?
>: >>or Shakespear?
>: >
>: >I'm not a Chinese writer. I've read Proust and Shakespear. So?
>:
>: i'm not a Chinese writer either.
>: and i've only read some Shakespear. So?
>:
>: i know you get my point, but i'll elaborate anyway for those who didn't.
>:
>: 500 years ago in China, there was no Shakespear.
>:
>: did that stop Chinese writers from writing? no.
>
>It is possible, that a Chinese writer of 500 years ago innovated
>something new in reaction to a shakespearean-like writer of six
>hundred years ago.
so what's that got to do with the price of tea in China?
(i imagine that question has some origins associated Marco Polo?)
anyway... "shakespearean-like writer"? what if there were no
"shakespearean-like writers" in China? or better yet, if all
writing is based on some "shakespearean-like writer" how do we
know when the next "shakespearean-like" writing event happens
(if we use only shakespearean-based/canon-based reading filters
to consider all writings)?
>: furthermore, how much different are Buddhism's principles compared
>: to Judeo-Christian values? some radicals might argue that there's
>: no similarities at all, that Buddhists are hell-bound heathens.
>: maybe they're right. god only knows. <g>
>:
><snipped interesting Shakespeare X-files episode and contemplation
>of Martian writers>:
i was thinking more of a major work of art rather than a
novelty episode of the Twilight Zone or Star Trek. a serious
contemplation of how much of an influence willy was; and...
had his mother dropped him on his head as a toddler, what
the specifc consequences would have been to the future of
mankind.
that's a project i imagine would take at least a decade to
flesh-out, well... for one possible version, anyway.
hey, maybe we could get Jimmy Stewart to play Shakespeare
and Donna Reed to play his mother.
>: would [the theoretical Martians] have a "canon" of literature
>: to base all future literature on?
>
>They would at least develop a system of folklore which reflects
>the evolution of their culture since remembered time
that's a large assumption. it's very linear thinking. but logical.
however, it's only logical because we are linear thinking people.
>(this of course presumes that Matians have a memory).
and that presumes that memory is logically best-used for
cataloguing linear thinking. there are many other possible
applications. which is largely what i'm saying. most, if not
all, of our literature tends to fit one formula.
>: what proof do you have? is the proof (or theory) based on
>: how other cultures here on earth have evolved in what seems
>: to be a pretty similar fashion?
>
>Yes.
that's not proof, it's only applying what you know to all
possible possibilities.
>: that _seems_ reasonable.
>
>Yes.
only when you reason linearly.
>: but is it really the only way to work?
>
>Not necesarily. A good example: Ezra Pound pretty much
>rejected the Western Canon. He instead coincidentally
>delved into the Chinese canon.
then he doesn't count. if he utilized some standard canon,
he simply replaced one canon for another. whoopie.
>But still a canon, nonetheless, though not of his own cultutre.
well... that's an interesting experiment, but it seems to me
that if he wrote same for a culture which had no knowledge
of the other canon, he'd be doing worse in communicating things
than those who used their own canon in allusional references.
>His study of the Chinese writers and the reflection of it in
>his work did (at least momentarily) alter the canon of his own
>culture.
so i imagine before he used them, he took the references and
converted them somehow? so that those unfamiliar with the
Chinese "canon" would have someway of understanding his
writing?
anyway, what would you say were the fundamental distinguishing
differences between his writing and the other writers who didn't
do what he did?
>: to "stand on the shoulders of giants"? is it so strange to
>: think that art or literature can be created independent of
>: conventional wisdom? i would say that conventional wisdom
>: should be wise enough to recognize that most innovation
>: occurs pretty much spontaneously... limited only by the
>: resources and tools available to the artists/inventors...
>
>: not necesarily
>: the artist's knowledge of existing art. (though, that can
>: certainly be a tool/resource as well.)
>
>I beleive you have argued aginst yourself here.
i don't believe so.
>Usually, the tools and resources available are 'the canon'.
_usually_. and... apparently you're correct.
me? i always thought that the main tool and resource was
the language. i realize that, by nature, some words are
referencial to "the canon," (though these words are usually
understood in their own context) but most words are independent
of "the canon." aren't they?
i mean, in English, we have words with all manner of derivation.
many with more than one derivative. or am i mistaken?
>Now, to help prove your point I offer Picasso. His work is
>seemingly disconected from what came before it. We all know
>he could paint regular, but he choose not too. What he did as
>an artist did not really follow a typical evolution (one movement
>leading into the next) and seemed not to rely on previous
>inventions.
except those of canvas and color, of course.
>This makes sense until you read Gertrude Stein who is
>doing almost the same thing in writing.
i don't have a clue about Gertrude Stein. poor me.
the thing is, i'll bet that 95% of the English-speaking world
shares my cluelessness in this regard. which is yet another
point behind my assertion that writing should stand on its
own. if writers are only writing for well-read people,
they're missing the largest audience. seems self-defeating
to me. especially for those in it only for the money.
writing well (but without using elitist references) would
increase readership with people who could more directly
relate to the writing.
>So now there seems to be at least some contemplation (and
>possible conspiricy?) on behalf of Picaso and Stein as to
>what will be the next 'thing', manner of comunicating ideas.
sounds paranoid to me. maybe it was just like the invention
of the telephone. Alexander Grahm Bell only beat some Italian
guy to the patent office by something like an hour.
the circumstances of the day can cause simulatneous discoveries.
>The reason Picaso was unsucessful for so long was because
>the rest of the world did not speak the language of his art.
well, that depends on how you measure success. if his paintings
were great, they were great. they didn't suddenly "become great"
after people realized how great they were.
>Evenetually, because of more exposure to similar artist expression
>whether in writing or art proper, the masses learned the language
>and his work was accepted as part of the canon.
so what's your point? how did that disprove my point?
>See, the thing is, the canon is always changing.
i don't dispute that. i never did. in fact, i believe that
whole-heartedly. that's obvious. i only dispute the idea
that art or literature needs to be _based_ on the canon.
>(See TS Eliot's essays)
later. maybe. if i get time. <g>
which is yet another one of my points. time. the "canon"
is now so large that it is almost impossible... no strike that,
it IS impossible to absorb it all. there's just not enough
time in a human life. and this dynamic will only get worse
as time "marches forward". as more things are added to
the canon by more and more innovative artists. eventually,
the "canon" will have no real tangible meaning.
>: obviously, many inventions are based on previous inventions.
>
>But more importantly, are based on new information which
>has become a part of 'science' or engineering through the
>establishment and testing of a group of ideas and theories.
yes. and how do you think this new info is obtained?
by studying the existing canon? nope. wait... i take
that back, it _can_ happen that way too. but that is not
the exclusive means to innovation.
><snipped bit that confused me>
what about this confused you?:
but does anyone actually think that every inventor (or even most),
was a well-read scholar in his/her field? i would say that most
inventions to date were more likely due to some inventive
person being in an inventive frame of mind while some random
occurrence of some sort happened which the inventor then
employed into some sort of new concept.
>: true, Thomas Edison puposely set out to create the electric
>: lightbulb. but what gave him the original inspiration?
>: afterall, darkness had been around for quite some time. <g>
>
>So had candles and gas lights.
exactly.
>He applied inspiration with the knowledge of chemistry and
>other sciences as established in the 'canon' of scientific
>knowledge.
says you. and you may be right. i don't know. seems to me
that he created the new scientific canon with each experiment
on each filament he tried.
regardless, my point with Edison has more to do with the origin
of the inspiration. i don't believe it was due to his having
some well-understood knowledge of the scientific "canon."
more likely, he was sitting on his porch staring at the light in
the gas lamps while coincidentally simultaneously considering
electricity and... poof! lightbulb! he put the two together and
decided to make the latter power the former.
>Here I will admit the falibilty of any such canon of knwoledge.
>Of course world flatness was once a part of this canon. Stauncly
>believed to be true. The scientist proved that this was false
>only because part of this canon also held true. It's a double
>edged sword sometimes.
well, that doesn't really apply to the Edison bit, since no one
was likely claiming that light could not be powered by electricity,
but... nonetheless i see your point to a certain degree. yet, it
has nothing to do with what causes the original inspiration,
which _i_ attribute mostly to a curious mind.
and a curious mind is simply a state of mind. anyone can have
one if they want. but if they are discouraged from being curious,
the odds of them being curious diminish greatly. <g>
><snip>
>:
>: so what is the analogy to literature? well... there are
>: ten million stories in the big city... <g>
>
>Perhaps more, but a formalist critic could probably narrow
>them down to a few hundred (if not fewer) general kinds.
sadly, i'd say that, of the ten million possible stories in
the big city, in practical terms, there's probably only
one or two... tops.
>: >> people here seem to think that there is only one reasonable
>: >> way to "enlightenment." or that there's only one reasonable
>: >> way to "evolve." i think that this is a very limited way to
>: >> think and strongly suggests brainwash.
>
>I beleive it is limited as well. however I don't think its quite
>brainwash. For instance, if you have a problem with Shakes
>peare, you could write a novel which confronts through plot
>and character development how Hamlet as a charcter is a
>failure.
i think you miss my point. i don't have any _problem_ with
Shakespeare or anyone else in the "canon." i just don't see
the absolute necessity to know "the canon" in order to contribute
to it in a meaningful, useful way. most everyone else seems
to disagree. vehemently. <g>
BTW: ironicaly, i've had just the opposite discussion with my kids.
trying to convince them why they should be interested in history,
or math, or science. so it's not like i don't understand the
frustration of those trying to get through to me. i do.
i just disagree that it is essential for the creation of art.
yet, on a smaller scale, i acknowledge that there is great
practical value to knowing some common things.
for art, no canon is needed. however, i have the complete
opposite view of law. the laws of our society must be based
on precedence and tradition. there's no other practical way
to enforce the law, or value the law.
back to the trouble with Hamlet:
>This book might be so widely understood and accepted that
>eventually Hamlet is dropped from the canon.
i assume that in addition to making a point here, you're also
making some literary analogy (using Hamlet -- which i am not
familiar with) so... it makes no sense for me to dispute whether
Hamlet should or should not be dropped from the "canon" based
on some possible failure of Hamlet as a character.
to be or not to be... is that the question? <g>
just guessing.
>The megalanguage of literature must be consistent in order
>for conversation and change/eveolution to occur within an
>art form.
i disagree. it will change when it changes. as new things
are invented or discovered. it's not so tidy as everyone
seems to desire it to be.
BTW: last night, after i signed off, i was watching "The Simpsons."
LOL. it was all based on the various books of the bible.
good-hearted parodies of Adam and Eve. Moses. etc.
i laughed at myself as much as the show. regardless,
i remain unconvinced that everything has to be based on,
or reference, something else in the "canon."
>: > Or Brainwah.
>:
>: <g> yeah... brainwah.
>:
>:
><snipped something here but I think I was hypnotized
>into doing and don't recall exactly what I did.>
LOL
[...]
>Cheers--
>Cody A. Stanley III
anyway.. my main point remains:
there are more universal themes than we currently know.
-$Zero... ThereWereOtherPointsIWantedToMake...
ButIForgotThemAfterDreamingThatIWasABartender...
"you're soooo analytical.
sometimes...
you just have to let art
flooowwww over you..."
-- Nick [actor: William Hurt;
from the movie: "The Big Chill"]
Bob Pastorio
>
> Zero eloquently commented in misc.writing
>
> > the overall point is, humans are audio/visual beings. reading books,
> > while useful for logistical reasons over the past 500+ years, is
> > still an unnatural mode of communication and/or storytelling.
>
> I'm not sure how Zero got here from disparaging cultural
> literacy, but he has a point.
Well, not as strong a point as it would seem to be. Written or
otherwise preserved communications has several millennia of history
behind it. It isn't (and wasn't originally) intended to convey
information immediately so much as to preserve it for future
populations. They began to write history for those to follow.
> Our early newsbearers and storytellers were certainly
> announcers. With the increasing literacy of the population, the
> printed word became the easiest way to disseminate information.
Dissemination was a byproduct of the printing press. It simplified
that which was already being done manually. And that was done for
archival reasons.
> Today, audio broadcasts, video broadcasts, and printed
> broadcasts all vie for our attention.
> Right here, of course, we are using the _printed_ word
> despite the electronic boradcast.
> When I teach, I prefer lecture over all other forms of
> imparting information.
Um, maybe so, but lecture has been demonstrated to be one of the more
ineffective ways to transmit information. Learned that in psyche 101
in the "cognition" section.
> That fits Zero's suggestion that simply
> publishing a textbook is not a natural way of communicating.
I have a problem with the word "natural" as though somehow technology
hasn't forced its own evolution of the species. There are no
unnatural ways to communicate, if you accept zero's own view that
whatever humans do is perfectly natural, by definition.
> Unfortunately, when I study, I prefer a combination of hands-on
> practice, visual aids, and reading. I would posit that these
> different _learning_ styles drive all the media choices we have
> today. Some people prefer action video, others listen, or
> practice. Some prefer reading.
You make the distinction about what you do when you impart info and
when you want to get info. They're different mechanisms.
Pastorio
Sunbeam the Deacon
Zero wrote:
>
<snip>
> > I think you're trying to get too much milage out of a not
> >very useful idea of people's being "brainwahed"...
>
> you may be right.
>
> BTW: what is "milage"? is it like brainwah several miles away?
The faint sound of Brainwah being pushed to explain too much?
>
> >People get more or less taught certain things by circumstances
> >that may more or less amount to a "culture"...but so what?
>
> well... when you put it THAT way...
>
> but brainwash goes beyond just cultural styles, it's in science too.
> like... long ago "scientists" were certain that the world was flat,
> etc.. but, science is much better at recognizing it's brainwashes
> than other "institutions." it attempts to reject them by it's very
> nature.
I think this is the reduction to absurdity of the whole idea of
explaining anything with brainwah. Let's look at the idea that
something like what we mean by "science' put forward the idea that the
Earth was flat.
Well there is Anaximander, and one might say he thought the world was
flat, but this is only one aspect of a pretty sophisticated description
of the cosmos. If Anaximander's pioneering efforts are brainwah, then
no one can ever be considered to do any non-brainwah thinking and the
whole notion of brainwah vs. non-brainwah becomes utterly devoid of any
point or content or sense.
<snip>
>
> do all the writers and artists in all the cultures on earth follow
> the same idea as has been expressed here: the concept of stressing
> the importance of learning classical "canons" before embarking on
> creating works. do they? all of them? maybe. i have no idea
> whatsoever. because i've never considered it until now.
> (at least not on a global scale). if true, it seems weird to me,
> but that's me. i guess i'm the odd one out here.
>
What is weird about there being some background to a work, or more
exactly a genre? What is a canon? Is it really so strange? The notion
of a canon has nothing to do with brainwah.
> in any case, Shakespear had to happen at some point, right?
Did he? Isn't it more to the point to note that the literary world of
English reached a certain level of sophistication in the late 16th
century and that in many ways this level of sophistication remains as an
important basic reference point for people writing in English?
> what if he was never born? or what if his mother accidently
> dropped him on his head when he was an infant? what would
> have happened to western civilization?
Ah, Western Civ....maybe you should consider the case of writing in
English more carefully and let the brainwah on Western civ alone for a
bit.
>
> hmm... that'd be an interesting idea for a science fiction premise.
>
> probably already done, right?
>
> >> for the sake of argument, how about the "writers" on Mars?
> >
> > I'm not a Martian Writer and neither are you.
>
> i see your point, but do you see mine?
>
> >> have all the "real" Martian writers read Proust, Faulkner or
> >> Hemingway?
> >
> > No. There are no Martian writers, so they haven't been
> >reading anything.
>
> well... suppose that there was another planet somewhere in
> the vast universe with intelligent beings on it. do you
> seriously think that they would evolve just like us?
Have we "evolved" (whatever that means) "just like us"? I mean have
you looked into how English Lit has "evolved"? you don't like the
canon, but then it appears you don't have much of an idea what a canon
is, much less what the canonical texts of English Lit might be.....Since
we don't have the case handy of the evolution of literature on some
other world, why not look into the case that is present?
ie...Shakespear for example? What is the point in proposing to learn
from a case about which nothing at all is knowable?
>
> would they have a "canon" of literature to base all future
> literature on?
And what would or would not be a canon? What is a canon?
>
> what proof do you have? is the proof (or theory) based on
> how other cultures here on earth have evolved in what seems
> to be a pretty similar fashion?
I don't quite understand this idea of cultures evolving that you keep
putting forward. What is it? Evolving from what to what? What do you
mean?
>
> that _seems_ reasonable.
>
> but is it really the only way to work? to "stand on the
> shoulders of giants"? is it so strange to think that
> art or literature can be created independent of conventional
> wisdom?
Yes it is. Art and literature by definition are done as part of
culturally significant genres. I have no idea what you mean by
conventional wisdom.
i would say that conventional wisdom should be
> wise enough to recognize that most innovation occurs
> pretty much spontaneously
All historical evidence is completely against this. What you are
describing only happens in the world of post-romantic urban legend.
... limited only by the resources
> and tools available to the artists/inventors... not necesarily
> the artist's knowledge of existing art. (though, that can
> certainly be a tool/resource as well.)
But this doesn't happen at all.
> obviously, many inventions are based on previous inventions.
>
> but does anyone actually think that every inventor (or even most),
> was a well-read scholar in his/her field? i would say that most
> inventions to date were more likely due to some inventive
> person being in an inventive frame of mind while some random
> occurrence of some sort happened which the inventor then
> employed into some sort of new concept.
At the level where one takes urban legend for truth, yes, this is what
people claim. The reality of human invention is very different...ie,
things are invented in a precise context for precise reasons.
> true, Thomas Edison puposely set out to create the electric
> lightbulb. but what gave him the original inspiration?
> afterall, darkness had been around for quite some time. <g>
So had research on electricity. Edison didn't discover anything. He
just tried thousands of substances and picked the wrong one. The very
notion of invention has a specific context, obviously...a patent in
fact.
> sure, without the existence of controlled electricity, wires,
> and gas lanterns... it probably would have never occurred
> to him. but these things were all there for many other people
> to contemplate. something sure clicked... and voila! lightbulb.
This is your version of industrial applications? Voila? I think
"voila" was never more misleadingly used.
>
> of course, finding the right element to use as a filament was
> no easy task. much research was probably done at _that_ point.
Yes and he found the wrong answer and marketted it.
<snip>
--
Then Pallas breath'd in Tydeus' sonne --
to render whom supreame
To all the Greekes at all his parts she cast a hoter beame
On his high mind, his body fild with much superior might
And made his compleate armor cast a farre more complete light.
(Chapman's Homer: Iliad, Fifth Book, first lines)
............Pete
ing
>
<Sorry to be late into this discussion -- we've been
building a closet here for the past two days ....>
> but, nancy, this is entirely zero's point. he's saying that if we would cut
> out the references that only particular groups might be familiar with, we
> can communicate with one another more clearly, rather than saying things
> that go over people's heads.
But then it would slowly evolve that we'd only be speaking
to people with the literary references of five years olds,
don't you think?
> there is value to be seen on both sides of this
> issue.
There is NO value at all to the side of the issue you're
arguing, arleen. With an attitude and opinions like the
ones you're putting forward here, you could be in charge of
network television where all programs aim for the lowest
common denominator. As a result, TV is fairly much a
wasteland now. Almost totally uninvolving to anyone who's
got an IQ higher than room temp.
i don't like it when things go over my head, so i prefer to
be more
> knowledgable, but that's just not possible.
That's why people have reference books and dictionaries.
They look up stuff they don't understand. They don't
suggest that all communication be bland and reference-free
so that ALL less knowledgeable people will get the message
immediately. Where's the challenge in that?
well, it is possible, but not
> knowledgable enough to always be clueful no matter who i'm with discussing
> what. which you have reiterated, as well. we can't know everything.
No, we can't all know everything. But we should have some
basics, don't you think? Invest in some reference books.
Expand your mind. Attempt to rise to a higher level -- don't
suggest everybody lower the bar and cater to the lesser
informed in their communications. A strange suggestion
coming from someone who says they want to write (i.e.
communicate).
> but while you and i may prefer knowing the context of the references and
> what they may mean, zero is stressing that if we stopped communicating in
> those terms, and communicated in a more universal manner, i.e. using terms
> that no one could (i was going to say misinterpret, but that, too, is
> impossible <g>)... using terms that everyone could understand,
Who's everybody? Who takes the poll on the level of
everybody's understanding? What's the criteria? How far
will the bar fall ....
> there might
> be a better level of communication all around.
No, there wouldn't be. It'd deteriorate beyond all
recognition. All the necessry seasonings and the magic of
discovery would be gone. It'd be like boxed macaroni &
cheese, 24/7.
> i say might. i don't know. is
> it even possible to communicate without the common references that litter
> our culture?
No .... because minds move forward, absorbing...once you've
learned, there's no way to go back -- that's what education
is all about, that's what learning is about -- after we've
learned, we share it, we explore -- and together we revel in
what we've learned, and it all just kind of moves forward.
And if we keep our ears and eyes open, some of us just
automatically know the reference to sound and fury and we
know who the Sad-eyed Lady of Lowlands is plus millions of
other references to things that spiritually enrich our
lives.
ing
>
> arleen
nancy
ing.b...@sympatico.ca (ing) said:
>And if we keep our ears and eyes open, some of us just
>automatically know the reference to sound and fury and we
>know who the Sad-eyed Lady of Lowlands is plus millions of
>other references to things that spiritually enrich our
>lives.
>
ing said it all a lot more nicely than i did. my
apologies for coming off the total bitch ... i
was just so ... *floored* that anyone could advocate
reducing the level of knowledge, of understanding,
of *stretching* one's horizons, in the name of some
mixed-up notion that learning somehow inhibits
creativity ...
lordy, as they say, lordy.
--
n
Obvious Oxymoron: Childproof
ing
>
> "ing" <ing.b...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:3977E59A...@sympatico.ca...
> > If you don't care about Shakespeare, Hemingway, Dickens or
> > Austen or a whole bunch of other recognized classic writers
> > -- you are SOOOOOOOO missing out on such incredible
> > literature. Who are your classic writers, then, if none of
> > the ones you mentioned? Who do you rely on to point you in
> > directions and give you inspiration?????
> >
>
> ..... as inspiration? sorry. i
> don't read with the thought in mind of how their technique could help me in
> my own writing. my writing is my own. i wish to keep it that way.
Nothing evolves from a vacuum. Your writing is your own,
you say. I say no, it's not, not entirely. The topics you
write about, the style you use, it had to grow from
somewhere. Along the way, you've picked up inspiration and
guidance, consciously or unconsciously - only a fool would
deny it. You've taken what you've seen, read, heard, and
it's influenced you. Hell's bells ducks, tell me you
haven't been influenced by the Bible? Tell me it hasn't
helped form what you write about, how you write and how you
express yourself in writing. You gonna tell me all this
sprang from "nothing"?
>
> should i ever decide to write something for public consumption for a
> lucrative reason, i have no doubt that i will be influenced by what i've
> read. i am already.
Well, you see, I thought you wrote above that your writing
is your own and you choose to keep it that way. But you say
it already carries an influence. Puzzling, that.
> i sometimes write using phrases better suited to the
> 18th or 19th century, but i do not choose to study them a'purpose to make my
> writing "better." perhaps i'm wrong. time will tell.
Yes, you are wrong. And time will tell you that. We mirror
what we've seen, read, studied, absorbed, experienced ...
and to all that, we add our own individual leanings and
styles and reactions and mental meanderings. You yourself
do it in your postings here now -- you'll do it when you
write for pay one day.
"No man is an island" arleen.. A quote well worth looking
up.
ing
>
> arleen
ing
>
> On 21 Jul 2000 13:03:29 GMT, w.d.greene said in misc.writing:
>
> >
> >Lear is my favorite. I've never had the opportunity to see if
> >performed live though I did hear a record version of it when I was in
> >high school (reading along). Has anyone ever made it into a decent
> >screen adaptation?
>
> There's a version starring Laurence Olivier as Lear, John Hurt as the
> Fool, and Diana Rigg <yummy!> as Regan. ISTR that this version was
> originally shot for television, though, and not the big screen.
>
> Great acting, minimal sets.
The minimal sets at Stratford (Canada's Stratford, I mean)
are incredible. The stage is 90% in the round and it's
amazing to see how it can be transformed so quickly -- moors
one minute with dry-ice mist and then the interior of
castles and then bedchambers or whatever. Awesome, it
truly was. Just a roundish stage with steps around the
outer edge and a couple of balconies overhead at the back
and a few chairs on stage ....
In the version I saw, Lear was played by William Hutt, one
of the greatest stage actors I've ever seen at Stratford -
the guy's well into his 70's I think. At the end of the
play, the applause was overpowering .... it lasted over 20
minutes before they had to put the houselights up and
prepare for the next play that was gonna come on.
I had to go outside and sit down under a tree for half an
hour to compose myself.
ing
>
> --
> Paul Harwood
Zero
"IT'S JUST A COUCH!"
-- Lester Burnham [actor: Kevin Spacey;
from the film: "American Beauty" (1999)]
Re: Semantic Bingo! (was: Sound and Fury...)
Elitist Idjits (was: Re: Semantic Bingo! (was: Sound and Fury...))
na...@gekkografx.com (nancy) continued to miss
the most basic point:
>ing.b...@sympatico.ca (ing) said:
>
>>And if we keep our ears and eyes open, some of us just
>>automatically know the reference to sound and fury and we
>>know who the Sad-eyed Lady of Lowlands is plus millions of
>>other references to things that spiritually enrich our
>>lives.
>>
>
>ing said it all a lot more nicely than i did. my
>apologies for coming off the total bitch ... i
>was just so ... *floored* that anyone could advocate
>reducing the level of knowledge, of understanding,
are you for real or what? i suggested no such thing.
in fact, if you weren't so unbelievably defensive and
overly sentimental about some illusion you have about your
guarding your superiority, you'd see that i suggested just
the opposite.
i suggested that the most effective way to communicate to the
most people, thus raising the learning/knowledge bar across
the board, is to use the least references. that's a fact. there
is no getting around it.
ingrid makes some ridiculous analogy about tv catering to the
lowest common denominator as if tv programmers' purpose was
to do anything except sell advertising. christ. how blind and
self-defensive can you people be?
here's a few real small clues:
1] writing without references is harder.
2] writing without references takes more discipline.
3] writing without references creates works which are
far more easily understandable to far more people
thus spreading _substantive_ knowledge much further
than referencial writing ever possibly could.
there's no significant "richness" lost by removing references
in one's writings. references are more of a crutch and an
illusion. fun, but not necessary, and fundamentally distracting
from the creative act.
i mean, think: children's books, except for adults.
where the purpose of the book is to expand the
readers' horizons, not cater to their ignorance.
but no, instead, you'd rather think: "Three's Company"
or "Primetime Idiot Program #732"
sigh... it's so hard being a creative-genius....
mostly because, i have to simplify all these complex
ideas down to the ridiculous. ideas which are actually
fundamentally simple. it's soooo frustrating. <g>
>of *stretching* one's horizons, in the name of some
>mixed-up notion that learning somehow inhibits
>creativity ...
i've said that brainwash inhibits creativity, nancy.
not learning. brainwash.
>lordy, as they say, lordy.
speaking of which, Jesus is a prime example of someone
who understood the very thing i'm saying here.
he used simple analogies which the people could understand.
yes, he also refered back to the old testament, but...
usually only for those who demanded context.
he simplified everything. of course, after that, everyone
started complicating it all up again. but that's the silly
nature of man.
sheesh...
all of this stuff is right under your noses,
and yet... you all still can't smell the roses...
what a pity.
here... smell the thorns instead.
>n
>
>Obvious Oxymoron: Childproof
Obvious Oxymoron: Adult
"The greatest commandment is Love"
-- Jesus
-$Zero... PrettyDemandingConcept... Huh?...
"You know what you need? Shakubuku.
It's a swift, spiritual kick to the head
that alters your reality forever."
-- Debi Newberry [actor: Minnie Driver; from
the movie: "Grosse Pointe Blank" (1997)]
nancy
>i suggested that the most effective way to communicate to the
>most people, thus raising the learning/knowledge bar across
>the board, is to use the least references. that's a fact.
>there is no getting around it.
>
hey there, zero! how's it goin'? what's this
"raising the bar" shit? i mean, what does THAT mean?
i, like, you know, do not understand this.
what's this "across the board" stuff?
what with raising bars across boards, i'm getting
very confused.
and "getting around" a fact? how do you
do that? is this "fact" from your italian heritage,
and it means something different in your language
than it does in *normal* language? it is an
object that one can move around?
lots of laughter, zero!
let us not even pretend about this. you want
to "lower the bar" (i hope that reference makes
some sort of sense to you. i have no idea what
it means), because you will not be stimulating
people to ask "huh?" when they hear references
with which they are unfamiliar. they'll immediately
understand you, because you will be using totally
common phrases.
no sense enriching anyone's lives, eh? let's
all live like zero does!
lots of laughter!
btw:
all of jesus' "simple stories", zero, were symbolic,
metaphors, references back to, not only
the themes and symbols presented in his scriptures,
but also to legends and ideologies people of his
time *learned* ... the parable of the farmer, which
he told as he stood on a boat a little ways out in
a small natural harbor. the seed, cast upon rock,
cast upon weeds, cast upon fertile soil. drawing
images from *culture*, but using metaphor. had
the people not understood (learned) the concepts
of farming, that story would have had no meaning to
them. were he talking to fisherfolk, his story
would have been different.
we are, here, talking to writers. presumably to
people who understand the cultural references of
writers, of educated people. "sound and fury", drawn
from a text that *most* people had learned, much
like *most* of the farmers to whom jesus spoke
that day had learned farming.
and then comes zero, who wants us to find some
language that the farmers can understand AT THE
SAME TIME as the fishermen, AT THE SAME TIME as
the scholars who've never had to lift their finger
at manual labor to get their food ...
we tailor our speech and our cultural references
to our audience.
and you, zero, would suggest we dumb it *all* down.
lots, as they say, of laughter.
--
n
If I wasn't talking, I wouldn't know what to say. -- Chico
Resch, New York Islanders goaltender