SH 145
Dennis M. Hammes
"Well, Windows ate my homework." By degrees,
The universe from central heat to gray
Succumbs to scum, but will not go away;
Then shall I let a cockroach cock the keys?
Or let my word's worth whirl with rocks and trees,
They'll say as well as I do what I say
When only children will come out to play;
But one more tear, I'll kick between the knees.
I'm carbon now. Can being carbon then
Be such a big dam' kick upside the head?
I sleep already, so do other men;
You have me any time you share your bed,
And all that sang may always sing again.
Even printers' ink or pencil lead.
..5/24/02
--
------(m+
~/:o)_|
The Moving Cursor writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all your Blasphemy nor Wit
Shall lure it back to rescue half a Line
When Windows washes every Word of it.
http://t-independent.com/scrawlmark-press/
Tom Bishop
> 145
>
> "Well, Windows ate my homework." By degrees,
> The universe from central heat to gray
> Succumbs to scum, but will not go away;
> Then shall I let a cockroach cock the keys?
> Or let my word's worth whirl with rocks and trees,
> They'll say as well as I do what I say
> When only children will come out to play;
> But one more tear, I'll kick between the knees.
> I'm carbon now. Can being carbon then
> Be such a big dam' kick upside the head?
> I sleep already, so do other men;
> You have me any time you share your bed,
> And all that sang may always sing again.
> Even printers' ink or pencil lead.
> ..5/24/02
Lovely lines, and tone.. which /everyone/ knows
I like.. (since I keep a secret soo well).
Yes, (in other thread to Ursus) ..nothing to lookup
here really.. and it /seems/ to come close enough
to earth to throw questions at, so I will.
You have a meaning for "carbon" that I don't get,
less it's saying that you are organic..
but that seems quite general, and you have
always been carbon, so why is /now/ important?
Why not I'm carbon /still/..
Or are you saying that thru writing you have
transfered yourself to the page as carbon
(really graphite, but..)
The /message/ seems your lament at the grayed
out inanity of existance, but you are there,
and you sing too, (and will continue, since
rendered in ink).
But I don't put high odds on that.
Just casting dice to fate, and putting on
a shit-faced grin. ;-)
Tom
Dennis M. Hammes
Am.
> but that seems quite general,
Is.
> and you have
> always been carbon, so why is /now/ important?
> Why not I'm carbon /still/..
"When I 'am' dead, I..." One of those standard meaningless
constructions.
Or, "How tell the dancer from the dance?"
>
> Or are you saying that thru writing you have
> transfered yourself to the page as carbon
> (really graphite, but..)
>
> The /message/ seems your lament at the grayed
> out inanity of existance, but you are there,
> and you sing too, (and will continue, since
> rendered in ink).
If ya can't sing "Roll Out The Barrel," then "/Nessun dorma/," yes.
>
> But I don't put high odds on that.
Soggy bread, yes.
> Just casting dice to fate, and putting on
> a shit-faced grin. ;-)
>
> Tom
Tom Bishop
OK, I'll write a sonnet on it.
..this hazy carrot that you dangle
will at least be provoke /that/.
--
Tom Bishop
(previously: nu_v...@yahoo.com)
Art McNutt
scraw...@arvig.net wrote on 5/24/02 9:30 PM:
> 145
>
> "Well, Windows ate my homework." By degrees,
> The universe from central heat to gray
> Succumbs to scum, but will not go away;
> Then shall I let a cockroach cock the keys?
> Or let my word's worth whirl with rocks and trees,
> They'll say as well as I do what I say
> When only children will come out to play;
> But one more tear, I'll kick between the knees.
> I'm carbon now. Can being carbon then
> Be such a big dam' kick upside the head?
> I sleep already, so do other men;
> You have me any time you share your bed,
> And all that sang may always sing again.
> Even printers' ink or pencil lead.
> ..5/24/02
Nice puns. Carbon, especially. Begs to be played with even more.
Entropy is; scums are; Windows sucks; If I ever need a helping hand I need
never look further than the end of my arms. The Singing Head is right on the
money.
I keep forgetting there's such things as paintbrushes and canvas. With
Extreme 3D and Adobe Photoshop and Adobe Illustrator I can do as much as I
ever could with those other tools, and even remove it all from pixels and
print it any size (I have access to professional large format plotters up to
42") and I can even /animate/ it. Holy Cow! And it's all great, but nothing
I couldn't do after the power goes out--though I'd have to dig way back in
my closet for the brushes. Reteach my hands.
OTOH, I've been experimenting with music authoring software--trying to write
some program music, something between Berlioz and Goldsmith. Having not the
training, I turn off the musical notation (which just confuses me) and use a
graphical interface (notation bars--width=duration, position referenced by
an 88 note keyboard on the side). With the composer on I'm creating music, a
great conductor deciding that the strings need to be here, here is the
timpani roll, now horns. Obo! Piano!!! Rachmaninoff was an amateur I tell
ya--an amateur!!!
But it's kinda like teaching Washu the Chimp sign language--'cause--turn off
the power and all I can do is pluck a guitar---pick out a few chords and
phrases like Smoke on the Water and some Flamenco.
Armor made the knight, a crown the king. And...and...the tools made the
artist?
---
Art
Dennis M. Hammes
Depends on what language you teach him, dunnit?
>
> Armor made the knight, a crown the king. And...and...the tools made the
> artist?
>
> ---
> Art
I really do believe I said the opposite of that last bit, though I
admit to letting the objects do the talking more than I said
anything.
Rand dwells on the theory in /Atlas Shrugged/, and "Ellsworth
Toohey" teaches the chimps sign language in /The Fountainhead/.
"Lazarus Long" says, "Now be off, or I'll kick you downstairs,"
but the anapests are all wrong for a sonnet, and I was stuck with
the rhyme already.
I'd already done the carbon-copy bit ("stencils," monkey-copies)
in the previous two, but, yeh, carbon invites a lot of things be
"made" of it (heh). But I lack all desire to build up to diamond
pressures, so I don't get those monkey-copies of dead presidents.
Nevertheless when a composer begins decomposing, the music of the
spheres is still there for anyone to play.
Art McNutt
scraw...@arvig.net wrote on 5/26/02 2:53 AM:
[snip]
>>
>> But it's kinda like teaching Washu the Chimp sign language--'cause--turn off
>> the power and all I can do is pluck a guitar---pick out a few chords and
>> phrases like Smoke on the Water and some Flamenco.
>
> Depends on what language you teach him, dunnit?
True.
The thing about Washu is, sure you can teach her sign, give her words and
symbols, but she is still a chimp. She teaches her offspring, they teach
theirs--they speak, and by speaking they may well grip reality with a
stronger fist, and even begin to enjoy the additive knowledge which a
languaged society can achieve---but it's not chimpanese. It might very well
give one pause some day to look around at his/her kind and despair. Like
Kubrick. The chariots of the gods are for.....the gods, only. Damn you
Prometheus!!!!!
>>
>> Armor made the knight, a crown the king. And...and...the tools made the
>> artist?
>>
>> ---
>> Art
>
> I really do believe I said the opposite of that last bit, though I
> admit to letting the objects do the talking more than I said
> anything.
You /did/ say just the opposite. I was speaking on behalf of the
monkeys--kinda the other side of the coin. I have more than a little
contempt for those who /think/ they are graphic designers just because they
have the $700 to purchase Photoshop. I can draw letters of any typeface
with a techpen, a French curve and a T-square. I can paint illustrations by
hand and do imposition with a camera. I can airbrush and I can make
corrections to film with opaque paint and rubylith. I understand
composition, color theory, etc., etc--put there in my head with spike and
sledge hammer over years--work and time; kung fu. But with a couple of
programs, someone without /any/ of this training and professional
experience, can "do what I do." 'Till the power goes out, or until "The Blue
Screen of Death," that is...
> Rand dwells on the theory in /Atlas Shrugged/, and "Ellsworth
> Toohey" teaches the chimps sign language in /The Fountainhead/.
> "Lazarus Long" says, "Now be off, or I'll kick you downstairs,"
> but the anapests are all wrong for a sonnet, and I was stuck with
> the rhyme already.
Heh.
> I'd already done the carbon-copy bit ("stencils," monkey-copies)
> in the previous two, but, yeh, carbon invites a lot of things be
> "made" of it (heh). But I lack all desire to build up to diamond
> pressures, so I don't get those monkey-copies of dead presidents.
> Nevertheless when a composer begins decomposing, the music of the
> spheres is still there for anyone to play.
Yes, there's that.
---
Art
sherrie838
>>> Armor made the knight, a crown the king. And...and...the tools made the
>>> artist?
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Art
>>
>> I really do believe I said the opposite of that last bit, though I
>> admit to letting the objects do the talking more than I said
>> anything.
>
>You /did/ say just the opposite. I was speaking on behalf of the
>monkeys--kinda the other side of the coin. I have more than a little
>contempt for those who /think/ they are graphic designers just because they
>have the $700 to purchase Photoshop. I can draw letters of any typeface
>with a techpen, a French curve and a T-square. I can paint illustrations by
>hand and do imposition with a camera. I can airbrush and I can make
>corrections to film with opaque paint and rubylith. I understand
>composition, color theory, etc., etc--put there in my head with spike and
>sledge hammer over years--work and time; kung fu. But with a couple of
>programs, someone without /any/ of this training and professional
>experience, can "do what I do." 'Till the power goes out, or until "The Blue
>Screen of Death," that is...
I feel you are too smart. You can't mean that?
>> Rand dwells on the theory in /Atlas Shrugged/, and "Ellsworth
>> Toohey" teaches the chimps sign language in /The Fountainhead/.
>> "Lazarus Long" says, "Now be off, or I'll kick you downstairs,"
>> but the anapests are all wrong for a sonnet, and I was stuck with
>> the rhyme already.
>
>Heh.
>
>> I'd already done the carbon-copy bit ("stencils," monkey-copies)
>> in the previous two, but, yeh, carbon invites a lot of things be
>> "made" of it (heh). But I lack all desire to build up to diamond
>> pressures, so I don't get those monkey-copies of dead presidents.
>> Nevertheless when a composer begins decomposing, the music of the
>> spheres is still there for anyone to play.
>
>Yes, there's that.
and there's why...
I've read this a few times. What am I missing?
SL
>---
>Art
>
>
>
>
Art McNutt
sherr...@aol.com wrote on 5/26/02 2:29 PM:
> Art McNutt amcn...@insightbb.com
>
>> scraw...@arvig.net
>
>
>>>> Armor made the knight, a crown the king. And...and...the tools made the
>>>> artist?
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> Art
>>>
>>> I really do believe I said the opposite of that last bit, though I
>>> admit to letting the objects do the talking more than I said
>>> anything.
>>
>> You /did/ say just the opposite. I was speaking on behalf of the
>> monkeys--kinda the other side of the coin. I have more than a little
>> contempt for those who /think/ they are graphic designers just because they
>> have the $700 to purchase Photoshop. I can draw letters of any typeface
>> with a techpen, a French curve and a T-square. I can paint illustrations by
>> hand and do imposition with a camera. I can airbrush and I can make
>> corrections to film with opaque paint and rubylith. I understand
>> composition, color theory, etc., etc--put there in my head with spike and
>> sledge hammer over years--work and time; kung fu. But with a couple of
>> programs, someone without /any/ of this training and professional
>> experience, can "do what I do." 'Till the power goes out, or until "The Blue
>> Screen of Death," that is...
>
>
> I feel you are too smart. You can't mean that?
Mean which part? I learned my trade in the late eighties just before
computers replaced rows of drafting tables and mark up artists. So I learned
the "old" way as well as the new. Before computers, an Advertising Artist
had an idea and then sketched it out for a client to review--like you've
seen on Bewitched. Then an artisan would finish the art work or take a
photograph based on the sketches, and would impose type--either pasted up or
actually drawn. Then another person would put it on an artboard and shoot a
picture with a giant camera placing a screen of dots over it to make the
image thus print ready. Sometimes actual physical letters with lead dividers
for the line spacing (hence leading) are arranged on the plate and printed
this way. But with the film process, the negative was taken to a print shop
and the film would be put over a printing plate and exposed to light and
then put on the press and printed.
Yuch. Thar's gotta be a better way. Well thar is--I design something on my
screen and hit the print button, the printer doesn't print to paper, it
prints to negative film even in 4-color separations and voila, I'm done and
moving on to the next project. I can even print directly to printing plates
these days--something Adobe Acrobat is designed to do, as if it didn't do
enough already.
All that means is that I had to learn both ways. not terribly smart, 'cause
you didn't see my learning curve. But if all the world fell to a computer
virus, I'd hardly skip a beat. Heck, me and the few like me still left who
bridged the era would be multi-millionaires. Hey, NOTE TO SELF: I gotta stop
putting Windows and AOL down. Could be my boys' tickets to Harvard.
Anyway, the point is you can't learn enough about what you do. Thinking
you're good at what you do is a mistake, especially to be avoided when there
are wonderful tools around to make us think we're better than we are.
I have a strong suspicion that Dennis never bothers with spell-check, for
instance. How many among us could type even a short post without it being
pock-marked with so many spelling errors that others would be hard pressed
to have any idea what was originally meant--and many of these bad spellers
think they can write poetry. HINT: I never considered myself a poet. I
dabble.
>
>>> Rand dwells on the theory in /Atlas Shrugged/, and "Ellsworth
>>> Toohey" teaches the chimps sign language in /The Fountainhead/.
>>> "Lazarus Long" says, "Now be off, or I'll kick you downstairs,"
>>> but the anapests are all wrong for a sonnet, and I was stuck with
>>> the rhyme already.
>>
>> Heh.
>>
>>> I'd already done the carbon-copy bit ("stencils," monkey-copies)
>>> in the previous two, but, yeh, carbon invites a lot of things be
>>> "made" of it (heh). But I lack all desire to build up to diamond
>>> pressures, so I don't get those monkey-copies of dead presidents.
>>> Nevertheless when a composer begins decomposing, the music of the
>>> spheres is still there for anyone to play.
>>
>> Yes, there's that.
>
>
>
> and there's why...
>
>
>
> I've read this a few times. What am I missing?
>
> SL
>
Translation? Hmmm.
DENNIS: Yes there are more multiple meanings to be made from the noun
carbon--but hey, that's all I felt like, and I've tried it in other forms a
few times--even recently.
Pushing something like this would require me to effort beyond
desire--something we only do for money, and hey, where's my check?
Here's some puns if you're hungry for them--composer--decomposing as in
death, but read carefully 'cause I /could/ mean a composer who has lost his
pen and paper. Then there is music (art) that is out there anyway (St.
Augustine?) like the music of the spheres; i. e.; the measured progression
of the planets and the stars. But maybe I don't mean that either.
ART:
Well yes, there /is/ the music (art, nature) that is out there anyway. Lilly
of the Field and all that...
---
Art
Dennis M. Hammes
>
> in article 3CF094DC...@arvig.net, Dennis M. Hammes at
> scraw...@arvig.net wrote on 5/26/02 2:53 AM:
> [snip]
> >>
> >> But it's kinda like teaching Washu the Chimp sign language--'cause--turn off
> >> the power and all I can do is pluck a guitar---pick out a few chords and
> >> phrases like Smoke on the Water and some Flamenco.
> >
> > Depends on what language you teach him, dunnit?
>
> True.
>
> The thing about Washu is, sure you can teach her sign, give her words and
> symbols, but she is still a chimp. She teaches her offspring, they teach
> theirs--they speak, and by speaking they may well grip reality with a
> stronger fist, and even begin to enjoy the additive knowledge which a
> languaged society can achieve---but it's not chimpanese. It might very well
> give one pause some day to look around at his/her kind and despair. Like
> Kubrick. The chariots of the gods are for.....the gods, only. Damn you
> Prometheus!!!!!
The point there is that Goodall and others taught 'em words for
/their own/ universe -- and turned 'em loose in it. Wait a while...
> >>
> >> Armor made the knight, a crown the king. And...and...the tools made the
> >> artist?
> >>
> >> ---
> >> Art
> >
> > I really do believe I said the opposite of that last bit, though I
> > admit to letting the objects do the talking more than I said
> > anything.
>
> You /did/ say just the opposite. I was speaking on behalf of the
> monkeys--kinda the other side of the coin. I have more than a little
> contempt for those who /think/ they are graphic designers just because they
> have the $700 to purchase Photoshop. I can draw letters of any typeface
> with a techpen, a French curve and a T-square. I can paint illustrations by
> hand and do imposition with a camera. I can airbrush and I can make
> corrections to film with opaque paint and rubylith. I understand
> composition, color theory, etc., etc--put there in my head with spike and
> sledge hammer over years--work and time; kung fu. But with a couple of
> programs, someone without /any/ of this training and professional
> experience, can "do what I do." 'Till the power goes out, or until "The Blue
> Screen of Death," that is...
No, he can't, so don't worry about it. I've had for decades some
cheap sticks and hinges called a "pantograph" that I fiddled into
making work in the first place. Of course, you use it to resize
crap into a master pasteup, and PhotoShop and Express don't do much
more -- just faster (why we're suddenly inundated with reefer art
and Beavis-and-Kenny animation). First, they sneered it. Then they
badmouthed it. Then they called me a fake. Then they just had to
try it out as my replacement.
A few dared to admit: "Gee, you can't draw any better with it
than you can without it."
>
> > Rand dwells on the theory in /Atlas Shrugged/, and "Ellsworth
> > Toohey" teaches the chimps sign language in /The Fountainhead/.
> > "Lazarus Long" says, "Now be off, or I'll kick you downstairs,"
> > but the anapests are all wrong for a sonnet, and I was stuck with
> > the rhyme already.
>
> Heh.
>
> > I'd already done the carbon-copy bit ("stencils," monkey-copies)
> > in the previous two, but, yeh, carbon invites a lot of things be
> > "made" of it (heh). But I lack all desire to build up to diamond
> > pressures, so I don't get those monkey-copies of dead presidents.
> > Nevertheless when a composer begins decomposing, the music of the
> > spheres is still there for anyone to play.
>
> Yes, there's that.
>
> ---
> Art
--
------(m+
~/:o)_|
If we put Congress on WebTV instead of C-SPAN,
we'd never hear from them again.
http://t-independent.com/scrawlmark-press/
Dennis M. Hammes
Tsk. You modern girls and your fully-automatic computer-generated
self-threading quick-dissolving fast-acting sugar-coated
green-and-purple sewing machines!
A /thimble/.
"You may seek it with thimbles--and seek it with care;
You may hunt it with forks and hope..."
You report elsewhere having the fork.
Or maybe that was Art. (Sherrie, Art; Art, Sherrie. Share.)
Dennis M. Hammes
To know where the rocks are, it may be necessary to know which one
you're standing on. To /map/ where the rocks are, it's mandatory.
Abject salamis if I missed something, but you seem to be missing
the bit that /carbon/ is, well, a carbon-copy.
(What Jake Burroughs said about minor roots, and like that.)
vikki cunningham
worried after reading this. Obviously I am learning everything the new
way, but I don't think it matters how you finalise your ideas as long
as you are getting the same standard of finish.
Art McNutt
at cunning...@hotmail.com wrote on 5/27/02 10:43 AM:
Don't sweat it, Vikki, you're absolutely right to a certain point. As it
stands, composition, color, sensitivity to typefaces, to papers, inks,
knowledge of the differences between direct light and reflective light, RGB
and CMYK, the ability to help clients organize and create hierarchies of
information and to express this graphically in print and electronic medium
is all that is required of a graphic designer. This was/is the purpose of
these wonderful tools called the computer. All you should have to do is help
clients communicate. You don't /need/ to know about the arcane arts of
ancient graphic design. You don't even need to know what happens to your
file after it goes to the printer or service bureau. Many never do and
collect quite adequate checks from employers and clients.
But don't ever stop learning, both the old and the new. This goes for any
profession; if the desire /is/ to be competent and not just adequate.
Also, like in most professions, when you land your first job you will
suddenly realize there was more they /didn't/ teach you in college than what
they /did/.
---
Art
Sherrie Lee
> Anyway, the point is you can't learn enough about what you do. Thinking
> you're good at what you do is a mistake, especially to be avoided when there
> are wonderful tools around to make us think we're better than we are.
okay. I understand that. I can monkey around scaffolding and even
erect it with an extra pair of hands, but I had to rent the parts from
a business who bought the parts from the assembly place who ordered
the steel, I suppose and so on.
Another way to think of it, is to think "we (can be) better than we
are" in the sense that we can use the current tools in order to invent
some other kind of tool. Hence, in that sense, we are good at what we
do.
The "wonderful tools" that make us "think we're better than we are"
sound like power tools. Here's a quote I just read: Power comes from
the barrel of a gun.
(Mao Zedong)
P.s. Art, what did you mean in the other post about god and certainty
and angels and "who knows"? I asked Dennis, and I should, of course,
ask you since you wrote it. No one has touched it, and it was trollish
of me to ask Dennis. Sort of. I was seeking a careful reading.
Sherrie Lee
Art McNutt
my...@angelfire.com wrote on 5/27/02 2:04 PM:
[snip]
>
> P.s. Art, what did you mean in the other post about god and certainty
> and angels and "who knows"? I asked Dennis, and I should, of course,
> ask you since you wrote it. No one has touched it, and it was trollish
> of me to ask Dennis. Sort of. I was seeking a careful reading.
>
> Sherrie Lee
>
God has a broad definition. Our idea of God can accommodate anything from
"Thou art God" to the "Myriad Creatures," to the Way of Nature, or Energy
and Mass, the Great Spirit, etc., etc. An Angel is more narrowly defined--a
divine agent of God. Of the latter--who knows? Our definition of God can
bring God into existence--or rather focus. Some have zoom lenses, some have
fisheyes, some have inhibiting filters. HINT: even atheists and humanists
have their gods--just a matter of terminology, and limits to the definition.
And nowhere am I discussing the immortal soul which is a separate issue.
Whoops, let me add IMNSHO. I certainly don't have the time for /that/
debate. So, my opinion, only. FWIW. And, BTW, I don't think /anyone/ has the
market cornered on the fruitful truth concerning God--especially me. Just
one more place I don't see any monopolies where everyone else /does/.
But our definition of Angel can't bring angels into existence or even focus.
Except when you're talking to a Mom about her offspring. Or Daniel. But
there are long time Cocaine addicts who also talk with Angels. There are
people who wear tin foil caps and talk to the Atlanteans in the walls, too.
Real--wasthat? Well, real is what is. Parmenides had thing or two to say
about that. A is A as Aristotle once told Alexander the Great. I really
caution against being chauvinisticly dismissive towards /anyone's/ world
view until you, yourself, can explain your own so that it is meaningful to
others.
Are dreams and vision delivered by Angels? Demons? The Sub
Conscious--whatever-the-hell-that-is? Who knows? Relevant? No, not
necessarily--not even for a Fundamentalist Christian--though maybe it is for
an orthodox Moslem. I, for one, can't even explain where my own conscious
thoughts come from, let alone my dreams. The /ability/ to judge is just not
there. That scope thing. Like trying to see what's behind your own eye
sockets. Someday, we'll understand more--this is my own religion.
The Bible is certainly no help with Angels whatsoever. Especially in
English--though Dennis and the few multi-lingual others are more help here
than /I/ could ever be. Those who've read the Talmud as it was written, seem
to have a much better definition of Angel than English-bound Christians.
Those who've read the Greek (and Latin) from which Christians get the King
James also have a large advantage here. What they are, even to true
believers, is certainly nebulous, at best.
Clear as mud? I think so, so I'll stop here before I make it any 'clearer.'
---
Art
Sherrie Lee
"I really
caution against being chauvinistically dismissive towards /anyone's/
world
view until you, yourself, can explain your own so that it is
meaningful to
others."
Thank you, Art. Great post. I will come back to it. For now, the above
is almost paradoxical to me (cma, imo - so far).
I guess the clincher is "chauvinistically". Without that word, a
warning against being dismissive of a world view of a person, until,
the dismissive can explain its own view meaningfully to others, in
essence, dismisses the world view of a person who cannot explain its
own view meaningfully to others.
That is a doozy for me to write without all the commas. I am attracted
to your idea minus the word "chauvinistcally". There is power in
numbers. It might be wise to withhold dismissive views if one is
certain he is alone. In the case of the uncertainty of whether he is
alone, where a person "intuits" that there are others who find his
view meaningful, but does not know how many people find the view
meaningful, a dismissive view can exist not with the inability to
explain the view meaningfully to others, but with at least one person.
That person, then, might "try" to explain its own view (the view that
dismisses another world view). Others, upon hearing this attempted
communication, have a "chance" finding (or sharing) the view
meaningful.
Okay, that's tough for me. I had to get it down. When I get back from
supper (which, lack of nourishment might explain this post), maybe
I'll write more. I'm making the thought complicated by eliminating the
word "chauvinistically". I know that without that word, I address
something utterly different from what you said.
And, are you a lawyer? Nah. Would a lawyer have such time?
Sherrie Lee (Fish -n- Chips!:-)
Sherrie Lee
in many ways. For example, if a gun were held to my head, I might be
tempted to find a dismissive view meaningful.
Sometimes, it takes me a while!
Sherrie Lee
Dennis M. Hammes
1. Draw from the shoulder.
2. Write from the shoulder.
3. When you cut, wield the elbows broadly.
Too many try to do these things with the fingers.
Dennis M. Hammes
>
> Art McNutt <amcn...@insightbb.com> wrote in message news:<B916B0FD.289B%amcn...@insightbb.com>...
>
> > Anyway, the point is you can't learn enough about what you do. Thinking
> > you're good at what you do is a mistake, especially to be avoided when there
> > are wonderful tools around to make us think we're better than we are.
>
> okay. I understand that. I can monkey around scaffolding and even
> erect it with an extra pair of hands, but I had to rent the parts from
> a business who bought the parts from the assembly place who ordered
> the steel, I suppose and so on.
Don't mistake trade for ignorance, but don't substitute it for it,
either.
>
> Another way to think of it, is to think "we (can be) better than we
> are" in the sense that we can use the current tools in order to invent
> some other kind of tool. Hence, in that sense, we are good at what we
> do.
"Or would you rather be a fish?"
>
> The "wonderful tools" that make us "think we're better than we are"
> sound like power tools. Here's a quote I just read: Power comes from
> the barrel of a gun.
>
> (Mao Zedong)
Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court Oliver Wendell
Holmes, /The Common Law/ (1881).
Dennis M. Hammes
So did Clinton.
"Who Ya Gonna Call?"
(DustBusters are always good...)
> A is A as Aristotle once told Alexander the Great. I really
> caution against being chauvinisticly dismissive towards /anyone's/ world
> view until you, yourself, can explain your own so that it is meaningful to
> others.
Not a good idea even then. Who knows what minor roots they've got
tucked in the babycrap, that /they/ don't even know about? And,
while you'll bury yourself in shit if you try to find them all
yourself, you can always get somebody to tell you what /he/ thinks
is important.
>
> Are dreams and vision delivered by Angels? Demons? The Sub
> Conscious--whatever-the-hell-that-is? Who knows? Relevant? No, not
> necessarily--not even for a Fundamentalist Christian--though maybe it is for
> an orthodox Moslem. I, for one, can't even explain where my own conscious
> thoughts come from, let alone my dreams. The /ability/ to judge is just not
> there. That scope thing. Like trying to see what's behind your own eye
> sockets. Someday, we'll understand more--this is my own religion.
>
> The Bible is certainly no help with Angels whatsoever. Especially in
> English--though Dennis and the few multi-lingual others are more help here
> than /I/ could ever be. Those who've read the Talmud as it was written, seem
> to have a much better definition of Angel than English-bound Christians.
> Those who've read the Greek (and Latin) from which Christians get the King
> James also have a large advantage here. What they are, even to true
> believers, is certainly nebulous, at best.
>
> Clear as mud? I think so, so I'll stop here before I make it any 'clearer.'
>
> ---
> Art
Dennis M. Hammes
>
> Art McNutt <amcn...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
> "I really
> caution against being chauvinistically dismissive towards /anyone's/
> world
> view until you, yourself, can explain your own so that it is
> meaningful to
> others."
>
> Thank you, Art. Great post. I will come back to it. For now, the above
> is almost paradoxical to me (cma, imo - so far).
>
> I guess the clincher is "chauvinistically". Without that word, a
> warning against being dismissive of a world view of a person, until,
> the dismissive can explain its own view meaningfully to others, in
> essence, dismisses the world view of a person who cannot explain its
> own view meaningfully to others.
>
> That is a doozy for me to write without all the commas. I am attracted
> to your idea minus the word "chauvinistcally". There is power in
> numbers. It might be wise to withhold dismissive views if one is
> certain he is alone.
You are alone. (Those "other" noisy, wiggly things are just
percepts you happen to be having at the moment.)
> In the case of the uncertainty of whether he is
> alone, where a person "intuits" that there are others who find his
> view meaningful, but does not know how many people find the view
> meaningful, a dismissive view can exist not with the inability to
> explain the view meaningfully to others, but with at least one person.
> That person, then, might "try" to explain its own view (the view that
> dismisses another world view). Others, upon hearing this attempted
> communication, have a "chance" finding (or sharing) the view
> meaningful.
>
> Okay, that's tough for me. I had to get it down. When I get back from
> supper (which, lack of nourishment might explain this post), maybe
> I'll write more. I'm making the thought complicated by eliminating the
> word "chauvinistically". I know that without that word, I address
> something utterly different from what you said.
>
> And, are you a lawyer? Nah. Would a lawyer have such time?
>
> Sherrie Lee (Fish -n- Chips!:-)
Art McNutt
scraw...@arvig.net wrote on 5/27/02 7:04 PM:
> Art McNutt wrote:
[snip]
>> But our definition of Angel can't bring angels into existence or even focus.
>> Except when you're talking to a Mom about her offspring. Or Daniel. But
>> there are long time Cocaine addicts who also talk with Angels. There are
>> people who wear tin foil caps and talk to the Atlanteans in the walls, too.
>> Real--wasthat? Well, real is what is. Parmenides had thing or two to say
>> about that.
>
> So did Clinton.
> "Who Ya Gonna Call?"
> (DustBusters are always good...)
Well, there's that. He had a well paid team of dust busters, or was it slime
removal?
Parmenides said "That which is, is." Clinton said "It depends on what the
definition of is, is." Then there is the Farmer's Almanac quoting Aristotle
which says "Hay is hay." Who ya gonna believe? Epicurus, of course, who said
eat, drink and be married, but Shakespeare plagiarized this as "I have come
here to Wive and Thrive and chew bubblegum; and I'm all out of bubblegum."
But I'm not one to Hegel over trivialities like who can and who Kant. Pretty
Nietzsche, huh?
---
Art
Art McNutt
Chauvinism of the gun. Or was that a TV Western from the Sixties? But, of
course, there's Python:
"Well Jenkins? I /suppose/ you'd rather be somewhere else? Is that it?
Rather be home watching the telly with the family than out here doing
repetitive drill up and down this courtyard? Over and over again until your
mind's numbed and you can hardly stand anymore...Come on! Is that it?"
"Why yes, Sargent, I suppose I /would/ rather be home."
"Right! Off with you then!"
[Jenkins runs away]
"Good Riddance! Now, how about the rest of you bleedin' pansies? Anybody
think of something they'd /rather/ be doing?"
[entire platoon raises their hands]
That's the kind of dismissive attitude I like.
---
Art
Dennis M. Hammes
Until you hafta wash yer mouth out with Scopes...