goodbyes in the time of burning taco john's... / Marek
Marek Lugowski
goodbyes in the time of burning taco john's
(an easter poem)
------------------------------------------------------------
her no-nonsense motorbike confronts
my no-nonsense little car hand holds hair
the laughter silent in her stare invites
am i taking liberties no fondle me she laughs
out loud i dare not fondle i touch-cut
ceremonial grooves straight lines
tracing etching carving sketching
a fingertip for stylus gripped by ten o'clock
near still chill of the neoned grungy parking lot
filled with cars filled with the lighthouse light
of the ambulance reef of the fire truck peninsula
not the deathly twin sister isles of the tow truck
we think we see ahoy when sailing swaying our masts
creaking on the ship of enthusiastic extravagant
talk glassed in glassed out storytelling in stride
cut in mid-splash as we rush out onto the deck of
street life out of the ice cream hold ben and jerry's
shop what backdrop for sayoonara romancing...
the taco john's is seriously smoking up she says
now golds now reds flash bathe her skin unseen by me
in the sun now raving up her hair in highlights
even she could not industrially engineer to stay
the night with her and awake with her in the morning
i cut within the modest cut of her folk blouse simple
slow defining strokes from top to angling down
i'm putting chill into you no frown.
her no-nonsense motorbike confronts
my no-nonsense little car some folks
have friends for ceremonial witnesses we have
steeds instead to cut through modest farm night
of indiana roadspace to ride in opposite
directions and ruminate on this good friday
from this good parking lot where we pose poised
framed preserved and envisaged by the suffering
of taco john's explicitly rising to heaven not
unlike a pagan offering now wafting in a not-fog
assuming the burden of all sinners not us for we
are pure and will remain desirous thus innocent
protected by the sacrosanct immunity of passion
saved by our own inescapable beauty and not by
this taco john's this son of god this daughter
of lesbos this corporate franchise ministered to
by the anxious supplicants and apostles of the
city of west lafayette this icon this altar
this sepulcher of eucharist tortilla and blood
fountaincola this framing crux this jeweler's box
for our luxurious our intense our no-nonsense
not-kissing.
Marek Lugowski
Easter, 1993
Cincinnati / Chicago
INFIDEL
A troubled poem, the narrator not entirely sure of himself, trying to convince
himself (and the reader) of something he is not quite sure of.
A poem of attempted resurrection from the wasteland state of self-doubt.
Resurrection by assertion of innocence, through desire and the
"sacrosanct immunity of passion":
assuming the burden of all sinners not us for we
> are pure and will remain desirous thus innocent
> protected by the sacrosanct immunity of passion
> saved by our own inescapable beauty
If the strength of this conviction had not wavered through the poem,
the reader would have more faith in the narrator's authority on matters
pertaining to himself.
The first stanza nicely communicates the thrill of desire and romance,
and the seeds of self-doubt --- which arise from the essential solitude
of the mind; here, in the difference between possible interpretations of
acts.
The evidence of crisis (and sanctuary) he sees around him,
of the ambulance reef of the fire truck peninsula...
...
is part of it: it spurs him on, and an image of galloping horses is
given later,
some folks
> have friends for ceremonial witnesses we have
> steeds instead to cut through modest farm night
which suggests that the author is escaping from the world rather than accepting it for what it is.
The galloping horses are also a part of the narrator's assertion of conceited
innocence -- the social constructs of justice, rights etc. etc. are discarded
along with the "ceremonial witnesses", in the hope that he will find a "direct
link" into the woman's heart. But the author gives no indication that
the narrator understands the woman's nature; it appears that his motivation to
escape from the world has got the better of him, and he hallucinates all
kinds of things about her, which are part of the cause of his self-doubt.
The basis of the poem's weakness is that the author seems unaware of this.
(The narrator hopes that the woman on the motorcycle (for he is by no means
certain of it yet) will ride with him on the "steed" he wants to offer her,
though the situation appears to be incapable of being orchestrated for
the proposal to be made naturally. Hence the state of "non-kissing",
when the promise of unspoken delights are placed into suspended animation.
What ought to happen next?)
His solution to self-doubt involves the discarding of the social constructs of
justice and rights, the very notions whose consideration makes
for undoubting action in this context (it is clear what must be done).
In true nihilist fashion, the author revels in the state of
incapacitation, equating undoubting action not with faith in justice and
rights etc., but with their opposites. According to him, it is
impossible in these times to act without self-doubt. Is it possible to
act at all?
The use of the word "modest" in this context is ironic, or, at least,hyperbolic.
Utterances by even the apparently gentlest people can have genocidal
implications. Coming to terms with this is the moral burden of our age.
But the narrator's passion wavers, self-doubt gets the better of him
as thoughts of the kitsch taco john's infest his mind.
Passion for purity is undermined by passionate hatred of the kitsch
taco john, the false prophet etc. etc.. which the narrator denounces
with messianic intensity in the sentences immediately before announcing
the success he perceives in the pregnant state of "non-kissing".
Shades of Christian mythology?
The author has admitted to us that he isn't as perfect as he would like to
be, and has to fight to assert his perfection. His fight, though, is
in vain, because he addresses concepts somewhat askew from the
salient ones, whilst discarding, through ignorance of their deepest
implications, what is fundamental.
jw
Perth
Western Australia
See Kieslowski's film, "The Double Life of Veronique" to see how this sort of
thing is done properly.
Marek Lugowski
Mr. Wojdylo, I am tickled at the attention, and I certainly would not
wish to discourage anyone else from spending time commenting on this
poem which, frankly, I think highly of *grin* -- but, I respectfully
suggest that your axe grinding is a slightly mismatched sport, and perhaps
had you chosen darts, my friend, you would have hit the explicit and the
encoded content more surely.
I would love to see what the woman in the poem thinks of your analysis;
that may yet happen, as we can only hope. Unfortunately, I am the only
reader who grasps most of the content and she is the second in line, though
various persons with acquaintance of Laurie Anderson work (_Mr.
Heartbreak_) Christian and pagan traditions and the layout of West
Lafayette as well as the circumstances surrounding the fire alarm at the
Taco John's there on good Friday will also bring fragmentary though
accurate readings. Everybody else is more or less equal, and so far
apparently, seem to see the poem in similar light. Enter you.
Your reading can be best described as a misreading, and that's without
passing judgment on whether you do that with malice or with genuine
conviction. Suffice to say that what you are saying is silly.
Below I will repudate your interpretation of the images you chose to indict
by showing you where I got them and why I am using them. I don't do this
often, but your airs of conviction egg me on. You, kind (?) sir, remind me
of the scene in _Annie Hall_, speaking of movies, where a misrepresenting
conversation by a know-it-all and his date is interrupted by Woody bringing
in the real authority who proceeds to tell the fool what fool he is. I
love that scene.
>> goodbyes in the time of burning taco john's
>> (an easter poem)
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
>> her no-nonsense motorbike confronts
>> my no-nonsense little car hand holds hair
>> the laughter silent in her stare invites
>> am i taking liberties no fondle me she laughs
>> out loud i dare not fondle i touch-cut
>> ceremonial grooves straight lines
Mimbres and Hopi poetry designs. Poetry designs in general. African
carvings. We are taking in the big picture and performing a ritual of
becoming Familiar.
>> tracing etching carving sketching
>> a fingertip for stylus gripped by ten o'clock
>> near still chill of the neoned grungy parking lot
>> filled with cars filled with the lighthouse light
>> of the ambulance reef of the fire truck peninsula
>> not the deathly twin sister isles of the tow truck
As following context shows, we are At Sea, and the flashing lights are
signs of caution/danger as lighthouses sitting atop reefs, peninsulas,
or in the case of the trouble we really feared, the Scylla and Charybdis
of the tow truck -- that one we cannot escape. At Sea = good, comfortable.
We are Sailing. We are simply having a good time together. Water is also
a sexual image...
>> we think we see ahoy when sailing swaying our masts
>> creaking on the ship of enthusiastic extravagant
>> talk glassed in glassed out storytelling in stride
>> cut in mid-splash as we rush out onto the deck of
We notice the flashing yellow lights and cut our ice cream conversation
short. The Ben and Jerry's is lovely of window and fun to be in or outside
of because of it. Continuing with the Land Ahoy! metaphor.
>> street life out of the ice cream hold ben and jerry's
>> shop what backdrop for sayoonara romancing...
We find ourselves saying bye in this surreal setting of flashing lights...
It's not every day a food place goes up in smoke. On Good Friday...
Powerful crossroads of many traditions in this image, which is the reason
the poem takes a religious turn... and centers on innocence.
>>
>> the taco john's is seriously smoking up she says
>> now golds now reds flash bathe her skin unseen by me
>> in the sun now raving up her hair in highlights
>> even she could not industrially engineer to stay
>> the night with her and awake with her in the morning
Content having to do with Purdue and our conversation, yet accessible at the
surface to all readers. Levels of secrecy, if you will. Ties back to Hopi
social and religious structure which distinguishes between the public (the
profane) and the secret (the religious).
>> i cut within the modest cut of her folk blouse simple
>> slow defining strokes from top to angling down
>> i'm putting chill into you no frown.
Pottery motif revisited. Also, the moment in time introduced above,
replayed. The poem is not linear but revisits itself. Poem within a poem.
And the At Sea metaphor, is thus instantiated as wave.
>>
>> her no-nonsense motorbike confronts
>> my no-nonsense little car some folks
Same symmetry. Repetition/revisiting/chant as a binding device.
>> have friends for ceremonial witnesses we have
>> steeds instead to cut through modest farm night
>> of indiana roadspace to ride in opposite
>> directions and ruminate on this good friday
The bit about riding in opposite directions is from _Mr. Heartbreak_ by
Laurie Anderson... I often borrow from that album. It contains many images
that I have compiled into my personal Holy Book, if you will, or Mystery.
Nothing to do with "ride with me babe". Everything to do with "parting".
>> from this good parking lot where we pose poised
>> framed preserved and envisaged by the suffering
>> of taco john's explicitly rising to heaven not
>> unlike a pagan offering now wafting in a not-fog
>> assuming the burden of all sinners not us for we
>> are pure and will remain desirous thus innocent
>> protected by the sacrosanct immunity of passion
>> saved by our own inescapable beauty and not by
>> this taco john's this son of god this daughter
>> of lesbos this corporate franchise ministered to
>> by the anxious supplicants and apostles of the
>> city of west lafayette this icon this altar
>> this sepulcher of eucharist tortilla and blood
>> fountaincola this framing crux this jeweler's box
>> for our luxurious our intense our no-nonsense
>>
>> not-kissing.
I decline to break this down into itsy bitsy pieces, easy to swallow.
This took many hours so you might as well take 15 minutes. :)
Overriding theme: The woman and I are basically sufficient. We don't
need salvation. We also don't need to kiss to be very fond of each other
or to sustain emotional intensity.
>>
>>
>> Marek Lugowski
>> Easter, 1993
>> Cincinnati / Chicago
>
>
>A troubled poem, the narrator not entirely sure of himself, trying to convince
>himself (and the reader) of something he is not quite sure of.
>
>A poem of attempted resurrection from the wasteland state of self-doubt.
>
>Resurrection by assertion of innocence, through desire and the
>"sacrosanct immunity of passion":
>
>
> assuming the burden of all sinners not us for we
>> are pure and will remain desirous thus innocent
>> protected by the sacrosanct immunity of passion
>> saved by our own inescapable beauty
It's fabulously entertaining Mr. Wojdylo how you take an explicit rejection
of sin and feeling sinful for feeling self-doubt. Orwell would be proud.
>
>If the strength of this conviction had not wavered through the poem,
>the reader would have more faith in the narrator's authority on matters
>pertaining to himself.
>
>The first stanza nicely communicates the thrill of desire and romance,
>and the seeds of self-doubt --- which arise from the essential solitude
>of the mind; here, in the difference between possible interpretations of
>acts.
>
>The evidence of crisis (and sanctuary) he sees around him,
>
> of the ambulance reef of the fire truck peninsula...
> ...
>
>
>is part of it: it spurs him on, and an image of galloping horses is
>given later,
>
> some folks
>> have friends for ceremonial witnesses we have
>> steeds instead to cut through modest farm night
>
>
>which suggests that the author is escaping from the world rather than accepting it for what it is.
>
>The galloping horses are also a part of the narrator's assertion of conceited
>innocence -- the social constructs of justice, rights etc. etc. are discarded
>along with the "ceremonial witnesses", in the hope that he will find a "direct
>link" into the woman's heart. But the author gives no indication that
>the narrator understands the woman's nature; it appears that his motivation to
>escape from the world has got the better of him, and he hallucinates all
>kinds of things about her, which are part of the cause of his self-doubt.
>
>The basis of the poem's weakness is that the author seems unaware of this.
The author seems and is unaware of this because it ain't there.
>
>(The narrator hopes that the woman on the motorcycle (for he is by no means
>certain of it yet) will ride with him on the "steed" he wants to offer her,
>though the situation appears to be incapable of being orchestrated for
>the proposal to be made naturally. Hence the state of "non-kissing",
>when the promise of unspoken delights are placed into suspended animation.
>What ought to happen next?)
>
>His solution to self-doubt involves the discarding of the social constructs of
>justice and rights, the very notions whose consideration makes
>for undoubting action in this context (it is clear what must be done).
>
>In true nihilist fashion, the author revels in the state of
>incapacitation, equating undoubting action not with faith in justice and
>rights etc., but with their opposites. According to him, it is
>impossible in these times to act without self-doubt. Is it possible to
>act at all?
>
>The use of the word "modest" in this context is ironic, or, at least,hyperbolic.
>Utterances by even the apparently gentlest people can have genocidal
>implications. Coming to terms with this is the moral burden of our age.
By that criterion, Mr. Woydylo, you just blew away half of Tasmania.
Better watch your moral burden...
>
>But the narrator's passion wavers, self-doubt gets the better of him
>as thoughts of the kitsch taco john's infest his mind.
Funny, I thought both the poem and the passion (and for that matter the
recollection of the night) seem heightened to me. And I am sorry you think
I described kitch. I had no such intention. Perhaps you don't take the
poem's content seriously enough, or perhaps you trivialize Christianity,
eroticism and pagan heritage. Easter is not kitch if you look deeply
enough into it, and "eucharist tortilla" is only kitch if Latin-American
food and mass culture are kitch per se. Atheist that I am, I believe it is
accurate to say that "blood fountaincola" is in the spirit of simplicity
exuded by the teachings of Jesus Christ. Had the Last Supper taken place
last week, it well might have been at a Taco John's in West Lafayette...
>Passion for purity is undermined by passionate hatred of the kitsch
>taco john, the false prophet etc. etc.. which the narrator denounces
>with messianic intensity in the sentences immediately before announcing
This interpretation is completely opposed to my intention. I suppose I
should be glad anything can be read out of my poem, even though I put
extraordinary amount of work into constraining it by maintaining
earnestness throughout. Why are you failing to track it the way other
readers can? I am curious.
>the success he perceives in the pregnant state of "non-kissing".
Pregnant indeed: It may well yield to kissing. For now though, the point
you missed is that not-kissing here is a palpable, pleasurable, intense
intimacy. Speaking of success, why not throw in supply-side economics and
market futures for coitus... Your little word "success" just vipered away
the other half of Tasmania. How nasty.
>Shades of Christian mythology?
Grand understatement.
>The author has admitted to us that he isn't as perfect as he would like to
>be, and has to fight to assert his perfection. His fight, though, is
>in vain, because he addresses concepts somewhat askew from the
>salient ones, whilst discarding, through ignorance of their deepest
>implications, what is fundamental.
And what is fundamental? Ramming your agenda through a poem and pretending
you are criticizing it? It gets old. It is called marxist-leninist
dialectic and it has other incarnations. For a self-asserted moralist, one
that throws about "oozing cunts" around with some frequency, to be sure,
you are one amazing hypocrite. But thank you for showing that even a good
poem can meet with viral attack. I'd like to see you do Willie the Shake
next -- Sonnets?
>
>jw
>Perth
>Western Australia
>
>
>
>See Kieslowski's film, "The Double Life of Veronique" to see how this sort of
>thing is done properly.
Sigh. Is this the only recent Polish film you have seen? There is really
no connection between Veronique and my poem. However, there is a great deal
of your "idealism" in the more recent Skolimowski's "30 Doors: Ferdydurke",
based on the novel by Gombrowicz.
-- Marek
jabol...@miavx3.mid.muohio.edu
my sacrosanct comments not immune to passion
my comments on your inescapable beauty- this poem
just in case, on any part of it, you might have
got any thing wrong, but here it is--
just in case you were wondering
This sepulcher of eucharist tortilla poem and blood
is waiting to be spoken out loud.
Jean Ann
Marek Lugowski
>Mimbres and Hopi poetry designs. Poetry designs in general.
pottery. then again, it's the same thing, no?
-- Marek
Thomas E. Davidson
In a previous article, woj...@maths.uwa.oz.au (INFIDEL) says:
>A troubled poem, the narrator not entirely sure of himself, trying to convince
>himself (and the reader) of something he is not quite sure of.
>A poem of attempted resurrection from the wasteland state of self-doubt.
>Resurrection by assertion of innocence, through desire and the
>"sacrosanct immunity of passion":
>The galloping horses are also a part of the narrator's assertion of conceited
>innocence -- the social constructs of justice, rights etc. etc. are discarded
>along with the "ceremonial witnesses", in the hope that he will find a "direct
>link" into the woman's heart. But the author gives no indication that
>the narrator understands the woman's nature; it appears that his motivation to
>escape from the world has got the better of him, and he hallucinates all
>kinds of things about her, which are part of the cause of his self-doubt.
>In true nihilist fashion, the author revels in the state of
>incapacitation, equating undoubting action not with faith in justice and
>rights etc., but with their opposites. According to him, it is
>impossible in these times to act without self-doubt. Is it possible to
>act at all?
>Passion for purity is undermined by passionate hatred of the kitsch
>taco john, the false prophet etc. etc.. which the narrator denounces
>with messianic intensity in the sentences immediately before announcing
>the success he perceives in the pregnant state of "non-kissing".
>Shades of Christian mythology?
This scares me. If it isn't satire, it represents to me the worst
things about modern literary critique....
Tom
--
"Fool!" cried the hunchback. "You fell victim to one of the classic blunders.
The most famous is 'Never get involved in a land war in Asia,' but only
slightly less well known is this: 'Never go in against a Sicilian when death
is on the line.'"--_The Princess Bride_, by William Goldman |te...@po.cwru.edu|
INFIDEL
> woj...@maths.uwa.oz.au (INFIDEL) reads (into) my poem...
>Mr. Wojdylo, I am tickled at the attention, and I certainly would not
>wish to discourage anyone else from spending time commenting on this
>poem which, frankly, I think highly of *grin* -- but, I respectfully
>suggest that your axe grinding is a slightly mismatched sport, and perhaps
>had you chosen darts, my friend, you would have hit the explicit and the
>encoded content more surely.
The comment goes likewise for your esteemed self, as your inability to
see beyond your own narrow concerns, as evidenced in your appraisal of my
critique below, is spellbinding; speaking of mismatched sport, moi drug,
perhaps you "would have hit the explicit and the encoded content more surely"
had you been calling the card at a Cane Toad Race in tropical north queensland.
>I would love to see what the woman in the poem thinks of your analysis;
>that may yet happen, as we can only hope.
If she is as unthinking as you, I would not be surprised if she too
found it amusing that I did not divine the little baubles of secrets,
the particulars of places and events which nobody besides the author
could know, within your conceited head --- and indeed, that I have no interest
in doing so.
You may keep your little secrets to yourself, I do not give a damn about them.
I am concerned with other things.
>Unfortunately, I am the only
>reader who grasps most of the content and she is the second in line,
Don't forget to wipe your sticky fingers after wanking so hard.
It seems that most of the content worth grasping slipped by your fingers
long before you realized you had completed your poem. Get a grip, man!
>though
>various persons with acquaintance of Laurie Anderson work (_Mr.
>Heartbreak_) Christian and pagan traditions
Although you write poetry whose trivial detail nobody else in the known
universe understands, it does not mean you have a monopoly on knowledge of
"Christian and pagan traditions...". In many pagan traditions, you
would have had your scalp lopped off and brains fed to the buzzards for
your insolent, selfish misuse of pagan secrets.
>and the layout of West
>Lafayette as well as the circumstances surrounding the fire alarm at the
>Taco John's there on good Friday will also bring fragmentary though
>accurate readings.
>Your reading can be best described as a misreading, and that's without
>passing judgment on whether you do that with malice or with genuine
>conviction. Suffice to say that what you are saying is silly.
Ditto.
You are either naive or stupid. Ever notice that others have written
poetry just like yours? Different baubles, same shit.
>Below I will repudate your interpretation of the images you chose to indict
>by showing you where I got them and why I am using them. I don't do this
>often, but your airs of conviction egg me on. You, kind (?) sir, remind me
>of the scene in _Annie Hall_, speaking of movies, where a misrepresenting
>conversation by a know-it-all and his date is interrupted by Woody bringing
>in the real authority who proceeds to tell the fool what fool he is. I
>love that scene.
Ha! Woody, of course, is the authority on thoughtful level-headedness, as
evidenced by his demeanour in the recent custody court case with
what's-her-name. Ever wonder why his films never get beyond the
confused, muck-raking stage, why they demolish themselves under the
weight of a thousand different complexes? And you take a piece of
this guy's work as a jewel of guru wisdom? Who's the fool, huh?
The fool in that scene was Woody himself --- the writer.
>>> goodbyes in the time of burning taco john's
>>> (an easter poem)
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>> her no-nonsense motorbike confronts
>>> my no-nonsense little car hand holds hair
>>> the laughter silent in her stare invites
>>> am i taking liberties no fondle me she laughs
>>> out loud i dare not fondle i touch-cut
>>> ceremonial grooves straight lines
>Mimbres and Hopi poetry designs. Poetry designs in general. African
>carvings. We are taking in the big picture and performing a ritual of
>becoming Familiar.
So you think I was born yesterday, that I'm surprised when you give me
your divine guidance about what it looks like to become..... Familiar
(why the capital F?) ?
As for the African masks, you can keep that bit, I'm not interested.
>>> tracing etching carving sketching
>>> a fingertip for stylus gripped by ten o'clock
>>> near still chill of the neoned grungy parking lot
>>> filled with cars filled with the lighthouse light
>>> of the ambulance reef of the fire truck peninsula
>>> not the deathly twin sister isles of the tow truck
>As following context shows, we are At Sea, and the flashing lights are
>signs of caution/danger as lighthouses
No shit, Boris. Yevtushenko, Pasternak, the German romantics, liked
this kind of image.
>sitting atop reefs, peninsulas,
>or in the case of the trouble we really feared, the Scylla and Charybdis
>of the tow truck -- that one we cannot escape. At Sea = good, comfortable.
>We are Sailing. We are simply having a good time together.
If it is such a wondrously pleasant time, Nancy-boy, why the word "death" and
symbols of catastrophe?
>Water is also a sexual image...
Nah.... me thoughts it was raining on the night, and the water soaked
through to her cunt.
>>> we think we see ahoy when sailing swaying our masts
>>> creaking on the ship of enthusiastic extravagant
>>> talk glassed in glassed out storytelling in stride
>>> cut in mid-splash as we rush out onto the deck of
>We notice the flashing yellow lights and cut our ice cream conversation
>short. The Ben and Jerry's is lovely of window and fun to be in or outside
>of because of it. Continuing with the Land Ahoy! metaphor.
It's obvious from the poem that something was cut off in mid-soaking.
The details aren't important.
>>> street life out of the ice cream hold ben and jerry's
>>> shop what backdrop for sayoonara romancing...
>We find ourselves saying bye in this surreal setting of flashing lights...
>It's not every day a food place goes up in smoke. On Good Friday...
>Powerful crossroads of many traditions in this image, which is the reason
>the poem takes a religious turn... and centers on innocence.
If the poem had remained purely narrative, then I would not have bothered
with it.
When you embark on religosity, you enter well-travelled ground and are
fair game to others who have been there long before you have.
You also forfeit claims to bumbling, atheist muck-raking such as Allen's.
>>>
>>> the taco john's is seriously smoking up she says
>>> now golds now reds flash bathe her skin unseen by me
>>> in the sun now raving up her hair in highlights
>>> even she could not industrially engineer to stay
>>> the night with her and awake with her in the morning
>Content having to do with Purdue and our conversation, yet accessible at the
>surface to all readers. Levels of secrecy, if you will. Ties back to Hopi
>social and religious structure which distinguishes between the public (the
>profane) and the secret (the religious).
What's not accessible to the informed reader belongs in the realm of
your own private wanking.
>>> i cut within the modest cut of her folk blouse simple
>>> slow defining strokes from top to angling down
>>> i'm putting chill into you no frown.
>Pottery motif revisited. Also, the moment in time introduced above,
>replayed. The poem is not linear but revisits itself. Poem within a poem.
>And the At Sea metaphor, is thus instantiated as wave.
Completely obvious, and hardly relevent in a refutation of my critique.
>>>
>>> her no-nonsense motorbike confronts
>>> my no-nonsense little car some folks
>Same symmetry. Repetition/revisiting/chant as a binding device.
So what.
>>> have friends for ceremonial witnesses we have
>>> steeds instead to cut through modest farm night
>>> of indiana roadspace to ride in opposite
>>> directions and ruminate on this good friday
>The bit about riding in opposite directions is from _Mr. Heartbreak_ by
>Laurie Anderson... I often borrow from that album. It contains many images
>that I have compiled into my personal Holy Book, if you will, or Mystery.
>Nothing to do with "ride with me babe". Everything to do with "parting".
Everything to do with the last line, in fact.
>>> from this good parking lot where we pose poised
>>> framed preserved and envisaged by the suffering
>>> of taco john's explicitly rising to heaven not
>>> unlike a pagan offering now wafting in a not-fog
>>> assuming the burden of all sinners not us for we
>>> are pure and will remain desirous thus innocent
>>> protected by the sacrosanct immunity of passion
>>> saved by our own inescapable beauty and not by
>>> this taco john's this son of god this daughter
>>> of lesbos this corporate franchise ministered to
>>> by the anxious supplicants and apostles of the
>>> city of west lafayette this icon this altar
>>> this sepulcher of eucharist tortilla and blood
>>> fountaincola this framing crux this jeweler's box
>>> for our luxurious our intense our no-nonsense
>>>
>>> not-kissing.
>I decline to break this down into itsy bitsy pieces, easy to swallow.
>This took many hours so you might as well take 15 minutes. :)
Your stuff about not-XXXX is pre-school stuff from Zen, Tantric, but not
Sooka, Buddhism. I studied it in Japan, you know.
>Overriding theme: The woman and I are basically sufficient. We don't
>need salvation. We also don't need to kiss to be very fond of each other
>or to sustain emotional intensity.
The emotional intensity is clear in the "not-kissing"; that you two are
basically sufficient is not brought out in the poem, that you are
capable of meeting the challenge from the biker woman, likewise. The
poem's imagery is too sloppy for that --- too much hint of death, crisis
of outside world.
You should have kept it pure narrative with bits of African masks thrown
in for your own coital pleasure.
Thankyou for confirming the main thread of my impressions.
jw
Marek Lugowski
>>carvings. We are taking in the big picture and performing a ritual of
>>becoming Familiar.
>
>So you think I was born yesterday, that I'm surprised when you give me
>your divine guidance about what it looks like to become..... Familiar
>(why the capital F?) ?
Someone needs to read his Alice Walker and Marot Adler.
familiar *not equal to* Familiar
>As for the African masks, you can keep that bit, I'm not interested.
Someone needs to understand why primitive art contains shared symbols
of straight lines.
>>>> tracing etching carving sketching
>>>> a fingertip for stylus gripped by ten o'clock
>>>> near still chill of the neoned grungy parking lot
>>>> filled with cars filled with the lighthouse light
>>>> of the ambulance reef of the fire truck peninsula
>>>> not the deathly twin sister isles of the tow truck
>
>>As following context shows, we are At Sea, and the flashing lights are
>>signs of caution/danger as lighthouses
>
>No shit, Boris. Yevtushenko, Pasternak, the German romantics, liked
>this kind of image.
Forgive me. We happen to have a tall, tall lighthouse on campus here at
Norhtwestern. I must have become overcome by the local sordid influences.
It will never happen again. I promise -- no mas lightouses in my writing.
>>sitting atop reefs, peninsulas,
>>or in the case of the trouble we really feared, the Scylla and Charybdis
>>of the tow truck -- that one we cannot escape. At Sea = good, comfortable.
>>We are Sailing. We are simply having a good time together.
>
>
>If it is such a wondrously pleasant time, Nancy-boy, why the word "death" and
>symbols of catastrophe?
Wojdylo, intrepid critic, what if you were driving on a holiday
weekend from Chicago to Cincinnati, stopped for ice cream and a blind
date in West Lafayette (roughly half way) and possibly managed to have
yourself your very necessary car towed to no place in particular.
Would you say that comparing the tow-truck to the deadly
mariner-munching sister monster-isles from greek mythology is an
exaggarated metaphor for that circumstance? The tow truck kicks butt.
>
>>Water is also a sexual image...
>
>Nah.... me thoughts it was raining on the night, and the water soaked
>through to her cunt.
I think we can stop here. The Wojdylo-cunt sketch is starting to
resemble the Monty Python spam-sketch, except they say it 17 times in
a row...
-- Marek
Riella
ditto, tom. this "critique" provides more humor than a good monty python
flick....let's hope it's satire.
lisa
INFIDEL
ma...@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Marek Lugowski) writes:
> goodbyes in the time of burning taco john's
> (an easter poem)
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> her no-nonsense motorbike confronts
> my no-nonsense little car hand holds hair
> the laughter silent in her stare invites
> am i taking liberties no fondle me she laughs
> out loud i dare not fondle i touch-cut
> ceremonial grooves straight lines
> tracing etching carving sketching
> a fingertip for stylus gripped by ten o'clock
> near still chill of the neoned grungy parking lot
> filled with cars filled with the lighthouse light
> of the ambulance reef of the fire truck peninsula
> not the deathly twin sister isles of the tow truck
> we think we see ahoy when sailing swaying our masts
> creaking on the ship of enthusiastic extravagant
> talk glassed in glassed out storytelling in stride
> cut in mid-splash as we rush out onto the deck of
> street life out of the ice cream hold ben and jerry's
> shop what backdrop for sayoonara romancing...
>
> the taco john's is seriously smoking up she says
> now golds now reds flash bathe her skin unseen by me
> in the sun now raving up her hair in highlights
> even she could not industrially engineer to stay
> the night with her and awake with her in the morning
> i cut within the modest cut of her folk blouse simple
> slow defining strokes from top to angling down
> i'm putting chill into you no frown.
>
> her no-nonsense motorbike confronts
> my no-nonsense little car some folks
> have friends for ceremonial witnesses we have
> steeds instead to cut through modest farm night
> of indiana roadspace to ride in opposite
> directions and ruminate on this good friday
> from this good parking lot where we pose poised
> framed preserved and envisaged by the suffering
> of taco john's explicitly rising to heaven not
> unlike a pagan offering now wafting in a not-fog
> assuming the burden of all sinners not us for we
> are pure and will remain desirous thus innocent
> protected by the sacrosanct immunity of passion
> saved by our own inescapable beauty and not by
> this taco john's this son of god this daughter
> of lesbos this corporate franchise ministered to
> by the anxious supplicants and apostles of the
> city of west lafayette this icon this altar
> this sepulcher of eucharist tortilla and blood
> fountaincola this framing crux this jeweler's box
> for our luxurious our intense our no-nonsense
>
> not-kissing.
>
>
> Marek Lugowski
> Easter, 1993
> Cincinnati / Chicago
ma...@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Marek Lugowski) writes:
>>> her no-nonsense motorbike confronts
>>> my no-nonsense little car hand holds hair
So Lugowski wants to be taken seriously. OK. Let's play the game.
>And I'm sorry you think
>I described kitch. I had no such intention. Perhaps you don't take the
>poem's content seriously enough, or perhaps you trivialize Christianity,
>eroticism and pagan heritage. Easter is not kitch if you look deeply
>enough into it, and "eucharist tortilla" is only kitch if Latin-American
[...]
>I put
>extraordinary amount of work into constraining it by maintaining
>earnestness throughout.
Having spent so much time on it, and being such a good poet, as he tells
us, Lugowski should succeed in achieving the earnestness the serious poet seeks.
Let's see how he has fared.
I'll start off by supposing that Lugowski is being sincere, both in the poem
and in the comments afterwards. (Of course, as with any art that is
meaningful to its creator, the poem itself is a measure of Lugowski's
integrity.)
>>> goodbyes in the time of burning taco john's
>>> (an easter poem)
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
Lugowski didn't mention it, but the title is borrowed from a well-known
book by Garcia Marquez. G. G. Marquez has stated several times that he is, in
fact, theist, that he believes in a notion of God. This is more than
Lugowski claims for himself: he claims he is atheist. Borrowing
religious imagery and title of a theist's book would not seem odd if it
weren't for Lugowski's claim that he is being earnest in the poem: what
does easter mean to him? Why does he take it so seriously? The problem
is that although an atheist can be happy, he can't be "too" happy, nor
"too" joyful. What is the source of Lugowski's self-professed redemption?
Keep in mind that we are assuming Lugowski's poetry is his authentic
experience, that he understands the influences within himself, that it
isn't some post-adolescent love-sick banter.
What's the reader supposed to make of the following, then:
> assuming the burden of all sinners not us for we
> are pure and will remain desirous thus innocent
> protected by the sacrosanct immunity of passion
> saved by our own inescapable beauty
In his state of sincerity, Lugowski feels the need to tell himself about
his own beauty. Odd, since one who knows it already doesn't need to
chant the prescription to themselves.
So Lugowski has shown us that he is unsure of his beauty
and that succeeding in the confrontation with the motorbike woman strengthens
himself.
In telling himself enough times that his position is "protected by the
sacrosanct immunity of passion", he has something in common with Muslim,
Christian and Buddhist fundamentalists.
His atheist mask is beginning to slip.
His poetry springs from this state of self-delusion.
Alternatively, he is quite sure of himself, and is merely telling the
reader about his own beauty, like some guru cock-sure of his religion
calling for disciples. It appears that Lugowski has found his
disciples in rec.arts.poems.
In either case, Lugowski is his own religion, he is
theist -- with himself as god; explaining, of course, why he sees
nothing wrong with forgoing the notion of wrongdoing whilst at the same
time claiming the right of unrestrained passion.
The problem is, I prefer Beezle-Bub to the Child Lugowski.
The reader notes in the following that it appears Lugowski's
old habits are lurking beneath the surface, ones he isn't aware of.
The mask of his poetry as an authentic experience begins to slip in
turn:
>It's fabulously entertaining Mr. Wojdylo how you take an explicit rejection
>of sin and feeling sinful for feeling self-doubt. Orwell would be proud.
Lugowski, in his sincere rebuttal of my earlier critique, links "sin"
and "feeling sinful" with a "feeling of self-doubt". From my readings
of Christian mythology -- in particular, the Roman Catholic brand --- it
appears that Lugowski has remnants of a religious streak floating about
inside his head, unbeknown to him.
What could Lugowski have meant by "feeling sinful", if the influence of
his Catholic upbringing is forgiven in that sentence? (Give him the
benefit of the doubt.)
For the record, it is common amongst eastern sects for feelings of
self-doubt to actually be promoted --- it is an appropriate state of
being --- even though these cultures have no traditional concept of evil,
therefore none of sin. (There's karma, not sin.)
Indigenous tribes also promote a sense of hesitation in conection with matters
regards tribal elders (stories of dreaming, tribal law etc.). The
elder is not god, he is not the object of moral law as such, so "sin" is
not the appropriAte designation for the feeling. It is a form of respect.
It appears that life is a lot more complex than Lugowski would take time
to imagine; he pidgeon-holes complex ideas (he does this with his
dogmatic arguments as well) into simplistic terms. Symptoms of
reactionary idealism.
Lugowski, then, seems unaware of the most basic threads of significant cultures
different from his own, even though he enthusiastically picks off the
rack whatever seems appropriate to his poetic needs. A beautiful person
such as Lugowski need not worry about respecting the ethics
of others, since his ethics are unquestionably perfect. Others may
complain, but what is their word worth against God's?
Borrowing superficially from other cultures raises the notion of "kitch". In
some sense, kitch is that which is superficial, mass-produced. Kitch is
that which is easily taken from anywhere, anyhow, without paying dues
where they are deserved. In this sense, Lugowski's toying with African
ideas fits into the kitch mould:
>>> her no-nonsense motorbike confronts
>>> my no-nonsense little car hand holds hair
>>> the laughter silent in her stare invites
>>> am i taking liberties no fondle me she laughs
>>> out loud i dare not fondle i touch-cut
>>> ceremonial grooves straight lines
>Mimbres and Hopi poetry designs. Poetry designs in general. African
>carvings. We are taking in the big picture and performing a ritual of
>becoming Familiar.
Since Lugowski is being sincere in this poem, his deepest attitude and
values must be present in it; therefore Lugowski's poetry in general
is largely kitch.
>We find ourselves saying bye in this surreal setting of flashing lights...
>It's not every day a food place goes up in smoke. On Good Friday...
>Powerful crossroads of many traditions in this image, which is the reason
>the poem takes a religious turn... and centers on innocence.
An atheist, of course, can talk about religion, the question being, if
he has no yearning interest in it, why is talking about religious things
important to him? Is his atheist pose merely an attempt to shed a
religion he was handed off the rack (e.g. Catholicism) and replace it
with a more esoteric version?
>The bit about riding in opposite directions is from _Mr. Heartbreak_ by
>Laurie Anderson... I often borrow from that album. It contains many images
>that I have compiled into my personal Holy Book, if you will, or Mystery.
>Nothing to do with "ride with me babe". Everything to do with "parting".
What is the attraction of this feeling of "parting"?
>>> from this good parking lot where we pose poised
>>> framed preserved and envisaged by the suffering
>>> of taco john's explicitly rising to heaven not
>>> unlike a pagan offering now wafting in a not-fog
>>> assuming the burden of all sinners not us for we
>>> are pure and will remain desirous thus innocent
>>> protected by the sacrosanct immunity of passion
>>> saved by our own inescapable beauty and not by
>>> => this taco john's this son of god this daughter
>>> => of lesbos this corporate franchise ministered to
>>> => by the anxious supplicants and apostles of the
>>> => city of west lafayette this icon this altar
>>> => this sepulcher of eucharist tortilla and blood
>>> => fountaincola this framing crux this jeweler's box
>>> for our luxurious our intense our no-nonsense
>>>
>>> not-kissing.
>I decline to break this down into itsy bitsy pieces, easy to swallow.
>This took many hours so you might as well take 15 minutes. :)
I took about a minute, and that is long enough.
For nearly half of this sincere stanza which took many hours to write,
Lugowski's imagination is captivated with the evil of "this taco john's
this son of god this daughter of lesbos" which is exorcised in vehement
terms following his judgement (of it as evil).
With this judgement, Lugowski forfeits the right to call himself an
"atheist", since an atheist can have no conception of evil.
>Overriding theme: The woman and I are basically sufficient.
A sincere poem about "sufficiency with another" has no place for dark
imagery, unless exorcism is part of the process of attaining
self-sufficiency.
Lugowski has commented that he is sufficient with the woman throughout
the poem; it seems that the comment is a part of his self-delusion.
Either the sincere poem of "sufficiency with another" has blue sky and green
fields etc. etc., or it is part of a process whose goal is an attainment of a
particular state. (Alternatively, it is a bad poem, with sloppy imagery.)
The form of theism he indulges in is the attempted attainment of this state.
Hence the significance of resurrection.
>We don't need salvation.
Unlikely. It appears you do need the state of "non-kissing" with the motorbike
woman.
>We also don't need to kiss to be very fond of each other or to sustain
>emotional intensity.
But you do need exorcism before this intensity is achieved.
The burning taco john's is your altar.
>>>
>>>
>>> Marek Lugowski
>>> Easter, 1993
>>> Cincinnati / Chicago
>>
>>
>>
>>Passion for purity is undermined by passionate hatred of the kitsch
>>taco john, the false prophet etc. etc.. which the narrator denounces
>>with messianic intensity in the sentences immediately before announcing
>This interpretation is completely opposed to my intention. I suppose I
>should be glad anything can be read out of my poem, even though I put
>extraordinary amount of work into constraining it by maintaining
>earnestness throughout. Why are you failing to track it the way other
>readers can? I am curious.
There's also the chance that it says something about Lugowski's readers
as well as about myself. (I would not describe myself as a Lugowski
reader, I leave that term for his disciples.)
>>the success he perceives in the pregnant state of "non-kissing".
>Pregnant indeed: It may well yield to kissing. For now though, the point
>you missed is that not-kissing here is a palpable, pleasurable, intense
>intimacy. Speaking of success, why not throw in supply-side economics and
>market futures for coitus... Your little word "success" just vipered away
>the other half of Tasmania. How nasty.
Simplistic interpretation of a word, again, from Lugowski. "Success" may
mean "achieving of the state of non-kissing", just as in Buddhism, the
object is to attain a state of non-being.
The difference between the target states in Lugowski's self-worship and
Buddhism is that the latter is not a passionate state. A Buddhist, as
well as a decent philosopher, would say that Lugowski is kidding
himself, in self-delusion.
>>The author has admitted to us that he isn't as perfect as he would like to
>>be, and has to fight to assert his perfection. His fight, though, is
>>in vain, because he addresses concepts somewhat askew from the
>>salient ones, whilst discarding, through ignorance of their deepest
>>implications, what is fundamental.
>And what is fundamental? Ramming your agenda through a poem and pretending
>you are criticizing it? It gets old. It is called marxist-leninist
>dialectic and it has other incarnations.
Actually, Lugowski's case presents itself. Again he perceives complex
insights as an easily digestable label ("MArxist-Leninist"). UnAble to
see the complexity of the world, in his self-centred self-delusion,
Lugowski rams through his passions ignorant of his own most basic feelings.
And it shows in his poem. It begins as narrative, then moves to existentialist,
in the end achieving neither. Despite its cleverness, it fails because
of the superficiality of its writer.
Lugowski is still an actor pretending to be a poet.
It brings in the girlies, no doubt.
>For a self-asserted moralist, one
>that throws about "oozing cunts" around with some frequency, to be sure,
>you are one amazing hypocrite.
Evidently, the pot is calling the kettle black.
>But thank you for showing that even a good
>poem can meet with viral attack.
>>See Kieslowski's film, "The Double Life of Veronique" to see how this sort of
>>thing is done properly.
>there is a great deal
>of your "idealism" in the more recent Skolimowski's "30 Doors: Ferdydurke",
>based on the novel by Gombrowicz.
One day you'll notice that you're the idealist.
Gombrowicz and the absurdists (Wajda etc.): anathema for post-coital
Polish Catholics.
> -- Marek
John Wojdylo
Perth
Western Australia
Post script:
Don Zirilli writes:
In article <1993Apr13....@news.acns.nwu.edu> ma...@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Marek Lugowski) writes:
>Mine was an erratum, not an erotum of a deviant kind, and certainly not an
>act of uncharitable bragging. I really do have a small delicious demon of
>a mouth, so calling me a big-mouth is at best bad chronicling, and we know
>how exact you strive to be in your archivist's duties.
>
> -- Marek
>ah, but I have forgotten to tell about the terrible fire. oh yes, it's
>true. My lovely chalet burned down, and the leaping licking flames took
>with them the staggering view, blue sky and all. So I circle the heap of
>ashes, soot covering my face, my hands, my clothes, and I pick out scraps
>of blackened paper. Alone with a neverending bowl of overcooked rice and
>a cup of stagnant water, I sift sift sift. I am amused that I dared to
>call myself a fool before this. I had no idea what a fool was until now.
You are a fool because you have been a servant of two masters.
>yours,
>Ashes O'Toole
>Defender Of His Own Soul
jw
Ozan S. Yigit
... Of course, as with any art that is
meaningful to its creator, the poem itself is a measure of Lugowski's
integrity.
Where did you get this "Of course" bit? I for one do not accept your
hand-waving claim that any art meaningful to its creator necessarily
allow a measure of such creator's integrity, either as an artist, or
as a human being.
next.
oz
Marek Lugowski
probling analysis of it. "Once the flame begin to catch, the wind
will throw it higher" -- Peter Gabriel, "Biko". Why dot repost
to even more newsgroups?
All this attention makes me sad that I don't have an "oozing cunt"
-- Mr. Wojdylo as quoted about Ms. Marie Coffin in the context of
reviewing a poem of hers on rec.arts.poems. Had I indeed been blessed
so, Mr. Wojdylo could then tell me about the significance of its ebb and
flow in the deconstructivist literary criticism he practices, certainly
*not* wanking gently into the good night. God bless you, Mr. Wojdylo.
Keep us in mirth.
-- Marek
Mark Taranto
> All this attention makes me sad that I don't have an "oozing cunt"
> -- Mr. Wojdylo as quoted about Ms. Marie Coffin in the context of
> reviewing a poem of hers on rec.arts.poems.
I find it hard to believe that JW would *ever* use a word like that.
I'm shocked! SHOCKED!
Welcome to the club.
Mark
Marek Lugowski
Which word is so mock-shocking you, Mr. Taranto? "oozing" or "cunt"?
I am slightly concerned that your misplaced sarcasm obscures the
salient point: Ms. Coffin's poem does not hinge on her cunt,
apparently not to any other observer than Mr. Wojdylo. It is in that
spirit that I bring up his critical (?) faculties (??) vs. my
wonderful (!) poem (!!).
-- Marek
INFIDEL
>INFIDEL writes:
...and it shows in your babbling contributions to r.a.b.
>next.
I'll leave it to you.
Follow-ups to misc.fan_club.heidegger .
>oz
Sherri
>lugo...@ils.nwu.edu (Marek Lugowski) writes:
>
>> All this attention makes me sad that I don't have an "oozing cunt"
>> -- Mr. Wojdylo as quoted about Ms. Marie Coffin in the context of
>> reviewing a poem of hers on rec.arts.poems.
Marek, dear Marek, I fear that you have once again failed to understand
TIJ (this is short for That Infidel Jerk, the title which has been given
by others, I have merely made it an acronym). Though I don't know Mr.
Wojdylo well, I would conclude from your postings and from his postings
that you certainly have the sort of 'oozing cunt' that he has been writing
about all this time.
Sherri
>
>
Thomas Price
This has nothing to do with philosophy of science. Please remove
sci.philosophy.meta from the Newsgroups: line.
Tom Price | tp...@cs.cmu.edu | Free will? What free will?
*****************************************************************************
plutoniumsurveillanceterroristCIAassassinationIranContrawirefraudcryptology
Ozan S. Yigit
o...@ursa.sis.yorku.ca (Ozan S. Yigit) writes:
>INFIDEL writes:
> ... Of course, as with any art that is
> meaningful to its creator, the poem itself is a measure of Lugowski's
> integrity.
>Where did you get this "Of course" bit? I for one do not accept your
>hand-waving claim that any art meaningful to its creator necessarily
>allow a measure of such creator's integrity, either as an artist, or
>as a human being.
...and it shows in your babbling contributions to r.a.b.
It does? How amusing.
If you can keep your eyes open just long enough to look at anything
other than your own ass, I will be glad to send you a chinese-style
"lan" orchid, painted especially to lighten up your sorry life. You
can then either blabber about the integrity of its creator, or just
disconnect your keyboard and weep.
send me your surface-mail address at your convenience.
oz
INFIDEL
>Dear me! All these new Gentle Readers for my poem and Mr. Woydylo's
>probling analysis of it. "Once the flame begin to catch, the wind
>will throw it higher" -- Peter Gabriel, "Biko".
Let me guess. You were thinking this while writing your poem, right?
Then, suddenly, you found yourself fascinated by the kitch of it and
decided it fit your idea just right.
Lucky you.
>Why not repost to even more newsgroups?
I only post my articles to appropriate newsgroups. If you did likewise with
yours, you'd be sending them to alt.personals .
>All this attention makes me sad that I don't have an "oozing cunt"
Don't be sad. Just close your eyes and imagine all those kitch syllables
emmanating from your petite little gob.
"Petite-gobbed Polak seeks Motor-bike Woman for Hot Standing-Around-Doing-
Nothing."
>Had I indeed been blessed
>so, Mr. Wojdylo could then tell me about the significance of its ebb and
>flow in the deconstructivist literary criticism he practices,
My God, I think something got lost in the transition between the
cultures; i.e. my culture -- the poetry culture -- and Lugowski's --
which you find in the classifieds of an upstanding Saturday newspaper.
Maybe you could support your slander with an analysis? Or is this more
of your empty label-mongering, like accusing me of "Marxist-Leninist
analysis" as you did in a previous post?
>certainly
>*not* wanking gently into the good night. God bless you, Mr. Wojdylo.
>Keep us in mirth.
Don't worry. You already manage to keep your tapeworms laughing every
time you spout another "personals" ad.
> -- Marek
jw
Mark Taranto
> mtar...@panix.com (Mark Taranto) writes:
>> I find it hard to believe that JW would *ever* use a word like that.
>> I'm shocked! SHOCKED!
>> Welcome to the club.
> Which word is so mock-shocking you, Mr. Taranto? "oozing" or "cunt"?
> I am slightly concerned that your misplaced sarcasm obscures the
> salient point: Ms. Coffin's poem does not hinge on her cunt,
> apparently not to any other observer than Mr. Wojdylo. It is in that
> spirit that I bring up his critical (?) faculties (??) vs. my
> wonderful (!) poem (!!).
The salient point is that nothing you say or do will have *any* effect
on JW. You argue with him, as if you expect him to play by your
rules. He does not, and he will not. If his exchanges bother you,
you should ignore them -- they will go away. If, on the other hand,
you persist in trying to argue with him, you are likely to do two
things:
1. Cause him to respond more in a manner which upsets you.
2. Make yourself look like a fool.
On the other hand, this might be what you are looking for. From the
exchanges which you had last year with Joe Green, it is apparent that
you don't mind being shown to be a fool.
Mark
Marek Lugowski
don't be sad (an australian bush lullaby)
------------------------------------------------------------
Don't be sad. Just close
your eyes and imagine
all those kitch syllables
emmanating from your petite little gob.
"Petite-gobbed Polak
seeks Motor-bike Woman
for Hot Standing-Around-
Doing-Nothing."
Janek (Bzdury) Wojdylo
21 April 1993
Perth, Western Australia
"how kind of you to let me speak"
-- a certain oozing cunt in a certain oozing play
Marek Lugowski
> 1. Cause him to respond more in a manner which upsets you.
>
> 2. Make yourself look like a fool.
>
>On the other hand, this might be what you are looking for. From the
>exchanges which you had last year with Joe Green, it is apparent that
>you don't mind being shown to be a fool.
You are most correct, Mark. I do not mind being shown to be a fool if
the apprehension is made by people whose opinions are of no value or
consequence to me. :)
In *my* frame of reference, Mr. Green was the fool, and I have
reasonable witnesses that concur with that view. This goes to show
that Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity should be taught in
literary theory courses as well. Including simple analytical examples.
-- Marek
Timothy Watson
Just for the sake of literacy, I think that word is "kitsch".
***********************************************************************
1005 Baits I - Stanley / 1230 Hubbard Rd. / Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2082
Timothy M. Watson |Pawn of the chess game
tmwa...@engin.umich.edu |The board is now shattered
BioEngineering Program Grad Student |Gaps in the confining frame
Interest: Medical Imaging |The other pieces-scattered
--------------------------------------- "TOYS", Oren Bochman, my rewrite
=======================================================================
Mikhail Zeleny
o...@ursa.sis.yorku.ca (Ozan S. Yigit) writes:
>INFIDEL writes:
> o...@ursa.sis.yorku.ca (Ozan S. Yigit) writes:
> >INFIDEL writes:
> > ... Of course, as with any art that is
> > meaningful to its creator, the poem itself is a measure of Lugowski's
> > integrity.
Stop belaboring the obvious, Janek.
> >Where did you get this "Of course" bit? I for one do not accept your
> >hand-waving claim that any art meaningful to its creator necessarily
> >allow a measure of such creator's integrity, either as an artist, or
> >as a human being.
Mot only with art, but in philosophy as well. Take your own idol: a
self-hating, penitent pederast, alternating between toilet trade and
gushy self-accusations; flushed out of the only honest job he ever
held, for showing an unusual interest in his adolescent students; a
shameful, self-hating Jew, sharing Hitler's fondness for Weininger's
"Sex and Race" drivel... would anyone in his right mind bother to
maintain that none of this reflects on his trademark Soft Porn of
Irrationalism, wherein truth is constituted by *any* actual practice
of *any* consensual community?
> ...and it shows in your babbling contributions to r.a.b.
>It does? How amusing.
You know it, too. Were it not for your inadvertent self-exposure on
the gnu discussion group as a closet Platonist, your act would have
been quite convincing, too.
>If you can keep your eyes open just long enough to look at anything
>other than your own ass, I will be glad to send you a chinese-style
>"lan" orchid, painted especially to lighten up your sorry life. You
>can then either blabber about the integrity of its creator, or just
>disconnect your keyboard and weep.
Yes, that is just it: to attain *your* preferred version of truth,
define the boundaries of your consensual community, by excluding the
parties professing inconvenient views. Of course, everything will be
done in full compliance with the consensual practices of a bourgeois
republican democracy, just as long as the reprobates abstain from
baring their fangs; then we burn their sorry asses to cinders, and say
it was all their own fault. Philosophy as Will to Power.
>send me your surface-mail address at your convenience.
You are not fooling anyone who does not want to be fooled.
>oz
>
>
>
cordially, | Personne n'est exempt de dire des fadaises.
mikhail zel...@husc.harvard.edu | Le malheur est de les dire curieusement.
INFIDEL
>Sherri
My dear Sherri,
Intelligent women such as yourself make life that much more worthwhile.
You may call me Janek.
jlam...@pomona.claremont.edu
>
>I only post my articles to appropriate newsgroups. If you did likewise with
>yours, you'd be sending them to alt.personals .
>
sci.philosophy.meta is NOT an appropriate newsgroup for this thread. If
everyone responding to this thread could _please_ remove sci.philosophy.meta
from the distribution line, we'd appreciate it. Thanks.
(No, I don't have a cute sig file. And I NEVER use smileys.)
INFIDEL
lugo...@ils.nwu.edu (Marek Lugowski) writes:
> woj...@maths.uwa.oz.au (INFIDEL) writes:
>>>carvings. We are taking in the big picture and performing a ritual of
>>>becoming Familiar.
>>
>>So you think I was born yesterday, that I'm surprised when you give me
>>your divine guidance about what it looks like to become..... Familiar
>>(why the capital F?) ?
>Someone needs to read his Alice Walker and Marot Adler.
>familiar *not equal to* Familiar
Is Marguerite Duras's "L'Amant" a novel of becoming "familiar" or is it
about becoming "Familiar" ?
Is Shakespeare's Hamlet Familiar with his queen, or merely "familiar"?
Finally, how Familiar is the individual with his epoch's historiography,
even if they don't know what the word means ?
Perhaps you'd like to assert that such notions of Familiarity are merely
bourgeois fantasies?
>>As for the African masks, you can keep that bit, I'm not interested.
>Someone needs to understand why primitive art contains shared symbols
of straight lines.
If you know, why not share your knowledge with others, instead
of hiding it behind masks in secret texts?
Afraid of something?
>>>>> tracing etching carving sketching
>>>>> a fingertip for stylus gripped by ten o'clock
>>>>> near still chill of the neoned grungy parking lot
>>>>> filled with cars filled with the lighthouse light
>>>>> of the ambulance reef of the fire truck peninsula
>>>>> not the deathly twin sister isles of the tow truck
>>
>>>As following context shows, we are At Sea, and the flashing lights are
>>>signs of caution/danger as lighthouses
>>
>>No shit, Boris. Yevtushenko, Pasternak, the German romantics, liked
>>this kind of image.
>Forgive me. We happen to have a tall, tall lighthouse on campus here at
>Norhtwestern. I must have become overcome by the local sordid influences.
>It will never happen again. I promise -- no mas lightouses in my writing.
It's not a question of your being overcome with "local sordid
influences", but about with the way you think about writing your
experiences down on paper.
The general poetry reading public has read a lot more than a school
public like the one here; the first image that comes into your head, the one
seemingly most directly relevant to your experience, could have
a more immediate connotation than the one you're after. Keeping
things secret does not encourage you to investigate the fallout.
After a while, the poet learns to get around
the fallout problem by thinking about the salient points of their experiences
in less concrete terms: the lighthouse is replaced with the _idea_ of a
lighthouse. Anything that fits this idea will do. Depending on what
you choose, you enter any number of territories: "surrealist",
"minimalist", "absurdist" etc. (These labels denote things one knows
intuitively, not something remembered from a book.)
Using the lighthouse image runs the risk of evoking the well-worn territory
of others who've written before you. One shows awareness of the vastness
of the poetic world by containing the fallout from the image, by which
the history of poetry is indirectly acknowledged.
You haven't learned to do this yet. You leave each line to fend for
itself, as if it were a new-born baby innocent of knowledge of the
world around it. You want each line to hit every time, without support
from the other lines. It sounds like the way you use the words
"Marxist-Leninist" to label arguments that could well have been "Bourgeois
fantasies".
In terms of art history, your poems are seriously representationalist,
meaning there's not much distance between the concrete world and your
poem. It's a post-modernist style, a kind of return to a rarified perception
of a fragmented concrete world. Laurie Anderson. Or Wajda etc.'s neo-realism.
The disadvantage is that this style seems to invite conceit -- conceit
isn't exorcised properly, it's hard to see how it can be. Remnants of
conceit get stuck in the rarified atmosphere of what's seen as the
concrete world. Shit seems glamorous in this rarified world.
This is one reason I dislike Wajda. Kieslowski, on the other hand,
doesn't fall in to these traps; he falls into fewer traps than any
Polish director I've seen, that's why he's the best ever.
>>>sitting atop reefs, peninsulas,
>>>or in the case of the trouble we really feared, the Scylla and Charybdis
>>>of the tow truck -- that one we cannot escape. At Sea = good, comfortable.
>>>We are Sailing. We are simply having a good time together.
>>
>>
>>If it is such a wondrously pleasant time, Nancy-boy, why the word "death" and
>>symbols of catastrophe?
>Wojdylo, intrepid critic, what if you were driving on a holiday
>weekend from Chicago to Cincinnati, stopped for ice cream and a blind
>date in West Lafayette (roughly half way) and possibly managed to have
>yourself your very necessary car towed to no place in particular.
>Would you say that comparing the tow-truck to the deadly
>mariner-munching sister monster-isles from greek mythology is an
>exaggarated metaphor for that circumstance? The tow truck kicks butt.
If I wanted to record my experience as art, I would have rewritten the Odyssey.
Otherwise, I would not expect to achieve the state of earnestness (a la
Wilde) or seriousness (a la Camus) , and I would not claim to have done
so. The work would be a party piece, nothing serious.
>>
>>>Water is also a sexual image...
>>
>>Nah.... me thoughts it was raining on the night, and the water soaked
>>through to her cunt.
>I think we can stop here. The Wojdylo-cunt sketch is starting to
>resemble the Monty Python spam-sketch, except they say it 17 times in
>a row...
Oh dear, seems that Marek's been jaded by a throw-away line. What's the
matter, deary? Lost your sense of humour?
Seems that Marek has some aversion to "cunts", thinks that quoting the
word from my posts repeatedly will whip up the masses in moral
indignation. So much for the atheist, postmodernist pose he claims in
his earnest moments, in between religious turns.
Who's the hypocrite, Nancy-boy?
(So what's new amongst so-called "postmodernist" poets?)
> -- Marek
jw
Mark Taranto
> You are most correct, Mark. I do not mind being shown to be a fool if
> the apprehension is made by people whose opinions are of no value or
> consequence to me. :)
Since my comment was that *you* make yourself look like a fool, are
we to gather from this that you do not value your own opinions?
> In *my* frame of reference, Mr. Green was the fool, and I have
> reasonable witnesses that concur with that view. This goes to show
> that Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity should be taught in
> literary theory courses as well. Including simple analytical examples.
From ZEN AND THE ART OF MOTORCYCLE MAINTENANCE:
I've wondered why it took us so long to catch on. We saw it
and yet we didn't see it. Or rather we were trained *not* to
see it. Conned, perhaps into thinking that the real action
was metropolitan and all this was just boring hinterland. It
was a puzzling thing. The truth knocks on the door and you
say, "Go away, I'm looking for the truth," and so it goes
away. Puzzling.
I can understand someone disliking Joe Green. I can understand
someone thinking ill of him. I can understand someone disagreeing
with him. But a fool? No.
You talk of Relativity. To see the truth, you have to be able to see
beyond your frame of reference: Open the door, next time.
Mark
Marek Lugowski
[me:]
>>Someone needs to read his Alice Walker and Mar[g]ot Adler.
>>familiar *not equal to* Familiar
>
>
>Is Marguerite Duras's "L'Amant" a novel of becoming "familiar" or is it
>about becoming "Familiar" ?
I wouldn't know. :( But Louise Erdrich's _Love Medicine_ is about becoming
Familiar, for sure. Try the self-titled story.
>Is Shakespeare's Hamlet Familiar with his queen, or merely "familiar"?
Familiar.
>Finally, how Familiar is the individual with his epoch's historiography,
>even if they don't know what the word means ?
marek aristotle 2: webster historiography
DEFINITION 0
his-to-ri-og-ra-phy \-fe^-\
1a: the writing of history; esp: the writing of history based on
the critical examination of sources, the selection of particulars
from the authentic materials, and the synthesis of particulars into
a narrative that will stand the test of critical methods
1b: the principles, theory, and history of historical writing <a
course in historiography>
2: the product of historical writing: a body of historical literature
-- his-to-rio-graph-ic \-e^--e-'graf-ik\ or his-to-rio-graph-i-cal
\-i-kel\ adj
-- his-to-rio-graph-i-cal-ly \-i-k(e-)le^-\ adv
I can't speak for "the individual" anymore than you can speak for Jane
West Australian Mother and Patriot.
>Perhaps you'd like to assert that such notions of Familiarity are merely
>bourgeois fantasies?
All my fantasies are personal, or they are not mine at all. Your latent
Marxism-Leninism is showing. You know how I can tell? You don't have a
sense of humor. Have you seen a Trotskian or Leninist stand-up commedian?
A Lenny Bruce? ahahhahaha, this makes me laugh, to think one up:
"Comrades, vhen the revolution comes, the burgeois vill be vriting poetry
with their hanging-stiffened dicks... [Party audience heartily laughs here]".
>>>As for the African masks, you can keep that bit, I'm not interested.
>
>>Someone needs to understand why primitive art contains shared symbols
>of straight lines.
>
>If you know, why not share your knowledge with others, instead
>of hiding it behind masks in secret texts?
>
>Afraid of something?
Yes. That your disinterest would pain me. :) Why don't you update your
historiography, "Nancy-boy" (whatever *that* means, but when in Rome...).
>>>>>> tracing etching carving sketching
>>>>>> a fingertip for stylus gripped by ten o'clock
>>>>>> near still chill of the neoned grungy parking lot
>>>>>> filled with cars filled with the lighthouse light
>>>>>> of the ambulance reef of the fire truck peninsula
>>>>>> not the deathly twin sister isles of the tow truck
>>>
>It's not a question of your being overcome with "local sordid
>influences", but about with the way you think about writing your
>experiences down on paper.
>
>The general poetry reading public has read a lot more than a school
>public like the one here; the first image that comes into your head, the one
>seemingly most directly relevant to your experience, could have
>a more immediate connotation than the one you're after. Keeping
>things secret does not encourage you to investigate the fallout.
If the general poetic public is as sophisticated as you claim it is, it
logically follows that they *just might* be able to read a variety of poems
successfully and manage their personal fallout with great aplomb. The sad
case of your inability to do so shows you off for a doctrinaire pretender
and ideologue, or simply a contentious reader. Either way, have fun.
>After a while, the poet learns to get around
>the fallout problem by thinking about the salient points of their experiences
>in less concrete terms: the lighthouse is replaced with the _idea_ of a
>lighthouse. Anything that fits this idea will do. Depending on what
>you choose, you enter any number of territories: "surrealist",
>"minimalist", "absurdist" etc. (These labels denote things one knows
>intuitively, not something remembered from a book.)
This is soporific bullshit and terribly boring at that. Get a critic's
life. I don't need anyone to quote cretinous dumbdowns of semiotics and
make no sense at it either. Charlie Peirce in Peirce Edition Project
original was enough punishment. I gave at the office, okay? :)
>Using the lighthouse image runs the risk of evoking the well-worn territory
>of others who've written before you. One shows awareness of the vastness
>of the poetic world by containing the fallout from the image, by which
>the history of poetry is indirectly acknowledged.
Crossing the street runs the risk of meeting your next wife at the median.
Life can be frought with danger. Why don't you show the vastness of
decency by acknowledging that your prescription is one of many ways and that
you can't hold me to your set of Great Books. I bet you don't even know
who Jane Siberry is. Or care.
>You haven't learned to do this yet. You leave each line to fend for
>itself, as if it were a new-born baby innocent of knowledge of the
>world around it. You want each line to hit every time, without support
>from the other lines. It sounds like the way you use the words
>"Marxist-Leninist" to label arguments that could well have been "Bourgeois
>fantasies".
You need remedial reading classes, or a Dale Carnegie course on containing
hostility. If you were reading this poem with a semblance of receptivity
you would notice more connections than meet your jaded eye. Sorry, but I
cannot write for "autistic" critics and please myself at the same time.
>In terms of art history, your poems are seriously representationalist,
>meaning there's not much distance between the concrete world and your
>poem. It's a post-modernist style, a kind of return to a rarified perception
>of a fragmented concrete world. Laurie Anderson. Or Wajda etc.'s neo-realism.
Just call me Ishmael. Or the Great White Cunt Poet.
>The disadvantage is that this style seems to invite conceit -- conceit
>isn't exorcised properly, it's hard to see how it can be. Remnants of
>conceit get stuck in the rarified atmosphere of what's seen as the
>concrete world. Shit seems glamorous in this rarified world.
If it's conceit to Wojdylo, then it must be wholesome and unassuming here.
>This is one reason I dislike Wajda. Kieslowski, on the other hand,
>doesn't fall in to these traps; he falls into fewer traps than any
>Polish director I've seen, that's why he's the best ever.
How illuminating. Nearly *every* person reading this knows 0 about Polish
film and those who have, *may* have *heard* of one film by Kieslowski and
one or two by Wajda. You call this knowing useful historiography? You are
wanking, Wojdylo. Besides, I suspect that you know less about Polish film
than you let on: If I were to rattle off the last several new films out of
Poland that came to Chicago, you would be forced to admit you've never
heard of them... Give up, pretender. "best ever" ahahahhahahahahahahah.
Implies you know all Polish film, including the great debuts of 1992. What
a dope.
>If I wanted to record my experience as art, I would have rewritten the
>Odyssey.
What makes you think I am not? *innocent smile*. I even have a book-in-
waiting titled _Can You Tell a Line from an Odyssey?_ (1988). Besides, we
are talking about *me* (pout), not you. Please stick to the subject.
>Otherwise, I would not expect to achieve the state of earnestness (a la
>Wilde) or seriousness (a la Camus) , and I would not claim to have done
>so. The work would be a party piece, nothing serious.
I am relieved you know your limitations and are willing to stick to them.
Now if you would only have the courtesy to recognize that I don't know my
limitations and refuse to acknowledge any. *grin* In any case, please
don't hold me down to your standards...
>Seems that Marek has some aversion to "cunts", thinks that quoting the
>word from my posts repeatedly will whip up the masses in moral
>indignation. So much for the atheist, postmodernist pose he claims in
>his earnest moments, in between religious turns.
>
>Who's the hypocrite, Nancy-boy?
This underscores your apparent disability as reader. Most any longtime
reader of this newsgroup could atest to my ongoing efforts to rehabilitate
vulgar words in nonvulgar contexts. Oddly, this implies practicing insult
like a martial art. To wit: You intoxicating idiot Wojdylo, it is your
smug contempt and lack of civility that I delight in showcasing, not any
particular item of the English lexicon. Think of my celebration of your
existence as the antipasto to the dubious overcooked fetuccini diaboli of
your net.droppings.
To answer your question, I don't think there is a "the hypocrite". You are
taking your Platonics far too representationally. Watch it, you might
start humming Laurie Anderson's "Langue d' Amour" any moment now. :) Smooch.
-- Marek
Marek Lugowski
>> You are most correct, Mark. I do not mind being shown to be a fool if
>> the apprehension is made by people whose opinions are of no value or
>> consequence to me. :)
>
>Since my comment was that *you* make yourself look like a fool, are
>we to gather from this that you do not value your own opinions?
We could equally as well gather, Mark, that I think little of your
(hostile) opinion. Who is the royal we. Please take this tread to e-mail.
Unlike you, I have no desire to insult you in public since there is no
content attached to this correspondence. Kindly keep your disrespect for
me with your own thoughts, unless you have something to say about writing.
Else you become a Wojdylo-equivalent and thus a hypocrite.
>I can understand someone disliking Joe Green. I can understand
>someone thinking ill of him. I can understand someone disagreeing
>with him. But a fool? No.
Fine. Some people just can't conceive of some things. Green's reading
of Dawn Tasaka's and mine poems was to say the least Asshole++. :)
>You talk of Relativity. To see the truth, you have to be able to see
>beyond your frame of reference: Open the door, next time.
How well you speak reflexively. Good cop. Donut.
-- Marek
P.s. There is no truth outside of local frames of reference. Perhaps we
are miscommunicating.
Mark Taranto
> There is no truth outside of local frames of reference. Perhaps we
> are miscommunicating.
We are not miscommunicating. It is likely that you do not understand
me, while I understand that you know that if you believe your
statement about truth, you know little about relativity, and less
about truth.
You say that you are not interested in what JW says or what I say. I
wonder, then, why you feel compelled to respond. While Janek and I
are very different, one truth holds -- neither of us is likely to
continue if you choose not to.
There is an old Zen saying that I remember from 20+ years ago which
goes *something* like this:
A student asks his Master "from which direction did the Bhodda
Dharma enter China?" The master does not respond -- but
continued bathing in the river. The student moves closer to
the master -- so that he can hear what he says. Finally, the
master says "I have already dumped dirty water onto you. Do
you wish me to do so again?" The student experienced sudden
enlightenment.
Mark
Marek Lugowski
>We are not miscommunicating. It is likely that you do not understand
>me, while I understand that you know that if you believe your
>statement about truth, you know little about relativity, and less
>about truth.
What an incredibly smug jerk you appear to be. You are writing in a
convoluted, crappy idom, too. Is poor writing axiomatically true in the
Zeleny-Wojdylo-Green-Taranto-Nikolayev Universe? Do you have a koan for
pulling your head out of badly phrased, badly conceived of unkindness?
Perhaps you koan so much by quotation because you can't hack it yourself?
>You say that you are not interested in what JW says or what I say. I
>wonder, then, why you feel compelled to respond. While Janek and I
>are very different, one truth holds -- neither of us is likely to
>continue if you choose not to.
I said I don't give a hoot about what your *opinions* are. From opinions
(in your head) to speech acts is a long way. Please try for precision. I
choose to respond a) for myself and b) for my readers. Also, it stimulates
me and gives me ideas or causes me to remember to wash the dishes, etc.
Have you heard of functional programming and programming by side-effect in
computer science? Talking with you is like both, kinda: It may return
useless values but might accomplish something unexpected along the way.
>There is an old Zen saying...
Give us a break. Could you make-up *new* Zen sayings, you pontifyicating
pseudo-Zen fool? "Fool" used with precision. There is an old Zen saying,
I am sure, that uses 45 picturesque words to make this very point.
'Tis enough for me. I'll give you the last word, since I give up on you
until you convert unto Orthodox Armenian and cite old folk tales from
Armenia instead. "Less filling, better taste." Care for a reference?
-- Marek
Ps. My opnion of Don Zirilli has just gone through the floor. What has he
ever seen in you. Don, you are a slut with no taste.
Mikhail Zeleny
ma...@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Marek Lugowski) writes:
>P.s. There is no truth outside of local frames of reference. Perhaps we
>are miscommunicating.
To repeat my challenge to the craven graphomaniac Mr Lugowski: my
local frame of reference authorizes, and indeed encourages me to
eviscerate him with a flint knife on the altar of the gods of strife.
As an experienced hunter, I am wholly assured of being able to track
him down; as a man of the world, I am wholly assured of the sworn
testimony of a consensual community of friends, placing me at a card
table for the duration of the procedure. Should I follow my personal
instincts; if not, why not?
cordially,
mikhail zel...@husc.harvard.edu
"Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."
Marek Lugowski
[me:]
>>P.s. There is no truth outside of local frames of reference. Perhaps we
>>are miscommunicating.
>
>To repeat my challenge to the craven graphomaniac Mr Lugowski: my
aw, shucks... *blush*. A simple "maniac" will do, Mr. Abuse Hotline. :)
>local frame of reference authorizes, and indeed encourages me to
>eviscerate him with a flint knife on the altar of the gods of strife.
>As an experienced hunter, I am wholly assured of being able to track
>him down; as a man of the world, I am wholly assured of the sworn
>testimony of a consensual community of friends, placing me at a card
>table for the duration of the procedure. Should I follow my personal
>instincts; if not, why not?
I don't know. :) Sounds like fun to me! It's your call.
How do hommes with flint knives stack up against uzis? $1k in Chicago buys
all the preventive maintenance I need, discretion assured. It just so
happens that I can afford it. In my local frame of reference.
-- Marek
INFIDEL
>This has nothing to do with philosophy of science. Please remove
>sci.philosophy.meta from the Newsgroups: line.
Neither has "What do angels eat?"
Please be consistent and insist upon the cessation of two out of three
threads appearing in sci.philosophy.meta today.
> Tom Price | tp...@cs.cmu.edu | Free will? What free will?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You even think like a puppet. Who's pulling your strings, bubba?
INFIDEL
>INFIDEL writes:
> o...@ursa.sis.yorku.ca (Ozan S. Yigit) writes:
> >INFIDEL writes:
> > ... Of course, as with any art that is
> > meaningful to its creator, the poem itself is a measure of Lugowski's
> > integrity.
> >Where did you get this "Of course" bit? I for one do not accept your
> >hand-waving claim that any art meaningful to its creator necessarily
> >allow a measure of such creator's integrity, either as an artist, or
> >as a human being.
> ...and it shows in your babbling contributions to r.a.b.
>It does? How amusing.
>If you can keep your eyes open just long enough to look at anything
>other than your own ass, I will be glad to send you a chinese-style
>"lan" orchid, painted especially to lighten up your sorry life.
I presume you mean "a painting of a Yan orchid painted in a Chinese style".
Your benevolence is touching. I do hope that you get something out of it
and that it's not entirely on my account that you spend several hours
slaving away at the rice-paper.
Don't let the undertaking be a chore for you, for it will show
in the finishing of each brush-stroke as well as in uninspired selection
of watercolours. If painting the orchid is to be such a pleasure for you, then
I gladly accept your offer.
Finally, let me tell you that I dislike the contemporary styles of the Fujian
and Shangdong regions, too many colours, too much perspective and
solidity, too much western influence, political/Marxist at times. Art from
Xinjiang tends to be of Turkish influence, so I suppose that wouldn't be part
of your Chinese repertoire. I prefer the traditional styles from the
Ming dynasty, for example, 16/1700's Fujian.
If you really want to make me happy, show me Chinese dualist thought in
your painting.
>You can then either blabber about the integrity of its creator, or just
>disconnect your keyboard and weep.
Well, I can always send it back, as just another kitsch "Chinoisisme" ,
but if doing the painting really gives you pleasure then I doubt there'd
be any need for that.
>send me your surface-mail address at your convenience.
No problem:
John Wojdylo
51 Park Road
Kenwick
Western Australia, 6107.
>oz
INFIDEL
lugo...@ils.nwu.edu (Marek "In My Frame of Reference, I Love My Little
Gob and i don't care what you say, so THERE nyah nyah nyah!!!!" Lugowski)
leaves out a few lines from my great masterpiece:
> woj...@maths.uwa.oz.au (INFIDEL) at last *writes*:
> don't be sad (an australian bush lullaby)
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Don't be sad. Just close
> your eyes and imagine
> all those kitch syllables
> emmanating from your petite little gob.
> "Petite-gobbed Polak
> seeks Motor-bike Woman
> for Hot Standing-Around-
> Doing-Nothing."
> Janek (Bzdury) Wojdylo
> 21 April 1993
> Perth, Western Australia
That should be:
Title:
don't be sad (an australian- "nyah nyah nyah! i'm a polak american
don't care what you say @!##$*& and I love big macs" bush lullaby duet grand transatlantic production of Cincinatti/Chicago)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Body of Poem (sung with Macdonald's on my mind):
I wish I wish upon a star
I had an oozing cunt
> Don't be sad. Just close
> your eyes and imagine
> all those kitsch syllables
> emmanating from your petite little gob.
Oh sob! Sob! Sob! Boo hoo sob!
How to make myself happy again... I know!.,,;:"'}{, I will
sing sing sing -.,;,.;,,,.;---
"they can all get fucked cos I'm RIGHT in my {}?}{}F{}rame of Reference" and:
> "Petite-gobbed Polak
> seeks Motor-bike Woman
> for Hot Standing-Around-
> Doing-Nothing."
Oh how happy, how happy am I! Look, see?
no frown!
See, I can no-frown too, tee hee hee!
Now - I - think - (tow-truck) Isle - have - a-
Big Mac YEAH! Sincere
thanks to
our sponsor!
No, really.
Girlie like my no-frown!
Now goto sleep, OK?
Marek (Niejebany) Lugowski
21 April 1993
Cincinnati/Chicago
>"how kind of you to let me speak"
> -- a certain oozing cunt in a certain oozing play
"Let's teach special relativity in literary schools."
-- a certain oozing cunt with pretentions
"Not all gobs are alike, some are more alike in their own frame of reference
than others."
-- a fact of life from the Relativity school.
Joan Shields
>What an incredibly smug jerk you appear to be. You are writing in a
>convoluted, crappy idom, too. Is poor writing axiomatically true in the
>Zeleny-Wojdylo-Green-Taranto-Nikolayev Universe? Do you have a koan for
>pulling your head out of badly phrased, badly conceived of unkindness?
>Perhaps you koan so much by quotation because you can't hack it yourself?
^^^^
and this, children, is another example of verbing a noun -
not a very good one but it will have to do.
>I said I don't give a hoot about what your *opinions* are. From opinions
>(in your head) to speech acts is a long way. Please try for precision. I
>choose to respond a) for myself and b) for my readers. Also, it stimulates
>me and gives me ideas or causes me to remember to wash the dishes, etc.
Now, while I do not for a moment think Mr. Taranto needs me to come to his
rescue I fear that I should nevertheless respond to the above for simple
reasons of decency and aestetics.
Mr. Lugowski, you toss opinions about like there's no tomorrow then
complain when someone offers a counter to them. Have you no pride? Have
you no self-respect? Have you no brains between your ears or perhaps
there's nothing there but static! Have you no sense? If you feel the
need for stimulation there are alternatives to tossing your opinions about
like scented petals before your own feet.
In other words, Mr. Lugowski, you ain't that hot. If you don't like
Taranto's opinions of your opinions then don't respond. (You know, there
are times when I feel like a second grade teacher on recess duty - now,
now children.) If you don't give a hoot then put a sock in it!
>Ps. My opnion of Don Zirilli has just gone through the floor. What has he
>ever seen in you. Don, you are a slut with no taste.
This was cheap - then again perhaps it's appropriate for you to rest your
opinions in the celler along with the damp and the cobwebs. No, nix that
last sentence - it was cheap as well.
Yours in wet fishes and raps on the knuckles,
Joan
Mikhail Zeleny
ma...@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Marek Lugowski) writes:
> zel...@husc10.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
ML:
>>>P.s. There is no truth outside of local frames of reference. Perhaps we
>>>are miscommunicating.
MZ:
>>To repeat my challenge to the craven graphomaniac Mr Lugowski: my
ML:
>aw, shucks... *blush*. A simple "maniac" will do, Mr. Abuse Hotline. :)
Fine. Make it "the narcissistic, logorrheic maniac Mr Lugowski".
MZ:
>>local frame of reference authorizes, and indeed encourages me to
>>eviscerate him with a flint knife on the altar of the gods of strife.
>>As an experienced hunter, I am wholly assured of being able to track
>>him down; as a man of the world, I am wholly assured of the sworn
>>testimony of a consensual community of friends, placing me at a card
>>table for the duration of the procedure. Should I follow my personal
>>instincts; if not, why not?
ML:
>I don't know. :) Sounds like fun to me! It's your call.
I am happy to acknowledge a fellow sportsman.
ML:
>How do hommes with flint knives stack up against uzis? $1k in Chicago buys
>all the preventive maintenance I need, discretion assured. It just so
>happens that I can afford it. In my local frame of reference.
I am glad you have so generously decided to go along with my thought
experiment, Mr Lugowski. To make it more interesting, I hereby reveal
that my amicable consensual community comes equipped with long and
short range weapons, far superior to what you could conceivably muster
in the firearms-free Evanston. Our plan is, then, to track you until
you are left alone, abruptly descend upon you, readily overwhelming
your pathetic resistance with our superior firepower, and spirit you
away to our altar, whereupon the ritual slaughter would take place.
In the meantime, our trusty Einsatzgruppen would conduct a clean sweep
of the surrounding area, obliterating all traces of your person from
the face of this long-suffering planet, to the point that the sole
remaining frame of reference would belong to the victorious assailants
and the apathetic know-nothing neighbors. Rest assured that we have
it wholly within our power to ascertain that the cleanup would be
accomplished with the utmost efficiency and precision; no Marek
memorabilia would remain; every single vestige of your poetasting
effluvia would be summarily swept up and confined to fiery flames.
Now for the metaphysical question: given our conditions, would it be
true to say that Mr Lugowski had been kidnapped and tortured to death
by a band of ruthless maniacs, even though every remaining local frame
of reference would _ex hypothesi_ be wholly bereft of any evidence to
that effect?
> -- Marek
Marek Lugowski
Newsgroups: rec.arts.poems
rec.arts.books
talk.philosophy.misc
sci.philosophy.meta
Mr. Zeleny... Mr. Zeleny [gently tapping on conscience (presuming its
existence (in the local frame of reference))]... Mr. Zeleny. I would not
ordinarily say a thing about this, being shy and all, but what about the
other two thousand and seven newsgroups. Surely I deserve... *pout*.
Could we *at least* have soc.culture.misc, misc.jobs.offered (ooh, a hot
one) and news.sysadmin? Frankly, a rec.arts.marek is and sci.marek are
burning needs. Thus news.groups and news.announce.newgroups, also. I
would appreciate an expedient RFD effort on your part, if you would not
mind to conduct the vote as well.
>short range weapons, far superior to what you could conceivably muster
>in the firearms-free Evanston.
Evanston? Chicago, dearie... don't fudge your experiment. Next
you will have this mayhem take place in the leafy lanes of Kennilworth.
>Our plan is, then, to track you until
>you are left alone, abruptly descend upon you, readily overwhelming
>your pathetic resistance with our superior firepower, and spirit you
>away to our altar, whereupon the ritual slaughter would take place.
>In the meantime, our trusty Einsatzgruppen would conduct a clean sweep
>of the surrounding area, obliterating all traces of your person from
>the face of this long-suffering planet, to the point that the sole
>remaining frame of reference would belong to the victorious assailants
>and the apathetic know-nothing neighbors. Rest assured that we have
>it wholly within our power to ascertain that the cleanup would be
>accomplished with the utmost efficiency and precision; no Marek
>memorabilia would remain; every single vestige of your poetasting
>effluvia would be summarily swept up and confined to fiery flames.
You can't deliver on this, as picturesque as it is. You really should not
bother philosophy newsgroups with material better suited for (marginally)
creative writing or alt.sex.hostility.bang.bang.bang
I have secret friends all over the world with staggering amounts of rap
print-out. You'd have to do their frames of reference. What about every
living human who has met me/read me, if only to get ticked off?
Your noton of causality and possible worlds is, at best, infantile.
I am sure you can fix this up if you try. No marks.
>Now for the metaphysical question: given our conditions, would it be
>true to say that Mr Lugowski had been kidnapped and tortured to death
>by a band of ruthless maniacs, even though every remaining local frame
Hey! I resent that! I was to be the maniac. Can't you keep this
straight? Your notation sucks.
>of reference would _ex hypothesi_ be wholly bereft of any evidence to
>that effect?
Certainly not. On the other hand, who taught you how to write? That
person needs to have her licence examined.
-- Marek
Thomas Price
>Thomas Price wheezes:
>
>
>>This has nothing to do with philosophy of science. Please remove
>>sci.philosophy.meta from the Newsgroups: line.
>
>Neither has "What do angels eat?"
>
>Please be consistent and insist upon the cessation of two out of three
>threads appearing in sci.philosophy.meta today.
>
This reminds me of a somewhat dated joke:
The scene is a radio talk show in the Soviet Union in the 1950s; the
topic, the superiority of the Soviet system of industrial production
over that of the system in the United States. Caller after caller praises
various aspects of the Soviet system at great length, and engages
in discussion with the host about whether it might be possible to
realize even greater excellence. Finally one caller asks the host
what the difference is in hourly wage and standard of living between
the average Soviet worker and the average American worker.
After a long pause, the host says, slowly, "They lynch negroes."
Tom Price | tp...@cs.cmu.edu | Free will? What free will?
*****************************************************************************
plutoniumsurveillanceterroristCIAassassinationIranContrawirefraudcryptology
Doug Quarnstrom
: zel...@husc10.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes to:
: I have secret friends all over the world with staggering amounts of rap
: print-out. You'd have to do their frames of reference. What about every
: living human who has met me/read me, if only to get ticked off?
But isn't Zeleney's basic point correct? For example, there is
undoubtedly a truth about what happened at the Branch Davidian
compound. This truth does not depend upon frames of reference at all
despite the fact that we may never know what it is, because it
may get covered up by a powerful and vested frame of reference.
doug
rmck...@smith.smith.edu
(Marek Lugowski) writes:
> mtar...@panix.com (Mark Taranto) writes:
>
>>We are not miscommunicating. It is likely that you do not understand
>>me, while I understand that you know that if you believe your
>>statement about truth, you know little about relativity, and less
>>about truth.
>
> What an incredibly smug jerk you appear to be. You are writing in a
> convoluted, crappy idom, too. Is poor writing axiomatically true in the
> Zeleny-Wojdylo-Green-Taranto-Nikolayev Universe? Do you have a koan for
> pulling your head out of badly phrased, badly conceived of unkindness?
> Perhaps you koan so much by quotation because you can't hack it yourself?
marek - i have not been following this oh-so-articulate flamewar, so i have no
defense for or attack on the Truth behind anyone's statements except the one
that is ably displayed in the quotes - you are a far more apt and entertaining
_writer_ than any of the people who are condescending to flame you. therefore
i am on your side out of sheer respectfor the elegance of tyour dialogue.
- brookes mckenzie
(rmck...@smith.smith.edu)
Bill Riggs
>In article <OZ.93Apr...@ursa.sis.yorku.ca>
>o...@ursa.sis.yorku.ca (Ozan S. Yigit) writes:
>>If you can keep your eyes open just long enough to look at anything
>>other than your own ass, I will be glad to send you a chinese-style
>>"lan" orchid, painted especially to lighten up your sorry life. You
>>can then either blabber about the integrity of its creator, or just
>>disconnect your keyboard and weep.
>
>Yes, that is just it: to attain *your* preferred version of truth,
>define the boundaries of your consensual community, by excluding the
>parties professing inconvenient views. Of course, everything will be
>done in full compliance with the consensual practices of a bourgeois
>republican democracy, just as long as the reprobates abstain from
>baring their fangs; then we burn their sorry asses to cinders, and say
>it was all their own fault. Philosophy as Will to Power.
Are we speaking of any specific event here, Mikhail, or just
in generalities ? Do pseudo-Israelites get any pop from self-hate ?
Inquiring minds and all that...
Bill R.
--
"When up a dangerous faction starts, "My opinions do not represent
With wrath and vengeance in their hearts; those of my employer or
By solemn League and Cov'nant bound, any government agency."
To ruin, slaughter, and confound; - Bill Riggs (1992)
To turn religion to a fable,
And turn the Government to a Babel;
Pervert the law, disgrace the gown,
Corrupt the senate, rob the crown;
To sacrifice old England's glory,
And make her infamous in story.
When such a tempest shook the land,
How could unguarded virtue stand ?"
- Jonathan Swift (1732)
Mikhail Zeleny
ma...@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Marek Lugowski) writes:
> zel...@husc10.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes to:
>
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.poems
> rec.arts.books
> talk.philosophy.misc
> sci.philosophy.meta
ML:
>Mr. Zeleny... Mr. Zeleny [gently tapping on conscience (presuming its
>existence (in the local frame of reference))]... Mr. Zeleny. I would not
>ordinarily say a thing about this, being shy and all, but what about the
>other two thousand and seven newsgroups. Surely I deserve... *pout*.
Try not to explode your haemorrhoids from all that *pouting*.
ML:
>Could we *at least* have soc.culture.misc, misc.jobs.offered (ooh, a hot
>one) and news.sysadmin? Frankly, a rec.arts.marek is and sci.marek are
>burning needs. Thus news.groups and news.announce.newgroups, also. I
>would appreciate an expedient RFD effort on your part, if you would not
>mind to conduct the vote as well.
A venue adequate to the quality of your repartee has been added above.
ML:
>>short range weapons, far superior to what you could conceivably muster
>>in the firearms-free Evanston.
MZ:
>Evanston? Chicago, dearie... don't fudge your experiment. Next
>you will have this mayhem take place in the leafy lanes of Kennilworth.
Good. Chicago has no gunshops, accepts no new handgun registrations,
and is about to outlaw "assault weapons". You are on your own,
sweetie poo.
MZ:
>>Our plan is, then, to track you until
>>you are left alone, abruptly descend upon you, readily overwhelming
>>your pathetic resistance with our superior firepower, and spirit you
>>away to our altar, whereupon the ritual slaughter would take place.
>>In the meantime, our trusty Einsatzgruppen would conduct a clean sweep
>>of the surrounding area, obliterating all traces of your person from
>>the face of this long-suffering planet, to the point that the sole
>>remaining frame of reference would belong to the victorious assailants
>>and the apathetic know-nothing neighbors. Rest assured that we have
>>it wholly within our power to ascertain that the cleanup would be
>>accomplished with the utmost efficiency and precision; no Marek
>>memorabilia would remain; every single vestige of your poetasting
>>effluvia would be summarily swept up and confined to fiery flames.
ML:
>You can't deliver on this, as picturesque as it is. You really should not
>bother philosophy newsgroups with material better suited for (marginally)
>creative writing or alt.sex.hostility.bang.bang.bang
Maybe I can and maybe I can't; but surely the idea of a thought
experiment is not completely alien to your multicultural mind.
ML:
>I have secret friends all over the world with staggering amounts of rap
>print-out. You'd have to do their frames of reference. What about every
>living human who has met me/read me, if only to get ticked off?
Irrelevant. The attack would be sudden and merciless; you may safely
assume that your piercing shrieks and tearful pleas for help would
never reach their terminal screens.
ML:
>Your noton of causality and possible worlds is, at best, infantile.
>I am sure you can fix this up if you try. No marks.
I find this remark of yours quite beside the point. Perhaps you could
elucidate, pointing out just what flaws you attribute to my reasoning.
MZ:
>>Now for the metaphysical question: given our conditions, would it be
>>true to say that Mr Lugowski had been kidnapped and tortured to death
>>by a band of ruthless maniacs, even though every remaining local frame
ML:
>Hey! I resent that! I was to be the maniac. Can't you keep this
>straight? Your notation sucks.
You are hardly a *ruthless* maniac, gonseleh.
MZ:
>>of reference would _ex hypothesi_ be wholly bereft of any evidence to
>>that effect?
ML:
>Certainly not. On the other hand, who taught you how to write? That
>person needs to have her licence examined.
I am glad that we agree on the conclusion that your notion of relative
truth is a proxy for will to power. Surely you will concur that your
parochial opinion regarding the relative merits of our writing, is
likewise a manifestation of your desire to prevail in this engagement.
> -- Marek
cordially,
mikhail zel...@husc.harvard.edu
"Nous donnons la mort, nous saurons la subir."
Mark Taranto
Marek writes:
> You are writing in a convoluted, crappy idom, too.
You have a valid point here. I must admit that I cringed when I saw
what was posted. Blame it on bad editing, rather than bad writing. I
started out saying one thing, then changed my mind. Unfortunately, I
didn't delete everything that I should have.
This response is in two parts. Part one will refute your claim about
Truth. Part two will respond to your last article.
Part 1
Marek claims:
There is no truth outside of local frames of reference.
This is a dangerous thing to believe. More importantly, though, it is
false. This is readily apparent:
If it is true, it can *only* be true inside a local frame of
reference.
Therefore, outside of that frame of reference, it must be
false.
If it is false (outside of that local frame of reference),
then there must be some truth outside of local frames of
reference.
Therefore, the claim must be false.
I could suggest some logic papers and philosophical works, if you are
interested in this topic.
Part 2
Marek writes:
> What an incredibly smug jerk you appear to be.
You confuse smugness with condescension. I am condescending to you
for the following reasons:
You make idiotic statements like the one above, without
thinking through the consequences of your thoughts. This is
the mark of immaturity, and I am often condescending towards
those who are immature.
You have a tendency, in this thread and elsewhere, to
respond to the structure and the words of others, but you
never seem to respond to *what* is being said. This is
the mark of a pedant, and I am condescending towards pedants.
>> There is an old Zen saying...
> Give us a break. Could you make-up *new* Zen sayings,
I am unaware that Zen is dead. Since there are people who still
practice Zen, I imagine that there are new Zen sayings that come up
every day. The one I related happened to be an old one. Why do you
have a problem with this? It is another example of your pedantry. If
you want to be a poet, you should learn to be more concerned with
*what* is being said. The *how* is important, but is secondary.
> 'Tis enough for me. I'll give you the last word,
C'est a voire.
(I just through that French in, so you can compare me to Mikhail again
-- a comparison that I'm sure he finds as laughable as I find it).
> Ps. My opnion of Don Zirilli has just gone through the floor.
Who are you trying to kid? Your opinion of Don Zirilli was already
through the floor.
> What has he ever seen in you. Don, you are a slut with no taste.
I'm unaware that he sees anything in me.
But, if he does, it might be because:
He has seen other things that I have written.
He reads for content as well as style.
He understands who my target audience is.
Mark
PS -- Today's fortune cookie:
Since you don't like those Zen sayings, here is something from
THE ANALECTS. Perhaps you will find Confucius more direct:
The Master said, "He who learns but does
not think, is lost. He who thinks, but
does not learn is in great danger.
From your statements about Truth, I conclude that you are in great danger.
Beware of Russians with long knives.
Mark Taranto
I just wrote:
>
> C'est a voire.
> (I just through that French in,
^^^^^^^
Of course I meant "threw." I correct this *only* because I
want to make sure Marek doesn't lose the point of the article
just because he found that I used the wrong word.
Mark
Natalie Prowse
> MZ:
> >>Now for the metaphysical question: given our conditions, would it be
> >>true to say that Mr Lugowski had been kidnapped and tortured to death
> >>by a band of ruthless maniacs, even though every remaining local frame
>
> ML:
> >Hey! I resent that! I was to be the maniac. Can't you keep this
> >straight? Your notation sucks.
>
> You are hardly a *ruthless* maniac, gonseleh.
Ah, but I think he is.... You don't have a "Ruth" in your bevy of beauties
do you Marek? ;-)
-Natalie
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N...@drao.nrc.ca | "Diane, I know you're trying to make a fashion statement,
| but I don't think fishnet stockings really 'go'
| with Birkenstocks...."
st...@rosie.uh.edu
Could you please translate this French phrase? I believe that "C'est"
means 'it is' or 'that is'. By "a" you could mean the preposition 'to'
since it is difficult to indicate accents. Or it could be the verb
'to have' except that that doesn't make sense. However, I don't know
what "voire" means. I assume that it is not a typo, since you corrected
the other hommonym mistake.
I appologize for this posting. Please disregard.
KALiu
st...@jetson.uh.edu
Marek Lugowski
[mr me:]
I think Doug states a basic misunderstanding of the concept of "frame of
reference". Just because one posits relativism one does not automagically
buy into arbitrariness of content or description. Everything is
grammatically constrained somehow. Dumb statement, I know, but you need it
as a foundation for your house of cards before you go on talking about
dangerous "how many angels can dance on the head of /usr/pin" inventions as
"truth".
I won't explicate anymore on this, but I will demand that people who are
allergic to relativism ask themselves exactly what hurts and can the mommy
of all conceptualizations make it better...
-- Marek
P.s. Incidentlaly, Doug, Zeleny was asserting that the universe is
reversible. This only shows what poor education they are doling out at
Harvard in lit/logic neck of the squirrel-dropping-rich woods knows as the
Yard. I suppose sauntering over to the complexity physicists would be just
too uncool. Thence the simplistic scenarios intent on debunking the world.
The universe is not reversible, and Zeleny can find that out very easily by
sauntering over to the bursar's office and demanding his tuition back...
fat fat chance.
Marek Lugowski
Look, Mark, I'll break my word not to respond to you because you just
posted a harmful misuse of logic and smugly claimed that it was a tight
argument. This might cause children reading the net to major in
journalism...
Second, I do, really do mean that I will not write a response again because
I do not think it worth my time to correspond in public with a person who
condescends to me. To condescend to me, frankly, shows an appaling
misjudment of intellect, and anyone so off the mark (no pun intended)
should me quietly left to their own devices... Also, I detest Confucious,
in fact, my skin is breaking out as we speak and my knuckles are itching...
I am a closet Taoist.
-- Marek
>Marek writes:
>This response is in two parts. Part one will refute your claim about
>Truth. Part two will respond to your last article.
[part two will be deleted as I addressed it upstairs]
> Part 1
>
>Marek claims:
>
> There is no truth outside of local frames of reference.
>
>This is a dangerous thing to believe. More importantly, though, it is
>false. This is readily apparent:
>
> If it is true, it can *only* be true inside a local frame of
> reference.
>
> Therefore, outside of that frame of reference, it must be
> false.
>
> If it is false (outside of that local frame of reference),
> then there must be some truth outside of local frames of
> reference.
>
> Therefore, the claim must be false.
>I could suggest some logic papers and philosophical works, if you are
>interested in this topic.
Permit me to first chasticse you for applying binary value syllogism
without ascertaining that you understood the semantics of my natural
langauge utterance. How utterly reckless and false! What are you
proving? Some assertion in your head! Also, why did you choose
syllogistic logic? Why not multivalued logic of Lukasiewicz? It would
acutally applly here better. Another logic you could have used which
has a natural fit, because why should you asssume truths to be static,
and why should frames of refrences not "talk" to each other or "combine"
or "become encapsulated" is the intension/extension opaque work of Barwise
and Perry. Another good fit is Dunn. But perhaps the best one to
use would be straight Church's lambda calculus because you could
explicitly construct frames of reference with environments (truths) and
lambda expressions (frames of reference). In fact, prcatically speaking,
you should have written your argument as a Scheme program, making sure
you are not using any side-effecting.
I hope this absolves me from your references. "Don't Mess with Texas".
Also, given that truths are likey nonsymbolic, this entire argument falls
apart. Still, modeling frames of references as two syllogists implications
on frozen porpositions is a joke. You should be blushing.
-- Marek
Marek Lugowski
>zel...@husc10.harvard.edu writes:
>
>> MZ:
>> >>Now for the metaphysical question: given our conditions, would it be
>> >>true to say that Mr Lugowski had been kidnapped and tortured to death
>> >>by a band of ruthless maniacs, even though every remaining local frame
>>
>> ML:
>> >Hey! I resent that! I was to be the maniac. Can't you keep this
>> >straight? Your notation sucks.
>>
>> You are hardly a *ruthless* maniac, gonseleh.
>
>Ah, but I think he is.... You don't have a "Ruth" in your bevy of beauties
>do you Marek? ;-)
I have to sadly admit my ruthlessness. With this simple realization
Natalie has just brought me down to my knees, something no Taranto or
Zeleny or Wojdylo could do (that's becasue none of them have cute sisters;
otherwisethey would had taunted me with them by now)....
Desperately seeking Ruth! Does oneyone have a Ruth for Marek? I would
like to become ruthful for once (or twice, if really fun).
It's fitting for Natalie to demolish Zeleny's logic, for all the ugly
things he has said about her. Natalie is sharper than Zeleny. And way
cuddlier, I think.
-- Marek
Mark Taranto
>>> C'est a voire.
> Could you please translate this French phrase? I believe that "C'est"
> means 'it is' or 'that is'. By "a" you could mean the preposition 'to'
> since it is difficult to indicate accents. Or it could be the verb
> 'to have' except that that doesn't make sense. However, I don't know
> what "voire" means. I assume that it is not a typo, since you corrected
> the other hommonym mistake.
"Voire" means "to see." Colloquially, the phrase means "This remains
to be seen."
he pretentiousness of posting in French was meant as a joke.
Mark
Don Zirilli
>
>If
>you want to be a poet, you should learn to be more concerned with
>*what* is being said. The *how* is important, but is secondary.
>
Basher! What and How are One. (ancient Zen saying)
yours,
Ashes O'Toole
--
nobody,not even the rain,has such small hands
I think I found Aaron. Now I need a date.
Mikhail Zeleny
ma...@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Marek Lugowski) writes:
Were this text written in English, it would qualify as a lie.
As it stands, it is mere nonsense.
> This only shows what poor education they are doling out at
>Harvard in lit/logic neck of the squirrel-dropping-rich woods knows as the
>Yard. I suppose sauntering over to the complexity physicists would be just
>too uncool. Thence the simplistic scenarios intent on debunking the world.
>
>The universe is not reversible, and Zeleny can find that out very easily by
>sauntering over to the bursar's office and demanding his tuition back...
>fat fat chance.
>
cordially,
Mikhail Zeleny
> mtar...@panix.com (Mark Taranto) writes:
>Look, Mark, I'll break my word not to respond to you because you just
>posted a harmful misuse of logic and smugly claimed that it was a tight
>argument. This might cause children reading the net to major in
>journalism...
>
>Second, I do, really do mean that I will not write a response again because
>I do not think it worth my time to correspond in public with a person who
>condescends to me. To condescend to me, frankly, shows an appaling
>misjudment of intellect, and anyone so off the mark (no pun intended)
>should me quietly left to their own devices... Also, I detest Confucious,
>in fact, my skin is breaking out as we speak and my knuckles are itching...
>
>I am a closet Taoist.
You are also an incontinent graphomaniac, and a pathological liar, as
evidenced in your above disclaimers. Moreover, your prized intellect,
as exemplified by this exchange, is apparently limited to the capacity
for irrelevant name-dropping, and semi-literate bluster; not too
impressive.
> -- Marek
>
>>Marek writes:
>>This response is in two parts. Part one will refute your claim about
>>Truth. Part two will respond to your last article.
>[part two will be deleted as I addressed it upstairs]
No, you did not. And it is a measure of your intellectual prowess and
eristic mettle, that you can be so frazzled by Mark Taranto.
>> Part 1
>>
>>Marek claims:
>>
>> There is no truth outside of local frames of reference.
>>
>>This is a dangerous thing to believe. More importantly, though, it is
>>false. This is readily apparent:
>>
>> If it is true, it can *only* be true inside a local frame of
>> reference.
>>
>> Therefore, outside of that frame of reference, it must be
>> false.
This can be weakened to "not true", without affecting the force of the
argument.
>> If it is false (outside of that local frame of reference),
>> then there must be some
...standard of...
>> truth outside of local frames of
>> reference.
>>
>> Therefore, the claim must be false.
Q.E.D.
>>I could suggest some logic papers and philosophical works, if you are
>>interested in this topic.
>Permit me to first chasticse you for applying binary value syllogism
>without ascertaining that you understood the semantics of my natural
>langauge utterance. How utterly reckless and false! What are you
>proving? Some assertion in your head! Also, why did you choose
>syllogistic logic? Why not multivalued logic of Lukasiewicz? It would
>acutally applly here better.
Nice try, but no donut for you, my furry pal. Lukasiewicz implicitly
depends on a bivalent metalanguage, on which see Kneale & Kneale, _The
Development of Logic_, index entries on multi-valued logics.
> Another logic you could have used which
>has a natural fit, because why should you asssume truths to be static,
>and why should frames of refrences not "talk" to each other or "combine"
>or "become encapsulated" is the intension/extension opaque work of Barwise
>and Perry.
Kindly point out the relevance of situation semantics to the issue of
relativism. Also, could you attempt to write in English next time?
> Another good fit is Dunn.
Ditto for relevant logic. Incidentally, I shall be most happy to
forward your forthcoming detailed explanation to Jon Barwise or Mike
Dunn, for their comments.
> But perhaps the best one to
>use would be straight Church's lambda calculus because you could
>explicitly construct frames of reference with environments (truths) and
>lambda expressions (frames of reference).
Please elaborate. Church would be very surprised to find his work
used in this unexpected, and _prima facie_ incongruous manner.
> In fact, prcatically speaking,
>you should have written your argument as a Scheme program, making sure
>you are not using any side-effecting.
>
>I hope this absolves me from your references. "Don't Mess with Texas".
You have to try harder next time, -- every time you drop a name, you
expose yourself to the chance of running into someone who knows the
work, and sometimes, even the people responsible for it.
>Also, given that truths are likey nonsymbolic, this entire argument falls
>apart. Still, modeling frames of references as two syllogists implications
>on frozen porpositions is a joke. You should be blushing.
Pray tell, how are truths "likey nonsymbolic"? and what are "frozen
porpositions"? Inquiring minds, etc.
> -- Marek
Hal Render
: I am a closet Taoist.
Curious. Lao Tzu had something to say about folks like you:
"Those who know do not talk.
Those who talk do not know."
-- Lao Tzu, _Tao Te Ching_ (Feng/English trans.)
--
hal render
univ. of colorado at colorado-springs
ren...@massive.uccs.edu
Francis Muir
Marek Lugowski writes:
I am a closet Taoist.
Curious. Lao Tzu had something to say about folks like you:
"Those who know do not talk.
Those who talk do not know."
Lao Tzu, _Tao Te Ching_ (Feng/English trans.)
Oh, I don't know...
FM
Mark Taranto
ma...@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Marek Lugowski) writes:
> Look, Mark, I'll break my word not to respond to you
I knew that you would.
> You should be blushing.
Blushing? I'm laughing hysterically.
I'm sure that anyone who knows *anything* about logic is laughing with
me, as are those who merely recognize bullshit when they see it.
Mark
Marek Lugowski
[me:]
>: I am a closet Taoist.
>
>Curious. Lao Tzu had something to say about folks like you:
>
> "Those who know do not talk.
> Those who talk do not know."
> -- Lao Tzu, _Tao Te Ching_ (Feng/English trans.)
Well, I think that would imply that Raymond Smullyan is included. And
wherever Ray goes, so do I, happily. Even though he *always* greets me
with a Polish joke when he smiles at me.
-- Marek
Marek Lugowski
>You are also an incontinent graphomaniac, and a pathological liar, as
>evidenced in your above disclaimers. Moreover, your prized intellect,
>as exemplified by this exchange, is apparently limited to the capacity
>for irrelevant name-dropping, and semi-literate bluster; not too
>impressive.
Has it ever occured to you that invective past a certain threshhold
acquires a quality theatrical surrealism? I am laughing at your
idiom, Zeleny. You really *are* funny!
[blah blah]
>>> Therefore, outside of that frame of reference, it must be
>>> false.
>
>This can be weakened to "not true", without affecting the force of the
>argument.
How perceptive. The force of the argument remains nil. You two don't even
know -- because you have not bothered to find out, I wager -- what I meant
in English, but you are plenty ready to crucify it in syllogism. The
Spanish Inquisition is not hiring right now, try Ben and Jerry's...
>Nice try, but no donut for you, my furry pal. Lukasiewicz implicitly
>depends on a bivalent metalanguage, on which see Kneale & Kneale, _The
>Development of Logic_, index entries on multi-valued logics.
I am sure buying raspberries also depends on Kneale & Kneale. Everybody!
Be sure to bring that to the attention to the produce manager and see how
it affects the sale pricing. We might as well pack up Lukasiewicz since
he neatly reduces to two-value logics, eh? Your utter ignorance of
computer science is a-shining.
>> Another logic you could have used which
>>has a natural fit, because why should you asssume truths to be static,
>>and why should frames of refrences not "talk" to each other or "combine"
>>or "become encapsulated" is the intension/extension opaque work of Barwise
>>and Perry.
>
>Kindly point out the relevance of situation semantics to the issue of
>relativism. Also, could you attempt to write in English next time?
Dlaczego? Pan sam pisze w jezyku tak nieznosnym ze az trudno go uznac za
angielski. No, ale z uprzejmosci: Opaque contexts, Zeleny, opaque
contexts. I can build my relative frames of reference with self-contained
or shared/communicated truths with propostional attitudes. This is very
easy and you know it and it is slightly scandalous that a logic student at
Harvard would publically seek this clarification. Then again, you would
not know a line of lisp or basic if it hit you in the groin and said bite
me. So for your continuing education:
REM BITE ME <-- Basic
;;; bite me. <-- Lisp
Incidentally -- do you presume to tell me Professor Barwise will claim that
his logics are unsuitable for modelling the semantics of relativism? :)
I would like a donut for his verbatim reply...
>> Another good fit is Dunn.
>
>Ditto for relevant logic. Incidentally, I shall be most happy to
>forward your forthcoming detailed explanation to Jon Barwise or Mike
>Dunn, for their comments.
On second thought, please don't. I happen to personally know Mike Dunn as
we have worked together on Prisoner's Dilemma (c.f. Metamagical Themas,
Hofstadter) in 1982 and respect him for his unassuming gentleness. I think
he would be horrified to learn that someone called somene else on a
worldwide philosophy Usenet forum "an incontinent graphomaniac" (without
any evidence of the former, to say the least!). I would blush if your
utter revoltingness came to his attention. Please expose your lack of
civility to Mike Dunn on your own time, thank you. Preferrably when you
ask for a job at Indiana. :) I keep forgetting -- you are a badly behaved
undergraduate. Make that, grad shool. Hillary Putnam's good word won't
help you if your aura precedes you.
>> But perhaps the best one to
>>use would be straight Church's lambda calculus because you could
>>explicitly construct frames of reference with environments (truths) and
>>lambda expressions (frames of reference).
>
>Please elaborate. Church would be very surprised to find his work
>used in this unexpected, and _prima facie_ incongruous manner.
Church might, but then again, maybe not. I am not redefining the semantics
of his calculus --- merely constructing well-formed expressions in it.
What are you? Logic Police? Am I getting a speeding ticket for relativism
in the school zone? Get a life.
>> In fact, prcatically speaking,
>>you should have written your argument as a Scheme program, making sure
>>you are not using any side-effecting.
>>
>>I hope this absolves me from your references. "Don't Mess with Texas".
>
>You have to try harder next time, -- every time you drop a name, you
>expose yourself to the chance of running into someone who knows the
>work, and sometimes, even the people responsible for it.
I don't see how my references are any less useful than yours. I "dropped"
the names I did so that you could efficiently know what I am talking about.
And it worked. Except that you are not perceptive enough to appreciate how
I am using the logics that you purportedly study. What good is it to be a
logic student if you don't know how to use logic in the real world?!
>>Also, given that truths are likey nonsymbolic, this entire argument falls
>>apart. Still, modeling frames of references as two syllogists implications
>>on frozen porpositions is a joke. You should be blushing.
>
>Pray tell, how are truths "likey nonsymbolic"? and what are "frozen
>porpositions"? Inquiring minds, etc.
"Truths" are now denoted by logicians as static objects, by and large.
Thus, "frozen propositions". The denotational semantics work in computer
science goes towards extending the formalism of truth to processes, and
more excitingly, to massively parallel purely functional notation, so that
we could have huge, easy to write, easy to show correct massively parallel
programs (logical expressions).
However, these are still symbolic representations of truth. What is far
more likely than logic students such as you Zeleny think is that the
symbols we make stand in for truths are place holders that are inadequate
for expressing the world. In short, logics of the symbolic kind may be
inappropriate for describing complexities of the world, from langauge to
the processes of embroying development, for example. Enter the sciences of
complexity. This is only my belief at the moment, but I kind of like it:
chaotic processes will yield plasticity resulting in new forms of calculus
that looks nothing like logic in the traditional sense but everything like
metabolism or organism. References? Or would that be name dropping too...
Um.. was that written in good enough English?
-- Marek
Jacaranda
More douchebag dribble?
Do many of you people have an intimate acquaintance with douchebags,
that you talk of them so freely?
My bet is a big no.
In fact, are there any women on this newsgroup, any at all?
Maybe something to ponder.
Marek Lugowski
You are being mislead by the nefarious Zeleny/Nikolayev-Wojdylo twits, er,
I meant, twins. You see, "douchebag" is their trademarked existentialist
and dialectical construct having nothing to do -- so far as I can fathom --
with any actual commercial articles of feminine hygiene. Instead, contempt
and loathing for the possibly abstract, possibly concrete ideas as well as
particular individuals and their writing become ritualized (cf. myth,
archetype, medusa) her via the explicit distate and loathing for the Female.
Nothing horrifies a mysogynist as much as the vision of an undulating
vagina and its effluents, natural or otherwise. We are talking Fear of
Drowning, Fear of Being Swallowed, and finally, the Fear of Ersatz Enema
Only Different.
Hope this helps. Mind, I am only a closet anthropologist and I couldn't
tell a douche from half a lemmon in poor lighing or in the field.
-- Marek
Michael I. Lichter
>>Marek claims:
>>
>> There is no truth outside of local frames of reference.
>>
>>This is a dangerous thing to believe. More importantly, though, it is
>>false. This is readily apparent:
>>
>> If it is true, it can *only* be true inside a local frame of
>> reference.
>>
>> false.
>>
>> reference.
>>
>> Therefore, the claim must be false.
Taranto's argument is a distortion -- possibly willful -- of Marek's
simple statement. Taranto's restatement of Marek is:
Let P be some proposition.
Let F be the universe of frames of reference.
Let f be one particular frame of reference.
Let P be true in some f.
There exists one and only one f where P is true.
Conclusion: P is false for all other f members of F.
The more general case is:
Let P be some proposition.
Let F be the universe of frames of reference.
Let f be one particular frame of reference.
Let P be true in some f.
There exists at least one f where P is true.
There exist some f where P is not true.
Conclusion: P may be true for other f members of F.
Arbitrary example:
P: Marek Lugowski is the world's greatest living poet.
f1: The measure of poetic greatness is how many poems an author
has written about tabouli.
f2: All poets whose initials are ML are equally marvelous and
are all far superior to those with more mundane initials.
f3: Only poets who write 95% or more of their work in rhyme
can be considered truly great.
f4: USENET is a waste of time.
P is true in F1 and F2 but not F3. F4 is indifferent to the
truth of P.
Closer to Home Example:
Is there such a thing as bad poetry?
In an absolute sense, there is no bad poetry any more than
there are bad rocks. There is no set of natural laws governing
the evaluation of poetry, and if there were, saying a piece of
poetry was good or bad would be about as interesting as saying
that a given particle was a proton or an electron.
On the other hand, much of what I read on RAP is godawful and
boring at the same time. Some people who agree with this
statement also think that Ralph Cherubini (easy target since he
probably doesn't even read the group) is God's gift to
poetkind. Differing frames of reference with common elements.
While there is no "natural" standard for poetry, people are
free to create rules, to set standards, to decide what is good
and what is bad. And some people are paid to do this --
journal editors, critics, literature professors. These people
do not uncover the "truth" about poetry -- they merely (within
the limits of human language, human cognition, etc.) create a
set of truths about poetry which are valid for a particular set
of people at a particular point in time.
Another example:
How long does it take to get from point A to point B?
There is no absolute answer, at least if we accept Einstein's
word on the topic. It depends on whether you're the traveler,
a stationary observer, or a moving observer. Of course, if we
let Newton do the talking, t = d / v, where t = time, d =
distance, and v = velocity. Newtonian mechanics are *the
truth* for most of us most of the time, but I'm not lying if
when I tell you how long it takes to drive from LA to New York
I subtract a fraction of a second for time dilation.
Personally, I think it is much more dangerous to think that there *is*
an absolute truth than to think there is not. To think that there is
an absolute truth is to make yourself slave a to a particular version
of the truth. To reject absolute truth is not to wallow in
nothingness, but rather to act pragmatically on the "best" truth
available at the moment. *Knowing* that the the earth is going to end
on December 3, 1973, is not less dangerous than thinking that it might
or it might not, and taking the doubt into account.
Michael
Michael I. Lichter
If you want to be a poet, you should learn to be more concerned
with *what* is being said. The *how* is important, but is
secondary.
In response, do...@uiunix.ui.org (Don Zirilli) said:
You should be kicked out of the sandbox for this, thou
glow-pated O'Toole Basher! What and How are One. (ancient Zen
saying)
Right on, Don! Someone who thinks otherwise shouldn't be writing
technical manuals, much less poetry.
Michael
Robert Camp Miner
>for expressing the world. In short, logics of the symbolic kind may be
>inappropriate for describing complexities of the world, from langauge to
>the processes of embroying development, for example. Enter the sciences of
>complexity. This is only my belief at the moment, but I kind of like it:
>chaotic processes will yield plasticity resulting in new forms of calculus
>that looks nothing like logic in the traditional sense but everything like
>metabolism or organism. References? Or would that be name dropping too...
>
>Um.. was that written in good enough English?
>
> -- Marek
>
Since you asked ... no. You seem to have confirmed the truth of Mr. Zeleny's
original assessment, viz. "irrelevant name-dropping and semi-literate
bluster." Your mastery of the "remark" in not one but two (count 'em, two!)
programming languages almost redeems you, however.
--
------------------------------------------------
Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist.
r...@owlnet.rice.edu
------------------------------------------------
INFIDEL
> woj...@maths.uwa.oz.au (INFIDEL) writes:
>>Perhaps you'd like to assert that such notions of Familiarity are merely
>>bourgeois fantasies?
>All my fantasies are personal, or they are not mine at all.
You don't share the fantasies of your nation's Constitution and Law, then?
Shame that you enjoy the advantages of comfortable living and unhindered
expression, but then again, your frame of reference ends at what you can
consume, so it's not surprising you don't see yourself as a schmuck. You think
you're actually doing your girlie friends a favour? What are they left
with after you drop them, other than --- yet-again --- battered hope?
You're a snake-oil salesman, peddling fake blue-sky, even to your
druggie friends. A 1st class prick. So in love with yourself you
don't notice.
Another Jesus Christ! Oh woe is me! People are such bastards!
And so *uncivil* too. Fucking cunts, the lot of them.
>Yes. That your disinterest would pain me. :) Why don't you update your
>historiography, "Nancy-boy" (whatever *that* means, but when in Rome...).
A "Nancy-boy" is a male who enjoys smooching and pouting at other males.
>are talking about *me* (pout), not you. Please stick to the subject....
>:)...:)... Laurie Anderson's "Langue d'Amour"..:) Smooch.... *smooch* ...
Perhaps you've been hiding a volume of your poetry from your adoring fans?
>Your latent Marxism-Leninism is showing...
... as is your latent homosexuality in your *smooches*.
>You know how I can tell? You don't have a sense of humor.
Your local street directory must be a Trotskyist masterpiece.
Don't *smooch* the cover, Nancy-boy, real readers abhor soggy tomes.
>Have you seen a Trotskian or Leninist stand-up commedian?
>A Lenny Bruce? ahahhahaha, this makes me laugh,
Oh. I thought the 'ahahhahaha' was the sound you made when you jerked off.
Don't waste them sacred sperm, now, you hear? Just direct them at the
keyboard, thus:
>to think one up:
>"Comrades, vhen the revolution comes, the burgeois vill be vriting poetry
>with their hanging-stiffened dicks... [Party audience heartily laughs here]".
Two types of people laugh here: 1) ones with a passion for justice, who
have actually lived through something and are sick of it; and 2) those
who have a passion for themselves, and give themselves away by laughing
like idiots along with the others.
For more details, ask your cock-sucking friend brookes mckenzie
(rmck...@smith.smith.edu).
>[me:]
>>>Someone needs to read his Alice Walker and Mar[g]ot Adler.
>>>familiar *not equal to* Familiar
>>Is Shakespeare's Hamlet Familiar with his queen, or merely "familiar"?
>Familiar.
You must be confused. Has your marathon jerking left you in a daze? Read
Shakespeare again, there's not one mention of the
kind of personal details you wallow in; there's no "Familiarity" a-la Margot
Adler et. al. , no sludge of the private seeping into the public.
Shakespeare is distant, having much in common with the dessicated husk
of "historiography" in his art: he does
not cut close to the bone as does his near-contemporary, John Donne,
for instance. Shakespeare did not have that finesse, and he was bagged
for it by several contemporary critics. It's the main reason he gets
bagged by academics and so-called "postmodernists" these days, though
they are not honest enough to admit it.
Seems that either you're confused in your notion of Familiarity,
or your loyalties are divided between "impersonal" art that operates on
a large scale, and private sludge deified.
My bet is that you grab whatever sounds good, without bothering to think
about it. "Shakespeare? He's famous -- no worries, I'll make his fantasies
mine too. If he got an audience with them, so can I."
>>Finally, how Familiar is the individual with his epoch's historiography,
>>even if they don't know what the word means ?
[...Lugowski scratches around in the dictionary...]
>his-to-ri-og-ra-phy \-fe^-\ [...] >-- his-to-rio-graph-ic \-e^--e-'graf-ik\ or his-to-rio-graph-i-cal > \-i-kel\ adj >-- his-to-rio-graph-i-cal-ly \-i-k(e-)le^-\ adv
Nice try, nancy-boy, now tell your audience what your Websters says
about "cock-sucker".
>I can't speak for "the individual" anymore than you can speak for Jane
>West Australian Mother and Patriot.
But you speak for Hamlet in claiming that he was "Familiar" with his queen.
You seem quite stern in your convictions, pity that they are incoherent.
Are you the Divine Light on an epistemic level or only on the lexical
level? Pray tell.
>>>>As for the African masks, you can keep that bit, I'm not interested.
>>
>>>Someone needs to understand why primitive art contains shared symbols
>>of straight lines.
>>
>>If you know, why not share your knowledge with others, instead
>>of hiding it behind masks in secret texts?
>>
>>Afraid of something?
>Yes. That your disinterest would pain me. :)
Now, now. That's no attitude for a writer. How are you going to attain
authenticity when your fear of the abyss casts a safety net for you and
which beckons the minute things look like getting tough?
Care to tell the audience how that safety net appears in your life?
[Hint: what is your "poetry" (I use the term loosely) almost exclusively about?]
>>>>>>> tracing etching carving sketching
>>>>>>> a fingertip for stylus gripped by ten o'clock
>>>>>>> near still chill of the neoned grungy parking lot
>>>>>>> filled with cars filled with the lighthouse light
>>>>>>> of the ambulance reef of the fire truck peninsula
>>>>>>> not the deathly twin sister isles of the tow truck
>>>>
>>It's not a question of your being overcome with "local sordid
>>influences", but about with the way you think about writing your
>>experiences down on paper.
>>
>>The general poetry reading public has read a lot more than a school
>>public like the one here; the first image that comes into your head, the one
>>seemingly most directly relevant to your experience, could have
>>a more immediate connotation than the one you're after. Keeping
>>things secret does not encourage you to investigate the fallout.
>If the general poetic public is as sophisticated as you claim it is, it
>logically follows that they *just might* be able to read a variety of poems
>successfully and manage their personal fallout with great aplomb.
The variety does not extend to badly written poems with sloppy use of
imagery.
Your continued defence of your poem is a measure of your conceit. Your
imagery and language *is* sloppy. Accept it, and accept that
your little rap songs are a shying away from the abyss, a hiding behind
the comfort of "love" and women's skirts.
>The sad
>case of your inability to do so shows you off for a doctrinaire pretender
>and ideologue, or simply a contentious reader. Either way, have fun.
Since anything, even a telephone directory, can be done as rap, I'm sure
you'll have fun and little trouble in turning the slop of your
intimate life into popular verse.
>>After a while, the poet learns to get around
>>the fallout problem by thinking about the salient points of their experiences
>>in less concrete terms: the lighthouse is replaced with the _idea_ of a
>>lighthouse. Anything that fits this idea will do. Depending on what
>>you choose, you enter any number of territories: "surrealist",
>>"minimalist", "absurdist" etc. (These labels denote things one knows
>>intuitively, not something remembered from a book.)
>This is soporific bullshit and terribly boring at that. Get a critic's
>life. I don't need anyone to quote cretinous dumbdowns of semiotics...
Who's the fogey poet with the bee in her bonnet, then?
It seems your interests are excrutiatingly narrow if you can't recognize
the authenticity of what I'm writing, and indeed need to rely on reference
to discredited literary theory in order to reply to it.
In fact, I speak as a writer reporting on the moment of insight, when
switching between one mode and the next (e.g. surreal -> absurd c.f. Bunuel).
Can't keep up the pace? Getting old and set in your ways?
Seems that your time with all those literary theories has left indellible
prejudices. And more than one, evidently.
Post-coital Catholicism... and now, post-natal semiotics.
>and
>make no sense at it either. Charlie Peirce in Peirce Edition Project
>original was enough punishment. I gave at the office, okay? :)
>>Using the lighthouse image runs the risk of evoking the well-worn territory
>>of others who've written before you. One shows awareness of the vastness
>>of the poetic world by containing the fallout from the image, by which
>>the history of poetry is indirectly acknowledged.
>Crossing the street runs the risk of meeting your next wife at the median.
Grown-up writers know that not every path in life is possible, that
eventually one has to choose one way to the exclusion of the other.
After the choice is made, regret is foolish. Worrying about the future
wife at the median strip, likewise.
>Life can be frought with danger. Why don't you show the vastness of
>decency by acknowledging that your prescription is one of many ways and that
>you can't hold me to your set of Great Books.
I wouldn't dream of trying to hold Your Godliness to the Great Books,
how can I possibly be so insubordinate as to imagine I can make a dent on
your Divine Insight?
Marguerite Duras's "The LOver", incidentally, although it won the Prix
Goncourt in 1984, has been roundly dumped by many of France's literati
as a conceited work. You'll love it.
(It will probably not be a "Great Book".)
>I bet you don't even know who Jane Siberry is. Or care.
If you insist, I'll put her on the reading list. Book to be read #354.
You have not demonstrated why I should have a pressing need to read her,
though.
On the other hand, I have demonstrated over and over again the poverty
of your imagination. Ah yes, you're right: Divine Insight needs no education.
>>You haven't learned to do this yet. You leave each line to fend for
>>itself, as if it were a new-born baby innocent of knowledge of the
>>world around it. You want each line to hit every time, without support
>>from the other lines. It sounds like the way you use the words
>>"Marxist-Leninist" to label arguments that could well have been "Bourgeois
>>fantasies".
>You need remedial reading classes, or a Dale Carnegie course on containing
>hostility. If you were reading this poem with a semblance of receptivity
>you would notice more connections than meet your jaded eye.
How do you know what's met my eye? You've expounded the wonders of
Relativism on many occasions, but I did not know you were into
clairvoyance as well. Miracles never cease.
>Sorry, but I
>cannot write for "autistic" critics and please myself at the same time.
What? Your Divine Holiness has a limitation?
Surely..um...Lord, you are ...uhhh... suffering temporary memory loss.
Just write like you do your poetry. Left-handed are you? Then hold
your dick in your right hand. Yank at half the rate until your new hand
gets accustomed to the motion.
[jw on neo-realism and Laurie Anderson...]:
>>The disadvantage is that this style seems to invite conceit -- conceit
>>isn't exorcised properly, it's hard to see how it can be. Remnants of
>>conceit get stuck in the rarified atmosphere of what's seen as the
>>concrete world. Shit seems glamorous in this rarified world.
>If it's conceit to Wojdylo, then it must be wholesome and unassuming here.
To Neophytes such as yourself, even a death sentence is.
>>This is one reason I dislike Wajda. Kieslowski, on the other hand,
>>doesn't fall in to these traps; he falls into fewer traps than any
>>Polish director I've seen, that's why he's the best ever.
>How illuminating. Nearly *every* person reading this knows 0 about Polish
>film and those who have, *may* have *heard* of one film by Kieslowski and
>one or two by Wajda. You call this knowing useful historiography? You are
>wanking, Wojdylo. Besides, I suspect that you know less about Polish film
>than you let on: If I were to rattle off the last several new films out of
>Poland that came to Chicago, you would be forced to admit you've never
>heard of them... Give up, pretender. "best ever" ahahahhahahahahahahah.
>Implies you know all Polish film, including the great debuts of 1992. What
>a dope.
Well, I can't see how anything I say can broaden the Divine Light's
outlook on what constitutes suitable fare for the gentle reader (some of
his intimate personal slop has splashed into his eyes,
obscuring his vision), so instead I'll address the audience in
r.a.p and r.a.b.
1992 was, in fact, a boom year for the Polish film industry, with 35
films completed and 3 more still in post-production as of April 1993. The
Committee for Cinema, a government body, had created in the previous year three
agencies to promote production, script development and distribution
respectively, and it's paid off.
Three films made it into the main competitive section (Palm D'Or) of the
Cannes Film festival: "Warsaw 5703" , "The Silent Touch" ["Dotkniecie
Reki"] directed by Krzysztof Zanussi and starring Max von Sydow, and
"When Reason Sleeps" starring Jan Peszek. Interestingly, none of these are in
Polish! They're all co-productions with foreign interests.
Max von Sydow needs no introduction to Western audiences, and all that
needs to be said about Zanussi is that he's regarded as one of 3 best
polish directors of the postwar era. His style is lyrical.
Jan Peszek is a brilliant stage actor, probably better than any
Australian actor I have seen or worked with, widely regarded as the best
Polish stage actor following 15 years of uninterrupted performance of a
couple of contemporary, abstract and difficult plays by the Boguslaw Schaeffer, who lectures Musical Composition at the Mozarteum in Salzburg and is
full of the intellectual shit one comes to expect from disciples of
Schoenberg. I saw Peszek in "A Script for Three Actors" --- very, very
impressive. Do yourself a favour, see him in the film, if you can.
Wajda makes a comeback with his "Pierscionek z orlem w koronie" [lit: a
Ring With A Crowned Eagle"... English title, "White Horse Hair" or
something equally strange.] Although Wajda is considered a father
figure in the Polish film industry (Politika-Kultura December 22, 1992),
having directed landmark Polish films such as "Ashes and Diamonds" and
"Kanal", I argue that his vision is highly ethnocentric, post-coital
Polish Catholic, if you will, and not truly universal.
For beautiful, lyrical films of broad appeal, see Witold Leszczynski's
"Siekierezada" [Axiliad] made in about 1986 I think. Witold Leszczynski
is back in 1992 with "Kolos" ["Giant"], about which I know little. The
star of "Siekierezada", Edward Zentara, plays the major role in the 1992
film, "Enak" [actual name] (along with Irene Jacob, from "Double Life of
Veronique"), as well as a main role in the Russian/Polish coproduction,
"Beautiful Stranger". These films will appeal to lyrical tastes.
Finally, the major work of 1992, I think, is Krzysztof Kieslowski's follow-up
to "Double Life of Veronique", "Bleu-Blanc-Rouge", a film contemplating
the values of the French Revolution, starring Irene Jacob (again) and
Juliette Binoche (French actress who played female lead in Carax's
"Les Amants du Pont Neuf", another film about the values of the French
Revolution).
All-knowing, all-seeing Divine Light may take his head out from up his
arse now.
>>If I wanted to record my experience as art, I would have rewritten the
>>Odyssey.
>What makes you think I am not?
I have already told you. You are too stupid and a coward. You are
incapable of writing authentically. Unlike Jason at Iolchos, the minute
the going'd get tough, you would run to hide behind your mummy's skirt (or
the skirt of your latest girlie friend).
Jason had a sense of divine purpose. All you have is a sense of Divine Self.
>Besides, we
>are talking about *me* (pout), not you. Please stick to the subject.
>>Otherwise, I would not expect to achieve the state of earnestness (a la
>>Wilde) or seriousness (a la Camus) , and I would not claim to have done
>>so. The work would be a party piece, nothing serious.
>I am relieved you know your limitations and are willing to stick to them.
>Now if you would only have the courtesy to recognize that I don't know my
>limitations and refuse to acknowledge any.
In that case, they will be acknowledged for you, in your absence. Please
don't squeel like a pig, or get to thinking that the world
is against you, when you find yourself hemmed in one day by an angry mob
wanting to slice your gut into ribbons. Just fuck off and die quietly.
>>Seems that Marek has some aversion to "cunts", thinks that quoting the
>>word from my posts repeatedly will whip up the masses in moral
>>indignation. So much for the atheist, postmodernist pose he claims in
>>his earnest moments, in between religious turns.
>>
>>Who's the hypocrite, Nancy-boy?
>This underscores your apparent disability as reader. Most any longtime
^^^^^^^
>reader of this newsgroup could atest ...
The recent spate of criticism of your poetry --- in particular, the
questioning of its integrity --- suggests that you are not as popular as
you think you are. What have those ghosts inside your head been
telling you?
>to my ongoing efforts to rehabilitate
>vulgar words in nonvulgar contexts. Oddly, this implies practicing insult
>like a martial art. To wit: You intoxicating idiot Wojdylo,
Why, I'm flattered Marek. Do you sing for me too beneath the silvery moon?
>it is your
>smug contempt and lack of civility that I delight in showcasing, not any
>particular item of the English lexicon. Think of my celebration of your
>existence as the antipasto to the dubious overcooked fetuccini diaboli of
>your net.droppings.
Your timing is bad, your syllables are garbled. Little wonder you can't
stick with the girlies.
You know, if you drool as well, then you may pass as Quasimodo in their
sexual fantasies.
It looks like the Divine Light is limited by His poor imagination. Oh
what a pity. Another God bites the dust.
> -- Marek
jw
Marek Lugowski
>Since you asked ... no. You seem to have confirmed the truth of Mr. Zeleny's
>original assessment, viz. "irrelevant name-dropping and semi-literate
>bluster." Your mastery of the "remark" in not one but two (count 'em, two!)
>programming languages almost redeems you, however.
>
>--
>------------------------------------------------
>Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist.
>r...@owlnet.rice.edu
>------------------------------------------------
Um, which question is the "no" for? Also, is that confirmed truth in your
local frame of reference or Platonic/absolute?
I am gratified almost beyond measure at my partial redemption. I thought
that the brilliance of writing a line of code in basic and lisp for Zeleny,
non-executable at that, side by side, was the most koan-like thing I could
do Zen-wise and would earn me moby seaweed points with the green tea crowd.
I did not want to spoil the effect with overindulgence in Fortran77...
Thanks...
Incidentally, I am slaving with some German text at work that includes
Sabina meeting Drek "downtown" and being reproached for being late. I have
a hard time with it without a dictionary. Could I send you questions for
translation? Also, how do you say "Welcome to Germany?"
-- Marek
Marek Lugowski
>>>Perhaps you'd like to assert that such notions of Familiarity are merely
>>>bourgeois fantasies?
[me:]
>
>>All my fantasies are personal, or they are not mine at all.
>
>You don't share the fantasies of your nation's Constitution and Law, then?
Well, in so far as I personalize them... I don't think I have abstract
fantasies of my nation's Constitution and Law apart from my intimate self.
However, lately I have not fantasized about my nation's etc.
>Shame that you enjoy the advantages of comfortable living and unhindered
>expression, but then again, your frame of reference ends at what you can
>consume, so it's not surprising you don't see yourself as a schmuck.
I will gladly take enlightment lessons from you if you think I can see
myself as a schmuck. Tell me, how long did it take before you got your
fist glimpse of yourself as a shmuck. Was there any cognitive dissonance?
>You think you're actually doing your girlie friends a favour?
>What are they left with after you drop them, other than --- yet-again --
>battered hope? You're a snake-oil salesman, peddling fake blue-sky, even
to your druggie friends. A 1st class prick. So in love with yourself you
>don't notice.
I try for innocence, thanks. Glad you like it. As for my girlie friends,
I do what comes naturally... a bracelet here, a t-shirt there, a book
there. Of course, I realize the paltry nature of my token "alimony". You
are welcome to start a Shelter and Support-group for Snake-oil-stuck Marek
Girlies, a division of Wojdylo Industries and Crematoria of Good Cheer,
Unlimited, North America Division.
>Another Jesus Christ! Oh woe is me! People are such bastards!
Well, if you do make me into a Jesus Christ, be sure to mark "4th comming".
It's cheaper that way and still gets there.
>And so *uncivil* too. Fucking cunts, the lot of them.
Where???? I always wanted to see a whole lot. Are you pulling my leg?
>>Yes. That your disinterest would pain me. :) Why don't you update your
>>historiography, "Nancy-boy" (whatever *that* means, but when in Rome...).
>
>A "Nancy-boy" is a male who enjoys smooching and pouting at other males.
Ah. Yes then, count me in. I enjoy smooching and pouting. Have you
read _Junky_ or _Interzone_ by Burroughs? That kind of boy, yes. mmmmmm.
>>are talking about *me* (pout), not you. Please stick to the subject....
>>:)...:)... Laurie Anderson's "Langue d'Amour"..:) Smooch.... *smooch* ...
>
>
>Perhaps you've been hiding a volume of your poetry from your adoring fans?
Several. There is _Courting Yolanda_, nicely typset into the finest Kinko
binding available, with original art by the Artist. Yolanda likes it --
that was her drop-Girlie present...
>>Your latent Marxism-Leninism is showing...
>
>... as is your latent homosexuality in your *smooches*.
a silly thing to accuse me of. like, do I write heatedly to deny it or
to affirm it or to shrug my shoulders?
>>You know how I can tell? You don't have a sense of humor.
>
>
>Your local street directory must be a Trotskyist masterpiece.
We don't have street directories, locally. The Edgewater Community Coucil
is not at that stage of development. But when the revolution comes, they
will have a lamppost assigned for me, worry not.
>Don't *smooch* the cover, Nancy-boy, real readers abhor soggy tomes.
I can kiss dryly, Janek.
>>Have you seen a Trotskian or Leninist stand-up commedian?
>>A Lenny Bruce? ahahhahaha, this makes me laugh,
>
>Oh. I thought the 'ahahhahaha' was the sound you made when you jerked off.
No, I usually make no sounds that I am aware of. Must be the damned
self-absorption again...
>Don't waste them sacred sperm, now, you hear? Just direct them at the
>keyboard, thus:
Please don't mention my keyboard. It locks frenetically on letters from
time to time and I have to fight for attention. I don't think Datadesk 101
was designed to accomodate sperm. You should not advise people worldwide
to perform harmful things to their expensive equipment. Shame on you.
>>to think one up:
>>"Comrades, vhen the revolution comes, the burgeois vill be vriting poetry
>>with their hanging-stiffened dicks... [Party audience heartily laughs here]".
>
>Two types of people laugh here: 1) ones with a passion for justice, who
>have actually lived through something and are sick of it; and 2) those
>who have a passion for themselves, and give themselves away by laughing
>like idiots along with the others.
Okay, so I laughed too. So sue me. :) By the way, I get indexed under
both (1) and (2). do I get a prize?
>For more details, ask your cock-sucking friend brookes mckenzie
>(rmck...@smith.smith.edu).
I did not know Brookes was cock-sucking, but that does not diminish her
at all in my admiring eyes. Is cock-sucking really necessary to identify
this wonderful young newcomer to rap?
>>[me:]
>>>>Someone needs to read his Alice Walker and Mar[g]ot Adler.
>>>>familiar *not equal to* Familiar
>
>>>Is Shakespeare's Hamlet Familiar with his queen, or merely "familiar"?
>
>>Familiar.
>
>You must be confused. Has your marathon jerking left you in a daze? Read
>Shakespeare again, there's not one mention of the
>kind of personal details you wallow in; there's no "Familiarity" a-la Margot
>Adler
I think you are bluffing. _Drawing Down the Moon_ by Adler is a reference
work on pagan religions. It is not full of personal detail. You don't
know what you are writing about. So why are you pretending?
>et. al. , no sludge of the private seeping into the public.
>Shakespeare is distant, having much in common with the dessicated husk
>of "historiography" in his art: he does
>not cut close to the bone as does his near-contemporary, John Donne,
>for instance. Shakespeare did not have that finesse, and he was bagged
>for it by several contemporary critics. It's the main reason he gets
>bagged by academics and so-called "postmodernists" these days, though
>they are not honest enough to admit it.
>
>Seems that either you're confused in your notion of Familiarity,
>or your loyalties are divided between "impersonal" art that operates on
>a large scale, and private sludge deified.
I might be confused, but you are so harshly opinionated that it will do for
both of us. May I have a coke with my order?
>My bet is that you grab whatever sounds good, without bothering to think
>about it. "Shakespeare? He's famous -- no worries, I'll make his fantasies
>mine too. If he got an audience with them, so can I."
Actually, I've fantasized about Juliet ever since I saw this cute girl play
her at a high school production. Before that it was kind of unappetizing,
you know?
>>>Finally, how Familiar is the individual with his epoch's historiography,
>>>even if they don't know what the word means ?
>
>[...Lugowski scratches around in the dictionary...]
>
>>his-to-ri-og-ra-phy \-fe^-\ [...] >-- his-to-rio-graph-ic \-e^--e-'graf-ik\ or his-to-rio-graph-i-cal > \-i-kel\ adj >-- his-to-rio-graph-i-cal-ly \-i-k(e-)le^-\ adv
>
>
>Nice try, nancy-boy, now tell your audience what your Websters says
>about "cock-sucker".
The on-line Collegiate does not define it.
>>I can't speak for "the individual" anymore than you can speak for Jane
>>West Australian Mother and Patriot.
>
>But you speak for Hamlet in claiming that he was "Familiar" with his queen.
No. I speak *about* Hamlet *for* myself.
>You seem quite stern in your convictions, pity that they are incoherent.
I am gratified that my convictions are incoherent to you. Were they
coherent, then your harsh attempts at destroying me on rap (melodramatic
roll) would conceivably be unsettling. As it is, I am enjoying your
demolition derby.
>Are you the Divine Light on an epistemic level or only on the lexical
>level? Pray tell.
I am the Divine Light on a Lighthouse level. Look me up in the nautical
charts for period and pattern.
>>>>>As for the African masks, you can keep that bit, I'm not interested.
>>>
>>>>Someone needs to understand why primitive art contains shared symbols
>>>of straight lines.
>>>
>>>If you know, why not share your knowledge with others, instead
>>>of hiding it behind masks in secret texts?
>>>
>>>Afraid of something?
>
>
>>Yes. That your disinterest would pain me. :)
>
>Now, now. That's no attitude for a writer. How are you going to attain
>authenticity when your fear of the abyss casts a safety net for you and
>which beckons the minute things look like getting tough?
*Shrug*. I have only so much time in my day for you Wojdylo. Northwestern
has an excellent collection of African literature and literature on Africa,
but the campus library is 10 minutes from the Institute and I don't feel
like doing you the favor of *your* homework.
>Care to tell the audience how that safety net appears in your life?
According to your metric, I will never attain authenticity, thus rendering
this point moot. :)
>[Hint: what is your "poetry" (I use the term loosely) almost exclusively
>about?]
chocolate milk, the American Southwest, tabouli, death penalty, love & women.
>>>>>>>> tracing etching carving sketching
>>>>>>>> a fingertip for stylus gripped by ten o'clock
>>>>>>>> near still chill of the neoned grungy parking lot
>>>>>>>> filled with cars filled with the lighthouse light
>>>>>>>> of the ambulance reef of the fire truck peninsula
>>>>>>>> not the deathly twin sister isles of the tow truck
>>>>>
>
>>>It's not a question of your being overcome with "local sordid
>>>influences", but about with the way you think about writing your
>>>experiences down on paper.
>>>
>>>The general poetry reading public has read a lot more than a school
>>>public like the one here; the first image that comes into your head, the one
>>>seemingly most directly relevant to your experience, could have
>>>a more immediate connotation than the one you're after. Keeping
>>>things secret does not encourage you to investigate the fallout.
>
>>If the general poetic public is as sophisticated as you claim it is, it
>>logically follows that they *just might* be able to read a variety of poems
>>successfully and manage their personal fallout with great aplomb.
>
>
>The variety does not extend to badly written poems with sloppy use of
>imagery.
Okay. I can always improve. What exactly was badly/sloppy about it?
>Your continued defence of your poem is a measure of your conceit. Your
>imagery and language *is* sloppy. Accept it, and accept that
>your little rap songs are a shying away from the abyss, a hiding behind
>the comfort of "love" and women's skirts.
How I wish. the wenches wear mostly jeans these days.
My conceit? I always wanted to have a Marek's Conceit. Brings me a step
closer to John Donne. :)
>>The sad
>>case of your inability to do so shows you off for a doctrinaire pretender
>>and ideologue, or simply a contentious reader. Either way, have fun.
>
>
>Since anything, even a telephone directory, can be done as rap, I'm sure
>you'll have fun and little trouble in turning the slop of your
>intimate life into popular verse.
My intimate life... hey, maybe I ma making it all up. In any case, why
should the slop of your personal attacks be "criticism" and the slop of my
personal life not be "poetry"?
>>>After a while, the poet learns to get around the fallout problem by
>>>thinking about the salient points of their experiences
>>>in less concrete terms: the lighthouse is replaced with the _idea_ of a
>>>lighthouse. Anything that fits this idea will do. Depending on what
>>>you choose, you enter any number of territories: "surrealist",
>>>"minimalist", "absurdist" etc. (These labels denote things one knows
>>>intuitively, not something remembered from a book.)
>
>>This is soporific bullshit and terribly boring at that. Get a critic's
>>life. I don't need anyone to quote cretinous dumbdowns of semiotics...
>
>
>Who's the fogey poet with the bee in her bonnet, then?
>
>It seems your interests are excrutiatingly narrow if you can't recognize
>the authenticity of what I'm writing, and indeed need to rely on reference
>to discredited literary theory in order to reply to it.
Discredited? Tell it to the IUPUI folks slaving on the 25 volume set of
collected writings of Pierce. Most of this stuff has not been *looked at*
but you have already discredited it. How commendably openminded of you. :)
What is discredited is your lame idea of a lighthouse thingee. Read some
contemporary metaphor-based literary theory, such as Mark Turner and Goerge
Lakeoff's _More Than Cool Reason_ before you say silly things again on this
subject.
>In fact, I speak as a writer reporting on the moment of insight, when
>switching between one mode and the next (e.g. surreal -> absurd c.f. Bunuel).
I prefer the faster pace of Almodovar's switching. So? You report on
nothing that I don't encapsulate in "goodbyes". If you don't see *that*
you are a sick puppy too hellbent on destruction to keep impartiality.
>Can't keep up the pace? Getting old and set in your ways?
Pace of what? What are you pacing me through? Is the green flag out yet?
Oops, I have to make a pit stop. Be *right* back...
>Seems that your time with all those literary theories has left indellible
>prejudices. And more than one, evidently.
Man, you won't believe. For example, I will not date an IUPUI chick even
if she does not major in philosophy or semiotics. I've had it with Indy.
...not!
>Post-coital Catholicism... and now, post-natal semiotics.
I don't see why my baptism at infancy should be held against me so
strongly. You sound like a religious bigot, especially since I did not
grow up in any particular way affected by Catholicism... a bigot off target
is a sad thing even more than a bigot on target (provided the bigot is not
shooting).
>>and
>>make no sense at it either. Charlie Peirce in Peirce Edition Project
>>original was enough punishment. I gave at the office, okay? :)
>
>>>Using the lighthouse image runs the risk of evoking the well-worn territory
>>>of others who've written before you. One shows awareness of the vastness
>>>of the poetic world by containing the fallout from the image, by which
>>>the history of poetry is indirectly acknowledged.
>
>>Crossing the street runs the risk of meeting your next wife at the median.
>
>
>Grown-up writers know that not every path in life is possible, that
>eventually one has to choose one way to the exclusion of the other.
>After the choice is made, regret is foolish. Worrying about the future
>wife at the median strip, likewise.
I don't know about that. With every new "Marek girlie" I have a creeping
sensation that a catastrophic matrimonial act is about ot ensue in an
irreversible avalanche of arrangements... I feel like the mine sweeper
knowing every next one could be my last one...
>
>>Life can be frought with danger. Why don't you show the vastness of
>>decency by acknowledging that your prescription is one of many ways and that
>>you can't hold me to your set of Great Books.
>
>
>I wouldn't dream of trying to hold Your Godliness to the Great Books,
>how can I possibly be so insubordinate as to imagine I can make a dent on
>your Divine Insight?
You can't. give up.
>Marguerite Duras's "The LOver", incidentally, although it won the Prix
>Goncourt in 1984, has been roundly dumped by many of France's literati
>as a conceited work. You'll love it.
>
>(It will probably not be a "Great Book".)
oh well. I'll wait for a recommendation from a "safe to read" source.
>>I bet you don't even know who Jane Siberry is. Or care.
>
>
>If you insist, I'll put her on the reading list. Book to be read #354.
>
>You have not demonstrated why I should have a pressing need to read her,
>though.
She is music, not books. But you should read her just the same. Try
_The Walking_. You will like it.
>On the other hand, I have demonstrated over and over again the poverty
>of your imagination. Ah yes, you're right: Divine Insight needs no education.
Everyone needs education, including the Divine Insight. For instance,
the Divine Insight wants to learn how to yo-yo with the best of them.
Oh, all right, with the okay-at-it of them...
>>>You haven't learned to do this yet. You leave each line to fend for
>>>itself, as if it were a new-born baby innocent of knowledge of the
>>>world around it. You want each line to hit every time, without support
>>>from the other lines. It sounds like the way you use the words
>>>"Marxist-Leninist" to label arguments that could well have been "Bourgeois
>>>fantasies".
>
>>You need remedial reading classes, or a Dale Carnegie course on containing
>>hostility. If you were reading this poem with a semblance of receptivity
>>you would notice more connections than meet your jaded eye.
>
>
>How do you know what's met my eye? You've expounded the wonders of
>Relativism on many occasions, but I did not know you were into
>clairvoyance as well. Miracles never cease.
Nah. Just Skinnerian psychology. "Shock the monkey". I am reading your
words, that's all. Who knows, you *could* be this nice person in Australia
who just likes to raise hell for the pleasure of it.
>>Sorry, but I
>>cannot write for "autistic" critics and please myself at the same time.
>
>What? Your Divine Holiness has a limitation?
Yes. You see, I did: limit coresizedump 0
and it sure works.
>Surely..um...Lord, you are ...uhhh... suffering temporary memory loss.
>Just write like you do your poetry. Left-handed are you? Then hold
>your dick in your right hand. Yank at half the rate until your new hand
>gets accustomed to the motion.
Thanks. Are you sure this will work in the Northern latitudes as well?
Coriolis force and all... :)
>[jw on neo-realism and Laurie Anderson...]:
>
>>>The disadvantage is that this style seems to invite conceit -- conceit
>>>isn't exorcised properly, it's hard to see how it can be. Remnants of
>>>conceit get stuck in the rarified atmosphere of what's seen as the
>>>concrete world. Shit seems glamorous in this rarified world.
>
>>If it's conceit to Wojdylo, then it must be wholesome and unassuming here.
>
>To Neophytes such as yourself, even a death sentence is.
A death sentence is never wholesome and unassuming to an Amnesty
International volunteer. You strike out here...
>1992 was, in fact, a boom year for the Polish film industry, with 35
>films completed and 3 more still in post-production as of April 1993. The
[film stuff]
>All-knowing, all-seeing Divine Light may take his head out from up his
>arse now.
Yeah. nothing like a good bomb shelter from the screaming eagles of
Western Australia scatological carpet bomber squad...
Which of these films have you seen and which have you read about on
POLAND-L or other e-thingees aobut things Polish? Just curious...
>>>If I wanted to record my experience as art, I would have rewritten the
>>>Odyssey.
>
>>What makes you think I am not?
>
>
>I have already told you. You are too stupid and a coward. You are
>incapable of writing authentically. Unlike Jason at Iolchos, the minute
>the going'd get tough, you would run to hide behind your mummy's skirt (or
>the skirt of your latest girlie friend).
>
>Jason had a sense of divine purpose. All you have is a sense of Divine Self.
Ah, skirt talk again. You are making me wistful for skirt fashions...
"Divine intervention always my intention so I take my time" -- Roxy Music.
See? Even Bryan Ferry agrees with me. Personally, I think those fellows
with divine purpose are responsible for most of the mayhem on the planet.
I don't doubt for a moment that you have at least a fairly large-sized
municipal purpose, to judge from your strident diction...
>>Besides, we
>>are talking about *me* (pout), not you. Please stick to the subject.
>
>>>Otherwise, I would not expect to achieve the state of earnestness (a la
>>>Wilde) or seriousness (a la Camus) , and I would not claim to have done
>>>so. The work would be a party piece, nothing serious.
>
>>I am relieved you know your limitations and are willing to stick to them.
>>Now if you would only have the courtesy to recognize that I don't know my
>>limitations and refuse to acknowledge any.
>
>In that case, they will be acknowledged for you, in your absence. Please
>don't squeel like a pig, or get to thinking that the world
>is against you, when you find yourself hemmed in one day by an angry mob
>wanting to slice your gut into ribbons. Just fuck off and die quietly.
This does not follow and makes me doubt that you are even of age to drink
in Perth. What's it to you how I die, squeeling like a pig or fucking off
quietly. You seem unable to disassociate hostility, which you channel into
impotent albeit mildly offensive phraseology, from insight, which you sadly
lack in altogether. Thus your hostility is your insight. What kind of
bullshit statement is "In that case...please don't squeel like a pig...when
you find yourself...". Is the sole purpose of this edifying lecture you
typed in to save me from the error of my ways so that I may live to collect
social security and take care monogamously of a lovely wife?
I find it hard to believe. But if that is the case, why, thank you.
>The recent spate of criticism of your poetry --- in particular, the
>questioning of its integrity --- suggests that you are not as popular as
>you think you are. What have those ghosts inside your head been
>telling you?
Didn't you jsut say that I should not hide behind skirts and that damned
the
torpedos I should not be a coward? Now you want me to be afraid of the
"recent spate of criticism on rap." Most of this spate, Mr. spite, has
been your onslought. Get a sense of proportion. If we take away you and
Zeleny, the woods suddenly get rather serene...
>>to my ongoing efforts to rehabilitate
>>vulgar words in nonvulgar contexts. Oddly, this implies practicing insult
>>like a martial art. To wit: You intoxicating idiot Wojdylo,
>
>Why, I'm flattered Marek. Do you sing for me too beneath the silvery moon?
the moon set several hours ago.
>>it is your
>>smug contempt and lack of civility that I delight in showcasing, not any
>>particular item of the English lexicon. Think of my celebration of your
>>existence as the antipasto to the dubious overcooked fetuccini diaboli of
>>your net.droppings.
>
>
>Your timing is bad, your syllables are garbled. Little wonder you can't
>stick with the girlies.
I can't stick with the girlies because I am a douchebag, remember? :)
It would be bad design to stick.
>You know, if you drool as well, then you may pass as Quasimodo in their
>sexual fantasies.
I will take getting into their sexual fantasies over your getting into
their kill buffers. :)
>It looks like the Divine Light is limited by His poor imagination. Oh
>what a pity. Another God bites the dust.
What, my reign on this earth already declared over? The rumors of my
demise and assumption into heaven have been greatly exaggerated. Wojdylo,
I hope this crucification is to be continued! Don't leave me in limbo -- I
was baptized!
-- Marek
Don Zirilli
>
>How I wish. the wenches wear mostly jeans these days.
>My conceit? I always wanted to have a Marek's Conceit. Brings me a step
>closer to John Donne. :)
Old Zen Saying: a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.
Translation: you've got a lo-o-o-ong way to go, Buster, before you get
anywhere near Donne. I read Donne, I studied Donne, Donne was my friend.
You're no....
Sorry. You hit a sore spot. (and I'm sore for all the wrong reasons
these days)
yours,
Living O'Toole
Mikhail Zeleny
>zel...@husc10.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
MZ:
>>You are also an incontinent graphomaniac, and a pathological liar, as
>>evidenced in your above disclaimers. Moreover, your prized intellect,
>>as exemplified by this exchange, is apparently limited to the capacity
>>for irrelevant name-dropping, and semi-literate bluster; not too
>>impressive.
ML:
>Has it ever occured to you that invective past a certain threshhold
>acquires a quality theatrical surrealism? I am laughing at your
>idiom, Zeleny. You really *are* funny!
Note an independent confirmation of my assessment of your public persona.
In article <C64rq...@rice.edu>
r...@owlnet.rice.edu (Robert Camp Miner) writes:
ML:
>>Um.. was that written in good enough English?
RCM:
>Since you asked ... no. You seem to have confirmed the truth of Mr. Zeleny's
>original assessment, viz. "irrelevant name-dropping and semi-literate
>bluster." Your mastery of the "remark" in not one but two (count 'em, two!)
>programming languages almost redeems you, however.
ML:
>blah blah]
MT:
>>>> false.
MZ:
>>This can be weakened to "not true", without affecting the force of the
>>argument.
ML:
>How perceptive. The force of the argument remains nil. You two don't even
>know -- because you have not bothered to find out, I wager -- what I meant
>in English, but you are plenty ready to crucify it in syllogism. The
>Spanish Inquisition is not hiring right now, try Ben and Jerry's...
Had you bothered to write in English, you would not have had this problem.
MZ:
>>Nice try, but no donut for you, my furry pal. Lukasiewicz implicitly
>>depends on a bivalent metalanguage, on which see Kneale & Kneale, _The
>>Development of Logic_, index entries on multi-valued logics.
ML:
>I am sure buying raspberries also depends on Kneale & Kneale. Everybody!
>Be sure to bring that to the attention to the produce manager and see how
>it affects the sale pricing. We might as well pack up Lukasiewicz since
>he neatly reduces to two-value logics, eh? Your utter ignorance of
>computer science is a-shining.
To reiterate: all *known* interpretations of multi-valued logics are made
in terms of bivalent logic.
ML:
>>> Another logic you could have used which
>>>has a natural fit, because why should you asssume truths to be static,
>>>and why should frames of refrences not "talk" to each other or "combine"
>>>or "become encapsulated" is the intension/extension opaque work of Barwise
>>>and Perry.
MZ:
>>Kindly point out the relevance of situation semantics to the issue of
>>relativism. Also, could you attempt to write in English next time?
ML:
>Dlaczego? Pan sam pisze w jezyku tak nieznosnym ze az trudno go uznac za
>angielski. No, ale z uprzejmosci: Opaque contexts, Zeleny, opaque
>contexts. I can build my relative frames of reference with self-contained
>or shared/communicated truths with propostional attitudes. This is very
>easy and you know it and it is slightly scandalous that a logic student at
>Harvard would publically seek this clarification.
Propositional attitudes do not translate into truths; a rational subject
may well stand in a positive doxastic (belief), if not an epistemic
(knowledge) attitude towards a *false* proposition. Quinean opacity,
when adopted by preference over Fregean obliqueness, will only buy you
absolute referential incommensurability between the contexts of different
attitudes; it will certainly not allow you to merge or otherwise mediate
between beliefs expressed by different subjects. In other words, you get
an "F" for Philosophy of Language 101.
ML:
> Then again, you would
>not know a line of lisp or basic if it hit you in the groin and said bite
>me. So for your continuing education:
>
> REM BITE ME <-- Basic
> ;;; bite me. <-- Lisp
You are belying your advanced age with this callow chatter.
I recommend more Geritol for you, my varicose pal.
ML:
>Incidentally -- do you presume to tell me Professor Barwise will claim that
>his logics are unsuitable for modelling the semantics of relativism? :)
>I would like a donut for his verbatim reply...
Tell you what: both Barwise and Dunn have promised papers for a Church
Festschrift I am editing; so if you ever manage to get two neurons firing
at each other, and come forth with a comprehensive description of your
proposed semantics of relativism, I shall forward it to both of them for
their comments. In fact, I shall be happy to referee your paper for
publication. So get cracking.
ML:
>>> Another good fit is Dunn.
MZ:
>>Ditto for relevant logic. Incidentally, I shall be most happy to
>>forward your forthcoming detailed explanation to Jon Barwise or Mike
>>Dunn, for their comments.
ML:
>On second thought, please don't. I happen to personally know Mike Dunn as
>we have worked together on Prisoner's Dilemma (c.f. Metamagical Themas,
>Hofstadter) in 1982 and respect him for his unassuming gentleness. I think
>he would be horrified to learn that someone called somene else on a
>worldwide philosophy Usenet forum "an incontinent graphomaniac" (without
>any evidence of the former, to say the least!). I would blush if your
>utter revoltingness came to his attention. Please expose your lack of
>civility to Mike Dunn on your own time, thank you. Preferrably when you
>ask for a job at Indiana. :) I keep forgetting -- you are a badly behaved
>undergraduate. Make that, grad shool. Hillary Putnam's good word won't
>help you if your aura precedes you.
More bullshit from your corner, my puffed-up pigeon. My aura already
precedes me, so your concern for my career prospects comes far too late.
Consequently, you may concentrate on substantive issues, provided that,
contrary to the evidence so far presented, you have some grasp thereof.
ML:
>>> But perhaps the best one to
>>>use would be straight Church's lambda calculus because you could
>>>explicitly construct frames of reference with environments (truths) and
>>>lambda expressions (frames of reference).
MZ:
>>Please elaborate. Church would be very surprised to find his work
>>used in this unexpected, and _prima facie_ incongruous manner.
ML:
>Church might, but then again, maybe not. I am not redefining the semantics
>of his calculus --- merely constructing well-formed expressions in it.
>What are you? Logic Police? Am I getting a speeding ticket for relativism
>in the school zone? Get a life.
Though I have said as much in my comment on multi-valued logics, I shall
patiently reiterate that the mere possibility of "constructing well-formed
expressions" in a given formalism, says nothing in support of your claim
that *all* truths are relative to a frame of reference, particularly when
the semantics of the said formalism is given in terms of absolute bivalent
logic, as is the case with the languages you have cited.
ML:
>>> In fact, prcatically speaking,
>>>you should have written your argument as a Scheme program, making sure
>>>you are not using any side-effecting.
>>>
>>>I hope this absolves me from your references. "Don't Mess with Texas".
MZ:
>>You have to try harder next time, -- every time you drop a name, you
>>expose yourself to the chance of running into someone who knows the
>>work, and sometimes, even the people responsible for it.
ML:
>I don't see how my references are any less useful than yours. I "dropped"
>the names I did so that you could efficiently know what I am talking about.
>And it worked. Except that you are not perceptive enough to appreciate how
>I am using the logics that you purportedly study. What good is it to be a
>logic student if you don't know how to use logic in the real world?!
Once again: your references do not support your claim.
ML:
>>>Also, given that truths are likey nonsymbolic, this entire argument falls
>>>apart. Still, modeling frames of references as two syllogists implications
>>>on frozen porpositions is a joke. You should be blushing.
MZ:
>>Pray tell, how are truths "likey nonsymbolic"? and what are "frozen
>>porpositions"? Inquiring minds, etc.
ML:
>"Truths" are now denoted by logicians as static objects, by and large.
>Thus, "frozen propositions". The denotational semantics work in computer
>science goes towards extending the formalism of truth to processes, and
>more excitingly, to massively parallel purely functional notation, so that
>we could have huge, easy to write, easy to show correct massively parallel
>programs (logical expressions).
>
>However, these are still symbolic representations of truth. What is far
>more likely than logic students such as you Zeleny think is that the
>symbols we make stand in for truths are place holders that are inadequate
>for expressing the world. In short, logics of the symbolic kind may be
>inappropriate for describing complexities of the world, from langauge to
>the processes of embroying development, for example. Enter the sciences of
>complexity. This is only my belief at the moment, but I kind of like it:
>chaotic processes will yield plasticity resulting in new forms of calculus
>that looks nothing like logic in the traditional sense but everything like
>metabolism or organism. References? Or would that be name dropping too...
It is customary in my circles to withhold references until you formulate
an argument, dear heart. Whatever your belief at the moment might be, it
does not in the least bear on the issue being discussed. Please stick to
the point: what Taranto did to you, is but a recapitulation of what old
Socrates did to Protagoras; should you wish to evade his argument, it is
incumbent upon you to demonstrate, just how you propose to formulate the
semantics of relativism. And, hey, please try to use less idiosyncratic
grammar and spelling next time around, OK?
ML:
>Um.. was that written in good enough English?
See above.
> -- Marek
cordially, | Personne n'est exempt de dire des fadaises.
mikhail zel...@husc.harvard.edu | Le malheur est de les dire curieusement.
Marek Lugowski
>>>You are also an incontinent graphomaniac, and a pathological liar, as
I'd like to see this in formal notation, please. In several logics,
Zeleny, of your choice. I would make myself a t-shirt with full
attribution, of course. Way cool.
>Had you bothered to write in English, you would not have had this problem.
"There are no truths outside local frames of reference." Give it a rest,
Zeleny. What is this, Hungarian? As for Taranto's Socratic "disproof" of
this sentiment, see Michael Lichter's post under separate cover.
For a "teach" freely dispensing F's in Phil'o'lang 101 *and* a scholar
editing Dunn and Barwise's contributions you sure suck wrt integrity
and grace. "The lady is no gentleman" a prof. of English once said to me.
Verily.
>To reiterate: all *known* interpretations of multi-valued logics are made
>in terms of bivalent logic.
Sounds like a couple phd's to be made in this little hole in your
continuum.
>Propositional attitudes do not translate into truths;
Hold it right there. Why do you engage in intellectual shoplifting? I
never said that they do. I said that I would express/notate truths
using as substrate combined propositional attitudes and contexts that are
opaque. Tell me this cannot be done.
>>Incidentally -- do you presume to tell me Professor Barwise will claim that
>>his logics are unsuitable for modelling the semantics of relativism? :)
>>I would like a donut for his verbatim reply...
>
>Tell you what: both Barwise and Dunn have promised papers for a Church
>Festschrift I am editing; so if you ever manage to get two neurons firing
>at each other, and come forth with a comprehensive description of your
>proposed semantics of relativism, I shall forward it to both of them for
>their comments. In fact, I shall be happy to referee your paper for
>publication. So get cracking.
Sorry, I have a date and she won't wait. I know where I will likely get
rejected and where I probably won't. Statistics kicks logic's butt every
day.
>ML:
>>On second thought, please don't. I happen to personally know Mike Dunn as
>>we have worked together on Prisoner's Dilemma (c.f. Metamagical Themas,
>>Hofstadter) in 1982 and respect him for his unassuming gentleness. I think
>>he would be horrified to learn that someone called somene else on a
>>worldwide philosophy Usenet forum "an incontinent graphomaniac" (without
>>any evidence of the former, to say the least!). I would blush if your
>>utter revoltingness came to his attention. Please expose your lack of
>>civility to Mike Dunn on your own time, thank you. Preferrably when you
>>ask for a job at Indiana. :) I keep forgetting -- you are a badly behaved
>>undergraduate. Make that, grad shool. Hillary Putnam's good word won't
>>help you if your aura precedes you.
>
>More bullshit from your corner, my puffed-up pigeon. My aura already
>precedes me, so your concern for my career prospects comes far too late.
If you ever come to IU in any capacity, from Custodian to Professor, I will
never renew my Alumni Assoc. membership from this point on. :)
>Consequently, you may concentrate on substantive issues, provided that,
>contrary to the evidence so far presented, you have some grasp thereof.
Sorry... Wojdylo wants me to research African carvings for him, you want me
to become a logician, Nikolayev wants me to write like Donne... I
appreciate the loving attention and encouragement, but if I wanted a
liberal arts education from the likes of you I'd enroll in the KGB special
forces for undercover operations against free networks and get to date
pretty Russian women in the bonus. But I like American girls better, so I
stay put.
>Though I have said as much in my comment on multi-valued logics, I shall
>patiently reiterate that the mere possibility of "constructing well-formed
>expressions" in a given formalism, says nothing in support of your claim
>that *all* truths are relative to a frame of reference, particularly when
>the semantics of the said formalism is given in terms of absolute bivalent
>logic, as is the case with the languages you have cited.
let me make this explicit -- you claim that no logic can support the
axiomatization of relativism. Well! Hope you are right. If this is true
and you can make it stick -- and I am counting on your expertise -- g'bye
logic. It just won't be any good for describing the world.
>It is customary in my circles to withhold references until you formulate
>an argument, dear heart.
I can't wait. I have always been a hothead. Besides, someone might have a
better idea once they hear mine.
>And, hey, please try to use less idiosyncratic
>grammar and spelling next time around, OK?
There won't be a next time, not from this douchebag (tm). Last call for
logic alcohol.
-- Marek
Mikhail Zeleny
>Personally, I think it is much more dangerous to think that there *is*
>an absolute truth than to think there is not. To think that there is
>an absolute truth is to make yourself slave a to a particular version
>of the truth.
On the other hand, to think that there is no absolute truth, is to
commit oneself to a view whereby all reference to versions of the
truth are unintelligible.
> To reject absolute truth is not to wallow in
>nothingness, but rather to act pragmatically on the "best" truth
>available at the moment.
In other words, it is tantamount to placing self-interest above knowledge.
> *Knowing* that the the earth is going to end
>on December 3, 1973, is not less dangerous than thinking that it might
>or it might not, and taking the doubt into account.
How true. *Knowing* that if I were to stick the 8", razor-sharp blade
of my favorite Randall #1 in the adipose folds of Mr Lugowski's belly,
then he would die, and I would be guilty of a crime, is not less
dangerous than thinking that it might be the case or it might not,
depending on whether I can get away with it, and taking *that*
consideration into account.
>Michael
Mark Taranto
lic...@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Michael I. Lichter) writes:
> Taranto's argument is a distortion -- possibly willful -- of Marek's
> simple statement.
How can my argument distort his statement? What do you mean by this?
Do you mean that I argue against something *other* than Marek's
statement? If so, I disagree, and will show below that you do not
understand my argument.
As for it being possibly willful -- your statement is sufficiently
vague so that is is unclear to me whether you are saying:
That I am a liar;
That you think I am a liar;
That you think I might possibly be a liar.
Please let me know which of these you believe, so that I can respond
appropriately. I can assure you that I neither distorted his
statement, nor would I ever distort his statements willfully.
> Taranto's restatement of Marek is:
>
> Let P be some proposition.
> Let F be the universe of frames of reference.
> Let f be one particular frame of reference.
> Let P be true in some f.
> There exists one and only one f where P is true.
>
> Conclusion: P is false for all other f members of F.
This is *most* assuredly not a restatement of my argument, nor does it
properly reflect Marek's statement. In fact, you go wrong in the very
first line. You might recall that his statement is.
"There is no truth outside of local frames of reference."
Your first line should not read 'let P be some proposition'. It should
be 'for *any* proposition P.
As the rest of your argument hinges on this mis-statement, there is no
point in discussing it further, nor all the cute little examples that
you posted. None are relevant -- as I have never claimed that there
are *no* statements which are only true within a frame of reference.
Now -- what I want to know is did you distort my argument willfully,
or were you just unable to comprehend the difference between "there is
at least one" and 'for all'? I would like a response to this
question, so that I can determine whether you are a liar, an idiot, or
just a poor boy who has been misled.
> Personally, I think it is much more dangerous to think that there *is*
> an absolute truth than to think there is not.
So -- you believe that there is *no* absolute truth? Let us consider
the proposition:
P = 'There is no absolute truth."
Let me ask you a few questions:
Is P true?
If so, is it true in "all frames of reference?"
If it is, doesn't that make it an absolute truth?
If not, then doesn't that mean that in *some* "frame of reference"
there *is* an absolute truth?
But if that truth is absolute, then isn't it true in *all* frames of
reference?
Are you full of shit?
Or what?
By the way, can you let me know about a frame of reference where the
Law of Identities does not hold?
Like Marek, you have *clearly* not thought enough about your beliefs
to understand what they imply.
Mark
PS -- You might be right that there is no such thing as bad poetry.
But you have demonstrated that there *is* such a thing as bad logic.
Orion Auld
>In article <1993Apr27.0...@cs.ucla.edu>
>lic...@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Michael I. Lichter) writes:
>On the other hand, to think that there is no absolute truth, is to
>commit oneself to a view whereby all reference to versions of the
>truth are unintelligible.
>> To reject absolute truth is not to wallow in
>>nothingness, but rather to act pragmatically on the "best" truth
>>available at the moment.
Let me guess...neither one of you is a philosophy major, right? <g>
--
***** Orion Auld ***** *----------------------------------------------*
"We are only fabulous | If you're not part of the solution, |
beasts, after all." | You're part of the precipitate. |
-- John Ashberry *----------------------------------------------*
Marek Lugowski
[me:]
>>How I wish. the wenches wear mostly jeans these days.
>>My conceit? I always wanted to have a Marek's Conceit. Brings me a step
>>closer to John Donne. :)
>
>Old Zen Saying: a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.
>
>Translation: you've got a lo-o-o-ong way to go, Buster, before you get
>anywhere near Donne. I read Donne, I studied Donne, Donne was my friend.
>
>You're no....
>
>Sorry. You hit a sore spot. (and I'm sore for all the wrong reasons
>these days)
Well, relax Don. I only wished for *a* Marek's Conceit and *a* single step
closer to John Donne. Frankly, I'd rather be Dante. Nah, come to think of
it, I would choose to be Anne Sexton while having a multiple chain orgasm.
-- Marek
INFIDEL
> ren...@massive.uccs.edu (Hal Render) writes:
> -- Marek
Too late, your cover's blown, shit for brains.
Confucianism and Taoism are ultimately the same. Read Lao Tzu more carefully
before airing your multicultural pretensions.
jw
INFIDEL
> N...@GLUON.NPL.WASHINGTON.EDU (Natalie Prowse) writes:
>>You don't have a "Ruth" in your bevy of beauties do you Marek? ;-)
>It's fitting for Natalie to demolish Zeleny's logic, for all the ugly
>things he has said about her. Natalie is sharper than Zeleny. And way
>cuddlier, I think.
Beware the rejuvenated Lugowski. He's found the skirt of a sharp woman
to hide behind.
jw
Jacaranda
thank you Marek, your explanation proved to be more than helpful
Mikhail Zeleny
oa...@ponder.csci.unt.edu (Orion Auld) writes:
>In <1993Apr27.2...@husc3.harvard.edu>
>zel...@husc10.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
>>In article <1993Apr27.0...@cs.ucla.edu>
>>lic...@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Michael I. Lichter) writes:
MZ:
>>On the other hand, to think that there is no absolute truth, is to
>>commit oneself to a view whereby all reference to versions of the
>>truth are unintelligible.
MIL:
>>> To reject absolute truth is not to wallow in
>>>nothingness, but rather to act pragmatically on the "best" truth
>>>available at the moment.
OA:
>Let me guess...neither one of you is a philosophy major, right? <g>
Rather than bask in self-predicated superiority, would you care to
formulate a meaningful retort?
>--
>***** Orion Auld ***** *----------------------------------------------*
>"We are only fabulous | If you're not part of the solution, |
> beasts, after all." | You're part of the precipitate. |
> -- John Ashberry *----------------------------------------------*
cordially, | Personne n'est exempt de dire des fadaises.
Marek Lugowski
>Too late, your cover's blown, shit for brains.
>
>Confucianism and Taoism are ultimately the same. Read Lao Tzu more carefully
>before airing your multicultural pretensions.
I suppose for a gentleman of your means who calls student Brookes McKenzie
of Smith College (while citing her e-mail address nonetheless) a
"cocksucker" in order to offend her in a mistaken belifef that she is not
a woman, for the gentleman in question apparently is unaware that Smith
College in Northampton, Massachusetts, USA, is a famous and old women's
college, I suppose for him Confucianism and Taoism are ultimately the same
and easy to confuse.
As is "oozing cunt" and "literary criticism remarks".
I am happy to be shit for brains in your relative frame of reference.
*grin*. As for C. and T. in my frame of reference, I prefer Smullyan's
opinion on the matter. He is a nicer person, too. In my frame of reference.
Cf. _The Tao Is Silent_, Raymond M. Smullyan.
-- Marek
Jim Peavler
|> In article <1993Apr27.0...@cs.ucla.edu>
|> lic...@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Michael I. Lichter) writes:
|>
|> >Personally, I think it is much more dangerous to think that there *is*
|> >an absolute truth than to think there is not. To think that there is
|> >an absolute truth is to make yourself slave a to a particular version
|> >of the truth.
|>
|> On the other hand, to think that there is no absolute truth, is to
|> commit oneself to a view whereby all reference to versions of the
|> truth are unintelligible.
Eh? millions of intelligent and civilized human beings in hundreds of cultures,
lasting tens of centuries have not had this problem. Perhaps something is missing
in your education or maybe you have never seriously thought about what you seem
to believe you believe.
|>
|> > To reject absolute truth is not to wallow in
|> >nothingness, but rather to act pragmatically on the "best" truth
|> >available at the moment.
|>
|> In other words, it is tantamount to placing self-interest above knowledge.
Another completely irrelevant leap. Even if you believe there is some kind of
absolute truth, the simple fact is that a human brain is probably incapable of
ever knowing it (even you, I would hope would admit that it is unlikely that any
human living at this moment knows the absolute truth.) That being so, even
believers in absolute truth must settle for living their lives pragamatically on
the "best" truth available.
|>
|> > *Knowing* that the the earth is going to end
|> >on December 3, 1973, is not less dangerous than thinking that it might
|> >or it might not, and taking the doubt into account.
|>
|> How true. *Knowing* that if I were to stick the 8", razor-sharp blade
|> of my favorite Randall #1 in the adipose folds of Mr Lugowski's belly,
|> then he would die, and I would be guilty of a crime, is not less
|> dangerous than thinking that it might be the case or it might not,
|> depending on whether I can get away with it, and taking *that*
|> consideration into account.
|>
You obviously watch too many situation comedies and game shows on TV.
|> >Michael
|>
|> cordially,
|> mikhail zeleny
|>
I don't seem to be able to avoid the battle of the douchebags, no matter how
carefully I massage my kill file. This posting, it seems to me, is especially
stupid and juvenile. I will admit, however, that I have read as few of these as
possible, so may have missed several stupider ones.
Closest analogy I can think of is a food fight. I enjoyed this opportunity to
make an ass of myself too.
--
Jim Peavler My opinions do not exist.
pea...@plk.af.mil That is why they are called
Albuquerque, Nuevo Mejico my opinions.
Don Zirilli
>>>How I wish. the wenches wear mostly jeans these days.
>>>My conceit? I always wanted to have a Marek's Conceit. Brings me a step
>>>closer to John Donne. :)
do...@uiunix.ui.org (Don Zirilli) writes:
>>Old Zen Saying: a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.
>>Translation: you've got a lo-o-o-ong way to go, Buster, before you get
>>anywhere near Donne. I read Donne, I studied Donne, Donne was my friend.
>>You're no....
>>Sorry. You hit a sore spot. (and I'm sore for all the wrong reasons
>>these days)
marek:
>Well, relax Don. I only wished for *a* Marek's Conceit and *a* single step
>closer to John Donne. Frankly, I'd rather be Dante. Nah, come to think of
>it, I would choose to be Anne Sexton while having a multiple chain orgasm.
I better stop taking on marek. he knows how to beat me in my fragile state.
note the use of the word "orgasm". anything so strongly implying sexual
satisfaction brings me instantly to my knees. Verily, Marek, I yell,
"Uncle!"
and pray you let me off your lap.
-- Don
Sheila
blahblahblahblahblahlbahblahblahblahblah
blahblahblahblahblahlbahblahblahblahblah
>Frankly,...Dante.
Hey, I am close to finishing Vita Nuova. I imagine there are many paintings
describing Agitated Fellow in viewing distance of Beatrice. I can imagine
them. Maybe I could find a beautifully colourfuly illustrated book.
There would be a picture with Dante leaning against a tree, (he needs to
prop himself up as he is faint) pale, horrified becuase the group of Ladies
giggling at his strange demeanor, wringing his cold wet hands.
There is a replica of a painting by Dante G. R. on the cover of my book.
--
she...@wam.umd.edu - slightly mad `ippopotamos
Mikhail Zeleny
ma...@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Marek Lugowski) writes:
>zel...@husc10.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
MZ:
>>>>You are also an incontinent graphomaniac, and a pathological liar, as
ML:
>I'd like to see this in formal notation, please. In several logics,
>Zeleny, of your choice. I would make myself a t-shirt with full
>attribution, of course. Way cool.
Just sign on the dotted line, bubba; that's as formal as we get on
your be-half.
MZ:
>>Had you bothered to write in English, you would not have had this problem.
ML:
>"There are no truths outside local frames of reference." Give it a rest,
>Zeleny. What is this, Hungarian? As for Taranto's Socratic "disproof" of
>this sentiment, see Michael Lichter's post under separate cover.
"There are no truths outside local frames of reference." Is that
really English? in particular, is it true, and if so, in which local
frame of reference, as opposed to what other frames? As for your
phoetic phal, see my reply elsewhere.
ML:
>For a "teach" freely dispensing F's in Phil'o'lang 101 *and* a scholar
>editing Dunn and Barwise's contributions you sure suck wrt integrity
>and grace. "The lady is no gentleman" a prof. of English once said to me.
>Verily.
Is this groundless malediction the best you can muster? Verily,
"April is the cruelest month", -- first you fail in obsequious email
overtures to potential Marek-worshippers, then you get reduced to
spouting acrimonious inconsequentia, and now you post an article
without a "Marek" in its header. To put it bluntly, you have become
less of a challenge than a differently abled schoolyard bully.
MZ:
>>To reiterate: all *known* interpretations of multi-valued logics are made
>>in terms of bivalent logic.
ML:
>Sounds like a couple phd's to be made in this little hole in your
>continuum.
Sounds like your bluff has been called.
MZ:
>>Propositional attitudes do not translate into truths;
ML:
>Hold it right there. Why do you engage in intellectual shoplifting? I
>never said that they do. I said that I would express/notate truths
>using as substrate combined propositional attitudes and contexts that are
>opaque. Tell me this cannot be done.
Abstracting from your egregious terminology, the fact that something
like "this" can be done, does not in any way support your original
claim, as reiterated above.
ML:
>>>Incidentally -- do you presume to tell me Professor Barwise will claim that
>>>his logics are unsuitable for modelling the semantics of relativism? :)
>>>I would like a donut for his verbatim reply...
MZ:
>>Tell you what: both Barwise and Dunn have promised papers for a Church
>>Festschrift I am editing; so if you ever manage to get two neurons firing
>>at each other, and come forth with a comprehensive description of your
>>proposed semantics of relativism, I shall forward it to both of them for
>>their comments. In fact, I shall be happy to referee your paper for
>>publication. So get cracking.
ML:
>Sorry, I have a date and she won't wait. I know where I will likely get
>rejected and where I probably won't. Statistics kicks logic's butt every
>day.
If you recognize that you have nothing intelligible to say, why do you
persist in saying it anyway? To sweeten the deal, should you succeed
in substantiating your original thesis with a credible logical
interpretation, I promise to do all in my power to assist with its
publication.
ML:
>>>On second thought, please don't. I happen to personally know Mike Dunn as
>>>we have worked together on Prisoner's Dilemma (c.f. Metamagical Themas,
>>>Hofstadter) in 1982 and respect him for his unassuming gentleness. I think
>>>he would be horrified to learn that someone called somene else on a
>>>worldwide philosophy Usenet forum "an incontinent graphomaniac" (without
>>>any evidence of the former, to say the least!). I would blush if your
>>>utter revoltingness came to his attention. Please expose your lack of
>>>civility to Mike Dunn on your own time, thank you. Preferrably when you
>>>ask for a job at Indiana. :) I keep forgetting -- you are a badly behaved
>>>undergraduate. Make that, grad shool. Hillary Putnam's good word won't
>>>help you if your aura precedes you.
MZ:
>>More bullshit from your corner, my puffed-up pigeon. My aura already
>>precedes me, so your concern for my career prospects comes far too late.
ML:
>If you ever come to IU in any capacity, from Custodian to Professor, I will
>never renew my Alumni Assoc. membership from this point on. :)
One reason to try.
MZ:
>>Consequently, you may concentrate on substantive issues, provided that,
>>contrary to the evidence so far presented, you have some grasp thereof.
ML:
>Sorry... Wojdylo wants me to research African carvings for him, you want me
>to become a logician, Nikolayev wants me to write like Donne... I
>appreciate the loving attention and encouragement, but if I wanted a
>liberal arts education from the likes of you I'd enroll in the KGB special
>forces for undercover operations against free networks and get to date
>pretty Russian women in the bonus. But I like American girls better, so I
>stay put.
Quite obviously you are the type to prefer girls to women of any
stripe. Well, even a slug has its redeeming qualities.
MZ:
>>Though I have said as much in my comment on multi-valued logics, I shall
>>patiently reiterate that the mere possibility of "constructing well-formed
>>expressions" in a given formalism, says nothing in support of your claim
>>that *all* truths are relative to a frame of reference, particularly when
>>the semantics of the said formalism is given in terms of absolute bivalent
>>logic, as is the case with the languages you have cited.
ML:
>let me make this explicit -- you claim that no logic can support the
>axiomatization of relativism. Well! Hope you are right. If this is true
>and you can make it stick -- and I am counting on your expertise -- g'bye
>logic. It just won't be any good for describing the world.
So long as you can meaningfully refer to "the world", relativism will
remain a non-starter.
MZ:
>>It is customary in my circles to withhold references until you formulate
>>an argument, dear heart.
ML:
>I can't wait. I have always been a hothead. Besides, someone might have a
>better idea once they hear mine.
You overestimate your potential as a catalyst. From the evidence so
far given, you appear as little more than another flabby, pretentious,
semi-literate, pussy-whipped, middle-aged blowhard dufus.
MZ:
>>And, hey, please try to use less idiosyncratic
>>grammar and spelling next time around, OK?
ML:
>There won't be a next time, not from this douchebag (tm). Last call for
>logic alcohol.
Sure thing, sunshine.
Mark Taranto
> woj...@maths.uwa.oz.au (INFIDEL) writes:
>> Confucianism and Taoism are ultimately the same.
> I suppose for a gentleman of your means . . .
> Confucianism and Taoism are ultimately the same and easy to confuse.
THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PHILOSOPHY refers to them as two schools of
thought within the same general philosophical framework. They are
closely related to each other, and share many of the same tenets.
Mark
Kerry Shetline
zel...@husc10.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) wrote:
>
> In article <1993Apr27.0...@cs.ucla.edu>
> lic...@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Michael I. Lichter) writes:
>
> >Personally, I think it is much more dangerous to think that there *is*
> >an absolute truth than to think there is not. To think that there is
> >an absolute truth is to make yourself slave a to a particular version
> >of the truth.
>
> On the other hand, to think that there is no absolute truth, is to
> commit oneself to a view whereby all reference to versions of the
> truth are unintelligible.
May I suggest a compromise (which happens to be my own personal
philosophy)?
What we are engaged in here, whether it be poetry or flame wars, is an act
of communication. Communication has the assumption that their are at least
two communicating entities. (This assumption is practical but not
undeniable. Solipsism may be a boring philosophical dead end, but that is
not the same as disproof). Communication also requires that, at some level,
the communicants share common meanings.
So I propose a tentative truth, not provable, but very practical and
following naturally from the requirements of communication. This tentative
truth is a public truth, absolute only in the sense that, in its ideal
form, it is universal and consistent. One may never be completely certain
that one is in possesion of this truth, but one can strive, mainly through
the vehicles of measured consistency, applicability, and predicative power,
to come closer to the public truth.
I would relegate what people often call "personal truths" or "personal
realities" to being matters of individual perspective, saving the words
'truth' and 'reality' for the public realm -- the assumed touchstone for
the communication of experiences and ideas.
People seem ready to make truth a personal thing when dealing with Big
Truths (TM), like God, or life-after-death, or Elvis. But contrast that to
more mundane matters. Suppose you lend me $100. When you ask me to pay you
back, I say "Gosh, I don't remember you lending me any money in my
reality." You probably aren't going to buy this excuse. Why then should the
truth about the existence of God be personal when something so
inconsequential (on a universal scale) as $100 is treated as public and
absolute?
Obviously people may differ on what they mean by 'God'. For each definition
it is fair to say that the answer to the question "Is their a God?" would
be different. This is not, however, a good argument for separate realities
and truths, but for clearer communication when debating such a question.
Such clarity can only be obtained by the communicants striving harder to
find what they hold in common, so that they at least hope to reach
agreement on what they are talking about. Given clear definitions of terms,
any question must have an answer that is assumed true in a public sense,
otherwise the entire process of communication is undermined, becoming
inescapably fruitless. (Not that people don't usually make communication
fruitless anyway. With an assumed public truth, however, the pointlessness
of many debates is at least not an inherent flaw of the process.)
I have an old (and not well-written) poem on this subject that attempts
(sarcastically) to make my point:
A Tolerant and Civilized Resolution (1988)
-----------------------------------
Please, my friend, let us not drag Aquinas into this
We can settle our differences, leave nothing amiss
The Truth, you see, is a wonderfully malleable thing
You are the master, you give Truth its recognizable ring
A convenient, kindly attitude for a multicultural people
Who live in the shadow of varied temple and steeple:
Your Truth is your Truth, and my Truth is mine
Assorted realities exist, all at the same time
A custom-built heaven awaits us; mine for me, yours for you
If we follow our own beliefs, or change them when we need to
And since we both disagree with what the other claims from on high
Our private hells are ready; yours for me, mine for you when you die
In some Super-Reality, well-stocked with spirits and gods
Opposing Truths are precisely corralled, so that they are never at odds
Of course, the Really Big Truths cross over any philosophical wall
Like the money you owe me; that Truth stands Universal and tall
-Kerry
Joseph Askew
>ma...@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Marek Lugowski) writes:
>Confucianism and Taoism are ultimately the same. Read Lao Tzu more carefully
>before airing your multicultural pretensions.
'Ultimately the same'? All those hours of study must have been for nothing
then because I could have sworn that Confucious wrote about ethics, morality,
the ways of correct behaviour, the nature of the State, relations between
people and with thier government and religious practises. On the other hand
I thought Lao Tzu (sic) wrote about mystical trance-like experiences and
the pointlessness of everything Confucious ever said. Exactly how are these
the same? Is it like the Chinese themselves - Chinese philosophers all look
alike?
Joseph Askew
--
Joseph Askew, Gauche and Proud In the autumn stillness, see the Pleiades,
jas...@spam.maths.adelaide.edu Remote in thorny deserts, fell the grief.
Disclaimer? Sue, see if I care North of our tents, the sky must end somwhere,
Actually, I rather like Brenda Beyond the pale, the River murmurs on.
INFIDEL
> woj...@maths.uwa.oz.au (INFIDEL) writes:
>>Too late, your cover's blown, shit for brains.
>>
>>Confucianism and Taoism are ultimately the same. Read Lao Tzu more carefully
>>before airing your multicultural pretensions.
>I suppose for a gentleman of your means who calls student Brookes McKenzie
>of Smith College (while citing her e-mail address nonetheless) a
>"cocksucker" in order to offend her in a mistaken belifef that she is not
>a woman,
I don't recall making any statement referring to the sex of Brookes McKenzie.
If you care to show me where I made such an attribution, I'd be much obliged.
On the other hand, the person's support for you merely on the basis of
the civility of your posts reminds me of Karadzic's civility at the
negotiating table while his military men mortar-bomb women and children
waiting in bread queues in Srebrenice.
In this case, I know, "cock-sucker" is hardly the appropriate
description of Brookes McKenzie.
>for the gentleman in question apparently is unaware that Smith
>College in Northampton, Massachusetts, USA, is a famous and old women's
>college, I suppose for him Confucianism and Taoism are ultimately the same
>and easy to confuse.
As a former teacher of Confucianism in a Japanese high-school, I'd be
much obliged if you could inform the readers of your reasons why you
believe Confucianism and Taoism are not ultimately alike.
>As is "oozing cunt" and "literary criticism remarks".
john wojdylo
INFIDEL
>On second thought, please don't. I happen to personally know Mike Dunn as
>we have worked together on Prisoner's Dilemma (c.f. Metamagical Themas,
>Hofstadter) in 1982 ...
Why drag poor Mike Dunn into your little Dilemma?
A true Polish Resistance Fighter! Girlies' skirts and mummy not enough,
gotta use gentle others too... they won't mind, gotta be OK then.
Michael Sean Rooney
Oh, come off it, Taranto. Claiming that Confucianism and
Taoism are ultimately the same carries about as much truth as saying
that Platonism and Aristotelianism are ultimately the same. Using the
"authority" of the Encyclopedia of Philosophy to do so in a lame jab
at Marek is e'en more vapid.
Of course, if John would like to elaborate his claim in a
suitably rigorous way, I'd be happy to translate and publish it in
Chinese, for the edification of the confused masses of the Orient.
Cordially,
Michael S. Rooney
"The French language could be perfectly philosophical were it not used by,
or written for, Frenchmen."
INFIDEL
>>What good is it to be a logic student if you don't know how to use logic in
>>the real world?!
What *real world* ? You mean you know of one?
I get it... A1: " Not girlie skirt => bad dark outside "
A2: " girlie skirt <=> mummy "
A3: " secret secret => me knows me better than anyone
=> not bad dark outside "
Real world <=> nefarious mixture of the above + echoes of the Holy Trinity
"Divine-fuck Mystery hide what I mean cos they'll take it away from me."
Marek Lugowski
>> woj...@maths.uwa.oz.au (INFIDEL) writes:
>>> Confucianism and Taoism are ultimately the same.
[me:]
>> I suppose for a gentleman of your means . . .
>> Confucianism and Taoism are ultimately the same and easy to confuse.
>
>THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PHILOSOPHY refers to them as two schools of
>thought within the same general philosophical framework. They are
>closely related to each other, and share many of the same tenets.
The Branch Davidian Compound and the Archdiocese of Chicago are two
religious structures of thought within the ssame general philosophical
framework. They are closely related to each other, nad share many of hte
same tenents.
-- Marek
Tom Wachtel
the brunch diner compere and the arch bishop of chic-age-a-gogo are too
religiously thought strictures within the same sesame bun. a general
feel-ooze-foetal family. they are closely related to each other
and share many of the same tenants.
--
Tom Wachtel (wac...@canon.co.uk)
Mark Taranto
>> THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PHILOSOPHY refers to them as two schools of
>> thought within the same general philosophical framework. They are
>> closely related to each other, and share many of the same tenets.
> The Branch Davidian Compound and the Archdiocese of Chicago are two
> religious structures of thought within the ssame general philosophical
> framework. They are closely related to each other, nad share many of hte
> same tenents.
I don't know much about either Chinese school -- I just looked it up
and reported what it said.
As for The Branch Davidians, I don't believe that they have *any*
"tenents" any more.
Mark
sOciaLly AdePt
>the brunch diner compere and the arch bishop of chic-age-a-gogo are too
>religiously thought strictures within the same sesame bun. a general
>feel-ooze-foetal family. they are closely related to each other
>and share many of the same tenants.
the branch vesselinian comrade and the
arch fish shop of goo goo ka choob
too righteously fought sutures
with the self same me hon (ey)
heavy metal famile, camille,
closely related to each other we share
many of the same tennis shoes
>--
>Tom Wachtel (wac...@canon.co.uk)
Marek Lugowski
>>> THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PHILOSOPHY refers to them as two schools of
>>> thought within the same general philosophical framework. They are
>>> closely related to each other, and share many of the same tenets.
[me:]
>> The Branch Davidian Compound and the Archdiocese of Chicago are two
>> religious structures of thought within the ssame general philosophical
>> framework. They are closely related to each other, nad share many of hte
>> same tenents.
>I don't know much about either Chinese school -- I just looked it up
>and reported what it said.
>
>As for The Branch Davidians, I don't believe that they have *any*
>"tenents" any more.
How cool, how responsible of you to abdicate your responsibility for
your scholarship. Why not go quote some other dumbed down dross and
later shrug it off as not your contribution, that you were just
quoting. Scholar, eh? Syllogistic reasoner par excellence, too. If
you were meaning to say, oh look here, why didn't you say so. Instead
you added noise and inaccuracy.
Also, you overlooked several other of my typos and did not pun on them --
what, short of a Zen koan or inspiration or a reference source?
Last... so fitting of a logic afficionadeo to blow off time and
temporal scope issues by sweeping the smouldering Davidians under the
Texan prairie: no tenets anymore because they are dead. Out of sight
out of mind. How charming. How logical. Seems like you can use
local frames of reference and relativism better than you let on... Or
were you just joking, Taranto, har har har.
-- Marek
Doug Peters
In article <1rmcnh...@lynx.unm.edu>,
pea...@fingal.plk.af.mil (Jim Peavler) (JP) writes:
JP> In article <1993Apr27.2...@husc3.harvard.edu>,
JP> zel...@husc10.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) (MZ) writes:
JP> MZ> On the other hand, to think that there is no absolute truth, is to
JP> MZ> commit oneself to a view whereby all reference to versions of the
JP> MZ> truth are unintelligible.
JP> Eh? millions of intelligent and civilized human beings...
textbook _ad populi_, n'est-ce pas?
Either (a) you forgot your Philosophy 100.
-or- (b) _ad populi_ is not fallicious in your frame of reference.
But _how_, pray tell, can a relativist _seriously_ argue _ad populi_,
in either case?
Major irony.
JP> MZ> In other words, it is tantamount to placing self-interest
JP> MZ> above knowledge.
JP> Another completely irrelevant leap.
perhaps not...
If I were to entertain (a) above, it would be rude. If I were to permit
(b), on the other hand, it certainly _seems_ like you are "putting
self-X above knowledge" where X is an element of {interest, delusion,
absorption, ...}
JP> Even if you believe there is some kind of absolute truth,
JP> the simple fact is that a human brain is probably incapable of
JP> ever knowing [it].
Either (a) this is completely irrelevant ([it]-JP>[it all])
-or- (b) this is simply false ([it]-JP>[any of it])
JP> ...even believers in absolute truth
JP> must settle for living their lives pragamatically on the "best"
JP> truth available.
let's say, "even believers in absolute truth must settle for living
their lives pragmatically based on their `best guess' at what truth is,"
and we'd agree. But then "even non-believers in absolute truth must
_treat_ some subset of {consensus, tradition, experience, mathematics,
scholarship, Webster's dictionary, ...} _as if_ it were absolute truth
if they want any sort of pragmatic existence whatsoever." There is
simply no authenticity in meta-philosophy ;-)
Incidentally, why can't relativists not see the irony in
name-dropping, let alone the argument _ad populi_?
JP> Closest analogy I can think of is a food fight.
Heck, if MZ and ML were in town, I'd invite them for dinner just for
the entertainment!
regards
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Doug Peters (pet...@ece.UVic.CA) "If you have any answers...
...you've been asked the wrong questions."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Robert Camp Miner
>
>In article <1rmcnh...@lynx.unm.edu>,
> pea...@fingal.plk.af.mil (Jim Peavler) (JP) writes:
>
>JP> In article <1993Apr27.2...@husc3.harvard.edu>,
>JP> zel...@husc10.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) (MZ) writes:
>JP> MZ> On the other hand, to think that there is no absolute truth, is to
>JP> MZ> commit oneself to a view whereby all reference to versions of the
>JP> MZ> truth are unintelligible.
>JP> Eh? millions of intelligent and civilized human beings...
>
>textbook _ad populi_, n'est-ce pas?
>Either (a) you forgot your Philosophy 100.
> -or- (b) _ad populi_ is not fallicious in your frame of reference.
>But _how_, pray tell, can a relativist _seriously_ argue _ad populi_,
>in either case?
>
>Major irony.
>
Good points all. But you mean to write "ad populum." The preposition "ad"
always takes the accusative.
populus, i _m_ a people, political community, the citizens;
multitude, crowd, throng.
"Populus" is declined as follows:
Singular Plural
Nominative populus populi
Accusative populum populos
Genitive populi populorum
Dative populo populis
Ablative populo populis
--
auf wiederhoeren
- rcm
Orion Auld
>>>On the other hand, to think that there is no absolute truth, is to
>>>commit oneself to a view whereby all reference to versions of the
>>>truth are unintelligible.
>MIL:
>>>> To reject absolute truth is not to wallow in
>>>>nothingness, but rather to act pragmatically on the "best" truth
>>>>available at the moment.
>OA:
>>Let me guess...neither one of you is a philosophy major, right? <g>
>Rather than bask in self-predicated superiority, would you care to
>formulate a meaningful retort?
Oh, I don't think I'm as bad as you make me out to be. Allow the grin
at the end of the message to bring to mind the gentle humor that was
intended, while still perhaps consider the point that the positions
that you are taking are simplistic and dated. It's not a flame; it's just
an observation, and any more detailed discussion is probably inappropriate
in r.a.p.