WHY DO TODAYS ULTIMATE PLAYERS LISTEN TO SUCH PUSSY MUSIC?
ulticritic
miley cyrus and hall and oats. so we have both an old school and new
scholl form of shit music being used (listend to) by todays new breed
of palyers. THIS IS FUCKING PATHETIC. i mean there is plenty of
shitty music out there to ruin and ultimate clip with but this is a
whole new low. Isnt it bad enough you people ruin this sport with a
shitty officiation system.
Jaws
I finally agree with ulticritic. The 20-somethings on my team listen
to terrible music. I can't tell if they are being ironic or not.
Regardless, it is really terrible music. Just because music is "so bad
its funny" doesn't mean it is really all that funny, or fun.
Throw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmowtt9vhLY
Later,
Lance Marput
www.thisisultimate.com
Joe MacDonald
o tempora o mores! bemoan the universal, yet personal, pathos of
postmodern recontextualization.
Must Trimalchio (or was it Eliot?) say again, "Nam Sibyllam quidem
Cumis ego ipse oculis meis vidi in ampulla pendere, et cum illi pueri
dicerent: Σίβυλλα τί θέλεις; respondebat illa: ἀποθανεῖν θέλω"
ulticritic
> "I can't tell if they're being ironic or not"
well without hearing tone or inflestion, who can? one of the downside
of banter via the web
--------------------------------------------------------------
>
> o tempora o mores! bemoan the universal, yet personal, pathos of
> postmodern recontextualization.
>
> Must Trimalchio (or was it Eliot?) say again, "Nam Sibyllam quidem
> Cumis ego ipse oculis meis vidi in ampulla pendere, et cum illi pueri
> dicerent: Σίβυλλα τί θέλεις; respondebat illa: ἀποθανεῖν θέλω"
this smacks of intellectual effort.......AND its completely
meaningless. HEY ASS HOLE.....if your gonna say somthing than say
it. dont pussy foot aound with that queer pussy talk.
Van Heuvelen, William Sherburne
>
> this smacks of intellectual effort.......AND its completely
> meaningless. HEY ASS HOLE.....if your gonna say somthing than say
> it. dont pussy foot aound with that queer pussy talk.
it's not meaningless.* it's a different language
*and to suggest this is meaningless would suggest that you think what
you have to say actually has meaning, which intrinsically fails to
engage "Joe MacDonald" on his own terms, which he clearly established
as one possible paradigm of that all-too-familiar postmodern "dilemma
of epistemology." how is it that something can be simultaneously
universal and personal? is objectivity possible given the relativity
of the human experience? where is it that we can actually find meaning
and certainty, you are asking yourself? the answer, as dissatisfying
as it may be, is, logically, nowhere. human existence is in and of
itself aporia reified. so it was, so it is, so it shall be.
-will van heuvelen
Middlebury College
GAYITUP.COM domain manager,
http://gayitup.com/
Van Heuvelen, William Sherburne
> Implicit in the apothegm that human existence is in and of itself
> aporia is an extension of this aphorism, that is, the infinite-looping
> of the paradoxical nature of "aporia reified"- only confirming the
> wobbly notion of the self as a void encased in a posture. Pining for
> some objective correlative, toad calls "meaning", is then rendered
> inefficacious, is it not?
i contest your notion of the self as a void. that metaphor obscures
the capacity for the self to engage and react, conform and reject. i
much prefer a canvass metaphor wherein the self conforms to external
media and stimuli (conforming as the action). The failure of this
metaphor, however, is in that it denies the self any particular
agency, which i cannot condone. our perception and consumption of
culture and cultural morphemes is not a one-way process; rather, it is
the result of a mediation, a negotiation between what we call the self
(internal stimuli) and culture/society (external stimuli). thus is a
mechanism whereby individuals construct relative, subjective meaning;
any pretension to impose interpretation on another is therefore ill-
founded, ill-reasoned, illogical, etc.. (this does not discount the
practice of persuasion, however, which stands in contradistinction to
the practice of imposition). as such, i concur with your overall point
being that "toad"'s "meaning" is in and of itself an irresolvable
paradox that, on account of its failure to indulge in evaluating the
nuanced ramifications inherent in any statement pertaining to more
than just the self (or the self's subjective experience of self-ness),
renders itself meaningless and devoid of any value, academic,
cultural, or otherwise.
Joe MacDonald
they were, does it even matter? Perhaps its ephemerality is quite
symbolic of my own mortality.
Toad, take note of the way in which Will's "canvass metaphor" fails
to properly express his point, his "meaning". All attempts at
conveyance of meaning are fruitless, not only because of the
inadequacy of expression, but the subjectivity of meaning.
Will, I agree with your conceptualization of speech, but cannot
reconcile your assertion of a negotiation between self and other as a
polemic on agency. Should we discuss over carrot cake and virgin
strawberry daiquiris? at the BAR?!?!?!
jacob
Grant
This is why I play ultimate.
Grush
the translation. Perhaps that is too much intellectual effort for you
as well?
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Petronius
Bullardo
entire Ipod shuffle dedicated to The Sword.
Joe MacDonald
as of late, you acknowledge the source, but not the context, of
Eliot's epigram from Petronius' Satyricon.
Not to pontificate, but, well, let me pontificate. One must remember
that Trimalchio, the archetypal nouveau-riche (recall that Fitzgerald
originally considered calling the Great Gatsby "Trimalchio in West
Egg"), tries to demonstrate his intelligence through the relation of
classical greek and roman folklore. In what is perhaps a commentary on
Emperor Nero, he ultimately fails in his attempt by repeatedly
confusing plots and characters, thereby creating an unintelligible
amalgam of myths in which the creator, through his inadvertent
recontextualization, unwittingly puts new meaning on the hackneyed
stories of yore. The numerous implications of this are readily
apparent as well as why Eliot would choose this story.
ulticritic
> Who doesn't like Hall and Oates?
people that dont like wuss music thats targeted towards 12 year old
girls
ulticritic
congratulations.......you guys have brought ultimate back full circle
to its geek roots
ulticritic
> For what its worth you can just Google the entire quotation and find
> the translation. Perhaps that is too much intellectual effort for you
> as well?
damn straight! i dont give a fuck what it means anyways.
Joe MacDonald
passages from de rerum natura:
Cedit item retro, de terra quod fuit ante,
in terras
though, upon further consideration, perhaps another quote from
lucretius would be more apt.
Quo magis in dubiis hominem spectare periclis
convenit adversisque in rebus noscere qui sit;
nam verae voces tum demum pectore ab imo
eliciuntur et eripitur persona, manet res
Toad, i can only hope that one day that person will be torn off so
that your true voice can draw from your inmost and preach reality as
your perceive it.
Van Heuvelen, William Sherburne
but "Joe," how then are we to communicate? the point of metaphor, to a
certain extent, is as a perfected, or at least more complete, means of
communication. the canvass metaphor/sign (though it falls short in a
number of respects) signifies an essence that literal language simply
cannot express (at least for those of us averse to prolix... and who
isn't these days?). but then, by virtue of its inherent opacity, which
is in turn a product of the process of encoding meaning that is then
followed by the process of decoding meaning (i.e. the difference
between intended interpretation and received interpretation), we are
left with what we started: a metaphor, whose merits and shortcomings
obviate one another so as to render the whole somewhat trite, or
fulfilling. i suppose it depends on your mood. so, to bring it all
back home, regarding "Toad"'s assertion (read: imposition, qualitative
value judgment as to the worth of a particular product of culture)
that miley cyrus and hall and oates are, culturally speaking, devoid
of value (for some reason a position vis-a-vis artifacts devoid of
value informs sexual orientation, according to "Toad" - as in, these
suck. and if you like these things that suck you are gay. i do not see
causality here). and with that, i must revise a statement i made
earlier. "Toad"'s statement is not entirely devoid of meaning,
academic, cultural, or otherwise. Its meaning is in its existence, and
its existence is in its meaning - as in, it exists as an opinion, and
we must regard it as such. anything more -- i.e. taking offense --
risks imputing to it the force of affective discourse (i.e. the
ability to change one's opinion, or that "maybe he's right"). his is a
statement, and the meaning of that statement is confined to itself,
provided we let it be and do not engage it (thereby lending it the
legitimacy inherent in any form of reciprocal action of (wo)men upon
one another (i.e. conversation)).
as per "Joe"'s point regarding the self and other, agency et al. -- i
only intended to convey that the individual has a role in his/her
interpretation of cultural artifacts, that she/he engages culture and
is not simply engaged -- i.e. is both active and passive.
i look forward to an opportunity to discuss this at length with you
over home made carrot cake (the secret is pineapple and apple sauce)
and strawberry daquiris, virgin.
Jon Cox
This last sentence, perhaps more poignantly than any other, captures
the beauty--or from a more sane perspective: the atrocity--of our post-
postmodern era. In a world of free expression, distant consequences,
and palimpsest perspectives, there is very little that is truly
capable of changing our minds. We are free to barrel on in any
epistemological direction without any solid boundaries to block our
path. The multivarious specialized media outlets that have popped up
the past few decades can no longer tell us what is right, in any
definitive sense of the term. For the claim of one network is
contradicted by a second, which is contradicted by a third--and so on
down the line. So, as Toad so eloquently illustrates, we are free to
"not give a fuck" because there is no longer anything capable of
convincing us that it is worth our while to "give a fuck"--we find
ourselves in a cultural and political metastasis, where what we truly
need is action. But no voice is capable of rising over the white noise
of differing opinions to inspire us to actually act. Toad's is the
voice of a generation stuck in its ways, stumbling through an age of
multiplicity, alone in the crowd.
Smoothie
doubt, my favorite hijacking of a toadthread, maybe ever.
Joe MacDonald
yet, "will" the implication of active and passive is the dichotomy of
self and society and, inevitably, where society becomes self and self
becomes society. in this relationship is it not plausible to instead
posit that in lieu of such diametrics we conceive of the one and the
other as a unified amalgam? in this unity, we can then understand what
was once perceived as the interplay of society flowing forth from self
and self flowing forth from society as a phenomenon of existence in it
of itself. this then enables us to gain a full understanding of what
was once believed to be a synergistic interplay between "Gay" and
"Ultimate". instead of viewing the two as separate entities, it is
possible to view the two as a self-referencing nebulous that produces
and reduces.
Smoothie
> congratulations.......you guys have brought ultimate back full circle
> to its geek roots
And praise FSM for that! It was in part the brainy ethos of ultimate,
generally, that kept a lot of us playing when we started out.
Smoothie
> Who doesn't like Hall and Oates?
The greatest white soul duo in pop history, and consummate pop
craftsmen. You can not like them, but you should respect them.
Joe MacDonald
from Aristotle's Poetics, is he one who rouses sufficient pity so that
you might obtain catharsis in watching him "play out his role", as
lamentable as it may be?
Alas, I'm tempted to dismiss the autobiography of toad as "a tale told
by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing". But, in
dismissing it as nothing, am i not saying something? For the suffering
of this man, lost in the void, is patently perceptible as he, like all
of us, struggles with words that, as Heidegger tells us, can do
nothing but carry the baggage of his individual human experience.
Should I continue to follow the story of toad based on this back and
forth of singular and universal? What does it say about the human
condition if the play of toad is acted out in such a way? Aristotle
tells me that it will cleanse, but this cleansing, in taking away,
leaves nothing, thereby actually begriming. At what point might I
leave the carousel?
Throw
dig it
www.thisisultimate.com
Van Heuvelen, William Sherburne
>
> - Show quoted text -
you give me too much credit. i alone do not possess the power or
influence to affect "circle-making" in "ultimate" -- though some may
call what i am about to do a demonstrable act of humility, i assure
you it is not. It is as close as i can get to saying a truth (although
even the statement i am about to make is subject to condition. it's
veracity is therefore, like so much else, contingent, circumstantial).
so, without further adieu, i proclaim: i am not a magnanimous man. i
at times exhibit magnanimity, but that virtue does not define my
essence, like it does those of so many towering genius (Lincoln,
Napoleon, Caesar, Pericles, Obama(?)) throughout the course of human
events. but your propensity for hyperbole is somewhat revealing, for
you repeatedly impute revolutionary qualities to the acts of isolated
individuals. the fact is i have expressed a logic, a line of thinking
as to your assertion that there exists an objective "good" and an
objective "bad," which, as i stated above, i do not believe to be
founded on creditable logic of any sort. And you construct a causal
relationship between my attempt at logic and the entire character of
the "sport" of "ultimate." interesting; though i cannot hide my doubt
as to the likelihood that this will actually affect any
"meaningful" (i.e. evident) change. Thoughts?
Jon Cox
Joe,
You bring up an excellent point. At first blush, it is indeed tempting
to dismiss Toad's story out of hand. But I fear, as you imply, that in
so lightly ejecting the social phenomenon that is Toad, we run the
risk of devaluing our own story in the process. To use an old turn of
phrase, there is a baby in Toad's bathwater, and that baby is us. In
short, there is a little Toad in all of us.
For do we all not struggle with words that are merely crude
approximations of our true inner urges. As Wittgenstein famously says,
there are some things that language can simply not capture. I think
the dilemma you're addressing here is one that Wittgenstein raises
with the 7th proposition of his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus:
"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." One petulant
response to this claim--indeed, one that Wittgenstein's schoolchildren
pestered him with daily--is the short but potent "Must I?"
Toad embodies this response: where he cannot speak--where, as you
suggest, his words "signify nothing"--he speaks nonetheless! While his
words may contain no meaning, he writes them anyway. And in this
sense, is Toad not a symbol for us all: the traditional foredoomed
tragic hero who evokes sympathy and even admiration in his ability to
fight on--hope against all hope? Isn't this what we all strive for--
the strength to fight on when we defeat seems inevitable?
I realize I'm not addressing the entirety of your post, Joe. But to
fully satisfy your question would require a much larger corpus than
this humble essay. But my position is that Toad embodies one approach
to Wittgenstein's dilemma and the question of meaninglessness. By
asserting his freedom, he exemplifies strength and hope in the face of
the abyss. And this is something that we all must do, day in and day
out, to survive in this world.
ulticritic
>
> Toad, i can only hope that one day that person will be torn off so
> that your true voice can draw from your inmost and preach reality as
> your perceive it.
well, hope in one hand and shit in the other and see which one fills
up first.
Jon Cox
Will,
If I present one side of the Toad coin in my previous post, I think
your post reveals the opposite side. The epistemic certainty that is
characteristic of Toad's posts is refreshing from within the context
of our self-conscious postmodern society. But it is also, as you
suggest, tired, hackneyed, and perhaps even destructive when we view
it from within a world whose quest towards liberal open-mindedness is
incomplete. As postmodernity has shown us, like all things in life,
the value of Toad's posts is relative. Their assertive earnestness is
simultaneously inspiring and condemnable.
ulticritic
<wvan...@middlebury.edu> wrote:
>
> > congratulations.......you guys have brought ultimate back full circle
> > to its geek roots- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> you give me too much credit. i alone do not possess the power
thats why i said "you guys..."........DIP SHIT
Van Heuvelen, William Sherburne
so it is too much to assume on behalf of a single individual the
capacity to affect change on such a scale. introduce a second, and a
third individual, and you have a revolution. there is merit in this
contestation, for thus is the origins of social movements regardless
of cultural, political context.
"Joe" and "Jon" -
i have delighted in your discourses vis-a-vis "Toad"-as-tragic, "Toad"
as the modern day personification of Wittgenstein's theses on
communicable knowledge (which necessarily entails discussion as to the
nature of that knowledge that is being communicated). there is much
that deserves merit in this discussion, and i can say with utter
certainty that i am enriched for having engaged in it to the extent
that my powers of comprehension and intellect have allowed. Indeed,
the image of "Toad" as alone in the crowd: this connotes a powerful
sign, for how can one be surrounded by ostensible peers yet fill with
such utter, resounding solitude and solemnity that he be moved to
scream only to hear the echos of his heart-wrenching curdles as if
trapped in a cavernous abyss during spelunking expedition? and might i
add as to the form of those echos: they manifest themselves as
protestations as to the absurdity entailed in initial scream's
content. We are but echos of "Toad"'s initial protestations! Ah! we
come full circle once more, to "Jon"'s position that there be a little
bit of "Toad" in all of us - for how can we engage his essence
(manifested via those haunting screams) such that the result be
reproduction if the essences of both call and respond be not somewhat
compatible? if they not overlap even in the slightest? they must!
ulticritic
<wvan...@middlebury.edu> wrote:
>
> > > you give me too much credit. i alone do not possess the power
>
> > thats why i said "you guys..."........DIP SHIT
>
> so it is too much to assume on behalf of a single individual the
> capacity to affect change on such a scale.
your overassuming as i'm saying nothing of the sort. i just clarified
that i wasnt jiving you ALL the credit you initially presumed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
introduce a second, and a
> third individual, and you have a revolution.
just like the alices restaraunt masacre!!!!!!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------
there is merit in this
> contestation, for thus is the origins of social movements regardless
> of cultural, political context.
thers also merrit in not speaking like a pretentious intellectual
prick. why dont you give it a try so you can find out what those
merrits are
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "Joe" and "Jon" -
> i have delighted in your discourses vis-a-vis "Toad"-as-tragic, "Toad"
> as the modern day personification of Wittgenstein's theses on
> communicable knowledge (which necessarily entails discussion as to the
> nature of that knowledge that is being communicated).
well dont hurt your brain doin it
-----------------------------------------------------------------
there is much
> that deserves merit in this discussion, and i can say with utter
> certainty that i am enriched for having engaged in it
good, letsa just hope that your preference of music can also be
enhanced. may i sugest you start off with a mixture of bob marley and
bob dylan. shelf the hall and oats and miley cyrus
though.......PLEASE
-------------------------------------------------------------
to the extent
> that my powers of comprehension and intellect have allowed. Indeed,
> the image of "Toad" as alone in the crowd:
PFFT dream on. and havent others (even an advisary) supported my
stance here.
------------------------------------------------
this connotes a powerful
> sign, for how can one be surrounded by ostensible peers yet fill with
> such utter, resounding solitude and solemnity that he be moved to
> scream only to hear the echos of his heart-wrenching curdles as if
> trapped in a cavernous abyss during spelunking expedition?
wy you feel the need to be so mellow dramatic here i dont get. it is
rather CONVENIENT how you COMPLETELY dismiss the few posts that
supported my OP though......care to explain that
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
and might i
> add as to the form of those echos: they manifest themselves as
> protestations as to the absurdity entailed in initial scream's
> content.
so, thats my bizness
--------------------------------------------
We are but echos of "Toad"'s initial protestations! Ah! we
> come full circle once more, to "Jon"'s position that there be a little
> bit of "Toad" in all of us - for how can we engage his essence
> (manifested via those haunting screams) such that the result be
> reproduction if the essences of both call and respond be not somewhat
> compatible? if they not overlap even in the slightest? they must!
why do you got to get all shakesphere on us........cant you just talk
like a normal person. is this really how ultimate players converse
these days? ATE UP!!!!
B. Taylor Hutchinson
Sirs,
Your previous dialogue on the self and the dichotomic nature of
existence in a post-modern world has been truly enlightening, but
allow me, if I may, to submit my own decidedly pedestrian views in my
derisorily Spartan prose.
While his image of a solitary Toad crying into the postmodern abyss in
undeniably a pointed one, Mr. Van Heuvelen’s post of 20:46 12/7 seems
to be moving us more towards a discussion of qualitas as it relates to
self-analysis (and inherently as part of the ongoing discourse on the
interface between man and society). With his statement, “well, hope in
one hand and shit in the other and see which one fills up first. “,
Toad posits himself as a modern Maat, eternally weighing the merits of
archetypal good vs. bad. How quixotic!
An Aristotelean (Nietzschean? No?) view would posit that Toad’s
ongoing search for “good music” would frame itself as a fairly
straightforward quest for quality. However, this traps us in a morally
relativistic sinkhole that I believe leads directly back to where we
commenced (subjectivism). Mr. Cox (21:12), are there no absolutes?
ulticritic
>
> introduce a second, and a
>
> > third individual, and you have a revolution.
>
> just like the alices restaraunt masacre!!!!!!!!
MY FAULT......since you guys listen to nuthin but SUCK/PUSSY music
you'll have no earthy idea what the fuck "allices restaraunt" is. Im
sure you can take a tip from that has been punto bitch and google it
really quick to give the APPEARANCE that you had a previous knowledge
of it and its relavence. Just o make it easyer for ya, that was an
album by arlo guthrie. maybe you can listen to it and try to break
down the postmodern relevance of it as well in the gay ass "hamlet"
way that you do.
ulticritic
HEY VAN PUSSCAKE.......heres somthing for you to analize and
disect.......WHY is it that this new generation has developed such an
ifinity for SUCK/WUSS music?
If you have any problems getting started let me help......
My theory is that you are all products of this new overly coddled and
spoiled "ME generation" and the mellow tones and uncreative/unexamined
lyrics from the music that accompanys that existance. So you are
simply a reflection and byproduct of that SOFTNESS. Ya see, you
people have been givvin everything on a silver platter, probably never
got spanked as a kid and now dont use music to make a difference,
fight the power or even take a stand.
Ok, there ya go, wrap your brain around that little theory and tell me
what you come up with.
Jaws
>
> - Show quoted text -
Toad listens to Joan Baez? No wonder he's so cranky.
Jon Cox
Mr. Toad,
While your theory touches on some important aspects of contemporary
American life, I fear your causal inferences are too rash. You see,
the cultural climate as we engage with it today is vastly different
than that of the late 1960's, when Alice's Restaurant was released.
The late 60's and 70's marked a unique era in US history; it was a
time where rebellion--fighting the power, challenging one's own
assumptions, etc.--was cool, new and invigorating for the nation's
youth. We see this not only in the domain of music--with Dylan,
Seeger, Baez throughout this time, and of course Guthrie's famous
Alice's Restaurant in 1967--but throughout American culture. Indeed,
it was during this time that postmodernism rose to power in the
literary sphere--e.g. Barth's iconic Lost in the Funhouse, published
in 1968. Thus, we can see in the 60's and 70's the root of our present
culture's obsession with change, innovation, irony, novelty and
rebellion.
But what's happened since then is that its countercultural values have
seeped into mainstream culture. As David Foster Wallace argues in his
essay E Unibus Pluram: Television and U.S. Fiction, TV and
specifically TV advertisements have coopted the revolutionary ideals
of the 60's and 70's and directed them towards the growth of the big-
business-oriented, capitalistic institutions that these ideals were
initially targeted against. Thus, the notion of rebellion itself has
entered the mainstream. And how can one rebel against rebellion
itself? This issue, "the impossibility of rebelling against an aura
that promotes and attenuates all rebellion" is what Wallace grapples
with throughout his essay. And he provides no easy answer.
So I propose that it is this dilemma, one that we face daily in our
post-postmodern age, that is the source of what you call "an ifinity
for SUCK/WUSS music" [sic]. For today's ultimate player, however much
he may want to rebel, sees that rebellion is as well worn a path as
conformity. He has no clear way of expressing his cognitive turmoil--
no new roads are open to him. So he walks down the most accessible--
that of "SUCK", "WUSS", and "PUSSY"--and covers his tracks with the
cool veil of irony. His way of rebelling is by seeming to conform.
I hope this clarifies things.
Joe MacDonald
Toad has posited that "taste" is predicated upon the individual human
condition, not some pre-deconstructionalist search for a platonic form
of "Beauty", manifested in sound.
The upbringing of the current generation, which toad holds as
perpetually kissed by idyllic zephyrs, has led to an inability to
"challenge" ourselves in any situation, let alone music. We cannot
"wrap our brains" around what its like to "hop on the last train in
the station" or truly confront the archetypal authority, Officer Obie.
Arlo and Toad can.
Yet, implicit in toad's analysis is the opportunity for
psychoanalysis. Toad, in placing "him" in diametric opposition to
"us" (that is, those in youthful ignorance), he polarizes each issue
raised. After all, inherent in such specious reasoning (or perhaps it
is sound) would then follow that were we "not spanked", then toad was
spanked. Verily. Alas, I have only read freud's essays on Greek
tragedy to analyze his own specious reasoning on Sophokles, but, as a
dilettante philosopher of sorts, a lover of wisdom if you will (you
will), it would appear to me that toad's action are quite symptomatic
of a childhood spent getting physically abused. It might be easy to
say that his cries for help and attempts at attention on a public
message board are all indicative of this. His hatred of homosexuals,
surely a self-loathing condition.
I say nay. Sort of.
For at the heart of Toad's arguments regarding the understanding of
music is a deft understanding of the impications of post-modernity.
Though patently liminal, toad's views on the role of music in society
are indicative of the gestural tendencies of modern performance. Toad
has shown that to understand expression we need to have experienced a
perfectly paralleled pathos, but, being human, we cannot. As such, we
seek pleasure in positioning ourselves with those whom we might most
readily identify. Forever pining, never gaining. Forever pining.
jacob
rebel, sees that rebellion is as well worn a path as conformity."
Only if rebellion is defined as "fighting the status quo up until the
point that one risks jeopardizing the ways in which they benefit from
the status quo."
"He has no clear way of expressing his cognitive turmoil--"
You accidentally hit the nail on the head here. For most people of
the "ultimate player class", rebellion is confined to a cognitive
process.
"no new roads are open to him."
Rebels don't look to others to open roads for them; they make their
own roads.
"So he walks down the most accessible-- that of "SUCK", "WUSS", and
"PUSSY"--and covers his tracks with the
cool veil of irony."
Yes, this is the mindset of many of those who listen bad music, but
this mindset is completely devoid of rebellion. Rebels are often
"cool", but this does not make "cool" people rebels.
"His way of rebelling is by seeming to conform."
You mean his way of copping out is seeming to conform.
3Jane.
> self and society and, inevitably, where society becomes self and self
> becomes society. in this relationship is it not plausible to instead
> posit that in lieu of such diametrics we conceive of the one and the
> other as a unified amalgam? in this unity, we can then understand what
> was once perceived as the interplay of society flowing forth from self
> and self flowing forth from society as a phenomenon of existence in it
> of itself. this then enables us to gain a full understanding of what
> was once believed to be a synergistic interplay between "Gay" and
> "Ultimate". instead of viewing the two as separate entities, it is
> possible to view the two as a self-referencing nebulous that produces
> and reduces
What the hell are they teaching you up there anyway?
3Jane
Middlebury '81
Van Heuvelen, William Sherburne
"jacob" --
i am an avid proponent of heuristic pedagogy, so i delight in the
opportunity your attempts at reasoned debate have afforded me to play
the pedagogue. to begin: how is that we define rebellion? well, quite
frankly, i feel we do a great injustice to ourselves, and to our
forefathers of the 60s/70s who transcended hegemonic interpretations
of normative behavior and acceptable life-styles, if we call that
"rebellion," for inherent in the act of rebellion is an implicit
recognition in the legitimacy of the status quo that we rebel against
(for the sake of brevity, if you do not follow this logic, i implore
that you trust me like you do your unwavering faith as to your ability
to perceive the inherent value of cultural artifacts). Though,
admittedly, i did not experience the revolutionary character of the
60s/70s, i understand the epoch to have been slightly more than a
simple, temporally bound, generational phenomenon that culminated with
the vast majority eventually coming to regret their forays into group-
sex while settling down to a family, eventually reproducing a
relatively genuine facsimile of the normative structure that gave
birth to their distaste for the status quo in the first place.*
Consequently, I would prefer if we heretofore refer to the concept you
address as "revolution," which is much less theoretically involved in
production, reproduction, etc., as it implies a delegitimization of
the hitherto.
and as to your assertion that rebels make their own roads -- i see in
this a failure to engage "Jon"'s metaphor in earnest. you rely on your
capacity to engage it in form, but not in essence, for his essential
point is this: "rebelling" (or rather, manifesting revolution) is no
longer as simple as listening to a certain type of music, for taste
itself has been commodified such that for members of our generation to
connote distrust of the powers that be, we cannot simply rely on the
semiotic value of different morphemes, unlike many members of the
previous generation. and what is more, the paradigm the previous
generation has left us ultimately culminated in a reproduction of what
they initially rebelled against! (see *). How are the revolutionaries
of this generation supposed to follow your example, when your example
has manifested itself as a collective failure to affect meaningful,
lasting change? this is the legacy we experience! so should it be a
surprise that the collective expression of our generation has been one
steeped in unadulterated irony (as in, "oh i know. how about i don't
conform! what a good idea. because that's never been done before. and
guess what, when it wasn't done before, it didn't end up as a
collective affirmation of what i initially didn't want to conform
to")? i do not mean to defend it as good, only to explain its cause
and effect, and to contest your claim that this be a form of "copping
out" -- rather, it is the tragedy of a generation. What is more,
"jacob," is that you also fail to see how the willful posturing of our
generation, denoting us as a collective whose generational tone is
best described as "ironic" and "self-aware," interpellates us as man a
priori who would manifest revolution if that path of existence had not
already ostensibly failed. it is a positionality that necessarily
supercedes the dichotomies that you are wont to construct - of good v.
bad, of rebels v. cop-outs - because it co-opts and exploits culture
itself.
which necessarily brings us to the topic of "Toad" - an Icarian figure
if ever there was one!
ulticritic
uhmmmmm, no. actually, i cant say i listen to any female musicians.
uhm, nor do i watch any female athletes.
ulticritic
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
man.....if you people would just put a fraction of the time discusing
and anylzing the intricicies of the lack of the referee role in your
sport and its present "transitioning" process. ahhhh but no, youde
rather discuss and anylize me. i mean i'm flattered but c'mon, your
sport needs your attention more than i do. besides, you people will
never be able to figure me out......so dont even try
ulticritic
<wvan...@middlebury.edu> wrote:
>
> which necessarily brings us to the topic of "Toad" - an Icarian figure
> if ever there was one
i aint no fuckin icarly fan. my seven year old daughter is.......and i
bet them rpi trudge guys are too
Joe MacDonald
even try "
psychoanalyzing me!
Joe MacDonald
figure if ever there was one "
"i aint no fuckin icarly fan. my seven year old daughter is.......and
i
bet them rpi trudge guys are too"
TOAD FTW!!!!!!
gimp
Country Joe MacDonald?
jacob
As a preliminary matter, I'm not sure why you put my name in quotes.
I would prefer that you please not do this.
As to the substance of your most recent post, it based on a rather
myopic (but admittedly commonly held) view of 1960s and 1970s
culture.
First, there was plenty of political and sexual rebellion in this
country prior to the 1960s. The NAACP was founded near the turn of
the century. The women's suffragette movement started in the mid-19th
century. There were white abolitionists who fought against the
enslavement of black people. Woody Guthrie was singing songs about
class warfare in the late 30s. From coal mines in Appalachia to the
docks of San Francisco, workers who tried to organize got their heads
bashed in by thugs hired by the bosses (while the cops looked the
other way). As to sex, Mae West drew the ire of the Catholic church
for her sex-themed stage shows in the 1920s. Hollywood had nudist
parties during the same period. There was a commune where couples
shared their sex partners in Onieda, NY in the mid-19th century.
These are just a few examples.
Second, the sexual revolution, in addition to starting prior to the
1960s, was not only the product of left-wing thought. "Key parties",
where husbands would place their car keys in a bowl and wives would
have sex with the owner of whichever key she picked from the bowl,
became popular in the 1950s among military and ex-military people.
Third, I disagree with your assertion that the entire rebellion of the
1960s and early 1970s was a failure merely because many of the
participants eventually formed nuclear families- there was plenty of
rebellion during that time which was not related to sex. Many of
these people were on board with certain aspects of rebellion (civil
rights, feminism, anti-Vietnam war, recreational drug use) while not
necessarily having sex with multiple partners. Even if most of the
people who had group sex and/or sex with multiple partners (at
different times) eventually formed traditional families, this does not
necessarily mean that the sex they had earlier in their lives was a
failed rebellion. Most of them, especially the women, probably ended
up having better monogamous sex as a result of exploring sex more
thoroughly as younger people. For a woman of that generation, simply
having an orgasm was an act of rebellion. Some of this knowledge got
passed down. The fact that you (hopefully) can find the clitoris is
something you can thank this prior generation for.
The story that the 1960s failed is appealing because it lets our
generation off the hook: "a collective failure to affect meaningful,
lasting change ... is the legacy we experience! so should it be a
surprise that the collective expression of our generation has been one
steeped in unadulterated irony?" Wow. How convenient. It's not our
fault that we let the government erode civil rights and give tax
breaks to the rich while cutting funding to public schools and
fighting pointless and unwinnable wars- it's our parents' fault for
not staying in polyamorous relationships.
You claim that I "fail to see how the willful posturing of our
generation, denoting us as a collective whose generational tone is
best described as "ironic" and "self-aware" ... is a positionality
that necessarily supercedes the dichotomies that [I am] wont to
construct - of good v. bad, of rebels v. cop-outs - because it co-opts
and exploits culture itself."
I don't "fail to see" this. I understand that this was what we were
going for, and don't get me wrong- I enjoy singing along to "Heat of
the Moment" by Asia. I just don't think this has in any way which
effectively challenged the status quo, and any attempts to argue this
are wishful thinking.
You say that "'rebelling' (or rather, manifesting revolution) is no
longer as simple as listening to a certain type of music. taste
itself has been commodified such that for members of our generation to
connote distrust of the powers that be, we cannot simply rely on the
semiotic value of different morphemes."
Yeah. So? If you go back and read Toad's original post, he's just
saying that ultimate players are using bad music for their clips.
Period. Nothing about how this bad music isn't rebellious enough.
And for the record, the people in the 1960s who thought that they were
rebelling just by listening to Bob Dylan weren't rebels- they were
poseurs, as Dylan will be the first to tell you.
bil
> And for the record, the people in the 1960s who thought that they were
> rebelling just by listening to Bob Dylan weren't rebels- they were
> poseurs, as Dylan will be the first to tell you.
who are you to authenticate the performance of rebellion? who is bob
dylan to?
rebellion is performance, also known as posing, just in a position
dissimilar to the positions of others.
or another way to look at it: maybe dylan is like marijuana, a gateway
drug that some people stop at, but a controlled substance,
nonetheless.
as to this thread as a whole:
I think that we should all be impressed by the consistency of toad's
performance. He is himself regardless of what happens around him (i.e.
line for line rebuttals, taking seriously dialogue meant in (partial)
jest). His for-itselfness is hard to beat.
TheDuke
contact with RSD via anything more diminutive in size than a
pole with a minimum length of ten feet, the eloquence of
this thread hijacking has restored my faith in the (mostly)
excellent people who join me in participating in the
greatest sport known to mankind, and furthermore has
inspired me to produce this sincere paragraph. The
consternation caused by this topic to one of the principal
antagonists of this group has caused me extensive mirth. I
am compelled to extend my sincere gratitude and
commendations towards the more verbose contributers to this
thread, and would also like to thank one particular less
eloquent author whose presence here allows the comedic
possibilities here to be fulfilled and even occasionally
amplifies them so that they can reach previously
unconceivable heights.
--
Posted from http://www.rsdnospam.com
Throw
thermostat needs some adjustin'...after checking on the chickens of
course.
Again we will leave you with ms blossom dearie ...a vocal & piano
performance nearly as gentle as the concerted effort we lead in
booting toad leber out of the sport we love (play if for your girl
and she might not boot you out of the room come midnight).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDAGtd2dpNE
Peter & Hank & Co.
www.thisisultimate.com
Van Heuvelen, William Sherburne
"jacob" -
to address "your" preliminary concern: i refer to "you" as "jacob"
because i once knew a man who knew a man who referred to quotation
marks exclusively as "conceptual prophylactics." i believe this speaks
for itself - yet if my point is still unclear, it is thus: this
interface does not allow me the opportunity to affirm "your"
personage. i do not know who "jacob" is, for my immediate experience
of "jacob" is through a computer screen. but i know "jacob" is not
simply my computer screen because my computer screen is not a sentient
being capable of producing thought or responding to provocation with
new, unanticipated material. thus, my experience of "jacob" represents
a prime example of what Baudrillard describes in his construction of
the "hyper-real," wherein signifier and signified are incontrovertibly
confused, amalgamated such that reality itself is no longer
perceptible or true. reality becomes, in a word, a "simulacrum"
wherein it becomes impossible to distinguish the constructed from the
authentic (i.e. what we call "real"). so "jacob" this is why i use
quotations.
i would suggest, also, that we apply these same maxims to "your"
response to my rebuttal to "your" attempt at engaging "Jon"'s
metaphor. But first, let me clarify: i do not defend people of my
generation's attempt at justifying our collective, relative (at least,
perceived relative) inaction. I only intended to clarify one point
that i believed "you" overlooked. in fact, i agree -- ultimately, that
generational narrative is self serving insofar as it exculpates us,
i.e. those responsible for acting in the first place. but, in response
to that, i would say that the self-exonerating "it's not our fault"
narrative is, ultimately, even more depressing for it denies agency on
behalf of our entire collective. we exist deprived of the capacity to
act, to affect our own destinies. thus, i concur - it is not
preferable. only it is a trend that has manifested itself as broad
enough such that ignoring it is no longer realistic, responsible. And
secondly: one aspect of that narrative that i find particularly
compelling (though i do not necessarily subscribe to it, mind "you")
is that the social revolutions of the previous generation have in fact
reproduced the circumstances that begot the initial desire for change
in so many instances such that we can call it a "trend." maybe this
is wrong. as i can only speak from my own personal, subjective
experience, it would be imprudent of me to postulate or project my
experience of the nuclear family onto an entire group of people. but i
do not think "you" do justice to this aspect of the narrative and i
feel that it behooves "you" to speak to it more (at "your" leisure, of
course). So on to my point - you have posited a memory of the last 100
years, give or take, to suggest that revolutionary behaviors and
trends transcend the 60s/70s. this version of history is valid insofar
as "you" can (and did) can back them up -- but memory is a product of
positive and negative space, of aspects remembered and aspects
forgotten, of events included and events omitted. we do injustice to
the study of history by suggesting that a simple list of dates and
names suffice to explicate its ebbs and its flows. Yes, i am aware
that the oneida community, founded by john noyes, did exist, and that
they practiced something called "group marriage," and i am aware that
this exists as an alternative paradigm of normative romance, and yes,
i'm aware that this all happened well before the 60s. but through
highlighting the existence of a group of people whose numbers never
grew past 200, and whose union did not long survive the death of its
founder (did i mention it was john noyes?) in the context of a 400
word post as to what the last 100 years actually meant seems a little
hasty. as such, this brings us back to Baudrillard -- for our
perception of history is necessarily selective on account of the sheer
volume of events and things. thus, to posit that fact is in and of
itself is the most important thing denies the potential for perception
to underscore and even outshine truth. the hyper-real replaces the
real (even though the real did actually happen). so where does this
leave us? with a historical narrative of a generation that, regardless
of its accuracy, enjoys purchase for whatever reason, and that is
indicative of certain aspects (namely a tendency to deny the self
agency and to self-exonerate).
oddly enough,
jacob
I didn't just ask why you put my name in quotes, I asked you not to do
it again. Why did you ignore this request? Is the reason somehow
related to your dislike of paragraphs?
For the record, I never stated that you were defending our
generation's overuse of detached irony, nor have I advocated ignoring
this trend. Our only disagreement about this trend is whether it
amounts to rebellion. Further, I would not describe this attitude as
"It's not our fault," but rather "Why bother? There's no point."
"The social revolutions of the previous generation have in fact
reproduced the circumstances that begot the initial desire for change
in so many instances such that we can call it a 'trend.' maybe this
is wrong. As I can only speak from my own personal, subjective
experience, it would be imprudent of me to postulate or project my
experience of the nuclear family onto an entire group of people."
Has it occurred to you that you are simply observing that there are
certain desires which are relatively universal, and that while the
existence of these desires place certain limits on what social
revolutions can accomplish, it is a cynical exaggeration to cite the
attempts to fulfill these desires as failure of the revolutions? And
if you are now saying that you are speaking only from your own
subjective experience (on which you fail to elaborate), then on what
basis, if any, do you hold this position about revolutions reproducing
what they aim to replace?
It's also pretty weak to try to back up your position with a vague
reference to your subjective experience and then tell me that the
objective support of my position is inadequate because "we do
injustice to the study of history by suggesting that a simple list of
dates and names suffice to explicate its ebbs and its flows." Let me
get this straight: It's OK for you to offer no facts, but I'm coming
up short because my facts are cherry-picked?
"Our perception of history is necessarily selective on account of the
sheer volume of events and things."
Right. We can't perceive the entirety of history because our brains
are too small. I guess that means that truth and falsehood about what
has passed are merely self-serving illusions, huh?
"Thus, to posit that fact is in and of itself is the most important
thing denies the potential for perception to underscore and even
outshine truth."
I don't recall positing that any fact I cited was in and of itself the
most important thing. In this instance, your unwillingness to
explore the subjective basis for your theory on the pointlessness of
revolution is probably at least as important as any facts I cite.
jacob
Good question. Still, I'm sticking to my guns in that I don't think
merely listening to Dylan in the U.S. in the 1960s made someone a
rebel. I think it's fair to say that if there is no chance of long-
term negative consequences of an act, the act is not rebellious (not
that this is the only measure of whether an act is rebellious).
"rebellion is performance, also known as posing, just in a position
dissimilar to the positions of others."
So our founding fathers, the IRA, and Fidel Castro were merely posing
in a position dissimilar to the positions of others?" Either you know
no history or you do not know what "pose" means.
ulticritic
>
> - Show quoted text -
this MUST have been what fritz the cat was talking about when not
wanting to hang out in central park anymore because "of all the
fucking intellectuals tring to out intellectual all the other fucking
intellectuals"
ulticritic
just MY way of being humorous(sorry there was nuthin gay about
it)........but whats really scary about your icarious analogy is that
RIGHT NOW i am causght up in a skism with a neigborhood in which i
just bought an adjacent stretch (7 lots) of real estate in which i am
trying to suceed/branch off from........and that neighbohood is called
crete. I do have that "fuck the dumb shit/go for it" attitude though,
so ill take that that comp as a complement
ulticritic
> saying that ultimate players are using bad music for their clips.
> Period.
not jus bad music either.......REALLY BAD MUSIC......like
embarrassingly bad
------------------------------------------------------------------
> Nothing about how this bad music isn't rebellious enough.
yea, just mainly how wussified (hall and oats) and gay (miley cyrus)
they are
--------------------------------------------------------------------
> And for the record, the people in the 1960s who thought that they were
> rebelling just by listening to Bob Dylan weren't rebels
some might have been......not mearly by listening to bob........but
even that didnt/wouldnt/CANT hurt. i mean, it isnt like listening to
most of his lyrics isnt gonna challenge you to take another look at
"how things work"........AND give you a much different (and even
rebellious) attitude there after
----------------------------------------------------------------------------.
- they were
> poseurs, as Dylan will be the first to tell you.
or they were sellouts......if they were still fans after he "went
electric" that is(according to the hardcore folksters anyways). but
if dylan was to compare the rebeliousness of one of his fans to
someone who WASNT "experienced" (a la jimi h) to someone that prefered
a comprable band to hall and oats or miley cyrus(of that day) i would
think hed put more creedance and trust into the philosphies of his own
fans than those "others"
ulticritic
> Although I can more commonly be found strictly avoiding
> contact with RSD via anything more diminutive in size than a
> pole with a minimum length of ten feet, the eloquence of
> this thread hijacking has restored my faith in the (mostly)
> excellent people who join me in participating in the
> greatest sport known to mankind,
you play football too?
---------------------------------------------
and furthermore has
> inspired me to produce this sincere paragraph. The
> consternation caused by this topic to one of the principal
> antagonists of this group has caused me extensive mirth.
i need a traslator........does anybody out there speak gay?
-------------------------------------------------------
I
> am compelled to extend my sincere gratitude and
> commendations towards the more verbose contributers to this
> thread, and would also like to thank one particular less
> eloquent author whose presence here allows the comedic
> possibilities here to be fulfilled and even occasionally
> amplifies them so that they can reach previously
> unconceivable heights.
well,your quite welcome
ulticritic
AND the fish! (pretty sure joe is clueless here)
jacob
someone who WASNT 'experienced' (a la jimi h) to someone that prefered
a comprable band to hall and oats or miley cyrus(of that day) i would
think hed put more creedance and trust into the philosphies of his own
I agree.
Robbie Zabel
understanding of Mrs Van Heuvelen, Macdonald, Cox and “Jacob”s
arguments, I find myself obligated to postulate that “Jacob”s
(although I apologize if my avowal of william’s utilization of
“conceptual prophylactics” causes a blight upon your fragile
sensibilities, I must persist in this convention) perception of the
argument in which he supposes himself to be an active participant in
is fundamentally and tragically flawed. The discussion is not, as
“Jacob” so fervently pontificates, about facts, proceedings or
definitions that make up the historical narrative, whose nature it is
prevents us from ever truly reaching any conclusions due to the
subjectivity of experience that has been noted in previous posts, but
rather about the narrative itself and its instrumentalization. It
seems to me that “Jacob” has, in effect, participated in what I would
argue is a form of ostentatious intellectual imperialism, endeavoring
to expand the bulwark of facts which he chooses to erect in the hopes
of protecting himself from the inevitable trivialization of his own
efforts at pontificating in this, the most bizarre forum for
philosophical discussion, instead of allowing himself and his argument
to flow mellifluously into the expanse of our discussion. Yes, we
freely admit that our disregard for facts - as they are the building
blocks of historical narrative, and therefore an infinitely limiting
notion that, under these circumstances matter little more than the
subjective experiences of mr van heuvelen, i.e. not at all – may be
cynical, but we are not valuating narratives or attempting to use them
to bring us depression or ataraxia, we are discussing them as a
conceptualization of reality that people may either buy into or not,
and why this is so. The idea of rebellion and the events of the 1960s,
then, are moot except in their embodiment of the paradigm of
historical narratives, which I propose is simply a tool for people to
simply affirm themselves in a heuristic manner while shielding
themselves from the reality that they cannot perceive reality in any
truly meaningful or communicable way.
ulticritic
,
> The idea of rebellion and the events of the 1960s,
one of which included the formation of ultimate.......just sayin. and
ya cant try and tell me that much of its development wasnt rooted in
rebelion.......from the geeks who invented it rebeling from the
jocks.......then the burnout x-jocks relelling from the the jock
system of sports, coaches,officiation etc. so, for me, coming from the
perspective i do (which is an ulti player since 1978) is that for the
sport to be born out of such rebelion it just seems WRONG that todays
players (who are obviously drawn to this "anti-sport" aspect) would
listen to such weak ass, soft, wussified music. dont try and read to
much into this or strain your brain in an attempt to showcase your
intelectual prickishness.......cause thats all youre doing here.
nuthins getting accomplished or resolved with all this gay geek talk.
but if you must blow your idiot wind how about keepin it short and
simple........STUPIDS
Random Guy
> two of the vids submited for 5ulti sponsorship included music from
> miley cyrus and hall and oats. so we have both an old school and new
> scholl form of shit music being used (listend to) by todays new breed
> of palyers. THIS IS FUCKING PATHETIC. i mean there is plenty of
> shitty music out there to ruin and ultimate clip with but this is a
> whole new low. Isnt it bad enough you people ruin this sport with a
> shitty officiation system.
I find this whole discussion absolutely splendid! I have been
relishing in Handel's "Messiah" while reading this. But who does not
enjoy the riveting tune "Maneater," or that doozy by the Beastie Boys
"Paul Revere." Then there's the magnificence that is Daft Punk (also
see RJD2, STS9 perhaps). Let's not look over Phil Collins or the
Boss, though. Anyone named Bob is perfectly dandy! Bob Dylan, Bob
Marley, Bob Seger, Bob Sinclair, Bobby McFerrin, Me and Bobby McGee.
Do you like Elton John, because he may be listed under "Gay music," I
am just confused why you use the term gay? Do you mean the music
itself is homosexual, why do you hate homosexuals? Does the word just
bother you... homo...sexual ...I'm reminded of the scene in the Big
Lebowski with the word Vagina. But I digress from my ramblings... ah,
I recall you saying you do not listen to female musicians, no Janis
Joplin, Norah Jones, Joni Mitchell, Mary J. Blige, Kenny Loggins,
Stevie Nicks, Mulan soundtrack, Sheryl Crow? None of those? Freddy
Mercury was a homo...sexual. Soul Asylum and Los Lonely Boys were the
voice of a hidden generation lost among the masses of Stone Temple
Pilot fans! I believe all music is absolutely amazing!
...except Woody Guthrie... this land is your land, this land is my
land, fuck off, what is he French or something
ulticritic
>
> I find this whole discussion absolutely splendid! I have been
> relishing in Handel's "Messiah" while reading this. But who does not
> enjoy the riveting tune "Maneater," or that doozy by the Beastie Boys
> "Paul Revere." Then there's the magnificence that is Daft Punk (also
> see RJD2, STS9 perhaps). Let's not look over Phil Collins or the
> Boss, though.
lets not
----------------------------------------
Anyone named Bob is perfectly dandy!
wrong again
----------------------------------------
Bob Dylan, Bob
> Marley,
and thats about it
-------------------------------------
Bob Seger, Bob Sinclair, Bobby McFerrin, Me and Bobby McGee.
no, no ,no and no
----------------------------------------
> Do you like Elton John, because he may be listed under "Gay music,"
actually elton jonh would be amoungst the many soft musicians of that
era that wouldnt be considered nearly as wussish as hall and oats
imo........but still wussish to a certian extent.
--------------------------------------------------------
I
> am just confused why you use the term gay?
because i can
-----------------------------------------
Do you mean the music
> itself is homosexual,
obviously not......allthough that performance by the rpi trudge
was......or they were mimicking overt homosexuality.......theyll tell
you that.
------------------------------------------------------------
why do you hate homosexuals?
i dont......i just say what most other people think.......or at least
what that "little toad in everybody" thinks. You are obviously mis
intrupreting my various uses of the words gay, fagg etc when i use
them. ya see, someone can act gay without being a
homosexual.........hence the comment "thats gay" that is widely
used......probably even by some homosexual people. maybe like some
blacks us the n-word. you know, in an endering way. obviously i dont
use it in an endering way but rather in a derogetory way.......not
that i have anything against people that are atteracted to the same
sex. get it? i guess its synonomous with being a wuss to me.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does the word just
> bother you... homo...sexual
not at all......does the word faggot bother you?
-------------------------------------------------
...I'm reminded of the scene in the Big
> Lebowski with the word Vagina. But I digress from my ramblings... ah,
> I recall you saying you do not listen to female musicians
not voluntatily. If i go thru all my cd's i migh have one or two
female artists. wait, just checked......dont have any
---------------------------------------------------------------
, no Janis
> Joplin, Norah Jones, Joni Mitchell, Mary J. Blige, Kenny Loggins,
> Stevie Nicks, Mulan soundtrack, Sheryl Crow? None of those?
nope. i guess i hear enough of them on the radio and whatnot not to
go out of my way to listen/buy their music. AND SURLY NOT SOME GAY
ANTHEM BY MILEY CYRUS. who would listen to such garbage......much
less dedecate an ultimate related vid to.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Freddy
> Mercury was a homo...sexual.
so?
---------------------------------------
Soul Asylum and Los Lonely Boys were the
> voice of a hidden generation lost among the masses
they were gay too?
----------------------------------------------------
of Stone Temple
> Pilot fans! I believe all music is absolutely amazing!
even miley cyrus? you really think that produced garbage is amazing?
------------------------------------------------------
>
> ...except Woody Guthrie... this land is your land, this land is my
> land, fuck off, what is he French or something
how is hall and oats any better?
Random Guy
so you mean you use gay, fagg etc. in the South Park sense... like a
fag could be a person who is obnoxiously loud and loves getting
attention and listening to themself talk on and on and on about crap
no one cares about... hmmm, who does that sound like.........
Jon Cox
First, I'd like to start by thanking you for engaging us in this
thread; you've brought up some great points and have reinvigorated the
discussion. I'd also like to apologize for not being able to respond
more regularly--I'm in Europe right now so the majority of the posts
come to me at unideal times. And thirdly, I admit that my last post
was rather coy--I eschewed accuracy in favor of audacity. I'll try not
to make the same mistake with this post.
I think you're correct in claiming that irony is not rebellion. It is,
as you say, a cop out. But I think it's important to point out that
this has not always been the case. For a long period of history, irony
was rebellious ("irony" is notoriously difficult to pin down with a
definition, but as I use it in this post, I refer to a statement that
does not intend to *mean* what it openly states). Indeed, in times of
political tyranny and censorship, irony in literature has often
allowed authors to challenge the reigning political structure without
explicitly objecting to it (where an explicit objection, heavily
censored, would not reach the masses and would result in the author's
imprisonment or execution). But irony does not seem to hold this same
power in our present culture. And the fact that we can go so far as to
construe it as a cop out is telling.
Unlike in the above example, irony as it is used today is often serves
to obscure one's own opinion rather than to elucidate it. For irony
allows us to defer judgment--it frees us from having to commit to a
decision. It allows us to speak about a subject without ever saying
anything meaningful about it--e.g. if I make the ironic statement "I
love Miley Cyrus," on the surface, I seem to be committing myself to a
position with regard to Miley Cyrus. But I'm actually not committing
to anything. For what I mean by this statement is "I do not love Miley
Cyrus"--all I'm doing is denying a position. Irony allows me to talk
to you about Miley Cyrus without ever telling you how I actually feel
about her. Very much a cop out--and destructive to our ability to
judge truth from falsity.
And as I mentioned earlier, our culture is absolutely flooded with
such obscurative irony. Not just in television, comedy and literature,
but in many others aspects of our lives we struggle to differentiate
between fact and fiction, truth from mere verisimilitude. The rise of
postmodernism (which has essentially tried to dismantle every
established truth or favored belief that it can get its hands on) and
cheap communication technologies (cellphones, television, the
Internet, etc.--which bombard us with massive amounts of information)
have led to a drastic increase in the amount and variety of voices
that we hear in our daily lives, off which (these voices) we try to
construct cogent opinions and beliefs about the world. In the 1960's
the nation's information structure was vastly smaller and more
homogeneous than that of our present day (radio, newspaper, 3 TV
channels, all controlled by big publishing companies vs. all that to
the n'th degree + easy access to tens of thousands of personal blogs
and user-run content--no publishing company necessary). It is much
more difficult in our present era to filter this river of information
and use it to build our own coherent opinions.
We can't find any definitive truth. And the natural response to our
inability to find truth, which is in part built upon the rise of
irony, is the further use of irony. For irony makes no truth claims--
by meaning nothing when we speak, we insulate ourselves from being
wrong. This is the culture we live in. This is the status quo. In a
culture of epistemological uncertainty, irony protects us from being
perceived as wrong and subsequent ridicule. So it is definitely a cop
out. Ironically liking an artist such as Miley Cyrus is not
rebellious. You've made me realize this, Jacob. But I still think that
there is something at least a little bit rebellious about the videos
that Toad criticizes.
In a culture that is dominated by irony, uncertainty and the masking
of one's opinions, what is truly rebellious might actually be the
strength to assert and stand by one's opinion--to open oneself up to
ridicule. Sincerity is rebellion: making a video of yourself dancing
around to Miley Cyrus and admitting that you enjoyed it and that you
do indeed like Miley Cyrus's music. It's a form of rebellion directed
at people like Toad, people who think that a men's ultimate team
shouldn't be frolicking around to Miley Cyrus and loving it, people
who will lay into you after you do so because it falls into their
stereotypes of "pussy" or "wuss."
It's rebellious in this way and it's rebellious in another--and the
following is why I suspect that so many of us like simple pop music
like "Party in the USA." That is, the song doesn't demand anything
from us--it doesn't try to manipulate or persuade or conscript or
proselytize or command us. In a world that's full of voices that all
seem to be asking something from us (whether they're asking us for
money or to agree with them or to listen to better music), pop music
is one of the few voices out there that doesn't seem to want anything
from us (except that maybe we dance). It's a welcome escape from the
myriad voices trying to pull us one way or another. It's easy, simple,
and catchy in a world that isn't any of these things.
And that it pisses off people like Toad is a welcome side effect.
pooner
http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/let_us_identify_the_faggots_and
a little toad in everybody? eek!
> i dont......i just say what most other people think.......or at least
> what that "little toad in everybody" thinks. You are obviously mis
> intrupreting my various uses of the words gay, fagg etc when i use
> them. ya see, someone can act gay without being a
> homosexual.........hence the comment "thats gay" that is widely
> used......probably even by some homosexual people. maybe like some
> blacks us the n-word. you know, in an endering way. obviously i dont
> use it in an endering way but rather in a derogetory way.......not
> that i have anything against people that are atteracted to the same
> sex. get it? i guess its synonomous with being a wuss to me.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
jacob
"I find myself obligated to postulate that “Jacob”s (although I
apologize if my avowal of william’s utilization of 'conceptual
prophylactics' causes a blight upon your fragile sensibilities, I must
persist in this convention) perception of the argument in which he
supposes himself to be an active participant in is fundamentally and
tragically flawed."
How exactly are you "obligated" to postulate? As to my "fragile
sensibilities," let's just say I think there are many men posting to
rsd who are so fragile that they would only be rude to me through the
safety of the internet. I accept this, but don't respect it. Please
do not put my name in quotes, Robbie. I think it's rude.
"The discussion is not, as 'Jacob' so fervently pontificates, about
facts, proceedings or definitions that make up the historical
narrative, whose nature it is prevents us from ever truly reaching any
conclusions due to the subjectivity of experience that has been noted
in previous posts, but rather about the narrative itself and its
instrumentalization."
I do have to admit (all sarcasm aside) that there appears to be a real
substantive point to this discussion which eludes me. This could be
due to a deficiency of imagination or intelligence on my part. It
could also be partly due to the fact that some of the other people
posting here have tucked away their philosophical gems inside semi-
coherent run-on sentences. The "tragic flaw" you refer to above is
collective.
"It seems to me that 'Jacob' has, in effect, participated in what I
would argue is a form of ostentatious intellectual imperialism"
Yeah, but unlike you, I'm aware I'm doing it. Do you really think you
can use a phrase like "ostentatious intellectual imperialism" while
also being down-to-earth?
"endeavoring to expand the bulwark of facts which he chooses to erect
in the hopes of protecting himself from the inevitable trivialization
of his own efforts at pontificating"
I do pontificate, and my pontification is often proven wrong, on rsd
and elsewhere. However, I don't need to "protect [my]yself" from
this, and the interesting perspectives which lead me to change my mind
don't necessarily trivialize my point of view.
"in this, the most bizarre forum for philosophical discussion,"
Please be kind enough to tell me where the more appropriate forums for
philosophical discussions are. By the way, I couldn't help noticing
that you are also discussing philosophy in this forum.
"instead of allowing himself and his argument to flow mellifluously
into the expanse of our discussion."
Now whose the one with "delicate sensibilities?" Arguments should
"flow mellifluously into the expanse" of discussions? Maybe sometimes,
but not as a general rule, Robbie.
"Yes, we freely admit that our disregard for facts - as they are the
building blocks of historical narrative, and therefore an infinitely
limiting notion that, under these circumstances matter little more
than the subjective experiences of mr van heuvelen, i.e. not at all –
may be cynical, but we are not valuating narratives or attempting to
use them to bring us depression or ataraxia, we are discussing them as
a conceptualization of reality that people may either buy into or not,
and why this is so."
I don't buy this. I think you guys are using facts when it suits you
(e.g. it is a fact that ultimate players of today view the rebellion
of the 1960s as a failure wherein the rebels eventually recreated that
against which they rebelled, and it is fact this this view is
connected to those players listening to commercially popular music)
and then rejecting the significance of facts when it suits you (e.g.
the facts I cite to refute VH's position should be not be part of this
discussion because they are cherry-picked and exist on a separate
plane from the subjective perceptions at the heart of the matter
here). Your "disregard for facts" is not so much "cynical" as it is
illusory and self-serving. You refer to facts as "infinitely
limiting." Do you advocate having discussions which are not subject
to limits of any kind?
"The idea of rebellion and the events of the 1960s, then, are moot
except in their embodiment of the paradigm of historical narratives,
which I propose is simply a tool for people to simply affirm
themselves in a heuristic manner while shielding themselves from the
reality that they cannot perceive reality in any truly meaningful or
communicable way."
Isn't it possible that historical narrative is sometimes "a tool for
people to simply affirm themselves in a heuristic manner" while also
sometimes a practical means of understanding the past? Isn't it also
possible that you simply have an impossibly high standard of the
meaningfulness and communicability of reality as we perceive it? Yes,
people use facts and historical narrative to trick themselves into
believing that they have a greater grasp of the world than they
actually posses. This does not mean that we have no real grasp on the
world at all. Further, to state that it is a fact that we have no
such grasp and then to turn around and disregard facts offered to
dispute this is more hit-and-run than enlightened discussion.
jacob
I agree and don't have anything to add, except to clarify that I did
not mean that irony could never be rebellious; only that it is not
rebellious within the limited context referred to earlier.
ulticritic
>
> so you mean you use gay, fagg etc. in the South Park sense... like a
> fag could be a person who is obnoxiously loud and loves getting
> attention and listening to themself talk on and on and on about crap
> no one cares about.
NO, that sounds more like the description of an asshole (which i'm
admittingly one) than a description fag. which would make you a
dipshit for not understanding the distinction
ulticritic
>
> Unlike in the above example, irony as it is used today is often serves
> to obscure one's own opinion rather than to elucidate it. For irony
> allows us to defer judgment--it frees us from having to commit to a
> decision. It allows us to speak about a subject without ever saying
> anything meaningful about it--e.g. if I make the ironic statement "I
> love Miley Cyrus," on the surface, I seem to be committing myself to a
> position with regard to Miley Cyrus.
well..........do you love her....or her music?
----------------------------------------------
But I'm actually not committing
> to anything.
pussy
----------------------------------
For what I mean by this statement is "I do not love Miley
> Cyrus"--all I'm doing is denying a position. Irony allows me to talk
> to you about Miley Cyrus without ever telling you how I actually feel
> about her. Very much a cop out--and destructive to our ability to
> judge truth from falsity.
yea, so what the point?
------------------------------------------
But I still think that
> there is something at least a little bit rebellious about the videos
> that Toad criticizes.
the original one was......it was gay guys gaying off.......being all
queenish and making fun of ther own gayness. now mimicKing (which i
dont consider a parody) that vid and applying an ultimate frisbee
twist to it????? that just tells me that this group of guys has some
kind of afinity for miley cyrus, gay guys dancing, music thats meant
for 12 year old girls or all of the above. nothing reblious about
that vid (unless ofcourse the ARE really gay.........NOW THAT would be
radical. but since they probably arent they were kinda mocking the
gay acting gays, right? which cant be right? so either they are
biggots or faggots.......take your pick, i dont care.
---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> In a culture that is dominated by irony, uncertainty and the masking
> of one's opinions,
pfft, i aint maskin shit
----------------------------------------------------
what is truly rebellious might actually be the
> strength to assert and stand by one's opinion--to open oneself up to
> ridicule.
like the sport of ultimate in the world of sports......being all
spirity and shit? when sports are about being aggro and intense??
-----------------------------------------------
Sincerity is rebellion: making a video of yourself dancing
> around to Miley Cyrus and admitting that you enjoyed it and that you
> do indeed like Miley Cyrus's music.
if your arent a homo, no, its just gay
if you are, and you are "out", no
--------------------------------------------
It's a form of rebellion directed
> at people like Toad, people who think that a men's ultimate team
> shouldn't be frolicking around to Miley Cyrus and loving it,
no, its repulsive....not rebelious. i would question why they were
loving it so much. what is it about acting like overt queers that is
so appealing to you?....or them?
------------------------------------------------------------------
people
> who will lay into you after you do so because it falls into their
> stereotypes of "pussy" or "wuss."
yea, theyll be some horny boys that will want to "lay into" them once
the feast their eyes on that vid alright
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> It's rebellious in this way and it's rebellious in another--and the
> following is why I suspect that so many of us like simple pop music
> like "Party in the USA." That is, the song doesn't demand anything
> from us
sure it does......GAYNESS.
----------------------------------------------------------
--it doesn't try to manipulate or persuade or conscript or
> proselytize or command us.
yep, not much cahllenge to it, eh? pussies usually dont like to be
challenged
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a world that's full of voices that all
> seem to be asking something from us (whether they're asking us for
> money or to agree with them or to listen to better music), pop music
> is one of the few voices out there that doesn't seem to want anything
> from us
how about conformity
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>(except that maybe we dance).
or puke
-----------------------------------------
It's a welcome escape from the
> myriad voices trying to pull us one way or another.
ahhh bullshit.....its just easy and comfortable......and suits the
soft and coddled upbringing youve had
------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's easy, simple,
> and catchy in a world that isn't any of these things.
uhmmm, personally,i find life pretty simple, eat, shit and fuck
right???? just let me do that while listening to the roots ridims of
BMW.......and leave miley cyrus for 12 year old girls (and fags)
------------------------------------------------------------
>
> And that it pisses off people like Toad is a welcome side effect.
your a rebel without a clue
ulticritic
thanks for not taken up two pages worth of words conveying that
never herd people talk so much and say so little
jacob
herd people talk so much and say so little"
Guilty.
the chris a.
> Guilty.
"jacob",
i would rather drink pbr, live under a bridge, and catch herpes than
engage a critical theorist and/or deconstructionist. but if you
endeavor to do so, always maintain that appearance is reality-
anything else is self indulgent and superfluous.
i commend your earnestness but encourage you to learn to spot the
troll. you can either search this thread for clues or take a
continuing ed class from your local community college.
ps-to the low brow and the pseudo-intellects in thread, keep banging.
ulticritic
> On Dec 11, 10:34 am, jacob <jacobsi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Guilty.
>
> "jacob",
>
> i would rather drink pbr,
pfft, lots of people do that by choice (i'm a fan of cheap beer)
------------------------------------------------
live under a bridge,
trool?
-----------------------------------------
and catch herpes than
the gift that keeps on giving?????, icky........i'd rather engage in
whatever discussin your talking about ANY DAY.
------------------------------------------------------
> engage a critical theorist and/or deconstructionist. but if you
> endeavor to do so, always maintain that appearance is reality-
> anything else is self indulgent and superfluous.
is this synonomous with "perception being reality"?
-----------------------------------------------------
> i commend your earnestness but encourage you to learn to spot the
> troll. you can either search this thread for clues or take a
> continuing ed class from your local community college.
>
> ps-to the low brow and the pseudo-intellects in thread, keep banging.
who, me?
Random Guy
as a hungover ultimate player who has forgotten everything about this
discussion...
I believe ultimate players today listen to "pussy music"
1. because its a somewha rebellious sport, not many people know
about it, so you have a lot of indie-type fucks
2. going along with your examples of the videos... thats the
corporations trying to mainstream the sport man, by like, using pop
culture as our ally, but we dont fuckin want that maaaaan, fuck no,
leave us to our ways
3. or people just listen to whatever music they want and i really
just dont give a shit... but if there really is an ultimate video with
miley cyrus, then that person that made that needs to hang
3Jane.
I was with you until "affirm themselves in a heuristic manner", you
lost me there.
ulticritic
> ... but if there really is an ultimate video with
> miley cyrus, then that person that made that needs to hang-
dude, you dont know the half of it (obviously)......just check it out
on utube for yourself......i think sombody posted a link to it about
12 posts in to this thread
Random Guy
did that video win? itmade me throw up ...you owe me a new shirt for
telling me to watch it
ulticritic
i think the rpi trudge owes us ALL new t shirts. they crteated a
pukefest
B. Taylor Hutchinson
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.