Tuesday, January 6, 2015

Making the World a Better Place


MAKING THE WORLD A BETTER PLACE

Imagine arguing some Other into submission.
Undermining their bias and belief, prejudice
and conviction, destroying their mind-set,
controlling metaphors & operating assumptions.
Nailing their contradictions and inconsistencies.
They wouldn't have a leg to stand on.That would
be awesome, yes? "I give up," they’d say.
"You win. You are so much smarter than me."

I’m a NOUN basically naming & knowing & nominating,
hording  an inventory of nominal nominations—the what-
I-know, hunting & gathering more knowings —collector
of names and notions, building an edifice, fort and comfort
zone, my gnostic homeland security. Hear me bore...

I know a lot, smart as hell. I know about mitochondria and
melancholia, particles and waves and Schrodinger’s cats,
Hawthorne and Faulkner and Fibonacci, Bushmen of the
Kalahari and melting icebergs, gluten and golf and internal
combustion, consummations devoutly desired and phatic
communion, suprasegmental phone and glottal and velar
consonantal drifts, the invisible hand and Goedel’s theorem,
conspiracy theories up the wazoo, man’s inhumanity to man,
the difference between irrational and ratios, logic and analogic:
I could go on and on and what I don’t know I can Google so
I’m smart as the smartest kid in class so to speak and as it were
but I still have to sleep on the couch most every other night,
knowing so much and smart as I am it’s a mystery. it’s
beyond me.



138 comments:

  1. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5o_5A-KDb-w

    Look at this. You get the score that shows you where all the parts are in time. And it gives a contemporaneous translation into English.

    My mother practiced this for a better part of a year from a record. Every note is in my mind. Don't need the score for this one, since we heard it over and over (and over and over). The final chorus is the most lively and difficult.

    I'll take it over the Beatles and Bob Dylan, if we must choose.

    I saw the show about Steve Jobs of Apple company. We learned that he studied Zen overseas and that his running script in his mind were the Beatles and Bob Dylan songs, and he quotes a line. From all that he was inspired to make things that look sleek and simple.

    However, he mentions, too, that superior design, like that of Mercedes vehicles inspired him. We need not therefore credit the Beatles and Zen for his creativity and drive. I think if we researched it, we would find Germany to be the place with the most patents registered; not to mention that a lot of American scientists originally were displaced Europeans...

    Interesting to me was that Jobs had his own foundation of words that were with him. A kind of catechism we could say. Anyways, his credo was that the world could be made a better place if you applied yourself.

    Bach also made the world a better place and now we can get him on Jobs' devices. What a marriage.

    ReplyDelete
  2. No need to choose. The more kinds of music, the world's a better place; the more ways of talking, the better,

    ReplyDelete
  3. 12 massacred at Paris satirical magazine. Better place. Not.

    ReplyDelete
  4. In Germany, PEGIDA stages big demonstrations against the Islamization of Europe. The former East Germans unite saying "we are the people".

    ReplyDelete
  5. Big debate where not suppressed.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Should this be waking me in the middle of the night, sheets in a wad?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Should you be saying something in your role as the most debate friendly, someone kin to the satirists?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Should you lay down your life for your friends?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Would it make you a man, or would it diminish you?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Why would I "lay down my life" for friends? It would diminish me, no doubt.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Joseph Smith did the same thing--destroy the printing press, so people could not hear about his escapades. Now we still have millions following this insane man, with God on the moon, just like with Swedenborg (I am simplifying).

    The occasion for this attack was the cartoon that predicted this author observing Ramadan in 2022. That author had written a novel imagining living in France of the future, under Islamic government. He should also be your kind of comrade. A writer with a great imagination, trying to make the world a better place. Will you stand with him? Is he a good guy?

    ReplyDelete
  12. You would think he is a target, at this point, too. What is his name.

    ReplyDelete
  13. and millions following miracle worker Jesus--raising dead, feeding 5000 with fish and loaf, curing the blind, crucified and buried and resurrected. Amagine how crazy that sounds for any not raised it or the many who drop out. All should be my kind of comrade--and yours, doing the best we can to make the world a better place. Of course I stand with him--a good guy, following his muse, paraklete, comforter, guide.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Jesus did not turn over the press. Jesus spoke truth and healed and cared. Miracles and resurrection are the touch points on whether he is God. You have to make up your mind. I don't think he could have done and said the things he did so flawlessly if he is not God, nor would his disciples have spread the story and submitted to cruel death.

    Swedenborg's and Joseph Smith's flights of fancy are just plain ridiculous, both ending with thinking they could have any woman they happened to favor ("love").

    ReplyDelete
  15. Only, with Mohammed, with violence.

    ReplyDelete

  16. They are ridiculous to you and I've seen Bror display the same sentiment. Makes sense, "Same with Mohammed" ?? Is he "just plain ridiculous" too? Ridiculous to the savvy; offensive to the conscientious.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Mohammed is ridiculous, too, that's why the violent defence. If your point is weak, yell louder.

    ReplyDelete
  18. The man who made Mohammed cartoons was just murdered. How would you respond to that?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Muslims probably feel same about xtianithy and its claims. Ridiculous. Hindus? Humanists? It makes good sense that they do. That you do.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Makes sense to me. Fear, hate, anger, jealousy, resentment, homeland security, xenophobia, racism: essential original sin--not an aberration. How would you respond? Scold and chasten and evangelize?

    ReplyDelete
  21. They can feel what they like. That is fine. They can even say it. They can even print it.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Of course thay can and do. Ridiculous is a word appreciated on both sides of the aisle to characterise the Other. Makes sense. Killing also--small ways and large.Defense. Offense. In the name of God ostensibly, but always for other reason less glorious. No one should be surprised .

    ReplyDelete
  23. Swedenborg flying off to different planets in the solar system, and beyond the solar system, speaking to the Angels of the planets and observing the inhabitants is ridiculous.

    ReplyDelete
  24. How do you know a fruitcake when you know one?

    ReplyDelete
  25. I actually took his books out of the library.

    ReplyDelete
  26. http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/ausland/europa/gegen-den-islamismus-das-manifest-der-zwoelf-13357663.html

    ReplyDelete
  27. Einstein riding the front end of a light beam, coming up the his relativity theory. How do I know a fruitcake who nevertheless has status and influence as a thinker andc contributor? I look in the mirror and remember the origin or all judgement, taste, opinion, righteouness.

    ReplyDelete
  28. The manifest of the twelve. I can't find it in English.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Wir weigern uns, wegen der Befürchtung, die „Islamophobie“ zu fördern, auf den kritischen Geist zu verzichten. Dies ist ein verhängnisvolles Konzept, das die Kritik am Islam als Religion und die Stigmatisierung der Gläubigen durcheinanderbringt.

    Wir plädieren für allgemeine Meinungsfreiheit, damit sich der kritische Geist auf allen Kontinenten gegen jeden Mißbrauch und gegen alle Dogmen entfalten kann.

    Wir richten unseren Appell an die Demokraten und freien Geister aller Länder, damit unser Jahrhundert eines der Aufklärung und nicht eines der Verdummung wird.

    ReplyDelete
  30. We refuse to abandon the critical spirit because of the fear of possibly promoting "Islamophobia"; it being a dangerous concept confusing the criticism of Islam as a religion with the stigmatizing of the faithful.

    ReplyDelete
  31. We seek to promote the freedom of opinion so that the critical spirit can develop on all continents against the misuse of all dogmas.

    ReplyDelete
  32. We refuse to apply (abandon? which?) the critical spirit? Christ-like loving of enemies?

    ReplyDelete

  33. Against the misuse of all dogmas. That sounds worthny.i

    ReplyDelete
  34. We issue an appeal to all free thinkers and democrats in all countries so that our century will become one of enlightenment not of (hm) -- making stupid, denigration, demagoguery... (Best word?)

    ReplyDelete
  35. The end of translation of that bit. No doubt it was issued in English first. The Frankfurter newspaper chose to promote it today.

    ReplyDelete
  36. I like "misuse of dogmas". It accepts that we all have dogmas, but in our weakness we abuse dogmas. That is much better than thundering against all dogma and creeds.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Democrat they use in opposition to theocrat.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Here it is entire, in English.
    http://www.thegully.com/essays/world/060403_islam_totalitarian.html


    The last word they have is "obscurantism", where I could not decide what the English word should be.

    "Obscurantism" is not a word people use, I think, and therefore the best one to make a strong finish.

    In the German, they have "Verdummung", which is much more colloquial--making people "dummer".

    ReplyDelete
  39. NOT the best one for a strong finish.

    ReplyDelete
  40. To be honest: I have no idea what your point is. I suspect it is disapproving and chauvinistic, national and religious. Much terror and horror going on in the world--and in many cases motivated by improving the world in terms of one's religious and political beliefs. I'm aware of politics and world issues, but they don't keep me awake at night. I'm in the midst of reading semester portfolios and feeling grateful for the Ivory Tower.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Obscurantism (French: obscurantisme, from the Latin obscurans, "darkening") is the practice of deliberately preventing the facts or the full details of some matter from becoming known. There are two common historical and intellectual denotations to Obscurantism: (1) deliberately restricting knowledge—opposition to the spread of knowledge, a policy of withholding knowledge from the public; and, (2) deliberate obscurity—an abstruse style (as in literature and art) characterized by deliberate vagueness.[1][2]

    ReplyDelete
  42. Do you think "obscurantism" makes the world a better place?

    ReplyDelete
  43. I assume you are accusing someone of obscurantism and it must be bothering you--the way you keep chewing on this. (Don't ask me what "this" is)

    ReplyDelete
  44. I think you know what the word irony means. Reread my initial post with that word in mind. Of course obscurantism makes the world a better place sometimes, sometimes not. Same with lies and obfuscation and telling it slant and indirection.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Salmon Rushdie et alii under fatwa's are accusing some of obscurantism.

    ReplyDelete
  46. But you like vagueness and letting go of facts. So maybe you like obscurantism.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Like I said, it is not a word I use or hear.

    ReplyDelete
  48. I already said I did--use and abuse to make my sense. Wretch like me. Are we done with this yet?

    ReplyDelete
  49. Plato was for censorship. He was often wrong in spectacular ways.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Never the less--he and Aristotle are considered the fathers of Western Philosophy. I am often wrong in spectacular ways.

    ReplyDelete
  51. ...for the object of education is to teach us to love beauty. (Plato, 380BC)

    Is it this maxim that let him advocate censorship and overthrow of old ideas, creating a "blank canvas"--at the same time? Who will decide what is beautiful? The philosopher.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Never the less--he and Aristotle are considered the fathers of Western Philosophy. I am often wrong in spectacular ways.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Jesus was never wrong in spectacular ways. He was never wrong, at all.

    Move over Plato.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Tell me something he said wrong?

    I'm off to a different church, late service. My daughter is playing violin. I took her to Suzuki for 12 years, but now she likes to play descents in a contemporary band.

    ReplyDelete
  55. She graduated from book ten, the Mozart concerto. The first one in Edmonton to do so. She pushed through to be the first one, but now she hates concertos.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Jesus said nothing wrong. Spectacular. Don't think he played violin, or skied, did the dozens on the streets, wrote any novels or poems, rode the front end of a light beam, had a lewd thought, got annoyed, censored himself....nothing wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  57. He did not say anything specific about music, which is good, since that is cultural and adiophra and open for creativity. He did not ski because there was no snow, but he walked and went fishing with the guys. If they had had beer, he would have had a beer with them, maybe. He did not write novels, but he made up parables, he preached using many quotes, allusions and images, combining things in novel ways. He went off to pray and meditate, and he went to church. The light beam was created through the word, which he is. He did not have a lewd thought. He treated women like human beings, no matter where he found them. He spoke with them, educated them, elevated them. He held Socratic dialogues around town and answered well all those who tried to test or trick him. Everywhere he offered the good news. He got annoyed where it needed be and his warnings are sterner than anything you could hear anywhere else. The demands for loyalty were absolute. You can have nothing above God. And he is love.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Plato would have censored music for good taste, had everyone exercise naked and had lewd thoughts for boys and his students. He would definitely not have been circumcised. Reproduction he would have separated from family life. Women he would not have taught. Education was to be from tabula rasa so that a new thinking and generation could arise. The philosopher was to be king, and I am afraid that he means in this world.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Oh my gosh, somebody should write a dialogue between Plato and Jesus.

    (Not Socrates and Jesus. I am not sure how loyal Plato really was to Socrates. How much do you think Plato and Socrates agree? Could be another dialogue. Hey, you Plato, what did you do to my thinking?... ). To me, Plato is a great writer, but Socrates is compelling. It will be nearly impossible to separate the two, but could be interesting analysis...

    Sermon today was about that right after Jesus' baptism and affirmation by the Father, he was sent straight out to have dialogue with the devil in the wilderness. whom are we trying to please, was the question the pastor asked. He suggested that the drive to please other people was the same as the drive to please ourselves, an indulgence.

    ReplyDelete
  60. I am self-indulgent. My goodwife Ann: Other Indulgent. Your pastor and you and Carl: God indulgent. Both Socrates and Jesus were unpublished. Plato rendered Socrates. All them Gospelers: Jesus. Your version of Jesus is a stereotype, reminds me of Sunday School and Vacation Bible School. Bearded man in white robe with little children around him. Meek and Mild. Walks on Water. Does no wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  61. What do you think of the contrasting with Plato? Was it not good? Should I go into philosophy still, at this late date?

    Man, things are heating up in Europe. People on the streets on all fronts.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Plato was just a philosopher. Jesus was god and miracle worker--water to wine, curing blind, raising dead etc. Plato did none of those things. Nor Socrates. Incommensurate.

    ReplyDelete
  63. We were looking at what Jesus said. What did he say that was wrong? What kind of chicken devil refuses to go up to him?

    ReplyDelete
  64. Chicken devil? Most of the world it seems--don't appreciate the No Wrong Jesus who Died for their Sins. They don't even know they are chicken devils--unless you tell them and they are likely to be defensive and resist your truth.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Why can't we talk about anything he said?

    ReplyDelete
  66. Talk with Carl. For me: a profanity.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Dialectic needs opposition, but eschews the win/lose which privileges one side and underprivileges the other.It anticipates a synthesis (revelation) that does no injustice to either "team? (side position) No winner take all, butg a new insight.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Jesus engaged. He did not sit on the mountain top.

    ReplyDelete
  69. He can be confusing and ambiguous when he wants to. Sometimes he explains sometimes not, sometimes only to the twelve. Wake up people.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Wins. there's no contest here. Put your bail of hay at the temnple door and soak it with water and watch god set it on fire. Who can complete ? The twelve, by the way, were totally confused by him and didn't Get IT in his terms. But you and the Lutherans do.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Jesus is very alive, sometimes subtle, sometimes stark, sometimes playful, sometimes very pointed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Plato is a great writer. I adore him on that front. Very smart.

      Delete
  72. The twelve explained it to us, otherwise called the apostolic witness.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Still, how it applies to our situation can be very dynamic.

    ReplyDelete
  74. But we are not even allowed to quote him.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Replies
    1. Where is Naked Pastor when we need him. I'vew come full circle and fully understand and appreciate his position.

      Delete
    2. Naked pastor blocked you. You should go back and apologize and see if he will take you back.

      Delete
    3. I did more than a year ago.

      Delete
    4. Alright. How did he come into this, though?

      Delete
    5. How does NP relate to our preceding thoughts?

      Delete
    6. Our thoughts constellate like ping pong balls so that whatever comes to mind seems to relate. I originally thought he was doing a disservice to Xtianity--condemning his fundamental experience and seeming to drag the whole church into it. Nothing he said fit my own upbringing and experience. But arguing with you, Carl, Bror,my orthodox presbyterian pastor in San Francisco--I've come to realize his revulsion--and did write him a year ago, apologizing and appreciating.

      Delete
    7. How did that relate to "Plato wins", in relation to censorship?

      Delete
    8. Didn't. Plato wins is a silly statement, as is Jesus wins. I wasn't even caught up in your censorship concerns.

      Delete
    9. Why do you keep picking up Christian conversation partners if it is all incomensurate to philosophy and fundamentalism is revolting? Just for your debating and insulting pleasure? Gold's gymn? Because you enjoy hurting? How are you supposed to be a Christian and not defend and believe his words? How do you want a sharp debate that "educes" things but not allow that people have a point of view?

      Delete
    10. You deliberately set out to create a double bind. It is really a kind of abuse.

      Delete
    11. I'm not a Christian. Most of my life I used to think I was--loose and slack but never the less. But like NP I can't associate with what seems to be Christianity. Kazooing the Messiah, it seems like to me. Revolting. Have to have opposition in order to have dialectic. "Without Contraries is No Progress." What would I argue with if I didn't allow others their point of view?

      Delete
    12. "Crazy making" is what Lewis calls it.

      Delete
    13. You are 80 years old and you did not realize you were not really a slack Christan?

      Delete
    14. The MEDIA is the MESSAGE.
      not the message. (Can you tell
      the difference? The relationship?)

      To students in my classes.

      You may recall that I sent you pre-school
      pre-ludic messages in an effort to prepare
      you of course for my kind of “course.”

      "Anything sacred must be challenged to
      the utmost or it will hide untold falsities."
      (Bill Branyon)

      Prerequisite to the Beginning of
      Liberal Art

      My goal & aim in all classes is to under
      cut & undermine & confuse the issues,
      subvert & tangle & twist what might
      otherwise be measurable out comes,
      taunt & tweak, mock & ridicule, spank
      in manners of speaking so that all my
      students won’t know whether they’re
      coming or going, selfish or unselfish
      liberal or conservative, good or evil,
      motivated or lazy: & down and down
      we go, round and round we go, loving
      the din that we spin, the spin that we’re
      in under that old black magic called
      language

      Did I succeed?



      IT can’t be forced.



      Challenge IT to the utmost.



      Put IT in play.



      Whatever’s sacred: make profane.

      Whatever’s profane: make sacred.



      Other wise: only the sound of one hand

      clapping.

      Delete
    15. That was your novel synthesis of the world and christian teaching?--voila a slack Christian-- you just discovered the way to be!

      Delete
    16. Yes - and feel revulsion for the non-slack, the nit pickers, the righteous, exclusive, tight-assed and grim even as they think they cultivate humor and taste and intellect.

      Delete
    17. My old man told me people are more important than ideas and I agree but I like ideas better

      Delete
    18. Does feeling revolted make you a man or does it diminish you? Liking ideas and liking people is not mutually exclusive.

      Delete
    19. Did you watch "God is not dead"?

      Delete
  76. Platonic Love: Alma Matrix

    The sun don’t shine on Secular & Sacred Humanists
    Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee. Hysterical -- all wet
    swimming the amnion, welmed, wombed-arguing
    with each other over damp and dry.

    Beyond the goodies and the weasels : let us
    ridicule the human race—mock and scold our
    damned moral sense, how to make a monkey
    out of us for the sake of argument? Our Team
    Spirit. Jesus H. Mahogany Christ: he’s our man,
    If he can’t do it, nobody can.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Would you say Plato is into utopia? And how much does this affect his views on an open society rather than one that is highly regulated?

    Plato's relationship to love was disorder I would say. He strikes me as a parallel to Roman Catholic celibacy. The more they talk about celibacy and the more they try to enforce it (against all nature), the less they are able to do it, with strange results, to put it nicely.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Aristotle was not really in line with Plato. I don't see how they together can be the foundation of philosophy. In any case the reformation felt that it had to throw out Aristotle, out of theology at least. Out with celibacy, out with Aristotle, out with utopia, out with censorship, out with tyranny.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Plato was an Idealist; Aristotle: Empiricist. Complement each other like religions and science, mind and body, head and heart.
    ,

    ReplyDelete
  80. Except for Jesus who was never wrong: all the rest,large and small, famous and infamous, published and unpublished, masc or fem. terrorist or conformist--all fall short , are inadequate, insufficient, wrong and damaged and damaging. And so of course accuse-able. Any one can be accused for his inadequace, incompleteness. This makes for a field day for us accusers--satanic: we can point out the shortcomings and errors and wrongs and hypocrisy and fear and envy and desire --hidden hate--and think our selves perceptive and even righteous. .

    ReplyDelete
  81. Something on the Internet said that Plato was dialectic but put could not find a way to conclusions. Aristotle was analytic and into formal logic and all into drAwing conclusions. It seems to me you, personally, are into the former but not into the latter, though one would not need to see methods mutually exclusive in inquiry.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Except for Jesus who was never wrong: all the rest,large and small, famous and infamous, published and unpublished, masc or fem. terrorist or conformist--all fall short , are inadequate, insufficient, wrong and damaged and damaging. And so of course accuse-able. Any one can be accused for his inadequace, incompleteness. This makes for a field day for us accusers--satanic: we can point out the shortcomings and errors and wrongs and hypocrisy and fear and envy and desire --hidden hate--and think our selves perceptive and even righteous. .

    ReplyDelete
  83. I read a summary of the Symposium on Love. The philosopher's love of young men as objects of beauty seems to be the ticket to the higher love that is beyond, the love of beauty itself, of wisdom.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Except for Jesus who was never wrong: all the rest,large and small, famous and infamous, published and unpublished, masc or fem. terrorist or conformist--all fall short , are inadequate, insufficient, wrong and damaged and damaging. And so of course accuse-able. Any one can be accused for his inadequace, incompleteness. This makes for a field day for us accusers--satanic: we can point out the shortcomings and errors and wrongs and hypocrisy and fear and envy and desire --hidden hate--and think our selves perceptive and even righteous. .

    ReplyDelete
  85. Also love had to be promiscuous to achieve the universal appeal of beauty.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Except for Jesus who was never wrong: all the rest,large and small, famous and infamous, published and unpublished, masc or fem. terrorist or conformist--all fall short , are inadequate, insufficient, wrong and damaged and damaging. And so of course accuse-able. Any one can be accused for his inadequace, incompleteness. This makes for a field day for us accusers--satanic: we can point out the shortcomings and errors and wrongs and hypocrisy and fear and envy and desire --hidden hate--and think our selves perceptive and even righteous. .

      Delete
  86. Contrast that with Solomon, who tells us that we should still love our old wife on our old age, and be true. This is humane and loving. The philosopher with all their smarts are wrong. Of course, sad to say, Solomon bolstered his pleasure and self-esteem by having a huge number of concubines.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Except for Jesus who was never wrong: all the rest,large and small, famous and infamous, published and unpublished, masc or fem. terrorist or conformist--all fall short , are inadequate, insufficient, wrong and damaged and damaging. And so of course accuse-able. Any one can be accused for his inadequace, incompleteness. This makes for a field day for us accusers--satanic: we can point out the shortcomings and errors and wrongs and hypocrisy and fear and envy and desire --hidden hate--and think our selves perceptive and even righteous. .

    ReplyDelete
  88. Jesus was never wrong. It does make one think.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Except for Jesus who was never wrong: all the rest,large and small, famous and infamous, published and unpublished, masc or fem. terrorist or conformist--all fall short , are inadequate, insufficient, wrong and damaged and damaging. And so of course accuse-able. Any one can be accused for his inadequace, incompleteness. This makes for a field day for us accusers--satanic: we can point out the shortcomings and errors and wrongs and hypocrisy and fear and envy and desire --hidden hate--and think our selves perceptive and even righteous. .

    ReplyDelete
  90. The MEDIA is the MESSAGE. Not the message. (Can you tell the difference? The relationship?)

    To students in my classes.

    You may recall that I sent you pre-school pre-ludic messages in an effort to prepare you of course for my kind of “course.” "Anything sacred must be challenged
    to the utmost or it will hide untold falsities." (Bill Branyon)

    Prerequisite to the Beginning of Liberal Art

    My goal & aim in all classes is to under cut & undermine & confuse the issues, subvert & tangle & twist what might otherwise be measurable out comes, taunt & tweak, mock & ridicule, spank in manners of speaking so that all my students won’t know whether they’re
    coming or going, selfish or unselfish liberal or conservative, good or evil, motivated or lazy: & down and down we go, round and round we go, loving
    the din that we spin, the spin that we’re in under that old black magic called liberal art.

    Did I succeed?



    IT can’t be forced.

    Challenge IT to the utmost. Put IT in play.
    Whatever’s sacred: make profane.
    Whatever’s profane: make sacred.

    Other wise: only the sound of one hand clapping.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Challenge is one thing, crazy making is another. Google crazy making.

    ReplyDelete
  92. http://www.lisaescott.com/2010/11/15/crazymaking-behavior-narcissist

    ReplyDelete
  93. You told Carl you are Satan and hearing voices, and whatever else. I wasn't in on the conversation. He warns you in the strictest terms to save your soul, and then you print that all over the Internet, over and over again. I have not trusted you ever since with a private communication.

    You tell me about your wonderful Christian family and pastoral life style in North Carolina, you tell me I am as smart as Flannery O'Connor of whom I have never heard, and then proceed to flog me a fundamentalist for holding and defending Biblical teaching.

    You engage with Bror and think you have accomplished something for "educing" a "fuck", or "ridiculous". You will mock him for Jesus' circumcision, and think this a meaningful "challenge"?

    Things are meant to be "play". I said it will turn out to be flippant. You said, no it won't be flippant. It feels flippant, which is problematic already, but the holy Socrates is papering over something else, yet.

    Jesus may have challenged, but he was not flippant nor manipulative, nor did he fail to reach conclusions, nor did he window dress dyonesian tendencies as leading to a higher appreciation.

    One day you say to someone: you are gracious, thank you. The next day you scold them the most ungracious, and the lowest life form. This is "challenging" the "sacred"?

    ReplyDelete
  94. But, ah, ya, I forget. It is vocation, sacred vocation, no less. But whatever we do, let's make sure we never look at Jesus, unless we are getting Sam's favorite quote about hating. Everything else is maladroit.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Except for Jesus who was never wrong: all the rest,large and small, famous and infamous, published and unpublished, masc or fem. terrorist or conformist--all fall short , are inadequate, insufficient, wrong and damaged and damaging. And so of course accuse-able. Any one can be accused for his inadequace, incompleteness. This makes for a field day for us accusers--satanic: we can point out the shortcomings and errors and wrongs and hypocrisy and fear and envy and desire --hidden hate--and think our selves perceptive and even righteous. .

    ReplyDelete
  96. Sam, you will be glad to hear, I will leave you now. I confess I have a Pavlovian thing going here, but I will break it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Except for Jesus who was never wrong: all the rest,large and small, famous and infamous, published and unpublished, masc or fem. terrorist or conformist--all fall short , are inadequate, insufficient, wrong and damaged and damaging. And so of course accuse-able. Any one can be accused for his inadequace, incompleteness. This makes for a field day for us accusers--satanic: we can point out the shortcomings and errors and wrongs and hypocrisy and fear and envy and desire --hidden hate--and think our selves perceptive and even righteous. .

      Delete