William, for the last few weeks I've tried hard to avoid any ad hominem remarks, either in the form of denigrating anyone's faculties, or assuming and ascribing to them motives as though I am reading their mean minds. I did this in hopes of reducing those moves in others, particularly in you -- but I have to conclude you are irremediable.
Months ago I asserted that I thought you have gifts I'll never approach in visual art but you don't have the intellect and temperament for philosophic discussion. I now discern that you repeatedly confirm me in that judgment. In your latest, you say: "people on this list don't want to be current with the scientific data and prefer their own old-fashioned errors. Read a book or two." "Cheerskep likes to discount my comments." "You fellows can claim to know what creativity is." (None of us has done that. We certainly have called work "creative", but by that we usually mean that someone is inventing unprecedented stuff -- it doesn't follow that we esteem it.) "Cheerskep says, again, my comments are "incomprehensible". For him, yes, I suoose that's the case." You don't have to suppose it; I said explicitly "to me". This is effectively identical to what you did earlier when I talked about 'ambiguous'. You said, as though educating me, the point is ambiguous to whom. You reprinted the entire posting -- except the paragraph in which I explain that we always have to ask "ambiguous to whom". "You can't begin with a recipe, as Cheerskep sought from his authors." Geoff has you right here. Read my passage again. I did nothing close to asking them for a recipe. "And that's the point, isn't it? You can't set out to do something that ends as creative, or as art." But that's exactly what many writers do. Read the entries in "Afterwords" by Ed Doctorow and Joan Didion. They had no idea what they would ultimately be "writing about" as they typed their first words. But they were determined to start. Doctorow ended up finding his way to one of the most memorable novels of that decade, "Ragtime". I'm aware that you wrote: "I don't think it is of any use at all to explain how one creates." My invitation to the writers in "Afterwords" said: "The book could be valuable in several different ways. For one thing, it seems an apt and allowable way to satisfy readers' appetites for details about the writers and the writing they admire. For another, its descriptions of how a writer has seen and solved technical problems could be helpful to students of the craft. For a third, it could be an aid to appreciating what a writer has done: It's the rare reader who has what the writer would feel to be a perfectly placed focus on a book, and this was the writer's chance to adjust the lens" A final virtue, said the letter, is that "the making of a novel can be a dramatic thing, a structured tale altogether worth preserving for itself. These seemed to be four of the reasons why the likes of Henry James's prefaces and the Paris Review interviews are such a delight to read." None of this ever pretends to tell writers "how to do it", but sometimes these stories, with their craft-tips, can tell them how to allow it to get done. In case you feel I'm mistaken in characterizing your opposition as being frequently a sneering ad hominem, here are a few of your recent remarks about me. I'm sure I could double this list by collecting your phrases about Derek Allen and Chris Miller, among others: Cheerskep drives home his point again.....like those circus people who pound nails up their noses. very narrow, literalist and mechanical don't worry, I won't paraphrase you. I prefer good logic. Cheerskep's obsession annoying smug assumptions Cheerskep claims to be the father philosopher he lurks like a street mugger eager to pounce on any strolling IS that h appens by. Cheerskep, for all his own achievements, is far, far down the hill from Kuspit If he were to become dictator he's insist on solipsism as a constitutional ammendment. Cheerskep just can't stand being confronted by anyone who wants to dig intob& He is simply rigidly stuck to his idea and it's not sufficiently demonstrated. self serving The more Cheerskep toots a one note horn It does nothing for Cheerskep's argument to keep whap, whap, whapping the dead horse He's very testy about his assertive notions Spurious 19C cane-whacking outbursts Cheerskep does not allow a third party (like a jury) to reveal whether or not everyone, usually excepting himself, is philosophically, logically, linguistically muddled. maybe it's just that his comments are too long and seem to stray from any clear outlook. Cheerskep, suddenly alert, happily wrings his hands. The two of them [Cheerskep and Michael Brady] are like the motorcycle cops hiding behind facing billboards and all too ready for those reckless kids speeding by in red sportscars. In Michael's case I suspect a Jesuit education afflicts him; that's bad enough; in Cheerskep's I think it's a lingering Harvard narcissism. One never fully recovers from Jesuit or Harvard education. I think you philosophers are lost in the wilderness. sexist and banal. Cheerskep's Bible sermon ************** Play online games for FREE at Games.com! All of your favorites, no registration required and great graphics b check it out! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1211202682x1200689022/aol?redir= http://www.games.com?ncid=emlcntusgame00000001)
