In a message dated 2/26/10 1:06:19 PM, [email protected] writes:
> I thought we were just a bunch of eccentric intellectuals enjoying
> contentious conversations that disappear like the morning fog.
>
That's a reasonable function of the forum for some. But for Frances, at the
outset at any rate, it was the exact opposite: She stated she was posting
solely to preserve her thoughts in the archive, with an eye to having them
seen by her Peircean colleagues and others.
For me it started out with an interest in hearing what aesthetics scholars
talk about in such a forum. (I was exploring the idea of writing a play
about a unversity guy who teaches aesthetics. I abandoned it.) Then after
years of reading philosophy and blathering on the forum, I convinced myself I'd
advanced to the point where some of the things I was saying were worthwhile.
Contrary to fearing plagiarism, Frances and I would like it.
But I understand William's discomfort at the idea of having uncured
postings quoted abroad. And that does happen; my "IIMT" argument ("All notion
is
indeterminate, indefinite, multiplex and transitory,") is already on Google.
That doesn't bother me, but I wince at the thought of being represented by
some other misbegotten locutions and theories of mine. But I've steeled myself
to such exposure.
It has its propriety. When I was at Brown, I had a 4.0 GPA, and I was a
big show-off on something called "The College Quz Bowl". When I began to hear
about the ludicrous over-estimations of my brain, (verbatim: "There's a guy
at Brown who's memorized the almanac!") I felt doomed to hermiticism to
prevent my shortcomings from being known. The paradoxical effect was not pride
at being thought smart, but shame at knowing I was nowhere near the
intellectual paragon they imagined. In my mature years, I say the hell with it:
I'm
smart in certain ways, but in no way as smart I'd like to be. It's ridiculous
to worry about people finding that out about me.
