On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 12:52 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Friday, February 7, 2014 6:36:21 PM UTC, [email protected] wrote: >> >> >> On Friday, February 7, 2014 4:50:39 PM UTC, [email protected] wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Thursday, February 6, 2014 9:09:23 PM UTC, Platonist Guitar Cowboy >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 5:31 PM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Ghibbsa, >>>>> >>>>> Boy O boy. Reread my post to you. It was completely complementary, >>>>> only to be met not with appreciation but with snide remarks and >>>>> accusations. >>>>> >>>>> Anyway I officially withdraw it as it was obviously in error... >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Then the registrars, board of directors, volunteer representatives, >>>> unions, bureaucrats, technicians, warriors, and brave souls maintaining the >>>> ring of everything-listers, not including yours truly lazy in this regard, >>>> *officially >>>> decree*, with dueness in forthright diligence, AND purposefully noting >>>> the swearing protocolization of plaintiff's withdrawal of an overly ardent >>>> compliment to himself by himself, due to an error in the plaintiffs >>>> overestimation of himself, projecting his own awesomeness onto critical >>>> encouragement by the forgiving defendant in form of a normal post outside >>>> of p-time, as everyone is prone to commit from time to time, is noted and >>>> archived according to protocols of the appropriate paragraphs and sections. >>>> >>>> Howeveriver, this official withdrawal marking a landmark turn of events >>>> on this list, whencewithforthnight for now appeased, the angry souls of >>>> plaintiff's retract-rebuttalized error of unity in >>>> comradery-mass-dorkification of the rest of the members of this noble-bloat >>>> house of postingoods, unsearchable by any known box or tab, logical and >>>> otherwise, now cast into the iron lightning of Odin's dong song with a >>>> single post into the eternity of P-time. >>>> >>>> Hencewithtoforthcoming, all will change in the realized interpretations >>>> of Science because of the gravy gravity of this officialized, sealed, >>>> notarized, proof-read, nsa devoured, spamificationationalizeducation >>>> of the rest of the dumb list for we all like the gravy bit, unless we are >>>> greenitarian, which remains solemnly, in the light of day, a dark matter of >>>> information-urination from black holes spun out of standards more than >>>> blocks of verses singing in unison of angry hawks and birds. >>>> >>>> All rejoice and thank the Edgar, >>>> as well and more the forgiver, >>>> foreverchangeternally p-time of the past, present, future.... and on >>>> the left. >>>> >>>> Seeriousee? Clarification between the real and interpretation has been >>>> achieved in this thread. Thank you all. From the heart. Officially. PGC >>>> >>> >>> yep...very cool post. I couldn't work out who came out worse in your >>> judgements. You weren't too happy with me in FoAR so we have form. You do >>> say I am to be "thanked" as well and more so, but on the other hand you >>> send him up much more. But hey, that could be because his speciousness has >>> a lot more substance to send up. Which kind of makes him better in your >>> eyes. >>> >>> One could worry forever, but really one would have to be an asshole to >>> really that much of fuck....at least for that to matter whether or not >>> something is a good post. >>> >>> What I'd throw back is my perception of you is that you're basically a >>> snob >>> >> That's like throwing narcissism at people who surf the web. Of course I have to be snob if I write fiction and compose it musically: I'd have nothing to say without my own biases. But the same can be said of any scientific stance, regardless of interpretation (on topic btw): you're elitist towards some ideas and think other ideas aren't quite your cup of tea, and so defending your ideas is natural. Welcome to the web.
My last post was merely bad extemporaneous non P-time prose, because I'm bored of giving sincere replies just for getting slapped by another Edgar comment, when he has taken the floor so often and failed to address basic objections to his ideas; instead throwing authoritative and infantilizing insults, always followed by some smiley emoticon to trivialize the transgression. So fine, he likes to play this game where he pushes everybody's buttons and then goes "oh, I don't know why everybody here is so touchy", concerning his book, of all things. Him liking this game, I thought he wouldn't mind some of this, obfuscated in prose, because "he doesn't take things as seriously as everybody else here, who have some faith axe to grind instead of being reasonable". What I got as a reply was simply "You're idea of science is sci-fi" + "you're a snob". I have no problems with those and partially agree. > >> p.s. don't worry I forgive you >> >> p.p.s. tee hee >> > > Not especially addressing you here PGC but I had to reply to something to > keep it in this thread. > > So something I asserted was that I had tried to study Bruno's > structure with as little direct knowledge of the contents as > possible. Between this thread and another where I addressed Bruno directly > I actually said his was the best structure I'd personally seen, or at the > top table. > > I think that in my choice of wording I definitely acknowledged that my > judgements could be totally vacuous in some hard light of reality. But > that's almost a given for all of us. So the question is whether, within my > own mind, I was passing a measured compliment, or was I gushing, and if so > falling foul of part of the complaint I was making to Edgar (the other part > was that he had no right to rope me into a complaint about other people > that I might not agree with). > > That's a legitimate question, particularly as yet another part of my > complaint to Edgar was that he throwing out a standard that he hadn't yet > shown himself living up to, since almost all his interactions are about his > ideas, and almost all interactions to him are people granting him their > time, despite in many cases it being pretty apparent the personal opinion > of the individual was that there wasn't any mileage in his ideas. So > legitimate here in terms of whether I was applying a standard that I had at > least been trying to live up to previously. > Which most here do, that at least attempt to tolerate, while trying to wrap their minds around other peoples' ideas and with which I agree with. This brings tension, naturally. But when it gets a bit repetitive, it's no wonder that thankfully, people will point this out. And this sort of irreverence marks what I like: freedom with a critical edge, that tolerates its own chaos by addressing it. > > Another question is whether it is even possible to study a structure > without understanding the contents. > And asking how often we may do such. > > So for that reason I will briefly lay down Bruno's structure as I see it. > And to the extent it's completely wrong, then I guess that goes a long way > to answering the question above. And to the extent it doesn't even make > sense on its own terms, that goes a long way to answering whether or not I > was blowing smoke up Bruno's ass for some self-serving purpose. > > So, partly because I was planning to do so anyway, I shall be doing a post > in its own thread, where I lay my balls on the trowel regarding Bruno's > structure. The useful component here, is that it definitely won't be > controversial with others to suggest I have minimal direct knowledge of the > contents of the UDA. Since part of the claim is that it's possible to > meaningfully analyse for a structure without knowing a lot about the > contents. > > It's also obviously implied that I think I'm talking about structure in > some non-trivial sense that isn't already made clear by Bruno himself like > "my initial assumptions are simpler". It can be taken as a given I'm not > talking about something that amounts to simply repeating something that has > been said simply. > > I'm saying this bit here, and saying my analysis there, because this bit > is only relevant here. > I look forward to it, although the list moves too fast for me to get a grip on what's going on. PGC > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
