Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Manifesto

Expand Messages
  • joaimone
    I have to apologize for wasting your, and everybody else s, time in this exchange. I mistook your postings for wryly toned but ultimately serious dicsussion.
    Message 1 of 12 , Nov 12, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      I have to apologize for wasting your, and everybody else's, time in
      this exchange. I mistook your postings for wryly toned but ultimately
      serious dicsussion.
    • andy_morleyuk
      ... Why do you think they aren t serious..?
      Message 2 of 12 , Nov 12, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In biopoet@yahoogroups.com, "joaimone" <joaimone@y...> wrote:
        >
        > I have to apologize for wasting your, and everybody else's, time in
        > this exchange. I mistook your postings for wryly toned but ultimately
        > serious dicsussion.
        >
        Why do you think they aren't serious..?
      • joaimone
        ... Directe revelation from God.
        Message 3 of 12 , Nov 12, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In biopoet@yahoogroups.com, "andy_morleyuk" <andy_morley@h...> wrote:
          >
          > --- In biopoet@yahoogroups.com, "joaimone" <joaimone@y...> wrote:
          > >
          > > I have to apologize for wasting your, and everybody else's, time in
          > > this exchange. I mistook your postings for wryly toned but ultimately
          > > serious dicsussion.
          > >
          > Why do you think they aren't serious..?
          >

          Directe revelation from God.
        • andy_morleyuk
          ... Look, I can see from the way this correspondence is headed that it s likely to degenerate into a flame war. Rather than inflict that on the other members
          Message 4 of 12 , Nov 12, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In biopoet@yahoogroups.com, "joaimone" <joaimone@y...> wrote:
            >
            > --- In biopoet@yahoogroups.com, "andy_morleyuk" <andy_morley@h...> wrote:
            > >
            > > --- In biopoet@yahoogroups.com, "joaimone" <joaimone@y...> wrote:
            > > >
            > > > I have to apologize for wasting your, and everybody else's, time in
            > > > this exchange. I mistook your postings for wryly toned but ultimately
            > > > serious dicsussion.
            > > >
            > > Why do you think they aren't serious..?
            > >
            >
            > Directe revelation from God.
            >

            Look, I can see from the way this correspondence is headed that it's likely to
            degenerate into a flame war.

            Rather than inflict that on the other members of this new list (you say that you
            don't want to 'waste their time') can I suggest that you don't reply to my posts
            and that I don't reply to yours..? That way, we will spare ourselves and everyone
            else a large amount of tedium.

            You are no doubt the sort of person who will want to have the last word.
            Therefore, I will allow you to say one more stupid thing about me, which
            I will ignore.

            If after that you continue to interact with me, and if under those circumstances
            the moderators don't intervene, I shall assume that they don't mind having a
            free-for-all in their list and will proceed to act as I see fit.

            Cheers,

            Andy Morley

            .
          • eugenehalton
            ... ultimately ... It seems to me to have been much more than that. It was humorous! In Testaments Betrayed, Milan Kundera describes the parallel rise of humor
            Message 5 of 12 , Nov 12, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In biopoet@yahoogroups.com, "joaimone" <joaimone@y...> wrote:
              >
              > I have to apologize for wasting your, and everybody else's, time in
              > this exchange. I mistook your postings for wryly toned but
              ultimately
              > serious dicsussion.
              >

              It seems to me to have been much more than that. It was
              humorous!

              In Testaments Betrayed, Milan Kundera describes the parallel
              rise of humor and the novel, and how humor, like the realm of the
              novel, "renders ambiguous everything it touches." Both are the realm
              of the morally ambiguous. Kundera even goes so far as to suggest that
              if you don't get humor, you can't get the novel. That is bad news for
              the humor impaired litterateur.

              Gene Halton

              O you laughniks, laugh it out!
              O you laughniks, laugh it forth!
              You who laugh it up and down,
              Laugh along so laughily,
              Laugh it off belaughingly
              Laughters of the laughing laughniks, overlaughs with
              laughathons!
              Laughiness of the laughish laughers, counterlaugh the Laughdom's
              laughs!
              Laughio! Laughio!
              Dislaugh, relaugh, laughlets, laughlets,
              Laughulets, laughulets.
              O you laughniks, laugh it out!
              O you laughniks, laugh it forth!

              Velimir Khlebnikov, "Incantation by Laughter"


              "Diabolum is characterized by the total lack of a sense of
              humour. The comical, even if it still exists, has become invisible.
              Joking no longer makes sense . . . This world takes everything
              seriously. Even me. And that's the limit."
              "I should rather think that nobody takes anything seriously!
              They all just want to amuse themselves."
              "That comes to the same thing."
              Milan Kundera, Immortality, 372
            • joaimone
              ... likely to ... This is not necessarily so. I did originally propose an alterantive to allowing this discussion forum to become a workshop for original
              Message 6 of 12 , Nov 13, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                > Look, I can see from the way this correspondence is headed that it's
                likely to
                > degenerate into a flame war.

                This is not necessarily so. I did originally propose an alterantive to
                allowing this discussion forum to become a workshop for original
                poetry, and no one rose to the occasion to offer to host and moderate
                it, and in the meantime, I proposed, this is probably not a happy
                place for poets to post their work.

                This line of argument got rather lost when I rose to the bait of your
                posting that traditional limerick about the mutually destructive cats,
                which I (I thought wrly) analyzed as I would if I thought someone
                serious wanted to consider it a bit of "biopoetics." I had thought
                that by shifting to (admittedly tongue in cheek) scholarly critical
                discussion of the poem, invoking themes often a part of discussions of
                poetry invovling evolutionary thinking, that I might have hammered
                home a couple of the points I had made in the course of my general
                case on the use of this forum as a poetry workshop--that critical
                writing can have its own literary virtues among them, as I hoped,
                modestly to have exmplified in my explication of the limerick.

                Your responses to the details of that ironic explication suggested to
                me that you were not and had not been interested in the central
                question I had thought (albeit obliquely) to address. Hence I
                responded flippantly to the most egregious (relative to what I take to
                be the focuse of this group) of your ideas. Heat of the moment and all
                that, so I am sorry for being so sarcastic. But I do think that most
                people here discussing ideas about evolution and culture do not take
                intelligent design seriously. I could be wrong--perhaps we should take
                a vote and find out what the norm is empirically. That worked in the
                school board case in Pennsylvania recently.


                > Rather than inflict that on the other members of this new list (you
                say that you
                > don't want to 'waste their time') can I suggest that you don't reply
                to my posts
                > and that I don't reply to yours..? That way, we will spare
                ourselves and everyone
                > else a large amount of tedium.

                You may be right: such an entente might serve everyone best. I could
                make an even more radical suggestion that would serve even better, but
                it would be bad form for one member of a consitituted group to suggest
                that the other simply avoid speaking altogether and let the other then
                be free to follow his natural inclination to say nothing unless a
                topic of interest arises.



                >
                > You are no doubt the sort of person who will want to have the last
                word.

                It's good to see another theme from evolutionary thinking at work.
                "Theory of mind" deserves more attention than it has been given in
                much application of evolutionary thinking to literature. Applying it
                to email is a promising start. Your ability to anticipate how I think
                is an example par excellence. A critical analysis of our exchange
                might take into account whether I also have "theory of mind" and how
                it will show up in my response to you.

                > Therefore, I will allow you to say one more stupid thing about me,
                which
                > I will ignore.

                Thank you for the opportunity to say one more stupid thing about you.
                I am not sure I am up to the task, however. And shere would be the
                acid test of using "theory of mind" to analyze our exchange. Did you
                correctly anticipate what I would do? Have I, in my response,
                confirmed your prediction that I will attempt to have the last word?
                Clearly I have responded, so the evidence is partly suggestive that
                you are right. But a crucial element will be whether it is apparent
                that I do not expect you to answer therafter and will be satisfied if
                you don't. Is it obvious that I do? Or not? And another will be
                whether what I have said is 1) about you and 2) stupid. I think it may
                be easier to make the case that what I have said is stupid than it
                would be to be certain that it's about you. And franky, I don't have a
                clear feeling about whether you will respond to this posting, nor am I
                sure I will be satisfied if you don't.

                Of course the broader interpretation of "stupid thing about me" is
                that it would have to be not-very-clever insult. I hope you don't feel
                insulted, as, if I am indeed insulting you, I do not do so seriously,
                but only to display my own wit for the enjoyment of any reader,
                including yourself, or accidentally, with no intention. There is no
                hard core of animus, as far as I can tell, in anything I have written
                in our entire exchange. As to how cleverly I may have expressed any
                barb, well, I have done the best I could under the circumstances. One
                is always embarrased when one's jokes fall flat, and I am not sure
                every point of wit I have attempted has hit home at all, so I am sorry
                on that account too.




                >
                > If after that you continue to interact with me,

                I take it then, that if you respond to this posting, it means that you
                do not think it is simply "one more stupid thing" I am saying simply
                to have the last word, and that if you do not respond, I should assume
                that you do classify what I have written here as just "one more stupid
                thing" I have said about you. And so it is only if I respond to
                something your write other than a response to this posting that I have
                "continue[d] to intereact with [you]."

                I will be mindful of that warning and judge carefully whether I want
                to respond to anything you write in future, whether in response to
                this posting or on some other thread.


                >and if under those circumstances
                > the moderators don't intervene, I shall assume that they don't mind
                having a
                > free-for-all in their list and will proceed to act as I see fit.
                >

                This seems like a fair warning to the moderators, and presumably they
                will take heed.

                So as long as you think I am trying to have the last word here, and
                that what I have said is one more stupid thing about you, which you
                should simply ignore, I have to agree with you that this thread is
                exhausted, though I think that the thread from which it branched, over
                whether poets ought to be posting their work on this list, may not be
                equally settled.

                But that is another matter entirely.
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.