Re: Restored

Regarding the "final audit" lines: I was only quoting from a film that you
mentioned in a previous post.
John O.

I know. But in the name of politics, power, and desire it(this it refers to
your quote) is not an "only".
Daniel
   

Now, once again, I am at a loss with your prose.
John O.

Prose? who says it's prose?
Daniel

Let's just do a little grammar, shall we?
John O.

We? indeed.
Daniel

You write:
"Evidence, political, powerful, desired evidence; without it, it is all
howling wind through the branches. Yes, the grave knows nothing of it but
it does make an accounting."

Now then, what are the two appearances of "it" doing in the second sentence?
To what does each of them refer? Is the first "it" the "evidence?" Or is it
a reference to the second "it" of the previous sentence, the one following
the comma, which seems to have no referent whatsoever. What does the "it"
which makes the accounting refer to? Is that the same as the first "it" in
that sentence, or does that word refer to another subject to be found
elsewhere in the two sentences?
John O.

The "it" in the first and last two instances in the above quote refer to the
same object , evidence. The second "it" refers to "this whole discussion".
So, "Evidence, political, powerful, desired evidence; without evidence, this
whole discussion is all howling wind through the branches. Yes, the grave
knows nothing of evidence but evidence does make an accounting." Don't you
see John O.?
The grave is empty of politics, power, desire and in the same way evidence
(that is evidence) behaves in the same way, else it(evidence)is meaningless
and is forever demoted to rationalizations. If you(John O.) base your
meaning of existence on mere rationalizations then what more can be said
about anything in sharing knowledge with anyone? Your evidences turn out to
be little bundles of your desires politically manipulating power. Yes,
people do those(masquerade evidences as politics, power, and desire) things
but it(what people do) does not mean evidence, in the grave sense, does not
exist. If it truly doesn't then by what evidences did you (John O.) arrive
at the conclusions you now hold?
Daniel

You see, this is what I mean by incoherence. Without any hint as to
referents for those four "its," the sentences are simply unreadable. I
understand you're not a big fan of classrooms and writing courses, but they
do have some advantages.
John O.

John O., the ever subversive, is promoting standardization of communication?
I am a fan of classrooms in general it just depends on the political agenda
of each particular classroom as to whether my general fandom applies. You,
the brick in the wall of the body politic, should know this much better than
I. John O. evidence is stated twice and you are saying you had no hint?
Daniel

For instance, you then write:

"Interesting when all the numbers are based on the grave and its incredible
summing power of zero, is that what it means to create?"

Now see, in addition to not making much sense, this sentence is a
grammatical disaster. Is what "what it means to create?" What is
interesting? What numbers are you talking about? Who said anything about
numbers anyway? There's a reason why this is confusing, Daniel. You are
writing incoherent sentences.
John O.

Could another possible reason be that your conclusions based on your
evidences mitigates you from understanding, from seeing coherent meaning
implanted by the author? Numbers, counting, a principle tool for
understanding and good candidate example of evidences contrary to your
rationalizations. You know the old saying John O., numbers can't lie,
people do. When a person bases their life primarily on a reaction to the
grave then every conclusion, every examination of the evidence is relative
to the grave as THE touchstone. Numbers, being what they(numbers) are, and
accounting, being what it(accounting) is, appeal to evidence in a way
apparently unfamiliar to you. Oh, the power in poetry resides in its
symbols, the generalized form of a transcendent meaning, of course when our
symbols don't mean the same thing then poetry collapses. It would seem that
if I knew all this about what I have been saying then why wouldn't I say it
all plainer so that it may be coherent for you John O. First, because it
can't be said plainer without losing something essential, and second, that
assumes that you are the sum total of my audience. I did Use "sum" and
total" but I will move on with the assumption that they weren't too
incoherent for you to comprehend their meaning. The graves ability to
reduce things to a good reference, namely zero, is an interesting thing for
some one contemplating existence, and it serves in a rough and ready way but
despite the fact that the grave is inevitable with a probability of 1 for
all, not every one places it at the center of their universe. The lack of
personality in it( the grave) tends to have a nullifying effect (meaning
wise) on everything that is based exclusively upon it. For meaning to have
meaning for a person, it(meaning) requires another person as a basis. Of
all the things that I know, this is the one and only thing I am sure of even
taking into consideration the graves insistent probabilistic demands.
Daniel

The rest of your paragraph goes off on another strange set of ramblings that
have similar structural problems. I have neither the patience nor the
inclination to go through each sentence to show exactly where I get lost,
but by the time you are talking about Zombies and "attended evidence" (a
malapropism, I suspect), any coherent response is simply impossible. Every
now and than you throw in a vague mention of "Before the Law," but never say
anything about it, and then go on to other stuff.
John O.

Structure problems? Interesting. Yes, John, I do love to ramble at times;
guilty there. It is shame that you do not have the patience but I suffer
from a lack of it as well, but that is all fixable. I won't touch "...where
I get lost,..." further than just noting it. Zombies, the undead humans
walking about without humanity who prey on the flesh of the living is very
pregnant in meaning especially to the modern and post-modern. Flesh and
blood are the building blocks of the machine named man but it(using them in
this exchange) goes back to the whole symbols thing I mentioned before. I
am quite sure that you are familiar with the uses of "blood" in literary
history and its effect on people. Before the law is a parable of Kafka and
of you. Kafka, that modern man who become a modern mystic. He was before
the law, not unlike you, and he sensed the accounting it demands, but he did
not understand it since it seems that all are condemned by it. All it took
was a trial to see that. So, a man who was descended of the people of the
law had no family, no community, no father; outcast unclean and the law had
no reconciling power and he was too much the modern to see any
reconciliation from any other source. He stood before the law until the
grave, judgment and then execution of that judgment, that sentenced him to
this prison and then finally death, "what does it all mean?". Imagine if
his Dad had taken joy in reading his(Kafka's) stories. Before the law, what
does it all mean John O.? That is what Kafka is asking frequently in your
classroom, and I suppose that not one single essay has answered him yet.
Daniel

You might think you are being clever somehow, or "literary" or
impressionistic or somehow performing or being modern or post-modern or
something. But really, as far as I can tell, you're just being incoherent.
And I have no idea at all what you are saying. And frankly, given the prose,
I don't see any compelling reason to care.
John O.

Clever, not the least bit, I am an engineer for God's sake John. Literary?
What is literary? Impressionistic, not even if I truly knew what that
means. Being Modern or post- modern? no, no I can assure you that in the
very least I am pre-modern. Or something? Now, that is it exactly and your
reply says the same thing about you, you too are something or rather someone
exactly like me, in value, why else would we bang our fingers on little
plastic squares? I know that me being incoherent is the thing that you
desire to tell everyone and well, you just have. Now concerning ideas, I
give you more credit than that, I am somewhat sure you have some idea but if
you had the whole idea then we wouldn't still be talking(writing and
reading). No care? all based on my poor prose? What recourse do the
incoherent have with you? Just a careless out casting like so much floor
sweepings? Well, I care, and I know you didn't mean that, despite your
frankness. I suppose I must add compel to out list of politics, power and
desire now.
Daniel

Sorry,
--John

Don't be, I am not.
Daniel
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Tue Jul 15 12:12:57 2003