RE: Restored

Daniel,
So many posts about me, but you say so little.
John O.
 
If what I write truly mystifies you, then how can you determine its size?
Daniel

One thing first -- you continually act surprised when I come out in favor of
order, and coherence, and structure, and meaning, and clarity, etc. Why?
If it's because I've studied and written about Derrida and
post-structuralism, then this should not surprise you at all. Derrida
speaks repeatedly and consistently in favor of all of those things. If it's
because you, for some reason, think being subversive or modern or
post-modern means being against such things, then you're just ill-informed
(or ill-read). In fact, both moments of literary and intellectual history
deal at length with such values and assumptions and their effects and never
speak simply or unilaterally against them whatsoever. There is nothing so
easy, so shallow, so mundane, and so boring as being simply against order,
clarity, coherence, organization, etc. And just why you so happily
sacrifice all of these things in your own writing remains a mystery to me.
John O.
 
This is actually the second thing. Of course I don't think you are against
order, coherence, structure, meaning, and clarity I am only pointing out
that these things can be nothing more than personal convictions but you
invoke them as if we all shared their meanings in your personal sense. Now
there may be overlap but how can you know based on your conviction that all
this writing is nothing more than vehicles of politics, power and desire.
If their is nothing that we can truly share in things such as order,
coherence, structure, meaning and clarity apart from politics, power, and
desire then why do things matter to you? Do they merely promote and
establish fun (not bad in and of itself)? Order, coherence, structure,
meaning, and clarity all require a little self sacrifice to another person
if those things are to matter. If order, coherence, structure, meaning, and
clarity were all defined by personal convictions then how can they be
reasonably demanded of anyone else. They become illusionary to anyone who
is not you. How do I know this about you, I don't. But you implied much of
this with your Trojan posts secreting your politics, power, and desire. I
am willing to surrender some of my politics, power, and desire for the sake
of true communication between us but you do not believe this is possible.
Derrida can say whatever he wants but that does not take away the
consequences. Who says that Derrida does not contradict himself? He seems
to say one thing and then takes it all back in other places. If Derrida is
so clear and not contradictory of himself (read coherent) then why do so
many professional academic types misunderstand him? I am sure the same
things were said of Jim Jones, that being those who say that he says
something contradictory to what you claim he says is refuted by an appeal to
the author for what he meant, bravo, but I thought the meaning of the text
was latent in the text? Maybe, Derrida texts mean things he never intended?
Obviously these orphan meanings are not that occult if so many find them
there. Maybe Jacques should consider what he wrote a failure in conveying
his intended meaning, but isn't that one of the things he is saying? So he
writes in vain, how can anyone really understand him if no one can be sure
what he as the author means when all we have (unlike you) are his texts. We
do not have access to him for verbal discourse so the deferred uncertain
texts are all we have recourse to and you brow beat us for this? Don't you
see the irony in all this?

Who said that the intellectual and literary history speak simply and
unilaterally against them? The modern tactic is not to do anything simply
nor unilaterally but rather merely introduce political, power and desire
infused doubt in to the evidence. Then order, coherence, structure, meaning
and clarity become forever doomed to lower case oblivion along with truth.
Yet for some incoherent reason you demand these lower case values from your
detractors. A most awesome display of politics of power and desire. For
the sake of clarity let us say that the lower case demotion is a way of
negating their universal value. Again, by what school room ruler do you
intend to rap my knuckles with? You say that you are in favor of these
things, and you may be as long as they remain tools for politics, power, and
desire. Do you champion these things to your own hurt or even death? And,
more importantly, do you think they are valuable enough to sacrifice fun?
If someone else comes along and despises these things how do you know you
value the better things then this visitor? What is your criteria for
knowing what is valuable? So you are certain that your inability to
understand something must mean that it lacks order, coherence, structure,
meaning, and clarity? I guess that I shouldn't have expected any stooping
for understanding from you but I still have hope.
Daniel
 
Really, you are not saying anything at all by pointing out when I speak in
favor of order or structure or coherence or meaning or logic or
well-constructed paragraphs.
John O.
 
You are certain of this? Then you must re-read Jacques and the texts in
question to dispel this. I am saying, again, for one who does not seem to
be able to establish anything of universal value apart from politics, power
and desire why do you, a modern man, cling to such out moded things like
order, structure, coherence, meaning, or logic apart from politics, power
and desire. You have admitted that in your world this cannot be, so I look
upon all you insistence of order, structure, coherence, meaning and logic in
your image quite suspiciously and point it out regularly on the list. Now,
of course, you could claim confusion on your part but with politics, power
and desire blinding you how can it be otherwise.
Daniel

Now then, you helpfully rewrote the two sentences I was struggling with,
providing references for all the floating pronouns. And you came up with
this:

"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."

And surprise of surprises, the second sentence, following from the first,
still makes no sense to me at all.

This is why discussing things with you seems to be a waste of time. You
assume I would know what you mean by "Yes, the grave knows nothing of
evidence but evidence does make an accounting." But I don't.
John O.
 
The existentialist must examine their life in light of facing their angst,
right? Correct me if I am wrong (like I have to tell you that), the
existentialist recognizes death as the primary underlying source of this
angst? That death beneath angst is as close to a universal that
existentialism gets? By all means enlighten me, truly, if I am wrong. Now
go back and read that second sentence above in your quote. Now contemplate
what we have been saying around here concerning evidence. Maybe Jim can hold
your hand, or if I am wrong then you can hold mine.
Daniel

But you do try and explain, and things get worse. You actually write:

"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..."

I'm OK with the first eight words. After that.... Nothing.

"in the same way evidence (that is evidence) behaves in the same way..."

What!? Do you actually think this way, or is it just what happens when your
fingers hit the keys?

And I have no idea what "mere rationalizations" you are talking about, but I
certainly can't think of any on which I "base my meaning of existence" --
whatever the hell that phrase might mean.

It's unreadable nonsense, Daniel, not because of a lack of though I suspect
(I hope), but because of incoherent writing and grammar.
John O.
 
Imagine that, some one who actually thinks different and in John's political
power move he appeals to universal order, coherence, structure, meaning and
clarity. Evidence has no politics, power nor desire like the grave is empty
of these same things so are the bodies in graves as empty of them. If all
evidence is always saturated with politics power and desire then the
evidence can hold nothing evident but an appeal to your kind of evidence is
nothing but clever justifications of what you have the power and desire to
do. The evidences don't have a voice of their own in your world. Does this
mean that people don't abuse the evidence? No. Does this mean that people
are capable of suborning their desires and politics to see some thing truly?
Yes. But it appears that this is not the world you inhabit. I have
accepted evidence to my own hurt. Is this possible in your world without
some latent subversive path to power or desire?
 To repeat myself, yes, I think that way, and you don't, hence your
inability to understand. This inability to relate to some one else who
thinks differently seems to be symptomatic of your world.
Daniel

You write a sentence like the following, and still expect readers to take
the time to read you:

"Numbers, counting, a principle tool for understanding and good candidate
example of evidences contrary to your rationalizations."

"...good candidate example contrary to your rationalizations."

Is this still English? What "rationalizations," what is a "candidate
example?" Why are numbers a "good" anything? What language are you
speaking?
John O.
 
Yes a good candidate example of an evidence that two people with different
politics, power, and desire can agree to apart from the triune litany. I
can count, you can count and we can objectively agree on the number totaled.
Accounting serves that purpose in an audit, you know, the imagery we were
using in our discussion. Do you see, or do you only read? I read and I see
everything I read. My mental furniture is very visual. It may not be the
King's English but it represents the vision I see, and hopefully you too
might catch a glimpse. For the sake of your understanding I am speaking
quite literally.
Daniel

You begin a sentence with something like:

"When a person bases their life primarily on a reaction to the grave
then...."

As if anyone anywhere had said that they did this. Who are you writing to?
What are you addressing? Are you just making this up as you go along and
only pretending to be writing to me? When have I ever said anything even
remotely like "I base my life primarily on a reaction to the grave?" That's
silliness. And so is the paragraph which surrounds this phrase.

The only thing I know about the grave is that it is a fine and private
place, but none I think do there embrace.

And I don't have the foggiest idea what the hell you are talking about or
why.
John O.
 
 
Are you an existentialist? What does death mean to you? How does it play
into your daily deeds? I am not existentialist but death is a factor in my
life, I know that you, like me, can see death afar off so in the very least
you should have understood that much.
Daniel

You claim that Zombies are "pregnant with meaning" to the postmodern. Cite
me the relevant text. Show me where a "postmodern" reading of something,
anything, discusses pregnant-with-meaning Zombies and we can discuss it.
Otherwise, your explanation just sounds like a rather amateurish and inept
attempt to mouth intro passages from theory summary books.
John O.
 
Symbols again, monsters, things that don't fit into categories, things that
resist categories like a virus. Things that resist order. Things that are
outside the community. Yes, I am an amateur, no one pays me for this.
Mouthing? Sounds? You hear this? Are you saying that these theories are
above summary? Of course, summary is akin to universals, generalities.
Shocking all these amateurs think that they have some sort of claim on these
experts, don't they know their place? Don't they know that they should sit
in desks in classrooms and pay the proper tuition like every self respecting
expert has?
Daniel

Finally, after a much too negative and single-minded reading of Kafka's
little parable, you ask me:

"What recourse do the incoherent have with you?"

In your case, apparently, none. Since your further attempts at explanation
too often produce more of the same unreadable stuff.
John O.
 
Negative and single minded, hmm, what is negative? What makes a single mind
inferior to a multi-mind? Apparently, like the Guard before the law, John
stands guard over coherence. With an impassive unrelenting face the guard
says "unreadable" yet readable enough to warrant a reply. Remember, not
unreadable in part or a tiresome read but the single word - unreadable.
Will you also take bribes so that nothing is left undone?
Daniel

Now, on to your later posts, which are mostly sad one-liners.

You make another remark about Derrida in relation to my citing Goya. Why?
Do you know what Goya was even talking about here? Have you ever seen or
heard Derrida write or say anything that contradicts him on this? Or do you
just see the word "reason," automatically assume Derrida must be against it,
and throw off a crack. If so, then you are not thinking or reading, you're
just spouting silliness. If you don't know the material, Daniel, why bother
commenting?
John O.
 
So, this quote was not meant at face value but had a secret meaning that
relates only in the context of its original habitation. Then what good is
it divorced from its habitat? Of course, it is naked, disrobed of its
politics, power and desire. John, I was going with the text, had I known
that that a critical understanding of it was enmeshed in the author's intent
as couched in the source material I would have let it passed. It was meant
to be silly, you see, you understand much more than you claim.
Daniel

You obviously missed the jokes about Divine and me being Truth, but that's
fine. Not everyone has to get it.
John O.
 
I got it, but how was that joke devoid of politics, power and desire in your
world again?
Daniel

You are surprised at the orderliness of my hate list (again, why? or is this
just a theme with you?), once again missing the joke about the Python sketch
from which it was drawn. That's fine, too. The reference was a fairly
obscure one, I suppose.
John O.
 
I recognized it as Python, believe it or not, I do enjoy Python. I was
playing with you, can't I joke or are all my jokes saturated with politics,
power and desire in your world too? I was playing off your Nazi reference,
as in the German penchant for orderliness. We are reduced to explaining
jokes, a natural out come to vehicles of politics power and desire I guess.
Daniel

And finally Daniel, you ask me:

"John, how am I take it [sic] when him, sorry, Him who bears the capital T
complains about incoherency [sic] and alludes to needing help?"

You are to take it that what you are writing remains incoherent and
unreadable. Consequently any serious discussion of truth, or even of your
ideas (if there are any), remains impossible.
John O.
 
It should have read, " John, how am I to take it when he, sorry, He who
bears the capital T complains about incoherency and alludes to needing
help?" , all you had to do was ask for a little help and I would have
helped you. Notice the capital H on the second He is coherent with the He
being the capital T. See john, not that terribly difficult with a little
help.
Daniel

But perhaps it's just me, Daniel. Perhaps everyone else understands exactly
what you are saying when you write things like:

"The stopping, that madness and death that shut his mouth in space and time,
and finally out of space and time. He sought to be a winged free spirit and
well, I have scanned the skys and listened for reports of him flapping
about, to no effect."

Perhaps I am the only one scratching my head when I read stuff like this.
If so, I am happy to acknowledge my own blind spot and hope everyone else
enjoys such sentences.
John O.
 
It is just you, that is the point of it all. Your position concerning
universals such as evidence depends on you scratching your head as the only
one, that is your blind spot. That door before the law's only purpose was
for you. This exchange was written for you specifically but in my world it
applies to anyone who suffers from the symptoms of your world. My world of
law, and your world of you, meet at the door, you are before the Law (my
world) and I am looking at your world of confusion from my side.

I'll happily go my own way and leave you to an audience that gets you.
John O.
 
Again, John O. what would a garden be without its obligatory serpent. I
told you this before, did you think I was joking?
Daniel

All the best,
--John

Thank you, All the best to you too.
Daniel

PS: NOTE TO JIM: No way am I ever giving peas a chance. :) No way. They
are evil. They are the food of the devil and should be cast from the Earth
for all time. Slimy, disgusting little green balls of puke. Now I won't be
able to eat tonight, just thinking of them. Ugh.
John O.
 
I hate peas as well, imagine that a point of tangency between our two
worlds. Almost enough to drive a man to eat peas out of spite.
Daniel
 
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Tue Jul 15 23:43:20 2003