Daniel,

So many posts about me, but you say so little.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

You obviously missed the jokes about Divine and me being Truth, but that's fine.  Not everyone has to get it.  

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.

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.

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.  

I'll happily go my own way and leave you to an audience that gets you.

All the best,

--John

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.