MIT Love 'em or Hate 'em

Asa: Without meaning to be (perhaps overly) insulting - I want to like it when you come onto a thread, but find I often dread the prospect, to be perfectly honest. I don't think I would have ever actually ventured to say this to you otherwise, though, but for the fact that your first paragraph above in your last response to Maxgain puts the reasons why I feel this way in terms much more trenchant then I could ever hope to do myself.

So, that must mean that I really do consider you to be an excellent thinker - but also consider your succinct and penetrating critique of poor M. Derrida (not that I have a clue about the guy) to apply just about perfectly to many of your own digressive philosophical ramblings about this forum.

Now, I would never dream of presuming to be so arrogant as to even suggest that you or anybody shouldn't write exactly what they please around here, and I freely admit that I'm a damned horse's backside for complaining at all (and also that I can't hang with you on the higher learning front). But I would like to know one thing: If you reread what you wrote above and then ask yourself if it describes your contributions at times, would you agree with me that indeed it does, even if just a little bit? :-)

P.S. - Permission granted (as if you or anybody else who cares to respond needed it) to fire away at will; with all the BS I've no doubt thrown on the proverbial wall in these precints - if not for this post alone - I've surely gotta deserve it. Sorry, but there it was, and here it is.

Zaikesman, thank you for asking so politely, or seemingly so (ie conclusory claims of "digressive ramblings", unsubstantiated, is hardly an effort at diplomacy...)

Yes, I've said this before, and knew that the Derrida comment might elicit a few sighs of recognition, but I usually only ramp it up when the other person has begun to hide behind derision, or has tried to use intellectualism to retreat - and, trust me, it is still put rather simply by academic standards. And, as I said, I wasn't as good at it before. That said, the above is perfectly understandable and concise.

The question then becomes, is it relevant? I think a lot of people conclude that what I'm saying isn't relevant because they don't want to take the time to read it - which is, of course, their choice. But recoil from ideas on the part of the reader is not the same as obfuscation on behalf of the writer. Granted, I do make certain assumptions concerning cognitive agility, but I think most all people here can understand what "cognitive agility" is. Now, ask yourself, be honest, did you RESENT me using those words - the moment they hit your mind - even though you understood them? Is it the ideas you don't want, or the words?

Hmmm...

What I said about Derrida is that he said some things about what words were not, removing their foundation of meaning, but never pointed to a solution beyond his deconstruction. If you have read my posts closely you will see that they are always integrative in approach, the opposite of Derrida (he was a French philosopher). Anyone who has studied Derrida, or Popper, or Kuhn, or Wilber, or Maslow, or Jung, would cringe at the level of simplicity I use here. When discussing deeper concepts, it is sometimes necessary to use bigger words. That does not make them "bad".

But here's the real reason.

Some people look at this forum as entertainment, and, yes, I would agee that it is and should be that. Others want it ONLY to be entertainment. Others vascillate between the poles, their resistance to whatever "seriousness" they find varying with their inclination at the time, chiding others for the same things that they themselves do at times, many times that "mood" determined by whether they agree with the poster, or, when they don't think they can "win" that argument (the I'm-pissed-because-I'm-not-smarter syndrome).

What I've seen is some very smart people who like to use their intelligence in dialogue as a club, usually a scientific club, and don't like it when someone takes it away from them. Many times to get it from their grip, one must use a level of dialogue that gets their attention and which they have difficulty hiding from. Intellectual precision, as it were. Their resentment invariably takes the form of claims of obfuscation, or regression, or "digression", or "irrelevancy", without offering any reasons for their conclusion.

Digressive, irrelevant? By Joe, Zaikesman, what could you possibly mean?

You know, Detlof got it, krusty saw it, Jetter came around, Gregm gets it. What's up?

Hmmm...

Asa: Your summary of the scientific / religious / emotional artifacts brought into this thread and others is quite interesting. Thanks for chiming in with your point of view. Sean
>

Asa, all "I"(as he can and did speak for himself) think that Zaikesman is trying to say, may be that this is a place where audiophiles come to share ideas. (and yes sometimes we do fight)In general we are a plain spoken bunch.

It's not that most of us on Audiogon are as dumb as unclecrusty makes us out to be, it's just sometimes language can be a hurdle to comunication.

I mentioned Derrida, feeling quite sure you would know what I was getting at in a more indirect way than maybe Zaikesman put it. Sometimes less, IS, more. What I think he is saying is that when he, or I, for that matter, read some of your posts, it is like what you described in yourself reading Derrida. This is not a knock on you or what you have to say. It's just that it can seem as surreal and out of context as a flaiming girraff in a Salvador Dali painting.

I hope that this is taken in the spirit that it is intended.

Asa, thanks for the measured response - never let it be said you're anything less than a real gentleman. However, I did expect a somewhat more accurately targeted riposte on your part. I never took shots at the use of long words, or claimed irrelevency. To say that your excursions are frequently digressive and rambling is not necessarily a kiss-off (been known to do it myself, long words included, believe it or not), but it is pretty darn factual. And trust me, I'm not so much the babe in the woods that I'm actually in danger of taking them to be as profound that you need protest to the contrary (nor do I merely crave simplistic entertainment, or just-the-facts-mister, lowest-common-denominator blandness).

You are correct though, in guessing that I sometimes no longer read them completely, but that's not due to their length, something of which I've also been chastised for being excessively fond of from time to time. Rather, it's that you have reiterated your superimposed musings, with little apparent variation or call to do so, on so many threads by now, that I find I can't look foward to or profit from them anymore. I know what's coming, as I believe you yourself once referred to. Many threads seemingly present you with nothing more or less than the next opportunity for exercising yet another philosophical takeover attempt. It gets kinda old, my friend.

Yes, there is a small but dedicated coterie of fine worthies who seem not to groan, and indeed to take genuine pleasure, in joining the merriment you typically introduce. (And FWIW, these orgies do tend to take place more toward the bitter end of threads that have long since burned themselves out.) But when I listen to good music through my system, music I enjoy, and really experience it, such thoughts cannot possibly even enter my mind - go downstairs now and try it, and see if you don't agree. I'm absolutely as guilty as the next guy (and maybe the next two guys) of writing here, in part, because of a love for the sound of my own voice. However, I do try to listen as much or more than I speak, and I try not to drag everthing over in my preferred direction each time out of the gate.

So, while I will always defend your right to make me slump in my chair if you want and can (and I consider that to actually be something of a backhanded compliment, given that there are many posters on A'gon who could not engage me enough to get any reaction at all!), the next time I encounter you coining the phrase 'rearranged matter' for the eleventieth time, you will forgive me if I do my best to hold my piece/peace, and remember what it was you truly taught me about philosophy (especially as it fails to apply to audio in particular): What is the sound of one lip flapping?