Dear Dirk,
I believe that my initial response to Pete Montgomery's bromide was the
only substantive response. It appears obvious that neither Montgomery
nor Seddon have the background to respond to the content of my initial
response except in the dismissive forms they have already put forth.
Given the way they chose to respond, that's not alright. I'm not
particularly conversant in Buddhism or Platonism and would most
certainly stand down if such a discussion was offered. I wouldn't throw
out up some ad hominem defensive remark born of ignorance.
You wrote <I'm not sure about other people on this list, but I might
actually learn something if this discussion focussed on an attempt by
each to understand the other>. I would have welcomed that from Seddon or
Montgomery at the at the jump. But the sum total of words in both their
initial responses combined was under 11 demonstrating, I can only
assume, a limited if non-existent knowledge of the topic at hand. Ad
hominem indeed. CP
Dirk Johnson wrote:
> One who tries to break up a fight often gets hurt in the attempt, but
> I'm breaking a long silence to risk it anyway. I believe there is a
> fundamental miscommunication at the basis of this /ad hominem /dispute
> which keeps spinning farther and farther out of control and is
> disassociated from the actual stances -- re: Ezra Pound, scientific
> inquiry, economics, whatever -- of both of the two contenders, which
> appear to me to be very close together.
>
> I'm not sure about other people on this list, but I might actually
> learn something if this discussion focussed on an attempt by each to
> understand the other rather than on name calling. Is there any way for
> someone to actually understand what either of you means/intends within
> the context of the dispute? Well, I may be a bit slow-minded, but I
> can't follow this.
>
> But, even if I'm completely wrong, I wish peace to you both and a
> happy new year to each of you. From my point of view, anyone who
> willingly reads Ezra Pound is a friend, whether we agree or disagree
> about what we've read or about how to express our thoughts about what
> we've read.
>
>
> Alphaville Books wrote:
>> <It would help you to avoid making further asinine statements.>
>>
>> After your initial remark, what mystery is left to be assessed. In
>> the context of that remark you revealed yourself to be asinine
>> despite your "studies" and, all things considered, given its lack of
>> imagination, it was quite a stellar stab at asininity---lololololol.
>> Perhaps, if you would accord other people the same consideration you
>> seem to desire for yourself, you could avoid being seen as asinine
>> though I imagine your asininity is not much of a revelation to most. CP
>>
>>
>>
>> Richard Seddon wrote:
>>> CP
>>>
>>> Before assessing me you should be at least familiar with me and my
>>> studies.
>>>
>>> It would help you to avoid making further asinine statements.
>>>
>>> Rick Seddon
>>> Portales, NM
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: - Ezra Pound discussion list of the University of Maine
>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Alphaville Books
>>> Sent: Monday, December 29, 2008 12:24 PM
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: Pound and Wall Street
>>>
>>> You obviously have no background in this. Hence, the nervous,
>>> contextless, schoogirlish response. Read Niels Bohr, Paul Feyerabend
>>> , NR Hanson, Aage Petersen among the other thousands who engaged
>>> these things. CP
>>>
>>> Richard Seddon wrote:
>>>
>>>> I quote
>>>>
>>>> "Planck's constant, special and general relativity and especially
>>>> quantum physics (and later string theory etc.) where all
>>>> connections between macro-logics and physical or sensory experience
>>>> are severed and our entire existence relies on mathematics and
>>>> conformal, predetermined phenomena embodied in discrete formula and
>>>> systems of measurement. Let McLuhan deal with the fringes of the
>>>> central dilemma. Wall Street for all of the debased reasons pointed
>>>> up by Alighieri and reinvigorated by Pound, embraced mathematical
>>>> models to both mask and substantiate their felonious behavior. The
>>>> perceived moral immunity of mathematics played a significant role
>>>> in the looting of the commonweal."
>>>>
>>>> I then say
>>>>
>>>> Huh! And then lololololol
>>>>
>>>> Rick Seddon
>>>> Portales, NM
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>>> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.176 / Virus
>>>> Database: 270.10.1/1868 - Release Date:
>>>>
>>> 12/29/2008 10:48 AM
>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>>> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.176 / Virus
>>>> Database: 270.10.1/1868 - Release Date: 12/29/2008 10:48 AM
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.1/1868 - Release Date: 12/29/2008 10:48 AM
>
>
|
