Friday, April 13, 2007

A Few Words About the Unspeakable

I wonder what motivates these vertically challenged trolls to comment here, when it is obvious that they have not digested what for them is the unmunchionable truth?

Needless to say, Wittgenstein's thoughts about the impossibility of metaphysics are of no consequence to a Coon. I mean, W. is entitled to his opinions, just as Dr. Qi is entitled to mine, but most of the ideas of linguistic philosophy are so low on the vertical scale that they needn't detain any serious seeker. Again, like deconstruction, what is sound in it has always been known to the intellectually awakened, while what is new is mostly wrong, especially when elevated to an overarching philosophy.

And again, there is no purely secular philosophy that doesn't have at least a few useful nuggets of truth lodged in it, but elevating a partial truth to the totality is generally at the root of all bad philosophies -- as is true of most heresies. For example, some Christian sects overemphasized Jesus' humanity, others his divinity. One of the functional effects of Trinitarian thought was to check the tendency of the mind to default in one static direction rather than tolerating an unresolveable -- but generative -- state of dynamic tension.

Yesterday a troll suggested that I had engaged in "doublethink," which is what spiritual paradox looks like from down below. "From above," paradox is a fruitful way to think about ultimate reality, as indicated, for example, by Zen koans or by the endlessly provocative paradoxables of Jesus. But to suggest that Jesus' playful and ambiguous use of language made him a postmodern deconstructionist is strict kooky talk.

The fashionable grooves in which the minds of linguistic philosophers endlessly circle made their way into psychoanalysis at the very time I was studying it in graduate school, so I am (or was before flushing) well familiar with them. This was via a fellow named Lacan -- not surprisingly, a Frenchman. Fortunately I was eventually rescued by Bion, whose capacious metapsychology easily subsumes the linguistic poopspeaks, and that was that.

Lacan's intellectual cantribution to psychoanalysis was the notion that "the unconscious is [structured like] a language." Whatever. I imagine Lacan is still very popular in France, since Euros are intrinsically confused (with obvious exceptions), being that they no longer have any religious "cognitive inoculation" against loony uncoony tunes and ideas. But he is irrelevant to psychoanalysis at its leading edge, which in my view involves the interface of attachment theory and neurodevelopmental psychoanalysis, i.e., the study of internalized mind parasites from early childhood.

Speaking of mind parasites, no disrespect, but Wittgenstein was a very sick man -- depressed, at times suicidal, and if I recall correctly from his biography, intensely schizoid, i.e., incapable of normal human relationships -- and it goes without saying that he would not have believed what he believed had he received proper psychiatric treatment, but such treatment was not available at the time. It really wasn't until the 1970s that psychoanalysis began being able to explain and treat these types of deeper character disorders -- e.g. narcissistic, schizoid, and borderline personalities.

I am not suggesting that a mentally disturbed individual is incapable of arriving at truth, for any idea must always be evaluated on the merits. However, at the same time, it is perfectly obvious to a clinical psychologist that certain philosophical and political inclinations result from certain pathologies, which is, after all, one of the reasons people passionately believe things that are intrinsically stupid.

In any event, it is no big surprise that a deeply schizoid man would be attracted to the idea that language is just a kind of logic-chopping tool, since he himself was so detached from flesh-and-blood reality -- as indeed are a fair number of philosophers and academics in general, who live in their abstractions and not the real world. There is a reason why there are plenty of neo-Marxists on college campi, but no man who actually runs a business is a Marxist -- at least for long, as reality has a way of rooting out such dysfunctional ideas.

The unhinged skepticism of deconstruction achieves the opposite effect intended by its "progressive" proponents. That is, if we cannot judge the merit of competing ideas by assessing their relative truth value on an absolute scale, then either everyone will have their own private truth or truth will be enforced by the state or some other powerful collective. Our recent visitor suggests that I am a deconstructionist or that the philosophy of deconstruction is somehow compatible with classical liberalism. But as Stephen Hicks points out, it is no coincidence that the leading postmodern theorists are all left -- and usually far left -- in their political orientation, for the cognitive pathology of the one is reflected in the nonsense of the other.

Ironically, although the discoverer of psychoanalysis, Freud, was hostile to religion, it so happens that there is a deep convergence between psychoanalysis and Christianity, for at the heart of each is the notion of embodiment. Both take very seriously the idea that we live in a specifically human body, from the moment we are conceived until the day we die. In many ways, psychoanalysis is the study of the "embodied mind," just as Christianity is the religion of the "embodied word."

As such, Christianity implicitly provides a profound linguistic philosophy. In chapter IX, The Hermit, our Unknown Friend gets into a very clear explanation of how Christianity elegantly resolves certain linguistic conundrums in a way that no secular philosophy can. But as always, since its primary concern is salvation and not intellectual diversion for unfertile eggheads, the ideas of the Bible are presented in such a way that the average academic pinhead will neither understand (i.e., through an activated gnosis) nor be attracted to them.

I'm sure you all remember the derision President Bush endured from the intellectual elites when he said that his favorite philosopher was Jesus. It matters not that a single wisecrack of Jesus contains more wisdom than the unwise crock of a philosophy department in a leftist university. They are sophisticated, and we are not. Again, whatever. Let the braindead bury the souldead.

Unknown Friend begins with an account of the various antinomies that have always divided philosophy, because of the very structure of the world and of our minds. In general, this or that philosopher attempts to resolve the antinomy by coming down on this or that side, which never works; rather, this is simply a case of "word magic," i.e., making some part of reality disappear through a sleight of language.

Hrmph. It's only 5:45, and some ominous sounding proto-language is already emerging from Future Leader's bedroom, so I'm not sure I'll have time to discuss the whole chapter.... Let's see if I can get him down for another 45 minutes....

So far, so good.

I should say that coming down on one side of an antinomy "always works," in the sense that there is no mere mental argument that can't be countered by its opposite. In other words, so long as you are on the mental level, anything you can prove can be equally disproved. While this should spell the end of the prestige of the lower mind, many otherwise intelligent people get stuck at this level, either believing nothing or believing in some limited philosopher such as Wittgenstein. It doesn't matter who the philosopher is, as the deeper purpose of a secular philosophy is to serve as a sort of "transitional object" for the purposes of security, or predictablity, or to appear wise in one's own eyes.

But as Schopnhauer wrote, "For the man who studies to gain insight, books are merely rungs of the ladder on which he climbs to the summit of knowledge, but the many who study in order to fill their memory do not use the rungs of the ladder for climbing, but take them off and load themselves with them to take them away, rejoicing at the increasing weight of the burden. They remain forever below, because they bear what should have bourne them."

Grrrrrr! This is impossible. He's up. We'll have to continue this later.

On to some light denkeeping, which I can do with "la-la-la-LA, la-la-la-LA, Elmo's World" echoing in the background.

I have been invited to join Pajamas Media, which I suppose will bring more attention to our largely secret gnocturnal world. As such, I was rather ambivalent about the matter, but consulted with two most senior Coons -- one of whom is known to you but prefers to operate in anonymity, "behind the veil" -- and got the go-ahead.

My main concern is exposing these ideas to those who are bound to mis- or disunderstand them. Naturally, some people will stagger in from the k->old and be pleased to drink from the pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, while bitter flatlanders such as Q will pompously barge in with their narrow agendas and try to turn this into an argument clinic, or accuse me of operating the blog as a form of ego grandiosity as opposed to my benign Coon mercy, which tends to be infinite but not without a dollop of sternness. As such, I'm guessing that I will be relying more upon my fellow Coons to set these folks straight.

Remember, a Coon is never angry, much less querulous or petty. True, out of a Coon's keyboard goes a sharp sword with which we smite the trolls and correct them with a rod of iron. But we always do so in a laughty atmasphere of affable gallantry, which is to say we good-naturedly mock them, for being laughed at is the one thing the pompous cannot tolerate.

64 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh good, I get to leave the first comment, so I can tackle the basic and factual errors in your post.

Lacan says the Unconscious is structured like a language, not that it is a language. That is the difference between saying the human brain functions like a computer vs the human brain IS a computer, or that Bush looks like a monkey vs. Bush IS a monkey.

4/13/2007 08:31:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Whatever. You are free to be a leftist Lacanman.

4/13/2007 08:48:00 AM  
Blogger River Cocytus said...

anony

- calling elephantine or an actual elephant a mouse - is in both cases a state of equal error.

4/13/2007 09:08:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

jwm said...
Wow. An opening shot from an anonymous troll. Maybe Q, or one of his minions (if he has any minions). What's the matter, ninny? Not getting enough attention? No blog of your own? Nobody discussing your lofty ideas on internet forums? Or perhaps the sum total of your life has been to become an expert in Witgenstein and Lacan. You read hard books better than the next guy. Why, I bet you're even smarter than George Bush. (By the way, have you ever flown a fighter jet?) My guess is that you have no accomplishments of your own, so you come here to take shots at someone else. You're like a lot of people I've known. You build nothing, create nothing, contribute nothing of value to the world around you, so you take your little pleasure in denigrating those who build, create, and produce. Go away.

JWM

4/13/2007 09:12:00 AM  
Blogger James said...

Bob,

For what it's worth. I think joining the p. media is a good step. I always find gold here which is the Truth. The Truth will stand on it's own. Those open to the Truth will receive it, and thought who are not will fight it. The coons gracefully have taken down the fighters. In fact I don't know any other blog where so much is discussed so civilly. I'm still reading The Underground Grammarian, which, to me at least, makes sense as a theory of language. It makes a lot more sense then anything I've read in graduate school. In other words I think truth can be complex, but if we are talking about truth, then it should be easy to express even to folks who haven't been to grad school. Have a great weekend folks!

4/13/2007 09:17:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

JWM, I read this blog because it is interesting to see postmodern rhetoric used to argue for conservative positions. I don't comment to denigrate. If you would rather everyone agree, I'd be glad to leave, but in this case, I'm basically helping you - when you argue against someone, like today's post which mentioned Lacan, your arguments are superior when they are accurate, rather than inaccurate.

4/13/2007 09:21:00 AM  
Blogger Joan of Argghh! said...

Oh, anonymous, say what you will, argue what you must, but we all instinctively know what you do not:

You are not honest. Were you honest, you would find in return honest discourse, polite disagreement, lively discussion and consideration of even your most delusional assertions.

It's not an unconcious conclusion that we reach, but it may be an unutterable knowledge that we possess around here. All sincere questions and disagreements are met with sincere answers and discussion.


The Psalmist says of Truth:
"to the pure You show yourself pure, but to the crooked You show yourself shrewd."

4/13/2007 09:39:00 AM  
Anonymous hoarhey said...

Anonymous,

The last example given to illustrate your point in your first post tell the world EXACTLY where you're coming from. (Along with a multitude of other posts) It shows how your mind works.
You can talk all you want about trying to "help" but guess what, you're not.
I'll vote that I want everyone to agree if it truly would get you to leave but I don't believe you have the character to follow up.

4/13/2007 09:43:00 AM  
Blogger Ricky Raccoon said...

Bob said:
“I have been invited to join Pajamas Media, which I suppose will bring more attention to our largely secret gnocturnal world.”

Oh that is great news! News I’d been hoping for.
RE future Qs that will rear their ugly rears, speaking on behalf of my fellow True-Fisted Brohemian Coonsquaders, if I may, ‘we’ve got your back’.

4/13/2007 09:50:00 AM  
Blogger juliec said...

Hoarhey, if you're suggesting we take a vote on whether Anonwit should leave, I vote "aye." I'd be delighted to see more of such discussion as we had yesterday with BFT - that is the type of questioning and debate which gets the brain bouncing. There was another song that came on my itunes yesterday that seemed apropos of A non muse:

Running into you like this without warning
Is like
Catching a sniff
Of tequila in the morning...
But I'll try,
Try to keep my food down
's Quite an aftertaste that you've left,
Now that you're not around...

("I Think I'll Disappear Now,"
Crash Test Dummies)

4/13/2007 09:53:00 AM  
Anonymous hoarhey said...

Juliec,

Actually anon, suggested it with this statement.

"If you would rather everyone agree, I'd be glad to leave,"

Can we vote twice?

4/13/2007 09:58:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Don't be so sensitive. I LIKE George W. Bush. I also like disagreement that is honest. And sometimes I find Bob's assessments to be inaccurate - so I comment, not with some hate speech, but by stating clearly the point of contention. In this case, have I not made a valid point? The Unconscious is not a language - but it is structured like one. It may seem like a trivial point, quibbling with just one thing written in this blog post, but in this case Lacan has been turned completely inside out - which calls into question the point that Bob is making. While I do not draw the same conclusions that many of you do, there should be no problem with going over some of the evidence - it can only help your position to properly understand what you are arguing against. Isn't the broader point that is being made here that poststructuralists and psychoanalysts and postmodernists etc. reject God? I'm commenting because I am also reading Lacan and many others and I think its clear that you are misreading what they are saying - for example toward the end of Lacan's 'Mirror Stage', a pretty critical lecture of his, he addresses on point the issue of divinity. Look, I will stop commenting if you would like. You are free to interpret Lacan as some babbling idiot who "doesn't get" divinity. But that interpretation is wrong, and to the extent you are basing your position in opposition to that straw man, you are undercutting your own argument.

4/13/2007 10:02:00 AM  
Blogger Ricky Raccoon said...

Synchronicity again: “In chapter IX, The Hermit…”
This just happens (?) to be the very letter I’m up to at the moment, Bob.

4/13/2007 10:02:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Anonymous:

Seriously, unless you are reading Lacan in the context of undergoing psychoanalytic training, you have no basis to know whether or not he is correct about the unconscious. Rather, your understanding is purely k, not O -- which is to say, intellectual and not experiental. You cannot know whether the unconscious is "structured like a language" until you personally discover whether or not yours is. For the record, mine isn't, nor have I found the concept useful in understanding or treating patients.

4/13/2007 10:16:00 AM  
Blogger River Cocytus said...

The same mistake, Bob, can be made if you study musical theorists outside the practice of music. That is, their ideas may seem consistent to you, but unless they are put in practice or worked through in what they apply to, their actual falsity or truth is difficult to discern.

If someone would like examples I can dig a few up.

But suffice it to say that 12-tone stuff might be intellectually satisfying but because of the nature of musicality the abstract idea does not work. (Or only works in extraordinarily restricted contexts)

4/13/2007 10:26:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

Hey, Hey! Glad to hear it went through!
When and where(url)?

In the spirit of the news:

The Charge of the Coonsquaders


1.
Blogspot, WordPress,
Pajamas Media onward,
All in the Blogosphere
Rode the Coonsquaders.
"Forward, the Surly Coon Army!
"Charge for the guns!" he said:
Into the Blogosphere
Rode the Coonsquaders.


2.
"Forward, the Coonsquaders!"
Was there a man dismay'd?
Not tho' the racoon knew
Someone had blunder'd:
Their's not to make reply,
Their's not to reason why,
Their's but to do and die:
Into the Blogosphere
Rode the Coonsquaders.


3.
Trols to right of them,
Atheists to left of them,
PoMoFo's in front of them
Volley'd and thunder'd;
Rant'd at with nonthought and swill,
Boldly they wrote and well,
Into the jaws of da' Net,
Into the mouth of Hell
Rode the Coonsquaders.


4.
Flash'd all their sarcasm bare,
Flash'd as they laughed in air,
Riposting the Trolls there,
Charging the smarmy, while
All the world wonder'd:
Plunged in the comment smoke
Right thro' the lines they broke;
Leftie and Fundie
Reel'd from the Gagdad's stroke
Shatter'd and sunder'd.
Then they rode back, but not
Not the Coonsquaders...

[oh, wait a minute, that ends badly doesn't it... ah the heck with it "For Gagdad and Cosmos! Ride the Coonsquaders!"]

5.

Trols to right of them,
Atheists to left of them,
PoMoFo's surrounding them
Folley'd and blunder'd;
Rant'd at with unthinking swill,
While keyboard and mouse fell,
They that had fought so well
Came thro' the Blogosphere
Back from the mouth of Hell,
All that was left of them,
Left of surly racoon army.


6.
When can their glory fade?
O the bold statements they made!
All the world wondered.
Honor the Posts they made,
Honor the Coonsquaders,
Noble surly 'coon army.


(with deep apologies to Alfred Tennyson - and any remaining typos, there's only so many times you can delete and repost it!)

4/13/2007 10:41:00 AM  
Blogger robinstarfish said...

Shhh/Peaceful/Shhh
draped in kind of blue
master of his birdland
in a silent way

4/13/2007 10:45:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

sigh.
"Charge for the guns!" he said:"
shoulda been
"Charge for the Puns!" Gagdad said:"

ah well. Still got the day job.

4/13/2007 10:54:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

Juliec said "... I'd be delighted to see more of such discussion as we had yesterday with BFT - that is the type of questioning and debate which gets the brain bouncing."

I'm with you on that (and the aye), problem is, Trolls live to blame others first, second and last, so I'm not holding my breath.

wv:tvyze - T.V. Wise? a joke, right?

4/13/2007 11:01:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

First Mate on the Titanic: 'Abandon ship! We're taking on water! Abandon ship!'

Aninnymate: 'Don't be silly! We're taking IN water, can't you see the difference?! My gosh it's a good thing you've got me to help out around here."

4/13/2007 11:11:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Robinstarfish:

Shhh, Peaceful, miles
From nowhere, page 2-4-5
of Coonifesto

4/13/2007 11:16:00 AM  
Blogger robinstarfish said...

I'm gnothere. :~]

4/13/2007 11:44:00 AM  
Anonymous hoarhey said...

Anon said,

"I will stop commenting if you would like."

If the comments are as nebulous and nit picky as we've seen here-to-fore I'd say, okay, see ya.

I don't think people here have any problem with questions or comments if they are backed up with source material or a train of thought rather than just subjective assertions.
I believe Bob does an excellent job of giving his point of view and then backs it up as well as possible. I would expect others, if they were truly as respectful as they claim, would do the same.
If you're not willing to engage in a discussion of why you came to know what you came to know, you are helping no one. You have "gone over some of the evidence" only once with this last post. Every previous one assumed your pre-established, unarticulated position. You know what you mean but no one else does. But don't just believe me, go back and see for yourself.
To just flat out say that you aren't going discuss a philosophy because it would take too much time (i.e. dr qi) to me is disingenuous and smacks of either elitism or the complete inability to articulate the philosophy, probably both. "I've read more on the subject than you have", maybe so, but have you understood more?
You're obviously inhabiting a different universe than many here, so much so that unless you are willing to flesh things out a bit without having to be prompted, you're wasting everyones time. Sort of a short, why you know what you know and here's where to look, possibly preceeded by a "I'd like to respectfully disagree" comment.

Then it would actually be possible for others to relate back to their distant past (or in greybeard's case a prior incarnation) and to show you the error of your ways. :)

4/13/2007 11:47:00 AM  
Anonymous WBJ said...

Can coons be heavy smokers? If not I may have to stay out of the promise land and just wander around the desert for the rest of my life looking for an indian reservation that sells tax free cigarettes.

Ben

P.S. I Jack Bauer a coon?

4/13/2007 11:57:00 AM  
Anonymous dilys said...

OK, Anon 10:02, let me propose a rule of opposition here, for general consideration by the Gathered Coonference.

Rather than take the position "Bob doesn't know squat about [X / Lacan and Divinity], what if you added "because, as Lacan said and demonstrated,..."? That is, I for one am extremely weary of flat contradition -- the bare "Is not!" -- and would propose it be ignored in every trollish form.

On the other hand, I'd be very interested in your succinct and eloquent summary of Lacan's attitude toward truth and divinity, and a thumbnail exposition from primary sources, with further references available. The anonymous' impatient and irrelevant logic-chopping on display doesn't qualify. Nor does the quaint faux-anthropological explanation of interest in "postmodern rhetoric ...for conservative positions." It has an unbecoming and antique culture-tourist air of Samuel Johnson and preaching women.

Or link us to the essay on the blog
you're.
going.
to.
set.
up.
free and without difficulty, on Blogger.com. (As anonymously as (s)he [I think it's "he"] likes.)

You might be right. So educate me.

But no more "You're wrong and stoopid. [FULL STOP.]" It's a drive-by.

And no, this wouldn't apply to DuPree (Hi, Cuz!), whose drive-bys are an Art Form.

4/13/2007 11:57:00 AM  
Anonymous walt said...

Dear Leader-
Coongratulations re PJMedia! You have wanted greater exposure, and it's likely headed your way; I'm sure all Coons hope this turns out just as you wish for!

In my highly biased opinion, what you offer is exactly what this culture "needs." It will be a fascinating experiment to watch, and also, I hope, for you to conduct.

(My only concern is Dupree. You sure he knows about the extra hours? And what if the influx of "more trolls" begin to interfere with his, er, "studies?")

4/13/2007 12:05:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

jwm said...
Van has a deadly fastball. Hoarhey is the A-Rod of the cluebat. But watch out for that low slow sinker from Dilys. That softball's made of razor blades.

JWM

4/13/2007 12:13:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Walt--

Dupree is always ambivalent about work, extra or otherwise, but he was most concerned about some boilerplate language regarding "libel." He's running it by his "lawyer" back in New Orleans, who basically told to him to "make sure you don't get swindled under the Napoleonic Code."

4/13/2007 12:19:00 PM  
Anonymous walt said...

Dilys said,

"It's a drive-by."

Yes, that's exactly how it's received.

4/13/2007 12:21:00 PM  
Anonymous walt said...

GB-
I have a Cajun friend somewhere in Louisiana that got kicked out of law school after he pistol-whipped a guy in a bar - perhaps he can help Dupree out, if he needs advice? And yes, they take the Napoleonic Code very seriously down there...

4/13/2007 12:26:00 PM  
Anonymous Coon's farm said...

Whatever. You are free to be a leftist Lacanman.

translation: Don't bother me with the facts. It's my opinion that counts.

4/13/2007 12:30:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

JWM said "But watch out for that low slow sinker from Dilys."

Fast balls & power hitters are all well and good, but nothin' beats... koooooolllllllll

4/13/2007 12:41:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"translation: Don't bother me with the facts. It's my opinion that counts."

It seems to me that opinions about Truth are of more value than facts devoid of truth... relatively speaking, of course.

4/13/2007 12:44:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

Coon's farm said... "translation: Don't bother me with the facts. It's my opinion that counts."

translation: I don't need no Wisdom, I smmmart!

4/13/2007 12:46:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

sssssssssssmmmmart!

4/13/2007 12:48:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

jwm said

Bob:
Congratulations on being asked to officially join the VRWC. I say go for it. Did you get the invite from the Lizardoid Master himself?

BTW I'm still having the devil's own time posting here. I have to write, copy, navigate away from the page, clear the cache, delete history, come back to the site, and then re-paste the comment. Only then will it post. I have to repeat this every time. Anyone else have this problem?

JWM

4/13/2007 01:01:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

JWM,

I've sometimes got to preview, refresh, preview & publish on my (replacement) PocketPC... but I suppose that's not likely to be related.

Do you have some off-brand pop-up blocker type apps running on there?

4/13/2007 01:28:00 PM  
Anonymous jwm said...

jwm said...

Van: I'm using Norton Password Manager which is mostly handy, but sometimes unreliable. I think the problem is a combination of Password MGR,and some screwup with Google. I'm trying this with MGR turned off. I didn't have any trouble until I started playing around with the "Booger the Cat" sock puppet. (AWWW- It was me all along ;P) For a while I couldn't get rid of BTC, and now I can't use the "jwm" handle or account.

JWM

4/13/2007 02:20:00 PM  
Anonymous jwm said...

Test.

4/13/2007 02:21:00 PM  
Blogger Tusar N Mohapatra said...

Satprem, who worked closely with the Mother on various books and later compiled the Mother's Agenda, has passed away at the age of 84 on Monday, April 9th of this year.

4/13/2007 02:33:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

I am sorry to hear about Satprem. His book, The Adventure of Consciousness, is by far the best book on Sri Aurobindo, and is recommended to all curious Coons (although you should wait until the used prices come down).

4/13/2007 02:40:00 PM  
Blogger vogz said...

Invited to join PJMedia? By any chance did Wretchard have something to do with this?

4/13/2007 02:46:00 PM  
Anonymous WBJ said...

I'm a Louisiana lawyer. Louisiana was never under the Napoleonic Code. Louisiana was sold in 1803, the Code was implemented in 1804. We do have a civil code, and it was heavily influenced by French law (And Spanish, German, and Roman), but a pet peeve is a pet peeve.

Seriously, is Jack Bauer a coon?

Ben

4/13/2007 03:58:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

WBJ:

Tell it to Stanley Kowalski.

4/13/2007 04:09:00 PM  
Anonymous WBJ said...

No. He scares me.

WBJ

4/13/2007 04:43:00 PM  
Anonymous dloye said...

This is from a long time lurker, but it seems that some of the coons here would enjoy what IMHO is probably the most important bit of published "news" of the last couple days. Beauty, truth, morality, artistry.... all in the mix. Check it out (Congrats on the PJM thing as well.) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040401721.html

4/13/2007 05:04:00 PM  
Anonymous jwm said...

Bob:
Coons are curious. Did you get a good rap from Shrinkwrapped? A clean bill of health from Dr. Sanity? A midnight knock on the door, from a shadowy reptilian figure with guitar and bicycle?
I can picture Gagdad and CJ jamming- playin' "Smoke on the Water", "Louie Louie", "My Shirona"- you know- all the greats!

Maybe it's all Secret.
;)

JWM

4/13/2007 05:17:00 PM  
Blogger juliec said...

dloye, that was a cool article; I think hoarhey linked it here the other day :)

4/13/2007 05:39:00 PM  
Blogger juliec said...

dloye,
very nice blog by the way - I liked the poem, and the pictures and writing are lovely :)

4/13/2007 05:44:00 PM  
Anonymous hoarhey said...

Dilys said:

"(As anonymously as (s)he [I think it's "he"] likes.)"

I say this anon. is a she or a guy tilting metro due to the passive aggression. (passive aggression?, who, ME?)
AND, (having re-learned it again today) that most (all?) attempts to convey a trolls trollishness to said troll and appeal to self reflection, fall on deaf eyes. It's not even in the realm of possibilities. A troll being a troll and a slave to troll nature.

The cosmic parameters of 'Will's Law of Differing Consciousness' CANNOT be circumvented.

4/13/2007 06:10:00 PM  
Anonymous debass said...

River,

"But suffice it to say that 12-tone stuff might be intellectually satisfying but because of the nature of musicality the abstract idea does not work. (Or only works in extraordinarily restricted contexts)"

Schoenberg pulls it off by cheating. You have to really bend the rules to get his tone row to work out. It must have been difficult for Webern also. I think he only wrote about 45 minutes worth of music his entire life. These guys only serialized the notes.
Boulez serialized not only the notes, but the rythmn, the entrance of the instruments, everything in "Structures for Piano", 1951. I'm going from memory, so my date may be off.
I agree with you about theorists. Some theorists deconstruct music (Schenker) with their ideas but can't reconstruct it from their analysis. I don't think this works on a practical level. What they don't teach in school is that the analysis always follows the music, not the other way around. It is the equivalent of trying to form a sentence by thinking about the structure of a sentence instead of just speaking.
Sorry if I got to far off topic.

4/13/2007 06:33:00 PM  
Blogger vogz said...

dloye,

Magnificent article. Thanks for pointing it out.

4/13/2007 07:06:00 PM  
Anonymous walt said...

Hoarhey-

I don't think I've ever seen the Differing Consciousness statute, though I bet I agree with it.

Got a copy, or a reference?

4/13/2007 07:10:00 PM  
Anonymous uxijqqa said...

Hoarhey-

I say this anon. is a she or a guy tilting metro due to the passive aggression. (passive aggression?, who, ME?)
AND, (having re-learned it again today) that most (all?) attempts to convey a trolls trollishness to said troll and appeal to self reflection, fall on deaf eyes. It's not even in the realm of possibilities. A troll being a troll and a slave to troll nature.


You offer such insight into the dark, twisted nature of trolls. I'm sure it's merely a gift.

4/13/2007 07:19:00 PM  
Anonymous concerned about sex said...

What's the raccoon doctrine on sex?
Is out of wedlock intercourse ok for young unmarrieds?

Can young men have prostitutes without harming their spiritual health?

Are there any options that allow for sexual adventuring among married people?

I am interested in all aspects of sex vis a vis God. Does He like us to have sex for pleasure? Or just for procreation?

What about the various forms of "sodomy" (contact between the genitals of one person and the mouth or anus of another)?

Is celibacy acceptable to God?

Anyone want to weigh in on these questions?

4/13/2007 10:36:00 PM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

"The fashionable grooves in which the minds of linguistic philosophers endlessly circle made their way into psychoanalysis at the very time I was studying it in graduate school, so I am (or was before flushing) well familiar with them. This was via a fellow named Lacan -- not surprisingly, a Frenchman. Fortunately I was eventually rescued by Bion, whose capacious metapsychology easily subsumes the linguistic poopspeaks, and that was that."

Clearly, the troll of many names prefers rootin' around for postmodern nuggets in the septic tank or sewer instead.

4/13/2007 11:49:00 PM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Coongrats on the PJ Media offer, B'ob!

4/13/2007 11:52:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lacan: "You see that by still preserving this "like" (comme), I am staying within the bounds of what I put forward when I say that the unconscious is structured like a language. I say like so as ***not*** to say-and I come back to this all the time-that the unconscious is structured by a language."

That's on point.

4/14/2007 01:37:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

concerned about sex:

Sorry. The Coon Doctrine of Sex is revealed only to Coons.

4/14/2007 05:03:00 AM  
Anonymous Dr Jim (not really a Dr). said...

Anonymous said:
"...did I not made a valid point? The Unconscious is not a language - but it is structured like one."

I guess I'm too dense to understand the subtlty of this, so in my mind I ask: If I drive a car "structured" like a Ford is it a Ford, or has it somehow become a Cadillac when I start it?" (I wish).

If the mind is structured like a language does it not follow that is the way it works?

Help me understand Dr. Bob, I'm a baby coon and I can't reach the lid on the garbage can.

I would suggest Anonymous read "Word and Values, by Peggy Rosenthal. He might understand how the "structure," leads him along.
The book is old but still available.

4/14/2007 06:43:00 AM  
Blogger River Cocytus said...

We've been found out!

Concerned: Why should we need to tell you those things? Isn't it obvious?

4/14/2007 06:44:00 AM  
Blogger Joan of Argghh! said...

On the whole pajama-blogger deal:

I hope it's what you want.

That's not a judgement against or for the PJM folk, either. When, as you say, you "wait for the game to come to you," and then it does, you've gotta decide if you want to play by your rules or theirs.

Congrats and good luck!

4/14/2007 07:35:00 AM  
Anonymous hoarhey said...

Walt,

'Will's Law of Differing Consciousness' was kind of a joke postulated about a year ago when we had a particularly nasty infestation of trolls who regardless what was explained to them, went on as if they were talking to themselves in a mirror. It was amazing to watch.
Will wrote about how it is extremely difficult (virtually impossible?) to dicuss concepts from a higher level of consciousness to a lower level of consciousness and have those concepts understood. And that either a person will hear it and "get" it or they won't.
So the basic tenant of the "law" is that if a person is at not at a similar level of consciousness as another in a discussion, nothing said would ever be understood and/or integrated. This was evidenced by the fact that even the most focused, laser beam explainations went over these trolls heads as if nothing was spoken. It was as if the words were invisible to the troll. It became a complete waste of time.
Another aspect of the law was that the more accomodating people were to these trolls, the more it raised the troll ire. Sort of a "no good deed goes unpunished" paradox. Akin to the reaction of a jihadist sensing appeasement and going for the jugular. The trolls were here to teach the ignorant, not to engage in dialog. Of course many here had already been there and done that as far as the troll philosophy was concerned and said as much. That really pissed them off.
They would admit to the intelligence of the conversations but as soon as their ox was gored,(i.e. leftist cause du-jour worldview) look out.
The attitude is unmistakable when it arrives on scene.
It was around this same time that I uncased the Louisville Slugger. ;)

And as far as I can tell, the law still holds true.

4/14/2007 09:27:00 AM  
Anonymous cooniam said...

concerned about sex asked...

'What's the raccoon doctrine on sex?'
Do others as you would have them do you.

'Is out of wedlock intercourse ok for young unmarrieds?'
Everyone is free to speak freely.

'Can young men have prostitutes without harming their spiritual health?'
The spiritual health of most prostitutes has likely already been harmed, but healing is there for the seeking.

'Are there any options that allow for sexual adventuring among married people?'
Silly, the marriage sanctifies adventure.

'I am interested in all aspects of sex vis a vis God. Does He like us to have sex for pleasure? Or just for procreation?'
Yes to both.

'What about the various forms of "sodomy" (contact between the genitals of one person and the mouth or anus of another)?'
I am concerned only with the love in your heart and words that come out of your mouth, not what goes into your mouth.


'Is celibacy acceptable to God?'
Certainly, although I gave up celibacy on one occasion and I am well pleased with the result.

'Anyone want to weigh in on these questions?'
Just this once, just for you, Concerned.

4/14/2007 10:58:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home