Corresponding with you is like talking with a drunk who might make noises
toward thought but whose real agenda has deteriorated to insults. So that's
it for me, Jesse.
ja
----- Original Message -----
From: <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2012 9:29 AM
Subject: The Sorbonne and Absurdity
> Jim, if someone questions your assumptions at the Sorbonne will you
> suggest that they are jealous of you? I'd much rather hear your take
> on the neuro-physical aspects of free will as per that poor wikipedia
> link I gave you. What do you think of those experiments? It's
> interesting to me that you detected jealousy at exactly the time that
> your certainy in free will might have received a little nudge. A good
> time to change the subject, right?
>
> In addition, let me add that I'm happy for any and everyone's success
> in presenting new and interesting ideas on the arts, as you are. Your
> answers have been thorough and presented--generally--in a reasonable
> manner, though the "lecturing to the benighted tone" you adopt does
> nothing to help you. What I do find remarkable though is the magnitude
> of your assumptions about the arts, the "free and democratic"
> Internet, personal choice, your grasp of "traditional" poetry, and the
> significance and originality of what you and others are doing. Finally,
> I don't think being a code-writer makes you or anyone a poet or an
> artist--but particularly a poet--in any other way than in the "poetry
> is anything [ Jim ] says it is and if one or more people
> agree--Q.E.D." mode. And that's the easiest one of all, though it
> appears to be the ruling paradigm. What I've been suggesting to you is
> that you and others rethink before you assume.
>
> Jess
|