Organization: Current Science Tel: +44 71 323 0323 Fax: +44 71 580 1938
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.words-l
Date:         Wed, 22 Jul 1992 12:39:00 EDT
Reply-To:     Graham Toal <gtoal@ed.ac.uk>
From:         Graham Toal <gtoal@CURSCI.CO.UK>
Subject:      Re: Five Reasons (was tushar, boy..)
Comments: To: Words-L and the Bandwidth Hogs <words-l@uga.cc.uga.edu>

On Tue, 21 Jul 1992 18:17:09 CDT, "Tushar Samant" <tushar@ZAPHOD.UCHICAGO.EDU>
 wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jul 1992 18:57:40 EDT, "Graham Toal" <gtoal@ED.AC.UK> wrote:
> >On Tue, 21 Jul 1992 01:53:10 CDT, "Tushar Samant"
 <tushar@ZAPHOD.UCHICAGO.EDU>
> > wrote:
> >> There has been a hiatus in mail affairs here. I had to ftp the archives
> >> and trusted, like the Goddess that nothing interesting had happened. How
> >> naive I was! I had thought, just yesterday, that I would never again be
> >> amazed at any posting which ever made its way around the net under the
> >> header of words-l, but clearly I am too innocent to realize the real
> >> magnitude of the problem that's afflicting us.
> >>
> >> Yes, to realize the real. Redundant as it sounds, it's something I still
> >> have to learn. It's with surprise commingled with sadness that I read
> >> this some time ago:
> >>
> >>
> >> >     Zinc did blow chow in the living room this morning, but this was
> >> > caused by an overindulgence in Science Diet, not by tushar's arcane
> >> > imprecations.
> >>
> >> This already exhibits a poor grasp of elementary epistemological
> >> principles, and though this is hardly central to my thesis to follow,
> >> I quote it show the kind of assumptions this letter is based on.
> >>
> >>
> >> >  And the goldfish are just fine, thank you for asking.
> >>
> >> Again, a serious delusion is apparent in the second clause. Passing lightly
> >> over these relatively unimportant details, though, let us examine what has
> >> been said:
> >>
> >>
> >> >     Still I feel I must respond to this harsh cascade of bombast, even at
> >> >     the risk of embroiling myself in an oinking contest with the Boar's
> >> >     Head himself:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >     Five Reasons Why Tushar is Not as Happy as My Cat:
> >>
> >> My puzzlement already starts at this point. Clearly, the latter sentence
> >> has to be bound to the "I must respond" in the former. On the other
> >> hand, five reasons why Tushar is Not as Happy as My Cat can hardly be
> >> a response to the claimed harsh cascade of bombast, even if it were a
> >> harsh cascade of bombast, which is open to doubt. All in all, I have
> >> come to the conclusion that I am up against a very different, and to me
> >> alien, framework of reasoning.  Although I am not biased per se against
> >> alternative formalisms of logic - far be it from me to do that! - it
> >> makes good sense to mention this to everyone lest the argument should
> >> become incomprehensible in the future.
> >>
> >>
> >> > 1.  Tushar worships a harsh god with unattractive personal
 characteristics.
> >>
> >> The inherent cultural assumptions are apparent here, since Invocation of a
> >> god is a concept different from and independent of Worship. When any
> >> assumptions to the contrary are made without further examination, I regret
> >> to say that one can be sure that intellectual indiscipline is soon to set
 in.
> >>
> >> >     Zinc worships the beneficent Cat Mother, who is perpetually
 manifested
> >> >     in the Soft Lap, the Full Bowl, and the Catnip Mackerel.
> >>
> >> We will assume that Zinc is the name of the Cat. If so, the contrast
> >> presented above seems hardly significant (e.g. not more so than, say, the
> >> trivially true statement that "nothing is just like any other thing").
> >> Can one blame me for a sense of hopelessness? Instead of arguing I am
> >> reduced to the menial task of meta-argument.
> >>
> >>
> >> >2.  Tushar vents his psychic pain by making horrible threats against
> >> > innocent kittens.  Zinc's limpid consciousness is untroubled by any
> >> > intimation of tushar's existence (happy cat!); nor would anything on
> >> > earth cause him to wish tushar ill or to heap feline execrations on
> >> > tushar's head, unless tushar were to eat a tuna sandwich in front of
> >> > him without sharing.
> >>
> >> It ought to have been obvious, but my experience with frustratingly
> >> illogical arguments makes me spell it out in hideous detail, that
> >> "threats", "innocent" etc are words which are defined only in a cultural
> >> matrix. We seem to differ here in something as fundamental as rules of
> >> the predicate calculus, fat chance indeed can more complicated semantic
> >> constructions have of being shared as a common base. So forgive me if I
> >> say that it is impossible for me to answer this - there is no objective
> >> point being made here.
> >>
> >>
> >> >3.  And even then Zinc's enmity would be brief, for he lives in the
 eternal
> >> >    immanence of the moment; whereas tushar is tormented by
 epistemological
> >> >    and ontological paradoxes that are incomprehensible to those around
 him,
> >> >    humans and cats alike.
> >>
> >> I freely confess that I fail to understand what the eternal immanence
> >> of the moment could mean. I have a certain construct which approximates
> >> what is meant by a moment, and since that is the only one I can rely
> >> on at the moment (and perhaps for eternity), I have to conclude that
> >> the Zinc the cat forever dangles in a single moment unable to resolve
> >> his state in any way, leading me to believe that he belonged earlier to
> >> Erwin Schroedinger, although I must admit that even uttering the world
> >> "earlier" in this context would well be misguided; however, I approach
> >> this question with an open mind - the difficulty could be resolved if
> >> the other side cooperates, for although I don't understand the eternal
> >> immanence of the moment, I have momentarily had an understanding of
> >> the immanence of eternity, to say nothing of the momentous immanence of
> >> eternal understanding, and have no reason to doubt a priori the immanent
> >> understanding of the eternal moment.
> >>
> >> This is, please note, in marked contrast to the brash assumptions that
> >> Carol makes and has the rather amusing expectation of not being questioned
> >> on.
> >>
> >> As to the laughable mention of "epistemological and ontological paradoxes"
> >> I would counter with the levity it deserves: "Name three". Please forgive
> >> me for saying so, but so far you have only exhibited a very faltering
> >> understanding of any epistemological principle. As to the relevance of
> >> any ontological paradox, even if present, I am clueless. One wonders what
> >> prompted Carol to mention them here.
> >>
> >>
> >> > 4.  Like tushar, Zinc has evil designs on the goldfish, but in this
> >> > he is perfectly embodying his essential cat nature.  Tushar has no
> >> > genetic excuse for his hostility.
> >>
> >> One tires of vague statements of this sort in anything purported to be
> >> a serious reply, but I must express my surprise here at the confidence
> >> with which "essential cat nature" has been mentioned, for all that I have
> >> read so far gives me no lead towards believing that there is anything
> >> as clearly defined as this sentence seems to make it - an ancient and
> >> very crude device in any argument, which Carol so naively expects to work.
> >>
> >> I scarcely need mention the illogicality of genetic excuses (which I hope
> >> is amply clear) except for the purpose of pointing out again to all that
> >> I am fated to deal with, alas, a very alien mode of thinking.
> >>
> >>
> >> > 5.  Zinc's relations with the rest of his world are marked by directness,
> >> >     simplicity, and trust (except for the dogs next door, whom he hates
> >> >     with a pure and gemlike passion).  When the evil fit is upon him,
> >> >     tushar baffles his friends with mathematical obscurities, falsely
> >> >     ingenuous questions, and scathing blasts of rhetorical excess.
> >>
> >> There is nothing more to be pointed out here except the fact that it
> >> proves that I have excellent reasons to believe what I have already
> >> claimed - that this strange letter has been based on questionable
> >> assumptions and highly subjective concepts. At the risk of being
> >> facetious I may say that they are so subjective that there is probably
> >> only one human who has constructed them and invests credence in them.
> >> Evidently such premises will not go to make a serious debate about
> >> fundamentals but will only result in shouting matches. As is evident
> >> from my reserved tone in this response, I have tried hard to avert this.
> >> However it now depends on the other party to cooperate and turn this
> >> discussion to more comprehensible directions - in expecting this, however,
> >> I fear I might be too sanguine.
> >>
> >>
> >> >     In a future posting:  Seven Reasons Why Tushar Closely Resembles
> >> >     an Old Testament Prophet.
> >>
> >> Perhaps these will pass some basic tests of intelligibility, if not actual
> >> logicality; I still retain the childish naivete to hope for that, but even
> >> to me, relevance seems to much too expect.
> >>
> >> I make again an impassioned plea for sanity and a reexamination of the
> >> fundamental principles by which we conduct discourse. This remarkable
 letter
> >> has yet again opened my eyes to the shocking intellectual indiscipline
 which
> >> has creeped into the thinking of many. There is no closing them now, alas!
> >>
> >> tushar
> >>
> >Tushar, don't you think the Jim Thomas pastiches have gone on <long enough>?
> >What did he ever to you anyway to merit this bombasity?
> >
> >G
>
> I am impressed by this compulsive tendency to impose one's own weird
> concoctions and interpretations on the world. Admirable is the man who
> wants to display even his self-centeredness, for he has reached a new
> height in it.
>
> The sparkling net.wit apparent in the quoting of the whole article is
> commendable too, and so much so that I have shamelessly plagiarised
> it.
Glad you appreciated it.  Carole didn't get the joke.

> For your convenience, merely tick one of these as your responses, unless
> it is (e), in which case some typing will be necessary:
>
> a) "Did he say something interesting? I had to delete the letter."
> b) "God, this is too funny, stop, even I don't wish this on JIM!"
> c)  Random quote from Reginald, by Saki. (Lame, but better than (a).)
> d) #673 from 1001 Very Clever Ripostes For All E-occasions
>     (I don't *wish* this on you, but Saki volumes can get misplaced.)
> e)  None of these, but actually I read quite a good book last night
that I think you'd enjoy - Mantissa by John Fowles.  Full of lots of
extremely literary allusions, self-referential and self-indulgent in
the extreme.  Every single word carefully chosen.  Right <up your alley>.

F@eff
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU