Organization: The American University - University Computing Center
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 22:45:36 EST
From: <HERSCH@auvm.american.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,rec.arts.books,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Morally good necessary possible sometimes possible reproductivenes

In article <1992Dec17.033855.18603@husc3.harvard.edu>, zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu
(Michael Zeleny) says:
>
>
>No, Mr H, this is not the "cunt nearby" argument.  The "cunt nearby"
>argument is the fallacious claim that it is all right for a man to have
>sex with anything, as long as he is you, or else there is a foul-mouthed
>blowhard imbecile like yourself around, who certifies the activity as
>genuinely progressive, in light of the Whig interpretation of history.
>
>HB:
>>Utterly, utterly, utterly stupid [etc.]
>
>Is something bothering you?  Then repeat this mantra: "There are no
>absolutes of any sort; consequently there is no such thing as truth,
>justice, or beauty; most importantly, there is no such thing as human
>nature.  Therefore, none of my favorite proclivities could conceivably
>be motivated by my resentful abomination of truth, justice, and beauty;
>nor could they constitute a perversion of my true nature.  I am a
>paragon of harmony, integrity, and composure.  It is my sincere wish
>that the rest of the world would recognize my peerless merits, and come
>to think and act in the same way I do."
>

I am so sorry. I thought that Zeleny was motivated merely by his
bigotry and stupidity. I was wrong. Apparently, he's got a real
projective mental disorder. Please note in the passages above that
he calls someone other than himself a foul-mouthed blowhard
imbecile. Well, I don't know about the foul-mouthed part; he
has had no experience of my mouth nor of any of its productions,
nor have I any of his, lord LORD may it long remain so. But blowhard
imbecile? This seems quite an apt epithet for Zeleny himself!
Clearly a blowhard; just read aay two or three sentences that
he's excreted on the net. And would a non-imbecile assert the
totally idiotic stuff that he seems to relish? I leave it to the
readership to decide who is a blowhard imbecile and who is not.

But where the through-the-lookinglass ambiance gets really *spooky*
is where he seems to imply that someone other than himself has
set himself up to judge the correctness of various sexual acts.
Gee, wasn't it Zeleny that did that? I never made any claim of
morality, immorality, or anything else for any sex act whatever.
Zeleny, as I recall, claims that certain acts between loving,
consenting people are *immoral*. That was him, not me.
He apparently throws the Whig interpretation of history into
the mix as a way of showing that he remembers what I've said
on other occasions and can extract something therefrom that
will mystify the people reading this now, but maybe impress
them as erudite. *yawn*

He further seems to propose that it is *I* who think myself
oh-so-extra-special; is this plausible? Or is it not Zeleny
projecting his own narcissistic auto-eroticism onto someone
else? Who is it who begs the whole of the usenet community
to watch him beat off? Me? Or Zeleny? In fact, Zeleny's
behavior reminds me very much of a line in a play that I saw
a couple of years ago, at the Loeb in Cambridge, in fact,
where one character calls another character's literary
production "bad faith jacking off". That's Zeleny. Bad faith
jacking off.

>As a disciple of Stirner, you ought to be happy with this credo.

God he's a jerk. "Disciple of Stirner"...yeesh. Discipleship
may be something that Zeleny indulges in, in his silly little
Platonic other-world; some of the rest of us are a little more
able to think for ourselves. This is actually just another
"whig interpretation of history" remark, and quite unimpressive.

H.

Herschel Browne
"The" American University
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc