From: Stephen.H.Voss.2@nd.edu (Stephen H. Voss)
Subject: Re: Why I'm such a shit
Organization: University of Notre Dame
Distribution: alt.angst
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 17:47:09 GMT

In article <85798@ut-emx.uucp> llama@tramp.cc.utexas.edu (sine nomine) writes:
>From: llama@tramp.cc.utexas.edu (sine nomine)
>Subject: Re: Why I'm such a shit
>Date: 24 Dec 92 18:26:18 GMT


>first, i should explain that i have a screwy newsfeed and that i get
>things via a news-to-mail gateway set up for me by a friend, but
>sometimes there are delays in that. sigh. and i guess my server being
>prone to weirding out doesn't help the gateway, either. so i have read
>access on nyx and can catch up on stuff there, but it's hard to keep
>up sometimes.

>so i've been reading the whole duke explaining to the rest of us why
>we're intellectual midgets thread tonight, and i can't capture any of
>it cause i'm on a lab terminal and not at home. so i have to work from
>memory.

>it seems to me that what duke wants to recreate/create here is a
>coffeehouse atmosphere, where we all sit around clutching well-thumbed
>copies of Important Books and feeding each other our pet concepts. you
>know, the sorts of conversations where you say one of my trigger words
>and i blurt out my set piece on the subject, and that in turn triggers
>you to say something... it's like picking tracks on a cd with a remote
>control, intellectual dicksizewars that don't have any relation to
>life.  there i'd have to agree with you: what's the fucking point? 

>okay, beyond duke's basic claim that i'm stupid and dull (which i
>think we've all heard, dear, no need to reiterate endlessly), we have
>the claim that this group isn't about angst, not in an intellectual
>way. and this accusation is made by a man who, when he's put up
>against the wall by someone who's actually read the authors duke
>quotes, backs down into saying he's only familiar with the fiction of
>these paragons of angst. my, how intellectual.

>i gave up insight as a contact sport years ago.  i can talk about
>philosophy; i've done the reading. but how many times can you define
>angst before it gets boring? how many times can you trot out the same
>names and say the same things about their works?

>so i talk about my life. i talk about the things that happen to me,
>about the way i'm trying to fight my way out of feeling that life
>doesn't fucking matter, of the way i'm trying to create meaning in my
>life. for god's sake, the whole point of existentialism *wasn't* that
>life doesn't matter. it was that life contains only the meaning you
>choose to give to it. what's being espoused here is nihilism. sheesh.
>i'm writing about anti-nihilism, being as honest as i can about my
>struggles. 

>and then i'm told (not by duke; i forget who said it) that i'm not
>genuine, that the things i say aren't really about pain or whatever
>the feeling i'm talking about is. i'm really glad to be informed about
>that. it makes me feel so much better to know that when i posted about
>how the bottom had dropped out of my world and how i couldn't breathe
>for fear of the pain, that wasn't real. what's the complaint? that i
>like for the words i use to convey precisely the pictures i see in my
>head and so i choose them carefully? that i'm not bleeding publicly
>enough? i've got the trauma, but i like to think my past is mine. i
>choose to share it with people i want to trust with that part of
>myself.

>who the fuck died and made duke the judge of what's real and what's
>good? i'm so fucking tired of being argued about. it's pointless. i've
>gotten enough mail telling me to ignore duke and his intellectual
>masturbation (someone else's words, not mine, btw) that i'll probably
>do that. if whoever reads this really thinks i'm infecting this group
>with some virulent strain of sentimentality and tripe, then join duke
>in putting me in your kill file and fucking off. 

>it's been pointed out to me that something i've said must have hit a
>major nerve somewhere to trigger this onslaught. i dunno. i just know
>that it's been a shitty month (a move, a breakup, a death, an
>epiphany, a cinderella experience) and i don't need this.  it's
>stupid. and of *course* not evverything i write is good. jesus fucking
>christ, is *anyone* *always* on? gah.

>this whole thing is just so disgusting. maybe duke should propose a
>split in alt.config, to alt.angst.philosophy and alt.angst.experience,
>maybe. 

>bleah. just bleah.

>-- 
>sine | deb 
>or perhaps we should just have a cfv on my continued
>existence here.


i don't get much of that.  it does sound fascinating, really.  but i just 
don't get it.
my question is (in really concrete terms) what varieties of angst are you 
experiencing?  what alternatives are in the running with them?
and perhaps just as important, what did the lady in the nightgown really do?

yours truly,

voluptua love
 
------------------------------------------
Stephen H. Voss
University of Notre Dame