From: bob@netxcom.netx.com (Robert Thralls)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.poems
Subject: Purest of Pure, Sanetest of Saints, and the how of the cow.
Date: 26 Jul 92 18:24:27 GMT
Organization: NetExpress Inc., Vienna, VA, USA

;^o (moo)

In article <76362@ut-emx.uucp> [sheila,someone sane] wrote:
>
>so Maybe today is another day. I'm at work thinking too much about
>Plato and Aristotle and Music and making yet another summary of
>notes on papers, (Martin Gardner's column from an old Scientific
>American - I never realized how much I disagreed with him sometimes,
>look at what he wrote! "These deep notions are technical and hard
>to understand" I can't believe he wrote this! He certainly has
>a limited viewpoint of his Reader.)

or a particular notion of mass appeal, for the article.
The Scientific American generally has a mass appeal to all walks of life,
with only the first several and last couple of paragraphs making a whole
lot of sense to the masses. I could not disagree more, however, an industry
rag must have a more defined readership, instead of going for the big bucks.
Leave the shallow articles for Time-Life, I too, would enjoy reading them
on a sunday afternoon with tea. Ones needs lightness, as well as pertenence to
the good life one wishes to lead.

Write to your audience. If you have several, write several times.

>
>                                                Graduate the
>word and change it's degree and then see how it affects
>your sentence. You can't stick to anything because changing
>the variable changes everything. (at least, so far, in practice,
>for me, at times, I am not assumeing that this is a correct
>view of things, just that I havn't tried hard enough or
>thought hard enough to find an execption, or maybe the
>things that I find are such variables are the exceptions
>and I am not looking at the things which arn't exceptions
>and calling the exceptions the things which arn't exceptions.

This does require an exceptions policy. I personally believe that 
exceptions are the rule. The graduation of our own values can leave
us scarred for life. I try to think of this "black mark" as something
almost attainable, no matter how close to my own definition I may come.
For the closer I come, the more that definition must become more generalized
than before, this usually means variables -- mainly because I cannot allow
myself to reach such a point. When I do, that is when I shall begin to decay.
That is when i begin to stop learning, when i become unreal, when i have
ceased to implement and merely theorize.


>at any rate, I think I'll go bring a poem later which has 
>a view of purity, (is purity realated to pure?) and that

perhaps, they are related.

>perhaps talking about a traditional view of purity and
>agreeing on that graduation mark will help start off
>a discussion for a while. sheesh, I'm long winded to say
>nothing sometimes.)


yes, unless your rambling is done on purpose, leading from topic to 
topic to show us how you [naturally] arrived at your inconclusions...
and leaving us at our own.

>and it's not really plato or aristotal or anything, I was
>just referrring to them becuase of Martin Gardner. I guess

Gardner, Gardner, never read anything by him that comes to mind,
but I have read many items that are quoted from him, If this is 
the same 'Gardner' that I am thinking, usually [they] will refer
to him as "Gardner" no first name, like I'm supposed to know his 
first name or something... as if noone else is named Gardner worth
mentioning... Like it really means something to me...

>I could look at purity through their viewpoint. Did they 
>believe in it? But do I want to discuss that type of
>purity? I don't think so, but mabye the type of pure I am
>thinking about has some sort of relation.
>-- 
>stark raving sane!   sheila@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu

Who the hell is they? Could we admit [socrates] to be one of the they?

[we need to for my example of self examination]
[sorry, off the top of my head, this is the only one that comes to mind]

[Socrates] believed in sodemy, is that pure? or is the real question more
like 'was it accepted as pure then?', if it was then he has purity, if
not then he wasn't [in other peoples' eyes]. Since we know sodomy
was quite acceptable then, then what is his veiw of sodomy? Well, it
is noted that a young man was to have said that [Socrates] enjoyed loving
entanglements more than the act of sodemy itself. This is different, 
*pure* homosexuality was not accepted then as a mark of purity. So, we
would have to know what [Socrates] thought of it in order to gage him
on his purity level. Now, since we didn't know [Socrates], [we] are not
worthy to *judge* him. [He] did, I belive remark about [his] own purity, and
maybe that is all we can expect.. Perhaps, noone is worthy of purity, 
unless they are dead. And they were responsible for at least two miracles 
AFTER their death ;^o (moo) (ooops, sorry, perhaps that was unpure of me 
to remark of such a prestigeous honor bestowed upon dead people)

Pure is variable, not many of us are pure if we apply our own definition
against the masses, but if we apply each of our definitions to ourselves,
then perhaps we stand a chance for eventual purity. For instance, if I 
were to gage myself using my best freind's definition, then I could apply 
for sainthood upon my death.

I for one am an Ivory Boy, that makes me 99.44%* pure....  At least
on the surface... ;^o (moo)

* - according to the FDA's standards of purity, which may or may not 
    be condoned by the Bureau of Weights and Measures (the standards
    specialists) and most certainly doesn't have anything to do with
    my viewpoint on the subject. Not available in all areas, actual
    percentage rate may vary, depending on local laws and restrictions.
    See the logician nearest you for details.


no signature required.