From: nikolay@husc11.harvard.edu (Philip Nikolayev)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.poems
Subject: Re: A letter to a young critic
Date: 17 Nov 92 04:54:09 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc11.NIKOLAY.92Nov16205409
Organization: The Kremlin Wall of Harvard
In-reply-to: daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM's message of 16 Nov 92 06:24:01 GMT

I have deleted previous superfluities from the following exchange;
yet it is still quite lengthy.

Doug Quarnstrom writes:

> In rec.arts.poems, nikolay@husc8.harvard.edu (Philip Nikolayev) writes:

[deletia]

>>PN
>>>> Before you prove me to be an non-entity, your rather pathetic
>>>> irony has no weight whatsoever.

DQ
>>> I have not proven you anything at all sir.

PN
>>Quite true.

DQ
> But then you, yourself, have PROVEN absolutely nothing.  We have
> both merely made assertions.  Perhaps it IS time to begin a more
> rational discussion.  You suggest this later, and I am willing to do
> it if you are.

I have tried to be rational all along. Cite examples to the 
contrary if you can.

[deletia]

PN
>>is merely due to an intellectual failure. Your nonsense seems to be
>>caused by ants in your pants.

DQ
> I disagree with what you assert here, but rather than engage in a
> "do so, do not" argument, can we agree to just drop this?

Please note that I say 'seems'. It describes my impression
of your postings. On what grounds can you disagree with it?

[deletia]

PN
>>Please abstain from groundless allegations, or you will prove that
>>Kathleen O'Toole is correct in denying your ability to think
>>rationally.

DQ
> Kathleen implied nothing of the kind, but I am willing to refrain
> from invective as much as possible if you are willing to do so as
> well.

I know she probably didn't *imply* it, but that hardly matters
much, because it *follows* from one of her propositions.
(See my response to her posting.)

[deletia]

DQ
>>> I think that they do to you.  I am quite sure that you admire them
>>> secretly in your own secretions in some dark closet or other.  I
>>> would bet money on it.

PN
>>I accept. I bet you $ 100. Now proceed to prove that you are right,
>>or let me know that you give up, and I'll let you know where you can
>>send the dough.

DQ
> Let's make it a quarter, and I will give up.

Keep it.

[deletia]

DQ
>>> I see.  Of course there is most likely not a single person here
>>> who
>>> believes this.  Still, you do not care what we believe.

PN
>>I care about some people's considered opinions. But ad hominem
>>allegations have no relevance to truth. If truth doesn't matter to
>>you, why are you wasting my time?

PN
> Do you really want to know?  Your very first interaction with me was
> an ad hominem assertion that I had plagiarized Joe Green.  This is
> despite the fact that your own discourse seems to be directly stolen
> from ideas that Joe prestented here, you sound like a direct copy of
> Joe, except that he seemed a little more talented at the style of
> discourse you are engaging in.  Now I am willing to grant that you
> are an independent thinker and have developed this style on your own
> or through honest thought and interaction.  The fact that you happen
> to use a nearly identical style to accomplish a similar purpose is
> not plagiarism as far as I am concerned.  It angers me that you are
> unwilling to grant the same respect to me.

For all I know, the several styles that I employ have not changed
considerably over the last few years. If you absolutely insist, 
I could supply some evidence too. And I'll grant you that I have
no original ideas, in the most strict sense of these words; nor
do I know that Joe Green has any. I find that our styles are hardly
similar only marginally, if at all; but feel free to prove that
I am wrong. Let me point out to you, however, that you appear to
be a muddled thinker in failing to distinguish between plagiarism
and imitation. If what you hypothesise about me here were true, one
could at best accuse me of imitation. You can't plagiarise a style,
nor can you plagiarise an idea, but only a sequence of ideas, a piece
of reasoning (which has to be at least mildly original in the 
first place). I have a good deal of respect for Joe, but haven't
read a whole lot of his stuff (and more on rec.arts.books than here);
I certainly don't feel to be heavily indebted to him in any way.
Plagiarism, Doug, is always specific; and it only makes sense to
speak of plagiarisms from sources that are not self-evident.
If I seriously wrote something like -- 'The kind of season
you may in me observe When yellow leaves upon the boughs are scarce'--
that would be quite stupid of me, but hardly plagiarism. Now, I accused 
you, as you remember, of stealing a public gesture. What disgusted me 
about it was the affected generosity and affected irony which you put 
into the act. I had liked Joe's original gesture, though, because 
it involved real generosity and even more real irony. He simply 
said: 'Take any of my poems, if you wish, and use them as your own.' 
Do you see my point, Doug?

PN
> I am wasting your time, because I think you are guilty of what you
> accuse me of, an ad hominem attack with no relevance to truth.
> Given that I know you do not feel this way, I certainly don't expect
> you to address it at all.  I only point it out so that you know.

I have already got used to the fact that you see no logic behind
my statements unless it is spelled out to you. Nevertheless, please
observe the difference between a groundless allegation (or what appears
to you as such) and an _ad hominem_ declaration. Unlike you, I haven't
appealed a single time to the mythical readership of this group,
or to any general public whatsoever.

[deletia]

>>PN
>>>> Your say-so on this score is hardly good enough; I am not,
>>>> however, interested in discussing this matter with you.

>>DQ
>>> I am not, however, interested in discussing this matter with you.
>>> I love that phrase.  Do it again.  It sounds so pompous, but I
>>> like
>>> it.

PN
>>At least I'm glad you tacitly admit you say-so isn't worth much.

> I do not see how I admitted that.  I do grant that assertions are
> not proofs, but I never admitted that in the statement above.  Can
> we merely set this aside as well in the interest of more useful
> discussion?

Before we set this aside, I would encourage you to learn to
read carefully. Until this happens, I don't think any more useful
discussion is possible. I said that you *tacitly* admitted your
say-so wasn't good enough. That means, you admitted it by failing
to come up with a counter-objection.

PN
>>>> Let me just tell you that all I seek here is to contribute to the
>>>> good life.

DQ 
> Learn to do it well then.

PN
>>Probably not from you, Doug.

DQ
> Probably not, but were you willing to listen, I would certainly have
> some questions for you about whether you are guilty of evil in your
> effort to oppose evil.  However, I will admit that you are unlikely
> to get anything at all from me unless you are open to the
> possibility.  I myself think that you probably have new ideas for
> me.  I may not agree with them, but I am interested.

What makes you think I haven't been open all along? I simply haven't
seen anything of interest as yet, and I have my doubts that anything
of interest might come along. Regarding your question about evil, I would 
point out to you once again that everything needs to be demonstrated.

[deletia]

PN
>>My purpose is much humbler than greatness. It is known as full
>>humanity. Consider that, Doug.

DQ
> I have.  Since your last post, I have given it more thought since I
> detected a willingness on your part to move away from invective.  I
> think that I understand a bit of your purpose.
> I must admit, however that the term 'full humanity' confuses me a
> bit in the context of your discourse.  Full humanity would seem to
> me to embrace frail people who write badly to make themselves feel
> better.  Do you disagree with me on that?  I assume you do.

I simply said that it is my purpose to achieve full humanity.
It is of a personal nature, and I don't know whom else it 'embraces'.
I am aware that poetry-writing is a private thing. But 'frail
people who write badly' and publish their stuff 'to make themselves
feel better' are a different matter altogether. Analogously, consider
the difference between masturbation and indecent exposure.

[deletia]

>>DQ
>>> I even knew this.  And as I said, there are plenty of people here
>>> who write bad poetry.  SO WHAT?

PN
>>It is the moral duty of any rational reader of this group who cares
>>enough about poetry, to chastise this thriving graphomaniacal
>>subculture, and thereby contribute to the good life. (Should you be
>>tempted rashly to reduce this proposition _ad absurdum_, try to
>>figure out the difference between perfect and imperfect duties
>>before you do so.)

DQ
> I am not going to reduce it to _ad absurdum_, because I have found
> the idea interesting since it was first presented by Joe.  Your
> discourse has revealed a subtlety to me that had not occurred to me
> before.  So I wish to consider it more.  If you are able to present
> your arguments (for the purpose of proof) that pure art can
> contribute to the good life.

On the contrary, if you wish to object to this notion, the burden
of proof rests entirely with you. You will need to show that the
true, the good and the beautiful are separate from each other,
rather than aspects of the same ideal. If Joe Green stated ideas
similar to mine, I presume he derived them from premises other than
mine, because I have not been influenced by deconstructionism
in equal measure.

DQ
> By "good life", I can only assume that you are referring to some
> sort of utopian existence, but I grant that perhaps your goal is not
> that unrealistic.  I would welcome some illumination on this.

The concept of the good life is discussed in great detail
by Aristotle in _Ethica Nicomachea_. For simplicity's sake,
we can call it 'virtuous life'.

DQ
> I must say that the historical evidence that literature can
> effectively contribute to a "better" existence is somewhat lacking.
> Would you suggest that this is due to the adulteration of literature
> by "graphomaniacal subcultures?"

Please explain what you mean by 'better existence', and what sorts
of evidence you have considered.

[deletia]

PN
>>I am less concerned with greatness than with the distinction between
>>good and bad poetry.

DQ
> Very well.  Are you able to define good poetry versus bad poetry?  I
> am not challenging you to do so, I am merely interested in whether
> you have done this or not.

I am able to distinguish between good and bad poetry more or less
to the same extent that I can tell good from evil.

[deletia]

PN
>>Where have I said anything contrary to this? But the fact that you
>>have a right to 'strive to be something' does not make you immune to
>>the criticisms of those who find your existential heroism to be
>>misapplied.

DQ
> I understand what you are suggesting.  You suggest that the efforts
> of poets who do not attempt to combat evil with their poetry are
> misapplied.  Am I wrong?

More accurately, I suggest that the efforts of writers who
perpetuate evil are misapplied.

DQ
> I would suggest, on the other hand, that combatting evil as an end
> that requires the means of crushing vulnerable human spirits seems
> rather dubious to me.  Joe did convince me that perhaps it is a
> responsibility of writers to fight evil, but I never quite managed
> to understand why this requires the sacrifices that he and you seem
> to think it does.  I would be interested in more discussion of this.

You may begin that discussion by trying to show that
vulnerability is a valid excuse for perpetrating evil.

[deletia]

PN
> Yes, if you are in an environment with warriors and predators, you
> do need to have survival instincts.  Do you understand me when I
> tell you that if you continue with this in this group you will have
> people attacking you FAR more harshly than I, all the while
> believing that THEY are combatting evil.  How is it that people are
> not to conclude that you are evil.  This is an honest question
> Philip.  I ask it rhetorically to give you a chance to answer it.
> I, myself, think that I can formulate an answer for this myself, but
> I would be interested in hearing yours.

If they conclude that I am evil on some rational basis, I'll
be prepared to hear their objections. But, as I have said before,
explosions of irrationality are of no concern to me.

[deletia]

> Well, Philip, I think that you have never attempted to understand
> what I was suggsting.  I think that you have somewhat deliberately
> reduced and misrepresented arguments I have made.  I am willing to
> accept that this was my fault, and I have tried to adress you in the
> way that you will allow me to address you so that perhaps I may be
> able to understand you a little better.  Also, it allows you to
> present your case to RAP in a way that more people may be able to
> understand should you choose to do so.
> If you choose to ignore me, so be it.

I'll explain the difference between the irrationality I have accused
you of, and what you perceive as my irrationality. Consider the
following example:

DQ
>>> I just wish I had something with which to wipe my hands.  Perhaps
>>> you could lend me one of your gerbils.

PN
>>You are the victim of the imitative nature of your meagre
>>imagination.

DQ
> If you say so, but my imagination is larger than you think it is,
> and I do not tend to think of myself as a victim.
> Are YOU willing to give up ad hominem and present your case?

There is nothing _ad hominem_ (see above) about what I said.
Examine the following logical sequence:

	"Doug's gerbil" ++++> "Philip's gerbil" => imitation => meagre
	imagination => ridiculous => victim.

I didn't insist anywhere that you thought of yourself as a victim,
for the obvious reason that I only express my own judgements.

> doug

Philip Nikolayev
nikolay@husc.harvard.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.poems