Newsgroups: bit.listserv.words-l
Date:         Tue, 21 Jul 1992 18:17:09 CDT
From:         Tushar Samant <tushar@ZAPHOD.UCHICAGO.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Five Reasons (was tushar, boy..)
Comments: To: words-l@uga.cc.uga.edu

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.

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 ______________________________________________
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU