From: marek@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Marek Lugowski)
Subject: self-defense with appeal to irony and a poem ...
Keywords: pontificating
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 21:43:37 GMT

In article <4803@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us>
jjwebb@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us continues to make uncharitable
interpretations of my modest observations, necessitating a gentle rebuke:
>
>
>
>A few quibbles about Marek's response to my comment on his comments.
>He continues (look out I'm gonna say it again marek) pontificating:

I gently disagree.  more below.

>> [JJ] misuses the word "pontificates" and commits other misdemeanors:
>
>So you won't admit to even a smidgen of pompousity in your reply to
>keymaster and your evaluation of the poem? How interesting ...

I won't admit.  But like Jesus, I will invite you to cast your first-born
pomposity at my dearly accused (re-mareks).  (Mixed metaphor kicks butt.)

>BTW, if I've 'misused' pontificating then you've misused 'misdemeanors' 
>and we can quibble over license and shading til the resurrection of Poe ...

I never cared for Poe.  If you could make it Anne Sexton, I might
consent to some consentual albeit safe quibbling here and there.

Incidentally, you are guilty of misdemeanors, as opposed to felonies,
a notable one being humorless fault-finding with my most amusing and
gentle remareks.

>> I certainly did not imply that my contributions to rap are artless 
>> in comparison to "Ode". Thanks for allowing me to make this explicit. :)
>
>You're welcome ... I find it a bit disingenuous though, that you'd 
>only cite YOUR work as the artfull 'love' contributions to compare 
>to "Ode .." on RAP. It lacks generosity and borders on self inflation. 
>Ah, what a wonderful thing, the ego ... 

Two points.  1) A healthy ego is a prerequisite for true humility.  By
falling into the trap of finding fault with big, healthy egos you miss the
point of finding fault with small, unhealthy egos, those shriveled,
insecure egos that give rise to accusations of "condescending",
"patronizing", and, sometimes "self inflation".  Please keep my ego out of
this conversation -- it is safely parked in the lot and is doing no one
harm.  2) I am not obligated to affect modesty, or, which would be
unacceptable, false modesty, nor am I obligated by savoire faire or manners
by any name to make laudatory statements of others' love poems when
remareking on my poems vs. the "Ode".  You choose to see my remarek as
bordering on self-inflation, and I choose to see it as very dry irony,
Polish style.  I realize that you do not see my face or hear my voice, but
you have been around rap for many a moon and thus you have no excuse for
misreading at your current level.

>> Do you alledge that [2live Crew] are undercover fund-raisers for NOW or
>> something?
>
>I allege that they are propagandists ... only slightly entertaining 
>(and only to a mob desensitized to misery) and completely devoid of 
>art. Blunt ... does not equal honest ...

I choose not to pass judgement on 2liveCrew.  The mere attendance of their
congregation convinces me that they deliver some genuine article of some
value to some people.  Furthermore, they pose no threat to me.  You might
as well bash the well-dressed Methodist congregations spilling out of
wealthy North Shore (Chicago suburbs) churches.  Choose your propaganda.
Propaganda and honesty are kind of hard to segregate.

>> One of these days I will produce a list on rap that starts with -8 and see
>> if anyone complains.
>
>I wasn't complaining ... just asking if you were being subtle ...

Why are you chaining my "if anyone complains", which is said in light jest
and not directed at you to a pout: "I wasn't complaining"?  I am drawing
your attention to this because such sticky points are marring this exchange
-- I feel that you are nitpicking at my comments and the nits are just not
there... :)

>> Why is the poem not honest?
>
>It lacks honesty in that it pretends to, but so obviously does not, care ...
>Now maybe the lack of humanity in the main character (I) is what is most 
>important to the author. If so, I've missed the boat again .. a 
>common occurrence .. but then the question becomes "should the 
>audience care for a work with no redeeming features or characters?"
>(this is much of my complaint with Bukowski (2live Crew as well))

No redeeming features?  But I found redeeming features in it.  So speak for
yourself.  So did other people who talked to me.  Why are you overdriving
this harsh point?  Why not just say that *you* don't care for it.

Same with Bukowski -- I will bother after xmass to type in some of his
stuff to show these redeeming features, for all to see.  I don't think we
will all agree on any one author, but we should all agree that some of us
find diverse authors exciting.  Given enough of us, that might cover all
authors. :) Arguments from "no redeeming features" come close to censorship.
This is to be contrasted with arguments form "I don't like this text
for this and that reason, here and here, and here".

>> There is no accounting for tastes.  Vivid to me.

> >point noted ... individualism is important ...

> >> It's a lovely statement.  Think of it as the sacrament thingee in a
> >>mass. 

> >No! YOU think of it that way ... I'll think of it as a superfluous
>statement when viewed in this context.

Another disagreement.  I am perfectly contented to identify it as such and
disagree. :)

>> You wouldn't want to go around editing liturgy, would you?  I'd hate to
>> see what you would do with Sunday service...
>
>This debating tactic is unbecoming ... you can do better ... 

It's called theatre of absurd.  I like it myself.  I think it makes a good
point, econonmically.

>> I am growing in my conviction (sort of like in facial hair) that you guys
>> out there JUST DON'T GET IT.  
>
>I'll make a deal with you ... you protect my individualism and I'll 
>do the same for you ... "YOU GUYS" is a foul seasoning that I had given you
>credit, in the past, for being intelligent enough not to salt your 
>offerings with ... pray let's not start now.

Sorry to trample on your individualism, but there arose a need to include
it in a collective bargain.  Hope you will forgive me if I say that your
attitudes towards tenderness are hardly original and unique.  I am trying
to do justice to the other practitioners and proponents here -- just being
fair to everyone. :)

>> Tenderness is a matter of mystery achievement.
>
>This, in my estimation, is an example of pontificating ...

Your statement is a misperception.  My statement is an example of smiling at
sentence level.  It's something that I like to do.  It pleases people who
like to read my remareks and annoys those who do not.  I wish they all
could be California girls. :)

>> You need to work very hard, say your mantras, and see more and more in the
>> world around you, with a quickening eye, to see more and more tenderness.
>
>And this as well ... got your certificate of tenderness from 
>Tassajaran Monks did you? Monastic life and computer science, now 
>there's a combo that's going to produce tender mercies for you.

You forget green tea.  Now that Twinings has pulled out of green tea,
abandoning me with my highest regard for Gunpowder Green that may not be
quenched anymore, my life has taken a downward turn. :(  However, my
certificate in irony and my honorary womanhood keep me toasty.  Not to
mention all the controversies I get into.  And I even got a bunch of rap xmass
cards (real Snail Mail!!!!).

>> This poem is tender.  But I can't make you see it.  
>
>And you can't explain it to me either, except with mantras and
>mysticism ... which makes the statement suspect ... in the extreme.
>   "Have faith chillens, I have TALKED to god!"
>     "Yeah, right, whatever you say preacher ... now, how much is 
>      this 'Virgin Mary' Hoola Hoop?"

Let me say it simply:  I cannot make you see the poem as tender because to
do so takes a way of seeing that you apparently don't have or claim not
to have in this instant.  Why is the poem tender to me?  It sets up 
an emotional context in me that resonates with the narrator, with the
skanky ho, and with the situation, abstracted.

>> Your putdown of Bukowski is yours to exercise, nonetheless it throws me for
>> a loop, because I thought we agreed on important things. :)  That's ok,
>> I'll live.
>
>So Bukowski's important to you? Why? Rather, what is it about his work 
>that would make you recommend him? Or make you think that my 
>disliking him was a disagreement with you on 'important things'?

Bukowski uses language sparringly and with great control.  His descriptions
of situations, interiors, actions are often done thorugh sketches anchored
on dialogue.  I do not get tired of reading Bukowski.  If Louise Erdrich
is a Janacek symphony of metaphor and virtuoso langauge, Bukowski is a 
Cronos Quartet stark rendition on Jimmy Hendrix.

				-- Marek


                happy birthday one july girls
                -------------------------------------------------------

                happy birthday to you, michele...
                happy birthday to you, jennifer...
                happy birthday to all five point three
                times ten to nine
                by two
                by three sixty five point two
                of you...

                happy birthday...

                the happiest of birthdays.

                to you!

                                Marek Lugowski
                                1 July 1990
                                planet Earth