In a message dated 7/2/09 4:51:20 PM, [email protected] writes: > > I can see that my contributions here are wasted. > I for one don't feel that at all, William. I've enjoyed and learned from much of what you've said on the forum.
I welcome your witty and thoughtful chit-chat. And from time to time I've seen you effectively challenge wrong-headed "positions" taken by other listers. I thought you were right to do so, because, for me, that's been part of the reward of our forum: being introduced to new ideas, trying out new ideas -- and having those new ideas bettered by their exposure to thoughtful criticism by others. You say I have serious doubts about artists who act beyond the studio. Hell, I have serious doubts about professional philosophers expounding from the dead-center of their "studio". I want to find myself reacting to the argument and not to the "authority". In fact, a while back on the forum I gave a little speech in appreciation of the remarks of smart artist-listers, not just because they know things I don't, but because when the smartest of them do enter the philosopher's studio, their remarks are unencumbered by philosophical cant. You too have taken "positions", William, and I've believe they deserved the same serious consideration and devil's advocacy as anyone else's -- though, ideally, with less ad hominem edginess than you at your most impatient have brought to bear. I confess I passed quickly over Miller's remarks about "virginity" and "analysis" as being mere "squabble-talk" that is better ignored. As for my insistence on pursuing descriptions of key terms in "positions", I hope I'll always do that -- as I'd hope you would too if you saw an argument was going nowhere because evryone was talking past one another. ************** It's raining cats and dogs -- Come to PawNation, a place where pets rule! (http://www.pawnation.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000008)
