[Clive Watkins]

Dear Nils

Your reply is itself pretty obscure in my view!

The adjective in your phrase “true research” rather begs the whole question, I think.

But enough!

Clive Watkins

[Nils Monad]

Simply, a sort of modernized definition of "pharisee":
One who is at the gate or inside (whether they know it or not). One who feels a moral obligation or compulsion to keep the society (which they are in or seek to gain further access to, or both) select, which is done, most obviously by excluding, in both public and private fashion, those who won't "play by the rules." One who has a vested interest in being considered (by the teaming masses) learned in matters more or less "spiritual" (that is, of the higher order) and is learned to a degree and knows the rules about being learned (how it [this learnedness] is accumulated and expressed) and what exactly that process is (culturally -- speaking in terms of the Hegelian Spirit) to be comprised of, thus allowing them to quickly spin rules and laws -- laws easily memorized for one of a certain intelligence level and devotion to the system -- in order to allow their (burgeoning) authority to protect the gates of the spiritual, which is theirs. If they meet an opponent who challenges the pharisiacal system who cannot be dismissed offhandedly (with a simple show of disdain) and by the normal methods of exclusion, then they resort to more drastic measures, which particularly involve relying upon society's (even a society whihc mistrusts them - which is almost always the case) respect for their devotion to the higher matters (a dicey game, which [if resorted to, makes the pharisee extremely nervous, even if the outcome is not in doubt], which allows them to whip up the society into the frenzy of emergent necessity for its very order and wellbeing.

Nils

[Clive Watkins]

Dear Nils

What are the referents, what is the hermeneutic scope, intended for your last set of remarks, which seem oddly disassociated and for that reason almost impossible to respond to?

But - as I said - "Enough"!

Regards

Clive Watkins

[edeverett]

Nils- Chill out!

Your prose is good. Your poetry is interesting. You type very, very well. You have to give that time here and meantime respect others and the rules. The rules of this site say that only one post of new work (not crits or opinions) is allowed per member per week. You've certainly broken that. If you just respond to people's points and don't demand of them 360 degree knowledge of your case in the first instance, then I'm sure you'll have some interesting discussions and time here. Your writing is interesting, but it'll take a little while to warm people up, assuming you want to, which I think, notwithstanding your desire not to pander to any old mobocracy, you will do on these Fora.
Thanks,
Ed

ps- I barely understand your initial question. We are not all academics here, and we don't always talk in high fallutin terms. Nor do you.

[Nils Monad]

Ed, to all concerned,

Ok. I'm not going to say anything more for a few days, and mull it over, but I did not intend to offend anyone. I do like the dialogue, and feel very passionate about it, and I didn't think I broke the rules with this string, which the moderator suggested be moved here. Thank you all for your opinions and do not be stifled, please.

In regrets and further temporary silence,
Nils

[Tim Love]

Clive Watkins - I am not clear what the source of your citation I was the source.

Nils Monad - and I didn't think I broke the rules with this string, which the moderator suggested be moved here

Yes, but I did suggest that one topic at a time be dealt with. At the moment the discussion could hardly be called a string.

I didn't mean to suggest (and I don't think I did) that the writer should always give the readers what they want. But if you want to catch a fish (change their wor[l]dview) it helps if you know what to dangle initially in order to get them hooked.

On obscurity: well here's what the "Poetry CreatOR 2" program produced when given "petals" and "faces" to think about. It could probably churn out reams of this

Never forgot about, never more has been yiped
Stalking nothing like it was beat--Just like a watch band
A shot beats . A giraffe progresses.
Piercing sounds, wails, crys: 'Shut up, you profane faces!'
A chain talks noisily, but no one ever listens ...
Like Brett, the petals flopped in violent circles--his anguish exposed
Hope for you is not a morning dove, rather a mourning ham hock
Why ask why ? One envisions this always.
O melancholy world, you have punched me again.

[Chris Childers]

Tim,

That's great. Where did you get that program, and what is it doing, stringing together quotes of little-known texts?

What's difficult, by the way, is to be lucid and obscure at the same time.

Chris

[Michael Cantor]

I believe CreatOR 2 is the villain in Terminator IV - The Deconstructionist Menace, in which society is threatened by machines capable of typing lengthy and impressive lists of intellectuals at blinding speed.

[Chris Childers]

Some of those lines are great, though:

"Hope for you is not a morning dove, rather a mourning ham-hock...
O melancholy world, you have punched me again."

I think those in particular are brilliant. If 'this is the way the world ends,' bring on the machines, I say.

[Tim Love]

Chris Childers - "Where did you get that program, and what is it doing, stringing together quotes of little-known texts?" There are loads of poetry-creating programs around (haiku-creators are especially popular), some more serious than others. http://www-cs-students.stanford.edu/...y/jpoetry.html is the one I've recently read about.