Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 21:51:14 -0500 (EST)
From: TMB <tblan-AT-telerama.lm.com>
Subject: Re: God help us, back to TMB


On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, Paul Bryant wrote:

> > 
> > This is downright funny. I think if you attended to what was being
> said,
> > you'd see that I am not being merely "freelly associative" at all, and
> > that further, much further, there can be little doubt, given the
> > unpopluarity of my stand, that not only do I take a stand, I do so
> > strongly, consistetely, with rigor and judiciousness, with a certain
> and
> > definite courage. Sorry to toot my own horn, but there's so much
> spit in
> > yours right now I have to.
> > 
> The sloppiness of spirit seers and channelers has never been that
> admirable, nor have they been, for that matter, very radical or
> courageous.  The spittle in my horn was you being blown out of it. 
> Wannabe Marxists and revolutionaries are a dime a dozen, but so many
> of them fall into a vain self-preening.  Where do you suppose you
> fall?  Oh wait, that's right, you can't see beyond the tip of your
> nose to the mirror that reflects it.
 
It is *hardly* vain self preening; you throw me into a reflection my
myself in the manner of your polemic, then look on at the phenomena you
produce. It's generally a very violent, if discursive, approach. You think
that's real great, and that's what you're gonna do and *nothing* is going
to stand in your way. Right on.


> 
> > > A banal self-rightousness indeed...  For it attempts
> > > to point at the universe and ultimately points at nothing.
> > 
> > Nope, what I'm doing is better than that. I know what you mean,
> though.
> > But I think you'd like simply to use sheer force to get me to agree.
> But
> > isn't that really the violence of philosphy? That it generally doesn't
> > cooperate with sheer force?
> 
> What does this have to do with anything?  And what precisely do you
> mean?  More channeling I see.
>

You're using sheer force. Sheer attack, totalizing and unsubstantial
charicature. Demonizing, wild mischaracterization, etc. Its a kind of
vitriolic approach, I guess. I think it's awful. Here, no evocation will
obtain, as you've seen to that already, in predeterming the whole range of
evocation and resonance. This is the arche of war, it's what you do,
apparently, and yo do it well. I don't have a clue for what you mean by
"channeling", btw.  

TMB