rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (01/04/85)
> My man. It really is a shame that we cannot meet except on the net. I think > if we ever did we would both say in unison, "You're a flaming a**hole!" (only > I'd be right!) and then sit down for some interesting conversation. How would that happen? Would someone else be joining us? > I really don't know what to do about your request for me to remail my reply to > your posting of the "scholarly quote". ... that would be me quoting MYSELF! > Or are you trying to set me up? Actually I liked the article, except > that it was . . . a . . . little . . . hard . . . to . . . read. Nice try at a > quote though, keep reading and you'll get the hang of it. Of course only > Buffoons with nothng to say quote others, right? Right. > Why did you? Did someone > send it to you or did you really read something on your own? Or, with all the > dots, did you just make it up believing that somewhere someone must have said > something like that? How dare you doubt the authenticity and veracity of my sources! I mean, I quote the words of a learned scholar and you DARE not only to doubt what he has to say, but also to doubt whether or not he really said them! Why not call the Association of Registered Nurses, Doctors, and Technicians yourself and verify by getting the issue of their journal containing the article in question. After all, I quoted and credited proper learned sources, and you should know better than to dispute them rather than accepting them at face value. (I'm sure others out there can see through both the sarcasm and the acronym, and saw through them when the article first appeared. What about Ken?) > The truth is that I don't have on file an electric copy of my reply any more. > I know, think of the loss to history! Perhaps one of your fans could forward > it to you. Or one of mine (who keeps everything I post in the Arndt file for > future generations). Lucky for all of us, there's a file available on every UNIX system containing the archives of the most worthwhile of Ken's net contributions. I think we all know the name of that file. Arndt quotes again below: > "Perhaps we can put the question in this form: Is there an inevitable clash > between thinking and feeling? ... > Where there is a great variety of desires, interests, and propensities > a deliberate effort may be needed if these are to be in harmony instead of > conflict. ... > . . . we are highly unlikely to meet an absolutely equal development of logic > and analysis, on the one hand, and imagination and intuition, on the other, in > one mind and personality. Poof! Einstein, Hitchcock, and dozens of other great thinkers/artists vanish in a puff of logic. As usual, evidence contradicts what Arndt's friends have to say. > Moreover, if we look at what we know of the personal history of those who have > prefered to think in general and abstract terms we shall unquestionably find > ... the obsessional anxiety which we nowadays describe as neurotic. > Descartes, Kant, Niezsche and Schopenhauer, to mention only a few, would > certainly not have qualified as A1 at Freud's. Wittgenstein was severely > depressive, ... The analytical and generalizing intellect, particularly in > its mathematical and logical specialization, seems too narrow for a maturing > humanity, and I would even suggest that it may be allied with an actual > dislike of the concrete particulars of ordinary spontaneous living." As long as we're analyzing via long distance, I'd venture to say that this is an "A1" case of psychological projection. Perhaps we should ask the good Dr. Frisken? :-) > How about it Rich, do you dislike concrete? No, on the contrary. I can think of a number of uses for it right off the top of my head at this very minute. (What's your shoe size, Ken? :-) -- BRIAN: "No, you've got it all wrong! You don't have to follow me! You don't have to follow ANYONE! You've got to think for yourselves! You are all individuals!" CROWD: "YES, WE ARE ALL INDIVIDUALS!" Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
bbanerje@sjuvax.UUCP (B. Banerjee) (01/06/85)
Since this discussion (loosely) deals with quotation, I would like to point out an incomplete quotation on the part of Rich Rosen. >> BRIAN: "No, you've got it all wrong! You don't have to follow me! You don't >> have to follow ANYONE! You've got to think for yourselves! You are >> all individuals!" >> CROWD: "YES, WE ARE ALL INDIVIDUALS!" Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr Actually, there is another important part to this - (SMALL VOICE IN THE CROWD) : I'm not! Regards, -- Binayak Banerjee {allegra | astrovax | bpa | burdvax}!sjuvax!bbanerje P.S. Send Flames, I love mail.
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (01/08/85)
> Since this discussion (loosely) deals with quotation, I would like to > point out an incomplete quotation on the part of Rich Rosen. > >>BRIAN: "No, you've got it all wrong! You don't have to follow me! You don't >> have to follow ANYONE! You've got to think for yourselves! You are >> all individuals!" >>CROWD: "YES, WE ARE ALL INDIVIDUALS!" Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr > > Actually, there is another important part to this - > > (SMALL VOICE IN THE CROWD) : I'm not! > Binayak Banerjee > {allegra | astrovax | bpa | burdvax}!sjuvax!bbanerje Actually, the part after "YES, WE ARE ALL INDIVIDUALS!" goes like this: -- BRIAN: "You're all different!" CROWD: "YES, WE'RE ALL DIFFERENT!" Rich Rosen MAN: "I'm not ... " {ihnp4 | harpo}!pyuxd!rlr