This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_00B0_01C10481.8EF815C0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear Patrick,
You are damn right I don't know much about Plato, I think I made that =
explicit in one of my previous posts.=20
>Your claim "to have known Plato the person" is laughable.=20
Oh Patrick, I believe my exact words were "I have some understanding of =
Plato-the-person..."=20
Some.=20
I don't know anything. At all. I only have some understanding of =
knowledge, at least that is how I understand it.=20
Plato-the-person is hyphenated because it is not the same as Plato the =
person. Plato-the-person is found in books, Plato the person is not. =
Maybe I should have pointed that out...
And maybe you didn't realise it, but I stopped talking about a =
theorist's sexuality. It was never merely about sexuality, or the way =
people shit, or fuck, or anything else involving abjectual exchanges =
and/or purges of bodily excretions. I don't care about how people play =
with their instruments (of reason, just as long as they reason =
critically).
The reason why I do this (and maybe 'others' as well, but I shouldn't =
speak for them as that would be obscenely arrogant, I detest arrogance, =
for it is nothing but the crudest form of assumption), is because of =
this "postmodern era." I see the general tendency towards nihilism being =
very bad. Nihilism is bad.=20
I am not arguing that we should discard current understandings of texts =
and what not, that would be mildly insane...
Are you trying hard not to understand what I am writing? That is what it =
seems to me.
Just to demonstrate what I am talking about with a perfect example....
You don't understand what I am talking about (or you seem not to), so =
you create a context (for me) that allows you to make some sense. You =
re-iterate me (or Glen-Fuller-posting-on-the-net) through some obtuse =
discourse of 'pseudo-intellectual morons'. Do you see now what I am =
saying? You automatically assume a speaking-position for me, based on =
what? Based of something 'obvious'... (i.e. the knowing Plato thing =
above).
Wow, you are the first person to call me a moron since I was in about =
grade 2, yeehar!
The question of context is to do with awareness. How aware are you of =
the assumptions you make every time you read a text?=20
What does everyone look for when reading a text? The inherent flaws and =
strengths, maybe?=20
But what about the act of reading itself?
Lets quickly assume we just absorb the knowledge into our minds, because =
then it makes discussion so much easier. Or rather than just absorbing, =
we interpret. Why? Because comparing interpretations of a text is not =
dissimilar to comparing the readers themselves. All readers are =
different (some are just more similar than others).=20
People will read your reply to my post to ascertain some understanding =
of who your are. Because they can compare interpretations...=20
Who is Ayn Rand?
Something which I don't understand, and maybe you can shed some light =
on, is this:
If what I am writing is such total bollocks (which it may be), then why =
not engage it, and prove to me (and I suppose anyone else, all the =
'others') that it is bollocks?
=20
Why are there 'others'? (And what do you mean by 'others'? Is that just =
'others' or Others?)=20
Increasing the number people holding a belief does not increase the =
validity of the belief (or does it?).=20
Thankfully, 'others' will be alright if people like you remain the =
gatekeepers of "intelligent comment". (I am assuming that is the =
implicit message of your post.)=20
It just isn't cricket, is it Patrick? How well do you read my (or =
anybody else's) posts?
But of course you have signed off from any argument... oh well. But =
don't do that, this is good fun, I am having fun, I was bored, now I am =
not... come on dude(s).=20
Yep,
Glen Fuller.
------=_NextPart_000_00B0_01C10481.8EF815C0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dwindows-1252" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.3019.2500" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#c0dcc0>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Dear Patric</FONT><FONT size=3D2>k,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>You are damn right I don't know much about Plato, I =
think I=20
made that explicit in one of my previous posts. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>>Your claim "to have known Plato the person" is =
laughable.=20
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Oh Patrick, I believe my exact words were "I have =
some=20
understanding of Plato-the-person..." </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2><STRONG>Some</STRONG>. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>I don't know anything. At all. I only have some =
understanding=20
of knowledge, at least that is how I understand it. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Plato-the-person is hyphenated because it is not the =
same as=20
Plato the person. Plato-the-person is found in books, Plato the person =
is not.=20
Maybe I should have pointed that out...</DIV><BR>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>And maybe you didn't realise it, but I stopped =
talking about a=20
theorist's sexuality. It was never merely about sexuality, or the way =
people=20
shit, or fuck, or anything else involving abjectual =
exchanges and/or purges=20
of bodily excretions. I don't care about how people play with their =
instruments (of reason, just as long as they reason =
critically).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV></FONT><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>The reason why I do this (and maybe 'others' as =
well, but=20
I shouldn't speak for them as that would be obscenely =
arrogant, I=20
detest arrogance, for it is nothing but the crudest form of assumption), =
is=20
because of this "postmodern era." I see the general tendency towards=20
nihilism being very bad. Nihilism is bad. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>I am not arguing that we should discard current =
understandings=20
of texts and what not, that would be mildly insane...</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Are you trying hard not to understand what I am =
writing? That=20
is what it seems to me.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Just to demonstrate what I am talking about with a =
perfect=20
example....</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>You don't understand what I am talking about (or you =
seem not=20
to), so you create a context (for me) that allows you to make some =
sense. You=20
re-iterate me (or Glen-Fuller-posting-on-the-net) through some obtuse =
discourse=20
of 'pseudo-intellectual morons'. Do you see now what I am saying? You=20
automatically assume a speaking-position for me, based on what? Based of =
something 'obvious'... (i.e. the knowing Plato thing =
above).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Wow, you are the first person to call me a moron =
since I was=20
in about grade 2, yeehar!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>The question of context is to do with =
awareness. How=20
aware are you of the assumptions you make every time you read a =
text?
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>What does everyone look for when reading a =
text? The inherent flaws and strengths, maybe? </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>But what about the act of reading =
itself?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Lets quickly assume we just absorb the knowledge into our minds, =
because=20
then it makes discussion so much easier. Or rather than just absorbing, =
we=20
interpret. Why? Because comparing interpretations of a text is not=20
dissimilar to comparing the readers themselves. All readers are =
different (some=20
are just more similar than others). </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>People will read your reply to my post to ascertain some =
understanding of=20
who your are. Because they can compare interpretations... </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV></FONT><FONT size=3D2>Who is Ayn Rand?</FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Something which I don't understand, and maybe you =
can shed=20
some light on, is this:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>If what I am writing is such total bollocks (which =
it may be),=20
then why not engage it, and prove to me (and I suppose anyone else, =
all the=20
'others') that it is bollocks?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Why are there 'others'? (And what do you mean by =
'others'? Is=20
that just 'others' or Others?) </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Increasing the number people holding a belief does =
not=20
increase the validity of the belief (or does it?). </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Thankfully, 'others' will be alright if people =
like you=20
remain the gatekeepers of "intelligent comment". (I am assuming that is =
the=20
implicit message of your post.) </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>It just isn't cricket, is it Patrick? How well do =
you read my=20
(or anybody else's) posts?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>But of course you have signed off from any =
argument... oh=20
well.</FONT> <FONT size=3D2> But don't do that, this is good fun, I =
am having=20
fun, I was bored, now I am not... come on dude(s). </FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Yep,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Glen Fuller.</FONT><BR></DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_00B0_01C10481.8EF815C0--
------=_NextPart_000_00B0_01C10481.8EF815C0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear Patrick,
You are damn right I don't know much about Plato, I think I made that =
explicit in one of my previous posts.=20
>Your claim "to have known Plato the person" is laughable.=20
Oh Patrick, I believe my exact words were "I have some understanding of =
Plato-the-person..."=20
Some.=20
I don't know anything. At all. I only have some understanding of =
knowledge, at least that is how I understand it.=20
Plato-the-person is hyphenated because it is not the same as Plato the =
person. Plato-the-person is found in books, Plato the person is not. =
Maybe I should have pointed that out...
And maybe you didn't realise it, but I stopped talking about a =
theorist's sexuality. It was never merely about sexuality, or the way =
people shit, or fuck, or anything else involving abjectual exchanges =
and/or purges of bodily excretions. I don't care about how people play =
with their instruments (of reason, just as long as they reason =
critically).
The reason why I do this (and maybe 'others' as well, but I shouldn't =
speak for them as that would be obscenely arrogant, I detest arrogance, =
for it is nothing but the crudest form of assumption), is because of =
this "postmodern era." I see the general tendency towards nihilism being =
very bad. Nihilism is bad.=20
I am not arguing that we should discard current understandings of texts =
and what not, that would be mildly insane...
Are you trying hard not to understand what I am writing? That is what it =
seems to me.
Just to demonstrate what I am talking about with a perfect example....
You don't understand what I am talking about (or you seem not to), so =
you create a context (for me) that allows you to make some sense. You =
re-iterate me (or Glen-Fuller-posting-on-the-net) through some obtuse =
discourse of 'pseudo-intellectual morons'. Do you see now what I am =
saying? You automatically assume a speaking-position for me, based on =
what? Based of something 'obvious'... (i.e. the knowing Plato thing =
above).
Wow, you are the first person to call me a moron since I was in about =
grade 2, yeehar!
The question of context is to do with awareness. How aware are you of =
the assumptions you make every time you read a text?=20
What does everyone look for when reading a text? The inherent flaws and =
strengths, maybe?=20
But what about the act of reading itself?
Lets quickly assume we just absorb the knowledge into our minds, because =
then it makes discussion so much easier. Or rather than just absorbing, =
we interpret. Why? Because comparing interpretations of a text is not =
dissimilar to comparing the readers themselves. All readers are =
different (some are just more similar than others).=20
People will read your reply to my post to ascertain some understanding =
of who your are. Because they can compare interpretations...=20
Who is Ayn Rand?
Something which I don't understand, and maybe you can shed some light =
on, is this:
If what I am writing is such total bollocks (which it may be), then why =
not engage it, and prove to me (and I suppose anyone else, all the =
'others') that it is bollocks?
=20
Why are there 'others'? (And what do you mean by 'others'? Is that just =
'others' or Others?)=20
Increasing the number people holding a belief does not increase the =
validity of the belief (or does it?).=20
Thankfully, 'others' will be alright if people like you remain the =
gatekeepers of "intelligent comment". (I am assuming that is the =
implicit message of your post.)=20
It just isn't cricket, is it Patrick? How well do you read my (or =
anybody else's) posts?
But of course you have signed off from any argument... oh well. But =
don't do that, this is good fun, I am having fun, I was bored, now I am =
not... come on dude(s).=20
Yep,
Glen Fuller.
------=_NextPart_000_00B0_01C10481.8EF815C0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dwindows-1252" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.3019.2500" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#c0dcc0>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Dear Patric</FONT><FONT size=3D2>k,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>You are damn right I don't know much about Plato, I =
think I=20
made that explicit in one of my previous posts. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>>Your claim "to have known Plato the person" is =
laughable.=20
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Oh Patrick, I believe my exact words were "I have =
some=20
understanding of Plato-the-person..." </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2><STRONG>Some</STRONG>. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>I don't know anything. At all. I only have some =
understanding=20
of knowledge, at least that is how I understand it. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Plato-the-person is hyphenated because it is not the =
same as=20
Plato the person. Plato-the-person is found in books, Plato the person =
is not.=20
Maybe I should have pointed that out...</DIV><BR>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>And maybe you didn't realise it, but I stopped =
talking about a=20
theorist's sexuality. It was never merely about sexuality, or the way =
people=20
shit, or fuck, or anything else involving abjectual =
exchanges and/or purges=20
of bodily excretions. I don't care about how people play with their =
instruments (of reason, just as long as they reason =
critically).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV></FONT><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>The reason why I do this (and maybe 'others' as =
well, but=20
I shouldn't speak for them as that would be obscenely =
arrogant, I=20
detest arrogance, for it is nothing but the crudest form of assumption), =
is=20
because of this "postmodern era." I see the general tendency towards=20
nihilism being very bad. Nihilism is bad. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>I am not arguing that we should discard current =
understandings=20
of texts and what not, that would be mildly insane...</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Are you trying hard not to understand what I am =
writing? That=20
is what it seems to me.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Just to demonstrate what I am talking about with a =
perfect=20
example....</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>You don't understand what I am talking about (or you =
seem not=20
to), so you create a context (for me) that allows you to make some =
sense. You=20
re-iterate me (or Glen-Fuller-posting-on-the-net) through some obtuse =
discourse=20
of 'pseudo-intellectual morons'. Do you see now what I am saying? You=20
automatically assume a speaking-position for me, based on what? Based of =
something 'obvious'... (i.e. the knowing Plato thing =
above).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Wow, you are the first person to call me a moron =
since I was=20
in about grade 2, yeehar!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>The question of context is to do with =
awareness. How=20
aware are you of the assumptions you make every time you read a =
text?
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>What does everyone look for when reading a =
text? The inherent flaws and strengths, maybe? </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>But what about the act of reading =
itself?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Lets quickly assume we just absorb the knowledge into our minds, =
because=20
then it makes discussion so much easier. Or rather than just absorbing, =
we=20
interpret. Why? Because comparing interpretations of a text is not=20
dissimilar to comparing the readers themselves. All readers are =
different (some=20
are just more similar than others). </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>People will read your reply to my post to ascertain some =
understanding of=20
who your are. Because they can compare interpretations... </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV></FONT><FONT size=3D2>Who is Ayn Rand?</FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Something which I don't understand, and maybe you =
can shed=20
some light on, is this:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>If what I am writing is such total bollocks (which =
it may be),=20
then why not engage it, and prove to me (and I suppose anyone else, =
all the=20
'others') that it is bollocks?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Why are there 'others'? (And what do you mean by =
'others'? Is=20
that just 'others' or Others?) </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Increasing the number people holding a belief does =
not=20
increase the validity of the belief (or does it?). </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Thankfully, 'others' will be alright if people =
like you=20
remain the gatekeepers of "intelligent comment". (I am assuming that is =
the=20
implicit message of your post.) </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>It just isn't cricket, is it Patrick? How well do =
you read my=20
(or anybody else's) posts?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>But of course you have signed off from any =
argument... oh=20
well.</FONT> <FONT size=3D2> But don't do that, this is good fun, I =
am having=20
fun, I was bored, now I am not... come on dude(s). </FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Yep,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Glen Fuller.</FONT><BR></DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_00B0_01C10481.8EF815C0--