[lit-ideas] Re: The Monster is dead

  • From: JimKandJulieB@xxxxxxx
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 19:29:04 EST

Who's going to teach it if all there are are monsters and people who are  
convinced they know how to do it?  Re. Camus -- you have painted yourself  into 
such a black corner that if what you most ardently say to be true were to  be 
true, the human race would still be doomed to unending hopelessness and  agony. 
 You don't "sound" as if you want peace, joy, growth, but as if you  relish 
the black with a certain clutching because at least it is  predictable.  All 
the while talking of what things could be like if only  everyone understood 
what 
you do about how to do it.
 
Pollyanna

========Original  Message========     Subj: [lit-ideas] Re: The Monster is 
dead  Date: 12/31/2006 6:01:34 P.M. Central Standard Time  From: 
_aamago@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (mailto:aamago@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)   To: 
_lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
(mailto:lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)   Sent on:    
It's not possible unless it's taught, and nobody wants to learn it.   
Everybody is convinced they know how to do it, and here we are.  I'm all  for 
it, you 
all are against it, and you call me pessimistic.  What are the  pieces that 
aren't fitting together here?
 
If I say that things are learned and therefore they can be done better  
because they can be learned better, where do you see the hopelessness in  that? 
 
Where does Camus fit in here? 
 




-----Original  Message----- 
From: JimKandJulieB@xxxxxxx 
Sent: Dec 31, 2006 6:30 PM  
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: The Monster is  dead 

I must be writing obliquely, at best.  The problem I find with  your position 
is that if monsters create monsters create monsters there is a  world of 
monsters without a way to step outside of that "place".  After  all, a monster 
isn't going to do good parenting.  But more than that, it  seems that you want 
very much to paint people into black &  white corners.  You are starting to 
remind me of Camus.   There really is no good in your world, it seems.  No 
wonder 
I am  "Pollyanna" to you.  You state wonderful ideals -- parents guiding  
children w/out spanking them, people treating one another as real  human beings 
-- 
and yet in the same breath you assert that such a thing  is not possible on 
this planet in this species.  Cynicism is the flip  side of idealism, I 
realize.  But to assert that Joy is possible and  simultaneously that it is not 
....  
I'm thinking a few swims with  schools of dolphins would cheer you.  
 
Julie Krueger
========Original  Message========
Subj: [lit-ideas] Re: The Monster is dead  Date: 12/31/2006 5:07:20 P.M. 
Central Standard Time  From: _aamago@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
(mailto:aamago@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)  
 To: _lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (mailto:lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)   Sent on:    
 
If there is no cause and effect, what is there?  Maybe theologically  
something came of nothing, but on planet Earth, by definition effects have  
causes.  
I also said over and over that victims create victims.   Saddam was created, 
along with all the other monsters.  I hear you  saying there is no cause, no 
effect, things just happen, let's just sweep it  all under the rug, perhaps 
rejoice that a monster [read: a once terrorized  child] is now dead.  I don't 
understand that at all.
 



-----Original  Message----- 
From: JimKandJulieB@xxxxxxx 
Sent: Dec 31, 2006 3:48 PM  
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: The Monster is  dead 

Thank you.  I needed a laugh today.  You wouldn't believe the  reaction I 
would get from people who know me if I told them I'd been  referred to as 
Pollyanna.  If you read my post a little more clearly, I  wasn't saying there 
aren't 
monsters out there.  I have grieved more  than I care to share with the 
cyberspace world over so many monsters  -- distant, long or soon gone, and 
personal. 
 And I did not  intend to imply that everything is cool.  I merely was 
attempting to  address the cause & effect basis of your theory, wondering about 
 the 
logic of it.  Where monster's come from is a logically fallacious  reaction 
to my post.  One does not easily counter a flaw in their  logic by suggesting 
that a better explanation be put forth.  I doubt  the list is interested in a 
theological or philosophical dialogue on where  monsters come from.  Again, 
that would not solve the problem of the  chicken and the egg notion you seem to 
clutch so strongly.  The more I  consider it, your position is pretty much a 
blame-game.  Another hand  I've played strongly over the years.  But it rarely, 
if ever, is  successful or useful.
 
For whatever my two cents aren't worth,
 
Julie Krueger
 
 

------------------------------------------------------------------  To change 
your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest  on/off), 
visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html 
------------------------------------------------------------------  To change 
your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest  on/off), 
visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html 

Other related posts: