[lit-ideas] Re: that and this
- From: Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2015 14:07:13 +0100
I am thinking that Taoism would be the right religion for Mike and me -
there is a couple of texts to read which aren't too long and you have done
with your catechism. Also, there isn't really much in the way of prayer, as
far as I am informed.
O.K.
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 5:44 AM, John McCreery <john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> Bravo! Bravissimo! We have a sage among us.
>
> John
>
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 1:11 PM, Mike Geary <jejunejesuit.geary2@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
>> Lawrence writes: "I suspect Mike Geary has read more of Emerson than I
>> have – my loss."
>>
>> I doubt it. I tend not to read much literary criticism and commentary
>> since they often contradict my prejudices and I have neither the interest
>> nor the energy to go read the actual works -- for what? just to mount a
>> defense of my prejudices? They don't need any defense, they're prejudices
>> for Christsake. Philosophy's not so too awfully different. Except for
>> logic, philosophy seems to be the perfect field of study for me. Since the
>> beginning of time and creativity, no one has ever put forward a
>> philosophy that was falsifiable (as they love to say in the sciences). In
>> short, whatever I assert is undeniably assertable, and if assertable then,
>> real in the assertion. Just as one of Saul Bellows' characters said (in
>> Gravity's Rainbow ?) when challenged to give a rhyme for "month" responded
>> with: "Onth. Onth rhymes with month." There's no such word, they said.
>> "Ah, but you're wrong," Bellows' man bellowed. "In the assertion: onth
>> rhymes with "month", onth is the subject of the sentence, and as we all
>> know, the subject of a sentence is a noun and all nouns are words, ergo,
>> "onth" is a word and it rhymes with month. Now that's my kind of
>> philosophy. But that's Literature, not Philosophy you object. Alas,
>> you're so literal. Philosophy is just plotless literature. Both are about
>> ignorance and wonder, the only difference between Literature and Philosophy
>> is that Literature has a lot more wiggle room. Both are trying to find out
>> what the hell's going on with us. Now it's been my experience that you can
>> usually avoid being nailed down a lot easier when arguing Lit Crit than
>> arguing philosophy because some philosophers seem to actually be trying to
>> make sense of what they're saying. There are no such straight- jackets in
>> literature. An example from philosophy: pick out the most cogent of the
>> following: (1) I think ...in a manner of speaking. (2) I think I am
>> therefore I think . (3) I think I think I am. (4) I think I am,
>> therefore I think I am. (5) I think I am not therefore I am. (6) I am
>> therefore I think I am. (7) I think not, therefore... (8) I am I
>> before I am knowing I think. (9) I am thinking that I am thinking that I
>> think. Etc., etc., etc.
>>
>> I've always like Literature and Philosophy because both have always
>> seemed so wondrously frivolous and unfalsifiable and yet so urgently near
>> to my own existence. Although ideas are often argued with passion, none of
>> it matters --- except in the challenge to one's own little cosmos.
>> Existence doesn't seem to give a shit what we think. Often I wish I were
>> far, far more read into philosophy, but I know I'll never be .
>> Occasionally I'll stick my toes into some inviting waters and thrill to the
>> confusion and challenge of it. To me it's fun, even when most of the
>> arguments leave me out in left field. Life is fun. I would never have
>> believed that being 71 can be so damn much fun. Let me be hopelessly,
>> totally, completely wrong, I don't care. I'm jubilant in my error. All I
>> want is to get as many Existence kisses as I can before I go where no
>> thinking goes...therefore ...
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> John McCreery
> The Word Works, Ltd., Yokohama, JAPAN
> Tel. +81-45-314-9324
> jlm@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.wordworks.jp/
>
Other related posts:
