Comment, pt. 1:Nice to hear an argument with some philosophical sophistication, which we got mainly in the first half. Carter was evidently unprepared for Jim's familiarity with theories of intelligent design and the contemporary debate surrounding evolution -- which should have been no surprise from the author of "Render Unto Darwin". Carter came off as a bit of a prig, overenunciating his words and reciting some of his arguments as if by rote. Still, in his defense, there is a certain sense in which the ontological has to bow to the epistemological, especially in the context of science. For example, in the act of describing a set of conditions and a certain causal interaction from which I might make a generalizable statement, i.e. "law", I am circumscribing an area inside Creation whose demarcation couldn't be said to be ontological: it's epistemological. Stephen Hawking mentions somewhere in "A Brief History of Time", for example, that for physicists to accurately model any phenomenon or event within the universe, you would need a computer the size of the universe. One assumes, therefore, for the purposes of scientific inquiry, that an event or a phenomenon and its immediate causal milieu are sufficiently isolated and isolatable that its scientific description will be worthwhile or meaningful. But one can't *demonstrate* that said event is isolated from all other causal factors, and indeed, it's likely that in a universe-as-closed-system, nothing would be. So the arbitrariness, relatively speaking, of scientific explanation falls on the side of the epistemological.It's also possible to have sympathy with Carter rejecting of the notion of scientific "laws" inasmuch as the term "law" itself carries with it a certain metaphysical baggage. Mathematical intuitionism, for example, holds that rather than describing a real object somewhere out there, a mathematical expression is a subjective assertion that may exist alongside other such assertions so long as they're true. The variety of possible "true" statements suggests that there is not one sole overriding expression governing a given relationship by force. In this sense, "model" might be a better term than "law" whereever "law" is used dogmatically or ascribed some independent reality outside phenomena. Of course, it's by no means clear that Jim uses the term dogmatically, so Carter might very well have been attacking a straw man.
Comment, pt. 2:That being said, Jim certainly had Carter when it came to his dualism. As Jim astutely noted, a broad materialism is certainly possible that, while it concedes the reality of phenomena which might not belong in our classic view of matter, still nonetheless must insist that such phenomena exist in some sort of causal relationship with material things. Or even allowing that they don't, they must still be describable in some sort of scientific way (e.g. "laws") in order for any discussion of them to be meaningful. But even with that wide latitude, Carter didn't quite get around to making his case.That's partly because of his falling back on dualism. Who in their right mind would advocate dualism today? Even given the question of emphasis above on the ontological vs. the epistemological, which might broadly be said to correspond to the difference between Anglo-American and Continental philosophy -- even in Continental philosophy with its subjectivist/epistemological emphasis, dualism has been discredited. And it's for the reason that Jim got to above: if you postulate a separate realm or order of things that supposedly influences the "material" realm, but you can't demonstrate any causal connection between the two, and you decry any such attempt as an attempt to foise material categories (e.g. causality) onto a non-material realm -- what possible good, or what possible utility can it have? It's a non-explanation explanation. Now if there is a whole other realm -- call it an energetic one -- that interacts with and influences the material realm, and meaningful things can be said about it, this would open up a whole new world of research. But it thankfully wouldn't mean the dead-end of philosophical dualism.Great job, Jim, and keep up the good work.
Clare Kuehn has asked me to post this on her behalf, given problems with her computer: Of course, the "other realm" is likely, as you suggest, John, to be "merely" the interactivity of things in this world (seen and unseen directly). In other words, the principles of relations and creation by change -- principles which are not a merely subjective thing nor a radically materialist thing. In other words, like the numeric (quantification) relations of things-qua-things, doubling and tripling, etc., the "other worldly principle" of "creation" in the material, may well be the energy of the total, in a finite but unboundedly prolific universe. Not a "God" as "outside the material stuff" but not a "God" which is the specific stuff-qua-stuff, either. Rather, it would be a geometer's "God": not pure deism (that the universe is God for us in a mere material sense -- of humans appreciating things), but rather to see the interactivity as a growth principle as abstractable in a quantifiable way in abstract geometry, which in turn is literally in physical objects in one way or another (e.g., crystals, or even life-force-transformed mineral compounds -- of which there are 2100 or so, etc). Clare
John, Nice commentary! Science is predicated upon the conjecture that the sample of the universe to which we have access is random in the sense that the same simple and causal laws that obtain in our vicinity obtain elsewhere in the universe, which is testable when we gain access to new "data domains" with the acquisition of new instruments, such as the microscope, the telescope, the electron microscope, and the radio telescope. We then confront the necessity to determine if our previously accepted hypotheses continue to receive support from the totality of our available evidence or require revision. Causal laws similarly depend upon the presumption that, at most, only a finite set of relevant conditions make a difference to the occurrence of specific outcomes as effects of those conditions, which is testable on the basis of the sequences of outcomes that occur when they are instantiated repetitiously. If those sets of conditions are complete, then those sequences should be stable (or relatively consistent across space/time). If they are not, then we need to look for additional relevant variables that affect outcomes of those kinds, where I am generalizing over deterministic and indeterministic cases. He faltered at the end by implying my conceptions of consciousness and of cognition were "behavioristic", when behaviorism was meant to remove mental states as causal factors affecting behavior. Mine are not behavioristic, since I advanced a theory of the mind based upon Charles S. Peirce's theory of signs, where minds are "semiotic" (or sign using) systems. It is part and parcel of my efforts to establish a causal account of the nature of thought and locate our species within the causal context of the world, as I have done especially in THE EVOLUTION OF INTELLIGENCE (2005). I do not believe he had encountered such a theory before and was therefore at a bit of a loss as to how to cope with it.
Joe Newbury said...Comment, pt. 2: " That being said, Jim certainly had Carter when it came to his dualism....."Surely you mean " That "having been said", Jim certainly had Carter when it came to his dualism..... " ??!!
@Sparkie:In the immortal words of Mark Twain: "Are you some new kind of idiot?""That being said" is an adverbial phrase that qualifies as a fixed expression. As a fixed expression, it is almost indistinguishable in meaning from "that having been said". Rather than being some kind of grammatical error, "that being said" contains a present continuous aspect in which the previous words are still being said inasmuch as they are still being absorbed and understood. After a long philosophical mouthful, using "having said that" would more likely lead to deictic confusion.If you're passionate about being a pedant, though, let me direct your attention to the typo in my comment where I typed "foise" instead of "foist".Jim/Clare -- My name is Joe, not "John". Jim, you interviewed me a couple months back.Cheers.
That being said, Jim certainly had Carter when it came to his dualism.Well, of course,one could have predicted your response. In the immortal words of Mark Twain who had the misfortune (while traveling to Europe by boat) to share the dining table with a rather tiresome gentleman who having asked Mr Twain to pass the sugar then proceeded to inform Mister Twain that "sugar" was the only English word where the initial "s" was pronounced as "sh". Mr Twain - passing the sugar,looked at the imbecile and asked of him pointedly: "Are you sure?"I might ask you the same question: "Are you sure?"."That being said" in the context you used it, is patently inaccurate and frankly nonsensical.As for its being a "fixed expression" (whatever that means),then all I can say is that "That being said" is a "fixed expression" which must be used properly and in context. The only possible and correct usage in the context is "That having been said"." "That being said" implies that the "that" is still being said when it is clear from the rest of your sentence that the 'that" in "That being said" is no longer being said and that you have moved on to evaluate Carter's reactions to what has been said and which is now not being said. When we study your sentence " That being said, Jim certainly had Carter when it came to his dualism.", we can see immediately that there is a conflict in the sequence of tenses.Whereas in the first part of your sentence you wrote: "That being said" in which, as you know, "being" is the present participle of the verb "to be" followed by the past participle of the verb "to say"(said) giving "being + said", in the second part of your sentence you wrote "Jim certainly had Carter when it came to his dualism." where "had" is the past tense of the verb "have" and "came" is the past tense of the verb "come". So your complete sentence "That being said, Jim certainly had Carter when it came to his dualism." is only three quarters or perhaps two thirds correct - depending on whether we count "being said" as one verbal unit or two. Deitic confusion is not the problem here. The problem here is sloppy and slipshod use of language. Language is the cement of ideas. Your "cement" is not quite of the correct consistency. As for your referring me to your typo of "foise" for "foist", all I can say is that I admire your honesty but can't say I approve of your literacy skills.Also I do agree with you that your comment was, indeed,"a long philosophical mouthful". A long philosophical mouthful of what - I am not sure.
Mom?Is that you?I haven't had this much fun since I got out of the asylum.Well, of course, one could have predicted your initial comment: a total deafness to intellectual content and a desire to go off on some nit-picking tangent is right in line with internet communication as it's currently practiced. I congratulate you, sir, on being a member of that mighty breed -- the internet crank.You might consider cleaning up your own punctuation, viz. using spaces after periods and commas. It will make the ridiculousness of your comments slightly less glaring and obvious.While you're at it, you might also observe that the present perfect continuous, as it's referred to at least this month by grammarians and schoolmarms, is itself composed of a "conflict in the sequence of tenses". "Has been + running", I suppose, is the type of construction that you simply can't stand for, a bridge too far, containing as it does a logical and grammatical contradiction.I'm curious: When you are in bed at night, clutching some 19th-century prescriptive grammar textbook, staring out wildly into the dark uncertainty of the world, do you ever wonder -- what is the warmth of a woman like? --What if I hadn't been dropped at an early age? Why do I have this sharp sloping forehead?
Well, sir.I am happy that you manage to get some enjoyment out of life somewhere. Thank you for your reply. Your parroted response spoke volumes.Your congratulations have been duly noted.Having written that, I shall now deal with the remainder of your bilious rant. My punctuation is perfectly in order. However I do appreciate your difficulty in understanding the nuances of language - in particular grammar and punctuation and I shall take care not to upset you further in that regard. The perfect continuous, is of course, not a "logical and grammatical contradiction" and, in truth, the only "has been" who is running here is you.I am fascinated by your curiosity as to what I do between the sheets. I really take grave exception to your remark as to what I might or might not be clutching as I lie abed at night. I dread to think what you might be clutching as you lie, jerking back and forth in your hammock. Perhaps a draft of the cock and bull post you are feverishly preparing to post here the following morning? Your vile and racist reference and use of the words "slope head" is beneath contempt and deserves no further comment from me. Although the term "sock puppet" suddenly came to mind - for some strange and unknown reason. I should much prefer if you would deal with the issue at hand and not lace your post with insults and slurs.What appalls me the most about your demented, confused and indeed incongruous "plastering" of this venerable blog site, is your assumption that one is male!! How dare you!!? How very, very,very dare you!!??You are obviously not only a racist but also a sexist!! I shall now conclude. I urge you to get yourself an education.I bid you good day.
Ha, ha.For the final nail in the coffin, here's what my eight-year-old brother had to say:"[...]In the phrase 'that being said' the word 'said' is acting as an adjective; thus it is grammatically equivalent to a phrase like 'the ball being bouncy'. You could point at a baby and say 'that baby being bouncy, it should go first on the grill'.It is fine to use 'said' in an adjectival form in this sense, because it is describing the state of, in this case, a set of remarks -- the state of having been spoken.'Said' used as an adjective is fully in accordance with accepted dictionary usage, and is especially used in law: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/said"
You compounded your ignorance in this matter by originally saying that "That being said" was an adverbial phrase. You then added your dubious embellishment of "a fixed phrase" which is meaningless. I doubt if you know what an adverbial phrase is.Examples of adverbial phrases are phrases such as: "by heart","in vain", "from time to time". "That being said " is not an adverbial phrase. An adverb modifies a verb as in "He writes incoherently" where "incoherently" is the adverb modifying the verb "writes". Now you write that in the phrase 'that being said' the word 'said' is acting as an adjective; thus it is grammatically equivalent to a phrase like 'the ball being bouncy'." So you have gone from "adverbial phrase" to "fixed phrase" and now the word "said" in the phrase "That being said" is "acting as an adjective"!!! An adjective!! Why you should single out the word "said" in the phrase "That being said" reveals a certain desperation on your part.We are dealing here with the phrase "That being said". For the record, the word "said" in the phrase "That being "said" is NOT acting as an adjective but is the past participle of the verb "to say". As for your reference to the law, the word "said" which is a past participle can, of course,like all past participles be used as an adjective as in "the broken jaw", "the smashed face", "the busted lip". In law the word "said" is used as an adjective in phrases such as "The said goods", "the said incident" etc., etc. However the question must still be asked: Is there no end to your illiteracy?? You really should not bother your eight-year old brother with these maniacal requests for advice on things grammatical or syntactical.It has come to a sorry pass when your eight-year old brother is your mentor on English grammar!!I most certainly hope that your eight-year old brother has not been exposed to your vile and unphilosophical "slope head" references nor to your innate and equally unphilosophical sexism and racism.I pity the child.One thing is sure: You will never find Jim Fetzer who IS a philosopher using "That being said " where only "That having been said" is possible. Nor will you find any references to slope heads in any of Jim Fetzer's books.As for driving nails into coffins....Your "coffin" was sealed tight the second you bounced into this blog site and wrote the words "That being said".I shall let you return to your eight-old brother for consolation and comforting. But PLEASE!!! NO requests for advice on English grammar!!Have you no shame?
You are either a genuine idiot or a troll -- and in either case your performance is inadequate.Let's take each case in turn.1. You are a genuine idiot. If your claims are sincere, then you are an idiot. In fact, the conditional here is so perfect, so airtight, so deeply resounding with truth, that I can't help but think it's a metaphysical certainty.Your original claim was that using the phrase "that being said" was grammatically incorrect. You said this was so because it contained a logical contradiction. Now whether I call it afterward an adverbial phrase, a noun clause, or an expression in ancient Hebrew doesn't matter. The question is, of course, is it grammatically incorrect?http://www.onestopenglish.com/support/ask-the-experts/grammar-questions/grammar-adverbials-and-phrases/146367.articleYou'll note that the above site calls it an adverbial phrase. I also, of course, claimed that the phrase "that being said" is a fixed expression. You don't know what that means -- look up collocation to find out. But again, what I claimed afterwards is beside the point since what's at issue is whether using the phrase was improper -- not whether I'm an expert in English grammar.Here's another link which you'll find interesting. This one establishes the "adjectival phrase" argument. Note that in the headline, "Pedant" refers to you.http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/19849/refute-a-pedant-that-being-said-grammatical-atrocitySo not only are you shown a buffoon by trying to intervene in a philosophical discussion to quibble about grammar -- your own quibble turns out to be nonsense. Which brings me to #2:2. You are trolling. I have a high respect for trolling. I once posed as a forty-something lesbian on the PETA website, spent a long time working up the persona, only to finally claim that disposing of stuffed animals without a proper funeral amounted to burning animals in effigy. That to stop animal cruelty, we had to stop it at its source -- the symbolic murder of animals.The schoolmarm/grammarian schtick is too everyday, too prosaic. You have to do more to stand out. Choose a more textured angle. For example, a grammarian routine in which you are a native German speaker with no command whatsoever of English grammar. --This in and above your own obvious failure at punctuating. You will bring joy to the world. Go for color, gusto!
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sparkie said... Joe Newbury said... You are either a genuine idiot or a troll -- and in either case your performance is inadequate. Let's take each case in turn. 1. You are a genuine idiot. If your claims are sincere, then you are an idiot. In fact, the conditional here is so perfect, so airtight, so deeply resounding with truth, that I can't help but think it's a metaphysical certainty. * A. Can you please define what you mean by a "genuine" idiot? Also, can you define what an "ungenuine" idiot is? Your empty head resounds and resonates with the deep and dumb hum of white noise.*B. Please check your previous posts and note that it was YOU who introduced the spurious "logical contradiction" gambit into the ongoing discourse. Not I!! You really should revise what you write in here!!" That being said " was incorrect in the context in which you used it!! Do you understand??!*C. I shall disregard entirely these web addresses which you keep posting. I have no intention of reading anything on your"onestopenglish.com" website and will add only that, as far as you are concerned, you missed the the one stop entirely! Remain seated! The next stop is yours!!Here's another link which you'll find interesting. This one establishes the "adjectival phrase" argument. Note that in the headline, "Pedant" refers to you.*D. Again I must say that I have no interest in these ridiculous and useless web pages!! Might I suggest that you add:"grammarforbozotrolls.com" to your list of "useful"(to you) websites?Also try "philosophicallyinadeqateISmoi.com".Note that in the web address:" grammarforbozotrolls.com " " bozotrolls " refers to you and all your aliases. So not only are you shown a buffoon by trying to intervene in a philosophical discussion to quibble about grammar -- your own quibble turns out to be nonsense. Which brings me to #2:*E. Which strangely enough also brings me to #2O mein Gott!!!! You're a troll!! I knew it!! I knew it!! Das habe ich gewußt!! Again I shall say that I admire your honesty but cannot approve of your behavior. I shall leave you to your stuffed animals. Du verdammter Himmelarsch!! Ich bin Deutscher!! Ich spreche Deutsch!! Warum schreibst du diese Scheiße? Was meinst du mit deinen verdammten Beleidigungen!!?!! Du dreckiger Scheißkopf!! Yes I am a native speaker of German and I have a better understanding of English grammar that you have ever had or are ever likely to have!! I find your advice on how to troll obscene in the extreme!! Advice on how to troll!!!??? " The schoolmarm/grammarian schtick is too everyday...too prosaic...Choose a more textured angle......."!!!! Gott im Himmel!!! Du sollst dich schämen!!! Du und dein verdammter Rat!! Ich würde dich nie um Rat fragen!!Hang your head in shame!!*F" The schoolmarm/grammarian schtick is too everyday, too prosaic. You have to do more to stand out. Choose a more textured angle. For example, a grammarian routine in which you are a native German speaker with no command whatsoever of English grammar.-- This in and above your own obvious failure at punctuating. You will bring joy to the world. Go for color, gusto!"I think you'll find that the correct word is "punctuation" and NOT "punctuating".You are obviously incapable of a sustained and coherent ability to write or understand anything. I object to your outrageous lie that I am a troll!! You then go on to giveadvice on how to troll!! Despicable!! That said, you are the self-confessed troll here!!You will bring only bad philosophy and bad grammar to the world!!*G"That being said " was incorrect in the context in which you used it!! Do you understand??! Guten Tag! Guten Tag! Verstehst du??!
We have decided to put this question - with the kind permission of Jim Fetzer - to the said Jim Fetzer's Real Deal blog site - as a whole.The question is simple: Which one of the following is grammatically incorrect?1/ "Of course, it's by no means clear that Jim uses the term dogmatically, so Carter might very well have been attacking a straw man.That being said, Jim certainly had Carter when it came to his dualism....."2/ "Of course, it's by no means clear that Jim uses the term dogmatically, so Carter might very well have been attacking a straw man.That having been said, Jim certainly had Carter when it came to his dualism....."3/ "Of course, it's by no means clear that Jim uses the term dogmatically, so Carter might very well have been attacking a straw man.That said, Jim certainly had Carter when it came to his dualism....."4/ "Of course, it's by no means clear that Jim uses the term dogmatically, so Carter might very well have been attacking a straw man.Having said that, Jim certainly had Carter when it came to his dualism....."* A few extra alternatives have been added. These are for the more discerning grammarians among us.** The full context of the statement has been given. As always, context is the key in these matters of grammar.*** Please do not allow your innate and understandable disdain for and loathing of the self-confessed troll and original poster affect your voting. That would be grossly unfair.||||||||||||||||||||||*|||||||||||||||||||||||
Hi Jim,I listened to both this interview with Mr. Carter and your interview on Skeptico with Alex Tsakiris (here: http://www.skeptiko.com/james-fetzer-survival-of-consciousness-nde/).One of your main lines of argument against near-death accounts of consciousness appears to hinge on the definition of "death." You pointed out that death ought to be permanent, and, given that the individuals in question are quite animated after the cardiac arrest, they must therefore never have been dead in the first place. Alex pressed in response the clinical definition of dead to point out that during cardiac arrest the brain is effectively not functioning (e.g. a flat EEG). Yet, despite the apparently non-functioning status of the brain, lucid conscious experiences were reported and, in some cases, corroborated by third-party observers as accurate. My question to you is this: Under what circumstance would your model of consciousness assert that lucid conscious experience is impossible? In other words, what sort of test could we run to falsify your model? Best,Ryan
I would be amazed if your appeal to the listeners of this podcast to "vote" on a question of grammar reached anybody -- since there is nobody visiting this comments section except me and the lunatic I'm arguing with.For the record, you have stated you will ignore two websites cited with clear information regarding the correctness of the simple phrase "that being said". Why? Because they easily refute your stupid claim, of course. But I'm happy to continue this discussion until the end of time. If you are indeed a native German speaker, I have no doubt you will continue it with me since Germans are not known for their flexibility of outlook, and with them a pedantic rule-based obsession is almost guaranteed.Now, Sparkie: Your poor, poor argumentation is sloppy enough that it hardly bears thorough examination. But let's consider your "evolving" argument, to put it as delicately as possible:1. You now claim that I am introducing a "logical contradiction gambit" by summing up your argument this way, even though the supposed "conflict in the sequence of tenses" (your moronic phrase) only makes sense given a contradiction between "being" (generally present) and "said" (generally past). Of course, for you perhaps a "conflict" is not a "contradiction" or vice versa, and a "conflict" between past and present isn't a logical contradiction. That's delirium for you!You'll note that by making the faux-grammatical argument that you did in that second comment of yours -- in which you even try to assign a QUANTITATIVE value as a degree of correctness to the phrase -- you effectively take the position that "that being said" is never correct. Which refutes your own point #2:2. You claim that "that being said" was grammatically incorrect "in context". Of course, the substance of your argument, to the extent it was intelligible, is found in your taking the position that there is never a proper context for "that being said". Thus we find the fundamental flaw in your argument: claiming simultaneously that "that being said" is wrong a) grammatically; b) only in context.But let's examine the context, shall we?You seem to have given four paraphrases of my language. As a non-native speaker, you cannot be expected to have a real grasp of the nuance. This shows.Here's the correct paraphrase: "Bearing all this in mind, Jim certainly had Carter when it came to his dualism...""Bearing all that in mind" is a phrase that suggests a continuation of all the preceding followed by a direct segue into a different claim that, without the phrase, might be confusing. It is neutral. Now -- bear that in mind.Neutral.Your "that having been said" functions very much like "having said that" -- the subject of the famous Curb Your Enthusiasm episode. People use "having said that" or "that having been said" when they are getting ready to take a totally different view. But using it "in context" would have suggested that I'd been critical of Jim's position in the interview from the outset. I wasn't. "In context" I simply outlined two points of sympathy with Carter. Of course, "that being said" I wasn't attacking Fetzer overall.At the same time, I was not abandoning my points in favor of some wholesale agreement with Fetzer. Carter's being "wrong" for advocating dualism is essentially an unrelated issue to Jim's position on whether the notion of a "law" is at all problematic. So in order to avoid being confusing, using "that being said" signaled that the preceding should still be kept in view though what followed might, viewed superficially, be seen to contradict it."With all that still in view / Bearing all that in mind / That being said ..."Now, let's discuss your mother.
On the Topic of Sparkie's MotherI first met Sparkie's mother at the institution -- and it was there that we began our enduring romance.Contrary to popular opinion, I was not a resident of the institution, but an orderly. It is true that there is a certain irony to this as I had once been arrested on a disorderly conduct charge -- for taking a dump in a urinal. But I was drunk at the time, and with reflection came wisdom, and I was sentenced to no time served.I was one of the few males orderlies at the all-female hospital. Temptation came with the job, and some of the other male orderlies struggled to keep their instincts in check. But I had no such trouble. I was fond of the arts, music -- I wanted, I aspired to higher things.And so it was when I met her. She was brought in for trying to skin her backside bare with a cheese grater. Matilde von Bingen-Hingen was her name -- one day she would become Sparkie's mother.She was a bar wench, they said. But I could tell she stood for something higher. It was true that her eyes were a little too close together; that perhaps by being just above her nose and staring out directionlessly they did not suggest refinement to certain classes. It was true that the lack of an overall pattern to the positioning of her teeth might have seemed to some to be off-putting. It was also true, I suppose, that the left side of her head missing its hair; and the ear that looked as if it had been chewed; and the cleft palate; and the thick greasy neck; the bosom that hung like the mudflaps on a truck; the miniature hands; the protruding belly; the knees that bent backwards -- all these things might have suggested aberration, to some, rather than a step higher. But I saw deeper. Ah, Matilde. She had a certain smell that would simply linger. It lingered on the chairs she sat in, on the floor tiles she slept on. I remember when she bit one of the guards -- the irregular bite pattern when it scabbed up looked like a passage from the Koran.Days became weeks, and our flirtation at a distance commenced -- with all its invisible signs and gestures. Until I could resist no longer. It seemed like senseless torture that she and I should be in the same place together, possessed by the same desires, the desire for something higher, and be forced to do nothing about it. I could tell by the way she looked at me -- well, her eyes pointed in different directions, but the gist of her look, the smoothness and serenity to that ancient countenance...it all whispered magic into my bosom.[to be continued in PART TWO]
On the Topic of Sparkie's MotherPART TWOIt was All Saints' Day when we had our rendezvous. I had been told to escort her to the showers. Matilde had raced out of there screaming when the others were bathing, and she'd grabbed a pair of scissors and chased after some moths with them. It was divine.Later, she still had to be washed. So I followed her -- I followed her in all things -- as we walked to the showers. I watched her saunter, her smooth rolling of her squarish form along the pale, colorless tiles. Until I could resist no longer, that is.Taking her gently by the shoulder, I spun her around. Wobbling slightly, delightfully, she spun until she was facing me. Her panoptic vision -- a gaze that took in the universe as a whole -- pointed at me. I could see that she saw everything, nothing exactly as it was. My heart pounded.I leaned forward to kiss her. But I saw her teeth, and remembered Collins and his Arabic-looking wound. Knowing that she was enlightened as I was, and forward-thinking, I decided to cut to the chase.In an instant, her hospital smock was up over her head. As I raised it, I saw her naked form and thought: Here is Woman. But the smock got stuck around her head, and it was some seconds in coming off. To my surprise and delight, though, once she realized her clothes were gone, her faced beamed. She realized my excellent purpose.Instantly, we were upon one another. I marvelled as I enjoyed the silken touch of her hairy palms upon my nether regions. I exulted as she alternately shrieked and crawled, trying to get away, and showed me her lopsided grin, relenting.It was some time in coming but we finally came -- I with the cry of the buccaneer, she with the knowing, low coo of a cow in the field.Nine months later, Sparkie was born.Sparkie, your mother and I gave you your name because you were so remarkably quick-witted. It was practically no time, after all, when you learned to eat your own poop. Every creature must survive.I know for a fact that before your mother died in that accident trying to give herself a kerosene enema, she was enormously proud of you. After she passed on, I found that I simply wouldn't be able to raise you alone. The constant reminder of her from you would be too great. So you were put up for adoption.Imagine my surprise when you appeared here in this comments section. Your characteristic wit and intelligence made me suspicious immediately -- the words in combination brought instantly to mind that innocent babe of years gone by trying to eat his own poop, and swallow thumbtacks. And now look at you! All grown!It makes me swell with pride as a father, and yet ashamed for I was not able to be with you to help you through life's challenges. Can you forgive me?It is a kind of destiny that we meet here, and perhaps your touching taking-issue with my grammar is an Oedipal way of getting back at your father. But please know: though you are of XYY genetic material, and though you share your mother's characteristic mental deficiencies, you are still much loved.Come to Papa!
Pleasse!!Would you ppeople please?I think that even if John Newburyis right about the grammer, he's definitely an asshole. I read some of his stuff under some other headers. What an asshole! Him calling this guy Christ Carter a prig is really the show caling the kettle black.Dear John" Are you a Mossad agent? If so would you please clear off of our forums?
I agree with you, Mario! "What an a**ho*e"!"is exactly what I thought. I have alluded to this in an earlier post. It seems to have been lost in translation somewhere along the tiresome line. Anyway, I have to say that I cannot possibly comment on John Newbury's latest meandering spiel. The question has been thrown open to all members of the blog site and they, in their own good time, will deliver their verdict in due course and after due process. Let the voters decide!!I shall conclude by repeating Mario's incisive, insightful and sublime words on John Newbury:- "What an a**ho*e"!"You said a mouthful, Mario!! You said a mouthful!!!
Once more into the breach, dear friends, once more and lay on, Macduff, and damned be him who first cries ‘Hold!Enough!". Methinks the lady Newbury doth protest too much.The rest is silence..... |||||||||||||||||||||WS||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please note we have decided to put this question - with the kind permission of Jim Fetzer - to the said Jim Fetzer's Real Deal blog site - as a whole.We are unable to comment further until the votes have been counted. Please let us have no Box 13 shenanigans on this honorable blog site. Democracy must take its course.The question again is:Which one of the following is grammatically incorrect?1/ "Of course, it's by no means clear that Jim uses the term dogmatically, so Carter might very well have been attacking astraw man.That being said, Jim certainly had Carter when it came to his dualism....."2/ "Of course, it's by no means clear that Jim uses the term dogmatically, so Carter might very well have been attacking astraw man.That having been said, Jim certainly had Carter when it came to his dualism....."3/ "Of course, it's by no means clear that Jim uses the term dogmatically, so Carter might very well have been attacking a straw man.That said, Jim certainly had Carter when it came to his dualism....."4/ "Of course, it's by no means clear that Jim uses the term dogmatically, so Carter might very well have been attacking a straw man.Having said that, Jim certainly had Carter when it came to his dualism....."* A few extra alternatives have been added. These are for the more discerning grammarians among us.** The full context of the statement has been given. As always, context is the key in these matters of grammar.
I am amazed that both parties involved in the above diatribe are willing to waste the amount of time involved on such a worthless pursuit.In the future, I recommend that such activities be carried out in private. Allow readers who are actually interested in the topic to do so in peace. I for one am disgusted by the interaction here between 2 obviously intelligent people who could put their talents to much better use. Jim, this king of thing demeans your otherwise outstanding site.
Newbury total word count: 2,574Sparkie total word count: 2,419Debating English grammar is stupid. The rules are too many. And there are more exceptions to the rules than rules!! Ask a dozen English teachers that question and you'll get a dozen different answers.Sparkie, get a life!That being said, John Newbury's definitely in the wrong for putting a lot of technical philosophy crap in his comments. Post so the rest of us can read, please! We don't need to know you have a Ph.D! Comments are supposed to be about the interviews.
Lord Jim!You need to get a life!! " Newbury total word count: 2,574Sparkie total word count: 2,419 "You actually counted the words!!??? How sad can you get, Lord Jim??!!Anyhow.....Glad to see you got your knighthood, Lord Jim.Brown noser! A pity too, really. I had my own " knighthood " lined up for you. I had the " night " all set up and ready to go BUT..... the hood didn't show!! Yeah. Whadya expect ?You can't trust nobody these days,Lord Jim!! That being said, you're a fucking limey asshole,Lord Jim. Hey!! No offense, pal!!
Dr. J. P. Hubert said... " I am amazed that both parties involved in the above diatribe are willing to waste the amount of time involved on such a worthless pursuit."I agree with you, Dr. J.P. Hairbutt. By the way, does the abbreviation for doctor as in your " 'Dr.' J.P. Hairbutt...." really require a period after it as in " Dr.". Your views appreciated....as always, Doc.
Any similarities between poster EBC above and myself are totally a coincidence. Pure fantasy!! Especially the following:1/ The way we start quotations from other comments with a " followed by a space:Me:" That being said, Jim certainly had Carter when it came to his dualism....."EBC:" I am amazed that both parties involved in the above diatribe are willing to waste the amount of time involved on such a worthless pursuit."2/ The way we repeat punctuation for emphasis:Me:Not I!! You really should revise what you write in here!!" That being said " was incorrect in the context in which you used it!! Do you understand??!EBC:You actually counted the words!!??? How sad can you get, Lord Jim??!!*I ask the readers of this honorable blog site for forgiveness. Pity me!!! While it is patently clear I'm an amateurish troll, I ask that it please be borne in mind that it's my only first time!! I'm trying really, really hard!! Verstehst du??!When correcting Dr. Hairbutt above, I failed to take notice of the fact that omitting the period after "Dr" is only a UK typographical convention, not a universal rule!! It's perfectly okay to do in America.What's worse, my overcompensation in the direction of grammar only comes from the fact that I'm not a native speaker!! Guten Tag?!? GUTEN TAG!! When I saw the intellectual content of the first comment, so technical in nature, I felt left out. I felt jealous. I couldn't speak to its content. So I lost control!! When the response came and I realized I could bring everything down to my domain!! What JOY!! But now I am found out. I have failed!Can you all forgive me??!?!? Please accept these apologies now. Soon I will change my mind and refuse to say I offered them!! Now I will return to bed and my only comfort, my little friend between my legs.Verstehst du?!?
Joe!!I am appalled and dismayed! If you're going to use the familiar second person singular of the German verb, at least have the DECENCY to capitalize the "d" of "du". I thought you and I were close friends? You really know how to hurt a guy.Don't you?? As for your being a failure, I should have thought that, by now, you would have come to terms with your total inadequacy, incompetence and blatant cum obvious inferiority. But no......Will you ever learn Joe? Will you, Joe? Will you? Do it for me, Joe. Accept the facts and face reality, Joe. You're an a**ho*e, Joe.Du Hure!!Verstehst Du??Great nick!! Did it come to you in a dream???
Sparkle, Sparkle, little Joe (aka Lord Jim inter alios ) wrote:" Any similarities between poster EBC above and myself are totally a coincidence. Pure fantasy!! Especially the following:1/ The way we start quotations from other comments with a " followed by a space:Me:" That being said, Jim certainly had Carter when it came to his dualism....."EBC:" I am amazed that both parties involved in the above diatribe are willing to waste the amount of time involved on such a worthless pursuit."2/ The way we repeat punctuation for emphasis:Me:Not I!! You really should revise what you write in here!!" That being said " was incorrect in the context in which you used it!! Do you understand??!EBC:You actually counted the words!!??? How sad can you get, Lord Jim??!! "*********************************************Don't give up your day job, Sherlock.What??!! You don't have a day job??!!Mm-hum....Elementary......