tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20433842.post8987366783292684126..comments2024-03-07T12:57:35.296-05:00Comments on Varieties of Unreligious Experience: Luding BridgeConrad H. Rothhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01916542057749474124noreply@blogger.comBlogger33125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20433842.post-25813450351235907582008-12-08T05:08:00.000-05:002008-12-08T05:08:00.000-05:00Thanks for the tip. I would be more thankful if th...Thanks for the tip. I would be more thankful if there weren't 150 of the fucking things.Conrad H. Rothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01916542057749474124noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20433842.post-50070249172349174412008-12-08T01:28:00.000-05:002008-12-08T01:28:00.000-05:00I have also been attacked by this (not doubt soon ...I have also been attacked by this (not doubt soon to be removed) spamming commenter lately. I was thankful for it because I discovered that I can now leave comments on old posts - variable time choice - in an approval queue so they never make it to the blog. Customization-->Settings-->Comments. I think the variable timeframe for approval is new.peacayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03997731249622552311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20433842.post-29272804990217138532008-08-31T14:59:00.000-04:002008-08-31T14:59:00.000-04:00That sounds like a pretty good gig, actually. I'd ...That sounds like a pretty good gig, actually. I'd bet it pays better than being an organic intellectual. Allahu akbar!Greg Afinogenovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13529073439919307693noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20433842.post-5216618128188990242008-08-31T10:30:00.000-04:002008-08-31T10:30:00.000-04:00Totalitarian intellectual indeed! Greg, I think we...Totalitarian intellectual indeed! Greg, I think we should clamour for your inclusion in a new edition of <EM>The Captive Mind</EM>.Conrad H. Rothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01916542057749474124noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20433842.post-2266429829809056152008-08-31T07:41:00.000-04:002008-08-31T07:41:00.000-04:00Actually nasreddin I used the term 'reactionary' a...Actually nasreddin I used the term 'reactionary' and 'revolution' as comparatively and illogically conflating terms that would draw you or LH out on your prescriptivist hypocrisy, which it did. <BR/><BR/>A fine job I must say. <BR/><BR/>I did it because I personally like how a person can make a statement about language being used in a certain manner and yourself or LH would jump down their throat in a second, but LO! DON'T COME KNOCKIN' AT THE DOOR OF OUR LEFTIST IDEOLOGIES. <BR/><BR/>Those words are untouchable don'cha know?!<BR/><BR/>But that's ok, you go back to your church of post-structuralism and defending Russian actions while decrying anything western as evil. <BR/><BR/>You'll make a good future totalitarian intellectual.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20433842.post-34970508913184799482008-08-30T14:45:00.000-04:002008-08-30T14:45:00.000-04:00Wait, what, anon? You're criticizing Conrad for be...Wait, what, anon? You're criticizing Conrad for being "pseudo-anonymous"?<BR/><BR/>Also, if you're going to toss around words, you should know what they mean. Is LH a Trotskyite or a Zinovyevite? He can't be both a reactionary <I>and</I> be angry that the revolution hasn't happened! <BR/><BR/>(I am indeed a wannabe intellectual, a label I wear proudly, and to be compared to a younger LH is an honor. As for the anger issues--frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.)Greg Afinogenovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13529073439919307693noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20433842.post-89951234412796853362008-08-30T06:30:00.000-04:002008-08-30T06:30:00.000-04:00Yes, my friend, but the key point you're missing i...Yes, my friend, but the key point you're missing is that I happen to know both LH and Nasreddin, and therefore I'm in a much better position to assess both of their characters. You can call LH anything you want--it's a free internet--but that don't make it either true or convincing. Finally, <EM>ad hominem</EM> is fine; what I objected to was <STRONG>generalised</STRONG> <EM>ad hominem</EM>. It's not against the law--it's just not terribly interesting. I'm not asserting any moral superiority over you; I'm only pointing out that if you want to criticise someone it's better (more useful, profitable, interesting, persuasive) to stick to specifics.Conrad H. Rothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01916542057749474124noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20433842.post-27495618287786982332008-08-30T04:23:00.000-04:002008-08-30T04:23:00.000-04:00conrad, you just need to go into nasreddin's comme...conrad, you just need to go into nasreddin's commenting history. He is a wannabe intellectual who has anger issues (much like a younger version of LH). <BR/><BR/>Secondly, ad hominem is a perfectly fine method of discourse if I am attacking a person's ethos. This isn't a dialectic. We aren't aiming for truth. LH is trying to pull moral superiority over you, much like you are with me (behind your pseudo-anonymous name). <BR/><BR/>If I want to call him an angry-assed reactionary fuckwad I can, cause that is the way he regularly acts while hiding beind an image of a white-suit wearing linguistic saint walking among the muck and disgusting masses.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20433842.post-77772358146553058232008-08-29T10:21:00.000-04:002008-08-29T10:21:00.000-04:00The last bit by Conrad is what I was trying to say...The last bit by Conrad is what I was trying to say as well--albeit in a roundabout way. I also liked Platoplasm....!<BR/><BR/>Cheers.Peonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15418037102755683814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20433842.post-36182570714140020482008-08-29T09:26:00.000-04:002008-08-29T09:26:00.000-04:00Anon #2: I decline to comment on the overall quali...Anon #2: I decline to comment on the overall quality of MF, and have no interest in attacking (or defending) it. However, Greg / Nasreddin, a Filterite, seems not to be outraged by my observations. LH, meanwhile, is not a fuckwad, even if his patrony on this issue is somewhat irritating: and if he is 'cranky-assed', then, well, so am I. Generalised <EM>ad hominem</EM>, especially from behind a wall of anonymity, is neither apposite nor desirable.<BR/><BR/>Cowan and Peony: it seems we have been talking at cross purposes. What I said above about taste "mediating between absolute and relative, or less crudely, between public and private" is another way of putting what Pullum writes in his article. When I said that Yoink violates standards of taste, I did not mean by 'taste' something that I have pulled out of my arse, but rather something that I have observed (albeit unscientifically) in a broader society or community of words. This observation does not, of course, require any belief in Objective Value Judgements (whether ethical or aesthetic): a belief I absolutely lack.Conrad H. Rothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01916542057749474124noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20433842.post-37002974566298976542008-08-29T09:07:00.000-04:002008-08-29T09:07:00.000-04:00metafilter is an overrated site filled with preten...metafilter is an overrated site filled with pretentious left-leaning idiots who get outraged a lot over the most trivial crap, especially so when people call their community out on their bullshit (OH NOES! WE CAN'T HAVE PEOPLE POINTING OUT THE BAD POINTS OF THE MEFI COMMUNITY! OUR COMMUNITY IS SOOO DIVERSE, WHILE ALL OTHERS AREN'T.). <BR/><BR/>It is a site best ignored.<BR/><BR/>LanguageHat is also a cranky-assed fuckwad who is just bitter that the revolution hasn't happened.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20433842.post-34601172661595671702008-08-29T07:55:00.000-04:002008-08-29T07:55:00.000-04:00I just wanted to thank John Cowan for introducing ...I just wanted to thank John Cowan for introducing me to the superb word, "Platoplasm". Thanks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20433842.post-71981957510121179412008-08-28T12:25:00.000-04:002008-08-28T12:25:00.000-04:00Thank you for responding John! (And thanks to Conr...Thank you for responding John! (And thanks to Conrad too)<BR/><BR/>I think the 1st problem perhaps is you brought up the word “universal.” To say that there IS a place in aesthetics for “taste” is not to say that there is “UNIVERSAL TASTE”. Indeed, there are many fascinating stories of powerful shogun and daimyo in Edo Japan showing their prized treasured to visiting Europeans. After taking the piece out of its nested pauwlania boxes (like Russian dolls, the boxes fit one inside another—several boxes deep), they would then unwrap the treasure from its protective brocade in front of the stunned eyes of the visitor-- A dark brown piece of asymmetrical, stoneware pottery. <BR/><BR/>Talk about a gap in taste! <BR/><BR/>And that is the thing, it is not universal and it is not changing. Yet that there exist standards of taste (and yes it is a spectrum so that individuals will subscribe or not to what is bodily knowledge) inform the two reactions. For to the European with their overwhelming admiration of Chinese porcelain, an understated dark brown stone ware jar with clear imperfections in both potting and glaze remained, alas, incomprehensible. <BR/><BR/>If you are interested I just wrote about this at length <A HREF="http://www.tangdynastytimes.com/2008/08/anatomy.html" REL="nofollow">here</A> over at my place!<BR/><BR/>I am no expert, but I would wager a guess that much the same could be said for language as well. No, there is no universal, unchanging grammar. At the same time, there are collective standards of usage. I just heard the expression “probally”—what do you think of that? It’s all context so that “probally” while not “tasteful” or appropriate for an article in the newspaper might be OK for certain blog posts (depending on tone)??<BR/><BR/>To sum up: no one was talking about universalities or Platonic ideas! (I don’t even think Conrad was). And, yes, I think by taste, Conrad is pointing to something beyond the personal taste of individuals.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for responding—and adorable pics of the baby!Peonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15418037102755683814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20433842.post-66351206778406239932008-08-28T00:28:00.000-04:002008-08-28T00:28:00.000-04:00Conrad has asked me to explain myself.Peony, I in ...Conrad has asked me to explain myself.<BR/><BR/>Peony, I in fact <I>don't</I> think there's any place in ethics for (universal) standards of virtue, or in aesthetics for (universal) standards of taste. Indeed, I don't believe there are any such things. However, I also don't believe that there are only particular, individual ethical or aesthetic judgments either.<BR/><BR/>Geoffrey Pullum's <A HREF="http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/" REL="nofollow"><I>Language Log</I></A> essay <A HREF="http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001843.html%22%22" REL="nofollow">"'Everything is correct' versus 'nothing is relevant'"</A> expresses the <I>via media</I> between these two extremes in the domain of English grammar. People who adopt "Everything that actually occurs is correct" believe that whatever a native speaker (not drunk or insane, etc.) says is grammatical <I>by necessity</I>, whereas people who adopt "Nothing that actually occurs is relevant" believe that the rules of grammar exist in the Platoplasm, entirely independent of how anyone speaks, and if everyone violates a rule, so much the worse for everyone.<BR/><BR/>As Pullum says: "But there had better be a third position, because these two extreme ones are both utterly insane."<BR/><BR/>To hold that there is such a thing as universal taste adopts the "Nothing that occurs is relevant" position; in principle, something might be considered tasteful even if everyone on earth found it tasteless. In practice, this is a cover story for an authoritarian or parent-centered position (Blake's Urizen) that says "Universal taste is defined by my taste, and you must conform, or else."<BR/><BR/>To hold that there is nothing but particular tastes adopts the "Everything that occurs is correct" position. In practice, this is a cover story for a rebellious or child-centered position (Blake's Orc) that says "My taste is just as good as yours, so up yours."<BR/><BR/>But do read Pullum, making the necessary mental translations; he's far more eloquent (if less symmetrical) than I.<BR/><BR/>(Conrad complains of a poster calling himself Yoink; Pullum of one calling himself Zink. Curious.)John Cowanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11452247999156925669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20433842.post-80952309005902856432008-08-23T07:02:00.000-04:002008-08-23T07:02:00.000-04:00"And MetaFilter is a fine place for discourse; it ..."And MetaFilter is a fine place for discourse; it just happens not to be the sort you prefer."<BR/><BR/>LH is for MetaFilter discourse; CR is against MetaFilter discourse; sum: zero.<BR/><BR/>"The fact that you do not care for something does not imply that you are above it, and I hope you will grow out of your easy assumptions of superiority. They are unbecoming."<BR/><BR/>LH employs sententious language to punish CR for employing tendentious language to punish third parties for using bumptious language directed at neither LH nor CR; moral advantage: third parties; critical advantage: CR. <BR/><BR/>"LH employs sententious language to punish CR for employing tendentious language to punish third parties for using bumptious language directed at neither LH nor CR; moral advantage: third parties; critical advantage: CR." <BR/><BR/>SA affects Olympian bemusement whilst employing thinly-veiled, standard blog-tiff sanctimony to declare a subjective affinity for CR's critical prejudices; moral advantage: LH; sum: zero.A. Ominoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13807400943709124236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20433842.post-78533114644144539242008-08-22T12:03:00.000-04:002008-08-22T12:03:00.000-04:00Many thanks for the salutary lesson. That lesson b...Many thanks for the salutary lesson. That lesson being that no matter how I clear I think I'm being, and no matter how much familiarity one has with what I write and how I think, I cannot be sure that he will really understand what I'm trying to say.<BR/><BR/>I openly welcome criticism of myself here. That is, I openly welcome criticism <EM>with some reasoning and justification to it</EM>. I don't object to you disagreeing with me or putting me down--there's nothing unfair about it. Plenty of people have made reasonable criticisms of me, both here and elsewhere. Cowan specialises in it, and usually gets it right. So to toss off some comment about how I should be able to 'take it as well as dish it out' (as you put it once before) misses the point. What I objected to was the facility of your remark, which reflects more on your own jerking knees than on mine.<BR/><BR/>I have, on my part, actually explained the crassness and self-satisfaction evident in Mr. Yoink's words. You have explained nothing of the sort here. I don't know why you continue to assume that my 'tail' is 'haughty': is it merely because I criticise others? In which case, who is tweaking your tail?<BR/><BR/>"Bottom line: treat others as you would like to be treated."<BR/><BR/>That's a very poor dictum. Better treat others as they would wish to be treated themselves. Better yet to treat others as they deserve, within the limits of law and sanity.<BR/><BR/>"Takeaway lesson: if you are not familiar with a community, best not to assume the worst [of] it for the sake of an easy bit of fun."<BR/><BR/>I don't know where the invisible wall is, Steve. Where do I 'assume' anything about the 'community'? What I did was to make some <EM>arguments</EM> (with which I do not insist that you agree) about <EM>one person</EM> (aside from a couple of harmless jabs about Plato) based on <EM>reading</EM>. And why assume (for it is you who are assuming) that I write 'for the sake of an easy bit of fun', rather than for the purpose of understanding?<BR/><BR/>"And really, someone who parades his own knowledge and sensibility so joyously (and pleasingly) has no business mocking others for parading theirs."<BR/><BR/>I'm not mocking him for parading his knowledge and sensibility; Christ, everyone 'parades' his own sensibility, it is a hollow expression. I'm criticising that sensibility itself. Do you not see the difference? You didn't seem to have a problem with it when Eco was under the knife, but for some reason poor defenceless little Metafilter (!) needs to be defended?Conrad H. Rothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01916542057749474124noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20433842.post-13446106478951116442008-08-22T11:41:00.000-04:002008-08-22T11:41:00.000-04:00I find it quite odd that he upbraids me for 'easy ...<I>I find it quite odd that he upbraids me for 'easy assumptions of superiority' when that is exactly what I am attacking myself. </I><BR/><BR/>But that is precisely what is so delightful and so human-all-too-human: the attack on one's own weaknesses in another!<BR/><BR/><I>How more succinctly hypocritical could one be?</I><BR/><BR/>Oh, come now: I like to think of it as giving a needed tweak of the too haughty tail.<BR/><BR/><I>It is just so wrongheaded a criticism of what I write--it boggles the mind.</I><BR/><BR/>Criticism of oneself always seems <I>so</I> unfair! One's own criticism of others, per contra, always seems not only justified but measured and reasonable. How could anyone dispute it, let alone take offense at it?<BR/><BR/>Bottom line: treat others as you would like to be treated. Takeaway lesson: if you are not familiar with a community, best not to assume the worst it for the sake of an easy bit of fun. And really, someone who parades his own knowledge and sensibility so joyously (and pleasingly) has no business mocking others for parading theirs.Languagehathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13285708503881129380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20433842.post-3688052047299989002008-08-21T19:18:00.000-04:002008-08-21T19:18:00.000-04:00Let the imaginal defend you from their imaginary. ...Let the imaginal defend you from their imaginary. <BR/><BR/>Those devourers of conspecti that infest higher education know the way to a good degree. I think of the words of A.E. Waite in his introduction to the Tarot concerning those who remained beached on the sands of divination. <BR/><BR/>"These interpretations are comparable in every respect to the divinatory and fortune-telling meanings with which I shall have to deal in their turn. The diabolism of both is that they are true after their own manner, but that they miss all the high things to which the Greater Arcana should be allocated.."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20433842.post-35034835560138467902008-08-21T18:34:00.000-04:002008-08-21T18:34:00.000-04:00I don't really care about Yoink any more. I don't ...I don't really care about Yoink any more. I don't know Yoink. All I can think about is<BR/><BR/>"I hope you will <EM>grow out of</EM> your easy assumptions of superiority"<BR/><BR/>How more succinctly hypocritical could one be? And from someone I respect! It leads me to suspect that 'easy assumptions of superiority' are associated less with erotetic and troublemaking youth than with the sclerosis of maturity. It is just so wrongheaded a criticism of what I write--it boggles the mind.Conrad H. Rothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01916542057749474124noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20433842.post-74974302783702824302008-08-21T11:36:00.000-04:002008-08-21T11:36:00.000-04:00"And I say there is no taste, and the assumption t..."And I say there is no taste, and the assumption that there is (as opposed to my taste, say, or yours) is nothing but an instrument of self-oppression; I emphasize self, though of course whoever is self-oppressed tends to oppress others too. As there is no place in science for ideas and none in semantics for meaning, there is no place in aesthetics for taste"<BR/><BR/>After that long response to LH below, I realized that it was this statement above that actually most puzzled me.<BR/><BR/>To say that there is no place in aestheticics for taste is like saying there is no place in ethics for moral principles. In such a world, where everything becomes leveled; that is, where everything becomes a matter of *personal preference,* we would probably be unable to have art museums or art history... <BR/><BR/>So for that reason, I beg to differ that there is no place in aesthetics for taste.<BR/><BR/>To replace collective taste (or even loosely acceptable cultural standards regarding taste) would be to necessite a condition based solely on the sum personal preference in any given society (and this would show its effects in economic efficiency) so that you might see classical music no longer being performed and popular art replacing the old masters in the art museums... <BR/> <BR/>That is because no "taste" (if by taste here you mean personal preference) could stand above the rest.<BR/><BR/>I probably didn't correctly understand your statement above... I did find it puzzling though, and thought I would go ahead and ask what you meant by it.Peonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15418037102755683814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20433842.post-63741591146104811462008-08-21T10:28:00.000-04:002008-08-21T10:28:00.000-04:00I don’t necessarily want to rush to Conrad’s defen...I don’t necessarily want to rush to Conrad’s defense—since his lovely lady already does a fine job in that department. Plus, of course, I am still mad at him and all those involved in the Heidegger debacle. <BR/><BR/>However, I did want to bring up one point. I am here in LA for the month. As inevitably happens I am greatly discouraged by the conversations—where people used to read actual books or discuss art exhibitions, now it is an unending discussion of what to buy, where to play, and reality TV. And, while you could say I ought to find some new conversation partners (actually I AM accepting applications) still, I have come to feel that overall in the US (at least on the West Coast) we are seeing a real downturn in the state of the intellectual life. <BR/><BR/>Yes, I am talking about anti-intellectualism & philistinism—where just as Conrad points out, the bigger the book or thinker or teacher you dismiss, the bigger it makes you seem. Nothing is argued, but rather as our Conrad sarcastically stated, it is just out-right dismissed; or perhaps less odious where casual flights of fancy pass as profundities.<BR/><BR/>To be honest, rather than being concerned for Yoink’s hurt feelings, I feel more concerned for a world where only the bottom line counts: what you do, not what you think; how much you make, not how you contribute; where we defend Yoink but stand silent when Herr Heidegger is being disparaged by many who didn’t even read the book! And yes, I am in LA where perhaps this is particularly apparent or discouraging. To me, again, rather than worry about being fair to Yoink, I feel gladdened that someone will stand up for taste…No offense intended to Yoink either since I didn’t even read the thread—my point being that I think intellectual gadflies have always served an important role—especially when they write as well as our friend.<BR/><BR/>I apologize for the length of this comment.Peonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15418037102755683814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20433842.post-37161556045997750052008-08-21T09:38:00.000-04:002008-08-21T09:38:00.000-04:00LH still seems to have a block regarding certain v...LH still seems to have a block regarding certain varieties of my experience, but then, there is someting of the Yoink in him at times. I find it quite odd that he upbraids me for 'easy assumptions of superiority' when that is exactly what I am attacking myself. Since I don't read Metafilter, I have few prejudices about it as a whole: it was Greg who seemed to slight it.<BR/><BR/>I am obligated to use words as they are used, insofar as I wish to be understood. Change is possible, but must be gradual. The same is true with taste, of course.<BR/><BR/>PK: It is true that Yoink's remarks were meant casually, and delivered in a casual context of discussion: but then I also think that people reveal most about themselves and their unconscious assumptions in this kind of arena. <BR/><BR/>And yes, it is exactly 'when in Rome'. But it is also 'when in Italy', 'when in the world'. Yoink's words are on Metafilter, but they also aspire to grand and lofty sentiment: they are satisfied and dismissive pronouncements, and intended as such.Conrad H. Rothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01916542057749474124noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20433842.post-89633122302853867652008-08-21T09:05:00.000-04:002008-08-21T09:05:00.000-04:00But I am under obligation to use words as they are...<I>But I am under obligation to use words as they are used by others, and to behave according to the customs of the society I live in.</I><BR/><BR/>No, actually you're not.<BR/><BR/>And MetaFilter is a fine place for discourse; it just happens not to be the sort you prefer. The fact that you do not care for something does not imply that you are above it, and I hope you will grow out of your easy assumptions of superiority. They are unbecoming.Languagehathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13285708503881129380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20433842.post-32993429020637269562008-08-21T02:59:00.000-04:002008-08-21T02:59:00.000-04:00Dear Mrs RothThank you. Your support is admirable....Dear Mrs Roth<BR/><BR/>Thank you. Your support is admirable. I am mostly entertained and usually enlightened by your husband's criticisms, particularly so when they are applied to authors and figures from literature and history. <BR/><BR/>I presume on this occasion that the hatchet he carried for the AHRC found easier purchase in the backs of unsuspecting targets from a rambunctious forum outside of his normal purview. <BR/><BR/>In my view, the context dictates that the comments and participants deserve a large measure of immunity from so critical a deconstruction as your husband offers in the name of taste. These were not remarks delivered from a personal, rarefied island of literature discourse, nor were they constructed with an eye towards thesis defence. <BR/><BR/><I>But I am under obligation to use words as they are used by others, and to behave according to the customs of the society I live in.</I><BR/><BR/>So it's not <I>when in Rome..</I> then? No. Remove the statue or column and bring it back to one's own drawing room. There, both the technique and maker can be skewered outside of its original context. Tasty.<BR/><BR/>Once the houses in Cairns and Batemans Bay and the sundry living and travel indulgences have been met, an oracle will be consulted about the possibility of a stipend.peacayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03997731249622552311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20433842.post-55429127995223410202008-08-20T22:30:00.000-04:002008-08-20T22:30:00.000-04:00"Whip-smart" sounds a little like "terribly clever..."Whip-smart" sounds a little like "terribly clever" -- that is, praise with veiled reservations -- and might work better for someone like Ambrose Bierce. For describe Flaubert, she no so good. The whole thing sounds reminds me of hearing a teenager say, "You gotta read this [Nietzsche's Zarathustra]. It will kick your ass up one side and down the other!"...minus the rowdy charm.Shawn Thurishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09594444415956471021noreply@blogger.com