"My request that my writings be read twice has aroused great indignation. Unjustly so. After all, I do not ask that they be read once."
--Karl Kraus, Half-Truths and One and a Half Truths
It is easy now, with a dictionary.
More or less,
"There are writers who can express in as little as twenty pages what I occasionally need as many as two for." Ib.
More meaning more, the less meaningless,
"It is better not to express what one means than to express what one does not mean." Ib.
"In case of doubt, decide in favor of what is correct." Ib.
Seek and find the Word to find a mind,
"Let language be the divining rod that finds sources of thought." Ib.
12 comments:
Hey, do you see anything inherently wrong with this comparison?
Instead, I found a link to an artice in SFGate.com decrying the hypocrisy of parents appalled by the Abercrombie catalog who see nothing wrong with the less-sexual but equally lust-inducing J.Crew or Williams-Sonoma. In his words:
"It's all the same. It's all manufactured desire and imitation lust and a boatload of tasty crap you don't really need but they make you crave madly."
Now, we might not like to admit it, but he is onto something. They are both a form of coveting...Here's his take on several popular catalogs:
"Let us now gander at, say, the latest Williams-Sonoma catalog. Here is, quite simply, 160 pages of pure kitchen-fetish smut, raw and glossy and openly explicit, all gleaming $400 KitchenAid blenders and wickedly overpriced stainless steel All-Clad cookware and gorgeously photographed slabs of steaming gourmet meats being perfectly sliced with spotless $200 Wusthof knives."
Carl
Post: Saw my link on your site...cool.
"Hey, do you see anything inherently wrong with this comparison?"
No. It's all the same thing, people desire but know not what they want.
It seems to be true that some people get Home and Garden or a clothing catalogue and go, "Goodie, goodie!" Then they look with longing at things, more things. I for one, do not understand that by much experience. I vaguely remember buying things sometimes as a way of self-soothing. But I've some of the same clothes I had five years ago.
It is rather humorous to see how people can be human, all too human as gluttons, the covetous, etc., though. It is precisely where the person is sinning that they will be sensitive. They will lack the distance from it necessary to have a sense of humor, sense of the human, sense of being part humus. So the fat person may be sensitive about gluttony, yet perhaps they will have the distance necessary to have a sense of humor about everything else. It's on gluttony that they'll say, "Hey!"
Perhaps I should write about those who say, "Hey!" instead of "Huh?" They often go together.
I would say "Hey!" about things. For can you not see how difficult, so very difficult it all is? But eventually you have to realize how stupid you are being human.
"The superman is a premature idea, one that presupposes man." Karl Kraus
"I greatly appreciate people who are wise yet concise."
Yet it seems that many would rather not fiddle with a riddle.
what about windsurfing stuff? ;)
~Bertie
What about windsurfing stuff?
Well, I don't look at a windsurfing catalogue and say, "Goodie, goodie!"
Okay, I might just a little.
"...kitchen-fetish smut...."
Hmmm, still thinking about that one.
What is with the prejudice against the kitchen, anyway?
Sheesh, how now, are the Christmas cookies to be made?
The Kitchen! (old parable at the bottom)
The problem that I have is this. I believe it absurd to compare lust and covetousness. Heather, the authoress, is quoting what she calls "a crass pagan." He states that parents are hypocritical for decrying Abercrombie because they do not decry also the Pottery Barn magazines. Heather then states that "they are both forms of coveting." Mr. Morford, the "crass pagan," then states that Kitchen utensils are, in said magazines at least, "fetish smut," and "soft core porn."
Now covetousness and lust have two distinctly different objects. Covetousness desires anything. Lust desires sexual fulfillment. I do not have the proper argument formulated just yet, but to me the comparison seems absurd, though I cannot quite put my finger on the reason why.
I suppose that it seems to me, in the abstract, to be illogical from the states of mind which are compared. Both lust and covetousness are wrong...but for entirely different reasons. Perhaps this line will help to illustrate. "...parents who see nothing wrong with the less-sexual but equally lust-inducing..." That is just it. A catalog, even if it were designed specifically to induce envy, covetousness, etc.--which I highly doubt that any are published solely for this purpose; but even if a catalog were created with this as its object, it would fail to be "equally lust-inducing." I have never desired to have sex with a blender; at least, not to my knowledge. Perhaps that is what I meant. Further, I refrain here from arguing against a different comment-person who explained that she was using the words "beyond" their specific definitions, whatever that means.
I realize that this is probably too demanding of your time, however, any thoughts you have would be appreciated. I need, as you say so often, the loooooooove. LOL!
Carl
"I'd rather hear a straight foreward truth than fiddle with a riddle any day."
If one sums things down to an aphorism then a sentence of true sentience may appear to be a riddle to some struggling lil' minds.
It will look like a riddle to the kind of mind that does not want to see a point that is pointy. Do you see the point?
"I believe it absurd to compare lust and covetousness."
They are comparable.
Yet I would say that it is absurd to merge different types of sin together as per "kitchen smut," and so on. That is rather amusing. This urge to merge reveals a lack of moral conviction. What one does is merge the issue you lack moral conviction on with something else that you do have moral conviction on. Then, case closed!
The writer probably lacks moral conviction with respect to Home and Garden sponsoring Sin. In fact, my guess is that they like Home and Garden quite a bit....and read their kitchen smut, secretly!
I have never desired to have sex with a blender...If you were making an associative argument merging that and being a drunk, then I'd be concerned. For it might indicate that you lack conviction with respect to the virtue of blenders.
In reading that thread I realize how little I know about Bed, Bath and Beyond or whatever else they're talking about.
I also realize that I quite prefer it that way.
"They are comparable."
True. Both frames of mind desire something that is another's.
"Yet I would say that it is absurd to merge different types of sin as per "kitchen smut," and so on."
My point exactly. I couldn't tell, however, if you agreed.
"I have never desired to have sex with a blender...'If you were making an associative argument merging that and being drunk, then I'd be concerned'."
Quite frankly, I lack the intelligence to develop such an argument on my own.
Further, do I hear no comment on the "looooooove"? Also, is that you in the picture of the windsurfer? Finally, thanks for your thoughts.
Carl
"I lack the intelligence to develop such an argument on my own."
Actually, those who lack intelligence make such arguments naturally. I.e., a series of naturalistic associations. That is why they can be deconstructed. But, nevermind, for they never do.
"Further, do I hear no comment on the "looooooove"?"
I looove to comment. So I do. Or so I say I do. Then I have my comments to have but not to hold. For you can't have everything, just something that is better than nothing.
"Also, is that you in the picture of the windsurfer?"
Yeah, I've got to quit wearing those tights, so I can be cool.
Post a Comment