IF THER'S DOUBLE IDIOT,THERE'S DOUBLE MAN

Philip Galanter <[email protected]>wrote
~". This is idiocy .



"Whole civilizations were lost in translations" (Martin Heidegger =
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Heidegger) so we must say that your =
usage of "idiocy"could be in best case questionable. =
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot

As you could see Greek root designate 'idiot' as "person lacking =
professional skill, "and consequence's that he couldn't participate in =
politics life of polis/city/ (it wasn't in that time in Greek society =
politics for *her*-woman, for slave also, which mean they were =
idiots???). But, "lacking professional skill "wasn't necessarily lacking =
of mental ability. For example we could say Bush is idiot but he's =
active in politics. In other hand you are idiot who maybe can't =
participate in politics.Are you double idiot than(?).It's like we say =
'double man', that's grammatically incorrect-you are just idiot .Also, =
causa (reason) was in Greek strength connected with term Aitia =
http://www.apaclassics.org/AnnualMeeting/05mtg/abstracts/Mirhady.html

which designate moral responsibility for cause. In Latin =
http://thinkexist.com/dictionary/meaning/cause/

translation this moral aureole disappear. We could clearly see this =
shortage of moral in West (NATO) foreign affair which cause damage on =
more levels you even could imagine. Also ambivalence of moral attitude =
is clear in your first words: "This is idiocy."I could say you don't =
deserve proper answer after that but I'm compassionate toward =
semi-retard.

=20

~on so many levels that it's hard to know where to =20
~begin. I'll keep this short.



Man who can't see that he's already begin with his philosophize.Idiot?

=20

BECAUSE you continued with "lacking professional skill" (writing).

AND:



(1) ~ bin Laden is not an artist. =20



Realy? What's his acupation? Is he miner? Engineer?

=20

~He has no artistic intent.

=20

How can you be so sure in that? Is there any document where he asserts =
he has no artistic intention? Who are you to judge about somebody's =
latent intentions in art?

=20

~He does =20
~not work in an art context.

=20

Are you person who hawed license to define somebody's context? If is =
that truth, under whom authority you act. Under authority of UN? USA? =
You're personal? I don't give a shit for any of that protector. So.Is =
there any art context or not?=20

=20

~His "creations" cannot be considered art =20
~from that point of view.=20



You convince us that you can't have "point of view", (you don't =
understand that concept,other words you have point of view like every =
person have asshole)… so your conclusion's worthless.

=20

~9/11 is not a work of art if one believes =20
~ the artist has any say in such things.

=20

K.H. Stockhausen have right to say whatever he think is suitable because =
it could be seen as part of his poetic =
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poietic and consequences which came from =
insignificant people like you are in best case use for laughing. But, we =
mustn't forget censorship and fascist methods of elimination of =
ideological anemy.I should be careful with you? Isn't it so? Stupid =
people often mix stupidity with evil:-/



In shortage of God artists like Stockhausen.Duchamp, Picasso.take his =
competence and play game we call art or techne - =
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Techne ).

(2) ~But I suppose Barthes-on-steroids might argue that it's the reader =

~who determines whether something is art or not.

=20

There's much more for de Saussure =
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_de_Saussure ),or

Chomsky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky_hierarchy )and other =
distinguish grammarian because they take into consideration conditions =
in which some statement could be grammar valid (two or more different =
basic grammar school).Barthes is more about grammar application on =
certain ideology and consequences of this acts.

=20

~Perhaps that is what =20
~you have in mind here.

=20

I could talk only with one who's equal in his potential with me. So, you =
couldn't have even apprehension about what's in my mind. I doubt you =
even know what's that-mind?=20

=20

~But what kind of person would think such a =20
~thing when it comes to 9/11? Only someone who views everything and =20
~anything through an aesthetic prism to the exclusion of any other =20
~consideration.

=20

Any consistent method is good. =
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consistent


~Such a person is a slave to reductionism.

=20

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism

That's for our friends, you could be kind to put some link in your =
text.So"in short"-did you mean on linguistic reductionism ".Linguistic =
reductionism is the idea that everything can be described in a language =
with a limited number of core concepts, and combinations of those =
concepts. (See Basic English and the constructed language Toki Pona)."I =
doubt! Any other reductionism? Which one of those in link? Maybe you =
know some new? Tell us. Share your knowledge with us, be democratic.etc

=20


~Political pundents tend to reduce everything to politics, and consider =

~little else.

=20

Do I see any mental luxury and diversity in your approach to subject?

You criticize Osama bin Laden because he's not *artist*in his poor =
mental constitution, and now you ask from political to be =
interdisciplinary people!?! =20

=20

~Religious zealots tend to reduce everything to an issue =20
~of dogma, and consider little else.=20

=20

Yes, that's why people call them zealots =
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zealotry

.Other people with different philosophy have other names and methods for =
spreading their comprehend (stoics, scepticist, Gnostics.)=20

But is there some anti-Semitism in your anti-zealots attitude?

What's next? Mein Kampf? You wish to use 9/11 like Nazis use Reichstag! =
For clash with those who think different?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire

=20

=20

~Such reductionism is a foolish =20
~approach to a multidimensional world. Most here understand that.

=20

"Multidimensional world "is bunch of crap, somewhere in the middle of =
quasi-science and preach of religious sect. =
http://www.earthethics.com/Facing%20Change.htm


~Well, aesthetic reductionism is equally foolish. And in the case of =20
~9/11, it is a foolishness that is disgusting in its lack of humanity.

=20

"Aesthetic reductionism "is tight connect with L.Witgenstein's theories =
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein-aesthetics/

Wittgenstein said:"Ethic is aesthetic."In that case ethics reduce on =
aesthetic and vice versa.

How many aesthetic you need to avoid this "foolish reductionism". Is =
that something like:"There's nothing on Malevich's picture! It's just =
illusion for idiot!"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazimir_Malevich

And is that some question about quantitative (how many kilos of colors, =
minimalism or accumulation of goods and supplies? And is that truth that =
you measure humanity with aesthetic which is antinomy to=20

Aesthetic reductionism? If is that so, could you tell us what could that =
be

(http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/antinome)

=20


MANIK

PS: Vijay we hope you don't mind we've wrote this answer.Actualy it's =
wasn't clear to whom this fat guy address his handicraft product.so we =
took liberty to answer ;-)

On Dec 18, 2007, at 6:01 PM, manik wrote:

> "NEED FOR WARMTH AND HOSTILITY TOWARD TOUCH"
>
> Peter Handke wrote that after read Witgenstein.
>
> If that could help to understand all this controversy with K.H =20
> Stockhausen declaration we'll be satisfied.Why?Because Vijay here =20
> start with(maybe)key question about relationship between reality/=20
> whatever it is, but in this case we suggest to take reality in =20
> colloquial sense/and culture/in entire appearance covered with this =20
> term/.Radical translation of possibly connections and mutual =20
> influences between those two totality could be useful for radical =20
> changing this miserable situation in 'Western World Art'.
>
> Strange thing's that similar words about 9/11 happening were impute =20
> to D.Hirst
>
> http://arts.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,790058,00.html
>
> Cheers
>
> MANIK
>
> —– Original Message —– From: "Vijay Pattisapu" =
<[email protected]=20
> >
> To: <[email protected]>
> Cc: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 10:09 PM
> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: sad news - stockhausen
>
>
>> "[Stockhausen] provoked controversy in 2001 after describing the =20
>> Sept.
>> 11 attacks as 'the greatest work of art one can imagine' during a =20
>> news
>> conference in the northern German city of Hamburger, where several of
>> the hijackers had lived.
>>
>> "The composer later apologized for his remarks, but the city still
>> canceled performances of his works."
>>
>> In so many languages to say that "x is a work of art" to praise x,
>> usually for its beauty. In that bland idiom, "art" is a bit different
>> from how we use the word in other contexts (like Rhizome), because
>> beauty is just a subset of art. Maybe. Maybe in the demotion I'm
>> confusing beauty with aesthetic pleasure, which are two different
>> things. Maybe beauty is the end of art. Need help here.
>>
>> I can't get into Stockhausen's head, but I speculate he was using
>> "art" in its more direct sense, viz., he posed a possibility, albeit
>> too strongly, of taking 9/11 as a performance.
>>
>> I think you'd agree, Nanny, that terrorism is performance, at least
>> insofar as spectacle is the terrorist's goal as much or more than the
>> actual violence.
>>
>> It is interesting, though not terribly useful, to collate here 9/11,
>> Stockhausen's statement about it, and Nietzsche's epigram:
>>
>> "One imposes far too narrow limitations on art when one demands that
>> only well-ordered, morally balanced souls may express themselves in
>> it. As in the plastic arts, so in music and poetry too there is an =20
>> art
>> of the ugly soul beside the art of the beautiful soul; and the
>> mightiest effects of art, that which tames souls, moves stones, and
>> humanizes the beast, have perhaps been mostly achieved by precisely
>> that art."
>>
>> I don't know. I've never even been to New York City, so my
>> understanding of 9/11 is cheap.
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D8mWW6kRITEY
>>
>> Vijay
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/12/2007, nannykitachen <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> i don't think that telling 11 september is an art work, is a =20
>>> performance and
>>> i don't think that he approves 11september
>>> i didn't understand why they are saying all the things =20
>>> 'performance'?
>>>
>>> Vijay Pattisapu <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Karlheinz Stockhausen and Pimp C died at the same time.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 07/12/2007, sachiko hayashi wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-7135487,00.html
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>> –
>>> Cell: (469)877-9166
>>> +
>>> -> post: [email protected]
>>> -> questions: [email protected]
>>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
>>> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>>> +
>>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>>> Membership Agreement available online at =
http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Send instant messages to your online friends =
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
>>
>>
>> –=20
>> Cell: (469)877-9166
>> +
>> -> post: [email protected]
>> -> questions: [email protected]
>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: =
http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>> +
>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>> Membership Agreement available online at =
http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>>
>> __________ NOD32 2731 (20071218) Information __________
>>
>> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
>> http://www.eset.com
>>
>
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/=20
> subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/=20
> 29.php

+
-> post: [email protected]
-> questions: [email protected]
-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
+
Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php

__________ NOD32 2732 (20071219) Information __________

This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com

Comments

, Philip Galanter

I only have time to respond to your strongest point. My response is this:

I've lost a lot of weight over the last year, so I don't think I'm properly called "fat" anymore.