Wednesday, May 23, 2007

Another Post to Demosthenes

I must confess Demosthenes, I was looking over your response again and I really just got bored with it. Your arguments are unsupported and superficial, and basically just a rehash of what we've already been through. I really just don't feel like walking you through your own arguments again and picking holes in them.
Let's just get a couple things straight for now and maybe tomorrow I'll feel like doing something more with what you said.
First of all yes it was very personal. I was just writing because that's what I do. Like I said in my first post I was simply expressing my state at the time using words that fit the mental picture I constructed to represent it. I respect your curiosity about my work but I still feel that it was grossly inappropriate to criticize it with the arguments you chose. If you just wanted to understand it better you could have approached me with more of an attitude of curiosity and less of an attitude of biased judgment. But that's just my opinion.
Second, if you're interested in my perspectives about certain things (the progress to enlightenment, humanity as parasites, the nature of art, how entanglement is essential to cosmology or whatever) I'd be more than happy to discuss these things with you but let's start fresh because we've made a mess of the last discussion and it's clear we're not ready to talk to each other about it (I think it was all founded on a ridiculous premise and was doomed right off the bat).
Third, if you really want to continue our previous discussion I think we should just focus on the nature of art, especially on what is and isn't permissible under the label of "art". That will simplify things and I think it will cut to the core of why you were attacking me.
Fourth, I'd really appreciate it if you'd be willing to talk a little about your perspective on the holographic universe. It's a subject I'm really interested in and the public library here has very few books on it. So if you're willing to talk I'm eager to listen.

I think that's all for now. Please consider the post I made on Monday as demonstrating my "metathesis" and my post yesterday (on art) as further support. Don't be too harsh on yesterday's though I haven't had a chance to look it over yet so I don't know if I'm missing anything or being repetitive etc.

In any case keep checking back cuz I might still deal with your response formally and provide you with some meat to chew on.

3 comments:

J. Richard Thacker said...

I was having the same thoughts about your posts. Although I am not sure why you have chosen to take my remarks personally. Try to view your ideas dispassionately, and I believe it will help us communicate. My thesis is the property of Umiversity of Texas, Austin, and cannot be shared en toto, but I will be happy to discuss my research with you. For more:

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4232897377629019446

Also, Michael Talbot, check with Barnes and Noble or Amazon.

Demosthenes spent his whole life screaming into the deafened ears of a generation that lacked the ability to think critically. In the end he accomplished nothing and died a pauper. But today, he is remembered as the greatest mind of his generation.

J. Richard Thacker said...

FYI, the google video has fairly correct science, before making a quantum leap to its Islamic conclusion. However, the science is sound.

Anonymous said...

Oh, and if your math is up to it, Bohm, Susskind, and Hooft have done the most scientific work in the field.