Demosthenes...

I just wanted to thank you for coming into my life.
Our relationship so far has allowed me to consider aspects of myself that I was unwilling to acknowledge before we started our discussion.
I can't believe how blind I was (and still am).

I honestly feel so blessed to be a part of such a perfect state of existence, and I'd like to show my appreciation by doing something for you.
I'm not sure yet what that would be, but if you can think of something, anything at all, I'll do whatever I can to make that happen for you.

Thank you again.
Hua Allahu Alazi, Lailaha Illa Hua.

Hello again Mr. Thacker.

Mr. Thacker we've obviously revealed a great blessing in our relationship. You see my arguments as superficial in the same way that I see yours.
It's curious that you think I was taking things personally. I thought the exact same thing about you a few times especially when that friend of ours first showed me your response to her bulletin. Seems to me we have more in common than either of us is willing to admit.

So where do we go from here?
Do you actually want to keep going with this train of thought and keep ourselves open to some sort of honest resolution?
I'm willing to admit my faults in the argument. Namely that my piece was too personal to be publicly accepted if you're willing to accept that at least for the one statement you picked out (if you're willing to allow me to isolate it) I sufficiently supported it using psychological principles (leaving entanglement out of it).
Other than that the only other thing left unresolved with this discussion is the "rules of art", especially with regards to universal language. You want to keep at it or move on?
I'm fine with moving on, I'm perfectly comfortable with my faults and failings in this situation.

So, let's hear your thesis! I'm excited for it.
Actually, before we start onto another train (hopefully one as invigorating as the last) do you mind if I ask a little about your background?
I know you've done your masters in phil. of religion. Is that right? What did you do your undergraduate work on? I also see that you at least have a personal curiosity about esotericism (ref. Zarathustra, Tao Te Ching etc.) but I'm just curious how far you've taken it in your personal life. Have you ever practiced any sort of transcendental meditation or anything similar? Any energy work, pranayama, asceticism, concentration practices, magick, or anything like these?
I'm just curious because if you have I think we have a LOT more to talk about than I first realized. BTW have you ever read any Eliphas Levi, Aleister Crowley, or Vivekananda? If you dig the Tao Te Ching you'll get a kick out of these (don't let all the qabalistic language deter you in Levi and Crowley, you're a bright guy, I'm sure you'll work yourself through it). If you do decide to tackle them make sure you don't make the mistake of underestimating them, (especially Crowley) like Lao Tzu they're deceptively simple sometimes.

But anyways, let's hear that thesis. I requested all the books from the library I could find by the guys you mentioned but unfortunately there was only a handful. Hopefully I'll be able to stay on the same page.

Cheers.

P.S. your link doesn't work, says the video has been removed or something.

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.

Back to Demosthenes

Hello again Demosthenes (I'm curious why you chose that name), I just read your response and wanted to tell you something that may or may not change what you think of my piece (I don't think it's my best work of poetry, honestly I only published it because I thought someone might get a kick out of it).
First of all I often deliberately omit conclusions, a thesis, and incorporate a bunch of incoherence into some of my work. That’s part of the structure. The lack of "foot or measure" is just a cosmetic reflection of that (as is much of the wording).
This has honestly been a large part of my poetic work for a number of years.
Secondly a couple years ago I had the good fortune to meet with a couple of very respected "authorities" on poetry; Dr. Manijeh Mannani of the U. of A. and Dr.Ted Blodget (I think I spelled his name right). Both of these individuals are quite respected in their fields (Comparative Lit. and English Lit. respectively) and both have said that they have a lot of respect for my work, (including the above idea) and when we were discussing my early work Mannani confessed that she believes I'm the greatest poetic genius she's had the pleasure to talk with.

I just wanted to bring these points to the table for you to consider while I prepare a more formal refutation to many of your statements.
BTW I'd really like to read your thesis on the holographic universe if you'd be so kind as to share it.