Œcumenical Panheresy.

I am Mr. G. Z. Thompson. You may call me Mr. Thompson.

15.2.06

i've taken up cussing, smoking, and scowling in the past 24 hours

it's been a bad day, gentlemen. i finally did my laundry, but not without some casualties. it ate my chicago plus card! the drier tricked me into paying for one to go twice in a row instead of two at once, forcing me to scrounge, scrimp, and beg for 3 quarters! don't get me started on what went down at the post office! and roommating infidel #1 was by earlier with Woman, but, quite fortunately for all the parties involved, he left. i can't explain! i think it's love! try to say it to you when i feel blue. and all this st. valentine's day candy will make me ill by tomorrow afternoon.

attn: commenting infidels. i have a web-log or a journal or a diary. i do not think "blog" is a word and nothing i produce can have such an ugly name attached to it.

anyways, so i took out my pent-up rage on a logical positivist trying to argue man was the measure of all things and those bloody Goddists who wanted to appeal to something outside of man or a conscience or whatever were holding back progress or whatever. i pointed out there's no reason in his system to prefer death over life, the continuance of the human race over its cessation, verdant pastures over the smoldering remains of a nuclear holocaust, etc. all his system can say is a bunch of sentences about the arrangement of particles, and particles don't much care either way. any criterion to judge is beyond reason. score one for Goddism.

yeah, i'm the worrying kind.

4 Comments:

At 15/2/06 20:39, Blogger Caelius said...

Attn: Mr. Thompson

The Oxford English Dictionary reports that "blog" is both a verb and a noun.

Now, you could denounce the OED. But what other dictionary are you going to find words like "circumincession"?

 
At 15/2/06 20:45, Anonymous Anonymous said...

no! schism! the modernists! the answer is to go back to the 1928 oed.

 
At 16/2/06 00:52, Blogger Patrick said...

Au contraire, "blog" is superior to the unwieldy "weblog". Perhaps it's not mellifluous, but how many monosyllabic words are?

Oh, and did the positivist have a legitimate rejoinder? If we're materialists, then I haven't heard a reply that doesn't undercut itself directly (except for the Nietzschean aesthetic reason for continuing humanity; but from your account, it seems that the positivist doesn't give a fig for aesthetics).

The things you've said, well, maybe they're true.

 
At 16/2/06 02:19, Blogger Mr. G. Z. T. said...

he only had more assertions along the lines of, "no, indeed, things are always and only a matter of facts. any attempt to call up anything else is nonsense." rather disappointing, but at least he's persistent and consistent.

you have a tin ear if you think "blog" sounds good.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home