caio quoted me as saying:
<< accepting elitist standards without reason, is no better than exhaulting
the beatles beyond reason.
to which he responded:
Without reason? How can you assume that? You may not agree with my reasons,
but never say I don't have any.
to which, i now say:
actually, you have made several statements asking for my agreement
without argument. for example, you asked me to agree with the notion that
shakespeare could write better than you yet, you failed to provide the
reasoning behind such a request. you also failed to identify the criteria
by which i should make such an agreement.
some might say "well, isn't it obvious?" and perhaps they might have a
point if you hadn't gone on to compare lloyd to bach and einstein which might
seem almost as obviously absurd. now it may appear, even to those willing
to make judgments based on the 'i ching', that it is no longer so 'obvious'.
what would be written in a contest between you and shakespeare? a play or,
some foolish post to 'vocalist'? if i had to guess, if it were to be the
latter, i'd bet money on you. are lloyd and einstein to be entered into a
fugue writing contest with bach?
caio quoted me again saying:
> 'revolver' is one of the best albums ever, not
because it is, but, because i think so. show me that i don't!
to which he responded:
You sure do THINK 'Revolver' is one of the best albums ever. But you're
wrong! It's one of the albums you MOST LIKE.
to which i say:
again, you are making an assumption. i never said i like 'revolver'
nor, have i said that i even like the beatles. you have no idea by which
criteria i have made the judgment that 'revolver' is one of the best albums
ever because i never stated that criteria. in a discussion such as this,
one cannot assume a given, no matter how obvious it may seem as, that which
is assumed may very well be the bone of contention. surely, we learned this
much from kant (or, am i assuming too much?).
mike
|
|  |
