Say what you mean, and mean what you say
Who's Online
There are currently 1 user and 13 guests online.
Online usersWho's NewPollA year after Obamalini's election, who is shaping up as a credible next President?
Sarah Palin
22%
Mitt Romney
9%
Ron Paul
13%
Bobby Jindal
13%
Mike Huckabee
3%
Glenn Beck
9%
Leonard Peikoff
16%
Tim Pawlenty
6%
Other (please specify)
9%
Total votes: 32
 Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell
 Economics In One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt
|
The New Philosophy of Chatons and J-thons Submitted by wsscherk on Fri, 2006-05-12 14:06
Oops, don't have one, just a musing, and a mental image of kittens (chatons, Fr., kittens): -- doesn't it seem to some of you, oh chin-on-fist, palm-on-mouse, angina-tablets-at-hand readers who have yet to post, that the chatbox is a different form of forum? a more kittenish place, as opposed to the "Gladiators and the Lions" main SOLO battle arenas?
Having participated in open chat at the SOLO chatbox, in Skype and Google and Yahoo exchanges, as well as some VoIP, I figure that the congeniality index is instantly increased just because of the real-time variable and the conversational tempo. Am I wrong in finding the tone and temper of the chatbox congenial? Has anyone been surprised to find me there and yet not a drunken, evul-minded, near-psychotic, brain-farting, Swiftian menace-to-literature, silly, addled by pills, geekish, nonsensical monster from the outer reef of Nutcase Survivor Island? If not, any thoughts on the chat function and its effects on discourse, trust, truth and 'toleration'? Anybody dart eyes left at the Who's online while chattering and wonder when dianahsieh or Lindsay Perigo or Mike Mazza or Phil Coates might hop in and ask us what up . . . or if they ever will, not knowing as they might not, that said arena has no lions, no blood, no beheadings, no swords and one simple-but-ample oath and aim: 'to be more fully human with each other'? It'd be fun for them, the whole them, all of them, all the chin-on-hands too -- and most congenial. And I am all about fun. WSS ____ Postscript: here in British Columbia, warm sun on my neck, work sack packed, bike at the ready for the 6km jaunt to the pleasures of the eight hour encounter with capitalism . . . I see these luminaries to the left: # jenright as of 7:09 Pacific time, not another kid on the playground but me. How I wish Ashley would pop in an say, "Hey, works for me . . . I'll be baked" or the fabulously steely Joe Maurone share dating tips with me . . . even John Enright could pop in and let me tell him how much I enjoyed his lustrous wife's JARS essay on emotion and reason. And that RoR editor Ethan Dawe. Does he spell as bad as I do in realtime? Well, howdy y'all anyway. Best wishes for your productive days. May there be extensions to my naive philosophy of chatons by eventide. Tic toc.
( categories: )
|
User loginNavigation
 The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand
 Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand
Syndicate |
No, I won't, Will, and it is
No, I won't, Will, and it is tragic.
BTW, since it seems as if the fact that Diana has never met Chris in person has been brought up as a point against her: most of Sciabarra's defenders like MSK have not met him in person, either.
"I met Chris Sciabarra"
But you likely won't again, Joe, right?
That note, and the adjoining -- that Diana will likely never meet Chris -- is the minor tragic discordance that strikes rather somberly with me.
I am saddened by this sort of bitter personal discord and distress. It's that last remaining stubborn tumour of altruism qua empathy which clings to my spine and prevents me from donning the robes and becoming fully and correctly O.
On a lighter note, a mask of tragedy from the ancients, below, to remind us that such tragedies are for public instruction: will we puny moderns scurry home from this grand public spectacle as if from Punch and Judy or as if from Sophocles?
Chin-on-fisters, please ponder.
(from the fabulous classics learning tool Vroma)
"ps did it strike you at all
"ps did it strike you at all that Diana Hsieh has never actually met Chris Sciabarra?"
I did.
A good one
Intelligent insight, William.
It is so! Different media lend themselves to different tempers. Writing unlocks many doors which personalities seal against one another. Likewise, writing has its own deficiencies which drive paticular wedges between people and people, and people and action.
This whole SOLO enterprise, for example, will come to nothing if it settles content with the status of a geeky message board for bickering insiders. There needs to be new media.
SOLO would possibly do better not to have retained Joseph Rowlands' message board innovation. It tempts us to mistake online activity for real-world progress.
There will never be a substitute for meeting other men in person. With all our fax machines, instant emails and real-time satellite video conferencing men still fly accross the world to look one another in the eye and shake hands to seal business deals. Physical contact is the ultimate medium.
To carry over good faith into more and more abstract realms requires a proportional amount of integrity. Your chat-box experience has been more congenial because the medium better lends itself to good will. Personal contact is less abstracted.
Has anyone been surprised to find me there and yet not a drunken, evul-minded, near-psychotic...
It's a mark of your own integrity, I think, that I've found you to be as entirely twisted and consistently eccentric in both mediums.
ps did it strike you at all that Diana Hsieh has never actually met Chris Sciabarra?
. . .
. . .