Or maybe it goes the other way around. Prison officials are concerned for the safety of Spector's fellow prisoners. The last time they let one of those things in, none of the occupants of that particular wing made it to the next morning.
Phil's got his CDC Reception paranoia on. If he survives North Kern, he'll probably be alright. Big rock star store, and then he can get his appeal started.
He may be a scumbag, but the LA DA didn't really prove 187--and juries are as fickle as ho's. Shapiro may have botched the case as well. Unless you saw the shit go down--or a highly reliable tape, or know the cops-- side with the perp.
(Dude, where's the daily John Holblo mockery? That's what's needed. Philosophy-- heh. Try wading through his strange rants on CT. Then again, don't bother. I don't really think Holblo has yet to master Aristotelian syllogisms, much less any 20th century logic guru.
Holblo-speak a fouler wind than any muzak produced by Spector (if yll excuse an insta analogy)
I like Holbo and generally think Emerson looks bad against him. The idea, though, that philosophers are always refuting arguments in ways they all agree on is a little weird though. Each department should be a monolith by now.
The idea, though, that philosophers are always refuting arguments in ways they all agree on is a little weird though.
Emerson does, at times (while sober?) point out that analytical philosophy, as far as it relies on formal logic, cannot really do very much. Toulmin said much the same (and was a fairly serious philosopher, though some mistake him for a mere rhetorician). Most argumentation, even in academia, tends to be inductive, evidence based, not merely reductio ad absurdum. Holblo often seems a bit unaware of that distinction (really, analytical and synthetic truths)
For that matter, Holblow really doesn't go very far, even with the Frege-Russell stuff. He's not Patrick Suppes, taking on Zermelo, Goedel, and so forth. He chants argument, logic, analysis but where's the beef? Instead he offers predictable whines about humanists, assuming that say someone who specializes in, say James Joyce doesn't know what a syllogism is, or suggesting the 19th century systems are mistaken, without really showing us why they are mistaken. Bertrand Russell, however f-ed up or Toryish, while rejecting a Hegel, goes to some length to tell us why he rejects Hegel's system (and may not have completely succeeded).
Not only that, but Holbo's writing sucks. Windy, not funny, overly rhetorical. He Not really cogent, even in his own terms.
In any case, I certainly don't believe I'm fit to make arguments about philosophy or its schools and history: what reading I've done I've done on the bus to and fro work and I've probably come up with some idiosyncratic ideas about it based partially on how irritating the smell of the person next to me was. Arguments about arguments, however, fulfil the pedant in me.
Holbo's writing is fine by me, and amusing, although I'd prefer less parentheticals and asides. I don't think my writing's any better.
Bubba--Philosophy's not that difficult if you remember a few key concepts, like the Law of the Excluded Middle: either A or ~A. Then, armed with LOTEM you go down your little metaphysical check-list:
God exists, OR God doesn't exist (most probably the latter, alas).
Souls exist apart from matter, OR souls don't exist apart from matter (there too, most likely Don't.).
Free will exists, OR Free will doesn't exist (you will probably agree it doesn't).
The plebe having chosen Nays realizes he should just stick with Pre-med, or Engineering, Econ., etc. Those who choose Yeas go on to complete the witchdoctor PhDs, etc make shit up, so forth (Hobbes said as much in 1650 or so, when he dissed Descartes and Co).
A new optical illusion has come to my notice. If you keep your eyes fixated for five minutes on the wig -- the shimmery twitching one, not the flapping one -- and then look up from the computer screen, you find that your family or workmates are all staring at you with expressions of concern.
He looked like a member of the Hair Bear Bunch in that photo...
ReplyDeleteWe can haz animated drag-&-drop afro??
ReplyDeleteMaybe they asked him to put his wig(s) in the bag with all his other possessions when the processed him.
ReplyDeleteThe Hair Bears never made Dee Dee Ramone play pinball at gunpoint.
ReplyDeleteWe can haz animated drag-&-drop afro??
ReplyDeleteWhy yes. Give me a bit.
Maybe they asked him to put his wig(s) in the bag with all his other possessions when the processed him.
ReplyDeleteGood god, they'll kill the thing!
The Hair Bears never made Dee Dee Ramone play pinball at gunpoint.
ReplyDeleteHe looked like... didn't act like.
Well we see why the Hair Bear Bunch lasted so few episodes.
ReplyDeleteMan, Belew looks like shit.
ReplyDeleteGood god, they'll kill the thing!
ReplyDeleteOr maybe it goes the other way around. Prison officials are concerned for the safety of Spector's fellow prisoners. The last time they let one of those things in, none of the occupants of that particular wing made it to the next morning.
Wig-Sothoth takes all prisoners.
ReplyDeleteArtist's impression of Wig-Sothoth, courtesy of Richard Corben.
ReplyDeletePhil Spector, a music producer best remembered for his musical innovation in the '60s known as the "Wall of Hair."
ReplyDeleteyeah, that guy doesn't look crazy at all....
ReplyDelete"Give me back the Presssciousss."
ReplyDeleteThat's Krauthammer in a few years when the After Dinner speech circuit has dried up.
ReplyDeletethe After Dinner speech circuit has dried up.
ReplyDeleteYou just replace the chip when that happens.
Chips are dinner aren't they? Of course I do not move in the rarefried atmosphere of the good Herr Doktor so I may be wrong.
ReplyDeleteCapcha thinks that there maybe trouble in Torsnea soon.
Phil's got his CDC Reception paranoia on. If he survives North Kern, he'll probably be alright. Big rock star store, and then he can get his appeal started.
ReplyDeleteHe may be a scumbag, but the LA DA didn't really prove 187--and juries are as fickle as ho's. Shapiro may have botched the case as well. Unless you saw the shit go down--or a highly reliable tape, or know the cops-- side with the perp.
(Dude, where's the daily John Holblo mockery? That's what's needed. Philosophy-- heh. Try wading through his strange rants on CT. Then again, don't bother. I don't really think Holblo has yet to master Aristotelian syllogisms, much less any 20th century logic guru.
Holblo-speak a fouler wind than any muzak produced by Spector (if yll excuse an insta analogy)
I like Holbo and generally think Emerson looks bad against him. The idea, though, that philosophers are always refuting arguments in ways they all agree on is a little weird though. Each department should be a monolith by now.
ReplyDeleteHolbo has MODOK posts and I'm in favour of those.
That fro is just too damned big. This is hard.
ReplyDeleteThe giant furry bats!!!!!
ReplyDeleteI was not previously aware that badgers formed breeding balls, like garter snakes.
ReplyDeleteThe idea, though, that philosophers are always refuting arguments in ways they all agree on is a little weird though.
ReplyDeleteEmerson does, at times (while sober?) point out that analytical philosophy, as far as it relies on formal logic, cannot really do very much. Toulmin said much the same (and was a fairly serious philosopher, though some mistake him for a mere rhetorician). Most argumentation, even in academia, tends to be inductive, evidence based, not merely reductio ad absurdum. Holblo often seems a bit unaware of that distinction (really, analytical and synthetic truths)
For that matter, Holblow really doesn't go very far, even with the Frege-Russell stuff. He's not Patrick Suppes, taking on Zermelo, Goedel, and so forth. He chants argument, logic, analysis but where's the beef? Instead he offers predictable whines about humanists, assuming that say someone who specializes in, say James Joyce doesn't know what a syllogism is, or suggesting the 19th century systems are mistaken, without really showing us why they are mistaken. Bertrand Russell, however f-ed up or Toryish, while rejecting a Hegel, goes to some length to tell us why he rejects Hegel's system (and may not have completely succeeded).
Not only that, but Holbo's writing sucks. Windy, not funny, overly rhetorical. He Not really cogent, even in his own terms.
Awesome!
ReplyDeleteHave I mixed up my J's? I think I have.
ReplyDeleteIn any case, I certainly don't believe I'm fit to make arguments about philosophy or its schools and history: what reading I've done I've done on the bus to and fro work and I've probably come up with some idiosyncratic ideas about it based partially on how irritating the smell of the person next to me was. Arguments about arguments, however, fulfil the pedant in me.
Holbo's writing is fine by me, and amusing, although I'd prefer less parentheticals and asides. I don't think my writing's any better.
Bubba--Philosophy's not that difficult if you remember a few key concepts, like the Law of the Excluded Middle: either A or ~A. Then, armed with LOTEM you go down your little metaphysical check-list:
ReplyDeleteGod exists, OR God doesn't exist (most probably the latter, alas).
Souls exist apart from matter, OR souls don't exist apart from matter (there too, most likely Don't.).
Free will exists, OR Free will doesn't exist (you will probably agree it doesn't).
The plebe having chosen Nays realizes he should just stick with Pre-med, or Engineering, Econ., etc. Those who choose Yeas go on to complete the witchdoctor PhDs, etc make shit up, so forth (Hobbes said as much in 1650 or so, when he dissed Descartes and Co).
I've still got my symbolic logic texts around, but I'm not fit to follow chatter about leading lights and so on.
ReplyDeleteA new optical illusion has come to my notice. If you keep your eyes fixated for five minutes on the wig -- the shimmery twitching one, not the flapping one -- and then look up from the computer screen, you find that your family or workmates are all staring at you with expressions of concern.
ReplyDeleteThe good Herr Doktor is right. they also express concern if one sings the Wig Song. Poltroons!
ReplyDeleteCapcha is Stralshy One can have too many strals.
Wig song' wig song
ReplyDeleteJeannie isn't wearing those
Wig shimmers wig shimmers
She wouldn't dare in those
Wig shimmers wig shimmers
Wouldn't be seen dead in no wig shimmerrrrrr
The "shimmery twitchy" one is like a time lapse series of a rodent de-composing.
ReplyDeleteRot on, Hair of Spector.
You mean like in the Peter Greenaway movie A $ and two 0's?
ReplyDeleteJesus Christ, now I'll have that stuck in my head too.
ReplyDeleteMind you, there are protective wigs available.