caroljane

"Every man has somewhere in the back of his head the wreck of a thing he calls his education." Too bad Ayn Rand didn't read Leacock. He could be right up there with Spillane on the A-list. I think Rand would hate you-why do you want to post here? Your posts are tearoom pseudo intellectual fodder-I am sure there are forums that would be more responsive-google virtual smug cyber coffee hauses? I dont get some of you I am on min wage and get 40% or more taken out of my pay-dunce et al cannot understand-the puffy privileged are too complacent to even move, slothlike. I will continue to work but I hate the fact I subsidize the likes of the pretentious gits that post here Where is your pride? So it's you who's subsidizing Joel now? Will he never run out of women to charm out of their money? Sure, he has good literary taste, but he's bad news, don't give him another cent!

I think you're right. And her ideas on opposite-sex attraction had some unusual features also.

"Every man has somewhere in the back of his head the wreck of a thing he calls his education." Too bad Ayn Rand didn't read Leacock. He could be right up there with Spillane on the A-list.

I should add that the son in question has inherited my sensibilities,Christina's World gazes across his living room at a garish yet menacing Loch Ness. Nice kvotes eh?

WSS, of course nobody would dare come on here believing in their own idiocy, but I wasn't being that disingenuous. I "know what I like", sort of, and was quite surprised to be so struck by this. Maybe because it instantly connected with the poem which I already knew. My top fave artist is Alex Colville and I would love to own the Irving Oil painting. I also had a Wyeth print that my son likes, so I gave it to him for his new apartment. It's a regional thing with me I fear.

More on schooldays-- But what is the difference Phil? Is it money? In the one empirical experience I had, I'm sure it wasn't. Here were 2 identical small towns with near-identical economies. I'm sure our school didn't have much budget. Our textbooks were so old that in the 1960's we were learning geography where Manchuria was Manchukuo; we couldn't study postwar history because our texts ended smack dab at 1931, so we found out about the Holocaust from hearsay and what our teachers outlined parenthetically. That was a serious gap, but we were expected to fill it ourselves from "Current events" and prepare for university with supplementary reading. The focus was on the core subjects, English, Math, Science. Assuming the situation was the same on the other side of the border then, is it just that your system has radically deteriorated in the last 40 years, or ours has improved?

I didn't post the picture of the pricey Pollock to twit you, but to contrast Objectivish prescriptions for evaluating art to the real world of trade in art. That illustration was implicit, and I should have been straightforward. When I see and read discussions of art, I want specifics, I want illustrations, I want examples. That is why I liked the side-by-side comparisons you gave earlier. I read the Kamhi/Torres book and I felt really really sad for the authors. The world of art criticism, promotion, advertising, scholarly whoopups and so on is lavishly funded. The art world is awash in billions of dollars and thousands of salaried academics, and even more thousands who make their livings ancilliary to it. The K/T book competes with thousands of other books, some of which are colour-plated from beginning to end. The world of Objectivish Art Talk is so irrelevant to that world it staggers me. It staggers me, moreover, that we can yawp on OL about art without posting illustrative examples. To put my massively-irrelevant money where my even more massively-irrelevant mouth is, I post an image of one of my top fifty paintings of all time. I suspect that a strictly Objectivish reaction would be revulsion and dismissal: the painting would have zero objective value. Reaction from Art idiot/ nonvisual thinker: The words that come to mind are "the horror of power". A quotation that comes to mind, maybe because of the colours, is James Shirley's "The Glories of our Blood and State" the last lines of which are: "The garland withers on your brow, and boasts no more your mighty deeds. Upon death's purple altar now, see how the victor-victim bleeds. Your head must come to the cold tomb. Only the actions of the just Smell sweet, and blossom in their dust." (I spent hours memorizing poetry when I should have been studying for exams, and if you're not nice to me, I will recite it at you. You Have Been Warned.) Carol

Thanks Joel! I value your chuckles. I figure if the Pythons could have Philosophy Football in the 1970's, I could take another swipe at Temper Tempest in a Teapot in 2011.

Philip Coates - you said, ("Of course it could simply be that Canadians are better educated than we Yanks?") That's a really good question, which of course can only be answered by hard data. I suppose there are comparison studies out there based on SAT scores, general knowledge level of age groups and so on. But of course I suffer from confirmation bias on this one. I grew up a five-minute walk from the US, half my relatives and early boyfriends etc were American (the American girls were tough and we were afraid of them. Well, I was anyway) I remember once when we Canadian girls were all about 15, over at one of the American boys's house playing Jeopardy, the board game (Art Fleming was the TV host! Good Gord I am old!!)Cdn Girls v.US boys. We wiped the floor with them, even on the American geography and history questions, even though their entire curriculum seemed to consist of that. The brainiest boy said frankly that he had known us all for a while but had no idea we were so smart. We weren't! We learned that stuff at school. Another thing I noticed was the difference in the small-town bookstores. Our history section had a lot of English history, natch, some Canadian, some American, a little European and so on. The history section in the American bookstore started in America in 1776 and proceeded to --America in WWII. A sad note is that three of the boys at that game went to Vietnam a few years later, and one did not come back.

You're welcome. (I don't do emoticons) DL: I respect you for that. ;) ;) Thank you Sir, the Neighbours need to be periodically reminded of my Respectability!

Ninth, Your cast of characters sounds right - I didn't really chart out the roles, I just sort of channelled Peikoff and let my mind garble (I know, I know, no big stretch). Maybe Pseusippos is Kelley and the Acad is TAS? I don't think I have enough Greeks to go around though, I guess Socrates might have to be Isabel P. Aristotle.

Pippi mentioned my "stuffy tearoom" yesterday, but I guess she has edited it out, as I don 't see it now. I'd just like to point out that my tearoom is Rennie Mackintosh and quite airy. WSS, Mad Rab and the gang often hold CLC meetings there, where the discourse is often truly incomprehensible, especially considering Rab's Dundonian accent and speech impediment.

REB: Of course. It's OK though. I forgave her, but I am not to sure about Phil. So what is your pick Roger? Packers are 2 1/2 point favorites and the over under is 45 1/2. Adam Adam, just from curiosity, are your friends going to forcibly detach you from your computer while the game is on?

Phil: Nepotism is fine...as long as you keep it in the family. Adam Don't drag Neoptolomos into this, I'm confused enough already and I'm the one who started this thread. Brain hurts....owww.

[quote name='Rich Engle' timestamp='1279582407' post='103113' In the case of Joyce, I think that might be even more important. I spent a lot (and I mean a LOT) of time with Joyce's work, starting out when I was quite young: my dad gave me a nice book-set, which included "Portrait..." "Dubliners," and "Ulysses." One reason I was spending a lot of time with JJ (this was before I HAD to, more or less at academic gunpoint... Best, rde Let's just say his editor should be nominated for Sainthood. Just ran across this old thread and have to share that in Year 2 English I HAD to read Finnegans Wake. No escape. I quite enjoyed Ulysses but FW, god what torture. After the final exam we all went to the Irish pub and deployed our parodic and colloquial skills on guess what song. Cue the Clancy Bros.

To: Lyceum Staff From: You Know Who I Am There has been a further outrage from an unspeakable source, who has nevertheless spoken, about the very title of our breakthrough Cuttlefishian Caper. Sources indicate that he is saying I was imprecise in my identification of the concept of "Capering" and that cuttlefish in fact could be said to instead "slither", which is an evasion of reality so incomprehensible to the Person I Am that I hardly know how to respond. I should not have to. The evident truth is that cuttlefish caper, to be precise they do not gambol or frivol or hop or skip, and they incontrovertibly do not slither. I should not have to say this. I should not have to say anything, or write anything. I have traduced this heresy, because I owe it to Reason and the Estate, in the fine traductionist tradition of the Lyceum of which we are all, proudly unequal, part.

I will allow you to retreat.

You're welcome. (I don't do emoticons) I am disappointed in this reply. I should have known. Fool me twice I suppose. Now I'm the one confused. That wasn't sarcastic if that's what you meant - I really don't use emoticons, or I would have added one too here. Sometimes I really am clear, you know. "you're welcome" is what all Canadians are brought up to say after someone thanks you. That's all it was.

You're welcome. (I don't do emoticons)

Pippi, I will answer your serious question seriously. What you perceive as my "taking satisfaction in being smug" is what I perceive as enjoying myself on a recreational website. In my real life, I do have satisfaction, but except for comic effect I am never, ever smug, I am grateful. I have been very lucky in every way that matters, and most of that luck has come from others, not myself.

It is an anagram of Dunce Layman. Good guess, but not quite keeredt. Who cares-your original post made no sense whatsoever-you may be literate and lyrical with a large vocabulary and the ability to quote but your posts have no point or substance. Why do you bother? Have a heart, Pip. I'm still stunned by the staggering wit of your original riposte. Twice in a row is not fair.

It is an anagram of Dunce Layman. Good guess, but not quite keeredt.

I surprised she didn't say it blows donkey dong. More her style. Already this degenerate movie is shredding the moral fabric of rational society!

Sure. But trying to fit the nasty jigsaw piece into a space still goes toward filling in the jigsaw. Putin is dreadful and indeed a Czar, but he does rule. Czar Lavrenti P. Beria II.

No. Exactly. I geeve you big heent, Pheeel. I geeeve you leeeenk. Check out Alexa.com, and you can teeeech yourself. Hey, if OL does this well in 2011, I plan to claim share secretly apportion all the credit.