Stop living in the past.
We all enjoy the heritage buildings, and hopefully can preserve most of them for use. That’s right, USE—buildings are designed to be used. Modernity is here to stay. If you want proof, go travel. Historic buildings can co-exist with modern ones, and there are plenty (read: almost every) cities that have shown this to be true. Contrary to what some of you might believe, Halifax is not the only city with “historic” character.
Historical mimicry is simply a failure of the present, and an insult to the past (plastic fake stones do not equal real masonry).
I’d rather live in the present, thank you. -The Future
This article appears in Apr 10-16, 2014.
As someone who works in the design industry, I support this bitch.
Old buildings are great because they are actually old. They represent the trades and craftsmanship of the time. Buildings should always be “of their time”.
The old Architects didn’t design these buildings to be objects of desire, but rather to be functional working buildings. I’m sure some of them are rolling in their graves right now. The Roy Building is a tragic example.
Europeans have successfully integrated modern buildings with much older ones, and their cities have a delightful and layered architecture. New is new, old is old. They all co-exist. Cities are layers of buildings and ideas that change over time – not fixed idealized entities.
I’m not advocating cheap developer specified buildings here, but rather a contextual modernity. Unfortunately, developers rule the day, and the Architects are mere cogs in the machine. Most of the modern failures plaguing Halifax have nothing to do with Modern Architecture, and everything to do with poor development standards (often a result of meager regulations).
We can’t live in the past forever. We are more than a lighthouse and cute buildings.
So… yes?
City planners want to grow the population to 50% in the regional centre (downtown) because the city saves billions in doing this since the amenities are already in place downtown, where they would have to build up other surrounding urban areas and put in new dwellings, (new service roads, powerlines, pipelines, sewers, etc). This regional centre growth cannot be achieved through hidden density alone, so high rises like the trillium and other tasteless obtrusive erections are soon gonna be popping up more and more in the downtown vacinity. The only problem: the downtown Halifax is grossly overpopulated as it is – there is not a drop of parking unless you’re willing to sell your first born for a coveted spot in a parking garage. A 1-bedroom apartment downtown will run you the better part of a grand in monthly rent. Would you like to purchase a condo in the new trillium? That’ll be $599,900.00 please. Yeah all the fancy new high-rises are great aren’t they, too bad no one can afford to live in them. The bums outside can’t even afford to piss on them. Relax, soon enough our downtown core will be built up so high into the airspace we’ll look like Toronto, breathing in the smog and paying the price to do it. Ah well you can always purchase some “fresh air” by the jar, from France, like the chinese do.
You mention ”historic character” which is key in this process. Many of the buildings in the downtown core do not have ”character”. These are just old. A few exceptions do come to mind such as the St Paul’s Building, Marble Building, City Hall and the building which houses Urban Cottage and the Granville Mall facade.
The right here and now ain’t so great, and you’re in for a real treat as far as the future goes… Probably should start wearing your safetybelts, helmets, knee/elbow pads, etc, etc….. It’s gonna be a bumpy ride.
Yours truly.
“The only problem: the downtown Halifax is grossly overpopulated as it is “
” Yeah all the fancy new high-rises are great aren’t they, too bad no one can afford to live in them”
So downtown is overpopulated except for the fact that no-one can afford to live there?
😕
You’d make more sense squatting over the keyboard and fart-typing.
The fact that there is no parking is a city planning failure, not proof of overwhelming population density. If we gutted every empty building space and allowed parking, we’d have more than enough. Half of downtown is empty… but only because buildings are either pushing out certain businesses (think downtown dooly’s… how long has that giant space been empty?) or demanding insane rent.
Some of you are making a false assumption; urban density = highrises. Let me elaborate;
The Halifax Peninsula has a wealth of housing and mixed use residential areas with the potential to accomodate a larger urban population while maintaining the scale of the city. The Quinpool area is a perfect example of this. Medium density projects along this street could have a big impact. Instead, developers come in with massive projects to fill their bank accounts, and the city allows it to happen. The Quinpool tower (Quingate?) is a good example of failed high density housing in terms of its urban impact. Multiple medium density projects would maintain the scale of the street and house the same number of people. There was a big study done on this in the early 1980s I believe.
Halifax seems to be afraid of exploring quality (and affordable) medium density projects in areas where the amenities and services already exist. Instead we keep building suburbs, costing us millions and creating traffic issues in the city as all the suburbanites race to get home.
As to the parking comments – we wouldn’t need so much downtown parking if people could walk or take the bus to work, solving this issue. I like Amsterdam’s solution to this problem.
I’m being hard on developers, but the city has a lot to do with this problem. The HRM Land-Use Bylaws are antiquated and prevent a lot of the common sense development to happen. The amount of red tape one has to go through just to build an addition to most homes (which is part of the medium density solution) is enough to deter homeowners from the process.
It always bugs me a little when people decide to make comments that include me in them.
“We all enjoy heritage buildings” …well actually , NO I Don’t. Sure some old buildings & castles are pretty cool.
But that monstrosity of a heritage building ‘Government House’ that our Lt Gov lives in on Barrington St. NO Expense was spared in bringing materials over to build it & none has been spared to refurbish it. That’s all the tax payers being fleeced then & right up until now, so a few elite have a snazzy place to hang out …at our expense of course . If they had to pay for it themselves it’d be a couple of rocks on the side of a lane somewhere, or more likely at a pub somewhere, using their expense accounts to pay for the fare ! ! ! You can be sure of that, they wouldn’t be out a thin dime.
Or that stupid fort on the Hill in Halifax that never fought a battle , never did a damn thing but take up space & is still doing so today.
Same thing for the comment ,from our so called first minister saying how saddened all Canadians were at Flaherty’s passing…are you fucking kidding me !?! I had a drink with ‘Another One Bites the Dust’ cranked on my surround sound while wishing with my most devout prayers a PM private junket in one of our taxpayer paid for planes would crash killing a whole bunch of those thieving Ba’tards. You all do know why the Government is so against organized criminal enterprises right ? They hate the competition !
So OB & anyone else , when you make a comment that ‘everyone’ cares, or doesn’t care , why not attempt to use a much closer to the truth word like ‘most’ people, or ‘many’ people. Because it is a complete impossibility for it to ever be ‘everyone’ !
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wz_DNrKVrQ…
More,
I’ve noticed Another One Bites the Dust playing a lot on the radio these days.
More,
Because you’re making an argument out of nothing. EVERYONE understands – wait, most intelligent people – that generalizations don’t include everyone.
I can’t stand the generalization police, they’re almost as bad as the grammar police.
“most intelligent people…”
Weeeeeeell, we *do* call him more-on for a reason, Jhey.
it all makes sense.
This is an excellent post – and some good points stated
The past should be preserved, but not at the expense of the future
I was listening to CBC the other day, and residents of HRM were calling in complaining about the modern buildings, and how they don’t “fit” with the historic character and the lighthouses, etc. How we needed to keep the historic character to attract tourists, etc.
It’s as if they believe Halifax is the only city in the world that has old architecture and historical remnants. This fascinates me – and terrifies me.
What does everyone think of the new Halifax logo?
A PHILOSOPHICAL CANCER: ON THE EMPTINESS OF UTILITARIANISM
“We all enjoy the heritage buildings, and hopefully can preserve most of them for use. That’s right – USE – buildings are designed to be used.” The Future
What is the philosophical subtext here? That’s right, it’s utilitarianism, the view that value is to be equated with use. If something has no such “use,” then it has no value. However, the doctrine of utilitarianism is by no means restricted to the present example of heritage buildings. On the contrary, it is a philosophical cancer which has spread so as to invade every aspect of our society. Let me explain.
The cancer of utilitarianism is THE unquestioned modernist assumption. Its powers of discrimination are universal. Look at the title of this bitch, “Nostalgic Woes.” We understand that “woes” means “sorrows” but what about “nostalgia?” A quick check of the Concise Oxford Dictionary reveals that nostalgia is “Home-sickness, as a disease; a sentimental yearning for some period of the past.” So the debate is loaded at the outset. Nostalgia is just a “sentimental disease” and that’s that. But why is nostalgia a sentimental disease? No reasons are required. It’s obvious. Nostalgia has no use-value. It has no utility and utility is that by which everything – yes everything – must be measured. For example, even our sense of humour has become infected with the cancer.
A recent cartoon showed a small group of monks standing on a hillside at dusk witnessing a magnificent sunset. They clapped their hands and cried, “Author! Author!” It was a utilitarian knee-slapper. Why? Because the sunset had no use-value. It had no utility. The monks’ contemplation of the sunset was inconceivable to the modernist utilitarian mind-set. In the utilitarian mind-set there is no room for such contemplation. In fact, such contemplation is just simply meaningless. The monks, as a consequence, could only be seen as fools. That is why the cartoon was a utilitarian knee-slapper.
Utilitarianism is itself, of course, simply part of the modern constellation of similar philosophical assumptions. Closely allied is “pragmatism,” the view that what matters is not airy-fairy philosophical speculation but rather what works. Truth is that which works. To ask, “Works for what, to what end?” is an otiose question, one that does not even arise in the pragmatic mind. It does not arise because its principles preclude its arising. In the same way “empiricism” – the view that reality consists only of that which can be quantitatively measured – enjoys widespread acclaim. Questions relating to quality rather than simple quantity do not appear on the empiricist screen. Again, empiricism has its close cousins in “positivism,” “functionalism,” “verificationism” and all the rest. Indeed, today utilitarianism and its allied cancers are philosophically paramount. To even raise questions about them amounts to lunacy, to a dangerous apostasy from the true faith. For the utilitarians are “true believers” and make no mistake.
Sadly, current education, the only possible egress from the utilitarian blight, finds itself under the
coarse pragmatic hand as well. All education which has no use-value is to be rejected! All education which makes appeal to contemplation, to quality rather than just quantity, is to be suppressed! Lacking a narrow utilitarian value, the humanities are just laughable, courses taken only by fools! Where’s the money in them? That’s the question. Isn’t it?
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
Montrealman,
This is, and was, my field of study. You make so many false assumptions about Modernism (capital M) and contemporary Architecture that I don’t even know where to start. Design is about form, context (economic, social, etc) and function – aesthetics, as much as I hate using that term, emerges from their consideration – and trust me, they are considered with rigor. Every Architect wants to make quality buildings. Then came the mega developers…
Besides, Architects don’t want to get bogged down by philosophy, and some would argue (I would) that theory has hindered the education process and resulted in some ghastly structures and a crumbling profession.
Modernity says nothing about quality. It’s simply a contemporary means of production. You can make good Modern buildings and you can make bad ones.
Buildings have, for the most part, always been useful, and “of their time”.
If Architects contemplated all the time, nothing would ever get done. We would live in mud huts – or caves, since they’re already available.
What a nightmare! Philosphy! lol.
Can’t wait for TB’s take on the Revolve Rebrand…
RSVP
: The Board (04/16, 9:45AM)
You must read my post over again. It wasn’t about your “field of study.” It wasn’t about architecture at all. It was about philosophy which, clearly, isn’t your field of study. But I know that you will never understand that.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
Based on your ramblings, you must be the only one that understands anything at all!
RSVP
: The Board (1:50PM)
Your statement is incoherent. My “ramblings,” as you put it, cannot be causally connected to my understandings since they are the embodiment of such understandings. In other words, they are the same thing.
But I know that you will not understand this.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
mm, you must have a headache by now, or you are made of much sterner stuff than i
(and i am just a bystander in this)
RSVP
: Good dog Molly (04/16, 10:13PM)
Thank you for your kind thoughts. While I find the usual back-and-forth with people who have no idea what they are talking about extremely tedious, it does not arise to the level of actually having a headache.
Of course, it might be (somewhat) philosophically interesting to explore the distinction between the state of extreme tedium on the one hand and actual painful brain-states on the other but, since The Board appears to have gone away, that shall not be necessary. Maybe he’s working on the plans for some new modernist architectural monstrosity.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
Montrealman,
You love to make connections out of nothing, ask for the meaning of every word and statement, etc. You are trying so hard to sound intelligent, but none of us are buying it. You have no ability to edit or write anything with coherence, and you think your academic papers make you smarter than the rest of us. You are the perfect example of where universities went wrong. So thank you for showing us mere peons.
Every time you say “but I know you will not understand this”, you undermine your own intelligence. Only an inferior mind would believe such drivel.
Please, keep posting your mental masturbation if it makes you feel better about yourself, but you’re not convince anyone.
” I find the usual back-and-forth with people who have no idea what they are talking about extremely tedious”
If we bore you so much, why bother wasting your time reading and responding to our comments? Someone with such a large skull, jam packed with only the universes most elite brain matter, must have more pressing things to do than exert your intellectual superiority over the masses, or the “underclass”, as you so eloquently refer to us pee-ons. Perhaps, if I may wager a bet, your job, a publicly funded position, at which you make well over 100k/year, isn’t a) able to capture your full attention, or b) you aren’t taking it seriously enough to spend your workday actually giving us real value for public dollar spent.
Although it is nice of you to take time out of your busy schedule, to come here and enlighten us to exactly how stupid you think we really are, not all of us are giving you a standing ovation.
First; Not everyone here was afforded the opportunities, for a vast number of reasons, that allowed them the luxury to live a life of intellectual and academic pursuit.
Second; you display extremely poor judgement on how you conduct yourself as a professional educator. Imagine what the parents on this site must think when they read comments like yours and realize they were written by an “educator”. Someone that will be helping guide their children/young adults into productive society.
You should be ashamed!!!!
A displeasure as always.
Montrealman…
You’re an educator?!?! Oh my…
An educator with such poor writing and editing skills? Unreal.
KICKING A COUPLE COMMENTERS AROUND
RSVPS
In view of the weakened state of their cognitive powers, I realize it’s against my better judgement to respond to them but since no new bitches are up yet I may as well take a moment to kick a couple commenters around for a bit of philosophical fun. Hmm, what’s in the mailbag this morning? Oh, here’s a couple.
: The Blowhard (04/17, 1:21PM)
Let’s see, what’s on his mind this morning? As usual, The Blowhard misses the point. Unlike his comments, there are a (very) few with which I am not bored. The vast majority, as I have pointed out on numerous occasions, amount to little more than brief, one-dimensional “brain farts.” However, in this case, while the comment is a bit longer it still amounts to little more than a cubit of bowel gas. Let’s take up his points seriatim.
1. I’m not sure what he might means by my having “such a large skull jam packed with the universes (sic) most elite brain matter” but it is certainly not the case that I have anything better to do than “exert my superiority over the masses or the ‘underclass’ “. This is to misconceive the importance of my mission here. It is similar to that of Socrates who descended into the Athenian marketplace to stroll about and engage the resident intellectual primitives in philosophical dialogue – the famous “Socratic dialogue” – so as to elevate them from their slough of ignorance and despond. My reference to the “Halifax Underclass” is, of course, not meant in any disparaging sense but rather is to be understood as a bare, dispassionate description of its debased intellectual condition. But The Blowhard will never grasp this simple truth.
2. In his usual fashion The Blowhard reduces my motivation to economic criteria, to my 100k/year publicly- funded position. He yobbers boringly on about my giving value for money and all the rest, but he fails to understand that my motivation is philosophical, not financial. In time perhaps he might but it is doubtful.
3. If the others on this site, so The Blowhard maintains, had been given my opportunities which allowed me “the luxury to live a life of intellectual and academic pursuit” then they would have done the same. I find this highly doubtful, particularly in the case of The Blowhard himself. Why is this so? Because he identifies himself as an intellectual proletarian in calling such a life a “luxury” where, in fact, it is fundamental – it is definitive – of what it means to be a human being. But, encased in the iron cage of his own primitive understandings, The Blowhard will never realize this.
4. Here The Blowhard attempts – but fails – to engage me on my own ground, that of being a “professional educator”. He protests in respect to what the parents must think if, on their child’s report card, they received comments such as those I make here. Clearly, The Blowhard is unable to distinguish the adult Socratic marketplace, characterized as it is by the free and unimpeded exchange of ideas, from the cloistered confines of the academy where the nurturing care of one’s charges is the paramount consideration. But even there, of course, the parry and thrust of ideas in the classroom itself serves as a spur to the burgeoning reflective powers of the young. But, clearly not being an educator himself, The Blowhard will never understand this.
: The Board (7:03PM)
Clearly, The Board does not realize that the role of the educator consists of a great deal more than his “editing and writing skills”. Rather, his role is inspirational, to ignite the burning flame of his students’ questing intellects. By reducing the role of the educator to his “editing and writing skills” The Board says nothing about the educator. However, he says a great deal about himself. But I know he will never understand this.
Of course, and in standard fashion, The Board does not indicate just how my “editing and writing skills” are deficient. He simply assumes that his assertion itself is self-validating. That is very poor pedagogy. In fact, it is not pedagogy at all. It is just another “brain fart”. But I know he will never understand that.
Well, that was pretty boring. Let’s hope hopes that the new crop of bitches will pop up shortly.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
There could be more housing built, for taxpayers and workers, if they shifted the slackers and welfare cases out of city housing and moved them elsewhere.
It’s about getting the most out of what you make/build/use – single family dwellings in the suburbs being the least efficient means of housing ever conceived.
There’s a balance somewhere. Add a 3rd story to most homes in Halifax, and you can house twice the amount of people without loading infrastructure needs.
J
Montrealman,
Your mental masturbation only serves to display your inability to make concise statements – a true indicator of intelligence.
Intelligent people communicate with efficiency, clarity and purpose. You, do not. You are living proof of the epic failure that is university today.
But being all so stupid (mostly me), we will never understand that.
Always a displeasure. Always.
RSVP
: The Board (04/18, 1:35PM)
Once again you have failed your own test for intelligence. “Concision” may well feature as an attribute of stupidity as intelligence. In other words, as such, “concision” is a mark neither of intelligence nor of stupidity. It can function in either respect. It is an irrelevant attribute. It signifies nothing.
Now, look at your own post. It is concise but is it intelligent? Hardly. What you claim as my “mental masturbation” – now there’s an original phrase – you then attribute to be the source of my lack of intelligence. But see the paragraph above. There exists no cause-effect relationship between the two. Indeed, your assertion itself is incoherent since my “mental masturbation” on the one hand and my lack of concision on the other are indistinguishable – they are the same thing – and so cannot issue out into my lack of intelligence.
I have noticed that this appears to be a continual failing on your part. It is a failure of simple logic and, of course, such a failure betokens a failure of rudimentary intelligence. I know you will not understand this.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
Try the LOVE side jhey–lotsa sweet posts….pretty nice–and we’re pretty much all lovey-dovey over there (smart too, but we usually don’t seem to need to brag about it;))…and most of the gang drop over every now and then….it’s all good vibes, and discussion if you like 😛
SS
ps–if you think coming over to the LOVE side may be difficult, just try using The Force 😀
MM wins. Fatality. Someone call Hugo, stat.
RSVP
: Lovey-Dovey (04/18, 4:02PM)
“and we’re pretty much all lovey-dovey over there (smart too, but we usually don’t seem to need to brag about it;)”
Another slow morning so I’ll check the mailbag to see if there’s anything there. Oh look, here’s one from Lovey-Dovey who wants to take The Board under her nurturing wing. So, what does she have to say? Let’s see…
While she gives excellent advice to The Board – he obviously needs all the help he can get – one does wonder about her assertion to the effect that she is smart – her use of the first person plural “we’re” is meant to indicate that she, like the others on the LOVE side, is both smart but humble since, like them, she doesn’t seem to need to brag about it. But her assertion is puzzling. Why is it puzzling? Let me explain.
It is puzzling for reasons similar but not identical to those of The Board whose posts were seen to be incoherent on the grounds of a simple failure of logic. He claimed that I lacked intelligence because my posts lacked “concision” which, in turn, was a result of my deplorable habit of engaging in “mental masturbation.” But The Board failed to understand that there was no causal connection between such “concision” and any failure of intelligence. He failed to understand that since such “concision” is simply adverbial rather than substantive it may just as well feature as a characteristic of stupid posts as well as those which aspire to intelligence. Indeed, The Board’s posts themselves were both concise and stupid. So The Board failed his own intelligence test. Perhaps he has taken Lovey-Dovey’s advice and migrated to the LOVE side. But what about Lovey-Dovey herself? Has her post displayed her self-proclaimed assertion that she is smart? In the same way, has she demonstrated the truth of her self-proclaimed humility?
Hardly. Where The Board’s failure was one of incoherence resulting from a failure of rudimentary logic, Lovey-Dovey’s incoherence is one of simple omission. In other words, while Lovey-Dovey claims to be both smart and humble, she has given us no grounds to believe either assertion. As is so often the case on this site, Lovey-Dovey has simply assumed, without a shred of evidence, the truth of her own empty claims. One feels compelled to maintain, as a consequence, that far from being both smart and humble Lovey-Dovey is both stupid and arrogant. This is not surprising since stupidity and arrogance are not just contingently related but, indeed, are mutually reinforcing as they invariably inhabit the same conceptual space. But, of course, Lovey-Dovey will never understand that.
Well, that was pretty boring but let’s look on the bright side and hope that a new crop of bitches will be forthcoming soon.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
Tomaso – I’ll get to him later when I have some time to kill, especially about his inability to distinguish sarcasm.
jhey – Don’t attack his “substance” it’s just smoke. (lol – structure without substance)
Somebody wondered why (you?) Smeagol is here instead of a(ny) Philosophy Fourm. Give this a quick read, and you’ll figure it out.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/
Hugo,
Don’t worry, I’ve been surrounded by academics most of my life, and have the ability to decipher between regurgitating hacks and intelligent inquisitive minds. My field is filled with egos.
The profs that had the most influence on me were always very straight forward, had the ability to communicate efficiently, and never required mental masturbation (smoke) to get ideas across. I feel the same way today. The architects I admire don’t speak architalk bullshit.
We need a door here; what is the meaning of door? Is the object “door” the physical manifestation of a threshold? What is the meaning of threshold? If a door leads to nowhere, is it still a door? Can we perceive a “door” without its physical presence? Do we really need a door here?
GASP!
“Here The Blowhard attempts – but fails – to engage me on my own ground, that of being a “professional educator”. He protests in respect to what the parents must think if, on their child’s report card, they received comments such as those I make here.”
Nice try, douchebag. As usual, MM has jumped the gun and not even scratched the surface of what I meant by that part of my comment. It’s all about attitude, MM, not about reading comments on report cards. Your attitude reeks of egotism/elitism and I highly doubt you have the self control to stop yourself from branding students with labels such as “underclass”. You get to “play God” and handpick the chosen few who will be “enlightened” by your “precious knowledge”, leaving the rest behind. There will be a few students in each class that will receive your undivided attention, while the rest will be left for your TA for the help they need because, “you know they will never understand”.
RSVPS
Well, still nothing in the way of new bitches for this afternoon. I looks like I’ll just have to do a little quick housecleaning
: The Psycho (04/19, 10:01AM)
As has been boringly pointed out previously, at length and to the point of tedium, The Psycho has become mentally deranged. Realizing that his paltry academic attainments will never begin to match Montrealman’s, he has become unbalanced to the point of hysteria. Sadly, in combination with his feeble attainments is his overweening egotism which will never let him rest. As a result he has embarked upon a futile career of stalking Montrealman in which, unable to give any rational content to his hysterical outbursts, he resorts to invective, name-calling and sneering. That is all he has. He has no mind. To attempt rational intercourse with The Psycho in consequence is tantamount to attempting rational intercourse with a psychotic in an asylum. It is a futile task. He is without the rational capacity to give reasons for his wild assertions. Not wishing to inflame his psychotic condition further, Montrealman has indicated to him that all communication must cease. Let the word now go out. All communication with The Psycho must heretofore cease.
: The Board (2:58PM)
Read my post of 04/18, 2:58PM over again. Now, can you get beyond your usual empty claims and engage its substance? No, I didn’t think so. As I have repeatedly said, I know you will be unable to understand this. But you’re right in one respect – we do need a door here. Will you open it now and leave quietly? Thank you.
: The Blowhard (1:39PM)
Unable to engage my detailed argument of 04/17, 1:21PM The Blowhard proceeds to do a little pop psychology. He detects that it is my “attitude” which is at fault, one which “reeks of egotism/elitism.” And not only that, I also lack the “self-control to stop myself from branding students with labels such as ‘underclass.'”
Taking the last point first, I must point out that I never label any of my students as “underclass,” only those on this site who display the relevant characteristics among which, of course, The Blowhard is unquestionably one.
It is true that one wishes that could possess that humility and meekness which The Blowhard, as we all know, invariably embodies but that will only be achieved after an extended period of intense training and reflection. One can only hope, at some time in the future, to attain that degree of spiritual peace and benevolence in which The Blowhard rejoices. (What a buffoon!)
Well, like my previous RSVPS that was pretty boring but, with luck, maybe we’ll have a new crop of bitches tomorrow. Fingers crossed!
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
Wow, someone sure doesn’t like being told he’s a waste of time 😉
Argument from Outrage, Ad Hominem attack and many, many more Fallacies brought to you by our, one and only self-proclaimed intellectual.
Smeagol loggin-on to LTWWB
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScA7PhDJPJE
Hmmm…new name for Smeagol, from now it shall be called “Loulou”.
jhey …. now you understand why I call him mumbles, like the character from Dick Tracy .
~;D & mumbles i didn’t bother to read your posts, just everyone else’s & caught more from their replies than i would trying to get through your drivel.
So please insult me & my inability to understand, your mumbles.It seems to give you pleasure to dis others & I don’t care what you write it always comes across as mmmuumbbble , mumblemmmmmuuummmmm … mummmblllllee.
so please, enjoy yourself & blather a reply
I think what can happen is that some academics feel alienated, so they huddle with other alienated academics and convince themselves of their superiority. A vote would indicate 100% agreement among the huddle.
It’s like a self-praising shell that eventually leaks and seeps into their every day dealings until they become a big sloppy pile of pretentious mumbles.
But they remain convinced, that we, the mere plebes, do not – and can not – understand this.
I am, however, thankful to the many academics who have inspired me along the way.
Of course, none of them would write/speak/think like our friend MM.
RSVPS
Well, another morning without our regular crop of bitches so it looks like I’ll have to keep the ball in the air once again. There are a couple of bright spots however. The Psycho is out and The Blowhard has apparently blown himself out so the load has been lightened considerably. So, what’s in the mailbag? My God, can you believe it? Look who’s popped back up!
: The Small Smelly Man (04/20, 12:16PM)
Oh dear, oh dear. Self-contradictingly pointing out that while he “didn’t bother to read your posts” Smelly simultaneously protests that, “I don’t care what you write it always comes across as mmuummbble.” Obviously, Smelly doesn’t realize that his second sentence contradicts his first, i.e., he MUST have read my posts in order to maintain that they always come across as “mmuummbble.” But, of course, as with so much else, I know that Smelly will never understand this.
: The Board (12:28PM)
From his usual failures in rudimentary logic The Board now proceeds to engage in flights of fancy. We learn that “alienated academics” form “huddles” in order to “convince themselves of their superiority”. But what can The Board possibly mean? What can he conceivably be talking about? Clearly, The Board doesn’t have have the slightest bit of evidence on which to base his fantastical comment but, and this is the interesting part, there is a very good reason for this. That reason consists of the fact that the only connection with academics – “alienated” or otherwise – exists only in the realm of his fevered imagination, not in the realm of reality. However, trapped as he is in his world of fantasy, I know he will never understand that.
(12:34PM)
Wait! The Board just had another “thought.” What is it now? Well, The Board wants to express his appreciation to “the many academics who have helped me along the way.” While one generally doesn’t encounter many “academics” in the technical/vocational wing of the local comprehensive – not to disparage the technical/vocational wing of the local comprehensive, of course, but the fact is that academics there are not thick on the ground – the more relevant question is “along the way” to where? It sounds as though The Board has scaled the heights of academic achievement but – why is it? – one doubts that this is the case? Why does one doubt it? Read his posts. But I know he will never understand this.
Well, another boring RSVP session but maybe there will be some new bitches popping up shortly, ones upon which Montrealman can, once again, engage his incomparable analytical powers as he proceeds to deconstruct those concepts which give meaning to our lives.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
Loulou said – “INTELLIGENCE RESIDES IN THE ABILITY TO MAKE DISTINCTIONS”
I would have accepted this also…
http://www.unfetteredmind.org/helpful-dist…
So, you’re promoting Pragmatism now?
MM seems to follow a formula, and it is flawed every step of the way.
It’s kind of cute now.
You’re questioning what I meant by “along the way” – are you fucking serious? Yes, we’re alll capable of questioning every statement one makes. It’s pointless. You seem to be the only one NOT understanding things?
It’s a damn good thing most academics are not like you. You are a farce of epic proportions.
jhey, i told you the LOVE side was more fun 😉
RSVPS
: The Board (04/21, 7:52PM)
Two brief points only: (1) You accuse me of following a “formula” but fail to understand that the process of rationality, unlike your own feeble attempts at ratiocination, cannot be chaotic. In other words, the demands of reason require a coherent sequential order from the introduction – posing the problem – to the analysis of that problem and finally to the conclusion based on that analysis. But, lacking rationality, I know you will not understand that.
(2) In addition to your failure to understand the steps required in systematic, coherent reasoning you go on to proclaim that such reasoning, at least in my particular case, “is flawed all the way.” Now, I wonder if you are able to predict what is coming next. Probably not so I’ll have to tell you. Can you even begin demonstrate just how my reasoning is “flawed”? No, I didn’t think so. But not only will you not be able to demonstrate any flaws in my reasoning, you will never even be able to understand the request.
(7:54PM)
You take issue with my questioning my reference to “along the way” but, of course, this suggests that you have failed to understand my previous post (04/21, 9:21AM) where I asked along the way “to what?” You angrily protest, “Are you fucking serious?” While you want to make it sound as though your path “along the way” has led you to the heights of academic achievement, the debased quality of your posts – to say nothing of their language – strongly indicates otherwise. Of course you could try to bluff your way through. Why not give it a go? I’ll be listening.
Lovey Dovey (10:44PM) is calling you over to the LOVE side. She says it much more fun. It could be interesting. She might have feelings for you. Give it a try. You should be able to understand that shouldn’t you?
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
Here’s the formula MM follows, Jhey…
(Arts degree + arts degree + arts degree) × phd in philosophy ÷ ego squared = inflated sense of self/societal worth.
He’s always getting caught up in definitions we all understand. It’s so easy to “debate” using these old tricks. Everyone and anyone can question the meaning of meaning of meaning of meaning of meaning. It’s a thin veil, to be sure.
The beauty with straight talk is that you can’t hide the bullshit, so he avoids it.
SH,
And if societal worth = 0?
RSVPS
: The Blowhard (04/22, 10:27AM)
Hey, you missed one degree! That should be five, not four! Get your facts straight. At least that will be a beginning but, clearly, you’ve got a long way to go.
: The Board (12:45PM)
As expected, there were no replies to the two points about my “formula” and how my reasoning was “flawed all the way” (8:54AM), just the usual “old tricks” you accuse me of playing. It’s a “thin veil” to be sure. Of course, you don’t get “caught up in those definitions” because you don’t understand them but I know you will never understand that either.
Did you manage to hook up with Lovey Dovey on the LOVE side or did she give you the back of her hand?
: (12:50PM)
Wait! The Board just had another “thought.” He scores me “0” for “social” but I won’t be difficult. I won’t bother to ask him to demonstrate either just what he means by such “social worth” – does he mean anything at all? – or, for that matter, how he arrived at the mark of “0.” He has clearly reached the end of his tether.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
Awww, so cute. He’s repeating what I said. Like a child.
Did you have a treat today?
I can’t believe you get paid anything over minimum wage to corrupt young minds.
“CORRUPTING YOUNG MINDS”
RSVP
: The Board (4:45PM)
In correct form I quote verbatim in order to demonstrate that you actually said what I claim you said. This is an academic convention with which, of course, you would not be familiar. So your laboured reference to my being like a child is completely misplaced but – need I say it again? – you will never understand that.
But I found your claim to the effect that I was “corrupting young minds” interesting. While, no doubt, you were not aware of this either, it was precisely the wording used by the Athenian oligarchy to charge Socrates with sedition for which he was tried and executed by drinking the hemlock. But what did the oligarchs mean by “corrupting young minds”? I think they meant then roughly the same thing then as you do now. So what is that?
Socrates descended from The Academy into the “agora,” the Athenian marketplace, to engage the people in his dialogues for which he has since become famous as the Socratic “gadfly”. Like Christ, Socrates wrote nothing himself – his thought has come down to us from Plato who used Socrates as his principal interlocutor in the Platonic dialogues – but he is reputed to have said, “The only thing I know is that I know nothing.” But what does that mean?
Clearly, Socrates was using “know” in its strong, apodictic sense of possessing certain, indisputable knowledge of the external world which he admitted he did not possess. What he did possess, however, was a strong, inquiring mind, one guided by his first principle: “Know thyself.” But what did this mean and how was Socrates to bring this principle to fruition in the minds of others, those he met on his walks in the agora?
For Socrates the injunction “Know thyself” meant reflecting and bringing into the light of day one’s own presuppositions, one’s own assumptions which guided one’s everyday opinions and actions. Socrates made no claim to know what these presuppositions in others might be but, by means of the dialogue he might serve as the Socratic midwife, facilitating the birth of the realization of those assumptions in others. But how was such midwifery to be put into practice?
Socrates had only two questions: “What do you mean?” and “How do you know?” By subtle, continual interrogation he would tease out the answers to these questions in his interlocutors. They would, as a consequence, become reflective, never simply accepting the authority of others without question. Reasons were required, evidential grounds were demanded.
Of course, those who relied on naked power rather than reflective reasoning could never tolerate people like Socrates. They knew that if blind obedience to those in positions of authority were questioned, the entire edifice would crumble. Socrates must be suppressed! The trumped-up charge of corrupting the minds of the young was placed, the trial was rigged, and Socrates, to the despair of his students of whom there were many, was duly executed. But his name lives on. He became a guiding light for the youth of future times, times which extend to the present.
That is why Montrealman, similarly charged with corrupting young minds by those who, like you, would seek to suppress that untrammeled inquiry into meaning and the grounds of knowledge, proudly takes his place in the noble Socratic tradition.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
So cute!
So vacuous.
This bitch made The Coast paper – wonder how many comments it will receive.
It’s about time Halifax has a heart to heart with the “historical police”