Dear tits hanging out

RSVP

: Ivan Wannabe (4/21, 4:56PM)

“We’ll be on Main St. in Dartmouth, rubbing shoulders with wayward pelicans and loveley (sic) co-eds peeling their way through uni.”

I can see the “wayward pelicans” and other wayward fauna on Main St. in Dartmouth but isn’t it deeply oxymoronic to speak of “co-eds peeling their way through uni” on the same street? In other words, aren’t co-eds and uni, on the one hand, and Main St. in Dartmouth, exclusionary concepts?

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

DARTMOUTH’S INTELLECTUAL RENAISSANCE

: Ivan Wannabe (4/22, 10:58AM)

“Based on book buying patterns I will be uniquely positioned to gather raw data to determine exactly what percentage of exotic dancers are actually college girls earning money for higher education by removing their clothes for 50 year old booksellers.”

There can be no question that the task of initiating Dartmouth’s intellectual renaissance is a noble endeavour. However, serious concern arises in connection with the methodology aimed at bringing this intellectual renaissance to fruition. This concern emerges from an antecedent consideration of the concept of Dartmouth itself.

“What is Dartmouth?” one might ask. What is its animating spirit? In a word, what is its “soul”? To ask the question is, of course, to answer it. It has no soul, no animating spirit as one ordinarily understands the term. It is little more than an empty geographical expression, a vague transpontine adjunct to Halifax from which vantage point one contemplates it with a feelng of despond. For the fact of the matter is that Dartmouth never had a “naissance” which, of course, throws the entire notion of a “renaissance” into doubt. This brings us to the question of a flawed methodoloy.

While the buying patterns the exotic dancers who are actually college girls earning money for higher education presents no problem – the percentage buying books like Kant’s “A Critique of Pure Reason, for example, comes to mind – there is no contrasting percentage of exotic dancers who are not college girls earning money for higher education since they don’t read at all and therefore do not buy books. So it would appear that the methodology of the the plan requires modification if not total revision if Dartmouth is indeed to celebrate its “renaissance”.

: 3:01PM – James Elroy Flecker?

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

DARTMOUTH’S INTELLECTUAL RENAISSANCE (II)

“It is little more than an empty geographical expression, a transpontine adjunct to Halifax from which vantage point one contemplates it with a feeling of despond.” (Montrealman, 4/22, 4:33PM)

: Ivan Wannabe (4/22, 4:47PM)

Yes Ivan, the clip from “The Hunt for Red October” captures that “feeling of despond” perfectly.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

DARTMOUTH’S INTELLECTUAL RENAISSANCE (III): THE DARTMOUTHIAN MIND

: Ivan Wannabe (04/23/10:17AM)

“In short, Dartmouth provides the impetus to develop a rich inner life… or die tryin’.”

I agree entirely Ivan. As opposed to providing that cultural nourishment required to cultivate and sustain that rich inner life of which you speak, Dartmouth does indeed provide the “impetus” to develop a rich inner life … elsewhere! Or die tryin’.

Ultimately, the problem is existential. In spite of its certain natural attributes, at length one is confronted by the unavoidable but simultaneously intolerable realization that one is … in Dartmouth! This realization arises from the previously explicated “concept of Dartmouth” which, in its turn, emerges from sustained reflection on the nature of the “Dartmouthian mind” which, of course, is an oxymoronic concept. Neither art or philosophy can possibly flourish on the stoney soil of the Dartmouthian mind. The concepts are mutually exclusive. There is nothing that can be done. It’s no good trying to change it. Rather, it is more a matter of obeying Heidegger’s injunction and “will not to will.” Remember, as Heidegger claimed, life is only of short duration, a brief “appearance” between two “absences.”

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

RSVPs

:Stephen Harper (4/23, 8:24PM)

“arguable, a. discuss, imply, using reasons to support or refute an assertion, proposition or principle; arguably the adverbial form.” (American College Dictionary)

Good morning Stephen. I see that you are having difficulty with the term “arguably” but the dictionary definition should lay such misgivings to rest. As a matter of fact, Stephen, I am currently reading, among others, Christopher Hitchen’s latest (and last since he recently “passed on” as the expression has it) book called – wait for it -“Arguably.” You should pick up a copy.

I must say, Stephen, that I was mystified by your claim to the effect that, “I think that your assertion that the ‘naked taboo’ is responsible for the lions (sic) share of homicides is ludicrous, and your strict criteria for facts backing up a hypothesis deserves reiprocity.” What I had in mind were homicides relating to sex crimes where the perpetrator, psychologically in the grip of the “naked taboo,” became a bodice-ripper before committing the foul deed. In other words, Stephen, the “naked taboo” can be generalized to be a causal component in male-to-female homicides. If you find this “ludicrous,” Stephen, you must tell me why.

I see that you are returning to your misconveived emphasis on “proof” which I have already discounted when you demand “strict criteria for facts” to back up my hypotheses. The latter, as I have previously stated, are more informed intuitive insights rather than empirically demonstrable theses so your observation, as previously, misses the mark.

I did not understand what you meant by a “hypothesis deserving reciprocity.” Reciprocity with what? Perhaps you could explain.

: no_fool (9:04PM)

“What a snobby insinuation MM, that we’re all a bunch of uneducated strippers.”

Well dear, no such insinuation was intended. As a matter of fact Ivan Wanabee is conducting research on just this point, separating the college girls stripping to pay their tuition from the regular practitioners. He has yet to report in with the numbers but I’m sure they will confirm the fact that you’re all not “a bunch of uneducated strippers.” Most perhaps, but not all.

Pinecrest sounds delightful for an evening stroll. I must say it seems to confirm my previous remarks about Dartmouth in general as given in my magisterial, three-psrt “Dartmouth’s Intellectual Renaissance.”

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

RSVPs

: Stephen Harper (4/24, 11:13AM)

“All you did was state your assertion, no reason for support.”

Well Stephen, as I stated in my previous post, my assertion was what most would claim to be an obvious truth, an “informed intuitive insight” requiring no “reasons” for support. Take an example. A well-known temptress called Xenophilia has been found raped and strangled. She lived next door to a well-known sex maniac called Stephen Harper who was a panty fetishist. He was obsessed both with with womens’ panties in general and Xenophilia’s in particular. Late one evening as she was walking home, Stephen saw his chance and the rest, as they say, is history. It was Stephen’s compulsive monomania which was obviously the cause of the murder for which no “reasons” need be given.

“Perhaps an (sic) grammatical oversight in an ommitted (sic) comma after the word ‘hypothesis.’ (sic) Does that clear things up for you?”

Well actually Stephen, it doesn’t. I’m still in the dark about the meaning of that “hypothesis deserving reciprocity.” I didn’t think they deserved anything.

no_fool (1:21PM)

“dummies better get yourselves signed up at NSCC”

Do you think Stephen will take the hint?

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

RSVP

: Stephen Harper (4/24, 8:02PM)

“Again I will post your ‘assertions,’ as they mean completly different things. Wanker!”

Good morning Stephen. I’m glad you enjoyed my little story. My two assertions may look “completely different” on a superficial reading but the second may well be derived from the first by way of a process of rational implication. Put on your thinking cap Steven, and avoid simply repeating yourself. Let me hear your mind at work.

And please stop calling me a “wanker,” Stephen. Do you realize how hurtful that is?

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

RSVP

: Stephen Harper (04/25, 3:23PM)

Very hurtful Stephen, very hurtful.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!