I think this guy...
sorren23 at nc.rr.com
Wed Feb 2 11:52:28 EST 2005
Wittgenstein is a German philosopher who is mentioned in the bullshit
article on bullshit that we are bullshitting about ;) He had a radical take
on reality, pretty out there, and was quite influential. It's better to
read his stuff in German, it suffers in translation . . . The dude who
wrote the bullshit article mentions him a few times . . . because he went to
Princeton (?!?!?!?) and so he probably heard of the guy there, bully for
him. I gotta disagree with you about the academic jargon thing, I think
it's totally jargon-packed and poser academishe and I found that one of the
most annoying things about the whole article. He could have said the same
thing in about 2 sentences -- in fact the guy he quotes writing at the turn
of the century about hooey or balderdash or hogwash or whatever it was did
in fact say the same thing in ONE sentence, and the guy spent his entire
article expanding on the guy he quoted . . . Ugh! When he started out with
the article I had hoped he would go into the way that the constant
bombardment of bullshit from the media, especially advertising, is
infectious like a virus, and that the need to filter everything you say,
read and hear, even from your friends, through a bullshit detector, is
wearing, it's an energy drain, it's annoying and it actually _erodes the
location of truth_ over time, making non-bullshit as an object/entity harder
and harder to locate *or generate*, which is one of the tragedies of having
to suffer through life in current American anti-culture. But he didn't.
Instead he just kinda wasted my precious time expanding on that one good
sentence he *quoted* at the beginning. But don't think twice, it's alright.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Never call me Phil" <philipayers at yahoo.com>
To: <ch-scene at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2005 9:42 AM
Subject: Re: I think this guy...
> "be that as it may" DO say, but at least it didn't sound like academic
> jargon(bs) so I found it to be refreshingly insightful...the idea of
> writing about "bullshit".
> Out back in the barn, I don't have a bull but I do have a house or two.
> Sooo, my questioni is: what IS the difference between "bullshit" and
> "horseshit". He didn't even mention "horseshit".. which I found
> Be that as it may, let me take a stab at it. "Horseshit" if I maybe so
> bold, is a more pejorative form of "bullshit", as in: "That's total
> (one always tends to preceed hourseshit with total or totally)
> If one were to use "bullshit" in place of "horseshit" the meaning
> would certainly be dfferent by several degrees. When someone calls an
> action or uterance, "bullshit" that's a more respectful way of saying,
> you're intelligent BUT you are being dishonest or selfserving or mean
> spirited by not recognizing the truth. When one uses "horseshit" one
> means to insult the intelligences of the person and the action.
> who's wittgentein?
> Sorren Thule wrote:
>> Be that as it may, any one of us could have written this ourselves .
> . .
>> Wittgenstein it ain't.
> -- ch-scene: the list that mirrors alt.music.chapel-hill --
More information about the Ch-scene