From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Mon Jul 18 2005 - 10:34:24 BST
David, I too discovered (and already ordered !) the Cocteau Orphee trilogy.
What I couldn't recall (with certainty) was specifically which film
title to which Bob had referred. Did you note it ?
Ian
On 7/18/05, David Buchanan <DBuchanan@classicalradio.org> wrote:
> Dear Ian and Mati, Mark and Erin and all civil, movie-loving MOQers:
>
> Ian said:
> I also thought your paper, and the emotional connection you made with
> Bob, on the Orphic mythology, was the most significant moment in the
> conference.
>
> dmb says:
> Bob did a little research and sent word that Cocteau's film is now available
> on DVD. Its a trilogy, actually. Naturally, all three films are already on
> their way to my mailbox. (Netflix has it.) They should arrive tomorrow or
> the next day, although I'm almost afraid to watch them. I'd like to be able
> to walk out when its over, if you know what I mean. But I'll most certainly
> watch it anyway. No, I'm gonna study it. As you might imagine, I don't give
> a damn about any other movie right now.
>
> In the "Moment of Civility" thread, Ian said to Mati:
>
> It's a fine but important line between mis-directed sarcasm and
> ironic, barbed wit.
>
> There is also an element of familiarity breeding contempt between old
> sparring partners knocking lumps out of each other, which may often be
> lost on newcomers.
>
> Many a true word spoken in jest, and in our striving to be
> intellectual (something Paul also posted on) I hope we don't forget we
> are biological, social, human animals too. No humanity without
> humour. Sarcasm we can do without - except in frustrated extremis -
> Platt for example :-) - only joking.
>
> Politeness is anything but fun, but respect is essential.
>
> dmb says:
> I suppose civility and sarcasm both have their places. I think real the
> danger lurking behind either extreme is censorship. Too much heat will tend
> to shut people up, but so will too much restraint. Take the exchange between
> Mark and Erin, for example. As I see it, Mark knows how to make a case and
> he knows how to criticize those who can't or won't make a case in return.
> "Arrogant" is just what you call a guy that makes you feel stupid and I
> think Erin just wants to stop feeling stupid. She wants the criticism to
> stop so she pretends its Mark's fault that Platt can't make a case, as if
> this were some character flaw on Mark's part. That's ridiculous. Erin acts
> as if the MOQ had nothing to say about politics or religion and all views
> are equally valid within it. That view is simply incorrect. And if you think
> otherwise, then make your case. I haven't seen one yet, but that's probably
> because it CAN'T be made.
>
> One can't avoid criticism in a philosophical forum such as this by simply
> insulting the critic or making emotional appeals about hurt feelings. One
> can make a case or not. You put up or shut up. You can actually address and
> answer the criticism or simply whine about it. Which do you think is gonna
> fly around here? Duh! That's all we can do. I think its that simple. I also
> think its completely unreasonable to expect that heated debate and
> passionate arguments can be avoided here. And what a bore it would be even
> if we could.
>
> Show me a guy who steps into a boxing ring and then complains when the other
> guy takes a swing at him and I'll show you a guy who has no idea what he's
> gotten himself into. If you can't take a punch, take up another sport. Don't
> get in the ring. But for god's sake don't ruin the game for the rest of us.
>
> And no, I'm not suggesting that anyone be asked to leave. I'm just saying
> that it has to be accepted or rejected for what it is. This is an
> intellectual forum and as such anything or anyone that interferes with our
> ability to be open, honest and direct in our exchanges is our enemy.
> Sometimes that is going to mean that people get upset. So what? We're all
> adults here and metaphysics ain't for children. Can we agree on that?
> Personally, I have loads of respect for my enemies. If I'm on your back
> constantly, its a good bet that I take you quite seriously. (Isn't that so,
> Matt?) If I only attacked those who seemed philosophically weak and
> unpersuasive, then I would merely be a cowardly bully and not a boxer in a
> real fight. Right?
>
> Oddly perhaps, I think the calls for politeness and civility are usually a
> call for self-censorship. I think its a way of asking your opponent to throw
> the fight, take a dive or otherwise corrupt the game. Not always. I'm not
> saying that nobody has ever crossed the line or that there's anything wrong
> with being nice, but usually calls for civility just looks like emotionally
> manipulative bullshit. Usually it comes from those who are far too concerned
> with their own hurt feelings and who wants to put that concern over and
> above the substance of the matter.
>
> Oooops. Gotta go.
>
> dmb
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jul 18 2005 - 10:39:43 BST