Re: [Leica] Arf she said- ad nauseum :o)

["Dan Post" <dpost@triad.rr.com>]

Joe-
O! Utter Woe!
I have the feeling we are as one pundit said, "trying to make a silk purse
out of a sow's ear"- with all due respect to Ms. Sontag.... Actually- my
grandpa said it better- "we need to quit trying to separate the fly shit
from the pepper...."
Dan (Gawd! I feel just like I did when I inadvertantly walked into my
mother-in-law's living room with my fly open!) Post
- ----- Original Message -----
From: <Krechtz@aol.com>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2000 6:52 PM
Subject: Re: [Leica] Arf she said


> In a message dated 9/17/00 10:08:40 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> dpost@triad.rr.com writes:
>
> << After careful consideration, I have an idea that the translation would
>  follow thusly:
>  If by Surrealist she means a 'higher' realism, then we think of
imaginative
>  thought, and of course, a vantage point is simply- a point of view. Think
of
>  radical at being extreme to the norm, and 'modern culture' as- society.
>  Devolution is a regression, a throwback, and irony is used here to show
that
>  the 'evidence' or things and events in our sphere of influence, are
>  democratized- made common and cheap, in our current understanding of the
>  word.
>  The key word is 'strategy'- a means of implementing an agenda. So it
>  basically boils down to-
>  "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder", and " Those who fail to study
>  history are doomed to repeat it..."
>  See? It's really simple! :o)
>  Dan (Geez! My head hurts!...Honey! Where's my Ritalin!?) Post
>
>
>  > << Suzy said:
>  >
>  >  "The Surrealist strategy... has devolved into an easy irony
>  > that...
>  >   equates its scatter of evidence with
>  >  history."  >>
>
> Excellent Post, Dan.  Good work trying to make sense of pretentious and
> ungrammatical pedantry.
>  As you can see, I have now taken the liberty of redacting the sentence,
> leaving one which would be easier to diagram.  "Strategy" is the subject,
and
> "irony" is the subject of the dependent clause.  The writer has attempted
to
> construct an elaborate and, I daresay, strained metaphor involving the
words
> "strategy" and "irony".
> We behold the unseemly spectacle of an irony (a strategy, prior to its
> devolution) caught in the act of equating its "scatter of evidence" with
> "history".  Now, I ask you, have any of us had the singular misfortune
> previously to have witnessed such a brazen act of equating, much less as
> perpretrated by an upstart "irony" such as the sad remains of the
Surrealist
> strategy?  O, it offends decency, sir!
>
> Joe Sobel
>
>
>
>  ----------------------- Headers --------------------------- >>