Submission for rec-music-gaffa

[dsr@uvacs.cs.virginia.edu (Dana S. Richards)]

Path: uvacs!dsr
From: dsr@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU (Dana S. Richards)
Newsgroups: rec.music.gaffa
Subject: Re: XYZ and cloudbusting
Date: 3 Jan 89 19:29:49 GMT
References: <8901022003.AA26886@EDDIE.MIT.EDU>
Reply-To: dsr@uvacs.cs.virginia.edu.UUCP (Dana S. Richards)
Organization: U.Va. CS dept.  Charlottesville, VA
Lines: 96

>Really-From: IED0DXM%OAC.UCLA.EDU@MITVMA.MIT.EDU

I [XYZ] am calling a halt to all this.

>     IED is overwhelmed. XYZ, your latest posting is so ill-conceived,
>poorly written and sloppily considered that IED really doesn't feel
>energetic enough to reply in the detail that he would like.

I am sorry to hear this. 
My posting was carefully-conceived; it was composed over an 8-hour period
after much research, editing and re-editing.  Every word was carefully chosen
to avoid any misconception.  Some phrases were meant to be provocative,
but IED exceeded my expectations in rising to the bait.
It was not written in an emotional state -- in spite of this I have described
as wildly `emotional' and `venomous'.

I will not rehash his rejoinder.
It suffices to say that, almost without exception, every response IED made
to each of my points was a non-sequitar, or a gross distortion of my position,
or read things into my discussion that were simply not there.
I do not know were the problem lies (my writing, or the electonic medium, or
IED's need to read things emotionally) but true communication seems impossible.

>    Oh, great. So you're _really_ arguing from a position of
>strength! You haven't seen the video, you haven't read any of
>Wilhelm Reich's own work, and you haven't read Peter Reich's
>memoirs. Some scientist!

First, since the lyrics alone were being discussed, the video is at best an
appendix to the discussion.
Second, it is not clear how reading these would make me more `scientific'
since you have already granted that they have `no scientific validity'.
Third, this is an old and effective argument for dismissal, that really
does not hold water.  Essentially it says I cannot consider anything
worthless that I have not rigorously and exhaustively studied.
But that is not how science works; everyone relies on expert opinion to
guide one's way through the dense forest of conflicting claims.
(Of course, when someone finally decides to become an `expert' on a subject,
_then_ one should be more exhaustive.)  I have played this game with other
people before (e.g., Velikovsky, creationism, homeopathy) and they
always claim this is an unjust approach.  But if you read some of their
literature, to appease them, then you are told you read the wrong parts, and
if you read it all then you are told that you did not understand (or worse
you refuse to understand).  It is a no-win situation that recurs all
too often.
I remain steadfast that there is too much junk not there to not rely
on trusted expert opinion.
(IED, and everyone else, does it but claim not to when it convenient.
For example, if IED lived in California last May, he surely would not leave 
the state because of a Nostradamus `prediction'.  He would not say the only
scientific thing to do is read the original predictions. Of course not,
he would rely on a) the fact it is nonsense, and 2) the fact that expert 
opinion lends no support to the theory.)

(Incidentally Gardner is not my `guru', but he is a close friend of mine; 
I have discussed these matters many times at his home.  If Gardner says
the book is a `touching biography' of his father you may take it that:
a) he has read the book (as well as all of Reich Sr.'s works on orgonomy), and
b) he regards the book as supplying a portrait of his father.)

>]     Incidentally, your statement that the real Cloudbuster was
>]the same as Kate's is also false.
>      [The rest of this paragraph then seeks to show that, in fact,
>       the statement is true.  XYZ does know what it looks like. Sheesh!]
>     XYZ conveniently fails to reproduce "the rest of this paragraph"!
>How could anyone possibly come to the conclusion that the original
>cloudbuster and Kate's video cloudbuster are "the same"? It's absurd.
>They have only the most basic qualities in common. It is clear
>that XYZ does _not_ know what the two models look like, or he would
>not continue to embarass himself on the point.

I never said is was `the same'; I said it was an `ornate version',
which you conveniently fail to reproduce.
If I say I know what a cloudbuster looks like, you can take it that I do.

I said I would not respond point by point, so let me stop here.
The following paragraph, which is essentially repeated several times,
deserves comment.

>     The main conclusion that IED must draw from your latest mass of
>jumbled verbiage is that you have an axe to grind. You despise
>all aspects of metaphysics, and it's clear that your position of
>angry disbelief is utterly unshakeable. 

I do not `despise' metaphysics; I do not `despise' anything, except, perhaps,
having words put in my mouth.
It is true that I `believe in' science.  There are many wonderful and 
mysterious things science has not explained.  I ascribe these to ignorance 
and not to mystical (not `metaphysical') causes.   All the evidence of 
history is my favor; I would be surprised if really thought you had any 
evidence that you thought would change my mind.

I would hate that think that I would have to have a mystic outlook in order
to approach Kate's music.

dana