The Good Side of IED

[HONTU006%OUACCVMB.BITNET@CORNELLC.cit.cornell.edu]

Date: 15 December 1989, 23:28:12 EDT
From: Bill White                614-592-1619         HONTU006 at OUACCVMB
To:   LOVE-HOUNDS@EDDIE.MIT.EDU at EDU

Since this is my first posting, and I have no direct Internet access,
I'm hoping this gets through.
     I have subscribed to LH for about 1 quarter now, and found it
quite informative and often entertaining, and I feel the need to respond
regarding the recent "flame war" involving Andrew Marvick's alter ego,
"IED".  I'm not going to ramble about who is right or wrong, because that's
already been done, and I don't want to waste bandwidth.  What I would like
to say concerns the belief, with which I agree, that there is indeed a
method to this madness, and that "IED"'s extremism has resulted in some
benefits.
     In the past two weeks, I have seen discussions on whether quality is
inherent in the observer (subjective) or in the art (objective).  I have
read arguments based on various philosophical bases, one of the more
interesting of which seemed much like solipsism.  I have had to give some
thought to what exactly constitutes the difference between fact and opinion,
and whether an objective reality exists.  The thoughts expressed have ranged
from semantics and semiotics (eg "how do we know this chair is red?") to
theories of knowledge to behavioral psychology.  It has brought to mind
references to _Zen_and_the_Art_of_Motorcycle_Maintenance_, Korzybski's
General Semantics, and Descarte's "Cogito Ergo Sum".
     Get rid of "IED"?  Certainly not!  Certainly he is extreme, and
certainly he can be obnoxious.  But he's meant to be.  And I do NOT believe
that "IED"'s personality must necessarily be Andrew Marvick's, as some have
hypothesized.  After all, writers routinely invent characters who have very
little if anything in common with them.  And, to Andrew Marvick, thanks for
explaining the situation -- it confused me for awhile.
     I do admit that much of what has been discussed has little to do with
Kate Bush.  On the other hand, if a discussion in the networks has led us
to think a little about who and what we are, and about what reality is,
then some good has come.  After all, this is a bit closer to the purpose
of the networks than is a discussion of Kate Bush (please, no flames -- I
love her work too), at least as far as I am aware.
     I enjoy hearing about Kate Bush, but I also enjoy the flames, not for
their emotional content so much as for the intellectual activity that seems
to go along.  Bandwidth isn't so precious that we cannot use some of it to
come to a "Deeper Understanding" of the relationship between the subjective
and objective worlds.  So, Andrew Marvick, keep up the good work.

   PS: Excuse me if this is a bit disjoint.  I'm using XEDIT from a 300 baud
terminal, from an IBM VM/CMS no less.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Bill White             Bitnet:     HONTU006@OUACCVMB
 7774 Country Club Rd   Internet:   hontu006@ouaccvmb.UCLS.OhioU.edu
 Athens, OH  45701      CompuServe: 71451,755
 (614)-592-1619         UUCP:       I wish!
 Disclaimer: The Internet address only works when you don't need it to.
 "Roads are only a suggestion." -- S. B. Hillyer
------------------------------------------------------------------------