Crazyheaded Jorn

[chrisw@fciad2.bsd.uchicago.edu (chris williams)]

Chris here,

   This was sent to me by someone who wishes to remain anonymous, but
was unable to figure out how to post anonymously due to the demise of 
the Finnish anonymous server. I've had  bit of e-amil from folks about
Jorn and I volunteered to post it, because, frankly, I no
longer *care* about Jorn's opinion of me. Anyway, I think that this
is worth posting, even after most have acceded to Jorn's desires and
given up. BTW, Jorn's "compromise" of putting "wmroom" in the subject
line does nothing for the folks who only receive gaffa via e-mail.

   This is my second attempt to post this, and my correspondent wrote
back with an updated version when the original didn't appear. Sorry
if the other version appears.

   Anyway, here goes...

======================================================================


     

     You, Jorn, have singlehandely brought this discussion to the level at
which it now creeps, scales in the mud, forward.  I read a post from 
Angelos in which he tried, with admirable calm and generosity, to intro-
duce a note of mature discourse, to coax the discussion up out of the 
murky depths to which you insist on dragging it.  Your respnse to him I 
felt in my gut. Your tone was so unjustifiable as to have forfeited for 
you any rights to civility you might have had prior.   Take this as a dis-
claimer, all, for the tone that follows.
   Jorn, I'm going to guess that, growing up, you were surrounded by chil-
dren than whom you were smarter.  What's more, you were probably told by a
parent that you were the smartest little boy in the world.  You probably
often encountered situations in which the people--the children--with whom
you were trying to communicate, were unable to understand you because 
their thinking was not, perhaps, as sophisticated as yours.  You learned, 
I'll  theorize, to expect this.  You learned to say to yourself, when 
these children didn't understand you, that it was because the poor dears 
were incapable.  Sometimes, these children, who didn't understand you, be-
lieved that they did, and misguidedly disagreed with you despite their 
limited grasp of the hypothetical subject.  You, in your magnanimity 
(smart-boy's-burden) were able once again to say to yourself, "forgive 
them, lord, they know not what I'm talking about."
     Sometimes, though, people--not always children--who did understand
you perfectly, chose, nonetheless, to disagree with you.  This turned 
your universe every whichaway.
     You learned, I'll continue to theorize, that it was just as easy to
say of *these* people that they did not understand you, thereby protecting
yourself from their words and the horrifying shift in paradigm these 
words might portend.  This device, this disingenuousness, this self decep-
tion, became, anon, a crutch.  A crutch that you have learned to wield 
with admirable skill and grace, with force and dexterity, but a crutch
nonetheless.(Note also, the need to infantilize your perceived opponents
--"Jonni," etc.--before you can respond to them.)
     You've gone off the subject (who thought I was about to say 'off the
deep end'?), Jorn.  You refuse--nay, you shrink from--discussing the orig-
inal proposal, and instead, dextrous sleight of hand, have misdirected the
discussion so that it is now *about* the discussion.  All the original
words and phrases are there--"vibes", "magnetic tape", etc., but they're
being discussed at one remove:  they're all in quotes.
     You say you want to win general agreement.  What a totalitarian term
you make of that.  What you want is to win.
     You don't, as you say, demand belief.  What you demand is deference
and awe.  It's very important to you that you be the one who defines the 
truth.  You ask to be allowed to define your own truth, but you insist on 
the right to define others'.  (Don't misdirect by asking me to quote you 
saying this: you know perfectly well, Joycean that you are, that one can 
say so much more than the definitions of the individual words add up to.)
     You are an intellectual bully, Jorn.  Not a bully in the sense of be-
ing strong enough to get what you want, but bully in the sense of someone 
for whom being king of the mountain is so desperately important that 
she'll use force and deception to get there if she can't do it with truth.
     No one has said "this cannot be."  Only "how can this be?" or "what
would make this be?"  or  "what led you to believe this?" or "would it still
be true if x were true?"  Your response has been to, with diproprtionate
viciousness, accuse the askers of these questions of--what? clumsiness?
arrogance? stupidity?--in phrasing their questions, thereby avoiding en-
tirely a discussion of the content of the questions. Clever, Jorn, but 
cowardly.  
     You accuse your questioners, Jorn, of being Kneejerk Scientismists.
     Which of these is the kneejerk response:
     1.  Someone hears an original theory, a theory outside her under-
standing of things-as-they-are, and in an attempt to understand this 
theory, asks questions of the theorizer, using  her uderstanding of exist-
ing theories as reference points.
     2.  Someone goes through life automatically rejecting any thought 
that is widely believed, and considers "reasonable" and "logical" and "ex-
periment" to be dirty words, and imagines that anyone who expresses curi-
osity and asks questions of his theories to be evil, and close-minded, and 
dangerous.  (No, this person is not a bishop in the Medaeval Catholic 
Church.)
     Jorn, why do you continue to breathe?  Anyone can breathe.  Breathing
is so--so mainstream.  Why don't you hold your head underwater until you 
sprout gills?
     You write, Jorn (disengenuously):
>When have I ever tried to *impose* my thoughts?  What would this mean,
>anyway?  I've been trying to build a defense-of-ESP out of next-to=
>nothing, which I see as an *extremely honorable* enterprise, and I've 
>been subjected to an insane barrage of abuse from people who imagine 
>they're being "scientific" by trying to squelch me!
     Nobody is trying to squelch you, Jorn.  
     Jorn, Jorn, Jorn.  You're so transparent.  There is one person here 
trying to squelch, one hypocritical subjector of insane barrages of abuse.  
You, who are trying to impose your values system on others--don't misdi-
rect, now--by refusing to deal with anyone until they adopt the jargon of 
your values.  You won't discuss your ideas with anyone until they agree 
with them.  
     You think like a dictator.  You imagine yourself a benevolent 
dictator, you imagine that since you're so much better equipped to under-
stand the truth, then you should be allowed to impose it on people who 
don't see truth the same way you do.  After all, why not?  They would see 
it your way if only they had the equipment to understand.  And until then, 
you're more than happy to shoulder your burden of being the only person 
who understands truth.  You, Jorn, are the center of the universe.
     (Just throwing down, for your patronizing disdain, a rational reac-
tion to your theory:  Film, when exposed to light reflecting off an ob-
ject, records no image of that object: only white light.  Control the 
light with a lens, however, and you have an image clear enough to deter-
mine the nature of its subject.  What is the "lens" of this process of
recording emotions onto magnetic tape?  Is it likely that, even were these
"vibes" to have an effect on the tape, that their playback could possibly 
be interpreted as an emotion similar to the one that produced the effect 
in the first place?  Isn't it more likely that they would "play back" as 
"white vibes"?  Remember, this effect would take place during the play 
mode, not the record.)
     Keep in mind, Jorn, that you are the one who won't allow the phenom-
enon to remain a mystery.  You must explain it even if you have to pluck 
*materialist* outrageosities (hypocrite!) out of the air.  You're a mytho-
logizer.  You're  a caveman who explains rain as the tears of the gods be-
cause he's afraid to admit he don't know what it is.
     And then you try to intimidate people into not even trying to under-
stand you, Jorn.  Your methods of misdirection are more and more obvious.  
Your totemic use (misuse) of the magic words QUANTUMMECHANICS is no more 
than another manifestation (Clang! of blindly stated learnin')  of your 
intellectual imperialism--literally:  You  are the Emperor, Jorn, and 
we've got your tailors' number.
     Please, Old Mythologizer, stop using KOOANTMKNX as a mantra until
you understand it better.  You've taken a common misconception of the imp-
lications of quantum mechanics and seized upon it, heart pounding, because
it feels like magic.  You're like the crystal magicians, who, misinterp-
reting the fact that quartz vibrates at a predictable frequency when
charged with electricity, took that to mean that it gives off energy spon-
taneously and is able to channel the wearers emotional "vibes."  For sale:
incense, tourmaline, high-bias.
     You say (quoting from memory) that these phenomena you posit would 
be perceptible to anyone who had the self-confidence to notice them.  Any-
one who had, I suggest, the solipsistic megalomania to believe that your 
wishes and desires are capable of altering physical reality.                                        
     You bluster, Jorn.  You are the wizard of Oz.  "Pay no attention to 
the meaning behind the words."  You try desperately to replace the cur-
tain, whose warp is misdirection and whose woof is abuse, and hide your 
tiny little theory.  Doesn't say much for your theory if *you're* not even
willing to defend it.  You're too busy saying "if you have to ask, you 
wouldn't understand". An extremely adolescent tactic.
     And have you noticed, Jorn, that no one's buying it?  The only people 
who have not expressed a desire for you to just go away and have your 
breakdown in private are the ones who enjoy watching you go down in flames.
     You're all alone on this one, Jorn.  I know that this appeals to your
need to feel persecuted, but ultimately that's a need you should overcome.
You're in danger of becoming an angry, bitter, victim of your own bile.
I see you sitting on a bus and telling the poor soul next to you how every-
body's against you.
     The more time I spend writing this, wallowing in this Jornian quag-
mire, the more depressed, the more filthy I feel.  I go back and read the 
posts, see people trying with unearned tolerance to cut through Jorn's 
sandbags, and see him respond with frightening, unjustifiable, confusing, 
self-projecting hatred, and I grow angrier and angrier.  
     Jorn, who the hell do you think you are? Where, out of what turbulent 
pocket of polluted air, do you snatch the gall to say what you've said to 
these people, in the way you've said it?  If you are utterly incapable, as 
you've proven apparently to be, of participating in an intelligent discus-
sion drawing from each participant's experiences--some of which have, or 
at least do not automatically exclude, references to widely held notions
of truth--then don't propose subjects for discussion!

     But who am I fooling?  You will take this apart, word by word, and 
find holes that your shredding will have produced.  But all you'll see is 
that they're holes.  You will take the venom in this post and feed on it, 
and use it to justify your increasing isolation and bitterness. You stand 
and assert your freedom, Jorn, but even as you do you proclaim this town 
not big enough for two modes of thought.
     Leave us _our_ freedom.  We've heard what you have to say, and been 
left, reeling in your cloud of irrelevancies, to presume what you've re-
fused to say, and yes, we have rejected your method of discourse.
     Ending on a positive note:  Thanks, Jorn, for having your breakdown 
in public.  This has been the most fun I've had since I witnessed a six=
car pileup, with deaths, several years ago.  Bleed on.
    
     There are many people for who hate and rage pay a higher dividend 
     than love.  Congenitally aggressive, they soon become adrenalin ad-
     dicts, deliberately indulging their ugliest passions for the sake of
     the "kick" the derive from their psychically stimulated endocrines.
     Knowing that one self-assertion always ends by evoking other hostile
     self-asserions, they sedulously cultivate their truculence.  And,
     sure enough, very soon they find themselves in the thick of a fight.  
     But a fight is what they most enjoy; for it is while they are fight-
     ing that their blood chemistry makes them feel most intensely them-
     selves.  "Feeling good," they naturally assume that they *are* good.
     Adrenalin addiction is rationalized as Righteous Indignation and fin-
     ally, like the prophet Jonah, they are convinced, unshakably, that
     they do well to be angry.
                                --Aldous Huxley

And yet, I've said less, and still less.


(suomynona)

==========================================================================


                           Chris Williams of
                              Chris'n'Vickie of Chicago
                                 chrisw@fciad2.bsd.uchicago.edu   (his)
                                     vickie@njin.rutgers.edu      (hers)
                                        katefans@chinet.chi.il.us (ours)