DIY History | Transcribe | Hevelin Fanzines | Vanguard Boojum, v. 1, issue 1

Transcribe
Translate

Vanguard Boojum #1
page two
(... continued)

worth's own, and I think very properly; for heigh has not been a characteristic of post-Romantic or even of much Victorian writing, whether this lack is good or bad. Similarly I have met only three novels which have this balance together with any considerable merit in the individual qualities, and conversely know of at least a dozen works of philosophy which have everything one could ask in the height category and are well-nigh pitiable in their lack of breadth or depth. In short, if height is the main quality which will tell at the end of aesthetic judgment, the main body -- well up in the ninety percentiles -- of the accumulated works of art of the last 23 centuries will be excluded; and practically every work of the last century in any field. 
     Therefore:
     1.  If heigh is the quality excluded by creating with the eye upon the object, and
     2.  If height is the essential quality of a work of art, then nothing created with the ey upon the object is a work of art.
     Or:
     1.  If creating with the eye upon the object excludes the quality of height, and
     2.  Most works of art lack or minimize this quality, then most works of art are created with an eye upon the object. 
     Stated in this fashion (always remembering that ht statement is quite nonsensical unless the preliminary reasoning is granted) the problem becomes a clear case of the Xenonian paradox, and as such should show an excluded middle. While or dialecticians are grappling with non-violent resistance, I'd like to see our non-Aristoteleans attempt this one: it's no knotiier than Descartes, but less subject to preconception.
     Jesus, haven't I gotten to the lead article yet?
     "We learn from words, but never learn <watch that misquotation, Doc!> much more than that from time to time the same things happen." At the very beginning Doc endorses this epigram of Henry's, which like many pointed generalities lends itself to arguments where it is not relevant simply because its aesthetic effect is so telling. The essay has nothing but contempt for theorists who attempt to find a pattern in historical events, and declares that any action undertaken as consequent to such a pattern will be non-rational -- imagine Michel's surprise! -- yet from the point where Doc says he agrees with Henry to the utterly contradictory quotation from "the sage", the essay endorses a cyclical concept of the historical process -- the most rigid of all such concepts -- and then proceeds to argue that the very idea of an historical process is ridiculous, as if this argument followed naturally! Finally, OOANVO arrives, after considerable divagation to port and starboard, at nothing more than statement of the scientific method's "suspension of judgment" couched in terms which despite the initial disclaimer make it look like a radical idea. 

CRETIN

     No apologies are necessary, as far as I can see; you have made it clear that you regard Vanguard, at least in part, as a sort of post-office and your contributions thereto as both by necessity and preference highly personalized, and this latest product of Mongoloid fills that bill very well. As for allowing your low emotional state to show, I can see no object to that, either, in this frame; the Polyanna Emden can very well be discarded as "the criticism of those who are decided not your betters..." Brfsk.

Saving...

Vanguard Boojum #1 page two (... continued) worth's own, and I think very properly; for heigh has not been a characteristic of post-Romantic or even of much Victorian writing, whether this lack is good or bad. Similarly I have met only three novels which have this balance together with any considerable merit in the individual qualities, and conversely know of at least a dozen works of philosophy which have everything one could ask in the height category and are well-nigh pitiable in their lack of breadth or depth. In short, if height is the main quality which will tell at the end of aesthetic judgment, the main body -- well up in the ninety percentiles -- of the accumulated works of art of the last 23 centuries will be excluded; and practically every work of the last century in any field. Therefore: 1. If heigh is the quality excluded by creating with the eye upon the object, and 2. If height is the essential quality of a work of art, then nothing created with the ey upon the object is a work of art. Or: 1. If creating with the eye upon the object excludes the quality of height, and 2. Most works of art lack or minimize this quality, then most works of art are created with an eye upon the object. Stated in this fashion (always remembering that ht statement is quite nonsensical unless the preliminary reasoning is granted) the problem becomes a clear case of the Xenonian paradox, and as such should show an excluded middle. While or dialecticians are grappling with non-violent resistance, I'd like to see our non-Aristoteleans attempt this one: it's no knotiier than Descartes, but less subject to preconception. Jesus, haven't I gotten to the lead article yet? "We learn from words, but never learn much more than that from time to time the same things happen." At the very beginning Doc endorses this epigram of Henry's, which like many pointed generalities lends itself to arguments where it is not relevant simply because its aesthetic effect is so telling. The essay has nothing but contempt for theorists who attempt to find a pattern in historical events, and declares that any action undertaken as consequent to such a pattern will be non-rational -- imagine Michel's surprise! -- yet from the point where Doc says he agrees with Henry to the utterly contradictory quotation from "the sage", the essay endorses a cyclical concept of the historical process -- the most rigid of all such concepts -- and then proceeds to argue that the very idea of an historical process is ridiculous, as if this argument followed naturally! Finally, OOANVO arrives, after considerable divagation to port and starboard, at nothing more than statement of the scientific method's "suspension of judgment" couched in terms which despite the initial disclaimer make it look like a radical idea. CRETIN No apologies are necessary, as far as I can see; you have made it clear that you regard Vanguard, at least in part, as a sort of post-office and your contributions thereto as both by necessity and preference highly personalized, and this latest product of Mongoloid fills that bill very well. As for allowing your low emotional state to show, I can see no object to that, either, in this frame; the Polyanna Emden can very well be discarded as "the criticism of those who are decided not your betters..." Brfsk.