Member Rara Avis
When above in this thread I wrote: " If the human mind when controlled by the will can be used as a lens selectively to focus for a chosen purpose the energy that animates the soul, then the theology of the individual's beliefs is not relevant outside that individual's sphere of taste and preferences." Did I not try to state a "secret" of the poetic Universe? Did I not use enough words for you? Did I really have to explain that prayer meets all the traditional criteria of a magical incantation?
While I don't agree with that statement, icebox, I found no fault with your expression of it. It was the two posts following that one that I personally found lacking.
Ron, you accuse me, with implied sarcasm, of intellectual laziness? I did not think personal attacks were appropriate here, or should I just accept what would appear to be the obvious, that rules here sometimes are applied differentially among the members and that your own rules not apply to you.
Like many before you, icebox, you fail (or refuse?) to understand the difference between an attack directed at a person and an attack directed at an idea. To accuse you of intellectual laziness would necessarily require an indictment of all that you've posted and, quite frankly, could never be justified. You've frequently demonstrated, I think, significant insight and a willingness to communicate that insight, the antithesis to intellectual laziness.
Which only serves to make your last few posts in this thread all the more disappointing.
That you found occasion to laugh is, at best, off-topic and, at worst, meaningless prattle. No one is likely to care unless you're willing to share the joke. Similarly, Zen-like one-liners that are seemingly out of context add nothing useful to the discussion.
Were I to accuse you of anything, icebox, it wouldn't be intellectual laziness so much as intellectual snobbery. The impression your last few posts leave, at least to me, is that perhaps you feel we're not really worth more than the few seconds it takes to whip out a quick pot-shot, the philosophical equivalent of a wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am. So, tell me I'm wrong?
I did not raise Chesterton as an example of anything, I reacted to it, but given his love of reactive brevity in one line responses, I still am comfortable that my response was soundly placed on Chesterton's path.
I would be more inclined to find that satisfying if you were reacting to a quotation that demonstrated said brevity, rather than one that was several paragraphs long, but even that falls wide of the issue. Until and unless he decides to join one of our little discussions, Chesterton's path is irrelevant to me.
Or, perhaps since this is supposedly a site for creative, poetic people, artists if you will, I could have dropped Chesterton's one line reaction that, "Art is limitation; the essence of every picture is the frame." I would think, though a one line response, I still would have been on safe ground since it appears you are more interested in how a thought is framed than in the substance of the thought itself.
Do you really think you can so easily separate the two?
I think art in general, and certainly this site in particular, centers foremost around communication, or, in other words, the precise point at which framing most closely meets substance. One without the other would be meaningless, if not impossible.
Please don't misunderstand. I honestly don't have a problem with cryptic one-liners, either from you or Chesterton, in the proper context. While I generally value clarity, I also value anything that makes people think more deeply. I just don't think your earlier posts qualified as profound, nor did I feel you ever intended them to be. If there was a substance there beyond an obvious expression of disdain, I'm afraid you failed to communicate that substance to me. All I could see was the disdain.
Disdain is cool, too. However, my whole point was, and remains, that if your only intent is to express disdain, you should probably do it in the Alley or perhaps even Feelings. In this forum, we're less interested in what you feel than in why you feel it. When you soliloquize without offering justification, you can probably expect to be called on it. That's not an attack, either. It's a discussion.