Why is Rosen so unintentionally funny?

The question with which I shall be concerned is certainly grandiose

I’m back at the “quarrel” I was writing about recently, because I see it as my “happy place” to mess with these people who I deem “the poets”. I have to confess that I envy the poets. I seriously don’t understand how you do it. I could not force myself. It must be some kind of faculty that I lack. Speaking indirectly, let’s call it that. No, that doesn’t capture what it is- that’s a start though. As much thought as I’ve put into it, it’s still confusing to me. Hence I return to Rosen who I see as an authority on the subject.

Before I muse on the master I’ll note that I often think of things in evolutionary terms. My intuition about the poets is they inherited traits characterized by an emotionality ABOUT emotions. People’s emotions make them emotional. They inherited the tactic to speak indirectly for this reason. They can read people’s moods, and they know if they speak directly they will be met with a strong emotional response, and they are sensitive themselves to the violence of an emotional response. Meanwhile someone like me really doesn’t care- oh you’re getting emotional, that sucks. I think in both cases it’s pedagogical. My stance is that they should feel the emotion and try to just get over it.

Why don’t you just get over it? Just accept it. If you think I’m going to talk to the poets themselves like a poet you’re wrong. They’re as over-emotional as the people they filter themselves to. Get over it. Neoplatonism is real, and modern ideas are unhealthy deceptions.

That is to say, I am accusing the poets of not even helping the people they ostensibly care about. Since “poetry” is all-pervasive, the poets lie to each other too, so they wouldn’t have anyone to inform them of this.

Again, I invite them to do a double-take at who their allies are. To state it plainly, the reason they speak indirectly is because the ones who they want to help are immoral. When you have allies you start to be similar to your allies. You’re not helping anyone, you’re not even helping yourself.

They’re not my allies, so I’m not similar to them. They need to be sent a message. Just like you do.

You don’t know how to send them a message, that’s why you need to be sent one yourself.

Am I the only one who senses that it’s palpable that this is not the first century that we’ve had this discussion? This is a feud within our Volk.

I am speaking of Christian-descended peoples generally. Judaism and Islam did not permit philosophy within their ranks for most of their history, to speak nothing of the Chinese. Whereas the Church Fathers allowed for accomadations, albeit slight ones. My favorite “German Jews” considered themselves traitorous rebels for dabbling in philosophy, and that was only last century. This is a feud WE have had more centuries than that. Priest, poet, same thing. You poison your flock without even knowing it, that’s what I’m saying.

I have to admit that I can be naive at times and actually address Jews here. That is so laughable. It is in their DNA to despise philosophy. This is a feud between euros here, purely. The Jew is the object in the room that doles out loans, might as well be an ATM machine.

“gasp, Can I speak as directly as Wagner and still get my ATM machine to accept my card? gasp!”

I’m just toying with Rosen in this post. How would you be able to understand the quarrel between philosophy and poetry when you are a–jew? sigh, So I’m just scrolling futilely through this book of his that I once upon a time learned so much from.

I think he would be emotional if I said this to him. He was (and kind of still is) one of my favorites, so I feel I can anticipate his reactions better than others. There’s a line they draw, an unspoken agreement, that we should not philosophize about certain things. That is to say, they are strict poets. And it’s obvious they picked up this behavior from their relation to the book of poetry known as the Torah. Did you happen to read Luria yet? Despite his innovations he is incredibly dogmatic about the Absolute Truth of the Torah, he simply gives it his own interpretation. This is a complex debate I will probably get into in the future (Maimonides’ jewdification of the Greeks), my only point for now is that there’s no point trying to reason with jews because their first nature is dogmatic, second nature is dogmatic, third nature is dogmatic.

I do enjoy addressing my own Volk. I think we all are clones too in our own way, just less dogmatic and thus less clone-like. Even the Coptic Egyptians and Maronite Lebanese I speculate might be similar to us (more research needed). It’s something about the way Christ was that made us the way we are, whereas Moses and Confucius led to a turgid hostility to heresy. “I’m not your Volk, shut up!” Yeah right, I’m just the cousin that you hate. Again, a Muslim looking at our feud–the one between progressives and reactionaries–sees two of the same type of people arguing with each other.

My proposal is that one of the more accurate ways of looking at our feud is as one between philosophy and poetry. This hearkens back across vast distances of time.

When you disagree with me about x or y and use a simulacra as I call it, it’s because you already know the truth, just like I know it. In that sense we’re both philosophers.

The essential question is how much emotion is there when you decide to disagree by saying the same thing I do except indirectly and upside-down. BECAUSE if it is an emotional reaction then I do wonder if you are actually helping people. Maybe you need as much help as the people you’re trying to help? To me it’s not a “maybe”, it’s just true.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: