Chess and Spelling - Chess Forums - Page 4

onosson

Jun 17, 2009

0

#61

TheGrobe wrote:

onosson wrote:

1a. There is [an intrinsic value in beauty] that serves no practical purpose.

1b. There is an intrinsic value in [beauty that serves no practical purpose].

2a. There is also [an intrinsic value in beauty] which serves no practical purpose.

2b. There is also an intrinsic value in [beauty which serves no practical purpose].

All of these interpretations work for me. To paraphrase:

"There is an intrinsic value in beauty, and this value serves no practical purpose." = 1a and 2a.

"Beauty serving no practical purpose, this kind of beauty has an intrinsic value." = 1b and 2b.

Yes -- I see, although more accurately:

"There are intrinsic values in beauty, and one of these values serves no practical purpose." = 1a

"The instrinsic value in beauty serves no practical purpose" = 2a

"Some beauty serves no practical purpose -- this type of beauty has an intrinsic value" = 1b

I'm not sure 2b is a valid interpretation.

I think that the use of "an" in both 1a. and 2a. restricts each of them to "one value", no? Both "which" and "that" are perfectly compatible with plural referents, as far as I can tell. Also, what is it about 2b that makes you unsure?

By the way (before another heated personal debate starts), I pose these questions honestly. I think that everyone has valuable linguistic judgements to contribute towards an interpretation.

TheGrobe

Jun 17, 2009

0

#62

Nothing personal -- purely academic curiosity. Grammar is by no means my strong point.

I believe that you are correct in declaring 1a and 2a equivalent because of the "an" -- my interpretation ignores the "an" in both of the original sentences and so is incorrect (but, I believe would be the correct interpretation if the "an"s were not there).

The problem I have with the way 2b is parsed is the concept of [beauty which serves no practical purpose] as a standalone concept. [Beauty that serves no practical purpose] makes sense to me, but "which"? The interpretation in 2b seems to imply an ill fitting afterthought about the purpose of beauty (which, incidentally, serves no purpose) that has little bearing on the intent of the sentence. Because of this I think that 2a is the only reasonable way to interpret the second sentence.

I could easily be wrong again though....

Garymossu

Jun 17, 2009

0

#63

TheGrobe wrote:

Garymossu wrote:

Kupov wrote:

I've never read any Cummings >.>

But you surely know who he is and that he is a he not a she. If you didn't you would be perceived as culturally illiterate by those posting in this forum. You see.

I am not offended by Richie's remarks. I know i may appear that way to some here. Again, I have much knowledge in certain areas, which don't pertain to English/American culture - to which I am sure Richie and others here don't have. I care not at this point to divulge that information at this time however.

There's nothing wrong with not having read e.e. cummings. There is something wrong with dismissing it outright as a waste of your time without having read it.

I, personally, highly recommend it.

Ok. To the contrary. Please post a most enlightening piece!

Garymossu

Jun 17, 2009

0

#64

richie_and_oprah wrote:

ozzie_c_cobblepot wrote:

I suppose you could trust the word of a trusted friend.

Big mistake when it comes to the arts.

And food and personal relationships, too.

And probably war.

Does trust mean never doubt?

Garymossu

Jun 17, 2009

0

#65

richie_and_oprah wrote:

The most trusted people are the one we need to suspect the most for they are the ones that can do the most damage.

Keep your friends close, but your ENEMIES closer.

"Et tu Brute!?"

Garymossu

Jun 17, 2009

0

#66

"A trusted person could be sincere, but mistaken."

Yes. This is true.

TheGrobe

Jun 17, 2009

0

#67

They're really better experienced on the printed page and this is why:

His most celebrated poem is probably "anyone lived in a pretty how town". Look it up.

Garymossu

Jun 17, 2009

0

#68

.

WanderingWinder

Jun 17, 2009

0

#69

richie_and_oprah wrote:

WanderingWinder wrote:

To suggest so itself suggests your own lack of understanding of philosophy.

Could be. However with every subsequent post, I stand more firmly by my assertion.

Not too many Western Cultural things I am not aquainted with. And here is the crux. If I am, I then familiarize myself before I post about it.

Bring it.

Perfectly agreed, but this has nothing to do with philosophy.

Garymossu

Jun 17, 2009

0

#70

.

goldendog

Jun 17, 2009

0

#71

Garymossu wrote:

That was a nice poem - not soooooooo enlightening, however; i could live without it.

What do you call that technique? Where you shape the poem in order to fit with the content?

Post it that "most famous one" please, somebody. I gotto go. Thank you all participants.

If memory serves, it's called Concrete Poetry.

Kupov

Jun 17, 2009

0

#72

Garymossu wrote:

Kupov wrote:

I've never read any Cummings >.>

But you surely know who he is and that he is a he not a she. If you didn't you would be perceived as culturally illiterate by those posting in this forum. You see.

I am not offended by Richie's remarks. I know i may appear that way to some here. Again, I have much knowledge in certain areas, which don't pertain to English/American culture - to which I am sure Richie and others here don't have. I care not at this point to divulge that information at this time however.

Well I did know who he was, but I could have have just as easily not known.

Being ignorant of Cummings proves nothing but your ignorance of Cummings. You could be a perfectly literate person and never hear of him.

Kernicterus

Jun 17, 2009

0

#73

ozzie_c_cobblepot wrote:

The smartest people I know don't brag about it. In fact, doing so is not very smart, since it leaves the counterparty smarting.

This is an interesting statement as almost all the smartest people I know are insecure vain braggarts. And I'm talking of students and professors at Yale along with good friends of mine at MIT.

Xhu

Jun 17, 2009

0

#74

AfafBouardi wrote:

ozzie_c_cobblepot wrote:

The smartest people I know don't brag about it. In fact, doing so is not very smart, since it leaves the counterparty smarting.

This is an interesting statement as almost all the smartest people I know are insecure vain braggarts. And I'm talking of students and professors at Yale along with good friends of mine at MIT.

Or perhaps the real smartest people you know are brilliant enough to sucessfully hide it from you.

Kernicterus

Jun 17, 2009

0

#75

TheGrobe wrote:

Surely the only way to determine whether an artist is worth your time is to experience some of their work, no?

Well, you can't read everybody...but you'd assume that a properly exposed educated person would have run across certain writers, poets, philosophers.

I don't remember the film but there was a character who was trying to pull off sophisticated. The boy opened the car door for her and said "do you like Billie Holiday?" and she said "um yes, I love him".

Kernicterus

Jun 17, 2009

0

#76

Xhu wrote:

AfafBouardi wrote:

ozzie_c_cobblepot wrote:

The smartest people I know don't brag about it. In fact, doing so is not very smart, since it leaves the counterparty smarting.

This is an interesting statement as almost all the smartest people I know are insecure vain braggarts. And I'm talking of students and professors at Yale along with good friends of mine at MIT.

Or perhaps the real smartest people you know are brilliant enough to sucessfully hide it from you.

um...no.

Garymossu

Jun 17, 2009

0

#77

richie_and_oprah wrote:

Garymossu wrote:

Yes, you are exactly correct. And yes i did prove your point with my next comment there about my feelings regarding my unfamiliarity with him. But why are you bringing this out? What is wrong with not believing that the knowledge of certain well know parts of English/American culture is important? What is wrong with being "American culturally" illiterate, as long as one does have a culture he is illiterate with? (Which perhaps you are presuming i don't.) Why are you insinuating that i should have been wiser to educate myself briefly about him before revealing my ignorance? Whose insecurity are we going into anyway?

I am not insinutaing anything. I speak directly.

Nothing is wrong with being 'American culturel' illiterate. In fact I think it may be beneficial. American pop culture is pure rot. Worse than junk food. I don't let me kids anywhere near most of American culture.

This website is based, however, on American Pop Culture Idealism.

So, I recognize that is the prevailing 'coin of the realm.'

I myself am not American, nor is English my first language. I merely try to do as Roman do when I visit Rome.

e.e.cummings is not exclusively about American culture any more than Darius is exclusively the domain of the Persian.

These people transcend their cultures and have much greater reach.

Being culturally illiterate about the Western Hemisphere while one is interacting with it make little sense to me. That is why I spent many years familiarizing myself with it in order to do business in it.

Thank you once again Dr. That was well explained. Except "This website is based...on American Pop Culture Idealism". Why do you say that? Chess is part of that?

Kernicterus

Jun 17, 2009

0

#78

richie_and_oprah wrote:

afafbourdi, I offer that not all these people are insecure.

Some people are arrogant and convinced that they are superior. Some people are superior. Some people are superior, recognize their superiority and are arrogant about it.

Braggadocio does not stem purely from insecurity.

It often stems from people not realizing that others CANNOT perform at the same level as oneself.

richie and oprah. I once thought that to be true - even of myself. Yet, having experienced a scholastic environment with many of the brightest - what I most often saw were people frightened not to be the brightest - despite already being among the best. I saw (and experienced) a persistent fear of the drop in estimated self-worth based on relative intelligence and ability - professors too. Always afraid/horrified not to be as impressive as they should be, regardless how smug on the exterior. All things are relative. And I have it on good authority this is the case with high level chess players (GMs) as well.

And by no means am I suggesting you're in this group. I was responding to what I thought was a very odd assertion from Cobblepot.

Garymossu

Jun 17, 2009

0

#79

.

NM ozzie_c_cobblepot

Jun 17, 2009

0

#80

AfafBouardi wrote:

ozzie_c_cobblepot wrote:

The smartest people I know don't brag about it. In fact, doing so is not very smart, since it leaves the counterparty smarting.

This is an interesting statement as almost all the smartest people I know are insecure vain braggarts. And I'm talking of students and professors at Yale along with good friends of mine at MIT.

Interesting. You made me think again about what I wrote - and I know a lot of people at MIT, not so many at Yale - and while yes, plenty of them fit this bill, the truly two or three elite that I know don't. But perhaps it's just a small sample size.