![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 38. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by mist on March 31, 2002, at 12:29:41
I think it's wrong and counter-productive to mental health for anyone to tell others what words they can and can't use to express their thoughts. Some of the great writers have used four-letter words in their works—for a reason. Because they expressed a thought or feeling in a way that nothing else could.
There's a difference between civility and propriety (which is often just another word for repression)and language restrictions are about the latter.
Posted by trouble on March 31, 2002, at 15:52:10
In reply to Civility vs. Propriety – Words, posted by mist on March 31, 2002, at 12:29:41
Thank you Mist, it is very much about showmanship, some people have it and some
people don't. People who don't can get nasty
in their envy of it.trouble
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 31, 2002, at 19:57:58
In reply to Civility vs. Propriety – Words, posted by mist on March 31, 2002, at 12:29:41
> I think it's wrong and counter-productive to mental health for anyone to tell others what words they can and can't use to express their thoughts. Some of the great writers have used four-letter words in their works—for a reason. Because they expressed a thought or feeling in a way that nothing else could.
>
> There's a difference between civility and propriety (which is often just another word for repression)and language restrictions are about the latter.What's the difference between civility and propriety? I don't think of them as so different...
Though we have some great writers, this site isn't here to give writers an outlet, it's here to provide support and education. Are four-letter words necessary for that?
I think certain words can be unsupportive, and I would in fact like them to be repressed.
Bob
Posted by mist on March 31, 2002, at 22:06:58
In reply to Re: Civility vs. Propriety – Words, posted by Dr. Bob on March 31, 2002, at 19:57:58
> What's the difference between civility and propriety? I don't think of them as so different...
Civility (at least in theory) is based on the value of treating others well. It has to do with content, not style. Propriety is about adhering to a superficial standard of what's socially acceptable ("proper") or not, according to a dominant societal group at the expense of alternative values and viewpoints. The idea that four-letter words are offensive is not universally held. I'm not offended by them, for example, not are others I know. I believe they serve a purpose. Some people overuse them (not here) and that can be annoying but to me it's not offensive. Telling others they can't use these words strikes me as moral-majority-esque and perhaps fitting in a church or other conservative venue but not on a board addressing mental health issues. I also don't think use of that language by posters interferes with the board's purpose of support and education. If you use it to attack someone (calling another poster names) that's a different problem—that's uncivility, but it's the content—the intent behind it—not the style. You could do the same thing using acceptable language. -mist
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 31, 2002, at 23:18:47
In reply to Re: Civility vs. Propriety – Words, posted by mist on March 31, 2002, at 22:06:58
> Civility (at least in theory) is based on the value of treating others well. It has to do with content, not style. Propriety is about adhering to a superficial standard of what's socially acceptable ("proper") or not, according to a dominant societal group at the expense of alternative values and viewpoints.
I see what you're saying, but isn't it proper to treat others well?
> Telling others they can't use these words strikes me as moral-majority-esque and perhaps fitting in a church or other conservative venue but not on a board addressing mental health issues.
Maybe that makes this a conservative venue for addressing mental health issues. I agree, it can be constraining, but I think it makes the atmosphere more welcoming, and I think more's gained than lost.
Bob
Posted by Shar on April 1, 2002, at 20:58:20
In reply to Re: Civility vs. Propriety – Words, posted by Dr. Bob on March 31, 2002, at 23:18:47
Well, gd**n is five letters. I would like to be able to use the f-word for occasional emphasis, and I believe ANY word made harmless by asterisks should be allowable. Or, will the 'repressive' regime have us saying h-e-double-hockey-sticks? On the other hand, a post consisting primarily of f this and f that isn't really in the zone of the Babbles.
Dr. Bob--I can't believe you used the word 'repressed' !!!!! Yikes!!
Posted by mist on April 1, 2002, at 21:51:06
In reply to Re: Civility vs. Propriety – Words, posted by Dr. Bob on March 31, 2002, at 23:18:47
> I see what you're saying, but isn't it proper to treat others well?
Many people who put a great deal of emphasis on propriety aren't at all concerned with treating others well. They're concerned with domination and control. Im not saying this is true of you. My impression is in your case that you haven't questioned enough the downside to restricting speech.
>
> I think more's gained than lost.Maybe you don't fully understand how much is lost, or how valuable it is.
-mist
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 2, 2002, at 8:23:24
In reply to Re: Civility vs. Propriety – Words, posted by mist on April 1, 2002, at 21:51:06
> > I think more's gained than lost.
>
> Maybe you don't fully understand how much is lost, or how valuable it is.Maybe I don't. Try to help me understand better?
Bob
Posted by mist on April 2, 2002, at 23:59:17
In reply to Re: Civility vs. Propriety – Words, posted by Dr. Bob on April 2, 2002, at 8:23:24
Personally I find any place more welcoming, accepting, and supportive when people are free to use whatever language they need to, to express how they feel.
One thing to keep in mind is that original self-expression is a much stronger need and value among artists than among other personality types. And particularly for writers, the words they choose to express themselves are not incidental or interchangeable. The thing about "four-letter" words is that they can be used to convey an energy and power in the face of oppressive circumstances and an undiluted honesty of feeling that you can't get with other words. And even if this isn't an outlet for art or other types of writing, writers and other artists are who they are, and they need to be welcome here too. Part of getting support here isn't just others' responses but the ability to post from the heart knowing that you'll be accepted as long as you aren't attacking other members of the board.
Four letter words can also simply be about style and the subculture that one identifies with. To me these things are very important—being in an environment where everyone has to adhere to narrow, sanitized standards of acceptable behavior and speech has a depressing effect on me.
Hope others will have more to say about this too . . .
Posted by mair on April 3, 2002, at 7:46:27
In reply to Re: Civility vs. Propriety – Words, posted by mist on April 2, 2002, at 23:59:17
The only time I've actually seen Dr. Bob reproach someone for using four letter words are when they've been used in headings or in a confrontational way, so from a practical perspective, I'm not sure there really is a prohibition. (Bear in mind that this discussion arose on account ot 2 instances that I can think of where the words were used in headings) The real expression of how we feel is generally in our posts and not in the headings we use, so I guess I don't see this rule as inhibiting, particularly since you can use asteriks also. But then again I'm not a writer and I'm not a big fan of four letter words myself although I've certainly used (and now less frequently still use) plenty of them.
I do know that some people find them to be very offensive and off-putting and I'm assuming some of those people frequent this board. I know you can't please everyone and there are always going to be people who are offended by something. However, four letter words in particular seem to convey different meanings - it's easier to sort those our if you're hearing someone speak, less so if you see them written. I think it would make Dr. Bob's role much more difficult if he was left to make those judgments, and to endure the discussion that will inevitably follow every time he makes a call that the words were inappropriately used.
Mair
Posted by beardedlady on April 3, 2002, at 11:46:42
In reply to Re: Civility vs. Propriety – Words, posted by mair on April 3, 2002, at 7:46:27
Posted by mist on April 3, 2002, at 21:55:53
In reply to Re: Civility vs. Propriety – Words, posted by mair on April 3, 2002, at 7:46:27
I don't use a lot of four-letter words either but I find writers who use them at least occasionally in their writing (including posters on internet boards, published professional writers, and anyone in between) more vital and engaging overall than those who don't. (And I've never used that type of language on the internet myself—for my own reasons, but that's my personal choice and not something I would ever dream of imposing on anyone else.)
A word that offends me is "riff-raff" because it's commonly used to denigrate groups of people based on socioeconomic status and perceived (judged, really) lifestyle. Once a wealthy, churchgoing wife of a business executive I knew exclaimed about "the language!" some people on the street had used, and apparently would rather have died than to utter a four letter word herself (at least in public). Yet she (and her husband) on more than one occasion referred to other people as riff-raff simply because they couldn't afford to live in the same part of town these paragons of (Puritan) societal virtue did or send their kids to the same exclusionary schools.
Of two of the most commonly-used four letter words, one describes a sexual act and the other the elimination of bodily waste. I think it's much more offensive to dismiss whole groups of people with dehumanizing labels based on shallow values and a lack of compassion or understanding of others' experience, than to use language, however irreverent, with associations of bodily functions. But someone could post here about "riff-raff" as long as it wasn't referring to the other posters and it would be accepted (which I personally wouldn't object to even though I'd find it offensive because I'm opposed to censorship).
If a post is confrontational to the point of being uncivil than the question should be one of civility—which is a whole other debate—not the words being used. -mist
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 3, 2002, at 22:20:39
In reply to a word that offends me, posted by mist on April 3, 2002, at 21:55:53
Posted by Zo on April 4, 2002, at 16:54:51
In reply to Re: Civility vs. Propriety – Words, posted by mair on April 3, 2002, at 7:46:27
Posted by mair on April 5, 2002, at 7:19:50
In reply to Yes, thanks Mist from me too! (nm) » mair, posted by Zo on April 4, 2002, at 16:54:51
Posted by Zo on April 5, 2002, at 17:12:18
In reply to Zo - why was your nm post directed to me? (nm) » Zo, posted by mair on April 5, 2002, at 7:19:50
Posted by Jonathan on April 5, 2002, at 19:20:49
In reply to a word that offends me, posted by mist on April 3, 2002, at 21:55:53
Posted by mist on April 5, 2002, at 22:21:39
In reply to Re: Civility vs. Propriety – Words, posted by mair on April 3, 2002, at 7:46:27
> The only time I've actually seen Dr. Bob reproach someone for using four letter words are when they've been used in headings or in a confrontational way,
If I remember correctly someone was blocked earlier this year for using a swear word in the body of a post in which he was discussing meds. Also, I'm not entirely sure which post Trouble was blocked for last weekend, or why. She was admonished when she used a four-letter word in the heading of a post but was blocked for a later post (I believe) in which she was explaining her position on swearing. She used a swear word in the post (and it was very fitting given the style of writing she was using and the ideas she was expressing). I don't think her post was confrontational in any aggressive sense although I suppose she and Dr. Bob were both "confronting" each other in the sense of arguing.
> guess I don't see this rule as inhibiting, particularly since you can use asteriks also.
I don't understand the point of asterisks in a forum like this. Everyone knows what the word is anyway.
Posted by Shar on April 5, 2002, at 23:53:55
In reply to asterisks, etc. » mair, posted by mist on April 5, 2002, at 22:21:39
I read this bit of information, but I don't remember where. I suppose it could be an urban legend or something of that nature since I can't cite the source.
Anyhow, some person or group took the time to find out the most commonly used last words recorded on black boxes when planes were going down, crashing. They were "oh, shit" and "oh, god."
Obviously, four-letter words are very expressive for some people.
And...the asterisks? It's like a convention or custom, not much more. Sort of like cleaning up language when kids are around, or one is using one's manners (ie, a formal occasion). I KNOW some people swear no matter where they are and will never stop, and that's fine, too.
I have a tiny, little, itty bitty, teeny weeny, microscopic problem when swearing is related to having an artistic nature. It sounded just a tiny, little, itty bitty, teeny weeny, microscopically elitist, IMHO, of course. And that's fine, too. Nobody here has to write to please me. I guess we all write to please (or at least not catch the attention of) Dr. Bob.
I suppose if I related swearing to anything in one's nature, it would be passion. Or being passionate about an issue in one way or another. And passion.....well, it can be seen in the general population, and not seen in some artists.
I will confess that I have heard the 'artistic nature' explanation MANY times; too many times. Generally, the way me/myself/I have heard it used is to excuse in an individual something that would be rude if anybody else did it.
Shar
Posted by Zo on April 6, 2002, at 1:20:08
In reply to Dying Words, posted by Shar on April 5, 2002, at 23:53:55
Sorry, I missed that. Who used the term? Maybe you can link me.
Zo
Posted by mist on April 6, 2002, at 5:35:35
In reply to Dying Words, posted by Shar on April 5, 2002, at 23:53:55
Shar,
If you were referring to what I posted earlier my point isn't that artists swear more but that in general it's more important to the artistic personality type to express themselves authentically than, for example, to fit it, get the approval of the group or of authority, not make waves, etc. Even though these might be part of what the artist values too, in general self-expression would take a higher place in a hierarchy of values/needs than it would for others.There's a book called The Career Guide for Creative and Unconventional People that discusses the artistic personality type, mentions its percentage of the population (small—can't remember the exact number), and compares it to other types. For people with this personality type having to suppress their self expression can be extremely painful. It's not just a matter of wanting to "do their own thing" (although there's nothing wrong with that if it doesn't harm others) but that they have to say what they have to say in the way they have to say it or die inside. And I'm talking about things that come from the inner dictates of their gift, which includes the artist's way of looking at the world, not things like verbally abusing others. And there are of course artists who can be as truly rude as anyone else and having that personality type doesn't excuse it.
I don't believe, though, that just because something is considered rude in mainstream society means it's considered offensive by everyone. Nor does it mean the idea that it's rude is based on anything substantial—it could be just that some people don't like it. To me, for something to be truly offensive it has to put someone down—attack them—not just be a word they don't like to hear. When four-letter words are used to call people names they can be as rude as any other insult. But in other contexts, they can simply be used to express a feeling. -mist
> I read this bit of information, but I don't remember where. I suppose it could be an urban legend or something of that nature since I can't cite the source.
>
> Anyhow, some person or group took the time to find out the most commonly used last words recorded on black boxes when planes were going down, crashing. They were "oh, shit" and "oh, god."
>
> Obviously, four-letter words are very expressive for some people.
>
> And...the asterisks? It's like a convention or custom, not much more. Sort of like cleaning up language when kids are around, or one is using one's manners (ie, a formal occasion). I KNOW some people swear no matter where they are and will never stop, and that's fine, too.
>
> I have a tiny, little, itty bitty, teeny weeny, microscopic problem when swearing is related to having an artistic nature. It sounded just a tiny, little, itty bitty, teeny weeny, microscopically elitist, IMHO, of course. And that's fine, too. Nobody here has to write to please me. I guess we all write to please (or at least not catch the attention of) Dr. Bob.
>
> I suppose if I related swearing to anything in one's nature, it would be passion. Or being passionate about an issue in one way or another. And passion.....well, it can be seen in the general population, and not seen in some artists.
>
> I will confess that I have heard the 'artistic nature' explanation MANY times; too many times. Generally, the way me/myself/I have heard it used is to excuse in an individual something that would be rude if anybody else did it.
>
> Shar
Posted by mist on April 6, 2002, at 10:15:34
In reply to Dying Words, posted by Shar on April 5, 2002, at 23:53:55
Shar,
In response to something else you said, I couldn't consider anything pertaining to artists as a whole (to the exclusion of other types of people) elitist because I don't consider artists an elite. The way I understand it, elite means a group with more power, influence, resources, and privileges than most of society, that excludes others from these advantages based on the fact that they aren't part of the elite (in other words, for no good reason).
Most artists I've known (and they are mainly poets and other writers) don't have much money, influence or power. They give up a lot because they make their art a priority and because many of the things that mainstream society demands of people to survive (cubicle jobs, etc.) are to them a robbing of their identity (although some do these things anyway--but at a cost to their mental health).
The reason I brought up the artistic nature in connection with swearing is that some writers use four letter words as part of their art or general self-expression in writing, because they convey what the writer wishes to convey better than another word would.
> I read this bit of information, but I don't remember where. I suppose it could be an urban legend or something of that nature since I can't cite the source.
>
> Anyhow, some person or group took the time to find out the most commonly used last words recorded on black boxes when planes were going down, crashing. They were "oh, shit" and "oh, god."
>
> Obviously, four-letter words are very expressive for some people.
>
> And...the asterisks? It's like a convention or custom, not much more. Sort of like cleaning up language when kids are around, or one is using one's manners (ie, a formal occasion). I KNOW some people swear no matter where they are and will never stop, and that's fine, too.
>
> I have a tiny, little, itty bitty, teeny weeny, microscopic problem when swearing is related to having an artistic nature. It sounded just a tiny, little, itty bitty, teeny weeny, microscopically elitist, IMHO, of course. And that's fine, too. Nobody here has to write to please me. I guess we all write to please (or at least not catch the attention of) Dr. Bob.
>
> I suppose if I related swearing to anything in one's nature, it would be passion. Or being passionate about an issue in one way or another. And passion.....well, it can be seen in the general population, and not seen in some artists.
>
> I will confess that I have heard the 'artistic nature' explanation MANY times; too many times. Generally, the way me/myself/I have heard it used is to excuse in an individual something that would be rude if anybody else did it.
>
> Shar
Posted by Shar on April 8, 2002, at 3:24:30
In reply to Re: Civility vs. Propriety – Words, posted by mist on April 2, 2002, at 23:59:17
My handy dandy Funk & Wagnall's says elite is 'the choicest part, as of a social group.' It doesn't really talk about money or power, nor do I think of it in those terms. Every group has its elite; academia, arts (and subdivisions thereof), government, community organizers. The elite is like 'the in crowd.' The elite may be accepted as leaders or may not be; some may be above the conventions of leadership. Then, there is the 'real' elite group that thinks the group that thinks it is elite is actually NOT elite but rather bourgeois. And so it goes.
What gets my goat about distinguishing one group from another as below:
Mist said:
"One thing to keep in mind is that original self-expression is a **much stronger need and value** among artists than among other personality types. And particularly for writers, the words they choose to express themselves **are not incidental or interchangeable.** The thing about "four-letter" words is that they can be used to convey an energy and power in the face of oppressive circumstances and an undiluted honesty of feeling that you can't get with other words. And even if this isn't an outlet for art or other types of writing, **writers and other artists are who they are,** and they need to be welcome here too." (emphasis mine.)This type of thinking paints people with a pretty broad brush, and SEEMS to suggest that one group gets a special dispensation from social custom because of their special status (in this case artists). This type of thinking is never applied to only one group, it is everywhere. And, frankly, words are extremely important to MANY people, including non-artists. Even to people in cubicles, or who work 8-5 jobs, or just appreciate language. I love words, it is a major weakness of mine that people who couch things in certain ways can seriously get to me. Even if that person is a carpenter.
I don't think anyone really deserves a special dispensation from the rules or customs of this board or society in general simply because of their 'need' to write, paint, draw, act, sing, play an instrument, compose, etc. Or, if they do feel entitled to exceptions from custom, they should not be in the least surprised when others are offended or uncomfortable with them.
True, some people in groups just push the envelope enough to catch the spotlight. Others take it further.
Mist said:
"Four letter words can also simply be about style and the subculture that one identifies with. To me these things are very important—being in an environment where everyone has to adhere to narrow, sanitized standards of acceptable behavior and speech has a depressing effect on me."Who said anything about "sanitized standards of acceptable behavior and speech"? I don't believe people here are saying no four letter words ever! Just, offering their opinion about them. And stating if they are not comfortable with them. Personally, I think they are largely unnecessary, that there are almost always better ways to emphasize or make a point than by swearing. However, I use them also at times.
I believe the style/subculture remark is very pertinent. Some folks want to *be themselves* to a much greater extent than I want them to be themselves...just acting naturally, they say. Well, picking one's nose is natural, and I do not care to share that with anyone, or belching and farting is natural, but remains unappealing, to me at least.
There is much more commonality among groups of people than differences, and the remark about artists vs. other personality types simply emphasizes a perceived difference. In fact, some research has shown that within-group differences are greater than between-group differences. Thus, it is likely we have more in common with artists than we have differences.
I do well in a conventional setting, I hold many traditional values, and I also believe my love of words is just as present for me as it is for an artist (writer). My words are chosen carefully, with attention to nuance. By what objective standard can we measure how important the artist's words are vs. how important my words are to me?
Well, that's probably enough said.
Shar
Posted by Zo on April 8, 2002, at 4:54:17
In reply to Re: Civility vs. Propriety – Words, posted by Shar on April 8, 2002, at 3:24:30
Shar,
What kind of contempt do you suppose you express when you compare what a writer/artist does to picking your nose?
There's this misapprehension about creative people. We're all ego, we do everything we do just to put the spotlight on ourselves.
When what I know is that artists are the people who stand by their words, themselves, and try to communicate what it is they see. *That's* the urge, the drive. . . to show you my little piece of heaven. Or hell. But it's about the farthest thing from showing off. More like very risky, very vulnerable.
And hey, there IS no special dispensation. If you're an artist or writer, you have to grind out your own dispensation from a world which grants NONE---and then pays to buy your books, to see your plays. Pays to get your message back again.
I'd like to think that my work is something more than a "need." My guess is if you knew how bloody f**kin' hard it is, to make anything authentic at all, never mind to then get it seen or read or heard, you'd sing a different tune.
Just thought your posts on this had unnecessary jabs, not required to get your point across. Unless, of course, your point is that you are contemptous of artists. . ..
Zo
Posted by trouble on April 8, 2002, at 10:25:38
In reply to Re: Civility vs. Propriety – Words, posted by Shar on April 8, 2002, at 3:24:30
Sorry, no time for greetings,
>> elite is 'the choicest part, as of a social group. It doesn't really talk about money or power, nor do I think of it in those terms.
LADIES, LADIES!
I believe the word we're struggling for here is snobbery. Snobbery is typiclly found in those who profess a heightened aesthetic sensibility, ya think?
Quoting now, "Being alert to...distinctions is a large part of the fun of being alive today, in a moment teeming w/raucously overvalued emptiness and trash." (will cite author later)
My condensed theory of art, and I'll try to stretch this into 9 pages for y'all, but no promises:
Because we are all stuck w/ SOULS we are ALL artists, like it or not. We are not artists b/c of any art we PRODUCE, but by the kind of art we COLLECT...the aesthetic this-n-that's w/ which we adorn our personal environments. You can play Lawrence Welk on your juke, hang velvet elvises on your living room wall, next to a collection of 280 sad ceramic painted clowns, display in pride of place an autographed copy of poet Rod McKuen's, LISTEN TO THE WARM and put a framed copy of the DESIDERATA over the fireplace and baby, THIS IS YOU AS ARTIST and it may bring out the booger-eating H.L.Mencken in someone who doesn't relate, but you got it girl, no dispensations for anyone and that includes, well, you.
The late 20th century democratization of the arts has brought forth the crass and abject naked and unwashed masses, drag queens, nobodies, riff-raff (sorry mist) such as myself, who work all day scrubbing rich peoples toilets and then stay up all night, writing furious manifestos and then handing them out to strangers on street corners and if you see no courage, no beauty in the boldness of putting yourself on the line like that, so be it. Snub me. I claim no nobility in my habit of writing and promulgating poetry.
It's just my favorite waste of time.You have every right to define "bad", according to your own sensibilities, and the more opinions we express the clearer picture we present of ourselves, the easier it is to find people who connect w/ those sensibilities, artistic or otherwise. Is there a problem here? Am I missing something?
"BAD is something phony, clumsy, witless, untalented, vacant, or boring that many Americans
can be persuaded is genuine, graceful, bright, or fascinating...
"...numerous awful things to be met w/in the United States which if not offensive b/c pretentious are offensive b/c banal, stupid, or subadult."Damn. Wish I'd said that. (BAD or, the Dumbing Of America, Paul Fussell 1991, Simon and Schuster.)
> This type of thinking paints people with a pretty broad brush, and SEEMS to suggest that one group gets a special dispensation from social custom because of their special status (in this case artists).Please enlighten me about these spoiled and over-indulged aristo-brats, b/c in my personal pantheon all of 'em lived lives of sheer and unrelenting and yes, self-pitying nightmarish hell. To wit:
Robert Johnson,
Billie Holiday,
Raymond Carver,
Charles Bukowski (among much public farting), Marilyn Monroe,
George Jones, Tammy Wynette,
Dorothy Parker,
Sylvia Plath,
Jackson Pollock,
Gertrude Stein,
Anne Sexton,
Kurdt Cocaine,
Janis Joplin,
George Depeirdeau,
Richard Hell,
me,
Lester Bangs,
John Lennon (gave back his knighthood or whatever the hell dispensation the U.K. tried to apologize with),
Tennessee Williams,
Jimi Hendrix,
Lou Reed,
Eugene O'Neill,
Marvin Gaye,
R.D. Laing,
Virginia Woolf,
J.P. Sartre,
Ayn Rand,
Sam Phillips,
Mark Eitzel,
Lee Hazelwood (from whom I borrowed my "handle")
Vincent Van Gogh,
William Burroughs,
Nick Drake,
Ian Curtis...I'm leaving out the survivors, the Patti Smiths and Boy Georges who keep the rest of us going, and I haven't even mentioned Cassavetes, Fassbinder, Peckinpah, and oh don't get me started on the filmakers, there will be no end to this!
Do arty folk have a place on PSB?
The leading vocation for mental cases then and now:
1.writers (depression)
2.artists (bi-polar)Pain propels artistic expression, it's publish AND perish, there will always be rabid critics, hatemongers and debunkers nipping at their heels, but I'm still looking for the public privilege and adulation, please someone show me what you see in the lives of these people that I have missed.
Now, if there's no room for befuddling, soul-baring, messianic, passionate, cockeyed sentimental visionaries on PSB we're gonna have to start by knocking off the good doctor's unique and idealistic and supremely individualistic apparition you are now gazing into with, admit it, rapt attention, this historical, and believe it, this is history we're making here friends, this on-line support/education/research booger thingie which was nothing but a concept dr. bob brought to spectacular fruition, a creation of something out of nothing, i.e. "ART"--to say nothing of that slippery dadgum policy of civility, and if THAT'S not social engineering in the purest and most romantic tradition I'll eat a six pack of stetsons.
> I believe the style/subculture remark is very pertinent. Some folks want to *be themselves* to a much greater extent than I want them to be themselves...just acting naturally, they say.
Right, this is known as the great American culture wars, the gang's all here, pleased to meetcha.
>>> I also believe my love of words is just as present for me as it is for an artist (writer). My words are chosen carefully, with attention to nuance. By what objective standard can we measure how important the artist's words are vs. how important my words are to me?Well Shar, that's a good question. The only one here who seems to be abdicating their responsibility as an artist is, you.
>>Well, that's probably enough said.
Why? Are you finished? Or have you "used up" too much of your slice? Speaking your truth has been stimulating to read, and I sense you have much more than this in you.
In weird but some sincere version of idiosyncratic friendship,
trouble
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.