Perhaps it is the title of the blog - the apparent insistence that I know the path the reader must tread, that I am demanding that the reader tread it and that if the reader refuses, the reader is an idiot or a fool.
Rumson, however, does not confirm the thesis. He proposes an alternative thesis ... but he doesn't ask if Holbrook agrees. He makes it clear: "This is so. There is no room for argument." That's because Rumson isn't proposing a thesis ... which is, after all, the entire point of Logan's play. Rumson knows. That's why, when Holbrook answers that he doesn't agree, Rumson doesn't care. He gets to the root of it. Holbrook doesn't agree because Holbrook doesn't understand.
[T]here IS a path. One that we are walking upon together, arguing, challenging one another, pointing out details along the route.
Don't piggy-back on my blog and offer an alternative method for 'how you do it.' I am writing here about how I do it. Either address my method, or go write your idea on your blog.
I don't care that the reader agrees. The response, "I agree with some of what Alexis writes, but not all of it," is pure Holbrook. I am not Holbrook. I am Rumson. Rumson knows.
I don't care that the reader agrees. Feel free to agree with me and expand on what I've written.
If you want to disagree with me, fine. Do so. I better see a source or a credibly prescient example from your personal experience, and that example better be specific, detailed and ungeneralized. It better be in the first three sentences, too.
[T]here IS a path. One that we are walking upon together, arguing, challenging one another, pointing out details along the route. It better be in the first three sentences.
I am Rumson. Rumson knows.
How odd that there are people still who seem to believe that I am preaching the 'one true way.'
Sources: http://tao-dnd.blogspot.ca/2014/03/rumson.html; http://tao-dnd.blogspot.ca/2014/11/the-one-true-tao.html; https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3871409676946408069&postID=7569953836317449934&isPopup=true - this last is the comments form for Alexis' [Rumson's] blog, which demands that you feel free to agree with him, or, if not, present a cogent, detailed, and well-referenced argument in three sentences.
Rumson is right in Logan's play because the author deems that this is the case, and unless you assume that you have a special relationship with the "author" of reality, one should not assume that they are right simply on the basis of their pronouncements. Para 3, above, is almost the definition of "one true way", and the insistence of Alexis that he is Rumson (Rumson knows) should make things clear. There is a reason people believe Alexis is preaching "one true way". But it is not clear to Alexis.
No comments:
Post a Comment