virus: sanctimonious?

Reed Konsler (
Thu, 4 Feb 1999 13:08:19 -0500

>Date: Wed, 03 Feb 1999 11:38:05 -0600
>From: Bob Hartwig <>
>Subject: Re: virus: :-)


>I believe you mean the things you said, I think you were being very
>sincere. What's more, I agree with most of the things you said.


>But rather than simply presenting your points, you take the role of the
>enlightened messiah, sent from the wilderness to teach her the error of her
>ways. It's pretentious, sanctimonious. It's as though you're talking to
>her from a higher plane. And it *really* bugs me because I often do the
>same thing.

I disagree. I was treating everything she said with respect. I was proposing a way of thinking, not a list of instructions. I was trying to avoid disagreeing
with things which weren't essential to the message I was trying to communicate. That was my *intent*.

Could you please find something I posted in the last few days and show me what was "sanctimonious" about it, and how it could have been better put? I'm sure there are some in there...perhaps the "I am a Rock" quote from Simon and Garfunkel? I admit, that was a little over the top. On the other hand, I'm not some enlightened I do let go a zinger now and then. It was a crude tool, but I'm trying... [meek shrug]

>If you disagree with her, say that you do, and give your reasons.

Didn't I do that? I disagreed with her attitude, not the "facts" of the situation. Oprah is on TV. She makes a lot of money. Her theme song used to be Whitney Huston's "I am every woman"...though I didn't hear it the last time I watched. The "facts" weren't in question... we were arguing over the narrative structure which held them together and made them meaningful. I'm sure I made a number of assertions...can't help it...but if you'ld like to point out something I didn't develop enough for you to understand, I'd be happy to go through it with you. On the other hand, if you did get my point, then I don't understand what you're griping about.

>Don't try to save her soul.

I don't understand what you mean by that. Are the words "meaning" and "fulfilling" so powerful that we can find them only on some abstract plane? I don't believe that. Meaning and fulfillment are as substantive and material as the atoms which comprise the universe. You don't have to invoke "souls" and "God" and "Religion" to talk about having an effective attitude towards living, do you? Isn't that the point of COV?

>Unless, of course, you're interested in starting your own religion.

Why would I possibly want to do that?


  Reed Konsler