Posted by KC Elbows on February 18, 2003 at 14:46:48:
In Reply to: Re: ATTN: kc posted by utu on February 18, 2003 at 11:29:24:
'At least Chris puts his name out there for others to see and by so doing invites comments on him.'
I'm not one to attribute intelligence for relinquishing one's own privacy, and the lack of a name never prevented anyone from making comments about me.
'Most seem to think he is a good man, just somewhat confused.'
He gives up on old friends because their presence undermines the illusion of Kim's divinity. He may have the capacity for goodness, I'm sure this is true, but he also has the capacity for evil. I have evidence of one, and everyone's assurance of the other, and that is the truth.
'Why don't you do the same?'
Because it is immaterial to this argument who I am. Only whether what we say has substance, and is of importance to this subject. Not one person, not one has addressed the points I raise. They just rest their laurels on questions of identity and pictures and other straw dogs.
Assume I am the scum of the earth. Assume I am the worst scum, the lowest vagabond, the biggest piece of filth that walks the earth. Assume I am Hitler himself. Does this change anything about what I say, when what I say has been truth?
'Show, at the least, you are as proud of who you are and what you've done as Chris is.'
Pride is a worthless commodity. Achievements are, in the end, meaningless outside of their comfortable contexts. I am at peace with who I am. I strive for good, I sometimes find that I am bad also. As I said, assume the worst of me. Chris takes pride in his achievements, but on whose backs were those things achieved? And that he was not the one to sever the ties, that he let the ties be severed for him, does not impress me one bit. I have said it before, I will say it again: John Kim is what some men use to put off responsibility for their own lives.
After all, am I not already pa doe, by their estimation? Could I be otherwise, in their narrow viewpoint? I see no purpose for revealing who I am, especially since I have already stated that I should be seen as the worst of the worst, worse than Kim himself, if you like. Could knowing me make me any worse than that? Clearly not.
And yet, the things I have said stand unassaulted by any logical argument. I do not judge Chris Dining. I merely point out the exact level to which he will be tolerated as the authority he says he is, knowing he has turned his back on the man who, flawed though the attempt was, sought to share his love of the arts. Knowing that he takes pride in such. I have said nothing of myself, except that I am an ordinary kung fu man, and that I should be looked on as the worst of the worst morally speaking. I do not care to be thought more of than that, because face and reputation are limitations. As the worst of the worst, I am always free to be myself. I need never color truth with what truth is supposed to be, I can percieve truth as what it is.
To the moo, I am pa doe. Yet I can see what they cannot. I can tell you which part of my posts they will respond to, and which part they will never respond to, because they cannot. They cannot do the same. They can only fall into the same patterned behavior.
Chris Dining says nothing new, because he cannot. He is just a form of testimonial, not a man, at least the face he offers us here. I will not communicate civilly with testimonials. I will attack them for the opportunistic rhetoric that they are. Chris Dining the human, I will never attack, but Chris Dining, the faithless student, I will never support. You may disagree with my stance, but I disagree with yours. Chris does not present himself honestly here, so providing his name is senseless. He believes that Tom McGee put money in an envelope, marked at one tenth of its total amount, and gave it to Kim, and that Kim took it, but was completely ignorant of what was happening. He believes in John Kim jumping off 11 story buildings, in miraculous demonstrations, but is too timid to say this is a spiritual belief, as he does not know that any such miracles ever happened. He hides every pertinent point, except his name. Worthless, the stock testimonial given a name. Anyone could have said it. There is nothing intrinsically 'Chris Dining' about his post.
Chris Dining created a dialogue, but withheld the truth of himself from it. I join the dialogue, withholding my name, but engaging my identity, my emotions, my reason, my belief that Chris Dining abandoned someone who needed people like him. That Chris Dining is good is meaningless when he denies his good to the people who need it.
Of course, I am the worst of the worst, so take all of this with a grain of salt, but if you find it to be lies, please tell me where I have lied. I would be interested to hear.