Didier as Bodhisattva

[Jonathan Loesberg]

originally posted by SFJoe:

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
If he could scrape away the soil he would.

That's where you lose him. The soil is the place is the point. Take proper care of the soil, and the vines are fine. Take proper care of the vines, and the wine is fine.

But the soil is the essence of the place, as I understand him.

For various reasons, as a matter of definition, soil can't be essence. He may think soil is, as a condition of perception, as far back as he can go. The painter in the Recognitions, in the same manner, never just destroyed the canvas. He was actually a better metaphysician in that he thought his art was the scraping and not anything he would find underneath. As I read the interview, though, Didier would think this thread is bullshit, both my interpretation of what he says and yours. He describes what he does as just what interests him, not as a metaphysics of winemaking. I'd like to think I'm on his side on that, but the evidence here is against me.

 

[Keith Levenberg]

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
The logic, which really, according to his interview, I readily admit, does not capture the complexity of his thought, in Joe's quote above is:

1) I used to be interested in winemaking but I recognized that all winemaking is in the vines.

2) I used to be interested in vines, but I recognized that everything about the vine that mattered is in the soil.

So now I'm only interested in the soil. If he can find an essence to the soil that is all that matters to the soil, he can then turn his interest to that.

But of course he's not *obliged* to turn his interest to that, as you suggest later. It's everyone's prerogative as a human being to stop following a train of thought wherever we lose interest, even if someone else can identify the place where the train leads. In this case, it sounds like the fellow is interested in agriculture and geology but that doesn't oblige him to take an interest in physics or math, which, as we know, is where all sciences lead!

 

[SFJoe]

The cartoon, btw, suffers from its linear arrangement.

 

[Jonathan Loesberg]

originally posted by Keith Levenberg:

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
The logic, which really, according to his interview, I readily admit, does not capture the complexity of his thought, in Joe's quote above is:

1) I used to be interested in winemaking but I recognized that all winemaking is in the vines.

2) I used to be interested in vines, but I recognized that everything about the vine that mattered is in the soil.

So now I'm only interested in the soil. If he can find an essence to the soil that is all that matters to the soil, he can then turn his interest to that.

But of course he's not *obliged* to turn his interest to that, as you suggest later. It's everyone's prerogative as a human being to stop following a train of thought wherever we lose interest, even if someone else can identify the place where the train leads. In this case, it sounds like the fellow is interested in agriculture and geology but that doesn't oblige him to take an interest in physics or math, which, as we know, is where all sciences lead!

Yes, absolutely. That's what I was saying in my last post.

 

[Keith Levenberg]

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
That's what I was saying in my last post.

We crossed.

 

[Jeff Connell]

Didier would think this thread is bullshit, both my interpretation of what he says and yours.

So true. But he would laugh. He would guffaw.