revisiting whitelotus and subversive rhetoric

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

This is a post with a particular relevance for the older members of this forum.

Future Man

Concordant

Why was whitelotus banned from this forum?

Context

This forum is a kind of dialogue which pretends, without realising it, to have no rules. Of course there is no ‘it’ which pretends, it is just something which ‘everyone’ does, because it is what ‘one’ does. I am not refering to the stipulated rules, as in ‘no pornography links’ etc. I mean in the sense of rhetorical rules for debate. Members bring their own narratives in, and wonder why each and the other is confused, and ‘misunderstanding’ takes place. The each cannot find the truth of the other, because neither attempts to actually ask a question before setting off on their dialogue. Or, if you prefer, the questions they ask already pretend to answers, and this is seldom reflected on.

In the subject thread I have used the phrase ‘subversive rhetoric’. This has nothing to do with political subversion. In fact what I seek to describe requires some foundation, which can be given briefly although really it is not brief. That is to say then that it is not complete.

To participate in dialogue, one is required to assume a particular voice. When one does this, there is already the assumption of a certain dialogue with a certain teleological function. Or to approach this concept from a different but related angle;

  • Nietzsche

This teleology is as a signpost towards an answer which is contained in the question itself.

Allow me to lighten this discussion with an example, which will push further the elucidation of my point, which is probably obscure.

Gamer

This is a rather particular method of denigration which I have seen many times on this forum. For everything that is said, a certain reflection on the author is implicit. And I do not mean morally.
It is not important to try to characterise this particular form of rhetoric; rather it is enough to recognise that its force is derived principally from its form.

The respondent in this case assumes the voice of his assailant, and thus implictly attempts to displace his rhetorical position.

Too often members will read into each other incorrectly because they have misunderstood the voice which the other is assuming.

This directs us back to the concept of subversive rhetoric. This is the form which cuts across the various voices and wishes to remove from them their implicit authority. The authority of a voice is precisely in its perpetuation of what is not reflected on, what is ‘passed over in silence’. When two or more forms of rhetoric are employed in a single dialogue, they will blindly ignore one and the other’s ‘context’, and treat each statement and argument as if it existed on a plane of objective verification. That is to say, there is assumed between them a third mediatory voice which can pose as arbiter in the reconciliation of difference. However this arbiter is itself only given when the dialogue takes place within a single voice, rather than across voices. Agreement, as it is, constitutes the method by which rationality is bestowed on this dialogue.

Any given dialogue makes already a plethora of assumptions.

The above has been motivated by the incident of whitelotus. I am interested to defend portions of his participation in this forum, by reference to the above. Of course the above is really a bastard and incomplete explanation which has been very frustrating and unfruitful to write. However with the feedback it receives, there may emerge the means to make this problematic more obvious to those who are still left scratching their heads.

For those ill-equiped to appreciate the forth-coming, I have included a short catalogue of quotes which will serve as an introduction.

GateControlTheory

whitelotus

hermes the thrice great

Hermes assumes knowledge of what whitelotus is saying. What whitelotus says to the contrary, i.e. that he has not been understood, is actually perfectly born out by this attitude, but this is only because its logic is circular. If Hermes lack of understanding is born out by his claims to understand, then paradoxically in order to understand he must admit to not understanding. Whitelotus has already made a judgment here, which must therefore be based in some other source.

Principally I would say this judgment comes from the way in which other posters respond to whitelotus. Any flattering interpretation of the latter could not fail to note the extent to which the form by which he enters the dialogue is quite different from others on this forum. Precisely this is what makes him seem pretentious, then unbearable, then irrelevant. He is trying to involve others in the answering of his questions. (As is everyone, but not everyone takes account of this)

Not just the form but the content of his posts are intended to function in a certain way. I will attempt to clarify this point more as we go.

Pinnacle of Reason

Pinnacle has misunderstood whitelotus. Perhaps the most common response to this thread will be that which says I have been too ‘apologetic’, and implicitly given credit where it is not due. However this is neither here nor there.

Pinnacle has misinterpreted the meaning of ‘truth’ being employed here.

whitelotus

Heidegger. Etymology.

Gamer

Bill Paterson

Gamer has not sufficiently understood whitelotus.

The Source

hermes the thrice great

Heidegger. Technology.

Hermes the great has misunderstood whitelotus(?) Consider;

(my italics)
-whitelotus

These later posts are strangely lacking the polemical tendencies of their antecedents.

whitelotus

I will not reproduce this whole thread - the meaning of life - and the fact that I think whitelotus is correct in this thread does not bear on the following point, which is that the others in this thread, as in other threads, have seemingly found cause to disagree with him which is not itself apparent in either the ostensible content of their responses, nor the points of entry and departure by which they enter into the dialogue itself.

I dare say at this point (as a sidenote) that whitelotus and POR are quite different, really.

Although the attitude is coarse, and there is little room for generalisation, there are limited cases where whitelotus seems entirely understandable to me. Of course a similar sentiment may sound softly from certain other members, but we are probably refering to different things.

Philo (on the above)

Now I will return to the further elaboration of an earlier point. Standing in whitelotus’ shoes, I cannot make meaningful contributions to most threads so long as they are assuming a certain voice which presumes that I am convivial to the idea of ‘answering their questions’ in the Nietzschean sense quoted earlier. If from within a given problematic I am presented with someone claiming to have knowledge or understanding of any of the constituent pieces of information (a given text for instance, let’s say, for instance, Sein und Zeit) which have guided my conclusion in the unteneability of this problematic, then naturally I am led to the conclusion that, in fact, no knowledge or understanding exists to any significant or satisfactory extent. That I myself have realised that the question has been asked incorrectly, precludes the possibility that it is in fact I who am wrong about the text in question. I feel both empowered and powerless simultaneously.

The above cannot justify the full body of whitelotus’ participation in this forum. It does however show that a good teacher never carries his goodness within himself - it is rather relational. Whitelotus is not good in this regard. But precisely for this reason it makes it harder to judge him wrong.

This conclusion also applies in a different manner. I will not put it as if it is not understood in some sense, however incompletely, by most on this forum already. Establishing the question is something which is rarely achieved, it seems, on this forum. That is to say this is the case when viewed from the Heideggerian perspective. So then all the discussion degenerates into a form of question begging, which fails to recognise itself.

In any case the above offers explanation for behaviour previously ascribed exclusively to the character of whitelotus. For me however this too is ultimately neither here nor there.

Thoughts anyone?

2

James,

Not privy to the discussion mentioned, I cannot comment, other than to say, we should all have such a thorough defense done for us when we feel that we have been wronged; and any reference to Gamer’s posts that is meant to be put in a bad light is in my mind impermissible, as his brilliance (and truth) redeems all faults.

Dunamis

3

yeah gamers cool. unban whitelotus and email him. what the worst that happens?

4

James is whitelotus.

5

If so, sad.
I should have looked at the number of posts I suppose.

Dunamis

6

Thanks arendt. Maybe it would be interesting though, to pretend that you are the devil and not just the (partial) advocate. However I think in this case the negative outweighs the positive. I would prefer to avoid being viewed through that paradigm.

I am waiting though for the other people mentioned to give their two cents.

Dunamis

I have posted under a couple of other names, but that was 8 months ago, and I can’t remember the details of my account. I suspect the sense of ‘sad’ in your post is ‘pathetic’ - if I were in your shoes, I would sooner have it say ‘that’s a shame’.

Can anyone answer my first question though, even if they don’t feel qualified to comment on the rest? That is to ask, why was whitelotus banned?

7

James,

No. I meant sad.

Dunamis

8

I too was beguiled by the promise of whitelotus. He tells us all what we secretly want to hear: we are wrong. The problem is when the oracle himself fails to live up to his promise by perpetrating circular reasoning and anti-social behavior. Mannerisms that are simply toxic to discourse, and I think we all agree discourse is necessary to keep ideas flowing from one to another. In the end whitelotus failed to live up to his persona, and that is when he was attacked most vehemently – for betraying us and himself.

I appreciate Dunamis’ comment – I deserve his forgiveness, as I tend to forgive him, generously, for his LACK of faults. But his comment applies to all those who were so shallowly dissected. Every one of those mentioned are first-rate thinkers, and out of context one misses the subtlty and sophistication they bring to the forum.

My moment with Pennis was not my proudest, although i tend to know about people. I’ve known about ten people who sound about like Pennis, and they all share common traits in lifestyle and history. I took a shot anyway. I used to wear Fry boots and take valium, that’s about it. I assure you Pennis is not nice, in any case, and that’s something he is proud of.

James, i like your posts, good topic, but perhaps too ambitious for what you were willing to put into it. You really had to be there, i think.

9

Gamer

Yes too ambitious, that is very true. I was there for a lot of it though, however. My posts appeared under the name Jack.

I will follow up on this and give it more thought when I have the time.

10

I remember thinking, a couple of days to a week after whitelotus had gone, that a quiet had descended upon the forum, and everything seemed much more peaceful. The terror of the war was over and the tyrant was deposed. This reflection of mine is only important in the sense that it points to a before and an after, and what those two actualities, placed side by side, do to reveal an aspect of whitelotus’ character itself.

He was a tyrant not a teacher: Being in possession of a degree of knowledge that surpassed almost everyone else that was posting at the time (or at least seeming to possess) he could have taken many different approaches, and many more fruitful ones, in his encounters with other posters, but instead he employed deceit, mockery, minimal explanation, and he would concede nothing in his arguments accept for the occasional agreement over one of his truths. He was sadistic in his approach seeming to argue, not for resolution (he could care less if any one agreed with him) but instead for the pleasure of the turmoil and the strife itself. He was banned because he was no longer useful to ILP, in fact in my mind he was damaging it, and Ben did the right thing when he made the decision to finally get rid of him. That is my opinion now, however. At the time it occured I was actually disappointed to see him go because he was a powerful gravitational force, and he did, in his better moments, hint at something great.

11

Gamer, I have been re-reading old posts and can appreciate how balanced your present opinion is. I had not remembered how sharp a tongue you had wielded back in the day, but the reminiscence brings a smile to my face.

Concordant, thank you for your response. This is the answer I had expected.

12

The man, the myth: whitelotus.

As they say, you had to be there. The transcripts don’t do the experience justice.

Who was whitelotus and can we ever hope to understand him even now?

Here is my take:

I will remember him as poster who most intensely poisoned others and as an eater of poison. He sowed strife for the sake of strife and his only self-proclaimed goal was to be a fascist. He was the man who, like the Pharisees, held the keys to the kingdom but did not enter and did not allow others to enter either.

He thrived on conflict and was energized by those who disagreed with him.

Yet there was no glimmer of joy or amusement in him from being more knowledgeable than others. There was no sorrow or despair at the ignorance he saw around him. There was no pedagogic desire to share his insights. I think perhaps he achieved a kind of satisfaction from being misunderstood.

He was intense, without a doubt. As though he had an infinite supply of intensity that never waned. I think that might have been what made him interesting. His limitless intensity was exciting. It kindled a warrior’s spirit in everyone who disagreed with him. Yet his remained forever distant and aloof. He never expressed an ounce of respect for any other person.

He was always one step away. He never let his guard down and he never played. He utterly lacked humor. He could never laugh at himself or at others. He never toyed with an idea, but always used it as a tool.

He looked like he was in a position of genius about to manifest. It seemed as if at any moment the dam might burst and a vast reassure of wisdom, knowledge, and brilliant insight would shine forth. Yet it never came to be. The promise was never fulfilled. We were left with tantalizing glimmers of greatness, but we never reached the mother load.

Whitelotus looked more than happy to lead everyone on, and never put out. He was an intellectual tease. Long on promise, short on delivery.

And of course after a while endless intensity does become exhausting.

13

You will notice that when active, the poster known as whitelotus was only ever keen to respond to very particular members of the forum. All too often, a worthwhile reply was given by one of a large group of members who he (whitelotus) often ignored. It is possible that the reply did not satisfy the logical route to which whitelotus often seemed pathologically determined to see out, or it could be that he simply enjoyed winding up the posters he could rely on to respond in an emotional manner.

Either way, his philosophy was only sometimes notable.

14

James, et. al.,

It’s an interesting topic inasmuch as we’ll undoubtedly run into Whitelotus’ sentiments again. Marshall and I had a private correspondance on the topic back when it was topical. I just realized that I still had my last letter to Marshall in my “Sent Box.” For what it’s worth, this is how I felt about it then:

Hey there Marshall,

I’ve just logged-on to check my mail. Otherwise, I haven’t read ILP since I left for my vacation some two weeks ago.

Good man, Marshall. Whitelotus sings the song of his world. It’s a music inspired, at least in part, by a poverty of meaning and a dearth of love.

There’s no deep reason why my wife is. The atoms that constitute my wife are entirely nondescript. To the universe it’s all the same whether those atoms constitute a beautiful, kind-hearted woman or a puff of smoke. Whitelotus looks at this world and exclaims, “There’s no meaning to be found!” But of course there isn’t. Meaning isn’t “out there.” We create it. It doesn’t matter that my wife doesn’t matter to the stars. What matters is that she matters to me. Frank Ramsey’s beautiful quote is worth repeating once again:

“I don’t feel in the least humble before the vastness of the heavens. The stars may be large, but they cannot think or love; and these are qualities that impress me far more than size does.”

The world is large and largely unimportant. By the same token most of the truths that we could utter are utterly uninteresting. Things matter because you and I say that they matter. Men either create love and meaning or they die having never known them.

If his words accurately reflect his life then Whitelotus deserves our pity. He appears to inhabit a bland world devoid of love and passion. Unimaginative men are punished with banal lives. They die, by my measure, having never really lived.

My wife and I have spent the latter part of this past week bicycling around Lake Champlain. We stopped to dive off the rocks, lay about on the beaches and pick wild blueberries. I dozed-off yesterday afternoon under a cumulus sky, my toes in the warm sand on an otherwise deserted beach. I awakened to find Victoria’s message drawn in the sand with her toe: “I [Big Heart] U”. That single silly-sweet sentiment is Niagra Falls to Whitelotus’ dismal Dixie Cup.

The antidote (anti-venom?) to Whitelotus’ world is created within us. The world we inhabit is a mirror of our selves (bearing in mind what Nietzsche said about staring into the Abyss). Life becomes a passion through living passionately. It’s romantic men who live romantic lives.

See ya,
Michael

15

Not being one of his intended targets, my responses to his posts were largely ignored or given one-line dismissal, including my one left-handed compliment toward one of his posts. One could never dismiss his intellect, but could never feel but sad to see such a mind locked into its’ own isolation. It was like playing with a porcupine.

Polemarchus,

Isn’t it amazing that, for all our intellect, all of our study, all of the learned tomes stacked to the ceiling, it finally come’s down to a message scrawled in the sand?

I cannot regret the years of study, the blinding headaches from trying to hold on to meta-meta, but simple understanding of the simple is what one want’s to get near.

We all need our butts kicked.

JT

16

Thankyou Xanderman. What I experienced directly is as you have described. What I read in the transcripts now remains enigmatic precisely because of this.

Polemarchus - I enjoyed reading your response. I once read a commentary on Sartre’s appropriation of Heidegger, described as ‘brilliant but misguided’. I hope this does not come across as an insult. Personally, I don’t think whitelotus’ attitude is born out by the views on meaning he presents in his posts. ‘Condemned to meaning’ is a very different thing to ‘devoid of meaning’. Like inauthenticity, it does not carry a negative connotation for Heidegger. For Sartre, however, I think something has been ‘lost in translation’. Whitelotus never offered a polemic against meaning, as far as I can recall; only purpose, and anyone who confuses the two. Whether they may be ‘legitimately’ confused is, for the etymologist, neither here nor there.

Regards,

James

17

OBW and Tentative - Thanks for taking the time to read this post. If you have any more thoughts I would be interested to hear them.

18

I’ve mentioned this before in the whitelotus era…his approach reminded me of UG Krishnamurti, and even his name "whitelotus’ smacks of guru. Somebody please google UG and spend some time perusing his ideas. Then, if you’re still sane, tell me if this guy isn’t a bit like whitelotus. Xanderman, thanks for saying better what I was trying to say. Bastard.

“U.G Krishnamurti, an enigma–a person who defies all classifications–a philosopher, a Non-guru, guru, call him what you may. But, once you have read even a few words, seen a photo of his, your psyche will never be the same. He will permeate your being. His words and images will infect your mind like a virus. So, proceed with caution in exploring these conversations, quotes and photos.” ugkrishnamurti.org

19

Quite.

20

Gamer,

Sorry I missed all the whitelotus, but from your descriptions of him I take his name to have come from the marvelous Shaw Brothers film, “Fist of the White Lotus”. In the film, the villain, the “white eyebrow” priest of the White Lotus Clan, Pai Mei is undefeatable because when faced with a blow he becomes weightless and floats backwards. The harder the blow the more he floats away -yet still capable of delivering deadly blows himself. (Incredibly, he can even shrink his balls back into his body, making him utterly impervious!). The hero, a Shaolin warrior played by the marvelous Gordon Liu, after several defeats and near death (surviving even the Mai Pei’s unsurvivable 100-pace blow), finally learns a special female form of martial arts from the wife of his dead best friend, based on embroidery skills, wherein you strike “lightly” at special points. In the end he kills Mai Pei, with softness, accuracy and knowledge, always a deadly combination. I suspect that whitelotus modeled himself much as White Lotus priest Pai Mei. But who can tell.

Dunamis