v. pleas·ured, pleas·ur·ing, pleas·ures
v.tr.
To give pleasure or enjoyment to; gratify: Our host pleasured us with his company.

v.intr.
1. To take pleasure; delight: The hiker paused, pleasuring in the sounds of the forest.
2. To go in search of pleasure or enjoyment.

[Middle English, from Old French plaisir, from plaisir, to please; see please.]

pleasure·less adj.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
________________________________

(Used respectively as a noun [indirect object] and a transitive verb in an infinitive phrase in #105.)

Sorry if this pleasures you; that was not my intent.

I’m very selective about those I’m willing to pleasure.

That’ll be the Dermot O’Leary Show, then.

;)

I believe it was Foucault who said something about universities being the means by which societies reproduce themselves as painlessly as possible and hence it is unsurprising that “Doctor” Mod should wish to utilise semi-naked psychic terrorism against those who recognise the de facto bogus ideology behind gliberal teaching (i.e. that in an environment dependent upon economic rationalism a tutor, to preserve or renew their tenure, can only hope to impose subtle subservience in the pretence of inspiring and encouraging subjectivity in their pupils), to deploy every subtle weapon in the book that established power uses to protect itself against the threat of reason.

Thus also does my stance, as with that of any rational romanticist, count as anti-authoritarian because it argues that real revelation and transcendence cannot be taught, that it will arise from individual combinations of confluence, coincidence and guidance (NOT industry-sanctioned “guidance”) since doing otherwise is by definition submitting to authority with all its inbuilt neuronic prejudices.

The notion that I am not qualified to comment on the plethora of lazy memes raised by supposed teachers because I am not myself a teacher is ridiculous, if predictable, since:

a) it implies antiquated professional self-protection (see also the virulently tedious morons at the Guardian and elsewhere who have the temerity to attack me and other bloggers for not being “trained, professional journalists” but feel free to steal ideas and on occasion whole paragraphs from us whenever they want an easy life, which is most of the time);

b) it is yet another attempted authoritarian hammer aimed at my knees, viz. YOU ARE A LESSER SPECIES, KNOW YOUR PLACE AND STAY THERE PEASANT.

Which, funnily enough, is exactly how such OCAs describe what I do with my writing since it absolves them from the responsibility of dealing with it. Whereas the likes of “Doctor” Mod are only too quick to whip out their CVs to excuse their total ignorance of 1972 Britain, for example and whinge “daddy daddy he thouted at me” when challenged.

There is nothing special about my beliefs and stances. I subject them to constant and thorough questioning but when challenged will stand by them as I see fit. Mark and Frank, for instance, being genuinely wise people who do not need to wave around their bibliographies on this board, do engender in me feelings of “Hmm – perhaps they have a point.”

I am perfectly willing to explain and justify my position to those ears prepared to hear me.

I am perfectly unwilling to be hit over the head with the paper mallet of gliberal consensuality as a substitute for debate.

Of course, we must also acknowledge the paradox of those who want an “easy life,” a nice, fluffy consensus where Annie Lennox is a beltin’ right-on woman of character and substance rather than merely the Craig Douglas to Grace Jones’ Sam Cooke, actually being ground down more rapidly by the physical exhaustion of maintaining their illusion (cf. Spinoza).

however i couldn’t find the thing about rock that i remembered in that book, which really is an interpretation of newt gingrich as a distroted rage for angels, and now wonder if i wasn’t pointed to a passage elsewhere by a friend when i confessed i was reading this one — in which HB does make a sideswipe claim about rock as religion and the gnostic moment of 1969, and a joke about his students watching the jefferson airplane while high (in context more affectionate than condescending, which is nice)

Back when I lived in New Haven, I once saw Harold Bloom in the produce department of a grocery store, fondling the veggies. An unforgettable sight, but not a necessarily pretty one.

Aside from that one incident, I’ve never actually met the man, but I’m sure that he and I would not completely agree on what constitutes a “significant” work. Nevertheless, I’ve used his work to support certain arguments I’ve posited.

I never met Lester Bangs either, and while I think there would be considerable overlap between what he and I regard as “significant,” I doubt the agreement would be absolute. Nevertheless, I’ve used his work to support certain arguments I’ve posited.

My point? Knowledge and even insight come from diverse and often seemingly opposing sources, so long as one’s open to it.

Just between you and me, Rosie, I very rarely start a class by giving a protracted “I-am-the-authority-and-this-is-what’s-what,” lest I see half a dozen people fall asleep in the first five minutes. My usual approach is to walk in, get there attention and say, “Well, now that you’ve read this/seen this/heard this, what do you think? Your responses, please!” This gets them engaged from the beginning, and I can fill in the “what’s what” at various junctures. My experience is that they remember better when they’re part of the conversation that they do when they listen to someone droning on and on with too much information for them to absorb in one fell swoop. Those who do the latter–alas! All and all they’re just another brick in the wall.

Mark, I dare say his books have grown progressively more, um, esoteric over time. I’ve always wondered what it feels like to be so authoritative that one can decree as if by fiat the abolition of those troubling things called footnotes. (I rather like them myself, but what do I know?)

Strange thing about jazz, though, in US academia. For all it’s egalitarian origins it somehow became the province of the old guard academic elitists, most of whom are more than mildly disdainful of jazz’s “illegitimate” offspring (i.e., rock and pop). Not saying that’s necessarily true of HB, but there’s still a lot of that around.

(on the net he seems to be more of a jazzman)

Thank you. You understand what I’m saying.

As Gertrude Stein said, “It’s fine if you like that sort of thing and if not not.”

I have given extensive answers already and really don’t feel like rehashing it. If you want an intelligent answer, then ask an intelligent (rather than unintelligible) question, and not one that is merely designed to make someone look a fool.

But if we want to talk about argumentation, logic, and rhetoric, I’d suggest your most recent response is certainly based on fallacies. To wit–having failed to trip me up, you turn to personal attack. Pull rank? Anyone who repeatedly positions himself as an “intellectual” and trashes the intelligence of anyone who doesn’t agree shouldn’t talk about pulling rank. “Gliberal”? Again?? What a silly insult! It’s the sort of term, as I’ve said before, that far-right American radio pundits who can’t think of anything else to say fling at people who fill them with fear and loathing. It’s called an ad hominem attack, and it’s a fallacy deployed when one has no real argument to present. It is not a valid form of debate but rather a form of rhetorical bullying.

And what is a “gliberal right-to-fail façade”? Is encouraging anyone to develop their own tastes, to think outside the box rather than to digest uncritically the dictates of some overbearing pedant (or, for that matter, their peers) encouraging them to “fail”?? If that is failure, then what is your measure of “success”?

And you say I’m a bully?

By the way, you never answered my question, but I’d really enjoy watching you attempt to present your proposed pedagogical practices to a real, live audience of reasonably intelligent if not terribly sophisticated young people who, a priori have firmly established musical tastes which are contrary to your own. Would you demean their intelligence if they disagreed with your aesthetic standards? If, for example, one of them said he or she “liked” Annie Lennox (and I can assure you that quite a few twenty-year-olds do), would you respond, “Annie Lennox in general makes me wish for nuclear holocaust in five seconds” and expect to be taken seriously?

Once again, it’s far easier to theorize than to practice.

Whenever I asked any of my teachers or lecturers or tutors an intelligent question they always provided a coherent, well-argued answer rather than pull rank. And as this is not the first time you have attempted to pull rank here – thus again revealing the bully which lurks behind your gliberal right-to-fail facade – I will assume that you are unable as well as unwilling to provide a coherent answer to the question that I asked.

As for Live 8, I’m sure we’ll come back to this, but a concert where Pink Floyd, Robbie Williams and Annie Lennox are the highlights is one I’m glad to have missed, though I give the latter some credit for a good voice. I’m not a woman.

Has anyone read The Walrus Was Ringo? It tries to debunk the Cunard Yanks story, but of course not having been there I can’t vouch for their accuracy.

Pussycat? Never ‘eard of em!

After 5 minutes – What have I been missing out on all these years? This is really interesting!

And then after ten minutes I start to read the paper.