Re: Re: [thingist] NN, Max Herman, Eryk Salvaggio + J.McElroy

I DONT LOVE YOU!
—– Original Message —–
From: "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <[email protected]>
To: "sbrockbank" <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 6:45 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: [thingist] NN, Max Herman, Eryk Salvaggio +
J.McElroy


> On Sat, 21 Sep 2002, sbrockbank wrote some idiotic drivel:
>
> > Generally the idea of archetypes simply doesn't work
>
> Meaningless drivel.
>
> > accept perhaps as a representation of how some societies work,
>
> This is not what archetypes are. Nor are they ideas.
> Nor 'models.' Nor a product of anyone's brain.
>
> > even then though it seems pretty clear that it's a redundant idea.
>
> All empty idea(ations) are redundant. The ones typed by you,
> in particular.
>
> > But I enjoy the idea of non-human invented archetypes…
>
> Archetypes are not 'invented'.
>
> > contemporary wars during the past 200 years have all been fundamentally
> > extensions of the economic.
>
> No, they haven't. Schoolboy in pre-school idiotic drivel.
>
> > perhaps they always have been
>
> Let's project that mal-informed crippled thought formed
> without direct understanding ALL OVER THE PLACE.
> YEHA!
>
> > - hence the irrelevance of notions such as the 'ego'
>
> Brilliant that thought. Start with erroneoud premises,
> and then conjecture about things you're not qualified
> to make judgements about.
>
>
> Baa. I can shift lexical categories. Look ma,
> my brain –no hands!
>
>
> + une dans la gueule, and two for tea !
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>