> On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Joseph Franklyn McElroy Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] > Art[ist] wrote: > > > More like trying to avoid packing and moving for the last couple of weeks, > its > > such a pain in the ass. > > If you make 6-7 digitz, hire someone :)
What, and have the yokels break the crystals. Besides, I spend money faster than I make it. And this year, for some besotten reason, I decided to "give" artwork and software away. Go figure. Things are looking up though, I've got some interesting new partnerships forming…maybe a new corporation is being birthed…stay tuned, this time I am staying totally in the art.
– Joseph Franklyn McElroy Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]
> At 12:30 AM 9/26/2002 -0700, -IID42 Kandinskij @27+ wrote: > >> > as in "I would be a 'better' person if I got rid of this annoying >> ego", >> >> Oh dear. I'm not sure how/if that impression came along? >> It's not about 'being a better person' at all. > > > True. > >> > which brings me right back to ego (and then I can publish a self-help >> > book). >> >> Or a Zen book :) You'll make more money that way :) > > > And be much more fashionable too. > >> > Time for another cigarette. >> >> And thence the angels sing. > > > :-)) > > > mark > > > [email protected] > > + CRT burnt my heart > -> 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 >
> > It's not about 'being a better person' at all. > But you're correct in the statement that such a decision > would lead nowhere, as being a 'better person' is a desire > of the ego (and so is a better world, for that matter– > hence my other comments to Eryk Salvaggio). >
My point is simply this: If I buy a cup of Barley soup for someone who has no food, and I do it out of ego, in the end that person who was hungry still has a cup of soup. If Max is protesting the war in Iraq, and enough of us were joining him, and it put election pressures on the Bush Campaign and we didn't go to war in Iraq, we'd be short a war. The hungry person is not going to intellectualize about how their soul has been murdered because I bought them soup.
What you talk about is relativism. I know you don't mean it to be, but the end results are the same. Motivation is important; obviously, but so much of why the world is "not a better place" has to do with the simple act of moving an object from one place to another. We have grain in silos to feed starving people and it rots because they can't afford it. What's the harm in making people physically suffer less? Why should we allow torture to go on in other countries, or our own? Why should we tolerate injustices from racial profiling, genocide, or the government-sanctioned gang rape of a woman in Pakistan? Should we, instead, turn our heads away and say "I can't help you, I'm too busy eradicating my ego." Let's say we take Ego in the classic Freudian sense and we save a family from burning up in a building because we can get on TV and be famous. The people are still saved. Whether you are a fraud or a phony or a fake is for your own self to deal with. A good action can be a concrete action where intentions don't count, but effort does: the saving of lives, the cessation of physical suffering [it's the cessation of existential suffering that gets us into trouble- that is where Stalin and Hitler and all the rest of the faux-utopians came from] and the general reduction of cruelty in the world are all concrete and empirical goals that can be accomplished whether or not one has an ego- the removal of which, in the face of so much that one can do without it, is an excruciatingly self-centered, I-focused "Me/Mine" activity.
Yes, I think Monks can be selfish. I won't get into my humanistic atheism here because that's the thing Kandinskij doesn't agree with [or whatever, its the delusion I cling to]. The Buddhist conception of the Boddhisattva might be a bit better because we see a holding off of this "enlightenment" in order to save all creatures, no matter how innumerable.
One of my TA's at Harvard was allegedly a reincarnated Monk. And what he does is he goes to Tibet to restore buildings, and he then comes into the class room and shows us a movie about his life, and how his family put a throne into the house when he was 11 or whatever, and his sisters had to call him "master", and he showed this and everyone was asking about how he knew he was reincarnated etc etc and he went on and on about it, instead of trying to relay that it is taken for granted that we are all reincarnated. There was no humility whatsoever in that guy, and the Dalai Llama gave him a big fat thumbs up and the guy made it perfectly clear that he has an apartment in cambridge and a small cottage in France, and that was the lesson this monk had for everyone. So yeah, I think the Buddhist order is full of shit, and if you want to know the truth, I have much more sympathy to islamic mysticism than I do to any established Buddhist order. The new wave of "engaged" buddhism is also interestingly enough dismissed by a large number of Buddhist schools, because god forbid anybody do anything, except sit in an elaborate castle and pray all day and eat small portions. Or walk up and down on a fallen tree.
But god, what am I yammering about?
>Reminds me of nuns who seek Jesus for various silly > purposes (being known as a famous nun, becoming a saint, > getting a 'private audience' with Jesus, and a slew of others). >
How, pray tell, does that relate to anyone's desire to do their part to reduce the suffering of others and live in an ecologically sustainable manner? My only Vow is to the Boy Scouts of America. This is from the chapter on the subject of "I Will Help Other People At All Times":
===========
Of course it is possible to be good-natured and to do things to help other people for the sake of being thought a good fellow and becoming popular.
In this case we may be physically strong and mentally awake, but we shall not be morally straight; for moral straightness requires that we should do right for its own sake or because it is the only decent thing to do.
Then, a fellow may be a cripple and have very little physical strength; and yet, if he is really anxious to help, and his mind is alert, there are a great many ways in which he can be of service.
The daily good turn is an obligation of honor intended to teach us to form the habit of helping other people at all times. An ignorant little boy does not think especially about helping other people so much as he does about getting other people to help him. But if he should bend his mind seriously to doing some one kind and unselfish act every day, this would teach him more than anything else to get the habit. After a while, – because the habit had begun to form in his mind, – he would see many more opportunities for helping other people than he used to see before he had begun the practice of doing his good turn; and, as he took advantage of these opportunities and did a good turn whenever he got a chance, the doing of the good turns would get to be the regular thing, and missing one's chance would get to be the exception.
Of course it is altogether against the idea of the good turn to keep a record of such acts or to talk about them afterwards. We should do everything in our power to remind ourselves of the obligation; but, as soon as the act is finished, it should be forgotten as quickly as possible.
===========
>>Certainly. I don't remember caring about being a better person >> when it happened, and I still don't care about it. >>
So, people are dying needlessly [preventively], suffering needlessly [preventively], and you don't owe it to anyone to do your part to reduce your consumption, donate some food, or to even buy a guy a cup of soup for some cold hungry dude on a cold day, because all that matters is that you and your ego have been eliminated? I don't get it, and that is not the way I would want to live my life. I accept the world "as it is" and the way the world "is" is that there are a lot of things that can be prevented by way of compassion and selflessness coupled with some basic preservation instincts.
> Getting rid of the ego - is I believe a false action or idea.
Of course. You must have plenty experience and understanding of the subject matter.
> To acquaint personal problems or certain ideologies/attitudes to be > caused just by having an ego; is a decoy.
This is meaningless–nobody with actual understanding of the ego has done so.
> The so called unhealthy dominance of the ego
It is not 'so called unhealthy' dear. It is unhealthy.
> what problems arise because of it; cannot be removed by emotional or > psychological surgery.
Actually they can. What are you talking about?
> In fact, the double bluff syndrome of extricating the 'devil ego',
Sorry–nobody has indicated that the 'ego' is 'devil' or the associated 'evilness' with it–neither I, nora nyone who understands it.
> will also remove personal judgment on important issues
No, it wouldn't. Cowardly dog. The removal of the ego in fact gives you the ability to make PROPER judgements instead of stab around blindly.
> could need answers from ones interior self or selves, depending on which > psychology is being purported or read at the time.
The ego is not a psychological issue–psychology is a perversion of a number of things.
> Instead we need a gradual disintegration of the idea of what the ego really is,
That path of dealing with it works only in extremely rare occasions, and is typicallya trap which most people 'cover' themselves with, because they are too afraid to deal with it as they would.
> to many ego is just a word, an abstract thing that holds no image for > imaginary definition.
Chuckle. The function of words proper is not to hold images. The 'ego' produces no image-actuel, only delusional ones. You're one of the many.
> Therefore it can be lost in the psychotic realms of other abstract words > such as depression. The image of depression is commonly recognised as a > cloud, this declares no clarity thus gets all caught up with other hazy > emotional traps.
Bunch of idiocy.
> Also accepting the ego as a singular offers the illusion that it is an > object when really such a thing is more of a fluid and grounded > multiplicity of styles, rhetorics, and drives, part of thickening > texture of interior life.
Bunch of idiocy again.
> The externalization of the ego is more the issue,
No, it isn't.
> how one deals with communicating with others via it,
One cannot communicate via the ego, in fact the ego prevents you from communicating.
> and how to be aware of its usage at the time.
Chuckle. AWARE of the EGO's USAGE. Laughable imbecilic schlock.
> We all slip up, denial and ignorance to cover up > vulnerabilities hides the ego even further, causing confusion for others and > ones self.
Psychotic idiocy.
> If I was to be asked label what the ego was, I would (flippantly) > term it as a multifaceted layer of psychic clothing, a type of amour and > filter receiving and sending signals.
Again–psychotic idiocy.
> Much religion and state appropriated institutional groupings have > traditionally supported the insecurity of the ego unconsciously, mainly by > default;
No, they haven't. Nor are you capable of diserning what religions and institutional groupings do until you rid yourself of the effects of your ego.
> soothing the drift between ones severed link from the embryo/womb > right up to day to day existence.
What a bunch of crap.
> Freud had fixed categories (human nature, > society) and determinism which sat well next to the socialist theory of > Marx. Recent trends in the western world has emphasized the notion of > goal-seeking. And yes, I believe that there is a valid case of the > individual against societal dominance over the masses, whether it be > despotic, religious or corporate.
The 'societal dominance' over the individual does not exist. And certainly not from 'despotic, religious and corporate' sources. Myopic idiocy.
> "Every State is a despotism, be the despot one or many," he declared. > Stirner's opponents dismissed his views as selfishness, but he observed > that individualism is hated because it makes individuals sovereign and > seeks strict limits on government power: "The own will of Me is the > State's destroyer;
Idiotic crap, training people into ego-monkeys. The human animal does not possess will automatically, nor does it posses souvereignity / authority automatically.
> My point is simply this: If I buy a cup of Barley soup for someone who > has no food, and I do it out of ego, in the end that person who was > hungry still has a cup of soup.
And you are doing damage, most likely. It's a mechanical action; it's neither 'help' nor 'compassion'.
> If Max is protesting the war in Iraq, and enough of us were joining him, and it put election pressures on the > Bush Campaign and we didn't go to war in Iraq, we'd be short a war.
No, dear. This is speculative idiocy. The mechanism driving war will simply swallow you–that is all + feed on your energy.
Since you can't quite grasp that though, I'll give you a tangible example: think of Vietnam war protests. Did they stop anything? No.
Advocating that people participate in such MASS RALLIES is subjugation of the individual no matter what the 'cause'.
> hungry person is not going to intellectualize about how their soul has > been murdered because I bought them soup.
Murder of the soul is not an intellectual speculation, don't project your brain obsessions on reality if you want to glean anything.
As for the statement that you just made–it's hideous. You're emotionally feeding on that person, taking advantage of his state. Wow–he's too dumb to 'intellectualize' about it.
> What you talk about is relativism.
No baby. What I talk about is not relativism. Your knee-jerk brain cutouts are irrelevant.
> I know you don't mean it to be,
Spare me your idiotic condesension illiterate ape.
> but in the end it results the same.
No, it doesn't. That's simply what it looks like to your myopic brain. Relevance to what I wrote? None.
> much of why the world is "not a better place" has to do with the simple > act of moving an object from one place to another.
No, it doesn't. This is simplistic childish naivete.
> We have grain in silos to feed starving people and it rots because they can't afford it.
This hasn't got anything to do with 'a better world'. This is sheer incompetence. To conflate incompetence with pseudo-lofty ego-goals such as 'making the world a better place'–when in fact you're still idiotically equating the human condition with the world–is revolting. Moreso, you're suggesting forced mechanical competence–which murders people's souls. But hey, who cares! They're all well-fed. Baa. The animalz.
> What's the harm in making people physically suffer less?
It's a grandiose, meaningless, abstract, sloganish imbecility. In the best situation, humans are 'houses' of individual essence. There is not ONE solution for all people.
What you're doing is ignorant and dumb on so many levels it fails verbalization.
> Why should we allow torture to go on in other countries, or our own?
Your 'help' is torture + murder + energetic vampirism. You cannot HELP yourself least of all anybody else. HELP YOURSELF FIRST, and leave the 'helping others' to those capable, aware and qualified.
Your immature penis-driven impulses to cripple 'nature' I mean 'help' are the symptroms of a youngsexually-inept male who wants to pee on the 'world' (leave his mark / reproduce).
Wrap yourself in whatever delusional 'luv' propaganda you please– you're neither capable of help, love, compassion, or empathy.
What's worse you're peddling kitsch ego-driven emotions taking advantage of other people's immaturity, as well as yours.
> Why should we tolerate injustices from racial profiling, genocide, or > the government-sanctioned gang rape of a woman in Pakistan?
Touching and full of sexually immature pathos, but meaningless. Victim as beauty. I want to 'help'–er fuck her.
> Should we, > instead, turn our heads away and say "I can't help you, I'm too busy > eradicating my ego."
If they ASK you to help, and tell you how they would like to be helped and you can do as they say–then and only then you are helping. AND eradicating your own ego.
Projecting your own values on them, like most western white males, and proceeding to 'help' is going to get you another bomb in your arse.
> Let's say we take Ego in the classic Freudian sense
Let's not. And avoid attempting to blanket me with 'we'.
> A good action can be a concrete action where intentions don't count,
No, it cannot. A good action involves always INTENT (not intentions) and CONSCIOUSNESS. ALl else is mechanical.
but effort does: the > saving of lives, the cessation of physical suffering [it's the cessation > of existential suffering that gets us into trouble- that is where Stalin > and Hitler and all the rest of the faux-utopians came from] and the > general reduction of cruelty in the world are all concrete and empirical > goals that can be accomplished whether or not one has an ego-
No, they can't. The only thing that such 'empirical help' does is reduce humans to mechanical drones, to kept dumb animals. It is reducing the human being to SIMPLY an ANIMAL without possibility for conscious development.
This is torture + murder.
> Yes, I think Monks can be selfish.
You can't think. Your delusional fantasies are no reflections on the 'world' at all.
> I won't get into my humanistic atheism here
No such thing. It's a brain-driven delusion.
> because that's the thing Kandinskij doesn't agree with [or > whatever, its the delusion I cling to].
> The Buddhist conception of the > Boddhisattva might be a bit better because we see a holding off of this > "enlightenment" in order to save all creatures, no matter how innumerable.
That is NOT what a Boddhisatva does–this is a cheap, kitsch, Western misinterpretation of the Boddhisatva figure. And among other things, the Buddha teaches that the cause of all suffering is–attachment. Your help is 'attachment'.
> One of my TA's at Harvard was allegedly a reincarnated Monk.
Bollocks. I'm the reincarnated Buddha.
> And what he > does is he goes to Tibet to restore buildings, and he then comes into > the class room > and shows us a movie about his life, and how his family put a throne > into the house when he was 11 or whatever, and his sisters had to call > him "master", and he showed this and everyone was asking about how he > knew he was reincarnated etc etc and he went on and on about it,
Funny. Yet another con-man trying to 'convince' and peddle his wares.
> instead > of trying to relay that it is taken for granted that we are all > reincarnated.
Actually you are not. Only VERY VERY few individuals get 're-incarnated'–only some of those who have done conscious work. If you haven't done the work to create a real, non-ego I you die + dissolve into elemental bits.
Nevermind that what you've been taught as reincrantation is a perversion of thereal teaching.
> There was no humility
You don't know what humility IS, least of all be able to discern it, and judge whether others have it or not.
> whatsoever in that guy, and the > Dalai Llama gave him a big fat thumbs up and the guy made it perfectly > clear that he has an apartment in cambridge and a small cottage in > France, and that was the lesson this monk had for everyone. So yeah, I > think the Buddhist order is full of shit, and if you want to know the > truth, I have much more sympathy to islamic mysticism than I do to any > established Buddhist order.
I'm not sure what's with the rant. Ive always stated that the Dalai Lama is a vampiric arse sucking the life out of his people and the west. That doesn't mean that Buddhism proper is the schlock these ppl are peddling, though I'd grant you you'd be hard to find a real Buddhist these days.
> The new wave of "engaged" buddhism is also > interestingly enough dismissed by a large number of Buddhist schools, > because god forbid anybody do anything, except sit in an elaborate > castle and pray all day and eat small portions. Or walk up and down on a > fallen tree.
The 'new wave' is also crap.
> But god, what am I yammering about?
Dunno. Problems with Buddhism? Although you're intellectualizing about it without understanding.
> How, pray tell, does that relate to anyone's desire to do their part to > reduce the suffering of others and live in an ecologically sustainable > manner?
It doesn't. I was talking to Napier about gis statements, not to YOU about your dream-fantasies.
> My only Vow is to the Boy Scouts of America. This is from the > chapter on the subject of "I Will Help Other People At All Times":
Idiocy.
> Of course it is possible to be good-natured and to do things to help > other people for the sake of being thought a good fellow and becoming > popular.
No, it isn't. That's what you'd like to believe egotistically, and you will not let it go.
> In this case we may be physically strong and mentally awake, but we > shall not be morally straight; for moral straightness requires that we > should do right for its own sake or because it is the only decent thing > to do.
Idiocy. Don't talk to me about morals until you've reached sufficient conscious development to possess a moral (in genuine sense) ability.
All you're doing now is posing. Attempting to dress yourself with king's robes, without doing the work to get there.
Crap rant snipped.
> So, people are dying needlessly [preventively],
You're not qualified to judge what is 'needless'.
> suffering needlessly [preventively],
As above.
> and you don't owe it to anyone to do your part to reduce your consumption,
I don't. Sare me your idiotic puddling 'moral judgement'. What do you KNOW about MY CONSUMPTION? Twit.
> donate some food, or to even buy a guy a cup of soup > for some cold hungry dude on a cold day, because all that matters is > that you and your ego have been eliminated?
> and that is not the way I would want to live my life.
Nor is it the way I 'live my life' nor is this something I have made a statement about. Your juvenile misinterpretations of what I write, and subsequent emotinal knee-jerk rebellion fullof 'pathos' is idiotic, unintelligent, pathetic, and uninteresting.
> I accept the world "as it is" > and the way the world "is" is that there are a lot of things that can be > prevented by way of compassion
Idiotic Twit. Don't attempt to pass on your immature sexual impulse as 'compassion'. Nohuman being has access to 'compassion' within the limitations of their egos. And until you've dealt with your ego all your talk about compassion is ego-inflational words on paper shit.
> and selflessness
Yet more meaningless drivel.
> coupled with some basic > preservation instincts.
Right. Fucking-impulse draped falsely and peddled as compassion, coupled with some basic instincts– and voila, the humans will be 'saved'– I mean
debased to animal state.
Keep your 'compassionate' 'masturbatory' 'messiah' impulses to yourself idiot. And quit peddling yourself as 'compassionate'– you're not even close to being in a state to have compassion.
> >No, dear. This is speculative idiocy. The mechanism driving war > > will simply swallow you–that is all + feed on your energy. > > Which is precisely what responding to you does with the aim of > "convincing" you.
A bit closer, but not even warm.
> But I guess you stopped reading my emails.
I am reading them–you're just not close.
I occasionally enjoy them as well.
> There was enormous pressure put on the government because of protests,
No, there wasn't. But the population was given that impression.
> not to mention what it said about how wars are fought and percieved.
Little more but propaganda.
> People protested, people refused to fight, there were less people > killed.
Meaningless.
> I wasn't there but this seems to make a great deal of sense to > me, that if people are vocal about what they don't believe in, they can > affect a change.
No, the issue often gets dressed in an outfit that suits their liking, so the people quit noticing / complaining.
> Sure, but you can also write letters,
Piss your energy away into yours / their ego.
> raise the ire in newspapers and whatnot.
As above.
> Protests aren't mass rallies neccesarily.
Actually they are. Necessarily.
> Sitting at the front of the bus instead of the back was a protest and was not a mass rally.
You're still acting out mechanical, mob behavior. The number of people is relevant in other ways.
> When did I say he was "too dumb?" I said a hungry person who wants soup > is not going to accuse you of soul murder when you give it to him-
You said he's not going to intellectualize–not that he's not going to accuse you. Your statement reduces him/her to a reactionary animal.
> because this is ivory tower intellectualism [regardless of how much you > pretend it isn't-
No, it isn't. Soul murder hasn't got anything to do with ivory towers. Rather the latter specialize in it. And I am not pretending, no matter how much you delusionally would like to think so.
Again–you're not a qualified judge on such matters. At all.
> you pretend a lot of things,
No, Eryk, I don't. Your delusional derogatory impulses are ENTIRELY inside your ivory tower brain.
> that's the only part of you I don't like,
Spare me your condescending energetic leech pose. The one striking the ivory tower intellectual pose is you, and I am not you.
> really pretty much pure, modern day Objectivism.
No such thing, dearest. Humans have increasingly less capability to perceive Objective reality, and soon they will lose it completely.
> > This hasn't got anything to do with 'a better world'. This is sheer > > incompetence. > > > > Moving grain from one silo to another is moving an object from one place > to another. Is this childish naivete or is this incompetence?
Both + other.
> If we can clear up incompetence
You can't.
> and get food to people who are suffering in ways that can be prevented,
Meaningless gibberish.
> maybe this is not a "better" place but it is a place I am happier to live in.
Meaningless rephrasing.
> How is the belief that food which would otherwise rot in a silo to > people who are hungry a "psuedo-lofty ego goal?"
It is. And no amount of explanation or discussion would make you see that.
> The human condition of hunger can be fixed, that's all I'm saying.
Not in the ways you intellectualize and speculate about.
Which I did dearest. It's not my fault you don't understand what you're saying.
> you would see that I indicated volunteerism as one way to get some goals accomplished.
Baa. Volunteerism. Inverse slavery for both parties.
> People far > better than me are going out to administer medicines and build shelters > and help people whose homes have been destroyed by some disaster or > another.
All in a day's work. It's WORK, Eryk. It's not some grand savioral compassionate pathos-infused idiocy. Noneed for ideology behind it.
> I just wonder why, if I want to support them,
Really dearest. How are you supporting them? By striking a 'compassionate' pose in order to pad your ego + public image?
> or if I do my part to assist the minimizing of this damage, > there is some sort of problem.
There isn't. You're simply not minimizing any damage. You're pouring water under water from one well to another.
> Like I said, a hungry person doesn't think this when they are given > food.
You don't know that. Nor do 'hungry people' act like ONE SINGULAR FLAT cutout who lives in your brain.
> It's very simple to say this when you are comfortable, well fed > and looking over your gallery and organizing concerts and whatnot- all > art activities which are fine, by the way, but are really acts of > leisure and privilidge,
No, they are not. Nor is the above brain-cutout a reflection on what I do.
> I feel privilidged to be able to sit in this > room with a computer and a dedicated lan and nice warm blankets on my > bed.
You feel simply Superior.
> But "sloganish imbecilities" are only that if they aren't actions.
Not at all. Humans have been known to act out on their sloganish imbecilities–and create wonders like Communism and World Wars.
> I do my best to assist people when they are there and they need help.
This is not what your e-mail was about.
> >In the best situation, humans are 'houses' of individual > > essence. There is not ONE solution for all people. > > > > Oh, I guess everyone who is starving is starving in a different way, so > no one should be given food.
Yes, they are. Whether one should or shouldn't be given food depends on the individual situation. And you lack the ability to discern the latter. C'est tout. Your gesture has 50/50 chance–at least–of being murder as well as being help. In either case you will not be responsible for the result.
Attaching lofty faux-ideas such as yours of 'compassion' 'humanity' etc. to it is ego-flatulation and delusion. You're playing russian roulette is the lives of others.
> If my ignorance or stupidity gets hungry people fed,
It doesn't–that's what you're refusing to hear.
> or makes a > depressed person feel better about themselves, or makes the environment > a little cleaner, then I don't see what the problem is.
It simply doesn't. There is no such result from your actions.
> So maybe the USA never should have liberated Auschwitz because of the > psychic vampirism involved with preventing the mass execution of Jews?
No relevance to the current subject. More pathological pathos.
> I > mean since the act of liberation is also an act of torture, murder and > energetic vampirism on behalf of an American soldier, I guess the Nazis > should have just been left to take over Europe?
Pathos-filled naivete + sloganish knee-jerks.
> I don't see why I cannot help myself while I'm recycling or giving out > money to the guy who needs a sandwich.
That is quite different from shifting grains from silos to silos. You keep mixing your subjects. You're not helping anything by doing these tasks though, and a lot of the time you're doing damage.
> Didn't you say there were only 100 in the world or something as > ridiculously fantastical?
It's hardly ridiculous, and hardly fantastical. And if the manner of human existence proceeds as it does, soon it will be 0. Consciousness is leaving humanity.
> >Wrap yourself in whatever delusional 'luv' propaganda you please– > > you're neither capable of help, love, compassion, or empathy. > > > > That's okay, the more important question is, are hungry people being > fed, are less forests being destroyed, and less animals slaughtered, are > people who suffer preventitively being helped?
No, it isn't. There is nothing 'important' about it besides in your cultural programming. You're not capable of discerning values, you can only assign labels according to programming.
> That's okay, the more important question is, are hungry people being > fed, are less forests being destroyed, and less animals slaughtered, are > people who suffer preventitively being helped?
As above. + Your pathos is idiotic + ego driven.
> Uhm, "don't project your inner impulses on to me", homeboy.
I am not, 'homeboy'. I am not you, and I don't behae + function the way I do. YOu are the one who functions on projectile speculations.
> let's say that you're right for a minute.
I am. It's irrelevant whether you agree or not.
> Let's say a woman is ordered gang raped in Pakistan
Pathological pathos filled speculation.
> Okay, so- you win. Everyone is 100% honest with themselves. So, what's > wrong with this picture?
Yoir myopic projection of what I wrote is not 'the picture'.
> So the people starving while we have silos of rotting food- they need to > ask me, personally, before I even accept as a basic notion that such > food should be distributed?
Immature mental-knee jerk.
> Like I don't even have any real say
You don't have any real say.
> in the > matter outside of bringing it to peoples attention and curbing my own > eating habits in order to benefit these people. Is that wrong? I > shouldn't even raise public awareness of a very viable solution to a > very devestating problem?
If you could raise awareness, you'd raise yours first and quickly AWARE that there is no such thing as 'public awareness'.
'Public awareness' is mass rallying / hooking / victimizing individual attention and arrestong psycho-sexual impulses.
> If someone doesn't eat in a week, they are going to be hungry, whether > they are a western white male or an eastern androgynous pediatrist.
Nonsense. I have gone more than that without eating and have not felt hungry. The human being has abilities to acquire energy in ways other than eating.
> That's okay, the more important question is, are hungry people being > fed, are less forests being destroyed, and less animals slaughtered, are > people who suffer preventitively being helped?
As above. These are not 'questions'. They're pathological speculative poses.
> So empirical help reduces humans to animals;
Oui.
> that would make the people with malaria shots "veternarians."
Mais oui.
> And the people doing aids awareness education in Africa are "animal trainers."
To a large extent yes. Of course, interaction on animal levels is also a necessity for most humans. You're flip-flopping because you NEED to attach 'good' or 'bad' labels to people's behavior.
A rabbit mother taking care of its baby rabbits is not GOOD. People helping with AIDS are not GOOD.
Neither is 'BAD' either.
> And so perhaps we should let people die of malaria, and perhaps we should not warn people about the > threat of spreading HIV. Since, you know, they probably have a better > chance of mastering thier ego if they are dying of malaria- closer to > death and all. So come home, Red Cross! Your work would be better done > if you just typed emails from your home office and sent them to random > college kids on mailing lists!
See above. You're mentally knee-jerking. Just because it isn't good, it doesn't mean it's bad. Youre also lumping all sorts of activities, as if they're one, under one judgement. Idiotic + meaningless, pathos knee-jerk pose.
> How does a person who died from malaria, genocide, aids, starvation, or > any other preventible disease, have a better chance for conscious > development than a living person?
Meaningless.
> You are the victim of an over valued idea.
I am neither a victim, nor subject to IDEAS, dear. Keep your idiotic reactionary cardboard cutouts to your 'self'.
An idea which, on its own, seems perfectly reasonable and > workable, but which, when enforced and taken to extremes, only brings > about more suffering.
Gibberish.
> It's the folly that leads most civilizations into dust.
HAHAHA. Like you know anything about civilizations and what governs them. IDIOT.
> Pol Pot was a classic example- "we'll have an agricultural > utopia."
You have no ide awhat you're talking about. Pol Pot was not conscious OR civilized.
> Or Hitler, "come on guys, we can eliminate tuberculosis!" All > swell ideas.
Not at all. And you understand neither Hitker, nor Pol Pot.
> It's where you go with them after that leads to trouble.
Gibberish.
> Sure, that's fine with me. My question is, are hungry people being fed, > are less forests being destroyed, and less animals slaughtered, are > people who suffer preventitively being helped?
Gibberish.
> What's so bad about that? Even taking zen at face value, elemental bits > are free from attatchment are they not? So I'm not suffering anymore.
Elemental bits are not 'free from attachment'. Quit posing about as if you know anything about Zen.
> Well, if you read it, dude, that's what the chapter goes on to say. It > just isn't as particular about the word "help" as you are. You know, > it's called a "gray area".
I am not 'particular about the world 'help''. Keep your myopic illiterate misinterpretations of my words to yourself.
> Well, you are talking to the guy who wrote the boy scout hand book here, > and that wasn't me.
No, I am not. I am talking to YOU quoting the boy scout book. The guy who wrote that book is NOT HERE, and you're being a coward attempting t hide behind somebody else's words.
You posted it, the responsibility is YOURS. Don't dodge, luv.
> Uhm, is this to the guy who wrote the Boy Scout Oath, or is this aimed > at me?
You. That guy isn't here. Even though YOU may re-post things he has written. (Or they).
> If its aimed at me then yeah, I don't think we all need kings > robes. But it sure would be nice if everyone could be kept warm.
Gibberish.
> See the parenthesis? I'm using needless in the sense of "preventable"
I did. You're not quakified to judge 'needlessness'.
> >and you don't owe it to anyone to do your part to reduce your consumption, > > > > > > I don't. Sare me your idiotic puddling 'moral judgement'. > > What do you KNOW about MY CONSUMPTION? > > Twit. > > > > Well you don't believe that you need to reduce it
It's not a matter of BELIEF, nor have I indicated any sway in either way (your statement is gibberish either way). I asked you: what do YOU know about MY CONSUMPTION?
> Is the "twit" really neccesary though?
Yes. It's apropos + accurate.
> Like, that that > really make you feel like I'm gonna be more open to you when you type > it?
I don't behave in such manner.
> Just curious, because it's a weird way to get people to think about > what you're saying, when you go around calling them twits.
I am not trying to get anyone to think about what I am saying. Your judgements get more twittish by the second.
> How about we do a favor for ourselves and spare each other?
I am not you.
> If you don't misrepresent me constantly in emails to other people,
I am not misrepresenting you, luv. I am presenting you quite accurately.
> I won't waste your time correcting you
You are not capable of 'correcting' me.
> on what part of my idiocy you got wrong.
No part. Open your eyes.
> I am all > about peaceful resolution here,
Gibberish.
> I'm 100% open to the idea that I am a > huge idiot and asshole,
Are you?
> but it just involves that you stop mentioning me > all the time.
Why?
> I mean, you can do it all you want, that's cool, but I'll > correct
You're not capable of correcting me. You will try to convince me of a delusional point of view that doesnt exist though.
> you until you at least understand my moronic point of view in > detail,
I understand your point of view. It's just not what you think it is. You have none. You're a bunch of knee-jerking mechanisms.
> which seems like a waste of your time
Spare me your pathetic condescending knee-jerk pose, baby.
>[since you always respond- you ALWAYS respond!]
And?
> Well, you did make a statement about it, that statement is what I am > responding to.
No, I didn't. I made no statement about 'my life' whatsoever.
> You said that my "help" of others was "spiritual greed" > or whatever,
Because it is. And this is unrelated to 'my life'.
> I'm saying it doesn't matter, as long as…well, I don't > want to cut and paste it again.
Yes, it does. What you do is murder.
> >>Your juvenile misinterpretations of what I write, > >> > > Seems a common thing among rhizome list members-
And many other humans. Most in fact.
> perhaps you need to > find a more suitable way of getting your message across.
No, I don't. Nor are you qualified to judge what and how I do it. Avoid attempting to 'suggest' to me how I should behave, ape.
> Is "idiotic" an insult?
Not in this case.
> Is "Twit?"
Not in this case.
> Because you had me convinced
You convinced yourself.
> that you don't attack people or participate in flame wars.
I don't. Usage of those words doesn't qualify either. More pathetic internal impulse knee-jerks.
> I had a feeling that maybe you were wrong,
i am not 'wrong' dear–and your 'feeling' is little but a debasing knee-jerk impulse.
> but you seemed so sure.
I am not 'sure' luv. i am correct.
> But now it just feels like > "idiotic" is an insult, like, an attack, you know?
That's your own personal problem.
> Just my thinkin'.
Indeed.
> I leave the "g" off because it is not a real form of thought like you > have. The same way McDonalds makes a "Chik'n" sandwich as opposed to a > "chicken" one, I have "thinkin" while smart guys like you get the "g" > [also the first word in gift, because I am giving it to you. Notice > "giving" has the real g, too, as opposed to " givin' " ? That's cuz it's > genuine gift- of which I have multitudes! ]
> … it's a function of the ego to be defended > at all costs, and its defense saps its carriers energies.
Evidently true.
If what I do is motivated by ego, then my decision to get rid of ego is also motivated by ego, as in "I would be a 'better' person if I got rid of this annoying ego", which brings me right back to ego (and then I can publish a self-help book). Seems that to end the energy drain requires letting go, while I am trained to hold on.
> > … it's a function of the ego to be defended > > at all costs, and its defense saps its carriers energies. > > Evidently true. > > If what I do is motivated by ego,
It's not 'motivated'–the ego has no motives.
> then my decision to get rid of ego is also motivated by ego,
If you make a 'decision'–yes. But there are ways to 'command' yourself outside of the ego, and also ways you can force your ego to trick itself–about as good as this 'tricking' mind-games go.
> as in "I would be a 'better' person if I got rid of this annoying ego",
Oh dear. I'm not sure how/if that impression came along? It's not about 'being a better person' at all. But you're correct in the statement that such a decision would lead nowhere, as being a 'better person' is a desire of the ego (and so is a better world, for that matter– hence my other comments to Eryk Salvaggio).
Reminds me of nuns who seek Jesus for various silly purposes (being known as a famous nun, becoming a saint, getting a 'private audience' with Jesus, and a slew of others).
And let's not start with the Zen monks and that famous Mount Koya.
Always brightens my day to read such silliness.
> which brings me right back to ego (and then I can publish a self-help > book).
Or a Zen book :) You'll make more money that way :)
> Seems that to end the energy drain requires > letting go, while I am trained to hold on.
Certainly. I don't remember caring about being a better person when it happened, and I still don't care about it.
Hence my repeated statements that value is not a 'comparative' exercise :)
Getting rid of the ego - is I believe a false action or idea. To acquaint personal problems or certain ideologies/attitudes to be caused just by having an ego; is a decoy. The so called unhealthy dominance of the ego and what problems arise because of it; cannot be removed by emotional or psychological surgery. In fact, the double bluff syndrome of extricating the 'devil ego', will also remove personal judgment on important issues that could need answers from ones interior self or selves, depending on which psychology is being purported or read at the time. Instead we need a gradual disintegration of the idea of what the ego really is, to many ego is just a word, an abstract thing that holds no image for imaginary definition. Therefore it can be lost in the psychotic realms of other abstract words such as depression. The image of depression is commonly recognised as a cloud, this declares no clarity thus gets all caught up with other hazy emotional traps. Also accepting the ego as a singular offers the illusion that it is an object when really such a thing is more of a fluid and grounded multiplicity of styles, rhetorics, and drives, part of thickening texture of interior life. The externalization of the ego is more the issue, how one deals with communicating with others via it, and how to be aware of its usage at the time. We all slip up, denial and ignorance to cover up vulnerabilities hides the ego even further, causing confusion for others and ones self. If I was to be asked label what the ego was, I would (flippantly) term it as a multifaceted layer of psychic clothing, a type of amour and filter receiving and sending signals.
Much religion and state appropriated institutional groupings have traditionally supported the insecurity of the ego unconsciously, mainly by default; soothing the drift between ones severed link from the embryo/womb right up to day to day existence. Freud had fixed categories (human nature, society) and determinism which sat well next to the socialist theory of Marx. Recent trends in the western world has emphasized the notion of goal-seeking. And yes, I believe that there is a valid case of the individual against societal dominance over the masses, whether it be despotic, religious or corporate. Max Stirner wrote an interesting piece about this a while back.
"Every State is a despotism, be the despot one or many," he declared. Stirner's opponents dismissed his views as selfishness, but he observed that individualism is hated because it makes individuals sovereign and seeks strict limits on government power: "The own will of Me is the State's destroyer; it is therefore branded by the State as 'self will.'" Stirner displayed awesome insight when he attacked communism, then in its infancy: "loudly as it always attacks the 'State', what it intends is itself again a State … a sovereign power over me."
> At 11:09 PM 9/24/2002 -0700, -IID42 Kandinskij @27+ wrote: > > >http://macdrew.physics.umd.edu/bruegel/triumph-of-death.jpg > > Now that is funny. > > Just when I was starting to feel depressed. > > > … it's a function of the ego to be defended > > at all costs, and its defense saps its carriers energies. > > Evidently true. > > If what I do is motivated by ego, then my decision to get rid of ego is > also motivated by ego, as in "I would be a 'better' person if I got rid of > this annoying ego", which brings me right back to ego (and then I can > publish a self-help book). Seems that to end the energy drain requires > letting go, while I am trained to hold on. > > Time for another cigarette. > > mark > > > > [email protected] > > + Barbarians at the XOR-gate > -> 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 > >
> On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, napier wrote: > > > >http://macdrew.physics.umd.edu/bruegel/triumph-of-death.jpg > > > > Now that is funny. > > > > Just when I was starting to feel depressed. > > Isn't it though? Lovely. > > > > … it's a function of the ego to be defended > > > at all costs, and its defense saps its carriers energies. > > > > Evidently true. > > > > If what I do is motivated by ego, > > It's not 'motivated'–the ego has no motives. > > > then my decision to get rid of ego is also motivated by ego, > > If you make a 'decision'–yes. But there are ways to > 'command' yourself outside of the ego, and also ways you > can force your ego to trick itself–about as good as this > 'tricking' mind-games go. > > > as in "I would be a 'better' person if I got rid of this annoying ego", > > Oh dear. I'm not sure how/if that impression came along? > It's not about 'being a better person' at all. > But you're correct in the statement that such a decision > would lead nowhere, as being a 'better person' is a desire > of the ego (and so is a better world, for that matter– > hence my other comments to Eryk Salvaggio). > > Reminds me of nuns who seek Jesus for various silly > purposes (being known as a famous nun, becoming a saint, > getting a 'private audience' with Jesus, and a slew of others). > > And let's not start with the Zen monks and that famous Mount Koya. > > Always brightens my day to read such silliness. > > > which brings me right back to ego (and then I can publish a self-help > > book). > > Or a Zen book :) You'll make more money that way :) > > > Seems that to end the energy drain requires > > letting go, while I am trained to hold on. > > Certainly. I don't remember caring about being a better person > when it happened, and I still don't care about it. > > Hence my repeated statements that value is not a 'comparative' > exercise :) > > > > Time for another cigarette. > > And thence the angels sing. > > > `, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42 > > + Barbarians at the XOR-gate > -> 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 > >
At 12:30 AM 9/26/2002 -0700, -IID42 Kandinskij @27+ wrote: > > as in "I would be a 'better' person if I got rid of this annoying ego", > > Oh dear. I'm not sure how/if that impression came along? > It's not about 'being a better person' at all.
True.
> > which brings me right back to ego (and then I can publish a self-help > > book). > > Or a Zen book :) You'll make more money that way :)
And be much more fashionable too.
> > Time for another cigarette. > > And thence the angels sing.
Sin taxes and sin products are too prevalent, due to the ease with which we can manipulate people's weaknesses for money. Are we all so addicted to such mutual enslavement that there is no path up and out? No. Not at all.
Never put the dog before the pony, I say.
The grandest generation, ahoy.
Max
>From: napier <[email protected]> >Reply-To: napier <[email protected]> >To: "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <[email protected]>, ><[email protected]> >Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: cigarette break >Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 00:19:54 -0400 > >At 11:09 PM 9/24/2002 -0700, -IID42 Kandinskij @27+ wrote: > >>http://macdrew.physics.umd.edu/bruegel/triumph-of-death.jpg > >Now that is funny. > >Just when I was starting to feel depressed. > > > … it's a function of the ego to be defended > > at all costs, and its defense saps its carriers energies. > >Evidently true. > >If what I do is motivated by ego, then my decision to get rid of ego is >also motivated by ego, as in "I would be a 'better' person if I got rid of >this annoying ego", which brings me right back to ego (and then I can >publish a self-help book). Seems that to end the energy drain requires >letting go, while I am trained to hold on. > >Time for another cigarette. > >mark > > > >[email protected] > >+ Barbarians at the XOR-gate >-> 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
_________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
At 01:32 PM 9/26/2002 -0700, -IID42 Kandinskij @27+ wrote: >On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Eryk Salvaggio wrote: > > A good action can be a concrete action where intentions don't count, > > No, it cannot. A good action involves always INTENT (not intentions) > and CONSCIOUSNESS. ALl else is mechanical.
> > No, it cannot. A good action involves always INTENT (not intentions) > > and CONSCIOUSNESS. ALl else is mechanical. > > ???? > > What is INTENT then, if it is not "intentions"? > > mark
Don't you think that if I meant intentions I would have used that word?
I'm not sure if you're asking a real question or simply being 'lexical'.
> It's the Kantian "good volition," basic modernist idea.
Um, no it's not a modernist idea at all. Though what you're describing is an attempt of 'modernism' to get at what I wrote. In general intentions are 'calculations' of the brain. Intent isn't verbal, or language connected, or brain-related at all.
At 02:02 PM 9/27/2002 -0700, -IID42 Kandinskij @27+ wrote: >On Fri, 27 Sep 2002, napier wrote: > > What is INTENT then, if it is not "intentions"? > > Don't you think that if I meant intentions I would have used that word? > > I'm not sure if you're asking a real question or simply being 'lexical'.
I don't understand what you mean by intent.
I think of "intent" as a focus on some thing or action, and that my intent has a "direction" towards a specific result. It seems to me that you distinguished intent from any specific result.
I can't remember any time in my life that I've acted with intent, but had no intentions. Not even sure how I would do that.
>From: napier > >At 01:32 PM 9/26/2002 -0700, -IID42 Kandinskij @27+ wrote: >>On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Eryk Salvaggio wrote: >> > A good action can be a concrete action where intentions don't count, >> >> No, it cannot. A good action involves always INTENT (not intentions) >> and CONSCIOUSNESS. ALl else is mechanical. > >???? > >What is INTENT then, if it is not "intentions"? > >mark
It's the Kantian "good volition," basic modernist idea. Intent would be paint, intentions being paintings; modeling v. models, Max v. Museums, consciousness v. lucky rabbits' feet.
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com
Kandinskij definitely knows what "saving the world" is about, and what it isn't about, and this post says it pretty friggy well.
Question is, have we gotten these ideas too late, no answer to that one. "Vale of soul-making" and possible futures, disasters, you name it, we're in it. The soup!
>From: "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <[email protected]> >Reply-To: "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <[email protected]> >To: napier <[email protected]> >CC: <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: cigarette break >Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 22:42:01 -0700 (PDT) > >On Fri, 27 Sep 2002, napier wrote: > > > > I'm not sure if you're asking a real question or simply being >'lexical'. > > > > I don't understand what you mean by intent. > > > > I think of "intent" as a focus on some thing or action, and that my >intent > > has a "direction" towards a specific result. It seems to me that you > > distinguished intent from any specific result. > > Yep. I do. As you describe, focus on some thing is 'fixation' or > 'attachment'. Intent, on the other hand is, non-verbal and abstract > without an 'objectified' goal. When I say abstract I don't mean > that in a 'conceptual' 'brain-thinking' or 'mathematical or > 'vague' way, however. > > Apropos this, it is a bit like listening-proper and alignment > with 'universal intent' (esoteric martial arts proper, esp. > aikido) (and one does with the whole of the body, not just brain). > When one achieves alignment with this 'universal intent' > then and only then can one do what one really 'desires'. > This is the proper meaning of being 'of service'– > rather than being servile, a slave, or servant to other > humans. The notion that one needs to be a 'servant to > humanity' is sheer idiocy because proper alignment with intent > (and this following of orders proper) causes that the being > can develop and do its service universally, and that nat. > extends to humanity. This is vastly fucked up by > faux christianity. In such a state humans are 'receivers' > or (non-gender females) (regardless of sexual prefs. which > is another story). > > Certain individuals, with proper + continued work of certain_ > are 'given' 'will'–on which I don't care to explain much > except for the following: rather than being only dancers to intent, > they begin to gradually understand and master the 'force' which is > intent (ie, become non-gender males). At that stage they get the > capability to co-write their own life-stories–and also the ability > to –properly' direct others, as part of 'mastery of intent as will' > is the ability to attune to the 'intent' intended for another > and aid the respective attunement of that being to its intent. > In this case you have putting the will 'in service' of another being > (only one example)–and these humans are capable of being teachers > proper. > > > I can't remember any time in my life that I've acted with intent, but >had > > no intentions. > > That's likely true, though I don't know your life. > > > Not even sure how I would do that. > > Is that a question? :) > >+ AFK, tornado >-> 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
_________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
> > I'm not sure if you're asking a real question or simply being 'lexical'. > > I don't understand what you mean by intent. > > I think of "intent" as a focus on some thing or action, and that my intent > has a "direction" towards a specific result. It seems to me that you > distinguished intent from any specific result.
Yep. I do. As you describe, focus on some thing is 'fixation' or 'attachment'. Intent, on the other hand is, non-verbal and abstract without an 'objectified' goal. When I say abstract I don't mean that in a 'conceptual' 'brain-thinking' or 'mathematical or 'vague' way, however.
Apropos this, it is a bit like listening-proper and alignment with 'universal intent' (esoteric martial arts proper, esp. aikido) (and one does with the whole of the body, not just brain). When one achieves alignment with this 'universal intent' then and only then can one do what one really 'desires'. This is the proper meaning of being 'of service'– rather than being servile, a slave, or servant to other humans. The notion that one needs to be a 'servant to humanity' is sheer idiocy because proper alignment with intent (and this following of orders proper) causes that the being can develop and do its service universally, and that nat. extends to humanity. This is vastly fucked up by faux christianity. In such a state humans are 'receivers' or (non-gender females) (regardless of sexual prefs. which is another story).
Certain individuals, with proper + continued work of certain_ are 'given' 'will'–on which I don't care to explain much except for the following: rather than being only dancers to intent, they begin to gradually understand and master the 'force' which is intent (ie, become non-gender males). At that stage they get the capability to co-write their own life-stories–and also the ability to –properly' direct others, as part of 'mastery of intent as will' is the ability to attune to the 'intent' intended for another and aid the respective attunement of that being to its intent. In this case you have putting the will 'in service' of another being (only one example)–and these humans are capable of being teachers proper.
> I can't remember any time in my life that I've acted with intent, but had > no intentions.
That's likely true, though I don't know your life.
>From: "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <[email protected]> >To: Max Herman <[email protected]> >CC: <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: cigarette break >Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 17:46:24 -0700 (PDT) > >On Fri, 27 Sep 2002, Max Herman wrote: > > > It's the Kantian "good volition," basic modernist idea.
Why did I say Modernist? It's Enlightenment. I'm an idiot.
> > Um, no it's not a modernist idea at all. > Though what you're describing is an attempt of 'modernism' > to get at what I wrote. In general intentions are 'calculations' > of the brain. Intent isn't verbal, or language connected, > or brain-related at all.
Truly. The brain is not as important as all the hormones and stuff, consciousness proper IS distributed throughout the body viz-a-viz genius and genius 2000, and yes I use my brain far too much than justifies the energy.
Kandinskij is providing an excellent free series of informative posts, so for that I say–Thanks!
Anyone following the Thing.Net anti-war deal? What's going on?
At 10:42 PM 9/27/2002 -0700, -IID42 Kandinskij @27+ wrote: >On Fri, 27 Sep 2002, napier wrote: > > I can't remember any time in my life that I've acted with intent, but had > > no intentions. > > That's likely true, though I don't know your life. > > > Not even sure how I would do that. > > Is that a question? :)
:-)
Yes and no. My knee-jerk reaction is to want to know how intent "works", how I would "do" that. But in my brief experience with Aikido and Tai Chi, I realized that this type of learning doesn't happen quickly, if at all. It's not a matter of "doing" something in the way I'm familiar with, so cannot be easily explained.
> Question is, have we gotten these ideas too late, no answer to that one.
These 'ideas' have been 'known' to 'some' for centuries; some have in fact, attempted to work 'with' this situation, and those were the origins of esotericism proper–not the fashionable spawns of the past couple of centuries–and certainly not the 'controversial' 'underground' 'covert' 'hiddent' 'occult' 'theosophical' idiots who read some pamphlets & booklets about this or that 'esoteric' subject, and then make 'art' about it. And not to forget that favorite of art world–alchemy. Nevermind that one must be a very HIGHLY EVOLVED being to do alchemy; every Joe Schmoe is doing it.
Is this democracy, communism, or simply shit?
> "Vale of soul-making" and possible futures, disasters, you name it, > we're in it. The soup!
Sure are. And you don't have much time left to get your shit together. You have a 'last chance' even–as far as I was able to discern.
After that, it's animal state for ALL. Totalische Demokrazie.
And that's where your pseudo-qualified 'leaders' are driving ya to– be them politicians, or artists, or musicians, or writers, or professors–and they train them to be just like them when you grow up, and society rewards it generally.
Das kasch.machine: if you run this way, support the right causes, do the right thing, respect and be well-mannered, paint in the right colors, spread the right memes, subscribe to the right zines, galleries, museums, music labels, shops, internet providers-, read the intelligent books,–ah yeah. FIGHT FOR ALL RIGHT CAUSES– except the one that is valid.
> Why did I say Modernist? It's Enlightenment. I'm an idiot.
Enlightenment. Now there's a bru-ha-ha responsible largely for the state-of-shit humans are in. Objectively so.
> Truly. The brain is not as important as all the hormones and stuff, > consciousness proper IS distributed throughout the body viz-a-viz genius and > genius 2000, and yes I use my brain far too much than justifies the energy.
And that's encouraged–in fact, humans construct a society in which the OVERUSe and INAPPROPRIATE use of brain is marketed as intelligence–and the resulting deformation of the human being are being laudated as 'individuality'. Must be nice.
You are all individuals. Individually crippled, and totally unique.
And UNIQUE people get to 'shine'–in whatever areas.
GO!GO!GO!
Every man and woman is a star, and it tells you so from your TV, the ads in the stores, on your coffee cup, your CD player, and if you're God-Blessed to live in the states, it says so in the constitution.
> Yes and no. My knee-jerk reaction is to want to know
To want to know if genuine, without back-end 'motivations' is not a knee-jerk reaction, is an impulse proper.
> how intent "works", how I would "do" that.
You would do that?! :) Intent does you, you_ cannot 'do' intent :) Even if one is lucky to be a master of intent, intent belongs to an 'area' which is not merely 'unknown' it's unknowable. Knowledge is an instrument that gets one only this far. That doesn't excuse anyone from talking 'this far' however, and I see many who have read something similar about knowledge, and declare themseves 'not interested in knowing' hence 'at the end of the way' hence 'masters'.
> But in my brief experience with Aikido and Tai Chi, I realized that > this type of learning
What type of learning? It is many types. Does it occur in yor idea of time?! One of the properties of conscious work, is that the human being has the ability to control and dilate time–that is, in two years you may live as much as 50 'years' worth of life. Certain parts of the learning take place 'outside of time' altogether, so ?
Some things do take time–but those are with regards to events subject to physical laws only. Conscious development has other relation to physical laws than those trapped inside physical reality only.
> doesn't happen quickly,
It can happen very quickly. In fact, the 'not happening quickly' way is the way of the teacher-student (guru) (religion proper) etc. etc. Often this is used as subjugation / arresting of the development of consciousness. The buddhic doctrine of reincarnation is one such arresting + controlling spiritual exerciz.
The 'direct' path is 'quick' and it only takes one lifetime. It is the 'oath' relevant to humans to-day ina real_ sense of to-day. (the time that is outside of 'physical illusion' time).
> if at all.
For some, it was not meang to be. This is also exploited in eastern doctrines.
> It's not a matter of "doing" something in the way I'm familiar with, > so cannot be easily explained.
>On Sun, 29 Sep 2002, napier wrote: > > > Yes and no. My knee-jerk reaction is to want to know > > To want to know if genuine, without back-end 'motivations' > is not a knee-jerk reaction, is an impulse proper. >
Karei is consistent here, no horsefeathers I can see.
> > how intent "works", how I would "do" that. > > You would do that?! :) Intent does you, you_ cannot 'do' intent :)
This is the cruxusfluxen (geniusflow) of what Karei says, and it is indeed true. Think "feel the Force Luke" for a cheap ez cliche about it.
> Even if one is lucky to be a master of intent, intent belongs > to an 'area' which is not merely 'unknown' it's unknowable. > Knowledge is an instrument that gets one only this far. > That doesn't excuse anyone from talking 'this far' however, > and I see many who have read something similar about knowledge, > and declare themseves 'not interested in knowing' hence > 'at the end of the way' hence 'masters'.
Nicely put. A Nintendo Master is not a master of intent, but a pawn of others' intentions. "There is an inner logic, and we're taught to stay far from it"–Bad Religion
> > > But in my brief experience with Aikido and Tai Chi, I realized that > > this type of learning > > What type of learning? It is many types. Does it occur in yor idea of > time?! One of the properties of conscious work, is that the human > being has the ability to control and dilate time–that is, in two > years you may live as much as 50 'years' worth of life. Certain parts > of the learning take place 'outside of time' altogether, so ?
Like Neo in the Matrix, he learns Jujitsu real fast. I've intented my own combat style for tall adversaries, emphasizing elbows, knees, and vital points.
> > Some things do take time–but those are with regards to events > subject to physical laws only. Conscious development has other > relation to physical laws than those trapped inside physical reality > only. > > > doesn't happen quickly, > > It can happen very quickly. In fact, the 'not happening quickly' way is > the way of the teacher-student (guru) (religion proper) etc. etc. > Often this is used as subjugation / arresting of the development > of consciousness. The buddhic doctrine of reincarnation is one such > arresting + controlling spiritual exerciz.
Karei is fun and enriching to hear from. I was wondering if you had any thoughts on the movie "Interview with the Vampire" Karei. Also, my ruminations have been that if global capital is a living being, it's sort of an omni-viral medium? Like a living tabula rasa, in that vein?
Subjugation, arrest, and termination are necessary in any system intended to continue under hazardous conditions? I'm pondering the internality of "the Revolution" as David Ross put it. I have cruxial confusions regarding that one.
> > The 'direct' path is 'quick' and it only takes one lifetime. > It is the 'oath' relevant to humans to-day ina real_ sense of to-day.
Solution sweet. Eryk called it "no more grace periods." I call it "the broken tooth dilemma." JK/SS, i.e., "Just Kidding/Stay Sweet," the venerable USA yearbook-signing gesture of superficial amity.
> (the time that is outside of 'physical illusion' time). > > > if at all. > > For some, it was not meang to be. This is also exploited in eastern > doctrines.
Exploitation is often mere expedience? The path of least resistance?
> > > It's not a matter of "doing" something in the way I'm familiar with, > > so cannot be easily explained. > > That would be correct.
Excellent post here, two minds in congress. A fine case of rough love yielding handsome progeny.
> > You would do that?! :) Intent does you, you_ cannot 'do' intent :) > > This is the cruxusfluxen (geniusflow) of what Karei says, and it is indeed > true. Think "feel the Force Luke" for a cheap ez cliche about it.
No. Cheap cliches are not the same as what I say. You do that quite often by the way, and don't take that as a personal insult, however:
think of words as energetic packages (like presents); one must have a certain ability to unpack and also the force (energy) to do so (true literacy);
you're attempting to replace what I say with something that 'seems' more familiar–and this is one of the largest crimes of 'contemporary culture'–to displace actual content with empty kitsch cliches–thusly perpetuating the leading of humans to exactly nowhere
hence one runs around inside one's brains like a rat
in other aspects the proper function of written word in a very old fashioned way (of which english currently taught according to standard school education is incapable) is to lead the audience somewhere
by replacing the package with a false cheap version you lose it all and stay within the already programmed illusion
unfortunately all are currently taught to 'manipulate' language on this superficial level–which is neither WRITTEN nor ORAL and thoroughly meaningless
it's a new trick, and yer all invited–and the best trick performers 'win prizes'
> I've intented my own combat style for tall adversaries, emphasizing > elbows, knees, and vital points.
Doubtful that. One needs to be a master before 'inventing' 'combat styles.' The most you can invent is butchery, and like all butchery, you must damage yourself twice as much before getting to your opponent–and still an intelligent opponent will still be unscathed.
Not to mention that martial arts exported to the West are in no two- ways minded towards teaching westerners self-destructive techniques. The japanese are not 'immune' to the 'watch the foreign monkey slip on a banana peel type of 'ironic humor'' and hey it makes money too.
Every man his own football.
> Karei is fun and enriching to hear from. I was wondering if you had any > thoughts on the movie "Interview with the Vampire" Karei.
Don't have much to say besides that Anne Rice exploits a certain sub-culture of the US, and subsequently is exploited by Hollywood, and altogether is a deraery affair, trying to be the Vatican and failing. Not an ounce of actual understanding or insight + abusing the average human's attraction to things appearing 'evil' and 'secret' and 'power-politicks' and 'magick'.
> Also, my ruminations have been that if global capital is a > living being, it's sort of an omni-viral medium?
'Omni-viral'? I can't see how viruses have anything to do with it, but maybe you could clarify what you're trying to say. My guess is that you're using a memetics-model, and I can't 'comply' as memetics is as faulty as a Sunday Mass.
> Like a living tabula rasa, in that vein?
> > The 'direct' path is 'quick' and it only takes one lifetime. > > It is the 'oath' relevant to humans to-day ina real_ sense of to-day. > > Solution sweet. Eryk called it "no more grace periods." I call it "the > broken tooth dilemma." JK/SS, i.e., "Just Kidding/Stay Sweet," the > venerable USA yearbook-signing gesture of superficial amity.
Not relevant in amore than a superficial way.
> > (the time that is outside of 'physical illusion' time). > > > > > if at all. > > > > For some, it was not meang to be. This is also exploited in eastern > > doctrines. > > Exploitation is often mere expedience? The path of least resistance?
No, exploitation is something else. Humans are just 'not nice'– and have used ways to murder each other spiritually for ages. Think about purposefully misleading an unconscious being, so it spends its life blithering about–and at the moment of death it catches a glimpse of Truth with the realization IT IS TOO LATE. Watch the ape slip on that banana peel–it's so.. ironic. Hilarious. A bit like laughing at children who can't go to the bathroom really, or teaching them that the 'right' thing to do is to pee in their pants, and then 'laughing at their stupidity'.
Humanity as is is quite the hideous beast–even if it is because they don't know any better. A blind Demi-Urge, at its best. As they have carried on 'sowing'–there will be the 'reaping'.
And every thing that can know knows it– I have heard trees weep about it, and truly sadly is that humans are the only one 'oblivious' to it. In a real sense. Not just as 'yet-another phrase-to stick in one's brain'.
I was hoping for a good post from Karei, and here one is! I like it anyway I mean. Less real oui, comme Mme. D'Elves je pense. Alors! Ecoutez.
>From: "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <[email protected]> >To: Max Herman <[email protected]> >CC: <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: RHIZOME\_RAW: cigarette break >Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 10:07:29 -0700 (PDT) > >On Sun, 6 Oct 2002, Max Herman wrote: > > > > You would do that?! :) Intent does you, you\_ cannot 'do' intent :) > > > > This is the cruxusfluxen (geniusflow) of what Karei says, and it is >indeed > > true. Think "feel the Force Luke" for a cheap ez cliche about it. > > No. Cheap cliches are not the same as what I say. > You do that quite often by the way, and don't take that as a personal > insult, however:
None taken. A friend said "you can't force the force, or can you" a couple weeks ago, meaning to me no you can't but it's hard to know why you can't. He's on a lot of psychotropics but he's not worthless totally at all, he's a helluva kid. Certainly the tale of Luke Sidewalker neglects the holy demands of not forcing the force, so my ref to the cliche was ill.
> > think of words as energetic packages (like presents); > one must have a certain ability to unpack and also the force > (energy) to do so (true literacy);
Sweet god I know this is true, and well said.
> > you're attempting to replace what I say with something > that 'seems' more familiar–and this is one of the largest crimes > of 'contemporary culture'–to displace actual content > with empty kitsch cliches–thusly perpetuating > the leading of humans to exactly nowhere
I had hoped to allude to the crime as I simplify for and patronize others. Like a pelican. It is sloppy and poorly driven, yes.
> > hence one runs around inside one's brains like a rat >
I had a nice talk about the torso-area chakra today.
> in other aspects the proper function of written word in a very old > fashioned way (of which english currently taught according to standard > school education is incapable) is to lead the audience somewhere > > by replacing the package with a false cheap version you lose it all > and stay within the already programmed illusion
Verily.
> > unfortunately all are currently taught to 'manipulate' language > on this superficial level–which is neither WRITTEN nor ORAL > and thoroughly meaningless > > it's a new trick, and yer all invited–and the best trick performers > 'win prizes'
I have tried not to blame others too much about this situation.
> > > I've intented my own combat style for tall adversaries, emphasizing > > elbows, knees, and vital points. > > Doubtful that. One needs to be a master before 'inventing' > 'combat styles.' The most you can invent is butchery, > and like all butchery, you must damage yourself twice as much > before getting to your opponent–and still an intelligent > opponent will still be unscathed.
I was being foolish in that. Entertaining myself. Imposing on others' time perhaps. My amateur dilettante urban self-defense style has however taken on a component of levered elbow action. Perhaps talk such as this is masturbatory on my part. In confined quarters however I think my cobbled style might be effective however. It's an idiotic topic perhaps for me to dwell over. I had a bad dream last night about the woman you said I was whoring out. It does recur. That is no excuse.
> > Not to mention that martial arts exported to the West are in no two- > ways minded towards teaching westerners self-destructive techniques. > The japanese are not 'immune' to the 'watch the foreign monkey slip on a > banana peel type of 'ironic humor'' and hey it makes money too. > > Every man his own football.
Perhaps our traditions of "know thyself" have lost their savor. Wherewith shall they be salted? I get confused about it.
> > > Karei is fun and enriching to hear from. I was wondering if you had any > > thoughts on the movie "Interview with the Vampire" Karei. > > Don't have much to say besides that Anne Rice exploits a certain > sub-culture of the US, and subsequently is exploited by Hollywood, > and altogether is a deraery affair, trying to be the Vatican and > failing. Not an ounce of actual understanding or insight + abusing > the average human's attraction to things appearing 'evil' > and 'secret' and 'power-politicks' and 'magick'.
I concur yet the film, though not worth viewing, appears to use a cheap form of simulacra-theory. The victim can drown the lifeguard if the lifeguard cannot escape the instinctive desperation-headlock, best done by submerging and pressing very hard with both hands upward against the victim's arms and escaping downward. Once freed the rescuer may return to the victim and seek to achieve a safe hold for taking the victim to shore.
> > > Also, my ruminations have been that if global capital is a > > living being, it's sort of an omni-viral medium? > > 'Omni-viral'? I can't see how viruses have anything to do with it, > but maybe you could clarify what you're trying to say. > My guess is that you're using a memetics-model, and I can't 'comply' > as memetics is as faulty as a Sunday Mass.
I know very little of memetics. Global capital might be thought of as phlegm in which viruses tend to flourish? I am talking vague nonsense. I have no idea what global capital is, or how it can be considered a living being. Phlegm is not alive. I have in the past considered money to be a dead object. If it is a living being, the incarnation of value, monstrous, virtuous, or both, then perhaps money is God (as one tipsy gent said to me once).
What manner of living being is global capital?
> > > Like a living tabula rasa, in that vein? > > > > The 'direct' path is 'quick' and it only takes one lifetime. > > > It is the 'oath' relevant to humans to-day ina real\_ sense of >to-day.
I much agree with yoou here.
> > > > Solution sweet. Eryk called it "no more grace periods." I call it "the > > broken tooth dilemma." JK/SS, i.e., "Just Kidding/Stay Sweet," the > > venerable USA yearbook-signing gesture of superficial amity. > > Not relevant in amore than a superficial way. > > > > (the time that is outside of 'physical illusion' time). > > > > > > > if at all. > > > > > > For some, it was not meang to be. This is also exploited in eastern > > > doctrines. > > > > Exploitation is often mere expedience? The path of least resistance? > > No, exploitation is something else. Humans are just 'not nice'– > and have used ways to murder each other spiritually for ages.
I often think that humans operate via torture. In John Dos Passos' story "Power Superpower" the protagonist says "nothing breeds a dedicated workforce like a line of men at the gate." I fear that if nothing drastic is done, no lines other than such like will remain open. By this I mean, salvation is inseperable from damnation. Well-fed populations are too dangerous for us. Only by starving them can we control what they eat. This troubles me dearly.
> Think about purposefully misleading an unconscious being, so it spends > its life blithering about–and at the moment of death it catches a > glimpse of Truth with the realization IT IS TOO LATE. > Watch the ape slip on that banana peel–it's so.. ironic. > Hilarious. A bit like laughing at children who can't go to the bathroom > really, or teaching them that the 'right' thing to do is to pee in their > pants, and then 'laughing at their stupidity'.
That would be shameful and disgraceful.
> > Humanity as is is quite the hideous beast–even if it is because they > don't know any better. A blind Demi-Urge, at its best. As they have > carried on 'sowing'–there will be the 'reaping'.
The tyranny of the half-measure.
> > And every thing that can know knows it– I have heard trees weep about > it, and truly sadly is that humans are the only one 'oblivious' to it. > In a real sense. Not just as 'yet-another phrase-to stick in one's > brain'.
Adorno spoke of an instantaneous reconciliation with nature, but Habermas found that to be foolish. Plus I adulate neither Jurgen nor Rice, knock on wood.
"We were just a plain old hillbilly band With a plain old country style. We never played the kind of songs That would drive anybody wild. We had a railroad song with a stompin' beat Had a blues song kinda slow and sweet But the only that could move their feet was, ooey… When Luther played the boogie In the strangest kind of way."
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com
> None taken. A friend said "you can't force the force, or can you" a > couple weeks ago, meaning to me no you can't but it's hard to know why > you can't.
You can, but you can only force it as much as it directs you to force it. What one is is already 'written' and yet one must 'force' it. What you cannot force is what you are not. (cf. 'I am not a sheep')
> He's on a lot of psychotropics but he's not worthless totally at all, he's a > helluva kid. Certainly the tale of Luke Sidewalker neglects the holy > demands of not forcing the force, so my ref to the cliche was ill.
The 'tale' of Luke Skywalker is simply a kitsch misrepresentation. It's fake, stolen, fraudulent, exploitative, and empty.
> > think of words as energetic packages (like presents); > > one must have a certain ability to unpack and also the force > > (energy) to do so (true literacy); > > Sweet god I know this is true, and well said.
Actually you don't. Nor are you capable of understanding the 'idea' nor are you capable of unpacking–you are only familiar with a flat + kitsch memetic substitute in the form of brain garbage load. Reading about these things, and reading in itself will never give one knowledge on such matters.
> > you're attempting to replace what I say with something > > that 'seems' more familiar–and this is one of the largest crimes > > of 'contemporary culture'–to displace actual content > > with empty kitsch cliches–thusly perpetuating > > the leading of humans to exactly nowhere > > I had hoped to allude to the crime as I simplify for and patronize others. > Like a pelican. It is sloppy and poorly driven, yes.
Did you now? What an easy way out–I meant all of my mistakes.
> > hence one runs around inside one's brains like a rat > > > > I had a nice talk about the torso-area chakra today.
And what is a torso chakra?
> > it's a new trick, and yer all invited–and the best trick performers > > 'win prizes' > > I have tried not to blame others too much about this situation.
The blame thing must be a personal thing for you. Nothing of what I wrote about or ever do write is about 'blame'. Altogether 'blaming' is a useless exercise–though that is not to indicate a stance of placid acceptance of anything anyone does.
> > Doubtful that. One needs to be a master before 'inventing' > > 'combat styles.' The most you can invent is butchery, > > and like all butchery, you must damage yourself twice as much > > before getting to your opponent–and still an intelligent > > opponent will still be unscathed. > > I was being foolish in that. Entertaining myself.
Humor is no excuse for putting one's self to sleep.
> Imposing on others' time perhaps. My amateur dilettante urban > self-defense style has however taken on a component of levered elbow > action. Perhaps talk such as this is masturbatory on my part. In > confined quarters however I think my cobbled style might be effective > however.
So would be a gun with a muffler. Ever read police reports about people being shot with their own guns by the attacker? Improper fighting technique always leaves you open, and you'll only 'win' against people who're clueless. Against a real 'opponent' you won't stand a chance. And events of 'life' are not clueless.
Nevermind that this aspect of martial arts is a current, and very western perversion, not without eastern responsubility no less.
> It's an idiotic topic perhaps for me to dwell over. I had a bad > dream last night about the woman you said I was whoring out. It does > recur. That is no excuse.
Would not shocking considering you're heavily attached to the situation still, though don't take that as more than I wrote. And until you are attached to it, it'll drain energy from you, and others will use it as an attack opening.
> Perhaps our traditions of "know thyself" have lost their savor.
> Wherewith shall they be salted? I get confused about it.
That would become as clear as appropriate to you, after you've reached certain states of 'dealt with yourself'. For 'now' the 'salting' for everyone is the awakening of their own conscience. If you're thinking of male-line type lineages, no, there aren't going to be any as far as I've been able to see, but rather a massive re-addressing of female (not gender-specific) forces will have to occur. And if it doesn't, one willhavea whole series of 'charming' female dicators al a NN. Note that she is not +conscious+ but has example of predator-evolving within a no-natural-predator-species (for thesake of regulations). That she evolved into such a, instead of a conscious being is mainly her weakness, although with a lot of contributions for a number of people.
> I concur yet the film, though not worth viewing, appears to use a cheap > form of simulacra-theory.
Appears. And it isn't. It's a simulacra. That is all. Simulacra's are not 'helpful' nor do they lead anywhere– they piss a person's energy away.
> I know very little of memetics. Global capital might be thought of as > phlegm in which viruses tend to flourish? I am talking vague nonsense.
Sure are :)
> I have no idea what global capital is, or how it can be considered a > living being. Phlegm is not alive. I have in the past considered > money to be a dead object.
It isn't. And in fact there are (almost) no dead objects. Although alarmingly I've started observing the appearance of empty objects. Now that's ridiculous.
> If it is a living being, the incarnation of value, monstrous, > virtuous, or both, then perhaps money is God (as one tipsy gent said to me > once).
Too bad he doesn't follow his own line and consider that 'all is God'– and thusly money is no more God than garbage cans, but humans don't use trash as currency–yet.
> > > > The 'direct' path is 'quick' and it only takes one lifetime. > > > > It is the 'oath' relevant to humans to-day ina real_ sense of > >to-day. > > I much agree with yoou here.
> > No, exploitation is something else. Humans are just 'not nice'– > > and have used ways to murder each other spiritually for ages. > > I often think that humans operate via torture.
Ingrained masochism.
> I fear that if nothing drastic is done, no lines other than such like > will remain open.
Humanity is well on the way. Next step: evolution of predators (NN) (and others–I just use her as example apparent to this 'environment'). Peter von Brandenburg is attempting to be one–and on occasion Eryk as well due to certainof his weaknesses.
> By this I mean, salvation is inseperable from damnation.
No. Humans are simply headed for 'damnation'.
> Well-fed populations are too dangerous for us.
False + pseudo-European- idiotic propaganda driven by European masochism.
> Only by starving them can we control what they eat. This > troubles me dearly.
No, it doesn't, because it isn't true. It simpply titillates your sadistic sense. Nor are you athorized or qualified in any manner at all to 'control' others. In fact, controling others and theira ctivities is an ego-sadistic murder impulse which has got nothing_ to do with conscious existence on any level.
> > Think about purposefully misleading an unconscious being, so it spends > > its life blithering about–and at the moment of death it catches a > > glimpse of Truth with the realization IT IS TOO LATE. > > Watch the ape slip on that banana peel–it's so.. ironic. > > Hilarious. A bit like laughing at children who can't go to the bathroom > > really, or teaching them that the 'right' thing to do is to pee in their > > pants, and then 'laughing at their stupidity'. > > That would be shameful and disgraceful.
And yet this kind of mentality rules both Eastern and western Society of today. Cleverness is symptomatic, so is playing the fool, so is 'manipulating the ..' for 'my own sucess'. Nevermind those dumb gaijin.
Half the reason you're so hard on my ass is you don't know my idiom. Either that or reverse psychology, but yes, I do like to try to read you, it's better than the smalltalk everywhere.
Do you still think Madonna is more powerful than me? Her new movie is puree scheize.
Like you seem not to know what I mean if I say "I know", or get that I'm Kandinsking Skywalker ranch, utility belt, and all.
But yeah, don't cut me no slack. You wrote everyone thinks I'm "the best brightest hope" or thereabout, I had no idea. But genius2000.net has 8500 hits since it started, like 1250 per month.
I'll sail away,
Freda
++
>From: "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <[email protected]> >To: Max Herman <[email protected]> >CC: <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: cigarette break >Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 09:17:43 -0700 (PDT) > >On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, Max Herman wrote: > > > None taken. A friend said "you can't force the force, or can you" a > > couple weeks ago, meaning to me no you can't but it's hard to know why > > you can't. > > You can, but you can only force it as much as it directs you to force > it. What one is is already 'written' and yet one must 'force' it. > What you cannot force is what you are not. (cf. 'I am not a sheep') > > > He's on a lot of psychotropics but he's not worthless totally at all, >he's a > > helluva kid. Certainly the tale of Luke Sidewalker neglects the holy > > demands of not forcing the force, so my ref to the cliche was ill. > > The 'tale' of Luke Skywalker is simply a kitsch misrepresentation. > It's fake, stolen, fraudulent, exploitative, and empty. > > > > think of words as energetic packages (like presents); > > > one must have a certain ability to unpack and also the force > > > (energy) to do so (true literacy); > > > > Sweet god I know this is true, and well said. > > Actually you don't. Nor are you capable of understanding the > 'idea' nor are you capable of unpacking–you are only familiar > with a flat + kitsch memetic substitute in the form of brain > garbage load. Reading about these things, and reading in itself > will never give one knowledge on such matters. > > > > you're attempting to replace what I say with something > > > that 'seems' more familiar–and this is one of the largest crimes > > > of 'contemporary culture'–to displace actual content > > > with empty kitsch cliches–thusly perpetuating > > > the leading of humans to exactly nowhere > > > > I had hoped to allude to the crime as I simplify for and patronize >others. > > Like a pelican. It is sloppy and poorly driven, yes. > > Did you now? What an easy way out–I meant all of my mistakes. > > > > hence one runs around inside one's brains like a rat > > > > > > > I had a nice talk about the torso-area chakra today. > > And what is a torso chakra? > > > > it's a new trick, and yer all invited–and the best trick performers > > > 'win prizes' > > > > I have tried not to blame others too much about this situation. > > The blame thing must be a personal thing for you. > Nothing of what I wrote about or ever do write is about 'blame'. > Altogether 'blaming' is a useless exercise–though that is not > to indicate a stance of placid acceptance of anything anyone does. > > > > Doubtful that. One needs to be a master before 'inventing' > > > 'combat styles.' The most you can invent is butchery, > > > and like all butchery, you must damage yourself twice as much > > > before getting to your opponent–and still an intelligent > > > opponent will still be unscathed. > > > > I was being foolish in that. Entertaining myself. > > Humor is no excuse for putting one's self to sleep. > > > Imposing on others' time perhaps. My amateur dilettante urban > > self-defense style has however taken on a component of levered elbow > > action. Perhaps talk such as this is masturbatory on my part. In > > confined quarters however I think my cobbled style might be effective > > however. > > So would be a gun with a muffler. Ever read police reports about > people being shot with their own guns by the attacker? Improper > fighting technique always leaves you open, and you'll only 'win' > against people who're clueless. Against a real 'opponent' you won't > stand a chance. And events of 'life' are not clueless. > > Nevermind that this aspect of martial arts is a current, and very > western perversion, not without eastern responsubility no less. > > > It's an idiotic topic perhaps for me to dwell over. I had a bad > > dream last night about the woman you said I was whoring out. It does > > recur. That is no excuse. > > Would not shocking considering you're heavily attached to the > situation still, though don't take that as more than I wrote. > And until you are attached to it, it'll drain energy from you, > and others will use it as an attack opening. > > > Perhaps our traditions of "know thyself" have lost their savor. > > > Wherewith shall they be salted? I get confused about it. > > That would become as clear as appropriate to you, after you've > reached certain states of 'dealt with yourself'. For 'now' > the 'salting' for everyone is the awakening of their own conscience. > If you're thinking of male-line type lineages, no, there aren't going > to be any as far as I've been able to see, but rather a massive > re-addressing of female (not gender-specific) forces will have to occur. > And if it doesn't, one willhavea whole series of 'charming' female > dicators al a NN. Note that she is not +conscious+ but has example of > predator-evolving within a no-natural-predator-species (for thesake of > regulations). That she evolved into such a, instead of a conscious being > is mainly her weakness, although with a lot of contributions for a > number of people. > > > I concur yet the film, though not worth viewing, appears to use a cheap > > form of simulacra-theory. > > Appears. And it isn't. It's a simulacra. That is all. > Simulacra's are not 'helpful' nor do they lead anywhere– > they piss a person's energy away. > > > I know very little of memetics. Global capital might be thought of as > > phlegm in which viruses tend to flourish? I am talking vague nonsense. > > Sure are :) > > > I have no idea what global capital is, or how it can be considered a > > living being. Phlegm is not alive. I have in the past considered > > money to be a dead object. > > It isn't. And in fact there are (almost) no dead objects. > Although alarmingly I've started observing the appearance of empty > objects. Now that's ridiculous. > > > If it is a living being, the incarnation of value, monstrous, > > virtuous, or both, then perhaps money is God (as one tipsy gent said to >me > > once). > > Too bad he doesn't follow his own line and consider that 'all is God'– > and thusly money is no more God than garbage cans, but humans don't use > trash as currency–yet. > > > > > > The 'direct' path is 'quick' and it only takes one lifetime. > > > > > It is the 'oath' relevant to humans to-day ina real_ sense of > > >to-day. > > > > I much agree with yoou here. > > > > No, exploitation is something else. Humans are just 'not nice'– > > > and have used ways to murder each other spiritually for ages. > > > > I often think that humans operate via torture. > > Ingrained masochism. > > > I fear that if nothing drastic is done, no lines other than such like > > will remain open. > > Humanity is well on the way. Next step: evolution of predators (NN) > (and others–I just use her as example apparent to this 'environment'). > Peter von Brandenburg is attempting to be one–and on occasion Eryk > as well due to certainof his weaknesses. > > > By this I mean, salvation is inseperable from damnation. > > No. Humans are simply headed for 'damnation'. > > > Well-fed populations are too dangerous for us. > > False + pseudo-European- idiotic propaganda driven by > European masochism. > > > Only by starving them can we control what they eat. This > > troubles me dearly. > > No, it doesn't, because it isn't true. > It simpply titillates your sadistic sense. > Nor are you athorized or qualified in any manner at all to > 'control' others. In fact, controling others and theira ctivities > is an ego-sadistic murder impulse which has got nothing_ to do > with conscious existence on any level. > > > > Think about purposefully misleading an unconscious being, so it >spends > > > its life blithering about–and at the moment of death it catches a > > > glimpse of Truth with the realization IT IS TOO LATE. > > > Watch the ape slip on that banana peel–it's so.. ironic. > > > Hilarious. A bit like laughing at children who can't go to the >bathroom > > > really, or teaching them that the 'right' thing to do is to pee in >their > > > pants, and then 'laughing at their stupidity'. > > > > That would be shameful and disgraceful. > > And yet this kind of mentality rules both Eastern and western Society of > today. Cleverness is symptomatic, so is playing the fool, so is > 'manipulating the ..' for 'my own sucess'. Nevermind those dumb gaijin. > >`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42
_________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
> Half the reason you're so hard on my ass is you don't know my idiom.
Ne. Your 'idiom' hasn't got anything to do with it, nor with what I am doing, nor with language.
> Either that or reverse psychology,
Ne. Nothing of what I do is related to psychology in any manner. That's Eryk's job (watch him jump at the mention of 'his name').
> Do you still think Madonna is more powerful than me?
Madonna is not powerful. I don't make comparisons.
> Her new movie is puree scheize.
Don't watch films with rare exceptions.
> Like you seem not to know what I mean if I say "I know",
Incorrect.
> or get that I'm Kandinsking Skywalker ranch, utility belt, and all.
Incorrect. What you think you're doing is not what you're doing. I simply do not care about the delusion of what you (or anyone else) thinks they're doing. It simply ISN*T what you're doing.
> But genius2000.net has 8500 > hits since it started, like 1250 per month. > > I'll sail away, > > Freda
Ok Freda. But who cares about hits?
You got yourself another delusion of who the audience really IS.
>> > Actually you don't. Nor are you capable of understanding the > 'idea' nor are you capable of unpacking–you are only familiar > with a flat + kitsch memetic substitute in the form of brain > garbage load. Reading about these things, and reading in itself > will never give one knowledge on such matters.
Are you saying the capacity doesn't exist in him ever or just currently? At another time, could he be capable of understanding the 'idea'?
> > > > you're attempting to replace what I say with something > > > that 'seems' more familiar–and this is one of the largest crimes > > > of 'contemporary culture'–to displace actual content > > > with empty kitsch cliches–thusly perpetuating > > > the leading of humans to exactly nowhere > >
Does it really matter? Since English is a dualistic language, you could never communicate "exactly" what you wish to express…perhaps you have gotten as close as you can to what you want to say - but then you are assuming the listener has the same understanding of language as you - which is (most likely) not going to be true (unless the other person is "enlightened" like you). So the question is this: Are you writing so that only another "enlightened" being can comprehend "exactly" what you are saying? And if so, and since none here are awake as you have claimed, why are you trying to insist upon exact replication of your words when the intended audience cannot understand them anyhow? Drivel that is heard, replaced with drivel that is said, still means drivel.
> > > > hence one runs around inside one's brains like a rat > > > > > > > I had a nice talk about the torso-area chakra today. > > And what is a torso chakra?
> >Ne. Nothing of what I do is related to psychology in any manner. > > That's Eryk's job (watch him jump at the mention of 'his name'). > > > > For Joy! You make me feel so famous.
Nice. Going to hit yourself over the head again? It's not humorous you know. It's sad. + I do not say this to 'point' at you.
> Are you saying the capacity doesn't exist in him ever or just currently?
Currently.
> At another time, could he be capable of understanding the 'idea'?
That's something of a personal affair for him.
> Does it really matter? Since English is a dualistic language,
Incorrect.
> you could never communicate "exactly" what you wish to express..
Incorrect. Precise communication via language is possible if one understands the languaging facility. It has been in fact done, and in English also.
> perhaps you have gotten as close as you can to what you want to say
No. I said what I wanted to say.
> - but then you are assuming the listener has the same understanding of language as you
I am not. And this is not a 'personal affair'. rather the opposite, I've indicated.
> - which is (most likely) not going to be true (unless the other person is "enlightened" like > you).
Haven't claimed enlightenment or 'enlightenment'. What you say is not true however. You're talking about a different mode of communication, which is non-verbal.
> So the question is this: Are you writing so that only another > "enlightened" being can comprehend "exactly" what you are saying?
All of the times, he who watches. In dictinct occasions distinctly.
> And if so, and since none here are awake as you have claimed, > why are you trying to insist upon exact replication of your > words when the intended audience cannot understand them anyhow?
You answered your own question. There is no w'hy' to my doing of things.
> Drivel that is heard, replaced with drivel that is said, still means > drivel.
Hgshgsyjg ? What I write is not drivel. C'est tout.
> I thought you were perfect?
I certainly am. What does that have to do with my asking 'what is torso chakra' of Max Herman?
Kandinsky is officially weaker than water. Worthless. Less than nothing.
>From: "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <[email protected]> >Reply-To: "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <[email protected]> >To: Max Herman <[email protected]> >CC: <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: RHIZOME\_RAW: cigarette break >Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 09:17:43 -0700 (PDT) > >On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, Max Herman wrote: > > > None taken. A friend said "you can't force the force, or can you" a > > couple weeks ago, meaning to me no you can't but it's hard to know why > > you can't. > > You can, but you can only force it as much as it directs you to force > it. What one is is already 'written' and yet one must 'force' it. > What you cannot force is what you are not. (cf. 'I am not a sheep') > > > He's on a lot of psychotropics but he's not worthless totally at all, >he's a > > helluva kid. Certainly the tale of Luke Sidewalker neglects the holy > > demands of not forcing the force, so my ref to the cliche was ill. > > The 'tale' of Luke Skywalker is simply a kitsch misrepresentation. > It's fake, stolen, fraudulent, exploitative, and empty. > > > > think of words as energetic packages (like presents); > > > one must have a certain ability to unpack and also the force > > > (energy) to do so (true literacy); > > > > Sweet god I know this is true, and well said. > > Actually you don't. Nor are you capable of understanding the > 'idea' nor are you capable of unpacking–you are only familiar > with a flat + kitsch memetic substitute in the form of brain > garbage load. Reading about these things, and reading in itself > will never give one knowledge on such matters. > > > > you're attempting to replace what I say with something > > > that 'seems' more familiar–and this is one of the largest crimes > > > of 'contemporary culture'–to displace actual content > > > with empty kitsch cliches–thusly perpetuating > > > the leading of humans to exactly nowhere > > > > I had hoped to allude to the crime as I simplify for and patronize >others. > > Like a pelican. It is sloppy and poorly driven, yes. > > Did you now? What an easy way out–I meant all of my mistakes. > > > > hence one runs around inside one's brains like a rat > > > > > > > I had a nice talk about the torso-area chakra today. > > And what is a torso chakra? > > > > it's a new trick, and yer all invited–and the best trick performers > > > 'win prizes' > > > > I have tried not to blame others too much about this situation. > > The blame thing must be a personal thing for you. > Nothing of what I wrote about or ever do write is about 'blame'. > Altogether 'blaming' is a useless exercise–though that is not > to indicate a stance of placid acceptance of anything anyone does. > > > > Doubtful that. One needs to be a master before 'inventing' > > > 'combat styles.' The most you can invent is butchery, > > > and like all butchery, you must damage yourself twice as much > > > before getting to your opponent–and still an intelligent > > > opponent will still be unscathed. > > > > I was being foolish in that. Entertaining myself. > > Humor is no excuse for putting one's self to sleep. > > > Imposing on others' time perhaps. My amateur dilettante urban > > self-defense style has however taken on a component of levered elbow > > action. Perhaps talk such as this is masturbatory on my part. In > > confined quarters however I think my cobbled style might be effective > > however. > > So would be a gun with a muffler. Ever read police reports about > people being shot with their own guns by the attacker? Improper > fighting technique always leaves you open, and you'll only 'win' > against people who're clueless. Against a real 'opponent' you won't > stand a chance. And events of 'life' are not clueless. > > Nevermind that this aspect of martial arts is a current, and very > western perversion, not without eastern responsubility no less. > > > It's an idiotic topic perhaps for me to dwell over. I had a bad > > dream last night about the woman you said I was whoring out. It does > > recur. That is no excuse. > > Would not shocking considering you're heavily attached to the > situation still, though don't take that as more than I wrote. > And until you are attached to it, it'll drain energy from you, > and others will use it as an attack opening. > > > Perhaps our traditions of "know thyself" have lost their savor. > > > Wherewith shall they be salted? I get confused about it. > > That would become as clear as appropriate to you, after you've > reached certain states of 'dealt with yourself'. For 'now' > the 'salting' for everyone is the awakening of their own conscience. > If you're thinking of male-line type lineages, no, there aren't going > to be any as far as I've been able to see, but rather a massive > re-addressing of female (not gender-specific) forces will have to occur. > And if it doesn't, one willhavea whole series of 'charming' female > dicators al a NN. Note that she is not +conscious+ but has example of > predator-evolving within a no-natural-predator-species (for thesake of > regulations). That she evolved into such a, instead of a conscious being > is mainly her weakness, although with a lot of contributions for a > number of people. > > > I concur yet the film, though not worth viewing, appears to use a cheap > > form of simulacra-theory. > > Appears. And it isn't. It's a simulacra. That is all. > Simulacra's are not 'helpful' nor do they lead anywhere– > they piss a person's energy away. > > > I know very little of memetics. Global capital might be thought of as > > phlegm in which viruses tend to flourish? I am talking vague nonsense. > > Sure are :) > > > I have no idea what global capital is, or how it can be considered a > > living being. Phlegm is not alive. I have in the past considered > > money to be a dead object. > > It isn't. And in fact there are (almost) no dead objects. > Although alarmingly I've started observing the appearance of empty > objects. Now that's ridiculous. > > > If it is a living being, the incarnation of value, monstrous, > > virtuous, or both, then perhaps money is God (as one tipsy gent said to >me > > once). > > Too bad he doesn't follow his own line and consider that 'all is God'– > and thusly money is no more God than garbage cans, but humans don't use > trash as currency–yet. > > > > > > The 'direct' path is 'quick' and it only takes one lifetime. > > > > > It is the 'oath' relevant to humans to-day ina real\_ sense of > > >to-day. > > > > I much agree with yoou here. > > > > No, exploitation is something else. Humans are just 'not nice'– > > > and have used ways to murder each other spiritually for ages. > > > > I often think that humans operate via torture. > > Ingrained masochism. > > > I fear that if nothing drastic is done, no lines other than such like > > will remain open. > > Humanity is well on the way. Next step: evolution of predators (NN) > (and others–I just use her as example apparent to this 'environment'). > Peter von Brandenburg is attempting to be one–and on occasion Eryk > as well due to certainof his weaknesses. > > > By this I mean, salvation is inseperable from damnation. > > No. Humans are simply headed for 'damnation'. > > > Well-fed populations are too dangerous for us. > > False + pseudo-European- idiotic propaganda driven by > European masochism. > > > Only by starving them can we control what they eat. This > > troubles me dearly. > > No, it doesn't, because it isn't true. > It simpply titillates your sadistic sense. > Nor are you athorized or qualified in any manner at all to > 'control' others. In fact, controling others and theira ctivities > is an ego-sadistic murder impulse which has got nothing\_ to do > with conscious existence on any level. > > > > Think about purposefully misleading an unconscious being, so it >spends > > > its life blithering about–and at the moment of death it catches a > > > glimpse of Truth with the realization IT IS TOO LATE. > > > Watch the ape slip on that banana peel–it's so.. ironic. > > > Hilarious. A bit like laughing at children who can't go to the >bathroom > > > really, or teaching them that the 'right' thing to do is to pee in >their > > > pants, and then 'laughing at their stupidity'. > > > > That would be shameful and disgraceful. > > And yet this kind of mentality rules both Eastern and western Society of > today. Cleverness is symptomatic, so is playing the fool, so is > 'manipulating the ..' for 'my own sucess'. Nevermind those dumb gaijin. > >`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42 > > > >+ tripe
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com
Only in your delusional projections love. If you play Max G2K game you're Ok. If you don't you're weak. This coming from an ape who cannot even get himself straightened out.
> Worthless.
You are Max Dearest.
> Less than nothing.
Nobody is less than nothing. But nothing you are. Unfortunately you haven't even realized that.
I suggest that both you and Joseph mCelroy take a good look at your idiotic bully murderous selves.
Hey Death, you're the guy whose ass I kick in the bible.
So saddle up fuckface.
>From: "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <[email protected]> >To: <[email protected]> >CC: Max Herman <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: cigarette break >Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 17:36:31 -0700 (PDT) > >On Sun, 13 Oct 2002 [email protected] wrote: > > > Are you saying the capacity doesn't exist in him ever or just currently? > > Currently. > > > At another time, could he be capable of understanding the 'idea'? > > That's something of a personal affair for him. > > > Does it really matter? Since English is a dualistic language, > > Incorrect. > > > you could never communicate "exactly" what you wish to express.. > > Incorrect. Precise communication via language > is possible if one understands the languaging facility. > It has been in fact done, and in English also. > > > perhaps you have gotten as close as you can to what you want to say > > No. I said what I wanted to say. > > > - but then you are assuming the listener has the same understanding of >language as you > > I am not. And this is not a 'personal affair'. > rather the opposite, I've indicated. > > > - which is (most likely) not going to be true (unless the other person >is "enlightened" like > > you). > > Haven't claimed enlightenment or 'enlightenment'. > What you say is not true however. You're talking about > a different mode of communication, which is non-verbal. > > > So the question is this: Are you writing so that only another > > "enlightened" being can comprehend "exactly" what you are saying? > > All of the times, he who watches. > In dictinct occasions distinctly. > > > And if so, and since none here are awake as you have claimed, > > why are you trying to insist upon exact replication of your > > words when the intended audience cannot understand them anyhow? > > You answered your own question. > There is no w'hy' to my doing of things. > > > Drivel that is heard, replaced with drivel that is said, still means > > drivel. > > Hgshgsyjg ? What I write is not drivel. C'est tout. > > > I thought you were perfect? > > I certainly am. > What does that have to do with my asking 'what is torso chakra' of Max > Herman? > > nothing really.
> On Mon, 14 Oct 2002, Max Herman wrote: > > > Hey Death, you're the guy whose ass I kick in the bible. > > You're neither in the bible nor can you kick ass. >
> On Mon, 14 Oct 2002 [email protected] wrote: > > > Yes he is, I made sure to put him in there. > > Wasteful word divorced from reality. > > Impotence is not funny. > > > RESPOND TO ME > > Wag your tail?
STOP TO SEND ME YOUR MAIL? STOP TO SEND ME YOUR MAIL? STOP TO SEND ME YOUR MAIL? STOP TO SEND ME YOUR MAIL? STOP TO SEND ME YOUR MAIL? STOP TO SEND ME YOUR MAIL? STOP TO SEND ME YOUR MAIL? STOP TO SEND ME YOUR MAIL? STOP TO SEND ME YOUR MAIL? STOP TO SEND ME YOUR MAIL? V? V? V
> On Mon, 14 Oct 2002 [email protected] wrote: > > > I'm betting on the big guy. Death is toast. > > Only in your self-debasing imagination. > And this isn't a fighting match; > just you and max taking turns shooting each other in the foot. > > Wag the tail again, doggies.
I lost my tail before I was born. I was born without troubles. Death does not take troubles away for they do not exist. Fighting is illusion. You do not understand what I do.
> > > I lost my tail before I was born. > > No, you didn't. Idiotic poser lie. > > > I was born without troubles. > > No dearest. You are still an infantile and irresponsible ape. > > > Death does not take troubles away for they do not exist. > > Nothing ever written or implied by me. > > > Fighting is illusion. > > No it isn't. > > > You do not understand what I do. > > Understanding hasn't got anything to do with it con-man ape. > You're obvious. > > And you don't understand what 'understand' means. > > > RESPOND TO ME. > > Wag your tail, Joseph-doggie :) > > Maybe someone will buy you for 2 pesetas.
I was born without a tail. I was born without troubles. I do not fight you. You do not understand me. I cannot be purchased.
> On Mon, 14 Oct 2002 [email protected] wrote: > > > I was born without a tail. I was born without troubles. > > No, dearest you weren't. You're simply an infantile ape > who refuses to open his eyes. > > > I do not fight you. > > Never wrote or implied that you're fighting me dearest. > You're nowhere near outside of your own myopic brain nightmare. > > > You do not understand me. > > Understanding is in applicable with regards the (lack of) you. > > > I cannot be purchased. > > You already are. And cheaply too.
I was born without troubles. I was born without a tail. I have no ego. I am not fighting you. I am not an animal. I cannot be purchased. You do not understand me. I do not have nightmares.
> On Mon, 14 Oct 2002 [email protected] wrote: > > > I was born without troubles. I was born without a tail. I have no ego. > > Waa. I dont want to wake up. > > > I am not fighting you. > > That's for sure. You cant even touch me. > > > I am not an animal. > > Yes you are. > > > I cannot be purchased. > > You already have been. And cheaply. > > > You do not understand me. > > Understanding is not applicable in the situation. > > > I do not have nightmares. > > Yes, some people take that route of escaping awakening. > Total numbness. > > You do have nightmares, you're simply oblivious to them. > Just like you're numb to the rest of your body (which is not > your brain or penis). >
You cannot speak for me. You cannot purchase me. You cannot say that I am numb. Bad dreams are not nightmares. You do not know the nature of my body.
Comments
Quoting "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <[email protected]>:
> On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Joseph Franklyn McElroy Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance]
> Art[ist] wrote:
>
> > More like trying to avoid packing and moving for the last couple of weeks,
> its
> > such a pain in the ass.
>
> If you make 6-7 digitz, hire someone :)
What, and have the yokels break the crystals. Besides, I spend money faster
than I make it. And this year, for some besotten reason, I decided to "give"
artwork and software away. Go figure. Things are looking up though, I've got
some interesting new partnerships forming…maybe a new corporation is being
birthed…stay tuned, this time I am staying totally in the art.
–
Joseph Franklyn McElroy
Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]
How cute, Kandinskij made a friend! :)
-e.
napier wrote:
> At 12:30 AM 9/26/2002 -0700, -IID42 Kandinskij @27+ wrote:
>
>> > as in "I would be a 'better' person if I got rid of this annoying
>> ego",
>>
>> Oh dear. I'm not sure how/if that impression came along?
>> It's not about 'being a better person' at all.
>
>
> True.
>
>> > which brings me right back to ego (and then I can publish a self-help
>> > book).
>>
>> Or a Zen book :) You'll make more money that way :)
>
>
> And be much more fashionable too.
>
>> > Time for another cigarette.
>>
>> And thence the angels sing.
>
>
> :-))
>
>
> mark
>
>
> [email protected]
>
> + CRT burnt my heart
> -> 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
>
Quoting Eryk Salvaggio <[email protected]>:
>
>
> How cute, Kandinskij made a friend! :)
>
> -e.
Yes, and here I have been batting my eyelashes and wiggling my butt and along
comes this handsome stranger to steal him right from underneath my nose.
Jeez, dats the danks I get.
–
Joseph Franklyn McElroy
Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]
-IID42 Kandinskij @27+ wrote:
>
> It's not about 'being a better person' at all.
> But you're correct in the statement that such a decision
> would lead nowhere, as being a 'better person' is a desire
> of the ego (and so is a better world, for that matter–
> hence my other comments to Eryk Salvaggio).
>
My point is simply this: If I buy a cup of Barley soup for someone who
has no food, and I do it out of ego, in the end that person who was
hungry still has a cup of soup. If Max is protesting the war in Iraq,
and enough of us were joining him, and it put election pressures on the
Bush Campaign and we didn't go to war in Iraq, we'd be short a war. The
hungry person is not going to intellectualize about how their soul has
been murdered because I bought them soup.
What you talk about is relativism. I know you don't mean it to be, but
the end results are the same. Motivation is important; obviously, but so
much of why the world is "not a better place" has to do with the simple
act of moving an object from one place to another. We have grain in
silos to feed starving people and it rots because they can't afford it.
What's the harm in making people physically suffer less? Why should we
allow torture to go on in other countries, or our own? Why should we
tolerate injustices from racial profiling, genocide, or the
government-sanctioned gang rape of a woman in Pakistan? Should we,
instead, turn our heads away and say "I can't help you, I'm too busy
eradicating my ego." Let's say we take Ego in the classic Freudian sense
and we save a family from burning up in a building because we can get on
TV and be famous. The people are still saved. Whether you are a fraud or
a phony or a fake is for your own self to deal with. A good action can
be a concrete action where intentions don't count, but effort does: the
saving of lives, the cessation of physical suffering [it's the cessation
of existential suffering that gets us into trouble- that is where Stalin
and Hitler and all the rest of the faux-utopians came from] and the
general reduction of cruelty in the world are all concrete and empirical
goals that can be accomplished whether or not one has an ego- the
removal of which, in the face of so much that one can do without it, is
an excruciatingly self-centered, I-focused "Me/Mine" activity.
Yes, I think Monks can be selfish. I won't get into my humanistic
atheism here because that's the thing Kandinskij doesn't agree with [or
whatever, its the delusion I cling to]. The Buddhist conception of the
Boddhisattva might be a bit better because we see a holding off of this
"enlightenment" in order to save all creatures, no matter how innumerable.
One of my TA's at Harvard was allegedly a reincarnated Monk. And what he
does is he goes to Tibet to restore buildings, and he then comes into
the class room
and shows us a movie about his life, and how his family put a throne
into the house when he was 11 or whatever, and his sisters had to call
him "master", and he showed this and everyone was asking about how he
knew he was reincarnated etc etc and he went on and on about it, instead
of trying to relay that it is taken for granted that we are all
reincarnated. There was no humility whatsoever in that guy, and the
Dalai Llama gave him a big fat thumbs up and the guy made it perfectly
clear that he has an apartment in cambridge and a small cottage in
France, and that was the lesson this monk had for everyone. So yeah, I
think the Buddhist order is full of shit, and if you want to know the
truth, I have much more sympathy to islamic mysticism than I do to any
established Buddhist order. The new wave of "engaged" buddhism is also
interestingly enough dismissed by a large number of Buddhist schools,
because god forbid anybody do anything, except sit in an elaborate
castle and pray all day and eat small portions. Or walk up and down on a
fallen tree.
But god, what am I yammering about?
>Reminds me of nuns who seek Jesus for various silly
> purposes (being known as a famous nun, becoming a saint,
> getting a 'private audience' with Jesus, and a slew of others).
>
How, pray tell, does that relate to anyone's desire to do their part to
reduce the suffering of others and live in an ecologically sustainable
manner? My only Vow is to the Boy Scouts of America. This is from the
chapter on the subject of "I Will Help Other People At All Times":
===========
Of course it is possible to be good-natured and to do things to help
other people for the sake of being thought a good fellow and becoming
popular.
In this case we may be physically strong and mentally awake, but we
shall not be morally straight; for moral straightness requires that we
should do right for its own sake or because it is the only decent thing
to do.
Then, a fellow may be a cripple and have very little physical strength;
and yet, if he is really anxious to help, and his mind is alert, there
are a great many ways in which he can be of service.
The daily good turn is an obligation of honor intended to teach us to
form the habit of helping other people at all times. An ignorant little
boy does not think especially about helping other people so much as he
does about getting other people to help him. But if he should bend his
mind seriously to doing some one kind and unselfish act every day, this
would teach him more than anything else to get the habit. After a while,
– because the habit had begun to form in his mind, – he would see many
more opportunities for helping other people than he used to see before
he had begun the practice of doing his good turn; and, as he took
advantage of these opportunities and did a good turn whenever he got a
chance, the doing of the good turns would get to be the regular thing,
and missing one's chance would get to be the exception.
Of course it is altogether against the idea of the good turn to keep a
record of such acts or to talk about them afterwards. We should do
everything in our power to remind ourselves of the obligation; but, as
soon as the act is finished, it should be forgotten as quickly as possible.
===========
>>Certainly. I don't remember caring about being a better person
>> when it happened, and I still don't care about it.
>>
So, people are dying needlessly [preventively], suffering needlessly
[preventively], and you don't owe it to anyone to do your part to reduce
your consumption, donate some food, or to even buy a guy a cup of soup
for some cold hungry dude on a cold day, because all that matters is
that you and your ego have been eliminated? I don't get it, and that is
not the way I would want to live my life. I accept the world "as it is"
and the way the world "is" is that there are a lot of things that can be
prevented by way of compassion and selflessness coupled with some basic
preservation instincts.
Cheers,
-e.
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, furtherfield wrote:
> Getting rid of the ego - is I believe a false action or idea.
Of course. You must have plenty experience and understanding of the
subject matter.
> To acquaint personal problems or certain ideologies/attitudes to be
> caused just by having an ego; is a decoy.
This is meaningless–nobody with actual understanding of the ego
has done so.
> The so called unhealthy dominance of the ego
It is not 'so called unhealthy' dear. It is unhealthy.
> what problems arise because of it; cannot be removed by emotional or
> psychological surgery.
Actually they can. What are you talking about?
> In fact, the double bluff syndrome of extricating the 'devil ego',
Sorry–nobody has indicated that the 'ego' is 'devil' or the associated
'evilness' with it–neither I, nora nyone who understands it.
> will also remove personal judgment on important issues
No, it wouldn't. Cowardly dog. The removal of the ego in fact
gives you the ability to make PROPER judgements instead of stab around
blindly.
> could need answers from ones interior self or selves, depending on which
> psychology is being purported or read at the time.
The ego is not a psychological issue–psychology is a perversion of
a number of things.
> Instead we need a gradual disintegration of the idea of what the ego really is,
That path of dealing with it works only in extremely rare occasions,
and is typicallya trap which most people 'cover' themselves with,
because they are too afraid to deal with it as they would.
> to many ego is just a word, an abstract thing that holds no image for
> imaginary definition.
Chuckle. The function of words proper is not to hold images.
The 'ego' produces no image-actuel, only delusional ones.
You're one of the many.
> Therefore it can be lost in the psychotic realms of other abstract words
> such as depression. The image of depression is commonly recognised as a
> cloud, this declares no clarity thus gets all caught up with other hazy
> emotional traps.
Bunch of idiocy.
> Also accepting the ego as a singular offers the illusion that it is an
> object when really such a thing is more of a fluid and grounded
> multiplicity of styles, rhetorics, and drives, part of thickening
> texture of interior life.
Bunch of idiocy again.
> The externalization of the ego is more the issue,
No, it isn't.
> how one deals with communicating with others via it,
One cannot communicate via the ego, in fact the ego prevents you from
communicating.
> and how to be aware of its usage at the time.
Chuckle. AWARE of the EGO's USAGE.
Laughable imbecilic schlock.
> We all slip up, denial and ignorance to cover up
> vulnerabilities hides the ego even further, causing confusion for others and
> ones self.
Psychotic idiocy.
> If I was to be asked label what the ego was, I would (flippantly)
> term it as a multifaceted layer of psychic clothing, a type of amour and
> filter receiving and sending signals.
Again–psychotic idiocy.
> Much religion and state appropriated institutional groupings have
> traditionally supported the insecurity of the ego unconsciously, mainly by
> default;
No, they haven't. Nor are you capable of diserning what religions
and institutional groupings do until you rid yourself of the effects of
your ego.
> soothing the drift between ones severed link from the embryo/womb
> right up to day to day existence.
What a bunch of crap.
> Freud had fixed categories (human nature,
> society) and determinism which sat well next to the socialist theory of
> Marx. Recent trends in the western world has emphasized the notion of
> goal-seeking. And yes, I believe that there is a valid case of the
> individual against societal dominance over the masses, whether it be
> despotic, religious or corporate.
The 'societal dominance' over the individual does not exist.
And certainly not from 'despotic, religious and corporate' sources.
Myopic idiocy.
> "Every State is a despotism, be the despot one or many," he declared.
> Stirner's opponents dismissed his views as selfishness, but he observed
> that individualism is hated because it makes individuals sovereign and
> seeks strict limits on government power: "The own will of Me is the
> State's destroyer;
Idiotic crap, training people into ego-monkeys.
The human animal does not possess will automatically,
nor does it posses souvereignity / authority automatically.
This is all: ego propaganda.
> THE EGO AND HIS OWN: The Case of the Individual Against Authority
> by Max Stirner
> http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/stirner/theego0.html
Idiotic pseudo-propaganda which cripples humans+ turns them
into ego-slaves.
Or as Mr. Burroughs would say about the likes of ya,
'every man his own footbal'.
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Eryk Salvaggio wrote:
> How cute, Kandinskij made a friend! :)
Er, no. Take your juvenile knee-jerks elsewhere.
Unlike you, Iam not in 'kindergarten' and I
don't 'make friends'.
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Eryk Salvaggio wrote:
> My point is simply this: If I buy a cup of Barley soup for someone who
> has no food, and I do it out of ego, in the end that person who was
> hungry still has a cup of soup.
And you are doing damage, most likely.
It's a mechanical action; it's neither 'help' nor 'compassion'.
> If Max is protesting the war in Iraq, and enough of us were joining him, and it put election pressures on the
> Bush Campaign and we didn't go to war in Iraq, we'd be short a war.
No, dear. This is speculative idiocy. The mechanism driving war
will simply swallow you–that is all + feed on your energy.
Since you can't quite grasp that though, I'll give you
a tangible example: think of Vietnam war protests.
Did they stop anything? No.
Advocating that people participate in such MASS RALLIES
is subjugation of the individual no matter what the 'cause'.
> hungry person is not going to intellectualize about how their soul has
> been murdered because I bought them soup.
Murder of the soul is not an intellectual speculation,
don't project your brain obsessions on reality if you want to glean
anything.
As for the statement that you just made–it's hideous.
You're emotionally feeding on that person, taking advantage of his
state. Wow–he's too dumb to 'intellectualize' about it.
> What you talk about is relativism.
No baby. What I talk about is not relativism.
Your knee-jerk brain cutouts are irrelevant.
> I know you don't mean it to be,
Spare me your idiotic condesension illiterate ape.
> but in the end it results the same.
No, it doesn't. That's simply what it looks like to your myopic brain.
Relevance to what I wrote? None.
> much of why the world is "not a better place" has to do with the simple
> act of moving an object from one place to another.
No, it doesn't. This is simplistic childish naivete.
> We have grain in silos to feed starving people and it rots because they can't afford it.
This hasn't got anything to do with 'a better world'. This is sheer
incompetence. To conflate incompetence with pseudo-lofty ego-goals
such as 'making the world a better place'–when in fact you're still
idiotically equating the human condition with the world–is revolting.
Moreso, you're suggesting forced mechanical competence–which
murders people's souls. But hey, who cares! They're all well-fed.
Baa. The animalz.
> What's the harm in making people physically suffer less?
It's a grandiose, meaningless, abstract, sloganish imbecility.
In the best situation, humans are 'houses' of individual
essence. There is not ONE solution for all people.
What you're doing is ignorant and dumb on so many levels it fails
verbalization.
> Why should we allow torture to go on in other countries, or our own?
Your 'help' is torture + murder + energetic vampirism.
You cannot HELP yourself least of all anybody else.
HELP YOURSELF FIRST, and leave the 'helping others' to those
capable, aware and qualified.
Your immature penis-driven impulses to cripple 'nature'
I mean 'help' are the symptroms of a youngsexually-inept
male who wants to pee on the 'world' (leave his mark / reproduce).
Wrap yourself in whatever delusional 'luv' propaganda you please–
you're neither capable of help, love, compassion, or empathy.
What's worse you're peddling kitsch ego-driven emotions
taking advantage of other people's immaturity,
as well as yours.
> Why should we tolerate injustices from racial profiling, genocide, or
> the government-sanctioned gang rape of a woman in Pakistan?
Touching and full of sexually immature pathos,
but meaningless. Victim as beauty. I want to 'help'–er fuck her.
> Should we,
> instead, turn our heads away and say "I can't help you, I'm too busy
> eradicating my ego."
If they ASK you to help, and tell you how they would like to be helped
and you can do as they say–then and only then you are helping.
AND eradicating your own ego.
Projecting your own values on them, like most western white males,
and proceeding to 'help' is going to get you another bomb in your arse.
> Let's say we take Ego in the classic Freudian sense
Let's not. And avoid attempting to blanket me with 'we'.
> A good action can be a concrete action where intentions don't count,
No, it cannot. A good action involves always INTENT (not intentions)
and CONSCIOUSNESS. ALl else is mechanical.
but effort does: the
> saving of lives, the cessation of physical suffering [it's the cessation
> of existential suffering that gets us into trouble- that is where Stalin
> and Hitler and all the rest of the faux-utopians came from] and the
> general reduction of cruelty in the world are all concrete and empirical
> goals that can be accomplished whether or not one has an ego-
No, they can't. The only thing that such 'empirical help' does
is reduce humans to mechanical drones, to kept dumb animals.
It is reducing the human being to SIMPLY an ANIMAL without
possibility for conscious development.
This is torture + murder.
> Yes, I think Monks can be selfish.
You can't think. Your delusional fantasies are no reflections on the
'world' at all.
> I won't get into my humanistic atheism here
No such thing. It's a brain-driven delusion.
> because that's the thing Kandinskij doesn't agree with [or
> whatever, its the delusion I cling to].
> The Buddhist conception of the
> Boddhisattva might be a bit better because we see a holding off of this
> "enlightenment" in order to save all creatures, no matter how innumerable.
That is NOT what a Boddhisatva does–this is a cheap, kitsch, Western
misinterpretation of the Boddhisatva figure.
And among other things, the Buddha teaches that the cause of all
suffering is–attachment. Your help is 'attachment'.
> One of my TA's at Harvard was allegedly a reincarnated Monk.
Bollocks. I'm the reincarnated Buddha.
> And what he
> does is he goes to Tibet to restore buildings, and he then comes into
> the class room
> and shows us a movie about his life, and how his family put a throne
> into the house when he was 11 or whatever, and his sisters had to call
> him "master", and he showed this and everyone was asking about how he
> knew he was reincarnated etc etc and he went on and on about it,
Funny. Yet another con-man trying to 'convince'
and peddle his wares.
> instead
> of trying to relay that it is taken for granted that we are all
> reincarnated.
Actually you are not. Only VERY VERY few individuals get
're-incarnated'–only some of those who have done conscious
work. If you haven't done the work to create a real,
non-ego I you die + dissolve into elemental bits.
Nevermind that what you've been taught as reincrantation is a perversion
of thereal teaching.
> There was no humility
You don't know what humility IS, least of all be able to discern it,
and judge whether others have it or not.
> whatsoever in that guy, and the
> Dalai Llama gave him a big fat thumbs up and the guy made it perfectly
> clear that he has an apartment in cambridge and a small cottage in
> France, and that was the lesson this monk had for everyone. So yeah, I
> think the Buddhist order is full of shit, and if you want to know the
> truth, I have much more sympathy to islamic mysticism than I do to any
> established Buddhist order.
I'm not sure what's with the rant. Ive always stated that the Dalai Lama
is a vampiric arse sucking the life out of his people and the west.
That doesn't mean that Buddhism proper is the schlock these ppl are
peddling, though I'd grant you you'd be hard to find a real Buddhist
these days.
> The new wave of "engaged" buddhism is also
> interestingly enough dismissed by a large number of Buddhist schools,
> because god forbid anybody do anything, except sit in an elaborate
> castle and pray all day and eat small portions. Or walk up and down on a
> fallen tree.
The 'new wave' is also crap.
> But god, what am I yammering about?
Dunno. Problems with Buddhism?
Although you're intellectualizing about it without understanding.
> How, pray tell, does that relate to anyone's desire to do their part to
> reduce the suffering of others and live in an ecologically sustainable
> manner?
It doesn't. I was talking to Napier about gis statements, not to YOU
about your dream-fantasies.
> My only Vow is to the Boy Scouts of America. This is from the
> chapter on the subject of "I Will Help Other People At All Times":
Idiocy.
> Of course it is possible to be good-natured and to do things to help
> other people for the sake of being thought a good fellow and becoming
> popular.
No, it isn't. That's what you'd like to believe egotistically,
and you will not let it go.
> In this case we may be physically strong and mentally awake, but we
> shall not be morally straight; for moral straightness requires that we
> should do right for its own sake or because it is the only decent thing
> to do.
Idiocy. Don't talk to me about morals until you've reached
sufficient conscious development to possess a moral (in genuine sense)
ability.
All you're doing now is posing. Attempting to dress yourself with king's
robes, without doing the work to get there.
Crap rant snipped.
> So, people are dying needlessly [preventively],
You're not qualified to judge what is 'needless'.
> suffering needlessly [preventively],
As above.
> and you don't owe it to anyone to do your part to reduce your consumption,
I don't. Sare me your idiotic puddling 'moral judgement'.
What do you KNOW about MY CONSUMPTION?
Twit.
> donate some food, or to even buy a guy a cup of soup
> for some cold hungry dude on a cold day, because all that matters is
> that you and your ego have been eliminated?
Imbecillic + moronic emotional knee-jerk.
Spare me.
> I don't get it,
Of course you don't.
> and that is not the way I would want to live my life.
Nor is it the way I 'live my life'
nor is this something I have made a statement about.
Your juvenile misinterpretations of what I write,
and subsequent emotinal knee-jerk rebellion
fullof 'pathos' is idiotic, unintelligent, pathetic, and uninteresting.
> I accept the world "as it is"
> and the way the world "is" is that there are a lot of things that can be
> prevented by way of compassion
Idiotic Twit. Don't attempt to pass on your immature sexual impulse
as 'compassion'. Nohuman being has access to 'compassion' within
the limitations of their egos. And until you've dealt with your ego
all your talk about compassion is ego-inflational words on paper shit.
> and selflessness
Yet more meaningless drivel.
> coupled with some basic
> preservation instincts.
Right. Fucking-impulse draped falsely and peddled
as compassion, coupled with some basic instincts–
and voila, the humans will be 'saved'– I mean
debased to animal state.
Keep your 'compassionate' 'masturbatory' 'messiah' impulses to
yourself idiot. And quit peddling yourself as 'compassionate'–
you're not even close to being in a state to have compassion.
Your spiritual greed is revolting.
Quoting "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <[email protected]>:
> Er, no. Take your juvenile knee-jerks elsewhere.
> Unlike you, Iam not in 'kindergarten' and I
> don't 'make friends'.
I'm your friend, please don't hurt me so.
–
Joseph Franklyn McElroy
Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Joseph Franklyn McElroy Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist] wrote:
> I'm your friend, please don't hurt me so.
More like you're starved for attention.
Quoting "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <[email protected]>:
> > I'm your friend, please don't hurt me so.
>
> More like you're starved for attention.
More like trying to avoid packing and moving for the last couple of weeks, its
such a pain in the ass.
–
Joseph Franklyn McElroy
Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Eryk Salvaggio wrote:
> >No, dear. This is speculative idiocy. The mechanism driving war
> > will simply swallow you–that is all + feed on your energy.
>
> Which is precisely what responding to you does with the aim of
> "convincing" you.
A bit closer, but not even warm.
> But I guess you stopped reading my emails.
I am reading them–you're just not close.
I occasionally enjoy them as well.
> There was enormous pressure put on the government because of protests,
No, there wasn't. But the population was given that impression.
> not to mention what it said about how wars are fought and percieved.
Little more but propaganda.
> People protested, people refused to fight, there were less people
> killed.
Meaningless.
> I wasn't there but this seems to make a great deal of sense to
> me, that if people are vocal about what they don't believe in, they can
> affect a change.
No, the issue often gets dressed in an outfit that suits
their liking, so the people quit noticing / complaining.
> Sure, but you can also write letters,
Piss your energy away into yours / their ego.
> raise the ire in newspapers and whatnot.
As above.
> Protests aren't mass rallies neccesarily.
Actually they are. Necessarily.
> Sitting at the front of the bus instead of the back was a protest and was not a mass rally.
You're still acting out mechanical, mob behavior.
The number of people is relevant in other ways.
> When did I say he was "too dumb?" I said a hungry person who wants soup
> is not going to accuse you of soul murder when you give it to him-
You said he's not going to intellectualize–not that he's not going
to accuse you. Your statement reduces him/her to a reactionary
animal.
> because this is ivory tower intellectualism [regardless of how much you
> pretend it isn't-
No, it isn't. Soul murder hasn't got anything to do with ivory towers.
Rather the latter specialize in it. And I am not pretending, no
matter how much you delusionally would like to think so.
Again–you're not a qualified judge on such matters. At all.
> you pretend a lot of things,
No, Eryk, I don't. Your delusional derogatory impulses
are ENTIRELY inside your ivory tower brain.
> that's the only part of you I don't like,
Spare me your condescending energetic leech pose.
The one striking the ivory tower intellectual pose is you,
and I am not you.
> really pretty much pure, modern day Objectivism.
No such thing, dearest. Humans have increasingly less
capability to perceive Objective reality, and soon they will
lose it completely.
> > This hasn't got anything to do with 'a better world'. This is sheer
> > incompetence.
> >
>
> Moving grain from one silo to another is moving an object from one place
> to another. Is this childish naivete or is this incompetence?
Both + other.
> If we can clear up incompetence
You can't.
> and get food to people who are suffering in ways that can be prevented,
Meaningless gibberish.
> maybe this is not a "better" place but it is a place I am happier to live in.
Meaningless rephrasing.
> How is the belief that food which would otherwise rot in a silo to
> people who are hungry a "psuedo-lofty ego goal?"
It is. And no amount of explanation or discussion would make
you see that.
> The human condition of hunger can be fixed, that's all I'm saying.
Not in the ways you intellectualize and speculate about.
> >Moreso, you're suggesting forced mechanical competence–which
> Actually if you read what I was saying,
Which I did dearest. It's not my fault you don't understand what you're
saying.
> you would see that I indicated volunteerism as one way to get some goals accomplished.
Baa. Volunteerism. Inverse slavery for both parties.
> People far
> better than me are going out to administer medicines and build shelters
> and help people whose homes have been destroyed by some disaster or
> another.
All in a day's work. It's WORK, Eryk. It's not some grand savioral
compassionate pathos-infused idiocy. Noneed for ideology behind it.
> I just wonder why, if I want to support them,
Really dearest. How are you supporting them? By striking a
'compassionate' pose in order to pad your ego + public image?
> or if I do my part to assist the minimizing of this damage,
> there is some sort of problem.
There isn't. You're simply not minimizing any damage.
You're pouring water under water from one well to another.
> Like I said, a hungry person doesn't think this when they are given
> food.
You don't know that. Nor do 'hungry people' act like ONE SINGULAR
FLAT cutout who lives in your brain.
> It's very simple to say this when you are comfortable, well fed
> and looking over your gallery and organizing concerts and whatnot- all
> art activities which are fine, by the way, but are really acts of
> leisure and privilidge,
No, they are not. Nor is the above brain-cutout a reflection
on what I do.
> I feel privilidged to be able to sit in this
> room with a computer and a dedicated lan and nice warm blankets on my
> bed.
You feel simply Superior.
> But "sloganish imbecilities" are only that if they aren't actions.
Not at all. Humans have been known to act out on their sloganish
imbecilities–and create wonders like Communism and World Wars.
> I do my best to assist people when they are there and they need help.
This is not what your e-mail was about.
> >In the best situation, humans are 'houses' of individual
> > essence. There is not ONE solution for all people.
> >
>
> Oh, I guess everyone who is starving is starving in a different way, so
> no one should be given food.
Yes, they are. Whether one should or shouldn't be given food
depends on the individual situation. And you lack the ability
to discern the latter. C'est tout. Your gesture has 50/50
chance–at least–of being murder as well as being help.
In either case you will not be responsible for the result.
Attaching lofty faux-ideas such as yours of 'compassion'
'humanity' etc. to it is ego-flatulation and delusion.
You're playing russian roulette is the lives of others.
> If my ignorance or stupidity gets hungry people fed,
It doesn't–that's what you're refusing to hear.
> or makes a
> depressed person feel better about themselves, or makes the environment
> a little cleaner, then I don't see what the problem is.
It simply doesn't. There is no such result from your actions.
> So maybe the USA never should have liberated Auschwitz because of the
> psychic vampirism involved with preventing the mass execution of Jews?
No relevance to the current subject.
More pathological pathos.
> I
> mean since the act of liberation is also an act of torture, murder and
> energetic vampirism on behalf of an American soldier, I guess the Nazis
> should have just been left to take over Europe?
Pathos-filled naivete + sloganish knee-jerks.
> I don't see why I cannot help myself while I'm recycling or giving out
> money to the guy who needs a sandwich.
That is quite different from shifting grains from silos to silos.
You keep mixing your subjects. You're not helping anything by
doing these tasks though, and a lot of the time you're doing damage.
> Didn't you say there were only 100 in the world or something as
> ridiculously fantastical?
It's hardly ridiculous, and hardly fantastical.
And if the manner of human existence proceeds as it does,
soon it will be 0. Consciousness is leaving humanity.
> >Wrap yourself in whatever delusional 'luv' propaganda you please–
> > you're neither capable of help, love, compassion, or empathy.
> >
>
> That's okay, the more important question is, are hungry people being
> fed, are less forests being destroyed, and less animals slaughtered, are
> people who suffer preventitively being helped?
No, it isn't. There is nothing 'important' about it besides in your
cultural programming. You're not capable of discerning values,
you can only assign labels according to programming.
> That's okay, the more important question is, are hungry people being
> fed, are less forests being destroyed, and less animals slaughtered, are
> people who suffer preventitively being helped?
As above. + Your pathos is idiotic + ego driven.
> Uhm, "don't project your inner impulses on to me", homeboy.
I am not, 'homeboy'. I am not you, and I don't behae + function the way
I do. YOu are the one who functions on projectile speculations.
> let's say that you're right for a minute.
I am. It's irrelevant whether you agree or not.
> Let's say a woman is ordered gang raped in Pakistan
Pathological pathos filled speculation.
> Okay, so- you win. Everyone is 100% honest with themselves. So, what's
> wrong with this picture?
Yoir myopic projection of what I wrote is not 'the picture'.
> So the people starving while we have silos of rotting food- they need to
> ask me, personally, before I even accept as a basic notion that such
> food should be distributed?
Immature mental-knee jerk.
> Like I don't even have any real say
You don't have any real say.
> in the
> matter outside of bringing it to peoples attention and curbing my own
> eating habits in order to benefit these people. Is that wrong? I
> shouldn't even raise public awareness of a very viable solution to a
> very devestating problem?
If you could raise awareness, you'd raise yours first and quickly
AWARE that there is no such thing as 'public awareness'.
'Public awareness' is mass rallying / hooking / victimizing
individual attention and arrestong psycho-sexual impulses.
> If someone doesn't eat in a week, they are going to be hungry, whether
> they are a western white male or an eastern androgynous pediatrist.
Nonsense. I have gone more than that without eating and have not felt
hungry. The human being has abilities to acquire energy in ways
other than eating.
> That's okay, the more important question is, are hungry people being
> fed, are less forests being destroyed, and less animals slaughtered, are
> people who suffer preventitively being helped?
As above. These are not 'questions'. They're pathological
speculative poses.
> So empirical help reduces humans to animals;
Oui.
> that would make the people with malaria shots "veternarians."
Mais oui.
> And the people doing aids awareness education in Africa are "animal trainers."
To a large extent yes. Of course, interaction on animal levels
is also a necessity for most humans. You're flip-flopping
because you NEED to attach 'good' or 'bad' labels to people's
behavior.
A rabbit mother taking care of its baby rabbits is not GOOD.
People helping with AIDS are not GOOD.
Neither is 'BAD' either.
> And so perhaps we should let people die of malaria, and perhaps we should not warn people about the
> threat of spreading HIV. Since, you know, they probably have a better
> chance of mastering thier ego if they are dying of malaria- closer to
> death and all. So come home, Red Cross! Your work would be better done
> if you just typed emails from your home office and sent them to random
> college kids on mailing lists!
See above. You're mentally knee-jerking. Just because it isn't good,
it doesn't mean it's bad. Youre also lumping all sorts of activities,
as if they're one, under one judgement. Idiotic + meaningless,
pathos knee-jerk pose.
> How does a person who died from malaria, genocide, aids, starvation, or
> any other preventible disease, have a better chance for conscious
> development than a living person?
Meaningless.
> You are the victim of an over valued idea.
I am neither a victim, nor subject to IDEAS, dear.
Keep your idiotic reactionary cardboard cutouts to your 'self'.
An idea which, on its own, seems perfectly reasonable and
> workable, but which, when enforced and taken to extremes, only brings
> about more suffering.
Gibberish.
> It's the folly that leads most civilizations into dust.
HAHAHA. Like you know anything about civilizations
and what governs them. IDIOT.
> Pol Pot was a classic example- "we'll have an agricultural
> utopia."
You have no ide awhat you're talking about. Pol Pot was not conscious OR
civilized.
> Or Hitler, "come on guys, we can eliminate tuberculosis!" All
> swell ideas.
Not at all. And you understand neither Hitker, nor Pol Pot.
> It's where you go with them after that leads to trouble.
Gibberish.
> Sure, that's fine with me. My question is, are hungry people being fed,
> are less forests being destroyed, and less animals slaughtered, are
> people who suffer preventitively being helped?
Gibberish.
> What's so bad about that? Even taking zen at face value, elemental bits
> are free from attatchment are they not? So I'm not suffering anymore.
Elemental bits are not 'free from attachment'.
Quit posing about as if you know anything about Zen.
> Well, if you read it, dude, that's what the chapter goes on to say. It
> just isn't as particular about the word "help" as you are. You know,
> it's called a "gray area".
I am not 'particular about the world 'help''.
Keep your myopic illiterate misinterpretations of my words to yourself.
> Well, you are talking to the guy who wrote the boy scout hand book here,
> and that wasn't me.
No, I am not. I am talking to YOU quoting the boy scout book.
The guy who wrote that book is NOT HERE, and you're being a coward
attempting t hide behind somebody else's words.
You posted it, the responsibility is YOURS.
Don't dodge, luv.
> Uhm, is this to the guy who wrote the Boy Scout Oath, or is this aimed
> at me?
You. That guy isn't here. Even though YOU may re-post things he has
written. (Or they).
> If its aimed at me then yeah, I don't think we all need kings
> robes. But it sure would be nice if everyone could be kept warm.
Gibberish.
> See the parenthesis? I'm using needless in the sense of "preventable"
I did. You're not quakified to judge 'needlessness'.
> >and you don't owe it to anyone to do your part to reduce your consumption,
> >
> >
> > I don't. Sare me your idiotic puddling 'moral judgement'.
> > What do you KNOW about MY CONSUMPTION?
> > Twit.
> >
>
> Well you don't believe that you need to reduce it
It's not a matter of BELIEF, nor have I indicated any sway in either
way (your statement is gibberish either way). I asked you: what do YOU
know about MY CONSUMPTION?
> Is the "twit" really neccesary though?
Yes. It's apropos + accurate.
> Like, that that
> really make you feel like I'm gonna be more open to you when you type
> it?
I don't behave in such manner.
> Just curious, because it's a weird way to get people to think about
> what you're saying, when you go around calling them twits.
I am not trying to get anyone to think about what I am saying.
Your judgements get more twittish by the second.
> How about we do a favor for ourselves and spare each other?
I am not you.
> If you don't misrepresent me constantly in emails to other people,
I am not misrepresenting you, luv. I am presenting you quite accurately.
> I won't waste your time correcting you
You are not capable of 'correcting' me.
> on what part of my idiocy you got wrong.
No part. Open your eyes.
> I am all
> about peaceful resolution here,
Gibberish.
> I'm 100% open to the idea that I am a
> huge idiot and asshole,
Are you?
> but it just involves that you stop mentioning me
> all the time.
Why?
> I mean, you can do it all you want, that's cool, but I'll
> correct
You're not capable of correcting me. You will try to convince me of a
delusional point of view that doesnt exist though.
> you until you at least understand my moronic point of view in
> detail,
I understand your point of view. It's just not what you think it is.
You have none. You're a bunch of knee-jerking mechanisms.
> which seems like a waste of your time
Spare me your pathetic condescending knee-jerk pose, baby.
>[since you always respond- you ALWAYS respond!]
And?
> Well, you did make a statement about it, that statement is what I am
> responding to.
No, I didn't. I made no statement about 'my life' whatsoever.
> You said that my "help" of others was "spiritual greed"
> or whatever,
Because it is. And this is unrelated to 'my life'.
> I'm saying it doesn't matter, as long as…well, I don't
> want to cut and paste it again.
Yes, it does. What you do is murder.
> >>Your juvenile misinterpretations of what I write,
> >>
>
> Seems a common thing among rhizome list members-
And many other humans. Most in fact.
> perhaps you need to
> find a more suitable way of getting your message across.
No, I don't. Nor are you qualified to judge what and how I do it.
Avoid attempting to 'suggest' to me how I should behave, ape.
> Is "idiotic" an insult?
Not in this case.
> Is "Twit?"
Not in this case.
> Because you had me convinced
You convinced yourself.
> that you don't attack people or participate in flame wars.
I don't. Usage of those words doesn't qualify either.
More pathetic internal impulse knee-jerks.
> I had a feeling that maybe you were wrong,
i am not 'wrong' dear–and your 'feeling' is little but a debasing
knee-jerk impulse.
> but you seemed so sure.
I am not 'sure' luv. i am correct.
> But now it just feels like
> "idiotic" is an insult, like, an attack, you know?
That's your own personal problem.
> Just my thinkin'.
Indeed.
> I leave the "g" off because it is not a real form of thought like you
> have. The same way McDonalds makes a "Chik'n" sandwich as opposed to a
> "chicken" one, I have "thinkin" while smart guys like you get the "g"
> [also the first word in gift, because I am giving it to you. Notice
> "giving" has the real g, too, as opposed to " givin' " ? That's cuz it's
> genuine gift- of which I have multitudes! ]
Gibberish.
`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Joseph Franklyn McElroy Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist] wrote:
> More like trying to avoid packing and moving for the last couple of weeks, its
> such a pain in the ass.
If you make 6-7 digitz, hire someone :)
`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42
At 11:09 PM 9/24/2002 -0700, -IID42 Kandinskij @27+ wrote:
>http://macdrew.physics.umd.edu/bruegel/triumph-of-death.jpg
Now that is funny.
Just when I was starting to feel depressed.
> … it's a function of the ego to be defended
> at all costs, and its defense saps its carriers energies.
Evidently true.
If what I do is motivated by ego, then my decision to get rid of ego is
also motivated by ego, as in "I would be a 'better' person if I got rid of
this annoying ego", which brings me right back to ego (and then I can
publish a self-help book). Seems that to end the energy drain requires
letting go, while I am trained to hold on.
Time for another cigarette.
mark
[email protected]
Quoting napier <[email protected]>:
> publish a self-help book). Seems that to end the energy drain requires
> letting go, while I am trained to hold on.
You mean I got to "let go my ego"
Time for a waffle break.
–
Joseph Franklyn McElroy
Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, napier wrote:
> >http://macdrew.physics.umd.edu/bruegel/triumph-of-death.jpg
>
> Now that is funny.
>
> Just when I was starting to feel depressed.
Isn't it though? Lovely.
> > … it's a function of the ego to be defended
> > at all costs, and its defense saps its carriers energies.
>
> Evidently true.
>
> If what I do is motivated by ego,
It's not 'motivated'–the ego has no motives.
> then my decision to get rid of ego is also motivated by ego,
If you make a 'decision'–yes. But there are ways to
'command' yourself outside of the ego, and also ways you
can force your ego to trick itself–about as good as this
'tricking' mind-games go.
> as in "I would be a 'better' person if I got rid of this annoying ego",
Oh dear. I'm not sure how/if that impression came along?
It's not about 'being a better person' at all.
But you're correct in the statement that such a decision
would lead nowhere, as being a 'better person' is a desire
of the ego (and so is a better world, for that matter–
hence my other comments to Eryk Salvaggio).
Reminds me of nuns who seek Jesus for various silly
purposes (being known as a famous nun, becoming a saint,
getting a 'private audience' with Jesus, and a slew of others).
And let's not start with the Zen monks and that famous Mount Koya.
Always brightens my day to read such silliness.
> which brings me right back to ego (and then I can publish a self-help
> book).
Or a Zen book :) You'll make more money that way :)
> Seems that to end the energy drain requires
> letting go, while I am trained to hold on.
Certainly. I don't remember caring about being a better person
when it happened, and I still don't care about it.
Hence my repeated statements that value is not a 'comparative'
exercise :)
> Time for another cigarette.
And thence the angels sing.
`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42
Hi Mark,
Getting rid of the ego - is I believe a false action or idea. To acquaint
personal problems or certain ideologies/attitudes to be caused just by
having an ego; is a decoy. The so called unhealthy dominance of the ego and
what problems arise because of it; cannot be removed by emotional or
psychological surgery. In fact, the double bluff syndrome of extricating the
'devil ego', will also remove personal judgment on important issues that
could need answers from ones interior self or selves, depending on which
psychology is being purported or read at the time. Instead we need a gradual
disintegration of the idea of what the ego really is, to many ego is just a
word, an abstract thing that holds no image for imaginary definition.
Therefore it can be lost in the psychotic realms of other abstract words
such as depression. The image of depression is commonly recognised as a
cloud, this declares no clarity thus gets all caught up with other hazy
emotional traps. Also accepting the ego as a singular offers the illusion
that it is an object when really such a thing is more of a fluid and
grounded multiplicity of styles, rhetorics, and drives, part of thickening
texture of interior life. The externalization of the ego is more the issue,
how one deals with communicating with others via it, and how to be aware of
its usage at the time. We all slip up, denial and ignorance to cover up
vulnerabilities hides the ego even further, causing confusion for others and
ones self. If I was to be asked label what the ego was, I would (flippantly)
term it as a multifaceted layer of psychic clothing, a type of amour and
filter receiving and sending signals.
Much religion and state appropriated institutional groupings have
traditionally supported the insecurity of the ego unconsciously, mainly by
default; soothing the drift between ones severed link from the embryo/womb
right up to day to day existence. Freud had fixed categories (human nature,
society) and determinism which sat well next to the socialist theory of
Marx. Recent trends in the western world has emphasized the notion of
goal-seeking. And yes, I believe that there is a valid case of the
individual against societal dominance over the masses, whether it be
despotic, religious or corporate. Max Stirner wrote an interesting piece
about this a while back.
"Every State is a despotism, be the despot one or many," he declared.
Stirner's opponents dismissed his views as selfishness, but he observed
that individualism is hated because it makes individuals sovereign and
seeks strict limits on government power: "The own will of Me is the
State's destroyer; it is therefore branded by the State as 'self will.'"
Stirner displayed awesome insight when he attacked communism, then in its
infancy: "loudly as it always attacks the 'State', what it intends is
itself again a State … a sovereign power over me."
THE EGO AND HIS OWN: The Case of the Individual Against Authority
by Max Stirner
http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/stirner/theego0.html
marc
> At 11:09 PM 9/24/2002 -0700, -IID42 Kandinskij @27+ wrote:
>
> >http://macdrew.physics.umd.edu/bruegel/triumph-of-death.jpg
>
> Now that is funny.
>
> Just when I was starting to feel depressed.
>
> > … it's a function of the ego to be defended
> > at all costs, and its defense saps its carriers energies.
>
> Evidently true.
>
> If what I do is motivated by ego, then my decision to get rid of ego is
> also motivated by ego, as in "I would be a 'better' person if I got rid of
> this annoying ego", which brings me right back to ego (and then I can
> publish a self-help book). Seems that to end the energy drain requires
> letting go, while I am trained to hold on.
>
> Time for another cigarette.
>
> mark
>
>
>
> [email protected]
>
> + Barbarians at the XOR-gate
> -> 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
>
>
Reminds me of Afghanistan…
marc
> On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, napier wrote:
>
> > >http://macdrew.physics.umd.edu/bruegel/triumph-of-death.jpg
> >
> > Now that is funny.
> >
> > Just when I was starting to feel depressed.
>
> Isn't it though? Lovely.
>
> > > … it's a function of the ego to be defended
> > > at all costs, and its defense saps its carriers energies.
> >
> > Evidently true.
> >
> > If what I do is motivated by ego,
>
> It's not 'motivated'–the ego has no motives.
>
> > then my decision to get rid of ego is also motivated by ego,
>
> If you make a 'decision'–yes. But there are ways to
> 'command' yourself outside of the ego, and also ways you
> can force your ego to trick itself–about as good as this
> 'tricking' mind-games go.
>
> > as in "I would be a 'better' person if I got rid of this annoying ego",
>
> Oh dear. I'm not sure how/if that impression came along?
> It's not about 'being a better person' at all.
> But you're correct in the statement that such a decision
> would lead nowhere, as being a 'better person' is a desire
> of the ego (and so is a better world, for that matter–
> hence my other comments to Eryk Salvaggio).
>
> Reminds me of nuns who seek Jesus for various silly
> purposes (being known as a famous nun, becoming a saint,
> getting a 'private audience' with Jesus, and a slew of others).
>
> And let's not start with the Zen monks and that famous Mount Koya.
>
> Always brightens my day to read such silliness.
>
> > which brings me right back to ego (and then I can publish a self-help
> > book).
>
> Or a Zen book :) You'll make more money that way :)
>
> > Seems that to end the energy drain requires
> > letting go, while I am trained to hold on.
>
> Certainly. I don't remember caring about being a better person
> when it happened, and I still don't care about it.
>
> Hence my repeated statements that value is not a 'comparative'
> exercise :)
>
>
> > Time for another cigarette.
>
> And thence the angels sing.
>
>
> `, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42
>
> + Barbarians at the XOR-gate
> -> 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
>
>
At 12:30 AM 9/26/2002 -0700, -IID42 Kandinskij @27+ wrote:
> > as in "I would be a 'better' person if I got rid of this annoying ego",
>
> Oh dear. I'm not sure how/if that impression came along?
> It's not about 'being a better person' at all.
True.
> > which brings me right back to ego (and then I can publish a self-help
> > book).
>
> Or a Zen book :) You'll make more money that way :)
And be much more fashionable too.
> > Time for another cigarette.
>
> And thence the angels sing.
:-))
mark
[email protected]
Nap-Dog!
Sin taxes and sin products are too prevalent, due to the ease with which we
can manipulate people's weaknesses for money. Are we all so addicted to
such mutual enslavement that there is no path up and out? No. Not at all.
Never put the dog before the pony, I say.
The grandest generation, ahoy.
Max
>From: napier <[email protected]>
>Reply-To: napier <[email protected]>
>To: "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <[email protected]>,
><[email protected]>
>Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: cigarette break
>Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 00:19:54 -0400
>
>At 11:09 PM 9/24/2002 -0700, -IID42 Kandinskij @27+ wrote:
>
>>http://macdrew.physics.umd.edu/bruegel/triumph-of-death.jpg
>
>Now that is funny.
>
>Just when I was starting to feel depressed.
>
> > … it's a function of the ego to be defended
> > at all costs, and its defense saps its carriers energies.
>
>Evidently true.
>
>If what I do is motivated by ego, then my decision to get rid of ego is
>also motivated by ego, as in "I would be a 'better' person if I got rid of
>this annoying ego", which brings me right back to ego (and then I can
>publish a self-help book). Seems that to end the energy drain requires
>letting go, while I am trained to hold on.
>
>Time for another cigarette.
>
>mark
>
>
>
>[email protected]
>
>+ Barbarians at the XOR-gate
>-> 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
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
At 01:32 PM 9/26/2002 -0700, -IID42 Kandinskij @27+ wrote:
>On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Eryk Salvaggio wrote:
> > A good action can be a concrete action where intentions don't count,
>
> No, it cannot. A good action involves always INTENT (not intentions)
> and CONSCIOUSNESS. ALl else is mechanical.
????
What is INTENT then, if it is not "intentions"?
mark
[email protected]
On Fri, 27 Sep 2002, napier wrote:
> > No, it cannot. A good action involves always INTENT (not intentions)
> > and CONSCIOUSNESS. ALl else is mechanical.
>
> ????
>
> What is INTENT then, if it is not "intentions"?
>
> mark
Don't you think that if I meant intentions I would have used that word?
I'm not sure if you're asking a real question or simply being 'lexical'.
On Fri, 27 Sep 2002, Max Herman wrote:
> It's the Kantian "good volition," basic modernist idea.
Um, no it's not a modernist idea at all.
Though what you're describing is an attempt of 'modernism'
to get at what I wrote. In general intentions are 'calculations'
of the brain. Intent isn't verbal, or language connected,
or brain-related at all.
`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42
At 02:02 PM 9/27/2002 -0700, -IID42 Kandinskij @27+ wrote:
>On Fri, 27 Sep 2002, napier wrote:
> > What is INTENT then, if it is not "intentions"?
>
> Don't you think that if I meant intentions I would have used that word?
>
> I'm not sure if you're asking a real question or simply being 'lexical'.
I don't understand what you mean by intent.
I think of "intent" as a focus on some thing or action, and that my intent
has a "direction" towards a specific result. It seems to me that you
distinguished intent from any specific result.
I can't remember any time in my life that I've acted with intent, but had
no intentions. Not even sure how I would do that.
mark
[email protected]
On Fri, 27 Sep 2002, [iso-8859-1] eyescratch
>From: napier
>
>At 01:32 PM 9/26/2002 -0700, -IID42 Kandinskij @27+ wrote:
>>On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Eryk Salvaggio wrote:
>> > A good action can be a concrete action where intentions don't count,
>>
>> No, it cannot. A good action involves always INTENT (not intentions)
>> and CONSCIOUSNESS. ALl else is mechanical.
>
>????
>
>What is INTENT then, if it is not "intentions"?
>
>mark
It's the Kantian "good volition," basic modernist idea. Intent would be
paint, intentions being paintings; modeling v. models, Max v. Museums,
consciousness v. lucky rabbits' feet.
It's all coming clear to me now!
"If you want me to stay, I'll be around today"
Max
++
>
>
>
>[email protected]
>
>+ AFK, tornado
>-> 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
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
http://macdrew.physics.umd.edu/bruegel/big-little-fishes.jpg
thoughts are put out one by one. turn a page and take a drag.
in the ashtray lies your metaphor, running up the slope.
A 6:56 PM -0700 le 9/26/02, -IID42 Kandinskij @27+ a ecrit:
>
> More like you're starved for attention.
–
> ``` <0B@@$ggG%3^`
> `C%%G%%3Vg@@$gG00G/%8g8^
> :C8888Gg83VC3G0@@@@@@88%80G8GV
> (@@$Gg88%CCCGg$BB00@@@@@$8Gg$0B0$@0
> X0@@0BBB00ggg8G8$$B0gg08$@@@$8g0000$$C`
> ($00@BBg000gB0B$0880BB0$$@@@@@@gGggg0B$G
> <@@$$$g000000$@$$0000B00$$%$@@@@@g$$0g0$$8
> X@@@B$$$$@@@@@@$0B$$BBBB0( ^VGB$B$@@@@$$@(^
> G@@$$0B$@@@@@@BBBB@@@@@0B8` `/B@@@@@@@$@G%^%3
> <@@@$BB$@@@@@$@@@@@@@@@@$BC X$@@@@@@@@$8g@$
> ^B@$$$B@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@BC `VgB@@@@@@$@@@^
> ~@$0$@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@$0C. </GB$@@@@@@@
> @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@XC` ^8gG@@@@
> @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@$@B/(3G0$BGCX` ~8$g88/$@@@
> @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@3. V8G80@@@08/<` ^(33< g@@0
> @@$$@@@@@@@@@@@@@@$` <^` ^(<<<^ ^^^~ <VV g@@^
> @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@$8 ^.` (<V@@$((<` ^VCX^@@$.C@0`
> @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@0` `^~gB%<X@@@/ << /( @V
> (@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@0^ ^< ^
> %@@@@@@@@@@@@@@V `
> .@@@@@@@@@@@@@%`^ >Yes, i like it!
> B@@@@@@@@@@0(.^^` ^^
> :$@@@$$0$@V< .^^^.. ^</XX$0<(8%
> 3@@@@3%%^` ^^^`.` ^ :3G@0C/G3
> `@@@@@@ ` `^^ `^~<` `.
> $@@@@@^ ` `^<<.```^` <VV<<XV^
> 0@@@@@B`````` ^<^^`^<C@@@@$@@@@@$8:^
> /@@@@@@C`~~.`` `~~`.<X0g0BB0GCX/^^^^
> <@@@@8`(/<<((^^^.^``^^<XV3G3GC< ~^
> `0@$3 <///((((^^^`^~^^<<(/(<^`^^
> ` `^((<//(/(<<<^ `^^^<</:
> ` `^<//(((<<//////XXV33/
> 3X^ `^///XC33333CC3CCVV^`
> ^:///(/(//^ ^~<(/VC%%%33CV/` ``/X
> `<(((((:((((/VVCVVCC//^^<:(((((<^^ V%<^
> (((<<<<<<<:::(((((////C3CVVC3X////////((<<::<`
> N!C3 S!MULC4ST STR34M!!! hTTp://share.ffem.org
Kandinskij definitely knows what "saving the world" is about, and what it
isn't about, and this post says it pretty friggy well.
Question is, have we gotten these ideas too late, no answer to that one.
"Vale of soul-making" and possible futures, disasters, you name it, we're in
it. The soup!
>From: "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <[email protected]>
>Reply-To: "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <[email protected]>
>To: napier <[email protected]>
>CC: <[email protected]>
>Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: cigarette break
>Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 22:42:01 -0700 (PDT)
>
>On Fri, 27 Sep 2002, napier wrote:
>
> > > I'm not sure if you're asking a real question or simply being
>'lexical'.
> >
> > I don't understand what you mean by intent.
> >
> > I think of "intent" as a focus on some thing or action, and that my
>intent
> > has a "direction" towards a specific result. It seems to me that you
> > distinguished intent from any specific result.
>
> Yep. I do. As you describe, focus on some thing is 'fixation' or
> 'attachment'. Intent, on the other hand is, non-verbal and abstract
> without an 'objectified' goal. When I say abstract I don't mean
> that in a 'conceptual' 'brain-thinking' or 'mathematical or
> 'vague' way, however.
>
> Apropos this, it is a bit like listening-proper and alignment
> with 'universal intent' (esoteric martial arts proper, esp.
> aikido) (and one does with the whole of the body, not just brain).
> When one achieves alignment with this 'universal intent'
> then and only then can one do what one really 'desires'.
> This is the proper meaning of being 'of service'–
> rather than being servile, a slave, or servant to other
> humans. The notion that one needs to be a 'servant to
> humanity' is sheer idiocy because proper alignment with intent
> (and this following of orders proper) causes that the being
> can develop and do its service universally, and that nat.
> extends to humanity. This is vastly fucked up by
> faux christianity. In such a state humans are 'receivers'
> or (non-gender females) (regardless of sexual prefs. which
> is another story).
>
> Certain individuals, with proper + continued work of certain_
> are 'given' 'will'–on which I don't care to explain much
> except for the following: rather than being only dancers to intent,
> they begin to gradually understand and master the 'force' which is
> intent (ie, become non-gender males). At that stage they get the
> capability to co-write their own life-stories–and also the ability
> to –properly' direct others, as part of 'mastery of intent as will'
> is the ability to attune to the 'intent' intended for another
> and aid the respective attunement of that being to its intent.
> In this case you have putting the will 'in service' of another being
> (only one example)–and these humans are capable of being teachers
> proper.
>
> > I can't remember any time in my life that I've acted with intent, but
>had
> > no intentions.
>
> That's likely true, though I don't know your life.
>
> > Not even sure how I would do that.
>
> Is that a question? :)
>
>+ AFK, tornado
>-> 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
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
On Fri, 27 Sep 2002, napier wrote:
> > I'm not sure if you're asking a real question or simply being 'lexical'.
>
> I don't understand what you mean by intent.
>
> I think of "intent" as a focus on some thing or action, and that my intent
> has a "direction" towards a specific result. It seems to me that you
> distinguished intent from any specific result.
Yep. I do. As you describe, focus on some thing is 'fixation' or
'attachment'. Intent, on the other hand is, non-verbal and abstract
without an 'objectified' goal. When I say abstract I don't mean
that in a 'conceptual' 'brain-thinking' or 'mathematical or
'vague' way, however.
Apropos this, it is a bit like listening-proper and alignment
with 'universal intent' (esoteric martial arts proper, esp.
aikido) (and one does with the whole of the body, not just brain).
When one achieves alignment with this 'universal intent'
then and only then can one do what one really 'desires'.
This is the proper meaning of being 'of service'–
rather than being servile, a slave, or servant to other
humans. The notion that one needs to be a 'servant to
humanity' is sheer idiocy because proper alignment with intent
(and this following of orders proper) causes that the being
can develop and do its service universally, and that nat.
extends to humanity. This is vastly fucked up by
faux christianity. In such a state humans are 'receivers'
or (non-gender females) (regardless of sexual prefs. which
is another story).
Certain individuals, with proper + continued work of certain_
are 'given' 'will'–on which I don't care to explain much
except for the following: rather than being only dancers to intent,
they begin to gradually understand and master the 'force' which is
intent (ie, become non-gender males). At that stage they get the
capability to co-write their own life-stories–and also the ability
to –properly' direct others, as part of 'mastery of intent as will'
is the ability to attune to the 'intent' intended for another
and aid the respective attunement of that being to its intent.
In this case you have putting the will 'in service' of another being
(only one example)–and these humans are capable of being teachers
proper.
> I can't remember any time in my life that I've acted with intent, but had
> no intentions.
That's likely true, though I don't know your life.
> Not even sure how I would do that.
Is that a question? :)
>From: "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <[email protected]>
>To: Max Herman <[email protected]>
>CC: <[email protected]>
>Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: cigarette break
>Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 17:46:24 -0700 (PDT)
>
>On Fri, 27 Sep 2002, Max Herman wrote:
>
> > It's the Kantian "good volition," basic modernist idea.
Why did I say Modernist? It's Enlightenment. I'm an idiot.
>
> Um, no it's not a modernist idea at all.
> Though what you're describing is an attempt of 'modernism'
> to get at what I wrote. In general intentions are 'calculations'
> of the brain. Intent isn't verbal, or language connected,
> or brain-related at all.
Truly. The brain is not as important as all the hormones and stuff,
consciousness proper IS distributed throughout the body viz-a-viz genius and
genius 2000, and yes I use my brain far too much than justifies the energy.
Kandinskij is providing an excellent free series of informative posts, so
for that I say–Thanks!
Anyone following the Thing.Net anti-war deal? What's going on?
Alive or Dead is the title, correct?
>
>
>`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
At 10:42 PM 9/27/2002 -0700, -IID42 Kandinskij @27+ wrote:
>On Fri, 27 Sep 2002, napier wrote:
> > I can't remember any time in my life that I've acted with intent, but had
> > no intentions.
>
> That's likely true, though I don't know your life.
>
> > Not even sure how I would do that.
>
> Is that a question? :)
:-)
Yes and no. My knee-jerk reaction is to want to know how intent "works",
how I would "do" that. But in my brief experience with Aikido and Tai Chi,
I realized that this type of learning doesn't happen quickly, if at
all. It's not a matter of "doing" something in the way I'm familiar with,
so cannot be easily explained.
mark
[email protected]
On Sat, 28 Sep 2002, Max Herman wrote:
> Question is, have we gotten these ideas too late, no answer to that one.
These 'ideas' have been 'known' to 'some' for centuries; some have
in fact, attempted to work 'with' this situation, and those were the
origins of esotericism proper–not the fashionable spawns of the
past couple of centuries–and certainly not the 'controversial'
'underground' 'covert' 'hiddent' 'occult' 'theosophical' idiots
who read some pamphlets & booklets about this or that 'esoteric'
subject, and then make 'art' about it. And not to forget that favorite
of art world–alchemy. Nevermind that one must be a very HIGHLY
EVOLVED being to do alchemy; every Joe Schmoe is doing it.
Is this democracy, communism, or simply shit?
> "Vale of soul-making" and possible futures, disasters, you name it,
> we're in it. The soup!
Sure are. And you don't have much time left to get your shit together.
You have a 'last chance' even–as far as I was able to discern.
After that, it's animal state for ALL. Totalische Demokrazie.
And that's where your pseudo-qualified 'leaders' are driving ya to–
be them politicians, or artists, or musicians, or writers, or
professors–and they train them to be just like them when you grow up,
and society rewards it generally.
Das kasch.machine: if you run this way, support the right causes,
do the right thing, respect and be well-mannered, paint in the right
colors, spread the right memes, subscribe to the right zines,
galleries, museums, music labels, shops, internet providers-,
read the intelligent books,–ah yeah. FIGHT FOR ALL RIGHT CAUSES–
except the one that is valid.
`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42
On Sat, 28 Sep 2002, Max Herman wrote:
> Why did I say Modernist? It's Enlightenment. I'm an idiot.
Enlightenment. Now there's a bru-ha-ha responsible largely for
the state-of-shit humans are in. Objectively so.
> Truly. The brain is not as important as all the hormones and stuff,
> consciousness proper IS distributed throughout the body viz-a-viz genius and
> genius 2000, and yes I use my brain far too much than justifies the energy.
And that's encouraged–in fact, humans construct a society
in which the OVERUSe and INAPPROPRIATE use of brain is marketed
as intelligence–and the resulting deformation of the human being
are being laudated as 'individuality'. Must be nice.
You are all individuals. Individually crippled, and totally
unique.
And UNIQUE people get to 'shine'–in whatever areas.
GO!GO!GO!
Every man and woman is a star, and it tells you so
from your TV, the ads in the stores, on your coffee cup,
your CD player, and if you're God-Blessed to live in the states,
it says so in the constitution.
On Sun, 29 Sep 2002, napier wrote:
> Yes and no. My knee-jerk reaction is to want to know
To want to know if genuine, without back-end 'motivations'
is not a knee-jerk reaction, is an impulse proper.
> how intent "works", how I would "do" that.
You would do that?! :) Intent does you, you_ cannot 'do' intent :)
Even if one is lucky to be a master of intent, intent belongs
to an 'area' which is not merely 'unknown' it's unknowable.
Knowledge is an instrument that gets one only this far.
That doesn't excuse anyone from talking 'this far' however,
and I see many who have read something similar about knowledge,
and declare themseves 'not interested in knowing' hence
'at the end of the way' hence 'masters'.
> But in my brief experience with Aikido and Tai Chi, I realized that
> this type of learning
What type of learning? It is many types. Does it occur in yor idea of
time?! One of the properties of conscious work, is that the human
being has the ability to control and dilate time–that is, in two
years you may live as much as 50 'years' worth of life. Certain parts
of the learning take place 'outside of time' altogether, so ?
Some things do take time–but those are with regards to events
subject to physical laws only. Conscious development has other
relation to physical laws than those trapped inside physical reality
only.
> doesn't happen quickly,
It can happen very quickly. In fact, the 'not happening quickly' way is
the way of the teacher-student (guru) (religion proper) etc. etc.
Often this is used as subjugation / arresting of the development
of consciousness. The buddhic doctrine of reincarnation is one such
arresting + controlling spiritual exerciz.
The 'direct' path is 'quick' and it only takes one lifetime.
It is the 'oath' relevant to humans to-day ina real_ sense of to-day.
(the time that is outside of 'physical illusion' time).
> if at all.
For some, it was not meang to be. This is also exploited in eastern
doctrines.
> It's not a matter of "doing" something in the way I'm familiar with,
> so cannot be easily explained.
That would be correct.
>On Sun, 29 Sep 2002, napier wrote:
>
> > Yes and no. My knee-jerk reaction is to want to know
>
> To want to know if genuine, without back-end 'motivations'
> is not a knee-jerk reaction, is an impulse proper.
>
Karei is consistent here, no horsefeathers I can see.
> > how intent "works", how I would "do" that.
>
> You would do that?! :) Intent does you, you_ cannot 'do' intent :)
This is the cruxusfluxen (geniusflow) of what Karei says, and it is indeed
true. Think "feel the Force Luke" for a cheap ez cliche about it.
> Even if one is lucky to be a master of intent, intent belongs
> to an 'area' which is not merely 'unknown' it's unknowable.
> Knowledge is an instrument that gets one only this far.
> That doesn't excuse anyone from talking 'this far' however,
> and I see many who have read something similar about knowledge,
> and declare themseves 'not interested in knowing' hence
> 'at the end of the way' hence 'masters'.
Nicely put. A Nintendo Master is not a master of intent, but a pawn of
others' intentions. "There is an inner logic, and we're taught to stay far
from it"–Bad Religion
>
> > But in my brief experience with Aikido and Tai Chi, I realized that
> > this type of learning
>
> What type of learning? It is many types. Does it occur in yor idea of
> time?! One of the properties of conscious work, is that the human
> being has the ability to control and dilate time–that is, in two
> years you may live as much as 50 'years' worth of life. Certain parts
> of the learning take place 'outside of time' altogether, so ?
Like Neo in the Matrix, he learns Jujitsu real fast. I've intented my own
combat style for tall adversaries, emphasizing elbows, knees, and vital
points.
>
> Some things do take time–but those are with regards to events
> subject to physical laws only. Conscious development has other
> relation to physical laws than those trapped inside physical reality
> only.
>
> > doesn't happen quickly,
>
> It can happen very quickly. In fact, the 'not happening quickly' way is
> the way of the teacher-student (guru) (religion proper) etc. etc.
> Often this is used as subjugation / arresting of the development
> of consciousness. The buddhic doctrine of reincarnation is one such
> arresting + controlling spiritual exerciz.
Karei is fun and enriching to hear from. I was wondering if you had any
thoughts on the movie "Interview with the Vampire" Karei. Also, my
ruminations have been that if global capital is a living being, it's sort of
an omni-viral medium? Like a living tabula rasa, in that vein?
Subjugation, arrest, and termination are necessary in any system intended to
continue under hazardous conditions? I'm pondering the internality of "the
Revolution" as David Ross put it. I have cruxial confusions regarding that
one.
>
> The 'direct' path is 'quick' and it only takes one lifetime.
> It is the 'oath' relevant to humans to-day ina real_ sense of to-day.
Solution sweet. Eryk called it "no more grace periods." I call it "the
broken tooth dilemma." JK/SS, i.e., "Just Kidding/Stay Sweet," the
venerable USA yearbook-signing gesture of superficial amity.
> (the time that is outside of 'physical illusion' time).
>
> > if at all.
>
> For some, it was not meang to be. This is also exploited in eastern
> doctrines.
Exploitation is often mere expedience? The path of least resistance?
>
> > It's not a matter of "doing" something in the way I'm familiar with,
> > so cannot be easily explained.
>
> That would be correct.
Excellent post here, two minds in congress. A fine case of rough love
yielding handsome progeny.
>
>+ Well this is thoroughly depressing
>-> 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
_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
On Sun, 6 Oct 2002, Max Herman wrote:
> > You would do that?! :) Intent does you, you_ cannot 'do' intent :)
>
> This is the cruxusfluxen (geniusflow) of what Karei says, and it is indeed
> true. Think "feel the Force Luke" for a cheap ez cliche about it.
No. Cheap cliches are not the same as what I say.
You do that quite often by the way, and don't take that as a personal
insult, however:
think of words as energetic packages (like presents);
one must have a certain ability to unpack and also the force
(energy) to do so (true literacy);
you're attempting to replace what I say with something
that 'seems' more familiar–and this is one of the largest crimes
of 'contemporary culture'–to displace actual content
with empty kitsch cliches–thusly perpetuating
the leading of humans to exactly nowhere
hence one runs around inside one's brains like a rat
in other aspects the proper function of written word in a very old
fashioned way (of which english currently taught according to standard
school education is incapable) is to lead the audience somewhere
by replacing the package with a false cheap version you lose it all
and stay within the already programmed illusion
unfortunately all are currently taught to 'manipulate' language
on this superficial level–which is neither WRITTEN nor ORAL
and thoroughly meaningless
it's a new trick, and yer all invited–and the best trick performers
'win prizes'
> I've intented my own combat style for tall adversaries, emphasizing
> elbows, knees, and vital points.
Doubtful that. One needs to be a master before 'inventing'
'combat styles.' The most you can invent is butchery,
and like all butchery, you must damage yourself twice as much
before getting to your opponent–and still an intelligent
opponent will still be unscathed.
Not to mention that martial arts exported to the West are in no two-
ways minded towards teaching westerners self-destructive techniques.
The japanese are not 'immune' to the 'watch the foreign monkey slip on a
banana peel type of 'ironic humor'' and hey it makes money too.
Every man his own football.
> Karei is fun and enriching to hear from. I was wondering if you had any
> thoughts on the movie "Interview with the Vampire" Karei.
Don't have much to say besides that Anne Rice exploits a certain
sub-culture of the US, and subsequently is exploited by Hollywood,
and altogether is a deraery affair, trying to be the Vatican and
failing. Not an ounce of actual understanding or insight + abusing
the average human's attraction to things appearing 'evil'
and 'secret' and 'power-politicks' and 'magick'.
> Also, my ruminations have been that if global capital is a
> living being, it's sort of an omni-viral medium?
'Omni-viral'? I can't see how viruses have anything to do with it,
but maybe you could clarify what you're trying to say.
My guess is that you're using a memetics-model, and I can't 'comply'
as memetics is as faulty as a Sunday Mass.
> Like a living tabula rasa, in that vein?
> > The 'direct' path is 'quick' and it only takes one lifetime.
> > It is the 'oath' relevant to humans to-day ina real_ sense of to-day.
>
> Solution sweet. Eryk called it "no more grace periods." I call it "the
> broken tooth dilemma." JK/SS, i.e., "Just Kidding/Stay Sweet," the
> venerable USA yearbook-signing gesture of superficial amity.
Not relevant in amore than a superficial way.
> > (the time that is outside of 'physical illusion' time).
> >
> > > if at all.
> >
> > For some, it was not meang to be. This is also exploited in eastern
> > doctrines.
>
> Exploitation is often mere expedience? The path of least resistance?
No, exploitation is something else. Humans are just 'not nice'–
and have used ways to murder each other spiritually for ages.
Think about purposefully misleading an unconscious being, so it spends
its life blithering about–and at the moment of death it catches a
glimpse of Truth with the realization IT IS TOO LATE.
Watch the ape slip on that banana peel–it's so.. ironic.
Hilarious. A bit like laughing at children who can't go to the bathroom
really, or teaching them that the 'right' thing to do is to pee in their
pants, and then 'laughing at their stupidity'.
Humanity as is is quite the hideous beast–even if it is because they
don't know any better. A blind Demi-Urge, at its best. As they have
carried on 'sowing'–there will be the 'reaping'.
And every thing that can know knows it– I have heard trees weep about
it, and truly sadly is that humans are the only one 'oblivious' to it.
In a real sense. Not just as 'yet-another phrase-to stick in one's
brain'.
I was hoping for a good post from Karei, and here one is! I like it anyway
I mean. Less real oui, comme Mme. D'Elves je pense. Alors! Ecoutez.
>From: "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <[email protected]>
>To: Max Herman <[email protected]>
>CC: <[email protected]>
>Subject: Re: RHIZOME\_RAW: cigarette break
>Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 10:07:29 -0700 (PDT)
>
>On Sun, 6 Oct 2002, Max Herman wrote:
>
> > > You would do that?! :) Intent does you, you\_ cannot 'do' intent :)
> >
> > This is the cruxusfluxen (geniusflow) of what Karei says, and it is
>indeed
> > true. Think "feel the Force Luke" for a cheap ez cliche about it.
>
> No. Cheap cliches are not the same as what I say.
> You do that quite often by the way, and don't take that as a personal
> insult, however:
None taken. A friend said "you can't force the force, or can you" a couple
weeks ago, meaning to me no you can't but it's hard to know why you can't.
He's on a lot of psychotropics but he's not worthless totally at all, he's a
helluva kid. Certainly the tale of Luke Sidewalker neglects the holy
demands of not forcing the force, so my ref to the cliche was ill.
>
> think of words as energetic packages (like presents);
> one must have a certain ability to unpack and also the force
> (energy) to do so (true literacy);
Sweet god I know this is true, and well said.
>
> you're attempting to replace what I say with something
> that 'seems' more familiar–and this is one of the largest crimes
> of 'contemporary culture'–to displace actual content
> with empty kitsch cliches–thusly perpetuating
> the leading of humans to exactly nowhere
I had hoped to allude to the crime as I simplify for and patronize others.
Like a pelican. It is sloppy and poorly driven, yes.
>
> hence one runs around inside one's brains like a rat
>
I had a nice talk about the torso-area chakra today.
> in other aspects the proper function of written word in a very old
> fashioned way (of which english currently taught according to standard
> school education is incapable) is to lead the audience somewhere
>
> by replacing the package with a false cheap version you lose it all
> and stay within the already programmed illusion
Verily.
>
> unfortunately all are currently taught to 'manipulate' language
> on this superficial level–which is neither WRITTEN nor ORAL
> and thoroughly meaningless
>
> it's a new trick, and yer all invited–and the best trick performers
> 'win prizes'
I have tried not to blame others too much about this situation.
>
> > I've intented my own combat style for tall adversaries, emphasizing
> > elbows, knees, and vital points.
>
> Doubtful that. One needs to be a master before 'inventing'
> 'combat styles.' The most you can invent is butchery,
> and like all butchery, you must damage yourself twice as much
> before getting to your opponent–and still an intelligent
> opponent will still be unscathed.
I was being foolish in that. Entertaining myself. Imposing on others' time
perhaps. My amateur dilettante urban self-defense style has however taken
on a component of levered elbow action. Perhaps talk such as this is
masturbatory on my part. In confined quarters however I think my cobbled
style might be effective however. It's an idiotic topic perhaps for me to
dwell over. I had a bad dream last night about the woman you said I was
whoring out. It does recur. That is no excuse.
>
> Not to mention that martial arts exported to the West are in no two-
> ways minded towards teaching westerners self-destructive techniques.
> The japanese are not 'immune' to the 'watch the foreign monkey slip on a
> banana peel type of 'ironic humor'' and hey it makes money too.
>
> Every man his own football.
Perhaps our traditions of "know thyself" have lost their savor. Wherewith
shall they be salted? I get confused about it.
>
> > Karei is fun and enriching to hear from. I was wondering if you had any
> > thoughts on the movie "Interview with the Vampire" Karei.
>
> Don't have much to say besides that Anne Rice exploits a certain
> sub-culture of the US, and subsequently is exploited by Hollywood,
> and altogether is a deraery affair, trying to be the Vatican and
> failing. Not an ounce of actual understanding or insight + abusing
> the average human's attraction to things appearing 'evil'
> and 'secret' and 'power-politicks' and 'magick'.
I concur yet the film, though not worth viewing, appears to use a cheap form
of simulacra-theory. The victim can drown the lifeguard if the lifeguard
cannot escape the instinctive desperation-headlock, best done by submerging
and pressing very hard with both hands upward against the victim's arms and
escaping downward. Once freed the rescuer may return to the victim and seek
to achieve a safe hold for taking the victim to shore.
>
> > Also, my ruminations have been that if global capital is a
> > living being, it's sort of an omni-viral medium?
>
> 'Omni-viral'? I can't see how viruses have anything to do with it,
> but maybe you could clarify what you're trying to say.
> My guess is that you're using a memetics-model, and I can't 'comply'
> as memetics is as faulty as a Sunday Mass.
I know very little of memetics. Global capital might be thought of as
phlegm in which viruses tend to flourish? I am talking vague nonsense. I
have no idea what global capital is, or how it can be considered a living
being. Phlegm is not alive. I have in the past considered money to be a
dead object. If it is a living being, the incarnation of value, monstrous,
virtuous, or both, then perhaps money is God (as one tipsy gent said to me
once).
What manner of living being is global capital?
>
> > Like a living tabula rasa, in that vein?
>
> > > The 'direct' path is 'quick' and it only takes one lifetime.
> > > It is the 'oath' relevant to humans to-day ina real\_ sense of
>to-day.
I much agree with yoou here.
> >
> > Solution sweet. Eryk called it "no more grace periods." I call it "the
> > broken tooth dilemma." JK/SS, i.e., "Just Kidding/Stay Sweet," the
> > venerable USA yearbook-signing gesture of superficial amity.
>
> Not relevant in amore than a superficial way.
>
> > > (the time that is outside of 'physical illusion' time).
> > >
> > > > if at all.
> > >
> > > For some, it was not meang to be. This is also exploited in eastern
> > > doctrines.
> >
> > Exploitation is often mere expedience? The path of least resistance?
>
> No, exploitation is something else. Humans are just 'not nice'–
> and have used ways to murder each other spiritually for ages.
I often think that humans operate via torture. In John Dos Passos' story
"Power Superpower" the protagonist says "nothing breeds a dedicated
workforce like a line of men at the gate." I fear that if nothing drastic
is done, no lines other than such like will remain open. By this I mean,
salvation is inseperable from damnation. Well-fed populations are too
dangerous for us. Only by starving them can we control what they eat. This
troubles me dearly.
> Think about purposefully misleading an unconscious being, so it spends
> its life blithering about–and at the moment of death it catches a
> glimpse of Truth with the realization IT IS TOO LATE.
> Watch the ape slip on that banana peel–it's so.. ironic.
> Hilarious. A bit like laughing at children who can't go to the bathroom
> really, or teaching them that the 'right' thing to do is to pee in their
> pants, and then 'laughing at their stupidity'.
That would be shameful and disgraceful.
>
> Humanity as is is quite the hideous beast–even if it is because they
> don't know any better. A blind Demi-Urge, at its best. As they have
> carried on 'sowing'–there will be the 'reaping'.
The tyranny of the half-measure.
>
> And every thing that can know knows it– I have heard trees weep about
> it, and truly sadly is that humans are the only one 'oblivious' to it.
> In a real sense. Not just as 'yet-another phrase-to stick in one's
> brain'.
Adorno spoke of an instantaneous reconciliation with nature, but Habermas
found that to be foolish. Plus I adulate neither Jurgen nor Rice, knock on
wood.
"We were just a plain old hillbilly band
With a plain old country style.
We never played the kind of songs
That would drive anybody wild.
We had a railroad song with a stompin' beat
Had a blues song kinda slow and sweet
But the only that could move their feet was, ooey…
When Luther played the boogie
In the strangest kind of way."
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, Max Herman wrote:
> None taken. A friend said "you can't force the force, or can you" a
> couple weeks ago, meaning to me no you can't but it's hard to know why
> you can't.
You can, but you can only force it as much as it directs you to force
it. What one is is already 'written' and yet one must 'force' it.
What you cannot force is what you are not. (cf. 'I am not a sheep')
> He's on a lot of psychotropics but he's not worthless totally at all, he's a
> helluva kid. Certainly the tale of Luke Sidewalker neglects the holy
> demands of not forcing the force, so my ref to the cliche was ill.
The 'tale' of Luke Skywalker is simply a kitsch misrepresentation.
It's fake, stolen, fraudulent, exploitative, and empty.
> > think of words as energetic packages (like presents);
> > one must have a certain ability to unpack and also the force
> > (energy) to do so (true literacy);
>
> Sweet god I know this is true, and well said.
Actually you don't. Nor are you capable of understanding the
'idea' nor are you capable of unpacking–you are only familiar
with a flat + kitsch memetic substitute in the form of brain
garbage load. Reading about these things, and reading in itself
will never give one knowledge on such matters.
> > you're attempting to replace what I say with something
> > that 'seems' more familiar–and this is one of the largest crimes
> > of 'contemporary culture'–to displace actual content
> > with empty kitsch cliches–thusly perpetuating
> > the leading of humans to exactly nowhere
>
> I had hoped to allude to the crime as I simplify for and patronize others.
> Like a pelican. It is sloppy and poorly driven, yes.
Did you now? What an easy way out–I meant all of my mistakes.
> > hence one runs around inside one's brains like a rat
> >
>
> I had a nice talk about the torso-area chakra today.
And what is a torso chakra?
> > it's a new trick, and yer all invited–and the best trick performers
> > 'win prizes'
>
> I have tried not to blame others too much about this situation.
The blame thing must be a personal thing for you.
Nothing of what I wrote about or ever do write is about 'blame'.
Altogether 'blaming' is a useless exercise–though that is not
to indicate a stance of placid acceptance of anything anyone does.
> > Doubtful that. One needs to be a master before 'inventing'
> > 'combat styles.' The most you can invent is butchery,
> > and like all butchery, you must damage yourself twice as much
> > before getting to your opponent–and still an intelligent
> > opponent will still be unscathed.
>
> I was being foolish in that. Entertaining myself.
Humor is no excuse for putting one's self to sleep.
> Imposing on others' time perhaps. My amateur dilettante urban
> self-defense style has however taken on a component of levered elbow
> action. Perhaps talk such as this is masturbatory on my part. In
> confined quarters however I think my cobbled style might be effective
> however.
So would be a gun with a muffler. Ever read police reports about
people being shot with their own guns by the attacker? Improper
fighting technique always leaves you open, and you'll only 'win'
against people who're clueless. Against a real 'opponent' you won't
stand a chance. And events of 'life' are not clueless.
Nevermind that this aspect of martial arts is a current, and very
western perversion, not without eastern responsubility no less.
> It's an idiotic topic perhaps for me to dwell over. I had a bad
> dream last night about the woman you said I was whoring out. It does
> recur. That is no excuse.
Would not shocking considering you're heavily attached to the
situation still, though don't take that as more than I wrote.
And until you are attached to it, it'll drain energy from you,
and others will use it as an attack opening.
> Perhaps our traditions of "know thyself" have lost their savor.
> Wherewith shall they be salted? I get confused about it.
That would become as clear as appropriate to you, after you've
reached certain states of 'dealt with yourself'. For 'now'
the 'salting' for everyone is the awakening of their own conscience.
If you're thinking of male-line type lineages, no, there aren't going
to be any as far as I've been able to see, but rather a massive
re-addressing of female (not gender-specific) forces will have to occur.
And if it doesn't, one willhavea whole series of 'charming' female
dicators al a NN. Note that she is not +conscious+ but has example of
predator-evolving within a no-natural-predator-species (for thesake of
regulations). That she evolved into such a, instead of a conscious being
is mainly her weakness, although with a lot of contributions for a
number of people.
> I concur yet the film, though not worth viewing, appears to use a cheap
> form of simulacra-theory.
Appears. And it isn't. It's a simulacra. That is all.
Simulacra's are not 'helpful' nor do they lead anywhere–
they piss a person's energy away.
> I know very little of memetics. Global capital might be thought of as
> phlegm in which viruses tend to flourish? I am talking vague nonsense.
Sure are :)
> I have no idea what global capital is, or how it can be considered a
> living being. Phlegm is not alive. I have in the past considered
> money to be a dead object.
It isn't. And in fact there are (almost) no dead objects.
Although alarmingly I've started observing the appearance of empty
objects. Now that's ridiculous.
> If it is a living being, the incarnation of value, monstrous,
> virtuous, or both, then perhaps money is God (as one tipsy gent said to me
> once).
Too bad he doesn't follow his own line and consider that 'all is God'–
and thusly money is no more God than garbage cans, but humans don't use
trash as currency–yet.
> > > > The 'direct' path is 'quick' and it only takes one lifetime.
> > > > It is the 'oath' relevant to humans to-day ina real_ sense of
> >to-day.
>
> I much agree with yoou here.
> > No, exploitation is something else. Humans are just 'not nice'–
> > and have used ways to murder each other spiritually for ages.
>
> I often think that humans operate via torture.
Ingrained masochism.
> I fear that if nothing drastic is done, no lines other than such like
> will remain open.
Humanity is well on the way. Next step: evolution of predators (NN)
(and others–I just use her as example apparent to this 'environment').
Peter von Brandenburg is attempting to be one–and on occasion Eryk
as well due to certainof his weaknesses.
> By this I mean, salvation is inseperable from damnation.
No. Humans are simply headed for 'damnation'.
> Well-fed populations are too dangerous for us.
False + pseudo-European- idiotic propaganda driven by
European masochism.
> Only by starving them can we control what they eat. This
> troubles me dearly.
No, it doesn't, because it isn't true.
It simpply titillates your sadistic sense.
Nor are you athorized or qualified in any manner at all to
'control' others. In fact, controling others and theira ctivities
is an ego-sadistic murder impulse which has got nothing_ to do
with conscious existence on any level.
> > Think about purposefully misleading an unconscious being, so it spends
> > its life blithering about–and at the moment of death it catches a
> > glimpse of Truth with the realization IT IS TOO LATE.
> > Watch the ape slip on that banana peel–it's so.. ironic.
> > Hilarious. A bit like laughing at children who can't go to the bathroom
> > really, or teaching them that the 'right' thing to do is to pee in their
> > pants, and then 'laughing at their stupidity'.
>
> That would be shameful and disgraceful.
And yet this kind of mentality rules both Eastern and western Society of
today. Cleverness is symptomatic, so is playing the fool, so is
'manipulating the ..' for 'my own sucess'. Nevermind those dumb gaijin.
`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42
Half the reason you're so hard on my ass is you don't know my idiom. Either
that or reverse psychology, but yes, I do like to try to read you, it's
better than the smalltalk everywhere.
Do you still think Madonna is more powerful than me? Her new movie is puree
scheize.
Like you seem not to know what I mean if I say "I know", or get that I'm
Kandinsking Skywalker ranch, utility belt, and all.
But yeah, don't cut me no slack. You wrote everyone thinks I'm "the best
brightest hope" or thereabout, I had no idea. But genius2000.net has 8500
hits since it started, like 1250 per month.
I'll sail away,
Freda
++
>From: "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <[email protected]>
>To: Max Herman <[email protected]>
>CC: <[email protected]>
>Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: cigarette break
>Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 09:17:43 -0700 (PDT)
>
>On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, Max Herman wrote:
>
> > None taken. A friend said "you can't force the force, or can you" a
> > couple weeks ago, meaning to me no you can't but it's hard to know why
> > you can't.
>
> You can, but you can only force it as much as it directs you to force
> it. What one is is already 'written' and yet one must 'force' it.
> What you cannot force is what you are not. (cf. 'I am not a sheep')
>
> > He's on a lot of psychotropics but he's not worthless totally at all,
>he's a
> > helluva kid. Certainly the tale of Luke Sidewalker neglects the holy
> > demands of not forcing the force, so my ref to the cliche was ill.
>
> The 'tale' of Luke Skywalker is simply a kitsch misrepresentation.
> It's fake, stolen, fraudulent, exploitative, and empty.
>
> > > think of words as energetic packages (like presents);
> > > one must have a certain ability to unpack and also the force
> > > (energy) to do so (true literacy);
> >
> > Sweet god I know this is true, and well said.
>
> Actually you don't. Nor are you capable of understanding the
> 'idea' nor are you capable of unpacking–you are only familiar
> with a flat + kitsch memetic substitute in the form of brain
> garbage load. Reading about these things, and reading in itself
> will never give one knowledge on such matters.
>
> > > you're attempting to replace what I say with something
> > > that 'seems' more familiar–and this is one of the largest crimes
> > > of 'contemporary culture'–to displace actual content
> > > with empty kitsch cliches–thusly perpetuating
> > > the leading of humans to exactly nowhere
> >
> > I had hoped to allude to the crime as I simplify for and patronize
>others.
> > Like a pelican. It is sloppy and poorly driven, yes.
>
> Did you now? What an easy way out–I meant all of my mistakes.
>
> > > hence one runs around inside one's brains like a rat
> > >
> >
> > I had a nice talk about the torso-area chakra today.
>
> And what is a torso chakra?
>
> > > it's a new trick, and yer all invited–and the best trick performers
> > > 'win prizes'
> >
> > I have tried not to blame others too much about this situation.
>
> The blame thing must be a personal thing for you.
> Nothing of what I wrote about or ever do write is about 'blame'.
> Altogether 'blaming' is a useless exercise–though that is not
> to indicate a stance of placid acceptance of anything anyone does.
>
> > > Doubtful that. One needs to be a master before 'inventing'
> > > 'combat styles.' The most you can invent is butchery,
> > > and like all butchery, you must damage yourself twice as much
> > > before getting to your opponent–and still an intelligent
> > > opponent will still be unscathed.
> >
> > I was being foolish in that. Entertaining myself.
>
> Humor is no excuse for putting one's self to sleep.
>
> > Imposing on others' time perhaps. My amateur dilettante urban
> > self-defense style has however taken on a component of levered elbow
> > action. Perhaps talk such as this is masturbatory on my part. In
> > confined quarters however I think my cobbled style might be effective
> > however.
>
> So would be a gun with a muffler. Ever read police reports about
> people being shot with their own guns by the attacker? Improper
> fighting technique always leaves you open, and you'll only 'win'
> against people who're clueless. Against a real 'opponent' you won't
> stand a chance. And events of 'life' are not clueless.
>
> Nevermind that this aspect of martial arts is a current, and very
> western perversion, not without eastern responsubility no less.
>
> > It's an idiotic topic perhaps for me to dwell over. I had a bad
> > dream last night about the woman you said I was whoring out. It does
> > recur. That is no excuse.
>
> Would not shocking considering you're heavily attached to the
> situation still, though don't take that as more than I wrote.
> And until you are attached to it, it'll drain energy from you,
> and others will use it as an attack opening.
>
> > Perhaps our traditions of "know thyself" have lost their savor.
>
> > Wherewith shall they be salted? I get confused about it.
>
> That would become as clear as appropriate to you, after you've
> reached certain states of 'dealt with yourself'. For 'now'
> the 'salting' for everyone is the awakening of their own conscience.
> If you're thinking of male-line type lineages, no, there aren't going
> to be any as far as I've been able to see, but rather a massive
> re-addressing of female (not gender-specific) forces will have to occur.
> And if it doesn't, one willhavea whole series of 'charming' female
> dicators al a NN. Note that she is not +conscious+ but has example of
> predator-evolving within a no-natural-predator-species (for thesake of
> regulations). That she evolved into such a, instead of a conscious being
> is mainly her weakness, although with a lot of contributions for a
> number of people.
>
> > I concur yet the film, though not worth viewing, appears to use a cheap
> > form of simulacra-theory.
>
> Appears. And it isn't. It's a simulacra. That is all.
> Simulacra's are not 'helpful' nor do they lead anywhere–
> they piss a person's energy away.
>
> > I know very little of memetics. Global capital might be thought of as
> > phlegm in which viruses tend to flourish? I am talking vague nonsense.
>
> Sure are :)
>
> > I have no idea what global capital is, or how it can be considered a
> > living being. Phlegm is not alive. I have in the past considered
> > money to be a dead object.
>
> It isn't. And in fact there are (almost) no dead objects.
> Although alarmingly I've started observing the appearance of empty
> objects. Now that's ridiculous.
>
> > If it is a living being, the incarnation of value, monstrous,
> > virtuous, or both, then perhaps money is God (as one tipsy gent said to
>me
> > once).
>
> Too bad he doesn't follow his own line and consider that 'all is God'–
> and thusly money is no more God than garbage cans, but humans don't use
> trash as currency–yet.
>
> > > > > The 'direct' path is 'quick' and it only takes one lifetime.
> > > > > It is the 'oath' relevant to humans to-day ina real_ sense of
> > >to-day.
> >
> > I much agree with yoou here.
>
> > > No, exploitation is something else. Humans are just 'not nice'–
> > > and have used ways to murder each other spiritually for ages.
> >
> > I often think that humans operate via torture.
>
> Ingrained masochism.
>
> > I fear that if nothing drastic is done, no lines other than such like
> > will remain open.
>
> Humanity is well on the way. Next step: evolution of predators (NN)
> (and others–I just use her as example apparent to this 'environment').
> Peter von Brandenburg is attempting to be one–and on occasion Eryk
> as well due to certainof his weaknesses.
>
> > By this I mean, salvation is inseperable from damnation.
>
> No. Humans are simply headed for 'damnation'.
>
> > Well-fed populations are too dangerous for us.
>
> False + pseudo-European- idiotic propaganda driven by
> European masochism.
>
> > Only by starving them can we control what they eat. This
> > troubles me dearly.
>
> No, it doesn't, because it isn't true.
> It simpply titillates your sadistic sense.
> Nor are you athorized or qualified in any manner at all to
> 'control' others. In fact, controling others and theira ctivities
> is an ego-sadistic murder impulse which has got nothing_ to do
> with conscious existence on any level.
>
> > > Think about purposefully misleading an unconscious being, so it
>spends
> > > its life blithering about–and at the moment of death it catches a
> > > glimpse of Truth with the realization IT IS TOO LATE.
> > > Watch the ape slip on that banana peel–it's so.. ironic.
> > > Hilarious. A bit like laughing at children who can't go to the
>bathroom
> > > really, or teaching them that the 'right' thing to do is to pee in
>their
> > > pants, and then 'laughing at their stupidity'.
> >
> > That would be shameful and disgraceful.
>
> And yet this kind of mentality rules both Eastern and western Society of
> today. Cleverness is symptomatic, so is playing the fool, so is
> 'manipulating the ..' for 'my own sucess'. Nevermind those dumb gaijin.
>
>`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
On Sun, 13 Oct 2002, Max Herman wrote:
> Half the reason you're so hard on my ass is you don't know my idiom.
Ne. Your 'idiom' hasn't got anything to do with it,
nor with what I am doing, nor with language.
> Either that or reverse psychology,
Ne. Nothing of what I do is related to psychology in any manner.
That's Eryk's job (watch him jump at the mention of 'his name').
> Do you still think Madonna is more powerful than me?
Madonna is not powerful. I don't make comparisons.
> Her new movie is puree scheize.
Don't watch films with rare exceptions.
> Like you seem not to know what I mean if I say "I know",
Incorrect.
> or get that I'm Kandinsking Skywalker ranch, utility belt, and all.
Incorrect. What you think you're doing is not what you're doing.
I simply do not care about the delusion of what you (or anyone
else) thinks they're doing. It simply ISN*T what you're doing.
> But genius2000.net has 8500
> hits since it started, like 1250 per month.
>
> I'll sail away,
>
> Freda
Ok Freda. But who cares about hits?
You got yourself another delusion of who the audience really IS.
Quoting "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <[email protected]>:
>>
> Actually you don't. Nor are you capable of understanding the
> 'idea' nor are you capable of unpacking–you are only familiar
> with a flat + kitsch memetic substitute in the form of brain
> garbage load. Reading about these things, and reading in itself
> will never give one knowledge on such matters.
Are you saying the capacity doesn't exist in him ever or just currently? At
another time, could he be capable of understanding the 'idea'?
>
> > > you're attempting to replace what I say with something
> > > that 'seems' more familiar–and this is one of the largest crimes
> > > of 'contemporary culture'–to displace actual content
> > > with empty kitsch cliches–thusly perpetuating
> > > the leading of humans to exactly nowhere
> >
Does it really matter? Since English is a dualistic language, you could never
communicate "exactly" what you wish to express…perhaps you have gotten as
close as you can to what you want to say - but then you are assuming the
listener has the same understanding of language as you - which is (most
likely) not going to be true (unless the other person is "enlightened" like
you). So the question is this: Are you writing so that only another
"enlightened" being can comprehend "exactly" what you are saying? And if so,
and since none here are awake as you have claimed, why are you trying to insist
upon exact replication of your words when the intended audience cannot
understand them anyhow? Drivel that is heard, replaced with drivel that is
said, still means drivel.
>
> > > hence one runs around inside one's brains like a rat
> > >
> >
> > I had a nice talk about the torso-area chakra today.
>
> And what is a torso chakra?
I thought you were perfect?
Joseph
On Sun, 13 Oct 2002, Eryk Salvaggio wrote:
> >Ne. Nothing of what I do is related to psychology in any manner.
> > That's Eryk's job (watch him jump at the mention of 'his name').
> >
>
> For Joy! You make me feel so famous.
Nice. Going to hit yourself over the head again?
It's not humorous you know. It's sad.
+ I do not say this to 'point' at you.
`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42
On Sun, 13 Oct 2002 [email protected] wrote:
> Are you saying the capacity doesn't exist in him ever or just currently?
Currently.
> At another time, could he be capable of understanding the 'idea'?
That's something of a personal affair for him.
> Does it really matter? Since English is a dualistic language,
Incorrect.
> you could never communicate "exactly" what you wish to express..
Incorrect. Precise communication via language
is possible if one understands the languaging facility.
It has been in fact done, and in English also.
> perhaps you have gotten as close as you can to what you want to say
No. I said what I wanted to say.
> - but then you are assuming the listener has the same understanding of language as you
I am not. And this is not a 'personal affair'.
rather the opposite, I've indicated.
> - which is (most likely) not going to be true (unless the other person is "enlightened" like
> you).
Haven't claimed enlightenment or 'enlightenment'.
What you say is not true however. You're talking about
a different mode of communication, which is non-verbal.
> So the question is this: Are you writing so that only another
> "enlightened" being can comprehend "exactly" what you are saying?
All of the times, he who watches.
In dictinct occasions distinctly.
> And if so, and since none here are awake as you have claimed,
> why are you trying to insist upon exact replication of your
> words when the intended audience cannot understand them anyhow?
You answered your own question.
There is no w'hy' to my doing of things.
> Drivel that is heard, replaced with drivel that is said, still means
> drivel.
Hgshgsyjg ? What I write is not drivel. C'est tout.
> I thought you were perfect?
I certainly am.
What does that have to do with my asking 'what is torso chakra' of Max
Herman?
nothing really.
Kandinsky is officially weaker than water.
Worthless. Less than nothing.
>From: "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <[email protected]>
>Reply-To: "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <[email protected]>
>To: Max Herman <[email protected]>
>CC: <[email protected]>
>Subject: Re: RHIZOME\_RAW: cigarette break
>Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 09:17:43 -0700 (PDT)
>
>On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, Max Herman wrote:
>
> > None taken. A friend said "you can't force the force, or can you" a
> > couple weeks ago, meaning to me no you can't but it's hard to know why
> > you can't.
>
> You can, but you can only force it as much as it directs you to force
> it. What one is is already 'written' and yet one must 'force' it.
> What you cannot force is what you are not. (cf. 'I am not a sheep')
>
> > He's on a lot of psychotropics but he's not worthless totally at all,
>he's a
> > helluva kid. Certainly the tale of Luke Sidewalker neglects the holy
> > demands of not forcing the force, so my ref to the cliche was ill.
>
> The 'tale' of Luke Skywalker is simply a kitsch misrepresentation.
> It's fake, stolen, fraudulent, exploitative, and empty.
>
> > > think of words as energetic packages (like presents);
> > > one must have a certain ability to unpack and also the force
> > > (energy) to do so (true literacy);
> >
> > Sweet god I know this is true, and well said.
>
> Actually you don't. Nor are you capable of understanding the
> 'idea' nor are you capable of unpacking–you are only familiar
> with a flat + kitsch memetic substitute in the form of brain
> garbage load. Reading about these things, and reading in itself
> will never give one knowledge on such matters.
>
> > > you're attempting to replace what I say with something
> > > that 'seems' more familiar–and this is one of the largest crimes
> > > of 'contemporary culture'–to displace actual content
> > > with empty kitsch cliches–thusly perpetuating
> > > the leading of humans to exactly nowhere
> >
> > I had hoped to allude to the crime as I simplify for and patronize
>others.
> > Like a pelican. It is sloppy and poorly driven, yes.
>
> Did you now? What an easy way out–I meant all of my mistakes.
>
> > > hence one runs around inside one's brains like a rat
> > >
> >
> > I had a nice talk about the torso-area chakra today.
>
> And what is a torso chakra?
>
> > > it's a new trick, and yer all invited–and the best trick performers
> > > 'win prizes'
> >
> > I have tried not to blame others too much about this situation.
>
> The blame thing must be a personal thing for you.
> Nothing of what I wrote about or ever do write is about 'blame'.
> Altogether 'blaming' is a useless exercise–though that is not
> to indicate a stance of placid acceptance of anything anyone does.
>
> > > Doubtful that. One needs to be a master before 'inventing'
> > > 'combat styles.' The most you can invent is butchery,
> > > and like all butchery, you must damage yourself twice as much
> > > before getting to your opponent–and still an intelligent
> > > opponent will still be unscathed.
> >
> > I was being foolish in that. Entertaining myself.
>
> Humor is no excuse for putting one's self to sleep.
>
> > Imposing on others' time perhaps. My amateur dilettante urban
> > self-defense style has however taken on a component of levered elbow
> > action. Perhaps talk such as this is masturbatory on my part. In
> > confined quarters however I think my cobbled style might be effective
> > however.
>
> So would be a gun with a muffler. Ever read police reports about
> people being shot with their own guns by the attacker? Improper
> fighting technique always leaves you open, and you'll only 'win'
> against people who're clueless. Against a real 'opponent' you won't
> stand a chance. And events of 'life' are not clueless.
>
> Nevermind that this aspect of martial arts is a current, and very
> western perversion, not without eastern responsubility no less.
>
> > It's an idiotic topic perhaps for me to dwell over. I had a bad
> > dream last night about the woman you said I was whoring out. It does
> > recur. That is no excuse.
>
> Would not shocking considering you're heavily attached to the
> situation still, though don't take that as more than I wrote.
> And until you are attached to it, it'll drain energy from you,
> and others will use it as an attack opening.
>
> > Perhaps our traditions of "know thyself" have lost their savor.
>
> > Wherewith shall they be salted? I get confused about it.
>
> That would become as clear as appropriate to you, after you've
> reached certain states of 'dealt with yourself'. For 'now'
> the 'salting' for everyone is the awakening of their own conscience.
> If you're thinking of male-line type lineages, no, there aren't going
> to be any as far as I've been able to see, but rather a massive
> re-addressing of female (not gender-specific) forces will have to occur.
> And if it doesn't, one willhavea whole series of 'charming' female
> dicators al a NN. Note that she is not +conscious+ but has example of
> predator-evolving within a no-natural-predator-species (for thesake of
> regulations). That she evolved into such a, instead of a conscious being
> is mainly her weakness, although with a lot of contributions for a
> number of people.
>
> > I concur yet the film, though not worth viewing, appears to use a cheap
> > form of simulacra-theory.
>
> Appears. And it isn't. It's a simulacra. That is all.
> Simulacra's are not 'helpful' nor do they lead anywhere–
> they piss a person's energy away.
>
> > I know very little of memetics. Global capital might be thought of as
> > phlegm in which viruses tend to flourish? I am talking vague nonsense.
>
> Sure are :)
>
> > I have no idea what global capital is, or how it can be considered a
> > living being. Phlegm is not alive. I have in the past considered
> > money to be a dead object.
>
> It isn't. And in fact there are (almost) no dead objects.
> Although alarmingly I've started observing the appearance of empty
> objects. Now that's ridiculous.
>
> > If it is a living being, the incarnation of value, monstrous,
> > virtuous, or both, then perhaps money is God (as one tipsy gent said to
>me
> > once).
>
> Too bad he doesn't follow his own line and consider that 'all is God'–
> and thusly money is no more God than garbage cans, but humans don't use
> trash as currency–yet.
>
> > > > > The 'direct' path is 'quick' and it only takes one lifetime.
> > > > > It is the 'oath' relevant to humans to-day ina real\_ sense of
> > >to-day.
> >
> > I much agree with yoou here.
>
> > > No, exploitation is something else. Humans are just 'not nice'–
> > > and have used ways to murder each other spiritually for ages.
> >
> > I often think that humans operate via torture.
>
> Ingrained masochism.
>
> > I fear that if nothing drastic is done, no lines other than such like
> > will remain open.
>
> Humanity is well on the way. Next step: evolution of predators (NN)
> (and others–I just use her as example apparent to this 'environment').
> Peter von Brandenburg is attempting to be one–and on occasion Eryk
> as well due to certainof his weaknesses.
>
> > By this I mean, salvation is inseperable from damnation.
>
> No. Humans are simply headed for 'damnation'.
>
> > Well-fed populations are too dangerous for us.
>
> False + pseudo-European- idiotic propaganda driven by
> European masochism.
>
> > Only by starving them can we control what they eat. This
> > troubles me dearly.
>
> No, it doesn't, because it isn't true.
> It simpply titillates your sadistic sense.
> Nor are you athorized or qualified in any manner at all to
> 'control' others. In fact, controling others and theira ctivities
> is an ego-sadistic murder impulse which has got nothing\_ to do
> with conscious existence on any level.
>
> > > Think about purposefully misleading an unconscious being, so it
>spends
> > > its life blithering about–and at the moment of death it catches a
> > > glimpse of Truth with the realization IT IS TOO LATE.
> > > Watch the ape slip on that banana peel–it's so.. ironic.
> > > Hilarious. A bit like laughing at children who can't go to the
>bathroom
> > > really, or teaching them that the 'right' thing to do is to pee in
>their
> > > pants, and then 'laughing at their stupidity'.
> >
> > That would be shameful and disgraceful.
>
> And yet this kind of mentality rules both Eastern and western Society of
> today. Cleverness is symptomatic, so is playing the fool, so is
> 'manipulating the ..' for 'my own sucess'. Nevermind those dumb gaijin.
>
>`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42
>
>
>
>+ tripe
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
On Sun, 13 Oct 2002, Max Herman wrote:
> Kandinsky is officially weaker than water.
Only in your delusional projections love.
If you play Max G2K game you're Ok.
If you don't you're weak.
This coming from an ape who cannot even
get himself straightened out.
> Worthless.
You are Max Dearest.
> Less than nothing.
Nobody is less than nothing.
But nothing you are.
Unfortunately you haven't even realized that.
I suggest that both you and Joseph mCelroy take a good look at your
idiotic bully murderous selves.
Talk to me about art when you grow up.
`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42
Hey Death, you're the guy whose ass I kick in the bible.
So saddle up fuckface.
>From: "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <[email protected]>
>To: <[email protected]>
>CC: Max Herman <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
>Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: cigarette break
>Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 17:36:31 -0700 (PDT)
>
>On Sun, 13 Oct 2002 [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Are you saying the capacity doesn't exist in him ever or just currently?
>
> Currently.
>
> > At another time, could he be capable of understanding the 'idea'?
>
> That's something of a personal affair for him.
>
> > Does it really matter? Since English is a dualistic language,
>
> Incorrect.
>
> > you could never communicate "exactly" what you wish to express..
>
> Incorrect. Precise communication via language
> is possible if one understands the languaging facility.
> It has been in fact done, and in English also.
>
> > perhaps you have gotten as close as you can to what you want to say
>
> No. I said what I wanted to say.
>
> > - but then you are assuming the listener has the same understanding of
>language as you
>
> I am not. And this is not a 'personal affair'.
> rather the opposite, I've indicated.
>
> > - which is (most likely) not going to be true (unless the other person
>is "enlightened" like
> > you).
>
> Haven't claimed enlightenment or 'enlightenment'.
> What you say is not true however. You're talking about
> a different mode of communication, which is non-verbal.
>
> > So the question is this: Are you writing so that only another
> > "enlightened" being can comprehend "exactly" what you are saying?
>
> All of the times, he who watches.
> In dictinct occasions distinctly.
>
> > And if so, and since none here are awake as you have claimed,
> > why are you trying to insist upon exact replication of your
> > words when the intended audience cannot understand them anyhow?
>
> You answered your own question.
> There is no w'hy' to my doing of things.
>
> > Drivel that is heard, replaced with drivel that is said, still means
> > drivel.
>
> Hgshgsyjg ? What I write is not drivel. C'est tout.
>
> > I thought you were perfect?
>
> I certainly am.
> What does that have to do with my asking 'what is torso chakra' of Max
> Herman?
>
> nothing really.
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
Quoting Max Herman <[email protected]>:
>
>
> Hey Death, you're the guy whose ass I kick in the bible.
>
> So saddle up fuckface.
>
I'm betting on the big guy. Death is toast.
Joseph
On Mon, 14 Oct 2002, Max Herman wrote:
> Hey Death, you're the guy whose ass I kick in the bible.
You're neither in the bible nor can you kick ass.
> So saddle up fuckface.
What are you going to do. Destroy yourself more than you're doing now?
Quoting "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <[email protected]>:
> On Mon, 14 Oct 2002, Max Herman wrote:
>
> > Hey Death, you're the guy whose ass I kick in the bible.
>
> You're neither in the bible nor can you kick ass.
>
Yes he is, I made sure to put him in there.
RESPOND TO ME
Joseph
On Mon, 14 Oct 2002 [email protected] wrote:
> Yes he is, I made sure to put him in there.
Wasteful word divorced from reality.
Impotence is not funny.
> RESPOND TO ME
Wag your tail?
Quoting "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <[email protected]>:
> On Mon, 14 Oct 2002 [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Yes he is, I made sure to put him in there.
>
> Wasteful word divorced from reality.
>
> Impotence is not funny.
>
> > RESPOND TO ME
>
> Wag your tail?
Reality?
RESPOND TO ME
Joseph
STOP TO SEND ME YOUR MAIL?
STOP TO SEND ME YOUR MAIL? STOP TO SEND ME YOUR
MAIL? STOP TO SEND ME YOUR MAIL?
STOP TO SEND ME YOUR MAIL? STOP TO SEND ME YOUR
MAIL? STOP TO SEND ME YOUR MAIL?
STOP TO SEND ME YOUR MAIL? STOP TO SEND ME YOUR
MAIL? STOP TO SEND ME YOUR MAIL? V? V? V
On Mon, 14 Oct 2002 [email protected] wrote:
> I'm betting on the big guy. Death is toast.
Only in your self-debasing imagination.
And this isn't a fighting match;
just you and max taking turns shooting each other in the foot.
Wag the tail again, doggies.
`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42
Quoting "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <[email protected]>:
> On Mon, 14 Oct 2002 [email protected] wrote:
>
> > I'm betting on the big guy. Death is toast.
>
> Only in your self-debasing imagination.
> And this isn't a fighting match;
> just you and max taking turns shooting each other in the foot.
>
> Wag the tail again, doggies.
I lost my tail before I was born. I was born without troubles. Death does not
take troubles away for they do not exist. Fighting is illusion. You do not
understand what I do.
RESPOND TO ME.
Joseph
> I lost my tail before I was born.
No, you didn't. Idiotic poser lie.
> I was born without troubles.
No dearest. You are still an infantile and irresponsible ape.
> Death does not take troubles away for they do not exist.
Nothing ever written or implied by me.
> Fighting is illusion.
No it isn't.
> You do not understand what I do.
Understanding hasn't got anything to do with it con-man ape.
You're obvious.
And you don't understand what 'understand' means.
> RESPOND TO ME.
Wag your tail, Joseph-doggie :)
Maybe someone will buy you for 2 pesetas.
Quoting "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <[email protected]>:
>
> > I lost my tail before I was born.
>
> No, you didn't. Idiotic poser lie.
>
> > I was born without troubles.
>
> No dearest. You are still an infantile and irresponsible ape.
>
> > Death does not take troubles away for they do not exist.
>
> Nothing ever written or implied by me.
>
> > Fighting is illusion.
>
> No it isn't.
>
> > You do not understand what I do.
>
> Understanding hasn't got anything to do with it con-man ape.
> You're obvious.
>
> And you don't understand what 'understand' means.
>
> > RESPOND TO ME.
>
> Wag your tail, Joseph-doggie :)
>
> Maybe someone will buy you for 2 pesetas.
I was born without a tail. I was born without troubles. I do not fight you. You
do not understand me. I cannot be purchased.
RESPOND TO ME
Joseph
On Mon, 14 Oct 2002 [email protected] wrote:
> I was born without a tail. I was born without troubles.
No, dearest you weren't. You're simply an infantile ape
who refuses to open his eyes.
> I do not fight you.
Never wrote or implied that you're fighting me dearest.
You're nowhere near outside of your own myopic brain nightmare.
> You do not understand me.
Understanding is in applicable with regards the (lack of) you.
> I cannot be purchased.
You already are. And cheaply too.
Quoting "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <[email protected]>:
> On Mon, 14 Oct 2002 [email protected] wrote:
>
> > I was born without a tail. I was born without troubles.
>
> No, dearest you weren't. You're simply an infantile ape
> who refuses to open his eyes.
>
> > I do not fight you.
>
> Never wrote or implied that you're fighting me dearest.
> You're nowhere near outside of your own myopic brain nightmare.
>
> > You do not understand me.
>
> Understanding is in applicable with regards the (lack of) you.
>
> > I cannot be purchased.
>
> You already are. And cheaply too.
I was born without troubles. I was born without a tail. I have no ego. I am not
fighting you. I am not an animal. I cannot be purchased. You do not understand
me. I do not have nightmares.
RESPOND TO ME
Joseph
On Mon, 14 Oct 2002 [email protected] wrote:
> I was born without troubles. I was born without a tail. I have no ego.
Waa. I dont want to wake up.
> I am not fighting you.
That's for sure. You cant even touch me.
> I am not an animal.
Yes you are.
> I cannot be purchased.
You already have been. And cheaply.
> You do not understand me.
Understanding is not applicable in the situation.
> I do not have nightmares.
Yes, some people take that route of escaping awakening.
Total numbness.
You do have nightmares, you're simply oblivious to them.
Just like you're numb to the rest of your body (which is not
your brain or penis).
`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42
Quoting "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <[email protected]>:
> On Mon, 14 Oct 2002 [email protected] wrote:
>
> > I was born without troubles. I was born without a tail. I have no ego.
>
> Waa. I dont want to wake up.
>
> > I am not fighting you.
>
> That's for sure. You cant even touch me.
>
> > I am not an animal.
>
> Yes you are.
>
> > I cannot be purchased.
>
> You already have been. And cheaply.
>
> > You do not understand me.
>
> Understanding is not applicable in the situation.
>
> > I do not have nightmares.
>
> Yes, some people take that route of escaping awakening.
> Total numbness.
>
> You do have nightmares, you're simply oblivious to them.
> Just like you're numb to the rest of your body (which is not
> your brain or penis).
>
You cannot speak for me. You cannot purchase me. You cannot say that I am numb.
Bad dreams are not nightmares. You do not know the nature of my body.
RESPOND TO ME
Joseph
On Mon, 14 Oct 2002 [email protected] wrote:
> You cannot speak for me.
Nobody is 'speaking for you'.
Observing your self-delusional state is not 'speaking for you'.
> You cannot purchase me.
I have never had any intentions of purchasing you.
Delusional self-important dog.
> You cannot say that I am numb.
I certainly can, and that is because you are.
> Bad dreams are not nightmares.
Relevance? None.
> You do not know the nature of my body.
But I do. Better than you know it.