beuys

> lives, from our jobs to our political activities, become a kind of artistic
> practice. it's a radical concept, one that challenges traditional notions
> of art, art making, authorship, etc.

in practice, artists have been all too eager to accept the definition when
applied to activities of their own, yet not particularly eager to accept
"non-artists" claims of artistic activities.

joseph (cor e form art) + (porat per ance ist)
frank + lyn - mc + El + roy

go shopping -> http://www.electrichands.com/shopindex.htm
call me 646 279 2309



Quoting Mark Tribe <[email protected]>:

> At 07:06 PM 11/14/2002 -0800, -IID42 Kandinskij @27+ wrote:
> >On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Mark Tribe wrote:
> > > is it really so problematic to think of rhizome.org as merging art and
> > > online community?
> >
> > Yes, since you're not really the 'author' and you claim authorship.
>
> not at all.
>
> saying that i think of rhizome as social sculpture and of myself as an
> artist in that context is not a claim of authorship. my understanding of
> beuys' notion of social sculpture is that it enables everyone, or at least
> every participant, to become an artist. this doesn't mean that everyone
> starts making things that look like art, but rather that our everyday
> lives, from our jobs to our political activities, become a kind of artistic
> practice. it's a radical concept, one that challenges traditional notions
> of art, art making, authorship, etc.
>
> in beuys' words: "every human being is an artist, a freedom being, called
> to participate in transforming and reshaping the conditions, thinking and
> structures that shape and condition our lives."
>
> + the best is the enemy of the good
> -> 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

Hi list

In a message dated 15/11/02 14:29:41 GMT Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:


> > lives, from our jobs to our political activities, become a kind of
> artistic
> > practice. it's a radical concept, one that challenges traditional notions
> > of art, art making, authorship, etc.
>
> in practice, artists have been all too eager to accept the definition when
> applied to activities of their own, yet not particularly eager to accept
> "non-artists" claims of artistic activities.

Yes, this is very true. I was at a conference once, where this interactive
artist who had collaborated with a computer programmer in her work,
arrogantly commented about 'these programmers who think they are artists'. I
then told her that although I was an electronic musician (doing research in
the interactive arts), I was also a programmer and I found alot of
art/creativity in that.

It appears, especially with those interactive artists who consider themselves
to be doing 'fine art' (whatever that is supposed to be) consider those that
help them realise their aims (and hence possibly shape those aims) beneath
them in some sense.

I think it has something to do with the snobbery around art versus craft.

Bye

Jon

> …since you're not really the 'author' and you claim authorship.


people are making such a fuss about mark's statement because their own feelings of authorship are threatened.
they would feel more secure if he just played the role of 'cultural administrator.' people pissing on virtual trees again. about as progressive as a bunch of sunday painters–don't forget to sign on the bottom lefthand corner.

beuys is yawning. hear him?


j

Hello list

Valery wrote:

> the point is :
> who is asking and rising money ?
> -> artist in the artbase of rhizome who are not always defined as artist?
> -> or mark tribe manager of rhizome, who's defining hismself artist through
> rhizome project by using others artist copyright through its artbase ?

I think this is a bit harsh, and I dont have any particular axe to grind over
this. I think Mark Tribe probably deserves some more credit for organising
and running this thing called rhizome, whatever it is.

I suppose, as Death has also intimated, there may be a case for paying the
artists involved in its 'Artbase', particular as rhizome matures into
something bigger, but then again emerging artists get exposure. As for the
idea of 'social sculpture', well I quite like it, and I have appreciated
being a small part of this 'sculpture' over the past few years. As regards
authorship, I think its more about Mark Tribe being a facilitator, rather
than an author.

Jon

>It appears, especially with those interactive artists who consider themsel=
ves to be doing 'fine >art' (whatever that is supposed to be) consider thos=
e that help them realise their aims (and >hence possibly shape those aims) =
beneath them in some sense.

>I think it has something to do with the snobbery around art versus craft.

the point is :
who is asking and rising money ?
-> artist in the artbase of rhizome who are not always defined as artist?
-> or mark tribe manager of rhizome, who's defining hismself artist through=
rhizome project by using others artist copyright through its artbase ?

bye


Valery Grancher

On Fri, 15 Nov 2002, joy garnett wrote:

> people are making such a fuss about mark's statement because their own feelings of authorship are threatened.

No joy garnett, that is not why_ people are making noise.
Funny how you attempt to dismiss stuff being said with a simplistic
generalization which hasn't got anything to do with anything.
Words are funny things like that aren't they? Slap a label,
and so it is. Not. Reality is not subject to brain-chatter.

Besides authorship is not a feeling.

> they would feel more secure if he just played the role of
> 'cultural administrator.'

Drivel. Avoid reducing everyone to 'people'. There is no such
'unit' as people.

> people pissing on virtual trees again.

No, this is quite a real tree. Supposed virtuality is not
an excuse. A great deal of the human is already VIRTUAL.
There is no such thing as 'unimportant act' in one's life,
that is 'just this or that''–every second, every breath counts.

> about as progressive as a bunch of sunday painters

'Progress' dearest is only an individual affair.
Nice attempt to mimick what I wrote though. No such thing as
Sunday painters however, and if you knew how to see a painting
you'd not be making such statements.

> –don't forget to sign on the bottom lefthand corner.

Keep your western programmatic prejudices to yourself.
Even brief familiarity with painting history would reveal
a far different and substantially deeper picture than
the one you are attempting to paint verbally, oh you
delightful amateur.

> beuys is yawning. hear him?

Beuys is really not yawning at all, dearest.
You can repeat it as much as you wish, but he isn't.
And attempting to use him as a whore for your agenda is
not likely to make him 'yawn'–not only are you
ignorantly attempting to bastardize and misrepresent
his work, but assuming the volitional activity
on his behalf too.

There is nothing 'progressive' about Mark Tribe's actions.

This kind of shit_ has been done many_ times before.
It's been–among other things, subjugation of the human
in Church. That is, any way you dress it up the modus
operandi of parasites: and they exist in art, religion,
politics, etc.

Peddling it about as something 'new' is nonsense,
and so is your 'superficial' misunderstanding of
the concept of 'authorship'.

Funnily enough, Tribe doesn't relinquish HIS fraudulent
AUTHORSHIP of this sculpture does he?

So spare us the 'progressive' speech. Ignorance and
idiocy are not 'progressive'.

Progressive is when I come over nad steal all of your
work, stick it up in a gallery under my name, and tell you
not to get pissy about such little things as authorship.

So guess what: let's play a progressive game:
all_ and any_ art-work that you present anywhere in public should be
under the D42 name, not yours, deal?

It'll help you to 'deal' with any possible leftover 'problems'
you might have about authorship. And also, if you receive any
money out of it, don't forget to transfer it to me.
Don't worry: I'll use it for charitable purposes exclusively,
not for myself.

And try not to use meaningless generalizations such as
'people'.


`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42

On Fri, 15 Nov 2002, joseph (yes) wrote:

> in practice, artists have been all too eager to accept the definition when
> applied to activities of their own, yet not particularly eager to accept
> "non-artists" claims of artistic activities.

I humbly submit Mark Tribe to integer@www.god-emil.dk
for the duration of the next 4 weeks. He must do what
integer directs / tells him to do abrogating all
rights of 'authorship' of his body, being, work,
and property. Also I reserve the right to present
such social sculpture under @27+, and I promise you
big warhol-mao like posters of Salvaggio, G2K tickets
thrown about as confetti, music by clement Thomas,
and free drinks courtesy of electrihands–we serve
the people.

`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42

On Sat, 16 Nov 2002 [email protected] wrote:

> I think this is a bit harsh, and I dont have any particular axe to grind over
> this. I think Mark Tribe probably deserves some more credit for organising
> and running this thing called rhizome, whatever it is.

Certainly, but not as an artist. Among other things, Beuys ideas had to
do with the realization that everything one does is of 'importance'–
that is bringing full attention to the activity one is involved with
and treating it as art_, and rather than actually overcoming the
authorship issue, Mark Tribe's act returns a fallacious misunderstanding
of it, with a force. If one is to understand that at the basis of
human activity lies an inherent lack of ability to 'author'
(will-proper) and that most of the no-authorship ideas are based
in breaking down this idea of a fallacious 'I,' this is still a
voluntary_ activity, nor does it give anyone the rights to
appropriate others' work. That is, if you are asleep, and like
most humans unaware in your sleep, it's not really okay for me
to come over and run off with your laptop for example, kicking
you on the way out, is it?

Among other things, Mark is no more facilitator of rhizome
than anyone ELSE_ is, that is, you facilitate it just as much
as Mark does (and being a non-hierarchical type thingy wouldn't
rachel and mark recognize this? certainly, every single act
is equal n'est pas?), and I am sorry but this 'martyrdom' because
he's an 'administrator' is simply infantilistic ape-like behavior.

Again, as I wrote, tomorrow I'm going to THINK of rhizome
as a basket of bananas and voila, set up 'Rhizome as basket
of bananas' exhibit in 'my name' at a gallery show. As I infact
suggested, everyone should do so.

Nevermind that Mark Tribe is backhandedly attempting to
pass (and you are assisting) a concept of authorsip, and an
inappropriate one, dressed up in so much artistic theory drivel.

> I suppose, as Death has also intimated, there may be a case for paying the
> artists involved in its 'Artbase', particular as rhizome matures into
> something bigger, but then again emerging artists get exposure.

So? Does an emerging artist deserve not_ to be paid?
What? Why should anyone's WORK be judged not by its MERITS
but whether it is 'emerging artist' or not? That's begging
the hierarchical structure again, with seniors etc.

> As for the idea of 'social sculpture', well I quite like it,

Except for it isn't. It's simply appropriating a concept
of Beuys which is inappropriate. And even moreso, if one is
to claim Rhizome as a sculpture, it certainly isn't
Mark's.

> and I have appreciated being a small part of this 'sculpture' over the past few years. As regards
> authorship, I think its more about Mark Tribe being a facilitator, rather
> than an author.

No, it isn't. It's simply word-wrangling in order to
dress up his actions inmore palatable terms.

Mark Tribe is not indeed a facilitator in artistic terms_
anymore than the Andy Warhol Foundation for the arts with
its huge financial grant is going to go about claiming
authorship of rhizome.

It's unfortunate that you attempt to flatten and blur out
the distnction between a non-profit benefactor situation,
and the active-facilitator mediumistic role of the artist.


There can be a case made for individualis in which these
two converge, however those are exceptional_ individuals
of very high degree of 'spiritual' development who have gotten
completely over_ being 'artists' and 'benefactors' in an ACTIVE
way (that is going through_ the work rather than abrogating it
and sidestepping the issue) and while Beuys was approaching
such a being, Mark Tribe is simply attempting to present
his half-assed couture as Beuys fashion.

Recognition and appreciation of one's efforts includes a degree
of consciousness actuelle, which does not bow to, and treat
one as if s-he is 'already there' when one isn't.

And yet another issue is of dealing with those who try to
present themselves as something they haven't even the internal potential
for.


`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42

On Fri, 15 Nov 2002 [email protected] wrote:

> I think it has something to do with the snobbery around art versus craft.

Art vs craft is not a matter of snobbery. One is not the other,
and while I can sympathize with the idea of exceptional craft
not being recognized as its own worth, which it is, and is
definitely indispensible–to flatten everything out is not
a way to deao with 'upper/lower' snobbism.

To reward craft as art and vice versa is simply delusion,
and this flattening everything out to some non-existent
'equality' is exactly_ what disempowers the individual human
not some bogus pick-your-label-enemy.

`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42

On Sun, 17 Nov 2002, joseph (yes) wrote:

> There is no unit called "people",
> we serve individuals per their requirements.

Ah so defensive dear. You are incapable of serving individuals
per their requirements, as you are incapable of discerning what those
are.

> And nothing is free (or rather everything is free).

Neither, and there is no relationship between the two.

> To get you must give, or better to give you must get.

Meaningless infantile chatter.

> Getting becomes giving. Giving becomes getting.
> When giving becomes getting, the bottom line is zero, which is often
> misunderstood as free.

As above.

> However, free is not free of cost, but free of attachments.

Which you are not.

> Free as in freedom. We cannot give freedom, for it already exists.

Ne. Freedom is not automatic.

> So we only point out the freedom that exists.

What you point out is a machine falling apart and lashing about.
You have no freedom, nor the capacity to 'point it out' to anyone.
The spiral of self-destruction.

> The Experience Contract is a trap and an escape.

Cue self-promotional ego-attached peddling.

> The more the individual tries to "own" the art work (made by
> another - us), the more entanglements they will encounter.

Egotism is free.

> When they relinquish all claims to ownership, they are free, and the art work still
> exists for them to enjoy.


Too bad this is all meaningless.

Quoting "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <[email protected]>:

>
> > There is no unit called "people",
> > we serve individuals per their requirements.
>
> Ah so defensive dear. You are incapable of serving individuals
> per their requirements, as you are incapable of discerning what those
> are.

There is no defensiveness my friend, I enjoy the conversation and toss in
sticks to stoke the fire, however if you wish to view me as defensive, I will
not stand in your way.

The served must serve and the serving must be served.

>
> > To get you must give, or better to give you must get.
>
> Meaningless infantile chatter.

not at all, it represents a lack of duality.

> > However, free is not free of cost, but free of attachments.
>
> Which you are not.

Are responsibilities attachements?

>
> Ne. Freedom is not automatic.

Discernment of freedom is not automatic, freedom exists automaticially.

>
> > So we only point out the freedom that exists.
>
> What you point out is a machine falling apart and lashing about.
> You have no freedom, nor the capacity to 'point it out' to anyone.
> The spiral of self-destruction.

We are building. From a place of freedom.

>
> > The Experience Contract is a trap and an escape.
>
> Cue self-promotional ego-attached peddling.

I present not out of peddling, but sureness.

>
> Too bad this is all meaningless.

Not for those who can understand.

joseph (cor e form art) + (porat per ance ist)
frank + lyn - mc + El + roy

go shopping -> http://www.electrichands.com/shopindex.htm
call me 646 279 2309

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER CUPCAKEKALEIDOSCOPE - send email to
[email protected]

On Mon, 18 Nov 2002, joseph (yes) wrote:

> There is no defensiveness my friend,

Oh yes there is, and your very denial is simply the flip-side
of the same coin. The entirety of your subsequent commentary
are self-importance egotistical passive-aggressive defensiveness,
with your attempts to con-vince that you really really are
enlightened.

I am not your friend.

> I enjoy the conversation

No, you don't. In fact, you don't enjoy anything.
Masochistic self-debasory masturbation is not 'enjoyment'.

> and toss in sticks to stoke the fire,

No, dearest, this is not what you are doing, no matter how much you
try to label it with your words as such. What you are doing is
speaking about your state, as that is the only thing you're capable of.

There are no sticks, and there is no fire.

> however if you wish to view me as defensive, I will not stand in your way.

I don't 'wish to view you' as defensive, dearest. Avoid attempting
to project your_ wishful_ delusions as representations of what
is going on. I am entirely wish-free and desire'free, and reflect you
as you are, not as you like to tell yourself that you are.


> The served must serve and the serving must be served.

Drivel.

> > Meaningless infantile chatter.
>
> not at all, it represents a lack of duality.

No, it doesn't. It represents infantile chatter and nothing else.
Meaningless blurring of reality is not overcoming of dualism.
No matter how much you attempt to wrangle it about and dress it up
in verbal noise, reality is what is, and not subject to whatever
labels you wish to attempt to slap onto it.

> > > However, free is not free of cost, but free of attachments.
> >
> > Which you are not.
>
> Are responsibilities attachements?

No.

> >
> > Ne. Freedom is not automatic.
>
> Discernment of freedom is not automatic, freedom exists automaticially.

No, it doesn't. Freedom is simply not automatic, nor a matter of
'discernment'–a word which you don't understand.
Freedom is something you pay for, however, you've let the bird
out of the cage.

> We are building. From a place of freedom.

You are not building, nor are you free, dear.
You, personally, are in fact not even of the capacity to be free.
You, personally, are self-destructing and lashing about in public
without a care of who what and how you affect.

> > > The Experience Contract is a trap and an escape.
> >
> > Cue self-promotional ego-attached peddling.
>
> I present not out of peddling, but sureness.

No dearest. Don't try to dress yourself up in clothes that don't belong.
You present out of self-important egotism. And you're peddling.

> > Too bad this is all meaningless.
>
> Not for those who can understand.

No, dearest. It is_ meaningless. It contains no meaning.
There aren't 'any' who can 'understand'.
Nor are you capable of understanding to any capacity.

You're simply on your way out Joseph. On your way out.

Prance about as you please, it won't change a thing.

On Fri, 15 Nov 2002, Mark Tribe wrote:

> > Yes, since you're not really the 'author' and you claim authorship.
>
> not at all.
>
> saying that i think of rhizome as social sculpture and of myself as an
> artist in that context is not a claim of authorship.

No, I am not referring to your 'sayings'.
Rhizome is 'listed' or 'exhibited' under your name.
Dancing around with words to present it otherwise is worthless.
You may argue all that you want in WORDS, but the exhibited
behavior speaks otherwise.

> my understanding of
> beuys' notion of social sculpture is that it enables everyone, or at least
> every participant, to become an artist.

Rhizome is not 'enabling' anyone to become an artist.
Secondly, Beuys used it in an actual_ sense, not in
a trivial administrative sense. Sorry Mark, if I came
over and bought your 'work thusly enabling you
to 'remain' an artist, you would not be 'my social
sculpture'.

> this doesn't mean that everyone
> starts making things that look like art, but rather that our everyday
> lives, from our jobs to our political activities, become a kind of artistic
> practice.

Ha-ha. As if. Rhizome enables nobody to that realization.

> it's a radical concept, one that challenges traditional notions
> of art, art making, authorship, etc.

No, it isn't a radical concept at all, nor does it challenge
any traditions, if one has any familiarity with traditions.

> in beuys' words: "every human being is an artist, a freedom being, called
> to participate in transforming and reshaping the conditions, thinking and
> structures that shape and condition our lives."

That's right mark: a FREEDOM BEING: and running around mistreating
others is not freedom. If I ran out on the street shooting humans
with a machine gun, is that FREEDOM?

No, the concept of FREEDOM implies respecting the volition of
those involved, and among other things recognizing that just
because your brain starts thinking about beuys, it doesn't
have any right to over–ride the volitional intent of
everybody else involved. I assure_ you that Beuys was
aware of such things, nor did Beuys try to justify his behavior
with extensive citing of others.

It doesn't matter how you try to 'dress it up': it is what it is.

And it ain't a social sculpture or pretty.

Nevermind that Beuys was aware of logos in terms of these things,
and he really didn't simply mechanically shove people about.

You have to be a PIPER to play the muzak, Mark.
And you're quite far from muzak of the spherese.

Quoting "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <[email protected]>:

> Like the narcisstic brain ape that you are you attempt to
> force your 'teaching' and 'service'. Oh dear.
> Religions are false. Belief in Joseph McElroy.

Belief is enough. Not in Joseph McElroy. Or in Joseph McElroy.

> I 'speak' of the situation as is: you're lashing out
> at other humans, and on repeated occasions. I don't need
> to be 'speaking for others' to make such a statement,
> accurately, and validly.

You speak of nothing, for you have nothing to say. Yet there is something for
you to say. Not a thing as in object. Your words must be a service.

> >
> > I sit when I sit. I eat when I eat.
>
> Meaningless verbal brain-chatter.

Simple exercise, yet you do not see it.

> No, dearest, that is what you do.
> Avoid attempting to project your own ego onto me.
> The only dog here is you, dearest.

I am a dog, I am a cat. I wear a hat.

> an un-awakened other. Dear, your whole behavior amounts
> to beating up children and leeching on their energy.

You are my child.

> The only way you can 'relate' to an 'other' is by
> jealousy which you pass on as love, and energetic leeching.
> And only as the 'other' being weaker_ than you.

I lose jealousy as I speak.

> I do not love you, dearest.

Have you forgiven me?

> Aie, here goes the attempt for cheap-mirroring murder.
> No, dearest, I am in no opposition to myself.

You oppose me, thus you oppose yourself.

> Sniff. I have no need to 'forgive myself'.

It is a rose.

>
> You're not capable of love, least of all teaching love,o Messiah
> egotist.

I cannot save anyone other than myself. But I have a responsibility to save the
world. I must resolve the paradox. You can help me.

>
> No dearest. Those who can see, do not speak of themselves.

When you speak of others, you speak of yourself. When you destroy others, you
destroy yourself. When you dream of others, you dream of yourself.


joseph (cor e form art) + (porat per ance ist)
frank + lyn - mc + El + roy

go shopping -> http://www.electrichands.com/shopindex.htm
call me 646 279 2309

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER CUPCAKEKALEIDOSCOPE - send email to
[email protected]

Quoting "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <[email protected]>:

> On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, joseph (yes) wrote:
>
> And don't forget love, and forgiveness. Aie! We have a non-warrior
> saint!

'Saint' is an obsolete term.

> > You speak of nothing,
>
> Oh no dearest. I speak of you. Precisely and accurately.

Then you speak of yourself.

>
> > for you have nothing to say.
>
> There goes the self-importance defensiveness again.

I have nothing to say. As you. But our words can be of service.

>
> No dearest, meaningless verbal chatter. There is nothing to see,
> no matter how much you wish to convince that there is.

Look as I look.

> > I am a dog, I am a cat. I wear a hat.
>
> Yet another simply exercise of the brain-obsessed ape.

It is not in the brain.

>
> Sorry dearest. I am no child of yours.
> I am no child at all.

I am your child.

> Trying hard to cover it up, but unfortunately your words
> are disconnected from reality.

Words are disconnected from reality, this is true.

> > Have you forgiven me?
>
> Meaningless drivel.

Meaningful response.

> > You oppose me, thus you oppose yourself.
>
> Bahhahhaha. I oppose you not. Nor would I oppose myself, were I to
> oppose 'you'. Narcissus narcissus, my dearest. You are not a reflection
> of me.

You are a mirror.

> > >
> > > You're not capable of love, least of all teaching love,o Messiah
> > > egotist.

I cannot save anyone save myself.

>
> You have no such responsibility, dearest Messiah.

We are Messiah. I am not Messiah.

> No, secondly, unlike you, I am not in a shell of self-reflection.
> When I speak of OTHERS I speak of OTHERS.

You speak badly, but I forgive you.


joseph (cor e form art) + (porat per ance ist)
frank + lyn - mc + El + roy

go shopping -> http://www.electrichands.com/shopindex.htm
call me 646 279 2309

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER CUPCAKEKALEIDOSCOPE - send email to
[email protected]

On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, joseph (yes) wrote:

> 'Saint' is an obsolete term.

No, it isn't, little idiot. Nor do you even know what it is.

> > > You speak of nothing,
> >
> > Oh no dearest. I speak of you. Precisely and accurately.
>
> Then you speak of yourself.

No dearest. I speak of you_: cheap mirroring infantile tactics
do not work.

> > > for you have nothing to say.
> >
> > There goes the self-importance defensiveness again.
>
> I have nothing to say. As you. But our words can be of service.

No dearest, I am not you.
Avoid attempting to dictate my behavior with a blanketing of 'we'.

Idiotic dictatorial ape.

+ What I say about you_ is accurate.

> >
> > No dearest, meaningless verbal chatter. There is nothing to see,
> > no matter how much you wish to convince that there is.
>
> Look as I look.

No, thanks dearest. Keep your ego projection to yourself.


> > > I am a dog, I am a cat. I wear a hat.
> >
> > Yet another simply exercise of the brain-obsessed ape.
>
> It is not in the brain.

Oh yes it is. That is where you_ speak from :)

> > Sorry dearest. I am no child of yours.
> > I am no child at all.
>
> I am your child.

No dearest, you are not my child. There is no 'connection' between you
and I.

> > Trying hard to cover it up, but unfortunately your words
> > are disconnected from reality.
>
> Words are disconnected from reality, this is true.

No dearest. YOUR_ words are disconnected from reality.

> > > Have you forgiven me?
> >
> > Meaningless drivel.
> Meaningful response.

Not in the least.

> > > You oppose me, thus you oppose yourself.
> >
> > Bahhahhaha. I oppose you not. Nor would I oppose myself, were I to
> > oppose 'you'. Narcissus narcissus, my dearest. You are not a reflection
> > of me.
>
> You are a mirror.

Oh no dearest. It's not as simplistic as that. and I will not tell you
how it is :)

> I cannot save anyone save myself.

There is no 'yourself'.

> >
> > You have no such responsibility, dearest Messiah.
>
> We are Messiah. I am not Messiah.

There is no 'we' love.

> > When I speak of OTHERS I speak of OTHERS.
>
> You speak badly, but I forgive you.


You're not capable of forgiveness, dearest.

Quoting "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <[email protected]>:

>
> No, it isn't, little idiot. Nor do you even know what it is.

you say such endearing pet names.

> No dearest, I am not you.
> Avoid attempting to dictate my behavior with a blanketing of 'we'.

we are joined

>
> Idiotic dictatorial ape.
>
> + What I say about you_ is accurate.

but the missles bounce

>
> No, thanks dearest. Keep your ego projection to yourself.
>

I do not go to movies alone.

>
> Oh yes it is. That is where you_ speak from :)

my fingers or my mouth.

>
> No dearest, you are not my child. There is no 'connection' between you
> and I.

we are joined

> > > Meaningless drivel.
> > Meaningful response.
>
> Not in the least.

No meaning :)

>
> Oh no dearest. It's not as simplistic as that. and I will not tell you
> how it is :)

you do not need


> > I cannot save anyone save myself.
>
> There is no 'yourself'.

there is no myself and yourself

>
> There is no 'we' love.

we love

>
> You're not capable of forgiveness, dearest.

I forgive you regardless.

joseph (cor e form art) + (porat per ance ist)
frank + lyn - mc + El + roy

go shopping -> http://www.electrichands.com/shopindex.htm
call me 646 279 2309

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER CUPCAKEKALEIDOSCOPE - send email to
[email protected]

Quoting "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <[email protected]>:

> On Mon, 18 Nov 2002, joseph (yes) wrote:
>
> > There is no defensiveness my friend,
>
> Oh yes there is, and your very denial is simply the flip-side
> of the same coin. The entirety of your subsequent commentary
> are self-importance egotistical passive-aggressive defensiveness,
> with your attempts to con-vince that you really really are
> enlightened.

As you wish my dear friend.


> > I enjoy the conversation
>
> No, you don't. In fact, you don't enjoy anything.
> Masochistic self-debasory masturbation is not 'enjoyment'.

I enjoy using a chisel to carve off the paint on an old door. I enjoy closing
my eyes and seeing through my eyelids.

>
> > and toss in sticks to stoke the fire,
>
> No, dearest, this is not what you are doing, no matter how much you
> try to label it with your words as such. What you are doing is
> speaking about your state, as that is the only thing you're capable of.

no matter how you label, with your words, what I am doing, you do not
understand what I am doing. Relax my friend, I am not here to win or lose.

>
> I don't 'wish to view you' as defensive, dearest. Avoid attempting
> to project your_ wishful_ delusions as representations of what
> is going on. I am entirely wish-free and desire'free, and reflect you
> as you are, not as you like to tell yourself that you are.

I am not attempting to project, I very carefully used the word "if" - thus
allowing you the choice. You have been doing this too long, your mirror is
getting foggy. Relax my friend.

> in verbal noise, reality is what is, and not subject to whatever
> labels you wish to attempt to slap onto it.

Words are perceptions, and frail ones. They don't change reality, but influence
how we perceive it. Removing the influence of words can be a good thing.

> >
> > Are responsibilities attachements?
>
> No.

Then I am free.

>
> No, it doesn't. Freedom is simply not automatic, nor a matter of
> 'discernment'–a word which you don't understand.
> Freedom is something you pay for, however, you've let the bird
> out of the cage.

Freedom is there at all times, but yes, there is a price.

>
> You are not building, nor are you free, dear.
> You, personally, are in fact not even of the capacity to be free.
> You, personally, are self-destructing and lashing about in public
> without a care of who what and how you affect.

I am not a person.

>
> No dearest. Don't try to dress yourself up in clothes that don't belong.
> You present out of self-important egotism. And you're peddling.

I peddle when it is appropriate. I present when it is appropriate. I sit when I
sit. I eat when I eat.

>
> You're simply on your way out Joseph. On your way out.

I have already left, now there is just me. And you, and we.


joseph (cor e form art) + (porat per ance ist)
frank + lyn - mc + El + roy

go shopping -> http://www.electrichands.com/shopindex.htm
call me 646 279 2309

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER CUPCAKEKALEIDOSCOPE - send email to
[email protected]

On Mon, 18 Nov 2002, joseph (yes) wrote:

> As you wish my dear friend.

No, dearest, no wishes are involved in the matter at all.
Nor am I your friend.

> I enjoy using a chisel to carve off the paint on an old door. I enjoy closing
> my eyes and seeing through my eyelids.

Delusional drivel.

> > > and toss in sticks to stoke the fire,
> >
> > No, dearest, this is not what you are doing, no matter how much you
> > try to label it with your words as such. What you are doing is
> > speaking about your state, as that is the only thing you're capable of.
>
> no matter how you label, with your words, what I am doing,

I am not labeling dearest. I do not use words the way you do.
Mimicrying back what I wrote isn't going to gain any more meaning.
I am pointing out withwords, exactly_ what you are doing.
The one who labels, blindly, from projection, shifting about
lexical categories is you.

> you do not understand what I am doing.

There is nothing to understand, no matter how much you stomp your
little feet that there is something to understand. What I wrote about
you is accurate and precise: you are an empty, decomposing 'male'
body without any personal power or integrity or talent. What
you are_ doing is attempting to peddle a delusional picture of yourself,
very, very hard.

> Relax my friend, I am not here to win or lose.

Avoid attempting to dicate my behavior, ape.

> I am not attempting to project,

Yes, you are. Reality is reality. Your denial won't change a thing.

> I very carefully used the word "if" - thus allowing you the choice.

No dearest, your words_ are irrelevant. I am not reflecting your words_.
I am reflecting you: the 'words' are merely a contact point for me,
and you may argue about your choice of clothing, but it's not what I am
looking at. Your words are simply a game of a dying brain, which
generates faux-symbolic pictures in order to keep itself lulled
and insulated from reality. Much like freezing soldiers singing
themselves to death in the trenches, or faux-religious elusionaries
who fancy something they don't understand an escape.

> You have been doing this too long,

Avoid attempting to dictate my behavior you psychotic idiot.

> your mirror is getting foggy.

Not in the least dearest. It's crystal clear.

> Relax my friend.

Oh, you're so hypnotizing. What are you going to do, wave a watch
in front of my face? Spare us your psychotic 'docteur' game, delusional
murderous ape.

I am neither your friend, nor un-relaxed.

> > in verbal noise, reality is what is, and not subject to whatever
> > labels you wish to attempt to slap onto it.
>
> Words are perceptions, and frail ones.

Meaningless drivel.

> They don't change reality, but influence how we perceive it.

Oh DO they now? Is that what your brain keeps telling ya baby?


> Removing the influence of words can be a good thing.

In your case, very much so. Quit peddling that agenda of yours
with your words, and take a good look at the cripple that you are,
and what you attempt to do to others.

> > >
> > > Are responsibilities attachements?
> >
> > No.
>
> Then I am free.

No, dearest, you aren't. Nor is there any connection between what I
wrote and your statement. Also: you're not capable of responsibilities.
Freedom is not 'there all the times' ++ more drivel.

> I am not a person.

Yes you are dearest. And nothing but. Unfortunately.

> I peddle when it is appropriate.

No dearest, you simply peddle. There is no justification.

> I present when it is appropriate. I sit when I
> sit. I eat when I eat.

Drivel.

> >
> > You're simply on your way out Joseph. On your way out.
>
> I have already left, now there is just me. And you, and we.

More meaningless hallucinations.
What I wrote dearest is: you're dead.
Without a chance for freedom.
And it was your_ choice.
Now avoid attempting to peddle yourself as someone
who is actually capable of things you are not,
and avoid attempting to use 'belief' 'imagery'
'shamanism' and 'spirituality' to leech energy from others.

THAT is what is your reality.
The one behind that singasong that you tell yourself.
That of a delusional, empty shell thrashing about.


The mesmeric self-hypnotic maschines of zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42

Quoting "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <[email protected]>:

>
> More meaningless hallucinations.
> What I wrote dearest is: you're dead.
> Without a chance for freedom.
> And it was your_ choice.
> Now avoid attempting to peddle yourself as someone
> who is actually capable of things you are not,
> and avoid attempting to use 'belief' 'imagery'
> 'shamanism' and 'spirituality' to leech energy from others.
>
> THAT is what is your reality.
> The one behind that singasong that you tell yourself.
> That of a delusional, empty shell thrashing about.
>
>
> The mesmeric self-hypnotic maschines of zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Oh my old friend, your attempts to murder me will not work, though I understand
why you wish to do so. I love you still. Does this bother you? That I can love
the man who murders me?

joseph (cor e form art) + (porat per ance ist)
frank + lyn - mc + El + roy

go shopping -> http://www.electrichands.com/shopindex.htm
call me 646 279 2309

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER CUPCAKEKALEIDOSCOPE - send email to
[email protected]

On Mon, 18 Nov 2002, joseph (yes) wrote:

> Oh my old friend,

I am neither old, nor your friend.

> your attempts to murder me will not work,

There are no attempts to murder you, dearest.
You're already_ dead–and lashing out at others.

> though I understand why you wish to do so.

You understand nothing dearest: you lack
the capacity to understand. Nor are therea ny wishes in my behavior.

Sorry dearest. You are_ what you are, not what you wish to peddle
yourself as.

> I love you still.

No, you don't. Your melodramatic posturing is much akin to
an old woman's: please buy me, I still have life in me, I'm pretty.

> Does this bother you?

Cheap emotional attempt at knee-jerk.

> That I can love the man who murders me?

You are not capable of love, dearest.
You're attempting to present your melodramatic masochism
driven by your ego as 'love'.

Nor is anyone murdering you; rather the opposite
that is what you do to others, and passive-aggressively
attempting to do in this situation.

It's a standard response of a conflated ego with reproductive-sexual
mechanisms, which attempts to drain energy from others by a few
standard tricks, mainly via emotional appeals.

Paired with neediness, childishness, and constant need for attention.

The more ypu speak, the more you reveal yourself, dearest.

Narcissus-princessa.

Quoting "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <[email protected]>:

My old friend, whether you choose to return the salutation or not.

> There are no attempts to murder you, dearest.
> You're already_ dead–and lashing out at others.

Others? I speak to you. Do you speak for others?

>
> You understand nothing dearest: you lack
> the capacity to understand. Nor are therea ny wishes in my behavior.

Wishes are unfulfilled dreams, you are weak with them.

>
> Sorry dearest. You are_ what you are, not what you wish to peddle
> yourself as.

I sit when I sit. I eat when I eat.

>
> No, you don't. Your melodramatic posturing is much akin to
> an old woman's: please buy me, I still have life in me, I'm pretty.

You call to me my dear friend, looking for me like a dog to his bone.

>
> > Does this bother you?
> Cheap emotional attempt at knee-jerk.

I see that it does. Relax my friend.

>
> > That I can love the man who murders me?
> You are not capable of love, dearest.
> You're attempting to present your melodramatic masochism
> driven by your ego as 'love'.

Forgive me if you love me. Or, love me if you forgive me. To forgive is to
release thoughts of another in opposition to you, for in fact another cannot be
in opposition to you. You are in opposition to yourself. Forgive yourself and
then you love.

> Nor is anyone murdering you; rather the opposite
> that is what you do to others, and passive-aggressively
> attempting to do in this situation.

I am responding to you courting me.

> The more ypu speak, the more you reveal yourself, dearest.

As it should be, to those who can see.


joseph (cor e form art) + (porat per ance ist)
frank + lyn - mc + El + roy

go shopping -> http://www.electrichands.com/shopindex.htm
call me 646 279 2309

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER CUPCAKEKALEIDOSCOPE - send email to
[email protected]

On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, joseph (yes) wrote:

> > There are no attempts to murder you, dearest.
> > You're already_ dead–and lashing out at others.
>
> Others? I speak to you.

That was with regards to your general mode of existence,
and quite clearly so. Don't attempt to present some
misunderstanding when there isn't any.

Again, you project your shadow as if it is reality.

Like the narcisstic brain ape that you are you attempt to
force your 'teaching' and 'service'. Oh dear.
Religions are false. Belief in Joseph McElroy.

Additionally, you are not capable of speaking to me.

> Do you speak for others?

I 'speak' of the situation as is: you're lashing out
at other humans, and on repeated occasions. I don't need
to be 'speaking for others' to make such a statement,
accurately, and validly.

Avoid attempt to throw in random accusations based on
words you pick out superficially.

> > You understand nothing dearest: you lack
> > the capacity to understand. Nor are therea ny wishes in my behavior.
>
> Wishes are unfulfilled dreams, you are weak with them.

Wishes are nothing of the sort, nor am I 'weak' in any manner
no matter how much you_ wish_ it to be so dearest.
I have no 'unfilfilled dreams' at all.
Go play cheap shrink elsewhere.

> > Sorry dearest. You are_ what you are, not what you wish to peddle
> > yourself as.
>
> I sit when I sit. I eat when I eat.

Meaningless verbal brain-chatter.

> > No, you don't. Your melodramatic posturing is much akin to
> > an old woman's: please buy me, I still have life in me, I'm pretty.
>
> You call to me my dear friend, looking for me like a dog to his bone.

No, dearest, that is what you do.
Avoid attempting to project your own ego onto me.
The only dog here is you, dearest.

> > > Does this bother you?
> > Cheap emotional attempt at knee-jerk.
>
> I see that it does. Relax my friend.

You see nothing dearest. Nor are you capable of seeing.
What you do, is hallucinate mentally, and project this outwardly
attempting to enforce your egotistical projection on
an un-awakened other. Dear, your whole behavior amounts
to beating up children and leeching on their energy.

It's not going to change no matter how much you try this
'I see you' pose.

I am not your friend, and what you mean by 'relax' is
release self-responsibility, mental clarity and focus, and
reduce yourself to an energetic pool I can feed on.

The only way you can 'relate' to an 'other' is by
jealousy which you pass on as love, and energetic leeching.
And only as the 'other' being weaker_ than you.

> > > That I can love the man who murders me?
> > You are not capable of love, dearest.
> > You're attempting to present your melodramatic masochism
> > driven by your ego as 'love'.
>
> Forgive me if you love me.

I do not love you, dearest.

> Or, love me if you forgive me.

One is unrelated to the other. Avoid attempting to dictate my behavior.

> To forgive is to release thoughts of another in opposition to you,
> for in fact another cannot be in opposition to you.

Meaningles cuckoo drivel, attempted to be passed on as 'wisdom'.
You possess none, and lack the capability of ever acquiring any.

> You are in opposition to yourself.

Aie, here goes the attempt for cheap-mirroring murder.
No, dearest, I am in no opposition to myself.
Avoid projecting your own narcissistic state onto others.

> Forgive yourself and then you love.

Sniff. I have no need to 'forgive myself'.
Keep that psycho-idiocy to yourself.

You're not capable of love, least of all teaching love,o Messiah
egotist.

> > Nor is anyone murdering you; rather the opposite
> > that is what you do to others, and passive-aggressively
> > attempting to do in this situation.
>
> I am responding to you courting me.

No dearest, nobody is courting you.

I am simply pointing out what you are_, which is a farmer impotent
egotistical brute, running around attempting to exploit human's
psycho-sexual impulse (you're courting me, really you are)
attempting to present that as love, and abuse the mechanism
to feed on others' energy (lacking any of your own).

You're simply a leech who attempts to attach itself to anything with
life-force.

> > The more ypu speak, the more you reveal yourself, dearest.
>
> As it should be, to those who can see.

No dearest. Those who can see, do not speak of themselves.
Only asleep + empty egotistical narcissists do.

On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, joseph (yes) wrote:

> Belief is enough. Not in Joseph McElroy. Or in Joseph McElroy.

And don't forget love, and forgiveness. Aie! We have a non-warrior
saint!

> > I 'speak' of the situation as is: you're lashing out
> > at other humans, and on repeated occasions. I don't need
> > to be 'speaking for others' to make such a statement,
> > accurately, and validly.
>
> You speak of nothing,

Oh no dearest. I speak of you. Precisely and accurately.

> for you have nothing to say.

There goes the self-importance defensiveness again.

> Yet there is something for
> you to say. Not a thing as in object. Your words must be a service.

Avoid attempting to order another's words you pathetic egotistical ape.

> > >
> > > I sit when I sit. I eat when I eat.
> >
> > Meaningless verbal brain-chatter.
>
> Simple exercise, yet you do not see it.

No dearest, meaningless verbal chatter. There is nothing to see,
no matter how much you wish to convince that there is.

> > No, dearest, that is what you do.
> > Avoid attempting to project your own ego onto me.
> > The only dog here is you, dearest.
>
> I am a dog, I am a cat. I wear a hat.

Yet another simply exercise of the brain-obsessed ape.

> > an un-awakened other. Dear, your whole behavior amounts
> > to beating up children and leeching on their energy.
>
> You are my child.

Sorry dearest. I am no child of yours.
I am no child at all.

> > The only way you can 'relate' to an 'other' is by
> > jealousy which you pass on as love, and energetic leeching.
> > And only as the 'other' being weaker_ than you.
>
> I lose jealousy as I speak.


Trying hard to cover it up, but unfortunately your words
are disconnected from reality.

> > I do not love you, dearest.
>
> Have you forgiven me?


Meaningless drivel.

> > Aie, here goes the attempt for cheap-mirroring murder.
> > No, dearest, I am in no opposition to myself.
>
> You oppose me, thus you oppose yourself.

Bahhahhaha. I oppose you not. Nor would I oppose myself, were I to
oppose 'you'. Narcissus narcissus, my dearest. You are not a reflection
of me.



> > Sniff. I have no need to 'forgive myself'.
>
> It is a rose.

Drivel.

> >
> > You're not capable of love, least of all teaching love,o Messiah
> > egotist.
>

> I cannot save anyone other than myself.

No you cannot save yourself. dearest.

>But I have a responsibility to save the
> world. I must resolve the paradox. You can help me.

You have no such responsibility, dearest Messiah.

saving the world is a delusion of the ego.

> >
> > No dearest. Those who can see, do not speak of themselves.
>
> When you speak of others, you speak of yourself.

Avoid speaking for me idiotic ape, first.

No, secondly, unlike you, I am not in a shell of self-reflection.
When I speak of OTHERS I speak of OTHERS.

> When you destroy others, you
> destroy yourself.

This is only applicable to you dearest, not to me.

> When you dream of others, you dream of yourself.

Speak for yourself ape.

And avoid projecting your ego onto me. Again and again.

On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, joseph (yes) wrote:

> My old friend, whether you choose to return the salutation or not.

No, dearest, it is not a salutation. Friendship is something that
requires mutial respect and intent. As you're unable of either,
and so you are unable of friendship.

Just cheap hag-like posturing.

`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42

On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, joseph (yes) wrote:

> > No, dearest, it is not a salutation. Friendship is something that
> > requires mutial respect and intent. As you're unable of either,
> > and so you are unable of friendship.
>
> It becomes obvious that you like to talk of yourself,

Nothing of the sort 'becomes obvious'.
I am speaking of you.

> and do not realize it.


No, dearest. I am in perfect awarenes of what I am doing.
Avoid attempting to project your behavior onto me,
and thusly abrogate responsibility.

It is you who accost others with infantile neediness,
as presented by your insistence of addressing me as a friend,
which is also presumptuous, idiotic, and arrogant.

> joseph (cor e form art) + (porat per ance ist)
> frank + lyn - mc + El + roy
>
> go shopping -> http://www.electrichands.com/shopindex.htm
> call me 646 279 2309
>
> SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER CUPCAKEKALEIDOSCOPE - send email to
> [email protected]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, joseph (yes) wrote:
> >
> > > My old friend, whether you choose to return the salutation or not.
> >
> > No, dearest, it is not a salutation. Friendship is something that
> > requires mutial respect and intent. As you're unable of either,
> > and so you are unable of friendship.
> >
> > Just cheap hag-like posturing.
> >
> > `, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42
>

o
[ + ]

+ + +


| '|' |
_________________________________________
`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42

Quoting "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <[email protected]>:

> addressing me as a friend,
> which is also presumptuous, idiotic, and arrogant.

My dear friend, I didn't address you as "a friend." There is a world of
difference.

joseph (cor e form art) + (porat per ance ist)
frank + lyn - mc + El + roy

go shopping -> http://www.electrichands.com/shopindex.htm
call me 646 279 2309

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER CUPCAKEKALEIDOSCOPE - send email to
[email protected]

On Wed, 20 Nov 2002, joseph (yes) wrote:

> My dear friend, I didn't address you as "a friend." There is a world of
> difference.

Actually you just did again. Your psychotic mindgames
are sans importance.

I am not your friend.

On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, joseph (yes) wrote:

> you say such endearing pet names.

Passive-aggressiveness.

> > No dearest, I am not you.
> > Avoid attempting to dictate my behavior with a blanketing of 'we'.
>
> we are joined

Not in the least dearest. There is no 'we'.
Delusional needy cuckoo.

> > + What I say about you_ is accurate.
>
> but the missles bounce

There are no missiles, dearest.

> > No, thanks dearest. Keep your ego projection to yourself.
> >
>
> I do not go to movies alone.

This is not about the movies, dearest.

> >
> > Oh yes it is. That is where you_ speak from :)
>
> my fingers or my mouth.

Neither. Your brain.


> > No dearest, you are not my child. There is no 'connection' between you
> > and I.
>
> we are joined

No dearest. There is no 'we'. Keep your ego projection to yourself.


> > Oh no dearest. It's not as simplistic as that. and I will not tell you
> > how it is :)
>
> you do not need

Not because you know.

> > > I cannot save anyone save myself.
> >
> > There is no 'yourself'.
>
> there is no myself and yourself

Speak for yourself, dear. Your essential emptiness
is just yours.

> >
> > There is no 'we' love.
>
> we love

No dearest. There is no 'we'. Idiotic ape.

>
> I forgive you regardless.

You're not capable of forgiveness, or love.

Quoting "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <[email protected]>:

> No, dearest, it is not a salutation. Friendship is something that
> requires mutial respect and intent. As you're unable of either,
> and so you are unable of friendship.

It becomes obvious that you like to talk of yourself, and do not realize it.

joseph (cor e form art) + (porat per ance ist)
frank + lyn - mc + El + roy

go shopping -> http://www.electrichands.com/shopindex.htm
call me 646 279 2309

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER CUPCAKEKALEIDOSCOPE - send email to
[email protected]







> On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, joseph (yes) wrote:
>
> > My old friend, whether you choose to return the salutation or not.
>
> No, dearest, it is not a salutation. Friendship is something that
> requires mutial respect and intent. As you're unable of either,
> and so you are unable of friendship.
>
> Just cheap hag-like posturing.
>
> `, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42