R: RHIZOME_RAW: PLASTIC BUDDHA AND MANIK

Posted by Salvatore Iaconesi | Tue Sep 12th 2006 3:04 p.m.

manik vauda marija manik nikola pilipovic wrote:
> >reality has several levels.
> Would you,please tell us how many?
..
> We suppose you could tell us "what's going on"?
> Or you have some kind of advantage regarding
> your ignorance.

my mail wasn't a critique on you. did it sound like it?
i don't understand the ridiculous tone of the reply.

> >who cares about who the goodboys and badboys are?
> Just few days ago Mr.Ahtisari,man who make a decision
> about my country (Serbia)told in public that we are as
> nation 'bad',and this mean that we could ,because of his
> words, endure heavy political consequence.So,don't push
> with this melancholic "Everything's relative..."nonsense.
...
> >anyway. why bother understanding where the "good" is?
> Your spleen is disgust.

you think you're on top of some throne.
i was saying that i think that there are no good guys. so why search.
do you think that the "good guys" exist?
i'd be happy if they did, but i don't think they do (and it is my personal
opinion. it is not some higher truth i want to egocentrically reveal or
something, like you seem to state about what i say)
because i don't think that people can do much about how he world goes: because
people, as a mass, seems to me as if they're too captured in their stupid
business; the mass doesn't seem to be able to step back from points of view
that take nowhere. it may sound hippy-sh or whatever, but it's what i think: i
see no reason to reply in that way

> >no revolution is possible,
> Did we mentioned this word...revolution.Don't use your day dreams
> in important thing like is firs direction to unknown people.

you don't know me. it is so nice of you to be so tolerant and democratic.
you may have your tons of reasons to feel the way you do, as i do have mine.
the word revolution has a meaning to me, which i don't need to explain here.
a meaning that is different from yours, naturally. respect mine as i respect
yours.

> >nature gives a hint that's more precious than anything you can
> achieve thr=
> ough
> >media, art, violence or whatever: the notion that there are
> thresholds.
> What is nature?How could you explain nature.From which place,which
> methodol=
> ogy you are going to use for it...?Kid we are too old for this shit.

and

> >up to a certain threshold everything works just fine. as soon as you
> step=
> away
> >from it, no matter how little the step, things turn into chaos.
> In symmetrical interval in time we could see enlightened
> people on Rhizome_Raw.And every time it's unpleasant to read their
> texts.
> Those people just like you are out of reality,but on wrong way,like
> drug ad=
> dict.

and

> We suppose you've read some Zen books?This thinks you learn now MANIK
> alrea=
> dy forgot.
> So tell us something about chaos,from which point you are going to try
> to e=
> xplained chaos to us: physical,psychiatry,philosophical...some other
> way?

and

> >"sadness and grief" have no meaning in nature. i can bow to that.
> This is quotation.Are you talking with some certain posture
> or you expose your philosophy in general?

:)
come on you're making a show off a simple message talking about simple things.
you don't like it? who cares?
i am sorry if it sounded as if i was making some kind of incredibly important
statement by sitting on a high throne of wisdom.
that is not what i meant.
my message was about how sad i am about the helplessness of humanity.
and about how disgusted i am by the way the world is ruled.
nothing more. those things you crticize about were just examples, parallels.
what you did in the reply is like saying that someone says bullshit because he
wears lousy trouser, without even listening.

> >small steps in a certain direction can turn into huge differences
> (along=
>
> >unexpected directions), a few steps ahead.
> This is good!But what about people without legs?

you are actually making my point.

> >we're loosing language to a mass-culture made up by aligning semantic
> buil=
> ding
> >blocks that someone else has prepared for us.
> Who was that?When did he(they)prepared that for us?
> And who have courage to do think like that with semantic?This is
> criminal a=
> ct,you know.

sense of humor apart: you know, people think. i think, too.
i think, in my personal limited mind, that we are suffering from limitations
not only in the freedom of thought, but in the way that we are able to think.
in the tools we can use: language, culture, knowledge of history, lots of
stuff. tools are disappearing. because society wants consumers fitting in
specific categories, not free thinkers, not people that are able to think
criticlly.
i was saying that. what did you understand i was saying?

> >everyone is an expert. truth doesn't exist.
> Read lot of books,eat moderate,don't smoke,don't use drugs(even grass
> could=
> be bad for some people).
> And no more free lessons!
> MANIK

come on, this is ridiculous
Your Reply