Easy Like Sunday Morning

On Thu, 5 Sep 2002, Eryk Salvaggio wrote:

> Zaphod, sir, if you don't mind:
>
> We're still discussing me?

Max brought you up. Not only that but he attempted to elevate you
into some sort of untouchable saint who is not to be 'poked,'
because Max knows that THEY are the problem, and my comment was to him,
though obviously I don't mind your reading it.

> Uhm, you don't have to like me,

Dear, enough with your self-righteous martyr-pose. I neither like it nor
dislike you. Liking or disliking hasn't got any relation to my comments.

> that's fine,

No, it isn't. My comments on your behavior are perfctly valid, and they
haven't got anything to do with liking or disliking 'you'.

> I like what I am doing,

What is it that you're doing?

> I'm happy with who I am,

Who are you? And, in fact, ARE you?

> not because I am perfect

As opposing your claimed achieving state of union and identification
with the God-head as in 'I am God'–something which doesn't happen
'just like that'–and takes a lot_ of work.

You make a lot of statements about things that you 'are',
when in fact you ARE NOT.

> but because I know that I have a lot of work to do to be a
> better person

Being a better person? Than what? You cannot be a 'better
person'. You can only be what you're capable of being.

> and because I know I am trying.

One does not try. One does or doesn't.

> I wonder about how to solve some problems

Solve yourself. Maybe you should solve why you try to solve.

> and I have taken some of your advisements to heart and I have considered
> many of them.

Funny, your heart looks asleep from here.

> I try to be honest with my emotions,

Sure do. What is the 'source' of your 'emotions'?
How many are the energetic centers responsible for 'emotions'?
How many for feelings? Where are they located? What is the difference
between genders in those terms? How is that applicabe to the mixed
genders?

What does 'honest' mean?

Ple–eeeeeeeeeeee-ase don't poke me too hard. I'm tryin'.

> I try to understand

What does 'understand' mean and how do you 'try' to understand?

> what compassion means,

Why?

> I want to make the world a better place

You want to leave a mark: typical of an adolescent male who has not
reproduced.

> and I am trying to figure out how to do that.

What makes you want to 'make the world a better place'?
And what's wrong with the 'World' anyhow?

> I don't know what you know about me,

Nothing besides what I see; rest assured.

> I mean you seem to attack me as if I matter,

Oh no, that is hardly the case. Don't attempt to use the
manner in which I do things (which you clearly misunderstand
as per the above) as some sort of 'reflection' of yourself.
How I 'attack' you hasn't got anything to do with you.

> as if I think I matter more than I do.

You seem to think yourself capable of 'making the world a better place'.
That's a mighty claim there–but when this is addressed you try to play
the humble ordinary man. Right-o. All the glory, none of the
responsibility.

> My art matters to me and I don't know why I am expected to apologize for that.

Are you? I don't expect you to apologize–you can't apologize anyways.

> You've never really been specific

On the contrary: I am precise and specific continuously.

> in what your problem with me is.

I don't have a 'problem with you'. There is no 'you' anyhow.

> You accuse me of using excess verbiage I guess,

True.

> but you never have said what was wrong with any of it.

It's not anything I can 'tell you.'

> Maybe you just aren't ready to lurk again

Pass me another idiotic judgement, thank you.

> so you know that if you bring up a vague insult I'll respond,

Idiot. Max Herman brought you up.

> or something.

Yeah, that's exactly it. I have nothing better to do than
pick on the GREAT-but-small-and-ordinary heroic figure
of Monsenor Eryk Salvaggio.

> So, here I am, tear me to shreds with

How noble of you.

> your interjection of vague,

My 'interjections' are not vague. Your illiteracy is not
because of 'me'.

> unanswerable critical comments,

Mu. Doncha like Zen, dear? Or is Zen only useful insofar
as posing to further your art critic career?

> in between lines of my own quotations, as is your modus operandi.

This is not my 'modus operandi'–and you neither understand it,
nor have currently the capability to do so, nor any 'rights'
to pass judgements on it. Meanwhile attempting to make me out
into the 'problem'–and you the noble, martyr-brave hero
offering himself to the 'bullets' in a manner which reeks
of self-importance, self-deceit and condescension.

> I don't claim to know anything,

No? You don't know that you're God?

> sorry if I come off that way,

I am going to start the Sorry Art Museum and hang all meaningless
apologies there one of these days, I swear.

> I have questions and I guess I ask them by making statements sometimes,

Questioning is good: maybe start questioning everything you do
with the same attitude that you question the *World*?

> ask questions by making art.

I'm not getting into that one.

> I have given you the benefit of the doubt

Why thank you; I feel honored. Did you also give a Benefit Party of the
Doubt?

> and even though I consider you to be really rude to me,

So this art-experience is not pretty, comfortable, and pleasant?
To-morrow I shall make you a beuatiful c-a-r-p-e-t, a lovely
b-ow-and a pretty dress.

> I've listened
> anyway because I am on a constant search for ideas as much as I am
> struggling for self improvement.

Ha!

> I have some observations you maybe
> don't agree with, or think I have felt or analyzed
> incorrectly, but if you don't tell me what they are then I have no idea
> what I should be reconsidering, or why.

As I said. I shall be printing the Instruction manual for Elite
Enlightened Individuals within the end of next millnnium.
Don't worry. It'll all be clear then.

> The sense I make of the world is
> an admittedly futile stab at sense making; and I am trying, and I don't
> know what more you want from me,

I don't 'want' anything from you.

> or anyone, except to look, at the
> world, at themselves, constantly,

They look but don't see.

> and to search for a way to make it better.

John cage quote. Gimme a guess.

> It's not to say "oh, pity me," because sure, I can be an
> asshole, plenty of times; when certain conditions are met. I try to rise
> above that stuff.


> But if you aren't going to criticize specific ideas of mine,

I am not interested in 'criticizing'

> or pieces of mine,

I could but could you afford it?

> or even personal habits, then I don't see why you should bring
> me up in ways you know I would find insulting.

I know nothing of the sort.

> I don't know what it means that I am " hardly a soldier, but attempting to play general". I
> don't want to be a soldier and I don't want to be a general.

You made the statement ' a true general.. etc.'
Am I to take this as I want to mouth off, but bear no responsibility?

> I never
> made the claim that I was either and I don't really feel like my
> behavior justifies that type of response, that is to say, when you
> attack me, I don't know who you are talking about,

You.

> but they have my name and it makes me uncomfortable that my name is associated with those
> behaviors,

Why? I didn't make you make that statement about what generals do
or don't. Besides you flatly knee-jerk at the word 'general'.

Upon graduation Balanchine married Geva, a fellow student whom he had
met in the ballroom dancing class. Grigorevich disapproved of this
marriage, and would refer to Geva in front of Balanchine as "Bulldozer."
It hurt Geva that her husband didn't defend her. Geva described her
husband as a cross between a poet and a general.

> which is ridiculous, I guess, all perception without a real basis,


> but I'm bothered, what can I say? I want to bring my external and
> internal realities into convergence, and you are signaling a failure, on
> my part, to do so. This troubles me.

Sure. You're going about it the wrong way.
That's what I'm 'signaling'.

> I used to attack all the guys who I thought were pompous douchebags and
> maybe this is my comeuppance.

Karma (laughing).

> I don't think of myself as a pompous douchebag really;
> but this is maybe your goal, is to make me feel like one.

Highlight of my existence.

> I mean that's how it usually goes; when you are conversing with a
> pompous douchebag: you make some criticism and they try to say how
> immune they are to being upset about it, but of course they keep
> answering because maybe you have a patch of truth in what you are
> saying, or your interest seems sincere, or because they like having
> attention on them.

No, I talk to you because your sincerity brings me great delight.

> I'm not upset per se- I went out today and spent some
> time in the city and saw my friend who is back in town and I didn't
> think about you once, or the internet, you know, and why would I.

Ok.

> I just went out and got to be semi invisible and see things for a while,
> and I felt good, and then I come home and find an email and you are
> saying "I'm hardly a soldier but am attempting to play general" and
> like, what am I supposed to do about it? What's the proper response?

No, baby. THIS is what I want. I want to see what you do when you
have no proper response.

> Criticize my work, criticize the way I live my life, criticize the
> things I have to say, or the way I look, or whatever you want, but
> actually criticize something, would you?

I am not interested in criticizing. You're well-trained in responding
to criticizing.

> Please don't just make these vague non-statements

No more zen!!!

> that have no weight to them

Oh but they do, my dear.

> and are impossible to respond to.

Mu.

> I don't know what they are supposed to achieve.

THE HORROR!

> Is it just about "defaming" me?

The PARANOIA!

> Doesn't that require "fame" to begin with?

It's actually worse–I'm trying to assure you never get any fame.
You know–get them while they're young.

> Because it seems like that sort of dirty politics,

Right. Your paranoia is my dirty politics.

> like if you just associate me
> with the negatives enough maybe people will just keep seeing me in a
> negative light,

I'm not associating you with anything you haven't done.
Quit trying to martyr yourself.

> and maybe the art I am doing won't mean anything to anyone,

That's what I'm after. Putting the little honest man out to change
the world down. It's a fucking conspiracy!

> and maybe what I have to say will be dismissed right away, maybe
> people will just assume I don't matter because they saw you say "oh,
> Salvaggio- he wants to be a general, but he's hardly even a soldier!"

Waltz & tango, that's what I like.

> Maybe you are just making sure other people see that I am weak and non
> threatening?

Totally! Is this a confession booth?

> Fine, I'm weak, I don't know what the whole idea is since I
> never said I wasn't weak to begin with, and I never tried to be
> threatening.

Amen.

> Do you want me to leave the mailing lists?

I don't want anything. Desire nada.

> I will, if you could give me a single, mutually convincing reason for
> how it would make things better in the world if I left these stupid
> mailing lists and never announced another project again.

I could, but that's too easy.

> I mean, what is victory for you, and why is it so
> important?

Your victory is my victory in service of his victory. Amen.

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

-IID42 Kandinskij @27+ wrote:

>I like what I am doing,
>
>
> What is it that you're doing?
>

On these mailing lists- which is solely how you know me- I am talking
about art.


>>I'm happy with who I am,
>>
>
> Who are you? And, in fact, ARE you?
>

Yes.


>As opposing your claimed achieving state of union and identification
> with the God-head as in 'I am God'–something which doesn't happen
> 'just like that'–and takes a lot_ of work.
>

No, you're wrong. God as I know the word is not anything we can
"achieve" a union with. God is something we are already in union with.
The trick is to forget the things we've invented to distract ourselves
from that- ideas like your concept of seperation. In this regard I'm an
atheist. There is no God because there is no "Not God." I don't know
what the God Head is because I don't believe in a God with a Head,
either, more of an evenly distributed blanket.


>You make a lot of statements about things that you 'are',
> when in fact you ARE NOT.
>

I made a lot of statements about what I am not.

>>Being a better person? Than what? You cannot be a 'better
>> person'. You can only be what you're capable of being.
>>

I believe I can be a better person than I am. If I can understand and
recognize my own jealousies, insecurities, manipulation and ego, then I
can work to eliminate them. The trick is to find them. I do this by
questioning myself constantly. My art comes out of these questions.


>>and because I know I am trying.
>>
>
> One does not try. One does or doesn't.
>

I don't think that's true. That would mean there is no struggle and that
there is no hope.


>Solve yourself. Maybe you should solve why you try to solve.
>

I am working on that.


>Funny, your heart looks asleep from here.
>

Does it come across in my punctuation marks? Here:


<3

That one's for you.


>>
>>Sure do. What is the 'source' of your 'emotions'?
>>

A question I ask myself constantly. Are my emotions the result of
attatchments, ego, fear, delusion? Everytime I feel something I wonder
why. But why is this interesting to anyone, what I feel, what the source
of "my" emotions are? Aren't these all personal landscapes and aren't
these battles fought internally?


>>
>> How many are the energetic centers responsible for 'emotions'?
>>

Those are not the terms I understand emotions in. I'm looking at a
psychology degree [well, I think I recently gave up on that] but those
are the terms I understand emotions in. So we do not share a vocabulary,
but that doesn't mean I don't have a concern for the same questions.


>>
>> How many for feelings? Where are they located? What is the difference
>> between genders in those terms? How is that applicabe to the mixed
>> genders?
>>

Who cares?

>>What does 'honest' mean?
>>

I won't explain it because I can't. You won't explain it because….?


>>Ple–eeeeeeeeeeee-ase don't poke me too hard. I'm tryin'.
>>

I think this comment is mean spirited.



>What does 'understand' mean and how do you 'try' to understand?
>

You took it out of context. The statement was: I try to understand what
compassion means.


>what compassion means,
>
>
> Why?
>

I don't know why. I don't believe in God, per se, and since I think the
reality of everything is blank space- whether it's Zen or Baudrillard,
whatever way one prefers thier blankness, I suppose- I really don't know
why I should be so interested in compassion. I don't have answers and
don't claim to have them. I don't know where you got that idea.



>I want to make the world a better place
>
>
> You want to leave a mark: typical of an adolescent male who has not
> reproduced.
>

No, I want to make the world a better place. Leaving a mark isn't making
the world a better place. I don't know what it has to do with
adolescence [I'm 23, not 17] or reproduction. I assume it might be
typical, I don't have a problem with that.


>What makes you want to 'make the world a better place'?
>

Because I see a lot of suffering in people, and I want people to know
they don't have to do it.


>
> And what's wrong with the 'World' anyhow?
>

People are suffering and they don't have to be.


>>You seem to think yourself capable of 'making the world a better place'.
>>

No, you aren't listening. I'm trying to figure out how to make the world
a better place by showing people they don't need to suffer needlessly. A
lot of the suffering in the world is cause by imaginary problems. I have
been able to make people realize that. Not a whole bunch of people, but
some. It is also sometimes good to show people that there is beauty even
in ugly situations. But again; I don't know why we're talking about this
here. It's all very obvious. I think a lot of people here feel the same
way, but there is a stigma about saying these things.



>>
>> That's a mighty claim there–but when this is addressed you try to play
>> the humble ordinary man. Right-o. All the glory, none of the
>> responsibility.
>>

Well, what's so fantastic about it? What's the glory in it? It's just
the truth. There is nothing extraordinary about it. In fact, it is
completely ordinary.


>but you never have said what was wrong with any of it.
>
>
> It's not anything I can 'tell you.'
>

Well, abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence, I suppose.


>>Pass me another idiotic judgement, thank you.
>>

I think you have a double standard. You have been passing judgements on
who you conjecture me to be.


>Yeah, that's exactly it. I have nothing better to do than
> pick on the GREAT-but-small-and-ordinary heroic figure
> of Monsenor Eryk Salvaggio.
>

Didn't you say irony was an energy drain? Maybe I don't know the
difference between irony and sarcasm?


>
>
>>So, here I am, tear me to shreds with
>>
>
> How noble of you.
>


There's nothing noble about recognizing patterns which you are
constantly repeating.


>>Mu. Doncha like Zen, dear? Or is Zen only useful insofar
>> as posing to further your art critic career?
>>

You don't understand Zen in the same terms I do. It is also ridiculous
to me to try to enforce a cookie cutter version of a philosophy
descended from "Find your own light and let it be your guide." I am
finding my own light and I am using it to guide me. The same as everyone
else, and this is why there's no reason to discuss it.



>>in between lines of my own quotations, as is your modus operandi.
>>
>
> This is not my 'modus operandi'–and you neither understand it,
>

My statement was that you would interject comments in between my quotes
[distorting a great deal of the original context] which is precisely
what you did. So I think I understood that part of things pretty well.



>
> nor have currently the capability to do so, nor any 'rights'
> to pass judgements on it.
>

I have every right to pass judgment on your judgements of me. I have a
way of knowing if what you say is valid and applies to my life or does
not. Most of it is simply innaccurate low blows based on, as I said,
conjecture- you judge my posting to mailing lists as the sole sphere of
my humanity and inner life.



> Meanwhile attempting to make me out
> into the 'problem'–
>

When did I ever suggest you were the problem?



>and you the noble, martyr-brave hero
> offering himself to the 'bullets' in a manner which reeks
> of self-importance, self-deceit and condescension.
>

You come across as pretty self-important and condescending. I have no
idea if you are decieving yourself or not, I can't base that on your
punctuation. If you think I am condescending then you are superimposing
your own paranoia on what I say.



>>I don't claim to know anything,
>>
>
> No? You don't know that you're God?
>

Well, I believe that to be true, yes. In the sense that I described
above, [ie, no such thing as "not-god"] which you can go right ahead and
bulldoze your way through into a statement about ego when in fact it is
the opposite.


>
>
>>sorry if I come off that way,
>>
>
> I am going to start the Sorry Art Museum and hang all meaningless
> apologies there one of these days, I swear.
>

It was an honest attempt at civility.


>John cage quote. Gimme a guess.
>

I didn't intentionally quote anyone, but Cage is someone I've always liked.


>>I could but could you afford it?
>>

Are you talking about psychic damage or the huge amount of money you
would charge for your art criticism?

>
> You made the statement ' a true general.. etc.'
> Am I to take this as I want to mouth off, but bear no responsibility?
>

It was a quote from the Tao Te Ching, as was the line about a manager
putting himself below his employees. I was surprised you didn't
recognize them.


>Is it just about "defaming" me?
>
>
> The PARANOIA!
>

More or less it was just grasping at straws for potential explanations.



>>Doesn't that require "fame" to begin with?
>>
>
> It's actually worse–I'm trying to assure you never get any fame.
> You know–get them while they're young.
>

I'm flattered.


>
> That's what I'm after. Putting the little honest man out to change
> the world down. It's a fucking conspiracy!
>

I never claimed it was anyone else but you, so there's no conspiracy.
But I'm reminded of the Salinger line I always loved about the
conspiracy to keep people happy by always putting beautiful things in
thier way.



Cheers,
-e.

On Fri, 6 Sep 2002, Eryk Salvaggio wrote:

> On these mailing lists- which is solely how you know me- I am talking
> about art.

No, I have seen your artwork–not claiming all.

> > Who are you? And, in fact, ARE you?
> >
>
> Yes.

Delusion.

> No, you're wrong. God as I know the word is not anything we can
> "achieve" a union with. God is something we are already in union with.

No, I'm not wrong. One is not 'naturally' in union with anything.

> The trick is to forget the things we've invented to distract ourselves
> from that- ideas like your concept of seperation.

It's not 'my concept' Eryk. Nor is it a trick. You're not
'automatically' connected to anything.

> In this regard I'm an atheist.

No, you're a simpleton, and a coward.

> There is no God because there is no "Not God."

Yes, there is. You are making grand statements about a word you
don't understand, and making up its meaning so that it suits your
thoughts.

> I don't know what the God Head is because I don't believe in a God with
> a Head, either, more of an evenly distributed blanket.

Totalische democazie.

> >You make a lot of statements about things that you 'are',
> > when in fact you ARE NOT.
> >
>
> I made a lot of statements about what I am not.

Bla bla?

> >>Being a better person? Than what? You cannot be a 'better
> >> person'. You can only be what you're capable of being.
> >>
>
> I believe I can be a better person than I am.

But you already are! You've just 'tricked yourself' that you aren't.

> If I can understand and
> recognize my own jealousies, insecurities, manipulation and ego, then I
> can work to eliminate them.

Why? You're already one with God.

> The trick is to find them. I do this by
> questioning myself constantly. My art comes out of these questions.

Gaah. There is no 'trick'. Not to mention that iberation is 'granted'.
Even though you do all the work, it's still granted.

> > One does not try. One does or doesn't.
> >
>
> I don't think that's true. That would mean there is no struggle and that
> there is no hope.

Sniff. But there isn't! It's all a trick!
We are all enlightened in union with God, NOW!

> I am working on that.

Why? You're already in Union with God.

> >Funny, your heart looks asleep from here.
> >
>
> Does it come across in my punctuation marks? Here:
>
>
> <3
>
> That one's for you.

Aw.

> >>
> >>Sure do. What is the 'source' of your 'emotions'?
> >>
>
> A question I ask myself constantly. Are my emotions the result of
> attatchments, ego, fear, delusion?

My problem with your 'questioning' is that you don't look.
You attempt to fit labels onto what's going on inside you.
By all accounts of what you present, that is.

> Everytime I feel something I wonder why.

And why not 'what'? You also attempt to pass judgement on what you
'observe'.

> But why is this interesting to anyone, what I feel, what the source
> of "my" emotions are?

Tsk. Vanity :)


> Aren't these all personal landscapes and aren't these battles fought internally?

All battles are fought internally until the 'union' occurs.
No more generals, and no soldiers?

> >> How many are the energetic centers responsible for 'emotions'?
> >>
>
> Those are not the terms I understand emotions in. I'm looking at a
> psychology degree [well, I think I recently gave up on that] but those
> are the terms I understand emotions in.

Right. You don't observe. You observe labels.

> So we do not share a vocabulary,
> but that doesn't mean I don't have a concern for the same questions.

It's not a matter of vocabulary.


> >>
> >> How many for feelings? Where are they located? What is the difference
> >> between genders in those terms? How is that applicabe to the mixed
> >> genders?
> >>
>
> Who cares?

Many individuals in genuine pursuit of changing how others see.
But that shouldn't be of any consequence to you.

> >>What does 'honest' mean?
> >>
>
> I won't explain it because I can't. You won't explain it because….?

Nice. Refusal of responsibility, and shouldering it over to me.
No thanks.

> >>Ple–eeeeeeeeeeee-ase don't poke me too hard. I'm tryin'.
> >>
>
> I think this comment is mean spirited.

Sniff. Anything you don't 'like' is mean-spirited.

> >What does 'understand' mean and how do you 'try' to understand?
> >
>
> You took it out of context. The statement was: I try to understand what
> compassion means.

No, I didn't take it out of context at all.

> >what compassion means,
> >
> >
> > Why?
> >
>
> I don't know why. I don't believe in God, per se, and since I think the
> reality of everything is blank space- whether it's Zen

Zen doesn't 'claim' that the reality pf space isa blank space.

> Baudrillard,
> whatever way one prefers thier blankness,

Zen & Baurdillard are not comparable. Though Baudrillard is interesting,
as well–to a degree.


> I suppose- I really don't know why I should be so interested in compassion. I don't have answers and
> don't claim to have them. I don't know where you got that idea.

You're being dishonest now. You're interested in compassion because
you've AT LEAST heard about it. And if you were more honest with
yourself, you'll have even more clues why you're interested in
compassion–you buy a label that 'compassion is good'.

Playing the dunce is not clever.

> No, I want to make the world a better place. Leaving a mark isn't making
> the world a better place.

But making the world a better place is leaving a mark.
You want to ALTER the world.

> I don't know what it has to do with
> adolescence [I'm 23, not 17] or reproduction.

That's too bad. Maybe you should consider it instead of flat out denial.
And I'm not suggesting that you go out and reproduce.

> I assume it might be typical, I don't have a problem with that.

Beatles. White Album. Revolution. Ring a bell?

> Because I see a lot of suffering in people, and I want people to know
> they don't have to do it.

But they will not hear anything that they don't know already.
Ie, one's suffering is up to its own development.

> > And what's wrong with the 'World' anyhow?
> >
>
> People are suffering and they don't have to be.

So you want to change the WORLD because people are TWITS?
Don't you think that's a bit egotistical and idiotic?
Do you equate the World with People also?

And who declared that people don't have to suffer?
Not that I'm advocating senseless suffering,
but do you even make a distinction between that and
intentional suffering?

> >>You seem to think yourself capable of 'making the world a better place'.
> >>
>
> No, you aren't listening.

Oh but I am. Very well. You want to make the world a better place.
That does imply that you think or feel that this is within your
abilities.

> I'm trying to figure out how to make the world a better place by showing people they don't need to suffer needlessly.

This doesn't make sense Sorry. It's just collating concepts.

> lot of the suffering in the world is cause by imaginary problems.

Problems are imaginary in nature?

> I have been able to make people realize that.

Very good. Teach them a flat concept.

> Not a whole bunch of people, but some. It is also sometimes good to show people that there is beauty even
> in ugly situations.

No, there isn't 'beauty' in 'ugly situations'.
That's pseudo-babble.

> But again; I don't know why we're talking about this
> here. It's all very obvious.

Yep. Plain out E-A-S-Y. Insta-salvation.
Insta-illumination. It's obvious!

> I think a lot of people here feel the same
> way, but there is a stigma about saying these things.

Right-o. Back to the backing up of statements,
with some imaginary a lot of people.


> >> That's a mighty claim there–but when this is addressed you try to play
> >> the humble ordinary man. Right-o. All the glory, none of the
> >> responsibility.
> >>
>
> Well, what's so fantastic about it?

I didn't imply it's dantastic.

> What's the glory in it? It's just the truth.

Yes, it's the plain, simple, EASY truth. Eryk is God.

> There is nothing extraordinary about it. In fact, it is
> completely ordinary.

A completeky ordinary, plain Jesus who is going to
make the world a better place. The world is FLAT
and SIMPLISTIC.

> >but you never have said what was wrong with any of it.
> >
> >
> > It's not anything I can 'tell you.'
> >
>
> Well, abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence, I suppose.

Not what this is about.

> >>Pass me another idiotic judgement, thank you.
> >>
>
> I think you have a double standard.

No, I do not.

> You have been passing judgements on

I haven't passed any judgements on you, though you sure
insist on making statements that I do. You like me, you don't
like me.

> who you conjecture me to be.

I am not conjecturing. I am observing you.
You're not 'hidden'. You do this all the time–
throw about the 'you don't really know' me
as an excuse not to listen.

>
> >Yeah, that's exactly it. I have nothing better to do than
> > pick on the GREAT-but-small-and-ordinary heroic figure
> > of Monsenor Eryk Salvaggio.
> >
>
> Didn't you say irony was an energy drain? Maybe I don't know the
> difference between irony and sarcasm?

This is neither irony nor sarcasm.


> >>So, here I am, tear me to shreds with
> >>
> >
> > How noble of you.
> >
>
>
> There's nothing noble about recognizing patterns which you are
> constantly repeating.

No, those are patterns you internally superimpose on my behavior.
I'm not 'repeating' anything. Pay attention, if you can.

> You don't understand Zen in the same terms I do.

Yes. It's all a matter of vocabulary, defintions, and opinions.
I understand a great deal of Zen. You ascribe to Zen whatever you
please.

> It is also ridiculous to me to try to enforce a cookie cutter version of a philosophy
> descended from "Find your own light and let it be your guide."

Understanding the essential quality of things hasn't got anything
to do with 'enforcing cookie cutters'. AND you completely missed
what I said–that is that I was and am applying Zen principles
and you're knee-jerking because I didn't make them SIMPLE
and OBVIOUS as such. Sorry if this is unpalatable to you,
but nothing is SIMPLe and OBVIOUS, least of all *God*.
Whatever you may be ascribing to it.

> I am finding my own light and I am using it to guide me.

No, you are not. You're posing and pretending to be doing it.
Or wait–you're TRYING to.

> The same as everyone else, and this is why there's no reason to discuss it.

No, it isn't. Sorry. It's not that SIMPLE and OBVIOUS.
This is naive and overly-simplistic relativism, not Zen.

> My statement was that you would interject comments in between my quotes
> [distorting a great deal of the original context] which is precisely
> what you did.

No, I don't.

> So I think I understood that part of things pretty well.

And no, you didn't. You labeled.

> > nor have currently the capability to do so, nor any 'rights'
> > to pass judgements on it.
> >
>
> I have every right to pass judgment


No you don't. Rights are not automatic.

> on your judgements of me.

I have not passed any judgements on you.
Do you actually even understand what 'passing judgement is'?

> I have a way of knowing if what you say is valid and applies to my life or does
> not.

No, you don't. But you like thinking so.

> Most of it is simply innaccurate

No all of it is accurate. But you don't like: it.
Hence you label it as 'passed judgement'.

> low blows based on,

I do not do 'low blows' Eryk. What you do is: low.

> as I said, conjecture-

No, I don't conjecture. I observe you.
Yawn. I'm hidden! I'm hidden!

> you judge my posting to mailing lists as the sole sphere of
> my humanity and inner life.

I neither judge you nor have I ever implied the above in any manner.
My you're conjecturing.

> > Meanwhile attempting to make me out
> > into the 'problem'–
> >
>
> When did I ever suggest you were the problem?

Continuously.

> You come across as pretty self-important and condescending.

No, but I'm aware that most people will invoke that internal image.
It's a conditioned response.

> I have no idea if you are decieving yourself or not,

Right. But you make a negative conjecture, meanwhile abrogating
responsibility for it. Such a sweety-pie.
Allow me to assure you, I am not 'deceiving myself'.

> If you think I am condescending

You are. And have been.

> then you are superimposing your own paranoia on what I say.

No, I am not. And Observation is not as simple as labeling.
I've dealt with my paranoia a long time ago.

> > No? You don't know that you're God?
> >
>
> Well, I believe that to be true, yes.

Right.

> In the sense that I described
> above, [ie, no such thing as "not-god"] which you can go right ahead and
> bulldoze your way through into a statement about ego when in fact it is
> the opposite.

No, it isn't. Like hearing it or not, it is your ego.
Just don't pose to me as an honest kinda guy though.

> > I am going to start the Sorry Art Museum and hang all meaningless
> > apologies there one of these days, I swear.
> >
>
> It was an honest attempt at civility.

It's all honest. You think serial killers fancy themselves dishonest?
People who 'murder for the cause' fancy themselves doshonest?
You mean something akin to self-righteous. You're not honest.

> >John cage quote. Gimme a guess.
> >
>
> I didn't intentionally quote anyone, but Cage is someone I've always liked.

Missed what I wrote again.

> >>I could but could you afford it?
> >>
>
> Are you talking about psychic damage or the huge amount of money you
> would charge for your art criticism?

I don't cause 'psychic damage'. Don't say–you're an expert
on psychic damage. Or wait, when questioned about it you're going
to back off and say 'no man, it's just my honest opinion'.

> > You made the statement ' a true general.. etc.'
> > Am I to take this as I want to mouth off, but bear no responsibility?
> >
>
> It was a quote from the Tao Te Ching, as was the line about a manager
> putting himself below his employees. I was surprised you didn't
> recognize them.

I did. My comment hasn't got anything to DO with that.
I'm surprised you didn't RECOGNIZE that my reference
to general was in the same VEIN.

> >Is it just about "defaming" me?
> >
> >
> > The PARANOIA!
> >
>
> More or less it was just grasping at straws for potential explanations.

Paranoia.

> >>Doesn't that require "fame" to begin with?
> >>
> >
> > It's actually worse–I'm trying to assure you never get any fame.
> > You know–get them while they're young.
> >
>
> I'm flattered.

Si? Self-degradation, with a touch of irony.
But you meant it honestly.

> > That's what I'm after. Putting the little honest man out to change
> > the world down. It's a fucking conspiracy!
> >
>
> I never claimed it was anyone else but you, so there's no conspiracy.

But I am the conspiracy!

> But I'm reminded of the Salinger line I always loved about the
> conspiracy to keep people happy by always putting beautiful things in
> thier way.

Yes. Quoting things you don't understand. Truly, I'm wounded.


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

This is absurd.
< No, you're a simpleton, and a coward.>

I like most but not all of Eryk's art.
I don't always agree with his opinions, but he has
made an honest and lucid attempt to address many of
the issues that concern most of us here.
What have you done 'death'?

=====
http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com

-IID42 Kandinskij @27+ wrote:

>No, you're wrong. God as I know the word is not anything we can
>"achieve" a union with. God is something we are already in union with.
>
>
> No, I'm not wrong. One is not 'naturally' in union with anything.
>

Yes, you are wrong. One is automatically in union with everything. You
even say so here:

Me: I believe I can be a better person than I am.


You: But you already are! You've just 'tricked yourself' that you aren't.


We've just tricked ourselves into thinking we're not in union with God.
You might not understand this yet. Maybe some day, slugger.


>
>
>>The trick is to forget the things we've invented to distract ourselves
>>from that- ideas like your concept of seperation.
>>
>
> It's not 'my concept' Eryk. Nor is it a trick. You're not
> 'automatically' connected to anything.
>

It is your concept, because it is certainly not my concept of the truth.
I am automatically connected to God, so are you, so are birds and pepsi
cans. You just don't know how to listen.



>
>
>>In this regard I'm an atheist.
>>
>
> No, you're a simpleton, and a coward.
>

I am a simpleton because everything is very simple. Maybe I am a coward;
but your opinion on the matter is hardly valid, since you don't know me
at all. [Because I'm so "hidden?" No. Because you don't know anything
except mailing lists posts.]



>
>
>>There is no God because there is no "Not God."
>>
>
> Yes, there is. You are making grand statements about a word you
> don't understand, and making up its meaning so that it suits your
> thoughts.
>

Incorrect. There is no such thing as "not god." Maybe some day you will
understand this, once you are able to get over your infatuation with
your own non-ego. If you were paying attention, you would have noticed
that nowhere did I discuss the meaning of God, instead I focused on the
non-meaning. Take the sand out of your eyes.



>I don't know what the God Head is because I don't believe in a God with
>a Head, either, more of an evenly distributed blanket.
>
>
> Totalische democazie.
>

When in doubt, change languages. Clever. You think God can be talked
about as a political structure? You're so disappointing.


>
> But you already are! You've just 'tricked yourself' that you aren't.
>

This is exactly correct. By trying to be a better person I am merely
trying to unlearn all the false and innacurate behaviors I've learned as
a result of ego practices.


>If I can understand and
>recognize my own jealousies, insecurities, manipulation and ego, then I
>can work to eliminate them.
>
>
> Why? You're already one with God.
>

Precisely, but I don't have a complete knowledge of that.


>
> My problem with your 'questioning' is that you don't look.
> You attempt to fit labels onto what's going on inside you.
> By all accounts of what you present, that is.
>

The problem with your looking is you don't question. You label it as
quickly as you accuse the rest of us, then you pretend not to out of an
infatuation with your egolessness. Just my "observation." And,
rightfully, my conjecture.


>
>
>>Everytime I feel something I wonder why.
>>
>
> And why not 'what'? You also attempt to pass judgement on what you
> 'observe'.
>

I know what I am feeling.


>How many for feelings? Where are they located? What is the difference
> between genders in those terms? How is that applicabe to the mixed
> genders?
>
>>Who cares?
>>
>
> Many individuals in genuine pursuit of changing how others see.
> But that shouldn't be of any consequence to you.
>

Yes, you're right, this is of no consequence to me, because gender, when
it comes to these matters, is genuinely meaningless.



>What does 'honest' mean?
>
>>I won't explain it because I can't. You won't explain it because….?
>>
>
> Nice. Refusal of responsibility, and shouldering it over to me.
> No thanks.
>

This is also a refusal of responsibility. When you say "It can't be
explained" apparently it is a deep connection to a wisdom beyond words,
when I say it I am shouldering off the responsibility. Brilliant. You
even do it in this same post: "It's not something I can 'tell' you" blah
blah.


>>>You took it out of context. The statement was: I try to understand what
>>>compassion means.
>>>
>
> No, I didn't take it out of context at all.
>

Yes, you did. You cut the statement I made in half.


>>>I don't know why. I don't believe in God, per se, and since I think the
>>>reality of everything is blank space- whether it's Zen
>>>
>
> Zen doesn't 'claim' that the reality pf space isa blank space.
>

You clearly aren't very interested in Zen- probably why you couldn't
recognize the Tao Te Ching when I brought it up. [Until I mentioned it
was a quote from the Tao Te Ching, at which point you conveniently
"always knew that"]


>Zen & Baurdillard are not comparable. Though Baudrillard is interesting,
> as well–to a degree.
>

I think they are compatible, but it's a long explanation of why and I am
still trying to articulate it.


>You're being dishonest now. You're interested in compassion because
> you've AT LEAST heard about it. And if you were more honest with
> yourself, you'll have even more clues why you're interested in
> compassion–you buy a label that 'compassion is good'.
>

If I buy that label then the store that sells it is my own soul,
compadre. But what would you know about me? Oh, right- my email posts.


>
>
> Playing the dunce is not clever.
>

I'm not been playing the dunce. You just overcomplicate simple matters.
Obfuscation is not clever, either, nor is it progress.

>But making the world a better place is leaving a mark.
> You want to ALTER the world.
>

You aren't listening. I want to alter peoples perceptions of the world.


>That's too bad. Maybe you should consider it instead of flat out denial.
> And I'm not suggesting that you go out and reproduce.
>

I know what your stupid comment meant, and it was irrelevant.


>Beatles. White Album. Revolution. Ring a bell?
>

I don't really like the Beatles. Maybe when I am enlightened we will
have the same musical tastes, as well as word choices.

>
> But they will not hear anything that they don't know already.
> Ie, one's suffering is up to its own development.
>

So what the fuck are you doing?



>>So you want to change the WORLD because people are TWITS?
>>

I have compassion for twits. I have compassion for you, too, but you
don't accept it- you're "beyond" compassion or whatever. I find you to
be very fascist.


>>
>> Don't you think that's a bit egotistical and idiotic?
>>

Compassion can be egotistical, but even egotistical compassion can
change things for the better, so the end result is what matters most.
Caring is never idiotic. Unless you're a satanist.


>>
>> Do you equate the World with People also?
>>

Sometimes the phrase "the world" is used in regard to "the natural
world" and sometimes it is used in regard to "society" ie, people. It
can be used either way.


>>And who declared that people don't have to suffer?
>>

People don't have to needlessly suffer. If the suffering can be stopped;
then the sufferring was needless.


>>
>> Not that I'm advocating senseless suffering,
>>

You seem to be advocating that as a personal practice, actually.


>>
>> but do you even make a distinction between that and
>> intentional suffering?
>>

Of course I do.



>Oh but I am. Very well. You want to make the world a better place.
> That does imply that you think or feel that this is within your
> abilities.
>

It is within everyones abilities. You cut the plastic rings that a six
pack of soda comes in and then a bird doesn't get needlessly strangled.
Of course it then goes and eats a fish, but that's not needless
suffering for the fish, it's neccessary. Maybe you should rent "The Lion
King" if you need to understand this.



>lot of the suffering in the world is cause by imaginary problems.
>
>
> Problems are imaginary in nature?
>

Problems are not neccesarily imaginary in the context you are
describing, but they may be unneccesary, and the unneccesary problems
come from mankinds imaginary problems. Oil Spills, for example.


>No, there isn't 'beauty' in 'ugly situations'.
> That's pseudo-babble.
>

There is beauty in everything except hopelessness. If you give up on
beauty you give up on hope. I'm sure that's on a greeting card
somewhere, but cliches are popular for a reason I suppose.


>Yep. Plain out E-A-S-Y. Insta-salvation.
> Insta-illumination. It's obvious!
>

Yes, you're right. You attempt to obfuscate a subject that is simplistic
and obvious because it is what drives us as human beings. You see these
themes in Psychology, in Philosophy, and in Religion: The Epiphany can
be the solution to the problem, or the moment one realizes that the
problem does not exist. The problem is not the problem, the solution is
the problem. Who was it that said that? It was one of the reasons I
[falsely] assumed you possessed any understanding of the matter.


>
> Right-o. Back to the backing up of statements,
> with some imaginary a lot of people.
>

A lot of people is not imaginary. Do you believe that you are the only
person in the world? I don't. I also believe that many people are
interested in the subjects at hand. For proof, you can look at the count
of people in monastaries, to book sale reciepts. Please cease being one
idiot-type person: now.


>
>
>
>>>> That's a mighty claim there–but when this is addressed you try to play
>>>> the humble ordinary man. Right-o. All the glory, none of the
>>>> responsibility.
>>>>
>>Well, what's so fantastic about it?
>>
>
> I didn't imply it's dantastic.
>

You did, you said that I was "playing the ordinary man." This implies
that I am not an ordinary man if my claims about "changing the world"
were true. It is simply bullshit to pretend that one must be
extraordinary [a synonym for fantastic, maybe you could have looked it
up and saved me the trouble] in order to make the world a better place.
One does not need to be extraordinary, one must instead be very, very
careful.


>
> Yes, it's the plain, simple, EASY truth. Eryk is God.
>

You are oversimplifying [as I predicted] the entire concept in order to
make me look like a fool, so I'll repeat it again so maybe it will jolt
your memory back: I am God because everything is God, there is no
not-God because there is no God. You are God for the same reason and raw
sewage is also God, and so are butterflies and dead rats. This is not
difficult to understand.


>A completeky ordinary, plain Jesus who is going to
> make the world a better place. The world is FLAT
> and SIMPLISTIC.
>

Precisely. Now, you can go and try to convince people that the world is
a very complicated, dangerous place filled with problems they will never
understand- it seems to be your forte, at least on these mailing lists.


>It's not anything I can 'tell you.'
>

A fantastic approach.


>You have been passing judgements on
>
>
> I haven't passed any judgements on you, though you sure
> insist on making statements that I do. You like me, you don't
> like me.
>

Judgements are not limited to "like or not like" they are ideas based on
what you see of a persons behavior. You call them "observations" but you
are wrong, what you do is you judge whether or not one is sufficiently
"egoless" or if they are "too arrogant" based on what they say on
mailing lists. This is judgement, and you are a hypocrite. Let me start
your next sentence for you: "No, I'm not…"


>I am not conjecturing. I am observing you.
> You're not 'hidden'. You do this all the time–
> throw about the 'you don't really know' me
> as an excuse not to listen.
>

But you are conjecturing. Your observations are worthless and have no
real bearing on who I am. I am in a position to know this better than
you are. I do this all the time because it is one of the fundamentally
flawed points you constantly revert to- the idea that how one talks on a
mailing list is a reflection of thier soul. This is absurd. You do not
really know me, and you are not really listening, either. And it has
nothing to do with Hidden. You simply do not know who I am, and cannot.
Particularly since you completely lack empathy to begin with. Your zen
master let you out of your cage too early. And read that twice [or just
knee jerk, its up to you.]


>
>
>>>Yeah, that's exactly it. I have nothing better to do than
>>> pick on the GREAT-but-small-and-ordinary heroic figure
>>> of Monsenor Eryk Salvaggio.
>>>
>>Didn't you say irony was an energy drain? Maybe I don't know the
>>difference between irony and sarcasm?
>>
>
> This is neither irony nor sarcasm.
>


Oh, but it was. Do I need to consult a dictionary again? Or would that
just be forcing motives on to, ie, asking you to use words correctly.
Obviously, correct and accurate usage of vocabulary is fascist, but what
can I say, when you change the meanings of words in order to avoid
admitting your faults? Let me goose step to the book shelf.

A basic question: Are you implying that you don't make mistakes?

>
> No, those are patterns you internally superimpose on my behavior.
> I'm not 'repeating' anything. Pay attention, if you can.
>

You are repeating what I said you were repeating: You take peoples
emails, and you paste comments in between direct quotes. Do you deny
that you do this? I hope you do, because then I will know for sure that
you are, in fact, completely delusional.


>>I am finding my own light and I am using it to guide me.
>>
>
> No, you are not. You're posing and pretending to be doing it.
> Or wait–you're TRYING to.
>

How do you know?


>
> No, it isn't. Sorry. It's not that SIMPLE and OBVIOUS.
> This is naive and overly-simplistic relativism, not Zen.
>

Perhaps we should discuss the magic spells that you can cast? They must
be very complex. You must have spent a lot of time battling orcs before
you could get those.


>>My statement was that you would interject comments in between my quotes
>>[distorting a great deal of the original context] which is precisely
>>what you did.
>>
>
> No, I don't.
>

You just did it.


>
>No you don't. Rights are not automatic.
>

I've earned them Let me start your next sentence: "No, you didn't…"

>I have not passed any judgements on you.
> Do you actually even understand what 'passing judgement is'?
>

Yes, it is precisely what you are doing when you declare that I want to
be Jesus.


>>No, I don't conjecture. I observe you.
>> Yawn. I'm hidden! I'm hidden!
>>

You are very stupid. You do not listen. I never claimed to be hidden or
complex. I claimed the exact opposite. We have had this exchange before.
If my entire argument is that things are very simple, why do you
criticise me for illusions of complexity?


>
> Right. But you make a negative conjecture, meanwhile abrogating
> responsibility for it. Such a sweety-pie.
> Allow me to assure you, I am not 'deceiving myself'.
>

Hardly convincing.


>>If you think I am condescending
>>
>
> You are. And have been.
>

I am now, because you are willfully ignorant.


>
> No, it isn't. Like hearing it or not, it is your ego.
> Just don't pose to me as an honest kinda guy though.
>

What a pity.



>>
>
> Missed what I wrote again.
>

Then it was too complex and obfuscated.


>I don't cause 'psychic damage'. Don't say–you're an expert
> on psychic damage. Or wait, when questioned about it you're going
> to back off and say 'no man, it's just my honest opinion'.
>

You didn't answer my question about what you meant by affording your art
criticism.



>>
>
> Paranoia.
>

You're right, I'm paranoid of you and your magic spells.


>
> But I am the conspiracy!
>


No, you're a mailing list pest. I'm not going to really bother you any
more, because I've figured you out, after what I feel was a proper
investigation, and you are guilty as charged of being needlessly boring.


Yawn,
-e.

Aren't there other lists for trying to convince people that God exists?

Hinn 6.09.2002 kl. 16:30 ritadhi Eryk Salvaggio:

>
>
> -IID42 Kandinskij @27+ wrote:
>
> No, you're wrong. God as I know the word is not anything we can
> "achieve" a union with. God is something we are already in union with.
>
>
> No, I'm not wrong. One is not 'naturally' in union with anything.
>
>
> Yes, you are wrong. One is automatically in union with everything. You
> even say so here:
>
> Me: I believe I can be a better person than I am.
>
>
> You: But you already are! You've just 'tricked yourself' that you
> aren't.
>
>
> We've just tricked ourselves into thinking we're not in union with God.=

> You might not understand this yet. Maybe some day, slugger.
>
>
>
>
> The trick is to forget the things we've invented to distract ourselves
> from that- ideas like your concept of seperation.
>
>
> It's not 'my concept' Eryk. Nor is it a trick. You're not
> 'automatically' connected to anything.
>
>
> It is your concept, because it is certainly not my concept of the
> truth. I am automatically connected to God, so are you, so are birds
> and pepsi cans. You just don't know how to listen.

On Fri, 6 Sep 2002, Pall Thayer wrote:

> Aren't there other lists for trying to convince people that God exists?

Dear Pall Thyer: nobody is 'convincing' anybody of anything. If you have
a problem with such discussions, what are you doing on an art list?
Your attitude betrays a vast ignorance on such matters, and is
unneccessarily and unjustifiably flippant.

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

On Fri, 6 Sep 2002, Pall Thayer wrote:

> [cc: R2D2]
> [bcc: C3PO]

Idiot.

> I just noticed that you said that my attitude BETRAYS a vast ignorance…

It does.

> So if my attitude betrays my ignorance…

I'm afraid your English is quite lacking.

> that would mean that I'm not ignorant?

No, it wouldn't. It means that your grasp on English very poor.

> Well, regardless of what you're trying to say

Excuse me, what I said was perfectly clear.

> (and hardly doing a good job of it)

Idiot.

> I think I'll conform now from lack of ignorance to just plain ignoring.

Do so. And learn proper English. The above is bearly legible
nonsense / broken-English.

> Unless something happens that betrays my ignoring.

I hear Icelanders are awfully proud of their language:
but English doesn't work like Icelandinc.

> In that case I'll stop ignoring and continue with my lack of ignorance.

You're clearly not only ignorant about art, but also about English too.
Which wouldn't be a problem, except for your idiotic posing.

> Feel free to post this to the list if you feel you must.

Right. Thank you, oh gracious one. I really need your PERMISSION
on how to conduct my affairs.

> I would just rather try to keep this non-art stuff offlist.

Should have started with your own idiotic flame-attempts.
All you're doing is dipping your little-toe for a bit of publicity,
screaming, and running away, while posing 'intelligently' and
'righteously'.

> Have a flippant evening,

I certainly will. Thank you.
Have a nice whoring yourself out for fame.

On Fri, 6 Sep 2002, Eryk Salvaggio wrote:

> Yes, you are wrong. One is automatically in union with everything.

No, Eryk. I am not wrong. One is not 'automatically' anything of the
sort. You don't even exist, least of all 'in uinion with everything'.

> You even say so here:
>
> Me: I believe I can be a better person than I am.
>
>
> You: But you already are! You've just 'tricked yourself' that you aren't.

No, I say nothing of the sort. You're simply being mocked, among other
things.

> We've just tricked ourselves into thinking we're not in union with God.

No, we haven't. You've 'tricked' yourself into believing that you are
something far greater than you are, and bent on peddling that out to
everyone.

> You might not understand this yet. Maybe some day, slugger.

There is nothing to understand, Eryk. You're simply peddling nonsense.
Like most others, you enjoy your slumber.

> > It's not 'my concept' Eryk. Nor is it a trick. You're not
> > 'automatically' connected to anything.
> >
>
> It is your concept,

It's not a concept and it's certainly not mine.
It's how Reality is.

> because it is certainly not my concept of the truth.

The truth is not a matter of concepts and opinions.
And it's not a matter of my truth and your truth.
This is simply infantile relativism. While I respect
that Truth manifests in different ways, not everything
that parades as Truth is Truth, and certainly you aren't.

> I am automatically connected to God, so are you, so are birds and pepsi
> cans.

No, dear. Connection to *God* happens only by means of work.
It's not automatic.

> You just don't know how to listen.

I do. Unlike you.

> > No, you're a simpleton, and a coward.
> >
>
> I am a simpleton because everything is very simple

No, you're a simpleton because you confuse simplistic, cheap, easy
and flat with simple.

> Maybe I am a coward;

You are. Like those others who'put you down so hard' you are a coward
who's locked himself inside his skull and that's where you are.

> but your opinion on the matter is hardly valid,

This is not an opinion. it's an accurate observation which you
refuse to accept (being honest with yourself) and hencee attempt to
delegate inappropriately to opinions. I don't care for opinions,
nor do I bother having or expressing any.

> since you don't know me at all.

Yes, I do. And this is how you are a coward also.

> [Because I'm so "hidden?" No. Because you don't know anything except mailing lists posts.]

And your 'artwork,' Eryk. And yes you're 'hiding' behind mailing lists.
I am perfectly capable of knowing you, and affecting you physically,
and energetically via mailing lists.

> > Yes, there is. You are making grand statements about a word you
> > don't understand, and making up its meaning so that it suits your
> > thoughts.
> >
>
> Incorrect.

Correct, my dear. And it' never become 'Incorrect'.

> There is no such thing as "not god."

Sweetheart, as I said–you're making grand gestures about things
you don't know anything about. Yes, there are many things which are not
*god*–a word which you use without undersanding.

> Maybe some day you will understand this,

There is nothing of the sort to be understood, Eryk. You're delusional.
Condescending twit.

> once you are able to get over your infatuation with your own non-ego.

Sweetheart, my dearest, love. I have no ego. Nor am I 'infatuated' with
anything. Unlike your infatuation with your Ego which insists that
everything is 'simplistic and flat'. You're only fooling yourself.

> If you were paying attention,

Which i am. Your idea of 'paying attention' is little more than
a demand for a fixation on your narcissistic tendencies.

> you would have noticed that nowhere did I discuss the meaning of God,

No, dear. I DID notice that, and I brought it up exactly because of
that.

Me: you're not bringing up the meaning of the word you use.
Eryk: you'd have noticed that nowhere do I discuss the meaning of the
word

As for your pseudo-Zen commentary on the 'non-meaning of God'–
it's less than laughable.

> Take the sand out of your eyes.

I don't have any, though you're bent on trying to toss it, and not only
in mine but everyone else's.

> > Totalische democazie.
>
> When in doubt, change languages.

I wasn't in doubt, nor changing languages. Your idiotic projections
are not amusing.

> Clever.

That's your speciality. I don't 'engage' in clever.

> You think God can be talked about as a political structure?

No, dear, I wasn't expressing my opinion. Simply making fun of your
stance.

> You're so disappointing.

You are indeed. And yet, you never got the comment that I made
with 'totalische democrazie'. As for God and political structures,
they're not separable, and the 'separation' of it is a disease
due to egotistical tendencies in humans.

Maybe you should acuaint yourself with the idea of *God*
from people who actually have a clue before tossing out your childish
rubbish.

> This is exactly correct. By trying to be a better person I am merely
> trying to unlearn all the false and innacurate behaviors I've learned as
> a result of ego practices.

No, you arent. Much of my comments about you have been 'hitting on' such
habits. The idea of *God* as you present it is an ego-result. Not only
that, but you will never be 'connected to God' until you've dealt with
your ego. You're collating things you've read, and inaccurately.

> Precisely, but I don't have a complete knowledge of that.

You don't have any_ knowledge.

> The problem with your looking is you don't question.

There is no problem with my looking. And sorry, I am not LOOKING.
The mode of observation I use is not subject to 'questioning'
or even verbiage of any sort.

> You label it as quickly

I don't label. Sorry–you don't even understand what I'm doing but
are attempting to 'mirror' my verbiage at me without getting it,
instead of listening.

> as you accuse the rest of us,

I am not 'accusing' anyone. 'Take the sand out of your eyes'.
And don't bring 'everyone' into this. I am writing and observing YOU.

> then you pretend not to

I do not pretend. And I simply do not. Nor are you a qualified
judge of my actions.

> out of an infatuation with your egolessness.

No, dear. Ego hasn't got anything to do with this, besides your ego
screeching and projecting yourself outward. Froth as much as you wish,
but you can't see beyond your own ego. It's a sad state, no?
Whether you like hearing this or not–and you don't–and you're
not listening to it contonuously–you have no authority to
discern wgo in others before you have dealt with your own.

Allow me to assure you that if you had ANY sort of connection to
'God' you would not be depressed, moreso your 'non-meaning'
of God is full of hidden assumptions, all of which erroneous,
and hence I poked you about it, and here we are.

> Just my "observation."

Very good. Observation is something else–and not something you're
capable of.

> And, rightfully, my conjecture.

No, a projection. It's the same mechanism that allows scapegoating.
Yawn. And isn't not responsible for suffering. If you're truly
interested in making the world a better place, start with being honest
with yourself. Right now, you're making it worse.

> I know what I am feeling.

You don't. You know the labels you've learned. that's all.

> > Many individuals in genuine pursuit of changing how others see.
> > But that shouldn't be of any consequence to you.
> >
>
> Yes, you're right, this is of no consequence to me, because gender, when
> it comes to these matters, is genuinely meaningless.

No, gender is not 'meaningless' nor has it ever been.
But if you had even a passing acquaintance with listening
and if you're truly connected to 'god' you'd know that.
But you don't want to work to understand Gender,
to you God is served automatically on a plate.
Preferably microwaved.

> >
> > Nice. Refusal of responsibility, and shouldering it over to me.
> > No thanks.
> >
>
> This is also a refusal of responsibility.

No, it isnt Eryk. It's refusal to play your idiotic game.
Instead of answering the question you evade answering with
nonsense, and change the subject to baseless conjectures and projections
about me.

> When you say "It can't be> explained" apparently it is a deep connection
> to a wisdom beyond words,

Nothing of the sort. No *conviction' here baby.

> when I say it I am shouldering off the responsibility. Brilliant.

Yes, it is Eryk. You and I are NOt the same, nor are we equal.
You're simply attempting to leverage yourself where you don't belong.
What governs my behavior is not what governs yours.

> You even do it in this same post: "It's not something I can 'tell' you" blah
> blah.

I am not YOU Eryk. What applies to you, doesn't apply to me.
Not to mention that you do NOT understand what I do, and are projecting
your flat, simplistic understanding of things onto my behavior.

Forget my behavior, you do this to Zen for example, every time you
use it in a degradatory manner–which you do continuously.

> Yes, you did. You cut the statement I made in half.

That's not 'taking out of context'. Taje your flat 'perceptions'
elsewhere.

> You clearly aren't very interested in Zen-

You're right. Eryk-san. I haven't any interest in Zen.
Good grief you're an arrogant moron.

> probably why you couldn't recognize the Tao Te Ching when I brought it
> up.

You're an idiot. Completely delusional at that too.
Not only did I recognize your parroting, but I played a joke
on you by continuing the conversation–and you fell flat on your face.

> [Until I mentioned it
> was a quote from the Tao Te Ching, at which point you conveniently
> "always knew that"]

Sweetheart, allow me to enlighten you a bit. I've been a student of
a Zen master since I was 3 years old. Not only that, but I have
a certain mastery of Iaido, which is not unrelated, certain mastery
which resulted in my ability to destroy my own ego, as well as my
father's, and a few other's.

How could I POSSIBLY recognize the Tao Te Ching?

Tell me Eryk-san, did you read the Tao Te Ching in English,
or in Chinese? And do you actually realize that most translations
of the Tao Te Ching available to general public are made by Western
illiterates, who are expressiong their OPINION on the tao?

Or do you think that reading some text gives you
-automatic understanding of it
-direct access to the tao??

No dear Eryk, you are NOT EVEN A SOLDIER LEAST OF ALL A GENERAL.
You may quote the Tao Te Ching till you die, you're still
going to be an idiotic parrot.

> I think they are compatible, but it's a long explanation of why and I am
> still trying to articulate it.

No, they arent. You *think* that en & baudrillard are compatible.
Now you make me laugh.

> If I buy that label then the store that sells it is my own soul,
> compadre.

You've already bought it. And you don't have a soul.
Go peddle that to someone who doesn't know better.
Souls are not automatic either.

> But what would you know about me?

You're sooooooooooooooooooooooooooo hidden that nobody can possibly see
you. You've achieved a Grand Zen Master, Non-Ego, Empty mirror state.
When I look through you, you're so pure and clean and clear,
the Universe smiles at me. And God shines out of your ass.

> Oh, right- my email posts.

Idiot. Didnt *God* tell you there are other modes of perceptions?
And what about using words as gateways to people? Ho, lo, and Behold,
Ken-sei Sword master Eryk Salvaggio.

> I'm not been playing the dunce.

You are. You've created such a simplistic, lovely image of yourself
completely delusional, and fallen in love with it. You've confused
that ego-mask with your 'soul' and tada.. instant automatic connection
to God. Now if you could only get people to behave thinkand feel your
way.

And all your honesty is attempting to parade yourself
as said image. STATIC and SIMPLE and FLAT.

> You just overcomplicate simple matters.

No, I don't. For me complexity is not a problem.

> Obfuscation is not clever, either, nor is it progress.

Nobody is 'obfuscating'–you're simply playing idiot.
It's the choice that you make. And as I said,
I don't care for 'cleverness''–that's a Dog's game.
Nor do I care about 'progress', Zen_master Eryk.

> >But making the world a better place is leaving a mark.
> > You want to ALTER the world.
>
> You aren't listening.

I AM LISTENING. And i am hearing you loud and clear.
Buying the image you want to sell me of yourself is NOT
LISTENING, it's facile identification.

> I want to alter peoples perceptions of the world.

Ie, you want to alter the world. Hell, you're going to
IMPRINT that image on them won't you?
That Image that everything is FLAT and SIMPLISTIC.
And if only they all bought your ICON and identified with it,
we'll all be clones and world will be peachy.

> I know what your stupid comment meant, and it was irrelevant.

My comment was neither stupid, nor irrelevant, baby.
And no, you don't know what it means.
Doesn't blindness suck?

> I don't really like the Beatles.

Nobody was asking about what you 'like or dislike' Master zen-general
Eryk.

> Maybe when I am enlightened we will

understand that the Tao doesn't 'like or dislike'.

> have the same musical tastes,

My comment about the Beatles was not a reflection of ME
nor was it a reflection of 'my' musical tastes.

> as well as word choices.

I sincerely doubt you'd know about *Enlightenment* and word choice.

> So what the fuck are you doing?

You tell me, o Zen-san.

> I have compassion for twits.

You dont. Compassion is not automatic. You have pity and condescension.

> I have compassion for you,

You don't. You have pity and condescension.

> too, but you don't accept it-

Because I know what compassion IS, and you don't have it.
For one compassion is 'clean'.. and you're simply being an emotional
twit who wants to leave his 'arrows' in others.

> you're "beyond" compassion or whatever.

I am beyond PITY. Nobody is beyond compassion, nor have I ever claimed
to be, nor have I made any such statements.

> I find you to be very fascist.

Compassionate discipline is not fascism baby.
Your pathetic insistence on peeing on the world–is.

> Compassion can be egotistical,

Idiot. PITY AND CONDESCENSION ARE EGOTISTICAL.

> but even egotistical compassion can change things for the better,

Like BREAK people. That's all it DOES.

> so the end result is what matters most.

The end justifies the means??? I dunno who's fascist.
Why don't you go shoot everyone who isn't enlightened
in one fell swoop–and get rid of the problem.
You can kill them with compassion if you like.

> Caring is never idiotic.

You're not caring. You're being idiotic and irresponsible
with your emotions.

> Unless you're a satanist.

Aie! First God, now Satan! What the fuck do you think you're
doing Eryk? Do you even know what youre rattling off about?

Yes, I said that your idiotic fraudulent 'compassion'
is bad–now I'm a satanist. Snicker.

But all Zen masters are satanists, baby.

And all Native American shamans are too.

> Sometimes the phrase "the world" is used in regard to "the natural
> world" and sometimes it is used in regard to "society" ie, people. It
> can be used either way.

No, it can't. Imbeciles of course WOULD do anything.
I would never be self-important enough to fancy 'the WORLD'
equated with humans.

Besides, all your rapping about 'needless suffering'
is really a protest against having to work.
You want everything 'automatic'.

> You seem to be advocating that as a personal practice, actually.

No, i am not. Because unlike you, I'm aware of the difference between
NEEDLESS (unconscious) and necessary (conscious) suffering.
And all you really want is not to do ANY work.
And allow me to enlighten you a bit, baby, if you don't
do the latter, you'll get the first, and also OTHERS
will get it.

You're not only dishonest with yourself, but also
incredibly lazy, and refusing to do YOUR WORK, which
causes suffering for others, and you want to 'teach'
others similar abrogation of responsibility.

> Of course I do.

No, you don't. You only speak about it–but you don't do it.
I've poked you multiple times, and you're re-acting
mechanically, like a dead rabbit.

> It is within everyones abilities.

No, it isn't. Most people are born to assist those who can
change the world. And I'm not degrading that–everyone is
created with a purpose which is EQUALLY important as 'changing the
world'. But only a few are born who can_ change the world.

> You cut the plastic rings that a six pack of soda comes in and then a bird doesn't get needlessly strangled.

Idiotic, simplistic nonsense. That's not ho 'the World* works.
There is no such direct correlation anywhere except for
in delusional propaganda.

> Of course it then goes and eats a fish, but that's not needless
> suffering for the fish, it's neccessary. Maybe you should rent "The Lion
> King" if you need to understand this.

No, I don't baby. Unlike you I havea very CLEAR and PRACTICAL
understanding of thesr things–and this is nothing anyone will
ever be able to get out of BOOKS.

> > Problems are imaginary in nature?
>
> Problems are not neccesarily imaginary in the context you are
> describing,

That was a rhetorical question.
Spare me the erroneous lectring.

> >No, there isn't 'beauty' in 'ugly situations'.

> There is beauty in everything except hopelessness.

No, there isn't beauty in everything.

> If you give up on beauty you give up on hope.

Bla bla cheesy emotional knee-jerk propaganda.
What does this have to do with what I wrote? Nothing.

> I'm sure that's on a greeting card
> somewhere, but cliches are popular for a reason I suppose.

Yeah, and that reason ain't cuz they're right.

> Yes, you're right. You attempt to obfuscate a subject that is simplistic
> and obvious

I don't 'obfuscate' anything dear. Nothing is 'simplistic and obvious'.

> because it is what drives us as human beings.

That's not at all what drives human beings. Idiot.

> You see these themes in Psychology, in Philosophy, and in Religion: The Epiphany can
> be the solution to the problem, or the moment one realizes that the
> problem does not exist.

No, this is a fallacious trap that the brain falls into.

> The problem is not the problem, the solution is
> the problem. Who was it that said that? It was one of the reasons I
> [falsely] assumed you possessed any understanding of the matter.

Sweetheart, you're not qualified to make judgement about who possesses
understanding and who doesn't, because you lack any understanding
WHATSOEVER. Besides collating shit you've read.

> A lot of people is not imaginary.

Yes they are.

> Do you believe that you are the only person in the world?

Meaningless. Belief doesn't function in such manner.

> I don't. I also believe that many people are interested in the subjects at hand.

No, you don't. You wish for it, and you intend to enforce it, hence you
say 'I believe'.

> For proof, you can look at the count
> of people in monastaries, to book sale reciepts.

These matters are not a matter of 'proof'.

> Please cease

Avoid attempting to dictate to my Being, Eryk Salvaggio.

> being one idiot-type person: now.

The only incogruous imbecile here is you.

> > I didn't imply it's dantastic.
> >
>
> You did,

No, I didn't. And avoid attempting to forcew non-existent intent
to my words.

> you said that I was "playing the ordinary man." This implies
> that I am not an ordinary man if my claims about "changing the world"
> were true.

That is so. 'Ordinary men' do not have the capability to change the
world.

> It is simply bullshit to pretend that one must be extraordinary

No, it isn't. Its absolutely and sublimely t r u e.

>[a synonym for fantastic, maybe you could have looked it
> up and saved me the trouble]

It isn't. And Synonymity doesn't imply direct equivalence.
Idiot.

> One does not need to be extraordinary, one must instead be very, very
> careful.

Sorry. Only extraordinary, unique individuals can change the world.
And you're demonstrating not only that you're not one of them,
but even refusing the path of one.

> You are oversimplifying

No, those are your own words * I am God. *

> [as I predicted]

You're laughable. You have no ability to 'predict' anything.
You only have calculations nad expectations.

> the entire concept in order to make me look like a fool,

Right. Love that paranoia baby. I cant make you look like a fool.
You make yourself look like a fool because you choose to be a fool.


> so I'll repeat it again so maybe it will jolt
> your memory back: I am God because everything is God, there is no
> not-God because there is no God.

Sorry, I don't fill my memory with your crap.
And you can repeat it until you're blue in the face,
but you will not be GOD. If you were indeed GOD
I'd have no power to deny your presence baby.

> You are God for the same reason and raw sewage is also God,

How sweet of you, to condescend, but raw sewage is not God either.

> and so are butterflies and dead rats. This is not difficult to understand.

Thereis NOTHINg to understand baby.
Come on tell me I'm not listening.
But you're hollow-hollow-hollow.

> >A completeky ordinary, plain Jesus who is going to
> > make the world a better place. The world is FLAT
> > and SIMPLISTIC.
> >
>
> Precisely.

My my. Hi Jesus. When are you going to slay satan?

> Now, you can go and try to convince people

I don't engage in 'convincing people'.
That's preaching and it's up your arse.

> that the world is a very complicated,

The world is a very complicated and dangerous place baby.
And the 'trick' is to move it with effortlessness and elegance–
this is the beauty of the Tao, the 'emptiness' behind it all.
No 'self-expression'. Effortlessness comes from genuine skill,
understanding, knowledge, and wisdom–and produces beauty.

Simplistic behavior is KITSCH and produces PRETTINESS.

> dangerous place filled with problems they will never
> understand-

It is baby. Step out of your middle-class sheltered existence,
and quit trying to make everyone fit into your neo-hippie
genuinely-fascist and ignorant mould.

> it seems to be your forte, at least on these mailing lists.

Chuckle. My 'forte' is in the Tao, baby.
The real thing, not an English translation paperback.

> A fantastic approach.

The tao that can be spoken about is not the true tao.
Idiot.
You'll only recognize 'zen' and 'tao' if they
come with a label-tag: now this is ZEn and this is: Tao.
And you have no experience with EITHER.

> Judgements are not limited to "like or not like"

I have never implied that this is what judgements are.

> they are ideas based on what you see of a persons behavior.

Oh I see. I shouldn't observe you, mr. Eryk salvaggio,
yeh? pathetic. You don't even know what judgement is.

> You call them "observations" but you are wrong,

I call them what they ARE and they're not WRONG, stomp your foot
as you wish.

> what you do is you judge

I don't judge.

> whether or not one is sufficiently "egoless"

*Sufficiently egoless*? Sorry I don't engage in meaningless
activities of the sort.

> or if they are "too arrogant" based on what they say on
> mailing lists.

No, I don't.

> This is judgement,

No, it isn't. If someone is being an egotist, and I point it out,
it's simply true. There is no 'judgement' here. If someone is arrogant
and I point it out, again–I am not passing judgement.
Passing judgement is attaching non-existent value to
an observation–and I don't.

The wind is blowing. Eryk is being an egotist.

It's all the same to me. There is no judgement passed.

> and you are a hypocrite. Let me start
> your next sentence for you: "No, I'm not…"

Wow, you're awfully clever. You spread false rumors
about people, and when they deny it, you have them 'figured out'.
Whoa! fascism and the Spanish Inquisition rolled into one.

Sorry baby. I'm not hypocrite, nor do I pass judgement.
You're simply an imbecile, who does nothing but clobber people.
And you're fully bent on destroying those whose dare to
question your 'falacious' understanding of *God*.

Ever heard the word petty dictator, baby?
False authority? You want to judge God, compassion,
and others, but you refuse to do work on yourself
worth a nickel.

Cuckoo.

> But you are conjecturing.

No, Eryk. I am not conjecturing. again-stomp and froth if you wish,
but I am not. Nor are you qualified to judge whether I'm conjecturing.

> Your observations are worthless

No, my observations are of great value to me and absolutely accurate
with regards to you. The value YOU get out of them depends entirely on
you.

> and have no real bearing on who I am.

Bearing? I'm hardly here to *bear* anything on you.
They are accurate observations of you though.

> I am in a position to know this better than you are.

No, baby, you're not. And that's one of the grand delusions
of the ego.

> I do this all the time because it is one of the fundamentally
> flawed points you constantly revert to-

No baby. You're the one 'fundamentally flawed'. It's called ego.

You ain't hidden. You're obvious. And not just to me.

> the idea that how one talks on a mailing list is a reflection of thier soul.

Not a statement I've ever made, love. You have no soul.
And yes, had you a soul, it would SHINE THROUGH and AFFECT how you
talk on a mailing list. Or do youthink the soul doesn't
get its hand dirty and participate in mailing lists?:)

Hell, the point of 'zen' is to be a clear vehicle so that
the soul fills you in and DIRECTS all of your actions.

No wait, weren't youa Zen master???

> This is absurd.

Right. And so Is my quote about your not being a general.
Which you never picked up on–and now you're in denial about.
Shriek! It does not compute!

> You do not really know me,

I do. I've known you for very very long.

> and you are not really listening, either.

Are you banging your fist on your desk?

> And it has nothing to do with Hidden.

Shriek! Yes it's absurd, and it's all satan's fault.
I'm deadly serious by the way.

> You simply do not know who I am, and cannot.

But I can and do. Sorry. Am I runining your security blanket?

> Particularly since you completely lack empathy to begin with.

The opposite my dear. You confuse pity with Empathy.
Unlike you, not only do I have it, but I know how to use it.
*Empathy* is not allowing you to get away with your idiotic imbecility.

Empathy also something that you have to WORK for.

> Your zen master let you out of your cage too early.

He let me out after I defeated him, baby. But then again,
it was also my defeat. And we both won. It's absurd, I know.

And you're still locked up. Hence you think no-one can see you.
So enough with that banging against the rails.

> And read that twice

No, thanks.

> [or just knee jerk, its up to you.]

I don't knee-jerk baby. You do.

> > This is neither irony nor sarcasm.
>
> Oh, but it was.

No, baby, it wasn't. But if you had any EMPATHY you could discern what
it was. Stomp and froth again if you please, but it'llnot become
irony or sarcasm.

> Do I need to consult a dictionary again?

A dictionary is not anauthority on my intent behind words.

> Or would that just be forcing motives on to, ie, asking you to use words
> correctly.

I use words CORRECTLLY baby. You want to enforce what my words
mean instead of LISTENING, and you're going to resort to
parroting the dictionary without understanding it, in order
to pad yourself with authority.

> Obviously, correct and accurate usage of vocabulary is fascist,

No, it isn't baby. Nor have I ever implied this.
Your attempting to DICTATE the meaning of my WORDS
IS_ fascist. You're attempting to displace the link between
will-> verbiage by assuming authority over my will.

The dictionary is a lexical aid, not an authority on
language use.

> but what can I say, when you change the meanings of words in order to avoid
> admitting your faults?

I don't baby. That's your speciality. You change the meanings of words
in order to not admit your own faults, including the meaning of ZEN
and you're attempting to change the meaning of MY WORDs also.
No thanks baby.

> Let me goose step to the book shelf.

Ooo. You're so badass. And ironic.
But I doubt you could ever or would ever goose-step.
And all you're doing is again–yor favorite trick,
martyring yourself out i order to seem like those MEN
(something which you're not) who actually went through
a lot of difficulty to 'change the world'.

You ain't got it Eryk. Not even for goose-stepping.
As I said: not even a soldier, least of all a general.

But no wait, you're NOT TRYING TO BE A GENERAL:
you're only, simply, attempting to direct my will.
Tsk, Tsk.

You and max, such innocent babes.

The world is simplictic, and yer the boss.

> A basic question: Are you implying that you don't make mistakes?

I don't. Chew on that :)

> > No, those are patterns you internally superimpose on my behavior.
> > I'm not 'repeating' anything. Pay attention, if you can.
> >
>
> You are repeating what I said you were repeating: You take peoples
> emails, and you paste comments in between direct quotes.

That must be such a sin. I feel so ASHAMED.

> Do you deny that you do this?

So, what do I get if I confess? Lifetime imprisonment
vs. being disemboweled?

> I hope you do, because then I will know for sure that
> you are, in fact, completely delusional.

The only one delusional here, baby, is you.
You couldn't even discern flippant, not conforming to
your 'beliefs' and delusional. As I said–
and I will again–you're not an authority on these issues
and you will not be until you deal with your ego.

> > No, you are not. You're posing and pretending to be doing it.
> > Or wait–you're TRYING to.
> >
>
> How do you know?

It's obvious. Chuckle.

> Perhaps we should discuss the magic spells that you can cast?

I don't case 'magic spells' baby. And please avoid trying
to degrade me and what I do. Are you an authority on
magic now? Dontcha know that Zen is magic?

> They must be very complex.

Idiotic babling.

> You must have spent a lot of time battling orcs before you could get those.

what are you talking about? Some bad childhood experience of yours?

> >>My statement was that you would interject comments in between my quotes
> >>[distorting a great deal of the original context] which is precisely
> >>what you did.
> >>
> >
> > No, I don't.
> >
>
> You just did it.

No, I didn't. I replied. Or are you going to say now that I shouldn't
REPLY to you? All my REPLIEs are interjections out of place.
OH RIGHT: the great ERYK will bang its fist on the desk,
and talk and talk..and whoever replies and especially if
they point out he's a delusional dictatorial crackhead
is 'interjecting'. Out of place.

Somebody give this boy a third world Island.

> I've earned them Let me start your next sentence: "No, you didn't…"

You didn't :) You're simply posing, baby.
Mind goose-stepping to and fro a bit for me?
And try not to wiggle your ass so much.

> Yes, it is precisely what you are doing when you declare that I want to
> be Jesus.


You want to? No, you ARE Jesus. You are God, the son of God.
I am my father and my father is me. John Something or Other.


> You are very stupid.

No, baby. 'm not stupid because I won't play along with your games.

> You do not listen.

I do. You confuse LISTENINg with AGREEING.
Your problem is that I hear things as they ARE, not as you WANT THEM
to be. Including about your 'self'.

By the way, if you were genuinely Empathetic, you'd know
how one can know another completely even by a single look at them.
And you'd not confusew listening with understanding with agreement.

Understanding comes from the ability to apply knowledge practically
in full consciousness. You're millions of years away from that state.

> I never claimed to be hidden or complex. I claimed the exact opposite.

You do claim a lot of things.

> We have had this exchange before.

No we haven't. Nothing is ever the same.

> If my entire argument is that things are very simple,

SIMPLISTIC. You don't know what simple is.

> why do you criticise me for illusions of complexity?

Because you suffer from them. Unconsciously.
And being the compassionate Being that I am, I'd like you
to face yourself, in order to avoid needless suffering.

> Hardly convincing.

I am not trying to convince you baby. I stated an awareness fact.

> I am now, because you are willfully ignorant.


No my dear, YOu are willfully ignorant.
Don't parrot my words back at me thinking that I won't
catch that you haven't a clue what you're talking about.
I'm just not buying your crap because it is CRAP.
And dear compassionate Eryk, willful ignorance is
nota n 'excuse' for condescension.

You're condescending because you ARE CONDESCENDING.
Nobody who hasn't removed condescension from its
'body' is granted gifts such as 'empathy'
'compassion' or 'ability to 'pre-dict'.
Funny, how you confuse dict-atorial behavior with
pre-diction.

I'm afraid your grasp on language is nonexistent.

> > No, it isn't. Like hearing it or not, it is your ego.
> > Just don't pose to me as an honest kinda guy though.

> What a pity.

Won't you goose-step a bit more for me?
You obviously enjoy degrading yourself.

> > Missed what I wrote again.
> >
>
> Then it was too complex and obfuscated.

No it wasn't. YOU missed it.

> You didn't answer my question about what you meant by affording your art
> criticism.

Im not obliged to explain myself.

> > Paranoia.
> >
>
> You're right, I'm paranoid of you and your magic spells.

Magic is not about 'magic spells' idiot.

> No, you're a mailing list pest.

Hardly baby. mailing lists per-se are congregation of pests shouting
their opinions. You're not an exception.

But that's the internet for you–everyone can be an author,
everyone can be a writer, everyone can be jesus, and everyone's
an artist, sound sculptor, authority on all, etc.


> I'm not going to really bother you any more, because I've figured you out,

Chuckle. You haven't 'figured anything out' baby.
And humans are not something that can be 'figured out'.
But you've 'figured out' the 'trick' of 'security'
in yoyr 'brain'.

> after what I feel was a proper investigation,

You lack the tools for proper investigations, Eryk.

> and you are guilty as charged of being needlessly boring.

Sorry I'm not a catholic.
And I'm sure whatever doesn't agree with you is BORING
oh most Enlightened zen-master Saint-Jesus Eryk.

>From: "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <[email protected]>
>Reply-To: "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <[email protected]>
>To: Eryk Salvaggio <[email protected]>
>CC: <[email protected]>
>Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Easy Like Sunday Morning
>Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 19:57:06 -0700 (PDT)
>
>On Fri, 6 Sep 2002, Eryk Salvaggio wrote:
>
> > Yes, you are wrong. One is automatically in union with everything.
>
> No, Eryk. I am not wrong. One is not 'automatically' anything of the
> sort. You don't even exist, least of all 'in uinion with everything'.

I Max Herman yes do not exist, I'm just a lump of cells and eating and
pooping. I have potential to create smooth clean energy, which comes only
thru me and not from me. If my ego gets in the way I'm just a pimp or
vampire. If I can be clean then the real Tao will connect itself to itself
with me as an expression of itself.

"Seems to me I can live my life a lot better than I think I am; that's why
they call me the Workin' Man"–Rush

>
> > You even say so here:
> >
> > Me: I believe I can be a better person than I am.
> >
> >
> > You: But you already are! You've just 'tricked yourself' that you
>aren't.
>
> No, I say nothing of the sort. You're simply being mocked, among other
> things.

Death is a tough son of a bitch. However he is not a pig monster freak
pseudo-intellectual like the 99%.

>
> > We've just tricked ourselves into thinking we're not in union with God.
>
> No, we haven't. You've 'tricked' yourself into believing that you are
> something far greater than you are, and bent on peddling that out to
> everyone.

I have made a basically irrational unfounded bet that G2K is the greatest.
I guess that's why they call me the Working Man, I guess that's what I am.

>
> > You might not understand this yet. Maybe some day, slugger.
>
> There is nothing to understand, Eryk. You're simply peddling nonsense.
> Like most others, you enjoy your slumber.

I allow my true potential to remain asleep, because my ego makes me afraid
and overconfident simultaneously. That reminds me of Satan who would not
accept proper correction, and was mired in pale ire, envy, and despair.

>
> > > It's not 'my concept' Eryk. Nor is it a trick. You're not
> > > 'automatically' connected to anything.
> > >
> >
> > It is your concept,
>
> It's not a concept and it's certainly not mine.
> It's how Reality is.

I figure out a lot of koans and then lie to myself that I determine what the
Tao is. I accumulate fatuous koan-solutions and sleep in them like my own
excrement.

>
> > because it is certainly not my concept of the truth.
>
> The truth is not a matter of concepts and opinions.
> And it's not a matter of my truth and your truth.
> This is simply infantile relativism. While I respect
> that Truth manifests in different ways, not everything
> that parades as Truth is Truth, and certainly you aren't.

I parade Genius 2000 as Truth but it is more like a broken watch I am trying
to peddle so I don't have to work.

>
> > I am automatically connected to God, so are you, so are birds and pepsi
> > cans.
>
> No, dear. Connection to *God* happens only by means of work.
> It's not automatic.

Max Herman is the Messiah. My humility is deep and my powers are
miraculous. This is why Tom Sherman will not tell his students about me.
If I blame him my ego is letting me stay asleep. It is not 'his' fault. It
is just reality.

>
> > You just don't know how to listen.
>
> I do. Unlike you.

Death does know how to listen. I argue pettily with him instead of obeying
what my waking tells me to obey.

>
> > > No, you're a simpleton, and a coward.
> > >
> >
> > I am a simpleton because everything is very simple
>
> No, you're a simpleton because you confuse simplistic, cheap, easy
> and flat with simple.

Simple is not that which is flattering to the ego's ability. Simple is the
Tao of acting simply and cleanly, without greed or vanity.

>
> > Maybe I am a coward;
>
> You are. Like those others who'put you down so hard' you are a coward
> who's locked himself inside his skull and that's where you are.

Max Herman is locked inside his skull. I'm dominated by fear, anger,
jealousy, and the delusions thereof.

>
> > but your opinion on the matter is hardly valid,
>
> This is not an opinion. it's an accurate observation which you
> refuse to accept (being honest with yourself) and hencee attempt to
> delegate inappropriately to opinions. I don't care for opinions,
> nor do I bother having or expressing any.

An intellectual hatred is the worst, so let her feel opinions are
accursed–Yeats to his Daughter.

>
> > since you don't know me at all.
>
> Yes, I do. And this is how you are a coward also.

Death knows Max Herman very well. He finds Genius 2000 to be horrendous
pimping self-indulgent crap because Max Herman is grossly polluted. My
boasting does not expunge the pollution, rather it is the ultimate
expression of denial of the pollution.

>
> > [Because I'm so "hidden?" No. Because you don't know anything except
>mailing lists posts.]
>
> And your 'artwork,' Eryk. And yes you're 'hiding' behind mailing lists.
> I am perfectly capable of knowing you, and affecting you physically,
> and energetically via mailing lists.

Death knows me and affects me physically and energetically. My ego doesn't
like it but if I don't procrastinate, and deal with his presence, I will get
rid of my ego and paranoia. Death is superior to me in self-mastery.

>
> > > Yes, there is. You are making grand statements about a word you
> > > don't understand, and making up its meaning so that it suits your
> > > thoughts.
> > >
> >
> > Incorrect.
>
> Correct, my dear. And it' never become 'Incorrect'.

"It'll never become"?

>
> > There is no such thing as "not god."
>
> Sweetheart, as I said–you're making grand gestures about things
> you don't know anything about. Yes, there are many things which are not
> *god*–a word which you use without undersanding.
>

Max Herman's ego is not God, or connected to God, but my own filth and
dross. I live very easily in disconnection and denial of God. It makes me
sick and weak when I do. My value is negative when I do.

> > Maybe some day you will understand this,
>
> There is nothing of the sort to be understood, Eryk. You're delusional.
> Condescending twit.

Sometimes Max Herman is a condescending twit. I luxuriate in false dreams
of popularity and achievement. I allow this stagnation to keep me from my
responsibilities. I make up names and reasons for my ego to excuse and
recuse itself. Among these reasons are resentment, blame, cowardice,
laziness, and self-glorification. These reasons are all insulting and
repugnant to Genius 2000.

>
> > once you are able to get over your infatuation with your own non-ego.
>
> Sweetheart, my dearest, love. I have no ego. Nor am I 'infatuated' with
> anything. Unlike your infatuation with your Ego which insists that
> everything is 'simplistic and flat'. You're only fooling yourself.

I am infatuated with lazy daydreams about Genius 2000, which poison my soul.
It is like being in hell. It's only my own fault. The filthy
self-congratulation is total misery and desperation.

>
> > If you were paying attention,
>
> Which i am. Your idea of 'paying attention' is little more than
> a demand for a fixation on your narcissistic tendencies.

Max Herman is swarming with narcissism, and often I confuse narcissistic
grasping for approval with Truth.

>
> > you would have noticed that nowhere did I discuss the meaning of God,
>
> No, dear. I DID notice that, and I brought it up exactly because of
> that.
>
> Me: you're not bringing up the meaning of the word you use.
> Eryk: you'd have noticed that nowhere do I discuss the meaning of the
> word
>
> As for your pseudo-Zen commentary on the 'non-meaning of God'–
> it's less than laughable.

All meaning comes from the Tao and honest serious work toward reaching it.
Everything else is abominable.

>
> > Take the sand out of your eyes.
>
> I don't have any, though you're bent on trying to toss it, and not only
> in mine but everyone else's.

I waste time gleefully and self-indulgently trying to confuse people, so
that my ego will feel Genius 2000 is perfect and complete even when polluted
and stagnated. This may be an acting out of anger and contempt on my part.
It's an easy way of saying "it's not my fault or responsibility." If I do
not stop my worth will be zero or negative.

>
> > > Totalische democazie.
> >
> > When in doubt, change languages.
>
> I wasn't in doubt, nor changing languages. Your idiotic projections
> are not amusing.

Hierarchy in mastery is fundamental to Zen. Voting is not what Zen is. Zen
is not about democracy. Zen does not excuse oppression and bad rule. Nor
does Zen indulge fantasies of infantile revolution. Genius 2000 is
different than Zen. Genius 2000 may not be real or valuable at all. Right
now Max Herman is so vastly polluted by ego and delusion that the value of
Genius 2000 is endangered by him.

>
> > Clever.
>
> That's your speciality. I don't 'engage' in clever.

Max Herman often tries to act clever, like calling Tom Sherman a corrupt
filthy money-changer. Clever is not an acceptance of responsibility but an
avoidance of it.

>
> > You think God can be talked about as a political structure?
>
> No, dear, I wasn't expressing my opinion. Simply making fun of your
> stance.

God is permanent, and political structures are temporary images.

>
> > You're so disappointing.
>
> You are indeed. And yet, you never got the comment that I made
> with 'totalische democrazie'. As for God and political structures,
> they're not separable, and the 'separation' of it is a disease
> due to egotistical tendencies in humans.

God and political structures are not seperable, but they are not the same.
This thought makes me feel sick and weak. I have tried to jump the
turnstile and succeeded to fail. I want an easy way out of it. Hence I
commit blunder after blunder. My thoughts and actions on this matter are
polluted and ineffective.

>
> Maybe you should acuaint yourself with the idea of *God*
> from people who actually have a clue before tossing out your childish
> rubbish.
>
> > This is exactly correct. By trying to be a better person I am merely
> > trying to unlearn all the false and innacurate behaviors I've learned as
> > a result of ego practices.
>
> No, you arent. Much of my comments about you have been 'hitting on' such
> habits. The idea of *God* as you present it is an ego-result. Not only
> that, but you will never be 'connected to God' until you've dealt with
> your ego. You're collating things you've read, and inaccurately.

Max Herman will never be connected to God until he deals with his ego
sufficiently.

>
> > Precisely, but I don't have a complete knowledge of that.
>
> You don't have any_ knowledge.

Now I am getting frustrated and resentful toward Death. I want to smash
him. I suspect he is not a true master, or competent to teach me. My ego
insists that I do have knowledge. My hybris is that my ego is a holy
pollution sent by God.

>
> > The problem with your looking is you don't question.
>
> There is no problem with my looking. And sorry, I am not LOOKING.
> The mode of observation I use is not subject to 'questioning'
> or even verbiage of any sort.
>
> > You label it as quickly
>
> I don't label. Sorry–you don't even understand what I'm doing but
> are attempting to 'mirror' my verbiage at me without getting it,
> instead of listening.
>
> > as you accuse the rest of us,
>
> I am not 'accusing' anyone. 'Take the sand out of your eyes'.
> And don't bring 'everyone' into this. I am writing and observing YOU.
>
> > then you pretend not to
>
> I do not pretend. And I simply do not. Nor are you a qualified
> judge of my actions.
>
> > out of an infatuation with your egolessness.
>
> No, dear. Ego hasn't got anything to do with this, besides your ego
> screeching and projecting yourself outward. Froth as much as you wish,
> but you can't see beyond your own ego. It's a sad state, no?
> Whether you like hearing this or not–and you don't–and you're
> not listening to it contonuously–you have no authority to
> discern wgo in others before you have dealt with your own.

I do not like this statement.

>
> Allow me to assure you that if you had ANY sort of connection to
> 'God' you would not be depressed, moreso your 'non-meaning'
> of God is full of hidden assumptions, all of which erroneous,
> and hence I poked you about it, and here we are.

Max Herman suffers from depression.

>
> > Just my "observation."
>
> Very good. Observation is something else–and not something you're
> capable of.

If you meet the Buddha in the road, bust his ass.

>
> > And, rightfully, my conjecture.
>
> No, a projection. It's the same mechanism that allows scapegoating.
> Yawn. And isn't not responsible for suffering. If you're truly
> interested in making the world a better place, start with being honest
> with yourself. Right now, you're making it worse.

I do not agree that Genius 2000 is making the world worse.

>
> > I know what I am feeling.
>
> You don't. You know the labels you've learned. that's all.

Yes feelings are distorted cognition in depressed people like Max Herman.

>
> > > Many individuals in genuine pursuit of changing how others see.
> > > But that shouldn't be of any consequence to you.
> > >
> >
> > Yes, you're right, this is of no consequence to me, because gender, when
> > it comes to these matters, is genuinely meaningless.
>
> No, gender is not 'meaningless' nor has it ever been.
> But if you had even a passing acquaintance with listening
> and if you're truly connected to 'god' you'd know that.
> But you don't want to work to understand Gender,
> to you God is served automatically on a plate.
> Preferably microwaved.

Gender is a domain of ego-distortion but it doesn't have to be. I am still
skeptical that extermination of ego is the correct path. If Death is wrong
on this question he is wrong altogether.

>
> > >
> > > Nice. Refusal of responsibility, and shouldering it over to me.
> > > No thanks.
> > >
> >
> > This is also a refusal of responsibility.
>
> No, it isnt Eryk. It's refusal to play your idiotic game.
> Instead of answering the question you evade answering with
> nonsense, and change the subject to baseless conjectures and projections
> about me.

If the ego is not the source of all evil, then Death is in error. I do not
yet concede that ego can or should be wholly eliminated. I do not know what
"breaking people" means–perhaps treating them as ego-only.

>
> > When you say "It can't be> explained" apparently it is a deep connection
> > to a wisdom beyond words,
>
> Nothing of the sort. No *conviction' here baby.
>
> > when I say it I am shouldering off the responsibility. Brilliant.
>
> Yes, it is Eryk. You and I are NOt the same, nor are we equal.
> You're simply attempting to leverage yourself where you don't belong.
> What governs my behavior is not what governs yours.

Max Herman is failing to leverage himself where he does belong.

>
> > You even do it in this same post: "It's not something I can 'tell' you"
>blah
> > blah.
>
> I am not YOU Eryk. What applies to you, doesn't apply to me.
> Not to mention that you do NOT understand what I do, and are projecting
> your flat, simplistic understanding of things onto my behavior.
>
> Forget my behavior, you do this to Zen for example, every time you
> use it in a degradatory manner–which you do continuously.

I do not see why Zen should not be revised slightly.

>
> > Yes, you did. You cut the statement I made in half.
>
> That's not 'taking out of context'. Taje your flat 'perceptions'
>elsewhere.
>
> > You clearly aren't very interested in Zen-
>
> You're right. Eryk-san. I haven't any interest in Zen.
> Good grief you're an arrogant moron.
>
> > probably why you couldn't recognize the Tao Te Ching when I brought it
> > up.
>
> You're an idiot. Completely delusional at that too.
> Not only did I recognize your parroting, but I played a joke
> on you by continuing the conversation–and you fell flat on your face.
>
> > [Until I mentioned it
> > was a quote from the Tao Te Ching, at which point you conveniently
> > "always knew that"]
>
> Sweetheart, allow me to enlighten you a bit. I've been a student of
> a Zen master since I was 3 years old. Not only that, but I have
> a certain mastery of Iaido, which is not unrelated, certain mastery
> which resulted in my ability to destroy my own ego, as well as my
> father's, and a few other's.

Iaido, the battle against the ego.

>
> How could I POSSIBLY recognize the Tao Te Ching?
>
> Tell me Eryk-san, did you read the Tao Te Ching in English,
> or in Chinese? And do you actually realize that most translations
> of the Tao Te Ching available to general public are made by Western
> illiterates, who are expressiong their OPINION on the tao?
>
> Or do you think that reading some text gives you
> -automatic understanding of it
> -direct access to the tao??
>
> No dear Eryk, you are NOT EVEN A SOLDIER LEAST OF ALL A GENERAL.
> You may quote the Tao Te Ching till you die, you're still
> going to be an idiotic parrot.
>
> > I think they are compatible, but it's a long explanation of why and I am
> > still trying to articulate it.
>
> No, they arent. You *think* that en & baudrillard are compatible.
> Now you make me laugh.

If Death is acting as a Zen master I do not think he is a very good one.

>
> > If I buy that label then the store that sells it is my own soul,
> > compadre.
>
> You've already bought it. And you don't have a soul.
> Go peddle that to someone who doesn't know better.
> Souls are not automatic either.
>
> > But what would you know about me?
>
> You're sooooooooooooooooooooooooooo hidden that nobody can possibly see
> you. You've achieved a Grand Zen Master, Non-Ego, Empty mirror state.
> When I look through you, you're so pure and clean and clear,
> the Universe smiles at me. And God shines out of your ass.
>

I am not sure that Genius 2000 can be tainted or harmed by Max Herman's ego.
One may replace Genius 2000 with something else.

> > Oh, right- my email posts.
>
> Idiot. Didnt *God* tell you there are other modes of perceptions?
> And what about using words as gateways to people? Ho, lo, and Behold,
> Ken-sei Sword master Eryk Salvaggio.
>
> > I'm not been playing the dunce.
>
> You are. You've created such a simplistic, lovely image of yourself
> completely delusional, and fallen in love with it. You've confused
> that ego-mask with your 'soul' and tada.. instant automatic connection
> to God. Now if you could only get people to behave thinkand feel your
> way.

Death, do you believe that some people can save others?

>
> And all your honesty is attempting to parade yourself
> as said image. STATIC and SIMPLE and FLAT.
>
> > You just overcomplicate simple matters.
>
> No, I don't. For me complexity is not a problem.
>
> > Obfuscation is not clever, either, nor is it progress.
>
> Nobody is 'obfuscating'–you're simply playing idiot.
> It's the choice that you make. And as I said,
> I don't care for 'cleverness''–that's a Dog's game.
> Nor do I care about 'progress', Zen_master Eryk.
>
> > >But making the world a better place is leaving a mark.
> > > You want to ALTER the world.
> >
> > You aren't listening.
>
> I AM LISTENING. And i am hearing you loud and clear.
> Buying the image you want to sell me of yourself is NOT
> LISTENING, it's facile identification.

Pretending Genius 2000 is cool is not what I want people to do. My ego
likes it but I do not like my ego. It pollutes me.

>
> > I want to alter peoples perceptions of the world.
>
> Ie, you want to alter the world. Hell, you're going to
> IMPRINT that image on them won't you?
> That Image that everything is FLAT and SIMPLISTIC.
> And if only they all bought your ICON and identified with it,
> we'll all be clones and world will be peachy.
>
> > I know what your stupid comment meant, and it was irrelevant.
>
> My comment was neither stupid, nor irrelevant, baby.
> And no, you don't know what it means.
> Doesn't blindness suck?

Bitch bitch bitch.

>
> > I don't really like the Beatles.
>
> Nobody was asking about what you 'like or dislike' Master zen-general
> Eryk.
>
> > Maybe when I am enlightened we will
>
> understand that the Tao doesn't 'like or dislike'.
>
> > have the same musical tastes,
>
> My comment about the Beatles was not a reflection of ME
> nor was it a reflection of 'my' musical tastes.
>
> > as well as word choices.
>
> I sincerely doubt you'd know about *Enlightenment* and word choice.
>
> > So what the fuck are you doing?
>
> You tell me, o Zen-san.
>
> > I have compassion for twits.
>
> You dont. Compassion is not automatic. You have pity and condescension.
>
> > I have compassion for you,
>
> You don't. You have pity and condescension.
>
> > too, but you don't accept it-
>
> Because I know what compassion IS, and you don't have it.
> For one compassion is 'clean'.. and you're simply being an emotional
> twit who wants to leave his 'arrows' in others.

Compassion is clean. It is not pity and condescension.

>
> > you're "beyond" compassion or whatever.
>
> I am beyond PITY. Nobody is beyond compassion, nor have I ever claimed
> to be, nor have I made any such statements.
>
> > I find you to be very fascist.
>
> Compassionate discipline is not fascism baby.
> Your pathetic insistence on peeing on the world–is.
>
> > Compassion can be egotistical,
>
> Idiot. PITY AND CONDESCENSION ARE EGOTISTICAL.
>
> > but even egotistical compassion can change things for the better,
>
> Like BREAK people. That's all it DOES.

Break and damage their own ability to fight their ego by making them
dependent.

>
> > so the end result is what matters most.
>
> The end justifies the means??? I dunno who's fascist.
> Why don't you go shoot everyone who isn't enlightened
> in one fell swoop–and get rid of the problem.
> You can kill them with compassion if you like.
>
> > Caring is never idiotic.
>
> You're not caring. You're being idiotic and irresponsible
> with your emotions.
>
> > Unless you're a satanist.
>
> Aie! First God, now Satan! What the fuck do you think you're
> doing Eryk? Do you even know what youre rattling off about?
>
> Yes, I said that your idiotic fraudulent 'compassion'
> is bad–now I'm a satanist. Snicker.
>
> But all Zen masters are satanists, baby.
>
> And all Native American shamans are too.
>
> > Sometimes the phrase "the world" is used in regard to "the natural
> > world" and sometimes it is used in regard to "society" ie, people. It
> > can be used either way.
>
> No, it can't. Imbeciles of course WOULD do anything.
> I would never be self-important enough to fancy 'the WORLD'
> equated with humans.

I think the world is the same as humans.

>
> Besides, all your rapping about 'needless suffering'
> is really a protest against having to work.
> You want everything 'automatic'.

Max Herman cannot tell the difference between slavery and work.

>
> > You seem to be advocating that as a personal practice, actually.
>
> No, i am not. Because unlike you, I'm aware of the difference between
> NEEDLESS (unconscious) and necessary (conscious) suffering.
> And all you really want is not to do ANY work.
> And allow me to enlighten you a bit, baby, if you don't
> do the latter, you'll get the first, and also OTHERS
> will get it.

This would apply to Max Herman too.

>
> You're not only dishonest with yourself, but also
> incredibly lazy, and refusing to do YOUR WORK, which
> causes suffering for others, and you want to 'teach'
> others similar abrogation of responsibility.
>
> > Of course I do.
>
> No, you don't. You only speak about it–but you don't do it.
> I've poked you multiple times, and you're re-acting
> mechanically, like a dead rabbit.
>
> > It is within everyones abilities.
>
> No, it isn't. Most people are born to assist those who can
> change the world. And I'm not degrading that–everyone is
> created with a purpose which is EQUALLY important as 'changing the
> world'. But only a few are born who can_ change the world.
>

Max Herman has not changed the world, nor is he yet capable of changing the
world, so he should stop flailing about and meditate so as to become
capable.

> > You cut the plastic rings that a six pack of soda comes in and then a
>bird doesn't get needlessly strangled.
>
> Idiotic, simplistic nonsense. That's not ho 'the World* works.
> There is no such direct correlation anywhere except for
> in delusional propaganda.
>
> > Of course it then goes and eats a fish, but that's not needless
> > suffering for the fish, it's neccessary. Maybe you should rent "The Lion
> > King" if you need to understand this.
>
> No, I don't baby. Unlike you I havea very CLEAR and PRACTICAL
> understanding of thesr things–and this is nothing anyone will
> ever be able to get out of BOOKS.
>
> > > Problems are imaginary in nature?
> >
> > Problems are not neccesarily imaginary in the context you are
> > describing,
>
> That was a rhetorical question.
> Spare me the erroneous lectring.
>
> > >No, there isn't 'beauty' in 'ugly situations'.
>
> > There is beauty in everything except hopelessness.
>
> No, there isn't beauty in everything.
>
> > If you give up on beauty you give up on hope.
>
> Bla bla cheesy emotional knee-jerk propaganda.
> What does this have to do with what I wrote? Nothing.
>
> > I'm sure that's on a greeting card
> > somewhere, but cliches are popular for a reason I suppose.
>
> Yeah, and that reason ain't cuz they're right.
>
> > Yes, you're right. You attempt to obfuscate a subject that is simplistic
> > and obvious
>
> I don't 'obfuscate' anything dear. Nothing is 'simplistic and obvious'.
>
> > because it is what drives us as human beings.
>
> That's not at all what drives human beings. Idiot.

I distrust Death when he calls people idiots and twits. That does not seem
like the behavior of a Zen master. Maybe I am projecting my own pleasure in
insults onto Death, who takes no pleasure or self-justification in calling
people idiots and twits. However in my opinion Zen masters do not call
their students idiots and twits.

>
> > You see these themes in Psychology, in Philosophy, and in Religion: The
>Epiphany can
> > be the solution to the problem, or the moment one realizes that the
> > problem does not exist.
>
> No, this is a fallacious trap that the brain falls into.
>
> > The problem is not the problem, the solution is
> > the problem. Who was it that said that? It was one of the reasons I
> > [falsely] assumed you possessed any understanding of the matter.
>
> Sweetheart, you're not qualified to make judgement about who possesses
> understanding and who doesn't, because you lack any understanding
> WHATSOEVER. Besides collating shit you've read.

Genius 2000 might be an ego-degraded collation of shit Max Herman has read.
It also might not be. I meditate on that a lot.

>
> > A lot of people is not imaginary.
>
> Yes they are.
>
> > Do you believe that you are the only person in the world?
>
> Meaningless. Belief doesn't function in such manner.
>
> > I don't. I also believe that many people are interested in the subjects
>at hand.
>
> No, you don't. You wish for it, and you intend to enforce it, hence you
> say 'I believe'.
>
> > For proof, you can look at the count
> > of people in monastaries, to book sale reciepts.
>
> These matters are not a matter of 'proof'.
>
> > Please cease
>
> Avoid attempting to dictate to my Being, Eryk Salvaggio.
>
> > being one idiot-type person: now.
>
> The only incogruous imbecile here is you.

When I meditate on my own imbecility, I do not find it significant.

>
> > > I didn't imply it's dantastic.
> > >
> >
> > You did,
>
> No, I didn't. And avoid attempting to forcew non-existent intent
> to my words.
>
> > you said that I was "playing the ordinary man." This implies
> > that I am not an ordinary man if my claims about "changing the world"
> > were true.
>
> That is so. 'Ordinary men' do not have the capability to change the
> world.

Those who assist the extraordinary do have the power to change the world.

>
> > It is simply bullshit to pretend that one must be extraordinary
>
> No, it isn't. Its absolutely and sublimely t r u e.

On should never be coy about one's own extraordinary powers, and this is one
of the messages of Genius 2000. Death reminds me of Calvinism. Even Joe
Blow has extraordinary powers.

>
> >[a synonym for fantastic, maybe you could have looked it
> > up and saved me the trouble]
>
> It isn't. And Synonymity doesn't imply direct equivalence.
> Idiot.
>
> > One does not need to be extraordinary, one must instead be very, very
> > careful.
>
> Sorry. Only extraordinary, unique individuals can change the world.
> And you're demonstrating not only that you're not one of them,
> but even refusing the path of one.

I have repeatedly refused the path of greatness.

>
> > You are oversimplifying
>
> No, those are your own words * I am God. *
>
> > [as I predicted]
>
> You're laughable. You have no ability to 'predict' anything.
> You only have calculations nad expectations.
>
> > the entire concept in order to make me look like a fool,
>
> Right. Love that paranoia baby. I cant make you look like a fool.
> You make yourself look like a fool because you choose to be a fool.
>
>
> > so I'll repeat it again so maybe it will jolt
> > your memory back: I am God because everything is God, there is no
> > not-God because there is no God.
>
> Sorry, I don't fill my memory with your crap.
> And you can repeat it until you're blue in the face,
> but you will not be GOD. If you were indeed GOD
> I'd have no power to deny your presence baby.
>
> > You are God for the same reason and raw sewage is also God,
>
> How sweet of you, to condescend, but raw sewage is not God either.
>
> > and so are butterflies and dead rats. This is not difficult to
>understand.
>
> Thereis NOTHINg to understand baby.
> Come on tell me I'm not listening.
> But you're hollow-hollow-hollow.
>
> > >A completeky ordinary, plain Jesus who is going to
> > > make the world a better place. The world is FLAT
> > > and SIMPLISTIC.
> > >
> >
> > Precisely.
>
> My my. Hi Jesus. When are you going to slay satan?

Maybe I already did.

>
> > Now, you can go and try to convince people
>
> I don't engage in 'convincing people'.
> That's preaching and it's up your arse.
>
> > that the world is a very complicated,
>
> The world is a very complicated and dangerous place baby.
> And the 'trick' is to move it with effortlessness and elegance–
> this is the beauty of the Tao, the 'emptiness' behind it all.
> No 'self-expression'. Effortlessness comes from genuine skill,
> understanding, knowledge, and wisdom–and produces beauty.

Effortlessness.

>
> Simplistic behavior is KITSCH and produces PRETTINESS.
>
> > dangerous place filled with problems they will never
> > understand-
>
> It is baby. Step out of your middle-class sheltered existence,
> and quit trying to make everyone fit into your neo-hippie
> genuinely-fascist and ignorant mould.

I am becoming more aware of how violent and horrific the world is. I am
afraid that we are becoming mired in a history that leads to hell. My fear
is my mind-killer. If I conquer my ego I will not be afraid anymore. Then
I will avert hell. It is not my ego telling me the US should not invade
Iraq. Too many options will be lost if we do.

>
> > it seems to be your forte, at least on these mailing lists.
>
> Chuckle. My 'forte' is in the Tao, baby.
> The real thing, not an English translation paperback.

I am concerned that you are deluding yourself. A somewhat insane Zen
master.

>
> > A fantastic approach.
>
> The tao that can be spoken about is not the true tao.
> Idiot.
> You'll only recognize 'zen' and 'tao' if they
> come with a label-tag: now this is ZEn and this is: Tao.
> And you have no experience with EITHER.

I have experience with Zen and the Tao.

>
> > Judgements are not limited to "like or not like"
>
> I have never implied that this is what judgements are.
>
> > they are ideas based on what you see of a persons behavior.
>
> Oh I see. I shouldn't observe you, mr. Eryk salvaggio,
> yeh? pathetic. You don't even know what judgement is.
>
> > You call them "observations" but you are wrong,
>
> I call them what they ARE and they're not WRONG, stomp your foot
> as you wish.
>
> > what you do is you judge
>
> I don't judge.
>
> > whether or not one is sufficiently "egoless"
>
> *Sufficiently egoless*? Sorry I don't engage in meaningless
> activities of the sort.

I said "sufficiently egoless" earlier and Death means that this is a bogus
easy form of idiocy. There is enlightenment and corruption and not anything
in between.

>
> > or if they are "too arrogant" based on what they say on
> > mailing lists.
>
> No, I don't.
>
> > This is judgement,
>
> No, it isn't. If someone is being an egotist, and I point it out,
> it's simply true. There is no 'judgement' here. If someone is arrogant
> and I point it out, again–I am not passing judgement.
> Passing judgement is attaching non-existent value to
> an observation–and I don't.
>
> The wind is blowing. Eryk is being an egotist.
>
> It's all the same to me. There is no judgement passed.
>
> > and you are a hypocrite. Let me start
> > your next sentence for you: "No, I'm not…"
>
> Wow, you're awfully clever. You spread false rumors
> about people, and when they deny it, you have them 'figured out'.
> Whoa! fascism and the Spanish Inquisition rolled into one.
>
> Sorry baby. I'm not hypocrite, nor do I pass judgement.
> You're simply an imbecile, who does nothing but clobber people.
> And you're fully bent on destroying those whose dare to
> question your 'falacious' understanding of *God*.
>
> Ever heard the word petty dictator, baby?
> False authority? You want to judge God, compassion,
> and others, but you refuse to do work on yourself
> worth a nickel.
>
> Cuckoo.

I have done work on myself worth a nickel.

>
> > But you are conjecturing.
>
> No, Eryk. I am not conjecturing. again-stomp and froth if you wish,
> but I am not. Nor are you qualified to judge whether I'm conjecturing.
>
> > Your observations are worthless
>
> No, my observations are of great value to me and absolutely accurate
> with regards to you. The value YOU get out of them depends entirely on
> you.
>
> > and have no real bearing on who I am.
>
> Bearing? I'm hardly here to *bear* anything on you.
> They are accurate observations of you though.
>
> > I am in a position to know this better than you are.
>
> No, baby, you're not. And that's one of the grand delusions
> of the ego.
>
> > I do this all the time because it is one of the fundamentally
> > flawed points you constantly revert to-
>
> No baby. You're the one 'fundamentally flawed'. It's called ego.
>
> You ain't hidden. You're obvious. And not just to me.
>
> > the idea that how one talks on a mailing list is a reflection of thier
>soul.
>
> Not a statement I've ever made, love. You have no soul.
> And yes, had you a soul, it would SHINE THROUGH and AFFECT how you
> talk on a mailing list. Or do youthink the soul doesn't
> get its hand dirty and participate in mailing lists?:)
>
> Hell, the point of 'zen' is to be a clear vehicle so that
> the soul fills you in and DIRECTS all of your actions.

This criticism could be used to say that Genius 2000 is an inverted
projection of my own ego onto others, and an attempt to degrade them to my
own scandal.

>
> No wait, weren't youa Zen master???
>
> > This is absurd.
>
> Right. And so Is my quote about your not being a general.
> Which you never picked up on–and now you're in denial about.
> Shriek! It does not compute!
>
> > You do not really know me,
>
> I do. I've known you for very very long.
>
> > and you are not really listening, either.
>
> Are you banging your fist on your desk?
>
> > And it has nothing to do with Hidden.
>
> Shriek! Yes it's absurd, and it's all satan's fault.
> I'm deadly serious by the way.
>
> > You simply do not know who I am, and cannot.
>
> But I can and do. Sorry. Am I runining your security blanket?
>
> > Particularly since you completely lack empathy to begin with.
>
> The opposite my dear. You confuse pity with Empathy.
> Unlike you, not only do I have it, but I know how to use it.
> *Empathy* is not allowing you to get away with your idiotic imbecility.
>
> Empathy also something that you have to WORK for.
>
> > Your zen master let you out of your cage too early.
>
> He let me out after I defeated him, baby. But then again,
> it was also my defeat. And we both won. It's absurd, I know.
>
> And you're still locked up. Hence you think no-one can see you.
> So enough with that banging against the rails.
>
> > And read that twice
>
> No, thanks.
>
> > [or just knee jerk, its up to you.]
>
> I don't knee-jerk baby. You do.
>
> > > This is neither irony nor sarcasm.
> >
> > Oh, but it was.
>
> No, baby, it wasn't. But if you had any EMPATHY you could discern what
> it was. Stomp and froth again if you please, but it'llnot become
> irony or sarcasm.
>
> > Do I need to consult a dictionary again?
>
> A dictionary is not anauthority on my intent behind words.
>
> > Or would that just be forcing motives on to, ie, asking you to use words
> > correctly.
>
> I use words CORRECTLLY baby. You want to enforce what my words
> mean instead of LISTENING, and you're going to resort to
> parroting the dictionary without understanding it, in order
> to pad yourself with authority.
>
> > Obviously, correct and accurate usage of vocabulary is fascist,
>
> No, it isn't baby. Nor have I ever implied this.
> Your attempting to DICTATE the meaning of my WORDS
> IS_ fascist. You're attempting to displace the link between
> will-> verbiage by assuming authority over my will.
>
> The dictionary is a lexical aid, not an authority on
> language use.
>
> > but what can I say, when you change the meanings of words in order to
>avoid
> > admitting your faults?
>
> I don't baby. That's your speciality. You change the meanings of words
> in order to not admit your own faults, including the meaning of ZEN
> and you're attempting to change the meaning of MY WORDs also.
> No thanks baby.
>
> > Let me goose step to the book shelf.
>
> Ooo. You're so badass. And ironic.
> But I doubt you could ever or would ever goose-step.
> And all you're doing is again–yor favorite trick,
> martyring yourself out i order to seem like those MEN
> (something which you're not) who actually went through
> a lot of difficulty to 'change the world'.
>
> You ain't got it Eryk. Not even for goose-stepping.
> As I said: not even a soldier, least of all a general.
>
> But no wait, you're NOT TRYING TO BE A GENERAL:
> you're only, simply, attempting to direct my will.
> Tsk, Tsk.
>
> You and max, such innocent babes.
>
> The world is simplictic, and yer the boss.
>
> > A basic question: Are you implying that you don't make mistakes?
>
> I don't. Chew on that :)
>
> > > No, those are patterns you internally superimpose on my behavior.
> > > I'm not 'repeating' anything. Pay attention, if you can.
> > >
> >
> > You are repeating what I said you were repeating: You take peoples
> > emails, and you paste comments in between direct quotes.
>
> That must be such a sin. I feel so ASHAMED.
>
> > Do you deny that you do this?
>
> So, what do I get if I confess? Lifetime imprisonment
> vs. being disemboweled?
>
> > I hope you do, because then I will know for sure that
> > you are, in fact, completely delusional.
>
> The only one delusional here, baby, is you.
> You couldn't even discern flippant, not conforming to
> your 'beliefs' and delusional. As I said–
> and I will again–you're not an authority on these issues
> and you will not be until you deal with your ego.
>
> > > No, you are not. You're posing and pretending to be doing it.
> > > Or wait–you're TRYING to.
> > >
> >
> > How do you know?
>
> It's obvious. Chuckle.
>
> > Perhaps we should discuss the magic spells that you can cast?
>
> I don't case 'magic spells' baby. And please avoid trying
> to degrade me and what I do. Are you an authority on
> magic now? Dontcha know that Zen is magic?
>
> > They must be very complex.
>
> Idiotic babling.
>
> > You must have spent a lot of time battling orcs before you could get
>those.
>
> what are you talking about? Some bad childhood experience of yours?
>
> > >>My statement was that you would interject comments in between my
>quotes
> > >>[distorting a great deal of the original context] which is precisely
> > >>what you did.
> > >>
> > >
> > > No, I don't.
> > >
> >
> > You just did it.
>
> No, I didn't. I replied. Or are you going to say now that I shouldn't
> REPLY to you? All my REPLIEs are interjections out of place.
> OH RIGHT: the great ERYK will bang its fist on the desk,
> and talk and talk..and whoever replies and especially if
> they point out he's a delusional dictatorial crackhead
> is 'interjecting'. Out of place.
>
> Somebody give this boy a third world Island.
>
> > I've earned them Let me start your next sentence: "No, you didn't…"
>
> You didn't :) You're simply posing, baby.
> Mind goose-stepping to and fro a bit for me?
> And try not to wiggle your ass so much.
>
> > Yes, it is precisely what you are doing when you declare that I want to
> > be Jesus.
>
>
> You want to? No, you ARE Jesus. You are God, the son of God.
> I am my father and my father is me. John Something or Other.
>
>
> > You are very stupid.
>
> No, baby. 'm not stupid because I won't play along with your games.
>
> > You do not listen.
>
> I do. You confuse LISTENINg with AGREEING.
> Your problem is that I hear things as they ARE, not as you WANT THEM
> to be. Including about your 'self'.
>
> By the way, if you were genuinely Empathetic, you'd know
> how one can know another completely even by a single look at them.
> And you'd not confusew listening with understanding with agreement.
>
> Understanding comes from the ability to apply knowledge practically
> in full consciousness. You're millions of years away from that state.
>
> > I never claimed to be hidden or complex. I claimed the exact opposite.
>
> You do claim a lot of things.
>
> > We have had this exchange before.
>
> No we haven't. Nothing is ever the same.
>
> > If my entire argument is that things are very simple,
>
> SIMPLISTIC. You don't know what simple is.
>
> > why do you criticise me for illusions of complexity?
>
> Because you suffer from them. Unconsciously.
> And being the compassionate Being that I am, I'd like you
> to face yourself, in order to avoid needless suffering.
>
> > Hardly convincing.
>
> I am not trying to convince you baby. I stated an awareness fact.
>
> > I am now, because you are willfully ignorant.
>
>
> No my dear, YOu are willfully ignorant.
> Don't parrot my words back at me thinking that I won't
> catch that you haven't a clue what you're talking about.
> I'm just not buying your crap because it is CRAP.
> And dear compassionate Eryk, willful ignorance is
> nota n 'excuse' for condescension.
>
> You're condescending because you ARE CONDESCENDING.
> Nobody who hasn't removed condescension from its
> 'body' is granted gifts such as 'empathy'
> 'compassion' or 'ability to 'pre-dict'.
> Funny, how you confuse dict-atorial behavior with
> pre-diction.
>
> I'm afraid your grasp on language is nonexistent.
>
> > > No, it isn't. Like hearing it or not, it is your ego.
> > > Just don't pose to me as an honest kinda guy though.
>
> > What a pity.
>
> Won't you goose-step a bit more for me?
> You obviously enjoy degrading yourself.
>
> > > Missed what I wrote again.
> > >
> >
> > Then it was too complex and obfuscated.
>
> No it wasn't. YOU missed it.
>
> > You didn't answer my question about what you meant by affording your art
> > criticism.
>
> Im not obliged to explain myself.
>
> > > Paranoia.
> > >
> >
> > You're right, I'm paranoid of you and your magic spells.
>
> Magic is not about 'magic spells' idiot.
>
> > No, you're a mailing list pest.
>
> Hardly baby. mailing lists per-se are congregation of pests shouting
> their opinions. You're not an exception.
>
> But that's the internet for you–everyone can be an author,
> everyone can be a writer, everyone can be jesus, and everyone's
> an artist, sound sculptor, authority on all, etc.
>
>
> > I'm not going to really bother you any more, because I've figured you
>out,
>
> Chuckle. You haven't 'figured anything out' baby.
> And humans are not something that can be 'figured out'.
> But you've 'figured out' the 'trick' of 'security'
> in yoyr 'brain'.

Death, do you think the devil is winning and will kill us all?

>
> > after what I feel was a proper investigation,
>
> You lack the tools for proper investigations, Eryk.
>
> > and you are guilty as charged of being needlessly boring.
>
> Sorry I'm not a catholic.
> And I'm sure whatever doesn't agree with you is BORING
> oh most Enlightened zen-master Saint-Jesus Eryk.

Thank you for being here Death.

>
>
>+ If the reader will keep me company I shall be glad.
>-> 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