Rhizome Raw Religions of the World Survey 2002

god is a word
is god a word
is a god word
is a word god
god a is word
a god is word
a is god word
a is word god
god a word is
a god word is
a word god is
a word is god
god is word a
is god word a
is word god a
is word a god
god word is a
word god is a
word is god a
word is a god
god word a is
word god a is
word a god is
word a is god

— Eryk Salvaggio <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Not at all. Hope is the most human thing there is;
> and any means of
> obtaining that is only natural. But I like to think
> that when one is
> about to die, they acknowledge that they are proud
> of the way they
> lived, so they can find peace more or less,
> regardless of whether they
> go up to a bright shiny city in the clouds, or some
> kind of afterlife.
> This is why humanism can accomplish more for the
> world than any religion
> can.
>
> I am terrified of airplanes, and I was on my way
> across the seas one
> time, and we hit some turbulence, and I was helpless
> and it dawned on me
> why people pray. I decided not to, as a test. I
> wrote a letter instead.
> And the plane landed safely. I have nothing against
> God or the idea of
> prayer- I just think it's a psychological device,
> especially because it
> comes up in situations like you bring mention- death
> beds, moments of
> despair, etc. I have nothing against it at all. But
> I'm not interested
> in psychological coping mechanisms personally. But
> what do I know? I'm
> just saying it's what I do. It has nothing to do
> with anyone else, I
> don't see why you'd even be interested.
>
> -e.
>
>
>
>
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> >Its probably a delusion or a myopic knee-jerk
> reaction ;)
> >
> >BTW - question about humanistic aetheism…when you
> are about to die, and you
> >have a moment of hope that something comes after,
> will this be considered
> >hypocritical?
> >
> >Cheers
> >
> >Joseph
> >
> >Quoting Eryk Salvaggio <[email protected]>:
> >
> >>I've answered emails from you since then. So I
> don't know why that idea
> >>is still in your head.
> >>
> >>-e.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>[email protected] wrote:
> >>
> >>>I'm supposed to be on your filter remove list.
> >>>
> >>>Joseph
> >>>
> >>>Quoting Eryk Salvaggio <[email protected]>:
> >>>
> >>>>I am subscribed to Rhizome, (for some reason),
> so there is no need to
> >>>>cross post these dialogues to my own inbox.
> >>>>
> >>>>-e.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>[email protected] wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>Now that really pissed you off didn't it?
> Sorry, don't want to hurt your
> >>>>>
> >>old
> >>
> >>>>>heart there.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Joseph
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Quoting "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+"
> <[email protected]>:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>The correct statement made with regards to
> what Joseph wrote
> >>>>>>was, that what you DISLIKE is the idea of an
> actual authority–
> >>>>>>which is precisely evident in your idiotic
> attempts to deny it,
> >>>>>>even though it is not sibject to your
> opinions, no matter how many
> >>>>>>emails you write and how much you stomp your
> feet–because in the
> >>>>>>PRESENCE of such you COULDN'T attempt to pass
> yourselves as what
> >>>>>>you are NOT: appropriating the work of
> exceptional men, while
> >>>>>>even lacking BASIC 'understanding' of what is
> involved, in order
> >>>>>>to stage your careers. That you associate
> authority with rigidity is a
> >>>>>>personal problem that I have nothing to do
> with–similarly with your
> >>>>>>idiotic psychopathic spineless slug behavior
> being passed on as
> >>>>>>'flexible'. Slime is flexible. Consciousness
> is not being slimy.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>What is most sickening, is that you beat
> yourselves in the chests about
> >>>>>>your 'humanity' and with the same face rip,
> destroy and damage what is
> >>>>>>created by various beings as pathways for
> conscious development for
> >>>>>>humanity–and that it is PRECISELY THIS
> destruction and not some 'evil
> >>>>>>rulerz' that contributes to the most ENROMOUS
> degree to the continuous
> >>>>>>petrifaction, destruction, and grinding down
> of humanity (no, I am not
> >>>>>>saying this because 'I care'–because I don't,
> and to give you a slight
> >>>>>>clue–nobody really does). Your assumption
> that somebody out there
> >>>>>>
> >>'cares'
> >>
> >>>>>>is based on your facile drivel about 'luv'
> which hasn't got anything to
> >>>>>>
> >>do
> >>
> >>>>>>with LOVe at all, but is based alternately on
> immature pathos (paternal
> >>>>>>energy exchange and mirror-type identification
> via reproductive systems)
> >>>>>>or psychotic and monstrous brain obsessions.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>So, observe yourselves as you really are–not
> as you'd LIKE to FANTASIZE
> >>>>>>that you are.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>I'm not holding my breath about your taking
> responsibility for your
> >>>>>>idiocy, however.
> >>>>>>
> >
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/

god is a word
is god a word
is a god word
is a word god
god a is word
a god is word
a is god word
a is word god
god a word is
a god word is
a word god is
a word is god
god is word a
is god word a
is word god a
is word a god
god word is a
word god is a
word is god a
word is a god
god word a is
word god a is
word a god is
word a is god

— Eryk Salvaggio <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Not at all. Hope is the most human thing there is;
> and any means of
> obtaining that is only natural. But I like to think
> that when one is
> about to die, they acknowledge that they are proud
> of the way they
> lived, so they can find peace more or less,
> regardless of whether they
> go up to a bright shiny city in the clouds, or some
> kind of afterlife.
> This is why humanism can accomplish more for the
> world than any religion
> can.
>
> I am terrified of airplanes, and I was on my way
> across the seas one
> time, and we hit some turbulence, and I was helpless
> and it dawned on me
> why people pray. I decided not to, as a test. I
> wrote a letter instead.
> And the plane landed safely. I have nothing against
> God or the idea of
> prayer- I just think it's a psychological device,
> especially because it
> comes up in situations like you bring mention- death
> beds, moments of
> despair, etc. I have nothing against it at all. But
> I'm not interested
> in psychological coping mechanisms personally. But
> what do I know? I'm
> just saying it's what I do. It has nothing to do
> with anyone else, I
> don't see why you'd even be interested.
>
> -e.
>
>
>
>
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> >Its probably a delusion or a myopic knee-jerk
> reaction ;)
> >
> >BTW - question about humanistic aetheism…when you
> are about to die, and you
> >have a moment of hope that something comes after,
> will this be considered
> >hypocritical?
> >
> >Cheers
> >
> >Joseph
> >
> >Quoting Eryk Salvaggio <[email protected]>:
> >
> >>I've answered emails from you since then. So I
> don't know why that idea
> >>is still in your head.
> >>
> >>-e.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>[email protected] wrote:
> >>
> >>>I'm supposed to be on your filter remove list.
> >>>
> >>>Joseph
> >>>
> >>>Quoting Eryk Salvaggio <[email protected]>:
> >>>
> >>>>I am subscribed to Rhizome, (for some reason),
> so there is no need to
> >>>>cross post these dialogues to my own inbox.
> >>>>
> >>>>-e.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>[email protected] wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>Now that really pissed you off didn't it?
> Sorry, don't want to hurt your
> >>>>>
> >>old
> >>
> >>>>>heart there.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Joseph
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Quoting "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+"
> <[email protected]>:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>The correct statement made with regards to
> what Joseph wrote
> >>>>>>was, that what you DISLIKE is the idea of an
> actual authority–
> >>>>>>which is precisely evident in your idiotic
> attempts to deny it,
> >>>>>>even though it is not sibject to your
> opinions, no matter how many
> >>>>>>emails you write and how much you stomp your
> feet–because in the
> >>>>>>PRESENCE of such you COULDN'T attempt to pass
> yourselves as what
> >>>>>>you are NOT: appropriating the work of
> exceptional men, while
> >>>>>>even lacking BASIC 'understanding' of what is
> involved, in order
> >>>>>>to stage your careers. That you associate
> authority with rigidity is a
> >>>>>>personal problem that I have nothing to do
> with–similarly with your
> >>>>>>idiotic psychopathic spineless slug behavior
> being passed on as
> >>>>>>'flexible'. Slime is flexible. Consciousness
> is not being slimy.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>What is most sickening, is that you beat
> yourselves in the chests about
> >>>>>>your 'humanity' and with the same face rip,
> destroy and damage what is
> >>>>>>created by various beings as pathways for
> conscious development for
> >>>>>>humanity–and that it is PRECISELY THIS
> destruction and not some 'evil
> >>>>>>rulerz' that contributes to the most ENROMOUS
> degree to the continuous
> >>>>>>petrifaction, destruction, and grinding down
> of humanity (no, I am not
> >>>>>>saying this because 'I care'–because I don't,
> and to give you a slight
> >>>>>>clue–nobody really does). Your assumption
> that somebody out there
> >>>>>>
> >>'cares'
> >>
> >>>>>>is based on your facile drivel about 'luv'
> which hasn't got anything to
> >>>>>>
> >>do
> >>
> >>>>>>with LOVe at all, but is based alternately on
> immature pathos (paternal
> >>>>>>energy exchange and mirror-type identification
> via reproductive systems)
> >>>>>>or psychotic and monstrous brain obsessions.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>So, observe yourselves as you really are–not
> as you'd LIKE to FANTASIZE
> >>>>>>that you are.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>I'm not holding my breath about your taking
> responsibility for your
> >>>>>>idiocy, however.
> >>>>>>
> >
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/

god is a word
is god a word
is a god word
is a word god
god a is word
a god is word
a is god word
a is word god
god a word is
a god word is
a word god is
a word is god
god is word a
is god word a
is word god a
is word a god
god word is a
word god is a
word is god a
word is a god
god word a is
word god a is
word a god is
word a is god

— Eryk Salvaggio <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Not at all. Hope is the most human thing there is;
> and any means of
> obtaining that is only natural. But I like to think
> that when one is
> about to die, they acknowledge that they are proud
> of the way they
> lived, so they can find peace more or less,
> regardless of whether they
> go up to a bright shiny city in the clouds, or some
> kind of afterlife.
> This is why humanism can accomplish more for the
> world than any religion
> can.
>
> I am terrified of airplanes, and I was on my way
> across the seas one
> time, and we hit some turbulence, and I was helpless
> and it dawned on me
> why people pray. I decided not to, as a test. I
> wrote a letter instead.
> And the plane landed safely. I have nothing against
> God or the idea of
> prayer- I just think it's a psychological device,
> especially because it
> comes up in situations like you bring mention- death
> beds, moments of
> despair, etc. I have nothing against it at all. But
> I'm not interested
> in psychological coping mechanisms personally. But
> what do I know? I'm
> just saying it's what I do. It has nothing to do
> with anyone else, I
> don't see why you'd even be interested.
>
> -e.
>
>
>
>
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> >Its probably a delusion or a myopic knee-jerk
> reaction ;)
> >
> >BTW - question about humanistic aetheism…when you
> are about to die, and you
> >have a moment of hope that something comes after,
> will this be considered
> >hypocritical?
> >
> >Cheers
> >
> >Joseph
> >
> >Quoting Eryk Salvaggio <[email protected]>:
> >
> >>I've answered emails from you since then. So I
> don't know why that idea
> >>is still in your head.
> >>
> >>-e.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>[email protected] wrote:
> >>
> >>>I'm supposed to be on your filter remove list.
> >>>
> >>>Joseph
> >>>
> >>>Quoting Eryk Salvaggio <[email protected]>:
> >>>
> >>>>I am subscribed to Rhizome, (for some reason),
> so there is no need to
> >>>>cross post these dialogues to my own inbox.
> >>>>
> >>>>-e.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>[email protected] wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>Now that really pissed you off didn't it?
> Sorry, don't want to hurt your
> >>>>>
> >>old
> >>
> >>>>>heart there.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Joseph
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Quoting "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+"
> <[email protected]>:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>The correct statement made with regards to
> what Joseph wrote
> >>>>>>was, that what you DISLIKE is the idea of an
> actual authority–
> >>>>>>which is precisely evident in your idiotic
> attempts to deny it,
> >>>>>>even though it is not sibject to your
> opinions, no matter how many
> >>>>>>emails you write and how much you stomp your
> feet–because in the
> >>>>>>PRESENCE of such you COULDN'T attempt to pass
> yourselves as what
> >>>>>>you are NOT: appropriating the work of
> exceptional men, while
> >>>>>>even lacking BASIC 'understanding' of what is
> involved, in order
> >>>>>>to stage your careers. That you associate
> authority with rigidity is a
> >>>>>>personal problem that I have nothing to do
> with–similarly with your
> >>>>>>idiotic psychopathic spineless slug behavior
> being passed on as
> >>>>>>'flexible'. Slime is flexible. Consciousness
> is not being slimy.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>What is most sickening, is that you beat
> yourselves in the chests about
> >>>>>>your 'humanity' and with the same face rip,
> destroy and damage what is
> >>>>>>created by various beings as pathways for
> conscious development for
> >>>>>>humanity–and that it is PRECISELY THIS
> destruction and not some 'evil
> >>>>>>rulerz' that contributes to the most ENROMOUS
> degree to the continuous
> >>>>>>petrifaction, destruction, and grinding down
> of humanity (no, I am not
> >>>>>>saying this because 'I care'–because I don't,
> and to give you a slight
> >>>>>>clue–nobody really does). Your assumption
> that somebody out there
> >>>>>>
> >>'cares'
> >>
> >>>>>>is based on your facile drivel about 'luv'
> which hasn't got anything to
> >>>>>>
> >>do
> >>
> >>>>>>with LOVe at all, but is based alternately on
> immature pathos (paternal
> >>>>>>energy exchange and mirror-type identification
> via reproductive systems)
> >>>>>>or psychotic and monstrous brain obsessions.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>So, observe yourselves as you really are–not
> as you'd LIKE to FANTASIZE
> >>>>>>that you are.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>I'm not holding my breath about your taking
> responsibility for your
> >>>>>>idiocy, however.
> >>>>>>
> >
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/

"The hypocrite's hope shall perish" (Job 8:13).

I am interested in the nature of belief, and of what is believed. I think in
Hebrew, the word for hypocrite also means godless, so not to far from apropos
re atheism. I think atheist means a complete denial of the existence of a god,
and hope does not support denial. Thus what is expressed as belief is not
supported by action. I just can't see myself or any other person breathing
their last and not having that spark of hope (the most human thing there is).

I like the word agnostic with the definition…
a.One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God (or
Spiritual Center).

Though, I sometimes think that this is not correct either, as I feel it is not
the "knowing" but the "communicating" that produces the dogma of all the
religions that so obviously require "faith" and not intelligence to believe in.

So I search for "knowing" but not "communicating"

And if I ever get to "know" a god/great truth, I will cut off the hands of the
first person who writes down a word I say (just kidding).

Joseph

Quoting Eryk Salvaggio <[email protected]>:

>
> Not at all. Hope is the most human thing there is; and any means of
> obtaining that is only natural. But I like to think that when one is
> about to die, they acknowledge that they are proud of the way they
> lived, so they can find peace more or less, regardless of whether they
> go up to a bright shiny city in the clouds, or some kind of afterlife.
> This is why humanism can accomplish more for the world than any religion
> can.
>
> I am terrified of airplanes, and I was on my way across the seas one
> time, and we hit some turbulence, and I was helpless and it dawned on me
> why people pray. I decided not to, as a test. I wrote a letter instead.
> And the plane landed safely. I have nothing against God or the idea of
> prayer- I just think it's a psychological device, especially because it
> comes up in situations like you bring mention- death beds, moments of
> despair, etc. I have nothing against it at all. But I'm not interested
> in psychological coping mechanisms personally. But what do I know? I'm
> just saying it's what I do. It has nothing to do with anyone else, I
> don't see why you'd even be interested.
>
> -e.
>
>
>
>
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> >Its probably a delusion or a myopic knee-jerk reaction ;)
> >
> >BTW - question about humanistic aetheism…when you are about to die, and
> you
> >have a moment of hope that something comes after, will this be considered
> >hypocritical?
> >
> >Cheers
> >
> >Joseph
> >
> >Quoting Eryk Salvaggio <[email protected]>:
> >
> >>I've answered emails from you since then. So I don't know why that idea
> >>is still in your head.
> >>
> >>-e.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>[email protected] wrote:
> >>
> >>>I'm supposed to be on your filter remove list.
> >>>
> >>>Joseph
> >>>
> >>>Quoting Eryk Salvaggio <[email protected]>:
> >>>
> >>>>I am subscribed to Rhizome, (for some reason), so there is no need to
> >>>>cross post these dialogues to my own inbox.
> >>>>
> >>>>-e.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>[email protected] wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>Now that really pissed you off didn't it? Sorry, don't want to hurt your
> >>>>>
> >>old
> >>
> >>>>>heart there.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Joseph
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Quoting "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <[email protected]>:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>The correct statement made with regards to what Joseph wrote
> >>>>>>was, that what you DISLIKE is the idea of an actual authority–
> >>>>>>which is precisely evident in your idiotic attempts to deny it,
> >>>>>>even though it is not sibject to your opinions, no matter how many
> >>>>>>emails you write and how much you stomp your feet–because in the
> >>>>>>PRESENCE of such you COULDN'T attempt to pass yourselves as what
> >>>>>>you are NOT: appropriating the work of exceptional men, while
> >>>>>>even lacking BASIC 'understanding' of what is involved, in order
> >>>>>>to stage your careers. That you associate authority with rigidity is a
> >>>>>>personal problem that I have nothing to do with–similarly with your
> >>>>>>idiotic psychopathic spineless slug behavior being passed on as
> >>>>>>'flexible'. Slime is flexible. Consciousness is not being slimy.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>What is most sickening, is that you beat yourselves in the chests about
> >>>>>>your 'humanity' and with the same face rip, destroy and damage what is
> >>>>>>created by various beings as pathways for conscious development for
> >>>>>>humanity–and that it is PRECISELY THIS destruction and not some 'evil
> >>>>>>rulerz' that contributes to the most ENROMOUS degree to the continuous
> >>>>>>petrifaction, destruction, and grinding down of humanity (no, I am not
> >>>>>>saying this because 'I care'–because I don't, and to give you a slight
> >>>>>>clue–nobody really does). Your assumption that somebody out there
> >>>>>>
> >>'cares'
> >>
> >>>>>>is based on your facile drivel about 'luv' which hasn't got anything to
> >>>>>>
> >>do
> >>
> >>>>>>with LOVe at all, but is based alternately on immature pathos (paternal
> >>>>>>energy exchange and mirror-type identification via reproductive
> systems)
> >>>>>>or psychotic and monstrous brain obsessions.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>So, observe yourselves as you really are–not as you'd LIKE to
> FANTASIZE
> >>>>>>that you are.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>I'm not holding my breath about your taking responsibility for your
> >>>>>>idiocy, however.
> >>>>>>
> >

[email protected] wrote:

>"The hypocrite's hope shall perish" (Job 8:13).
>
>
>I am interested in the nature of belief, and of what is believed. I think in
>Hebrew, the word for hypocrite also means godless, so not to far from apropos
>re atheism. I think atheist means a complete denial of the existence of a god,
>

It can. I can use it also to cover the idea of pantheism or all-theism
or whatever you like, the idea that
everything is god so there is no god worth distinguishing from the rest
of us or it. There's no denial of god,
though there's certainly a denial of god in the sense of the christian
"guiding force" etc etc. You know the
hebrews also used to call god a word that was unpronouncable, because
pronouncing it was a reduction
of the entire concept. I kind of believe in that, but I also believe in
its inverse. Which makes no
sense to anyone, basically.



>
>and hope does not support denial. Thus what is expressed as belief is not
>supported by action. I just can't see myself or any other person breathing
>their last and not having that spark of hope (the most human thing there is).
>

Why save your hope for when you're dying?


>
>
>I like the word agnostic with the definition…
> a.One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God (or
>Spiritual Center).
>

But what if you do know?


>
>
>Though, I sometimes think that this is not correct either, as I feel it is not
>the "knowing" but the "communicating" that produces the dogma of all the
>religions that so obviously require "faith" and not intelligence to believe in.
>

Dogma is going to happen to everything. And it's also presumptuous to
assume that you will give rise to dogmatic
beliefs, Mr McElroy. Maybe that's why so many religions ended up so
sloppy- none of the major figureheads were
arrogant enough to assume they would give rise to a church [Christ even
said it, "those who would build a church
in my name are dry canals." It's in the gnostic gospels anyway.]


>So I search for "knowing" but not "communicating"
>

If you know, you'll communicate anyway. Or something.


>
>
>And if I ever get to "know" a god/great truth, I will cut off the hands of the
>first person who writes down a word I say (just kidding).
>

A guy threatened to cut my hands off at dunkin donuts while I was on a
coffee run for my workplace. Seems
I grabbed his cup of coffee on accident. There is a great truth for you.


-e.

Quoting Eryk Salvaggio <[email protected]>:

> >
>
> It can. I can use it also to cover the idea of pantheism or all-theism
> or whatever you like, the idea that
> everything is god so there is no god worth distinguishing from the rest
> of us or it. There's no denial of god,
> though there's certainly a denial of god in the sense of the christian
> "guiding force" etc etc.

Well, a private definition of atheism I can understand, though you could see
how someone else might get confused.

> You know the
> hebrews also used to call god a word that was unpronouncable, because
> pronouncing it was a reduction
> of the entire concept. I kind of believe in that, but I also believe in
> its inverse. Which makes no
> sense to anyone, basically.

The word is completely universal which everyone can speak or not speak.
Either no reduction of concept, or reduce it completely - eliminate it as a
concept - it becomes a part of life - like your breathing.

> >
>
> Why save your hope for when you're dying?

I am speaking only of a specific instance of hope. Hope should be a constant
presence.

> >
> >I like the word agnostic with the definition…
> > a.One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God
> (or
> >Spiritual Center).
> >
>
> But what if you do know?

Thus the modifying description I followed with.

>
> Dogma is going to happen to everything. And it's also presumptuous to
> assume that you will give rise to dogmatic
> beliefs, Mr McElroy.

Where do you get the idea that I believe I will give rise to a religion or
church? I am quite an unsuitable prospect for that kind thing. I am making art
about beliefs and hopes - that's the extent of it.

>Maybe that's why so many religions ended up so
> sloppy- none of the major figureheads were
> arrogant enough to assume they would give rise to a church [Christ even
> said it, "those who would build a church
> in my name are dry canals." It's in the gnostic gospels anyway.]

Yes, but plenty of arrogant followers came behind. Have the Mormon and
Scientology faiths move beyond cult to church status yet? My belief is that
the major figureheads were arrogant enough to a) either plan a large following
or b) to believe they found a great truth and wanted to spread it far and why.
Either way, they were full of shit in my book (though probably very nice to
have an afternoon sit down with)

>
> >So I search for "knowing" but not "communicating"
> >
>
> If you know, you'll communicate anyway. Or something.

Perhaps.

> >
> >And if I ever get to "know" a god/great truth, I will cut off the hands of
> the
> >first person who writes down a word I say (just kidding).
> >
>
> A guy threatened to cut my hands off at dunkin donuts while I was on a
> coffee run for my workplace. Seems
> I grabbed his cup of coffee on accident. There is a great truth for you.


Good. I will write it down in my book of great truths. Right along side the
truth "no businessman can make art"

Joseph

> > >
> > >I like the word agnostic with the definition…
> > > a.One who believes that it is impossible to
> know whether there is a God
> > (or
> > >Spiritual Center).

gnost = knowledge. a.gnostic = without gnowledge.

> > >
> >
> > But what if you do know?
>
> Thus the modifying description I followed with.
>
> >
> > Dogma is going to happen to everything. And it's
> also presumptuous to
> > assume that you will give rise to dogmatic
> > beliefs, Mr McElroy.
>
> Where do you get the idea that I believe I will give
> rise to a religion or
> church? I am quite an unsuitable prospect for that
> kind thing. I am making art
> about beliefs and hopes - that's the extent of it.
>
>
> >Maybe that's why so many religions ended up so
> > sloppy- none of the major figureheads were
> > arrogant enough to assume they would give rise to
> a church [Christ even
> > said it, "those who would build a church
> > in my name are dry canals." It's in the gnostic
> gospels anyway.]
>
> Yes, but plenty of arrogant followers came behind.
> Have the Mormon and
> Scientology faiths move beyond cult to church status
> yet? My belief is that
> the major figureheads were arrogant enough to a)
> either plan a large following
> or b) to believe they found a great truth and wanted
> to spread it far and why.
> Either way, they were full of shit in my book

what book would that be? :)

the thing I find most interesting about these bible
beating religions is that thier members very rarely
ever read the actual book!

the hebrew word for 'word' is 'davar' it is related
to the english word 'divide'. The original torah text
contained no vowels and *no spaces*.

the hebrew word for 'information' is 'da-at' it is
related to the english word 'data'. When does data
become knowledge? Does knowledge exist only in the
mind of the knower?

> (though probably very nice to
> have an afternoon sit down with)
>
> >
> > >So I search for "knowing" but not "communicating"
> > >
> >
> > If you know, you'll communicate anyway. Or
> something.

can knowledge exist without communication?



__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/

On Wed, 23 Oct 2002, Eryk Salvaggio wrote:

> Not at all. Hope is the most human thing there is;

Drivel. Hope is an attribute of consciousness.
Consciousness is not HUMAN property.

> and any means of obtaining that is only natural.

No it isn't. Besides you have no 'hope' until you awake–
only grand posturing and pretense. Yet again–attempting
to dress in king's clothes, inappropriately.

You can recite all of the Sufi poetry in the world,
it will not automatically rub off on you.

Your hope is nothing but pitiful grappling to delusions
which will keep you fromfacing the actuality of truth:
that the human machine and the spirit inside are one
of the most POTENT and POWERFUL creations as far as life goes.
Yes, humans are capable ofbeing OMNISCIENT, yes, they are capable of
handling reality on a large SCALE–and moreso this is what they
were meant to evolve into.

> But I like to think that when one is
> about to die, they acknowledge that they are proud of the way they
> lived,

Oh look, now Eryk is a priest. You LIKE t think your delusions, indeed.


> so they can find peace more or less, regardless of whether they
> go up to a bright shiny city in the clouds, or some kind of afterlife.
> This is why humanism can accomplish more for the world than any religion
> can.

Drivel. Your humanism is cheap rip-off of religion. Because you couldn't
EVER measure up to religion as it requires an awake, strong, pitiless
heart, discipline, which has no tolerance for weakness, or fantasizing
or delusions. The HEART dearest doesn't care what your brain's
deludes itself into thinking, and if your heart was awake, your brain
would undergo such changes it'd be screaching and screaming all over the
place.

> I am terrified of airplanes,

How touching. You're terrified of EVERYTHING. Hence you 'hope'.
A weakling quivering.

> and I was on my way across the seas one
> time, and we hit some turbulence, and I was helpless and it dawned on me
> why people pray.

No dearest. Prayer doesn't have anything to do with the psychotic
activity of cowards thinking that they are 'praying'.

Prayer dearest is a way to contact various energies, which are
mythologized as deities. It is within one's POWER to contact these
forces and by means of them to govern oneself. Prayer is not
a weakling pose.

> I decided not to, as a test. I wrote a letter instead.
> And the plane landed safely. I have nothing against God or the idea of
> prayer- I just think it's a psychological device, especially because it
> comes up in situations like you bring mention- death beds, moments of
> despair, etc.

This is not PRAYER. Your myopic misinterpretations of things
have little to do with reality–and the fact that you've
self-righteously and condescendingly 'figured out' prayer
as you've 'figured' out zen & sufism is psychotic.

> I have nothing against it at all.

Especially if you can feel superior to it.
You have NOTHINg against it at all.
And that is why you 'enjoy' aiding bums too.
But when it comes to doing something of actual
internal strength, courage, and integrity, you buckle.

But you 'peddle' impotent delusions as hope.

Oh look out. Erk thinks his delusional idiocy will
'save the world'. Condescending on all without
understanding it.

> But I'm not interested
> in psychological coping mechanisms personally.

You're not? All of your behavior AND your humanitarian atheism
included is a psychological coping mechanism. And since this is
what you DO and are asleep–of course other's people's actions
are that. But not your own, not really, couldn't be, could it?

> But what do I know?

Nothing.

> I'm
> just saying it's what I do. It has nothing to do with anyone else, I
> don't see why you'd even be interested.

Pseudo-humble pitch. I make claims about having figured
out things, but I want to take none of the responsibility.

Really dearest: you got something 'better' than religion
(in a real sense, not what humans THINK religion is)
put it in action.

But that'll require waking up, and you won't do that.

Hope in a cup of soup? Snif, snif.
Chicken soup for the 'soul'.

You know what Sifis say don'tcha?
The kind of 'hope' and 'faith' you peddle makes
humans into emotional slaves.

Oh right, but *Zen* and *sufism* are really only your 'influences'
ie grand names that you ABUSE to serve your drivel ego-fueled agenda.

On Fri, 25 Oct 2002 [email protected] wrote:

> "The hypocrite's hope shall perish" (Job 8:13).

Oh how mighty religious of you. Too bad the hypocrite here is you.


> I am interested in the nature of belief, and of what is believed.

No, you aren't. Not really.

> I think in Hebrew, the word for hypocrite also means godless, so not to far from apropos
> re atheism. I think atheist means a complete denial of the existence of a god,
> and hope does not support denial.


Nor does it support delusions. Nor discohest claims.
Because dearest hope is STRENGTH. And what you do is
'teach human about their weakness. Sob. Sniff.

> Thus what is expressed as belief is not
> supported by action. I just can't see myself or any other person breathing
> their last and not having that spark of hope (the most human thing there is).

Hope is an attribute of consciousness, and is a universal impulse.
Got nothing to do with your idiotic self-importance.

And that thing you call hope, is egotistical grappling.

> So I search for "knowing" but not "communicating"

You search to feed.

> And if I ever get to "know" a god/great truth, I will cut off the hands of the
> first person who writes down a word I say (just kidding).

How sweet. But you're NOT interested.

On Fri, 25 Oct 2002 [email protected] wrote:

> The word is completely universal which everyone can speak or not speak.
> Either no reduction of concept, or reduce it completely - eliminate it as a
> concept - it becomes a part of life - like your breathing.

Drivel.

> I am speaking only of a specific instance of hope. Hope should be a constant
> presence.

Should be?

> Thus the modifying description I followed with.

Laughable.

> >
> > Dogma is going to happen to everything.

No it isn't. Nor is religion proper dogma.

> > And it's also presumptuous to
> > assume that you will give rise to dogmatic
> > beliefs, Mr McElroy.

How wise and pointificating, Mr. Salvaggio.

> Where do you get the idea that I believe I will give rise to a religion or
> church? I am quite an unsuitable prospect for that kind thing. I am making art
> about beliefs and hopes - that's the extent of it.

No, you aren't. You're a manipulative con-man. And you have no contact
with hope. Art dearest is a priviliege of those conscious.

> >Maybe that's why so many religions ended up so
> > sloppy-

No, they ended up sloppy because of human oh so human psychotism.

> none of the major figureheads were
> > arrogant enough to assume they would give rise to a church [Christ even
> > said it, "those who would build a church
> > in my name are dry canals." It's in the gnostic gospels anyway.]

And you UNDERSTAND them, don't you?

> Yes, but plenty of arrogant followers came behind. Have the Mormon and
> Scientology faiths move beyond cult to church status yet?

Neither are faiths.

> My belief

Your wishful projection is NOT belief.

> is that the major figureheads were arrogant enough to a) either plan a
> large following

Nothing 'arrogant' about a large following.

> b) to believe they found a great truth and wanted to spread it far and

They didn't 'believe' so dearest.

> Either way, they were full of shit in my book (though probably very nice to
> have an afternoon sit down with)

Cuz in your book the mode of action is DEBASEMENT.
You simmply CANNOT stand a conscious being.
You can't. Because you are weak and stupid.

It's just so nice if we are all equal, weak and 'human' swimming in this
unconscious stupor of not knowing just so that mr. McElroy doesn't get
his feelings hurt, sniff.

Because it's you who is pissed off and hurt dearest, and you do it to
yourself too. And you want everyone else to hurt as well.

WAAAAAAAAAAA.

On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, josh zeidner wrote:

> what book would that be? :)
>
> the thing I find most interesting about these bible
> beating religions is that thier members very rarely
> ever read the actual book!

Or have any knowledge about the matters discussed.
But having an opinion on such matters makes one
appear intelligent. It's funny how those 'for'
religions very often haven't read the nooks–or possess
any knowledge either. Not implying anything by the way.

> the hebrew word for 'word' is 'davar' it is related
> to the english word 'divide'. The original torah text
> contained no vowels and *no spaces*.

Indeed. And there is other phenomenae about it.

> the hebrew word for 'information' is 'da-at' it is
> related to the english word 'data'. When does data
> become knowledge? Does knowledge exist only in the
> mind of the knower?

Data does not become knowledge. Data is sensorial.
Knowledge is something else. And some data is
undecipherable WITHOUT internal knowledge
(real reading, paintings, non-idiotic music,
religious teachings, actual warriorship)

To make reality manifest in data form is quite a feat.
Hence the essense and awe of real ART–to create, to
render the invisible visible–much as life is rendered
VISIBLE by various forces (of which these manifestations
can be masks)

Hence to cut up, manipulate, 'use' reality as per what
one perceives as the ego is idiotic attempt at destruction.

Aprops–what I've seen to you is computatory.
Computation is sensorial re-arrangement of data
without guidance from 'gnosis'.

One does not gain insight into reality in such a way.

Not claiming that this is the entirety of what you do–
or that you cannot do.

> can knowledge exist without communication?

what is communication (to you)?

Hey Eryk,

I think I am winning the contest to get irritate K the most. It was nip and
tuck for a while with you, but I think I got you beat. What do you think?

Joseph

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

> On Fri, 25 Oct 2002 [email protected] wrote:
>
> > The word is completely universal which everyone can speak or not speak.
> > Either no reduction of concept, or reduce it completely - eliminate it as a
> > concept - it becomes a part of life - like your breathing.
>
> Drivel.
>
> > I am speaking only of a specific instance of hope. Hope should be a
> constant
> > presence.
>
> Should be?
>
> > Thus the modifying description I followed with.
>
> Laughable.
>
> > >
> > > Dogma is going to happen to everything.
>
> No it isn't. Nor is religion proper dogma.
>
> > > And it's also presumptuous to
> > > assume that you will give rise to dogmatic
> > > beliefs, Mr McElroy.
>
> How wise and pointificating, Mr. Salvaggio.
>
> > Where do you get the idea that I believe I will give rise to a religion or
> > church? I am quite an unsuitable prospect for that kind thing. I am making
> art
> > about beliefs and hopes - that's the extent of it.
>
> No, you aren't. You're a manipulative con-man. And you have no contact
> with hope. Art dearest is a priviliege of those conscious.
>
> > >Maybe that's why so many religions ended up so
> > > sloppy-
>
> No, they ended up sloppy because of human oh so human psychotism.
>
> > none of the major figureheads were
> > > arrogant enough to assume they would give rise to a church [Christ even
> > > said it, "those who would build a church
> > > in my name are dry canals." It's in the gnostic gospels anyway.]
>
> And you UNDERSTAND them, don't you?
>
> > Yes, but plenty of arrogant followers came behind. Have the Mormon and
> > Scientology faiths move beyond cult to church status yet?
>
> Neither are faiths.
>
> > My belief
>
> Your wishful projection is NOT belief.
>
> > is that the major figureheads were arrogant enough to a) either plan a
> > large following
>
> Nothing 'arrogant' about a large following.
>
> > b) to believe they found a great truth and wanted to spread it far and
>
> They didn't 'believe' so dearest.
>
> > Either way, they were full of shit in my book (though probably very nice to
> > have an afternoon sit down with)
>
> Cuz in your book the mode of action is DEBASEMENT.
> You simmply CANNOT stand a conscious being.
> You can't. Because you are weak and stupid.
>
> It's just so nice if we are all equal, weak and 'human' swimming in this
> unconscious stupor of not knowing just so that mr. McElroy doesn't get
> his feelings hurt, sniff.
>
> Because it's you who is pissed off and hurt dearest, and you do it to
> yourself too. And you want everyone else to hurt as well.
>
> WAAAAAAAAAAA.

On Fri, 25 Oct 2002 [email protected] wrote:

> I think I am winning the contest to get irritate K the most.

You're not irritating me. You're debasing yourselves.
Keep your projections to yourself, dearest.

> It was nip and tuck for a while with you, but I think I got you beat.
> What do you think?

Clever. Witty. Yes you got him 'beat' in self-debasing.

Have a medal.

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

> On Fri, 25 Oct 2002 [email protected] wrote:
>
> Clever. Witty. Yes you got him 'beat' in self-debasing.
>
> Have a medal.

Yeah!!!!! I told you I could win! I want the Stuffed Pink Panther and the big
house and the big car and the ju-ju beans and the little pinky ring with a
smiley face on it.

Joseph (winner and still champion)

>
> what is communication (to you)?
>
>

Communication is how we exhaust the past and
eliminate the future.




__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/

I don't try to irritate anyone. And mostly what you managed to do is get
him to post more and make Rhizome and Thingist a little more irritating.
So I'd say he's winning until you stop caring about winning and can just
ignore him.

-e.





[email protected] wrote:

>Hey Eryk,
>
>I think I am winning the contest to get irritate K the most. It was nip and
>tuck for a while with you, but I think I got you beat. What do you think?
>
>Joseph
>
>Quoting "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <[email protected]>:
>
>>On Fri, 25 Oct 2002 [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>The word is completely universal which everyone can speak or not speak.
>>>Either no reduction of concept, or reduce it completely - eliminate it as a
>>>concept - it becomes a part of life - like your breathing.
>>>
>> Drivel.
>>
>>>I am speaking only of a specific instance of hope. Hope should be a
>>>
>>constant
>>
>>>presence.
>>>
>> Should be?
>>
>>>Thus the modifying description I followed with.
>>>
>> Laughable.
>>
>>>>Dogma is going to happen to everything.
>>>>
>> No it isn't. Nor is religion proper dogma.
>>
>>>>And it's also presumptuous to
>>>>assume that you will give rise to dogmatic
>>>>beliefs, Mr McElroy.
>>>>
>> How wise and pointificating, Mr. Salvaggio.
>>
>>>Where do you get the idea that I believe I will give rise to a religion or
>>>church? I am quite an unsuitable prospect for that kind thing. I am making
>>>
>>art
>>
>>>about beliefs and hopes - that's the extent of it.
>>>
>> No, you aren't. You're a manipulative con-man. And you have no contact
>> with hope. Art dearest is a priviliege of those conscious.
>>
>>>>Maybe that's why so many religions ended up so
>>>>sloppy-
>>>>
>> No, they ended up sloppy because of human oh so human psychotism.
>>
>>>none of the major figureheads were
>>>
>>>>arrogant enough to assume they would give rise to a church [Christ even
>>>>said it, "those who would build a church
>>>>in my name are dry canals." It's in the gnostic gospels anyway.]
>>>>
>> And you UNDERSTAND them, don't you?
>>
>>>Yes, but plenty of arrogant followers came behind. Have the Mormon and
>>>Scientology faiths move beyond cult to church status yet?
>>>
>> Neither are faiths.
>>
>>>My belief
>>>
>> Your wishful projection is NOT belief.
>>
>>>is that the major figureheads were arrogant enough to a) either plan a
>>>large following
>>>
>> Nothing 'arrogant' about a large following.
>>
>>>b) to believe they found a great truth and wanted to spread it far and
>>>
>> They didn't 'believe' so dearest.
>>
>>>Either way, they were full of shit in my book (though probably very nice to
>>>have an afternoon sit down with)
>>>
>> Cuz in your book the mode of action is DEBASEMENT.
>> You simmply CANNOT stand a conscious being.
>> You can't. Because you are weak and stupid.
>>
>> It's just so nice if we are all equal, weak and 'human' swimming in this
>> unconscious stupor of not knowing just so that mr. McElroy doesn't get
>> his feelings hurt, sniff.
>>
>> Because it's you who is pissed off and hurt dearest, and you do it to
>> yourself too. And you want everyone else to hurt as well.
>>
>> WAAAAAAAAAAA.
>>
>

Quoting josh zeidner <[email protected]>:

>
> gnost = knowledge. a.gnostic = without gnowledge.

Well, call me a low down ignorant varmit. However, if Eryk can define atheist,
I can define agnostic (or use the variation from the dictionary of my choice)

>
> what book would that be? :)

The book of Joe, not to be confused with the book of Job - mine's all about
kicking God's ass instead of the other way round.


> the hebrew word for 'word' is 'davar' it is related
> to the english word 'divide'. The original torah text
> contained no vowels and *no spaces*.
>
> the hebrew word for 'information' is 'da-at' it is
> related to the english word 'data'. When does data
> become knowledge? Does knowledge exist only in the
> mind of the knower?

Hey! Did you go to dictionary.com also? (BTW - that is more clever than it
seems - pat pat)

>
> can knowledge exist without communication?
>

Depends upon what the definition of is is.

Joseph

— [email protected] wrote:
> Quoting josh zeidner <[email protected]>:
>
> >
> > gnost = knowledge. a.gnostic = without
> gnowledge.
>
> Well, call me a low down ignorant varmit. However,
> if Eryk can define atheist,
> I can define agnostic (or use the variation from the
> dictionary of my choice)

is this a discussion or a gameshow?

>
> >
> > what book would that be? :)
>
> The book of Joe, not to be confused with the book of
> Job - mine's all about
> kicking God's ass instead of the other way round.


Joseph McElroy: making religion a kick-ass
adventure.

>
>
> > the hebrew word for 'word' is 'davar' it is
> related
> > to the english word 'divide'. The original torah
> text
> > contained no vowels and *no spaces*.
> >
> > the hebrew word for 'information' is 'da-at' it
> is
> > related to the english word 'data'. When does
> data
> > become knowledge? Does knowledge exist only in
> the
> > mind of the knower?
>
> Hey! Did you go to dictionary.com also? (BTW - that
> is more clever than it
> seems - pat pat)

well its more clever than it seems if I would seem
to you to be one of these twits who churns out crap
from the computer in thier parents basement.

>
> >
> > can knowledge exist without communication?
> >
>
> Depends upon what the definition of is is.

is is the negation of isn't.



__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/

On Fri, 25 Oct 2002 [email protected] wrote:

> Yeah!!!!! I told you I could win!

No, you couldn't. But you can delude yourself so.

> I want the Stuffed Pink Panther and the big
> house and the big car and the ju-ju beans and the little pinky ring with a
> smiley face on it.
>
> Joseph (winner and still champion)

Delusion dearest is not victory.
Tell yourself whatever you please, but you've lost the game entirely.

There is no winning here - both you and K seem to think that there is a contest
going on - only it is completely one sided. And you both have about as much
humor as a stone. These lists are not going to save the world or become
evangelical platforms or serious career springboards, but they are pretty nice
way to promote and every once in a while to learn something. So I shake the
trees my way, you shake yours. If K wasn't responding to me, he would be
responding to someone else. Seems that whole time I was gone this summer, he
was making waves, so I am not the reason he keeps bothering you. He irritates
you because you are sensitive to criticism. And be extension, offended by his
critique of others. Also, because he is vulgar about it, it upsets your sense
of decorum. None of which bothers me.

As for ignoring him, why should I? Because it bothers people who could
otherwise filter us out? Bah. My method of learning has always been in
response to need. By jousting with K a bit, he jousts back and sometimes
throws up knowledge that I need to look up. This gives me opportunity to learn
new things in a dynamic way. Also, he forces me to be very concrete about my
thoughts and beliefs, otherwise he would overwhelm me with his. I like having
him around because he is an inexhaustable (so far) stimuli for concrete
thinking.

Joseph

Quoting Eryk Salvaggio <[email protected]>:

>
> I don't try to irritate anyone. And mostly what you managed to do is get
> him to post more and make Rhizome and Thingist a little more irritating.
> So I'd say he's winning until you stop caring about winning and can just
> ignore him.
>
> -e.
>
>
>
>
>
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> >Hey Eryk,
> >
> >I think I am winning the contest to get irritate K the most. It was nip and
> >tuck for a while with you, but I think I got you beat. What do you think?
> >
> >Joseph
> >
> >Quoting "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <[email protected]>:
> >
> >>On Fri, 25 Oct 2002 [email protected] wrote:
> >>
> >>>The word is completely universal which everyone can speak or not speak.
> >>>Either no reduction of concept, or reduce it completely - eliminate it as
> a
> >>>concept - it becomes a part of life - like your breathing.
> >>>
> >> Drivel.
> >>
> >>>I am speaking only of a specific instance of hope. Hope should be a
> >>>
> >>constant
> >>
> >>>presence.
> >>>
> >> Should be?
> >>
> >>>Thus the modifying description I followed with.
> >>>
> >> Laughable.
> >>
> >>>>Dogma is going to happen to everything.
> >>>>
> >> No it isn't. Nor is religion proper dogma.
> >>
> >>>>And it's also presumptuous to
> >>>>assume that you will give rise to dogmatic
> >>>>beliefs, Mr McElroy.
> >>>>
> >> How wise and pointificating, Mr. Salvaggio.
> >>
> >>>Where do you get the idea that I believe I will give rise to a religion or
> >>>church? I am quite an unsuitable prospect for that kind thing. I am making
> >>>
> >>art
> >>
> >>>about beliefs and hopes - that's the extent of it.
> >>>
> >> No, you aren't. You're a manipulative con-man. And you have no contact
> >> with hope. Art dearest is a priviliege of those conscious.
> >>
> >>>>Maybe that's why so many religions ended up so
> >>>>sloppy-
> >>>>
> >> No, they ended up sloppy because of human oh so human psychotism.
> >>
> >>>none of the major figureheads were
> >>>
> >>>>arrogant enough to assume they would give rise to a church [Christ even
> >>>>said it, "those who would build a church
> >>>>in my name are dry canals." It's in the gnostic gospels anyway.]
> >>>>
> >> And you UNDERSTAND them, don't you?
> >>
> >>>Yes, but plenty of arrogant followers came behind. Have the Mormon and
> >>>Scientology faiths move beyond cult to church status yet?
> >>>
> >> Neither are faiths.
> >>
> >>>My belief
> >>>
> >> Your wishful projection is NOT belief.
> >>
> >>>is that the major figureheads were arrogant enough to a) either plan a
> >>>large following
> >>>
> >> Nothing 'arrogant' about a large following.
> >>
> >>>b) to believe they found a great truth and wanted to spread it far and
> >>>
> >> They didn't 'believe' so dearest.
> >>
> >>>Either way, they were full of shit in my book (though probably very nice
> to
> >>>have an afternoon sit down with)
> >>>
> >> Cuz in your book the mode of action is DEBASEMENT.
> >> You simmply CANNOT stand a conscious being.
> >> You can't. Because you are weak and stupid.
> >>
> >> It's just so nice if we are all equal, weak and 'human' swimming in this
> >> unconscious stupor of not knowing just so that mr. McElroy doesn't get
> >> his feelings hurt, sniff.
> >>
> >> Because it's you who is pissed off and hurt dearest, and you do it to
> >> yourself too. And you want everyone else to hurt as well.
> >>
> >> WAAAAAAAAAAA.
> >>
> >

Quoting josh zeidner <[email protected]>:

> is this a discussion or a gameshow?

Excuse me, what exactly do you wish to discuss? My impression you were reacting
with wordplay rather than contributing thoughts for discussion.

>
> Joseph McElroy: making religion a kick-ass
> adventure.
>

Action figures available in toys stores in November.

> > > related to the english word 'data'. When does data
> > > become knowledge? Does knowledge exist only in
> > the mind of the knower?
> >
> > Hey! Did you go to dictionary.com also? (BTW - that
> > is more clever than it seems - pat pat)
>
> well its more clever than it seems if I would seem
> to you to be one of these twits who churns out crap
> from the computer in thier parents basement.

What? Do you work in their patio room instead? Dictionary.com is good example
of data contributing to a knowledge base (as in specific definitions of words).

> > >
> > > can knowledge exist without communication?
> > >
> > Depends upon what the definition of is is.
>
> is is the negation of isn't.

Is knowledge inherently knowable or must it be accumulated?

Joseph

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

> On Fri, 25 Oct 2002 [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Yeah!!!!! I told you I could win!
>
> No, you couldn't. But you can delude yourself so.
>
> > I want the Stuffed Pink Panther and the big
> > house and the big car and the ju-ju beans and the little pinky ring with a
> > smiley face on it.
> >
> > Joseph (winner and still champion)
>
> Delusion dearest is not victory.
> Tell yourself whatever you please, but you've lost the game entirely.

I got Eryk to quit the list and you didn't. Na Na

Joseph

On Fri, 25 Oct 2002 [email protected] wrote:

> I got Eryk to quit the list and you didn't. Na Na


Your delusions have no end, do they?

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

> On Fri, 25 Oct 2002 [email protected] wrote:
>
> > I got Eryk to quit the list and you didn't. Na Na
>
>
> Your delusions have no end, do they?


You are deluded by thinking that I am deluded. To believe that a) Eryk quit or
b) I believe I did it, is a great delusion indeed. Like I said before, you and
Eryk just don't know how to laugh.

(Yes I know, you know how to LAUGH - a true LAUGH, a LAUGH that I am incapable
of understanding because I am a myopic, hypocritic, impotent, knee-jerking,
psychotic, murderous, brutal, idiot, farmer ape speaking drivel and parroting
words I don't comprehend)

Yes sir, I just crawl up your spine and make you shiver, don't I?

Joseph

> > The book of Joe, not to be confused with the book of
> > Job - mine's all about
> > kicking God's ass instead of the other way round.

Your egotism knows no boundaries.
Have you stopped beating your head against mountains yet?

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

On Fri, 25 Oct 2002 [email protected] wrote:

> You are deluded by thinking that I am deluded.

Not at all. And your idiotic 'mindfuck' word-rearrangement
attempts to control reality are utterly impotent.

> To believe that a) Eryk quit or
> b) I believe I did it, is a great delusion indeed.

WHEN did I indicate that I believed that Eryk quit dearest?
Your wishful projections are getting even more patently
off the mark. I simply wrote that what you barked
is irrelevant to me. Illiterate ape.


> Like I said before, you and Eryk just don't know how to laugh.

YOU dearest don't know how to laugh.
You grin like a pathetic ape, bearing your teeth in alternately malice
and fear and make noises.

> (Yes I know, you know how to LAUGH - a true LAUGH,

No you don't. And no matter how much you mantra-hyponotoze
yourself about it, it's not going to become real.

>a LAUGH that I am incapable
> of understanding because I am a myopic, hypocritic, impotent, knee-jerking,
> psychotic, murderous, brutal, idiot, farmer ape speaking drivel and parroting
> words I don't comprehend)

Yeah. The last defense to negate the imagge you dislike.

> Yes sir, I just crawl up your spine and make you shiver, don't I?

No you don't dearest. Your laughter has no effect on me–or anything.
Yet another impotent bully device. It's agrotesque display of impotence.


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

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

> Your egotism knows no boundaries.
> Have you stopped beating your head against mountains yet?

I am a mountain, with a spiral above it and an eye in the center. I know what
you are also.

Joseph

On Fri, 25 Oct 2002 [email protected] wrote:

> I am a mountain, with a spiral above it and an eye in the center. I know what
> you are also.

Neither you, nor I are anything of the sort.
And you lack the capacity to know yourself, least of all others.
'Kicking God's ass' is an idiotic, ignorant, blind-ape pose.
'Kicking ass' is the knee-jerk of an empty ball of impotence and fear,
who lacks ability to actually understand and master.

A farmer ape indeed you are.

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

> On Fri, 25 Oct 2002 [email protected] wrote:
>
> > I am a mountain, with a spiral above it and an eye in the center. I know
> what
> > you are also.
>
> Neither you, nor I are anything of the sort.
> And you lack the capacity to know yourself, least of all others.
> 'Kicking God's ass' is an idiotic, ignorant, blind-ape pose.
> 'Kicking ass' is the knee-jerk of an empty ball of impotence and fear,
> who lacks ability to actually understand and master.
>
> A farmer ape indeed you are.


Lordy, Lordy you sure take it all so literal. Regardless, my colorful use of
language reflects a colorful outlook on existence.

Anyway, it's my birthday so wish me a good one. I am off to a party.

Joseph

On Fri, 25 Oct 2002 [email protected] wrote:

> Lordy, Lordy you sure take it all so literal.

No dearest. I am not taking it literal.
What you THINK and TELL yourself is in your words: isn't.

> Regardless, my colorful use of
> language reflects a colorful outlook on existence.

No it doesn't. It reflects an empty delusional psychopath.

> Anyway, it's my birthday so wish me a good one. I am off to a party.

Yes, you just can't say no to that self-importance schtick.
It feels good doesn't it?

On Fri, 25 Oct 2002 [email protected] wrote:

> There is no winning here - both you and K seem to think that there is a contest
> going on - only it is completely one sided.

No dearest. That's a delusion you made up, and you keep hitting yourself
over the head with it.

> And you both have about as much humor as a stone.

The cheap masochistic grimacing you attempt to pass as humor is not
humor.

> These lists are not going to save the world

I_ am not trying to save the world.

> or become evangelical platforms

Nor evangelizing.

> or serious career springboards,

Nor interested in careers.

> but they are pretty nice way to promote and every once in a while to learn something. So I shake the
> trees my way, you shake yours.

This is your opinion, and it'snt worth much.

> If K wasn't responding to me, he would be responding to someone else.

That justifies all you do doesn't it?
Champion of self-mesmerizing abrogation of responsibility.

> Seems that whole time I was gone this summer, he
> was making waves, so I am not the reason he keeps bothering you.

I am not bothering anyone.

> He irritates you because you are sensitive to criticism.

No dearest.

> And be extension, offended by his critique of others.

> Also, because he is vulgar about it,

De vulgari eloquentia.

> it upsets your sense of decorum.

His decorum is a fraudulent kitsch saintly icon,
and his sensitivity is not what is 'upsetting' him.

> As for ignoring him, why should I? Because it bothers people who could
> otherwise filter us out? Bah. My method of learning has always been in
> response to need. By jousting with K a bit, he jousts back and sometimes
> throws up knowledge that I need to look up. This gives me opportunity to learn
> new things in a dynamic way. Also, he forces me to be very concrete about my
> thoughts and beliefs, otherwise he would overwhelm me with his. I like having
> him around because he is an inexhaustable (so far) stimuli for concrete
> thinking.

Partially true. Reality is far more exciting than imaginary fantasy.
And it isn't in the brain.

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

> On Fri, 25 Oct 2002 [email protected] wrote:
>
> No dearest. That's a delusion you made up, and you keep hitting yourself
> over the head with it.


Now how the heck can I do that? Hit myself over the head with a delusion?
That is like getting a refund from the telephone company.

> The cheap masochistic grimacing you attempt to pass as humor is not
> humor.

wouldn't that be a smile?

> I_ am not trying to save the world.

yes your are - or you wouldn't search.

>
> > or become evangelical platforms
>
> Nor evangelizing.

yes - there is nothing.

>
> > or serious career springboards,
>
> Nor interested in careers.

already

>
> > but they are pretty nice way to promote and every once in a while to learn
> something. So I shake the
> > trees my way, you shake yours.
>
> This is your opinion, and it'snt worth much.

Well, I couldn't sell it, but I'll keep it just the same.


> That justifies all you do doesn't it?
> Champion of self-mesmerizing abrogation of responsibility.

Name one reason why I should take responsibility.


> I am not bothering anyone.

anyone worth bothering that is

>
> Partially true. Reality is far more exciting than imaginary fantasy.
> And it isn't in the brain.

Reality is not in the brain, nor is perception of it. Only interpretation.

joseph

On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, josh zeidner wrote:

> Communication is how we exhaust the past and
> eliminate the future.

Could very well be.

On Sat, 26 Oct 2002 [email protected] wrote:

> Now how the heck can I do that? Hit myself over the head with a delusion?
> That is like getting a refund from the telephone company.

Your lack of ability to undrstand is your own problem.

> > The cheap masochistic grimacing you attempt to pass as humor is not
> > humor.
>
> wouldn't that be a smile?

No.

> > I_ am not trying to save the world.
>
> yes your are - or you wouldn't search.

I am not 'searching' nor 'trying to save the world'.
Idiotic ape. Keep your projections to yourself.

> > Nor evangelizing.
>
> yes - there is nothing.

Unrelated to what I wrote; drivel.

> >
> > > or serious career springboards,
> >
> > Nor interested in careers.
>
> already

Unrelated drivel.

> >
> > This is your opinion, and it'snt worth much.
>
> Well, I couldn't sell it, but I'll keep it just the same.

Buying and selling is not the method or determining value.
Your drivel is simply without value.

> > Champion of self-mesmerizing abrogation of responsibility.
>
> Name one reason why I should take responsibility.

There isn't a reason dearest.
However shamans DO. Amoebas and slugs and con-men don't.
In your case, you're a slug; you lost the game a long time ago,
and I've no intention of helping you out by giving you 'reasons'.

>
> > I am not bothering anyone.
>
> anyone worth bothering that is

No dearesr. I am not bothering anyone.
Avoid attempting to alter what I said.
Dictatorial ape.

> >
> > Partially true. Reality is far more exciting than imaginary fantasy.
> > And it isn't in the brain.
>
> Reality is not in the brain, nor is perception of it. Only interpretation.

Nothing of the sort. More pathetic drivel.

> I like the word agnostic with the definition…
> a.One who believes that it is impossible to know whether
> there is a God (or Spiritual Center).

If something is impossible to know, then why bother even thinking about
it? It's not logical to contemplate something about which it is
impossible to reach any conclusions. It's a waste of everyone's time.

There's a fine line, here: some agnostics think that it is impossible to
know, but that "faith" and "belief" are attributes not subject to the
laws of logic. Hence you will find faithful agnostics. Other agnostics
believe that because it is impossible to know then all discussions of
the supernatural should be considered pure fantasy, fiction. This is the
position of Bertrand Russell, who points out that this position is
nearly indistinguishable from atheism, which is usually defined as "the
denial of god".

However, Betrand Russell famously contradicted himself when he also
noted that it is impossible to prove the non-existence of anything
(especially a supernatural force that is defined as defying rational
explanation). I agree with this, so I will not attempt to do so. To me.
a rational definition of "atheism" as an ideology is not a "denial of
god", which would fly in the face of one of the basic tenets of science,
but rather a "denial of the rationality of all discussions of the
supernatural".

Atheism, however, can also be seen as a political movement with a
concrete social agenda: the removal of the supernatural from government
and from the public sphere in general. As such, the "denial of god"
description is actually quite accurate because it deals with practical
particulars rather than philosophical abstractions. In American
politics, for example, an atheist cannot simply take an abstract
position that "supernatural forces are not appropriate for discussion in
the political arena". He or she must get specific and say things like
"There is no Judeo-Christian God.", "Jesus was not the son of God.",
"There are no Ten Commandments from God.", "There is no heaven or hell"
etc.

The application of this kind of political atheism hopes to have a direct
impact on the irrationality within American (and most other countries')
criminal law, public education, civil rights, etc. Socially, this
movement seeks an end to suffering caused by religious prejudice and
religious wars, as well as ending a litany of social injustices like the
oppression of women or the ostracism of homosexuals. With these kinds of
agendas, a simple denial of the existence of God, illogical as that may
be, is the most strident and sometimes the most potent argument one can
make.

-Cf

[christopher eli fahey]
art: http://www.graphpaper.com
sci: http://www.askrom.com
biz: http://www.behaviordesign.com

Quoting "Christopher Fahey [askrom]" <[email protected]>:

> …why bother even thinking about it? It's not logical to contemplate
> something about which it is impossible to reach any conclusions…
>
> Atheism, however, can also be seen as a political movement with a

Actually, I modified my description…but it is a continually evolving
definition. Contemplation of the illogical is not necessarily a waste of time -
for the process itself might be worth the effort. IE. Lets talk about seeing
through my eyelids, is it possible? In the process, I might attempt such and
find my way to meditation which might be a useful discipline to learn.

What would you call a person who believes in every religion? Or a person who
believes that there is a belief sytem for them, just that they haven't found it
yet?

Finally, it strikes me in your description that there is a kind of
irrationality in the belief of the effectiveness of various political/economic
systems - such as capatilism. Nobody can really prove it will lead to perfect
lives for everybody… which leads me to a new political statement…

SEPERATION OF CORPORATION AND STATE.

joseph