D42 Kandinskij
Since the beginning
Works in Cjii Ibatzu United States of America

BIO
Finis.
Discussions (1361) Opportunities (0) Events (0) Jobs (0)
DISCUSSION

Re: Re: [thingist] Rub Linda the right way and she might show you wonderland


On Sat, 5 Apr 2003 16:06:51 -0500, "Eryk Salvaggio" <eryk@maine.rr.com>
said:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "t.whid" <twhid@mteww.com>
> > Michael is right, it's antiwar art.
>
> Then why does it reward the impulse for violence?
>
> >
> > I don't think it's very good antiwar art, but the piece is definitely
> > intended to be antiwar. IMO it's not arguable that the piece is
> > INTENDED to be antiwar, perhaps it could be viewed otherwise.

I intend the entirety of Rhizome Raw with all of its contents
(c) D42 Inc. I also intend everything posted on Rhizome Pro-WAR.
--
-IID42 Kandinskij @27+
vivienn@fastmail.fm

--
http://www.fastmail.fm - Choose from over 50 domains or use your own

DISCUSSION

(no subject)


http://all-1.nl/victory/Kartikeya.html

So is Kartikeya "OK" with the Rhizome "community"?

Or must "he" be "destroyed" for being a "he" and "celibate"?

Just curious.

Yours very truly,

limon
--
-IID42 Kandinskij @27+
vivienn@fastmail.fm

--
http://www.fastmail.fm - Accessible with your email software
or over the web

DISCUSSION

Christopher Fahey addendum


One other whose "name looks like" has suggested
that Christopher Fahey "consult" with any left
over accurate literature concerning Nazi rallies,
or alternatively mass Communist rallies.

As the "nazism" issue has been trivialized a bit,
allow me to give you a bit of a clue:

communist rallies "embolden" russian peasants
to "change" them western minds

likewise faux-christian propaganda "emboldens"
the congregation to convert the "sinners"

A bientot.
--
-IID42 Kandinskij @27+
vivienn@fastmail.fm

--
http://www.fastmail.fm - IMAP accessible web-mail

DISCUSSION

Re: Mesopotamia. Babylon. The Tigris and Euphrates


On Sat, 5 Apr 2003 13:47:54 -0500, "Christopher Fahey [askrom]"
<askROM@graphpaper.com> said:
> Someone who has a similar name but different email address from someone
> I blocked wrote:

Yes, someone with a similar name and different e-mail :)
The very unadorable Christopher Fahey has of course
refused to respond to what was written + recoursed to
cheap brutalistic "propganada" w/conviction attempts
and projections.

> > How about you try something real for a change?
> > How about you try to liberate and raise yourself
> > which you can perceive what is really going on
> > instead of getting cheap highs?
> >
> > Now that'll require some true effort and courage.
> >
> > CONVICTION and "changing people's minds" does not.
> > http://userpages.umbc.edu/~vijay/tg/lyrics/convincing_people.html
>
> We don't want to convince people
> Let me tell you
> I'll tell you what I want you to do
> It's no way, no way, no way
> To convince people

> Those Throbbing Gristle lyrics you pointed us to actually exemplify what
> I'm talking about.

We didn't point to any Throbbing Gristle lyrics.
In fact we din't engage in "pointing" at all.
Avoid ascribing your habits of behavior onto us.

Nor do the lyrics "exemplify" whatever you wish
them to exemplify. In fact they don't "exemplify"
anything, despite your furious feet stomping and
DECLARATIONS WITH CONVICTION.

All you're doing is slapping a label which suits
your agenda and proceeding to get all "excited"
about it.

Observe the dictatorial "convincing" ape:

it's a lemon
it's a limon
it's a citron
it's a zitrone
it's a limone

Won't you *speak my language*? Waltz, waltz.

Do you think that a lemon becomes any more LEMONY
or that its behavior alters by your screaming LEMON
at it? How about if you scream lemon with conviction?
What if 10,000 monkeys scream LEMON LEMON and wave
candles?

What's the difference between the effect of "lemon"
screaming underwater as opposed to typing?

Would an American scream "lemon" more consummeristically
than an Islamic Fundamentalist, if they're both very hungry?

Have you got any more "facts" to "present" about
"people who.." even though that's THOROUGHLY IRRELEVANT?

One little ant fell from its hill.

> It's a state of hopeless resignation, a self-exile to
> a world of powerlessness.

No, it isn't. No matter how much you decide to label it that.
And you can pound your fist and scream "with conviction"
but there will be no "hopeless resignation".

Nor are you addressing the very, very valid *point* that you
have NO IDEA what HOPE is--but it's one of those "important"
labels that if you wave around a bit maybe everyone will start
thinking you're *important*.

Nevermind that you're actually debasing what hope actually is,
attempting to use a verbal designation for it as a whore to
suit your delusional agenda.

> This kind of subcultural self-righteousness,

There is no "subcultural" self-righteousness.
Froth at the mouth all you please.

Not from us, not from the *person* who wrote the lyrics.
Subcultural self-righteousness? The person in question
has had much more cultural impact than you will.

And not only are you *unfamiliar* with who you're replying
to, but you are also unfamiliar with him and his work.

But it's all too easy to blindly label and proceed to
attempt to bash people over the head "with conviction"
(oh sorry, we meant "change their minds").

> principled stand against the use of influence,

There is no "principled stand against the use of influence".

And "changing people's minds" is not about "the use of influence".
You have no "influence" my dearest. You're onle little blind
doll who cannot take responsibility for its actions--and can only
find "power" in 10,000 little dolls confirming its actions.

Had you any contact with ACTUAL INFLUENCE you'd not be typing this
"convictionary" drivel.

And one other thing dear--the person who *wrote* the lyrics was
hardly *resigned*. He was actually someone who has actually had
a taste of *what* and *where* needs to be changed in humans--
and it ain't knee-jerking their *brains,* confusing their
asleep automatic responses with power!

Your "influence" is little more but comparable to one person
walking over to another and slapping them over the head with
a stick (with conviction no less)--and then the other person
responds with pain. Wow. The INFLUENCE!

Doesn't it feel GOOD to be *influential*?

Here, have a whole stack of sticks.

Go "influence".

> is a mask for the
> underlying abdication of responsibility to the world.

There is no such mask.

> "Fuck society", right?

Dunno. It might be right for you.
Surely hasn't got anything to do with what we wrote.
Or the lyrics.

> Maybe I was wrong to call it a "liberal" idea: it applies to any
> person who condemns the power of influence, and I just happen to see a
> lot of liberals who share that belief.

Meaaningless gibberish.

> People who like to think of themselves as free from the influence of
> propaganda

No dearest. Some *individuals* are_ free from propaganda.
And it's fully within the capacity of healthy human beings
to be free from "propaganda". In fact, it's actually their
right by birth--unfortunately that's a realization they
have to come to on their own. What is *unfortunate* is when
the most masochistic of apes "assume" positions from
which they use their "influence" to damage others--and
this is what you're doing. You haven't even sorted yourself
out yet, but you will "fix" others according to your like
and dislike.

> like to also think that exercising intellectual influence
> over another person is inherently wrong.

Yeah. Maybe if you SAY So it'll BECOME so.
Are you typing with "conviction"?

Try harder. What you're writing is cheap manipulatory
idiocy which will have "meaning" only to confused
humans programmed to behave the same way you do.

Hej--but isn't that also why you like going to
these games? "Nobody is free, nobody can be free,
we'll just suffer together"--and you will "convey"
your misery "with conviction" to everybody else.

Just like you're attempting with this e-mail.

> They think that it is an insult to attempt to use any rhetorical or emotional means to > change another
> person's mind.

Yes, that's *exactly* what they THINK.
They're also very lucky to have you TELL everybody what THEY are
THINKING.
After all, the person didn't SPEAK WITH HIS OWN MOUTH, no.

Aren't we all glad that we have Christopher Fahey to "interpret" those
lyrics according to HIS CONVICTIONS?

> I sympathise with that point of view, I really do,

Of course you do dearest. after all, it's YOUR THINKING.
YOUR THINKING which you are attempting to *dictate*
as the picture of what's going on.

Doesn't it ever get lonely to talk to oneself in one's
brain all the time?

> but I
> also ask: what's so wrong about changing someone else's mind?

You're not asking. You're posturing w/ a cheap and meaningless
"moralistic" knee-jerk, attempting to "influentially" trigger
a particular emotional impulse.

You have no capacity to ask at all. With all of your
"influence" you haven't the power to ask a SINGLE question.

> What if other people's minds are wrong?

People's minds have no capacity to be "right or wrong".

> I am not so detached from the
> world to think that some people are driven by their beliefs to do things
> that I detest.

You are. COMPLETELY detached from the world.
And you can peddle your sad dance as some
sort of "insight" into the world, but it isn't.

Pierrot is in the cage talking to his mirror again.

> In such cases, it's not an affront to free thought to want to change
> someone's mind.

No? If humans don't behave the way you *like* them to--
that is, first you choose to enslave yourself to a
simplistic "like & dislike"--and then.. if everybody's
not a slave to your "likes & dislikes" we go back to the
stick beating. With conviction.

That'll teach them.

> It's politics.

No, it isn't politics. And you've never been anywhere *near*
politics.

> If you find the idea of politics and
> influence so disgusting,

Too bad nothing of the sort is occurring.

> then why did you suggest some ways for me to
> "try to liberate" myself? Why did you respond to my email at all?

We are not *accountable* to you dearest.

Nevermind that you're raising your "voice in pathos"
making a false accusation to which we must respond.

Don't imagine that's your "use of influence".

Maybe "we" should use our influence, plant some
child-pornographic propaganda in your house,
use our "influence" to convince the police
that you've beaten us up repeatedly (yes an actor
can be hired in your area easily, especially
with "influence"--and if one kind of influence
won't work, aanother will *wink*), alter your
criminal record perhaps? It's just politics.

And you're doing what we absolutely *detest*.

What if your *mind* is wrong?

Shall we re-arrange your "face"?

It looks funny.

It's just business dearest.

Nothing personal.

But it makes me itch under the collar you know.

--
-IID42 Kandinskij @27+
vivienn@fastmail.fm

--
http://www.fastmail.fm - A fast, anti-spam email service.

DISCUSSION

thinking


and thinking ..

and thinking ..

and thinking ..

***** _Blade Runner_...gives a double twist to the commonsense
distinction between human and android. Man is a replicant who does
not know it. Yet if this were all, the film would involve a
simplistic reductionist notion that our self-experience _qua_ free
'human' agents is an illusion founded upon our ignorance of the
causal nexus that regulates our lives. For that reason, one should
supplement the former statement: it is only when, at the level of the
enunciated content, I assume my replicant status, that, at the level
of enunciation, I become a truly human subject. 'I am a replicant'
is the statement of the subject in its purest..

(Slavoj Zizek, "'The Thing That Thinks': The Kantian Background of
the Noir Subject," _Shades of Noir: A Reader_, ed. Joan Copjec,
London; New York: Verso, 1993) *****
--
-IID42 Kandinskij @27+
vivienn@fastmail.fm

--
http://www.fastmail.fm - mmm... fastmail