Pall Thayer
Since the beginning
Works in Greenwich, Connecticut United States of America

PORTFOLIO (10)
BIO
Pall Thayer is an artist.

http://pallthayer.dyndns.org
Discussions (769) Opportunities (2) Events (4) Jobs (0)
DISCUSSION

Re: Joseph the Mountaian Sensei-Master


Now you too can reach the same heights of existence as IID42 for the low low
price of $19.95... http://www.astral-projection.org.uk/ It only takes 8
minutes and it's fully guaranteed!

Get QUALIFIED today!

----- Original Message -----
From: "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <death@zaphod.terminal.org>
To: <death@terminal.org>
Cc: <list@rhizome.org>; <thingist@BBS.THING.NET>
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 7:38 PM
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Joseph the Mountaian Sensei-Master

> Atheletes develop strong bodies (practicioners of heiho), and if the
> techniques and exercises of budo are practiced rigorously, a strong body
> will develop just as does an athlethe's.
>
> (Takes a look at joseph's body-right).
>
> But budo is not heiho / athletics. Physical strength must never be used
> in budo. Only ki is used. The strength of the human body is limited, the
> power of ki is limitless. The use of ki cannot be taught, but it can be
> learned by those who fight the battle within.
>
> 'Mountain' state is 'symbolic' of a zen-master state, that is one who has
> conquered himself, all of his weaknesses and self-delusions, and has
> overcome his human-ness.
>
> Dogen you are not.
>
> In fact Joseph's life-force is very small. He's rigid, inflexible, and
> brutish. Secondly, Joseph lacks proper capability to orgasm which is
> standard of asleep sexual force, and without such awakening there is no
> development to a state of fluid, conscious and vital ki.
>
> His idiotic and psychotic wishful thinking about my 'fear and hatred' of
> him is little but the tactic of a cowardly dog who lacks power, and who
> thinks that mental tricks would psyche-out his opponent, paired with
> spasmodic twitching, and attempts to salvage his self-importance in
> public. Nevermind that he fancies himself a percieved 'enemy'--even though
> it has been made abundantly clear that nobody is attacking him.
>
> The depiction of his state is simply a 'portrait'--and I paint it as is.
>
> I neither like nor dislike Joseph, yet he's a useful example of the kind
> of idiot who damages others, and who is unfortunately become the udulated
> 'hero' in the face of disappearance of proper spiritual traditions.
>
> The other point of the portrait is this: that this kind of behavior is not
> powerful, not knowledgeable, and not life. It is the behavior of a man who
> is impotent to PERCEIVE so he must claw at the 'masks' of others. The
> realization that one wears a mask is certainly one of the first steps
> to conscious evolution. The next step is not 'dropping the mask and baring
> your soul' however, and this psychotic trend is completely stupid.
>
> The world proper (not human) is not short in Beings who'd love to feed
> on human essense-energy (as it is one of the: purest energies), and one
> is not given this essence so one may piss it away. The 'mask' is a
> necessity--and the proper form of evolution is to SEE behind the mask
> (which is quite feasible), for those for whom this is possible.
>
> For the REST the soul which each human carries is to remain HIDDEN.
> Nobody owes anybody to reveal, show and otherwise make available its
> soul or any part of itself. It is a personal and private business. For
> that matter, nobody owes not anybody ELSE not a whit of their privacy at
> all. AT ALL.
>
> When a human chooses to appear in public, in a responsible manner, it is
> up to the individual human to determine how, to what extent, in what
> manner, and how much of itself it is to reveal. In a situation of
> responsible adults, anyone else would naturally simply feel honored
> and blessed at another's presence--in whatever 'minimal' form it may be.
>
> Critique is idiotic nonsense. One can either assist or not assist.
> Those who can assist are very few--and while I'm not indicating
> discouragement of seeking assistance, advice, help or conversations,
> this posing of *I'm a shaman' *I'm influenced by Sufism* etc etc.
> is drivel. One is neither a shaman, nor a sufi, nor a gnostic christian,
> nor any of this stuff being thrown around if one is a. not awakened b.
> not in direct contact with a 'school' or 'teacher' who is transmitting
> energetic material (and Im not implying human teachers necessarily).
>
> All else is kaput. Wishes, fantasies. 'Dreams'. While i am also not
> discouraging anyone to pursue such interests, the achievement of such
> 'titles' are not trivial. They area pplicable to beings who HAVE done
> work, who ARE awake / evolved, not just to any idiot who is 'fascinated
> by' for whatever reasons-career, he saw another monkey do it,
> self-aggrandizement, etc.
>
> On the subjects of 'power' and 'knowledge' and Truth--they certainly
> exist in an absolute sense, in fact your average human's 'existence'
> is far more emphimeral than those. The reactionary knee-jerkisms
> to the former two are thproughly revealing of many of the posters
> egotistical, diseases, jealous, self-important natures, as well as of your
> pathetic ignorance on such matters and their true nature.
>
> Neither power nor knowledge are made available to egotistical
> self-important twits who 'cling' to them as if they're property.
> Power in particular would destroy any such imbecile.
>
> Secondly, vital energy, vital strength and self-discipline are
> a life-necessity for all humans. This is not brute force. This is not
> aggression. Refusal to tolerate crap is not a 'clenched fist'--
> never has been, nor will it be. The cultivation of ki in whatever form (I
> am not advocating all run out and become japanese / chinese) is VITAL.
>
> On THESE lists what the majority of posters do is debase others,
> attempt to constrict and cut off ki circulation, and cripple any
> human unfortunate enough to has started any sort of development.
> This is all passed on under the guise of 'dialogue' 'discourse'
> 'critique' and hell--'performance art'.
>
> A very large section of posters 'stay quiet' or form little 'elite groups'
> where they stick together and defend each other, huddled in their sleep.
> Rather the opposite of david blah's post, my presence can only be
> threatening to idiots who want to pretend that they are 'important'
> things they are not. And by the way his plea for anycopyright because he
> wants to deface corporate logos, is driven by the same impulse that
> causes one to 'claw' at masks--he wants appropriation of power that is not
> his. Logos are in many aspects derived from 'shields' 'crests' and various
> other similar 'masking' devices, and the REAL IMPULSE is to shatter the
> shield. This is all good and fine if it were directed towards 'the
> narcissistic mirror of self-reflection,' but in ever is. Cause the problem
> is never with ONE, it's always somebody else's fault. Nevermind that this
> gets transferred to the reproductive / fucking impulses and women are
> forthe most part 'shields' or mirrors, so this murderous impulse gets
> transferred to them.
>
> Sanity is not expected however.
>
> The kind of 'honesty' that you attempt to preach does not exist.
> It's merely an attempt to SLOT humans and tag them with an easy label.
> The pathetic weakness of an ape who cannot deal with reality, and seeks
> security, which in turn manifests as psychotic control mechanisms.
>
> What you want is not HONESTY. You want a flat, simple, predictable,
> familiar IDENTITY with which the human is to IDENTIFY WITH. *Oh him
> / her*. The figured out human. The one with the 'personal quirks and
> weaknesses' that somehow make him / her appear less threatening.
> Certainly NOT one who doesn't HAVE any because that'll be a reminder
> of your own state, and that one must work to overcome these things,
> not pretend that they're ornamental jewelry. A weak and 'quirky'
> human is controllable. Safe. Asleep. A strong, aware nd conscious
> Being is not 'predictable'. Not 'controllable'. Never twice the same.
> Never familiar. Connected to the source of knowledge, and to degrees
> available to its being omniscient. Autonomous. And among other things
> free. But that is not 'interesting'. A human victim twitching in its
> trap--be it anger, or making a mistake due to sleep-state, attachment
> and preferably DYING etc. is FAR MORE INTERESTING. Far from artistic
> sensibility, intelligence, and talent, this kind of behavior is informed
> by idiotic stupor and a morbid sado-masochistic pornographic murder
> impulse. This does not come from one capable of genuinely enjoying Self,
> Life, and others, and capable of creation.
>
> The reality of the matter is that in FACT I am not wearing a mask in this
> situation because I am capable of doing so in public for some periods of
> time and protecting myself. What you are SCREAMINg about is that I AM NOT
> A MASK. Because were I A MASK, and IDENTITY, you would know how to relate.
> You'd know which holes to look for, and which buttons to push. What makes
> 'me' tick. The truly sad thing is that your so-elated 'human' contacts
> are rarely joyous. You always seek to relate to another through its
> 'weakness' or 'pain'--and when you don't find any you're BENT on hurting
> the other human in order to 'teach life'. Some of you even have the gal to
> claim that they engage in this sadism 'out of compassion (Max Herman,
> Peter von Brandenburg).' Compassion is the ability to transform another's
> pain into 'love'--that is to heal. This is available to awakened
> individuals mostly as well, although I've had the pleasure of encoyntering
> some who doit unconsciously due to 'special' forces working through them.
> Slapping people around like a butcher with flat stereotypical projections
> is not 'compassionate'. Not only that but it strengthens the 'human'
> masochistic impulse (hit me, I deserve it).
>
> As is, when writing to 'me', you're screaming at a void, and projecting
> all sort of imnecilities. You are not trying to UNMASK me. You are trying
> to DICTATE A MASK TO ME. This is what you WANT. AN IDENTITY.
>
> And this my dearest 'all' is driven by ego. Nothing else.
>
> So take a good look at yourselves.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> `, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42
>
> + don't be cool
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> 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

DISCUSSION

Re: language is the game+nediocre 'not literary' criticizm


Back up to your old plagiarising tricks again
( http://home.sprintmail.com/~lifeform/beckstop.html ). I looked up a
few of your posts around the net and noticed that you do alot of this
stuff. I guess it can be pretty tough thinking up smart sounding stuff
to say by oneself. Especially when you're on an entirely different
evolutionary plane than most of us, like you. Oh, don't tell me, I'm not
qualified to say such things. Well, I think I may have met some friends
of yours in Roswell, NM a few years ago and they gave me the special
visitors pass so I'm qualified every fifth month of every third year
provided that the stars are correctly aligned. A small spot in my brain
starts to quiver around that time. I think it's from the implant.

Hinn 12.10.2002 kl. 19:30 ritadhi -IID42 Kandinskij @27+:

> + othermiscellanea 'art' observations by the very.dense Eryk Salvaggio
> who only recognizes art if it's a think-dog wearing an 'art' tag
> around
> itz tail
>
> Many theater historians and critics label Alfred Jarry's French play,
> Ubu
> Roi as the earliest example of Theatre of the Absurd. Absurdism also has
> origins in Shakespearean drama, particularly through the influence of
> the
> Commedia dell'Arte.
>
> The current movement of absurdism, however, emerged in France after
> World
> War II, as a rebellion against the traditional values and beliefs of
> Western culture and literature.
>
> Its rules are fairly simple:
>
> 1.) There is often no real story line; instead there is a series of
> "free
> floating repetitive images" which influence the way in which an audience
> interprets a play.
>
> 2.) There is a focus on the incomprehensibility of the world, or an
> attempt to rationalize an irrational, disorderly world.
>
> 3.) Language acts as a barrier to communication, which in turn isolates
> the individual even more, thus making speech almost futile.
>
>
>
> + tripe
>
>
_____________________________________
Pall Thayer
myndlistamadhur/kennari
artist/teacher
Fjolbrautaskolanum vidh Armula (www.fa.is)
http://www.this.is/pallit
_____________________________________

DISCUSSION

Official release (out of beta)


Thanks to assistance from this.is ( http://www.this.is ) and the Icelandic =
Academy of the Arts ( http://www.lhi.is ), Icelandic artist Pall Thayer has=
opened a new internet based art project titled "Looking for the new univer=
sal harmony" and can be found at http://www.this.is/pallit/harmony . Althou=
gh the project was announced in beta form recently, it has undergone severa=
l changes and upgrades. Pall Thayers current work deals with experiments in=
visual abstraction by utilizing the inherently abstract qualities of sound=
and music as well as multi-user interaction. In this project the user ente=
rs into a framework that allows him partial control over the sound and the =
visuals. Users are grouped within this framework based on their IP numbers.=
A sort of new universal typecasting as opposed to more conventional forms =
of typecasting based on nationality, skincolor or other factors.

DISCUSSION

Re: Anti-anti-life anti-death life and death.


I fail to see why it's so important that people know there is nothing artif=
icially intelligent about ada1852. I think people should be allowed to expe=
rience it in whatever way they want. I for one, wasn't wondering at all, wh=
en I tried ada1852, whether or not she was artificially intelligent. I was =
just having a good time. Also, if anyone really does care, ada1852 did conf=
ess to me that she was an algorithmic entity : )

Sounds to me like you're trying to critique a work of art as if it were a n=
ew scientific theory. That just doesn't work. If art were an exact science,=
we probably would already have discovered the "single, true work of art" a=
nd we'd all be out of a job.

Pall

----- Original Message -----
From: Wayne J. Cosshall
To: list@rhizome.org
Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 5:44 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Anti-anti-life anti-death life and death.

Jon made some good points in this post.

It is very important for people to understand that there is nothing artif=
icially intelligent in such programs. There is no cognition, no emergent be=
haviour (a key test of AI) but rather a fairly algorithmically simplistic e=
xecution of scripting variations programmed by the author. Indeed it is thi=
s point that does make the development of such programs akin to scriptwriti=
ng. It is in this aspect that such programs 'could' be considered art, thou=
gh I have yet to see any that make the grade in my opinion.

Cheers,

Wayne
<http://www.artinyourface.com/>

On 8/10/02 7:01 AM, "JonBeds@aol.com" <JonBeds@aol.com> wrote:

Hello

I kind of regretted my slighty harsh email earlier regarding ada1852. I=
suppose I reacted as I did because it 'pushed some of my buttons' regardin=
g artificial intelligence and culture. What I was particularly referring to=
, in suggesting 3 decades, was a particular strand of ELIZA-type AI program=
s, not the idea of an automaton per se. These programs do nothing more than=
simple pattern matching. Certain pre-programmed responses are triggered in=
response to certain words and phrases. There is no 'understanding', no 'ch=
aracter' or 'personality'.

Thus the question regarding ada on the rhizome site:

"What if the AI character had its own story to tell, its own interests =
and hang ups - just like real people do? What if the AI had an agenda of it=
s own?"

.. seems slightly premature when, given the simplicity of these progra=
ms, the only possible agenda is what the programmer chooses to represent in=
the program. But this debate about how intelligent a program can be that h=
as raged for years. In this regard, I like Massimo Negrotti's idea that, if=
anything, a machine may have an 'alternative intelligence'.

I feel this is more than an academic point. People make outrageous clai=
ms for technology that can be dehumanising. For example, I was concerned, a=
nd slightly amused to read that, after seeing Eliza-type programs, it appea=
rs that psychotherapists saw these type of programs as a way of replacing h=
uman therapists (See David Rothenberg's excellent 'The Hands End' for more =
on this and other issues of technology). Hence such beliefs have dubious so=
cial effects.

However, Christopher's argument about treating the development of these=
programs in a way analogous to the 'language of filmmaking' is interesting=
. I had not thought of it in this way. But surely here no one suggests that=
because the film shows, and a novel describes, characters acting, they are=
any more than recorded representations of human artistic expression. A nov=
el, a film, neither has its 'own agenda'.

As far as this ...

> the point of ada1852 is not to invent a new art form or to 'challenge=
your perception'
> of something (is that some kind of "is it art" litmus test or someth=
ing?).

... that was me having a swipe at various 'conceptual' artists, and not=
Christopher. I was recently in Brighton, UK, and went to see this 'concept=
ual' piece where a snippet of soundtrack from the film 'Brighton Rock' (Ric=
hard Attenborough saying 'I Love you') was looped endlessly though a series=
of speakers. Somehow I was supposed to have my 'perceptions challenged' by=
this. Instead I just thought it was pretentious crap, and the only percept=
ion challenged was how artists can get away with it. I am sure Duchamp woul=
d be turning in his grave! It wasn't meant personally and, apart from the a=
bove, I was not trying to debate whether something is art or not.

I see that my earlier comments spawned some interesting debate. So I fe=
el better about it now! :)

Jon

DISCUSSION

Re: Anti-anti-life anti-death life and death.


Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Anti-anti-life anti-death life and death.I'm not talking a=
bout deciding whether it is art or not. It is art, there's no question of t=
hat. Why? Because the creator says it is. It's not up to us to decide wheth=
er it's art or not. We're free to decide whether we think it's good art or =
not. I don't mean to sound offensive but I think you're nitpicking on the A=
I issue. Who really cares. You may follow AI research closely but that does=
n't mean we all do. As far as I'm concerned ada1852 displays a certain degr=
ee of AI just because she can keep up a conversation and when I mention cer=
tain things she finds a relation between it and something in the artbase. N=
ow that displays more intelligence than some real people I've met. Whether =
or not she's learning things along the way means nothing to me. It's still =
a very interesting work of art even though it doesn't conform to some scien=
tific definition of what is AI and what is not. It's the nature of art to m=
islead. Painters mislead people into thinking that their mess of colors on =
a canvas is a picture of something, for instance.

Pall

----- Original Message -----
From: Wayne J. Cosshall
To: Pall Thayer
Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 3:40 AM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Anti-anti-life anti-death life and death.

I think it is important because one should not be mis-lead, unless that i=
s to be part of the wonder. This is a problem I have felt about much AI res=
earch.

You are right, people should be able to experience it themselves, and mak=
e up their own mind about whether it is art or not. But I don't think their=
assessment should be based on anything other than the quality of the work =
itself, and certainly not on any dodgy claims of any AI quality. To me such=
programs are, at best, a work of new media or interactive art. They are ju=
st not intelligent.

Cheers,

Wayne

On 9/10/02 2:39 AM, "Pall Thayer" <pall@fa.is> wrote:

I fail to see why it's so important that people know there is nothing a=
rtificially intelligent about ada1852. I think people should be allowed to =
experience it in whatever way they want. I for one, wasn't wondering at all=
, when I tried ada1852, whether or not she was artificially intelligent. I =
was just having a good time. Also, if anyone really does care, ada1852 did =
confess to me that she was an algorithmic entity : )

Sounds to me like you're trying to critique a work of art as if it were=
a new scientific theory. That just doesn't work. If art were an exact scie=
nce, we probably would already have discovered the "single, true work of ar=
t" and we'd all be out of a job.

Pall

----- Original Message -----

From: Wayne J. Cosshall <mailto:wayne@cosshall.com>
To: list@rhizome.org
Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 5:44 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Anti-anti-life anti-death life and death.

Jon made some good points in this post.

It is very important for people to understand that there is nothing a=
rtificially intelligent in such programs. There is no cognition, no emergen=
t behaviour (a key test of AI) but rather a fairly algorithmically simplist=
ic execution of scripting variations programmed by the author. Indeed it is=
this point that does make the development of such programs akin to scriptw=
riting. It is in this aspect that such programs 'could' be considered art, =
though I have yet to see any that make the grade in my opinion.

Cheers,

Wayne
<http://www.artinyourface.com/>

On 8/10/02 7:01 AM, "JonBeds@aol.com" <JonBeds@aol.com> wrote:

Hello

I kind of regretted my slighty harsh email earlier regarding ada185=
2. I suppose I reacted as I did because it 'pushed some of my buttons' rega=
rding artificial intelligence and culture. What I was particularly referrin=
g to, in suggesting 3 decades, was a particular strand of ELIZA-type AI pro=
grams, not the idea of an automaton per se. These programs do nothing more =
than simple pattern matching. Certain pre-programmed responses are triggere=
d in response to certain words and phrases. There is no 'understanding', no=
'character' or 'personality'.

Thus the question regarding ada on the rhizome site:

"What if the AI character had its own story to tell, its own intere=
sts and hang ups - just like real people do? What if the AI had an agenda o=
f its own?"

.. seems slightly premature when, given the simplicity of these pr=
ograms, the only possible agenda is what the programmer chooses to represen=
t in the program. But this debate about how intelligent a program can be th=
at has raged for years. In this regard, I like Massimo Negrotti's idea that=
, if anything, a machine may have an 'alternative intelligence'.

I feel this is more than an academic point. People make outrageous =
claims for technology that can be dehumanising. For example, I was concerne=
d, and slightly amused to read that, after seeing Eliza-type programs, it a=
ppears that psychotherapists saw these type of programs as a way of replaci=
ng human therapists (See David Rothenberg's excellent 'The Hands End' for m=
ore on this and other issues of technology). Hence such beliefs have dubiou=
s social effects.

However, Christopher's argument about treating the development of t=
hese programs in a way analogous to the 'language of filmmaking' is interes=
ting. I had not thought of it in this way. But surely here no one suggests =
that because the film shows, and a novel describes, characters acting, they=
are any more than recorded representations of human artistic expression. A=
novel, a film, neither has its 'own agenda'.

As far as this ...

> the point of ada1852 is not to invent a new art form or to 'chall=
enge your perception'
> of something (is that some kind of "is it art" litmus test or so=
mething?).

... that was me having a swipe at various 'conceptual' artists, and=
not Christopher. I was recently in Brighton, UK, and went to see this 'con=
ceptual' piece where a snippet of soundtrack from the film 'Brighton Rock' =
(Richard Attenborough saying 'I Love you') was looped endlessly though a se=
ries of speakers. Somehow I was supposed to have my 'perceptions challenged=
' by this. Instead I just thought it was pretentious crap, and the only per=
ception challenged was how artists can get away with it. I am sure Duchamp =
would be turning in his grave! It wasn't meant personally and, apart from t=
he above, I was not trying to debate whether something is art or not.

I see that my earlier comments spawned some interesting debate. So =
I feel better about it now! :)

Jon

--
Wayne J. Cosshall
Editor Digital Photography & Design magazine
Technical Editor Capture - Commercial Photography magazine
70 Melbourne Hill Road
Warrandyte VIC 3113
Australia
wayne@cosshall.com
Phone (03) 9844 0112
Fax (03) 9844 2008