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: all is God


Hey D42,

You know, plagiarism is illegal.

Your text is by Stephan A. Hoeller (Tau Stephanus, Gnostic Bishop)
from http://www.gnosis.org/gnintro.htm

Hinn 7.09.2002 kl. 14:54 ritadhi -IID42 Kandinskij @27+:

> The Human Being
> Human nature mirrors the duality found in the world: in part it was made
> by the false creator God and in part it consists of the light of the
> True
> God. Humankind contains a perishable physical and psychic component, as
> well as a spiritual component which is a fragment of the divine essence.
> This latter part is often symbolically referred to as the divine spark.
> The recognition of this dual nature of the world and of the human being
> has earned the Gnostic tradition the epithet of dualist.
>
> Humans are generally ignorant of the divine spark resident within them.
> This ignorance is fostered in human nature by the influence of the false
> creator and his Archons, who together are intent upon keeping men and
> women ignorant of their true nature and destiny. Anything that causes us
> to remain attached to earthly things serves to keep us in enslavement to
> these lower cosmic rulers. Death releases the divine spark from its
> lowly
> prison, but if there has not been a substantial work of Gnosis
> undertaken
> by the soul prior to death, it becomes likely that the divine spark will
> be hurled back into, and then re-embodied within, the pangs and slavery=

> of
> the physical world.
>
> Not all humans are spiritual (pneumatics) and thus ready for Gnosis and
> liberation. Some are earthbound and materialistic beings (hyletics), who
> recognize only the physical reality. Others live largely in their psyche
> (psychics). Such people usually mistake the Demiurge for the True God
> and
> have little or no awareness of the spiritual world beyond matter and
> mind.
>
> `, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42
>
> + If the reader will keep me company I shall be glad.
> -> 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
>
>
_____________________________________
Pall Thayer
myndlistamadhur/kennari
artist/teacher
Fjolbrautaskolanum vidh Armula (www.fa.is)
http://www.this.is/pallit
_____________________________________

DISCUSSION

Re: Sorta Like the Schoenberg one plus the malaise and Weimar and WW3


OK, I've thought about it and here comes my take on post-modernism. A
good example of post-modernism would be IID42. Not exactly a lack of
understanding of predefined concepts and basic knowledge but rather a
redefinition. Disregard for ideas seen by others as truths or rules. For
instance claiming that someone elses English is "bearly" legible. Now
most of us would understand this as something to be read only by bears.
But IID42 appears to mean that the English in question doesn't adhere to
his/her own private set of rules. Very post-modern.

Hinn 7.09.2002 kl. 03:08 ritadhi Max Herman:

>
>
> Post-Modernism?!
> Michael Albert
>
>
> A little over two years ago, preparing to ride from Boston to New York
> to
> attend the Socialist Scholars Conference, I asked a scholar friend to
> explain "post-modernism" in the four to five hours we would spend on the
> road. He accepted, and we rode-he lecturing and me listening.
>
> When we got to New York if someone had walked up and asked, "What is
> post-modernism?" I could not have answered. Four hours and I still
> didn't
> know what "post-modernism" referred to. Three interpretations spring to
> mind.
>
> My tutor was an idiot incapable of explaining one concept in four hours.
>
> I am an idiot incapable of understanding one concept in four hours.
>
> The concept is idiotic, a vague pastiche of mush covering a range too
> broad
> to clarify in four hours.
>
> The third possibility, as you might guess, is my favorite. But how
> could a
> concept which engenders shelves of books be nearly empty? Here's my
> hypothesis: Literary theory is largely a sham literary theorists use to
> cajole regal treatment from their professional cohorts, bosses,
> students,
> and broader intellectual community.
>
> How can I commit such blasphemy?
>
> First, calling an academic discipline phony is often common sense, not
> blasphemy.
>
> Take mainstream economics. Nearly the entire "neoclassical" economic
> edifice
> is constructed to legitimate the rewards of economists by pleasing the
> corporate piper who pays the bills. Thus, mainstream economists mainly
> "prove" capitalism's worth or indicate how capitalists can better pursue
> their own ends and rarely try to understand how the system works, who
> benefits, who loses, and why.
>
> Or take academic political science. Again, the idea is not actually to
> understand the government-who would pay scholars to do this?-but to
> "theorize government" in ways that justify official behavior.
>
> I doubt that Z readers would recoil in horror at these condemnations of
> mainstream economics and politics. I even think most Z readers would
> probably find supporting evidence quite convincing. For example, surveys
> reveal that economics graduate students accept these horrible assertions
> about their own profession, and the best first-hand documentation of the
> inner workings of the U.S. government, such as the Pentagon Papers, are
> exactly the materials that political science departments never bother to
> study.
>
> But literary theory? Surely this can't be phony. After all, the most
> obscure
> practitioners of literary theory are often radicals and self-serving
> mystification is never radical.
>
> Nonetheless, suppose you are an English literature teacher and you
> want a
> high salary, intellectual status, and tenure. How does reading and
> discussing literature warrant receipt of such goodies? Wouldn't
> admitting
> that such matter-of-fact activity was the essence of teaching English
> literature make it hard to justify big bucks, big status, tenure, and
> paid
> trips to distant conferences? To justify these rewards there must be a
> "theory" that takes years to master and that some people employ better
> than
> others, at least in their own eyes.
>
> Enter literary theory, an incomprehensible tangle of concepts and
> phrases
> made so dense and vague that:
>
> No one who isn't willing to suspend rationality can use it.
>
> No one can possibly get enough of a grip on it to counter or refute it.
>
> Anyone who attempts to can be ridiculed on the grounds of not
> understanding
> the theory in the first place.
>
> Thus, with their incomprehensible "discourse" in place, literary
> theorists
> have a defensible academic niche. The fact that many students feel like
> dummies because they don't have a clue what's going on is apparently
> insufficient reason for anyone in the club to rock the boat.
>
> Now I admit that the above is very harsh and no more than an undefended
> hypothesis. And I also admit that the reason for the lack of supporting
> textual evidence is because my attempts to find a literary theory book
> that
> I can comprehend sufficiently to assess have been futile. Here's the
> kind of
> "discourse" you have to comprehend to read even what the less obscure
> literary theorists say about novels, movies, MTV, modern architecture,
> pop
> songs, and modern literature: post-modern moment, binarisms,
> overdetermined
> conflict, pure systematicity, post-structuralism, hermeneutic,
> metanarrative, deconstruction, irreducible materiality, semiotics, and
> dialogism.
>
> Not understanding these tangled terms and doubting the need to use them=

> to
> comment sensibly on pop music's Talking Heads, TV's "The Young and the
> Restless," Hollywood's Star Wars, baseball's Dodgers Stadium, or
> literature's Ishmael Reed, I more than happily grant that my hypothesis=

> that
> these terms mean nothing may be wrong. Perhaps "irreducible
> materiality" and
> "pure systematicity" are exactly the concepts needed to "theorize"
> Madonna.
> But if so, it still ought to be possible for literary theorists to
> describe,
> popularize, and generally make understandable what their results are so=

> the
> rest of us can know there is something real going on behind all the
> obscure
> terminology. Even the most difficult physics can be described so average
> persons get a good idea of the main results and questions. If it can be=

> done
> for theories about quarks, gluons, big bangs, and black holes, it ought=

> to
> be able to be done for theories about everyday culture and
> communication.
>
> So, please, someone tell me what I can read to understand literary
> theory so
> that I can withdraw my hypothesis and write an informative summary.
> I'll bet
> not one percent of Z's readers can define the earlier listed terms. So
> wouldn't it be sensible to let the rest of us in on the action, assuming
> there is any?
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
> http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
>
> + If the reader will keep me company I shall be glad.
> -> 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
>
>
_____________________________________
Pall Thayer
myndlistamadhur/kennari
artist/teacher
Fjolbrautaskolanum vidh Armula (www.fa.is)
http://www.this.is/pallit
_____________________________________

DISCUSSION

Re: Sorta Like the Schoenberg one plus the malaise and Weimar and WW3


Post-modernism is tough because we're living in it. It's like if you
spent your life inside a certain house. You know the inside of the house
very well but if you had to tell someone what the house looks like from
the outside, you're in trouble. You have to be able to step outside to
do that and since post-modernism has been applied to pretty much every
facet of our lives today, you really can't do that. Sit next to someone
else when you attend your next Socialist Scholars Conference and in the
same four hours, you'll most likely get an entirely different, although
equally complicated, explanation of post-modernism. No-one has really
reached an agreement on what exactly it is.

At least that's how I understand it.

Hinn 7.09.2002 kl. 03:08 ritadhi Max Herman:

>
>
> Post-Modernism?!
> Michael Albert
>
>
> A little over two years ago, preparing to ride from Boston to New York
> to
> attend the Socialist Scholars Conference, I asked a scholar friend to
> explain "post-modernism" in the four to five hours we would spend on the
> road. He accepted, and we rode-he lecturing and me listening.
>
> When we got to New York if someone had walked up and asked, "What is
> post-modernism?" I could not have answered. Four hours and I still
> didn't
> know what "post-modernism" referred to. Three interpretations spring to
> mind.
>
> My tutor was an idiot incapable of explaining one concept in four hours.
>
> I am an idiot incapable of understanding one concept in four hours.
>
> The concept is idiotic, a vague pastiche of mush covering a range too
> broad
> to clarify in four hours.
>
> The third possibility, as you might guess, is my favorite. But how
> could a
> concept which engenders shelves of books be nearly empty? Here's my
> hypothesis: Literary theory is largely a sham literary theorists use to
> cajole regal treatment from their professional cohorts, bosses,
> students,
> and broader intellectual community.
>
> How can I commit such blasphemy?
>
> First, calling an academic discipline phony is often common sense, not
> blasphemy.
>
> Take mainstream economics. Nearly the entire "neoclassical" economic
> edifice
> is constructed to legitimate the rewards of economists by pleasing the
> corporate piper who pays the bills. Thus, mainstream economists mainly
> "prove" capitalism's worth or indicate how capitalists can better pursue
> their own ends and rarely try to understand how the system works, who
> benefits, who loses, and why.
>
> Or take academic political science. Again, the idea is not actually to
> understand the government-who would pay scholars to do this?-but to
> "theorize government" in ways that justify official behavior.
>
> I doubt that Z readers would recoil in horror at these condemnations of
> mainstream economics and politics. I even think most Z readers would
> probably find supporting evidence quite convincing. For example, surveys
> reveal that economics graduate students accept these horrible assertions
> about their own profession, and the best first-hand documentation of the
> inner workings of the U.S. government, such as the Pentagon Papers, are
> exactly the materials that political science departments never bother to
> study.
>
> But literary theory? Surely this can't be phony. After all, the most
> obscure
> practitioners of literary theory are often radicals and self-serving
> mystification is never radical.
>
> Nonetheless, suppose you are an English literature teacher and you
> want a
> high salary, intellectual status, and tenure. How does reading and
> discussing literature warrant receipt of such goodies? Wouldn't
> admitting
> that such matter-of-fact activity was the essence of teaching English
> literature make it hard to justify big bucks, big status, tenure, and
> paid
> trips to distant conferences? To justify these rewards there must be a
> "theory" that takes years to master and that some people employ better
> than
> others, at least in their own eyes.
>
> Enter literary theory, an incomprehensible tangle of concepts and
> phrases
> made so dense and vague that:
>
> No one who isn't willing to suspend rationality can use it.
>
> No one can possibly get enough of a grip on it to counter or refute it.
>
> Anyone who attempts to can be ridiculed on the grounds of not
> understanding
> the theory in the first place.
>
> Thus, with their incomprehensible "discourse" in place, literary
> theorists
> have a defensible academic niche. The fact that many students feel like
> dummies because they don't have a clue what's going on is apparently
> insufficient reason for anyone in the club to rock the boat.
>
> Now I admit that the above is very harsh and no more than an undefended
> hypothesis. And I also admit that the reason for the lack of supporting
> textual evidence is because my attempts to find a literary theory book
> that
> I can comprehend sufficiently to assess have been futile. Here's the
> kind of
> "discourse" you have to comprehend to read even what the less obscure
> literary theorists say about novels, movies, MTV, modern architecture,
> pop
> songs, and modern literature: post-modern moment, binarisms,
> overdetermined
> conflict, pure systematicity, post-structuralism, hermeneutic,
> metanarrative, deconstruction, irreducible materiality, semiotics, and
> dialogism.
>
> Not understanding these tangled terms and doubting the need to use them=

> to
> comment sensibly on pop music's Talking Heads, TV's "The Young and the
> Restless," Hollywood's Star Wars, baseball's Dodgers Stadium, or
> literature's Ishmael Reed, I more than happily grant that my hypothesis=

> that
> these terms mean nothing may be wrong. Perhaps "irreducible
> materiality" and
> "pure systematicity" are exactly the concepts needed to "theorize"
> Madonna.
> But if so, it still ought to be possible for literary theorists to
> describe,
> popularize, and generally make understandable what their results are so=

> the
> rest of us can know there is something real going on behind all the
> obscure
> terminology. Even the most difficult physics can be described so average
> persons get a good idea of the main results and questions. If it can be=

> done
> for theories about quarks, gluons, big bangs, and black holes, it ought=

> to
> be able to be done for theories about everyday culture and
> communication.
>
> So, please, someone tell me what I can read to understand literary
> theory so
> that I can withdraw my hypothesis and write an informative summary.
> I'll bet
> not one percent of Z's readers can define the earlier listed terms. So
> wouldn't it be sensible to let the rest of us in on the action, assuming
> there is any?
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
> http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
>
> + If the reader will keep me company I shall be glad.
> -> 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
>
>
_____________________________________
Pall Thayer
myndlistamadhur/kennari
artist/teacher
Fjolbrautaskolanum vidh Armula (www.fa.is)
http://www.this.is/pallit
_____________________________________

DISCUSSION

Re: jodi.org


We're too busy reading Max's posts to read any magazines.

----- Original Message -----
From: "ana l. valdes" <agora@algonet.se>
To: "clement Thomas" <ctgr@free.fr>
Cc: <list@rhizome.com>
Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 3:08 AM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: jodi.org

> No, no, I think it was a good point (the jokes are often the
representation of
> deeper thinkings which can't be expressed in other ways). I started to
read
> Wired 1995 and it was a good magazine, with a lot of fun reading and
interesting
> features. But today Wired has become a really boring mag. Which magazines
do you
> read, Rhizome people?
>
> Ana
>
> clement Thomas wrote:
>
> > sorry for the joke Ana,
> >
> > maybe the personn to provide the best info about jodi is NN
> > ask her,
> > integer@www.god-emil.dk
> >
> > wishing you the best always,
> >
> > for pavu.com
> > clement Thomas - Officer General
> > http://pavu.com
> > -/ you know where you are ! /-
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "ana l. valdes" <agora@algonet.se>
> > To: "clement Thomas" <ctgr@free.fr>
> > Cc: <list@rhizome.com>
> > Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 11:22 AM
> > Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: jodi.org
> >
> > > Since when has Wired having some interest in software art or hacking
or
> > > discussing cyberculture? Bruce Sterling was the only one with some
kind of
> > > inside knowledge but I wonder how much is he interested in hacking art
as
> > a
> > > phenomena...Bruce is discussing the surveillance society and the
> > protection of
> > > the integrity of the individuals, but I don't feel Jodi and other
similars
> > > (www.hell.com) are included in his agenda.
> > > Wired has become a Wall Street Journal for investors in IT-dot
> > enterprises.
> > > Read MUTE instead...
> > >
> > > Ana
> > >
> > > clement Thomas wrote:
> > >
> > > > hahahahaha.
> > > > wired do not know about jodi,
> > > > i hope you are joking !*
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > OG
> > > > -/ sorry, i drop my bisquit in my cup of tea /-
> > > >
> > > > * http://www.pavu.com/2000/
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Alyssa" <alyablan@hotmail.com>
> > > > To: <list@rhizome.org>
> > > > Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 1:15 AM
> > > > Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: jodi.org
> > > >
> > > > > i tried to send this once, so if this is a repeat, sorry.
> > > > >
> > > > > does anyone know who did this site (jodi.org)--wired magazine is
> > looking
> > > > for any information
> > > > >
> > > > > thanks,
> > > > > aly
> > > > > + If the reader will keep me company I shall be glad.
> > > > > -> 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
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > + If the reader will keep me company I shall be glad.
> > > > -> 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
> > >
> > >
>
> + If the reader will keep me company I shall be glad.
> -> 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: Re: Easy Like Sunday Morning


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

Hinn 6.09.2002 kl. 16:30 ritadhi Eryk Salvaggio:

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

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