>
>
> listening is not 'automatic' + 'prejudiced'
ya really think so?
+ have any evidence?
> you have simply re-akted comme 01 monkey
> out of pre-sets + cultural programming
> firmly ingrained in your mind
wich is a pretty normal thing to do for human beings and digital entities
> listening is an ability which is the essence
> ov artistik talnt+must be cultivated
> in 01 healthy body, heart + mind
amen
> xi xi
bien
> hfh jfhjdshf jsdhf sjdfhsjdhfhs
( i can see your fingers )
> Object as subject has been denigrated by social psychology by
>anthropology, as contagion as participation mystique: the primitive mind,
>via psychological projection, transfers its own subjective contents onto
>the object – and then perceives those contents is transference as if
>actual attributes of the object.
so do you vs me
>ie, 01 loy has 'observed' [himself as 01.troll] in D42 ? as evident
>+ attempted to degrade itself
>
>the characteristic ov 01 'sadist'
>
>the sickness of the self-destructiv eye
>
>multi-dimensional masochism in attempting to expand
>
>ie, psychik 'vampire' + psychotikally ill == loy
( i've never felt so big before )
>i do not desire your touch
i did not touch you
you only perceived my touch
lo_y
Aw: Re: Sv: [7-11] Re: [thingist] Re: RHIZOME_RAW: [l0l] LOL#24
-
Type: discussion
Comments
On Sun, 18 Aug 2002, + lo_y. + wrote:
> > listening is not 'automatic' + 'prejudiced'
>
> ya really think so?
reaktionary. meaningless.
bouncing balls.
> + have any evidence?
'evidence'?
evidence=meaningless
it's hard to listen isn't it?
> wich is a pretty normal thing to do for human beings and digital entities
NORMAL? No. But they do it sure.
That's no justification to continue doing it.
> ( i can see your fingers )
No, you can't. Seeing precludes 'fingers'.
> so do you vs me
No, I don't.
You're knee-jerking passively much in a manner described in
the paragraph–ie, ascribing your qualities to me.
> ( i've never felt so big before )
sans doubt : karakteristik of inflated ego
> i did not touch you
>
> you only perceived my touch
No, you did not touch me because I did not allow_ you to.
Nor see me, nor 'consume' me.
You're also attempting wrong ascription again:
the kind of touch I spoke of is not a perceptual delusion.
What'z more, perceptual illusions are a function of the ego
+ that's not what am utilizing.
`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42