spryspryspryspryspryspryspryspry

On Wed, 28 Aug 2002, Max Herman wrote:

> After some sleep I will enjoy some raspberries for breakfast.

Sounds tasty. Are the members of the Genius 2000 Network going to
pick them by hand? Does that address the Genius 2000 Network
appropriately?

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

On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Max Herman wrote:

> Kandinskij, (you mind if I call you that?),

Obviously not. I've indicated it–just don't attach
undue familiarity by using it, and attempting to
pull-leash as can be observed by your use of names.

> I thought this was to list but I guess not? Either way.

You sent it private, private.

> If you want to rap offlist let's do it.

No. If I wanted off-list I'd have invited you for teacakes
and raspberry jam.

> Rhizome is flabby.

So are you. You know, what made me speak to you is your ability
to maintain mental balance. But you failed the test. And dear,
you've got a long way to go before you could 'test' me. Sanity
is important for work–there's enough cuckoo rattleheads.

What a pity that you confuse nobility of spirit and dignity of
logos with some pathetic knee-jerk propagand about ranking.
Sorry. You're not 'equal'. And you've just confirmed you are a pimp.

You peddled G2K, attempted to make friendly with me, and 'kindly
requested' in aiding you peddle G2K. When refused, you went bonkerz.

Save 'yourself' before saving others and commentaries.

> I promised not to fire anyone after the rough first couple weeks after 911. Maybe that's
> over now, maybe not.

How gracious of you Herr G2K.

> I was offered a paltry writing op yesterday, on condition I never mention
> G2K. You find that sickening? I do. Insulting.

What a shame.

> What about the master caning sleeping sitters?

Eh bien. It's not the same as being a bully and smashing the pots.

> I'm not afraid of anyone degrading me.

Fear hasn't ever been an issue with my comments about degradation.

> It's not very easy to do.

You just did.

> I'm
> always ready to speak my mind, so base men avoid me (Blake).

Yeh. You're just like Blake.

> OK then. Neither here nor there.

I'm told that's what rock tours are like.

> Yes I am wrongfully and lamely called insane by hacks

No, you aren't.

> who have gathered together to urge me not to dis them,

Meaningless.

> and switch to some other scene if I can't not dis.

As above.

> Like say book-writing about non-internet-art topics.

Non-internet-art. That's a snappy title.

> It's a case of total shit.

Sure. Against you shine like a sparkling, clean, and innocent baby-bum.

> I cut everyone some slack after 911 and now they are
> luxuriating in a manufactured illusion that I'm shackled.

I'm sure that's how it is.

> Little could be more wrong.

Right.

> They do love it though, me being ostracized.

Here, have a medal.

> The happiness it gives them can practically be smelled.

Aie. Have another. And a martino on the house.

> I find the moral hazards

Preach it brother.

> of playing weak to be more offensive

Offensive?

> and dangerous

Howso?

> than letting them have their comfort.

No comfort having shall be had. It's your duty to bash them
over the head without knowing what you're doing, and hey if you
break them in the process, they're all dunces anyhow.

> So I've got God to answer to on that one.

Like you have any knowledge of *God*.

> Parable of talents and the s-word.

Which to you are meaningless fairy-tales.

> A dishrag being a slotmaskin?

No.

> Which makes them a problem.

The problem is always THEM. THEM: the others. THEM: the crowd.
THEM: the West. THEM: the East. THEM: the un-elite. THEM: males.
THEM: females. The list goes on.

> They have it now so that if I crit something, they are the victims

Right. You've no responsibility. It's THEM.

> and I am Tamburlaine the sexually retarded torturer.

Uh. *Sexually retarded*. You want a pat on the back and another drink?

> Perhaps you know less of the skinny here than I do.

I know nothing of the 'skinny'.

> I have been plagiarized,

> slandered,

> spoken against,

and flayed

> and had work stolen from me by very
> large important people.

Yes, Max, and that's all crap. This sort of behavior truly is shite.
But that doesn't justify your martyr-pose.

> I am supposed to forgive them to keep civility and
> goodwill among the netart industry. This nauseates me.

What they are asking for is abrogation of responsibility,
not forgiveness.

> Well thank you. I know we have argued in the past.

And we are arguing now.

> I do not know you well

Im sure you'll know me by 'testing' though.

> or trust you beyond my regard for your outspokenness.

As long as I don't dis you or G2K. How do you differ from THEM?

> It's your business if
> you like to rip on Salvaggio

Yes it is.

> but others are the real problem.

Smirk.

> The impresarios and their proteges.

Precisely this I flamed you for. This self-righteous
knee-jerk attempting to 'direct' me. And this is why
you're flipping out.

> Eryk did his shit with an independence that
> is the exception,

Nonsense. There is no 'independence'. The 'fight for freedom'
is liberation of the soul & will from delusion. Eryk is not_ there.
And even if he achieved that, he'd still be a long way from
independent. And I'm not saying this to 'diss' Eryk,
but because I think he's screaming for the real thing, and that's not
it.

>and while he is more amicable than I, the real dunces hate
> him too

Who are the real dunces?

> and have worked hard to stuff him out.

?
>
In great part because he is
> listening to g2k, the great taboo of US ArtWorld 2000.

Yes, you're both Jesu-Xristo martyr-soldie-jogas.

> > Sorry Max. People can't think. Not only that but they fancy the brain
> > the true center of 'thinking' and relation to the 'world'.
>
> Agreed, thinking is not awareness per se.

Practice what you preach. You rattle off slogans you don't
understand.

> People believe that personal ego
> and shaping history are the same, which is attrocious.

And neither G2K nor Eryk Salvaggio is guilty of it.

> I value hybris
> however, and I think I can explain why, but it is a slow explanation. It is
> part of my critique of heroic representation. It's paradoxical. Check
> www.geocities.com/genius-2000/hamletoedipus.html or other papers I have at
> www.geocities.com/genius-2000/Archive2000.html

Um, there are no 'paradoxes'. And I don't read 'papers'.
School's over.

You have powers you don't want to face? What a pity.
We are not impressed.

> I agree. Hybris must fall, delenda est hybris. Hybris in my system (g2k)
> is transient yet complete. I define hybris as Greeks did, not as Aquinas et
> al recuperated it; i.e., not as the sin of pride only but in the more
> precise, accurate, and specific sense of "an act of violence warranting
> exile from the polis."

I'm not sure what you attribute to that statement,
and why you see it as any different than Augustine's.
They both men the same. If you resonate with the polis,
fine. 'More precise*? It's not even comparable.

> I do not care for psychological explanations of
> historical processes.

Never have implied that either youor I do.

> History is bigger than the sum of all psyches,
> because of permanent or putatively permanent construction (constructed
> models received as permanent).

Uhm.

> As Yeats said, "they too break hearts,"
> these edifices, and breaking them is not always only a matter of personal
> psychotherapy.

Right. Blood! War! Revolution! TEAR THE OLD ORDER ™!


> I protest! I know language is the game.

No you think. You don't KNOW. You don't even know a penny's
worth about language.

> THE game.

No, language is not THE game. Never has been nor will it be.

> People hate me because I know this and know I am the stronger in said game.

Self-delusional. And anyone who doesn't rally under your G2K flag
hates you.

> I may be the strongest in fact.

Sure are, baby.

> I have studied well, and alot.

Fft.

> Few language theories of the 20th
> c. can sustain prolonged Max Herman investigations.

The Great Max G2K.


> By "surges of personality" I meant that I conceive of the personality
as an
> ebb and flow. I hope you like that image.

No. It's fallacious.I don't care what poet said it.

> "Satiate the void circumference, then shrink even to a point" is how Shelley said it. Most people are more
> like zombies, constant and ignorant in their stasis.


> They fear to surge or
> ebb, and stay on the shore. "Not to the tempest given," also Shelley.

Sorry. Can't follow you there. I've no personality at all.
And I don't think that the way to 'deal' with it is to be given
to personality temper tantrums. That is simply being a childish
dictator.

> Agreed. Except that the World acts, believes, and builds as if it
> were not.

I'm sorry Humans are not 'the World'. Not even an infinitessimal part.
the WORLD builds itself according to the LOGOS, which is not
in the 'brain'. Logos is the 'mind' proper. Of which all humans
have by birth the right to partake, and 99.99% don't.

> In this respect, the brain's practical role is not tiny but enormous, if
> only in a negative/obstructive sense. I am not a mentation-fancier,

No, it isn't. It's still tiny. Essence- value is not 'relative'.

> I know
> all about physiology, and worship no idol of thought.

False.

> Ah, slightly unclear here. I have a paper called "Lateral Line" at my site,
> www.geocities.com/genius-2000/Archive2000.html I think. Proper
> consciousness and evolution toward it is yes like a school of fish. I
> discriminate vastly between the natural health of fish behavior and say the
> fabricated organization of say a flock of human-owned sheep or population of
> slaves.

Yes, you sure area n authority of what consciousness is like, having
none.

> OK here is where I wish to communicate more. I find you interesting to
> speak with.

danke.

> Hybris made permanent is both genetic and phenotypic
> death/loss/oblivion.


> Hybris as a portion of cycle,

No it isn't. It's the 'end' of a cycle with no possibility
for further development. It's degradation of the evolutionary
impulse.

> as the destruction of
> the old or given, is an element of genetic and phenotypic dynamism and
> evolution.

This is not what hybris is.

> Mental constructs are not evil

To make the ssue of mental constructs an issue of 'good & evil' is not
'appropriate'. Brain constructs are not mental constructs either.

> We differ in informedness here. I am not told of very much that goes on in
> cybero.

I was not referring to cybero.

Milton had a hybristic residual power that Keats first loved and
> emulated (in Hyperion: A Dream) and then came to find oppressive.

As it always is. The 'hybristic' leftoever can't produce energy on its
own so it feeds on the energy of those who find it 'attractive'.
It doesn't 'raise them up though' so they can't even become hybristic.
As for Keats: he's now dead.

Sorry if
> you find my Eng.Lit. exampling boring.

I don't.

> It sometimes is but often isn't, and
> it's me (for better and worse).

No, it isn't. You're simply identifying.

> Ha, that's what I meant by saying "I know more than you," do you see the
> virtue in such exaggeration?

Only as some variation of some kind of humor.

> I insult people or boast to them to see what
> makes them tick.

That doesn't work. You only see how their brain works.
People don't 'tick'.

> You did well on the test.

Sorry, I avoided your test altogether, but you seem to interpret my
response as a result of your test.

> Holub, he wrote in Prague during the Cold War. He was an immunologist and
> used a lot of medical imagery. A funny chap too. I don't idolize him of
> course. Look at his "Interferon" and "Sagittal Section", they were my
> favorites.


Because you said so? You must know your subject before
prescribing medicine. You're saying, I like peaches, here have some.
While peaches may be perfectly valid, if I'm allergic to them,
you're not doing me a favor. Hence dear preachers, preach to yourselves
before you can preach to others.


> I'm a little confused on this one. I think there is plenty of weak to go
> around.

Everywhere. Not just on TV.

> I do blame Europe for many weak things however.

They are. If they were strong, they'd not have produced ww2.

> And fuck me if I'm
> wrong, but I'm from America. Immune system, that relates to Holub too.

Doesn't everything.

> Again I have no information. I know no inside poop.

Neither do I. She's easily observable if one does not 'think'.

> She is of value to me however, she affected me, I respect her.

She's done some good things. Turning hybristic and sapping ppl's
energy is not one of them.

> I thought NN had mentioned collective orgasm. I do not always know who is
> saying what.

Was re:state, I think. And moreso, they're all quoting others on that.

> I ascribe nothing so dramatic to him.

It's not dramatic. Petty energetic leeching (vampirism) is
a 'fact' of humans. I'm fresh out of sugar-coating.

> If he is a vampire, I'm the thing that scares the fuck out of vampires.

That's just meaningless. Nothing 'scares' the vampiric impulse.
It's a bit like saying, I'm the monster that scares hunger,
and I am a monster that scares your liver.

> I have trounced him on every occasion I cared to try–he's minor league. Trust me.

What is 'minor league'? All petty leeches are 'minor league'.
A 'major' league (esoteric) vampire isn't human, and won't care to be
scared.

> He and his list are one of the cases of me granting the requested free
> pass. Which can be revoked at my own sweet will.

You don't have: a will. Only a delusion of control via your brain.

> I don't wish to minimize your use of the term vampiric.

Why thank you!

> I find it a valid term if not one I use often.

Thanks for the approval.


> I have a cousin named Ian Allen, he was in
> Negativland before he contracted schizophrenia (the genes are not from my
> side of the family thank you). He is still alive at 45, despite chronic
> cancers now in remission, and he uses the word vampire. I think Ian
> deserves recognition and if I could fund him I would. He worked on code at
> the highest levels in the UC Berkeley physics department before his illness.

That doesn't mean anything. And my use of the word is not related
to your friend /cousin's use. And I have no respect for Negativland.

> I neither hate nor love religion per se.

I never implied anything of the sort, nor did I question your attitude
in those terms.

Sorry to hear you've been
> irritated by B Beaubien,

I haven't. She's simply sticking her nose where it does not belong.
Nor was I seeking your pity'.

> her "courage, Biti" sig always grated me.

Would you like to 'bond' over that?
Too bad. I don't bond.

> It's strange but good in a way that no one dares to hassle me.

Chuckle.

> Is that weird or what?

Far out.

> I like it though.

I'm sure you do. You can be a twit with impunity.

> Shelley said, "the leaves dead are driven like ghosts from an enchanter fleeing."

I don't care about Shelley, and he wasn't talking about YOU.

> Again, Blackhawk cannot withstand my pressure.

Bravado.

> Take what you will from that. I fear him not.

Nothing to be taken. It's a pose.

> I meant, many are not able to see my presence in the core, or are scared
> when they do.

Your presence in the core? Presence is Mind / Logos.
You're hardly a pure vessell filled with light.

> I may be misusing the term core. My cousin Ian talks about
> it. I actually have only a vague idea what it means.

Which means yours is dormant. And so is Eryk's.
But you keep rattling off. Until your core is
IS, you'll never be 'strong in language'.

> My pollution is my diffidence and distant position toward the core, a slow/weak influence. I
> do this to avoid error. I am careful about the core and respect it.

And how would you distinguish b/n the core and the ego?

> I read a thing about memes as seeds once, a gnostic approach.

No, gnosticism has a proper understanding of the crippled
pseudo-scientific idea peddled around as 'memes'. Long before 'memes'
appeared as a word.

> the url again or try if you wish. We differ little here. The matter is
> part of G2K, rest assured. The corrupt pseudo-reproduction of corrupt
> pseudo-memes is slavery.

The 'meme' of memetics is corrupt.

> > > I turn mother against son and father against daughter.
> >
> > And those who hate their father and mother as I do.
> > Every seed must die unto itself before it can be born.
> > I have come with a (s)Word.
>
> This confuses me but do not feel obliged to explain. I like to learn.

Didn't you say you were the strongest in language.

> > ja. Been there. There's no way out to the bright 'side' w/o going to
> > hell first. But there's exoteric (valid) hell and esoteric (valid) Hell.
>
> Both valid?

Both valid.

> "Knowledge that tends to narrow and knowledge that tends to disperse."

No.

> Or, cognition, awareness, "genius" as I call what you rightly say most call
> "thinking."

No.

> > No, and my comment was excatly in that vein. Degeneration of the human
> > reace, as a whole.
>
> So we agree. I do not like male mallards anymore.

No.

> They are one of numerous abominations.

Right.

> > The world will fare fine without humans and it requires no salvation.
> > The story is something else.
>
> Save the human story? I'm OK with that way of putting it.

Not what I wrote.

> I try not to draw unnecessary hatred to myself, in my current situation it
> is not advisable. What you say on this does not offend me however.

Yawn.

> I am curious about some other things you said in other emails. You think I
> could be doing something better?

Yes.

> I agree but I wonder what you mean specifically,

You want specific instructions? I've given them all along.

> and must remind you I receive no assistance.

Only because you refuse it.

> The blame for that does not fall only on me.

This is not about blame.

> From what I can tell, my culture likes to pretend to try to
> create people like me but when it succeeds, it panics.

Right. You're special.

> So I plod on. I detest pity and always have.

So do THEM.

> I work under odd conditions, oddly.

So do THEM.

> I refuse to allow the possibility of a car accident or mugging
> killing Genius 2000.

Yes you'd rather die.

> There is self-indulgence in this perhaps but not only that.

There's always more to the story.
This trinket is not really a trinket.
It's made in Brazil 767676 yrs ago, and once it was touched
by the end of the outer robe of the great-great-great grand father
of the cousin of a minor nobility in Persia.

Buy it! It'll change your life! (Or mine)

xo