Maslow's fallacy
Bodhisattvacat
Monks, mystics and fakirs starve themselves and hurt themselves
all the time, and it helps them get clearer, more in control,
more disciplined and more spiritually accomplished.
Which means that the spiritual needs get fulfilled, not after the
fulfilment of physical needs, but in fact through denying them -
through mind-over-body experience in which one denies the body
and puts oneself in a spiritual state where his soul is in
control.
This has of course been known for centuries, both in the East and
the West, but the ignorance of spirituality and religion during
Maslow's time in Western academia created a climate in which this
knowledge was forgotten, and materialistic fallacies like those
of Maslow gained credibility with many educated people.
I stand here to correct him. Fasting for three days made me feel
more clear, more spiritually awake, and more in control of my
body and soul; I biked 45 miles the second day and was skating the
third day on a natural high. Sitting for a long time in painful
lotus position, or doing uncomfortable yoga poses, while focusing
on the light, gives me an awesome spiritual experience. When I put
a burning incense stick through each of my eight chakras, I felt
high, energetic, clear and mighty for the whole next day. Swimming
in ice-cold river and standing barefoot in the snow cleared up my
mind tremendously and made me far more focused and alert.
A spiritual high can be attained through mind-over-body
experience. Which means that it is possible to have spiritual
needs fulfilled, not after fulfilment of physical needs, but in
fact through denying them in a controlled fashion, thus giving
oneself deliberateness that one lacks when he is tied down to
serving perceived (and, in a consumeristic society, always
exorbitant, outrageous and ever-growing) material "needs."
Which means that it is most certainly possible to be spiritually
accomplished and a pauper, or wise and a gypsy, or accomplished
in spirit and a monk or a slave, or high on life and a homeless
hippie.
It is told by many people who have endured starvation that when
one is starving, hunger is all he can think about. I have not
found that to be true during my fast, and neither have people
like Buddha and Jesus and the thousands of fakirs and monks in
every spiritual denomination. The first day demands an effort of
will; after that it is natural. One is focused on the hunger, if
one keeps his spirit in his stomach area. When one lifts one's
spirit to embrace the glory of God that lingers above him, he
experiences greater ecstasy than is known through sex and drugs.
Fasting and enduring pain helps create stronger spirit and
greater control over self. It also opens the gateway to yogic
spiritual experience. In India, many people are poor, but the
place is full of spiritual richness. Haiti is also impoverished,
but bristling with energy and creativity. Meanwhile many in
America have far more than they need and believe they cannot
engage in spiritual pursuits because they are too busy making
ends meet to sustain their exhorbitant lifestyle that they
ridiculously consider the basic minimum, with needs growing the
more they try to meet them and taking more of their effort and time
to sustain.
Thinking that one needs to fulfil physical needs before focusing
on spiritual ones is therefore a trap. Hinduism recommends being
a beggar as a spiritual way of life. Taoism recommends going with
the flow and letting it take you to where you're needed. Jesus
said to sell what you have and give alms and fill yourself with
faith that leads to treasures in heaven. Gurdieff tolds people to
lift themselves into a space in which miracles happen, and be by
those miracles moved to situations in which they can benefit other
people and be by them taken care of in return.
Maslow was therefore wrong on two counts. First, as we have seen,
spiritual needs do not need to take second seat to the physical
ones, but rather can be accomplished through denial of them. It
is also possible, through the mechanism of activating spiritual
powers, to be led to situations in which one uses one's talents
and knowledge to help other people and be by them taken care of -
to let the spirit lead and let body follow; to not worry about
"making ends meet" or "responsibility" and instead go with the
spirit and live in ecstasy while, pursuant the spirit, doing good
things for people who need one's help. Secondly, "self-
actualization" is far from the top spiritual need. One gets a lot
more satisfaction from living a natural high of being close to
God, from serving one's fellow man, from experiencing and living
in the light of divine presence, from passionate love, from
creative achievement, from state of grace, from being open to and
one with the flow of cosmos and beauty of nature, and from the
state of ecstasy, clarity and bounty that one achieves through
yoga and meditation.
The "responsibility" argument is fallacious in light of Taoist
spiritual truth. When one is in the flow, one gets taken to
situations in which he is needed and is by them taken care of.
One does not think of survival, because one is automatically led
to places where he can help people and be by them taken care of.
This becomes a spiritual way of life, a way in which the spirit
leads and the body follows, rather than the bestial state in
which the body stomps on the spirit and makes it a slave to
perceived poverty, where all efforts are centered on paying one's
mortgage and nothing is ever enough.
In seeing the human being as a form of enhanced animal, with the
basic nature preceding the spiritual nature, which he saw as an
extension of social-animal emotions rather than a piece of the
divine, Maslow denied the true higher needs of the human being,
while convincing millions of potential seekers that before they
can achieve spiritual heights they first need to subjugate
themselves to the neurotic mortgage-paying lifestyle - a
lifestyle that by its very design diminishes mental freedom and
takes away the ability to live spiritually. Ignorant of true
spirituality and the lives of true spiritual seekers, Maslow
convinced the psychology students to sell themselves out and
cease from developing their spirit and living in a spiritual
state. He is not entirely to blame for his error; he was
operating in academic climate that believed man to be an animal
and suppressed or discredited the knowledge of the mystics and
monks to the contrary. Having put myself through experiences that
mystics and monks put themselves through, I know that Maslow
committed a fallacy, and that it is very well possible to be
materially poor or homeless and spiritually rich at the same time.
Ilya Shambat
http://www.geocities.com/drr0cket
Brian
brian
"Bodhisattvacat" <drr0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4f2532f6.04082...@posting.google.com...
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.744 / Virus Database: 496 - Release Date: 24/08/04
The Danimal
> I believe Maslow was wrong about his "hierarchy of needs."
>
> Monks, mystics and fakirs starve themselves and hurt themselves
> all the time, and it helps them get clearer, more in control,
> more disciplined and more spiritually accomplished.
That's certainly what the charlatans want you to believe.
When a little objective outside scrutiny got focused on the
Roman Catholic priesthood, it turned out all was not as
previously advertised. Some very large percentage of
supposedly celibate priests are in fact closeted gay men.
The Catholic church spent decades covering up instances of
pedophilia to avoid exposure of its massive sham.
> Which means that the spiritual needs get fulfilled, not after the
> fulfilment of physical needs, but in fact through denying them -
> through mind-over-body experience in which one denies the body
> and puts oneself in a spiritual state where his soul is in
> control.
Deny you have needs, and they might pop up with a vengeance
sometime. For example, in a library.
> This has of course been known for centuries, both in the East and
> the West, but the ignorance of spirituality and religion during
> Maslow's time in Western academia created a climate in which this
> knowledge was forgotten, and materialistic fallacies like those
> of Maslow gained credibility with many educated people.
Maybe Maslow knew a few gay or pedophile priests.
> I stand here to correct him. Fasting for three days made me feel
> more clear, more spiritually awake, and more in control of my
> body and soul; I biked 45 miles the second day and was skating the
> third day on a natural high. Sitting for a long time in painful
> lotus position, or doing uncomfortable yoga poses, while focusing
> on the light, gives me an awesome spiritual experience. When I put
> a burning incense stick through each of my eight chakras, I felt
> high, energetic, clear and mighty for the whole next day. Swimming
> in ice-cold river and standing barefoot in the snow cleared up my
> mind tremendously and made me far more focused and alert.
How does that compare to a good library wank?
> A spiritual high can be attained through mind-over-body
> experience. Which means that it is possible to have spiritual
> needs fulfilled, not after fulfilment of physical needs, but in
> fact through denying them in a controlled fashion, thus giving
> oneself deliberateness that one lacks when he is tied down to
> serving perceived (and, in a consumeristic society, always
> exorbitant, outrageous and ever-growing) material "needs."
Makes you wonder, doesn't it, why despite their enormous
psychological advantage, religious nutballs crave group
approval so much they constantly try to convince others of
their points of view?
A cynic might suggest religious nutballs work so hard to
eradicate diverse opinions around them because deep down
inside they all harbor some residual doubt that threatens
to topple their house of cards.
> Which means that it is most certainly possible to be spiritually
> accomplished and a pauper, or wise and a gypsy, or accomplished
> in spirit and a monk or a slave, or high on life and a homeless
> hippie.
Almost anything's possible, but it's more likely those who
make a show of eschewing hedonism didn't have the greatest
options to begin with.
For example, it's easy for a man who isn't attractive
to women to "give them up." And not so easy for a man
like (actor) Josh Hartnett.
Churches which preach against sex often have, by an
amazing coincidence, lots of fat people in the pews.
> It is told by many people who have endured starvation that when
> one is starving, hunger is all he can think about. I have not
> found that to be true during my fast, and neither have people
> like Buddha and Jesus and the thousands of fakirs and monks in
> every spiritual denomination. The first day demands an effort of
> will; after that it is natural. One is focused on the hunger, if
> one keeps his spirit in his stomach area. When one lifts one's
> spirit to embrace the glory of God that lingers above him, he
> experiences greater ecstasy than is known through sex and drugs.
Is that your way of telling Layo you've had better?
> Fasting and enduring pain helps create stronger spirit and
> greater control over self.
Why don't you go on a Usenet fast? Stop posting to Usenet
for 10 years. 20, if possible. Imagine the greater control
you will attain over self if you attack your REAL vice.
I bet if you tried to quit posting to Usenet, Usenet is all
you would think about.
Please, prove me wrong by leaving Usenet and forgetting all
about it.
> It also opens the gateway to yogic
> spiritual experience. In India, many people are poor, but the
> place is full of spiritual richness.
Yes, they worship cows, rats, and monkeys.
> Haiti is also impoverished,
> but bristling with energy and creativity.
And spewing forth boatloads of economic refugees who would
like to trade their local brand of energy and creativity
for a sandwich.
> Meanwhile many in
> America have far more than they need
No, everybody in America is still going to die, which indicates
nobody here has what they need yet.
> and believe they cannot
> engage in spiritual pursuits because they are too busy making
> ends meet to sustain their exhorbitant lifestyle that they
> ridiculously consider the basic minimum, with needs growing the
> more they try to meet them and taking more of their effort and time
> to sustain.
That's not quite true. Worker productivity is much higher than
it was in 1950, which means Americans can consume a lot more
without working too much harder.
> Thinking that one needs to fulfil physical needs before focusing
> on spiritual ones is therefore a trap.
But every spiritual need is a physical need.
> Hinduism recommends being
> a beggar as a spiritual way of life.
And yet India has many lavish Hindu temples, not built by
beggars, and people who are nice enough to keep working so
beggars can eat.
The great religions survive because most of their followers
are smart enough not to take all their nonsensical claims
too seriously.
Imagine if the nominally Christian United States really started
living by the Sermon on the Mount. Al Qaeda would eat us for
breakfast.
The Bible can include idiocy like the suggestion to pluck
your eye out if it causes you to sin, because most people
are smart enough to ignore that garbage even while they
profess to believe the rest.
> Taoism recommends going with
> the flow and letting it take you to where you're needed.
Good idea. Maybe you're needed somewhere besides Usenet.
> Jesus
> said to sell what you have and give alms and fill yourself with
> faith that leads to treasures in heaven.
Start by selling your computer.
> Gurdieff tolds people to
> lift themselves into a space in which miracles happen, and be by
> those miracles moved to situations in which they can benefit other
> people and be by them taken care of in return.
If you have miracles, why do you need other people to take
care of you?
> Maslow was therefore wrong on two counts. First, as we have seen,
> spiritual needs do not need to take second seat to the physical
> ones, but rather can be accomplished through denial of them.
Feel free to prove this at any time by renouncing your Usenet
addiction.
> It
> is also possible, through the mechanism of activating spiritual
> powers, to be led to situations in which one uses one's talents
> and knowledge to help other people and be by them taken care of -
It's also possible to win the lottery.
> to let the spirit lead and let body follow; to not worry about
> "making ends meet" or "responsibility" and instead go with the
> spirit and live in ecstasy while, pursuant the spirit, doing good
> things for people who need one's help.
However, in practice the evidence is overwhelming that working
directly toward a goal improves one's chances of obtaining it.
For example, in the Olympics, all the top competitors have been
systematically training for years to excel in their specialties.
Bill Gates did not build his software empire by spending most of
his free time on religious gobbledygook.
> Secondly, "self-
> actualization" is far from the top spiritual need. One gets a lot
> more satisfaction from living a natural high of being close to
> God, from serving one's fellow man, from experiencing and living
> in the light of divine presence, from passionate love, from
> creative achievement, from state of grace, from being open to and
> one with the flow of cosmos and beauty of nature, and from the
> state of ecstasy, clarity and bounty that one achieves through
> yoga and meditation.
Imagine the natural high we could get from an Ilya-free Usenet!
> The "responsibility" argument is fallacious in light of Taoist
> spiritual truth. When one is in the flow, one gets taken to
> situations in which he is needed and is by them taken care of.
About the closest the Taoist gets to truth is the accidental
reality that some percentage of highly accomplished people don't
have a really solid understanding of exactly what they do to
succeed. Which is why a lot of successful people are unable to
teach others how to duplicate their success.
> One does not think of survival, because one is automatically led
> to places where he can help people and be by them taken care of.
> This becomes a spiritual way of life, a way in which the spirit
> leads and the body follows, rather than the bestial state in
> which the body stomps on the spirit and makes it a slave to
> perceived poverty, where all efforts are centered on paying one's
> mortgage and nothing is ever enough.
Only an idiot borrows money to pay for current consumption.
If you can't afford to own a house, don't own one.
> In seeing the human being as a form of enhanced animal, with the
> basic nature preceding the spiritual nature, which he saw as an
> extension of social-animal emotions rather than a piece of the
> divine, Maslow denied the true higher needs of the human being,
No, Maslow drew some plausible inferences from what he knew
humans to be: animals with unusually large and active brains.
Human brains evolved for the same purpose that any other living
thing evolves: to make more copies of themselves.
We can understand the complex, zany world of human emotions as
an elaborate system of rewards and punishments doled out to the
individual to guide him toward those behaviors which in the
ancestral environment enhanced reproductive fitness, and away
from behaviors which reduced it.
But because reality is complex and unpredictable in fine detail,
it's quite possible for emotions to fail their genes in some
unlucky individuals.
> while convincing millions of potential seekers that before they
> can achieve spiritual heights they first need to subjugate
> themselves to the neurotic mortgage-paying lifestyle - a
> lifestyle that by its very design diminishes mental freedom and
> takes away the ability to live spiritually.
Borrowing money to buy a house makes no sense. But that doesn't
mean the only alternative is to reject reason and become a
religious nutball.
> Ignorant of true
> spirituality and the lives of true spiritual seekers, Maslow
> convinced the psychology students to sell themselves out and
> cease from developing their spirit and living in a spiritual
> state. He is not entirely to blame for his error; he was
> operating in academic climate that believed man to be an animal
> and suppressed or discredited the knowledge of the mystics and
> monks to the contrary.
But the academic climate was first created by religious nutballs.
How did they lose control over their own creation?
They lost control because they assumed all
evidence left to be discovered could only confirm their
beliefs. Instead, the more people learned to follow evidence
with an open mind, the more they rejected the _a priori_
religious assumptions which turned out not to work well.
Had religious nutballs guessed correctly about where evidence
would lead, they would have tried to discourage learning and
free inquiry rather than promote them.
> Having put myself through experiences that
> mystics and monks put themselves through, I know that Maslow
> committed a fallacy, and that it is very well possible to be
> materially poor or homeless and spiritually rich at the same time.
See the book: Why God Won't Go Away. Scientists are not too
far (on an historical time scale) from deducing the natural history
of religion. Once scientists can understand the religious impulse,
they might not be far from curing it.
-- the Danimal
Michaela
To me Maslow makes more sense on a human level, than
it does on a spiritual one. So far as I know Maslow's
hierarchy more is about life on earth as a consuming,
voting, choice-making human, not as a spiritual being.
- Michaela
Brian wrote:
> Abso bloody lutely!
>
> brian
Immortalist
>
> Monks, mystics and fakirs starve themselves and hurt themselves
> all the time, and it helps them get clearer, more in control,
> more disciplined and more spiritually accomplished.
>
> Which means that the spiritual needs get fulfilled, not after the
> fulfilment of physical needs, but in fact through denying them -
> through mind-over-body experience in which one denies the body
> and puts oneself in a spiritual state where his soul is in
> control.
>
But if they don't eat long enough they will be to dead to fulfill any spiritual
needs, hence Maslow continues to be the stronger argument; lower needs must be
met in order for higher needs to be met.
Overdog
> In seeing the human being as a form of enhanced animal, with the
> basic nature preceding the spiritual nature, which he saw as an
> extension of social-animal emotions rather than a piece of the
> divine, Maslow denied the true higher needs of the human being,
> while convincing millions of potential seekers that before they
> can achieve spiritual heights they first need to subjugate
> themselves to the neurotic mortgage-paying lifestyle - a
> lifestyle that by its very design diminishes mental freedom and
> takes away the ability to live spiritually. Ignorant of true
> spirituality and the lives of true spiritual seekers, Maslow
> convinced the psychology students to sell themselves out and
> cease from developing their spirit and living in a spiritual
> state. He is not entirely to blame for his error; he was
> operating in academic climate that believed man to be an animal
> and suppressed or discredited the knowledge of the mystics and
> monks to the contrary. Having put myself through experiences that
> mystics and monks put themselves through, I know that Maslow
> committed a fallacy, and that it is very well possible to be
> materially poor or homeless and spiritually rich at the same time.
Human beings ARE a form of "enhanced animal." We have much in common
with our simian ancestors-- and even with lower animals such as dogs
and cats. You can find maternal love in a mother cat and a litter of
kittens. A pack of dogs displays a social structure.
It's foolish, and pretentious, to pretend that we are made of
fundamentally different stuff than the lower animals. You might think
that your fast illustrated the triumph of mind over body. But in fact,
it demonstrated the reverse. The mind is an integral part of the body.
Your brain controls your heartbeat, your blood pressure, your
adrenaline level-- in a word, all of the various control signals and
hormones of your body. By depriving yourself of food for a little
while, you made your brain send out certain signals, which put you in
an altered frame of mind.
This is nothing new. People have been putting themselves in altered
states of mind for millenia. Beer, wine, and the "funny mushroom" are
all easier methods to get there than a fast, though. And, on the
whole, probably safer. Caffeine is probably the most culturally
acceptable mind-altering drug. (Of course, it acts as an "upper,"
rather than a downer. I think what our culture mostly lacks is a drug
to slow you down-- like pot.)
Human beings have a need to feel like they have a purpose in life.
They need to feel secure from the vagarities of time and chance.
Hence, religions came into being to fill these needs.
I'm not trying to argue that Americans really need all the "stuff"
they've accumulated. But I don't see anything inherently wrong with
having it. Everyone finds happiness in their own way.
Overdog
>
> Ilya Shambat
> http://www.geocities.com/drr0cket
catbrier
>
> Monks, mystics and fakirs starve themselves and hurt themselves
> all the time, and it helps them get clearer, more in control,
> more disciplined and more spiritually accomplished.
Does it? And you're sure of this - in every circumstance?
> Which means that the spiritual needs get fulfilled, not after the
> fulfilment of physical needs, but in fact through denying them -
> through mind-over-body experience in which one denies the body
> and puts oneself in a spiritual state where his soul is in
> control.
etc.
> I stand here to correct him. Fasting for three days made me feel
> more clear, more spiritually awake, and more in control of my
> body and soul; I biked 45 miles the second day and was skating the
> third day on a natural high.
etc.
> Ilya Shambat
> http://www.geocities.com/drr0cket
Try "fasting" week after week. Move to Somalia.
Cat
formerly known as 'cat arranger'
There is a huge difference between choosing
to fast and living in poverty. You can't think
about the light when your life is being threatened
by a lack of basic needs.
catbrier
There is the self-imposed want of the dilettante and the want of the
truly poor. Not to see the difference is to announce one's self a
dilettante. I am not in the circle of those who admire fakirs.
Cat
The Danimal
> "formerly known as 'cat arranger'" <goodidea19...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<rn3Yc.38586$4o.18564@fed1read01>...
> > There is a huge difference between choosing
> > to fast and living in poverty. You can't think
> > about the light when your life is being threatened
> > by a lack of basic needs.
Given that food is likely to remain in good supply in the
U.S. for some time, the closest Ilya might come to
simulating poverty would be for someone to cut off his
Internet access for a year.
If someone out there will please raise Ilya's consciousness
in this way, I for one would appreciate your efforts.
Internet addiction is when you are so busy posting you actually
forget to eat. I'm sure none of the fat acceptors have gone that
far yet, but can I get a witness from the rest of you?
> There is the self-imposed want of the dilettante and the want of the
> truly poor. Not to see the difference is to announce one's self a
> dilettante. I am not in the circle of those who admire fakirs.
It's like the high-fashion designers who incorporate silly
themes like homelessness into their shows.
Or like the movie that cast Uma Thurman as the unattractive
sister. Despite Uma's skill as an actress it's not the same
as an actually unattractive woman.
-- the Danimal
Pete Turk
Bodhisattvacat <drr0...@yahoo.com> writes
>I believe Maslow was wrong about his "hierarchy of needs."
>
>Monks, mystics and fakirs starve themselves and hurt themselves
>all the time, and it helps them get clearer, more in control,
>more disciplined and more spiritually accomplished.
>
>Which means that the spiritual needs get fulfilled, not after the
>fulfilment of physical needs, but in fact through denying them -
>through mind-over-body experience in which one denies the body
>and puts oneself in a spiritual state where his soul is in
>control.
>
>This has of course been known for centuries, both in the East and
>the West, but the ignorance of spirituality and religion during
>Maslow's time in Western academia created a climate in which this
>knowledge was forgotten, and materialistic fallacies like those
>of Maslow gained credibility with many educated people.
>
>I stand here to correct him.
As _I_ stand here, sitting at the keyboard, not to
correct, just to comment upon your correction ....
>;]
First of all, you give readers no idea at all
as to WHAT his Hierarchy-of-Needs _proposal_ actually
is (yes, Ilya, a proposal, a throw-away idea of his,
not a doctrine set in stone)
If the URL's still there, and if your browser's more
up-to-date than mine, then try:
http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/maslow.htm
... as a good all-round intro to supply that background.
And anyone reading Maslow's (slightly scrappy, written-with-
a-wing-and-a-prayer) material will realise, he's as
concerned with the spiritual as he is the physicality of
us all, and especially with aesthetics. What ties it
all together is his emphasis upon _development_ within us.
> Having put myself through experiences that
>mystics and monks put themselves through, I know that Maslow
>committed a fallacy, and that it is very well possible to be
>materially poor or homeless and spiritually rich at the same time.
And if you'd READ what he says, you'd know that
he never did imply, or say, that you couldn't be both.
Self-actualisation (i.e. the level sitting on all
the rest) is a _development_, an on-going _process_ of
spiritual awareness, plus a good many other things.
Becoming materially poor doesn't lose you that at all.
It simply means that, scrabbling around for the next
meal, you concentrate on that and nothing else, until
you can start or re-start thinking in terms of the levels
which DO depend on having a full-stomach and feeling
reasonably comfortable. Given that you then want to,
of course.
And no-one can 'commit a fallacy', Ilya, until they've
hardened some idea into a formal _doctrine_ (for a religion)
or a _position_ in Science like the Big-Bang theory,
which throws off testable hypotheses and so doesn't
demand blind faith from its adherents. Levels of needs
are something people can even check for on a day-to-day
basis.
Or just use their common sense ...
>
>Ilya Shambat
>http://www.geocities.com/drr0cket
'People who have what they want are
very fond of telling people who
Haven't what they want that they don't
want it.
... '
-- Ogden Nash 'Terrible People'
Pete Turk <Pe...@ragtag.demon.co.uk> ICQ# 11981084
RFA President and Moonshadow
--
May your doorstep ever be dirty.
-- Romany blessing
catbrier
> catbr...@yahoo.com (catbrier) wrote in message news:<8901e207.04082...@posting.google.com>...
> > "formerly known as 'cat arranger'" <goodidea19...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<rn3Yc.38586$4o.18564@fed1read01>...
> > > There is a huge difference between choosing
> > > to fast and living in poverty. You can't think
> > > about the light when your life is being threatened
> > > by a lack of basic needs.
>
> Given that food is likely to remain in good supply in the
> U.S. for some time, the closest Ilya might come to
> simulating poverty would be for someone to cut off his
> Internet access for a year.
>
> If someone out there will please raise Ilya's consciousness
> in this way, I for one would appreciate your efforts.
Don't be so hard on Ilya. As netkooks go (and I'm not saying he is
one,) he's a small fry. Many nof his posts provoke thoughtful and
interesting responses.
> Internet addiction is when you are so busy posting you actually
> forget to eat. I'm sure none of the fat acceptors have gone that
> far yet, but can I get a witness from the rest of you?
I had forgotten the soc.singles war against the tubbies. One wonders
why a person would bother? Isn't it sad enough that they have their
own support group? But then, they aren't the only ones on-line that
practice a convenient form of "acceptance", are they?
> > There is the self-imposed want of the dilettante and the want of the
> > truly poor. Not to see the difference is to announce one's self a
> > dilettante. I am not in the circle of those who admire fakirs.
(I posted that -)
> It's like the high-fashion designers who incorporate silly
> themes like homelessness into their shows.
Haute couture is all about attracting attention to the designer, even
if it means being silly on occasion.
> Or like the movie that cast Uma Thurman as the unattractive
> sister. Despite Uma's skill as an actress it's not the same
> as an actually unattractive woman.
>
> -- the Danimal
Uma is one of my tall blond viking sisters and as such her exterior
presence is always accompanied by a touch of inner self-consciousness
whenever we walk into a room full of people. We are seldom as
self-possessed and as graceful on the inside as we seem on the
outside. It takes inner discipline not to take seriously the
perceptions others create at first sight.
Cat
bob
> I believe Maslow was wrong about his "hierarchy of needs."
That's nice.
> Monks, mystics and fakirs starve themselves and hurt themselves
> all the time, and it helps them get clearer, more in control,
> more disciplined and more spiritually accomplished.
Umm, masturbating is not a form of self harm, Ilya. Unless, of course,
you do it in public.
> Which means that the spiritual needs get fulfilled, not after the
> fulfilment of physical needs, but in fact through denying them -
> through mind-over-body experience in which one denies the body
> and puts oneself in a spiritual state where his soul is in
> control.
heh
> This has of course been known for centuries, both in the East and
> the West, but the ignorance of spirituality and religion during
> Maslow's time in Western academia created a climate in which this
> knowledge was forgotten, and materialistic fallacies like those
> of Maslow gained credibility with many educated people.
I have an idea! You can bring down Sun Tsu next!
> I stand here to correct him. Fasting for three days made me feel
> more clear, more spiritually awake, and more in control of my
> body and soul; I biked 45 miles the second day and was skating the
> third day on a natural high.
Did you stop taking your antipsychotics again?
> Sitting for a long time in painful
> lotus position, or doing uncomfortable yoga poses, while focusing
> on the light, gives me an awesome spiritual experience. When I put
> a burning incense stick through each of my eight chakras, I felt
> high, energetic, clear and mighty for the whole next day. Swimming
> in ice-cold river and standing barefoot in the snow cleared up my
> mind tremendously and made me far more focused and alert.
Is it snowing in Virginia? Oh, you are talking about that time years
back when the cops came to get you, right?
BTW, the next time you do the incense chakra thing, see if you can
drive the incense sticks all the way through!
> A spiritual high can be attained through mind-over-body
> experience. Which means that it is possible to have spiritual
> needs fulfilled, not after fulfilment of physical needs, but in
> fact through denying them in a controlled fashion, thus giving
> oneself deliberateness that one lacks when he is tied down to
> serving perceived (and, in a consumeristic society, always
> exorbitant, outrageous and ever-growing) material "needs."
Ilya, this is such old material I'm surprised you are bothering. Has
it been a while since you've gotten laid, or what?
> Which means that it is most certainly possible to be spiritually
> accomplished and a pauper, or wise and a gypsy, or accomplished
> in spirit and a monk or a slave, or high on life and a homeless
> hippie.
Or a psychotic wack-job,like you!
> It is told by many people who have endured starvation that when
> one is starving, hunger is all he can think about. I have not
> found that to be true during my fast, and neither have people
> like Buddha and Jesus and the thousands of fakirs and monks in
> every spiritual denomination. The first day demands an effort of
> will; after that it is natural. One is focused on the hunger, if
> one keeps his spirit in his stomach area. When one lifts one's
> spirit to embrace the glory of God that lingers above him, he
> experiences greater ecstasy than is known through sex and drugs.
Three days isn't much of a fast.
David
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004, The Danimal wrote:
[...]
> the closest Ilya might come to simulating poverty would be for someone
> to cut off his Internet access for a year.
> If someone out there will please raise Ilya's consciousness in this way,
> I for one would appreciate your efforts.
PSSST. Too bad Ilya's already heard about the Internet connections in
public libraries and college computer rooms.
> Internet addiction is when you are so busy posting you actually
> forget to eat.
Oh dammit, then I don't qualify. Yet. The reason I'm unacceptably fat is
I very seldom forget to eat: it's one of the few things I always remember.
[...]
> Or like the movie that cast Uma Thurman as the unattractive
> sister. Despite Uma's skill as an actress it's not the same
> as an actually unattractive woman.
Back in the 1980s I was involved with a Finnish woman who Uma
Thurman looks very much like. How lucky for me her personality
wasn't nearly as lovely. That and her body odor: has anybody
noticed that thin blondes smell like cheap vinegar? I don't
mean the kind that derives from wine or apples, but what they
get when they pour acetic acid into distilled water. While
brunettes on the other hand smell like soil and pets and meat;
Ilya's a brunette, maybe he'd make a good cheesesteak sub.
Hungrily,
D.
--
"I don't think that I can take it, cuz it took so long to bake it."
...................................................................
(C) 2004 TheDavid^TM | David, P.O. Box 21403, Louisville, KY 40221
David
[...]
> Don't be so hard on Ilya. As netkooks go (and I'm not saying he is
> one,) he's a small fry.
I say he's a net.kook, but I agree he's a bush leaguer at it: he ain't
threatened to sue me, kill me, get the Devil on my yet (that I know of,
I've killfiled him for several months a few times). I don't even think
he's accused me of abridging his "rite to free speach!"
> Many of his posts provoke thoughtful and interesting responses.
Like Cujo's.
> > Internet addiction is when you are so busy posting you actually
> > forget to eat. I'm sure none of the fat acceptors have gone that
> > far yet, but can I get a witness from the rest of you?
>
> I had forgotten the soc.singles war against the tubbies.
I thought that was some Christian guy. And the tubby with the triangle
on his head is a FAG, pass it on!
> One wonders why a person would bother?
Boredom, a need to feel superior, group-think, and so forth.
> Isn't it sad enough that they have their own support group?
Doesn't everybody have their own support group? There's even a support
group for nasty cranky men nice women can't stand, called "soc.men".
> But then, they aren't the only ones on-line that practice a convenient
> form of "acceptance", are they?
Conveniently, I accept my on-line foibles. I'm so much worse in person.
> > Or like the movie that cast Uma Thurman as the unattractive
> > sister. Despite Uma's skill as an actress it's not the same
> > as an actually unattractive woman.
> Uma is one of my tall blond viking sisters and as such her exterior
> presence is always accompanied by a touch of inner self-consciousness
> whenever we walk into a room full of people. We are seldom as
> self-possessed and as graceful on the inside as we seem on the
> outside. It takes inner discipline not to take seriously the
> perceptions others create at first sight.
Do you think Ms. Thurman is as fatuously vain as you are? Should we
hate you for being beautiful even when you're not really? Not that I
doubt that "tall blond viking sisters" are fatuously vain as a rule,
that's part of my point.
David
> > It is told by many people who have endured starvation that when
> > one is starving, hunger is all he can think about. I have not
> > found that to be true during my fast
> Three days isn't much of a fast.
And there's a big difference between fasting and starving: usually, unless
one is a carried-away fakir or Cathar or other masochistic wack-job, you
starve whether you want to or not, from circumstances beyind your control.
Such as it hasn't rained in a year, you already ate all the rats you can
find, and the army from the next valley stole all your seed grain and
won't let you even sell yourself into slavery for food. (Cf. Darfur.)
For Ilya's sake, here's the difference in a nutshell: a starving person
will walk three days (or die trying) to get a bite to eat, while a nutjob
on a "spirit quest" will walk for three days away from Mommy's kitchen.
bob
wrote:
>On Mon, 30 Aug 2004, bob wrote to Ilya:
>
>> > It is told by many people who have endured starvation that when
>> > one is starving, hunger is all he can think about. I have not
>> > found that to be true during my fast
>
>> Three days isn't much of a fast.
>
>And there's a big difference between fasting and starving: usually, unless
>one is a carried-away fakir or Cathar or other masochistic wack-job, you
>starve whether you want to or not, from circumstances beyind your control.
>Such as it hasn't rained in a year, you already ate all the rats you can
>find, and the army from the next valley stole all your seed grain and
>won't let you even sell yourself into slavery for food. (Cf. Darfur.)
>
>For Ilya's sake, here's the difference in a nutshell: a starving person
>will walk three days (or die trying) to get a bite to eat, while a nutjob
>on a "spirit quest" will walk for three days away from Mommy's kitchen.
The story reminded me of something that occurred in the past. My
graduate school tuition and salary was paid for by the US Armed
Forces. I was president of the school's Peace Club. The head of the
Rotorcraft Institute didn't appreciate this much. Anyway ...
We decided to fast for up to a week to raise funds for Oxfam. We made
posters and we manned a table in the student union.
Long story short: the other members of the Peace Club used the money
they'd collected for spring break vacations. I never talked to any of
them again.
Scumfucking fakers (or fakirs for that matter) piss me off.
I have a feeling none of them fasted.
People suck. Those who wear their heart on their sleeve suck worse.
catbrier
> On Mon, 30 Aug 2004, catbrier wrote to Danimal:
> [...]
>
> > Don't be so hard on Ilya. As netkooks go (and I'm not saying he is
> > one,) he's a small fry.
>
> I say he's a net.kook, but I agree he's a bush leaguer at it: he ain't
> threatened to sue me, kill me, get the Devil on my yet (that I know of,
> I've killfiled him for several months a few times). I don't even think
> he's accused me of abridging his "rite to free speach!"
There are people on-line whom I have judged too far gone to bother
communicating with. Threatening others one meets on-line with suits or
violence is a sign of mental distress. It's like shopping for vegis,
why bother with rotten fruit?
> > Many of his posts provoke thoughtful and interesting responses.
>
> Like Cujo's.
>
>
> > > Internet addiction is when you are so busy posting you actually
> > > forget to eat. I'm sure none of the fat acceptors have gone that
> > > far yet, but can I get a witness from the rest of you?
> >
> > I had forgotten the soc.singles war against the tubbies.
>
> I thought that was some Christian guy. And the tubby with the triangle
> on his head is a FAG, pass it on!
I don't see any point in tormenting them - they do an excellent job
tormenting themselves.
> > One wonders why a person would bother?
>
> Boredom, a need to feel superior, group-think, and so forth.
If one is living in a real world, how do they find time to be bored?
> > Isn't it sad enough that they have their own support group?
>
> Doesn't everybody have their own support group? There's even a support
> group for nasty cranky men nice women can't stand, called "soc.men".
There is no point in going there. There is nothing new to be learned
and only the same manias repeated ad infinatum.
> > But then, they aren't the only ones on-line that practice a convenient
> > form of "acceptance", are they?
>
> Conveniently, I accept my on-line foibles. I'm so much worse in person.
Really? In person, and with people I don't know, I am distant,
detatched and professional. With my friends, however, I am warm,
affectionate and compassionate.
> > > Or like the movie that cast Uma Thurman as the unattractive
> > > sister. Despite Uma's skill as an actress it's not the same
> > > as an actually unattractive woman.
>
> > Uma is one of my tall blond viking sisters and as such her exterior
> > presence is always accompanied by a touch of inner self-consciousness
> > whenever we walk into a room full of people. We are seldom as
> > self-possessed and as graceful on the inside as we seem on the
> > outside. It takes inner discipline not to take seriously the
> > perceptions others create at first sight.
>
> Do you think Ms. Thurman is as fatuously vain as you are? Should we
> hate you for being beautiful even when you're not really? Not that I
> doubt that "tall blond viking sisters" are fatuously vain as a rule,
> that's part of my point.
>
> D.
Ooooooo...you're so mean! I'm so sorry we can't all be ugly little
squats who spend all day hunched over their computers. But I don't
really care if you don't believe me.
Vanity? Yes, I am a little vain. But not excessively so.
Are you an angry boy David? (I'm sorry about that too - that's too
bad.)
Cat
Lefty
The answer to the problem is quite simple.
I will give it to you, free of charge, because most of you are too stupid to
realize anything without being told to memorize it for the friday afternoon
quiz.
Here's the answer.
There is a heirachy of needs. Each person has a heirarchy. This heirarchy
may change from one moment to the next, and there may be various heirarchies
of varying importance in a person's mind. There are large scale heirarchies
and small scale heirarchies, and some may only last a few days, others last
a lifetime. Everyone's mind is different, everyone's priorities are
different, but EVERYONE has these heirarchies. Thats IT. Thats all you need
to know. Heirarchies exist. WHAT MORE DO YOU NEED THAN ?? >>> "Heirarchies
exist."
Stupid Maslow was a quack. He should have studied more math, but he was a
chump. What a damned despicable idiot. Too bad someone did'nt give him a
lobotomy with a post hole auger. Ignorant chimp.
Only a complete imbecile could "discover" that 2+2=4, and completely miss
the fact that what he discovered was addition itself.
Immortalist
"Lefty" <Y...@h.Right> wrote in message news:9KvZc.18119$_g7.9685@attbi_s52...
> Maslow was a quack, as are all quack psychologists.
>
> The answer to the problem is quite simple.
>
> I will give it to you, free of charge, because most of you are too stupid to
> realize anything without being told to memorize it for the friday afternoon
> quiz.
>
> Here's the answer.
>
> There is a heirachy of needs. Each person has a heirarchy. This heirarchy
> may change from one moment to the next, and there may be various heirarchies
> of varying importance in a person's mind. There are large scale heirarchies
> and small scale heirarchies, and some may only last a few days, others last
> a lifetime.
> Everyone's mind is different, everyone's priorities are
> different, but EVERYONE has these heirarchies. Thats IT.
Once one starts to think about mental software instead of physical behavior, the
radical differences among human cultures become far smaller, and that leads to a
fourth new idea: Universal mental mechanisms can underlie superficial variation
across cultures. Again, we can use language as a paradigm case of the
open-endedness of behavior. Humans speak some six thousand mutually
unintelligible languages. Nonetheless, the grammatical programs in their minds
differ far less than the actual speech coming out of their mouths. We have known
for a long time that all human languages can convey the same kinds of ideas. The
Bible has been translated into hundreds of non-Western languages, and during
World War II the U.S. Marine Corps conveyed secret messages across the Pacific by
having Navajo Indians translate them to and from their native language. The fact
that any language can be used to convey any proposition, from theological
parables to military directives, suggests that all languages are cut from the
same cloth.
Chomsky proposed that the generative grammars of individual languages are
variations on a single pattern, which he called Universal Grammar. For example,
in English the verb comes before the object (drink beer) and the preposition
comes before the noun phrase (from the bottle). In Japanese the object comes
before the verb (beer drink) and the noun phrase comes before the preposition,
or, more accurately, the postposition (the bottle from). But it is a significant
discovery that both languages have verbs, objects, and pre-or postpositions to
start with, as opposed to having the countless other conceivable kinds of
apparatus that could power a communication system. And it is even more
significant that unrelated languages build their phrases by assembling a head
(such as a verb or preposition) and a complement (such as a noun phrase) and
assigning a consistent order to the two. In English the head comes first; in
Japanese the head comes last. But everything else about the structure of phrases
in the two languages is pretty much the same. And so it goes with phrase after
phrase and language after language. The common kinds of heads and complements can
be ordered in 128 logically possible ways, but 95 percent of the world's
languages use one of two: either the English ordering or its mirror image the
Japanese ordering. A simple way to capture this uniformity is to say that all
languages have the same grammar except for a parameter or switch that can be
flipped to either the "head-first" or "head-last" setting. The linguist Mark
Baker has recently summarized about a dozen of these parameters, which succinctly
capture most of the known variation among the languages of the world.
Distilling the variation from the universal patterns is not just a way to tidy up
a set of messy data. It can also provide clues about the innate circuitry that
makes learning possible. If the universal part of a rule is embodied in the
neural circuitry that guides babies when they first learn language, it could
explain how children learn language so easily and uniformly and without the
benefit of instruction. Rather than treating the sound coming out of Mom's mouth
as just an interesting noise to mimic verbatim or to slice and dice in arbitrary
ways, the baby listens for heads and complements, pays attention to how they are
ordered, and builds a grammatical system consistent with that ordering.
This idea can make sense of other kinds of variability across cultures. Many
anthropologists sympathetic to social constructionism have claimed that emotions
familiar to us, like anger, are absent from some cultures. (A few anthropologists
say there are cultures with no emotions at all!) For example, Catherine Lutz
wrote that the Ifaluk (a Micronesian people) do not experience our "anger" but
instead undergo an experience they call song. Song is a state of dudgeon
triggered by a moral infraction such as breaking a taboo or acting in a cocky
manner. It licenses one to shun, frown at, threaten, or gossip about the
offender, though not to attack him physically. The target of song experiences
another emotion allegedly unknown to Westerners: metagu, a state of dread that
impels him to appease the song-ful one by apologizing, paying a fine, or offering
a gift.
The philosophers Ron Mallon and Stephen Stich, inspired by Chomsky and other
cognitive scientists, point out that the issue of whether to call Ifaluk song and
Western anger the same emotion or different emotions is a quibble about the
meaning of emotion words: whether they should be defined in terms of surface
behavior or underlying mental computation. If an emotion is defined by behavior,
then emotions certainly do differ across cultures. The Ifaluk react emotionally
to a woman working in the taro gardens while menstruating or to a man entering a
birthing house, and we do not. We react emotionally to someone shouting a racial
epithet or raising the middle finger, but as far as we know, the Ifaluk do not.
But if an emotion is defined by mental mechanisms-what psychologists like Paul
Ekman and Richard Lazarus call "affect programs" or "if-then formulas" (note the
computational vocabulary)-we and the Ifaluk are not so different after all. We
might all be equipped with a program that responds to an affront to our interests
or our dignity with an unpleasant burning feeling that motivates us to punish or
to exact compensation. But what counts as an affront, whether we feel it is
permissible to glower in a particular setting, and what kinds of retribution we
think we are entitled to, depend on our culture. The stimuli and responses may
differ, but the mental states are the same, whether or not they are perfectly
labeled by words in our language.
And as in the case of language, without some innate mechanism for mental
computation, there would be no way to learn the parts of a culture that do have
to be learned. It is no coincidence that the situations that provoke song among
the Ifaluk include violating a taboo, being lazy or disrespectful, and refusing
to share, but do not include respecting a taboo, being kind and deferential, and
standing on one's head. The Ifaluk construe the first three as similar because
they evoke the same affect program-they are perceived as affronts. That makes it
easier to learn that they call for the same reaction and makes it more likely
that those three would be lumped together as the acceptable triggers for a single
emotion.
The moral, then, is that familiar categories of behavior-marriage customs, food
taboos, folk superstitions, and so on-certainly do vary across cultures and have
to be learned, but the deeper mechanisms of mental computation that generate them
may be universal and innate. People may dress differently, but they may all
strive to flaunt their status via their appearance. They may respect the rights
of the members of their clan exclusively or they may extend that respect to
everyone in their tribe, nation-state, or species, but all divide the world into
an in-group and an out-group. They may differ in which outcomes they attribute to
the intentions of conscious beings, some allowing only that artifacts are
deliberately crafted, others believing that illnesses come from magical spells
cast by enemies, still others believing that the entire world was brought into
being by a creator. But all of them explain certain events by invoking the
existence of entities with minds that strive to bring about goals. The
behaviorists got it backwards: it is the mind, not behavior, that is lawful.
FROM: The Blank Slate:
The Modern Denial of Human Nature
by Steven Pinker
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0142003344/
formerly known as 'cat arranger'
"Lefty" <Y...@h.Right> wrote in message news:9KvZc.18119$_g7.9685@attbi_s52...
:
:
:
:
It's pretty easy to see something after it's already been
discovered by someone else. I guess you think Newton
was an idiot because gravity is so obvious or that the
fact that your childhood affects you is an obvious thing
and that Freud was a quack.
Lefty
> discovered by someone else. I guess you think Newton
> was an idiot because gravity is so obvious or that the
> fact that your childhood affects you is an obvious thing
> and that Freud was a quack.
My point is that he took a special case and declared it universal. What he
missed was the fact that a person's heirarchy is always customized to the
needs of that individual.
Rich people might not worry too much about money, whereas poor people are
much more concerned about even small amounts of it. Similarly, you dont
worry about water if you live next to the lake, but you certainly would if
you lived in the desert.
Maslow filled in the blanks of his pyramid with food, shelter, love, etc,
and declared that all people fit his scheme. This is why he was a quack,
because he was wrong, and if you could understand that then you might stand
a chance of avoiding his folly.
formerly known as 'cat arranger'
"Lefty" <Y...@h.Right> wrote in message
: > It's pretty easy to see something after it's already been
I wonder why you pick on Maslow, of all people.
The Danimal
> David <thed...@shell.rawbw.com> wrote in message news:<Pine.LNX.4.58.04...@troll.weezl.org>...
> > On Mon, 30 Aug 2004, catbrier wrote to Danimal:
> > > the Danimal wrote:
> > > > Internet addiction is when you are so busy posting you actually
> > > > forget to eat. I'm sure none of the fat acceptors have gone that
> > > > far yet, but can I get a witness from the rest of you?
> > >
> > > I had forgotten the soc.singles war against the tubbies.
Some people have to use words to inflict the kind of pain you
can inflict by just showing up.
> > I thought that was some Christian guy. And the tubby with the triangle
> > on his head is a FAG, pass it on!
>
> I don't see any point in tormenting them - they do an excellent job
> tormenting themselves.
An even more excellent way to torment fat people is to be a
tall, young, attractive blonde woman. Just show up, and by
your very desirable and unattainable presence, rub it in to
all the fatties what they cannot be (if they are fat women)
or cannot have (if they are fat men).
Of course you don't need to make any extra effort to inflict
pain on them. Your very nature already twists the knife enough
times.
There is also a huge sociobiological risk in being an
overtly confrontational woman. The evolutionary psychology
of women accordingly favors surreptitious competition.
Just crush your competitors by being prettier than them,
and don't rile them with unnecessary gloating---even better,
put up a diversionary screen of disses against those who
do gloat. And bat those eyelashes in classic little
Ms. Innocent style.
"Don't hate me because I'm beautiful."
> > > One wonders why a person would bother?
In your case, obviously it feels a lot better to inspire envy
than to experience it.
> > Boredom, a need to feel superior, group-think, and so forth.
Great idea! Distract the audience from the objective facts
and make it about the putative emotional state of the opponent.
_Ad hominem_ arguments will always be popular because they
will never stop working. That is, until genetic engineering
makes people much better than they are now.
> If one is living in a real world, how do they find time to be bored?
Indeed, how could anybody get so bored that they need to fill
their time by overeating?
That was exactly my rhetorical question that kicked off your
latest thunder-stealing digression.
> > > Isn't it sad enough that they have their own support group?
It's sad that every day they probably see tall, slender,
attractive blonde women.
> > Doesn't everybody have their own support group? There's even a support
> > group for nasty cranky men nice women can't stand, called "soc.men".
>
> There is no point in going there. There is nothing new to be learned
> and only the same manias repeated ad infinatum.
500 years from now it's unlikely there will have been any
point in anything we do right now, but we don't care about
that.
I haven't seen a newsgroup yet where I couldn't post something
I consider clever. So every newsgroup has its point as far as
I care.
> > > But then, they aren't the only ones on-line that practice a convenient
> > > form of "acceptance", are they?
I accept tall, slender, attractive, young blonde women.
I'm not a stickler about the tall or blonde parts.
I've also been known to compromise a bit on the young
part when I don't have a choice.
> > Conveniently, I accept my on-line foibles. I'm so much worse in person.
>
> Really? In person, and with people I don't know, I am distant,
> detatched and professional. With my friends, however, I am warm,
> affectionate and compassionate.
With everyone I am a beacon, an inspiration, a model of
everything a reasonable person could aspire to be. Of all
my myriad superior traits I'm most proud of my humility.
> > > > Or like the movie that cast Uma Thurman as the unattractive
> > > > sister. Despite Uma's skill as an actress it's not the same
> > > > as an actually unattractive woman.
>
> > > Uma is one of my tall blond viking sisters
Now there's a fantasy I can run with. Tall blonde viking
sisters. Yum! But apparently they weren't quite enough to
keep their Viking men at home. I wonder why?
> > > and as such her exterior
> > > presence is always accompanied by a touch of inner self-consciousness
> > > whenever we walk into a room full of people.
That's why Uma needs to leave the room full of people with me.
So I can give her an inner touch of something that feels much
better.
> > > We are seldom as
> > > self-possessed and as graceful on the inside as we seem on the
> > > outside.
And a walking-stick insect looks to a hungry bird like an
inedible twig when it is in fact a tasty meal.
It's never about what you are, it's about who you fool.
Semblance is more important than substance.
Dishonesty---it's not just for politicians any more!
> > > It takes inner discipline not to take seriously the
> > > perceptions others create at first sight.
Sure, but why not just enjoy their screaming orgasms?
Romance is all an illusion when you start analyzing it.
But it's an enjoyable illusion, while it lasts.
> > Do you think Ms. Thurman is as fatuously vain as you are?
No beautiful woman escapes this result.
It's like being smart in a world of retards. How could you
not feel smarter? Every day you would get repeated reminders.
Marilyn Monroe once said she knew she had something special
at age 8. She climbed up a tree, and four boys came to help
her down.
A beautiful woman gets reminded of her special status every
day, as long as her looks hold up.
The real test is how she handles the day when her looks fade.
> > Should we
> > hate you for being beautiful even when you're not really?
You should hate the fact that you cannot attract her.
> > Not that I
> > doubt that "tall blond viking sisters" are fatuously vain as a rule,
> > that's part of my point.
> >
> > D.
>
> Ooooooo...you're so mean!
I think "you're so fat!" would be more to the point.
There won't be too many fat people who can properly appreciate
a tall, slender, attractive woman. Some form of resentment
is virtually inevitable, no matter how many disingenuous
attempts the slender woman makes to distance herself from those
who can only bash fat verbally.
> I'm so sorry we can't all be ugly little
> squats who spend all day hunched over their computers.
Anybody can become ugly.
> But I don't
> really care if you don't believe me.
Hint: one way to be more convincing with such disclaimers
is to portray yourself online as a physically unattractive
person. If you allow people to actually believe you are
ugly, then you really don't care what they think.
It's so tiring to read people dropping hints about something
left and right and then clumsily trying to hide their tracks
by denying any interest in the public opinion they tried so
hard to cultivate.
> Vanity? Yes, I am a little vain. But not excessively so.
Everybody knows how important physical appearance is,
especially for a woman, since women have no option to
make up any ground via social status and objective
achievements.
> Are you an angry boy David? (I'm sorry about that too - that's too
> bad.)
Here is where the wedge inevitably starts to drive in.
Cat, you should have taken your cue when David mentioned
he never forgets to eat, even while posting.
If you really are the beautiful young woman you claim to
be while disclaiming any interest in whether anybody believes
your claims, then you will leave a churning wake of anguish
everywhere you go as you display utter sexual indifference
toward the hordes of men who are essentially invisible to you
at best or actively offensive at worst. They want you---urgently---
and you don't want them. [Insert gratuitous ha haw!]
David has no doubt experienced the tormenting indifference
of pretty women thousands of times in real life, and your
writing style may be stirring up those unpleasant sensations.
It's sad to see you inadvertently setting him up with false
hopes only to crush them in your stereotypical "who me?"
pretty girl way.
By comparison, an overt fat basher like Marty is easier to
keep outside the gates than your sneaky fat-basher-bashing
Trojan horse which seems at first like a gift.
Pretty girls are best left for the properly qualified.
-- the Danimal
Anand Juda
misunderstanding.
Example: Fasting for three days gave you much spiritual benefit I am certain
about this. But people who do not have enough to eat as a matter of
day-to-day reality are not walking the enlightenment path--they are merely
fighting starvation.
Maslow's point is that you cannot obtain the next level of the heirarchy
unless the issues surrounding the basic needs such as food, water, and
shelter, are not of such life-threatening concern, that you are not able to
invest your life energy into higher pursuits.
Thus, the intentional and controlled withdrawl of a basic need (e.g.
fasting) is certainly a tool by which those obtaining spiritual improvement
can and should deploy. For example, this is why camping for a week is so
liberating. However, if I had to permanently live in a tent and face the
extreme elements day-to-day, I would not have the time to invest in
self-actualization. I would be too busy looking for food, warmth, and
safety.
The ancient Greeks understood the importance of a society establishing time
for leisure as a way to evolve a civilization, and they also understood that
civic improvements were needed to afford the individual time away from basic
survival so that metaphysical, spiritual, and artistic pursuits could
flourish.
I am glad that you obstained from eating to obtain some benefit. But please
do not think this even remotely refutes Maslow.
"Bodhisattvacat" <drr0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4f2532f6.04082...@posting.google.com...
Anand Juda
No, Maslow completely understood this concept. This only proves that you
have not really read Maslow. You probably heard about the heirarchy of needs
on the TV or through a talk show, pronouncing him a "quack" because of your
bias against psychologists.
Lefty
beginning to see your point.
(?)
"Anand Juda" <no...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ZPidne0EgqV...@comcast.com...
Anand Juda
> Now that I've filled myself up on McDonald's double-cheeseburgers I'm
> beginning to see your point.
>
> (?)
LOL ! There is something to be said for the occasional food coma I suppose.
; )
bob
wrote:
>"Lefty" <Y...@h.Right> wrote in message
>news:6i9_c.287000$eM2.98394@attbi_s51...
>> Now that I've filled myself up on McDonald's double-cheeseburgers I'm
>> beginning to see your point.
>>
>> (?)
>
>LOL ! There is something to be said for the occasional food coma I suppose.
>; )
I just slept 5 hours without waking (I rarely sleep more than three
hours)! Last night, to build my strength back up after moving, I ate:
2 pounds (1 kg) of steak, a small bag of tortellini, two pickles that
had been soaking with 30 chopped up haberneros, a small pizza, and an
armadillo I found dead on the side of the road.
bob
- just kidding about the armadillo
catbrier
>
> Some people have to use words to inflict the kind of pain you
> can inflict by just showing up.
I can't be held responsible for other people's feelings by virtue of
simply being.
> > > I thought that was some Christian guy. And the tubby with the triangle
> > > on his head is a FAG, pass it on!
> >
> > I don't see any point in tormenting them - they do an excellent job
> > tormenting themselves.
>
> An even more excellent way to torment fat people is to be a
> tall, young, attractive blonde woman. Just show up, and by
> your very desirable and unattainable presence, rub it in to
> all the fatties what they cannot be (if they are fat women)
> or cannot have (if they are fat men).
(see above)
> Of course you don't need to make any extra effort to inflict
> pain on them. Your very nature already twists the knife enough
> times.
A rather presumptuous statement since you are hardly in a position to
know much of anything concrete about "my very nature."
> There is also a huge sociobiological risk in being an
> overtly confrontational woman. The evolutionary psychology
> of women accordingly favors surreptitious competition.
> Just crush your competitors by being prettier than them,
> and don't rile them with unnecessary gloating---even better,
> put up a diversionary screen of disses against those who
> do gloat. And bat those eyelashes in classic little
> Ms. Innocent style.
Playing "innocent" doesn't work well for me.
> "Don't hate me because I'm beautiful."
Plenty of people, as evidenced by a brief survey of posts on-line,
resent the attractive.
> > > > One wonders why a person would bother?
>
> In your case, obviously it feels a lot better to inspire envy
> than to experience it.
We've all envied someone at some time in our lives.
> > > Boredom, a need to feel superior, group-think, and so forth.
>
> Great idea! Distract the audience from the objective facts
> and make it about the putative emotional state of the opponent.
What "objective facts?"
> _Ad hominem_ arguments will always be popular because they
> will never stop working. That is, until genetic engineering
> makes people much better than they are now.
We won't live to see that I'm afraid.
> > If one is living in a real world, how do they find time to be bored?
>
> Indeed, how could anybody get so bored that they need to fill
> their time by overeating?
Overeating is both a vice and a habit. With obvious consequences. But
it is not really all that difficult to alter one's behavior.
> That was exactly my rhetorical question that kicked off your
> latest thunder-stealing digression.
Do I annoy you Dan?
> > > > Isn't it sad enough that they have their own support group?
>
> It's sad that every day they probably see tall, slender,
> attractive blonde women.
Maybe they should all move to Texas. Declare Texas a Fat Preserve.
Your statement is silly.
> > > Doesn't everybody have their own support group? There's even a support
> > > group for nasty cranky men nice women can't stand, called "soc.men".
> >
> > There is no point in going there. There is nothing new to be learned
> > and only the same manias repeated ad infinatum.
>
> 500 years from now it's unlikely there will have been any
> point in anything we do right now, but we don't care about
> that.
The royal "we?"
> I haven't seen a newsgroup yet where I couldn't post something
> I consider clever. So every newsgroup has its point as far as
> I care.
That's why I deign to read some of your posts. You can be amusing.
> > > > But then, they aren't the only ones on-line that practice a convenient
> > > > form of "acceptance", are they?
>
> I accept tall, slender, attractive, young blonde women.
I love open-mindedness in a person.
> I'm not a stickler about the tall or blonde parts.
Even more so!
> I've also been known to compromise a bit on the young
> part when I don't have a choice.
My main fetish has always been sanity.
> > > Conveniently, I accept my on-line foibles. I'm so much worse in person.
> >
> > Really? In person, and with people I don't know, I am distant,
> > detatched and professional. With my friends, however, I am warm,
> > affectionate and compassionate.
>
> With everyone I am a beacon, an inspiration, a model of
> everything a reasonable person could aspire to be. Of all
> my myriad superior traits I'm most proud of my humility.
I find your attraction to sexual robots your most interesting trait.
> > > > > Or like the movie that cast Uma Thurman as the unattractive
> > > > > sister. Despite Uma's skill as an actress it's not the same
> > > > > as an actually unattractive woman.
>
> > > > Uma is one of my tall blond viking sisters
>
> Now there's a fantasy I can run with. Tall blonde viking
> sisters. Yum! But apparently they weren't quite enough to
> keep their Viking men at home. I wonder why?
For whom did they go off on those extended looting sprees? Huh? Momma
told them to bring back the goodies or they wouldn't get any sugar.
> > > > and as such her exterior
> > > > presence is always accompanied by a touch of inner self-consciousness
> > > > whenever we walk into a room full of people.
>
> That's why Uma needs to leave the room full of people with me.
> So I can give her an inner touch of something that feels much
> better.
Yes, indeed, it's lonely in the prime specimen exhibit.
> > > > We are seldom as
> > > > self-possessed and as graceful on the inside as we seem on the
> > > > outside.
>
> And a walking-stick insect looks to a hungry bird like an
> inedible twig when it is in fact a tasty meal.
The trick is to reverse all that; to look very edible while being
unattainable. It's an artform.
> It's never about what you are, it's about who you fool.
You don't play golf with Karl Rove by any chance do you?
> Semblance is more important than substance.
Not to me!
> Dishonesty---it's not just for politicians any more!
The wonderful thing about usenet is that there is so much cynical
incredulity that one may be entirely honest and still disbelieved. I
mean, why make the effort to lie?
> > > > It takes inner discipline not to take seriously the
> > > > perceptions others create at first sight.
>
> Sure, but why not just enjoy their screaming orgasms?
Oh I enjoy giving orgasms, of that you can be assured. But "their"
sounds awfully crowded and I don't do group scenes.
> Romance is all an illusion when you start analyzing it.
> But it's an enjoyable illusion, while it lasts.
Love is the only thing that is real - everything else is an illusion.
Until your jet loses an engine, I quess.
> > > Do you think Ms. Thurman is as fatuously vain as you are?
>
> No beautiful woman escapes this result.
Alas, doomed!
> It's like being smart in a world of retards. How could you
> not feel smarter? Every day you would get repeated reminders.
Wear catwoman sunglasses. Feign total indifference. And still they
walk into lightposts. How droll.
> Marilyn Monroe once said she knew she had something special
> at age 8. She climbed up a tree, and four boys came to help
> her down.
That sounds apocryphal.
> A beautiful woman gets reminded of her special status every
> day, as long as her looks hold up.
And all blossums eventually fade, correct? Oh woe is me!
> The real test is how she handles the day when her looks fade.
And as we all know, men never get paunchy, bald, or
lose...ummm...rigidity.
Isn't that why we find someone very compatible and eventually marry?
> > > Should we
> > > hate you for being beautiful even when you're not really?
>
> You should hate the fact that you cannot attract her.
Oh that's a lost cause at this point. I'm completely and hopelessly in
love.
(Looking at my red fingernails) He told me this weekend that our
separations due to distance are a "purgatory" for him. I, of course,
feel the same, but I thought it appropriate that he say it first.
> > > Not that I
> > > doubt that "tall blond viking sisters" are fatuously vain as a rule,
> > > that's part of my point.
> > >
> > > D.
> >
> > Ooooooo...you're so mean!
>
> I think "you're so fat!" would be more to the point.
Maybe he's not!
> There won't be too many fat people who can properly appreciate
> a tall, slender, attractive woman. Some form of resentment
> is virtually inevitable, no matter how many disingenuous
> attempts the slender woman makes to distance herself from those
> who can only bash fat verbally.
Well, it's no longer an issue. My SO isn't fat either so the chubbies
will have to resent us in unison. (I wonder if it's because neither of
us has a taste for carbs?) I can't remember eating a potato this year.
> > I'm so sorry we can't all be ugly little
> > squats who spend all day hunched over their computers.
>
> Anybody can become ugly.
Disease, accident, or just a really awful personality...
> > But I don't
> > really care if you don't believe me.
>
> Hint: one way to be more convincing with such disclaimers
> is to portray yourself online as a physically unattractive
> person. If you allow people to actually believe you are
> ugly, then you really don't care what they think.
See above...again, one may be entirely truthful and still disbelieved.
It is an amusing phenomena.
> It's so tiring to read people dropping hints about something
> left and right and then clumsily trying to hide their tracks
> by denying any interest in the public opinion they tried so
> hard to cultivate.
Oh don't be borish! We all cultivate something. You, your detached
hyper-rationality...
> > Vanity? Yes, I am a little vain. But not excessively so.
>
> Everybody knows how important physical appearance is,
> especially for a woman, since women have no option to
> make up any ground via social status and objective
> achievements.
:P
That was uncalled for and profoundly silly. Tell that to Condy Rice.
> > Are you an angry boy David? (I'm sorry about that too - that's too
> > bad.)
>
> Here is where the wedge inevitably starts to drive in.
> Cat, you should have taken your cue when David mentioned
> he never forgets to eat, even while posting.
Why should I jump to the conclusion that he's a chubster on the basis
of such flimsy evidence?
> If you really are the beautiful young woman you claim to
> be while disclaiming any interest in whether anybody believes
> your claims, then you will leave a churning wake of anguish
> everywhere you go as you display utter sexual indifference
> toward the hordes of men who are essentially invisible to you
> at best or actively offensive at worst. They want you---urgently---
> and you don't want them. [Insert gratuitous ha haw!]
But you see, I am not a cruel person. You think beauty equates with
wanton cruelty and that simply isn't true Dan. I don't wish to offend
David. I think he's quite clever.
Don't we all hate being stereotyped?
> David has no doubt experienced the tormenting indifference
> of pretty women thousands of times in real life, and your
> writing style may be stirring up those unpleasant sensations.
How do you know what he's experienced? Don't you find that
presumptuous on your part?
> It's sad to see you inadvertently setting him up with false
> hopes only to crush them in your stereotypical "who me?"
> pretty girl way.
Oh bullshit! We're just conversing on-line.
> By comparison, an overt fat basher like Marty is easier to
> keep outside the gates than your sneaky fat-basher-bashing
> Trojan horse which seems at first like a gift.
I refuse to acknowledge that as valid. I am not responsible for other
people's resentment. That is their problem.
> Pretty girls are best left for the properly qualified.
>
> -- the Danimal
You've placed too much seriousness in all of this. My devastingly
beautiful looks aside - I'm really a very normal person. (I can't wait
for the howls of derisive anger and resentment!)
:D
Cat
catbrier
Way too many food metaphors! Tell me Danimal isn't right.
My boyfriend has never complained of my aroma nor tried to make a
salad in my butt. (Can't wait to see what you make of that!)
Hope you had a good vacation!
Cat
The Danimal
> dmo...@mfm.com (The Danimal) wrote in message news:<cac1ad88.04090...@posting.google.com>...
> > catbr...@yahoo.com (catbrier) wrote in message
> > > > >
> > > > > I had forgotten the soc.singles war against the tubbies.
> >
> > Some people have to use words to inflict the kind of pain you
> > can inflict by just showing up.
>
> I can't be held responsible for other people's feelings by virtue of
> simply being.
I'm not sure what mystical principle you are invoking here.
There are many examples of groups of people holding other
groups of people responsible for eliciting certain feelings
in them.
For example, gay people go about their business, causing
the religious right wing of the Republican party to react
emotionally, and with sufficient organization it is possible
for offended Republicans to strike back at gays.
You can be held responsible for anything, given the existence
of someone with enough power to hold you responsible.
Now, I agree it is *inconvenient* to have to show consideration
for other people's feelings. But depending on who those people
are and how riled up they might get, sometimes showing
consideration is prudent.
We can't all thumb our nose at the world the way George W. Bush
does.
You could, for example, dress up in a "fat suit." I saw a segment
on the local TV news in which an attractive female newscaster
dressed up in a fat suit. It looked pretty convincing, at least
on TV. She walked around the mall and so on and said it was
horrifying to see how much worse people treated her. Given that
she is attractive enough to have gotten a job in which looking
good is a significant advantage, I can imagine she had no clear
idea what fat people live with every day.
> > > > I thought that was some Christian guy. And the tubby with the triangle
> > > > on his head is a FAG, pass it on!
> > >
> > > I don't see any point in tormenting them - they do an excellent job
> > > tormenting themselves.
> >
> > An even more excellent way to torment fat people is to be a
> > tall, young, attractive blonde woman. Just show up, and by
> > your very desirable and unattainable presence, rub it in to
> > all the fatties what they cannot be (if they are fat women)
> > or cannot have (if they are fat men).
>
> (see above)
And the best part is that you can disclaim any responsibility
whatsoever for the pain you inflict. So your fat victims can't
even have the satisfaction of justifying their hate for you.
> > Of course you don't need to make any extra effort to inflict
> > pain on them. Your very nature already twists the knife enough
> > times.
>
> A rather presumptuous statement since you are hardly in a position to
> know much of anything concrete about "my very nature."
You compared yourself to Uma Thurman. Even if you were being
generous to yourself, as long as you weren't lying outright
there's enough difference between Uma Thurman and the fatties
for you to be exquisitely tormenting to them.
The fact that it isn't your fault or you disclaim responsibility
etc. in no way stops you from inflicting pain on fatties just
by showing up.
It's like walking around and inadvertently crushing ants. Your
protestations of innocence resurrect no ants.
> > There is also a huge sociobiological risk in being an
> > overtly confrontational woman. The evolutionary psychology
> > of women accordingly favors surreptitious competition.
> > Just crush your competitors by being prettier than them,
> > and don't rile them with unnecessary gloating---even better,
> > put up a diversionary screen of disses against those who
> > do gloat. And bat those eyelashes in classic little
> > Ms. Innocent style.
>
> Playing "innocent" doesn't work well for me.
I disagree. You wouldn't do it if it did not work.
> > "Don't hate me because I'm beautiful."
>
> Plenty of people, as evidenced by a brief survey of posts on-line,
> resent the attractive.
Of course. Because the attractive inflict pain on them.
> > > > > One wonders why a person would bother?
> >
> > In your case, obviously it feels a lot better to inspire envy
> > than to experience it.
>
> We've all envied someone at some time in our lives.
Larry Ellison seems to envy Bill Gates. But Larry has more
than a billion dollars. I don't think Larry's envy is in
the same class as the envy a beggar in Calcutta might
feel.
When was the last time you envied someone, and what did they
have that you envied?
> > > > Boredom, a need to feel superior, group-think, and so forth.
> >
> > Great idea! Distract the audience from the objective facts
> > and make it about the putative emotional state of the opponent.
>
> What "objective facts?"
See the Fat Rejectance FAQ for the objective facts about obesity.
That is, if you want to discuss facts rather than try to make
it about the putative emotional state of the person who presents
facts.
> > _Ad hominem_ arguments will always be popular because they
> > will never stop working. That is, until genetic engineering
> > makes people much better than they are now.
>
> We won't live to see that I'm afraid.
What, are we making a suicide pact?
If I live 30 more years I won't be surprised to see at least the
clear precursors toward genetic engineering (or "proteomics" perhaps)
actually improving people rather than just curing diseases to
get them back to a mediocre state of health.
> > > If one is living in a real world, how do they find time to be bored?
> >
> > Indeed, how could anybody get so bored that they need to fill
> > their time by overeating?
>
> Overeating is both a vice and a habit. With obvious consequences. But
> it is not really all that difficult to alter one's behavior.
Depends on which "one" you are talking about. Fat acceptors say
97% of diets "fail," which is their code way of saying 97% of
fat gluttons are unable to restrain their urges to eat too much
and take it easy.
> > That was exactly my rhetorical question that kicked off your
> > latest thunder-stealing digression.
>
> Do I annoy you Dan?
I just call the plays.
> > > > > Isn't it sad enough that they have their own support group?
> >
> > It's sad that every day they probably see tall, slender,
> > attractive blonde women.
>
> Maybe they should all move to Texas. Declare Texas a Fat Preserve.
> Your statement is silly.
Your blindness to their pain is chilling.
> > > > Doesn't everybody have their own support group? There's even a support
> > > > group for nasty cranky men nice women can't stand, called "soc.men".
> > >
> > > There is no point in going there. There is nothing new to be learned
> > > and only the same manias repeated ad infinatum.
> >
> > 500 years from now it's unlikely there will have been any
> > point in anything we do right now, but we don't care about
> > that.
>
> The royal "we?"
In 500 years it is very unlikely that anything you could do right
now would have a greater lasting impact than "going" to soc.men.
I'm just pointing out that there isn't any point in doing anything
in particular, from that perspective. So I wouldn't see going to
soc.men as being more pointless.
What is the "point" in reading my article? This is all a huge
waste of time, but for some reason I sort of enjoy it. Or
perhaps it's more of a compulsion.
> > I haven't seen a newsgroup yet where I couldn't post something
> > I consider clever. So every newsgroup has its point as far as
> > I care.
>
> That's why I deign to read some of your posts. You can be amusing.
I guess that makes me the deignimal.
> > > > > But then, they aren't the only ones on-line that practice a convenient
> > > > > form of "acceptance", are they?
> >
> > I accept tall, slender, attractive, young blonde women.
>
> I love open-mindedness in a person.
I can't be held responsible for my nature. Unless someone
gets enough power to hold me responsible, of course.
> > I'm not a stickler about the tall or blonde parts.
>
> Even more so!
I'm probably less fussy about women than most women are
fussy about men.
Funny how nobody ever complains about their own requirements.
> > I've also been known to compromise a bit on the young
> > part when I don't have a choice.
>
> My main fetish has always been sanity.
You probably just haven't met the right insane person yet.
> > > > Conveniently, I accept my on-line foibles. I'm so much worse in person.
> > >
> > > Really? In person, and with people I don't know, I am distant,
> > > detatched and professional. With my friends, however, I am warm,
> > > affectionate and compassionate.
> >
> > With everyone I am a beacon, an inspiration, a model of
> > everything a reasonable person could aspire to be. Of all
> > my myriad superior traits I'm most proud of my humility.
>
> I find your attraction to sexual robots your most interesting trait.
That's odd. Almost everybody else has the same desire. Most
won't know it until they see working prototypes.
Perhaps you mean my realization of what we are is my most interesting
trait. I realize we are biological machines who are programmed to
respond in certain ways to certain detailed patterns of sensory
stimuli.
> > > > > > Or like the movie that cast Uma Thurman as the unattractive
> > > > > > sister. Despite Uma's skill as an actress it's not the same
> > > > > > as an actually unattractive woman.
>
> > > > > Uma is one of my tall blond viking sisters
> >
> > Now there's a fantasy I can run with. Tall blonde viking
> > sisters. Yum! But apparently they weren't quite enough to
> > keep their Viking men at home. I wonder why?
>
> For whom did they go off on those extended looting sprees? Huh? Momma
> told them to bring back the goodies or they wouldn't get any sugar.
Actually I read that Viking raiders liked to bring back the
most beautiful women from the towns they sacked.
And supposedly that is why Iceland today has an unusual
concentration of beautiful women.
Not that I have actually been there to confirm this rumor.
> > > > > and as such her exterior
> > > > > presence is always accompanied by a touch of inner self-consciousness
> > > > > whenever we walk into a room full of people.
> >
> > That's why Uma needs to leave the room full of people with me.
> > So I can give her an inner touch of something that feels much
> > better.
>
> Yes, indeed, it's lonely in the prime specimen exhibit.
I'm sure plenty of fat women would gladly trade your flavor
of "lonely" for theirs.
> > > > > We are seldom as
> > > > > self-possessed and as graceful on the inside as we seem on the
> > > > > outside.
> >
> > And a walking-stick insect looks to a hungry bird like an
> > inedible twig when it is in fact a tasty meal.
>
> The trick is to reverse all that; to look very edible while being
> unattainable. It's an artform.
I thought you disclaimed all responsibility for the way you look.
For something to be an "art" it must be in some sense under the
artist's control, or at least the artist must be able to influence
the art.
Your earlier disclaimers notwithstanding, it's not solely about
the way you look. It's also about a certain attitude that
beautiful women project. A certain "you are unworthy of this"
message that comes through quite distinctly, but always with
a certain cultivated plausible deniability.
> > It's never about what you are, it's about who you fool.
>
> You don't play golf with Karl Rove by any chance do you?
Golf is a game for effete pansies.
> > Semblance is more important than substance.
>
> Not to me!
I'm guessing there are men who are uglier than your boyfriend
and more substantial.
> > Dishonesty---it's not just for politicians any more!
>
> The wonderful thing about usenet is that there is so much cynical
> incredulity that one may be entirely honest and still disbelieved. I
> mean, why make the effort to lie?
For a good liar it's no effort.
> > > > > It takes inner discipline not to take seriously the
> > > > > perceptions others create at first sight.
> >
> > Sure, but why not just enjoy their screaming orgasms?
>
> Oh I enjoy giving orgasms, of that you can be assured. But "their"
> sounds awfully crowded and I don't do group scenes.
To say you enjoy something when in fact you only enjoy a
tiny specialized highly constrained fraction of it is
misleading.
If someone says "I enjoy fishing," someone else would
probably think that means fishing in a lot of different
places. If it really means fishing in just one spot,
one should specify that.
> > Romance is all an illusion when you start analyzing it.
> > But it's an enjoyable illusion, while it lasts.
>
> Love is the only thing that is real - everything else is an illusion.
> Until your jet loses an engine, I quess.
Or you have kids.
> > > > Do you think Ms. Thurman is as fatuously vain as you are?
> >
> > No beautiful woman escapes this result.
>
> Alas, doomed!
I'd accept the mission in life of bringing comfort to these
doomed women.
> > It's like being smart in a world of retards. How could you
> > not feel smarter? Every day you would get repeated reminders.
>
> Wear catwoman sunglasses. Feign total indifference. And still they
> walk into lightposts. How droll.
>
> > Marilyn Monroe once said she knew she had something special
> > at age 8. She climbed up a tree, and four boys came to help
> > her down.
>
> That sounds apocryphal.
In what sense? Go to any party and it's obvious some women
are treated as more special than others. An attractive woman
holding court will have men clustered about her, and the
unattractive women will be standing in groups talking to
each other.
I don't think age 8 is too early for this distinction to
start becoming obvious.
> > A beautiful woman gets reminded of her special status every
> > day, as long as her looks hold up.
>
> And all blossums eventually fade, correct? Oh woe is me!
Aging does tend to hit beautiful women hard. It sucks to
sink to the level everyone else was already on.
When you are old and ugly and bitter, pause to reflect on
how well some people manage to tolerate a lifetime of looking
like crap.
> > The real test is how she handles the day when her looks fade.
>
> And as we all know, men never get paunchy, bald, or
> lose...ummm...rigidity.
They lose a lot of rigidity when their women lose their
looks. No doubt of that.
Even when I was 18 years old I had no ability to formulate
the idea of sex with old women.
> Isn't that why we find someone very compatible and eventually marry?
Is this the royal we?
> > > > Should we
> > > > hate you for being beautiful even when you're not really?
> >
> > You should hate the fact that you cannot attract her.
>
> Oh that's a lost cause at this point. I'm completely and hopelessly in
> love.
That's why attractive women are so difficult to attract.
Most of them are already in relationships. The few who
aren't have so many options that they judge each suitor
by comparing him directly against the others.
Since you claim to be a "normal" person, you would probably
settle for a "normal" partner if that's the best you could do.
But you can do better.
> (Looking at my red fingernails) He told me this weekend that our
> separations due to distance are a "purgatory" for him. I, of course,
> feel the same, but I thought it appropriate that he say it first.
What is he purging?
> > > > Not that I
> > > > doubt that "tall blond viking sisters" are fatuously vain as a rule,
> > > > that's part of my point.
> > > >
> > > > D.
> > >
> > > Ooooooo...you're so mean!
> >
> > I think "you're so fat!" would be more to the point.
>
> Maybe he's not!
How often do slender attractive people diss other slender
attractive people as "vain"?
It doesn't make sense. That would be like billionaires accusing
each other of greed.
> > There won't be too many fat people who can properly appreciate
> > a tall, slender, attractive woman. Some form of resentment
> > is virtually inevitable, no matter how many disingenuous
> > attempts the slender woman makes to distance herself from those
> > who can only bash fat verbally.
>
> Well, it's no longer an issue. My SO isn't fat either so the chubbies
> will have to resent us in unison. (I wonder if it's because neither of
> us has a taste for carbs?) I can't remember eating a potato this year.
Carbs are no problem for active people. In fact it's very difficult
to train hard on a low-carb diet.
Try riding a bike 80 miles on no carbs.
> > > I'm so sorry we can't all be ugly little
> > > squats who spend all day hunched over their computers.
> >
> > Anybody can become ugly.
>
> Disease, accident, or just a really awful personality...
I rely on my personality for a highly effective contraceptive.
> > > But I don't
> > > really care if you don't believe me.
> >
> > Hint: one way to be more convincing with such disclaimers
> > is to portray yourself online as a physically unattractive
> > person. If you allow people to actually believe you are
> > ugly, then you really don't care what they think.
>
> See above...again, one may be entirely truthful and still disbelieved.
> It is an amusing phenomena.
It's common for people to portray themselves online as being
more attractive than they really are.
I don't know if I've heard of a confirmed case of someone
going the other way.
It comes down to ego. Everybody wants to be attractive.
Few people have the strength of character that would be
necessary to allow other people to form incorrectly
negative impressions. Nobody wants to "dress in a fat suit"
on Usenet.
> > It's so tiring to read people dropping hints about something
> > left and right and then clumsily trying to hide their tracks
> > by denying any interest in the public opinion they tried so
> > hard to cultivate.
>
> Oh don't be borish! We all cultivate something. You, your detached
> hyper-rationality...
But I don't DENY what I'm so obviously doing.
I cultivate responsibility for my actions here.
> > > Vanity? Yes, I am a little vain. But not excessively so.
> >
> > Everybody knows how important physical appearance is,
> > especially for a woman, since women have no option to
> > make up any ground via social status and objective
> > achievements.
>
> :P
>
> That was uncalled for and profoundly silly. Tell that to Condy Rice.
If Condy were a man, her objective career accomplishments
and fame would increase her sexual attractiveness to women.
By a huge amount.
But as she is a woman, she is no more attractive to men as
a result of her career than she would be if she were waiting
tables, as long as she looked the same.
Success carries certain rewards, but the rewards for men
include more opportunities for sex with women.
> > > Are you an angry boy David? (I'm sorry about that too - that's too
> > > bad.)
> >
> > Here is where the wedge inevitably starts to drive in.
> > Cat, you should have taken your cue when David mentioned
> > he never forgets to eat, even while posting.
>
> Why should I jump to the conclusion that he's a chubster on the basis
> of such flimsy evidence?
It's what Stephen Jay Gould referred to as "consilience
of induction." You get a bunch of clues that support
a particular hypothesis. As more clues pile up, you know
which way to bet.
> > If you really are the beautiful young woman you claim to
> > be while disclaiming any interest in whether anybody believes
> > your claims, then you will leave a churning wake of anguish
> > everywhere you go as you display utter sexual indifference
> > toward the hordes of men who are essentially invisible to you
> > at best or actively offensive at worst. They want you---urgently---
> > and you don't want them. [Insert gratuitous ha haw!]
>
> But you see, I am not a cruel person.
Your indifference is even more cruel. If you were overtly cruel,
people could take their minds off your desirability by hating
your cruelty.
> You think beauty equates with
> wanton cruelty
Not the motive, the effect.
> and that simply isn't true Dan. I don't wish to offend
> David. I think he's quite clever.
> Don't we all hate being stereotyped?
A person who hates being stereotyped could not coexist
with humans.
I find it convenient that I don't have to explain every
last detail about myself to every last person I meet because
most people are able to generalize correctly about some
things from a few obvious clues.
One reason we hate our stupid computers is because they
DO NOT stereotype us at all. The computer treats everyone
equally, and everyone is not equal.
Most people are smart enough to know when their stereotypes
aren't working. Such as your ill-considered stereotype
about stereotyping.
> > David has no doubt experienced the tormenting indifference
> > of pretty women thousands of times in real life, and your
> > writing style may be stirring up those unpleasant sensations.
>
> How do you know what he's experienced? Don't you find that
> presumptuous on your part?
His comments to you fit the profile. The mere fact that he
is writing to you instead of to Lady Veteran fits the profile.
I don't think it's presumptuous to adopt the working hypothesis
that 97% of men within an entire culture are similar to the 97%
of the men I have observed in that culture.
Even the men I have known who were pretty good at picking up
women complained about the tormenting indifference of the
women they could not attract.
> > It's sad to see you inadvertently setting him up with false
> > hopes only to crush them in your stereotypical "who me?"
> > pretty girl way.
>
> Oh bullshit! We're just conversing on-line.
See what I mean?
> > By comparison, an overt fat basher like Marty is easier to
> > keep outside the gates than your sneaky fat-basher-bashing
> > Trojan horse which seems at first like a gift.
>
> I refuse to acknowledge that as valid. I am not responsible for other
> people's resentment. That is their problem.
Why do you take responsibility for NR's resentment of
fat people by dissing it routinely, even out of context?
It doesn't make sense for you to defend the feelings of
fat people and then say you feel no responsibility for
their feelings. If you really felt no responsibility you
would just let the fat bashers have their way.
> > Pretty girls are best left for the properly qualified.
> >
> > -- the Danimal
>
> You've placed too much seriousness in all of this.
How can a person be "too" serious about some of the
deepest and most intense human desires?
We're talking about genetic survival here.
Most women instinctively understand the seriousness of
guarding their eggs.
> My devastingly
> beautiful looks aside - I'm really a very normal person. (I can't wait
> for the howls of derisive anger and resentment!)
> :D
Of course you're a normal person doing what any normal person
would do if she looked good in a world where most people don't.
But just above you scolded me for presuming a man might be
normal enough to have resented the indifference of beautiful
women. Do you want me to presume people are normal, or something
else?
-- the Danimal
David
On Tue, 7 Sep 2004, The Danimal wrote:
[...]
> an attractive female newscaster dressed up in a fat suit. It
> looked pretty convincing, at least on TV. She walked around the
> mall and so on and said it was horrifying to see how much worse
> people treated her.
Yeah, well, try being just plain *ugly*, which I'd be even if I
were not 15-20 pounds overweight. When I was thin I'd say "But
at least I'm not fat!" -- fat lotta good that did me.
And now I'm ugly and *aging*. Besides being, as I said, *obese*.
I'm also too damn poor to counterbalance that (because as every-
body knows the thickness of a man's wallet is his most important
characteristic). Luckily I found a Hot Young Babe (of 31.5!) who
can imagine my Inner Beauty and can live without my money, huh?
Lots of men ain't so lucky and turn to drink for comfort, rather
than pleasure like I do.
[...]
> Fat acceptors say 97% of diets "fail," which is their code way
> of saying 97% of fat gluttons are unable to restrain their urges
> to eat too much and take it easy.
That's true: it is damn hard to restrain my urge to sit around
and pig out, especially since calories (in the form of junk food
and domestic beer) have become cheap enough that I can do that --
and since I'm now at the age where my joints are degenerating
painfully and my metabolism has slowed to as much of a crawl as
one can get without exactly qualifying as "hypothyroidal". Of
course it would have been better if I hadn't broken my old 10-
speed trying to improve it, as pedalling around in a mostly
flat locality like LOO-uh-vuhl ain't *that* difficult, and that,
as one never given to grimly exercising solely for the sake of
my health, the main places I can think of to pedal *to* are
liquor and grocery stores.
It also sucks that car, pickup, and SUV drivers seem to have
such a hard time seeing a fat old guy on a bike; many times I
narrowly averted running into an idiot pulling out or turning
directlty in front of me, despite the facts that I have health
insurance, that I can sue the ass off some fool, and that it's
damn funny that a 30-year-old third-hand bike I paid $25 for
can cause 10 times its worth in damage to an auto with a mere
bump-and-scratch; I'm not talking about a high-speed collision
here, but people who'll stop as they exit a mall's parking lot,
give themselves time to look both ways, and then enter traffic
on the road as if there were nothing coming -- or as if they
*meant* for me to slam right into their gruesome Osama-funding
machines. (It's even better when they're turning left so I'd
crash into the driver's side: "there are easier ways to meet!")
I'm just too into to my own convenience and too fearful of any
more pain to act like I just don't care.
But anyway. Have I mentioned in this thread that blondes have
an offensive body odor?
Rantingly,
TheDavid
Jyeshta
wrote:
[...]
>But anyway. Have I mentioned in this thread that blondes have
>an offensive body odor?
I've noticed they tend to wear expensive perfumes. Camouflage?
bob
wrote:
My wife's hair color is somewhere between strawberry blonde and light
red. She doesn't wear perfume or deodorant and unless she's doing a
lot of physical labor, she doesn't have offensive body odor.
bob
- who has a very keen sense of smell
David
[...]
> My wife's hair color is somewhere between strawberry blonde and light
> red. She doesn't wear perfume or deodorant and unless she's doing a
> lot of physical labor, she doesn't have offensive body odor.
Well, maybe I'm weird: maybe it's just that it smells funny to me, but
that anybody else would go "Huh? What vinegar odor?" -- or "What's so
bad about that? Considering *your* odor, Davey...."
It's possible to have olfactory hallucinations too. Martin Amis said so!
D.
catbrier
Well, so far, you've taken a shot at "blonds" and SUV drivers. Why
don't you just give me a:
:P
And be done with it?
Cat
Bonnie
>Newsgroups: alt.angst
>My wife's hair color is somewhere between strawberry blonde and light
>red. She doesn't wear perfume or deodorant and unless she's doing a
>lot of physical labor, she doesn't have offensive body odor.
My husband showers twice a day, and he doesn't use deoderant and he rarely uses
aftershave (he rarely needs to shave), and he never smells. Even after a lot of
physical labor - no smell, except for Dial soap. It's really amazing.
Bonnie
The Danimal
> > an offensive body odor?
> >
> > Rantingly,
> > TheDavid
>
> Well, so far, you've taken a shot at "blonds" and SUV drivers. Why
> don't you just give me a:
> :P
> And be done with it?
Speaking for myself only, I'd much rather smell a blonde than
get hit by an SUV.
-- the Danimal
David
> My husband showers twice a day
"Your skin makes me cry."
Bonnie
>On Thu, 9 Sep 2004, Bonnie wrote:
>
>> My husband showers twice a day
>
>"Your skin makes me cry."
>
Well, I have no idea what that's from, but ...
My husband's skin is one of his nicest features. It's ridiculously soft. He
hates it. I use Dove soap, and he refuses to use it, which is why I buy Dial.
He says that he doesn't want to make his skin any softer. Isn't that weird?
You would think he'd like it. I guess it's guy thing.
Bonnie
catbrier
I assure you I am very assiduous about my toiletries.
Cat
catbrier
> catbr...@yahoo.com (catbrier) wrote in message news:<8901e207.0409...@posting.google.com>...
> > dmo...@mfm.com (The Danimal) wrote in message news:<cac1ad88.04090...@posting.google.com>...
> > > catbr...@yahoo.com (catbrier) wrote in message
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I had forgotten the soc.singles war against the tubbies.
> > >
> > > Some people have to use words to inflict the kind of pain you
> > > can inflict by just showing up.
> >
> > I can't be held responsible for other people's feelings by virtue of
> > simply being.
>
> I'm not sure what mystical principle you are invoking here.
Personal responsibility.
> There are many examples of groups of people holding other
> groups of people responsible for eliciting certain feelings
> in them.
I know. We call them nazis.
> Now, I agree it is *inconvenient* to have to show consideration
> for other people's feelings. But depending on who those people
> are and how riled up they might get, sometimes showing
> consideration is prudent.
I don't intend on walking around everywhere with one of those muslim
bags over me all day just to make chubby people feel better about
themselves. Be semi-serious!
> We can't all thumb our nose at the world the way George W. Bush
> does.
Oh bad analogy!
> And the best part is that you can disclaim any responsibility
> whatsoever for the pain you inflict. So your fat victims can't
> even have the satisfaction of justifying their hate for you.
Correct. They have no justification for hating anyone over their own
inability to stop eating!
> The fact that it isn't your fault or you disclaim responsibility
> etc. in no way stops you from inflicting pain on fatties just
> by showing up.
So I should do what?
> When was the last time you envied someone, and what did they
> have that you envied?
It was a personal matter. Just something else for you to ridicule. I'd
rather not elaborate.
> See the Fat Rejectance FAQ for the objective facts about obesity.
I don't need to read a FAQ to know obesity is horrible.
> That is, if you want to discuss facts rather than try to make
> it about the putative emotional state of the person who presents
> facts.
If an individual who is, shall we say, corpulent, hates people who are
not so afflicted, then the problem lies with the corpulent individual.
Nothing could be more obvious. Attempts to obscure the problem by
using fatuous language is mere sophistry.
> > Overeating is both a vice and a habit. With obvious consequences. But
> > it is not really all that difficult to alter one's behavior.
>
> Depends on which "one" you are talking about. Fat acceptors say
> 97% of diets "fail," which is their code way of saying 97% of
> fat gluttons are unable to restrain their urges to eat too much
> and take it easy.
Personal responsibility. Any diet could conceivably work if one
adheres to it.
> > Do I annoy you Dan?
>
> I just call the plays.
Bear Bryant are we now?
> > > It's sad that every day they probably see tall, slender,
> > > attractive blonde women.
> >
> > Maybe they should all move to Texas. Declare Texas a Fat Preserve.
> > Your statement is silly.
>
> Your blindness to their pain is chilling.
Oh, I am mindful. But there isn't anything I can do to stop them from
eating.
> What is the "point" in reading my article? This is all a huge
> waste of time, but for some reason I sort of enjoy it. Or
> perhaps it's more of a compulsion.
I'm having coffee and amusing myself.
> > > I haven't seen a newsgroup yet where I couldn't post something
> > > I consider clever. So every newsgroup has its point as far as
> > > I care.
> >
> > That's why I deign to read some of your posts. You can be amusing.
>
> I guess that makes me the deignimal.
Though you do tend to run on...though not as much as Ilya.
> > > I accept tall, slender, attractive, young blonde women.
> >
> > I love open-mindedness in a person.
>
> I can't be held responsible for my nature. Unless someone
> gets enough power to hold me responsible, of course.
That would be despotism.
> > > I'm not a stickler about the tall or blonde parts.
> >
> > Even more so!
>
> I'm probably less fussy about women than most women are
> fussy about men.
Speculation darling.
> Funny how nobody ever complains about their own requirements.
Knowing what we don't want is the whole trick as I see it.
> > > I've also been known to compromise a bit on the young
> > > part when I don't have a choice.
> >
> > My main fetish has always been sanity.
>
> You probably just haven't met the right insane person yet.
Thankfully.
> > I find your attraction to sexual robots your most interesting trait.
>
> That's odd. Almost everybody else has the same desire. Most
> won't know it until they see working prototypes.
Well, anything is possible. People never cease to amaze me.
> Perhaps you mean my realization of what we are is my most interesting
> trait. I realize we are biological machines who are programmed to
> respond in certain ways to certain detailed patterns of sensory
> stimuli.
How...clinical. You've sucked the poetry right out of it!
> > For whom did they go off on those extended looting sprees? Huh? Momma
> > told them to bring back the goodies or they wouldn't get any sugar.
>
> Actually I read that Viking raiders liked to bring back the
> most beautiful women from the towns they sacked.
Of course - you don't expect ME to do all the housework do you?
> And supposedly that is why Iceland today has an unusual
> concentration of beautiful women.
All blond, you will notice. Okay, a couple of Lapps. We keep them
around as court jesters.
> Not that I have actually been there to confirm this rumor.
Me either. My uniqueness would utterly disappear. Now Jamaica!!!
> > Yes, indeed, it's lonely in the prime specimen exhibit.
>
> I'm sure plenty of fat women would gladly trade your flavor
> of "lonely" for theirs.
How simple it all is - to you.
> > The trick is to reverse all that; to look very edible while being
> > unattainable. It's an artform.
>
> I thought you disclaimed all responsibility for the way you look.
No, I disclaim any responsibility for how others choose to feel.
> But just above you scolded me for presuming a man might be
> normal enough to have resented the indifference of beautiful
> women. Do you want me to presume people are normal, or something
> else?
>
> -- the Danimal
Is resentment normal?
Cat
Pete Turk
<catbr...@yahoo.com> writes
>dmo...@mfm.com (The Danimal) wrote in message news:<cac1ad88.0409071642.2531048
>7...@posting.google.com>...
>> catbr...@yahoo.com (catbrier) wrote in message news:<8901e207.0409070539.38a
>0b...@posting.google.com>...
>> > dmo...@mfm.com (The Danimal) wrote in message news:<cac1ad88.0409030845.62c
>f7...@posting.google.com>...
Hi Cat,
A small aside:
I was going to answer D's post -- but when I looked
through it, I grew more and more convinced that he just
couldn't mean it -- in fact I wondered (and wonder still
BTW) could _anyone_ mean it?
I'm worried now -- is it my/his credibility or his/my
departure from a sense of proportion?
Meanwhile, must watch this space!! :)
'Propaganda: that branch of the art of
lying which consists in very
nearly deceiving your friends
without quite deceiving your
enemies.'
-- Francis M Cornford 'Microcosmographia
Academica' 1922
Pete Turk <Pe...@ragtag.demon.co.uk> ICQ# 11981084
RFA President and Moonshadow
--
May your doorstep ever be dirty.
-- Romany blessing
bob
I want to hear you say assiduous.
catbrier
My vocal tone has been compared to that of Kathleen Turner or Lauren
Becall. I could never sing soprano.
Cat
David
[...]
> I could never sing soprano.
So leave off your hard cup next game.
D.
catbrier
> [...]
>
> > I could never sing soprano.
>
> So leave off your hard cup next game.
>
>
> D.
I only wear VS slip-on hookless bras.
Cat
catbrier
I don't know what to make of his posts sometimes. Is he serious? Who
can tell? I'm not going try to second quess him in any way. The
interesting thing about usenet is that one encounters different minds.
Very different minds.
Cat
Michaela
> You could, for example, dress up in a "fat suit." I saw a segment
> on the local TV news in which an attractive female newscaster
> dressed up in a fat suit. It looked pretty convincing, at least
> on TV. She walked around the mall and so on and said it was
> horrifying to see how much worse people treated her. Given that
> she is attractive enough to have gotten a job in which looking
> good is a significant advantage, I can imagine she had no clear
> idea what fat people live with every day.
Did she try walking 'round with different 'attitudes'?
I mean, some people you can sense them before you
see them, and - o fuggit, I just realised who I was
talking to. Mr Factoid. You don't believe this stuff,
do you?
Jeez. I just scrolled down. Do you guys ever get out?
- Michaela
Dr Chaos
> The Danimal wrote:
>
>>You could, for example, dress up in a "fat suit." I saw a segment
>>on the local TV news in which an attractive female newscaster
>>dressed up in a fat suit. It looked pretty convincing, at least
>>on TV. She walked around the mall and so on and said it was
>>horrifying to see how much worse people treated her. Given that
>>she is attractive enough to have gotten a job in which looking
>>good is a significant advantage, I can imagine she had no clear
>>idea what fat people live with every day.
>
>
> Did she try walking 'round with different 'attitudes'?
> I mean, some people you can sense them before you
> see them, and - o fuggit, I just realised who I was
> talking to. Mr Factoid.
what? fact bad, illogical emotional response good?
> You don't believe this stuff,
> do you?
and why is it unbelievable?
How would an otherwise person who has been attractive all her life
suddenly develop the "i'm a loser everybody hates me attitude"
expressions automatically?
Or maybe it was just that she looked fat?
> Jeez. I just scrolled down. Do you guys ever get out?
yes, we think that out there logic is true.
Michaela
> Michaela wrote:
> > The Danimal wrote:
> >
> >>You could, for example, dress up in a "fat suit." I saw a segment
> >>on the local TV news in which an attractive female newscaster
> >>dressed up in a fat suit. It looked pretty convincing, at least
> >>on TV. She walked around the mall and so on and said it was
> >>horrifying to see how much worse people treated her. Given that
> >>she is attractive enough to have gotten a job in which looking
> >>good is a significant advantage, I can imagine she had no clear
> >>idea what fat people live with every day.
> >
> >
> > Did she try walking 'round with different 'attitudes'?
> > I mean, some people you can sense them before you
> > see them, and - o fuggit, I just realised who I was
> > talking to. Mr Factoid.
>
> what? fact bad, illogical emotional response good?
Nope. All logic or all intuition or all emotion
not always spot on. I have often found that the
truth is in-between.
We are not merely our five senses.
> > You don't believe this stuff,
> > do you?
>
> and why is it unbelievable?
>
> How would an otherwise person who has been attractive all her life
Most of us have an insecurity or two under our belts.
Afaik no one is all attractive or all unattractive or
all confident or all insecure. There are degrees between
them. And more...
> suddenly develop the "i'm a loser everybody hates me attitude"
> expressions automatically?
By instantly gaining ten, twenty or thirty pounds?
I am not discounting the experiment entirely. Up to
a point it is probably perfectly accurate, but I do
feel that there is an invisible 'place' where it
ceases to become perfectly accurate and where other
influences begin to come into play.
Have you never met someone who had a presence? A certain
"je ne sais quoi"?
I knew a fat guy who could make or break a dinner party
just by the mood he was in when he walked through the
door. He didn't have to say anything.
I also knew a girl who could walk into a room of three
hundred people and have every eye turn towards her at
the door as if they 'felt' her presence before having
even seen her.
Have you never received a good or bad 'vibe' from
a person in spite of or despite their looks?
Once upon a time there was a little country you Americans
(Heh. Presumptuous of me) may or may not have heard of
called South Africa.
South Africa used to have a president and one-time prisoner
named Mandela who was fondly known of as Madiba. Madiba
had this presence of which I speak.
> Or maybe it was just that she looked fat?
Perhaps you have just never noticed your reaction to
someone who had a "positive" presence but was still
fat?
> > Jeez. I just scrolled down. Do you guys ever get out?
Btw, I am sure that both Dan and cat know I enjoy their
style. I was just raving on their heads - trying to elicit
a response.
> yes, we think that out there logic is true.
"For me it's been very simple,
> i've said it before: as soon as i realized the limits
> of logic (which can be logically established), i knew
> there had to be something beyond logic.
> Something that integrates the logical "0" and "1".
> And that this unity is undefinable, by definition,
> because if you define it, you also define its opposite,
> which it doesn't have, so you get a contradiction. In
> other words, reality is undefinable." ~ Arie asl 2003
- Michaela
Varizo...
> > >>You could, for example, dress up in a "fat suit." I saw a segment
> > >>on the local TV news in which an attractive female newscaster
> > >>dressed up in a fat suit. It looked pretty convincing, at least
> > >>on TV. She walked around the mall and so on and said it was
> > >>horrifying to see how much worse people treated her. Given that
> > >>she is attractive enough to have gotten a job in which looking
> > >>good is a significant advantage, I can imagine she had no clear
> > >>idea what fat people live with every day.
I was round at a freinds place one nite and he had the tele on and
this programme called Avarage Joe was on, and this woman [who was slim
w long blonde hair in real life] dressed up like some fat woman with
brown hair, and she dident think much of the remarks that she got from
the same blokes who thought that they were in love with her when she
was slim and being herself.
V.
Jyeshta
>On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 17:08:21 -0500, Jyeshta <what...@twixtntween.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 12:16:02 -0400, David <thed...@shell.rawbw.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>>But anyway. Have I mentioned in this thread that blondes have
>>>an offensive body odor?
>>
>>I've noticed they tend to wear expensive perfumes. Camouflage?
>
>My wife's hair color is somewhere between strawberry blonde and light
>red.
She's not the type of blonde I was referring to.
catbrier
It's obvious to even the marginally observant that looks do matter.
Dan, however, possess some silly notion that the attractive are
culpable for the feelings of jealousy and resentment in those not so
blessed. Beauty is a phenomena of nature and a conditioned perception.
Hostility and resentment are a personal choice.
Cat
Will Nelson
(in message <8901e207.04091...@posting.google.com>):
Beauty is a phenomena of nature and a conditioned perception.
> Hostility and resentment are a personal choice.
>
> Cat
Well stated.
Pete Turk
>8...@posting.google.com>...
I _was_ going to write a spoof on Dan's whole daft mindset,
ending-up with a wheel-chair-bound man who'd cut off all
the bits of himself that had made life worth living, until,
that is, he'd met other, jealous and resentful men not so
well-endowed. I'd called him Desperate Dan after a comic-
book character from my misspent youth.
But I changed my mind. Why compound Dan's silliness with more
silliness?
>:-]
'Read over your compositions, and
where ever you meet with a passage
you think is particularly fine,
strike it out.'
-- Samuel Johnson (James Boswell 'Life of Samuel
Johnson' 30 Apr 1773)
Pete Turk <Pe...@ragtag.demon.co.uk> ICQ# 11981084
RFA President and Moonshadow
Varizo...
> >Dan, however, possess some silly notion that the attractive are
> >culpable for the feelings of jealousy and resentment in those not so
> >blessed. Beauty is a phenomena of nature and a conditioned perception.
> >Hostility and resentment are a personal choice.
> >
> >Cat
>
> I _was_ going to write a spoof on Dan's whole daft mindset,
I think that Danny just secretly loves argueing w ppl, like a sort of
mind excersise or somthing, cos he spends so much time on the
internett and he waffels on such a lot, spesialy about things that
dont realy matter, like spelling, which is not somthing that makes
sombody wanna get you into bed, thats usualy down to looking sexy and
attractiv, and i should kno! unless ppl get the hots for ppl because
they cant spell!!, but anyway you kno wot im saying, but i love Danny
, hes so funny, but he does enjoy argueing w ppl cos he will
contradickt himself just so that he can argue w sombody, ive noticed
that, but i think that hes realy inteligent tho, but he likes to use
it in that way.
V.
Sharon B
in <eb259c18.04092...@posting.google.com>:
>I think that Danny just secretly loves [...] [...] [...], like a sort of
>mind [...] or [...], cos he spends so much time on the
>[...] and he [...] on such a lot, [...] about things that
>[...] [...] matter, like spelling, which is not [...] that makes
>[...] wanna get you into bed, [...] [...] down to looking sexy and
>[...], and i should [...]! unless [...] get the hots for [...] because
>they [...] spell!!, but anyway you [...] wot [...] saying, but i love Danny
>, [...] so funny, but he does enjoy [...] [...] [...] cos he will
>[...] himself just so that he can argue [...] [...], [...] noticed
>that, but i think that [...] [...] [...] [...], but he likes to use
>it in that way.
>V.
Kudos on finally learning how to spell, 'because', correctly!
That's a second grade (7 year olds) spelling word, here. Your reading
assignment for tonight is, "Hop on Pop" by Dr.Seuss. You may find it
in your public library. Ilya Shambat can give you a helping hand on
finding things there.
David
[...]
> your public library. Ilya Shambat can give you a helping hand on
> finding things there.
Just watch out he doesn't massage your "abdomen" too -- I hear he's
not very good at that either.