The circle is complete
Leo Sgouros
whole cairo thing, science, and the competition into alt.surrealism.
I love the smell of wigwam in the morning.
Strategic posting works!!
The Project Case Officer
Scott Doty
The gentleman on Sirius IV -- who we all know as Ronnie Dobbs -- may show up
later. If when, I don't know.
Oh, that was odd -- I just heard myself in an echo chamber ber ber ber
"Hi" hi hi hi hi
Well, that was odd, wasn't it? it? it? it?
heh heh heh heh heh
Okay now, please, turn off the echo chamber ber ber ber
{{{onnected Ronnie.
Hello there, heh heh heh.
voice print identification:
<a href="ftp://hufos.sonic.net/pub/HUFOS/Audio/hhh8.wav>
ftp://hufos.sonic.net/pub/HUFOS/Audio/hhh8.wav
</a>
Well, how do -- those Helpful Handy Hints will doo us much good. I
am trying to recreate the same voice as my friend, Ronnie Dobbs.
He's on Sirius IV now -- check the web page.
What's that Cecil?
Oh.
It seems important to Madam Thelma that, if you create another
character, we would all do better to: doo doo doo -- welluh, sorry,
I'm working on that stutter; but if you doo: please sir, ladies and
gentleman, make your golem (wooo) Human.
Other than that, we hope that this gives us (even that garsh darned
chicken, too) a kind of authority that would RIVIT yoo, the listener.
I hope Ronnie would find it in his heart to say "how doo!" to
this matter from that website maintainer person "friend" (new voice:
oh dear, no one but my friend Ronnie, please)
Old voice: Hi, I'm Father Time, please...
Neuneuneu voice: "This matter of deconstruction of deconstruction is
most illogical."
Neuneuneuneu voice: "Why?"
Ronnie voice: Hello, this is Ronnie Dobbs, coming at you with
Psychic CB channel number 22, lower sideband. We will try to cover
stuff that...
What Luther? Oh. Better let the webmaster handle this.
*
Thanks Luther, I'll do the best I can: It seems to us here that
there would be Officers and Enlisted.
And the Officers would say, "Hi hi hi there, can I be an officer?"
And the Enlisted would say, "Hi hi hi there, can I be an officer?"
(that is, those who manage to make the argument)
So. The difference (in this worldly hyle thing that I see) between
"officer" and "enlisted" is a degree. And the deconstructionists
say, "hi, hi, hi there! deconstructionism is okay! What, you don't
agree? Sir, you aren't an officer -- do you hold a degree, okay?"
And the (my def, I like it) reconstructionists say: Ronnie Dobbs
used to post to misc.rural. He's okay.
Whose blaq hearts would see misc.rural no discussion? Whose blaq
hearts would see alt.surrealism NO discussion?
/me wonders.
-Scott
p.s. blossomed man, in all books, post. See weakness. Contemplate.
Okay.
Leo Sgouros
Scott Doty <no-...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:7m5pkn$9a2$1...@ultra.sonic.net...
I dont have a clue what that was about, but welcome!
_L_
Cadmium Flute
yes, welcome. welcome to whatever you are.
clearly though leo, that was a tale of interstellar dislocation and,
to a fair extent, the stuttering that it induces. it was more than
faintly reminiscent of another post on the same topic over in
sci.interstellar.stuttering.problems. of course, no one was very
interested over there.
Scott Doty
> Thanks Luther, I'll do the best I can: It seems to us here that
> there would be Officers and Enlisted.
Yep, Luther's right -- he had to beat me over the head maybe 80 or
ninety times with that bonker bottle of Bob, but now I see his
poing. I'll do my best to break free of that "no ego" stuff.
This is your brain on drugs:
> And the Officers would say, "Hi hi hi there, can I be an officer?"
This is almost the upright text:
And the officers (or whomever) would say, "hello, can I be an
fficer (or whatever)?"
This still presupposes "officers", though. Many folks would read
"officers" and say: "police officer? military officer?" -- and yes,
would be rightly suspicious. But ultimately, to find out the
author's _meaning_, we'd be better off without emotional
epistomologies when both reading and writing.
This is your brain on drugs:
> And the Enlisted would say, "Hi hi hi there, can I be an officer?"
This is almost the upright text:
And the enlisted (or whomever) would say, "hi hi hi there, can I be an
officer (or whatever)?"
Both upright texts are therefore the same:
And the whomever would say, "hello, can I be a whatever?"
First, language: obviously, that's KJV-sounding stuff, and I'm
sure you'd agree that we'd all be rightly suspicious of anyone
who talks like that.
Next, meaning: We humans clearly have a drive to be better than
we are. Since, through experience, some people use this to sell snake
oil, one would be rightly suspicious of anyone using such language.
But "suspicious" doesn't mean cynical, it means skeptical.
> (that is, those who manage to make the argument)
I hope I'm parsing your meaning correctly.
> So. The difference (in this worldly hyle thing that I see) between
> "officer" and "enlisted" is a degree.
language: "worldly hyle". Hmmm. A reference to the moral relativist
language nazis?
meaning: Some people can be cynical -- so cynical, they doubt
everything. (Yes, I'm restating the obvious, but I know some folks
who are stuck with this -- I wish they would be skeptical, not
cynical or syndical. (And no, Luther, I'm not looking in the mirror))
The "degree", then, goes to those who work through that emotional
epistemology.
> And the deconstructionists say, "hi, hi, hi there!
> deconstructionism is okay! What, you don't agree? Sir, you aren't
> an officer -- do you hold a degree, okay?"
meaning: Education isn't intelligence. People with emotional
epistemologies tend to look down on folks with no degree -- and
vica-versa. And yes, "Luther", I see the mirror now, thanks.
And the rest of this, of course, is just an expression that
surrealism is a fine tool for working through emotional
epistemologies -- especially for folks who care a lot about what they
have to say. I see now why the Alan Sokal affair became so critical
to me.
But, "Luther" (and the rest of you clowns, thanks :) that doesn't change
the meaning in my argument.
> p.s. blossomed man, in all books, post. See weakness. Contemplate. Okay.
In other words: We have an objective morality, and this implies we should
always have the courage to suppress our emotions before discussing our
opinions. "Cynic, deconstruct thyself" may be fine rhetoric, but may also
be interpreted as a death threat. I did say that before, but now, I deeply
regret it.
And so, with at least this sense of proportion and sense of humor,
I'm signing off Usenet while I take a well-deserved vacation.
g.v.w. iv
> would anyone like some hot sex?
i suspect you are a police officer, undercover, here to entrap me. So, no, i came
seeking wholesome entertainment.
> >
>
> yes, welcome. welcome to whatever you are.
>
> clearly though leo, that was a tale of interstellar dislocation and,
> to a fair extent, the stuttering that it induces. it was more than
> faintly reminiscent of another post on the same topic over in
> sci.interstellar.stuttering.problems. of course, no one was very
> interested over there.
Dale Houstman once said--in a fit of pique, attempting to account for the sudden
collapse of his newsgroup--that ''Surrealism'' continues ''in the forest.'' But
you cleared the forest and built affordable tract housing, strip malls, golf
courses, retail super-stores.
What remains of our three, brave heroes, Dale, Barrett, and Brandon?
--
gilbert vanburen wilkes iv
http://eserver.org/home/wilkes
<a href="http://www.2600.com/mindex.html">Free Kevin</a>
Revolutions are always verbose.
Leon Trotsky
Leo Sgouros
g.v.w. iv <gv...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote in message
news:37874150...@andrew.cmu.edu...
Surrealism only hurts for a little while.
Any comments on celestial displacement?
g.v.w. iv
> Surrealism only hurts for a little while.
i found it painless, a harmless distraction.
> Any comments on celestial displacement?
Only to say that i have yet to be displaced by objects or events celestial.
Meteors tend to miss me, Leo. The planets ignore me; the stars regard me with
indifference.
We are apes with astrolabes.
i painted the ceiling and walls of my apartment after the fashion of a Zodiacal
wheel, a Ptolemiac Bestiary of myths, symbols, cycles, epicycles. i tried to
orient myself favorably with the delicate threads of astral influence. But
half-way through the project i remembered that i reject astrology. Now i sleep
under a make-shift pyramid of couch-cushions and bed linens.
Later i shall dowse to find my breakfast. Forces supernatural compel me to my
kitchen.
Leo Sgouros
Supernatural?
I was talking about the possibility of having some great minds in here, how
to get them here, by trickery if necessary.
Or maybe you misunderstand.
Oh wait.
This is a diversion for you.
A way to pick something apart.
Are you bored?Albucierre drives not interesting?
Again, the light you cast me in is not true.
_L_
Leo Sgouros
> > i found it painless, a harmless distraction.
> >
> > > Any comments on celestial displacement?
> >
> >
> >
> Zodiacal
> > wheel, a Ptolemiac Bestiary of myths, symbols, cycles, epicycles
> > orient myself favorably with the delicate threads of astral influence.
But
astrology.
>
> > make-shift pyramid of couch-cushions and bed linens.
> >
> dowse to find my breakfast. Forces supernatural compel me to
> my
> > kitchen.
> >
Fascinating symbols.
Whose are they?
They arent mine.
g.v.w. iv
As much yours as anyones'.
Symbols require interpreters; hence, they require systems of meaning, rules,
semantics, syntactics, and so forth. Think of the traditional symbols of the
Zodiacal wheel, the Tarot, the Alchemists' craft, the magical lodge. Think of
them as a generative grammar, a rhetorical resource, a suite of developers'
tools.
Note how easily i up-ended Dale Houstman's figurative language. Dale failed to
allow for the first law of the trope: tropes are equivocal.
g.v.w. iv
> Supernatural?
> I was talking about the possibility of having some great minds in here, how
> to get them here, by trickery if necessary.
Why ''great minds?'' Why not simply ''minds?'' Or ''mind?'' Or why ''minds'' at
all? Ask instead for voices, voices great and small. A mind can repose itself
motionless. Contemplation makes no noise for other minds to contemplate. But a
voice must speak. A voice must be heard. Even in silence, a voice will speak.
Take yours, for instance.
> Or maybe you misunderstand.
> Oh wait.
> This is a diversion for you.
> A way to pick something apart.
A distraction, yes. But then you appeared. i had been waiting for you. Now we
can begin. i have great plans for you.
> Are you bored?Albucierre drives not interesting?
Not bored. Merely pensive, expectant, awaiting a particular moment, without
knowing what it would look like.
> Again, the light you cast me in is not true.
Yet it illuminates. Ask me what i see.
> _L_
Brandon J. Freels
> Symbols require interpreters; hence, they require systems of meaning,
rules,
> semantics, syntactics, and so forth. Think of the traditional symbols of
the
> Zodiacal wheel, the Tarot, the Alchemists' craft, the magical lodge. Think
of
> them as a generative grammar, a rhetorical resource, a suite of
developers'
> tools.
Meaning is not held in the symbol but in the interpreter.
g.v.w. iv
Hence, they require systems of meaning. Meaning emerges from the semenatic
(hence, social) system. Thank you again for your keen grasp of the obvious, your
passion for the trivially true. Later you can aver that we write in prose.
Cadmium Flute
>"Brandon J. Freels" wrote:
>
>> g.v.w. iv wrote
>> > Symbols require interpreters; hence, they require systems of meaning,
>> rules,
>> > semantics, syntactics, and so forth. Think of the traditional symbols of
>> the
>> > Zodiacal wheel, the Tarot, the Alchemists' craft, the magical lodge. Think
>> of
>> > them as a generative grammar, a rhetorical resource, a suite of
>> developers'
>> > tools.
>>
>> Meaning is not held in the symbol but in the interpreter.
>
>Hence, they require systems of meaning. Meaning emerges from the semenatic
>(hence, social) system. Thank you again for your keen grasp of the obvious, your
>passion for the trivially true. Later you can aver that we write in prose.
this appears to be a bit like monkey talk. erudite, pipe-smoking,
monkeys, sure. wrangling with group theory representations of the
principle of principle deep into the night, sure. supping equally upon
teats and champagne, sure. sure looks like monkeys though. i aver that
it is prose writing monkeys.
Leo Sgouros
> gilbert vanburen wilkes iv
> http://eserver.org/home/wilkes
> <a href="http://www.2600.com/mindex.html">Free Kevin</a>
>
> Revolutions are always verbose.
> Leon Trotsky
>
>
What do you see?
g.v.w. iv
Higher primates are like that. Learn to cope. Ironically, your knee-jerk
anti-intellectualism betrays a far deeper commitment to your proud, simian heritage
than either i or my interlocutor.
Would you prefer we deliberated with precision guided munitions?
Cadmium Flute
those wacky higher primates! when will they learn that interlocution
is just an anti-intellectual head-jerk reaction to rapidly jerking
heads.
>Would you prefer we deliberated with precision guided munitions?
i cant see the harm in it - although precision guided fecundity would
be good too
Roger Williams
> Would you prefer we deliberated with precision guided munitions?
Frankly, I would.
--
{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{} \|/
{} RogerW rog...@newsguy.com {} 0< -- parrot.net!
{} http://www.parrot.net ad...@parrot.net {} ^^^^(*)^^^^
{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{} ^^ / \ ^^
g.v.w. iv
> Also spracht g.v.w. iv <gv...@andrew.cmu.edu>:
>
> > Would you prefer we deliberated with precision guided munitions?
>
> Frankly, I would.
Me too. Alas.
i must be away. i promised Nik Maack i would not return here until
Wednesday.
>
> --
> {}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{} \|/
> {} RogerW rog...@newsguy.com {} 0< -- parrot.net!
> {} http://www.parrot.net ad...@parrot.net {} ^^^^(*)^^^^
> {}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{} ^^ / \ ^^
--