definitions, book II (more exercise)
barrett john erickson
alien (n.)
when used in its science-fiction sense (as in "beings from another planet")
this term is a diversionary fiction of some limited entertainment value. As
such, it has little relevance to the surrealist project. But when the use
of this term becomes manipulative, or when an attempt is made to veil
reality behind its fictions, it becomes incompatible with "surrealism".
hypocrite (n.)
one who deliberately misrepresents the thoughts of another, then makes
arguments and judgements based on the falsified position rather than the
actual, so as to conclude that the other argues in bad faith.
neu re: (n.)
a neutered newsgroup response which has little, if any, relevance to the
text being responded to. Also, a style or strategy of deliberate misquoting
or misrepresenting the words of another, then responding to that construct
rather than the actual post. [related: straw man]
subconscious (n.)
a metaphor created to explain certain forms of cognitive activity.
Popularly associated with the imagination, often resulting in the mistaken
assumption that reason is a more evolved cognitive activity than the
imagination. The distinction between "conscious" and "subconscious" and the
various constructs of Freud (id, ego, etc.) are no longer useful, or even
meaningful, when one considers cognition as an enactive process.
supernatural (n.)
a conceptual refuge for those who refuse to accept full responsibility for
their imaginations, choosing instead to believe that events occur as the
result of some power, or imply some meaning which exists beyond manifest
reality (i.e. beyond the "natural" realm of human living).
surrealism in a modern context:
Groupe de Paris du Mouvement Surréaliste
Surrealistgruppen i Stockholm
SKUPINA CESKÝCH A SLOVENSKÝCH SURREALISTU
The Surrealist Group of Wisconsin
Grupo Surealista de Madrid
Movimento Surrealista em Portugal
Grupo Surrealista de São Paulo
The Surrealist Group in Leeds
The Surrealist Group in Chicago
The Surrealist Group in Alabama
The Starfish Surrealists
The MELMOTH group
MagneticFields.org (ARTlab)
and associated individuals around the world.
for web links:
http://www.magneticfields.org/affinities/fellow.html
-- barrett
bar...@MagneticFields.org
http://www.MagneticFields.org/
"Everything tends to make us believe that there exists a certain point of
the mind at which life and death, the real and the imagined, past and
future, the communicable and the incommunicable, high and low, cease to be
perceived as contradictions."
...André Breton
Brandon J. Freels
>supernatural (n.)
>a conceptual refuge for those who refuse to accept full responsibility for
>their imaginations, choosing instead to believe that events occur as the
>result of some power, or imply some meaning which exists beyond manifest
>reality (i.e. beyond the "natural" realm of human living).
Brandon:
This is the point I've been trying to make, and this is also why mysticism
is not Surrealism. The key point Barrett makes is that those who have
supernatural or mystical experiences "refuse to accept" the idea that what
they have experienced came from within them, and instead believe the origin
is the exterior world. Which brings me to Talysman's idea of "making a new
god every day." If Talysman accepts that these new gods he has created or
will create only exist in his imagination, and not in the exterior world,
than there is possibly some validity to his argument that these gods are
Surreal. But I do not see where we should draw the line. For me creating
new gods and creating comic book superheroes are pretty much the same thing.
Does this validate Superman as a Surreal god, and his creator as a
Surrealist?
Dale Houstman
Since Superman is a manifestation of desire (adolescent desire in this case),
I see no reason he can't be considered as a sort of Surrealist "god" and
even Jesus (totally divorced from the consideration of his "actual
existence" and of the maggoty church that grows from that lie) can
be seen as another consequence of human desire to "get beyond"
My problem is with the use of the word "god" which in such a human-centered
process ceases to mean anything. As far as I can see it has always been
used to designate "The Other" or "The Master" and must carry some of that
corrupt notion with it. It just seems dangerous to use it, or pointless.
If one is creating gods rather than being created by them, and one is aware
of that fact, why the use of the word "god" unless it is to lend a certain
imperiousness to your imagination which in itself is a corruption?
DMH
Brandon J. Freels
>If one is creating gods rather than being created by them, and one is aware
>of that fact, why the use of the word "god" unless it is to lend a certain
>imperiousness to your imagination which in itself is a corruption?
Brandon:
I agree. The use of the word god is complete misused, and this is a valid
argument against Talysman's idea. His idea might be more suitable if he were
to delete the word "god" but then he would be jumping into an area already
covered by today's culture (comic books, cartoons, etc, all invent fictional
characters from some creator's imagination).
Nikolaus Maack
Brandon writes:
> This is the point I've been trying to make, and this is also why mysticism
> is not Surrealism. The key point Barrett makes is that those who have
> supernatural or mystical experiences "refuse to accept" the idea that what
> they have experienced came from within them, and instead believe the origin
> is the exterior world.
Don't all perceptions, mystical or otherwise, take place inside our heads?
> Which brings me to Talysman's idea of "making a new
> god every day." If Talysman accepts that these new gods he has created or
> will create only exist in his imagination, and not in the exterior world,
> than there is possibly some validity to his argument that these gods are
> Surreal.
Doesn't everything exist inside our imagination?
Nik
--
"The Empire State Building is a star. It's an eight-hour hard-on. It's
so beautiful. The lights come on and the stars come out and it sways.
It's like Flash Gordon riding into space." ---Andy Warhol
Nikolaus Maack
[I'm adding alt.pouting.sandwich because I'm going to make this a
linguistic debate.]
Dale Houstman (dale.h...@gte.net) writes:
> My problem is with the use of the word "god" which in such a human-centered
> process ceases to mean anything. As far as I can see it has always been
> used to designate "The Other" or "The Master" and must carry some of that
> corrupt notion with it. It just seems dangerous to use it, or pointless.
It's just a word. It's the same length as CAT, except all the letters are
different. The word won't bite you if you don't let it. Any taint the
word has exists solely inside of you. Why would you choose to make a word
so stinky?
Aren't all words based on a "human-centered process"? What other
perspective are we able to take, after all?
I suggest from this day forth you call the imaginary being outside of
reality "flg" and see where that gets you. But I suspect, over time, the
word flg would eventually have the same taint for you that the word God
does. Isn't this a case of blaming the messenger for the bad news?
Or is your complaint that the word GOD is yet another example of how, over
time, words break down, becoming meaningless? Like the word "cool", which
now seems to be an adjective used to indicate that something is positive
in a vague way. God now means some big entity that controls stuff.
barrett john erickson
Nikolaus Maack wrote in message <7466t7$7...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>...
>Don't all perceptions, mystical or otherwise, take place inside our heads?
yes, but perhaps not in the way you mean this.
>Doesn't everything exist inside our imagination?
no. everything is assembled by our imagination from experience which
precedes this assembly.
barrett john erickson
Dale Houstman wrote in message <745v3c$cd3$8...@news-1.news.gte.net>...
>
>
>Since Superman is a manifestation of desire (adolescent desire in this
case),
>I see no reason he can't be considered as a sort of Surrealist "god" and
>even Jesus (totally divorced from the consideration of his "actual
>existence" and of the maggoty church that grows from that lie) can
>be seen as another consequence of human desire to "get beyond"
>
i would argue that we need to be more careful when using the term "desire".
it seems appropriate to restrict this term to intuitive motivations.
i think what you describe here, or the "desire to rape" etc., are more
complex, amalgams of intuitive desire under cultural influence projected
into some mode of anticipation.
this would be the kind of thing i would call a "fantasy" rather than a
desire.
Brandon J. Freels
Nikolaus Maack wrote
>Or is your complaint that the word GOD is yet another example of how, over
>time, words break down, becoming meaningless? Like the word "cool", which
>now seems to be an adjective used to indicate that something is positive
>in a vague way. God now means some big entity that controls stuff.
Brandon:
For me "GOD" is an empty word like "COOL." In Talysman's original
proposition he seemed to be alluding to an anthropomorphic "GOD" although he
did use the word outside of his proposition to "make a new god everyday" in
a vague, experience based definition. So here we have Talysman contradicting
himself. Maybe he could step forward and explain his points further.
Andrea Chen
>
> "Everything tends to make us believe that there exists a certain point of
> the mind at which life and death, the real and the imagined, past and
> future, the communicable and the incommunicable, high and low, cease to be
> perceived as contradictions."
>
I'm reminded of the Gospel of Thomas where one of the first lines is
something like "when the dark becomes light and the light becomes dark,
when the male becomes female and the female becomes male then you will
have entered the kingdom of Heaven."
On the basis of this line we can assume surrealism is gnostic.
Fascinan
it's also encapsulated by the Yin Yang symbol...and thousands of other
spiritual/metaphysical/philosophical metaphors. And yaddy yahoo, etc, per se.
"Please big momma....fetch me a cold rag and some Trident sugarless."
Dangling from the gallows of their own conception, the hordes of book bumpin'
bombers forgot to watch the sunset and feel their own heartbeats. The vampire
of consumerism and the great techno-soul fetcher rounded up the remnants of
sentience and flayed them with horrific, suicidal, yet somehow convincing
ideology.
Dale Houstman
> >i would argue that we need to be more careful when using the term "desire".
>
> >it seems appropriate to restrict this term to intuitive motivations.
>
> >i think what you describe here, or the "desire to rape" etc., are more
> >complex, amalgams of intuitive desire under cultural influence projected
> >into some mode of anticipation.
>
> >this would be the kind of thing i would call a "fantasy" rather than a
> >desire.
***
Could be... But (as per Superman) the desire (in man) to fly is deep and
ancient
and if a fantasy a very compelling one, and one that has led to the creation of
the
airplane, which contains in it the seed of one possible benefit to mankind:
someday
one may go down in the Andes with Nik and Andrea on board. They had been
flying to the first Surreal Godling Minicon.
That's what I call desire.
DMH
Dale Houstman
One idea idiot.
"It is easy to be consistent when only a single notion occurs to you."
Harold Crawlsy "Idiots & Onions"
barrett john erickson
Andrea Chen wrote in message <366695...@earthlink.net>...
>barrett john erickson wrote:
>>
>> "Everything tends to make us believe that there exists a certain point of
>> the mind at which life and death, the real and the imagined, past and
>> future, the communicable and the incommunicable, high and low, cease to
be
>> perceived as contradictions."
>>
>
>
> I'm reminded of the Gospel of Thomas where one of the first lines is
>something like "when the dark becomes light and the light becomes dark,
>when the male becomes female and the female becomes male then you will
>have entered the kingdom of Heaven."
>
> On the basis of this line we can assume surrealism is gnostic.
neu re: (n.)
a neutered newsgroup response which has little, if any, relevance to the
text being responded to. Also, a style or strategy of deliberate misquoting
or misrepresenting the words of another, then responding to that construct
rather than the actual post. [related: straw man]
neu logic, (n.)
if "a" reminds someone of "b" when taken out of context, and "b" is written
by someone who believes "c", then we can assume that "a" is "d".
-- barrett
bar...@MagneticFields.org
http://www.MagneticFields.org/
"Everything tends to make us believe that there exists a certain point of
the mind at which life and death, the real and the imagined, past and
future, the communicable and the incommunicable, high and low, cease to be
perceived as contradictions."
...André Breton
Clayton Francis
Andrea Chen
>
> Brandon:
> For me "GOD" is an empty word like "COOL."
This is because you are a rationalist and not a surrealist. You insist
that words have clear and specified meanings, you focus on semantics
(not always well or consistently) rather than the emotional unconscious
forces that drive us. Both "God" and "cool" sell products (big time),
the desire to be close to them makes people engage in irrational action
and God especially is a powerful force in politics and many other
intrusions into our daily lives.
These words are *far* more important and powerful than well reasoned
statements of precisely defined terms. You may attempt to exorcise them
from your consciousness (through the intellect) but you can't stop them
from walking up and hitting you on the head with a hammer or preventing
people from understanding a single word that you're trying to say. They
may be empty, but they are still powerful arbitrators of social reality.
Which is why neu surrealists are perfectly willing to claim them and
define them as we chose. We are not interested in parlour discussion
groups, but in pragmatic methods of driving society insane.
Tiidlywinks
Andrea Chen wrote:
> We are not interested in parlour discussion
> groups, but in pragmatic methods of driving society insane.
parlourdiscussiongroup(((((((((((andrea)))))))))))parlourdiscussiongroup
barrett john erickson
Andrea Chen wrote:
> Which is why neu surrealists are perfectly willing to claim them and
> define them as we chose. We are not interested in parlour discussion
> groups, but in pragmatic methods of driving society insane.
neu surrealist (n., illiterate)
a neutered psuedo-surrealist, or one who promotes a mutilation of surrealist
theory in which desire is flattened and the "liberation of the imagination"
has been deformed into the "manipulation of buttons."
pragmatic (adj.)
that which is effective in achieving some pre-determined end (such as "driving
society insane", see below). Those who value the pragmatic tend to believe the end
(the goal, or intended result) is more important than, and can justify any process
(the means, or action taken). Such people are able to say things like: "we publicly
practice the techniques of brainwashing in the hope that people will become aware of
them," as if the concept of practicing "the techniques of brainwashing", for any
reason, could be anything but reprehensible. This is in strong contrast to
"surrealism" which is primarily concerned with the way we experience reality -- i.e.,
the _process_ of living creatively.
"driving society insane" (phrase)
based on an anthropomorphism (society as individual human) it is, like most, without
any basis in reality. Furthermore, the term "insane" is discredited because it
relies on a judgment of one person's behavior vs. some accepted norm.
Brandon J. Freels
---BJF
Clayton Francis
"no. everything is assembled by our imaginations from experience which precedes
this assembly."
me writes.....
This may seem a bit redundant........
I have had a while to consider what we have privately discussed......the above
is heavily ladden with your notion that using the term 'imagination' gives a
'false division of labour'........I think this is the right way way to
go......it is a continuous non-divisional process. Yet the static and the
ec-static (of is a continuous process) seems to lead to better clarification
even though it perputuates this division...... if you remember static as the
idiosyncratic human creation based on mind structure/ chemistry and ec-static
the 'imagination' which gives personal perspective, meaning, and value
etc.......your value is more fully integrated which is a plus in my opinion.
barrett john erickson wrote:
> Nikolaus Maack wrote in message <7466t7$7...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>...
>
> >Don't all perceptions, mystical or otherwise, take place inside our heads?
>
> yes, but perhaps not in the way you mean this.
>
> >Doesn't everything exist inside our imagination?
>
> no. everything is assembled by our imagination from experience which
> precedes this assembly.
>
Leo Sgouros
Brandon J. Freels wrote in message ...
>barrett john erickson wrote
>>supernatural (n.)
>>a conceptual refuge for those who refuse to accept full responsibility for
>>their imaginations, choosing instead to believe that events occur as the
>>result of some power, or imply some meaning which exists beyond manifest
>>reality (i.e. beyond the "natural" realm of human living).
>
>
>Brandon:
>is not Surrealism. The key point Barrett makes is that those who have
>supernatural or mystical experiences "refuse to accept" the idea that what
>they have experienced came from within them, and instead believe the origin
>god every day." If Talysman accepts that these new gods he has created or
>will create only exist in his imagination, and not in the exterior world,
>than there is possibly some validity to his argument that these gods are
>new gods and creating comic book superheroes are pretty much the same
thing.
>Does this validate Superman as a Surreal god, and his creator as a
>Surrealist?
>
>
What are the facts?They are important I am sure! 8^)
elag
rationally rational
rat-tat-tationally irrational
incontroversionally factionally
fractionally axial
irrationally irrational
banal canal...
analytically anal
carpal
tunnel
syndrome.
Talysman
"supernatural (n.)
a conceptual refuge for those who refuse to accept full responsibility for
their imaginations, choosing instead to believe that events occur as the
result of some power, or imply some meaning which exists beyond manifest
reality (i.e. beyond the "natural" realm of human living)."
Brandon wrote:
"This is the point I've been trying to make [ ... ] If Talysman accepts
that these new gods he has created or will create only exist in his
imagination, and not in the exterior world, than there is possibly
some validity to his argument that these gods are Surreal.
if I interpret "these new gods exist only in his imagination"
to refer to the image of a god as an independent being, then
I would have to SCREAM FOR JOY, because it looks like you've
finally got it.
except that I suspect you aren't distinguishing between the image
of the god and the real forces the god personifies. no god can
ever possibly be an empty ghost and be worthwhile: it must represent
something from life, either a natural force, or a type of personality,
or a feeling. the personification that makes a god is the work of
imagination, the same way the act of painting an apple the way it
seems to your inner eye makes that painting a work of imagination.
but what you are personifying as a god exists indepently, the same
as the apple. if I create a god of spite with the eyes of a snake
and the cold, rubbery skin of a frog, spite still exists in human
interaction. IMAGINATION DOES NOT OPERATE IN A VACUUM.
"But I do not see where we should draw the line. For me creating
new gods and creating comic book superheroes are pretty much the
same thing. Does this validate Superman as a Surreal god, and his
creator as a Surrealist?"
you haven't taken any comparative religion, I see. Superman *is*
a god. a thinly-disguised combination of Jesus Christ and modern
progress. andif you'd read comic books, you'd realize that super
heroes in general are reawakenings of old gods; some are explicitely
described as such.
--
get your tax dolls here! ask me how.
His Most Feathered Eminence, the Ur-Beatle
Talysman
"If one is creating gods rather than being created by them,
and one is aware of that fact, why the use of the word "god"
unless it is to lend a certain imperiousness to your imagination
which in itself is a corruption?"
Brandon wrote:
"I agree. The use of the word god is complete misused, and
this is a valid argument against Talysman's idea."
no, it isn't.
forget the other post where I said you understood. YOU DO NOT.
the proper answer to Dale's question ("why use the word `god'?")
is: all gods were made up. they are all the process of human
imagination interacting with reality to create these weird hybrids,
the original works of art. but human beings let their creations
get out of control, allowed them to become the masters.
the purpose of creating gods and being aware of the fact, as I
have explicitly stated many times, is to REMIND YOU OF THE FACT.
calling them something other than "gods" defeats the purpose,
and implies there is some difference between Spiderman and Jesus.
if you still disagree, Brandon, I defy you to define a difference
between Spiderman and Jesus that doesn't rely on the superficial
(Spiderman hangs from a web, Jesus hangs from a cross, &c.)
--
three sisters made of glass and tissue wait at the sea's edge.
Brandon J. Freels
characters. You say all of them are gods AND characters.
---BJF
Dale Houstman
>the proper answer to Dale's question ("why use the word `god'?") is: all
gods were made up.
True, but my point was that the use of the word "god" (which to the vast
majority of those who are stupid enough to use it does not suggest
something
"made up") is more than apt to obscure whatever creative use you are
embarked upon
with its rather more usual meaning of "Other". You are being co-opted by
it
rather than it by you. You can go on using it and maybe someday the vast
majority of those who read that word will see it the way you desire to
see
it; but at that point the word "god" will no doubt either atrophy or be
some sort of referential-blank, like those English words the Japanese use
in their product names: God-Yum! Tacky-God-Toothy! GodGodToo!
Good luck...
I do believe your anthropolgical stab is incorrect: I doubt if man
created
the abstract concept of "god" with some understanding that this was
"merely" a creative undertaking, and then (somehow) this creative
notion got out of hand. I do believe those poor suckers actually believed
that it was god who made it dark at night and gave them headaches.
The creative use comes second, and takes a tremendous amount of
accrued irony, it would seem. Lucian's take on the Greek myths is
a good example. But that happened a long time ago, and it seems that
the time for such "look I can talk about gods because they're just
literary conventions" has long since gone: the next step should perhaps
be somewhat bolder?
DMH
barrett john erickson
Talysman wrote in message ...
>if you still disagree, Brandon, I defy you to define a difference
>between Spiderman and Jesus that doesn't rely on the superficial
>(Spiderman hangs from a web, Jesus hangs from a cross, &c.)
Spiderman is not widely worshiped as someone who can relieve you of the
responsibility for your actions (or your responsibility to act), or provide
rewards in some kind of afterlife that will compensate you for your
complacency in real life.
Nikolaus Maack
"Brandon J. Freels" (Fre...@ethergate.com) writes:
> Talysman, it is all very simple. I say none of them are gods, but
> characters. You say all of them are gods AND characters.
A god is only a certain kind of character. To confuse matters further,
sometimes a god has nothing to do with religion. A parent is a god when
we are children, and for some, when they cease to be children. A sexual
fetish can become a god. Witness the weirdoes on the internet who chase
their sexual desires at every waking moment. Art can be a god. I know I
worship it. Food can be a god. Alcohol. Drugs.
You can accuse me of deliberately obscuring the issue if you wish. But
It's my belief that we are all characters. The character of a God just
has the quality of being very important and controlling your life. I do
agree with Brandon (yikes!) that it is best to keep in mind that a God is
created internally. Be your god that Jesus fellow or heroin, the desire
for the god is inside of you, and you can rid yourself of it, if that's
what you want.
(It's an internal interpretation of external events. But then again, what
isn't?)
So maybe Jesus helps you out. And so, maybe, does your heroin.
Or your art. Or your whatever. The important thing to recognize is that
you choose your own gods. If you DON'T choose your gods, then you lose
control of your life, and aren't fully conscious, and therefore, not fully
alive.
Nik
--
"we may be dependant on alcohol at [our singles group], but
have another shot of WAFFLES nik!"
--Elisse Meshake, drunkard
Nikolaus Maack
Dale Houstman (dale.h...@gte.net) writes:
> True, but my point was that the use of the word "god" (which to the vast
> majority of those who are stupid enough to use it does not suggest
> something "made up")
Dale, we have once again waltzed into that territory where you are
clutching your dictionary to your chest, bellowing:
"You can't use that word that way! That's not what that word is for! No
one will understand you if you use the word that way!"
What, would you have us say? Instead of God, say "that aspect of my own
unconscious processes that I pretend, for convenience sake, is an entity
commonly referred to as a god"?
Or perhaps, simply, Ghod? (A mix of ghost and God.)
"The Vast Majority" also believe in flying saucers, that Elvis is still
alive, and they all watch Friends and Beverly Hills 90210 and Dawson's
Creek. Should we really give a shit about what The Vast Majority thinks?
And on top of all of this, when one says, "I believe in God," the question
that immediately follows is, "What kind?" The problem here is you dislike
religion to the point where the word God rankles you. And that's YOUR
problem, not mine, thank goodness.
Nik
PS.
Oh shit, we're talking about religion again.
Brandon J. Freels
---BJF
barrett john erickson
Nikolaus Maack wrote in message <74ej1s$5...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>...
>A god is only a certain kind of character. To confuse matters further,
>sometimes a god has nothing to do with religion. A parent is a god when
>we are children, and for some, when they cease to be children. A sexual
>fetish can become a god. Witness the weirdoes on the internet who chase
>their sexual desires at every waking moment. Art can be a god. I know I
>worship it. Food can be a god. Alcohol. Drugs.
>
>You can accuse me of deliberately obscuring the issue if you wish. But
>It's my belief that we are all characters. The character of a God just
>has the quality of being very important and controlling your life.
On the contrary, i think you've just clarified things immensely, making the
point that we've been trying to make all along:
All gods, no matter how broadly they are defined, are inherently about
"fetish" "worship" or "control" whether acknowledged or not.
[And, just for the record, are you claiming you can reconcile such gods with
"surrealism" (that is, "surrealism" as it actually exists -- in its
historical and current context, as opposed to the "neu" or "personalist"
mutations)? If so please try.]
>I do
>agree with Brandon (yikes!) that it is best to keep in mind that a God is
>created internally. Be your god that Jesus fellow or heroin, the desire
>for the god is inside of you, and you can rid yourself of it, if that's
>what you want.
There is no "desire for god" inside of me. Never was.
>So maybe Jesus helps you out. And so, maybe, does your heroin.
>Or your art. Or your whatever. The important thing to recognize is that
>you choose your own gods. If you DON'T choose your gods, then you lose
>control of your life, and aren't fully conscious, and therefore, not fully
>alive.
All gods are heroin.
To the user, they are an escape from uncontrolled reality -- a surrender of
autonomy.
Talysman
write in alt.surrealism:
:)Talysman wrote:
:)>the proper answer to Dale's question ("why use the word `god'?") is: all
:)gods were made up.
:)True, but my point was that the use of the word "god" (which to the vast
:)majority of those who are stupid enough to use it does not suggest
:)something "made up") is more than apt to obscure whatever creative
:)use you are embarked upon with its rather more usual meaning of "Other".
here, though, you're bringing up my particular goals in using
the term "god". I use it:
1) privately, as part of the "keep reminding myself where
god comes from" project. this is in keeping with the
great Lewis Carroll's commandment to "believe six
impossible things before breakfast". although actually,
I tend to make saints and messiahs more than gods. the
CotSG calls these "shordurpersavs" (short duration
personal saviours.)
2) pseudopublically, as a way of interpretting other people's
statements about "god". I believe in the universe as
a coherent (not necessarily personal) whole, meeting the
definition of what you refer to as the "Other" (although
I insist on the interconnectedness of "Self" and "Other".)
thus, the universe is god. further, since I believe all
delusions and fantasies must have some kind of real-world
antecedent, I am of the opinion that all myths of gods
refer back to some observation of the coherence within
the universe. thus, when I encounter some statement about
"god" or someone tries to tell me what "god" wants, I
translate "god" into "universe" and talk/argue with them
from that standpoint.
3) publically, as a tool to undermine organized religion.
here, it is absolutely *imperative* that people misunderstand
what I mean by "god". you can't undermine religion if they
think you're talking about a fictional character. an example:
once, I spotted a person handing out bibles and smarmy wisdom
before he spotted me and was able to hide myself in a quiet
place to quickly write a religious pamphlet bearing the words
"ARE YOU READY FOR RAGNAROK?" and numerous examples of how
modern events matched predictions in the Voluspa and Voluspa
en Skama. it was pretty lame in retrospect (crappy drawings,
hand lettering,) but it served a sort of purpose: forcing
someone to compare *his* proselytizing of *his* religion with
*my* proselytizing of *mine*. I did this again much more
recently: no pamphlet, this time, and I was being SubGenius
(and slightly Taoist,) but I got into a good 10-minute debate
on the streets of Reno with some christian about "Bob" Dobbs
and the one true way.
so, #1 is private and won't affect anyone at any time; #2 perhaps
confuses others, when they discuss "god" with me, but when I talk
to others about "god" this way, it's someone I know, someone I'm
trying to keep the peace with, as opposed to #3, where I am trying
to undermine them.
:)I do believe your anthropolgical stab is incorrect: I doubt if man
:)created the abstract concept of "god" with some understanding that
:)this was "merely" a creative undertaking, and then (somehow) this
:)creative notion got out of hand.
here, you're talking about whether ancient religionist were aware
of the creative process or not. I probably agree with you (actually,
I think it's hard to tell who was aware of what they were doing, and
who misinterpretted their own involvement; there may have been one
or more founders of new sects who were completely aware. we don't
know.) it was Brandon, in response to asking where gods come from,
who suggested it was from "crazy tarts like [me]" who wanted to
enslave the masses.
--
apes await at our atavistic edge.
Talysman
if you still disagree, Brandon, I defy you to define a difference
between Spiderman and Jesus that doesn't rely on the superficial
(Spiderman hangs from a web, Jesus hangs from a cross, &c.)
Barrett replied:
:)Spiderman is not widely worshiped as someone who can relieve you of the
:)responsibility for your actions (or your responsibility to act), or provide
:)rewards in some kind of afterlife that will compensate you for your
:)complacency in real life.
to refute you, I need only point out a few things:
1) you said "*widely* worshipped";
2) I said "a difference...that doesn't rely on the superficial".
there's bound to be someone, somewhere, worshipping Spiderman.
what's up with that guy in France? certainly, there are people
who *claim* to worship Spiderman, and Spiderman certainly infects
the consciousness of many children (and some adults) as a moral
model (I bet a "What Would Spiderman Do?" bracelet would sell
reasonably well.)
but "going to heaven" or "excusing my behavior" are superficial
differences, really. how can I tell? because some (official)
gods do not involve either. hell, let's try masonic deism, the
divine watchmaker: no heaven, no redemption, no divine excuse,
a strong incentive to be personally responsible and do good
works. why is the divine watchmaker a god, and Spiderman isn't?
--
cemeteries adamantly reunited pigs in the cloth infirmary.
Andrea Chen
was able to draw upon it because kibo kept it archived.
It should be noted that Glass and others added bits and pieces such as
"all shall become Chen" (which has actually occured to a degree (at
times) on certain groups (especially aav). Bill Cleere can tie this
into a similar Da Da ist (ist da da?) involving a soccer player
(interestingly enough the net has produced no shenagins (also spelled
chenigans) of equal power).
The question is why? Why blocks hundreds of people are even dozens in
uniting in consciously chosen lunancy rather than unconsciously chosen
lunacy (which soon gets boring.)
::NET MYTHOLOGIES::
--1-- ::The First Approach::
A year or so back there was a thread to decide who the net
god(dess) should be. Many proposed names from classical folklore,
but the one attempt at a tally (that I saw) wound up with Serdar
and Kibo as the two main contenders.
I found this interesting because the medium spontaneously
produced a dualism. Serdar (who some suspected was a
disinformation agent out to discredit Turks) was an angry
judgemental voice calling down his wrath on all those who opposed
him or even published recipes for Thanksgiving dinner. Kibo
while not always gentle was a playful figure who sought through
various techniques to increase awareness.
An obvious conclusion was to regard Kibo as a "God" of light,
Serdar as the force of the "God" of the dark, the dichotomy of
many religions. I should note that this was not the only dualism
inherant in their differences. Serdar could be considered an an
angry demanding God, somewhat like the power of the Old Testament
(at least the earlier sections). Kibo was a trickster God, akin
to the American Indian manitous of Coyote and Raven.
--2-- ::Reasons For Continuing The Process::
--2.1-- ::Understanding::
The fact that a single thread generated a form similar to what we
find in a number of religions is intriguing. Levi Strauss, Jung
and others have suggested that there are mythic forms or
"archtypes" implicit in the very fact of being human, perhaps in
the nature of itself. By proposing a richer mythology watching it
alter and playing with it we mix literary and scientific
experiment. We can hope that the poetic will rise and take form
and we can actually watch this process. Because we know it is a
game heavily laced with humor it should be possible to obtain a
detachment which allows us to study these things more ruthlessly
than "real" belief systems. Followers of a certain creed should
not have their very selves threatened by questions and analysis.
There is some danger that some shall take this as real, that
followers of "magick" and "quantum mind" may regard this as a
sort of ritual which somehow brings "spirit" or "soul" into I-
net. However this in itself is an opportunity. Whether we do it
intentionally or just let things roll, people will develop
"irrational" belief systems. If the "absurd" is taken as truth,
then by following the process we can perhaps see how such things
emerge.
--2.2-- ::Bonding The I-Net Community::
Real world cultures have mythic icons and forms which provide a
"common place" and shared patterns of thinking. I-net is in a
position to consciously create things which are ordinarily an
unconscious part of society. As people "pretend" to believe
these things and act them out we might richer social forms
emerging. They also have the potential of strengthening group
idenity. They may become a framework on which we can build
richer social patterns than now exist.
--3-- ::A First Approach::
The following is a smattering of mythic forms based on well known
"net kooks" and cliches. These are not meant to be final or even
fixed. Others may change them and add to them. These are simply
a few tongue in cheek referances that I have found in various
threads. Any individual is free to create such threads so all
themes presented are modifiable and debatable.
A real model of world religion will find dispute (even within a
single sect). My hope is that people will look at these symbolic
forms and play with them. Ideally many will become
"missionaries" slipping a referance here and there into their
posts and their sigs, so these "memes" will travel across I-net.
I regard the following as the metaphorical equivalent to the seed
number in a fractal equation. If the human processors of the net
take up this seed and process it then perhaps we shall find
patterns of incredible complexity. For those with interest in
this project an attempt to plug in the equation is currently
occuring in alt.cyberspace. Perhaps other niches will attempt
independant developments that can then be fed into each other.
Think of this as a first poorly linked pattern which we can weave
through a seven loomed catharic chain of becoming.
--3.1-- ::Kibo::
As Mohammad is to Islam, so Kibo is to I-net. He realized the
importance of watching all things and also is the patron saint of
the "troll", the highest form of I-net aesthetic. In its
simplest forms a troll is just a statement (often false) which
causes people to react, but the neu neutopian movement has
worked on developing the meta troll, a set of lures linked to
each other in complex chains which link themselves across the I-
net. The meta troll is many levels each watching each other and
it is recursive with lower levels watching the higher to create a
heteroarchy (mathematical network) as opposed to the hierarchy
(mathematical tree) by which mainstream disciplines are often
organized. In this "neu chain of being", there are no clear
boundaries between form and function, critique and content. Each
can become the other as a new literary style is born.
--3.2-- ::Kiba::
There is only one kibo, this is Doctress James Parry. However
we are all kiba. In the words of Doctress Glass, kibo is noise,
kiba is signal (a take off on that classic "Symbols, Signals and
Noise" by JR Pierce).
Kibo is Yang, the great darkness from which it all arose, we are
Yin, the attempt to provide bits of light. Wave and particle,
the mysteries of mass/energy.
It should be noted that in this dialectic system traditional
symbols are distorted. In the original Chinese symbiology it is
usually yang which is denoted as the fertilizing male. Yet in
English kiba, the yang is considered female. This tweaking this
slight alteration of mythic and symbolic forms is a key to
understanding this new medium. In conventional academia,
individuals strive to become "doctors" with traditional
association to the male, in a way women become honorary men. On
I-net, people strive to be doctresses, men become honorary
woman.
--3.3-- ::H Shen::
The joining of Kiba and Kibo create a totality called the Holly
(after the computer in a British Sci Fi show) Shen (named after
shenanigan).
The stress on Holly (often called Hollystone to tie into the
symbiology of neu surrealist Octavio Paz who uses stone and water
has his primal symbol (clearly explained in ac (alternating
currents))) is to remind us that kiba is symbol and also that
this being I-net which we are trying to create is a human/machine
symbiosis, a group mind which allow separate collections to work
on different parts of a problem then merge the results to split
them again, a potential acceleration of the learning process
thinking "thoughts" that no human (or even institution bound into
its own patterns) could emerge with on their own.
Shenanigins are the way. This medium has much serious discourse,
but that most remembered is that which plays and which mixes
fiction with truth to remind us always to be wary. On I-net
material is not edited. The mainstream press is bad enough in
forgetting to check its facts. Here we must exceeding watchful
(a skill we can take into our other lives). By mixing this into
our unifying principle we help the medium to become the message.
It should be noted that the ordering of Holly Shen reverses the
order Yang and Yin from the traditional form. Also note the
similarity of Shen to Zen.
--3.4-- ::John Winston::
One of the first to be inspired by Kibo, John is well known for
his knowlege of the mysteries of the universe and his kind gentle
ways. He is the "kind father" of certain religions. Some time
ago, John descended into the net to battle the spirit of Serdar
who inhabited it and bring the primal being into the light.
Lately there have been rumors of a second coming.
--3.5-- ::Serdar::
Serdar has never left the net, but battles in the fringes, the
most likely place to find him is in his in soc.history
(unmoderated). But there are many children of Serdar, the most
famous being Joel Furr who makes his living selling tee shirts of
his hero, who has falsely declared that he was the kibo and who
has attacted the greatness of Doctress Neutopia. You will find
the spirt of Serdar wherever people list their kill files and
complain of neubies.
--3.6-- ::Doctress Neutopia::
Libby Hubbard is truly the prophetess of the I-net. We all know
what words like "massagasm" or "lovalution" mean even if they
have no meaning. Libby herself is a force, a being of mystery,
some consider her a prank, others a rogue AI, there have even
been recent rumors that she is being from outer space.
Libby was a catalyst who sparked deep reactions. In the center
of a fierce storm she stood alone. Many believed the same things
as her ("ortho neutopians") but like Peter in the last hours of
Christ, they feared to stand with her and let the anti-neutopians
mock her. Libby was a "kook" and none wanted to take her vision
of a new society in which the artist was not alone and evolve it.
Interestingly enough, those who recognized her importance was a
group of anti neutopians who came to call themselves the "Monster
Truck Neutopians". They were obsessed by her and this obsession
led to one of the best organized groups on the I-net. One of the
few attempts on use net to build the formal trappings of
"community". Superficially this group seemed like bullying
reactionaries who proved their "individuality" (in unison) by
declaring that they ate meat and many of them are just that. But
not all. The intensity with which these people dwelled on Libby
was sometimes due to the fact that she awakened forces within
them. Though one can argue with the details of her message,
there is a fundamental truth to what she says. In the midst of
all this plenty there is an alienation and the visionary (true as
well as false) is often shunned. These people payed attention to
Libby because she was important, if not as an individual then as
an archetype.
Fortunatly the neu neutopian (nn) movement was formed. It has
forced the Monster Truck Neutopians (MTN) to see their need for
Libby. And from it have spawned neu neutopians movements
including various sects of "dark neutopians" of which James
McGowans is the most prominent. There are also the KaTe (Bush)
neutopias led by Doctress Glass. Hopefully more and more people
will form their own variants so that we can recreate the schisms
of real world religions. However though we feud and quarrel (and
since the serious is often attached to the satirical some of
these will not be mock flamewars), we should always try to
remember that in the final analysis we are all neu neutopians.
--3.7-- ::Neu Neutopia::
The word "Utopia" means nowhere. So neutopia means new nowhere.
However "neu" in some languages sounds close to no. So neu
neutopia either means "not nowhere" or not not nowhere which
means "utopia". This is the kind of thing by which we can create
discussions equivalent to angels dancing on pins.
neu topia can also mean "new top", a new ruling order. Within the
first vision of Libby the female was stressed indicating to many
(though she was always ambiguous struggling with the difficulties
of a new paradigm) a reverse of roles. MF (Mother Foundress)
neutopianism encourages this. It is a variant of "ortho
neutopianism".
Neu neu topia is a further turn of the synthesis dialectic.
Within male and female are made equal.
neu is also a pun on Neumann, and we are all typing on Von
Neumann architectures. There is also the play of "neus not gnu"
meaning an escape, an evolution beyond the limitations of Unix.
It is a very cybernetic word.
--3.8-- ::The Gaia Messiah::
Very often the carrier of a powerful meme complex is unaware of
many aspects. Indeed if one looks at the universe from a model
of Godel (not fully applicable to systems which can jump out of
themselves as cybernetic systems can) then logic indicates the
carrier must have levels of unawareness.
Libby Hubbard is a prophetess in evolution. She started with a
powerful imperfect vision of both the world and herself. She did
not recognize the full incompleteness of this, but by pursuing
the logic of her thoughts she is starting to make those
cybernetic jumps.
Originally the Gaia messiah seemed to be her earthly lover (one
of the classic I-net true novels is her corrospondence with
Gertjeen), but she has seen beyond this. She is now coming to
see that the Gaia messiah is a collective of many (male, female
and machine (unlike elsewhere AIs are afforded equal rights on I-
net)).
In fact there are many Gaia messiahs, each news group has the
potential to create one or more which can then though neural neu
neural conncetions (crossposting is a primitive form discussed by
Doctress Paul Murphy) join into meta Gaia messiahs and through
this recursive combination of level upon level we may create
neutopia, neu neutopia, neu neu neutopia, ...and many other
variants besides.
Those who spend time within this virtual universe may acquire new
habits and techniques which they then inflict on the "external
world" thus giving this medium the power to transform all human
affairs (a power which is only theoretical, far from
actualization, but none the less real, this is a potential
lever to move the world).
--3.9-- ::Wednesday::
Wednesday is the saintess of I-net. To hate Wednesday is to be
evil in a fundamental sense. She is our non virgin virgin, a
truly glorious, ethereal being who represents directly (and
through ghastly personal suffering) the thing to which the true
neu-nettie aspires.
This is mulitple personality. I-net is a way of playing with
potential selves that would never be expressed in "normal life".
This bumps against taboos because it can disorient. But this is
an important aspect of the "medium as message". It teaches one to
distrust first impressions and continually re-evaluate as one
suddenly figures out such things as BOB(c) is actually a woman.
--3.10-- ::The Imminent Death Of The I-net::
This is a cliche, an often repeated prophecy which almost any
event can trigger. One day its a bill (which will probaly not get
out of committee) in Congress, the next its the impending hordes
from Prodigy. Obviously, many people yearn for this day because
it is always predicted with fatalism. This is the desire for
destruction described in Alexander Zinovievs "Yawning Heights".
So what is it? Is it necessarily bad? Perhaps it is neu
neutopia, perhaps we will all gather together to figure out how
to move Venus into an earthlike orbit. No one knows for sure.
It is somewhat like the end of the world predicted in many
religions.
--4-- ::Conclusion::
The above is only a quick sketch of only some of the forces. The
advantage of using real people and real cliches is that we draw
at the actuality and draw more conclusions. For example it may
be "Serdars kid" who tend to use the imminent death of the I-net.
I have left our much theology such as Doctress Richardsons "The
Nonexistence Of Kibo". I believe this is true and it is not true.
Kibo does not exist and he does exist. But if I were to describe
all the disputes this paper would triple in size. The above is
only an introduction. Fuller discussion and development will be
found in alt.cyberspace which is sort of a clearing house for
these things.
Many will look askance at the above and decide it is only silly?
But is it? I think not. Doctress Paul Murphy took the idea of
the troll and ran a thread in alt.alien.visitors called "Light in
A Vacuum" which argued that one can't see in outer space. The
result was immense amounts of good clear physics as numerous
people tried to talk sense into this apparent idiot. The
humorous attracts readers and is a way to present knowlege. A
fair amount has already emerged such as discussions on the temple
of Delphi.
It is the dream of the neu neutopian that after we build an I-net
religion(s), we can create an I-net university with thinkers
such as Professoress Plutonium and Doctress Abian providing an
infrastructure for "real science". Then an imaginery politics
with the evil knights templar battling the Illuminati. A virtual
reality created by hundreds, perhaps thousands with a complexity
approaching that of the world we live in. It is a game, but it
can also be much more.
By using words like "neu" instead of "new", by tucking in
referances in more serious threads it becomes possible to tie and
link this thing across the net.
- ac -
Richard Martin
Andrea Chen wrote:
Uhhhh, . . . is this gonna be on the test?
Nikolaus Maack
"barrett john erickson" (bar...@magneticfields.org) writes:
> Spiderman is not widely worshiped as someone who can relieve you of the
Nor is Breton. Whoops. I mean, uh, nothing.
Obviously you're not a big comic book fan. In the Jan 99 issue of
Spiderman, it will be revealed that Spiderman is the messiah. A cult of
SpiderPeople begin to follow him as he preaches a message of love,
tolerance, and spider eating.
Marvel, anticipating the End Of The World in the year 2001, is covering
all its bases. They are well aware that fans of comic books need guidance
in the upcoming apocalypse. For this reason, Spiderman, it will be
revealed, is a REAL being. The groundwork for this has already been laid
in the much-watched Spiderman cartoon show, where Stan Lee himself
appeared as a character on the show, blending the world of fact and
fiction. A church known as "The Church of the Spider" will open in New
York City in the upcoming months. Watch for it.
You may say this is an elaborate fraud on the part of Marvel, to boost its
market share and eventually lead an angry mob to the DC building where
they will burn the office tower to the ground. Au contraire. Spiderman
*is* the messiah.
All praise the SpiderKing.
Nik
Talysman
write in alt.surrealism:
:)Obviously you're not a big comic book fan. In the Jan 99 issue of
:)Spiderman, it will be revealed that Spiderman is the messiah. A cult of
:)SpiderPeople begin to follow him as he preaches a message of love,
:)tolerance, and spider eating.
[ ... ]
:)A church known as "The Church of the Spider" will open in New
:)York City in the upcoming months. Watch for it.
there really *was* a Church of the Great Spider, although when
I wrote to them, the address was defunct. I believe they based
their religion not on Spiderman, but on African and Native American
spider goddesses and on "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God",
a sermon by Jonathan Edwards.
you know, folklorists, mythologists, anthropologists, comic book
fans, and fundamentalists all agree that superheros are obviously
thinly-disguised deities, but Brandon and Barrett don't see it
that way. why? what do they know that we don't? or what *don't*
they know that everyone else *does*?
next, they'll be telling everyone that Santa Claus isn't a god.
--
the cloisters mock our bloody frontiers.
barrett john erickson
the following is yet another example of a pattern of conceptual dyslexia (a
pattern not unique to talysman) which may indicate a genuine deficiency in
intellectual acuity, but seems more likely to be intentional or reckless.
either way it's become very tiring and unworthy of further attempts to
engage.
-- barrett
Talysman wrote in message ...
>if you still disagree, Brandon, I defy you to define a difference
>between Spiderman and Jesus that doesn't rely on the superficial
>(Spiderman hangs from a web, Jesus hangs from a cross, &c.)
barrett answered:
> Spiderman is not widely worshiped as someone who can relieve you of the
> responsibility for your actions (or your responsibility to act), or
provide
> rewards in some kind of afterlife that will compensate you for your
> complacency in real life.
Talysman then "replied" to me:
> to refute you, I need only point out a few things:
> 1) you said "*widely* worshipped";
> 2) I said "a difference...that doesn't rely on the superficial".
> there's bound to be someone, somewhere, worshipping Spiderman.
> what's up with that guy in France? certainly, there are people
> who *claim* to worship Spiderman, and Spiderman certainly infects
> the consciousness of many children (and some adults) as a moral
> model (I bet a "What Would Spiderman Do?" bracelet would sellreasonably
well.)
> but "going to heaven" or "excusing my behavior" are superficial
> differences, really. how can I tell? because some (official)
> gods do not involve either. hell, let's try masonic deism, the
> divine watchmaker: no heaven, no redemption, no divine excuse,
> a strong incentive to be personally responsible and do good
> works. why is the divine watchmaker a god, and Spiderman isn't?
and then Talysman writes in another post:
>you know, folklorists, mythologists, anthropologists, comic book
>fans, and fundamentalists all agree that superheros are obviously
>thinly-disguised deities, but Brandon and Barrett don't see it
>that way. why? what do they know that we don't? or what *don't*
>they know that everyone else *does*?
>
>next, they'll be telling everyone that Santa Claus isn't a god.
--
bar...@MagneticFields.org
Nikolaus Maack
> pattern not unique to talysman) which may indicate a genuine deficiency in
> intellectual acuity, but seems more likely to be intentional or reckless.
Translation:
Talysman don't understand me.
Talysman maybe stupid.
Talysman maybe just jerking my chain.
The sudden necessity for excess verbiage is often a clear indicator that
the speaker is attempting to agrandize themselves. If a speaker
communicates in elaborately patterened multisyllabic textual meanderings,
it must mean that they are in a position of authority. Big words, most
people seem to believe, require a big mind. Therefore, being a power to
be reckoned with, speaking in the equivalent of intellectual gibberish, it
is acceptable for the speaker to belittle their audience.
"You are stupid," is never an acceptable statement if one wishes to
maintain some standing in the community. However, accusing someone of
"conceptual dyslexia" and being deficient in "intellectual acuity", while
being the equivalent of saying "you are stupid", allows the speaker to
come across as a chipper and intelligent fellow merely offering a few
polite observations as we all sit around in large leather armchairs,
smoking cigars and holding sifters of brandy.
Barett, you are a sickening weasel and you cause me to gag on my own
phlegm. I love you. Please fuck me behind the leather chesterfield after
the others have finished their cigars and brandy and have gone hom.
Brandon J. Freels
barrett john erickson
posts fitting the pattern of conceptual dyslexia, not just talysman's) ...
>The sudden necessity for excess verbiage is often a clear indicator that
>the speaker is attempting to agrandize themselves. If a speaker
>communicates in elaborately patterened multisyllabic textual meanderings,
>it must mean that they are in a position of authority. Big words, most
>people seem to believe, require a big mind. Therefore, being a power to
>be reckoned with, speaking in the equivalent of intellectual gibberish, it
>is acceptable for the speaker to belittle their audience.
Translation:
I don't like the way you write.
I feel belittled by the way you write.
Do you have to use such big words?
>"You are stupid," is never an acceptable statement if one wishes to
>maintain some standing in the community. However, accusing someone of
>"conceptual dyslexia" and being deficient in "intellectual acuity", while
>being the equivalent of saying "you are stupid", allows the speaker to
>come across as a chipper and intelligent fellow merely offering a few
>polite observations as we all sit around in large leather armchairs,
>smoking cigars and holding sifters of brandy.
Translation:
Can't we still be a community?
Why should you get upset when we deliberately (because we're _not_ just
stupid) misrepresent your position?
What's wrong with that if we find it useful?
>Barett, you are a sickening weasel and you cause me to gag on my own
>phlegm. I love you. Please fuck me behind the leather chesterfield after
>the others have finished their cigars and brandy and have gone hom.
Translation:
I really get off on abuse.
Harder!
Harder!
-- barrett
elag
INTELLECTUAL TRANS: Extensive cerebrations have induced me to conclude
that these incipient textual encodings, superficially, generate an
increased likelihood of a higher degree of efficacious reciprocity.
Nikolaus Maack wrote:
>
> "barrett john erickson" (bar...@magneticfields.org) writes:
> > the following is yet another example of a pattern of conceptual dyslexia (a
> > pattern not unique to talysman) which may indicate a genuine deficiency in
> > intellectual acuity, but seems more likely to be intentional or reckless.
>
> Translation:
> Talysman don't understand me.
> Talysman maybe stupid.
> Talysman maybe just jerking my chain.
>
> The sudden necessity for excess verbiage is often a clear indicator that
> the speaker is attempting to agrandize themselves. If a speaker
> communicates in elaborately patterened multisyllabic textual meanderings,
> it must mean that they are in a position of authority. Big words, most
> people seem to believe, require a big mind. Therefore, being a power to
> be reckoned with, speaking in the equivalent of intellectual gibberish, it
> is acceptable for the speaker to belittle their audience.
>
> "You are stupid," is never an acceptable statement if one wishes to
> maintain some standing in the community. However, accusing someone of
> "conceptual dyslexia" and being deficient in "intellectual acuity", while
> being the equivalent of saying "you are stupid", allows the speaker to
> come across as a chipper and intelligent fellow merely offering a few
> polite observations as we all sit around in large leather armchairs,
> smoking cigars and holding sifters of brandy.
>
> Barett, you are a sickening weasel and you cause me to gag on my own
> phlegm. I love you. Please fuck me behind the leather chesterfield after
> the others have finished their cigars and brandy and have gone hom.
>
Talysman
write in alt.surrealism:
:)the following is yet another example of a pattern of conceptual dyslexia (a
:)pattern not unique to talysman) which may indicate a genuine deficiency in
:)intellectual acuity, but seems more likely to be intentional or reckless.
:)either way it's become very tiring and unworthy of further attempts to
:)engage.
Barrett, you're a hoot.
but if you wanted to prove your claim, you should have selected
different excerpts.
anyways, I'll put what I said in simpler language, so you'll not
miss my point:
the example you gave for differences between Spiderman and Jesus
was superficial and false. try another.
--
eskimo tricks are in our blood.
Nikolaus Maack
Talysman (taly...@softhome.net) writes:
> the example you gave for differences between Spiderman and Jesus
> was superficial and false. try another.
Jesus comes only in black and white, while Spiderman comes in colour.
Jesus has holes in his hands that drip blood. Spiderman drips web. Jesus
doesn't have much of a costume, just some robes. Spiderman's costume is
(traditionally speaking) a funky 60s acid trip. Jesus never did Mary
Magdalene. Spiderman boffed MaryJane.
Hell, for all we know, MaryJane is Mary Magdalene.
Nik
--
WARNING! The preceding text was "another example of a pattern of
conceptual dyslexia which may indicate a genuine deficiency in
intellectual acuity, but seems more likely to be intentional or reckless."
(So sayeth Barrett Erickson.)
Ktzoah of Pic
>
> the example you gave for differences between Spiderman and Jesus
> was superficial and false. try another.
You guys are silly. The answer is obvious. SpiderMan was always
nervous about/agonizing over being late for some kind of date with
his girlfriend (what'z her name...? Mary Jane?). Jesus was much
more relaxed with the women.
Also: Since SpiderMan is a contemporary character, many more
of the records of his spoken words have survived, and it's much
easier to confirm their authenticity, compared to trying to find
out anything about the origins of those few stories we have
about Jesus.
Also: they charge $1.50 or something for the Spidey-man comix,
but Jesus books and pamphlets are often given away phree.
Also: SpiderMan can shoot webs of gooey stuff from his wrists.
Thereis, AFAIK, no record of Jesus doing that.
Spiderman is a loner. Jesus had disciples. Spiderman sends the
Bad Guys to prison. Jesus says to turn the other cheek.
Try Jesus vs. Elvis Presley. That works a lot better.
_