Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Neoism explained
0 views
Skip to first unread message
Monty Cantsin
Nov 14, 2003, 5:31:02 PM11/14/03
to
In a Neoist view, the world is not collision of things in space, but a
dissimilar row of each independent phenomena. Neoism does not conceive
of the spatial as lasting in time. Since each state is irreducible,
the mere act of giving it a name implies falsification. The paradox
however is that epistemologies exist in Neoism, in countless numbers.
There are Neoists who consider a certain pain, a green tinge of the
yellow, a temperature, a certain tone the only reality. Other Neoists
perceive all people having sex as the same being, and all people
memorizing a line of Homer as Homer. Another group has reached the
point of denying time. It reasons that the present is undefined, that
the future has no reality than as present hope, that the past is no
more than present memory. Yet another group has it that the history of
the universe is the handwriting produced by a minor god in order to
communicate with a demon; that the world is an emblem whose
subscription is partly lost, and in which only that which happens
every three hundredth night is true. Another believes that while we
are asleep here, we are awake somewhere else, so that everyone is two.
Books are rarely signed, and the notion of plagiarism does not exist.
It has been established that all literature is the work of only one
ageless and anonymous writer. Are the principles of Neoism similar to
Eckankar?
dissimilar row of each independent phenomena. Neoism does not conceive
of the spatial as lasting in time. Since each state is irreducible,
the mere act of giving it a name implies falsification. The paradox
however is that epistemologies exist in Neoism, in countless numbers.
There are Neoists who consider a certain pain, a green tinge of the
yellow, a temperature, a certain tone the only reality. Other Neoists
perceive all people having sex as the same being, and all people
memorizing a line of Homer as Homer. Another group has reached the
point of denying time. It reasons that the present is undefined, that
the future has no reality than as present hope, that the past is no
more than present memory. Yet another group has it that the history of
the universe is the handwriting produced by a minor god in order to
communicate with a demon; that the world is an emblem whose
subscription is partly lost, and in which only that which happens
every three hundredth night is true. Another believes that while we
are asleep here, we are awake somewhere else, so that everyone is two.
Books are rarely signed, and the notion of plagiarism does not exist.
It has been established that all literature is the work of only one
ageless and anonymous writer. Are the principles of Neoism similar to
Eckankar?
Sean
Nov 14, 2003, 8:14:11 PM11/14/03
to
"Monty Cantsin" <monty_c...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8b22670e.03111...@posting.google.com...
Whilst this is indeed an interestign question, I feel at this time and
place, the more pertinent question would be "Has everyone gone mad or simply
lost their sense of humour on a.r.e. ??"
Michael Wallace
Nov 14, 2003, 10:07:00 PM11/14/03
to
"Sean" <lifeswha...@earth.org> wrote in message
news:nLednTExieh...@inspired.net.au...
Both!! <G>
Love
Michael
>
0 new messages