question
heath
heath
Nikolaus Maack
> The question is asked, “What is the only question that can’t be asked?”
It's simpler than you might think -- asking anyone WHY leads to all sorts
of nightmares of angst.
"This is the way it is."
"Why?"
It leads to more fistfights than any other question I know. People don't
want to think about the WHYs, because the answer, often, is there is no
reason. Just because we have no other way of doing it. That's why.
Nik
--
Every good piece of art kills something small and soft.
The Nik Maack Art Gallery
http://www.nikart.com
brandon...@my-deja.com
> It's simpler than you might think -- asking anyone WHY leads to all
> other question I know. People don't want to think about the WHYs,
> because the answer, often, is there is no reason. Just because we
> have no other way of doing it. That's why.
This is true. I asked Nik WHY people have to confess to another even
after they have made the confession to their own self. Nik did not
respond to this WHY question of mine, but instead attack both Dale and
myself in a seperate post.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
johnqadamsiii
ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA wrote:
>didn't you notice when Dale said flat out, "I don't care
>about the feelings of people"? How does that make you feel?
It is somewhat peculiar to me, i admit, to proclaim to be a non-
personalist yet to apparently enjoy taking these often elaborate
personal stabs at other users in the past. Some of these
comments were not always fair and truthful, nor the attitude of
one taking a non-personal intellectual stance. But certainly,
there is no doubt, many of these little nasty wrangles were
provoked by others.
john
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Nikolaus Maack
> Nik did not
> respond to this WHY question of mine, but instead attack both Dale and
> myself in a seperate post.
When one's house is full of roaches, one does not "attack" them. One
exterminates them. What you're doing now is little more than coughing as
the poisonous dust settles in your tiny insect stomach.
Nikolaus Maack
> His attacks, since day one, have been cruel. Of course people who
> don't know the history involved will note that some of us fight back.
Please. You are as blind as any country involved in a war.
"They started it, those evil Russians. But we Americans are good and pure
and we fight the good fight. Down with the oppressors!"
Shit, Cythera, you talk about your "little jokes" as compared to my
"vicious attacks". Same fucking thing happens in the news -- we talk of
"rebel scum" and they talk of "freedom fighters". Fas has been trying to
tell you that. I have been trying to tell you that. Elag has been trying
to tell you that.
You can't hear because you don't wanna hear.
Both you and Dale have been typing, for the last week, convoluted grown-up
versions of "but he started it!" You can't see that?
Silly kids -- for the last few weeks I have been tempted to type, "No,
Dale and Brandon started it!" But resisted the urge. That's a level of
childishness I have no appreciation for.
Shit, girl -- didn't you notice when Dale said flat out, "I don't care
about the feelings of people"? How does that make you feel? Meanwhile
Brandon is (supposedly) trying to get me to talk about my feelings. Sweet
irony, huh? Maybe these two should get together and talk this out amongst
themselves.
Dale Houstman
"johnqadamsiii" <johnqadams...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:24bfb16a...@usw-ex0102-015.remarq.com...
> >about the feelings of people"? How does that make you feel?
>
> personalist yet to apparently enjoy taking these often elaborate
> personal stabs at other users in the past.
But I DIDN'T say that I had no concern for the feelings of others. This is
just a typical dualist reading of a non-dualist text. First, I was telling
ONE person (who was attempting to manipulate the group in general and myself
in particular with a profession of invalid "hurt") that I didn't care about
that one expression of her feelings. This happens even face to face in the
best of families. We can't always care.
Secondly, I was responding to a history of insults against myself and others
that is so conveniently forgotten. In this regard it is little different
from being spat on repeatedly and then having the expectorater inform you
that they feel badly about your attempts to escape the downpour. At that
point, their "feelings" are not of particular inportance.
But I NEVER said I didn't care about people emotions. It would have been
difficult to me to survive 11 years in a marriage and now 14 years in a
relationship without some degree of concern. But this is Usenet boys, not
the boudoir or the family barbeque.
This assumption of a lack of concern on my part drawn from one example of
directed anger is without foundation.
>Some of these comments were not always fair and truthful, nor the attitude
of
> one taking a non-personal intellectual stance.
They were always fair and truthful, and who said I was taking a non-personal
intellectual stance? Somethings are always personal. N. is the one who is
the nihilist, self-professed, not I!
> But certainly, there is no doubt, many of these little nasty wrangles were
> provoked by others.
>
You should keep in mind that Brenda lashed out - in her little diva
farewell - at the one person who rarely even looked at, much less responded
to her posts. There is something in that no doubt.
If you knew the entire history here, you would realize - or not - that all
these nasty little wrangles have been provoked. N. was "deposited" here by
A.C. as a purposeful (and again self-professed) tool of disruption. N. has
no interest in surrealism. He is thus deserving of all he receives.
Yet - I must ask - if he is a "joyful nihilist" whyt is he so upset about
anything that is said?
Where goes the nihilism? Where goes the joy?
I would suggest that his hollow philosophy has failed to hold up the weight
of his defense-encrusted consciousness.
dmh
johnqadamsiii
I seem to recall an initial insult coming from your very
fingertips upon her entrance to this newsgroup, and perhaps this
is the point at which your long and jaggedy relationship with
DivaBlue started off on the wrong foot.
>But I NEVER said I didn't care about people emotions. It would
have been
>difficult to me to survive 11 years in a marriage and now 14
years in a
>relationship without some degree of concern.
Fair enough - i would like to think you do anyway.
>But this is Usenet boys,
That's what i try to remember. And as Milton once said: But up
or down, By center or eccentric, hard to tell, on Usenet.
> not
>the boudoir or the family barbeque.
Though there are the occasional bloodfeasts and human salads.
>This assumption of a lack of concern on my part drawn from one
example of
>directed anger is without foundation.
There are other examples.
>>Some of these comments were not always fair and truthful, nor
the attitude
>of
>> one taking a non-personal intellectual stance.
>
>They were always fair and truthful, and who said I was taking a
non-personal
>intellectual stance? Somethings are always personal. N. is the
one who is
>the nihilist, self-professed, not I!
Here is what i have trouble reading: that one person reduces
another with the remark "you are worthless", which to me, under
the circumstances i am capable of perceiving, seems coarse and
unfair. To get technical here, is it really 'truthful' or is it
antithetical to the idea surrounding our approach to human
potential inherent in every man? Comments out of haste i suppose.
>> But certainly, there is no doubt, many of these little nasty
wrangles were
>> provoked by others.
>>
>You should keep in mind that Brenda lashed out - in her little
diva
>farewell - at the one person who rarely even looked at, much
less responded
>to her posts. There is something in that no doubt.
Yes, i do agree.
>If you knew the entire history here, you would realize - or
not - that all
>these nasty little wrangles have been provoked. N.
was "deposited" here by
>A.C. as a purposeful (and again self-professed) tool of
disruption. N. has
>no interest in surrealism. He is thus deserving of all he
receives.
>
>Yet - I must ask - if he is a "joyful nihilist" whyt is he so
upset about
>anything that is said?
>
>Where goes the nihilism? Where goes the joy?
>
>I would suggest that his hollow philosophy has failed to hold
up the weight
>of his defense-encrusted consciousness.
>
>dmh
There is impressive work being done towards unravelling the
mysteries of the gene which may be responsible for promoting
stubborn nihl-headedness during the fetus stage, until then we
must be patient.
Dale Houstman
"johnqadamsiii" <johnqadams...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
>
> I seem to recall an initial insult coming from your very
> fingertips upon her entrance to this newsgroup, and perhaps this
> is the point at which your long and jaggedy relationship with
> DivaBlue started off on the wrong foot.
I think your recollection is blurry, or you came in on a sequence alreayd in
progress. At any rate, I try to avoid baseless attacks.
>
>
> >This assumption of a lack of concern on my part drawn from one
> example of
> >directed anger is without foundation.
>
> There are other examples.
Possibly, but I say that these are obviously being misterpreted also, as I
am rather intimate with the "Dale" under scrutiny, and I know him to be as
emotionally empathetic as most.
>
> Here is what i have trouble reading: that one person reduces
> another with the remark "you are worthless", which to me, under
> the circumstances i am capable of perceiving, seems coarse and
> unfair. To get technical here, is it really 'truthful' or is it
> antithetical to the idea surrounding our approach to human
> potential inherent in every man? Comments out of haste i suppose.
Could be.
>
> >> But certainly, there is no doubt, many of these little nasty
> wrangles were
> >> provoked by others.
> >>
> >You should keep in mind that Brenda lashed out - in her little
> diva
> >farewell - at the one person who rarely even looked at, much
> less responded
> >to her posts. There is something in that no doubt.
>
> Yes, i do agree.
>
> >If you knew the entire history here, you would realize - or
> not - that all
> >these nasty little wrangles have been provoked. N.
> was "deposited" here by
> >A.C. as a purposeful (and again self-professed) tool of
> disruption. N. has
> >no interest in surrealism. He is thus deserving of all he
> receives.
> >
> >Yet - I must ask - if he is a "joyful nihilist" whyt is he so
> upset about
> >anything that is said?
Well - the only answer I can come up with that fits is that he is NOT upset,
but playing another game of being upset, which is really the only position
left to one who disavows belief in anything: pretense all the time.
>
> There is impressive work being done towards unravelling the
> mysteries of the gene which may be responsible for promoting
> stubborn nihl-headedness during the fetus stage, until then we
> must be patient.
In the meantime, I plan to keep ignoring N. almost "religiously."
dmh
Nikolaus Maack
> Well - the only answer I can come up with that fits is that he is NOT
>upset, but playing another game of being upset, which is really the only
>position left to one who disavows belief in anything: pretense all the
>time.
Everyone is acting under pretense all the time. Your truth is an act.
You're pretending. Not that that's a bad thing -- I myself LOVE to play
pretend -- it's just that you take yourself so damned seriously. Throw
away your truth for a minute. It must burden you so.
"One does not throw one's truth away!" I hear the noble -- and therefore
laughable -- surrealist say. "One pursues truth nobly and with honour and
valour and..."
Blah blah blah.
How do you know something is true if you never put it down?
"But I cannot put it down! It is true! True, I tell you sir!"
Ah shaddap!
Here's that line of questioning again, those vital, unanswerable questions
that I ask over and over, and receive no response to: Can you laugh at
yourself? Do you think the ability to laugh at yourself is important? Is
being able to mock your most serious beliefs a useful skill?
The closest I ever got to an answer was from... I forget. Someone who
said that it's silly to laugh at everything. One must take some things
seriously, mustn't one?
I certain hope not.
Comedy is nihilistic. Laugh at yourself. Tip a sacred cow. Don't insult
the person on the other side of the screen -- insult yourself.
I am a scatter-brained nitwit who smears dogfood on himself and calls it
art. I staple wallpaper to canvas, and call it a masterpiece. I live in
suburbia, and I hide inside these four walls. I work as a nanny --
possibly one of the most ridiculous jobs a person can have. I am an
ignorant, loud-mouthed egotistical fool.
Try insulting yourself, for a change. It's far more entertaining than
insulting someone else.
"Insult myself sir? But why? As a noble surrealist pursuing truth, I am
so very important, and must never be ill-dignified or brutish or..."
Yadda, yadda, yadda.
It's hard to believe such a pompous lot as you folk evolved from the
enlightened masters known as the dadaists.
Nik
--
Every good piece of art kills something soft and small.
johnqadamsiii
ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Nikolaus Maack) wrote:
>I am an
>ignorant, loud-mouthed egotistical fool.
But there is some truth to this one, no? See, you're already
getting the hang of it now.
johnqadamsiii
>> Well - the only answer I can come up with that fits is that
he is NOT
>>upset, but playing another game of being upset, which is
really the only
>>position left to one who disavows belief in anything: pretense
all the
>>time.
>
>Everyone is acting under pretense all the time. Your truth is
an act.
>You're pretending. Not that that's a bad thing -- I myself
LOVE to play
>pretend -- it's just that you take yourself so damned
seriously. Throw
>away your truth for a minute. It must burden you so.
>
>"One does not throw one's truth away!" I hear the noble -- and
therefore
>laughable -- surrealist say. "One pursues truth nobly and with
honour and
>valour and..."
>
>Blah blah blah.
>
>How do you know something is true if you never put it down?
I see you will be clinging to this (and your newfound nihilist
philosophy) for a while to come. What i find contradictory is
your failure to reject all religious belief. Also, in being a
nihilist, do you firmly believe in the principles of reason and
materialism?
What i personally advocate is the reliance upon our own
experience as individuals as well as our intuition, if you want
to call it that, to guide our actions, dreams or satisfy our
desires. Obviously we all do this everyday, consciously and
unconciously. You may think it innovative to espouse the belief
that nothing is knowable, but in reality you atleast act upon
your knowledge as if it is truth - you have no choice and
ultimately can not consciously avoid doing so every moment.
To question beliefs, construct systems, or the process of
believing is another thing, and if you were paying attention you
would realize that no one here claims "to know everything".
>
>Here's that line of questioning again, those vital,
unanswerable questions
>that I ask over and over, and receive no response to: Can you
laugh at
>yourself? Do you think the ability to laugh at yourself is
important? Is
>being able to mock your most serious beliefs a useful skill?
>
>The closest I ever got to an answer was from... I forget.
Someone who
>said that it's silly to laugh at everything. One must take
some things
>seriously, mustn't one?
>
>I certain hope not.
>
>Comedy is nihilistic. Laugh at yourself. Tip a sacred cow.
Don't insult
>the person on the other side of the screen -- insult yourself.
>
>I am a scatter-brained nitwit who smears dogfood on himself and
calls it
>art. I staple wallpaper to canvas, and call it a masterpiece.
I live in
>suburbia, and I hide inside these four walls. I work as a
nanny --
>possibly one of the most ridiculous jobs a person can have. I
am an
>ignorant, loud-mouthed egotistical fool.
>
>Try insulting yourself, for a change. It's far more
entertaining than
>insulting someone else.
>
>"Insult myself sir? But why? As a noble surrealist pursuing
truth, I am
>so very important, and must never be ill-dignified or brutish
or..."
>
>Yadda, yadda, yadda.
>
>It's hard to believe such a pompous lot as you folk evolved
from the
>enlightened masters known as the dadaists.
>
This sounds very silly, Mango.
johnqadamsiii
ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Nikolaus Maack) wrote:
>[I am a loud-mouthed egotistical fool.]
>
>johnqadamsiii (johnqadams...@yahoo.com.invalid) writes:
>> But there is some truth to this one, no? See, you're already
>> getting the hang of it now.
>
egotistical
>fool? Give me some credit. I was insulting myself -- of
course I'm going
>to be honest about it.
>
>The point of this exercise was to show that we can make fun of
ourselves,
>not other people. You've taken the exercise, and turned it
right back
>around into the standard mud slinging. Not only that, John,
but your
>mud-slinging sucks. When you see an obvious opening -- and
this one was
>WAY too obvious -- you don't go for it. Humour is about the
unexpected.
>You've done the extremely expected.
>
>So given all of this, I'm afraid I'm going to have to give you
a "F".
>That means you're going to have to repeat the whole year in
alt.surrealism
>over again.
>
> Nik
Another year, sure thing Nikolaus. I can do it.
I'll hone my mud-slinging skills to one day equal your already
fabulous and forgettable "i own you now maggot", etc. posts.
That was a mere lesson in truth, which i see you are now
willing and able to embrace. The next lesson will be "Overcoming
Being A Hypocrite". And I will expect you to bring your manilla
folder this time.
heath
Nikolaus Maack wrote:
>
> Comedy is nihilistic. Laugh at yourself. Tip a sacred cow. Don't insult
> the person on the other side of the screen -- insult yourself.
> I am a scatter-brained nitwit who smears dogfood on himself and calls it
> art. I staple wallpaper to canvas, and call it a masterpiece. I live in
> suburbia, and I hide inside these four walls. I work as a nanny --
> possibly one of the most ridiculous jobs a person can have. I am an
> ignorant, loud-mouthed egotistical fool.
>
>
In my life comedy is very important. I truly believe that being a child
is important, especially being a child as an adult. Allowing the freedom of
childhood to wash over you. But in childhood, as i well recall it, my antics
were never forced. To force myself to smear myself in dog food or whatever
seems pointless. It's the 'forcing' part that doesn't appeal to me at all.
When the spirit moves me, i enjoy acting up, in a room full of people or
empty. I will act like a 'fool' when i feel like it, at other times i will
not. It's the same way with writing for me, painting or anything else.
Laughing at myself is easy enough to do but when someone puts a gun to my head
and says 'now laugh' suddenly the humour is gone. If i had to force myself
into acting this way it would completely take away from the experience, just
the same way as if i were to force myself to write. Art would no longer be art
when i was forced to do it.
I don't know if you're talking about overcoming the suppression of these
desires to smear one's self in dog food or of going out of the way to try and
think of some unorthodox display such as stapling wallpaper on canvass, but if
the action must be painstakingly crafted in the mind before being performed
then where lies the art in that?
Assuming of course that this is meant to be an exercise in art.
heath
johnqadamsiii
ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Nikolaus Maack) wrote:
>One of the risks of actually being in this newsgroup -- I'm
actually IN
>this newsgroup, the rest of you sort of hover over it.
Ok, whatever that means...
>is that every person will come along and pick at me, trying to
find flaws,
>and errors and inconsistencies and what have you. Answering
questions,
>engaging in debate, talking to other people about myself,
becomes a big
>bore.
Perhaps your inconsistencies are what bore everyone to death.
>The principles of reason and materialism? No. Why should I?
Because you said you were a nihilist, as i recall it.
>Reason and materialism are dull and unimagnitive.
>
>I got a woman pregnant, she had an abortion, and her womb was
>destroyed.
>This makes me feel intense angst and guilt and pain. I hurt.
This is
>true. Or is it? Pretty close. But even as I describe it to
you, I limit
>it, I mythologize it, I ruin it. It's gone.
(ill-constructed sentencing: consider a more diametrical
approach)
>Still, maybe it's worth describing, because it's as close to
TRUE as I can
>get. Here is an experience I had. It provoked feelings and
thoughts and
>LIFE.
>
>In truth -- ha ha! -- we construct our experiences out of
nothing. Our
>intuitions are fleeting, nearly meaningless. Our perceptions
lie to us
>constantly. How do I know what I really felt and thought
during this
>experience? Again, we build "truth" out of vapour.
>
>Oh well.
Slight exagerration in order to validate your own point. But
beside that, you know that statement is true how? I propose you
give up on living entirely then at this point.
>You say that like silliness is a bad thing, and if you think
that, then I
>know you're absolutely no fun at all.
>
No, i love silliness, when it isn't used as a lame excuse to
wallow around in your own confusion on Usenet.
Nikolaus Maack
johnqadamsiii (johnqadams...@yahoo.com.invalid) writes:
> But there is some truth to this one, no? See, you're already
> getting the hang of it now.
John, didja really think I was unaware that I'm a loud-mouthed egotistical
fool? Give me some credit. I was insulting myself -- of course I'm going
to be honest about it.
The point of this exercise was to show that we can make fun of ourselves,
not other people. You've taken the exercise, and turned it right back
around into the standard mud slinging. Not only that, John, but your
mud-slinging sucks. When you see an obvious opening -- and this one was
WAY too obvious -- you don't go for it. Humour is about the unexpected.
You've done the extremely expected.
So given all of this, I'm afraid I'm going to have to give you a "F".
That means you're going to have to repeat the whole year in alt.surrealism
over again.
Nik
--
Nikolaus Maack
is that every person will come along and pick at me, trying to find flaws,
and errors and inconsistencies and what have you. Answering questions,
engaging in debate, talking to other people about myself, becomes a big
bore.
I would much rather play, fart around, sing and dance. If I do, people
say, "Why aren't you answering my questions? Obviously I'm too smart for
the likes of you!" If I do answer, the picking gets more and more minute,
more and more detailed, until eventually I go mad, and have to disengage.
Given that, here's this:
johnqadamsiii (johnqadams...@yahoo.com.invalid) writes:
> What i find contradictory is
> your failure to reject all religious belief.
(Oh dear Lord, not again.)
If nothing is true, and we make our beliefs out of nothing, then we can
choose to believe random, nonsensical, and superstitious things -- just
for kicks! Today there will be a God, tomorrow there won't, just because
I want to play with these beliefs. Try em on, why not? One belief is as
good as another. I don't see how this contradicts the idea of nihilism at
all.
> Also, in being a
> nihilist, do you firmly believe in the principles of reason and
> materialism?
The principles of reason and materialism? No. Why should I?
Reason and materialism are dull and unimagnitive. They are sins of the
mind. Our brains were designed to fly, and people who limit themselves to
reason and materialism are clipping their brain's wings. Such people
should be forced to look at Rush Limbaugh naked.
> What i personally advocate is the reliance upon our own
> experience as individuals as well as our intuition, if you want
> to call it that, to guide our actions, dreams or satisfy our
> desires. Obviously we all do this everyday, consciously and
> unconciously.
I agree entirely, and I advocate it as well. It's the song I've been
singing for quite some time. What I am against is calling any of these
intuited concepts or experienced phenomena "TRUE". They are as close to
truth as I can get -- I might even call them "true" just to amuse myself
briefly -- but they are not universally true.
I got a woman pregnant, she had an abortion, and her womb was destroyed.
This makes me feel intense angst and guilt and pain. I hurt. This is
true. Or is it? Pretty close. But even as I describe it to you, I limit
it, I mythologize it, I ruin it. It's gone.
Still, maybe it's worth describing, because it's as close to TRUE as I can
get. Here is an experience I had. It provoked feelings and thoughts and
LIFE.
In truth -- ha ha! -- we construct our experiences out of nothing. Our
intuitions are fleeting, nearly meaningless. Our perceptions lie to us
constantly. How do I know what I really felt and thought during this
experience? Again, we build "truth" out of vapour.
Oh well.
> You may think it innovative to espouse the belief
> that nothing is knowable, but in reality you atleast act upon
> your knowledge as if it is truth - you have no choice and
> ultimately can not consciously avoid doing so every moment.
(What an irritating run on sentence.)
We make truth up all the time. We wear it, we live in it, we breathe it,
we do it without thinking. I act on my delusional truth every day. That
doesn't make the delusion true. And knowing this, I can play with other
delusions, for fun.
> To question beliefs, construct systems, or the process of
> believing is another thing, and if you were paying attention you
> would realize that no one here claims "to know everything".
No one claims to know everything out loud, but several people in here have
certainly mimed their omnisentience.
> This sounds very silly, Mango.
You say that like silliness is a bad thing, and if you think that, then I
know you're absolutely no fun at all.
Nik
Dale Houstman
"johnqadamsiii" <johnqadams...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
> In article <8fq12k$t56$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>,
> ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Nikolaus Maack) wrote:
> >
> >Everyone is acting under pretense all the time. Your truth is
> an act.
Don't "believe" in truth, so I can't act it. N is the one always proclaiming
things.
> >You're pretending. Not that that's a bad thing -- I myself
> LOVE to play
> >pretend -- it's just that you take yourself so damned
> seriously.
Shows how little all his psychology has done for him. Anyone with half a
kimono on could tell you that I am far from a serious person. Just bad
psychology.
> Throw away your truth for a minute. It must burden you so.
Answered above.
> >
> >"One does not throw one's truth away!" I hear the noble -- and
> therefore
> >laughable -- surrealist say. "One pursues truth nobly and with
> honour and
> >valour and..."
> >
I don't believe in truth, so I can't throw it away.
> >
>
> >
> >Here's that line of questioning again, those vital,
> unanswerable questions
> >that I ask over and over, and receive no response to: Can you
> laugh at
> >yourself? Do you think the ability to laugh at yourself is
> important? Is
> >being able to mock your most serious beliefs a useful skill?
I cam laugh at myself. Do it all the time. Being able to mock one's self is
important.
There these "vital" questions have now been answered, and you can stop
whining N!
> >
> >The closest I ever got to an answer was from... I forget.
> Someone who
> >said that it's silly to laugh at everything. One must take
> some things
> >seriously, mustn't one?
N's probably misquoting to make a point, like he always does. Not that this
quote of his is particularly revealing of anytning.
> >
> >I certain hope not.
> >
> >Comedy is nihilistic. Laugh at yourself. Tip a sacred cow.
> Don't insult
> >the person on the other side of the screen -- insult yourself.
Now, this is good advice to N's own self. Will he take it up?
Crap, he's unbearable!
dmh
Dale Houstman
"cythera" <cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8fq6jo$jci$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <8fq12k$t56$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>,
> ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Nikolaus Maack) wrote:
>
> > Yadda, yadda, yadda.
> >
> > It's hard to believe such a pompous lot as you folk evolved from the
> > enlightened masters known as the dadaists.
> >
> I evolved from my parents.
>
I evolved from a broken-down pushcart in the back streets of Prague.
My mother was the wheels, and daddy was the flat bed. They kissed.
And all of ancient Rome celebrated by being destroyed.
I was very happy for two minutes and then the Pope showed up.
dmh
Nikolaus Maack
> Laughing at myself is easy enough to do but when someone puts a gun to
> my head and says 'now laugh' suddenly the humour is gone.
Actually, that image made me laugh out loud. So I'm not sure the humour
is gone out of it or not. But I see your point. Far be it from me to
force anyone to do anything -- I would merely like to encourage the
collective brain of this newsgroup to less lofty, less sane fields to
dance in.
Basically -- it's okay to laugh at yourself. In fact, it's important to
do so! Try it! Etc.
>but if
>the action must be painstakingly crafted in the mind before being
>performed then where lies the art in that?
Having a plan to guide spontaneous behavior is useful. A writer rewrites
a sentence to make the sentence perfect, can construct an outline to know
where the novel is going. A painter can section off a canvas in pencil,
in order to make the painting perfect.
Knowing where you're going before you start the car means being able to
have enough gas. Sometimes your plan is to head for the corner store, and
you wind up four provinces away -- that's okay too, if you don't have to
work tomorrow.
But you're right -- "painstakingly crafting in the mind" before putting
brush to paper usually means you're going to end up frustrated as all
hell. The brush rarely goes where you planned it to.
Nikolaus Maack
> Perhaps your inconsistencies are what bore everyone to death.
It's the desperate ferreting out of these inconsistencies that bores ME to
death. For example:
>>The principles of reason and materialism? No. Why should I?
>
> Because you said you were a nihilist, as i recall it.
a: I am X.
b: Then you must be Y. All Xs are Y.
a: I am not Y.
b: Then you cannot be an X.
a: Who says you get to define X?
b: My definition of X is right and true. Check the dictionary.
a: My definition of X is not the same as your definition of X. I have a
different dictionary than you.
b: Well, if your definition of X is not my definition, then you are wrong.
To relate this to the now:
"All nihilists must be rationalists and materialists."
"I disagree. I am a nihilist who is not those things."
"This cannot be. If you are not those things, then you are not a
nihilist. This is TRUE."
I provided my particular definition of nihilism, as ripped from a webpage.
I could type it up again, but it's getting dull. Short version: I doubt
that anyone would refer to the dadaists as rational, but they are clearly
nihilists.
"I am a surrealist, but I also like playing with Gods."
"You can't be a surrealist. All surrealists are atheists."
"What about Salvidore Dali?"
"He was not a surrealist -- he believed in God."
"Who says you get to define the word 'surrealist'?"
"Surrealists are atheists. That's the way the word is defined. It is TRUE."
These are perfect examples of people constructing truth out of nothing,
and trying to inflict it on others. They construct a definition -- or
find one that they particularly like -- and then insist that it defines
universal experience. If you don't match the definition they have, then
you are wrong.
It's the equivalent of saying the world MUST be divided up into Animal,
Vegetable, and Mineral, and getting angry when encountering a plasma.
Obviously the plasma must be one of these things! We divided up the
world perfectly. Why won't the plasma cooperate? What the hell is wrong
with it?
It's not the plasma's fault -- it's the model that's broken. You will
suffer through this over and over again, so long as you hold that all the
models in your head are true and right and consistent. The only way one
can maintain the illusion that one is consistent is by rejecting anything
that doesn't fit neatly into the model.
"A surrealist that believes in gods? Does not compute."
If you look at anything closely enough, you'll discover it's an exception
to the rule. All models fail. All theories break down. Everyone is a
plasma.
The dictionary is not God. Words are used to describe phenomena. If I am
a nihilist who eschews rationality, but your dictionary says that
nihilists must embrace rationality, that doesn't mean I have to stop using
the word "nihilist". This is like suggesting that a field of BLUE is no
longer BLUE if it has a big orange circle in the middle of it.
> I propose you
> give up on living entirely then at this point.
Funny, I seem to be proposing you start living.
> No, i love silliness, when it isn't used as a lame excuse to
> wallow around in your own confusion on Usenet.
I lay my silliness on the ground -- you're the one who keeps jumping into
it, wallowing around in it. Why?
johnqadamsiii
>
>I lay my silliness on the ground -- you're the one who keeps
jumping into
>it, wallowing around in it. Why?
>
Good point. Aside from responding to the posts directed at me or
remarks directed towards your glittering half-truths, i have no
reasoning.
Nikolaus Maack
> Good point. Aside from responding to the posts directed at me or
> remarks directed towards your glittering half-truths, i have no
> reasoning.
Me and my big mouth -- I was looking forward to your response to the other
stuff I said in my post. I was curious what you'd say. Now I've gone and
ruined the whole thing by pointing out to you that life (and
communication) are meaningless. Darn it.
Could you favour a blabbermouth egotistical maniac such as myself, and
respond to the rest of my post? What's your take on Animal, Vegetable,
Mineral, and PLASMA? Dictionaries and gods? Blue fields and orange
circles? I thought I was quite eloquent -- not to mention shiny -- in my
previous words. A few comments? Please tarnish or polish my shine.
johnqadamsiii
Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote:
>> >
>I don't believe in truth, so I can't throw it away.
>> >
Well, i think i can buy 'something is x if and only if it is x'
to be the condition of truth. For us i suppose it must be
considered an ideal 'to know it' as we by necessity move from
the concrete to the abstract and back again. We won't ever fully
understand nature but strive to approach more closely its truth
(or our understandnig of it). That's just my further take anyway
since i brought up the whole truth spiel.
johnqadamsiii
>with half a kimono on could tell you that I am far from a
>serious person. Just bad psychology.
That's funny you should say that. I'm wearing a kimono now (and
nothing else).
johnqadamsiii
<<a: I am X.
b: Then you must be Y. All Xs are Y.
a: I am not Y.
b: Then you cannot be an X.
a: Who says you get to define X?
b: My definition of X is right and true. Check the dictionary.
a: My definition of X is not the same as your definition of X. I
have a different dictionary than you.
b: Well, if your definition of X is not my definition, then you
are wrong.
To relate this to the now:
"All nihilists must be rationalists and materialists."
"I disagree. I am a nihilist who is not those things."
"This cannot be. If you are not those things, then you are not a
nihilist. This is TRUE." >>
With all of that you've misconstrued what i've said and put
words in my mouth, which is annoying. the point is, if you make
a statement it is generally towards the effort to communicate.
What is the use of you saying one thing and meaning another -
only to add confusion and hide behind the ever elusive smoke
clouds you blow.
animals, vegetables, fruits, plasma balls, they're all abstract
agreements upon the phenomena we experience in the concrete
world.
<<If you look at anything closely enough, you'll discover it's
an exception to the rule. All models fail. All theories break
down. Everyone is a plasma.>>
Shall i take you seriously on this one or not? Ok, you're
kidding? Fine. Funny though how you use the terms all and
everyone so often. I feel your master theory breaking apart
already, and God is behind the curtain choking on a drumstick.
john
Nikolaus Maack
> With all of that you've misconstrued what i've said and put
> words in my mouth, which is annoying.
Okay, so let's fix that.
> the point is, if you make
> a statement it is generally towards the effort to communicate.
Right. When I say, "I am a nihilist," it's an effort to communicate who I
am. Yes? It's an attempt to express my beliefs -- or lack of beliefs.
> What is the use of you saying one thing and meaning another -
> only to add confusion and hide behind the ever elusive smoke
> clouds you blow.
Saying one thing and meaning another? That's not exactly what's going on.
I'm trying to describe my experience to you. You are trying to describe
your experience to me -- or you would be, if my experience weren't so
utterly hypnotizing. I have a word -- nihilism. I have another word --
surrealism. These are short-hand notes, and in the end, they don't say
much.
To say one is a surrealist doesn't say anything, until the person defines
what they mean by surrealist. One of the things this newsgroup -- and my
research into surrealism elsewhere -- has taught me is that definition of
"surrealism" varies from person to person, book to book. Even Breton had
a hard time describing what it meant, and he wrote the friggin'
manifestos!
Given that, is it not wise for you to assume that someone saying "I am a
surrealist," hasn't told you very much? They've shown you the tip of the
iceburg. Is it fair to assume that this person is an atheist? If they
tell you they are a Christian, or a Pagan, or a what-have-you, are you
going to accuse them of lying to you, and blowing smoke?
Just like when I say to you, "I am a nihilist," your response is, "Well,
then obviously you're a materialist and a rationalist -- or should be."
Is that reasonable? Is that, in fact, what you're saying to me?
What does this muddled mess tell you about language and people and human
experience? Language approximates human experience, and yet it seems that
you're arguing -- I could be very wrong -- that language is king. I
should be more precise. Can I call myself a nihilist if I don't meet the
exact definition? My question is, does ANYONE meet the exact definition?
I sincerely doubt you will ever encounter someone who precisely meets the
definition of any particular philosophical label, be they surrealist,
nihilist, or Christian.
> animals, vegetables, fruits, plasma balls, they're all abstract
> agreements upon the phenomena we experience in the concrete
> world.
Right. Sure. And these abstract agreements are at the best of times very
vague, illusory, watery, hazy, foggy, smeared, etc.
> <<If you look at anything closely enough, you'll discover it's
> an exception to the rule. All models fail. All theories break
> down. Everyone is a plasma.>>
>
> Shall i take you seriously on this one or not? Ok, you're
> kidding? Fine.
Not kidding.
Here, how about an example? Take the idealized word CHRISTIAN, and then
grab a random Christian out of a church. How do you determine whether or
not this randomly selected Christian really is a CHRISTIAN? Under close
scrutiny, you'll find that this person is Christian in some ways, and not
Christian in others.
Just like, if you pluck a self-professed SURREALIST from this newsgroup,
look at them closely, you'll discover they're an exception. They don't
match up with the ideal. No one does. No one can!
This is why it is irksome to have someone sit across from me and say:
"You're a nihilist? Does that mean you're a materialist rationalist?"
It's reasonable to ask it as a question, but I got the impression you were
trying to "debunk" my nihilism.
"Well, if you're not a rationalist, how can you call yourself a nihilist?"
> I feel your master theory breaking apart
> already, and God is behind the curtain choking on a drumstick.
My master theory is a series of hand-puppets and scribblings on toilet
paper held together by spit, prayer, and toothpicks. It's easy to pull
apart. I do it everyday. Before I go to sleep, I mash it back into a
ball again and stick it under my pillow.
Because truth is a lie, my truth is a lie, and it is utterly malleable,
bendable, breakable, and -- oddly enough -- utterly unbelievable.
Now if you'll excuse me, an angry, overweight German man has just rung my
doorbell, and is demanding I entertain him.
Dale Houstman
"johnqadamsiii" <johnqadams...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
> >Shows how little all his psychology has done for him. Anyone
> >with half a kimono on could tell you that I am far from a
> >serious person. Just bad psychology.
>
> That's funny you should say that. I'm wearing a kimono now (and
> nothing else).
>
Snow on his obi
The white heron flies
and I sleep beneath feathers.
or some such zen shit...
dmh
Dale Houstman
"johnqadamsiii" <johnqadams...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
>
> Shall i take you seriously on this one or not? Ok, you're
> already, and God is behind the curtain choking on a drumstick.
>
dmh
johnqadamsiii
>nihilist?"
Do you think you can cling to that one any firmer? I wasn't
debunking your belief, merely stating it needed clarification.
Yet that is something you don't prefer, so what is the point of
discussing it in the first place? You in fact enjoy being vague
only to counter with "look eggheads, THIS is what i mean. No
this is what i mean!". Very 'hypnotizing', and affirming to your
ego im sure. And no i don't believe language is supreme, my
silly mango.
So what is it that you have left to argue besides the
rationalist materialist comment you've loosely paraphrased
several times? Was there something regarding belief we needed to
clarify here? No...just that we are all zen plasma nodes
controlled under the divine force incapable of enriching our own
lives, in a hamshell.
johnqadamsiii
peacocks delight of the snow
i sleep soundly
beneath my wubi
john
<<That's funny you should say that. I'm wearing a kimono now
(and nothing else).
Suddenly I'm very hot in a haiku sort of way.
Snow on his obi
The white heron flies
and I sleep beneath feathers.
or some such zen shit...
dmh >>
johnqadamsiii
ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Nikolaus Maack) wrote:
>johnqadamsiii (johnqadams...@yahoo.com.invalid) writes:
>> I wasn't
>> debunking your belief, merely stating it needed clarification.
>
>
>Sorry for the misunderstanding.
>
No problem - excuse me while my eyes rabidly foam up at their
pale lids. That was just a little unexpected.
john
brandon...@my-deja.com
> "What about Salvidore Dali?"
> "He was not a surrealist -- he believed in God."
He was not a surrealist because he wasn't interested in freeing his
mind. Very simple.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
brandon...@my-deja.com
Me: Then you can't be X
Nik: I am not X
Me: Then you must be X
Nik: I must not be X
Me: X gets to define X
Nik: I say what X is
Me: But your not X
Nik: I am X
brandon...@my-deja.com
> Here, how about an example?
Or how about this:
Take the idealized word CONFESSION, and then snag a random CONFESSOR.
How do you determine whether or not this randomly selected confessor
really is a CONFESSOR? Under close scrutiny, you'll find that this
person is a CONFESSOR in some ways, and not a confessor in others.
And who decides what a CONFESSOR is? Just as Nik is calling for a
personalized re-definition of the word SURREALISM I too am calling for
a personalized re-definition of the word CONFESSION. By my definition
Elag reins supreme as the mega-confessor, with Barrett a close second
as galactic confessor.
Nik, well, he has a long way to go...
Nikolaus Maack
> I wasn't
> debunking your belief, merely stating it needed clarification.
Oh. Well, why didn't you just say so?
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Nik
Nikolaus Maack
> Take the idealized word CONFESSION, and then snag a random CONFESSOR.
> How do you determine whether or not this randomly selected confessor
> really is a CONFESSOR? Under close scrutiny, you'll find that this
> person is a CONFESSOR in some ways, and not a confessor in others.
I suppose this is true. Something to ponder.
Dale Houstman
"johnqadamsiii" <johnqadams...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
> Impressive...
>
> peacocks delight of the snow
> i sleep soundly
> beneath my wubi
>
A woodpecker unseen
attacks a metal pole
my words on white paper
dmh
Dale Houstman
<brandon...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8ft6f4$um7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Nik: I am X
> Me: Then you can't be X
> Nik: I am not X
> Me: Then you must be X
> Nik: I must not be X
> Me: X gets to define X
> Nik: I say what X is
> Me: But your not X
> Nik: I am X
>
psychosis or both.
dmh
Dale Houstman
<brandon...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8ft6v3$v9g$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Nikolaus Maack wrote:
> > Here, how about an example?
>
> Or how about this:
>
> How do you determine whether or not this randomly selected confessor
> really is a CONFESSOR? Under close scrutiny, you'll find that this
> person is a CONFESSOR in some ways, and not a confessor in others.
>
> personalized re-definition of the word SURREALISM I too am calling for
> a personalized re-definition of the word CONFESSION. By my definition
> Elag reins supreme as the mega-confessor, with Barrett a close second
> as galactic confessor.
>
> Nik, well, he has a long way to go...
>
dmh
johnqadamsiii
mudsoaked lemons in a basket
locusts feast
on skeletons to dust
Dale Houstman
"johnqadamsiii" <johnqadams...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
> In article <39227575$0$85042$65a9...@news.citilink.com>, "Dale
> Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote:
> >
> >"johnqadamsiii" <johnqadams...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote
> in message
> >news:0999fd44...@usw-ex0102-015.remarq.com...
> >> Impressive...
> >>
> >> peacocks delight of the snow
> >> i sleep soundly
> >> beneath my wubi
> >>
> >
> > A woodpecker unseen
> > attacks a metal pole
> > my words on white paper
> >
> > dmh
> >
>
> mudsoaked lemons in a basket
> locusts feast
> on skeletons to dust
>
>
bleaches in the noon sun
and his eyes are little moons
dmh
johnqadamsiii
In article <39235a57$0$85045$65a9...@news.citilink.com>, "Dale
Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote:
>
>"johnqadamsiii" <johnqadams...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote
in message
>news:01508cfe...@usw-ex0102-015.remarq.com...
>> In article <39227575$0$85042
$65a9...@news.citilink.com>, "Dale
>> Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >"johnqadamsiii" <johnqadams...@yahoo.com.invalid>
wrote
>> in message
>> >news:0999fd44...@usw-ex0102-015.remarq.com...
>> >> Impressive...
>> >>
>> >> peacocks delight of the snow
>> >> i sleep soundly
>> >> beneath my wubi
>> >>
>> >
>> > A woodpecker unseen
>> > attacks a metal pole
>> > my words on white paper
>> >
>> > dmh
>> >
>>
>> mudsoaked lemons in a basket
>> locusts feast
>> on skeletons to dust
>>
>>
> the bone of my child's arm
> bleaches in the noon sun
> and his eyes are little moons
>
Tears drop from a young girl
standing on the side of an owl.
She awakes to neither.
Parry
> In article <39212813$0$85043$65a9...@news.citilink.com>, "Dale
> Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote:
> >I don't believe in truth, so I can't throw it away.
>
> Well, i think i can buy 'something is x if and only if it is x'
> to be the condition of truth. For us i suppose it must be
> considered an ideal 'to know it' as we by necessity move from
> the concrete to the abstract and back again. We won't ever fully
> understand nature but strive to approach more closely its truth
> (or our understandnig of it). That's just my further take anyway
> since i brought up the whole truth spiel.
I think it’s worth reiterating that one does not have to know the
“truth” to discern a lie. If my grocer claims to have assassinated
Marat, the lie can be established without having to identify the real
assassin. Whenever someone tells you that story about the female friend
of a friend who had a scary encounter with Will Smith in a Las Vegas
elevator, you know its a lie because the same story has already been
told about Eddie Murphy and probably every other major black celebrity,
and because one understands how urban legends work.
On the subject of Truth, here’s a straightforward, un-clever song lyric
-- with rhymes and all:
I choked on the word “Truth,” clenched so hard I broke a tooth. I’ve
found Truth is the calling card of autocrats and frauds -- those who
would self-combust if they admitted love to be delimited. We did not
conquer “mystery” just to worship new gods.
The things of which we’re sure are scanty -- life’s not that poor. If
you think “truth” is “certainty” you end with nuts and bolts. Cold logic
reduces us to has-beens envious of our machines -- but we make them,
they don’t make us, and so the heart revolts.
The reasonable course is littered with corpses. She is one who follows
ideals recollected from youth. No compromise. No turning a blind eye.
She is a sun that’s consumed my mind and love is better than truth.
They say the victors compose history. Well, I suppose the victors are
monstrosities whose laws must be erased. What more are their morals,
their mighty god, their empire than a façade to mystify, kill our
desire, and keep us in our place?
-- Parry
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
johnqadamsiii
Thanks for the input Parry. I haven't one guess as to who might
have produced that song lyric. Is it yours? I'm ruling out Will
Smith now.
Dale Houstman
"Parry" <par...@zxOMITmail.com> wrote in message
news:392AD7...@zxOMITmail.com...
> johnqadamsiii wrote:
> > In article <39212813$0$85043$65a9...@news.citilink.com>, "Dale
> > Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote:
> > >I don't believe in truth, so I can't throw it away.
> >
> > Well, i think i can buy 'something is x if and only if it is x'
> > to be the condition of truth.
This I understand, but the word "truth" is used (generally) in a much more
mystical and overbearing sense. What you describe is what I'd term a logical
fact, or an axiom of thought. A truth (it seems) is "all men are created
equal." Is that true? Seems unlikely, and at any rate, its veracity drifts
about in a foggy sea of assumption and societal compromise.
This pre-existing moral state (which "truth" tends to delineate) is what I
don't have the heart to work up spit for,
>We won't ever fully understand nature but strive to approach more closely
its truth
> > (or our understandnig of it).
I would rather not think of it this way. There is no set state to be
apprehended, but rather a constantly changing interaction to be explored, so
there can be no "truth" of nature. Conversely (since "truth" is almost
always presented as another arm of the Mystical, and as an unreachable
state) all one needs to know of the "truth" of nature is to be standing in
the Arizona desert when a buzzard flies by in a clear sky, or to crouch
beneath pine leaves in a warm rain, listening to thick and heavy animals
moving through the brush. This is immediately apprehendable as experience.
But the word truth has too much baggage by now to simply mean "I am what I
am" or "blue jays are blue." I would think.
>
> I think it's worth reiterating that one does not have to know the
> "truth" to discern a lie.
A lie is another thing. One might (if one were disposed to playing the
opposites game) think it was more the contrary of "fact" than "truth" since
one man's truth can be another man's shell game.
>If my grocer claims to have assassinated
> Marat, the lie can be established without having to identify the real
> assassin.
But the real "truth" of note here, might be the nature of the grocer's
imagination: its murderous yet exotic texture. Again - though - more a fact
than what is normally thought of as truth. This is mere semantics of course,
but it explains the non-argument we are engaged in.
>Whenever someone tells you that story about the female friend
> of a friend who had a scary encounter with Will Smith in a Las Vegas
> elevator, you know its a lie because the same story has already been
> told about Eddie Murphy and probably every other major black celebrity,
> and because one understands how urban legends work.
But these stories also tell several "truths" about social convention, the
power of imagination, celebrity, etc. The usage of "truth" makes it a good
candidate for the tautologist club of "The Lord is Lord" and such: its very
ubiquity renders it next to useless for me. Every act no matter how
nonfactual is true to the need. And so on.
I need breakfast!
dmh
Parry
> I haven't one guess as to who might
> have produced that song lyric. Is it yours? I'm ruling out Will
> Smith now.
Yes, the little bastard is mine, and now I must take it home and thrash
it for embarrassing me in public. I致e been trying a lyric-writing
technique suggested by Brian Eno: you sing nonsense syllables to a music
track, then later de-code the nonsense into actual phrases.
Unfortunately, I de-code too much, and the lyrics end up sounding too
consciously constructed. Lyrics written automatically, on the other
hand, are difficult to sing.
johnqadamsiii
<pa...@zxOMITmail.com> wrote:
>johnqadamsiii wrote:
>> I haven't one guess as to who might
>> have produced that song lyric. Is it yours? I'm ruling out
Will
>> Smith now.
>
>Yes, the little bastard is mine, and now I must take it home and
thrash
>it for embarrassing me in public. I致e been trying a
lyric-writing
>technique suggested by Brian Eno: you sing nonsense syllables to
a music
>track, then later de-code the nonsense into actual phrases.
>Unfortunately, I de-code too much, and the lyrics end up
sounding too
>consciously constructed. Lyrics written automatically, on the
other
>hand, are difficult to sing.
>
>-- Parry
Ah, i just knew it. I like it, but of course it would be
difficult for me to imagine it alongside some arbitrary musical
accompaniment from my end. I like the suggestion by Eno. Ive
thought of arrangments with unintelligible humming attached -
always consider going back to lay something more lyrical to it
and don't - maybe i need to learn notation?
john
johnqadamsiii
Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote:
>> johnqadamsiii wrote:
>> > In article <39212813$0$85043$65a9...@news.citilink.com>,
"Dale
>> > Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote:
>> > >I don't believe in truth, so I can't throw it away.
>> >
>> > Well, i think i can buy 'something is x if and only if it is
x'
>> > to be the condition of truth.
>
>This I understand, but the word "truth" is used (generally) in a
much more
>mystical and overbearing sense. What you describe is what I'd
term a logical
>fact, or an axiom of thought. A truth (it seems) is "all men are
created
>equal." Is that true? Seems unlikely, and at any rate, its
veracity drifts
>about in a foggy sea of assumption and societal compromise.
>This pre-existing moral state (which "truth" tends to delineate)
is what I
>don't have the heart to work up spit for,
Still, what you've described is something submitted (or accepted)
as a truth following a question regarding wether it is true or
not (which is the area i was remarking on). I dont submit putting
forth effort to believe in these 'mystical' truths - it wasn't
really part of the discussion.
>>We won't ever fully understand nature but strive to approach
more closely
>its truth
>> > (or our understandnig of it).
>
>I would rather not think of it this way. There is no set state
to be
>apprehended, but rather a constantly changing interaction to be
explored, so
>there can be no "truth" of nature. Conversely (since "truth" is
almost
>always presented as another arm of the Mystical, and as an
unreachable
>state) all one needs to know of the "truth" of nature is to be
standing in
>the Arizona desert when a buzzard flies by in a clear sky, or to
crouch
>beneath pine leaves in a warm rain, listening to thick and heavy
animals
>moving through the brush. This is immediately apprehendable as
experience.
>But the word truth has too much baggage by now to simply mean "I
am what I
>am" or "blue jays are blue." I would think.
Precisely, i dont paint a picture here of a static state of
things to evaluate, and probably that is why i say we can never
unravel all of the strings of the universe, merely try to
understand IT better, in a scientific sense, through experience,
through relecting on it as the entire process which we are a
part.
You are craving hasbrowns or your need to fulfill yourself
biologically with early servings of space giblets? True or false.
Dale Houstman
"johnqadamsiii" <johnqadams...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
In the set represented by [x = n - potatos] the answer is to be found in the
top middle drawer of the El Boracho Motel outside Tabasco. In the "spectral"
set represented by [x = almond eyed poodles in Barstow X union wages for a
plumber in a tutu] the answer can be derived from an observation of bats
flying through a special ed class just as the teacher is reaching for an
apple.
In both cases, the asymptote of reflexive iteration (as explained by
Professor Veginut of Heidelberg University in his astounding volume "Knobby
Derisions") approaches a straying edge at the same Derrida velocity.
Which brings me to the question of leatherette funiculi and Easter.
A) Always?
B) After a milk bath?
C) Hedges
Tomorrow: the funnel-like ascension of diverging thoracic intra-worms.
dmh
johnqadamsiii
directly to x to the power of Nagasaki, there will soon be a
paranoic dingo craze spread worldwide as so ordinarily predicted.
If i've interpretted my fly swatters correctly, this equates to
an indiscriminate increase in worthless tainted honey on our
hands; though time will truly tell. A sealed letter from the
Bishop: I regret to inform you about your pants, or lack of
wearing them. Please be more considerate to the wolf-elves in
the near future.
i feel a nap coming on...
Dale Houstman
"johnqadamsiii" <johnqadams...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
> Hmm, interesting, in-teresting. If gy(potato functor) corresponds
> directly to x to the power of Nagasaki, there will soon be a
> paranoic dingo craze spread worldwide as so ordinarily predicted.
I believe (if I may be so bold) you mistook the extegral "z-bo" for the
paragral "bo-z" resulting in a lateral radical red shift (with matching red
pumps). Still, your derived theory holds some water (though not Aquafina),
and both dampens my cynicism and/or whets my
curiosity, to the point that I will suggest a counter-infrastitchal
compendium to your "go go factotum" debris, ergo:
"Ou est le boeuf?"
Sub-Professor at the Barstow College of Cosmogurleybrownology, Binky Z-Bo
johnqadamsiii
Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote:
>
>"johnqadamsiii" <johnqadams...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote
in message
>news:033d454d...@usw-ex0101-006.remarq.com...
>
>
>> Hmm, interesting, in-teresting. If gy(potato functor)
corresponds
>> directly to x to the power of Nagasaki, there will soon be a
>> paranoic dingo craze spread worldwide as so ordinarily
predicted.
>
>I believe (if I may be so bold) you mistook the extegral "z-bo"
for the
>paragral "bo-z" resulting in a lateral radical red shift (with
matching red
>pumps). Still, your derived theory holds some water (though not
Aquafina),
>and both dampens my cynicism and/or whets my
>curiosity, to the point that I will suggest a
counter-infrastitchal
>compendium to your "go go factotum" debris, ergo:
>
>"Ou est le boeuf?"
>
>Sub-Professor at the Barstow College of Cosmogurleybrownology,
Binky Z-Bo
The Z-Bo Bo-Z are a mysterious strand. Space knots are often
peculiar in that they so often *point* to different levels of Oz,
but it is a common misconception to tie them to the Zbo family of
predicalers.
Zimpendium imod ipsim ladum, a great friend once told me, from
a nearby star cluster just before Burger King destroyed their
planet for mining purposes. I never forgot the words which i
still think hold true today, in our solar system. Shanny Toon
Toon was a great Meglamott that hated wearing pants, which the
Cardinal abhored. One day he adjusted his personality
configurations to read: patience=235i, leniency=335i,
tolerance=fold X spread. That of course didn't go unnoticed for
very long!
Le Beouf, est stink.
john
Dale Houstman
"johnqadamsiii" <johnqadams...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
One cannot argue with such sutra-logical ex-commodes. Two could maybe, but
one never.
> Zimpendium imod ipsim ladum, a great friend once told me, from
> a nearby star cluster just before Burger King destroyed their
> planet for mining purposes. I never forgot the words which i
> still think hold true today, in our solar system. Shanny Toon
> Toon was a great Meglamott that hated wearing pants, which the
> Cardinal abhored. One day he adjusted his personality
> configurations to read: patience=235i, leniency=335i,
> tolerance=fold X spread. That of course didn't go unnoticed for
> very long!
A debriefed sidenode: the Meglamotts (no direct connection to the apple
Motts) were known to be great admirers of pre-Columbinal pottery sculptures;
the fragility coddesses, the weary-thighed hunters of infra-red panthers,
pornomystical fisherboys, etc. True to the seventh Law of Thermotorpidics,
they found themselves stuck in semi-contralto band just when the Oort Cloud
began to rain. Boy were their praxis-matrices pissed! The Personality
Configurations - as you well know - were formulated in the year ix-n(yahoo)
by Formica Poltroon IV, who was actually attempting to readjust the masking
filament on a common infarction grinder. Two years later he was heading up
the first concerted effort to bring reggae to the suburbs.
>
> Le Beouf, est stink.
>
In the words of Gocartes: "I stink, therefore I am."
dmh
johnqadamsiii
john
In article <393042f1$0$12261$65a9...@news.citilink.com>, "Dale
The last Meglamott to stand was named Hermathrodome. He cried out
to his Egypterian stepfather the morning they took him away and
fed him to the lion ants of the Redsand Dune Tribe. I sip a glass
of carbon water when i say this to cool the burning angriness in
my throat i have for the likes of such cowardly weasel-necks.
Since that time I have immersed myself within mathematics in
order to one day defeat their computers in battle. I've never
told you this before now, but i had a vision. Shanny Toon Toon
and Gocartes both came to me with a message whose words would
instantly free all from the enslavening constraints the
Crapulites held across the galaxy. Unfortunately i was not
interested enough to listen in on what exactly he was mumbling to
me about at that time.
Dale Houstman
"johnqadamsiii" <johnqadams...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
>
>
> >
>
> The last Meglamott to stand was named Hermathrodome.
Alternately known as Reggie Scat, or "King Shit." King Shit was the
sobriquet he used when he played with "The Four Impurities Jazz and
Paragoric Club" in the 20s. Though quite proficient on the divanaphone, his
subsequent experiments with heat-and-pressure transformed nail clippings led
him to a life of petty crime and itchy slumber. Coincidentally (?) the name
of the first archaeologist to uncover his tiny, furnished walk-up (complete
with Murphy bed and lamp shades) was a Dr. Echee Slombre.
>He cried out to his Egypterian stepfather the morning they took him away
and
> fed him to the lion ants of the Redsand Dune Tribe. I sip a glass
> of carbon water when i say this to cool the burning angriness in
> my throat i have for the likes of such cowardly weasel-necks.
And yet they acted under the mandates of The Five-and-a-Half Rules of Casual
Brutality and were hailed by the neighboring Vegemites as avenging spirits.
It is difficult to assign right and wrong here: Reggie Scat was rumored to
have dealings with the unfamous Luxor Mafia, a loose-knit band of corduroy
that hung from his loved one's wasp waist. Many a night he would climb the
Frazil Stairway to the tiny furnished walk-up (complete with Murphy bed and
lamp shades) to apply his Urchemical abilities to the production of Ritalin.
He was also thought (and this is described in the Book of Pages) to have the
temperment of "a whipped donkey left three hours in the sun." These matters
may be sorted out after the complete excavation of his recreation room,
where many secrets lie sleeping.
> Since that time I have immersed myself within mathematics in
> order to one day defeat their computers in battle. I've never
> told you this before now, but i had a vision. Shanny Toon Toon
> and Gocartes both came to me with a message whose words would
> instantly free all from the enslavening constraints the
> Crapulites held across the galaxy. Unfortunately i was not
> interested enough to listen in on what exactly he was mumbling to
> me about at that time.
>
Just as well: Gocartes tends to speak in Pre-Hieratic Hindo-French, and
Shanny often slips in the names of favorite recording artists just when you
think yoiu're going to hear something wise: "And the straight garden path,
lined with the flowers of wise action, and the stones of strong opinion,
lead inexorably to the kingdom of - 'Nsync!"
dmh
johnqadamsiii
event.
In article <022461f0...@usw-ex0103-018.remarq.com>,
cythera <lukeydN...@earthlink.net.invalid>
wrote:
>Will he take Shanny to the Snoop Dogg concert?
>
>cythera