Hey Kappy, you like these, dirty maggot-liar?
www.geocities.com/genius-2000/sympathy.JPG
www.geocities.com/genius-2000/forthedevil.JPG
Besides I think I can still get ya on those chronicles, I read pretty OK ya
know. Ya darn chigger.
"Dostoevsky: The Politics of Salvation"
Irving Howe, "Politics and the Novel," 1957
'In 19th century Russia the usual categories of discourse tend to break
down. Politics, religion, literature, philosophy–these do not fall into
neat departments of the mind. Pressed together by the Tzarist censorship,
ideas acquire an extraordinary concentration; the novel, which in the West
is generally regarded as a means of portraying human behavior, acquires the
tone and manner of prophetic passion. Not till the rise of the Symbolists
at the end of the century does the cult of estheticism, with its tacit
belief in a fragmenting of experience, proser in Russia; for the most part
russian thought is seized by that "mania for totality" which is to become
characteristic of our time. Where ideas cannot be modulated through
practice, they keep their original purity; where intellectuals cannot test
themselves in experience, they must remain intransigent or surrender
completely. For the subtler kinds of opportunism, such a society offers
little provision. The seriousness we all admire in Russian literature is
thus partly the result of a social impasse: energies elsewhere absorbed by
one or another field of thought are here poured into the novel. "Literature
in Russia," writes the critic Chernyshevsky, "constitutes almost the
sum-total of our intellectual life." And that is why, in dealing with the
Russian novel, one is obliged to take religion as a branch of politics and
politics as a form of religion. The school of criticism which treats the
novel mainly in terms of social manners will consequently face grave
difficulties when confronted with a writer like Dostoevsky, for whom the act
of creation invariably means an act of prophecy.'
++
_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
On Tue, 24 Sep 2002, Max Herman wrote:
> Hey Kappy, you like these, dirty maggot-liar?
The only dirty-maggot liar here is you, my dearest.
Ask a meaningful question, that doesn't pertain to peddling your Ego
and appropriately–and I'll tell ya.
> Ask a meaningful question, that doesn't pertain to peddling your Ego
> and appropriately–and I'll tell ya.
Do you think I'm the Messiah?
++
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
On Tue, 24 Sep 2002, Max Herman wrote:
> > Ask a meaningful question, that doesn't pertain to peddling your Ego
> > and appropriately–and I'll tell ya.
>
> Do you think I'm the Messiah?
I think not.
Quoting "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <death@zaphod.terminal.org>:
>
> Ask a meaningful question, that doesn't pertain to peddling your Ego
> and appropriately–and I'll tell ya.
Why bother? If someone asks a meaningful question, it is unanswerable.
–
Joseph Franklyn McElroy
Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]
On Wed, 25 Sep 2002, Joseph Franklyn McElroy Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist] wrote:
> Why bother? If someone asks a meaningful question, it is unanswerable.
Ask Socrates. What you wrote is flat + inaccurate.
Getting over questions is not as simplistic as that.
Or do I have to make an iQuitQuestioning too?
Goes well with iQuitWinning (cold turkey) ™.
`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42
Quoting "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <death@zaphod.terminal.org>:
> On Wed, 25 Sep 2002, Joseph Franklyn McElroy Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance]
> Art[ist] wrote:
>
> > Why bother? If someone asks a meaningful question, it is unanswerable.
>
> Ask Socrates. What you wrote is flat + inaccurate.
>
> Getting over questions is not as simplistic as that.
>
> Or do I have to make an iQuitQuestioning too?
>
> Goes well with iQuitWinning (cold turkey) ™.
>
I thought you could read my mind. I quit quiting. Or perhaps I never took up
the habit. Perhaps I lie alot. Only poor lost innocents like you think that
you "know" I tell the truth. For a precise entity such as yourself, you sure
miss a lot.
You have a lot in common with a good (crooked?) CEO - very focused on product
and deriding the competition. You just need to work on your sales strategy a
little bit. The bang em on the head until they buy has a limited appeal.
Ananias, I know you.
–
Joseph Franklyn McElroy
Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]
On Wed, 25 Sep 2002, Joseph Franklyn McElroy Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist] wrote:
> I thought you could read my mind. I quit quiting.
Why did you think that?
> Or perhaps I never took up the habit. Perhaps I lie alot.
Perhaps.
> Only poor lost innocents like you
Sorry dear. Your internal projectorial derogatory
'pitiful' knee-jerks are only a matter of your ego.
I am neither 'poor' nor 'lost' –and hardly 'innocent'.
> think that you "know" I tell the truth.
You have no idea what I am talking about, Joseph-twit.
You simply project your knee-jerk idiocy on my words,
and proceed to criticize it. Well, that's one way to get
you to look at yourself.
> For a precise entity such as yourself, you sure miss a lot.
I don't miss anything my dear. You don't know what precision is,
and like an idiotic ape-monkey fancy that you do–and moreso
that precision is someone hooking onto and playing your ego-game.
It'll be a long time before you KNOW what precision is.
> You have a lot in common with a good (crooked?) CEO -
No, I son't. Another cardboard cutout in your head.
> very focused on product
I am not focused at all–on anything.
> and deriding the competition.
I am not competing–but the lot of you try to compete.
I do not compete–never have + never will.
> You just need to work on your sales strategy a little bit.
I don't–as I am not the characters inside your head.
> The bang em on the head until they buy has a limited appeal.
I am not selling anything. Are you genuinely that DUMB?
The lot of you are approaching me, attempting to 'buy',
I'm not selling, you scream insults and stomp off?!
> Ananias, I know you.
Not at all dearest. You are talking about yourself.
As always, when I speak to you.
A bien tot,
`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42
Quoting "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <death@zaphod.terminal.org>:
> > Only poor lost innocents like you
>
> Sorry dear. Your internal projectorial derogatory
> 'pitiful' knee-jerks are only a matter of your ego.
No, that is a private joke - I use purple chinese houses as an expression in
place of innocence because "purple chinese houses" are also known as
innocense. Nobody ever gets it, nor the Hex poetry at
www.electrichands.com/sketches/hex
>
> I am neither 'poor' nor 'lost' –and hardly 'innocent'.
>
> > think that you "know" I tell the truth.
>
> You have no idea what I am talking about, Joseph-twit.
Is that better than Joseph-san?
> You simply project your knee-jerk idiocy on my words,
> and proceed to criticize it. Well, that's one way to get
> you to look at yourself.
A ha - a motive. Have you concluded that there is only one way to look at
yourself? You seperate self and ego, with ego being the person who will
purposefully walk in front of cars on a busy city street, daring them to not
stop (someday they will not), where as the self is the person who knows whether
the cars will hit them or not and will walk as appropriate.
–
Joseph Franklyn McElroy
Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]
On Wed, 25 Sep 2002, Joseph Franklyn McElroy Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist] wrote:
> No, that is a private joke - I use purple chinese houses as an expression in
> place of innocence because "purple chinese houses" are also known as
> innocense. Nobody ever gets it, nor the Hex poetry at
> www.electrichands.com/sketches/hex
Private joke–'internal impulse'. It may be funny to you, but it is
still an internal impulse.
> > I am neither 'poor' nor 'lost' –and hardly 'innocent'.
> >
> > > think that you "know" I tell the truth.
> >
> > You have no idea what I am talking about, Joseph-twit.
>
> Is that better than Joseph-san?
Simply Superior.
> A ha - a motive.
Not at all.
> Have you concluded that there is only one way to look at yourself?
Ne.
> You seperate self and ego,
I don't. They are two distinct realities, regardles of 'me'.
> with ego being the person who will purposefully walk in front of cars on a busy city street,
Not at all. I've implied nothing near that sort of thing.
> daring them to not
> stop (someday they will not), where as the self is the person who knows whether
> the cars will hit them or not and will walk as appropriate.
As above. You're projecting your internal impulses again.
Your delusional interpretations of what I write are not even close
to my intentions–and avoid dictating them to be what I said or wrote.
Your opinion is not my intent.
`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42
Quoting "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <death@zaphod.terminal.org>:
> You have no idea what I am talking about, Joseph-twit.
> >
> > Is that better than Joseph-san?
>
> Simply Superior.
How so?
>
> > A ha - a motive.
>
> Not at all.
Why not?
>
> > Have you concluded that there is only one way to look at yourself?
>
> Ne.
How come?
>
> > You seperate self and ego,
>
> I don't. They are two distinct realities, regardles of 'me'.
I see - not manufactured identities?
>
> > with ego being the person who will purposefully walk in front of cars on a
> busy city street,
>
> Not at all. I've implied nothing near that sort of thing.
So, is it ego or self that dares?
>
> > daring them to not
> > stop (someday they will not), where as the self is the person who knows
> whether
> > the cars will hit them or not and will walk as appropriate.
>
> As above. You're projecting your internal impulses again.
No, asking a question
>
> Your delusional interpretations of what I write are not even close
> to my intentions–and avoid dictating them to be what I said or wrote.
I didn't say that.
>
> Your opinion is not my intent.
nor yours mine.
–
Joseph Franklyn McElroy
Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Joseph Franklyn McElroy Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist] wrote:
> > Simply Superior.
>
> How so?
Simply Superior.
> > > A ha - a motive.
> >
> > Not at all.
>
> Why not?
Why yes?
> > > Have you concluded that there is only one way to look at yourself?
> >
> > Ne.
>
> How come?
Ne.
> >
> > > You seperate self and ego,
> >
> > I don't. They are two distinct realities, regardles of 'me'.
>
> I see - not manufactured identities?
Nein.
> >
> > > with ego being the person who will purposefully walk in front of cars on a
> > busy city street,
> >
> > Not at all. I've implied nothing near that sort of thing.
>
> So, is it ego or self that dares?
It's unique to each situation. I do not make abstractions
of this sort.
> >
>
> No, asking a question
You made a statement about what I do.
I can imagine that as oblique questioning on your part though.
> > Your opinion is not my intent.
>
> nor yours mine.
There is no opinion here baby.
Just observations of what you do.
`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42
From: "Joseph Franklyn McElroy Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]"
<joseph@electrichands.com>
> Nobody ever gets it, nor the Hex poetry at
> www.electrichands.com/sketches/hex
I'm not entirely sure if I got your hex poetry as you wished, but I did
understand the concept of it. What I did especially like was the
0101001111001011101 on the bottom right corner. The fact that the mouse-over
on a 1 did not produce a vocal 1 was a pleasant surprise, binary randommess.
I liked it. Reminded me of a performance I did in 1971 at Loyalist Colege of
Applied Arts & Technology called Technorotica and one of the pieces (Picket
Fence Binary) involved the recitation of binary digits via machine (remote
controlled analog tape).
It is a game, did you repeat the sequence until the animation starts? It
becomes a chant or mantra, requires concentration (or meditation/patience) to
complete. For most people (so far all people but my wife - and she was
determined) it is too much of a pain in the ass to complete.
–
Joseph Franklyn McElroy
Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]