hello hal..

 

es-tu là.. nous te cherchons sur skype

 

 

heure du CA

nous commençons

 

 

Will

 

 

 

 

-----Message d'origine-----
De : hal von hofe [mailto:h169@sbcglobal.net]
Envoyé : vendredi 30 mai 2008 22:42
À : wtheaux@club-internet.fr
Objet : CA

bj William

 

   ton adresse personnelle ne répond toujours pas ;

 

je ne sais pas pourquoi -- peut-être si tu réponds à ce message cela fonctionnera?

 

   la question était : es-tu disponible pour CA et  skype    samedi   07juin 10H-12H heure franaçaise ?

 

un peu matinal pour moi -- 4-6 -- mais c'est ok, pas de problème

 

à bien tôth,

 

hal

_____________________________________________________

*



http://groups.yahoo.com/group/maagaff17

______________________________________________-

-----Message d'origine-----
De : akhnaton@yahoogroups.com [mailto:akhnaton@yahoogroups.com]
Envoyé : vendredi 23 mai 2008 18:59
À : akhnaton@yahoogroups.com
Objet : [akhnaton] Digest Number 1065

Akhnaton

Messages In This Digest (1 Message)

1a.

Re: contact email personnel From: hal von hofe

View All Topics | Create New Topic

Message

1a.

Re: contact email personnel

Posted by: "hal von hofe" h169@...   halvonhofe

Thu May 22, 2008 10:54 pm (PDT)

hallo will

j'ai vu l'annonce -- je suis prêt :-)

hal


William Theaux <wtheaux@club-internet.fr> wrote:
à hal,

Je cherche à te joindre par mail peronnel mais je ne sais si tu me reçois - un CA IFP s'annonçant

will

Back to top

Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (2)

Visit Your Group

Best of Y! Groups

Discover groups

that are the best

of their class.

Moderator Central

An online resource

for moderators

of Yahoo! Groups.

Women of Curves

on Yahoo! Groups

see how women are

changing their lives.

Need to Reply?

Click one of the "Reply" links to respond to a specific message in the Daily Digest.

Create New Topic | Visit Your Group on the Web

Messages | Files | Photos | Links | Database | Polls

To Post a message, send it to:

akhnaton@yahoogroups.com

To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:

akhnaton-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Individual | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

à hal,

 

   Je cherche à te joindre par mail peronnel mais je ne sais si tu me reçois - un CA IFP s'annonçant

 

will

Hal,

Granted that psychology and science come closer
and closer to the tinyest neural responses
within us, even to the role of the glial control
cells of these neurons, there are still
multitudes of ways we can see or access
our 'inner' selves where I am not sure there
are 'mirrors'. We can only reflect what comes
to us from the outside. What arises from
within, from such basic fellings as hunger from
an empty stomach or the pressure of a full sack
of testosterone, is not a reflection. Jumping
over these instincts, our visions are peopled
with creatures and shapes which are still not
reflections or mirroring of anything from the
outside world. Freud worked with dreams, as did
Jung, and Jung's interplay of dream participants
can clearly be recongnized as mirror images of
repressed phenomena. But what happens when, in
a meditative state, worlds open where the images
of our everyday life give way to a dirrenret
landscape? Are they reflections generated by
the DNA or the reflections from the chemical-
electromagnetic interplay of our current
metabolism?

Daniel
Because we have so many levels of selves
(shelves) what any one of us calls 'real' might
not be what the other considers 'real'. No one
has figured out how to communicate verbally from
some of these real shelves.

> hello Daniel
>
> you wrote (to William):
>
> << But then you and Hal show how we never
see our
> real selves anyway, to we wouldn't know our
true
> selves if it stared us in the face because,
> according to you, we cannot know what we
cannot
> see or contact. >>
>
> to clarify, in my comments on the dua and
the paranoid foundationl, i was speaking of
our inability to know the Other except through
our own sense impressions and the neurome
of our bodies ('trapped in the cave of the
brain', if you like). Once Jeroen got rid of
the noise in my post, he boiled it down to "The
image I have in my mind of Jeroen is
subjective". i guess he did not hear anything
else in what i said.
>
> maybe we could say 'we only ever see our
real selves' -- though whenever we start to
talk to each Other we pretend Otherwise.
>
> i think we have talked a bit about how names
play into this -- we answer to our name,
come when we are called by it, and collect other
names so we can call them, with magical
incantatory power!
>
> so i guess i can see why when someone
changes their name it can be disturbing.
>
> it happens a lot with daughters in our
exogamous culture, she exchanging her father-name
for the husband's father-name -- the event is
usually marked and circumscribed by special
and elaborate ritual.
>
> for a son to change his father name (other
than temporarily outside the law) does not
often happen: one of the first major exceptions
being the topic of this list, that
egyptian king who changed his name from that of
his father ('Amenhotep') to 'Akhnaton',
and then, as Daniel has told us, was the first
to become know as a 'house' 'per-aa'
pharaoh. his physical house did not last too
long, but he seems to have built an
invisible one which has maintained iteslef
hermetically down into our own day
>
> but anyway, to come back round to the
topic "the navel spouse" this may mean we are
married to the cut, to seeing the division our
navel commemorates, wedded to the dual in
our father's name... or it may mean that hilary,
in possession of bill's father-name, does
not need to worry about detached penis' alibis
because they only mean that when she wears
monica's dress the stain will not show, as
WC 'Theaux' mentioned...
>
> ...
>
> hal
>

-

Hal,

Granted that psychology and science come closer
and closer to the tinyest neural responses
within us, even to the role of the glial control
cells of these neurons, there are still
multitudes of ways we can see or access
our 'inner' selves where I am not sure there
are 'mirrors'.  We can only reflect what comes
to us from the outside.  What arises from
within, from such basic fellings as hunger from
an empty stomach or the pressure of a full sack
of testosterone, is not a reflection.  Jumping
over these instincts, our visions are peopled
with creatures and shapes which are still not
reflections or mirroring of anything from the
outside world.  Freud worked with dreams, as did
Jung, and Jung's interplay of dream participants
can clearly be recongnized as mirror images of
repressed phenomena.  But what happens when, in
a meditative state, worlds open where the images
of our everyday life give way to a dirrenret
landscape?  Are they reflections generated by
the DNA or the reflections from the chemical-
electromagnetic interplay of our current
metabolism?

Daniel
Because we have so many levels of selves
(shelves) what any one of us calls 'real' might
not be what the other considers 'real'.  No one
has figured out how to communicate verbally from
some of these real shelves.


> hello Daniel
>
>   you wrote (to William):
>
>   << But then you and Hal show how we never
see our
> real selves anyway, to we wouldn't know our
true
> selves if it stared us in the face because,
> according to you, we cannot know what we
cannot
> see or contact. >>
>
>   to clarify, in my comments on the dua and
the paranoid foundationl, i was speaking of
our inability to know the Other except through
our own sense impressions and the neurome
of our bodies ('trapped in the cave of the
brain', if you like).  Once Jeroen got rid of
the noise in my post, he boiled it down to "The
image I have in my mind of Jeroen is
subjective".   i guess he did not hear anything
else in what i said.
>
>   maybe we could say 'we only ever see our
real selves' -- though whenever we start to
talk to each Other we pretend Otherwise.
>
>   i think we have talked a bit about how names
play into this -- we answer to our name,
come when we are called by it, and collect other
names so we can call them, with magical
incantatory power!
>
>   so i guess i can see why when someone
changes their name it can be disturbing.
>
>   it happens a lot with daughters in our
exogamous culture, she exchanging her father-name
for the husband's father-name -- the event is
usually marked and circumscribed by special
and elaborate ritual.
>
>   for a son to change his father name (other
than temporarily outside the law) does not
often happen:  one of the first major exceptions
being the topic of this list, that
egyptian king who changed his name from that of
his father ('Amenhotep') to 'Akhnaton',
and then, as Daniel has told us, was the first
to become know as a 'house' 'per-aa'
pharaoh.  his physical house did not last too
long, but he seems to have built an
invisible one which has maintained iteslef
hermetically down into our own day
>
>   but anyway, to come back round to the
topic "the navel spouse" this may mean we are
married to the cut, to seeing the division our
navel commemorates, wedded to the dual in
our father's name... or it may mean that hilary,
in possession of bill's father-name, does
not need to worry about detached penis' alibis
because they only mean that when she wears
monica's dress the stain will not show, as
WC 'Theaux' mentioned...
>
>   ...
>
>   hal
>


-

It looks like everyone is awakening to the meaning of what he is saying -
he or she ; and this would be a result of cybernetics level A.I, or perhaps
others (re:Aurobindo) would have said " supramental " . Anyhow I thank you J
for the lesson. Daniel also is at task.

    The method or technic J teaches is a rethoric like seen in Freudian
Transference. With 'FT' the psychoanalyst first step listen to a
psychoanalysed and gets sure he understands the later according to certain
semantic rules (established in Freud's first manuals - dream, everyday life,
witz) - second step the former computs his understanding with his own
meanings within - third step the psychanalyst delivers an interpretations to
the later who has become in the process ' psychoanalysand '.

    In his office, where he wrote and received people for information, Lacan
as a good prime minister had put over in plain evidence Poe's Purloined
Letter - a novel that tells the story of a prime minister who had put over
in his office a purloined letter - in which letter a love affair was
concealed. The letter that tells the letter* that tales the case, is the
case of transference (it is also the kabala method, technic or rethoric). It
does not really trun into a circle ; but it turns into a circle with a
twist, making thus a kind of infinite sign.

    In his Cybernetic essay and thesis, Lacan showed that this FT was not all
of psychoanalysis, and that it added something, a product, which could level
it (psychoanalysis) with the status of an ' invention '. But since in fact
psychoanalysis staid at the FT degree it proved to be just a Death Drive
according to its infinite sign.
    The FT - as well as Death Drive - has been also the staging degree of
Moses credence - according to Paul/Saul explaining the difference between
Ministry of Letter or Death - see Letter to Corinthians - an Ministry of
Speach - or Life.

    Beyond FT, there is Oedipus. Oedipus yet can only be seen through a
Triplex appearence. The Antheaum Toll Institute will allow the visit of this
structure where beyond hypnosis (Egyptian - Ramses), its (psycho)analysis
halts for a FT moment (Bible - Freud). The so-called Oedipus Complex moves
then toward the Triplex. At that moment Bible, Biblos, Baibelon etc..
reminds the pure cyphering that the letter is with its use of images. This
is the "images and places" of the Art of Memory that the triplex would
generate since it is held by G.Bruno's ordering. The visit at the Institute
shows Bruno hence limiting the historical phase - prior to our present
psyBakh, Cyberontime and other PLural analysis which eventualy enlives the
environment again through UCMPPs.

DWT

* : in my previous post, I explained how with the letter (A) that tells the
letter (B), the tale of the letter B can be a lie. When Letter B is taken as
truth (Murder of Moses i.e. failure of the decipheration ) this is the FT
case (into a twisted narcissistic bound, the case is the case) . When Letter
B is understood as a lie (truth being : Moses turns/escapes into Oedipus ;
thus following decipheration) a product - object (a) - is created, awaiting
for its industrialisation and acknowledgement, known as 'body'. When this
identification of/with the human body is gained, medecine - Asclepius - is
achieved.


















-----Message d'origine-----
De : notify@yahoogroups.com [mailto:notify@yahoogroups.com]De la part de
jeroen
Envoyé : samedi 10 mai 2008 15:56
À : DWTheaux
Objet : The Nibelungen Ring


Hi William,

I am still banned by your moderator, so you decide wheter or not this
reply should be published. I give you that someone who is mentioned
in a public conversation, should be able to respond to that.
You can ignore it, publish it, edit it (do ask me beforehand about
that though), print it out and then burn it, in fact you have many
options! I just love interactionism:-)

Do consider hal's Latest attempt at Lacanian analysis. If all noise
is removed from that message, just one sentence remains:
"The image I have in my mind of Jeroen is subjective". So Hal knows
English very well and makes many of the analytical mistakes that you
make as well, lack of clarity being a very important one. How come?
It obvioulsy isn't because of language skills that are missing.

In response to Daniel's message I think he meant 'appropriating'
rather than 'stealing'. I know 'theft' is a bit homely put, you could
go to jail for that! But if you would indeed be capable of
transcending the navel fight you accuse others of engaging in, first
try to honestly understand what the other is saying. Its not that
difficult to extract 'appropriation' from 'theft' isn't it?

you shouldnt just take a term like that and place it in a whole new
context, to then tell a whole new story. This kind of action
objectively fits the description of 'intellectual dishonesty',
because it means you refuse to face the subject matter that is
actually being addressed. In that it is most unheroic too, so that
wouldnt even pass your first ring!

In order to better face your language problems, could you maybe
consider to make a habit out of concisely summarising what you think
seems to be the issue at hand? Always check if you properly
understood what you just read and only if you have that confirmed,
continue. On the one hand you admit to having language problems, on
the other hand you dont check first. Are you only interested in
yourself?

That might prevent a few misunderstandings, so you wouldnt have to
resort to the prelingual developmental phase to leave smokescreens so
your correspondent is just left in awe. Psychosis is also awesome!
And much more effective in executing the intent you try to transmit
too :-)

After this summary, you can extract a problem from that. From my
teachers of literature, prof Douwe Fokkema & Elrud Ibsch & Will van
Peer, I learnt one should try to do this in one sentence. Of course
this is all just convention, but convention facilitates
communication. In that way everybody can still follow what path youre
actually walking. What you constantly do is in dutch/ yiddisch
called 'schmieren'. I'm quite sure Jesuits have a name for the
rhetoric technique as well.

When the problem has been identified, from there you can formulate
and argument for a possible solution. But be careful, we all want to
know how such an operationalization would work! After that, you can
first execute your earlier mentioned operationalization and base a
theory on that. maybe it even leads to some sort of lacanian solution
and we can all understand why!

Not doing that sneaks in a lot of implicit value judgements that are
best out in the sun.

Greetz,
Jeroen

Hello William,

The show goes on - to Hal's delight, I see!  In
the meantime Jeroen sent us a massive missive,
which, as you stir the pot, will futher flavor
the "witch's brew."

The Bible is a Code.  You also favor significant
codes (significands? - significodes?)
and all codes point to their own creator's
ideology (Phantasm?).  Akhnaton's Navel is your
own discovery when you looked at Freud's
Akhenaten and Monotheism and Velikovsky's
Oedipus and Akhenaten.  You either took their
logic to the next logical step or you creatively
misrepresented them (Freud was reluctant to make
the connection, you said, so you did it for/in
place of/ him) and found the key to H3M.  You
had you navel moment.

There is a good chance that the intra-Egyptian
folk memory did not carry Moses and Oedipus,
but, rather, carried the three Amenhoteps (AIII,
ASH and AIV).  However, in the fourth or fifth
century BC the Persians stationed a Hebrew unit
on the Island of Elephantine whose religious
books have been found there.  No doubt their
worship and belief system, from Abraham and
Jacob to Joseph and Moses made its way into the
Egyptian storytelling and the crossover names
like Jacob and Moses would have been readily
recognizable!

Similarly, when Alexander the Great conquered
Egypt and created Alexandria, the Greek
philosophers and dramatists likely brought
Oedipus with them, and like the negative and
positive wires of otherwise live but dormant
wires, created a spark that gave birth to H3T.

Alexandria was the site where Hellenizing Jews
('liberal' Jews who were willing to co-exist
with Greeks) translated their holy books into
Greek, the Septuaginta (Seventy books of the Old
Testament, later reduced by censors), and also
the home of Gnostics, which made the place a
veritable hothouse of navels.  What you have
discovered, that AMO=H3T, then all of these
groups and people in Egypt and Alexandria were
talking about Akhenaten even though none of them
knew him by that particular name.  They knew him
by facsimile names?  Yet, accodring to your
system, Akhnaton purloined his own name and
crated his own facsimile so that no one knew who
Moses was, even though his chroniclers knew that
he worshipped the Adonai, which must have been
close enough to these chroniclers' Elohim.

You tried to purloin your own name and presented
us with a facsimile of your name, Zenon Kelper,
which did not stick.  Was it because you were
not a very good liar?

Daniel


> Akhnatonhello Daniel,
>
>    My lack of control of English must be taken
into account. As an innocent
> cannot steal - and as any newborn to langage
can nothing but steal all of
> this langage, making thus this purloined place
that images will found, I did
> and didn't steal 'navel' (aka primal scene).
>
>
>    I take here your turning point post - where
you brought ( can be said : "
> where you stole " )  ' facsimile ' ( first
time used in this
> thread/simili-row if I am right ) .
>    The place where a penis has been makes
sense after that the stolen matrix
> has been purloined. Here is the excerpt ( from
>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/akhnaton/message/42
08 )
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------
------------------------
>
> I still see Jeroen as some form of alter ego
for
> you, even though I don't know the source of
that
> feeling. At a historic time of heightened self-
> awareness, where the US President Clinton can
> lie about where his penis has been and thus
> confirm in everyone's mind the reverse, the lie
> was necessary because Clinton instinctively
knew
> about the Lacanian (Trismegistus) second
> reversal which turned his lie into a truth.
> Clinton was exposed, we all saw the stained
> dress, but no one believes it.
>
> I wonder if the same double twist of denial
> takes place here among William's brainwashed
> hordes - sorry, Jeroen did not use those words,
> he said cultic slaves? I forgot what he said,
> but do we simply deny the exposition, or, like
> good Lacanian-Verdiglionian-Theauxian sheep, we
> make the second reversal and the exposition
> becomes a facsimile? and the exposer, Jeroen,
> who took Theaux away from us, then becomes
> Theaux himself, the one who knows how the
trompe
> d'oeil works?
>
> -----------------------------------------------
------------------------
>
>    The double twist is set up in civilisation -
  following Freud analysis :
> as he reveals, opens an hidden box, the box
being the Bible, and when
> reading ' the murder of Moses ' , he reveals
here a lie. But if you hide a
> something, the more it will be hidden and hard
to find, when people will
> find it, it will not think at first that a lie
has been found here ; the
> seekers will be too happy if their effort has
found truth, for there is no
> reason, they would think, to make such efforts
to hide a lie. So, like the
> purloined letter, if you want to hide it, hide
it ! but in the most obvious
> place : that is, if you want to hide truth
hide it in a lie, and put it in
> the most hidden place, a secret box. When
Freud opened the Bible, whant he
> found hidden there was a lie - a lie well
hidden, for the Bible tells the
> truth !. As everybody knows that Bible tells
the truth, every Freud's
> devote - psychoanalysis believer - hence
believe that the murder is the
> truth.
>
>    So the penis is a lie - penis-envie is a
lie. This is how Clinton turned
> his lie into a truth .
>
>    With all his love, Clinton put it in a
hidden place. When it is revealed,
> what is found is a lie.
>
>    Poe put his truth in " the purloined
letter "  - Lacan revealed it.
>
>    So Moses is a lie - the murder-of-Moses is
a lie. This is how Freud
> turned this lie into a truth
>
>    Lacan exposed Poe's " purloined letter " .
In revealing it, it was made a
> lie.
>
>    As the revealed lie says " Moses has not
been killed, since Oedipe escape
> " -
> So Poe's penis to Lacan (the purloined letter)
turns into " A scandal in
> Bohemia " (by Conan Doyle)
>
>    If the second reversal (in the hidden box,
turning the purloined letter
> into a scandal ; in the Bible turning the
hidden murder into a lie - thus
> the 'murder' in an 'escape' ; in History
turning Moses as the lie telling
> the truth - Oedipus - of Akhnaton) is not
exposed - if Akhnaton reversed
> into Moses and Moses reversed into Oedipus -
then
> the exposition becomes a facsimile
>
>    This is why we may say the opposite, Daniel
and I, since there are no "
> Lacanian-Verdiglionian-Theauxian sheep " since
none of the three are
> sherpard. If they are, it is when their sheeps
have made, or repressed,
> Hilary stealing Monica's dress in order to
excuse Bill.
>    There is no Maria in the true Metropolis
(twisted from Fritz Lands
> Metropolis-lie) - there is no Woman.
>    There is nothing but a stained dress - and
nothing but a Cross, that
> stain on the World !
>
>    With Oedipus, there is no Ideal - there are
ideas, plural. No Ideal means
> that Moses is Akhnaton and Akhnaton is a man
and Nefertiti a woman.
>    Then we can have great ideas.
>
> How difficult the truth has been that the king
is a man and his wife a
> woman..
>
>
>    and if Daniel makes my navel a facsimile,
isn't he doing what he says I
> do ?
>
>
> Will
>
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------
> -
>
>
>
>
>
> Message #4228
>
> Re: [akhnaton] The navel spouse (some
explanation)
>
>
> Hello William,
>
> First of all, here is a study site on 'mirror'
> cells in the brain. That ought to make any
> Lacanian happy! The French Academie scholar,
> Rene Giraud, has established philosophically
> that human beings are memetic beings: we mimic
> one another. In a more recent post you and Hal
> include language in this memetic process, and
> that works.
>
> Since we are discussing what is mirroring, it
> seems to me that you take a word like navel,
> steal it from its memetic context, and re-
> present it as a facsimile in what at first
> appears as a nonsense context (or no context at
> all) and then you establish your own context
> simply by repeating the navel in its facsimile
> usage. That makes you the Inspector in Poe's
> story.
>
> You are in the habit of 'stealing' and
replacing
> many other concepts and nouns with their
> facsimiles, leaving me, or your other
> correspondents, with the choice that either the
> original meme was OK in its habituated context
> or that only your facsimile is correct. When
> given such a narrow choice (it's either you or
> me), a sense of self-preservation dictates that
> I am right for myself, and you can be right for
> you, but not for me. I believe Jeroen imploded
> over this lack of choice!
>
> However, in literature there is a device called
> creative misrepresentation (See Harold Bloom,
> The Western Canon), which, if done expertly as
> with Shakespeare in English, the entire
language
> is redirected and the facsimile (the creative
> misrepresentation) becomes the current canon or
> norm. A writer's goal, therefore, is to find
> another writer's (or pshychiatrist's) concepts
> and creatively misrepresent them so well that
> everyone will happily re-write their neural
> patterns of mimicry and start mimicing the new
> code.
>
> The question then has to be asked, just how
many
> times has a name (Amenhotep-Akhnaton-Moses-
> Oedipus-Hermes3x-etc., etc.) or a concept (such
> as Christianity as religion of peace) been
> hijacked and changed over the millennia and are
> you in the process of untwisting the misleading
> facsimiles, or re-twisting them to their
> original meaning (if that, in fact, is
> possible?)?
>
> I can see that Amenhotep IV stopped at some
> point and realized that he is not going to
hotep
> Amen any more, but rather, his is going to Akh
> the Aten. When he was no longer Akh to the
> Aten, but found himself at the head of a motely
> crew of unegyptian Egyptians and Asiatics, he
> was reborn Mose (Mose in ancient Egyptian
is 'to
> be born'). He stole his own image from the
> people who 'knew' him and gave them a facsimile
> of himself the way he wanted them to perceive
> him next: in ordinary terminology, he
> reinvented himself! He evolved. His names,
> though, reflect what people thought him to be.
> We don't actually know how or what he thought
of
> himself. We only know how he treated the people
> who became dependent on him or who attached
> themselves to him. And when there was no one to
> carry his reflection any more, except perhaps
> his daughter, at Colona, he had a temper
> tantrum, a desperate call for attention, until
> the leaders of Athens came to hear him and he
> again had an audience for his creative
> misprepresentation of himself as a misguided
> motherfucker. His story was so good that
> Sophocles and others couldn't have enough of
it!
>
> The difference between Akhenaten and you is
that
> Akhenaten stole his own identity and reflected
> to others a facsimile of himself, whereas so
> far, in your conversations on line, you have
> been taking your correspondents' words and
> feeding them back in a different context.
>
> Akhenaten also saw that the Amun priests stole
> the Sun and reflected it back to the Egyptian
> people as a lifeless statue of Amun-Ra. In that
> sense, yes, as you and Hal have said, he was
> most likely aware of the theft process. He
> wanted to remedy that theft. In your many
> writings and explanations, you also said you
> wanted to remedy (perhaps give back) the theft
> of something or another (was it the freedom of
> thinking? or the knowledge of the sleight-of-
> hand or trompe d'oeil) so that we can see how
we
> are being duped all the time!
>
> But then you and Hal show how we never see our
> real selves anyway, to we wouldn't know our
true
> selves if it stared us in the face because,
> according to you, we cannot know what we cannot
> see or contact. And according to the memetic
> studies, what we are is a mimicing act of
> everyone we have ever met and spent time with.
> Even Jeroen, as he vents against you, is
> becoming more and more like you in the process!
> trying to suppress you as much as you have
tried
> to suppress him.
>
> There is a heroic struggle underneath all this
> thieving and meme-producing and I am not sure
if
> that struggle is for self-preservation or for
> the betterment of humankind? To give life to an
> idea or to prove yourself 'right'?
>
> I also see that you have a goal and that Daniel
> is back on target with Akhenaten's development,
> every seven years a new name, a new persona,
> recreating the world around him and molding it
> to the current image of his hormonal and brain-
> function development.... N'est'ce pas?
>
> Daniel
>


-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t28EUcTDLII

hal von hofe <h169@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

hmheh -- see queen lyrics... re the hilarious stealing of monica's dress...

 

hal the facsimile

damilos@bmts.com wrote:

.. and if Daniel makes my navel a facsimile,
isn't he doing what he says I do ?


Will

The show must go on...

Daniel

-

hmheh -- see queen lyrics... re the hilarious stealing of monica's dress...

 

hal the facsimile

damilos@bmts.com wrote:

.. and if Daniel makes my navel a facsimile,
isn't he doing what he says I do ?


Will

The show must go on...

Daniel

-

.. and if Daniel makes my navel a facsimile,
isn't he doing what he says I do ?


Will

The show must go on...

Daniel

-

..   and if Daniel makes my navel a facsimile,
isn't he doing what he says I do ?


Will

The show must go on...

Daniel


-

|Hal,

A reflexive pronoun is

Je me souviens!

In this French example you might as well say "I
mirror myself."

Daniel



> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamitic
>
>   on these lines,  want to adduce an answer i
made to my mother in law, while we were
waching some cnn show or other:  barak obama was
on, discoursing.
>
>   she asked me whether he was black or white
and i, without hesitation, said :  "he is
both"
>
>   i stick by that
>
>   hal
>
> hal von hofe <h169@...> wrote:
>
>
> Note: forwarded message attached.
>
>                            To:
akhnaton@yahoogroups.com
> From: hal von hofe <h169@...>
> Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 16:23:03 -0700 (PDT)
> Subject: Re: [akhnaton] Re: ~AiwazThelema~ Re:
akhnaton
>
>       just to add a note of caution:
>
>   i am unsure of the validity of all of
gardiner's assertions.  i studied egyoptian for 2
years at yale with virginia davis -- she was a
disciple of noam chomsky's transformational
grammar and attempted to apply it to ancient
aegyptian.  at the time i attempted to follow
her in her various arguments, re the sdm-f form
and the m-predication  preposition, but
never achieved any mastery of such...
>
>   she was pennsylvania dutch and had not cut
her hair since she was 5 -- light blond, as
were her eyebrows and -- she hosted a nice
halloween party fo one of our graduate
seminars, at which she, in costume, gave each of
us our names in aegyptian -- i still have
mine in a diary of the time i was keeping --
  "heryel', horus the child :-)
>
>   anyway, have just spent a half hour with
gardiner's "Egyptian grammar" and have not been
able to find a confirmation of your assertion
that the form of aegyptian prayer made use
of a reflexive form of the dependent pronoun --
(sect 44 & others) -- do you have a page
citation for that?
>
>   hal
>
> hal von hofe <h169@...> wrote:
>         hm lol, i think you have caught me
out -- is in deed a reflexive act, in the
aegytpian as well --  rhetorically and act-ually
speaking
>
>   agape, from
>
>   the me and the al meaty
>
>   the real-ization of this may have come with
akhnaton's hymn to to the sun, as i and a
few others have been saying right along,
velikovsky among them?  (meaning that akhnaton
was the first to realize the nature of the
reflexive mirror, other-wise known as mother's
tongue?
>
>   hamitic hal
>
> David Jones <choronzon.club@...> wrote:
>       Doesn't Gardiner attest that Egyptian
prayers use the reflexive form
> of the Dependent Pronoun for prayer as well?
It seems to be a fairly
> constant mode in both Semitic and Hamatic
languages.
>
> On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 2:43 PM, hal von hofe
<h169@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > aw damn, i must still be doing it in the old
aegyptian style :-(
> >
> >
> >
> > Ha Shaitan <shaitan_worshipper@...>
wrote:
> >
> > It's a Hebrew joke. Prayer in Biblical
Hebrew is
> > always done in the Nifal binyan which is
reflexive.
> >
> > --- hal von hofe <h169@...> wrote:
> >
> > > rilly? -- when i talk to sum1 else i
always assume i
> > > am just talking to mself, as opposed to
when i pray
> > > -- when i just know there are two of us --
me & the
> > > almighty --or is that the almighty and the
me? -- i
> > > get confused on that score... :-)
> > >
> > > on another score, i just loaned my copy
of 'Hogg"
> > > to my youngest son (26 now -- he found it
quite
> > > hilarious (HOGG, by Samuel Delany -- i am
going to
> > > lend him 'The Mad Man' next heh, long live
nyc
> > > gsa...)
> > >
> > > st marks books
> > >
> > > Ha Shaitan <shaitan_worshipper@...>
wrote:
> > > At least when we pray
> > >
> > > --- hal von hofe <h169@...>
wrote:
> > >
> > > > m m how naive, we are al just talking to
our
> > > selves
> > > > no?
> > > >
> > > > (point taken ;-)
> > > >
> > > > Ha Shaitan
<shaitan_worshipper@...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- "fra.aleisterion"
<fra.aleisterion@...>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Nobody cares go away and whine
elsewhere idiot.
> > > >
> > > > Are you talking to yourself again?
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In
Aiwaz_Thelema@yahoogroups.com, "jeroen"
> > > > > <jhoogeweij@...> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm posting this here, because Hal
put me on
> > > > > moderation on the
> > > > > > akhnaton list and I dont want to
post when my
> > > > > speech is impaired in
> > > > > > any way. Per Liber Oz, I
consistently escalate
> > > > > when I feel that's the
> > > > > > case.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Just for anyone who has the illusion
Hal is
> > > open
> > > > > minded or
> > > > > > democratic: after a few postings
that were
> > > > > inconvenient to Hal (I
> > > > > > exposed Theaux for the charlatan he
truly is),
> > > > he
> > > > > put me on
> > > > > > moderation. After that autocratic
act that
> > > > showed
> > > > > some of the true
> > > > > > face behind the 'happy camper' we
all think we
> > > > > know, he tried to save
> > > > > > face by posting a voting procedure,
asking the
> > > > > question whether or
> > > > > > not I should be put on moderation
(it's normal
> > > > to
> > > > > first ask that
> > > > > > question and then act upon it, no?).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > After days, THREE out of 110 members
> > > responded,
> > > > > but this wasnt any
> > > > > > reason for Hal to put me off
moderation. Just
> > > to
> > > > > show how
> > > > > > disrespectful he is of procedures he
professes
> > > > to
> > > > > adhere to himself.
> > > > > > It should be known he feels the same
about
> > > > > Thelema, beyond his mask.
> > > > > > Don't expect any authenticity from
Hal.... He
> > > > > misses the same respect
> > > > > > and consistency in any kind of other
activity.
> > > > > Teachers get away with
> > > > > > being generally useless without
anyone
> > > noticing,
> > > > > which is why they
> > > > > > never made it in academia or a
business
> > > > > environment. Hal is a perfect
> > > > > > example of that and in the end he
was even
> > > > > incapable of keeping the
> > > > > > loser option.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hal didn't act upon that lack of
reponse by
> > > > > putting me off
> > > > > > moderation. And there we have the
problem in a
> > > > > nutshell. We have some
> > > > > > loser here pretending to be a Master
of the
> > > > Temple
> > > > > (no less), while
> > > > > > he in fact is a non practitioner (by
his own
> > > > > admission), trying to
> > > > > > impose his (lack of) will on
practitioners.
> > > This
> > > > > is a heinous crime
> > > > > > and he should get out of the way of
people who
> > > > > actually do practice.
> > > > > > His active obstruction is already
lasting for
> > > > > years and it's entirely
> > > > > > based on negative observations. His
wish to
> > > > > associate with negative
> > > > > > lowlifes like Al Hysterion just
describes that
> > > > > point. He can't get
> > > > > > out of that trap.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Apart from that, he is entirely
inconsistent
> > > and
> > > > > close observation of
> > > > > > him has shown me that he in fact is
in urgent
> > > > need
> > > > > of counseling.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So now my response to Theaux' latest
> > > > charlatanerie
> > > > > in
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/akhnaton/message/42
03.
> > > > > Theaux would
> > > > > > have never dared stating that
nonsense if I
> > > > hadn't
> > > > > unsubscribed. I
> > > > > > did so because I don't feel free in
expressing
> > > > > myself when I'm put on
> > > > > > moderation by someone incompetent
like Hal. He
> > > > > already has more than
> > > > > > three votes for me being put on
moderation? If
> > > > > that democratic
> > > > > > gesture would have been honest, he
would
> > > already
> > > > > have put me off
> > > > > > moderation. The fact he did not,
again shows
> > > how
> > > > > much empty and
> > > > > > dishonest gesturing is going on from
Hal's
> > > side.
> > > > I
> > > > > unsubscribed from
> > > > > > the akhnaton list when he didn't
follow up on
> > > > his
> > > > > 'democratic'
> > > > > > gesture. A dishonest person like
that cannot
> > > > > possibly be my brother.
> > > > > > My brothers are honest, and capable
of
> > > bringing
> > > > > things to their
> > > > > > conclusion. Hal is just a
pretentious muggle.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But I do like the sense of panic I
perceive
> > > > > underneath the entirely
> > > > > > invalid deconstruction dr Theaux
attempted. If
> > > > > this is the best he
> > > > > > can, it isn't much, is it? I also
find it
> > > > > important to note, that he
> > > > > > actually admits to be a pseudo
science
> > > religious
> > > > > sect. So it is very
> > > > > > important he understands this
doesn't fly
> > > > either.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Now some interpetation of the same
event, from
> > > a
> > > > > process/(inter)
> > > > > > actionist point of view. Ask
yourself which
> > > one
> > > > > seems best capable to
> > > > > > actually 'catch' the event. Mr
Theaux'
> > > selection
> > > > > of just one or two
> > > > > > memes to mold them in the way he
likes them
> > > > best,
> > > > > or an inventory of
> > > > > > interactions that went on? Were
those words
> > > and
> > > > > then a few his mind
> > > > > > selected out of those to put under
the
> > > > microscope
> > > > > all that happened?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > He shows how silly it is to just
look at rows
> > > > > withou checking out how
> > > > > > these would relate. It was aleady
clear he
> > > > > couldn't, when it became
> > > > > > evident he doesn't see the
difference between
> > > an
> > > > > analogy and a
> > > > > > synonym, but this description shows
the
> > > > > fundamental flaws of this
> > > > > > approach again.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Good mr Theaux seems to have
(conveniently)
> > > > > forgotten, that his offer
> > > > > > for help was made after he had shown
me all of
> > > > his
> > > > >
> > > > > > psychotherapeutical practice, WHILE
we were
> > > > > standing in what he
> > > > > > called a repoduction of Freud's
chamber
> > > (looked
> > > > > like quite a random
> > > > > > collection of last season's second
life
> > > freebies
> > > > > to me). Indeed,
> > > > > > context is not a part of his
analysys.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I had just engaged in a willing
suspension of
> > > > > disbelief to see what
> > > > > > was actually crawling under dr
Theaux' stone.
> > > If
> > > > a
> > > > > certified
> > > > > > therapist then after his psycho tour
offers
> > > > > 'help', ask yourself how
> > > > > > you would interpret that. Just look
at what he
> > > > > obfuscates by not
> > > > > > taking on the interaction, but a
meme. That is
> > > > > EXACTLY what i mean
> > > > > > when I say something
like 'intellectual
> > > > > dishonesty'. It truly is a
> > > > > > statement of fact.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > He now tries to let it come across
as 'odd'
> > > that
> > > > I
> > > > > interpreted his
> > > > > > offer for help as an offer for
therapy instead
> > > > of
> > > > > something else, but
> > > > > > it's actually much stranger he tries
to give
> > > > > another context to that.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The fact I acted clumsy in dr
Theaux' place in
> > > > > fact was a magickal
> > > > > > gesture in itself. I'm not
comfortable in his
> > > > > idiosyncracies, so i
> > > > > > didnt want the 'comfort zone' to be
a part of
> > > > our
> > > > > conversation. Every
> > > > > > symbol over there is random: Bruno
wheels can
> > > be
> > > > > replaced by
> > > > > > yetsiratic wheels, Goddess can be
replace by
> > > > Borg
> > > > > queen, any trinity
> > > > > > can be replaced by any random other
one, etc.
> > > No
> > > > > problem dr Theaux is
> > > > > > just sitting on a load of entirely
random
> > > crap,
> > > > if
> > > > > he would refer to
> > > > > > it as his personal path. problem is,
he
> > > doesn't.
> > > > > He is pretentious.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As if he could explain anything to
me about
> > > > second
> > > > > life, like he is
> > > > > > suggesting righ now. He could have
bothered
> > > > > checking out the age of
> > > > > > my avatar, or looked me up in MY
neighbourhood
> > > > > (which in fact is a
> > > > > > much wealhtier one) or asked me
questions
> > > about
> > > > me
> > > > > penis business or
> > > > > > my life as s prostitute in second
life (which
> > > > from
> > > > > an interactionist
> > > > > > pov, is the only way one could
actually each
> > > > > people in that realm).
> > > > > > He culd have also wondered how
somebody witn
> > > an
> > > > > interenet business
> > > > > > culd be so clumsy, but he is too
self involved
> > > > to
> > > > > actually wonder
> > > > > > about things like that. Some
therapist ehh?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > He does that of course, because it
is very
> > > > evident
> > > > > that there is a
> > > > > > lot wrong with the way in which Mr
Theaux
> > > deals
> > > > > with a concept like
> > > > > > patient/therapist confidentiality.
Obviously
> > > he
> > > > > has a huge problem in
> > > > > > the ethical realm here and he tries
to cover
> > > > that
> > > > > up by
> > > > > > recontextualising his offer for
help. He just
> > > > got
> > > > > caught on
> > > > > > egotripping over the false idea he
is a
> > > > > 'psychopomp'. Truth is, he is
> > > > > > a dwarve who just reaches blow job
height,
> > > > > believing his private hell
> > > > > > has any kind of added value to
humanity.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think it is important that it
should be
> > > > > generally known he does
> > > > > > things like that. He is not only
> > > intellectually
> > > > > dishonest, he also is
> > > > > > a mental health hazard. There are
people who
> > > > might
> > > > > be vulnerable to
> > > > > > this kind of thing.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So it must be clear to anyone that
dr Theaux
> > > is
> > > > > incapable of
> > > > > > respecting the sacred bond of
> > > therapist/patient
> > > > > confidentiality while
> > > > > > he creates the suggestion of that in
all of
> > > his
> > > > > environment. This
> > > > > > means that dr Theaux should never be
trusted
> > > by
> > > > > people who would
> > > > > > actually have problems.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And regarding the intellectual
dishonesty:
> > > just
> > > > > look at how he
> > > > > > ignores my criticism that the
relationship of
> > > > > meme/gene is one of
> > > > > > analogy, they simply aren't synonym.
The fact
> > > > that
> > > > > dr Theau then just
> > > > > > mentions a book (falsely relying on
authority
> > > > > that's called) instead
> > > > > > of giving a proper argument says it
all,
> > > really.
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jeroen
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > 453Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > mailto:Aiwaz_Thelema-
fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
_________________________________________________
_________
> > > > Be a better friend, newshound, and
> > > > know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it
now.
> > > >
> > >
> >
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao
8Wcj9tAcJ
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
_________________________________________________
_________
> > > Be a better friend, newshound, and
> > > know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
> > >
> >
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao
8Wcj9tAcJ
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
_________________________________________________
_________
> > Be a better friend, newshound, and
> > know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
> >
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao
8Wcj9tAcJ
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


-

Note: forwarded message attached.

To: akhnaton@yahoogroups.com
From: hal von hofe <h169@...>
Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 16:23:03 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [akhnaton] Re: ~AiwazThelema~ Re: akhnaton

just to add a note of caution:

 

i am unsure of the validity of all of gardiner's assertions.  i studied egyoptian for 2 years at yale with virginia davis -- she was a disciple of noam chomsky's transformational grammar and attempted to apply it to ancient aegyptian.  at the time i attempted to follow her in her various arguments, re the sdm-f form and the m-predication  preposition, but never achieved any mastery of such...

 

she was pennsylvania dutch and had not cut her hair since she was 5 -- light blond, as were her eyebrows and -- she hosted a nice halloween party fo one of our graduate seminars, at which she, in costume, gave each of us our names in aegyptian -- i still have mine in a diary of the time i was keeping -- "heryel', horus the child :-)

 

anyway, have just spent a half hour with gardiner's "Egyptian grammar" and have not been able to find a confirmation of your assertion that the form of aegyptian prayer made use of a reflexive form of the dependent pronoun -- (sect 44 & others) -- do you have a page citation for that?

 

hal

hal von hofe <h169@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

hm lol, i think you have caught me out -- is in deed a reflexive act, in the aegytpian as well --  rhetorically and act-ually speaking

 

agape, from

 

the me and the al meaty

 

the real-ization of this may have come with akhnaton's hymn to to the sun, as i and a few others have been saying right along, velikovsky among them?  (meaning that akhnaton was the first to realize the nature of the reflexive mirror, other-wise known as mother's tongue?

 

hamitic hal

David Jones <choronzon.club@gmail.com> wrote:

Doesn't Gardiner attest that Egyptian prayers use the reflexive form
of the Dependent Pronoun for prayer as well? It seems to be a fairly
constant mode in both Semitic and Hamatic languages.

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 2:43 PM, hal von hofe <h169@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> aw damn, i must still be doing it in the old aegyptian style :-(
>
>
>
> Ha Shaitan <shaitan_worshipper@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> It's a Hebrew joke. Prayer in Biblical Hebrew is
> always done in the Nifal binyan which is reflexive.
>
> --- hal von hofe <h169@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > rilly? -- when i talk to sum1 else i always assume i
> > am just talking to mself, as opposed to when i pray
> > -- when i just know there are two of us -- me & the
> > almighty --or is that the almighty and the me? -- i
> > get confused on that score... :-)
> >
> > on another score, i just loaned my copy of 'Hogg"
> > to my youngest son (26 now -- he found it quite
> > hilarious (HOGG, by Samuel Delany -- i am going to
> > lend him 'The Mad Man' next heh, long live nyc
> > gsa...)
> >
> > st marks books
> >
> > Ha Shaitan <shaitan_worshipper@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > At least when we pray
> >
> > --- hal von hofe <h169@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> > > m m how naive, we are al just talking to our
> > selves
> > > no?
> > >
> > > (point taken ;-)
> > >
> > > Ha Shaitan <shaitan_worshipper@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- "fra.aleisterion" <fra.aleisterion@yahoo.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Nobody cares go away and whine elsewhere idiot.
> > >
> > > Are you talking to yourself again?
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In Aiwaz_Thelema@yahoogroups.com, "jeroen"
> > > > <jhoogeweij@...> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm posting this here, because Hal put me on
> > > > moderation on the
> > > > > akhnaton list and I dont want to post when my
> > > > speech is impaired in
> > > > > any way. Per Liber Oz, I consistently escalate
> > > > when I feel that's the
> > > > > case.
> > > > >
> > > > > Just for anyone who has the illusion Hal is
> > open
> > > > minded or
> > > > > democratic: after a few postings that were
> > > > inconvenient to Hal (I
> > > > > exposed Theaux for the charlatan he truly is),
> > > he
> > > > put me on
> > > > > moderation. After that autocratic act that
> > > showed
> > > > some of the true
> > > > > face behind the 'happy camper' we all think we
> > > > know, he tried to save
> > > > > face by posting a voting procedure, asking the
> > > > question whether or
> > > > > not I should be put on moderation (it's normal
> > > to
> > > > first ask that
> > > > > question and then act upon it, no?).
> > > > >
> > > > > After days, THREE out of 110 members
> > responded,
> > > > but this wasnt any
> > > > > reason for Hal to put me off moderation. Just
> > to
> > > > show how
> > > > > disrespectful he is of procedures he professes
> > > to
> > > > adhere to himself.
> > > > > It should be known he feels the same about
> > > > Thelema, beyond his mask.
> > > > > Don't expect any authenticity from Hal.... He
> > > > misses the same respect
> > > > > and consistency in any kind of other activity.
> > > > Teachers get away with
> > > > > being generally useless without anyone
> > noticing,
> > > > which is why they
> > > > > never made it in academia or a business
> > > > environment. Hal is a perfect
> > > > > example of that and in the end he was even
> > > > incapable of keeping the
> > > > > loser option.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hal didn't act upon that lack of reponse by
> > > > putting me off
> > > > > moderation. And there we have the problem in a
> > > > nutshell. We have some
> > > > > loser here pretending to be a Master of the
> > > Temple
> > > > (no less), while
> > > > > he in fact is a non practitioner (by his own
> > > > admission), trying to
> > > > > impose his (lack of) will on practitioners.
> > This
> > > > is a heinous crime
> > > > > and he should get out of the way of people who
> > > > actually do practice.
> > > > > His active obstruction is already lasting for
> > > > years and it's entirely
> > > > > based on negative observations. His wish to
> > > > associate with negative
> > > > > lowlifes like Al Hysterion just describes that
> > > > point. He can't get
> > > > > out of that trap.
> > > > >
> > > > > Apart from that, he is entirely inconsistent
> > and
> > > > close observation of
> > > > > him has shown me that he in fact is in urgent
> > > need
> > > > of counseling.
> > > > >
> > > > > So now my response to Theaux' latest
> > > charlatanerie
> > > > in
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/akhnaton/message/4203.
> > > > Theaux would
> > > > > have never dared stating that nonsense if I
> > > hadn't
> > > > unsubscribed. I
> > > > > did so because I don't feel free in expressing
> > > > myself when I'm put on
> > > > > moderation by someone incompetent like Hal. He
> > > > already has more than
> > > > > three votes for me being put on moderation? If
> > > > that democratic
> > > > > gesture would have been honest, he would
> > already
> > > > have put me off
> > > > > moderation. The fact he did not, again shows
> > how
> > > > much empty and
> > > > > dishonest gesturing is going on from Hal's
> > side.
> > > I
> > > > unsubscribed from
> > > > > the akhnaton list when he didn't follow up on
> > > his
> > > > 'democratic'
> > > > > gesture. A dishonest person like that cannot
> > > > possibly be my brother.
> > > > > My brothers are honest, and capable of
> > bringing
> > > > things to their
> > > > > conclusion. Hal is just a pretentious muggle.
> > > > >
> > > > > But I do like the sense of panic I perceive
> > > > underneath the entirely
> > > > > invalid deconstruction dr Theaux attempted. If
> > > > this is the best he
> > > > > can, it isn't much, is it? I also find it
> > > > important to note, that he
> > > > > actually admits to be a pseudo science
> > religious
> > > > sect. So it is very
> > > > > important he understands this doesn't fly
> > > either.
> > > > >
> > > > > Now some interpetation of the same event, from
> > a
> > > > process/(inter)
> > > > > actionist point of view. Ask yourself which
> > one
> > > > seems best capable to
> > > > > actually 'catch' the event. Mr Theaux'
> > selection
> > > > of just one or two
> > > > > memes to mold them in the way he likes them
> > > best,
> > > > or an inventory of
> > > > > interactions that went on? Were those words
> > and
> > > > then a few his mind
> > > > > selected out of those to put under the
> > > microscope
> > > > all that happened?
> > > > >
> > > > > He shows how silly it is to just look at rows
> > > > withou checking out how
> > > > > these would relate. It was aleady clear he
> > > > couldn't, when it became
> > > > > evident he doesn't see the difference between
> > an
> > > > analogy and a
> > > > > synonym, but this description shows the
> > > > fundamental flaws of this
> > > > > approach again.
> > > > >
> > > > > Good mr Theaux seems to have (conveniently)
> > > > forgotten, that his offer
> > > > > for help was made after he had shown me all of
> > > his
> > > >
> > > > > psychotherapeutical practice, WHILE we were
> > > > standing in what he
> > > > > called a repoduction of Freud's chamber
> > (looked
> > > > like quite a random
> > > > > collection of last season's second life
> > freebies
> > > > to me). Indeed,
> > > > > context is not a part of his analysys.
> > > > >
> > > > > I had just engaged in a willing suspension of
> > > > disbelief to see what
> > > > > was actually crawling under dr Theaux' stone.
> > If
> > > a
> > > > certified
> > > > > therapist then after his psycho tour offers
> > > > 'help', ask yourself how
> > > > > you would interpret that. Just look at what he
> > > > obfuscates by not
> > > > > taking on the interaction, but a meme. That is
> > > > EXACTLY what i mean
> > > > > when I say something like 'intellectual
> > > > dishonesty'. It truly is a
> > > > > statement of fact.
> > > > >
> > > > > He now tries to let it come across as 'odd'
> > that
> > > I
> > > > interpreted his
> > > > > offer for help as an offer for therapy instead
> > > of
> > > > something else, but
> > > > > it's actually much stranger he tries to give
> > > > another context to that.
> > > > >
> > > > > The fact I acted clumsy in dr Theaux' place in
> > > > fact was a magickal
> > > > > gesture in itself. I'm not comfortable in his
> > > > idiosyncracies, so i
> > > > > didnt want the 'comfort zone' to be a part of
> > > our
> > > > conversation. Every
> > > > > symbol over there is random: Bruno wheels can
> > be
> > > > replaced by
> > > > > yetsiratic wheels, Goddess can be replace by
> > > Borg
> > > > queen, any trinity
> > > > > can be replaced by any random other one, etc.
> > No
> > > > problem dr Theaux is
> > > > > just sitting on a load of entirely random
> > crap,
> > > if
> > > > he would refer to
> > > > > it as his personal path. problem is, he
> > doesn't.
> > > > He is pretentious.
> > > > >
> > > > > As if he could explain anything to me about
> > > second
> > > > life, like he is
> > > > > suggesting righ now. He could have bothered
> > > > checking out the age of
> > > > > my avatar, or looked me up in MY neighbourhood
> > > > (which in fact is a
> > > > > much wealhtier one) or asked me questions
> > about
> > > me
> > > > penis business or
> > > > > my life as s prostitute in second life (which
> > > from
> > > > an interactionist
> > > > > pov, is the only way one could actually each
> > > > people in that realm).
> > > > > He culd have also wondered how somebody witn
> > an
> > > > interenet business
> > > > > culd be so clumsy, but he is too self involved
> > > to
> > > > actually wonder
> > > > > about things like that. Some therapist ehh?
> > > > >
> > > > > He does that of course, because it is very
> > > evident
> > > > that there is a
> > > > > lot wrong with the way in which Mr Theaux
> > deals
> > > > with a concept like
> > > > > patient/therapist confidentiality. Obviously
> > he
> > > > has a huge problem in
> > > > > the ethical realm here and he tries to cover
> > > that
> > > > up by
> > > > > recontextualising his offer for help. He just
> > > got
> > > > caught on
> > > > > egotripping over the false idea he is a
> > > > 'psychopomp'. Truth is, he is
> > > > > a dwarve who just reaches blow job height,
> > > > believing his private hell
> > > > > has any kind of added value to humanity.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think it is important that it should be
> > > > generally known he does
> > > > > things like that. He is not only
> > intellectually
> > > > dishonest, he also is
> > > > > a mental health hazard. There are people who
> > > might
> > > > be vulnerable to
> > > > > this kind of thing.
> > > > >
> > > > > So it must be clear to anyone that dr Theaux
> > is
> > > > incapable of
> > > > > respecting the sacred bond of
> > therapist/patient
> > > > confidentiality while
> > > > > he creates the suggestion of that in all of
> > his
> > > > environment. This
> > > > > means that dr Theaux should never be trusted
> > by
> > > > people who would
> > > > > actually have problems.
> > > > >
> > > > > And regarding the intellectual dishonesty:
> > just
> > > > look at how he
> > > > > ignores my criticism that the relationship of
> > > > meme/gene is one of
> > > > > analogy, they simply aren't synonym. The fact
> > > that
> > > > dr Theau then just
> > > > > mentions a book (falsely relying on authority
> > > > that's called) instead
> > > > > of giving a proper argument says it all,
> > really.
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Jeroen
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > 453Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > mailto:Aiwaz_Thelema-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> __________________________________________________________
> > > Be a better friend, newshound, and
> > > know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
> > >
> >
> http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> __________________________________________________________
> > Be a better friend, newshound, and
> > know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
> >
> http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> __________________________________________________________
> Be a better friend, newshound, and
> know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
> http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
>
>
>
>

Hello William,

First of all, here is a study site on 'mirror'
cells in the brain.  That ought to make any
Lacanian happy!  The French Academie scholar,
Rene Giraud, has established philosophically
that human beings are memetic beings:  we mimic
one another.  In a more recent post you and Hal
include language in this memetic process, and
that works.

Since we are discussing what is mirroring, it
seems to me that you take a word like navel,
steal it from its memetic context, and re-
present it as a facsimile in what at first
appears as a nonsense context (or no context at
all) and then you establish your own context
simply by repeating the navel in its facsimile
usage.  That makes you the Inspector in Poe's
story.

You are in the habit of 'stealing' and replacing
many other concepts and nouns with their
facsimiles, leaving me, or your other
correspondents, with the choice that either the
original meme was OK in its habituated context
or that only your facsimile is correct.  When
given such a narrow choice (it's either you or
me), a sense of self-preservation dictates that
I am right for myself, and you can be right for
you, but not for me.  I believe Jeroen imploded
over this lack of choice!

However, in literature there is a device called
creative misrepresentation (See Harold Bloom,
The Western Canon), which, if done expertly as
with Shakespeare in English, the entire language
is redirected and the facsimile (the creative
misrepresentation) becomes the current canon or
norm.  A writer's goal, therefore, is to find
another writer's (or pshychiatrist's) concepts
and creatively misrepresent them so well that
everyone will happily re-write their neural
patterns of mimicry and start mimicing the new
code.

The question then has to be asked, just how many
times has a name (Amenhotep-Akhnaton-Moses-
Oedipus-Hermes3x-etc., etc.) or a concept (such
as Christianity as religion of peace) been
hijacked and changed over the millennia and are
you in the process of untwisting the misleading
facsimiles, or re-twisting them to their
original meaning (if that, in fact, is
possible?)?

I can see that Amenhotep IV stopped at some
point and realized that he is not going to hotep
Amen any more, but rather, his is going to Akh
the Aten.  When he was no longer Akh to the
Aten, but found himself at the head of a motely
crew of unegyptian Egyptians and Asiatics, he
was reborn Mose (Mose in ancient Egyptian is 'to
be born').  He stole his own image from the
people who 'knew' him and gave them a facsimile
of himself the way he wanted them to perceive
him next:  in ordinary terminology, he
reinvented himself!  He evolved.   His names,
though, reflect what people thought him to be.
We don't actually know how or what he thought of
himself.  We only know how he treated the people
who became dependent on him or who attached
themselves to him.  And when there was no one to
carry his reflection any more, except perhaps
his daughter, at Colona, he had a temper
tantrum, a desperate call for attention, until
the leaders of Athens came to hear him and he
again had an audience for his creative
misprepresentation of himself as a misguided
motherfucker.  His story was so good that
Sophocles and others couldn't have enough of it!

The difference between Akhenaten and you is that
Akhenaten stole his own identity and reflected
to others a facsimile of himself, whereas so
far, in your conversations on line, you have
been taking your correspondents' words and
feeding them back in a different context.

Akhenaten also saw that the Amun priests stole
the Sun and reflected it back to the Egyptian
people as a lifeless statue of Amun-Ra.  In that
sense, yes, as you and Hal have said, he was
most likely aware of the theft process.  He
wanted to remedy that theft.  In your many
writings and explanations, you also said you
wanted to remedy (perhaps give back) the theft
of something or another (was it the freedom of
thinking? or the knowledge of the sleight-of-
hand or trompe d'oeil) so that we can see how we
are being duped all the time!

But then you and Hal show how we never see our
real selves anyway, to we wouldn't know our true
selves if it stared us in the face because,
according to you, we cannot know what we cannot
see or contact.  And according to the memetic
studies, what we are is a mimicing act of
everyone we have ever met and spent time with.
Even Jeroen, as he vents against you, is
becoming more and more like you in the process!
trying to suppress you as much as you have tried
to suppress him.

There is a heroic struggle underneath all this
thieving and meme-producing and I am not sure if
that struggle is for self-preservation or for
the betterment of humankind?  To give life to an
idea or to prove yourself 'right'?

I also see that you have a goal and that Daniel
is back on target with Akhenaten's development,
every seven years a new name, a new persona,
recreating the world around him and molding it
to the current image of his hormonal and brain-
function development....  N'est'ce pas?

Daniel


> Hello,
>
>    I understand that I must be clearer. And
firstly explain that most of
> Daniel not understanding the message titled :
>
> " What is important in Akh identification
compare with navel fighting ? "
>
>    comes from my weakeness in English. I meant
that I was making a
> comparison (showing a difference) between the
act of identifying Akhnaton
> (by his names thourough history) and the act
of fighting between navels (as
> the list was turning out to be).
>    Navels, to some points are like memes ; but
that's the ultimate story, I
> must take it back earlier and explain my full
text, chapter by chapter.
>
>    I called navel figthing a 'distraction',
opposite to Akh identification.
> There was fighting on the list instead of
looking at Akhnaton
> identification. Noboy knows who fights who in
the meme's fight. Is he
> Akhnaton ? is he Mahakala ? is he he ? etc..
eventually Jeroen is William,
> and William is hal for Jeroen and Daniel has
hal like Jeroen is William, and
> reversed etc..  but I was reminding something
which is usually  forgotten :
>
>    In the example Daniel took from Bill's and
Monica's adventure, it is not
> often considered that the spouse, Hilary wore
that night, Monica's clothe.
> Who knows.. this was a fourth possibility in
the three step dance of the
> Pulsion - this structure that Daniel called
reversal (twist and reverse):
>
>    a) Bill (Clinton was said) drew out his
penis
>    b) He opposed it had no use (no sexual
relationship)
>    c) The visible stain turns invisible
>
>    When the Significand - clothes, names and
stains - is analysed, it shows
> three "images & places" (rotating in Four
Discourses) which gravitates in
> such a way that it reveals a fourth (like
invisible pluto revealed by its
> effects on some other planets) - this is
the 'navel'.
>
>    In my enigmatic message I mentioned Oedipus
at Colonus for what he said :
> " fight will not stop " - his sons and others
cannot do nothing but fight.
> This fight is hiding, concealing inside, an
impossible direct relationship
> between navels - object (a) **.
>
> Nearly impossible..
>
>    Very different - opposit to this fight - is
the identification of
> Akhnaton. This identification requires a grasp
over the navel-navel
> relationship - other than the detour of
deny/fight. The formula, domain,
> concept of such close relationship is named "
PLural ". A series of meme
> ready for a code (see Daniel's metaphore with
game and rules in Message
> #4213 )
>
> Fight/Significant is like : bing ! bang!
punch! aough !
> PLural is : ahahahahahahahahah
>
>    See the many names of Akhnaton ; this guy
had too many names for having
> room for reincarnation ! he stood like a
persisting, obstinate navel. This
> is not at all the extinction of ego neither.
>
>    But as it is impossible to identify
Akhnaton in our present state of our
> world - it is possible that something will
stand for a relationship :
> between ego and.. sorry if the word again
blinds our eyes : ergo some. I
> mean the sacramant : ergo with a Tau, ergot.
>    The relationship between ego and ergot is
fundamental to identification
> of Akhnaton, for it has to reveal something
which has been even more
> repressed than forgotten. By 2007, I began to
write about placebo and ergot
> ; I contemplate exposing the complete Triplex
theory that includes
> entheogenics. By chance I learned recently
that by december 2007, medicinal
> use of ergot was starting again in
Switzerland, and I will not make my
> career of psychiatrist even more in danger.
Hofmann died a few weeks age
> aged 102. As time passes it is likely that
from the european montains the
> use of what Akhnaton probaby used in Amarna,
and Sinaï will gain its
> function and extend its project. This is
probably, (and perhaps even more :
> logically), what will help stating the direct
relationship between navel,
> fermions, avatars or meme, or brain and
grain..  as anyone like..  it can
> wear, bear, many names.
>    I mentioned this since I had to complete
the one two little thing I am
> suggested to say about the next development in
religion (I mentioned 'help'
> already) since I am given a vote/power from a
game of names (incometax from
> being promoted a reincarnation - that I don't
support hence this kind a
> payment).
>
> I believe my previous text can be clearer now,
with my apolon j'Eyes for my
> poor English,
>
> DWT
>
>
>
> ADDENDA :
>
> A) note : by his last post Daniel was back on
our goal : Akhnaton's being
> and psychohistorial development. So the list
is reset and functionnal again
> I guess.
>
>
>
> B) PS ** : my message also made reference to
fermion (suprasymetry) which
> offers a navel to busons - for this is beyond -
  and proves that there is
> something else than - hierarchy. This was to
reply to militaries fighters
> who are looking for there light in
organisation.
>
>
>
> C) the draft - very draft, not edited (in
pink) I had begun in reply to
>
>
>    Let's take Daniel's illustration :
>    a) Bill (Clinton was said) drew out his
penis
>    b) He opposed it had no use (no sexual
relationship)
>    c) The visible stain turns invisible
>
>    The reversal is in the sexal ; a stain is
no relationship, but a stain is
> sexual. This is why Freud places libido at the
fondation of all
> drive/pulsion. Because there is a stain gender
can be meant and there is
> sexuality. Stain is more than a sign - and
less that a trace ; Stain stands
> in a between where we recognize the
Seeming/Semblant, aka meme.
>
>    A stain can be a metonym for a penis ; it
cannot be a metaphore for a
> sexual relationship unless.. until certain
times : until a time allow
> looking through the stain, and find its
Code/DNA. Then the stain becomes
> more than it was, becomes a trace, a naming.
Though this " historic time of
> heightened self-awareness " stills asks : what
does it makes about the
> relationship ? or better said : isn't it the
the media, with the public that
> the sexual relationship has taken place in
this historical event ?
>    And there we find the basis from which we
can study how libido proceeds
> in regard with the industry of Code (i.e
Artificial Intelligence and/or
> cybernetics).
>
>
>
>    Is it true that " most participants on this
list haven't a clue what
> William is talking about " . I am not sure.
The clues are many - all have
> television and DNA charts today. The question
may be : do they/we have
> desire to know what psychoanalysis is talking
about ?
>
>    I suspect that psychoanalysis means that a
science of Psyche is at start.
> Once again : comparison with science observing
the physical space : when
> astronomy begun there were still the ancient
way of thinking looking to
> proceed with the sky in its old ways. Today
Intelligence Agencies are
> looking at controling - and think that they
know - the metaverse. They know
> something, for sure ; but they are quite old
fashioned. Psychoanalysis will
> help investigating truely this space, thanks
to its special concepts,
> regarding the unconscious and which apply so
well to laws that are specific
> to metaverse/virtual space.
>
>
>
> This text was begun with the project to apply
the Optical Model : the stain
> like the grain of the miror, being shifted by
a code (Bill's DNA) up to the
> facsimile that Daniel mentioned. But in this
facsimile (see the miror
> turning and S,I merging - nor S nor ' I '
which can ever 'exist' - but as
> THE woman (Maria if not Hilary's ghost or
hypertrue presence)) the person,
> myself, escape (this is where Jeroen is
William - where he could be
> hal/Maria and expected to be
Akhnaton/Hilary).. but William is saying
> Hellooho! from the other bank. An Jeroen is
jeroen, just anothe he row..n
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


-

hm lol, i think you have caught me out -- is in deed a reflexive act, in the aegytpian as well --  rhetorically and act-ually speaking

 

agape, from

 

the me and the al meaty

 

the real-ization of this may have come with akhnaton's hymn to to the sun, as i and a few others have been saying right along, velikovsky among them?  (meaning that akhnaton was the first to realize the nature of the reflexive mirror, other-wise known as mother's tongue?

 

hamitic hal

David Jones <choronzon.club@gmail.com> wrote:

Doesn't Gardiner attest that Egyptian prayers use the reflexive form
of the Dependent Pronoun for prayer as well? It seems to be a fairly
constant mode in both Semitic and Hamatic languages.

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 2:43 PM, hal von hofe <h169@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> aw damn, i must still be doing it in the old aegyptian style :-(
>
>
>
> Ha Shaitan <shaitan_worshipper@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> It's a Hebrew joke. Prayer in Biblical Hebrew is
> always done in the Nifal binyan which is reflexive.
>
> --- hal von hofe <h169@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > rilly? -- when i talk to sum1 else i always assume i
> > am just talking to mself, as opposed to when i pray
> > -- when i just know there are two of us -- me & the
> > almighty --or is that the almighty and the me? -- i
> > get confused on that score... :-)
> >
> > on another score, i just loaned my copy of 'Hogg"
> > to my youngest son (26 now -- he found it quite
> > hilarious (HOGG, by Samuel Delany -- i am going to
> > lend him 'The Mad Man' next heh, long live nyc
> > gsa...)
> >
> > st marks books
> >
> > Ha Shaitan <shaitan_worshipper@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > At least when we pray
> >
> > --- hal von hofe <h169@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> > > m m how naive, we are al just talking to our
> > selves
> > > no?
> > >
> > > (point taken ;-)
> > >
> > > Ha Shaitan <shaitan_worshipper@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- "fra.aleisterion" <fra.aleisterion@yahoo.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Nobody cares go away and whine elsewhere idiot.
> > >
> > > Are you talking to yourself again?
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In Aiwaz_Thelema@yahoogroups.com, "jeroen"
> > > > <jhoogeweij@...> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm posting this here, because Hal put me on
> > > > moderation on the
> > > > > akhnaton list and I dont want to post when my
> > > > speech is impaired in
> > > > > any way. Per Liber Oz, I consistently escalate
> > > > when I feel that's the
> > > > > case.
> > > > >
> > > > > Just for anyone who has the illusion Hal is
> > open
> > > > minded or
> > > > > democratic: after a few postings that were
> > > > inconvenient to Hal (I
> > > > > exposed Theaux for the charlatan he truly is),
> > > he
> > > > put me on
> > > > > moderation. After that autocratic act that
> > > showed
> > > > some of the true
> > > > > face behind the 'happy camper' we all think we
> > > > know, he tried to save
> > > > > face by posting a voting procedure, asking the
> > > > question whether or
> > > > > not I should be put on moderation (it's normal
> > > to
> > > > first ask that
> > > > > question and then act upon it, no?).
> > > > >
> > > > > After days, THREE out of 110 members
> > responded,
> > > > but this wasnt any
> > > > > reason for Hal to put me off moderation. Just
> > to
> > > > show how
> > > > > disrespectful he is of procedures he professes
> > > to
> > > > adhere to himself.
> > > > > It should be known he feels the same about
> > > > Thelema, beyond his mask.
> > > > > Don't expect any authenticity from Hal.... He
> > > > misses the same respect
> > > > > and consistency in any kind of other activity.
> > > > Teachers get away with
> > > > > being generally useless without anyone
> > noticing,
> > > > which is why they
> > > > > never made it in academia or a business
> > > > environment. Hal is a perfect
> > > > > example of that and in the end he was even
> > > > incapable of keeping the
> > > > > loser option.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hal didn't act upon that lack of reponse by
> > > > putting me off
> > > > > moderation. And there we have the problem in a
> > > > nutshell. We have some
> > > > > loser here pretending to be a Master of the
> > > Temple
> > > > (no less), while
> > > > > he in fact is a non practitioner (by his own
> > > > admission), trying to
> > > > > impose his (lack of) will on practitioners.
> > This
> > > > is a heinous crime
> > > > > and he should get out of the way of people who
> > > > actually do practice.
> > > > > His active obstruction is already lasting for
> > > > years and it's entirely
> > > > > based on negative observations. His wish to
> > > > associate with negative
> > > > > lowlifes like Al Hysterion just describes that
> > > > point. He can't get
> > > > > out of that trap.
> > > > >
> > > > > Apart from that, he is entirely inconsistent
> > and
> > > > close observation of
> > > > > him has shown me that he in fact is in urgent
> > > need
> > > > of counseling.
> > > > >
> > > > > So now my response to Theaux' latest
> > > charlatanerie
> > > > in
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/akhnaton/message/4203.
> > > > Theaux would
> > > > > have never dared stating that nonsense if I
> > > hadn't
> > > > unsubscribed. I
> > > > > did so because I don't feel free in expressing
> > > > myself when I'm put on
> > > > > moderation by someone incompetent like Hal. He
> > > > already has more than
> > > > > three votes for me being put on moderation? If
> > > > that democratic
> > > > > gesture would have been honest, he would
> > already
> > > > have put me off
> > > > > moderation. The fact he did not, again shows
> > how
> > > > much empty and
> > > > > dishonest gesturing is going on from Hal's
> > side.
> > > I
> > > > unsubscribed from
> > > > > the akhnaton list when he didn't follow up on
> > > his
> > > > 'democratic'
> > > > > gesture. A dishonest person like that cannot
> > > > possibly be my brother.
> > > > > My brothers are honest, and capable of
> > bringing
> > > > things to their
> > > > > conclusion. Hal is just a pretentious muggle.
> > > > >
> > > > > But I do like the sense of panic I perceive
> > > > underneath the entirely
> > > > > invalid deconstruction dr Theaux attempted. If
> > > > this is the best he
> > > > > can, it isn't much, is it? I also find it
> > > > important to note, that he
> > > > > actually admits to be a pseudo science
> > religious
> > > > sect. So it is very
> > > > > important he understands this doesn't fly
> > > either.
> > > > >
> > > > > Now some interpetation of the same event, from
> > a
> > > > process/(inter)
> > > > > actionist point of view. Ask yourself which
> > one
> > > > seems best capable to
> > > > > actually 'catch' the event. Mr Theaux'
> > selection
> > > > of just one or two
> > > > > memes to mold them in the way he likes them
> > > best,
> > > > or an inventory of
> > > > > interactions that went on? Were those words
> > and
> > > > then a few his mind
> > > > > selected out of those to put under the
> > > microscope
> > > > all that happened?
> > > > >
> > > > > He shows how silly it is to just look at rows
> > > > withou checking out how
> > > > > these would relate. It was aleady clear he
> > > > couldn't, when it became
> > > > > evident he doesn't see the difference between
> > an
> > > > analogy and a
> > > > > synonym, but this description shows the
> > > > fundamental flaws of this
> > > > > approach again.
> > > > >
> > > > > Good mr Theaux seems to have (conveniently)
> > > > forgotten, that his offer
> > > > > for help was made after he had shown me all of
> > > his
> > > >
> > > > > psychotherapeutical practice, WHILE we were
> > > > standing in what he
> > > > > called a repoduction of Freud's chamber
> > (looked
> > > > like quite a random
> > > > > collection of last season's second life
> > freebies
> > > > to me). Indeed,
> > > > > context is not a part of his analysys.
> > > > >
> > > > > I had just engaged in a willing suspension of
> > > > disbelief to see what
> > > > > was actually crawling under dr Theaux' stone.
> > If
> > > a
> > > > certified
> > > > > therapist then after his psycho tour offers
> > > > 'help', ask yourself how
> > > > > you would interpret that. Just look at what he
> > > > obfuscates by not
> > > > > taking on the interaction, but a meme. That is
> > > > EXACTLY what i mean
> > > > > when I say something like 'intellectual
> > > > dishonesty'. It truly is a
> > > > > statement of fact.
> > > > >
> > > > > He now tries to let it come across as 'odd'
> > that
> > > I
> > > > interpreted his
> > > > > offer for help as an offer for therapy instead
> > > of
> > > > something else, but
> > > > > it's actually much stranger he tries to give
> > > > another context to that.
> > > > >
> > > > > The fact I acted clumsy in dr Theaux' place in
> > > > fact was a magickal
> > > > > gesture in itself. I'm not comfortable in his
> > > > idiosyncracies, so i
> > > > > didnt want the 'comfort zone' to be a part of
> > > our
> > > > conversation. Every
> > > > > symbol over there is random: Bruno wheels can
> > be
> > > > replaced by
> > > > > yetsiratic wheels, Goddess can be replace by
> > > Borg
> > > > queen, any trinity
> > > > > can be replaced by any random other one, etc.
> > No
> > > > problem dr Theaux is
> > > > > just sitting on a load of entirely random
> > crap,
> > > if
> > > > he would refer to
> > > > > it as his personal path. problem is, he
> > doesn't.
> > > > He is pretentious.
> > > > >
> > > > > As if he could explain anything to me about
> > > second
> > > > life, like he is
> > > > > suggesting righ now. He could have bothered
> > > > checking out the age of
> > > > > my avatar, or looked me up in MY neighbourhood
> > > > (which in fact is a
> > > > > much wealhtier one) or asked me questions
> > about
> > > me
> > > > penis business or
> > > > > my life as s prostitute in second life (which
> > > from
> > > > an interactionist
> > > > > pov, is the only way one could actually each
> > > > people in that realm).
> > > > > He culd have also wondered how somebody witn
> > an
> > > > interenet business
> > > > > culd be so clumsy, but he is too self involved
> > > to
> > > > actually wonder
> > > > > about things like that. Some therapist ehh?
> > > > >
> > > > > He does that of course, because it is very
> > > evident
> > > > that there is a
> > > > > lot wrong with the way in which Mr Theaux
> > deals
> > > > with a concept like
> > > > > patient/therapist confidentiality. Obviously
> > he
> > > > has a huge problem in
> > > > > the ethical realm here and he tries to cover
> > > that
> > > > up by
> > > > > recontextualising his offer for help. He just
> > > got
> > > > caught on
> > > > > egotripping over the false idea he is a
> > > > 'psychopomp'. Truth is, he is
> > > > > a dwarve who just reaches blow job height,
> > > > believing his private hell
> > > > > has any kind of added value to humanity.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think it is important that it should be
> > > > generally known he does
> > > > > things like that. He is not only
> > intellectually
> > > > dishonest, he also is
> > > > > a mental health hazard. There are people who
> > > might
> > > > be vulnerable to
> > > > > this kind of thing.
> > > > >
> > > > > So it must be clear to anyone that dr Theaux
> > is
> > > > incapable of
> > > > > respecting the sacred bond of
> > therapist/patient
> > > > confidentiality while
> > > > > he creates the suggestion of that in all of
> > his
> > > > environment. This
> > > > > means that dr Theaux should never be trusted
> > by
> > > > people who would
> > > > > actually have problems.
> > > > >
> > > > > And regarding the intellectual dishonesty:
> > just
> > > > look at how he
> > > > > ignores my criticism that the relationship of
> > > > meme/gene is one of
> > > > > analogy, they simply aren't synonym. The fact
> > > that
> > > > dr Theau then just
> > > > > mentions a book (falsely relying on authority
> > > > that's called) instead
> > > > > of giving a proper argument says it all,
> > really.
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Jeroen
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > 453Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > mailto:Aiwaz_Thelema-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> __________________________________________________________
> > > Be a better friend, newshound, and
> > > know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
> > >
> >
> http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> __________________________________________________________
> > Be a better friend, newshound, and
> > know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
> >
> http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> __________________________________________________________
> Be a better friend, newshound, and
> know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
> http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
>
>
>
>

Doesn't Gardiner attest that Egyptian prayers use the reflexive form
of the Dependent Pronoun for prayer as well? It seems to be a fairly
constant mode in both Semitic and Hamatic languages.

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 2:43 PM, hal von hofe <h169@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> aw damn, i must still be doing it in the old aegyptian style :-(
>
>
>
> Ha Shaitan <shaitan_worshipper@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> It's a Hebrew joke. Prayer in Biblical Hebrew is
> always done in the Nifal binyan which is reflexive.
>
> --- hal von hofe <h169@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > rilly? -- when i talk to sum1 else i always assume i
> > am just talking to mself, as opposed to when i pray
> > -- when i just know there are two of us -- me & the
> > almighty --or is that the almighty and the me? -- i
> > get confused on that score... :-)
> >
> > on another score, i just loaned my copy of 'Hogg"
> > to my youngest son (26 now -- he found it quite
> > hilarious (HOGG, by Samuel Delany -- i am going to
> > lend him 'The Mad Man' next heh, long live nyc
> > gsa...)
> >
> > st marks books
> >
> > Ha Shaitan <shaitan_worshipper@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > At least when we pray
> >
> > --- hal von hofe <h169@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> > > m m how naive, we are al just talking to our
> > selves
> > > no?
> > >
> > > (point taken ;-)
> > >
> > > Ha Shaitan <shaitan_worshipper@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- "fra.aleisterion" <fra.aleisterion@yahoo.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Nobody cares go away and whine elsewhere idiot.
> > >
> > > Are you talking to yourself again?
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In Aiwaz_Thelema@yahoogroups.com, "jeroen"
> > > > <jhoogeweij@...> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm posting this here, because Hal put me on
> > > > moderation on the
> > > > > akhnaton list and I dont want to post when my
> > > > speech is impaired in
> > > > > any way. Per Liber Oz, I consistently escalate
> > > > when I feel that's the
> > > > > case.
> > > > >
> > > > > Just for anyone who has the illusion Hal is
> > open
> > > > minded or
> > > > > democratic: after a few postings that were
> > > > inconvenient to Hal (I
> > > > > exposed Theaux for the charlatan he truly is),
> > > he
> > > > put me on
> > > > > moderation. After that autocratic act that
> > > showed
> > > > some of the true
> > > > > face behind the 'happy camper' we all think we
> > > > know, he tried to save
> > > > > face by posting a voting procedure, asking the
> > > > question whether or
> > > > > not I should be put on moderation (it's normal
> > > to
> > > > first ask that
> > > > > question and then act upon it, no?).
> > > > >
> > > > > After days, THREE out of 110 members
> > responded,
> > > > but this wasnt any
> > > > > reason for Hal to put me off moderation. Just
> > to
> > > > show how
> > > > > disrespectful he is of procedures he professes
> > > to
> > > > adhere to himself.
> > > > > It should be known he feels the same about
> > > > Thelema, beyond his mask.
> > > > > Don't expect any authenticity from Hal.... He
> > > > misses the same respect
> > > > > and consistency in any kind of other activity.
> > > > Teachers get away with
> > > > > being generally useless without anyone
> > noticing,
> > > > which is why they
> > > > > never made it in academia or a business
> > > > environment. Hal is a perfect
> > > > > example of that and in the end he was even
> > > > incapable of keeping the
> > > > > loser option.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hal didn't act upon that lack of reponse by
> > > > putting me off
> > > > > moderation. And there we have the problem in a
> > > > nutshell. We have some
> > > > > loser here pretending to be a Master of the
> > > Temple
> > > > (no less), while
> > > > > he in fact is a non practitioner (by his own
> > > > admission), trying to
> > > > > impose his (lack of) will on practitioners.
> > This
> > > > is a heinous crime
> > > > > and he should get out of the way of people who
> > > > actually do practice.
> > > > > His active obstruction is already lasting for
> > > > years and it's entirely
> > > > > based on negative observations. His wish to
> > > > associate with negative
> > > > > lowlifes like Al Hysterion just describes that
> > > > point. He can't get
> > > > > out of that trap.
> > > > >
> > > > > Apart from that, he is entirely inconsistent
> > and
> > > > close observation of
> > > > > him has shown me that he in fact is in urgent
> > > need
> > > > of counseling.
> > > > >
> > > > > So now my response to Theaux' latest
> > > charlatanerie
> > > > in
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/akhnaton/message/4203.
> > > > Theaux would
> > > > > have never dared stating that nonsense if I
> > > hadn't
> > > > unsubscribed. I
> > > > > did so because I don't feel free in expressing
> > > > myself when I'm put on
> > > > > moderation by someone incompetent like Hal. He
> > > > already has more than
> > > > > three votes for me being put on moderation? If
> > > > that democratic
> > > > > gesture would have been honest, he would
> > already
> > > > have put me off
> > > > > moderation. The fact he did not, again shows
> > how
> > > > much empty and
> > > > > dishonest gesturing is going on from Hal's
> > side.
> > > I
> > > > unsubscribed from
> > > > > the akhnaton list when he didn't follow up on
> > > his
> > > > 'democratic'
> > > > > gesture. A dishonest person like that cannot
> > > > possibly be my brother.
> > > > > My brothers are honest, and capable of
> > bringing
> > > > things to their
> > > > > conclusion. Hal is just a pretentious muggle.
> > > > >
> > > > > But I do like the sense of panic I perceive
> > > > underneath the entirely
> > > > > invalid deconstruction dr Theaux attempted. If
> > > > this is the best he
> > > > > can, it isn't much, is it? I also find it
> > > > important to note, that he
> > > > > actually admits to be a pseudo science
> > religious
> > > > sect. So it is very
> > > > > important he understands this doesn't fly
> > > either.
> > > > >
> > > > > Now some interpetation of the same event, from
> > a
> > > > process/(inter)
> > > > > actionist point of view. Ask yourself which
> > one
> > > > seems best capable to
> > > > > actually 'catch' the event. Mr Theaux'
> > selection
> > > > of just one or two
> > > > > memes to mold them in the way he likes them
> > > best,
> > > > or an inventory of
> > > > > interactions that went on? Were those words
> > and
> > > > then a few his mind
> > > > > selected out of those to put under the
> > > microscope
> > > > all that happened?
> > > > >
> > > > > He shows how silly it is to just look at rows
> > > > withou checking out how
> > > > > these would relate. It was aleady clear he
> > > > couldn't, when it became
> > > > > evident he doesn't see the difference between
> > an
> > > > analogy and a
> > > > > synonym, but this description shows the
> > > > fundamental flaws of this
> > > > > approach again.
> > > > >
> > > > > Good mr Theaux seems to have (conveniently)
> > > > forgotten, that his offer
> > > > > for help was made after he had shown me all of
> > > his
> > > >
> > > > > psychotherapeutical practice, WHILE we were
> > > > standing in what he
> > > > > called a repoduction of Freud's chamber
> > (looked
> > > > like quite a random
> > > > > collection of last season's second life
> > freebies
> > > > to me). Indeed,
> > > > > context is not a part of his analysys.
> > > > >
> > > > > I had just engaged in a willing suspension of
> > > > disbelief to see what
> > > > > was actually crawling under dr Theaux' stone.
> > If
> > > a
> > > > certified
> > > > > therapist then after his psycho tour offers
> > > > 'help', ask yourself how
> > > > > you would interpret that. Just look at what he
> > > > obfuscates by not
> > > > > taking on the interaction, but a meme. That is
> > > > EXACTLY what i mean
> > > > > when I say something like 'intellectual
> > > > dishonesty'. It truly is a
> > > > > statement of fact.
> > > > >
> > > > > He now tries to let it come across as 'odd'
> > that
> > > I
> > > > interpreted his
> > > > > offer for help as an offer for therapy instead
> > > of
> > > > something else, but
> > > > > it's actually much stranger he tries to give
> > > > another context to that.
> > > > >
> > > > > The fact I acted clumsy in dr Theaux' place in
> > > > fact was a magickal
> > > > > gesture in itself. I'm not comfortable in his
> > > > idiosyncracies, so i
> > > > > didnt want the 'comfort zone' to be a part of
> > > our
> > > > conversation. Every
> > > > > symbol over there is random: Bruno wheels can
> > be
> > > > replaced by
> > > > > yetsiratic wheels, Goddess can be replace by
> > > Borg
> > > > queen, any trinity
> > > > > can be replaced by any random other one, etc.
> > No
> > > > problem dr Theaux is
> > > > > just sitting on a load of entirely random
> > crap,
> > > if
> > > > he would refer to
> > > > > it as his personal path. problem is, he
> > doesn't.
> > > > He is pretentious.
> > > > >
> > > > > As if he could explain anything to me about
> > > second
> > > > life, like he is
> > > > > suggesting righ now. He could have bothered
> > > > checking out the age of
> > > > > my avatar, or looked me up in MY neighbourhood
> > > > (which in fact is a
> > > > > much wealhtier one) or asked me questions
> > about
> > > me
> > > > penis business or
> > > > > my life as s prostitute in second life (which
> > > from
> > > > an interactionist
> > > > > pov, is the only way one could actually each
> > > > people in that realm).
> > > > > He culd have also wondered how somebody witn
> > an
> > > > interenet business
> > > > > culd be so clumsy, but he is too self involved
> > > to
> > > > actually wonder
> > > > > about things like that. Some therapist ehh?
> > > > >
> > > > > He does that of course, because it is very
> > > evident
> > > > that there is a
> > > > > lot wrong with the way in which Mr Theaux
> > deals
> > > > with a concept like
> > > > > patient/therapist confidentiality. Obviously
> > he
> > > > has a huge problem in
> > > > > the ethical realm here and he tries to cover
> > > that
> > > > up by
> > > > > recontextualising his offer for help. He just
> > > got
> > > > caught on
> > > > > egotripping over the false idea he is a
> > > > 'psychopomp'. Truth is, he is
> > > > > a dwarve who just reaches blow job height,
> > > > believing his private hell
> > > > > has any kind of added value to humanity.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think it is important that it should be
> > > > generally known he does
> > > > > things like that. He is not only
> > intellectually
> > > > dishonest, he also is
> > > > > a mental health hazard. There are people who
> > > might
> > > > be vulnerable to
> > > > > this kind of thing.
> > > > >
> > > > > So it must be clear to anyone that dr Theaux
> > is
> > > > incapable of
> > > > > respecting the sacred bond of
> > therapist/patient
> > > > confidentiality while
> > > > > he creates the suggestion of that in all of
> > his
> > > > environment. This
> > > > > means that dr Theaux should never be trusted
> > by
> > > > people who would
> > > > > actually have problems.
> > > > >
> > > > > And regarding the intellectual dishonesty:
> > just
> > > > look at how he
> > > > > ignores my criticism that the relationship of
> > > > meme/gene is one of
> > > > > analogy, they simply aren't synonym. The fact
> > > that
> > > > dr Theau then just
> > > > > mentions a book (falsely relying on authority
> > > > that's called) instead
> > > > > of giving a proper argument says it all,
> > really.
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Jeroen
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > 453Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > mailto:Aiwaz_Thelema-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> __________________________________________________________
> > > Be a better friend, newshound, and
> > > know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
> > >
> >
> http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> __________________________________________________________
> > Be a better friend, newshound, and
> > know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
> >
> http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> __________________________________________________________
> Be a better friend, newshound, and
> know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
> http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
>
>
>
>

Hi Daniel,

In his Optinal Model, Lacan has certainly placed the miror :
Bent/concave it is the brain/cortex , and plane it is the language
in the sense of the Significand (which can be in two positions, either
vertical where the langage serves the subjective thinking, either
horizontal where he serves descritive/analytic operations).

This united miror langage-brain model is operational when activated
by earthly miror ( which can be made by water - evidently one of the
first and very profound in the universe - glass, in a certain sense
shadow etc.. ) (and of course when this langage-brain is human at
least - don't know if other beings may have this human experience of
consciousness).

Will

Hello Hal,

You are dealing with two matters, moderation and
Lacan’s paranoid foundation of consciousness. I
cannot help you with the former: whether or not
Jeroen’s loss of self control is psychotic-
pathological or psychotic-healthy is a tough one
when most of us are so repressed that an
outburst offends our sensibilities.

But I am always interested in Lacan and
company. It is unfortunate that Lacan, or
Verdiglione did not live long enough to see the
original developmental psychology experiments of
Piaget and Ericcson blossom into a full-fledged
neurobiological field where a fully conscious
fetus makes connections with the newborn world
through the mother’s smell and the mother’s
face, not with itself through a mirror: I am
what my mother smells like. I am secure when I
hear her voice. I will learn to ride her belly
from the outside.

Consciousness is continuity. The scenario you
present with the child looking into a mirror is
an idealized fiction. When a child first looks
into a mirror, it has no idea what it
is ‘seeing’ or ‘observing’. Perhaps the
umpteenth time a child looks into the mirror by
the age of two, it begins to put together all
those previous experiences in front of mirrors
and begins to construct a mental image.

What I think is happening is that William, in
continuing Lacan’s path (ology) perhaps failed
to incorporate the developmental-neurobiological
stage before he leaped into AI. He may also be
overlooking of the Non-thinking state of
consciousness when the I - your ‘me’ (-; -
dissipates and, with or without drugs, paranoia
disappears. All that is left is the universe in
its full color and chaotic patterns forming into
ordered patterns and consciousness is a photon
moving through both what is infinitesimally
smaller than ‘I’ and, at the same time,
infinitely larger. In fact, there is no
difference. And then a mosquito bites my skin
and I am back in my body hitting and scratching
and fearing another bite, my normal self.

This other, unselfconscious world is missing in
William’s path, or, perhaps I can’t see it
because I haven’t found where he hung the mirror.

Daniel


> --- In Aiwaz_Thelema@yahoogroups.com, hal von
hofe wrote:
>
> ON THE NATURE OF THE DUEAL
>
> of the 3 elements in the string suggested by
the poll's "due [ha!]
> al": 'due al', 'duel', 'dual' -- i chose the
last to begin: "dual"
>
> what sets this 'dual' is a basic narcissism,
which provides what
> Lacan calls the paranoid foundation of human
knowledge. (going Freud
> one better Lacan observes the babe in mother's
arms before the
> mirror, to describe a degree zero scene: the
moment of the
> realization of the reflection... a first
awareness of the nature of
> reflection...)
>
> this paranoid foundation, this narcissism,
is inescapable, and as
> such, i would hesitate to characterize it as
pathological:
>
> let us take the case of the dual
relationship between 'myself'
> and 'jeroen'. though i (necessarily?) pretend
that j has a reality
> separate from mine, the truth is that whatever
i know about jeroen is
> an 'image' (or collection of sense impressions
compounded in our
> human case with symbols) which exists in my
mind. i can only ever
> start and end with this image as my own
creation, if i am to know
> anything about 'jeroen'. i can not start or
end with the
> real 'jeroen'. this is the paranoid
foundation of human knowledge.
>
> now, i have all sorts of reasons to say that
there is a real jeroen
> (real others, real Other), yet it is precisely
at the point when i
> claim to have captured (in my image-in-nation)
the real 'jeroen' that
> i necessarily fall into error, by denying the
fact that this 'real
> jeroen' is in fact an image in my mind.
>
> thus it could be said that any denial of
narcissism is already
> paranoia... which does not necessarily mean
that acceptance of this
> narcissist base here escapes paranoia, even
though it points in that
> direction...
>
> and so, from dual to duel, i have to admit
being charmed by
> jeroen's last missage asking to be resubbed:
>
> << Care Farter osub, (ahh 'Idomme') Choose
your weapon >>
>
> my immediate thot was 'words at 3 gigahertz'
>
> Fr FIAOF has wisely pointed out that a
certain 'bickering', fuelled
> by 'personal animosity' is generally not
productive -- i fill in here
> (for the image of FIAOF in my mind ;-) the
notion that a certain
> repetition compulsion (of the dual duel)
continually interrupts a
> discourse without end and turns it into 'noise'
>
> countering this there is fr aleisterion's
argument that azt is
> hell's own yahoo group, suggesting a plural
beyond the dueal, not to
> mention an unconscious (hell) which has been
shown capable of
> breaking thru the narcissist paranoia due
hell, to hal...
>
> aum ha!
>
> Frater FIAOF wrote:
> Dear Hal,
> Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the
Law.
>
> Wednesday, May 7, 2008, 1:27:56 PM, you wrote:
>
> hal> the poll should be accessible to all now
>
> I'm looking at it now. I voted "no" last
night, then changed it to
> "yes" a few minutes later.
>
> I'm still deliberating. It's hard to decide
which way to vote when
> the only option is yes or no. I think Jeroen
should be permitted to
> come back, but should be placed on moderation
for a few months.
>
> If he will be unmoderated, I don't think he
should be permitted to
> come back right now. On the other hand, I
don't think he should be
> banned for life either.
>
> Love is the law, love under will.
>
> Agape,
> FIAOF
>
> --- End forwarded message ---
>
>
>



-



------------------------------------

To Post a message, send it to:

akhnaton@yahoogroups.com

To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:

akhnaton-unsubscribe@...! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/akhnaton/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/akhnaton/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:akhnaton-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:akhnaton-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
akhnaton-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Hi Daniel,

    In his Optinal Model, Lacan has certainly placed the miror :
    Bent/concave it is the brain/cortex , and plane it is the language
in the sense of the Significand (which can be in two positions, either
vertical where the langage serves the subjective thinking, either
horizontal where he serves descritive/analytic operations).

    This united miror langage-brain model is operational when activated
by earthly miror ( which can be made by water - evidently one of the
first and very profound in the universe - glass, in a certain sense
shadow etc.. ) (and of course when this langage-brain is human at
least - don't know if other beings may have this human experience of
consciousness).

Will

Hello Hal,

You are dealing with two matters, moderation and
Lacan’s paranoid foundation of consciousness.  I
cannot help you with the former:  whether or not
Jeroen’s loss of self control is psychotic-
pathological or psychotic-healthy is a tough one
when most of us are so repressed that an
outburst offends our sensibilities.

But I am always interested in Lacan and
company.  It is unfortunate that Lacan, or
Verdiglione did not live long enough to see the
original developmental psychology experiments of
Piaget and Ericcson blossom into a full-fledged
neurobiological field where a fully conscious
fetus makes connections with the newborn world
through the mother’s smell and the mother’s
face, not with itself through a mirror:  I am
what my mother smells like.  I am secure when I
hear her voice.  I will learn to ride her belly
from the outside.

Consciousness is continuity.  The scenario you
present with the child looking into a mirror is
an idealized fiction.  When a child first looks
into a mirror, it has no idea what it
is ‘seeing’ or ‘observing’.  Perhaps the
umpteenth time a child looks into the mirror by
the age of two, it begins to put together all
those previous experiences in front of mirrors
and begins to construct a mental image.

What I think is happening is that William, in
continuing Lacan’s path (ology) perhaps failed
to incorporate the developmental-neurobiological
stage before he leaped into AI.  He may also be
overlooking of the Non-thinking state of
consciousness when the I  - your ‘me’ (-;   -
dissipates and, with or without drugs, paranoia
disappears.  All that is left is the universe in
its full color and chaotic patterns forming into
ordered patterns and consciousness is a photon
moving through both what is infinitesimally
smaller than ‘I’ and, at the same time,
infinitely larger.  In fact, there is no
difference.  And then a mosquito bites my skin
and I am back in my body hitting and scratching
and fearing another bite, my normal self.

This other, unselfconscious world is missing in
William’s path, or, perhaps I can’t see it
because I haven’t found where he hung the mirror.

Daniel


> --- In Aiwaz_Thelema@yahoogroups.com, hal von
hofe <h169@...> wrote:
>
> ON THE NATURE OF THE DUEAL
>
>   of the 3 elements in the string suggested by
the poll's "due [ha!]
> al":  'due al', 'duel', 'dual' -- i chose the
last to begin:  "dual"
>
>   what sets this 'dual' is a basic narcissism,
which provides what
> Lacan calls the paranoid foundation of human
knowledge.  (going Freud
> one better Lacan observes the babe in mother's
arms before the
> mirror, to describe a degree zero scene:  the
moment of the
> realization of the reflection...  a first
awareness of the nature of
> reflection...)
>
>   this paranoid foundation, this narcissism,
is inescapable, and as
> such, i would hesitate to characterize it as
pathological:
>
>   let us take the case of the dual
relationship between 'myself'
> and 'jeroen'.  though i (necessarily?) pretend
that j has a reality
> separate from mine, the truth is that whatever
i know about jeroen is
> an 'image' (or collection of sense impressions
compounded in our
> human case with symbols) which exists in my
mind.  i can only ever
> start and end with this image as my own
creation, if i am to know
> anything about 'jeroen'.  i can not start or
end with the
> real 'jeroen'.  this is the paranoid
foundation of human knowledge.
>
>   now, i have all sorts of reasons to say that
there is a real jeroen
> (real others, real Other), yet it is precisely
at the point when i
> claim to have captured (in my image-in-nation)
the real 'jeroen' that
> i necessarily fall into error, by denying the
fact that this 'real
> jeroen' is in fact an image in my mind.
>
>   thus it could be said that any denial of
narcissism is already
> paranoia...  which does not necessarily mean
that acceptance of this
> narcissist base here escapes paranoia, even
though it points in that
> direction...
>
>   and so, from dual to duel, i have to admit
being charmed by
> jeroen's last missage asking to be resubbed:
>
>   << Care Farter osub, (ahh 'Idomme') Choose
your weapon  >>
>
>   my immediate thot was 'words at 3 gigahertz'
>
>   Fr FIAOF has wisely pointed out that a
certain 'bickering', fuelled
> by 'personal animosity' is generally not
productive -- i fill in here
> (for the image of FIAOF in my mind ;-) the
notion that a certain
> repetition compulsion (of the dual duel)
continually interrupts a
> discourse without end and turns it into 'noise'
>
>   countering this there is fr aleisterion's
argument that azt is
> hell's own yahoo group, suggesting a plural
beyond the dueal, not to
> mention an unconscious (hell) which has been
shown capable of
> breaking thru the narcissist paranoia due
hell, to hal...
>
>   aum ha!
>
> Frater FIAOF <frater17fiaof@...> wrote:
>           Dear Hal,
> Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the
Law.
>
> Wednesday, May 7, 2008, 1:27:56 PM, you wrote:
>
> hal> the poll should be accessible to all now
>
> I'm looking at it now. I voted "no" last
night, then changed it to
> "yes" a few minutes later.
>
> I'm still deliberating. It's hard to decide
which way to vote when
> the only option is yes or no. I think Jeroen
should be permitted to
> come back, but should be placed on moderation
for a few months.
>
> If he will be unmoderated, I don't think he
should be permitted to
> come back right now. On the other hand, I
don't think he should be
> banned for life either.
>
> Love is the law, love under will.
>
> Agape,
> FIAOF
>
> --- End forwarded message ---
>
>
>



-

--- In Aiwaz_Thelema@yahoogroups.com, "hal von hofe" <h169@...> wrote:

to:

<<let us take the case of the dual relationship between 'myself'
and 'jeroen'.  though i (necessarily?) pretend that j has a reality
separate from mine, the truth is that whatever i know about jeroen is
an 'image' (or collection of sense impressions compounded in our
human
case with symbols) which exists in my mind.  i can only ever start
and
end with this image as my own creation, if i am to know anything
about 'jeroen'.  i can not start or end with the real 'jeroen'.  this
is the paranoid foundation of human knowledge.>>

i need to add the zero scene:  what is true of j' is also true
of 'i',
or shld i say of me?  i am only ever an image of myself...

or was that just an image of my, m, Other?

0 hell: 'i' is al ways glad when the sun makes it thru another
night :-)

yrs in meta-tropic irony

--- End forwarded message ---

--- In Aiwaz_Thelema@yahoogroups.com, hal von hofe <h169@...> wrote:

ON THE NATURE OF THE DUEAL

   of the 3 elements in the string suggested by the poll's "due [ha!]
al":  'due al', 'duel', 'dual' -- i chose the last to begin:  "dual"

   what sets this 'dual' is a basic narcissism, which provides what
Lacan calls the paranoid foundation of human knowledge.  (going Freud
one better Lacan observes the babe in mother's arms before the
mirror, to describe a degree zero scene:  the moment of the
realization of the reflection...  a first awareness of the nature of
reflection...)

   this paranoid foundation, this narcissism, is inescapable, and as
such, i would hesitate to characterize it as pathological:

   let us take the case of the dual relationship between 'myself'
and 'jeroen'.  though i (necessarily?) pretend that j has a reality
separate from mine, the truth is that whatever i know about jeroen is
an 'image' (or collection of sense impressions compounded in our
human case with symbols) which exists in my mind.  i can only ever
start and end with this image as my own creation, if i am to know
anything about 'jeroen'.  i can not start or end with the
real 'jeroen'.  this is the paranoid foundation of human knowledge.

   now, i have all sorts of reasons to say that there is a real jeroen
(real others, real Other), yet it is precisely at the point when i
claim to have captured (in my image-in-nation) the real 'jeroen' that
i necessarily fall into error, by denying the fact that this 'real
jeroen' is in fact an image in my mind.

   thus it could be said that any denial of narcissism is already
paranoia...  which does not necessarily mean that acceptance of this
narcissist base here escapes paranoia, even though it points in that
direction...

   and so, from dual to duel, i have to admit being charmed by
jeroen's last missage asking to be resubbed:

   << Care Farter osub, (ahh 'Idomme') Choose your weapon  >>

   my immediate thot was 'words at 3 gigahertz'

   Fr FIAOF has wisely pointed out that a certain 'bickering', fuelled
by 'personal animosity' is generally not productive -- i fill in here
(for the image of FIAOF in my mind ;-) the notion that a certain
repetition compulsion (of the dual duel) continually interrupts a
discourse without end and turns it into 'noise'

   countering this there is fr aleisterion's argument that azt is
hell's own yahoo group, suggesting a plural beyond the dueal, not to
mention an unconscious (hell) which has been shown capable of
breaking thru the narcissist paranoia due hell, to hal...

   aum ha!

Frater FIAOF <frater17fiaof@...> wrote:
           Dear Hal,
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

Wednesday, May 7, 2008, 1:27:56 PM, you wrote:

hal> the poll should be accessible to all now

I'm looking at it now. I voted "no" last night, then changed it to
"yes" a few minutes later.

I'm still deliberating. It's hard to decide which way to vote when
the only option is yes or no. I think Jeroen should be permitted to
come back, but should be placed on moderation for a few months.

If he will be unmoderated, I don't think he should be permitted to
come back right now. On the other hand, I don't think he should be
banned for life either.

Love is the law, love under will.

Agape,
FIAOF

--- End forwarded message ---

Hello,

   I understand that I must be clearer. And firstly explain that most of Daniel not understanding the message titled :

" What is important in Akh identification compare with navel fighting ? "

   comes from my weakeness in English. I meant that I was making a comparison (showing a difference) between the act of identifying Akhnaton (by his names thourough history) and the act of fighting between navels (as the list was turning out to be).
   Navels, to some points are like memes ; but that's the ultimate story, I must take it back earlier and explain my full text, chapter by chapter.

   I called navel figthing a 'distraction', opposite to Akh identification. There was fighting on the list instead of looking at Akhnaton identification. Noboy knows who fights who in the meme's fight. Is he Akhnaton ? is he Mahakala ? is he he ? etc..  eventually Jeroen is William, and William is hal for Jeroen and Daniel has hal like Jeroen is William, and reversed etc..  but I was reminding something which is usually  forgotten :

   In the example Daniel took from Bill's and Monica's adventure, it is not often considered that the spouse, Hilary wore that night, Monica's clothe. Who knows.. this was a fourth possibility in the three step dance of the Pulsion - this structure that Daniel called reversal (twist and reverse):

   a) Bill (Clinton was said) drew out his penis
   b) He opposed it had no use (no sexual relationship)
   c) The visible stain turns invisible

   When the Significand - clothes, names and stains - is analysed, it shows three "images & places" (rotating in Four Discourses) which gravitates in such a way that it reveals a fourth (like invisible pluto revealed by its effects on some other planets) - this is the 'navel'.

   In my enigmatic message I mentioned Oedipus at Colonus for what he said : " fight will not stop " - his sons and others cannot do nothing but fight. This fight is hiding, concealing inside, an impossible direct relationship between navels - object (a) **.

Nearly impossible..

   Very different - opposit to this fight - is the identification of Akhnaton. This identification requires a grasp over the navel-navel relationship - other than the detour of deny/fight. The formula, domain, concept of such close relationship is named " PLural ". A series of meme ready for a code (see Daniel's metaphore with game and rules in Message #4213 )

Fight/Significant is like : bing ! bang! punch! aough !
PLural is : ahahahahahahahahah

   See the many names of Akhnaton ; this guy had too many names for having room for reincarnation ! he stood like a persisting, obstinate navel. This is not at all the extinction of ego neither.

   But as it is impossible to identify Akhnaton in our present state of our world - it is possible that something will stand for a relationship : between ego and.. sorry if the word again blinds our eyes : ergo some. I mean the sacramant : ergo with a Tau, ergot.
   The relationship between ego and ergot is fundamental to identification of Akhnaton, for it has to reveal something which has been even more repressed than forgotten. By 2007, I began to write about placebo and ergot ; I contemplate exposing the complete Triplex theory that includes entheogenics. By chance I learned recently that by december 2007, medicinal use of ergot was starting again in Switzerland, and I will not make my career of psychiatrist even more in danger. Hofmann died a few weeks age aged 102. As time passes it is likely that from the european montains the use of what Akhnaton probaby used in Amarna, and Sinaï will gain its function and extend its project. This is probably, (and perhaps even more : logically), what will help stating the direct relationship between navel, fermions, avatars or meme, or brain and grain..  as anyone like..  it can wear, bear, many names.
   I mentioned this since I had to complete the one two little thing I am suggested to say about the next development in religion (I mentioned 'help' already) since I am given a vote/power from a game of names (incometax from being promoted a reincarnation - that I don't support hence this kind a payment).

I believe my previous text can be clearer now, with my apolon j'Eyes for my poor English,

DWT

ADDENDA :

A) note : by his last post Daniel was back on our goal : Akhnaton's being and psychohistorial development. So the list is reset and functionnal again I guess.

B) PS ** : my message also made reference to fermion (suprasymetry) which offers a navel to busons - for this is beyond - and proves that there is something else than - hierarchy. This was to reply to militaries fighters who are looking for there light in organisation.

C) the draft - very draft, not edited (in pink) I had begun in reply to

   Let's take Daniel's illustration :
   a) Bill (Clinton was said) drew out his penis
   b) He opposed it had no use (no sexual relationship)
   c) The visible stain turns invisible

   The reversal is in the sexal ; a stain is no relationship, but a stain is sexual. This is why Freud places libido at the fondation of all drive/pulsion. Because there is a stain gender can be meant and there is sexuality. Stain is more than a sign - and less that a trace ; Stain stands in a between where we recognize the Seeming/Semblant, aka meme.

   A stain can be a metonym for a penis ; it cannot be a metaphore for a sexual relationship unless.. until certain times : until a time allow looking through the stain, and find its Code/DNA. Then the stain becomes more than it was, becomes a trace, a naming. Though this " historic time of heightened self-awareness " stills asks : what does it makes about the relationship ? or better said : isn't it the the media, with the public that the sexual relationship has taken place in this historical event ?
   And there we find the basis from which we can study how libido proceeds in regard with the industry of Code (i.e Artificial Intelligence and/or cybernetics).

   Is it true that " most participants on this list haven't a clue what William is talking about " . I am not sure. The clues are many - all have television and DNA charts today. The question may be : do they/we have desire to know what psychoanalysis is talking about ?

   I suspect that psychoanalysis means that a science of Psyche is at start. Once again : comparison with science observing the physical space : when astronomy begun there were still the ancient way of thinking looking to proceed with the sky in its old ways. Today Intelligence Agencies are looking at controling - and think that they know - the metaverse. They know something, for sure ; but they are quite old fashioned. Psychoanalysis will help investigating truely this space, thanks to its special concepts, regarding the unconscious and which apply so well to laws that are specific to metaverse/virtual space.

This text was begun with the project to apply the Optical Model : the stain like the grain of the miror, being shifted by a code (Bill's DNA) up to the facsimile that Daniel mentioned. But in this facsimile (see the miror turning and S,I merging - nor S nor ' I ' which can ever 'exist' - but as THE woman (Maria if not Hilary's ghost or hypertrue presence)) the person, myself, escape (this is where Jeroen is William - where he could be hal/Maria and expected to be Akhnaton/Hilary).. but William is saying Hellooho! from the other bank. An Jeroen is jeroen, just anothe he row..n

I will not miss GW, whoever he is:  except for
his last posting, his one-liners have been
either irrelevant or totally over my head:  he
is in a hierarchical position way above me!

Glad you are working out the alter ego
relationship, Hal.  Such lack of self-control,
even it we call it being 'unrepressed', is
unnecessary.

Needless to say, I don't under-stand a word of
William's missive.  But I can relate to it above
the navel.  Developmentally, we spend at least
fourteen years of our lives in the first three
energy centers of our bodies, the adrenalin
center, the gonads/ovaries, and the pancreas.
The adrenalin is trained by our parents and
teachers to flow to the tune of our tribal
rules;  the testosterene/estrogen is trained to
flow by our relationship to each other and to
power (and money);  and the pancreas give us a
sense of identity based on what we eat.  These
three, as William said about the navel-glans-
asshole, loop back again and again until a
fourth energy, the heart's love, like the
Boromean fourth strand, enters the loop and
catapults the other three into a new orbit:
away from the putrication of the intestinal
tract and into the resuscitating blood exchange
in the lungs and the heart - the breath.

Akhenaten, of course, didn't stop there, and
neither do a lot of people, but continue to
exchange the basic three energy strings for less
explored energy strings that emanate from the
thyroids, pineal and pituitary.  Perhaps
Akhenaten gave himself a new name each time he
exchanged one of these intestinal energy
strings/spirals for their hierarchical mirror
image up in the head where there is less
pollution.

How Akh was able to switch these energies, I
have no idea, but in the end not only did he
switch them, but he also did what Aleister
Crowley achieved:  melded his sacred Self with
his Shadow.  That erased most social boundaries
and no one knew if he (or anyone who becomes one
with his/her Shadow) was truly evil or truly
good, because when you are not at that point,
dualism still rules your life and you can only
believe that someone must be one or the other.

That is why it is so easy to call Akh a tyrant
in one breath (or one post) and an innovative
genius in another, and perhaps a saint, sage or
enlightened human being in a third, without any
sense of conflict, even though the switch might
seem like a schizophrenic strobe effect.

I am not sure if I am saying the same thing you
are saying, William, or I am repeating myself in
different words from a few years ago, but the
world keeps going around and I am enjoying the
ride.

Daniel




> hello william, daniel et al
>
>   yes, william, i put the pic back up --
figuring our little blackening operation was now
over here, so the black hole of anger gave way
to ingres' oedipus once again.
>
>   i removed jeroen from the list -- and global
too, tho he (global) may re-sub.  daniel
you were on target with the notion of jeroen as
some form of alter ego -- i mean, he is a
real person, william has met him, but for too
long he has attached himself to me.  my
patience has run out now tho, and i have cut
contact with him entirely for now (and maybe
the next 8 years), and feel a nice sense of
relief and freedom.
>
>   cheers
>
>   hal
>
> DWTheaux <wtheaux@...> wrote:
>
>
> Navel fighting is the belly button of
humankind. Charlatans never realise
> the circuit of such a fight, in a ring
starting at the navel level, going to
> the glans, back in a wandering twist in the
ass hole, ebbing against the
> navel again - yet with a fourth station in a
quantic middle where is
> de-found anguish (that can never be found).
> When Akhnaton is identify, a counter-twist
finds LSD in this fourth
> hypercharlatanic de-foundation. This is the
pro-found reason why it can only
> come back from the Switzerlic Sinaii - as it
does while the fight is raging.
> It is given to terminal cancer distress. This
is another ring : increasing
> cancer will develop LSD ! The first ring is
hierarchical. It is made for
> heros. The other is made for minus, still
closer to zero. Cancer or LSD are
> plural - plural differs a semi-spin from the
former, according to
> SupraSymetry, beyond speculative narcissism
needing and hating gurus.
>
> Or are we ready fo Knose fighting - or ready
to realise that Hilary had
> put Monica's dress on.
>
> Triple poor Monica, I am not jocking, there is
gnose fighting. But there is
> still this other possibility. Just a minute..
>
> PS : (as the pic of Oedipus in on - reading at
Colonus again)
>
>
>
>
>


-