Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: damned cheeky

Expand Messages
  • louise
    look, who are you, anyway? do you think you re god or don t you? i ve never assumed so. what has the quantity of beer we ve consumed got to do with an
    Message 1 of 10 , Jan 2, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      look, who are you, anyway? do you think you're god or don't you?
      i've never assumed so. what has the quantity of beer we've consumed
      got to do with an intellectual argument? these are occasionally
      matters for symbolism when one is faced with enemies or confused
      friends entangled in psychical realities they've waded too far out
      to deal with in responsible fashion. in fact, i've nothing much to
      say in this reply if i were to dignify my message as such.
      refreshment of the list in my view continues to be necessary. the
      intensity of concentration required to follow the linkages between
      philosophy and academic or alternative sciences is beyond me right
      now. i'll be plodding on with the men i trust: Heraclitus,
      Epicurus, Aristotle with massive reservations, Socrates as rebel and
      sceptic, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche and sundry less prominent figures:
      Herbert Spencer, David Hume, Christopher Smart, Robyn Hitchcock, to
      whom I listen right now. Worship?? Electricity. I love and do not
      adore. Honour is the starting point, and gratitude eventually
      follows.

      As for the Christians, especially in the 'land of the free', there's
      quite enuogh Belt to be going on with, surely.

      You are also wise to lose my train of thought. I would not wish you
      to get crushed.

      Modern Prophet
      ... walking in the footsteps of Mohammed ...


      - In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Knott" <god@t...> wrote:
      >
      > > I've already had
      > > a halfpint of beer tonight, and it served its purpose. For me
      it's
      > > not enough that Christ should sustain one, if one is Christian.
      > > What is required in addition is Christianity. That's a huge
      social
      > > project. In a sense, it's never been attempted yet. Jesus of
      > > Nazareth was nothing if not demanding.
      >
      > Damn, i guess my several pints puts us at intellectual odds. In
      other words, my dear,
      > I've lost your train of thought. It is difficult to tot up my
      actual pint intake as the
      > percentages vary so...
      >
      > But if you are saying most christians need to have a good belt, I
      couldn't agree more.
      > If you think christ should have a pint...pronto I say.
      >
      > nible bible
    • Knott
      ... I am as good a gawd as duard, but that isn t saying much. The reference to gawd is only that I am gawd if I am, as i perceive, the only world view.
      Message 2 of 10 , Jan 2, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        > do you think you're god or don't you?

        I am as good a gawd as 'duard, but that isn't saying much.

        The reference to gawd is only that I am gawd if I am, as i perceive, the only world
        view. Everything is created by my perception of it...however errant. Of course, that
        idea is limited by my misunderstanding, which is abundant.

        SO, i am not gawd if you want gawd to be what you would perceive as gawd. I yam
        gawd if i am my perception of the world, which i make up...but i may be deceived.

        Flushed Toilette
      • louise
        Knott, I very much like fencing with you, but if any kind of god is the subject, we seem rather doomed to be self-enclosed. You refer to duard, who seems to
        Message 3 of 10 , Jan 2, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Knott, I very much like fencing with you, but if any kind of god is
          the subject, we seem rather doomed to be self-enclosed. You refer
          to 'duard, who seems to me your own creation, one I don't believe
          in. Whether he's willing to accept it or not, Eduard is my dramatic
          Jehovah figure, because he has stayed loyal through every storm to
          my need to state what I am and what I imagine, without coercion or
          terminal menace. That is the connection I find with the God of
          mercy and justice in the Old and New Testaments. It would not
          surprise me if I make little sense to you. As I keep repeating,
          some things take years to explain, and I feel I need a holiday,
          without really the means to achieve that. But two good days of rest
          and sleep might be enough. I haven't even seen my psychiatric nurse
          yet ... Louise the existentialist

          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Knott" <god@t...> wrote:
          >
          > > do you think you're god or don't you?
          >
          > I am as good a gawd as 'duard, but that isn't saying much.
          >
          > The reference to gawd is only that I am gawd if I am, as i
          perceive, the only world
          > view. Everything is created by my perception of it...however
          errant. Of course, that
          > idea is limited by my misunderstanding, which is abundant.
          >
          > SO, i am not gawd if you want gawd to be what you would perceive
          as gawd. I yam
          > gawd if i am my perception of the world, which i make up...but i
          may be deceived.
          >
          > Flushed Toilette
        • louise
          ... Interesting, Knott, that you characterise/understate/parody the conception of deity by calling it gawd. A cartoon theology, rather than an historical
          Message 4 of 10 , Jan 3, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            > The reference to gawd is only that I am gawd if I am, as i
            >perceive, the only world view. Everything is created by my
            >perception of it...however errant. Of course, that
            >idea is limited by my misunderstanding, which is abundant.

            Interesting, Knott, that you characterise/understate/parody the
            conception of deity by calling it gawd. A cartoon theology, rather
            than an historical theology illuminated by modern references,
            including film, animation, etc. The latter is what interests me.
            Eduard's Nooism is I believe complementary to or at least compatible
            with my own poetic/dramatic meanderings. I certainly have never
            found eduard's contributions to existlist as promulgating
            exclusivist theological ideas, or exclusivist anything, actually.
            Seems to me such baseless accusations, open or implied, were what
            used to persuade him he was wasting his time here. And certainly
            I've gone through periods of feeling the same way. Just that I'm so
            mercurial, these periods would tend to last hours rather than
            weeks. Speaking of Mercury, I was just thinking how helpful it
            might be if we poetic types [addressing anybody here who wants to be
            included] re-named the planets of the solar system, since scientists
            get to do so much of this labelling business, usually without the
            first clue of the spiritual resonances invoked. Yes, I might go
            away and work on that little project ...

            pope the innocent
          • Knott
            ... there is nothing of what you say there. gawd is merely my way of spelling what everyone else already thinks they understand. i will not capitalize as it is
            Message 5 of 10 , Jan 3, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              > Interesting, Knott, that you characterise/understate/parody the
              > conception of deity by calling it gawd.

              there is nothing of what you say there. gawd is merely my way of spelling what
              everyone else already thinks they understand. i will not capitalize as it is not the same
              reference in every frame.

              This is a practical decision.

              As to you and le Duard...or to you alone as both -- it is not unlikely that you are the
              same, using a frivolous AKA
              (but unlikely that you are as you seem to use different words--if so, good play).
              Duard is, however, quite an idiot. i don't state such terms lightly. Too embedded in
              the 'reality' of his precious science (and i do have a science/mathematical background
              predominant to my written one) to realize that he is not perceiving even immediately
              what he thinks he sees. In fact, his science should tell him that sound comes after
              sight...and that the syncronicity of sense may be errant -- as seems to be most of
              perception, and more, our ridiculous interpretation of it.

              many people, for example, want to see the worst in a perspective, when I suggest that
              even murderers likely have an explanation for their disinteresting choices. Women
              almost insist that a man is bad, from my experience. it is a horemonal endulgence.
              Marz and venus, no doubt.

              I have probably never said this here...I once posed in a chat room that i was a female
              interested in men. Knowing reasonably what men might like, I posed a scenario of
              what i might like to do to a man, and the chat, which was loud and boistrous with
              many people clamoring in, became quite quiet....and listened to my false 10 minutes
              or more of fantasy play-acting. no one typed an interruption. Doubtless several took
              matters into their hands. In the end, more than five refused to believe i was not
              female, and no less than three continued to stalk my screen name for about a month,
              begging me to return to that facade...to me it was an exercise in interest--not as to
              how I could be a woman, but as to how well i could play a man's desire for one.

              In short, there is evil, and slack fun, and a combination of all. When one takes
              another's perspective too seriously, they are themselves the fool. I don't believe in
              any of you...even Bill, whose drill I feel the best.

              Narcodic Sljavic
            • louise
              Knott, Your reply to my comments don t make much sense to me. I ll ... spelling what ... capitalize as it is not the same ... Where do you get this from??
              Message 6 of 10 , Jan 4, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                Knott,

                Your reply to my comments don't make much sense to me. I'll
                intersperse my own replies:

                --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Knott" <god@t...> wrote:
                >
                > > Interesting, Knott, that you characterise/understate/parody the
                > > conception of deity by calling it gawd.
                >
                > there is nothing of what you say there. gawd is merely my way of
                spelling what
                > everyone else already thinks they understand. i will not
                capitalize as it is not the same
                > reference in every frame.

                Where do you get this from?? "what everyone else thinks they
                understand"!! I thought you were a teacher, retired or not, rather
                than some crazed cult leader or political dictator. What are your
                grounds for such a truly absurd generalisation?

                > This is a practical decision.

                What is?

                > As to you and le Duard...or to you alone as both -- it is not
                unlikely that you are the same, using a frivolous AKA
                > (but unlikely that you are as you seem to use different words--if
                so, good play).

                Excuse me!! le Duard seems to be your own invention - and I got
                into hot water with Susan for ignorantly borrowing your moniker for
                eduard, when Bill helpfuly explained to me how it 'burned him off'
                (eduard that is) because you two didn't get on well, so I got all
                upset in public and the moderator tells me not to be so personal ...
                remember? Well, that last message was probably sent to me privately
                by Susan. Anyway, I was most confused. I can only assume you have
                a suppressed worship-fetish, and le Duard is your god - someone to
                be resentful toward, perhaps. No, it's just a speculation. Of
                course I don't know what's in your mind, any more than you know
                what's in mine. And as to plain facts, eduard lives in Quebec,
                Canada, I live in England, UK. We have never met, nor even
                communicated by telephone. It's really intriguing, this possibility
                of internet contact. I do find myself wondering about the sound of
                people's voices. Photos give the visual rendition, of course.

                > Duard is, however, quite an idiot. i don't state such terms
                lightly. Too embedded in
                > the 'reality' of his precious science (and i do have a
                science/mathematical background
                > predominant to my written one) to realize that he is not
                perceiving even immediately
                > what he thinks he sees. In fact, his science should tell him that
                sound comes after
                > sight...and that the syncronicity of sense may be errant -- as
                seems to be most of
                > perception, and more, our ridiculous interpretation of it.

                There are more things in heaven and earth, my friend, than you can
                quantify. I sure know what a 'scientific' assessment of my mental
                condition led to in my own case ...

                > many people, for example, want to see the worst in a perspective,
                when I suggest that even murderers likely have an explanation for
                their disinteresting choices. Women almost insist that a man is bad,
                from my experience. it is a horemonal endulgence. Marz and venus,
                no doubt.

                Hormonal, maybe, and not necessarily indulgence. More like
                necessity ... until one trains oneself philosophically/religiously
                not to give way to hormonal cues. That's what Nooism is about, but
                much more also.

                > I have probably never said this here...I once posed in a chat room
                that i was a female
                > interested in men. Knowing reasonably what men might like, I posed
                a scenario of
                > what i might like to do to a man, and the chat, which was loud and
                boistrous with
                > many people clamoring in, became quite quiet....and listened to my
                false 10 minutes
                > or more of fantasy play-acting. no one typed an interruption.
                Doubtless several took
                > matters into their hands. In the end, more than five refused to
                believe i was not
                > female, and no less than three continued to stalk my screen name
                for about a month,
                > begging me to return to that facade...to me it was an exercise in
                interest--not as to
                > how I could be a woman, but as to how well i could play a man's
                desire for one.

                aha!! your secret is out, old cutie, a fantasist, an amorist, an
                amateur sleuth psychologist, indeed, a natural pre-conscious ...
                nooist neophyte.

                > In short, there is evil, and slack fun, and a combination of all.
                When one takes another's perspective too seriously, they are
                themselves the fool. I don't believe in
                > any of you...even Bill, whose drill I feel the best.
                > Narcodic Sljavic

                love and kisses, dear buffalo, from doting newly-groomed poodle ...
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.