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

Re: damned cheeky

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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.