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

Re: damned cheeky

Expand Messages
  • louise
    ... Interesting, Knott, that you characterise/understate/parody the conception of deity by calling it gawd. A cartoon theology, rather than an historical
    Message 1 of 10 , Jan 3, 2005
      > 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 2 of 10 , Jan 3, 2005
        > 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 3 of 10 , Jan 4, 2005
          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.