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

Re: sages pages and prose

Expand Messages
  • Knott
    ... I think, and perhaps it is only my myopia, that if one is standing on a stool in a barroom-- or perhaps in a town square as you prefer the perception of
    Message 1 of 6 , Mar 5 1:59 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      > At this point I wonder why, and
      > actually, which one of us is the more idiosyncratic? Would it matter
      > to you how many spoons I use?

      I think, and perhaps it is only my myopia, that if one is standing on a stool in a barroom--
      or perhaps in a town square as you prefer the perception of self--then what he utters
      should be considered, lest it be misconstrued.

      That is not to say that many of the best orators beveled and twitched their meaning along
      the way of discourse, metering it to reaction of the crowd...but that even explains less why
      you can't see to keep to your point from one end of a diatribe to the other: you at your
      keyboard are not reacting to a crowd.

      The lack of clarity is bad tactic--at least from my perspective/opinion.

      if you want to prove the worth of your thoughts and why they are so important to utter,
      you might start from being able to follow them yourself to a logical conclusion. Without
      that, and you will forgive the assumption, a discourse lacking logic, lacks logic...and the
      logic therein being suspect, is suspected...and suspected it is suspect, and suspect, not
      quite disproved, but very well nearing that on a rational basis. And perhaps logic is my
      own dysfunction--but i am always curious as to how someone is so sure: and he who
      speaks with the loudest surity always gets my response.

      You proclaim that we are all in various stages of being tricked by large ominous things like
      goverments and corporations, but i am looking into your words and finding trickery,
      panhandling, vacant claims, monomanic devolving, uncontrolled deconstruction. i think
      you get caught up in the sound of your ideas more than the logic of them...and that loops
      me back to my chorus;

      How on earth do you know?

      As ignorant as a pea in its pod I pretend to be able to read your words, words of others,
      words of my own...I light matches because I am fascinated with the fire, keep my fingers
      clear because i am pretty certain i will get burned--pea with fingers that I am. I know
      nothing more than what i utter is what i accept as my own stupid conclusion and
      reconcilliation of perspective, and hope to have one thing when the thought is all done
      (beside the ridiculous joy of silly construction, and perhaps a larf - har har): that I haven't
      said a thing that I can't lay tracks to, and reasonable fess to my conclusions--be they
      simply nonsense--and that I hopefully retain some consistency because for some reason i
      see it as important to linear discussion (I can be wrong). Mostly that means I say nothing
      at all...but I often have fun saying it.

      you, sir, on the other hand, point a somehow knowing finger at the source of all our woes
      in the lying, cheating secretive, not so secret, unable to keep a secret, government,
      corporation, Jimmy Carter, who kills us all for the joy of twisting a knife. it is a theme that
      runs through your writings, it seems ("I cannot be dragged into pop-conspiracy theory so
      why try." -- TC be damned) with the hint that it is all obvious.

      Well, this ignorant pea doesn't see that it is obvious, and shouts outloud that there is no
      proof to the pudding, be it a dessert while I am part of the entree (and that is, mind you,
      only in the sence that I am sensless when eaten, not at all that i am the main course).

      what am I saying, I think it is this;
      At least while I speak I know I am uttering nonsense and try not to treat it like some truth.
      You sir, seem quite the opposite in that you weave such a trail that you can't decipher
      truth (if there is such a thing) from fiction, and choose whatever it is that you said to be
      the whole truth and nothing but, whether it is butt or knott, butter nut, or believing it is
      not butter. You cover parts of your trail with a shawl, with a wiggle of a branch, by walkig
      in running streams--and mostly by blaming someone else who is inferior and can't grasp
      your superior 'meanings'. it is not hard to find a lack of congruity in your writings without
      a lot of study...I have read many over the years now, and yours ring because I cannot
      believe that someone with so naughty a vocabulary (that is sheer monstrosity so that it
      aught not be bared in the boys locker-room shower, less yet public), should state so much
      with so little, and so little with so much.

      it is as if you are some type of sycophant looking into a mirrored room (Lucas Samaras
      '66), seeing so many of himself to please that the double-speak reaches decible levels in
      echoing that rupture the eardrum, strike balance from the pose, and yet the words
      continue while you fall deaf and dumb to them, ears bleeding, mouth agape.

      it is unfortunate that your friend's comment caused you to change your use of spoons, but
      it is apparent that your behavior is often this way. i don't care how many spoons you use,
      but your commitment to the notion of how many you should use is obvious by how easily
      the hot breath of another can may the conviction sway.

      [just a little tip on literature: that construction is a well known one where the author comes
      back to the beginning for the end making it all seem nice and tidy...even if perhaps it was
      not.]

      Three Lumps
    • ana barrientos
      Do you all really think your goverment is the only responsible of the insecurity you feel in your country? Where I live is the same!!! The need of possesions
      Message 2 of 6 , Mar 5 6:40 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        Do you all really think your goverment is the only responsible of the insecurity you feel in your country?
        Where I live is the same!!!

        The need of possesions in the human being ( things, power, fun, etc.) makes the crowd justified their actions,
        I blame the famous GLOBALIZATION
        It is taking the people to lose authenticity.
        We, the thrird world are paying a very high price in it,becuse we don't have too much to offer; but a lot to receive.
        I believe we all citizens in the world are responsible, because we choose the comfort of silence.

        Yesterday a man was killed in my city , because two college students were bored and decide to have fun making a robbery, how can we explain that??!!!
        What are we, the people who are supposed to think, have to do??
        Is the crowd attached to the aesthetic stage forever?

        Trinidad Cruz <cruzprdb@...> wrote: Most people like the comfort of thinking that something is right.
        Thinking that something is right allows action in a direction. Not
        thinking that anything is right is the cause of miasmal angst and
        isolationism in ordinary Americans. They need the comfort of a sense
        of rightness. During the cold war communism gave direction to national
        security, in fact for most people involved with security, it excused a
        ridiculously uninformed patriotism into all manner of obtuse and
        inhumane activity. In the security world there has always been a wall,
        a higher clearance, which required an appeal to an operatives idealism
        to hide the motivations for such activity. The old security world is
        crumbling because idealism is no longer a reliable tool. We are today,
        as a national entity on the world stage, the least secure we have ever
        been. Why? Quite simply, because we have allowed capitalism itself to
        be taken over by those with the most money. It is absolutely the large
        corporation that has ruined our national security, and immolated all
        its agencies.

        Once corporations simply funded activities, now they own the agencies.
        Their idea of a "new world order" is a corporate controlled planet
        that serves their executives first. The battle for this country, for
        the ordinary citizen, will not be won or lost on the picket line, at
        the pulpit, or even the ballot box. We have already given the
        corporate entity the right to secrecy while giving up our own right to
        personal privacy. Everything of life is now measured by purchasing
        power. We passed, some years ago, the last point of no return for a
        peaceful resolution for the ordinary American citizen. Jimmy Carter
        sold his soul to it, and it was over. There will be no more good men
        in political office, only agenda ridden fools, and bumbling pork
        barrel drunks. Those in charge now are the worst kind of man for the
        future of this world: terrified men of action.

        In the world of security agencies, things work and get done because of
        an heirarchy. Secrets are revealed stingily on a need to know basis.
        One always thinks someone above them knows something more. Today we
        have no national security because the top secret, and the ultimate
        motivation, is known. Security now, is just damage control, the
        limitation of information. There are no national secrets. Corporations
        agendize all our national security activities. They are the black hand
        at the top. Some good men have thought and argued in the past that
        this was inevitable, and not necessarily a bad thing, and
        characterized it as "creeping capitalism", the winning of the world
        for democracy so to speak. Sadly democracy and capitalism have proved
        to not be the same thing. We have failed to protect the small
        businessman, the ordinary family provider, and instead greedily and
        fearfully ruined his uninformed ideological dreams.

        Ironically, freedom itself is responsible for that. Partly it is the
        wealthy craving an addictive buzz of pseudo-freedom, the freedom to
        play at anything at all, who slobber to buy its assurance like a drug.
        For the informed it is the fear of what they are and worry about what
        will be left. Still we need not be hopeless because we are without
        resources or uninformed. The true nature of literature is such, that
        there really are no secrets. This in itself assures that no man is
        actually ever permanently dominated by another. The failure of any
        dominion is inevitable; even though the sorrow of deluded conquest is
        ongoing and inescapable. If I am vouchsafed free untouchable to live
        at all, it may be noted by some as proof of the soundness of the
        story; and though a dark Englishman once scripted the self made noose
        as resolution, that was an error in plot, for I cannot end within the
        story at all, having come into it only invented as hoped to be. As
        what I am, I can only read the end of the story and close the book on
        the very old broken promise of what I was expected to be. Now, in this
        brave new world, all the promises are about to be broken.

        Trinidad





        Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

        Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist



        SPONSORED LINKS
        Philosophy book Merleau-ponty

        ---------------------------------
        YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


        Visit your group "existlist" on the web.

        To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


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





        ---------------------------------
        Yahoo! Mail
        Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • the_mourning_train
        I agree wih Dr. Bombay... romanticising the past and dreading the future for unfounded reasons kind of paints the portrait of an angry, anxious poet who has a
        Message 3 of 6 , Mar 8 9:25 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          I agree wih Dr. Bombay... romanticising the past and dreading the
          future for unfounded reasons kind of paints the portrait of an angry,
          anxious poet who has a heavy amount of psuedo-conviction.

          Your writing is beautiful though.

          Hopefully we'll see some poems from you.

          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Knott" <knott12@...> wrote:
          >
          > Yikes, man, do you drink a LOT? Your pie-in-the-eye vision is empty
          of a few things: good
          > reason and a solution being some of these. You are paranoid,
          delusional, and you believe
          > everything you say. I think that makes you more dangerous than a
          corporation.
          >
          > > We are today,
          > > as a national entity on the world stage, the least secure we have ever
          > > been.
          >
          > How do you measure that? By relative paranoia or a poll taken on AOL?
          >
          > > It is absolutely the large
          > > corporation that has ruined our national security, and immolated all
          > > its agencies.
          >
          > Again, you offer no substantiation -- as if your saying it makes it
          so...
          >
          > > We have already given the
          > > corporate entity the right to secrecy while giving up our own right to
          > > personal privacy.
          >
          > OK, so you say corporations have secrets...lets grant that even if
          it isn't proven and move
          > on. Just hold this thought a moment, because it is about to be
          contradicted...
          >
          > > Secrets are revealed stingily on a need to know basis.
          > > One always thinks someone above them knows something more.
          >
          > So, from secrets, we go to 'some' secrets...You see the damn breaking...
          >
          > > Today we
          > > have no national security because the top secret, and the ultimate
          > > motivation, is known. Security now, is just damage control, the
          > > limitation of information. There are no national secrets.
          >
          > ...and then all is an open book. In the matter of just a few
          sentences. And the conclusion
          > rings that there is no secrecy. so which is it?
          >
          > > We have failed to protect the small
          > > businessman, the ordinary family provider, and instead greedily and
          > > fearfully ruined his uninformed ideological dreams.
          >
          > By gawd, with the evil Jimmy Carter at the helm (former owner of the
          Carter Evil Worm
          > farm and brother to the great Billy of Billy Beer brewing, which is
          responsible for 'piss-in-
          > a-can')
          >
          > > Ironically, freedom itself is responsible for that.
          >
          > Freedom is responsible for worms and 'piss-in-a-can'...gotcha.
          >
          > > Still we need not be hopeless because we are without
          > > resources or uninformed.
          >
          > Wait, are we reversing the motor again? there are no secrets but we
          are uninformed? if you
          > are saying that the average person doesn't pay attention to
          everything, um, well, what are
          > ou really saying? One cannot (as Sean Connery did in playing Zed in
          the awful movie
          > Zardoz) learn by osmosis.
          >
          > > The true nature of literature is such, that
          > > there really are no secrets.
          >
          > So, there are no secrets...again, but we don't know anything? so we
          are told everything and
          > there are secrets because we are too stupid to understand what we
          are told...or we don't
          > pay attention....don't care...forgive me if I am swirling in the
          logic of on-again, off-again.
          > Or the on-again-off-again logic.
          >
          > > This in itself assures that no man is
          > > actually ever permanently dominated by another. The failure of any
          > > dominion is inevitable
          >
          > OK, so the evil corporation of worms and piss-in-a-can driven by
          Jimmy Carter (in his very
          > smart pickup truck) to the brink of extinction by corporations who
          keep secrets very well
          > to themselves so that everyone else knows them and assures their own
          destruction...got it.
          > But wait...doesn't that contradict the idea that "We have already
          given the corporate entity
          > the right to secrecy while giving up our own right to personal
          privacy. Everything of life is
          > now measured by purchasing power. We passed, some years ago, the
          last point of no
          > return for a peaceful resolution for the ordinary American citizen."
          because if everything
          > 'assures its own destruction', it is likely that anything
          established (corporate entities,
          > purchasing power, ordinary citizens) will eventually be
          vanquished...unless I am really
          > reading in too hard here...
          >
          > > the sorrow of deluded conquest is
          > > ongoing and inescapable.
          >
          > Are you talking about your own post? it seems to me deluded conquest
          to assume you
          > know anything at all...and then back to the first sentence, and i am
          in finnegans wake all
          > over again...
          >
          > > As
          > > what I am, I can only read the end of the story and close the book on
          > > the very old broken promise of what I was expected to be.
          >
          > Such an inconclusinve conclusion where the author blames the reader,
          who is himself, for
          > the catastrophy of the problem of becoming less than he should have
          in the book that he
          > had written about himself in delusion which was, of course, the
          truth, because there were
          > no secrets. riverrun
          >
          > What I really want to know (because I won't have time to see the
          movie) is that if there is
          > an 'evil Jimmy Carter' does he sit on the right or left shoulder,
          and does his Billy Beer
          > swilling brother sit on the other in the angel costume, or is it
          just one of those standard
          > hollywood tricks of imposition, an impostor, or some clever
          character actor playing the
          > part, like Marion Lorne?
          >
          > You sound, sir, like a young deranged poet. and while I admire the
          energy, I believe far too
          > much of it is derived from anger and other conditions.
          >
          > Dr. Bombay
          >
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.