I see your point and everything, but ... ... this is not how I meant it. You seem to be a synchronist, and so is Xev. I take the diachronistic approach, so we're bound to clash. * * * ... it only shows how transposing concepts from one theory into another makes them meaningless or nonsensical. Meaning cannot be atomistically defined. You seem to think it can be. After that, it is only a matter of might is right. I'm not. We have different theoretical backgrounds, so we clash. There is no need for you to take this tone. Nukes. And such. And I did not say that that would be "so bad a thing". Thank you. And it is these people who think themselves to be "a unit within society" and think that their existence and their thinking has nothing to do with society. "Exclusivistic individualism" -- "I am so special as if I had fallen from the moon. Nobody is anything like me." Point in question. For a mind with a creative potential, some initial opposition must be there, and be overcome, so that this person becomes competent in his creativity. For after all, those in mental institutions are also "creative".
A creative mind has inherent opposition - it sees what has come before, and says, "I will make something too, not exactly any of this, but something. Otherwise it is a copying mind. Social opposition is neither here nor there, or rather, can be necessary, useful, or detrimental, depending on which creative mind is being observed. Take Dali, he could have fit in in a mental institution, but I guess he had a sense for when he was being too "creative".
WANDERER: You pointed out how the altruism of 'universal healthcare' is also based on instinctive, selfish motives. Canadians also give moralistic arguments for their healthcare system. "everyone deserves healthcare". It's a purely instinctive motive, is it not? It still requires that some sacrifice more for the good of the whole. In the end, someone is going to get the better deal. Nation-state mythology is just a system for people who are too stupid to understand anything otherwise. All states need it to some degree. At least in America there's more truth to the deal... we have a volunteer army. But nobody is perfect. If you don't have a problem with the instinctive motives like selfishness, why do you have a problem with people sugar-coating it? That's instinctive too. If the hunter has a purely selfish reason for tolerating theft, he sure as hell isn't going to be honest about it. Its not simply a matter of institutions growing in proportion to the size of a population. It's about those populations demanding more than they need, demanding a crutch. And the institutions growing to replace what should have been filled with life. Like you said, Wanderer. You raise people to believe that they don't need to worry about their health... and they won't. They'll smoke. They'll engorge themselves at Tim Hortons. Who gives a shit, right? It's all taken care of. I can have as many bypass surgeries as I need. Why do you believe the Soviet Union collapsed? 'cause I'm thinkin that it had a lot to do with internal economic realities. As a matter of fact, I was recently in the hospital here in Toronto as a result of a nasty bicycle accident, and had quite an intimate experience with the healthcare system. 51% of Canadians now support a two-tier, more Americanized healthcare system. Yes. The elites form. Some of them don't deserve to be elite, and some do. But as for hypocrisy... there are many in America that believe one should make his own way, not depend on handouts from the government. Take care of his own health. "Rugged individualism", right? What really is the problem? I don't know. Might be that too many people are demanding shit that costs money and requires trained doctors, and none of it grows on trees. Alter Ego: Stay out of this. It's 'her prospective mates'. not 'perspective'. Retard. If Xev values blonde hair over and above the pure devotion and understanding that only Bob can give, then Bob had no love to give in the first place.
Suck my bathwater. Jesus Christ, my eyes- this thread has become a batting field where all the batter does is duck with a disheveled use of "mock" Allright, lets see- Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh- was referencing the film. I saw me. So, I couldn’t care less for his political philosophy, in the same sense that I don't care for Sartre's. Both suck. Donatien's badly versed porn scintillates- ..."On your knees," the monk said to me, "I am going to whip your titties." , Justine The relevance: “It is clear from what we have already written that we consider lack of opportunity to properly experience the power process as the most important of the abnormal conditions to which modern society subjects people.”, # 46 Given the circumstances- food, shelter, and diversions as granted from birth- modern man assumes the decadence of the emperor. Its an exaggerated neoteny, with all of us condemned to a sinecure. So for us yuppies enamored of warfare, death, violence its quite understandable- Genghis would be just as bored. Again, the nostalgia: -gend A look at the middle class ethic, or- where this thread goes- the ‘enemy’: Value Family. Value Honesty. Value Education. Value progress. The thou shalts. The definition of opposition is a refusal to accept a code or convention of side-other. Yet said radical values family, honesty, education, progress and the general sustenance of Golden Rules, found in any middle classed canon. A. To oppose would be true negation- a contempt for family, the praise of deceit, stupidity, and stagnation, for surrounding and self. B. To not oppose would be to adopt same as values- family, honesty, education, progress. Said radical adopts the same values. Therefore, said radical is not. Conclusion- this dislike for the middle class, or bourgeoisie, is not opposition. Its the same general dislike a socialite must embrace as this is what defines her status and therein, character: snobbery. Which is pretty much useless if you rub out the thing being snubbed. Careful- girl writing 'curves' = I'm flirting and I want you. Cole Grey: Also, butchered reading skills. Kidding. Gotcha, no I wasn't referencing you. Don't be. I just don't see a reason to sit around obsessing over Them. Ok, so they don't read and think KURD is a radio station and dare turn the knob when Bach is on the radio. And, it demands a form of isolation all on its own. But think of all the things possible in that isolation- if you are the kind that can stand to be in a room alone- the treasure of silence and privacy. You can write a whole novel in one sitting if the world would only shut off its noise. Remember the Twilight Zone? The banker who'd scurry away to a bank vault just to steal some hours to read. And at the end, the world. Destroyed. Expend my energy on Others, and I lose sight of myself or their worth, and that in itself is destruction.. What for? What's the point? So long as they stay in their corner, they should not bother you unless you are nothing without them. Bob HA! Come on... Back in the 8th, I scribbled this on the margin: Ingredients- weak, smart, brute. Best formula: a character the others won't fuck with. Range of combinations, using factorials 3!=6 weak, smart, brute, weak and smart, weak and brute, smart and brute. The STRONGEST character which no one can fuck with- they can try all they want, they just can't- is the smart and brute character. That is why the weak and smart are picked on, they show others they can be. The weak and brute are picked on, because they're hiding and all one has to do is find out. But the smart and brute, like that genius boy Carey from fifth grade, was not because he stood up for himself. Patricia was pummeled, because she did not. She was a MORON. ALWAYS defend yourself first, tooth and nail. Water: Why? Because I don't 'help"? Ever consider this person doesn't want help, but to teach? Lessons are over soon after the needing of said person is. “Ego” Nice try- I never said one shouldn't have principles. Maybe this will help: "Do I mope, devour myself with the bitter impotence of the modern degenerate and [/b]call that[/b] principles, ? Far from! The car I drive is human enterprise. So is art, literature, theology." I too wonder how a person lives with himself that never questions. Anything.
Actually, I'll take this back: "So, I couldn’t care less for his political philosophy..........." I like him. So I would care, I shouldn't say that. I just....like his porn.
gendanken: MINE EYES! Why are you linking me to a picture of a man who looks like a flounder? What's with that filmmaker's eyes? "and gave the world a new term to describe inflicting pain and suffering on others: sadism." Shit, I suppose it beats "a fun night out on the town" in terms of brevity but still... Well, you cannot get much better than 17th century splatterpunk. It's just when a willy-gobbler like Bataille tries to find some deep, enduring meaning in it that I say - pfft. Rebellion - -Varg Vikernes, "Vargsmal" Of course it is very fun to say that you are against materialism, or such like, because everybody else is saying that. What the 'sheep in wolf's clothing' does is to present this as something new. Well it's nothing new! *Gasps* But...didn't you know? I only come to this forum to hit on guys, 'cuz I'm an unfeminine reject whom no man would want. See, I even post sexy pictures of me
Zounds! I'm at home today= shitty computer, bad server. I only gogoeld 'Quills' real quick witout waiting for download, but now.................. HA! I see. No shit. I sat through Sartre's investigative 'dialiectic' into the mind of Genet, and went home with diarrhea. That's overkilling something that didn't need killing. Ya fucking killed it.
Joquine (whatever) Pheonix is pretty hot in it. I skimmed Sartre - that's really why I despise and revile Grove Press - and just read the substance of Genet. I hate introductions too. Grove is a really annoying publisher, they've got the "ooh, let's publish porn - but first, let's stick a preface to it explaining how evil and transgressive it is so that we can feel intellectual about our wanking" Something should stand on it's own. Anyways I've read his books, but made the mistake of lending most out to loser friends who absconded with them (AND my favorite Cannibal Corpse cd, damn if I'll buy another) I'm down to the Grove Edition. In my opinion, it's more or less the best Splatter has to offer - besides Matthew Stokoe or Charlee Jacobs. "unreason continues to watch by night; but in this vigil it joins with fresh powers. The non-being it once was now becomes the power to annihilate" -Michel Foucault
All corpses should be kicked the way these thread are, if only they had sound.. Not really, there's something about a man too pussy to look at bare breast - he sticks his meat in a dead Winslet and cries.Cries, like a good christian. Can't believe- all I could find on George Selwyn, reputed blasphemer, idolter, hertic, all-around-asshole is this link: http://11.1911encyclopedia.org/S/SE/SELWYN_GEORGE_AUGUSTUS_1719_1791_.htm Anway, he fucked corpses with relish and had a morbid fascination with the macabre. SO TRUE. And that's with all the 'greats'- take any book reputed as classic and you'll find some intellectual that's spent all his life at Oxford, Cambridge, just so that they see their name in the intro. 8 blooody years worth tution, for an intro. They disfifigure a book- even something as stand alone as Lewis Carrol, has a a gigantic preface by some gigantic prick. Stokoe? Oooh...recommend me something wicked. Just remember what happend the last time you receommend me a read- I owe you a house burning.
gendanken: I'm probably the last person to ask about good books. I need some character or thought in my gore -- otherwise there's no hook. this is a good book, but not worth twenty dollars. Charlee Jacobs is worth the five bucks although a bit light on the gore. But yeah, "This Symbiotic Fascination" was not bad at all. For simple weird and kinda disturbing, but not vile...Matheson and oh yeah there's always Peter Sotos who is a very disgusting individual and has a very nice writing style. Anyways... "Not really, there's something about a man too pussy to look at bare breast - he sticks his meat in a dead Winslet and cries.Cries, like a good christian." *Shrugs* He was kinda hot in that clerical outfit. Anything accentuating a man's waist is sexy to me. Keep in mind that the real Abbe of Charenton was about 4'11 and quite ugly, and that the real Marquis of Sade was 5'5 and incredibly obese. Not to mention being far from the charming Hannibal Lecter sort portrayed, but rather a total asshole who spent his copious spare time screaming at his wife about his chocolates. While I'm at it - Cows by Matthew Stokoe is not so bad, although maybe worth skimming before you read. And get the book completely fuckin' wrong.
Way off topic and I never got to that damn post I promised... But anyway. Ever read the Naked Lunch? I've only seen the movie but it's fucking bizarre. Will have to find the book one of these days, it's got to be way more out there than the movie. Don't know if I'd call it 'wicked' though. It is steeped in sex and insecticide...
Yes. Yes. Sigh. Because I am obviously one of those... Whatever. I've read plenty but this one came to mind and it's unfortunately one that I haven't read yet. I thought maybe you or someone else reading this had and might care to... blah blah blah. Or blah.
Jesus man, grow a pair. I didn't say "hah! newb, u suxors pwn33d! u prob watch loony tunes and think it's transgressive!" Ichi the Killer fucking rules. Personally I'm more a fan of dark ambient novels, Leopold Sacher-Masoch, Celine and H.P Lovecraft rather than the cut-em-up sadism and gruel that's so popular nowadays. Not that I have anything against it, obviously. It's just the difference between lingering over a steak and wolfing down a hamburger. Between screwing the hot neighbor's brains out and making love to someone you adore. It's the difference between black and death metal.
Didn't you? Kidding. Yeah. I suppose you're right. I was a bit quick to jump on the grenade there. I suppose I was feeling a bit ashamed of recommending a book which I've never read but only seen the movie... Meh. Anyway. The book isn't a horror story at all. It's actually kind of a weird drug induced frenzy conspiratorial nightmare. This exterminator starts snorting his insecticide and ends up shooting his wife and so he runs off to the Casbah to dig into a sordid mystery about the source of the insecticide. There's aliens, insects, drugs, sex, I don't think that there's any rock and roll. I've been meaning to read it for a while but always forget when I'm at the library. The Naked Lunch by William S. Burroughs. It's supposedly a classic. I really must read it.
Gendanken, yes, yes, yes. Sometimes you forget. Sometimes you sit in a room with your monsters, remember the whip and chair, and who you belong to (not the monsters), sometimes you forget. Sometimes the value of searching is finding, e.g., finding the reminder you posted. The value of the human in human society does depend on one doing what they are capable of, and not submitting one's person to following fools. The wheel can't be an engine, nor the engine a wheel. P.S. Just read lovecraft for the first time. 'The rats in the walls', and 'the colour from space', were my faves so far. His prose is just o.k., but he somehow created this world in which his nightmares seem to actually exist. Fun. I also tried sherlock holmes for some light reading, but it has an awkward ring. p.p.s. willaim burroughs from, N.L. - "I CAN FEEL THE HEAT closing in, feel them out there making their moves, setting up their devil doll stool pigeons, crooning over my spoon..." Less than one sentence and you know what school of writing he comes from. Very interesting. Might read. Or maybe read 'on the road' again, I am presently not in the mood for dark.
No, my response was to you saying People have a way of killing the person in you. This is odd. If one allows that others kill the person in him, then I should think you think such a man weak and worthless anyway. Yes, it is his way of helping himself vicariously through helping others. Other people's burdens are always lighter than your own. But I'm not helping. If I would set out to help, I would be committed to it, and most of all, I would dearly care for the person -- but now, this is not the case. Right now, I'm thinking how to solve Xev's problem with confusing a and e - but not to help her, but to solve the problem as it is irritating for me to see words like "relevent", "scenerio", "negetive". Of course, some problems need the participation of both parties in order to be solved, this is why the situation may look as "helping someone". You should come to Europe. To talk about literature is to talk about what critic XY said about a book. In the end, it doesn't really matter if you have read the actual literary text -- just as long as you know what a critic said. It is a way to cultivate "You, simple reader, do not know what this book truly is about." No wonder people refuse to read.
You just gave most of humanity a big thumbs down. Most people's personalities have been killed off to some degree or another (pruned) by middle-age. Do all those people really want to watch basketball? But not society, per se, because without society, there isn't enough time to have a personality, we're too busy trying to survive. So society allows and destroys the same quality. Interesting. Where is the enemy?
Cole Grey, *I* have not given most of humanity a big thumbs down. Ponder: The main principle in our society is that of free will and choice -- intrinsically linked with personal responsibility; this is the basis of the law system. "You did it and you will be punished for it." (I wish Wes Morris would be here, to give you a lesson on how everything is a matter of choice!) Anyway, everything one does is a matter of his free choice, a matter of his decision. All good and well when it comes to things that are good for you. But in order to be consistent, we must apply the principle of free choice and decision in all cases -- or set strictly defined boundaries. (These strictly defined boundaries don't seem to be there though. It isn't always clear whether if you get hit by a meteorite while out walking is to be treated the same way as if you get raped. One can even always argue that it was a bad decision that one went for a walk when the meteorite was about to fall; and in the case of rape, the raped will be gladly blamed for allowing it.) And thus, it follows: 1. Whatever you have, you have it because you have wanted it. 2. Whatever happens to you, it is because you have wanted it or because you have allowed it. ... 9. If you make bad decisions, you are a loser. ... 12. If you make good decisions, you are a winner. ... 16.If you have work, this is a result of your choice and decision. 17. If you don't have work, this is a result of your choice and decision. ... 38. If you are loved, this is a result of your choice and decision. 39. If you aren't loved, this is a result of your choice and decision. ... 81. If others don't kill the person in you, this is a result of your choice and decision. 82. If others kill the person in you, this is a result of your choice and decision. ... 123. If you are alive, this is a result of your choice and decision. .............................................. It must be that they want to watch basketball, or they wouldn't be watching it in the first place. Go back in this thread. Anytime anyone is considered a weakling, a pathetic smatch, a loser, a woman when he is a man, -- it comes with the presupposition that they *want* to be a weakling, a pathetic smatch, a loser, a woman when he is a man; if you are something, it means that you want it, or are allowing for it. It was *your* idea to be or become a weakling, a pathetic smatch, a loser, a woman when you are a man. For, after all, Iraq *allowed* to be attacked by the US, you know. Consistency is a bitch.
Personally, Invert, I wouldn't bother with the Naked Lunch, but then I suppose you have to read it in order to know what it is you should have skipped.
