ARTBASE (1)
PORTFOLIO (1)
BIO
The McElroys are a husband and wife collaborative artist, technology, and business team who bring significant artistic, technology and community development skills to Corporate Performance Artists. Joseph, is a graduate of Computer Science from Duke University and a former team leader at IBM. He has been a CEO of several companies, and has been responsible for raising $2 million to fund a startup company called EveryDayPrint.com, which while part of the dot-com boom and bust, he managed to bring to profitability and which still survives to this day.
Donna was an operations manager and PR specialist in the firms they have started together. She has recently been credited by several business leaders in the Bronx as being "top spokesperson for the Bronx." She is active in many community development projects, such as participating on the Board of the Bruckner Arts and Antique District, and working to promote many Bronx activities through an online newsletter called Cupcake Kaleidoscope.
Joseph was the leader of the Open Source Sig for the New York Software Industry Association. And was track co-chair for Open Source at the 2001 New York Software Industry Summit. He was on the advisory board for PostgreSql, Inc - the leading Open Source Database and has had articles published by Lutris Technologies and Open Magazine on Open Source business models and technology solutions. He is a database expert with extensive Fortune 500 experience. Among other awards, he won an IBM Division Award for Technical Excellence.
From magazine "Open" issue September 2001 - "The McElroys kick open the doors of old business models and capitalize on what they believe." The McElroys have achieved re-known as Open Source visionaries with interviews by Interactive Week, Infoworld, Fortune Technology, Open magazine, and others. Joseph and Donna make no claims of divine insight, but in review by Lewis Lacock, it is said, "that this dynamic duo of art are the closest things we have to true shamans today". They are doing their best to pursue the knowledge to support such claims someday.
HIGHLIGHTS
* Achieved reputation as Open Source visionarys with interviews by Interactive Week, Infoworld, Fortune Technology, Open magazine among others.
* National Columnist on Money Matters for Gather.com.
* Judge for the Advanced Technical Categories of the Emmys.
* Successfully raised $2 million funding for startup.
* Successfully built and sold two technology businesses.
* First Entry into the Multimedia wing of the Museum of Computer Art.
* Artwork collected by the Library at Cornell University.
* Artwork in the collection of Rhizome.org.
* Developed first ever Exhibition Catalog completely on CD Rom. Done for Alternative Museum. Reviewed by New York Times.
* Selected to attend first ever Summer Institute for Performance Art at The Kitchen in NYC.
* IBM Division Award for Technical Excellence.
* Various academic, mathematic and scholarship awards. Attended Duke University on a full scholarship in mathematics.
* Poetry published in various journals. Art exhibited in museum shows.
* Certificate of Artistic Excellence from Congressman Jose Serrano.
* Recognized by Bronx Borough President Aldofo Carrion for contributions to the community.
Donna was an operations manager and PR specialist in the firms they have started together. She has recently been credited by several business leaders in the Bronx as being "top spokesperson for the Bronx." She is active in many community development projects, such as participating on the Board of the Bruckner Arts and Antique District, and working to promote many Bronx activities through an online newsletter called Cupcake Kaleidoscope.
Joseph was the leader of the Open Source Sig for the New York Software Industry Association. And was track co-chair for Open Source at the 2001 New York Software Industry Summit. He was on the advisory board for PostgreSql, Inc - the leading Open Source Database and has had articles published by Lutris Technologies and Open Magazine on Open Source business models and technology solutions. He is a database expert with extensive Fortune 500 experience. Among other awards, he won an IBM Division Award for Technical Excellence.
From magazine "Open" issue September 2001 - "The McElroys kick open the doors of old business models and capitalize on what they believe." The McElroys have achieved re-known as Open Source visionaries with interviews by Interactive Week, Infoworld, Fortune Technology, Open magazine, and others. Joseph and Donna make no claims of divine insight, but in review by Lewis Lacock, it is said, "that this dynamic duo of art are the closest things we have to true shamans today". They are doing their best to pursue the knowledge to support such claims someday.
HIGHLIGHTS
* Achieved reputation as Open Source visionarys with interviews by Interactive Week, Infoworld, Fortune Technology, Open magazine among others.
* National Columnist on Money Matters for Gather.com.
* Judge for the Advanced Technical Categories of the Emmys.
* Successfully raised $2 million funding for startup.
* Successfully built and sold two technology businesses.
* First Entry into the Multimedia wing of the Museum of Computer Art.
* Artwork collected by the Library at Cornell University.
* Artwork in the collection of Rhizome.org.
* Developed first ever Exhibition Catalog completely on CD Rom. Done for Alternative Museum. Reviewed by New York Times.
* Selected to attend first ever Summer Institute for Performance Art at The Kitchen in NYC.
* IBM Division Award for Technical Excellence.
* Various academic, mathematic and scholarship awards. Attended Duke University on a full scholarship in mathematics.
* Poetry published in various journals. Art exhibited in museum shows.
* Certificate of Artistic Excellence from Congressman Jose Serrano.
* Recognized by Bronx Borough President Aldofo Carrion for contributions to the community.
Re: On Karei, AKA, What I Did On My Vacation
he won't let you love him
:)
joseph (cor e form art) + (porat per ance ist)
frank + lyn - mc + El + roy
go shopping -> http://www.electrichands.com/shopindex.htm
call me 646 279 2309
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER CUPCAKEKALEIDOSCOPE - send email to
CupcakeKleidoscope-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Quoting Ivan Pope <ivan@ivanpope.com>:
> This is in danger of becoming a K lovein. K does make some interesting
> points. But, he is such a rude and obnoxious shit, that who really cares?
> Cheers, Happy Xms and shame about Joe Strummer, Ivan
> --
> Ivan Pope
> ivan@ivanpope.com
> www.ivanpope.com
>
>
> "Faster, faster, until the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death"
> Hunter S. Thompson
>
> > From: "joseph (yes)" <joseph@electrichands.com>
> > Reply-To: "joseph (yes)" <joseph@electrichands.com>
> > Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 15:06:47 +0000
> > To: Eryk Salvaggio <eryk@maine.rr.com>
> > Cc: list@rhizome.org
> > Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: On Karei, AKA, What I Did On My Vacation
> >
> > I find that some of what Karai says about me is not without truth, so I
> start
> > wondering if I am being converted or awakened. And then I get insecure, for
> if
> > it is the latter, and I reject the conversion, what do I do about the
> truths I
> > found? It means a hell of a lot of work. I have just gotten used to the
> idea
> > that there is no identifiable truths, which conclusion results similarly
> from
> > an uninformed knowledge of religion and rejection of its corrupted
> structures,
> > and now that supposed foundation is shaking. I am also irritated by
> Karai's
> > insistence upon his perfection when his obvious misreading of various posts
> > and
> > other mistakes are evidence to the contrary. In fact, it is this
> insistence,
> > that makes me reject him while at the same time I am interested in what he
> has
> > to say.
> >
> >
> > joseph (cor e form art) + (porat per ance ist)
> > frank + lyn - mc + El + roy
> >
> > go shopping -> http://www.electrichands.com/shopindex.htm
> > call me 646 279 2309
> >
> > SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER CUPCAKEKALEIDOSCOPE - send email to
> > CupcakeKleidoscope-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Quoting Eryk Salvaggio <eryk@maine.rr.com>:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> What's interesting is, after removing myself from the pit for a while, I
> >> pretty much agree with a lot of what Karei has to say. There are some
> >> things I don't quite accept- that religion is concerned with the
> >> liberation of individuals from mass programming, for example. From my
> >> experience with religion- which is limited in actual practice to
> >> Protestant Catholicism; the ideas are there- as they are in all
> >> religion- but are taught, more often than not, by people who abuse it.
> >> But the point that confusing "religion" with "abuse of religion" is
> >> extremely valid. But I still have to wonder, if something very true is
> >> corrupted, and the corrupted version is taught, is it still the truth? I
> >> mean the reason I have criticized organized religion in the past has
> >> been because of the corruption of very true ideas.
> >>
> >> I've also, from matters removed from the internet art world, been
> >> considering the role of delusion in my own life, and it has been
> >> abundant. I have gone on an "art vacation", that is, I've ceased
> >> creating any work, or contemplating work, and have instead focused on
> >> the means with which I interact with other human beings; and a great
> >> deal of work remains to be done concerning the means of manipulating
> >> others as a manner of achieving what I want. I certainly have a bit of a
> >> fascist streak; and I don't intend to. I think a truly powerful person
> >> would have a mastery over thier own intent, and making sure it lines up
> >> with thier actions, consistently. That has got to be really hard, and I
> >> am starting to even figure out how this can be done. The problem is that
> >> even what I "want" can be so obscured by denials of wanting it; or
> >> distractions of wanting things, based on my own concept of who I am. It
> >> is interesting to have an actual epiphany concerning my own desires;
> >> where they come from and why I have them, what gaps they are addressed
> >> to fill.
> >>
> >> I don't really agree with a lot of past statements; or the methods I've
> >> used to put them across. It is not because of Karei that I've realized
> >> this- I realized it on my own, by looking at myself long enough, and
> >> then realized that a lot of what I was starting to see matched up with
> >> some of Karei's observations. Not all, however. Like, I don't see a
> >> problem with any of the art I've made. I like the work I've done lately.
> >> I think it's good, and I really don't see my own ego in it at all. It
> >> could be better though. It does deal with the external world, and what I
> >> have seen and how I have interpreted it. I do wonder if there is a
> >> possible method for creating art that isn't based on abstraction, but
> >> still addresses some kind of internal reflection. I think there must be.
> >> Suggestions would be welcome.
> >>
> >> The other interesting thing I've noticed is that I can have an
> >> immediate, very real understanding of things in the field of Zen and
> >> Sufism, but then I memorize them. The memorization process is a very
> >> cold killer, I believe, for any real internal action (and memorization
> >> isn't the same as internalization.) When I memorize something, I turn it
> >> into a "trick," which is also something Karei had pointed out before.
> >> Having a "trick" isn't good enough I don't think, I mean you can't apply
> >> these things in a dead way. I think it's really nice to say to myself
> >> that I'm really good at living in the moment, that I am a good person
> >> all the time, that my ambitions are pure and clean, but in actuality
> >> they may not even be. I can't tell until I really look at them. It may
> >> be true for other people, so I am just posting some observations on the
> >> process as a sort of greetings, since I have signed back on to the list
> >> now that I am more accepting, and not so frustrated with things and
> >> hopefully not as willing to toss tantrums, no matter how indirect. I'm
> >> extremely hesitant to say this, but I will, anyway, but I feel I owe
> >> Karei an apology for my past behavior towards him/her. A large part of
> >> my behavior was, as was stated, knee jerk reactions to positions that
> >> put me on the defensive. I don't take criticism very well; it's an ego
> >> thing, it stems a lot from insecurity, though, and this perception that
> >> I was getting kicked in the teeth put me into a pretty negative state. I
> >> kind of think it's up to the individual to decide when to look at
> >> themselves, but at the same time I think it is such an urgent matter for
> >> people.
> >>
> >> I think it can be a bad thing to be entirely comfortable with who I am;
> >> in a way where I live with responses that are entirely appropriate. I
> >> think after looking for a while I've finally rediscovered the means of
> >> surprising myself (and naturally, not by way of thrill seeking or
> >> novelty hunting, like, not by distractions but by clumsy attempts at
> >> awareness), which is a really great experience, even if it is, at the
> >> same time, completely terrifying. But sometimes it's also funny; its not
> >> like getting crushed but like being lifted up. I mean, here are some
> >> questions: How do I get back to a true zero, a blank state free of
> >> external influences? I mean look at everything I have: gender, race,
> >> economy, nationality, social standing. I mean, being born with a single
> >> parent or married parents or a parent who dies young or who is
> >> overbearing, these things can change who think one thinks they are and
> >> block access to who one actually is. It is almost infinite how many
> >> things stand in the way of "the face we have before we are born," and it
> >> does, indeed, take a great deal more work than reading books on zen and
> >> sufism and memorizing slogans such as that one. I mean I have to wonder
> >> if I am alone in reading books like that and pretending like I know all
> >> of it.
> >>
> >> So I'm not going to make any real art for a while, I think that's good
> >> to do, I kind of want to blank out the storage bin in my head for self
> >> concept. I'm no master, obviously, and probably even writing this email,
> >> on the subject of "I," is a kind of arrogance, but it's not harming
> >> others, I don't believe, so I am not very worried. I think there's a
> >> level beyond a level, I mean you can say "I do A because of B, and I do
> >> B because of C," but sometimes its good to say, "I do, and why?" and not
> >> have a very linear explanation for it. I've come up with some surprising
> >> concepts that way, I mean that's what surprises me about myself.
> >>
> >> Also, I do believe all people have the capacity to "become good" but I
> >> think I'd rather define it as "becoming true," and I don't agree that
> >> one either is or isn't. I think there is a process where a lot of it is
> >> in between, and I think being in between can make some people really
> >> beautiful, if only in pockets, because there will be pockets of being
> >> true, followed by stumbling. I guess I don't want to condemn people for
> >> stumbling, but I see Karei as creating a sort of spiritual ashphalt
> >> where if you stumble on the truth, you scrape your knees. I think I have
> >> preferred the soft grass approach, where people can stumble and lie down
> >> for a while in the delusional world. I guess I have always figured that
> >> if I stumble it means I am trying, but I do need to get up again as fast
> >> as possible, instead of focusing on the nobility of "try."
> >>
> >> Anyway, that's just what I have been thinking about. I kind of feel like
> >> Karei deserves a bit of credit, I mean, beyond arguments over whether
> >> mailing lists are the place to approach this sort of thing, which is
> >> definately arguable on some level, but if it has had some effect on
> >> what's been happening lately [and it's entirely possible] then I think
> >> the point is mute.
> >>
> >>
> >> -e.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> >> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> >> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> >> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> >> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> >> +
> >> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> >> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> > + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> > -> post: list@rhizome.org
> > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > +
> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> >
:)
joseph (cor e form art) + (porat per ance ist)
frank + lyn - mc + El + roy
go shopping -> http://www.electrichands.com/shopindex.htm
call me 646 279 2309
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER CUPCAKEKALEIDOSCOPE - send email to
CupcakeKleidoscope-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Quoting Ivan Pope <ivan@ivanpope.com>:
> This is in danger of becoming a K lovein. K does make some interesting
> points. But, he is such a rude and obnoxious shit, that who really cares?
> Cheers, Happy Xms and shame about Joe Strummer, Ivan
> --
> Ivan Pope
> ivan@ivanpope.com
> www.ivanpope.com
>
>
> "Faster, faster, until the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death"
> Hunter S. Thompson
>
> > From: "joseph (yes)" <joseph@electrichands.com>
> > Reply-To: "joseph (yes)" <joseph@electrichands.com>
> > Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 15:06:47 +0000
> > To: Eryk Salvaggio <eryk@maine.rr.com>
> > Cc: list@rhizome.org
> > Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: On Karei, AKA, What I Did On My Vacation
> >
> > I find that some of what Karai says about me is not without truth, so I
> start
> > wondering if I am being converted or awakened. And then I get insecure, for
> if
> > it is the latter, and I reject the conversion, what do I do about the
> truths I
> > found? It means a hell of a lot of work. I have just gotten used to the
> idea
> > that there is no identifiable truths, which conclusion results similarly
> from
> > an uninformed knowledge of religion and rejection of its corrupted
> structures,
> > and now that supposed foundation is shaking. I am also irritated by
> Karai's
> > insistence upon his perfection when his obvious misreading of various posts
> > and
> > other mistakes are evidence to the contrary. In fact, it is this
> insistence,
> > that makes me reject him while at the same time I am interested in what he
> has
> > to say.
> >
> >
> > joseph (cor e form art) + (porat per ance ist)
> > frank + lyn - mc + El + roy
> >
> > go shopping -> http://www.electrichands.com/shopindex.htm
> > call me 646 279 2309
> >
> > SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER CUPCAKEKALEIDOSCOPE - send email to
> > CupcakeKleidoscope-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Quoting Eryk Salvaggio <eryk@maine.rr.com>:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> What's interesting is, after removing myself from the pit for a while, I
> >> pretty much agree with a lot of what Karei has to say. There are some
> >> things I don't quite accept- that religion is concerned with the
> >> liberation of individuals from mass programming, for example. From my
> >> experience with religion- which is limited in actual practice to
> >> Protestant Catholicism; the ideas are there- as they are in all
> >> religion- but are taught, more often than not, by people who abuse it.
> >> But the point that confusing "religion" with "abuse of religion" is
> >> extremely valid. But I still have to wonder, if something very true is
> >> corrupted, and the corrupted version is taught, is it still the truth? I
> >> mean the reason I have criticized organized religion in the past has
> >> been because of the corruption of very true ideas.
> >>
> >> I've also, from matters removed from the internet art world, been
> >> considering the role of delusion in my own life, and it has been
> >> abundant. I have gone on an "art vacation", that is, I've ceased
> >> creating any work, or contemplating work, and have instead focused on
> >> the means with which I interact with other human beings; and a great
> >> deal of work remains to be done concerning the means of manipulating
> >> others as a manner of achieving what I want. I certainly have a bit of a
> >> fascist streak; and I don't intend to. I think a truly powerful person
> >> would have a mastery over thier own intent, and making sure it lines up
> >> with thier actions, consistently. That has got to be really hard, and I
> >> am starting to even figure out how this can be done. The problem is that
> >> even what I "want" can be so obscured by denials of wanting it; or
> >> distractions of wanting things, based on my own concept of who I am. It
> >> is interesting to have an actual epiphany concerning my own desires;
> >> where they come from and why I have them, what gaps they are addressed
> >> to fill.
> >>
> >> I don't really agree with a lot of past statements; or the methods I've
> >> used to put them across. It is not because of Karei that I've realized
> >> this- I realized it on my own, by looking at myself long enough, and
> >> then realized that a lot of what I was starting to see matched up with
> >> some of Karei's observations. Not all, however. Like, I don't see a
> >> problem with any of the art I've made. I like the work I've done lately.
> >> I think it's good, and I really don't see my own ego in it at all. It
> >> could be better though. It does deal with the external world, and what I
> >> have seen and how I have interpreted it. I do wonder if there is a
> >> possible method for creating art that isn't based on abstraction, but
> >> still addresses some kind of internal reflection. I think there must be.
> >> Suggestions would be welcome.
> >>
> >> The other interesting thing I've noticed is that I can have an
> >> immediate, very real understanding of things in the field of Zen and
> >> Sufism, but then I memorize them. The memorization process is a very
> >> cold killer, I believe, for any real internal action (and memorization
> >> isn't the same as internalization.) When I memorize something, I turn it
> >> into a "trick," which is also something Karei had pointed out before.
> >> Having a "trick" isn't good enough I don't think, I mean you can't apply
> >> these things in a dead way. I think it's really nice to say to myself
> >> that I'm really good at living in the moment, that I am a good person
> >> all the time, that my ambitions are pure and clean, but in actuality
> >> they may not even be. I can't tell until I really look at them. It may
> >> be true for other people, so I am just posting some observations on the
> >> process as a sort of greetings, since I have signed back on to the list
> >> now that I am more accepting, and not so frustrated with things and
> >> hopefully not as willing to toss tantrums, no matter how indirect. I'm
> >> extremely hesitant to say this, but I will, anyway, but I feel I owe
> >> Karei an apology for my past behavior towards him/her. A large part of
> >> my behavior was, as was stated, knee jerk reactions to positions that
> >> put me on the defensive. I don't take criticism very well; it's an ego
> >> thing, it stems a lot from insecurity, though, and this perception that
> >> I was getting kicked in the teeth put me into a pretty negative state. I
> >> kind of think it's up to the individual to decide when to look at
> >> themselves, but at the same time I think it is such an urgent matter for
> >> people.
> >>
> >> I think it can be a bad thing to be entirely comfortable with who I am;
> >> in a way where I live with responses that are entirely appropriate. I
> >> think after looking for a while I've finally rediscovered the means of
> >> surprising myself (and naturally, not by way of thrill seeking or
> >> novelty hunting, like, not by distractions but by clumsy attempts at
> >> awareness), which is a really great experience, even if it is, at the
> >> same time, completely terrifying. But sometimes it's also funny; its not
> >> like getting crushed but like being lifted up. I mean, here are some
> >> questions: How do I get back to a true zero, a blank state free of
> >> external influences? I mean look at everything I have: gender, race,
> >> economy, nationality, social standing. I mean, being born with a single
> >> parent or married parents or a parent who dies young or who is
> >> overbearing, these things can change who think one thinks they are and
> >> block access to who one actually is. It is almost infinite how many
> >> things stand in the way of "the face we have before we are born," and it
> >> does, indeed, take a great deal more work than reading books on zen and
> >> sufism and memorizing slogans such as that one. I mean I have to wonder
> >> if I am alone in reading books like that and pretending like I know all
> >> of it.
> >>
> >> So I'm not going to make any real art for a while, I think that's good
> >> to do, I kind of want to blank out the storage bin in my head for self
> >> concept. I'm no master, obviously, and probably even writing this email,
> >> on the subject of "I," is a kind of arrogance, but it's not harming
> >> others, I don't believe, so I am not very worried. I think there's a
> >> level beyond a level, I mean you can say "I do A because of B, and I do
> >> B because of C," but sometimes its good to say, "I do, and why?" and not
> >> have a very linear explanation for it. I've come up with some surprising
> >> concepts that way, I mean that's what surprises me about myself.
> >>
> >> Also, I do believe all people have the capacity to "become good" but I
> >> think I'd rather define it as "becoming true," and I don't agree that
> >> one either is or isn't. I think there is a process where a lot of it is
> >> in between, and I think being in between can make some people really
> >> beautiful, if only in pockets, because there will be pockets of being
> >> true, followed by stumbling. I guess I don't want to condemn people for
> >> stumbling, but I see Karei as creating a sort of spiritual ashphalt
> >> where if you stumble on the truth, you scrape your knees. I think I have
> >> preferred the soft grass approach, where people can stumble and lie down
> >> for a while in the delusional world. I guess I have always figured that
> >> if I stumble it means I am trying, but I do need to get up again as fast
> >> as possible, instead of focusing on the nobility of "try."
> >>
> >> Anyway, that's just what I have been thinking about. I kind of feel like
> >> Karei deserves a bit of credit, I mean, beyond arguments over whether
> >> mailing lists are the place to approach this sort of thing, which is
> >> definately arguable on some level, but if it has had some effect on
> >> what's been happening lately [and it's entirely possible] then I think
> >> the point is mute.
> >>
> >>
> >> -e.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> >> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> >> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> >> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> >> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> >> +
> >> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> >> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> > + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> > -> post: list@rhizome.org
> > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > +
> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> >
Re: On Karei, AKA, What I Did On My Vacation
I find that some of what Karai says about me is not without truth, so I start
wondering if I am being converted or awakened. And then I get insecure, for if
it is the latter, and I reject the conversion, what do I do about the truths I
found? It means a hell of a lot of work. I have just gotten used to the idea
that there is no identifiable truths, which conclusion results similarly from
an uninformed knowledge of religion and rejection of its corrupted structures,
and now that supposed foundation is shaking. I am also irritated by Karai's
insistence upon his perfection when his obvious misreading of various posts and
other mistakes are evidence to the contrary. In fact, it is this insistence,
that makes me reject him while at the same time I am interested in what he has
to say.
joseph (cor e form art) + (porat per ance ist)
frank + lyn - mc + El + roy
go shopping -> http://www.electrichands.com/shopindex.htm
call me 646 279 2309
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER CUPCAKEKALEIDOSCOPE - send email to
CupcakeKleidoscope-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Quoting Eryk Salvaggio <eryk@maine.rr.com>:
>
>
>
> What's interesting is, after removing myself from the pit for a while, I
> pretty much agree with a lot of what Karei has to say. There are some
> things I don't quite accept- that religion is concerned with the
> liberation of individuals from mass programming, for example. From my
> experience with religion- which is limited in actual practice to
> Protestant Catholicism; the ideas are there- as they are in all
> religion- but are taught, more often than not, by people who abuse it.
> But the point that confusing "religion" with "abuse of religion" is
> extremely valid. But I still have to wonder, if something very true is
> corrupted, and the corrupted version is taught, is it still the truth? I
> mean the reason I have criticized organized religion in the past has
> been because of the corruption of very true ideas.
>
> I've also, from matters removed from the internet art world, been
> considering the role of delusion in my own life, and it has been
> abundant. I have gone on an "art vacation", that is, I've ceased
> creating any work, or contemplating work, and have instead focused on
> the means with which I interact with other human beings; and a great
> deal of work remains to be done concerning the means of manipulating
> others as a manner of achieving what I want. I certainly have a bit of a
> fascist streak; and I don't intend to. I think a truly powerful person
> would have a mastery over thier own intent, and making sure it lines up
> with thier actions, consistently. That has got to be really hard, and I
> am starting to even figure out how this can be done. The problem is that
> even what I "want" can be so obscured by denials of wanting it; or
> distractions of wanting things, based on my own concept of who I am. It
> is interesting to have an actual epiphany concerning my own desires;
> where they come from and why I have them, what gaps they are addressed
> to fill.
>
> I don't really agree with a lot of past statements; or the methods I've
> used to put them across. It is not because of Karei that I've realized
> this- I realized it on my own, by looking at myself long enough, and
> then realized that a lot of what I was starting to see matched up with
> some of Karei's observations. Not all, however. Like, I don't see a
> problem with any of the art I've made. I like the work I've done lately.
> I think it's good, and I really don't see my own ego in it at all. It
> could be better though. It does deal with the external world, and what I
> have seen and how I have interpreted it. I do wonder if there is a
> possible method for creating art that isn't based on abstraction, but
> still addresses some kind of internal reflection. I think there must be.
> Suggestions would be welcome.
>
> The other interesting thing I've noticed is that I can have an
> immediate, very real understanding of things in the field of Zen and
> Sufism, but then I memorize them. The memorization process is a very
> cold killer, I believe, for any real internal action (and memorization
> isn't the same as internalization.) When I memorize something, I turn it
> into a "trick," which is also something Karei had pointed out before.
> Having a "trick" isn't good enough I don't think, I mean you can't apply
> these things in a dead way. I think it's really nice to say to myself
> that I'm really good at living in the moment, that I am a good person
> all the time, that my ambitions are pure and clean, but in actuality
> they may not even be. I can't tell until I really look at them. It may
> be true for other people, so I am just posting some observations on the
> process as a sort of greetings, since I have signed back on to the list
> now that I am more accepting, and not so frustrated with things and
> hopefully not as willing to toss tantrums, no matter how indirect. I'm
> extremely hesitant to say this, but I will, anyway, but I feel I owe
> Karei an apology for my past behavior towards him/her. A large part of
> my behavior was, as was stated, knee jerk reactions to positions that
> put me on the defensive. I don't take criticism very well; it's an ego
> thing, it stems a lot from insecurity, though, and this perception that
> I was getting kicked in the teeth put me into a pretty negative state. I
> kind of think it's up to the individual to decide when to look at
> themselves, but at the same time I think it is such an urgent matter for
> people.
>
> I think it can be a bad thing to be entirely comfortable with who I am;
> in a way where I live with responses that are entirely appropriate. I
> think after looking for a while I've finally rediscovered the means of
> surprising myself (and naturally, not by way of thrill seeking or
> novelty hunting, like, not by distractions but by clumsy attempts at
> awareness), which is a really great experience, even if it is, at the
> same time, completely terrifying. But sometimes it's also funny; its not
> like getting crushed but like being lifted up. I mean, here are some
> questions: How do I get back to a true zero, a blank state free of
> external influences? I mean look at everything I have: gender, race,
> economy, nationality, social standing. I mean, being born with a single
> parent or married parents or a parent who dies young or who is
> overbearing, these things can change who think one thinks they are and
> block access to who one actually is. It is almost infinite how many
> things stand in the way of "the face we have before we are born," and it
> does, indeed, take a great deal more work than reading books on zen and
> sufism and memorizing slogans such as that one. I mean I have to wonder
> if I am alone in reading books like that and pretending like I know all
> of it.
>
> So I'm not going to make any real art for a while, I think that's good
> to do, I kind of want to blank out the storage bin in my head for self
> concept. I'm no master, obviously, and probably even writing this email,
> on the subject of "I," is a kind of arrogance, but it's not harming
> others, I don't believe, so I am not very worried. I think there's a
> level beyond a level, I mean you can say "I do A because of B, and I do
> B because of C," but sometimes its good to say, "I do, and why?" and not
> have a very linear explanation for it. I've come up with some surprising
> concepts that way, I mean that's what surprises me about myself.
>
> Also, I do believe all people have the capacity to "become good" but I
> think I'd rather define it as "becoming true," and I don't agree that
> one either is or isn't. I think there is a process where a lot of it is
> in between, and I think being in between can make some people really
> beautiful, if only in pockets, because there will be pockets of being
> true, followed by stumbling. I guess I don't want to condemn people for
> stumbling, but I see Karei as creating a sort of spiritual ashphalt
> where if you stumble on the truth, you scrape your knees. I think I have
> preferred the soft grass approach, where people can stumble and lie down
> for a while in the delusional world. I guess I have always figured that
> if I stumble it means I am trying, but I do need to get up again as fast
> as possible, instead of focusing on the nobility of "try."
>
> Anyway, that's just what I have been thinking about. I kind of feel like
> Karei deserves a bit of credit, I mean, beyond arguments over whether
> mailing lists are the place to approach this sort of thing, which is
> definately arguable on some level, but if it has had some effect on
> what's been happening lately [and it's entirely possible] then I think
> the point is mute.
>
>
> -e.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
wondering if I am being converted or awakened. And then I get insecure, for if
it is the latter, and I reject the conversion, what do I do about the truths I
found? It means a hell of a lot of work. I have just gotten used to the idea
that there is no identifiable truths, which conclusion results similarly from
an uninformed knowledge of religion and rejection of its corrupted structures,
and now that supposed foundation is shaking. I am also irritated by Karai's
insistence upon his perfection when his obvious misreading of various posts and
other mistakes are evidence to the contrary. In fact, it is this insistence,
that makes me reject him while at the same time I am interested in what he has
to say.
joseph (cor e form art) + (porat per ance ist)
frank + lyn - mc + El + roy
go shopping -> http://www.electrichands.com/shopindex.htm
call me 646 279 2309
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER CUPCAKEKALEIDOSCOPE - send email to
CupcakeKleidoscope-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Quoting Eryk Salvaggio <eryk@maine.rr.com>:
>
>
>
> What's interesting is, after removing myself from the pit for a while, I
> pretty much agree with a lot of what Karei has to say. There are some
> things I don't quite accept- that religion is concerned with the
> liberation of individuals from mass programming, for example. From my
> experience with religion- which is limited in actual practice to
> Protestant Catholicism; the ideas are there- as they are in all
> religion- but are taught, more often than not, by people who abuse it.
> But the point that confusing "religion" with "abuse of religion" is
> extremely valid. But I still have to wonder, if something very true is
> corrupted, and the corrupted version is taught, is it still the truth? I
> mean the reason I have criticized organized religion in the past has
> been because of the corruption of very true ideas.
>
> I've also, from matters removed from the internet art world, been
> considering the role of delusion in my own life, and it has been
> abundant. I have gone on an "art vacation", that is, I've ceased
> creating any work, or contemplating work, and have instead focused on
> the means with which I interact with other human beings; and a great
> deal of work remains to be done concerning the means of manipulating
> others as a manner of achieving what I want. I certainly have a bit of a
> fascist streak; and I don't intend to. I think a truly powerful person
> would have a mastery over thier own intent, and making sure it lines up
> with thier actions, consistently. That has got to be really hard, and I
> am starting to even figure out how this can be done. The problem is that
> even what I "want" can be so obscured by denials of wanting it; or
> distractions of wanting things, based on my own concept of who I am. It
> is interesting to have an actual epiphany concerning my own desires;
> where they come from and why I have them, what gaps they are addressed
> to fill.
>
> I don't really agree with a lot of past statements; or the methods I've
> used to put them across. It is not because of Karei that I've realized
> this- I realized it on my own, by looking at myself long enough, and
> then realized that a lot of what I was starting to see matched up with
> some of Karei's observations. Not all, however. Like, I don't see a
> problem with any of the art I've made. I like the work I've done lately.
> I think it's good, and I really don't see my own ego in it at all. It
> could be better though. It does deal with the external world, and what I
> have seen and how I have interpreted it. I do wonder if there is a
> possible method for creating art that isn't based on abstraction, but
> still addresses some kind of internal reflection. I think there must be.
> Suggestions would be welcome.
>
> The other interesting thing I've noticed is that I can have an
> immediate, very real understanding of things in the field of Zen and
> Sufism, but then I memorize them. The memorization process is a very
> cold killer, I believe, for any real internal action (and memorization
> isn't the same as internalization.) When I memorize something, I turn it
> into a "trick," which is also something Karei had pointed out before.
> Having a "trick" isn't good enough I don't think, I mean you can't apply
> these things in a dead way. I think it's really nice to say to myself
> that I'm really good at living in the moment, that I am a good person
> all the time, that my ambitions are pure and clean, but in actuality
> they may not even be. I can't tell until I really look at them. It may
> be true for other people, so I am just posting some observations on the
> process as a sort of greetings, since I have signed back on to the list
> now that I am more accepting, and not so frustrated with things and
> hopefully not as willing to toss tantrums, no matter how indirect. I'm
> extremely hesitant to say this, but I will, anyway, but I feel I owe
> Karei an apology for my past behavior towards him/her. A large part of
> my behavior was, as was stated, knee jerk reactions to positions that
> put me on the defensive. I don't take criticism very well; it's an ego
> thing, it stems a lot from insecurity, though, and this perception that
> I was getting kicked in the teeth put me into a pretty negative state. I
> kind of think it's up to the individual to decide when to look at
> themselves, but at the same time I think it is such an urgent matter for
> people.
>
> I think it can be a bad thing to be entirely comfortable with who I am;
> in a way where I live with responses that are entirely appropriate. I
> think after looking for a while I've finally rediscovered the means of
> surprising myself (and naturally, not by way of thrill seeking or
> novelty hunting, like, not by distractions but by clumsy attempts at
> awareness), which is a really great experience, even if it is, at the
> same time, completely terrifying. But sometimes it's also funny; its not
> like getting crushed but like being lifted up. I mean, here are some
> questions: How do I get back to a true zero, a blank state free of
> external influences? I mean look at everything I have: gender, race,
> economy, nationality, social standing. I mean, being born with a single
> parent or married parents or a parent who dies young or who is
> overbearing, these things can change who think one thinks they are and
> block access to who one actually is. It is almost infinite how many
> things stand in the way of "the face we have before we are born," and it
> does, indeed, take a great deal more work than reading books on zen and
> sufism and memorizing slogans such as that one. I mean I have to wonder
> if I am alone in reading books like that and pretending like I know all
> of it.
>
> So I'm not going to make any real art for a while, I think that's good
> to do, I kind of want to blank out the storage bin in my head for self
> concept. I'm no master, obviously, and probably even writing this email,
> on the subject of "I," is a kind of arrogance, but it's not harming
> others, I don't believe, so I am not very worried. I think there's a
> level beyond a level, I mean you can say "I do A because of B, and I do
> B because of C," but sometimes its good to say, "I do, and why?" and not
> have a very linear explanation for it. I've come up with some surprising
> concepts that way, I mean that's what surprises me about myself.
>
> Also, I do believe all people have the capacity to "become good" but I
> think I'd rather define it as "becoming true," and I don't agree that
> one either is or isn't. I think there is a process where a lot of it is
> in between, and I think being in between can make some people really
> beautiful, if only in pockets, because there will be pockets of being
> true, followed by stumbling. I guess I don't want to condemn people for
> stumbling, but I see Karei as creating a sort of spiritual ashphalt
> where if you stumble on the truth, you scrape your knees. I think I have
> preferred the soft grass approach, where people can stumble and lie down
> for a while in the delusional world. I guess I have always figured that
> if I stumble it means I am trying, but I do need to get up again as fast
> as possible, instead of focusing on the nobility of "try."
>
> Anyway, that's just what I have been thinking about. I kind of feel like
> Karei deserves a bit of credit, I mean, beyond arguments over whether
> mailing lists are the place to approach this sort of thing, which is
> definately arguable on some level, but if it has had some effect on
> what's been happening lately [and it's entirely possible] then I think
> the point is mute.
>
>
> -e.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
Re: FLUXLIST: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Joseph McElroy
Here is Yin and Yang used for fortune telling ...
http://www.fortuneangel.com/5EBasic.htm
Gives you shivers, doesn't it.
joseph (cor e form art) + (porat per ance ist)
frank + lyn - mc + El + roy
go shopping -> http://www.electrichands.com/shopindex.htm
call me 646 279 2309
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER CUPCAKEKALEIDOSCOPE - send email to
CupcakeKleidoscope-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Quoting "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <death@zaphod.terminal.org>:
> On Sat, 21 Dec 2002, joseph (yes) wrote:
>
> > Ying and Yang are two clowns hanging out in a Bejiing disco.
>
> No, babycheeks they are not.
>
> > It doesn't matter how you want to define them,
>
> Yin and yanga re not defined. They simply are.
> Nor do we "want". We lack desires of such sort.
> Nor do we DEFINE.
>
> > or how they have been defined in the past.
>
> They haven't been "defined in the past".
> They simply ARE.
>
> > They are proproganda for an ancient worldview...
>
> No babycheeks. They are not propaganda.
> It is not a worldview.. no matter how much you wishful project
> it'sa worldview.. Nor is it 'ancient'.
>
> > I reject them..
>
> You have no capacity to "reject" objective reality babycheeks.
> Do you "reject" the sun? You are simply knee-jerking
> pseudo-rebelliously. "I reject, I reject".
> You have no awareness of them at all.
>
>
> >.perhaps I would be interested in a dynamic variation that grew up recently.
>
> Yes, reality would revolve around your dictatorial ape brain.
> Yin and yang are perfectly dynamic, love.
>
> > You, however, think
>
> No babycheeks. We DONT think. No matter how much you froth at the
> mouth and project, project, we will not start thinking :)
>
>
> > you have found reality in failed viewpoints of the past.
>
> How lovely. The IGNORANT dictatorial ape keeps dictating
> its IGNORANT wishful projection as if it is reality.
> Yin and Yang in itself is not a viewpoint.
> It is not an opinion babycheeks. And it's not failed.
> You are not capable of judging these things.
>
> > This just makes you a
> > failure, ineffective, and ridiculous.
>
> No babycheeks. The only "failure, ineffective, and ridiculous"
> here is you. You are acting on par with a sub-mediocre high school
> idiot. 'I don't get it, so I will rebel'. Add on some peer pressure
> "it makes you look funny" "it makes you a failure".
>
> Infantile ape.
>
> > What especially makes you seem ludicrous
>
> No dearest. We DO NOT seem ludicrious. And we are NOT ludicrous.
>
> > is choosing to resort to "YOUR FAT" in your attempt to hurt me.
>
> Dearest we didnt RESORT to "you are fat". You are FAT.
> It's a fact. And if you had any mastery or understanding
> of YIn and YANg you WOULDN'T be. But it's just so easy
> to REJECt and Self-DESTRUCT than do the right thing is it not?
>
> Nor were we interested in hurting you.
> We have no such desires or intent.
> We stated that.
>
> > Are you going to shoot spitballs at me next?
>
> No, that is what YOu are doing, love.
> "I REJECT YIN AND YANG"
> "YOU LOOK LUDICROUS"
> "YOU ARE A FAILURE"
>
> Pointing out that humans with mastery of yin & yang are
> not fat is not an attack. fatness is a condition similar
> to ignorance. It's "curable". But it must be recognized
> in order to be cured. Stating yoir fatness or your ignorance
> is only an attack if you live in a world of self-delusion.
>
> While you live in self-delusion you cannot, of your own volition,
> be of service. This is not a "point of view".
>
> > It is arrogant
>
> Babycheeks we lack arrogance completely.
> The only one arrogant here is you.
> And you are arrogant enough to fancy that you are capable
> of perceiving anything outside of your ego, despite
> plentiful evidence to the contrary.
>
> You're indeed catatonic.
>
> > male children like you,
>
> Male is not an insult babycheeks.
> And none of us here are children.
> The "children juz playing" here are you.
> We are sure you have a "problem"
> with confident male children, however.
>
> They'd laugh at you and point : the emperor has no clothes.
>
> > who are sure they know REALITY,
>
> We are not "sure we know REALITY".
> We Do know it.
>
> > who are
> > destroyers of reality.
>
> No babycheeks. Reality cannot be destroyed.
> Your simpletonistic ignorant drivel knows no end.
> Nothing is "destroyed" except the chance for conscious development.
> And you do that.
>
> When will you stop with your ignorant cheap attempts at character
> assassination because we have pointed out EXACTLY how ignorant
> and idiotic you are?
>
>
>
> > If you want to show yourself
>
> We are not interested in "showing ourselves".
> What you want is "proof". You want humans to act as bitches ona "leash"
> to your brain.
> Sorry. Nobody owes you any proofs.
> Shove your cheap attemptsa t "guilt" "shame' passive-aggressiveness"
> control.
>
> > as something other than an arrogant
>
> We have not showed ourselves as an arrigant follower, babycheeks.
> We are NOT an arrogant follower.
>
> > FOLLOWER,
>
> Talk about infantilism. Leaders just sit around waiting to be
> knee-jerked by cheap attempts of passive-aggressive leash pulling by the
> above. That's laughable.
>
> Leaders babycheeks do not PROVE themselves to your idiotic brains.
> Nor do they care about OPINIONS of others.
>
> > demonstrate a NEW evolution of practice/theory.
>
> Therea re no NEW evolutions babycheeks.
> Nor are we here to "demonstrate; anything to you.
> You're truly egotistically catatonic aren't ya?
> Who are you Joseph? Exactly who are you?
> The only one who needs to "demonstrate' anything baycheeks
> IS YOU. YOU need to demonstrate yourself worthy. TO The universe.
>
> And you aren't.
>
> You simply are NOT.
>
> You will receive nothing.
>
> And you are not WORTHY of having anything "shown" to you.
>
> Don't even think about trying to turn this aroundm you idiotic
> passive-aggressuve egotist. :)
>
> > You are not a creator, just a
> > destroyer and follower.
>
> babycheeks. We are a creator.
> We are not a DESTROYER nor are we are FOLLOWER.
> Nor are there any PROBLEMS with FOLLOWERS.
> Humansa re created as FOLLOWERS in the majority.
> And that is just fine. Follower is not an "unworthy" position.
>
> Avoid using slapstick labeling in order to elicit proofs.
> This is simply an attempta t a mindfuck game.
>
> We dont think you heard it so far, so let us tell you
> again.
>
> YOU ARE REJECTED.
> YOU WILL RECEIVE NOTHING.
> YOU WILL BE SHOWN NOTHING.
> NOTHING WILL BE SHOWN TO YOU.
> And this will not LESSEN IN ONE BIT WHAT WE ARE.
>
> On the contrary, you're evidencing yourself more and more
> UNFIT. Passive aggressive. Idiotic.
>
> Do you really think that leaders exest so that they can
> "prove themselves" to you? Or anyone?
>
> The only responsibility ANY human being, a leader or a follower, has
> is to its INTENT. And INTENT doesnt care about your brain.
> It doesn't give a damn about "proofs". Its demands are far greater,
> yet its a private contract. Between human and intent.
>
> NOBODY owes you anything.
>
> Not only do you need the "bleating" community to FEED ENERGETICALLY ON,
> but you attempt standard bleating community tactics. It's called
> PEER PRESSURE IN THE US, isn't IT?
>
> When one starts PROVING one removes its center of action from INTENT
> into the BRAIN and becomes susceptible to mind-control games,
> as well as functioning properly.
>
> This ain't a yin yang theory.
> It's a FACT.
>
> And gee wiz, you want humans to start proving themselves to YOUR
> BRAIN (because the world revolves around your dick) and step
> away from their INTENT (path, strength).
>
> Is this part of the teaching them to be weak programy babycheeks?
>
> You just cannot STAND an independent person whose existence
> and value doesnt revolve around you CAN YOU?
>
> VALUE is self-evident.
> Your lack of ability to perceive it is your own simpleton problem.
>
> > And it is obvious that you are a bigot
>
> No dearest. Nothing of the sort is obvious.
> We are not a BIGOT. You are simply trying
> a simpleton character assassination trick
> (again and again).
>
> the only BIGOT here is you babycheeks.
> You are the one who fancies that "THIS KIND OF HUMANS ARE MAKING
> PROBLEMS".
> This kind of humans have been : christians, independent individuals,
> male yang leaders, male children, etc.
> These are your OWN WORDS.
> THIS_ is bigotry.
> There are no "groups of humans" who "cause the problems".
> You are simply projecting your own PROBLEMS OUTWARDLY
> and bashing others for them.
>
> Rather to the contrary, we have pointed out, and repeatedly,
> that there is no "type of humans who cause problems".
> And that problems are caused by individual ignorance.
> That humans are STRONG and can OVERCOME those problems.
> We have in fact stated on numerous occasions
> that anyone who wants to do the WORK can do it.
> One does not have to be a "leader".
>
> > - note - the ONLY slang term you used in
> > your eloquent description of MALE LEADERS
>
> We didn't use it in a description of MALE LEADERS.
> We used it in a description of YOU.
>
>
> > was the derogatory term for humans of
> > African descent.
>
> Yes, and we used the word to illustrate their behaviors.
> That is not "reflective" of our us.
> There are in fact humans existing who advocate LITERALLY
> that "niggers are the problem".
> Our stating that doesn't make us a bigot.
>
> > You are an incredibly UGLY person.
>
> No dearest, the only UGLY person here is you.
> You are narcissistic, selfish, arrogant,
> an energetic leech, ignorant, idiotic,
> murderous and masochistic.
>
> You LIE that your performances are "shamanic."
> You attempt to "reject" and "dismiss" teachings
> which you do not understand.
> You attempt to feed on others energy.
> You attempt to force_ your "relationship".
> You dismiss FACTS about human emotional well-being
> with some cheap "labels" of us being "ridiculous"
> just so that you can wash your hands clean from
> the contiuous murder that you are_ commiting.
>
> CONSCIOUSNESS is not some 'ancient teaching'.
>
> It would be hard to look at an artist in the duration
> of the entire 20c of any significance who hasn't
> addressed the issue.
>
> There is nothing "new". NEW is a delusion of the
> brain and the sensorial "apparatus". Reality
> exists outside of time.
>
> We have presented you with a large number of representative
>
> writers
> artists
> performance artists
> musicians
> both western and eastern.
>
> Tell us again how all shamans should be killed.
> That was marvellous.
>
> Or maybe even the Buddha should be killed?
>
> What do you say, why don't you stockpile all "ancient outdated
> and FAILED worldviews (the egotistical moron never realizing
> that it is him who is FAILING and not those systems)" and the
> churches, and the mosks, and the books, and paintings,
> and the lot of it and burn it.
>
> Then you can invite marc garret and you can attempt to emotionally
> kneejerk everybody, appeal to their infantile sexuality by attempts
> to control it (after all, one wouldn't WANT independent humans
> WOULD ONE?) and start teaching us allabout "luv" and "brotherhood.
>
> Then you can kill 845783478597489574 jews, and just
> wash your hands off. You could say that they wanted it.
> Or that they deserved it. Or that it didn't happen at all?
>
> At the bottom of it all Joseph, the hideous idiot here is you.
> You have denied ALL responsibility for any of your idiocies.
> You have attempted to blindly BASH anything put in front of you.
>
> And your problem with YANG energy is that humans are not controllable
> when in yang state. They are simply NOT. Whether followers or not.
>
> As for the ancient "outmoded worldview" homosexual gay magic
> is two-yang. It's absolutely not controllable at all.
> Hence Monsieur Hitler killed them off. We suppose it still worked
> in 1940s.
http://www.fortuneangel.com/5EBasic.htm
Gives you shivers, doesn't it.
joseph (cor e form art) + (porat per ance ist)
frank + lyn - mc + El + roy
go shopping -> http://www.electrichands.com/shopindex.htm
call me 646 279 2309
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER CUPCAKEKALEIDOSCOPE - send email to
CupcakeKleidoscope-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Quoting "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <death@zaphod.terminal.org>:
> On Sat, 21 Dec 2002, joseph (yes) wrote:
>
> > Ying and Yang are two clowns hanging out in a Bejiing disco.
>
> No, babycheeks they are not.
>
> > It doesn't matter how you want to define them,
>
> Yin and yanga re not defined. They simply are.
> Nor do we "want". We lack desires of such sort.
> Nor do we DEFINE.
>
> > or how they have been defined in the past.
>
> They haven't been "defined in the past".
> They simply ARE.
>
> > They are proproganda for an ancient worldview...
>
> No babycheeks. They are not propaganda.
> It is not a worldview.. no matter how much you wishful project
> it'sa worldview.. Nor is it 'ancient'.
>
> > I reject them..
>
> You have no capacity to "reject" objective reality babycheeks.
> Do you "reject" the sun? You are simply knee-jerking
> pseudo-rebelliously. "I reject, I reject".
> You have no awareness of them at all.
>
>
> >.perhaps I would be interested in a dynamic variation that grew up recently.
>
> Yes, reality would revolve around your dictatorial ape brain.
> Yin and yang are perfectly dynamic, love.
>
> > You, however, think
>
> No babycheeks. We DONT think. No matter how much you froth at the
> mouth and project, project, we will not start thinking :)
>
>
> > you have found reality in failed viewpoints of the past.
>
> How lovely. The IGNORANT dictatorial ape keeps dictating
> its IGNORANT wishful projection as if it is reality.
> Yin and Yang in itself is not a viewpoint.
> It is not an opinion babycheeks. And it's not failed.
> You are not capable of judging these things.
>
> > This just makes you a
> > failure, ineffective, and ridiculous.
>
> No babycheeks. The only "failure, ineffective, and ridiculous"
> here is you. You are acting on par with a sub-mediocre high school
> idiot. 'I don't get it, so I will rebel'. Add on some peer pressure
> "it makes you look funny" "it makes you a failure".
>
> Infantile ape.
>
> > What especially makes you seem ludicrous
>
> No dearest. We DO NOT seem ludicrious. And we are NOT ludicrous.
>
> > is choosing to resort to "YOUR FAT" in your attempt to hurt me.
>
> Dearest we didnt RESORT to "you are fat". You are FAT.
> It's a fact. And if you had any mastery or understanding
> of YIn and YANg you WOULDN'T be. But it's just so easy
> to REJECt and Self-DESTRUCT than do the right thing is it not?
>
> Nor were we interested in hurting you.
> We have no such desires or intent.
> We stated that.
>
> > Are you going to shoot spitballs at me next?
>
> No, that is what YOu are doing, love.
> "I REJECT YIN AND YANG"
> "YOU LOOK LUDICROUS"
> "YOU ARE A FAILURE"
>
> Pointing out that humans with mastery of yin & yang are
> not fat is not an attack. fatness is a condition similar
> to ignorance. It's "curable". But it must be recognized
> in order to be cured. Stating yoir fatness or your ignorance
> is only an attack if you live in a world of self-delusion.
>
> While you live in self-delusion you cannot, of your own volition,
> be of service. This is not a "point of view".
>
> > It is arrogant
>
> Babycheeks we lack arrogance completely.
> The only one arrogant here is you.
> And you are arrogant enough to fancy that you are capable
> of perceiving anything outside of your ego, despite
> plentiful evidence to the contrary.
>
> You're indeed catatonic.
>
> > male children like you,
>
> Male is not an insult babycheeks.
> And none of us here are children.
> The "children juz playing" here are you.
> We are sure you have a "problem"
> with confident male children, however.
>
> They'd laugh at you and point : the emperor has no clothes.
>
> > who are sure they know REALITY,
>
> We are not "sure we know REALITY".
> We Do know it.
>
> > who are
> > destroyers of reality.
>
> No babycheeks. Reality cannot be destroyed.
> Your simpletonistic ignorant drivel knows no end.
> Nothing is "destroyed" except the chance for conscious development.
> And you do that.
>
> When will you stop with your ignorant cheap attempts at character
> assassination because we have pointed out EXACTLY how ignorant
> and idiotic you are?
>
>
>
> > If you want to show yourself
>
> We are not interested in "showing ourselves".
> What you want is "proof". You want humans to act as bitches ona "leash"
> to your brain.
> Sorry. Nobody owes you any proofs.
> Shove your cheap attemptsa t "guilt" "shame' passive-aggressiveness"
> control.
>
> > as something other than an arrogant
>
> We have not showed ourselves as an arrigant follower, babycheeks.
> We are NOT an arrogant follower.
>
> > FOLLOWER,
>
> Talk about infantilism. Leaders just sit around waiting to be
> knee-jerked by cheap attempts of passive-aggressive leash pulling by the
> above. That's laughable.
>
> Leaders babycheeks do not PROVE themselves to your idiotic brains.
> Nor do they care about OPINIONS of others.
>
> > demonstrate a NEW evolution of practice/theory.
>
> Therea re no NEW evolutions babycheeks.
> Nor are we here to "demonstrate; anything to you.
> You're truly egotistically catatonic aren't ya?
> Who are you Joseph? Exactly who are you?
> The only one who needs to "demonstrate' anything baycheeks
> IS YOU. YOU need to demonstrate yourself worthy. TO The universe.
>
> And you aren't.
>
> You simply are NOT.
>
> You will receive nothing.
>
> And you are not WORTHY of having anything "shown" to you.
>
> Don't even think about trying to turn this aroundm you idiotic
> passive-aggressuve egotist. :)
>
> > You are not a creator, just a
> > destroyer and follower.
>
> babycheeks. We are a creator.
> We are not a DESTROYER nor are we are FOLLOWER.
> Nor are there any PROBLEMS with FOLLOWERS.
> Humansa re created as FOLLOWERS in the majority.
> And that is just fine. Follower is not an "unworthy" position.
>
> Avoid using slapstick labeling in order to elicit proofs.
> This is simply an attempta t a mindfuck game.
>
> We dont think you heard it so far, so let us tell you
> again.
>
> YOU ARE REJECTED.
> YOU WILL RECEIVE NOTHING.
> YOU WILL BE SHOWN NOTHING.
> NOTHING WILL BE SHOWN TO YOU.
> And this will not LESSEN IN ONE BIT WHAT WE ARE.
>
> On the contrary, you're evidencing yourself more and more
> UNFIT. Passive aggressive. Idiotic.
>
> Do you really think that leaders exest so that they can
> "prove themselves" to you? Or anyone?
>
> The only responsibility ANY human being, a leader or a follower, has
> is to its INTENT. And INTENT doesnt care about your brain.
> It doesn't give a damn about "proofs". Its demands are far greater,
> yet its a private contract. Between human and intent.
>
> NOBODY owes you anything.
>
> Not only do you need the "bleating" community to FEED ENERGETICALLY ON,
> but you attempt standard bleating community tactics. It's called
> PEER PRESSURE IN THE US, isn't IT?
>
> When one starts PROVING one removes its center of action from INTENT
> into the BRAIN and becomes susceptible to mind-control games,
> as well as functioning properly.
>
> This ain't a yin yang theory.
> It's a FACT.
>
> And gee wiz, you want humans to start proving themselves to YOUR
> BRAIN (because the world revolves around your dick) and step
> away from their INTENT (path, strength).
>
> Is this part of the teaching them to be weak programy babycheeks?
>
> You just cannot STAND an independent person whose existence
> and value doesnt revolve around you CAN YOU?
>
> VALUE is self-evident.
> Your lack of ability to perceive it is your own simpleton problem.
>
> > And it is obvious that you are a bigot
>
> No dearest. Nothing of the sort is obvious.
> We are not a BIGOT. You are simply trying
> a simpleton character assassination trick
> (again and again).
>
> the only BIGOT here is you babycheeks.
> You are the one who fancies that "THIS KIND OF HUMANS ARE MAKING
> PROBLEMS".
> This kind of humans have been : christians, independent individuals,
> male yang leaders, male children, etc.
> These are your OWN WORDS.
> THIS_ is bigotry.
> There are no "groups of humans" who "cause the problems".
> You are simply projecting your own PROBLEMS OUTWARDLY
> and bashing others for them.
>
> Rather to the contrary, we have pointed out, and repeatedly,
> that there is no "type of humans who cause problems".
> And that problems are caused by individual ignorance.
> That humans are STRONG and can OVERCOME those problems.
> We have in fact stated on numerous occasions
> that anyone who wants to do the WORK can do it.
> One does not have to be a "leader".
>
> > - note - the ONLY slang term you used in
> > your eloquent description of MALE LEADERS
>
> We didn't use it in a description of MALE LEADERS.
> We used it in a description of YOU.
>
>
> > was the derogatory term for humans of
> > African descent.
>
> Yes, and we used the word to illustrate their behaviors.
> That is not "reflective" of our us.
> There are in fact humans existing who advocate LITERALLY
> that "niggers are the problem".
> Our stating that doesn't make us a bigot.
>
> > You are an incredibly UGLY person.
>
> No dearest, the only UGLY person here is you.
> You are narcissistic, selfish, arrogant,
> an energetic leech, ignorant, idiotic,
> murderous and masochistic.
>
> You LIE that your performances are "shamanic."
> You attempt to "reject" and "dismiss" teachings
> which you do not understand.
> You attempt to feed on others energy.
> You attempt to force_ your "relationship".
> You dismiss FACTS about human emotional well-being
> with some cheap "labels" of us being "ridiculous"
> just so that you can wash your hands clean from
> the contiuous murder that you are_ commiting.
>
> CONSCIOUSNESS is not some 'ancient teaching'.
>
> It would be hard to look at an artist in the duration
> of the entire 20c of any significance who hasn't
> addressed the issue.
>
> There is nothing "new". NEW is a delusion of the
> brain and the sensorial "apparatus". Reality
> exists outside of time.
>
> We have presented you with a large number of representative
>
> writers
> artists
> performance artists
> musicians
> both western and eastern.
>
> Tell us again how all shamans should be killed.
> That was marvellous.
>
> Or maybe even the Buddha should be killed?
>
> What do you say, why don't you stockpile all "ancient outdated
> and FAILED worldviews (the egotistical moron never realizing
> that it is him who is FAILING and not those systems)" and the
> churches, and the mosks, and the books, and paintings,
> and the lot of it and burn it.
>
> Then you can invite marc garret and you can attempt to emotionally
> kneejerk everybody, appeal to their infantile sexuality by attempts
> to control it (after all, one wouldn't WANT independent humans
> WOULD ONE?) and start teaching us allabout "luv" and "brotherhood.
>
> Then you can kill 845783478597489574 jews, and just
> wash your hands off. You could say that they wanted it.
> Or that they deserved it. Or that it didn't happen at all?
>
> At the bottom of it all Joseph, the hideous idiot here is you.
> You have denied ALL responsibility for any of your idiocies.
> You have attempted to blindly BASH anything put in front of you.
>
> And your problem with YANG energy is that humans are not controllable
> when in yang state. They are simply NOT. Whether followers or not.
>
> As for the ancient "outmoded worldview" homosexual gay magic
> is two-yang. It's absolutely not controllable at all.
> Hence Monsieur Hitler killed them off. We suppose it still worked
> in 1940s.
Re: FLUXLIST: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Joseph McElroy
Quoting "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <death@zaphod.terminal.org>:
> As for the ancient "outmoded worldview" homosexual gay magic
> is two-yang. It's absolutely not controllable at all.
> Hence Monsieur Hitler killed them off. We suppose it still worked
> in 1940s.
If you want a date, why don't you just ask? Course I would definitely say
no...that is a rejection.
joseph (cor e form art) + (porat per ance ist)
frank + lyn - mc + El + roy
go shopping -> http://www.electrichands.com/shopindex.htm
call me 646 279 2309
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER CUPCAKEKALEIDOSCOPE - send email to
CupcakeKleidoscope-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> As for the ancient "outmoded worldview" homosexual gay magic
> is two-yang. It's absolutely not controllable at all.
> Hence Monsieur Hitler killed them off. We suppose it still worked
> in 1940s.
If you want a date, why don't you just ask? Course I would definitely say
no...that is a rejection.
joseph (cor e form art) + (porat per ance ist)
frank + lyn - mc + El + roy
go shopping -> http://www.electrichands.com/shopindex.htm
call me 646 279 2309
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER CUPCAKEKALEIDOSCOPE - send email to
CupcakeKleidoscope-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Re:
Quoting "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <death@zaphod.terminal.org>:
> There ARE reasons for Royalty babycheeks. There ARE.
Sure there ARE. Shall we write the scrolls with your blood, just like Sadaam?
joseph (cor e form art) + (porat per ance ist)
frank + lyn - mc + El + roy
go shopping -> http://www.electrichands.com/shopindex.htm
call me 646 279 2309
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER CUPCAKEKALEIDOSCOPE - send email to
CupcakeKleidoscope-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Quoting "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <death@zaphod.terminal.org>:
> On Sat, 21 Dec 2002, joseph (yes) wrote:
>
> > > When will you stop knee-jerking from your absolute fright of death?
> >
> > stop projecting your fears upon me
>
> We are not projecting anything baycheeks.
> You don't know what projection is, nor can you perceive it.
> We are not knee-jerking from our brain, you are.
> And we do not possess any fears. Least of all of death.
>
> > Yes, Yes - lets give reasons for royalty.
>
> There ARE reasons for Royalty babycheeks. There ARE.
>
> > You are an inbred bastard aren't you?
>
> Yes, we are an "inbred bastard".
>
> > That explains everything.
>
> We are sure it does doesn't it?
> Idiotic prejudices, label slapping, bigotry and knee-jerk rebellion
> from a powerless twit. But it's all royalty's fault.
>
> > SHAMANS, MALE LEADERS, YOU are all con artists
>
> Now we truly are laughing. No babycheeks.
> The only con-artist here is you.
>
> Bleaaaaaaaaat.
>
>
> > justifying self-proclaimed differences
>
> Nobody is justifying anything babycheeks.
> You're so masochistic that you fancy your face being
> shoved into things "justification".
> Is that how you justify to yourself that
> you betray the nobility of your own spirit too?
>
> Inbred bastard?
> You're an inbred bastard. Current humanity comes
> from one genepool. Before, there were seven.
> Weren't we all one blood?
>
> They are not self-proclaimed differences.
> Theya re ACTUAL DIFFERENCES.
>
> Want to hear something else?
>
> There are millions of chinese who are aware of yin and yang
> and don't care to prove one whit of it to you.
>
> Nor are shamans obliged to prove anything to you at all.
>
> Nor are religious people of any faith: Christians, Moslem,
> Jewish, etc.
>
> The "world" ain't "in your book" and doesn't revolve
> around your "business" rules.
>
> Most certainly art does not.
>
> And you are NOT equal. In fact you're inferior
> TO EVERY FEMALE walking on the earth right now.
>
> You want to hear something else?
> You're not important.
> Your opinions don't mean a dime.
> You're poor energetically.
> You're a simple speck on a small planet "somewhere".
> There ain't nobody who cares.
> OTHER HUMANS DONT REALLY CARE EITHER.
> THEY ARE TRAINED TO BEHAVE AS IF THEY DO
> BUT ALL YOU KNOW ABOUT LOVE IS THEM
> KNEE-JERKING A NARCISSISTIC SELF-REFLECTION.
> It's AN ILLUSION.
>
> AS IS EVERYTHING YOU've DONE.
>
> > with a mishmash of historical trivia and propoganda.
>
> What history? HISTORY IS OVER.
> It has been for some time.
>
> And one other thing, love: our 'behavior"
> towards you is entirely AS A RESULT OF YOUR BEHAVIOR.
> We are just.
>
> This is not a "reflection of our personas".
>
> You were told: from INTERACTION WITH US,
> YOU WILL RECEIVE WHAT YOU INVEST.
>
> We are quite confident you can understand..
> a simple business thing like that...
>
> by the way, don't you know the story
> of Pinnochio and the field of dreams?
>
> He had one gold coin.. only one.
> And if farmed properly, it would make
> him rich.
>
> But pinocchio LIED.
>
> And the coin was GONE.
>
> OOpz.
>
> :)
> There ARE reasons for Royalty babycheeks. There ARE.
Sure there ARE. Shall we write the scrolls with your blood, just like Sadaam?
joseph (cor e form art) + (porat per ance ist)
frank + lyn - mc + El + roy
go shopping -> http://www.electrichands.com/shopindex.htm
call me 646 279 2309
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER CUPCAKEKALEIDOSCOPE - send email to
CupcakeKleidoscope-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Quoting "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <death@zaphod.terminal.org>:
> On Sat, 21 Dec 2002, joseph (yes) wrote:
>
> > > When will you stop knee-jerking from your absolute fright of death?
> >
> > stop projecting your fears upon me
>
> We are not projecting anything baycheeks.
> You don't know what projection is, nor can you perceive it.
> We are not knee-jerking from our brain, you are.
> And we do not possess any fears. Least of all of death.
>
> > Yes, Yes - lets give reasons for royalty.
>
> There ARE reasons for Royalty babycheeks. There ARE.
>
> > You are an inbred bastard aren't you?
>
> Yes, we are an "inbred bastard".
>
> > That explains everything.
>
> We are sure it does doesn't it?
> Idiotic prejudices, label slapping, bigotry and knee-jerk rebellion
> from a powerless twit. But it's all royalty's fault.
>
> > SHAMANS, MALE LEADERS, YOU are all con artists
>
> Now we truly are laughing. No babycheeks.
> The only con-artist here is you.
>
> Bleaaaaaaaaat.
>
>
> > justifying self-proclaimed differences
>
> Nobody is justifying anything babycheeks.
> You're so masochistic that you fancy your face being
> shoved into things "justification".
> Is that how you justify to yourself that
> you betray the nobility of your own spirit too?
>
> Inbred bastard?
> You're an inbred bastard. Current humanity comes
> from one genepool. Before, there were seven.
> Weren't we all one blood?
>
> They are not self-proclaimed differences.
> Theya re ACTUAL DIFFERENCES.
>
> Want to hear something else?
>
> There are millions of chinese who are aware of yin and yang
> and don't care to prove one whit of it to you.
>
> Nor are shamans obliged to prove anything to you at all.
>
> Nor are religious people of any faith: Christians, Moslem,
> Jewish, etc.
>
> The "world" ain't "in your book" and doesn't revolve
> around your "business" rules.
>
> Most certainly art does not.
>
> And you are NOT equal. In fact you're inferior
> TO EVERY FEMALE walking on the earth right now.
>
> You want to hear something else?
> You're not important.
> Your opinions don't mean a dime.
> You're poor energetically.
> You're a simple speck on a small planet "somewhere".
> There ain't nobody who cares.
> OTHER HUMANS DONT REALLY CARE EITHER.
> THEY ARE TRAINED TO BEHAVE AS IF THEY DO
> BUT ALL YOU KNOW ABOUT LOVE IS THEM
> KNEE-JERKING A NARCISSISTIC SELF-REFLECTION.
> It's AN ILLUSION.
>
> AS IS EVERYTHING YOU've DONE.
>
> > with a mishmash of historical trivia and propoganda.
>
> What history? HISTORY IS OVER.
> It has been for some time.
>
> And one other thing, love: our 'behavior"
> towards you is entirely AS A RESULT OF YOUR BEHAVIOR.
> We are just.
>
> This is not a "reflection of our personas".
>
> You were told: from INTERACTION WITH US,
> YOU WILL RECEIVE WHAT YOU INVEST.
>
> We are quite confident you can understand..
> a simple business thing like that...
>
> by the way, don't you know the story
> of Pinnochio and the field of dreams?
>
> He had one gold coin.. only one.
> And if farmed properly, it would make
> him rich.
>
> But pinocchio LIED.
>
> And the coin was GONE.
>
> OOpz.
>
> :)