On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 Platonist Guitar Cowboy <multiplecit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I will no longer respond to your "queries" on this Mr. Cowboy, I just asked for one clear specific example of something the God theory can explain, but all all got was more bafflegab; well I don't need you to find bafflegab. > > You confuse this for "style", "class", "appearance beauty queen > intellect science prize exhibition points" or "politeness" or something, > which is your right. You don't need the canned responses; have some faith > in yourself without the bombastic exhibitionism! You can live without > spamming us with your childhood experience and still make precise points. > *But if such a sublime cyborg would insinuate the future as post-Fordist subject, his palpably masochistic locations as ecstatic agent of the sublime superstate need to be decoded as the 'now-all-but-unreadable DNA' of a fast deindustrializing Detroit, just as his Robocop-like strategy of carceral negotiation and street control remains the tirelessly American one of inflicting regeneration through violence upon the racially heteroglossic wilds and others of the inner city.* > I know you keep "demanding hard evidence". As I outlined numerous times, > this is false problem, too needy on consistency and perhaps theologically > naive. But you always reason like that and judge/berate other for being > different, so no surprise. You want an example that set theoretic > objects might in weak sense bear relation to "god"? You can take Lebowski > machine's refutation, which is better than you're, again authoritative > bossy, "no!" above to Plotinus (again being absolute/radically certain in > negation offering no reasoning) but also communication between Cantor and > church. > *But the lure of imaginary totality is momentarily frozen before the dialectic of desire hastens on within symbolic chains.* > I am convinced for now you are playing weird/creepy psychological games > and being silly bully about it, with stuff to prove to themselves. > *It may be weird/creepy but t**he visual is essentially pornographic, which is to say that it has its end in rapt, mindless fascination; thinking about its attributes becomes an adjunct to that, if it is unwilling to betray its object; while the most austere films necessarily draw their energy from the attempt to repress their own excess (rather than from the more thankless effort to discipline the viewer). **To this end, I must underline the phallicism endemic to the dialectics of penetration routinely deployed in descriptions of pictorial space and the operations of spectatorship.* John K Clark > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
