--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@...> wrote: > > Many of the phrases in the original post (#317358) exist in other documents > on the web as far back as 2005 as far as I can tell using a small sample of > phrases from the post. Other phrases only show up on FFL. A lot of material > appears to have been accommodated to create the post. It is entertaining and > oddly applicable. > > Most of what we say and think is recycled from elsewhere, even if we give it > a new form. Substitution of Robin's name gives it a sense of coherence (kind > of like Robin's writing which has a sense of coherence, but tends not to make > sense a lot of times). > > I actually first mistyped the word 'coherence', as 'conherence', which I > suppose could mean a state of bringing together for the purpose conning > (derived from con - persuade to do or believe something, typically by use of > a deception), which often seems to be Robin's operational modality. > > In a response to Robin which I never finished, at one point I was trying to > see how obscure I could make a simple statement. I selected as a test phrase > 'I think I will take a walk.' > > Then I went to Google and looked up definitions of the words and put those in > place of the original words, and repeated the process for several minutes. 'I > think I will take a walk' became: > > 'In making reference to myself as a willful doer of a fact or process of > doing something, typically to achieve an aim, i.e., and agent, and taking > into account consideration when deciding on a possible action, your speaker > here intends, desires, wishes, to make happen by reaching and grasping, to > move at an arranged or constituting of a constant or definite pattern and to > an acceptable extent a only at a low speed; not quick or fast, a unit of > length representing the distance between two successive steps by lifting and > setting down each foot in turn, never at once having both feet off the solid > surface of the celestial body moving in an elliptical orbit around a star on > which we live.' > > What can one's 'personal ontology' do with such drivel? Apparently quite a > lot, at least if you are Robin. > > I must admit I never really get the idea of 'personal ontology', which seems > to be defined in the dictionary as 'a branch of metaphysics dealing with the > nature of being as affecting, or belonging to a particular person rather than > to anyone else'. By focusing on personal aspects, Robin divides and conquers, > because it is on that level that we are weakest, individuated and separate > from everything, it is where we cannot be whole.
RESPONSE: http://tinyurl.com/d8fpk6z http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oP3c1h8v2ZQ&feature=related
