From: Cari Machet (email suppressed)
Date: Mon Jan 23 2006 - 11:02:47 PST
(con't fr: previous post:)
> > saying that one doesn't believe in belief well that is a double
> > > > negative
> > >
> > > That comment was tongue-in-cheek, however the certainty of belief
> > > implies a limit and a finitude, something that holds no interest for
> > > me.
> > ok i totally understand where you are/are not coming fr: at the same
> > time then
> > I AM IN AWE OF UR EXEMPLARY RIGOR
> > (sarcasm)
> > Not beliefs but positions, places from which to engage rather than
> > > fixed standpoints to articulate a certainty.
> > so you use the word belief but mean position
> > okay that is rigor and specific (sarcasm)
> > > > "dreams that money can buy" 1947 can be rented?
> > >
> > > Available on VHS to buy from the BFI in the UK.
> > thanks but i am in the us
> > can you give me more info?
> > > I do 'believe' in death. Religion as I am sure I said has no interest
> > > for me.
> > how can you believe in death and justify
> > "That comment was tongue-in-cheek, however the certainty of belief
> > implies a limit and a finitude, something that holds no interest for
> > me."
> > umn logic
> > please explain
> > what the fuck does religion have to do w/ belief in death?
> > ur leaps are funny
> > how can anyone believe in death? - i don't get it
> > > ...i wasn't advocating e=mc2 - the end
> > > > besides in math there is the conception of no end = infinity
> > > > so i just don't know how you got there
> > >
> > > You sited E=MC2 as a fact, not me.
> > you are not getting it
> > If maths is universally true then why is it full of (fantastic)
> > > 'errors', my current favorite being that the square of 0 isn't 0,
> > > there's a great book that explains why, all about zero and the way
> > > logic - or that which is seen as a form of logic - collapses around
> > > these points. I am not saying this book is true, but that this book
> > > does point out oddities that destabalise the narrative, as it were.
> > one does not x out the other
> > i did not say it was an absolute
> > what i try to get you into is the physical plane
> > you just don't want to be there
> > just because some math is not completely pure doesn't make it so that
> > other math is not
> > 9 is always divisible by 9
> > but just because other numbers are not it doesn't mean they are not
> > numbers
> > your 'logic' leaps so very much it's amazing but i guess that is
> > common
> > Slapping Pythagoras....too many limits....we need to think in different
> > > ways.
> > >
> > talk about a vast chasm of whatever ???
> > > just because there are universal trueths it doesn't mean god is being
> > > > sought
> > >
> > > Of course it does, by definition, Derrida calls it the transcendental
> > > signifier.
> > no definition in my world
> > but i don't live in the la la land of a soap opera
> > where i need pacifiers like concepts of god
> > if derrida wrote that universal trueth or trueth = god then he was
> > simply wrong
> > i align with heidegger that philosophy is the seeking of the trueth
> > through the question
> > that's about as close to trueth as we get in thought
> > besides what is (which we are)
> > transcendental does not equal god - not in my world
> > are you sure that it is accurate what text are you referencing?
> > truth is far beyond man's little concepts of god
> > > The speed of light however, isn't quite all it was cracked up to be,
> > > light, after all, bends, and is now both particle and radiation, a
> > > good
> > > example of exactly why science is a process rather than a fixed
> > > certainty.
> > well i think it is both process and fixed
> > (as i keep repeating there is a physical plane)
> > one does not x out the other
> > both still and moving at the same time (time + space)
> > also everything is co-creative even destruction
> > why do you so invest in such limitations
> > it isn't logical - seems emotional
> > Yes you were talking about violence. I quote: "as far as violence
> > > always being with us
> > > that doesn't mean that film cannot enhance/enlarge our experience of
> > > it
> > > what i am talkin is stan brakhage filmed an autopsy"
> > well i guess one could gather that it was connected
> > but it was not my intent
> > my intent was to talk about that enhancement and enlargement of our
> > experience
> > further we've had dead bodies around a while (just like violence)
> > but we haven't all seen on film an autopsy / seen an autopsy
> > therefore it broadens our scope
> > you are continually ignoring this main point in every post i make
> > what is your motive in doing that?
> > > > i haven't hooked lotsa people up to an mri while they are watching
> > > > violent cinema
> > > > but i have seen 'a clockwork orange'
> > > > and i think i can surmise an agreement with the film
> > >
> > > Can you? That the forced watching of violence stops violence? That was
> > > one interpretation of the film. Surely that is antithetical to your
> > > previous posts which suggest that the military use violent games to
> > > stimulate violent behaviour. Is a fiction film the same as a study by
> > > scientists?
> > >
> > > "I was cured all right".
> > it was a cartoon
> > again my point was that the imagery has an effect
> > -perhaps you are right -
> > i was also thinking of fahrenheit 911
> > it isn't exactly to 'stimulate'
> > more as i specifically stated 'desensitize'
> > understand the difference?
> > in fact i would go so far to say that it is humane for them to do so
> > as it probably helps lessen the effects of shock that post traumatic
> > stress suggests
> Reread my post, I wasn't saying I knew more than you, you cut this
> quote off short. My point was that people can do nasty things with
> > > little encouragement, not that I had a special knowledge.
> > i 'cut' it because the post was really too long
> > i wasn't thinking that you were saying ur knowledge was special
> > just that you were hypocritical in making a general sweep of a
> > statement
> > but not letting me do something similar - my universal trueth
> > just like most people you can do whatever you want but others have to
> > adhere to your 'rules'
> > or they are 'bad'
> > maybe you need to re-read mine
> > > > i do as well see the corpse as beautiful
> > > > i don't see autopsy as violent per say you misunderstood
> > >
> > > but you did use it in your posting as an example of violence...re-read
> > > your posting.
> > i don't think i did but if so -
> > so what?
> > why are you remaining stuck in this?
> > it wasn't the main point if so
> > it was about positioning the audience - the title of the subject here
> > ya know
> > whatever - remain stuck i don't care anymore
> > > ... The Buried Soul, an anthropological study on the
> > > development of death rituals as a way to satisfy the living's fear of
> > > death, or rather to satisfy the rupture death caused in the communal
> > > psyche of early cultures, and how this continues to affect cultures
> > > now.
> > >
> > thanks i will look into it
> > I want to know your proof that some people do not have identities, or
> > > what some kind of inferior identities? This is nonsense. Even if you
> > > hate somebody they still have an identity. If not does this make them
> > > subhuman?
> > umn mostly i don't think 'human' is all that
> > whenever someone calls a mass murderer or murderer an 'animal'
> > i'm like yo animals rarely kill in a murdering way
> > more for food so...
> > you don't seem to intellectually differentiate between
> > 'no identity' and 'their own identity' - why are you mushing them?
> > i think you need to read some psych books
> > - or explain further of what you mean -
> > it's not about hating somebody - how limited
> > it's about how people are not themselves
> > people often have identity crisis
> > finding they are at odds with 'who' they are
> > people become their parents
> > or who their parents want them to be or who their parents wanted to be
> > but didn't become
> > the masses have mass identities
> > religion is the opiate of the masses people connect their identity to
> > religiosity and they disappear
> > murderers take on the role in general i would say
> > except people like jeffery dommer or the green river killer -
> > sociopaths
> > it doesn't make them subhuman more sheep
> > it's really simple stuff
> > > If their lover has no identity should we care?
> > > I don't understand, do we have empathy with those who may have no
> > > identity?
> > > You aren't being clear.
> > maybe
> > you make bizarre leaps
> > of course i have empathy and compassion for everyone
> > that isn't what this is about
> > i wasn't talking identity here
> > - again you glob things together for no reason -
> > i was talking about sexualized violence not identities
> > but i would say that most pathology is born of loss of identity -
> > think i posted that b4
> > >
> > > I think my point was that I don't believe in real facts as there is
> > > no
> > > such thing, just interpretations.
> > highly anthropocentric thinking
> > it states that reality is only perception
> > get out of your head
> > jump up and down or something - feel your body
> > roll around in the mud!
> > >
> > > No, I think everything is interpreted differently by everybody,hence
> > > there can be no single universal truth. I don't think I said anything
> > > to indicate I
> > > believed everything was an illusion.
> > >
> > but it aligns with illusion - your thinking
> > i think that there can be both interpretations and universal trueth
> > again one doesn't x out the other
> > it's all multifaceted
> > again you are bent toward anthropocentric patterns of thought
> > that are extremely limiting in scope
> > if life can only BE an interpretation then were is the BEING?
> > (head - no body)
> > when i shit i am not interpreting food - well maybe on some level
> > but...
> > read heidegger
> > life is not limited to interpretation it is beyond interpretation
> > as is ur 'death'
> > heidegger's "being and time" is alot of info
> > c
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.