Re: virus: Existence

Brett Lane Robertson (
Thu, 11 Sep 1997 13:28:37 -0500


You are explaining to me the process for destroying oneself (in your post

First make bold assertions (assuming that every assertion is *only*
definitional--and that every defined term is debatable). Then allow for the
process to be destroyed as well (by allowing the context to be questioned in
addition to the saying the very act of defining something will
be made obsolete by the mutual "picking apart" of the definition.) Then you
imply that the answer is only a joke (though "punch line" could imply
complex meaning--as if punch line meant "answer" like in the answer to a
riddle; but even this implies that the riddle is not a complex explanation,
but only a purposefully misconstrued idea *intended* to confuse so that the
punch-line/answer carries the intent of making a joke at the expense of the
person riddled. Further, you state your own meaning of the process/product
equation to be "fun" and define fun as "picking apart purposefully
misconstrued arbitrary statements with the ambivalent intent of NOT getting
the joke (paraphrased)".

I notice that you (a) fail to apply a definition of your own to words and
(b) fail to accept someone else's definition unless it fits your
non-definition, that is (a) must be boldly asserted (without the term
"seems"), (b) must be debatable, (c) must be derived from a process which
contains no answer, (d) must carry the intent of "destruction" of self (that
is, either arbitrary, ambivalent, or misconstrued); that is, must be "fun".
I also notice that each word that IS defined suggests to you not one
possibility but several non-possibilities--ego cannot suggest ego but must
suggest--somehow--id, pizza-pie, your IQ...anything, it seems but what it
purports to suggest.

I conclude that you believe in arbitrariness, ambivalence, and mutual
self-destruction. You confirm that belief by your inflammatory remark that
" Usually, [I] don't get past defining [my] terms." and follow this with
further attacks on context, unrelated to content (" ...the sentence above is
dramatically gramatically incorrect [I don't think so]"...I use too many
terms, I go too fast, and others according to your assertion--and at my
expense). I assert--based on this "understanding" (a word that you could
belittle since it is less than a bold assertion--like my terminology "seems
to be"--and therefore asks a question as opposed to making a foolish
statement which you can pick apart)...based on my understanding, you are not
capable of reading for content and putting forth an alternate thesis for the
explanation proposed; rather, you are a "nit-pick" destroyer-of-context and
assume that destroying one explanation is the same as proposing either an
alternate explanation or refining the explanation given: Or, that your
personal philosophy, "fun" is opposed to my philosophy, "intelligence";
and therefore, you will continue to assume that my posts do not meet your
criteria and will continue to miss my point while you are looking for
something pointless.

(am sending a post called "2+2; Or why One Can't both Replicate and
Reproduce" which details your's and my stance and suggests a prime reason
why we--the many and I--fail to communicate)


At 09:35 AM 9/11/97 -0400, you wrote:

>>The question of identity falls into the idea of ego and I've found myself to
>>have a passive ego, or Self, which asserts its "mind" in response to

>OK, stop here. Where are you deriving your idea of "ego" from? Freud?
>What other kinds of egos are there, other than passive? What are the
>characteristics of these egos? Do all passive egos assert "mind" in response
>to "violence"? What do you mean by that? Can you give an example or
>an analogy?

>Can you see how that sentence proposes a number of different levels:

>Ego <===> ? (Id? Superego?)
>Passive <===> ? (Active? Aggressive?)
>Self <===> ? (non-self? environment? subconcious?)
>"mind" <===> "violence"

>without detailing them? You need to define your terms first. Then we
>pick apart those definitions. Then you give us the punch-line. Then
>we fail to laugh and tell you why we think the whole joke is in poor
>taste. Usually, you don't get past defining your terms.

>But, hey, that's why it's so much fun!

>>I think that ego is the creator of violence and also what is
>>created by violence.

>Is violence central to ego ("the sense of self")? What do you mean by
>violence here, given it's seeming central role?

>>Ego which is active is oppositional to other egos,
>>egos which are passive seem to spawn violence, too--an attempt to get
>>someone to stand for something?

>What is the difference between something that "actually" creates and
>is created by X and something which "seems" to be that way?

>>A Self which resolves this
>>sadistic/masochistic inflation of ego must be at the expense of something
>>else; and, I say it is at the expense of a social "s"elf.

>This is where I get lost. There are so many things: Ego, Self, social
>"s"elf, violence
>as creator and created, passive, active, implied underlying causes, appeal
>to principles
>("standing for something"). You're going too fast for me!

>>Or, is the
>>socially constructed self the only true being the one which happens at the
>>expense of the Self which is "director"( not "actor")?

>And if I was lost before, now I'm in the void...everything we were building was
>an illusion, the apparent shell is the real substance and the principle
>"Self" is
>sacrificed? Are you evoking Nietzsche's "dead God" or Skinner's "Unknowable

>As an aside, the sentence above is dramatically gramatically incorrect.
>By confusing you referents you are evoking the image of chaos and confusion.
>I read the sentence three times and couldn't figure out the difference between
>"director" and true, and ego...ack!

>>All in all, some
>>part of me is destroyed in the very act of trying to come to grips with this
>>irony--the final point.

>Wow! Only part of you is destroyed in that process? I couldn't make it
>with any of myself intact. Are you sure you don't have some definitions that
>would make it easier for me to follow?

>>Violence is the only way for some to see that they
>>are alive

>That makes me uncomfortable so close to the conclusion.
>Unfortunately, Sartre and McLuhan would both agree.

>>(and, thereby, the whole post fits into the psychological category
>>"Borderline Personality",

>Define "Borderline Personality". Are you expressing a psychosis?

>>the resolution of this disorder may be to
>>participate but not become involved.)

>How does one do that? In my mind, one has to be involved to participate.


Rabble Sonnet Retort
"This must be Thursday. I never could get the hang of

Arthur Dent