virus: Existence and Ego (Now simply "Self")

Brett Lane Robertson (
Thu, 11 Sep 1997 16:28:16 -0500

R:>As an aside, the sentence above ("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"]?", B) 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!

B:>>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.

R:>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?


I think that the sentence is gramatically correct. I think that the
sentence is "dramatically" false (would this be a negative proof of the
original theorem?) I think that is the reason that chaos and confusion were
evoked--that and because I think you are still refusing to accept the
premise that there is an original "Self" which is this point,
if there is not such a "Self"--I hope--there is no longer any basis for
considering "Existence". Either one accepts the idea that ego is a
self-construct and the social self is sacrificed or else one accepts "chaos
and confusion".

As you said, " [You ]couldn't make it through with any of [yourself]
intact". I think this confirms that you do not begin with a unified "Self"
(but are instead the "2" which is constructed in the "2+2" post...the ego
which claims to be the original form but which has no substance; Or, you
are the 's'elf which is a social construct and which is sacrificed through
thinking--concluded from your response to this post). Like I said, if you
choose to have "fun"--to (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 definition] (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)" (from Existence
and Ego)"--and you focus on non-possibilities--" 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
(from Existence and Ego)"; then "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." (also from Existence and Ego).

And, is this "pointless" "something" Self, self, or self-construct?


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

Arthur Dent