Re: virus: Memetical Axioms

Brett Lane Robertson (
Sun, 21 Sep 1997 17:25:14 -0500

Prof. Tim,

I didn't mean this post (below) as a flame. I really do mean the words that
I have written in an objective sense. There is a social phenomenon whereby
a person denies themself, projects themself onto someone else, destroys the
other, internalizes the results and ends up being without self. After this
phenomenon, there is no internal basis for "truth" (which assumes that a
child born into a world of truth is an example of that truth--knows THE
truth--until, or unless, that child denies himself in order to worship the
external appearance of truth). The Bible talks about this phenomenon as
being without a soul (having the form of goodness [truth] but denying the
goodness thereof...[what good is it] if you gain the world and lose your
soul...the mark of Cain, the many-headed beast, etc.). I am not trying to
say that because the Bible says it it must be true (and I seldom quote
someone else and/or appeal to authority). I am saying that there seems to
be a pagan (peasant--democratic) class who thinks that they can vote on
truth and that I did not invent the idea.

These "pagan", "soulless" people are "dead" in the sense that they no longer
have a self which has maintained enough consistency from birth to continue
to formulate understandings and modify themself accordingly until they are a
living example of truth and can discern it from an internal (ontological)
perspective. They have "sold out" to a "social illusion" in that the
external resemblance of truth (without a unified perspective to discern it)
is all they have to form ties to their "first love" (another Biblical
reference, I am sorry, as in "this I have against you...that you have
forgotten your first love"--self?).

I am not completely of the opinion that this position is hopeless...only
that it denies essence, being, existence, truth, meaning, purpose, reason,
cause, and effect. To then find these things based on a social metaphysic
of "it's true if two out of three doctors recommend it" seems a shame ("more
than I can I my brother's keeper"). After buying into whatever
someone else is selling and selling out to whatever anyone else is does not surprise me to hear people say that "there is more than
one way to look at something" and/or "everything is a dependent
arising"...but the underlying disorder is a "borderline" lack of consistent


Prof Tim,

I think you are a dead soulless pagan who has sold out your "being" to a
social illusion. Keep it to yourself!


At 11:33 AM 9/21/97 -0700, you wrote:

>On Sat, 20 Sep 1997, Brett Lane Robertson wrote:

>> There are not two ways of looking at one thing. There is one way of looking
>> at one thing and an infinite number of incorrect or partially correct ways
>> of looking at something.

>I think you are looking at things incorrectly, if you beleive this

>-Prof. Tim

Rabble Sonnet Retort
A lack of leadership is no substitute for inaction.