RE: virus: MS Weapon

Brett Lane Robertson (
Sun, 05 Oct 1997 14:51:53 -0500

That's precisely what I'm asking: where did they come
from? Nothing comes out of nothing... But even regarding those that ideas
that are wrong-
headed at the time: why do wrong-headed ideas come
to be widely accepted? Because most people are
stupid, or because there are psychological and
sociological factors here worth investigating?...(Robin)


The answer (according to my own reasoning) for "wrong" ideas is the
addictive cycling between paranoia and surity experienced by the paired
male/female coupling (for the most part, although unresolved issues by the
child surrounding the love/lust dichotomy of its parents would allow for the
child to internalize this "fantasmagoric" tendency as well).

>Like a child, a woman tends to oscillate between two basic emotions -
>smugness and terror....

>I would say that like a child, a *girl* tends to oscillate between two basic
>emotions smugness and terror: I would say that a *woman* more simply stays
>with the basic emotion of *terror*. And where does a man stay? Smugness!

>This shows the progression from child to adult...woman to man (assuming that
>women, recovering from a minority status, haven't *matured* to the point of
>men...that is, shows a developmental perspective)*. A child oscillates
>between two basic emotions. The woman must choose one or the other. The
>man takes the other...and the *pair* work together to produce the child.

>In this scenario is the basis of the mating dance, growth and development.
>It is also the reason why "maya" exists (illusion). The balancing of terror
>with smugness (paranoia with security) produces imaginings of Hell and other
>dichotomous reasoning which takes a basic truth (a "tree", for example) and
>creates several alternate "not-trees" by which delusional systems of "logic"
>are formed. (see

>The reason for the original childlike horror/smugness is complicated. Freud
>suggests it's a Oedipal complex whereby the child is frightened by the
>father (horror) and enmeshed with the mother (smugness). I blame it on the
>father who is jealous of the child for converting the mother from an object
>of lust to one of maternal love (cutting off the addictive substance
>"sex") the animal kingdom this is shown by male cannibalism of children
>(horror) and it creates family ties to the maternal (smugness).

>The child who leaves the safety of the family finds that he must compete for
>the security represented by "female" and that the female does not have the
>protective instinct of the mother. The child must therefore alternate
>between feelings of horror and smugness toward the female "mate" (who he may
>be addicted to, as above). This cyclic behavior produces the addiction of
>"lust" (like the highs and lows of cocaine, etc--the cycle--produces an
>overwhelming desire and then resolves that desire producing feelings of
>euphoria...which *is* the addictive cycle, mimicked by the mating ritual).

>Resolving this addiction (might) take the form of the female adopting
>feelings of paranoia (represented in over-emotionalism) and males taking on
>the feelings of smugness (over protectiveness, aggression). The balanced
>pair is thus bonded chemically. Further, I think the whole process is a
>sign of *disorder*, an IMPROPERLY resolved Oedipal complex...but that is a
>different thread.


>*what I'm saying here is that "smugness" seems superior to terror--or even
>that one must progress through terror to find a resolution that approximates
>"smugness" in a more healthy manner..."surity", "confidence", "Truth"?

(from, Return-Path: <>
Date: Sun, 05 Oct 1997 12:48:14 -0500
From: Brett Lane Robertson <>
Subject: re: Truth in advertising

At 11:29 AM 10/5/97 +1000)


At 10:20 AM 10/5/97 +0100, you wrote:
>> From: David McFadzean[]
>> At 10:12 AM 10/4/97 +0100, Robin Faichney wrote:
>> >I have to back Tim up on this one: what kind of light
>> >casts shadows of objects that don't exist? Nothing
>> >comes out of nothing. By your own creed, such
>> >shadows must have *some* cause, even though it's
>> >not the object you might first suppose. Seems to
>> Incorrect interpretation. Where do you suppose the
>> ether, elan vital, ESP and other wrong ideas came from?
>That's precisely what I'm asking: where did they come
>from? Nothing comes out of nothing. Some of the
>ideas that we now view as simply "wrong" were wrong-
>headed even in their own day, but many more were
>genuinely the best guesses that people could make at
>the time. Do you really think that none of the ideas we
>presently view as simply "right" will be disproven in the
>future? That doesn't make it wrong for us to hold these
>ideas now, and in fact it may be the case that we could
>not develop better ones, without the use of these
>imperfect ones as stepping stones.
>But even regarding those that ideas that are wrong-
>headed at the time: why do wrong-headed ideas come
>to be widely accepted? Because most people are
>stupid, or because there are psychological and
>sociological factors here worth investigating?
>*Especially* for memeticists, because the spread of
>memes, their acceptance and onward transmission
>for reasons other than their intrinsic rationality, is
>precisely what memetics is all about, is it not?
>(Well, not quite what it's *all* about, because when
>someone accepts and retransmits an idea saying
>they do so because it's rational, that falls under
>memetics too -- or do you disagree?)
>> >Do you think maybe that you just prefer the
>> >physical sciences to such as psychology, due to
>> >the "softness" (ie complexity) of the latter?
>> Actually I don't prefer the physical sciences.
>The reason I suggested you might was because
>you seem, in this context anyway, to have no
>interest in minds, and why they do the things
>they do, only in what's "out there".

Rabble Sonnet Retort
Xerox never comes up with anything original.