From: friday@subgenius.com (IrRev. Friday Jones)From: friday@subgenius.com (IrRev. Friday Jones)
(art, right, also by Friday)
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998
In article <bg19354-2704981026190001@128.226.103.209>,
bg19354@StUpIdSpAmDeAtH.binghamton.edu (Nully Fydyan) wrote:
>In article <e/wbear-ya02408000R2604981711330001@news.direct.ca>,
>e/wbear@hibernia.ca (e/w bear) wrote:
>> Sorta like Bob Dean, eh? Opps.. wasn't supposed to mention that here. Sorry.
>
>Speaking of Dean, Legume got up on stage right in the middle of the
>rant-off, and said, "Before I forget... Is Bob Dean here?" I may not have
>been the *only* person in the room laughing, but I certainly felt like
>most of the crowd didn't get it. I was hoping Dean, or someone
>proclaiming themselves Dean, would get up so we could see some non-latex
>blood fly, but alas, all that occured was puzzled silence, and one yeti's
>hysterical laughter.
Even though Bob DEAN could not make it, there was a fruitcake who claimed
that he was "BOB" DOBBS. A short fellow, all in black, with BUMPS ALL OVER
HIS FACE. Is THAT what the "dots" represent? Did anyone else talk to this
chap?
- Friday
in Devival denial
--
Did you miss
* T * H * E * X * D * A * Y * F * I * L * E * S *
Final, Final SubGenius Devival & Armageddon Party
http://www.tiac.net/users/fjones/xdayfiles.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: twgs@whatsthepoint.net (Jahweh David Lynch)
Thus spake Crazy Bob:
>As such, I am now and quite officially declaring myself an Ivacaustical,
>and when the final battle cames I will do everything to subvert the
>dualism! I will change sides at random! I will turn more coats than that
>factory in Burlington! I will sow chaos! I will offer unintelligence to
>BOTH sides! I will SPY on MYSELF!!! I urge EVERYBODY to JOIN me in
>SPLITTING off into their OWN faction OF one!!!!!
I'm splitting off into my own splinter fraction encompassing everyone and
everything in the universe. I think maybe I'll call it "Fisting".
----------------------------------------------------------
| _ _ | Nasi bianchi come Fruit of the Loom, che |
| | \/ | | diventano piu' rossi di un livello di DOOM |
| | | | Dave Lynch heeft geschreven mit keine "whats" |
| | http://www.thepoint.net/~twgs/jiggy/jiggy.htm |
----------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: twgs@whatsthepoint.net (Jahweh David Lynch)
Thus spake Rev. Boblight:
>> Aiiyeeeeee!! What I just CANNOT understand about this whole
>> Ivangelical/Holocaustal "rift" is the whole dualism bullshit... DUALISMS
>> are, in essence, TOOLS of the CON!!! If you truly wish to use the CON
>> rather than be used by it, you have to recognize these CONvenient LIES
>> they try to feed us- good vs evil, right vs wrong, black vs white,
>> holocaustal vs ivangelical... IT'S ALL A SHAM!!!
>
>CANNOT vs. can
>Dualism vs. non-dualism
>CON vs. us
>use vs. be used
>LIES vs. truth
>SHAM vs. not a sham
You extrapolate opposites and negations where none are really needed.
Which is what the Church of the SubGenius seems to be all about these days.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: clbundyREmoVE@indy.net (Christopher Lee)
>>CANNOT vs. can
>>Dualism vs. non-dualism
>>CON vs. us
>>use vs. be used
>>LIES vs. truth
>>SHAM vs. not a sham
Godzilla vs... um... Ghidorah?
______________________________________________________________
Church of Homer Simpson, Boddhisattva, & Latter Day SubGenius
Is Rev. Christopher Lee your moral superior? Only one way to
learn! Send $3 goodwill offering and recieve our publication
Quijibo, 18 W. Main, Apt. X, Greenfield, IN 46140 PRABOB!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: NENSLO <n@n.slo>
Organization: V.I.T.R.I.O.L.
Jahweh David Lynch wrote:
> >Dualism vs. non-dualism
HAH! Gotcha! Dualism vs. Non-Dualism is STILL DUALISM!
That's a whatchacallit... a philosophical conundrum or something.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: twgs@whatsthepoint.net (Jahweh David Lynch)
I think it's called a "false attribution". But don't quote me on that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: e/wbear@hibernia.ca (Empirical Bears)
Nahahah!!! It's a false dichotomy! neener neener! (always wanted to say that)
This is probably the point in the conversation where someone mentions
McLuhan's tetrad, but it ain't gonna be me. That guy has the same effect
here as Arby's Macht Fries does on Oregon nuns.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: axel@SPAMXverinet.com (axel heyst)
It's not a false dichotomy, aka an excluded middle argument, since the
concepts mentioned do represent real opposing concepts, with nothing
excluded within the oppostion, i.e. something is either dualistic or not;
it can't be a "little" dualistic or "somewhat" non-dualistic.
I've no idea what it's called, but if it was on a test I'd call it a
self-referencing paradox, and hope for the best.
axel heyst
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: wingnut@gn2.getnet.com (Rev. Britton Wingnut)
it can't be a "little" dualistic or "somewhat" non-dualistic.
> I've no idea what it's called, but if it was on a test I'd call it a
>self-referencing paradox, and hope for the best.
>
> axel heyst
>
no, no, no, this is what is known as an 'oblivious clusterfuck'
didnt you learn anything in bootcamp?
sheesh
Monsignor Britton Wingnut
-----------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
-----------------------------------------------------
www.getnet.com/~wingnut/britton.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: carey@humboldt1.com (Rev. Matthew A. Carey)
On Sun, 03 May 1998 10:47:37 GMT, e/wbear@hibernia.ca (Empirical
Bears) wrote:
>This is probably the point in the conversation where someone mentions
>McLuhan's tetrad,
I have McLuhan's tetrad in a jar of formaldehyde back in my closet
next to the shrunken head and joan of arc's third knuckle.
___________________________________________________
Join the Vision Temple email discussion list!
sign up: http://www.humboldt1.com/~carey/
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
heinz ewatch recall product mcdonald's lawsuit fraud ford sears
ibm microsoft general electric general motors poison proctor gamble
johnson & johnson mennen du pont motorola burke heroin voodoo porn
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: e/wbear@hibernia.ca (e/w bear)
OK Mr smarty pants logician (AD HOMINEM) Watch this!
Dualism Vs Non-Dualism
All things... may be characterised as a manefestation of opposing attributes
Many things...
Some things ...
A few things...
Nothing...
Actually, it looks more like a Non Sequitur, but I also think False
Dichotomy is itself a Non Sequitur. All dichotomies are false if you
expand the frame of reference far enough....
PROVE ME WRONG!!!...hehe
(actually I was just looking for a chance to say neener neener. I had no
idea of the cost or I would have kept my mouth shut)
---
ewb
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: axel@SPAMXverinet.com (axel heyst)
ebear you're taking this way too seriously. And don't even get me started
on the abuse and misuse that the AD HOMINEM CARD suffers on Usenet. I
already said I didn't know what it was called either, but I know what it's
NOT, and it's not a false dichotomy.
>
>Dualism Vs Non-Dualism
>
>All things... may be characterised as a manefestation of opposing attributes
>Many things...
>Some things ...
>A few things...
>Nothing...
>
^Argument by Fallacy of Composition!
Nonetheless, one can describe a given framework as being dualistic or
non, and in the by-nature generality of the statement, you've covered
everything within the superset of frameworks. The question of the
*appropriateness* of calling something dualistic is another kettle of fish.
You may wish to draw a couple of proper Venn diagrams, or pretend that I
have:
Superset
_____________________________________________________________________________
The Set of Dualistic Systems The Set of Non-Dualistic Systems
_________________________ __________________________
|Opposing forces that fit | | Non-Opposing forces that|
|the either/or model,e.g.,| | fit the graduated model,|
| Ying and Yang | | e.g., empiricism |
|_________________________| | and faith |
|_________________________|
_____________________________________________________________________________
Thus, to revisit your example above, one may be on shakey ground in
referring to something as dualistic, exposing himself to being accused of
asserting a false dichotomy. But if another argues successfully against
that something being dualistic, he merely succeeds in removing the
something from the Set of Dualistic systems, where by default it becomes
part of the Set of Non-Dualistic Systems.
>Actually, it looks more like a Non Sequitur, but I also think False
>Dichotomy is itself a Non Sequitur.
>
Argument by Digression...
>
>All dichotomies are false if you
>expand the frame of reference far enough....
>
Argument by Strawman...
>PROVE ME WRONG!!!...hehe
>
My pleasure!
>(actually I was just looking for a chance to say neener neener. I had no
>idea of the cost or I would have kept my mouth shut)
>
It's all in fun. I secretly suspect we're both full of shit, and I'm
quite okay with that.
axel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Peter Hipwell <petehip@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
axel heyst wrote:
>
> In article <354DA6EF.1F8E@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>,
> Peter Hipwell <petehip@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> >You missed out "The Set of Theories That Cannot Be Classified Within
> >This System".
>
> I'm saying that that was off your screen. Yup. No question there.
Yep, that was right off my screeen and onto yours.
--
Sa-ti muste vampirii curul!
Up one level
Back to document index