TEXT OF NODES MATCHING FILTER:
Date: Wednesday, December 29, 2004 3:04:40 PM
TEXT: {F2F} [genCM96.1/karen] essence [was Re: exhaustion] Karen Melzack () Thu, 1 Feb 1996 11:04:30 +0800 And Rose remembers words "we are all naked here"..... And thinks "we are all *essence* here....." How can we hide our _selves_, here in Cyberspace - when we are here precisely because we *write* ? Even the most guarded self must reveal some part, in messaging.... and how often does silence itself scream imprecations or resignation or despair? if you*are. there is absolutely no way you can hide here or there. even in being guarded that is a disclosure. what is incomesout and what is out is reflected back. and what is ingoesin and what is in is reflected back. k ====
COMMENT: karen
FEATURES: 2relevance-in in-response2female to-many female
TEXT: {M2F} [genCM96.2/andre] Re: Dream André Genesini () Thu, 1 Feb 1996 01:09:15 -0200 Rose qu0ted and added: >In some dream I saw your dark >And weeping eyes follow the fall >Of my fingers... > >In my dream I saw your light >And smiling eyes (your brilliance) follow the fall >Of my dream... I dream a dream of you In my dream a machine could show you my world In my world I would accelerate my athoms at full spead In order to enter your heart dressed like a clown Then I would jump each time higher on a crazy dance Untill your self was full filled with joy ... ====
COMMENT: andre
FEATURES: 2relevance-in in-reply2female to-female male
TEXT: {M2M} [genCM96.3/andre] Re: Faked Personality André Genesini () Thu, 1 Feb 1996 01:09:13 -0200 On 27 Jan 1996, Greg Ritter wrote: > >The question I keep asking (which nobody seems to be answering) >is what is the advantage of looking at life's problems as an >incurable ("hardwired") disease? >Greg Ritter > > My anwer: none. Thinks are hard enough and we need not more people telling us there is no way out. Many people suffered on concentration camps during WW II and survived the experience by further helping other people in need when peace came. ====
COMMENT: andre
FEATURES: 2relevance-in in-reply2male to-male male
TEXT: {M2M} [genCM96.4/andre] Re: FW: Conservation an Instinct? André Genesini () Thu, 1 Feb 1996 01:09:06 -0200 On Fri, 26 Jan 1996 17:44:15 , Jacques L. Yerby forwarded a message with the following subject "Conservation an Instinct?" I am constantly worried and tuned about the ecologic equilibrium of our world, but I don't think that the greater number of environmentalists and ecological conscience is due to a natural instinct. Living in a third-world-country like Brasil (which is my case) helps a lot on the understanding of this issue. Even though we have friends of the environment here, they are not regular Joes, Johns or Mary(s). To get straight to the point: You will not think about ecology if you can not feed your family and most people around, just like you, live below the line of poverty. So we do have a strong green party here but the majority of the population do not understand government programs and efforts on ecology (they'd reather eat the whale than save it). So I think that the recent burst of ecological conscience is due to the fact that we are closer to a global comunity thanks to economical and tecnological advances, like the Internet and lists like CM. >------>To: Multiple recipients of list ECOPSYCHOLOGY >Subject: Conservation an Instinct? > From: (Conservation Biology Discussion Group) > As the world population grows to over 5.7 billion and our local > ecology (suburban and rural) is sacrificed for housing and industry, > more environmentalists seem to be showing their faces. They are > waging quite an admirable battle that includes appeals to SEPA, > NEPA, and shoreline developments. Add to this civil disobedience > and hundreds of grassroots enviro. organizations and you seem to > have quite a movement on your hands. > <snipped> ====
COMMENT: andre
FEATURES: 3post-inspired-me in-response2male to-many male
TEXT: {M2F} [genCM96.5/richard] Re: essence [was Re: exhaustion] Richard MacKinnon () Wed, 31 Jan 1996 22:18:26 -0600 I'm very tired so I mis-read a key words in Karen's post. I thought she had said: >How can we hide our _selves_, here in Cyberspace - when we are here >precisely because we're *white* ? ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^ She actually wrote "because we write," but recent readings and discussion (online and off) have me thinking about ethnicity and how it is presented online. There's that idea that people can hide themselves (their ethnic selves) behind a universally white persona. Even if we are all "white," (as opposed to "write") then Karen's other statement still make sense: >And Rose remembers words "we are all naked here"..... So perhaps, by accident, "write" was interposed with "white" (at least in my mind), and briefly, there was flash of what online ethnicity *might* consist of. --Richard P.S. I also want to note that once I mis-read "write" during my initial scanning of the message, I also mis-read "back" in both instances. When I realized that I was not reading "black," I went back and re-read the whole message more carefully. At 11:04 AM 2/1/96 +0800, Karen wrote: > >And thinks "we are all *essence* here....." > >How can we hide our _selves_, here in Cyberspace - when we are here >precisely because we *write* ? Even the most guarded self must reveal >some part, in messaging.... and how often does silence itself scream >imprecations or resignation or despair? > >if you*are. >there is absolutely no way you can hide here or there. >even in being guarded that is a disclosure. what is incomesout >and what is out is reflected back. >and what is ingoesin and what is in is reflected back. >k > <sig snipped. ====
COMMENT: richard
FEATURES: 3post-inspired-me in-response2female to-many male
TEXT: {F2M} [genCM96.6/rose] Re: He changed Rose Mulvale () Thu, 1 Feb 1996 00:42:44 -0400 On Wed, 31 Jan 1996 18:18:20 -0500, Fred E. Maus wrote, and Rose wishes to thank Alan and Pip (co-moderators of Cybermind List) for permitting her to read: >He came to want only peaches that were just past ripeness. He >wanted the skin to break and peel at the smallest touch. He >wanted the strange feeling of his teeth as pointless fossils, >standing awkwardly, useless and abashed. His tongue, the >insides of his cheeks, the sensitive motionless gums, the >soft peach flesh understood each other. The teeth were follish, >they had no part in this. But later his teeth would meet >the wood of the pit and feel they had been recognized, if not >used. > >He came to hate the sharp simple tang of apples. Their textures >felt like hard plastic wrapped around styrofoam, but worse, >their simple sharp tang was like a jaunty greeting--"Hi"--that >he hated and did not want to answer. Even his teeth, though only >later, lost their lust for cutting cleanly through the white >mass. > >If he could not eat peaches he would say the words, slowly, >carefully. "Taste"--feeling it as his tongue touched his teeth >and left them, preferring the skin of the roof of his mouth. >Having said the word he would leave his mouth just ajar, >feeling the passage of breath past his lips. "Geschmack"--the >way his mouth opened in the middle of the word was like an >invitation; the word readied him for reception. Best was >"gou^t," the teeth forgotten, no more closing of lips, >all the action lodged deep in his throat, opening it far back >to let what was in his mouth pass further. He wanted only such >words, and only such fruit. ====
COMMENT: rose
FEATURES: 3post-inspired-me in-response2male to-many female
TEXT: {F2M} [genCM96.7laurie] Re: Faked Personality Laurie Cubbison () Thu, 1 Feb 1996 00:06:59 -0500 Another post rescued from the bowels of Eudora... Greg said: >Laurie said: > The theory that is > developing is that an ongoing biological stress response to >some ongoing > traumatic situation over a significant period of time affects >the body to > the extent that the neurochemical equilibrium is disrupted, >resulting in > physical changes that result in illness. > >Doesn't it stand to reason that an ongoing biological response to >some ongoing *positive* situation or behaviors affects the >neurochemical equilibrium in a beneficial way? >For example, exercise releases certain chemicals in the brain >("seratonin", I think? Prob'ly spelled it wrong...) that provide >euphoric feelings. Those are endorphins, which is the brain chemical mimicked by morphine. Serotonin has its own role to play, as does tryptophan, melatonin and others. And don't we all feel that "rush" of >exhiliration when we make a decision that we know is going to >take us in new and exciting directions? > >I think one of the keys is to work hard to get yourself >"addicted" to the rush we get from positive action. That's assuming that the brain is working correctly and making the right amounts of all the right chemicals. And frankly, positive action can be terrifyingly stressful too. It was a very positive action for me to come to Purdue to work on my Phd, but I stressed myself sick (literally) over it, so that my reaction when the move was over was not euphoria over having made it here, but relief, a feeling of "well, that wasn't as bad as I expected" even though I was making the best of all possible moves in my life that was taking me "in new and exciting directions." laurie ====
COMMENT: laurie
FEATURES: 1interactive in-reply2male to-male female
TEXT: {F2M} [genCM96.8/laurie] Re: Carapace Laurie Cubbison () Thu, 1 Feb 1996 00:09:01 -0500 [wow. i actually managed to find this saved by eudora. of course, i wished she'd told me she saved it before she crashed.] Greg said (and I'd thought I'd lost this reply): >Laurie said: > Alan wrote: > >I wonder about these sorts of investigations into the >phenomenology of > >their spaces, not wanting to get trapped in detail, but >feeling without > >detail, one generalizes about "cyberspace" as if body is a >simple projec- > >tion of equivalence - "I" here is equal to "I" there. > > Exactly, yes, that is the generalization. And it is that which >is > problematic to me. "I" in cyberspace doesn't equal "I" offline. >Rather they > are supplementary angles, "I" online adding to "I" offline to >equal me. > There are parts of me in the online side of my angle that are >not displayed > in the offline side, and vice-versa. I think this is what I've >been trying > to get across in the cybermind thread on personalities. > >But that's nothing unique to cyberspace. You could just as easily >say the "I" you are on the job is not the same "I" you are at >home with a lover is not the same "I" you are having dinner with >your parents is not the same "I you are on the phone with your >friend. Of course, they are all subordinate supplementary angles. > >Why look at the personality as fragmented into separate selves? >Why not assume that what is going on is not a fragmentation but a >reaction of the self to different contexts? A different context >does not mean a separate personality. Right, and that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that parts are *displayed* in one area or another that are neglected in another. Different contexts reveal different aspects of my personality, and some contexts reveal more clearly aspects of my personality that seem more true of the underlying person than of the social person. > >I think part of the "glamour" of cyberspace is that it's supposed >to allow us to "redefine ourselves", but I think that glamour is >a myth, a myth I'd like to see debunked. I lived in the same >place all my childhood. 50 other students from my high school >graduating class went to the same undergrad school I did; I >roommated with one of my friends from high school. When I finally >left to go to grad school halfway across the continent where I >knew no one, I thought "Finally! A chance to reinvent myself!" I attended school in two different grade schools in two different towns, two different middle schools in two different states, and one high school, two different undergrad colleges, one MA university and now a Phd university. It's not that one can reinvent themselves; it's that one is moving into different situations with different cultural values that have their affect on what aspects of yourself you can display there. When I was in 8th grade I moved from a university town to a small town in Kentucky. The assumption of academic achievement and creativity that was the norm in the university town was nerdish in the Kentucky town. I had to adjust who I was to fit in as well as I could. When I went to the University of Kentucky my freshman year, I found a powerfully active sorority scene, but when a few years later I went to a small liberal arts school, the emphasis was different. One became active in campus organizations because there wasn't other people to do the things other people did at large universities. In my MA school, the assumption was that we would teach high school or adjunct college when we got our degrees. Going on for a phd was nice, but not really encouraged to any strong degree. And so there are a lot of my friends still there, living on parttimer pay, because family commitments tie them to the area. Here at Purdue, the assumptions are different. You're not simply expected to get your degree, but also to become one of the leading figures in the field. This encouragement of achievement is bringing out a whole new aspect of me that hasn't received much attention. > >Baloney. You don't just dump your baggage at the stateline when >you move across the country. And you don't just dump your baggage >when you sit down at the terminal. I got to grad school and was >the same neurotic I'd always been. Oh, of course. I think i'm still the same neurotic I've been since I moved to kentucky in 8th grade. > >Context helps us define our personality, and, yes, our behaviors >shift as we move from context to context so that we may function >within that context more effectively (or, at least, less >painfully?). But I think the assumption that any new context-- >including cyberspace--gives us a blank slate is a...I don't know, >I want to say "misguided" or "dangerous" or "not useful." But I'm not saying it gives us a blank slate; I'm saying it lets us display parts of ourselves that were hidden. Each new context calls up different aspects of ourselves, and sometimes the context is new and different enough to call up an aspect that hasn't seen the light of day before. It was alwaysthere, just deeply hidden. I think >it's appealing to think there's a space out there where we >actually can leave our baggage behind and be "who we are meant to >be", but I think that denies the vast complexity of what goes >into making our personalities, a complexity that a >"cyberpersonality" pales in comparison to. > > This is (maybe not > >so obviously) false: there are not only varying projections, >but varying > >persons (among first, second, third, spivak, neutral, etc.) > > a choice of elements of oneself to foreground > >Yes. A choice. > exactly, a choice but also an opportunity to foreground elements of oneself that have always otherwise been in the background laurie ====
COMMENT: laurie
FEATURES: 1interactive in-reply2male to-male female
TEXT: {M2F}? [genCM96.9/dave] Re: Reason One riot nrrrd () Thu, 1 Feb 1996 00:19:28 -0500 Maybe in reply to: kaona: "Reason One" Alan notes: >Ah but angels never yield ... which explains who's driving all those cars here on long island, NY -- 73 de Dave Weingart KB2CWF <sig snipped> ====
COMMENT: dave
FEATURES: 2relevance-in in-response2male unaddressed male
TEXT: {M-/} {I} [genCM96.10/andrewL] Object Lesson in Suicide Andrew Libby () Thu, 1 Feb 1996 00:31:45 -0500 Object Lesson in Suicide My books have returned. A long time we spent apart, now there is time enough to unpack my library. This, from a suicide, a book collector, who reminds that books are always tied to a space and a thread of ownership: "For in his interior, ghosts, at least wee ghosts, settled, who bring it to pass that for the collector, I mean the proper one, the collector as he ought to be, possession is absolutely the deepest relationship one can have to the things: not that they are alive in him; it is he who dwells in them. Thus I have staged for you one of his housings, the building blocks of which are books, and now he disappears in it, as is fitting." (Benjamin, Denkbilder) Open it, spread your legs, for the dust to contaminate the air and your fingers to stroke the embossed words, before they are read, before parting, blind reading. Wider and wider, then possession itself becomes a possession, wider, the subject will become clear enough, wider still, will you, till the spine splits, the pages, ragged, fall to the ground in broken packets. We call them signatures. ====
COMMENT: andrewL
FEATURES: 5announce initiation unaddressed male
TEXT: {M-/} {I} [genCM96.11/andrewL] entrails Andrew Libby () Thu, 1 Feb 1996 00:32:40 -0500 Entrails Admit, you do not know, haven't a clue. This thing moves, that doesn't, the value betrays the thing even before it is sold. It can sneak up on you, value can, and say boo! This is the mystique of the value of wares. It might slip away, it might be a guerrilla, heh Che, it might knock your socks off motherfucker it might smoke a milder brand or break a leg. Admit, there is no telling what it will do, how it will sell, who it will fuck, where it will be, why it is. The value of wares rises like the smoke off the mountain of a Caribbean island at 6:32 AM, but it is not the smoke off a mountain of a Caribbean island at 6:32 AM. It is the value of wares, the tool we use to see ourselves when there are no mirrors handy in the dancehall. Again, the spectacles speak: "The so-called interior image of one's own essence, that we carry in ourselves, is from one minute to the next pure improvisation" (Benjamin, "On Believing in Things Foretold," _Denkbilder_) ====