From: Chris <chris-AT-christopherjee.com>
Date: 24 Apr 2008 07:02:01 UTC   (12:02:01 AM in author's locale)
To: Situationist <situationist-AT-lists.nothingness.org>

Once again, a brief response/question, to give everybody else the
distributed audience real-estate they seem to require: do you consider
it at all possible that to criticize certain samplings of a religion's
subjects as the "best examples" of a religion is to validate only
their interpretation, rather than to make the sweeping, grandiose
statement you would like to make about the product of a body of
thought immensely larger than the entirety of your life experience?

On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 11:57 PM, Andrew oommen <andrewomm-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
> you don't know me, so keep your ass away.
>
> 2008/4/23 richard haden <richard_haden-AT-yahoo.com>:
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > Ooman of the OH>>MAN tribe,
> > Bare with me while I try to add a little light on the subject
> (Perhaps in a scatological sense-- a little Sepia instead)
> > Perhaps it is with my ass or brown eye that I spot and judge thee a
> follower of the worlds great religions--as cultural artfact of tolerance. I
> tolerate and console those who wish merely to survive and not live...but in
> their silence I occupy a grater space of freedom. The Christian and Muslim
> Religions, by far the least interesting of his or her stories, managed back
> in the day, through a newly bartering publicist , a lobbying campaign, any
> corporate tobacco CEO would admire--to launch an improved, streamlined myth
> to rule the peasantry--to better subjugate, circumscribe and repress with
> there pre-Birkenstock(ian) sandal. To re-institutionalize and Market a
> vehicle of greater manipulate-able religious nicotine like substance...To
> the astonishment of conscience minds (minds eye) we today are constantly
> reminded of how truly active is the pursuit of that great "Darwin Award".
> www.darwinawards.com/
> > Oh so easy to atomize through the medium of Ka-Boom; a view of the
> world how ever it is after the fact.
> > I am still leaning towards a Univocity or a nominalistic vectoring to
> avoid the stains. I look for the rot on the root of ....inside.
> users.rcn.com/bmetcalf.ma.ultranet/What%20is%20Univocity.htm If we
> want to understand Deleuze's philosophy, it is important to come to terms
> with his Spinozist Univocity. Or Or that the genus (Bi Pedal) Species
> (Things with wings that look anthropomorphic) are substance abusing,
> homeomorhphic, delusions.
> >
> >
> > Something like that
> > Richard Haden
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----
> > From: Andrew oommen <andrewomm-AT-gmail.com>
> > To: Situationist <situationist-AT-lists.nothingness.org>
> > Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 12:51:52 AM
> > Subject: Re: the left jab preceding the right jab: not dress-rehearsal,
> but last act
> >
> > You are not arguing with anyone but yourself. none of this disproves any
> point from before. you are wrong.
> > For your ignorance, i point you to Reza Aslan, who provides two
> translations of the same passage from the Koran.
> >
> > "Men are the support of women [qawwamuna 'ala an-nisa] as God gives some
> more means than others, and because they spend of their wealth (to provide
> for them).... As for women you feel are averse, talk to them suasively; then
> leave them alone in bed (without molesting them) and go to bed with them
> (when they are willing).
> >
> > Men are in charge of women, because Allah has made some of them excel the
> others, and because they spend some of their wealth... And for those [women]
> that you fear might rebel, admonish them and abandon them in their beds and
> beat them [adribuhunna]" (No God but God, pg 69-70) (all authors original
> notes).
> >
> > Clearly people interpret different things. Your authors take one extremist
> translation and call it a pillar holding up the entire religion. This author
> looks at all sides and looks at its contextual history, not its political
> "idiocracy" that has existed in Western culture.
> > Concedingly religion is not the solution to the worlds problems, but
> nonetheless, it is not this savage beast you paint it as. Your ignorance is
> so blatant that you don't answer the real arguments i make against your
> position. i say you are intolerant while calling for tolerance (terrorizing
> in the name of democracy, etc.). i say that your game theory is antihuman
> (like capital). i also argue you dont know anything about totalizing
> critiques (deleuze, debord, etc.). you have only made yourself look like an
> ass. stop beating your head against the wall and go outside to real a book,
> because none of these online sources will help you deal with you pathology.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 8:15 PM, Christopher Gray <rasputin-AT-teleport.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > It is Islam, probably be better named "Abyslam". Read the tenets and
> core. The fundamentalists are not "bad examples" of the religion, nut its
> "best examples". Fortified reification is not warm'n'fuzzy; it's an
> abomination of inverted humanness, and casts a murderous shadow o'er
> authentic living. The triad of reifications from the Middle East are
> co-dependently wretched at their very common core. They seethed forth from a
> desertified human geography such that sacrifice, scarcity, hording, and
> rigid hierarchy permeate them all to varying degrees. They are the practice
> of death culture.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>


--
~Chris
----
Message sent by the Situationist list.
To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe situationist" in the body of a message
to requests-AT-lists.nothingness.org