?

Log in

No account? Create an account
click opera
February 2010
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
 
 
 
 
 
 
Fri, Jun. 26th, 2009 12:56 am
Never land.

56CommentReplyFlag

kulicuu
kulicUU
Fri, Jun. 26th, 2009 01:55 am (UTC)
*footnote

*The "Satanic" referred to is just the flipside of the JudeoChristian priest-as-psychiatric nurse (in the modern this could just be pure psychiatric technocrat). The satire, the compulsion to induce and foster bad-conscience that the priest has but keeps relatively hidden comes out full force in the so-called satanic manifestations. It's exactly the same thing. In love with pain, in love with disfigurement and disease. And in love with rigid hierarchical relationships and transcendent operations....
That's all extremely un-precice but maybe something of the idea... I actually never use the term or really have much interest in these cults but have been reading recently a lot of CoIntelpro history and whatnot, and this kind of cult life is actually really big in AmeroAnglo society. So FritoLay on the surface, so tacky & kinky underneath.


ReplyThread
kulicuu
kulicUU
Fri, Jun. 26th, 2009 06:59 pm (UTC)
Re: *footnote//qualifier



For reasons of brevity, I had to leave things radically overgeneralized. In some cases, instead of trying to wind out a formally expository paragraph I went for the allusive epigram instead. Again, in the interests of abreviation.
My actual opinions of large, highly differentiated collections like the 'JudeoChristian' et al are much more nuanced. ('Both of those and all of those things can be rendered affinate with all different kinds of force tendencies depending on the practitioner'...something like that) bleh. I hate generalisations.
But abreviate or sink in the muck.


ReplyThread Parent

(Anonymous)
Fri, Jun. 26th, 2009 09:29 pm (UTC)
Re: *footnote//qualifier

you sound like a really confused sophmore english major.


ReplyThread Parent

(Anonymous)
Sat, Jun. 27th, 2009 09:34 am (UTC)
Re: *footnote//qualifier

I disagree! this guy is really interesting and I like the way he expresses himself. If you're prepared to distill his ideas they're a really interesting contrast to what Momus says.


ReplyThread Parent
kulicuu
kulicUU
Sat, Jun. 27th, 2009 04:47 pm (UTC)
Re: *footnote//qualifier

haha that's funny.

You are both right, to varying degrees, in different ways.

Anon1: For a variety of reasons, including poor typing skills and extraneous life stressors, my compositional and organisational skills aren't nearly what they should be. I actually have what I consider to be cognitive deficits, largely due to aforementioned stressors, over many years. I'm working on it.
As Anon2 implied, I have a lot of intelligent thoughts, ideas, perceptions about ze world. Expressive performance is another issue.
Also, as mentioned in the qualifier, time is an issue, and these things are written ad-hoc. So, basically I give myself about 5 or 10 minutes (or less) to convey what typically in academic terms would cover a whole collection of theses. So, there are compromises and there will be mode shifts, i.e. methodical rigor giving way to allusive epigrammatics heavy on the ironic.
I'll leave it at that. More than anyone needs/wants to read, I'll concur.
I'll improve. Promise.


ReplyThread Parent