cnulan decided to hit me with his favorite insult.
Subject: [Prometheus 6] Bill O'Reilly, your analysis is superficial
You have something to say, Mr. Combes?
Prometheus 6, cnulan (http://www.prometheus6.org/user/43) has sent you a message via your contact form (http://www.prometheus6.org/user/1/contact) at Prometheus 6. If you don't want to receive such e-mails, you can change your settings at http://www.prometheus6.org/user/1. Message:
You see, you claim it to be the only reason applicable to the first level of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, but you miss the point...not every level of need creates an imperative demand on a human.
I'm gonna leave you to your no spin zone telencephalic bloviation with the parting shot that the generative impulse has shown itself to be so powerful that it overrides all that other cultural conditioning in the heat of its influence. that is precisely why it was worth mentioning in this context. That was also the purpose of my background representations.
It also explains why you're alive. WHEN it override all other cultural conditioning, it causes reproduction, not avoidance thereof.
it splains more essentially what is at work in the grand peacock/peahen spectacle of mechanical life, and, it accounts for the persistance of property-like controls on the wimmins and systematic marginalization/demonization of black men.
I understand your clinging to what helped you make it through the night. I also understand that myriads of people have made it through on paths considerably different in detail than yours or mine.
The centers that Maslow indirectly accounts for can't hold a candle to the sex center as the prime mover. This shit goes back a few centuries earlier than slavery and can be observed at work in the inquisition, as well. it's also at the root of the expedient resurrection of that anti-muslim meme.
I understand your clinging to what helped you make it through the night. I also understand that myriads of people have made it through on paths considerably different in detail than yours or mine.
I told you, I'm not taking you seriously when you just drop shit with no backup. That includes when you do it by email. But that's the rule for everyone, it's not personal...taking you seriously long enough to find out you have some information under the flash and cordite was personal.
But now that I'm a Black Bill O'Reilly again, you got to earn your way again.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Newsvine
Furl
Google
Yahoo
I could have called you
I could have called you Miles Davis, but that would've been truly obscure. I have a good friend John Harris who played keyboards for Miles straight out of Berklee. He called it, "the Miles Approach". Basically, it was a low-level of tolerance for any new information that Miles wasn't prepared to process. In the case of Miles, this wasn't cause he was "looking out for the folks", it was simply because he was coked out, self-indulgent and intolerant. Now we both know Bill O'Reilly's nothing like that. (^;
I'd never heard the term "thread hijacking" until you used it. If I understand your usage correctly, rest assured that it's nothing I did intentionally. (this is not an instance of stealth *corn pressing* or anything remotely related to it.) Seems self-evident that gel, jam, and collapse around your themes is what we visit to do and given that it's your stage and your ensemble, does it seem plausible that I would intentionally disrespect any clearly asserted protocol?
I'm like the other members of P6 and the funky bunch, here to improvisationally load and stress my self-talker by making it retrieve and process data it might not otherwise do, scratch that, it would not otherwise do. I look at it exactly as I would a night spent over at the Mutual Musicians Union. You don't go there to play for an audience. I'm not coming here to play for an audience, either. Rather, I'm coming to engage you and your regular ensemble in a way guaranteed to exercise my thoughts. I suppose in front of an audience that could make for some perilous interludes, but being that I post as my own damn self, you have a baseline assurance that I'm unlikely to pronounce nonsense or act imprudently.
Between the Bennett obscenity thread, Cobb's Laguna Hill's interlude, and your proposed book on racism, my thinking apparatus spawned a daemon that went back a few centuries before the American racist experience and into that period when sex, money and murder became an institutionalized nexus of political husbandry under the Inquisition.
Why it would be relevant to your proposed book is because it has been intentionally obscured (occulted) in a way that is similar to the way in which motives for the drug prohibition have been occulted. If the daemon has connected dots and culled data with it's usual fidelity, then my point to you that the motive for current racist manifestation is intractable in the face of rhetoric, even the most powerful and well crafted rhetoric, can be fairly easily demonstrated.
Since I'm not at liberty to develop this thought with the benefit of improvisational feedback and response hereabouts, I'll return to my quiet perusal of Runoko Rashidi articles and see if I can gather additional support for this thesis on my own. btw - I don't take any of this personally. As far as I'm concerned, it's simply operational. I take for granted that you have good intentions, and I've learned to be patient with my elders who struggle to keep up with the quantum overclocked shit that I play.
ROTFLMBAO!!!!
here to improvisationally
What he said. I think.
Okay fellas, please play
Okay fellas, please play nicely. We have bigger fish to fry, and we can't do it if you throw each other in the pan too.