From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: An Unprovoked Act of Aggression. (wuz: Re: Luke, Derrida, etc.)
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<1992Dec15.014620.9576@ac.dal.ca>
Date: 15 Dec 1992 19:46:41 UTC

In article <1992Dec15.014620.9576@ac.dal.ca> hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
>In article <fWBPSQK@quack.sac.ca.us>, 
pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>> In article <1992Dec14.110033.9552@ac.dal.ca> 
>> hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>>Hmm...what I meant was, what makes you call some people "better" than 
>>>others?  
>> I'm clinging to the differences.
>Ok, let me rephrase that: whom specifically do you think is "better" than you? 
>What is the nature of this difference? See what I mean? What is it
>that makes one person better than another, in your view?

All right. Everyone is better than me in that everyone (and everything)
represents an opportunity to learn, to eat of the fruit. But, of course,
no *one* is better than me at being me. Mt. Shasta is better than me in
that I could never be the central mountain, could I? Yet I can climb to
the summit, even in winter. Does this make me better than Mt. Shasta or
is it just that she lets me reach the summit? If I don't reach the
summit, have I failed or am I not better? But, you know this, right? You
are just trying to figure out what I meant by: The best have all been
humbled but I am not as enlightened as the best. The best is the *ONE*.
I am not the *ONE*. If I was the *ONE* I wouldn't be me, would I? If I
was the *ONE*, what would that make you? I am not a number, I am a free
man. And have I not answered your question as you have asked?

>> If I wasn't do you think I'd be typing
>> letters on a keyboard right now? Or perhaps all I say is merely to lead
>> you astray. Are these bad things, or good? Don't become insulted by
>> thinking I'm playing words with you. What else can I do? 
>I'm not insulted, don't worry. But one can try to be precise and
>clear. It seems to be the case that human beings _can_ communicate,
>within certain limits. One can try to do as much as possible with
>the materials at hand.

Sure. I try. But, I am not the best.

>> The
>> transcendent is transcendent, that certainly includes letters and words.
>> Beyond the literal meaning, that is where insite is to be found. But
>> don't think I see any better than you, or worse.
>Then why post on Usenet, if your vision is no better or worse than mine?
>I don't mean to say you shouldn't, I'm just wondering why one would
>post if one felt that one didn't have anything to tell anyone. 
>Here's what I'm curious about: you post a lot of interesting
>material, but a lot of it also looks (to me) like quasi-mystical
>gobbledegook. I'm willing to admit that the deficiency might be mine, 
>which is why I launched my "unprovoked act of aggression." I'm just 
>curious as to what the heck you're going on about. 
>> You say nothing, I say everything, what makes you think there is a
>> contradiction? If you had said everything, I would have said nothing.
>> Yet I would do this without bad intent, nor good.
>What IS your intent, then? 

Actually, *all* of what I post is quasi-mystical gobbledegook. I am
impressed that you have found some of it to be interesting. I wonder
what possible meanings you could be reading into my words. I don't post
to prove myself right or convert others to my cause or to compete. It's
just an interplay of words, often fun and often educational. I'm only
here to learn, if you actually learn something from my posts, this
learning is of your own doing. I am not a teacher, I have nothing to
teach, as I am not the one.