God's Cunt

Sepulchritude Forum: The Absinthe Forum Archives Thru July 2001: Topics Archived thru March 2001:God's Cunt
By Chrysippvs on Saturday, March 24, 2001 - 07:17 pm: Edit

And I quote Epictetus:

"Meditation is for those that cannot make the choice of wisdom."

"...the contradictions are designed to be meditated on...concious mind up...filters you've built up your whole life."

Fubar. Enlightement is a choice to make not a goal to be reached. The Stoics responded to the Megarian Logicians, which were influenced by Indian thought. I side with the Stoics, I don't want to limit the mind in saying that I have to meditate to get a thought. I can choose so. To "play some fine tricks on madness" so to speak.

= J

By Mr_Rabbit on Saturday, March 24, 2001 - 05:42 pm: Edit

Justin, you said '...many of which are like Zen Buddhism, but much much better. He doesn't spend time wading through countless contradictions like some Chinese/Indian thinkers.'

I dunno if you know this or not, but I'm gonna say it anyway.:-) In Zen texts, the contradictions are designed to be meditated on, to lock your concious mind up, to get it out of the way so that you can percieve things without the filters you've built up your whole life.

The sound of one hand clapping is not a riddle, it's meant to make your 'self' throw up the Blue Screen of Death and get out of the way.

By Lordhobgoblin on Friday, March 23, 2001 - 12:27 pm: Edit


Are you making a sarcastic remark and am I just being obtuse? Or are you genuinely extolling the virtues of the American version of India's national game?


By Martin on Friday, March 23, 2001 - 11:52 am: Edit

I like to play Parcheesi. It's fun, and you can really use alot of strategy when playing it.


By Lordhobgoblin on Friday, March 23, 2001 - 07:40 am: Edit


Ok being an 'anti-philosopher' does not mean someone is not a philosopher. The category includes all those listed and also the likes of Richard Rorty. Marx however was primarily an historian and economist, not a philosopher.

Marx was indeed greatly inspired by Hegel, but unlike Hegel he believed that what we think is determined by what we do rather than the reverse. Ideas are determined by actions, rather than actions being determined by ideas. If philosophy is viewed as abstract speculation with ideas and values being the motivators then Marx's ideas are not philosophical. His theory is based on the development of society as a continuous, inevitable, historical process which is not determined by ideas. Ideas are not really all that relevant.

The article you quote says "He intended to fashion a practical philosophy with the means to transform the world". This is false and is a common misconception. Marx did not see his ideas as a means of transforming the world. For him transformation of society was part of a natural development which had been occurring since society began, he saw himself as just pointing this out. The process would occur whether or not he or anyone else proposed an explanation of it. All Marx did was to propose an explanation of what was occurring and why, and how this change would be likely to continue. He had no intention of transforming the world.

Marx may have wrote in the style of a philosopher, as did most other intellectuals of his time, but he was a 'prophet' rather than a philosopher. We'll never agree on this but thanks for the article.


By Artemis on Friday, March 23, 2001 - 06:59 am: Edit

Justin wrote:

"Zen is not philosophy"

Bah Bah Bah. Come one Artemis we all know what is intended is never what is. Take Jesus for instance.
- Jesus in c.28 CE Jewish mystic with heavy ties to hellenistic cynism and anti-prushim legality.
- Jesus c.1999 CE Consubstantial homousios second person of the Holy trinity of God.

Zen is philosophy even if it isn't supposed to be.

Justin, I think you and I touched upon those facts about Jesus on the night of Ted's gathering, in a discussion about the origins of Christianity. Your point is well taken.

I certainly didn't mean to denigrate your interest in philosophy, but regardless of what Zen may be perceived to be in the present day, Zen correctly understood has not changed since Bodhidharma went to China - it is a practical method for getting from cradle to grave, and I've never perceived the same in my (very limited) reading of various "philosophies". For those, with all their claptrap about man's place in the universe, etc. to be of any practical use to me, I would have to tear the pages from the books and use them as Lord H. suggested. That's all I meant about "asswipe".

By Heiko on Friday, March 23, 2001 - 04:23 am: Edit


I just looked around a little to find some texts to underline my thoughts (not because I am a special fan of Marx, just because you insist on he's not a philosopher at all).

First, Marx wrote the "Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts" in 1844 which end with a chapter called "Critique of Hegel's Dialectic and General Philosophy". He was very inspired by Hegel's work, if he liked it or not.

Second, Engels, in his short bio of Marx, published in "Die Zukunft", No. 185, August 11, 1869 writes about him: "He studied jurisprudence at Bonn and later in Berlin, where, however, his preoccupation with philosophy soon turned him away from law."

Third, quite a good article on this matter on The Philosophers' Magazine on the internet by Sanghamitra Bandyopadhyay (I don't know who that is, but the TPM online magazine does not post anything without reviewing, so we can trust in the article's quality):

"In Highgate Cemetery, London, the epitaph of Karl Marx (1818-1883) is inscribed with a quote from one of his famous theses: 'the philosophers have only interpreted the world; the point, however, is to change it.' While others shaped the course of philosophy, he shaped the history of the world. His rhetoric is powerful, his message is compelling, his following attracts both wholehearted approval and widespread scorn.

So, how is Marx a philosopher? Of the numerous treatises in subjects ranging from anthropology to medicine, his main contribution as a philosopher, economic theorist and political scientist is a theory of the development of society. Marx belongs to a league of anti-philosophers, with Nietzsche, Heidegger and Wittgenstein, who were out to deflate the metaphysical pretensions of philosophy and discuss something more fundamental, such as power, being or, in Marx's case, the 'historical conditions of man'. He intended to fashion a practical philosophy with the means to transform the world.

For Marx, what was wrong with the German philosophy of his day was its assumption that nature and society were immutable. Marx opined that to believe in an unchanging world is to be on an ineluctable march to obsolescence. This was his starting point. [...]"
the complete article can be found here

This says what I also thought when I read your statement that Marx was an anti-philosopher: it does not mean the same as "not being a philosopher" - otherwise anyone on this planet who is not a philosopher could be called an "anti-philosopher" ;-)

By Lordhobgoblin on Friday, March 23, 2001 - 02:24 am: Edit


Marx was not searching for the perfect political system, nor was he searching for a system to better human conditions.

Marx was making observations (in his opinion) on the historical development of human society and proposing a theory of how, based on historical evidence and various pressures within society, human society would continue to develop into the future. He could be correctly called an economist or even an historian (whether a good one or a bad one depends on your point of view) but not a philosopher.

He was not an idealist, although many after him who attach much importance to his ideas were and are. This is the main reason why Marx is mistaken as an idealist who was searching for a system to improve human society.

(Don, how would you say "Take me to your leader!" in Calculus?)

By Don_Walsh on Thursday, March 22, 2001 - 11:10 pm: Edit

Marc, next time you see Chip Delaney tell him Don Walsh from New Orleans says hi. I am glad he made it through the 80s and 90s, a lot of guys in his lifestyle didn't.

By Marc on Thursday, March 22, 2001 - 05:36 pm: Edit


I see Samuel Delaney around town, at restaurants and The Strand Book Store.

By Wolfgang on Thursday, March 22, 2001 - 09:36 am: Edit

(about calculus and understanding of the universe)

You score a point there Don. It`s a good lesson of humility to learn calculus. At first you thing you will learn something very incredible but finaly you understand that you are just begining to understand some very basic law of the universe. Then you say to yourself : 'damn ! I wasn`t even able to calculate those soo simple natural things!'.

The more we learn, the more we know how much ignorant we are.

The number of things to learn tend to infinity, So it doesn't count how much thigs I will learn. Any number divided by infinity will tend to zero anyway.


By Anatomist1 on Thursday, March 22, 2001 - 08:51 am: Edit

I admit to be half-educated science-wise by Don's standards -- but I make up for it by being overeducated in others [insert emoticon here]. I like to build and design things now, and I'm glad I don't know too much about physics and engineering. It would ruin the sense of exploration and discovery for me. I'm into this fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants demented inventor circa 1900's vibe.


I'm curious. You pointed out the universal and immutable attributes of mathematics, and then said calculus was "invented" -- shouldn't you have said "discovered"?


By Ekmass on Thursday, March 22, 2001 - 07:36 am: Edit

God's Cunt, kinda like Irene's Cunt by Aragon or more like Madame Edwarda by Bataille

By Ekmass on Thursday, March 22, 2001 - 07:33 am: Edit

Don you are right in your assesment of mathematics. What I have seen overlooked (or minimally refferd to ) is the inpact of philosphy on politics. While Marx might not have considered himeself a philosopher (he certainly had the beard for it) he certainly invented a new form of political phiosophy. While in the grand sense "philosophy" can be considered the search for truth, political philosophy is the search for a perfect political system. As you well know in the course of recored human history there have been a scant few political systems. Religeo-monarchic rule, eaglitarian/"democratic" rule and socialistic rule. In my mind, the use of philosophy should be aimed at contemplating and bettering the human condition. That means creating a better political system to organize ourselves with.

By Don_Walsh on Thursday, March 22, 2001 - 07:11 am: Edit

Samuel R.'Chip' Delaney and I are old friends for 30 years, we roomed together at the Clarion SF writer's workshop at Tulane University (NOLA) in '71.

I prefer his porn novel 'The Tides of Lust'. But yes I have read Babel-17. A LONG time ago.

Chip is a gay black guy from NY City. I am a het white guy from NOLA. However, we hit it off from the start.

By Aion on Thursday, March 22, 2001 - 04:39 am: Edit

As for universal language, have you ever read Samuel R. Delany´s SF-novel "BABEL-17"?

By Don_Walsh on Thursday, March 22, 2001 - 04:18 am: Edit

You guys have certainly underscored the hot air aspects.

People with liberal arts backgrounds know little of science.

People with scientific/technical beckgrounds often sadly know little of the liberal arts, including philospphy.

I happen to have a degree in each field, and there are others out there like me.

The dichotomy can be crossed.

There have been many scientist/philsosphers.

Descartes, Pascal, Newton, Leibnitz, Boyle, need I go on?

We could reach back to Bacon, but then we get inevitably involved in theology.

Mathematics is not philosophy; it is the universal language of the universe and the only way we will establish communication with any alien races that happen to be Out There, if any. The ratio of the diameter of a sphere to its surface area is a constant in this universe. Just as an example. Mathematics is NOT obvious. Calculus, the basis of all modern science and engineering, is a post renaissance invention and the dividing line between the educated and the half educated can be drwan right at the understanding of basic calculus. Don't talk to me about Einstein without a grounding in Leibniz and Newton (not necessarily in that order.) ALL of the fundamental laws of nature and the universe can't be properly understood except in the language of calculus. Without, you can get close but no cigar.

By Lordhobgoblin on Thursday, March 22, 2001 - 01:17 am: Edit


The fact that an idea can be tested and proven does not necessarily mean that it is not a philosophical idea. However the if the idea itself represents the ultimate aim and purpose then this is worthless. Philosophy places ideas and values as ends in themselves. It is the result following the physical testing of ideas that is the only thing of purpose or worth, ideas and values are secondary. If an idea cannot be physically tested, then we can never measure it and it represents worthless hot air.

The problem today is that many scientists, historians, economists, political theorists etc are mistakenly viewed as being philosophers, simply because they proposed complex, often abstract theories and observations; despite the fact that their aims were not philosophical.

(I'm glad we agree on the pointless nature of metaphysics)

By Heiko on Wednesday, March 21, 2001 - 06:58 pm: Edit

I don't think 1+1=2 sounds stupid, only many people told me that "logic is nonsense because it is obvious that if A&B then if A then B". For these people I used the example that mathematics is obvious, too, but not nonsense.

Philosophy is often going round in circles and leads to nothing (especially metaphysics - no need to discuss things that we will never know, this is never going to lead anywhere, agreed.)

If you say that any idea which can be proven in reality never was a philosophical idea, then you are exactly right - by your own definition.
I think f.e. Einstein's theories were pure philosophy (he could never prove them himself) - these philosophical ideas then lead other people to prove them (right or wrong, doesn't matter). But if he had never uttered these ideas, nobody would ever have thought about the relativity of time and space, and no one could have even tried to prove it.

I also think philosophy is only good if it comes up with ideas that might be proven.
Modern Philosophers like Frege, Russell, Searle or Popper are not interested in old metaphysical problems anymore, they try to come up with basic ideas and methods for science to work on.
If you therefore define them not to be philosophers, you're right again ;-)

By _Blackjack on Wednesday, March 21, 2001 - 04:32 pm: Edit

Ah, the "No True Scotsman" fallacy...

By Lordhobgoblin on Wednesday, March 21, 2001 - 01:07 pm: Edit


I disgaree with you about Marx(and Marx would also have disagreed with you). Marx was not a philosopher, (nor an idealist as many often seem to think). Marx was an anti-philosopher. [And before any of the forum's 'Right' attack me I'm not making a political point.]

And philosophy as idle, intellectual, abstract speculation resulting in no physical actions; the ancient philosophers invented philosophy for this purpose. Philosophy on its own was never up to date, it made as little sense in ancient Greece as it does today.

Philosophy is concerned with going round in circles tying to establish the 'truth' through abstract ideas and discussions alone. This is a waste of time and does not work, at best all it proves is one person's 'intellectual' and linguistic ability over another, just mental arm-wrestling, nothing of any importance except to individual egos. Truth (or logic) cannot be attributed to ideas, it needs to be physically tested. An idea which is not physically tested is a waste of time and means nothing.

As for "1+1=2", this doesn't sound stupid any more than "These are letters". Mathematics is simply a language to communicate, nothing more. The language of mathematics is no more philosophy than any other language, it's just another means of communicating.


By Heiko on Wednesday, March 21, 2001 - 12:26 pm: Edit


then it's the definition of philosophy that makes us disagree.
Any speculation and hypothesis IS philosophy.

Marx was a philosopher: his ideas have definitely changed the world, also Hobbes' "Leviathan", Aristotle's "Politeia" and Plato's "the state" are mainly books on politics, something real.

I know that today philosophy is mostly seen like you do and parts of it definitely is far away from real life.
This is why people have to be reminded that philosophers are not only artistic thinkers who live in ivory towers - philosophy mainly originated in logic, a technique to precisely plan. "Given A AND B, then if A, B follows definitely" - might sound stupid (just like 1+1=2 sounds stupid) but look at more complex predicate logic...
This is still pure philosophy, but every linguist or serious program writer has to learn it.

Forget about the philosophers who only like to hear themselves talking elaborately - there are others who do semantics, ethics, politics, physics...of course they need to know other sciences as well, philosophy on its own isn't really up to date any more, I agree.

right, I guess pussy is the only aim men were programmed for by nature, everything else -like hunting for food, talking, warfaring etc.- was just necessary to reach this one and only aim...and look at how good we got at all that other unnecessary stuff just to get pussy...this desire is so strong we would even destroy our planet for it *g*

By Melinelly on Wednesday, March 21, 2001 - 12:25 pm: Edit

ok well belief isn't so much a sense as it is a filter learned through senses, through which senses are filtered into "understanding"

By Melinelly on Wednesday, March 21, 2001 - 12:23 pm: Edit

zen is not philosophy, "Zen" is philosophy... zen preceeds comprehension and once philosophized is no longer zen... yadda yadda yadda, pointless to continue that thought as it is no longer what it was.

as i said below... experience: the happening zen from which philosophy is born of subjectivity (aka the senses: sight, sound, touch, smell, taste, and BELIEF aka "knowledge").

By Marc on Wednesday, March 21, 2001 - 11:05 am: Edit

you all have made my point:


By Lordhobgoblin on Wednesday, March 21, 2001 - 11:04 am: Edit


Not all thoughts and ideas are philosophy. Not all hypotheses are philosophical. Science is not about believing only in what one sees, it is about speculating and testing hypotheses; this is not philosophy.

Ideas are only valuable if they are precursors to actions. The only valuable thought processes and ideas are those which are means to practical ends and not ends in themselves, the ideas are therefore secondary to the actions. Philosophy values thought and ideas as ends in themselves, a pointless, idle, intellectual waste of time.

A wise man once said that philosophers have thought of many different ways to interpret the world, the point however is to change it.


By Heiko on Wednesday, March 21, 2001 - 10:41 am: Edit

Justin, you made a good point:
"to disprove Leibniz in Absinthe, 'This is the best of all possible absinthes, as God would not allow bad absinthe to be created.'"

The only major flaw in Leibniz' theories is his being caught in dogmatic christian belief. With his inability to combine this belief in a rational manner with his philosophy proves the dogma of christianity to be wrong:

God could not have made man perfect, because only he himself is perfect. Therefore the possibility for man to make bad Absinthe must be innate, even God does not want man to make bad Absinthe...
I have yet to find a plausible explanation for this paradoxon - Leibniz tries hard in his essay on metaphysics and numerous letters to Arnauld, Malebranche and De Volder, but in my opinion only proves the destructiveness of dogma in good philosophy...

By The_Nephilim on Wednesday, March 21, 2001 - 10:11 am: Edit

heiko - it just goes to show that the sublime is where you find it.

By Chrysippvs on Wednesday, March 21, 2001 - 10:10 am: Edit

"Monistic Materialist? The concept/terminology of monads and monism only dates back to Liebniz in the mid 1800's, but Liebniz's monads were not material."

No, as in mon(o)ism. ie also called Stoic Synthetic epstemology. But not like that of Justus Lipisius, he just dressed dualism up. I am talking the artarchia and protarchia of chrysippus, cleanthes, and Zeno of Citium.

Also bear in mind, stoic materliasm is not neccesarly empirical materialism. There are varying degrees of "substantia." But that is another story.

to disprove Liebniz in Absinthe, "This is the best of all possible absinthes, as God would not allow bad absinthe to be created."

"consciousness,linguistics, mathematics, logic.."

The last time I checked these things were constructs. We create them, ascribe value and voila! It's Philosophy-bake and I helped.

"Zen is not philosophy"

Bah Bah Bah. Come one Artemis we all know what is intended is never what is. Take Jesus for instance.
- Jesus in c.28 CE Jewish mystic with heavy ties to hellenistic cynism and anti-prushim legality.
- Jesus c.1999 CE Consubstantial homousios second person of the Holy trinity of God.

Zen is philosophy even if it isn't supposed to be.

- J

By Heiko on Wednesday, March 21, 2001 - 10:08 am: Edit

...This is interesting - a thread about lickin' pussy leads to a discussion about philosophy *g*

Another good example that philosophy is everywhere ;-)

By Heiko on Wednesday, March 21, 2001 - 10:01 am: Edit

"Philosophy is an idle intellectual pursuit contributing precious little to mankind, it changes nothing."

Well, this is the usual misconception of philosophy!

Had there been no philosophy, we would not have logic, mathematics, physics... all sciences derive from philosophy. Science without philosophical thoughts leads to nothing. Why do you think physicians are nowadays looking for quantum leaps and the like? Not because someone said "I only believe in what I see" but because someone thought "there must be something like atoms" - a very inexplicable, philosophical idea.
Take G.W. Leibniz as a good example: He was a great philosopher (and btw some of the first to believe that atoms form all matter - he was wrong in details though, but how could he know details?). Without this man, we would not have this forum because we would not have computers: The binary number system is one of his ideas - he needed it to build a calculating machine. At that time only a philosopher could have thought of a mechanical device calculating numbers - but it worked...

Today we often do not see that probably the only science that might be able to bring machine translation and computational linguistics to better results is pure philosophy: I'm talking of formal semantics, which is almost totally based on aristotelian logic. But as syllogism and predicate logic are no good means to build better A.I., it needs to be elaborated - which is actually done by philosophers...

I agree in terms of aesthetics and the like philosophical fields. These actually are an idle intellectual pursuit with no "real" contribution to mankind, as well as literature, art, religion - but would you really say we don't need all this?

By Lordhobgoblin on Wednesday, March 21, 2001 - 09:26 am: Edit

Arse wiping is a valuable and useful skill necessary to maintain a comfortable existence. Philosophy is an idle intellectual pursuit contributing precious little to mankind, it changes nothing.


By Melinelly on Wednesday, March 21, 2001 - 09:18 am: Edit

extreme or not is subjective. eliminate the subject and all that's left is experience... the happening zen.

y'all might be interested in Kitaro Nishida, mid-20th century japanese philosopher.

By Artemis on Wednesday, March 21, 2001 - 08:57 am: Edit

Well, for a sect that has "no reliance on words and scriptures", Zen has generated its fair share of scriptures and words.

The "no reliance" is the crux of the biscuit. If you gagged Marcus Aurelius, could he speak? Rinzai spoke with his stick. Maybe old Marcus spoke with his sword, but I consider that a little extreme.

By Anatomist1 on Wednesday, March 21, 2001 - 07:43 am: Edit

Damn. Artemis' response was much more efficient, but mine was more Zen. Whereas he has described the philosophical asswipe, I have delivered to you the actual experience.


By Anatomist1 on Wednesday, March 21, 2001 - 07:40 am: Edit

Monistic Materialist? The concept/terminology of monads and monism only dates back to Liebniz in the mid 1800's, but Liebniz's monads were not material.

The problem with materialism is that it has terrible difficulty dealing with things like numbers, geometry or any kind of abstract entities like oh, say the conceptual and linguistic schemes the theory itself consists of and is expressed in. None of these are material or reducible to the material. Platonic ideals were western thought's first attempt to try to talk about and deal with such abstract entities. Now we have gloriously refined intellectual structures for dealing with them: linguistics, mathematics, logic, etc...

Of course, the worst problem with materialism isn't the problem of abstractions, it is that consciousness is not material and it is more real to all of us. If I had to be non-dualistic, I'd be forced to choose the NON-material on the grounds of strict empirical observation. My own subjective states are far more immediate and real to me than material objects. Not just sense impressions, but thought states which can still be inhabited in the absence of any sensory stimuli (i.e., the sensory deprivation tank).

"Material objects" belong to a relatively crude abstract conceptual framework to which I have far less allegiance. If I had to choose a framework, the elements would be something like 'energy events', 'relationship states', or 'Quality' a la Robert Pirsig.


By Artemis on Wednesday, March 21, 2001 - 07:08 am: Edit

Zen is not philosophy. Zen is how to wipe your ass. Philosophy is indeed asswipe, but in a different sense.

By Chrysippvs on Wednesday, March 21, 2001 - 05:43 am: Edit

"I will stick w/ Plato on that note"

That is a dangerous gamble. Plato wasn't so bad, but the end of his thought, neo-platonism, acquires a type of radical dualism to the mind that is dangerous. It produces people like St. Augustine over time. I am a strict monistic materialist (but I do hold Chrysippus' graded substantia notions).

For those interested in Eastern Thought, check out Chrysippus sometime. He wrote over 750 books (nearly all of which have been lost over time...can't talk about that much I get all fachlempt) many of which are like Zen Buddhism, but much much better. He doesn't spend time wading through countless contradictions like some Chinese/Indian thinkers. I am not sure if his fragments are in translation as I only have them in the Stoicorum Veretum Fragmenta. Great Stuff, I liked him so much I took on his namesake if that means anything....

- J

By Ekmass on Wednesday, March 21, 2001 - 02:53 am: Edit

Though some argue that for the stoics, it is all or none, but in this day and age it is possible to parce up your philosophy.

By Ekmass on Wednesday, March 21, 2001 - 02:51 am: Edit

Justin, the stoics are most worthy, especially ole Marcus. But on the point of sex they got it wrong. I will stick w/ Plato on that note.

By Marc on Tuesday, March 20, 2001 - 07:30 pm: Edit

blackjack, that's fuckin' funny!

By _Blackjack on Tuesday, March 20, 2001 - 04:57 pm: Edit

The differance between eating pussy and sucking cock is like the difference between playing the cello and the kazoo...

By Marc on Tuesday, March 20, 2001 - 04:23 pm: Edit


Cocks just don't have the primal power or evocativeness of pussy.
They're not mysterious. With a pecker, what you see is what you get. Ahh, but poontang is primordial, dark and begging to be explored.
The peach-fuzzed meatpit of mortal delight calls to us with its siren song of absolute reality.
If you bend your ear to your lover's cunt lips, you can hear the music of the spheres...it kind of sounds like the Rivingtons singing Papa Ooh Mow Mow.

By Bob_Chong on Tuesday, March 20, 2001 - 03:59 pm: Edit

I meant that it was somewhere between the rantings of a lunatic and inconsequential pop trash. I was hoping to prod you into being more clever and less cliche. Running around saying "God's cunt!" and "God is PUSSY" seemed like a look-at-me-aren't-I-clever-by-saying-God-is-such-and-such kind of thing. As a forty-something lyricist, you *are* more clever than that. I know it. And I am neither kissing your ass nor insulting you but dismissing the phrase as too easy.


[BTW--the thing about wondering when women would post about the corollary--it's is an odd double standard: it's cool and hip and macho to talk about eating pussy, but a woman can rarely get away with talking about sucking cock and have the same reaction, at least not in mixed company]

By Marc on Tuesday, March 20, 2001 - 03:14 pm: Edit


I still don't get your point. Which part of my post has anything to do with pop culture? Pap culture maybe, but not pop culture.

My blood pressure is high. Always has been.
I've been hospitalized for paroxysmal atrial tachycardia (palpitations).

By Bob_Chong on Tuesday, March 20, 2001 - 12:57 pm: Edit

"inconsequential piece of pop culture"

My point exactly. Thank you.

How's your blood pressure, hippie?

By Artemis on Tuesday, March 20, 2001 - 09:58 am: Edit

"Damn J,

If I'm reading those party photos right, you've got a damn fine looking girlfriend ... "

She looks even better in person. Intelligent and has good conversation to boot. She was kind of wall flowery at first.

"Get in somebody's face, this is the absinthe forum after all", I urged her.

She said that wasn't her style. A gentle, nice person. So many nice people were there.

By _Blackjack on Tuesday, March 20, 2001 - 09:44 am: Edit


"Intercourse is the rubbing of entrails and the spasmodic release of mucus, it is not very much unlike eviscerating my inferiors excepting I enjoy the later moreso."

Oooh, that's even better than my "boring, ugly, hippie shit" quote!

By Chrysippvs on Tuesday, March 20, 2001 - 09:36 am: Edit

What's funny about that quote is the greek text. Either the wording used in the text was very bawdy and not regular Greek, or very specilaized Greek that was used by doctors (if you can call them that) of the day.

We are not quite sure what the Greek terms for "entrails", "spasmodic", and "mucus" really mean.

There is a great anecdote about a stay Marcus had in a brothel in which he could not sleep as the moans of the lovers reminded him of the "frothy expulsions of the lungs before death."

A very solemn, although despite these things, a very loving man. And no his son did not kill him and fight Russell Crowe.

And Marc, the last I checked my God was the "Lion of Judah." Leave it to Marc to write something like that...oy

By Marc on Tuesday, March 20, 2001 - 09:28 am: Edit

based on the mucusy entrails image, I'd say Giger.

By Chrysippvs on Tuesday, March 20, 2001 - 09:19 am: Edit

nah Edward Gorey or Gustave Dore. I think Dore, his work for Dante is 100x more haunting than anything that bugger Geiger ever did...

By Chrysippvs on Tuesday, March 20, 2001 - 09:16 am: Edit

"putridly cynical"

That's cute.

By Marc on Tuesday, March 20, 2001 - 09:14 am: Edit


If Marcus Aurelius wrote a sex manual it would have to be illustrated by H.R. Giger.

By Anatomist1 on Tuesday, March 20, 2001 - 09:06 am: Edit

Damn J,

If I'm reading those party photos right, you've got a damn fine looking girlfriend to have such a putridly cynical view of sex....

By Chrysippvs on Tuesday, March 20, 2001 - 08:49 am: Edit

I think Marcus Aurelius had it best:

"Intercourse is the rubbing of entrails and the spasmodic release of mucus, it is not very much unlike eviscerating my inferiors excepting I enjoy the later moreso."

God I love the Stoics...

By Anatomist1 on Tuesday, March 20, 2001 - 07:32 am: Edit

poor Bob... if he's not yipping from the lap of one, he's nipping at the heels of another...

By Malhomme on Tuesday, March 20, 2001 - 06:27 am: Edit

"For me sex wasn't an everyday thing. Always attached to the woman's cunt was the woman herself. The woman was the most important thing."
-- Henry Miller

By Marc on Tuesday, March 20, 2001 - 01:33 am: Edit


Okay. "All The Right Moves" was a Tom Cruise flick. I looked it up. Leave it to a simple-minded
geek like yourself to reference an inconsequential piece of pop culture dreck in an attempt to denigrate my post. You really are pathetic.

Speaking of cocksucking, blow me.

By Marc on Tuesday, March 20, 2001 - 01:23 am: Edit


I know who Charles Manson is, but what is
"All The Right Moves"?

By the way, Manson was a pawn in the American government's successful campaign to discredit the hippie movement. Manson was a lunatic, but he didn't kill anyone.

By Marc on Tuesday, March 20, 2001 - 12:39 am: Edit


God's Cunt (God is pussy) is not a literary
conceit. It is the truth. I wasn't posting as a
"writer", I was talking among friends. If you're interested in my "writing", then track down my songs. Otherwise, consider this conversation.
When it comes to cocksucking, I'm sure you can contribute an anectdote or two.

By Bob_Chong on Tuesday, March 20, 2001 - 12:27 am: Edit

For someone who fancies himself as some kind of "writer," all you could come up with is the phrase "God is pussy"? Pretty cliche. It falls somewhere between Charles Manson and All the Right Moves. I expected something a lot more clever from you. (BTW--when will the women on this board chime in on how sucking cock is essential?)

By Anatomist1 on Monday, March 19, 2001 - 08:37 pm: Edit

I'm nice to 'hippies', but the question for me is: are they really hippies?

To me they seem about as authentic as the token 'punker' in town who parades up and down State St. with a spiked pink mohawk and a leather jacket with a hundred studs and a "Rancid" silkscreen safety-pinned to the back.

The magic blue hippie bus has long since departed, and there seems to be something thin and self-consciously fashion oriented about the kids I see trying to mimic the external trappings of hippiedom in its glory days.

Although I wasn't there, I can't help but that think the people that seek this retro fashion niche nowadays come to it for very different reasons than people did thirty years ago... the politics, the allergy to critical thinking and hygiene, the giant blond, bird-nest dreadlocked hairdos, the tired, rehashed retro music... what does it all mean? I keep thinking: haven't any of these people heard Sleater-Kinney or PJ Harvey? It should've ripped the tie-dyed veils away...


By Marc on Monday, March 19, 2001 - 04:21 pm: Edit


be nice to the hippies or i'll kick your ass.

Marc, the world's angriest hippie.

By Pikkle on Monday, March 19, 2001 - 01:40 pm: Edit

For those who wish not to ruin that first sip of absinthe after an exhausting night of cunnilingus, try the 'Tom's of Maine' all natural fennel flavored toothpaste. I've found that this is not only a great way to get rid of that lingering labia aftertaste but also a good way to get out of a possible DUI...
"No officer, I wasn't drinking... I just brushed my teeth with Tom's!"
Try any Whole Food's Market or just follow that musky patchouli scent to any natural foods store and turn right at the personal hygiene aisle... it should be empty.

By Marc on Monday, March 19, 2001 - 12:03 am: Edit


there is no such thing as over-indulging in cunt
licking. Ask my wife.

By Anatomist1 on Sunday, March 18, 2001 - 07:49 pm: Edit

Funny, but I ran out of my normal toothpaste a few days ago and started using some left-over peroxide-fortified stuff. It has the exact same corrosive effect on my tongue as overindulging in... God. Too much God can scorch the hell out of your tongue -- so can Arm & Hammer's Peroxide Toothpaste.


By Zack on Sunday, March 18, 2001 - 07:25 am: Edit

Louching cunt is good and all (or not), but Id settle for just being able to order it online and having it delivered to my doorstep...bottle optional

By Don_Walsh on Sunday, March 18, 2001 - 05:27 am: Edit

Now, if we could only get cunt to louche.

I mean: without a yeast infection.

By Zack on Sunday, March 18, 2001 - 04:04 am: Edit

Thanks for the laugh, this will no doubt be the funniest thing I read, hear, or see all day. Good choice for the topic title...

By Marc on Sunday, March 18, 2001 - 02:43 am: Edit

As I was sucking Jennifer's cunt tonight, I realized that God is PUSSY. There is nothing more profound than the taste of a woman's snatch in your mouth. This is reality. Absinthe is delightful, but cunt is essential.

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page |Delete Conversation |Close Conversation |Move Conversation