virus: Fwd:Returned mail: User unknown

joe dees (
Sat, 30 Jan 1999 21:50:42 -0500

--Boundary-=_ojwayyzpVScMpSajlfVgUBfAAOvl Content-Type: Text/Plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Joe E. Dees
Poet, Pagan, Philosopher

Access your e-mail anywhere, at any time. Get your FREE BellSouth Web Mail account today!

--Boundary-=_ojwayyzpVScMpSajlfVgUBfAAOvl Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Received: from localhost (localhost) by (8.9.1/8.9.1) with internal id VAA26410; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 21:29:30 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 21:29:30 -0500 (EST) From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <> Message-Id: <> To: <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/report; report-type=delivery-status; boundary="VAA26410.917749770/" Subject: Returned mail: User unknown
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated (failure) X-Uidl: 1d83376c54afd2a2e20d6f038a9ffa37

This is a MIME-encapsulated message


The original message was received at Sat, 30 Jan 1999 21:29:29 -0500 (EST) from []

. while talking to
>>> RCPT To:<>

<<< 550 Requested action not taken: mailbox unavailable 550 User unknown

--VAA26410.917749770/ Content-Type: message/delivery-status

Reporting-MTA: dns; Received-From-MTA: DNS; Arrival-Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 21:29:29 -0500 (EST)

Final-Recipient: RFC822; Action: failed
Status: 5.1.1
Remote-MTA: DNS;
Diagnostic-Code: SMTP; 550 Requested action not taken: mailbox unavailable Last-Attempt-Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 21:29:29 -0500 (EST)

--VAA26410.917749770/ Content-Type: message/rfc822

Return-Path: <>
Received: from bigfoot ( [])

	by (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id VAA26408
	for; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 21:29:29 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <> To:
Subject: Re: virus: Faith and trust
From: "joe dees" <> Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 21:47:06 -0500

Hi, Brett! Still on yer meds? Gotten laid yet? Gotta job yet? Made any friends? Still schizophrenically convinced that lack of gainful employment or a social or sexual life is your fast track to demigodhood? Should I repost the passages where you confessed all this? I know.. ad hominum attacks are fallacies, but they're the ones that bite, and you DID admit all this stuff.

At Sat, 30 Jan 1999 17:42:05 PST, you wrote:
>Faith is about "grace" (defined the give and take,
>or allowance, within an otherwise necessary acting
>out of the object characteristics of that which
>exists). Grace, in more human terms, includes
>faith (which is SELF accountability, more later),
>hope (expectation of accountability in others
>based on awareness of self), and charity
>(agreement and compromise between self and other
>with an eye toward "trust" [more on trust later
Still trying to salvage medieval catholic scholasticism, I see. It, like you, has been pretty much discredited at this juncture.

>Assume that there is a core self according to
>which changes are measured; that is, assume that
>there is an object-standard that can be referred
>to as a "self" and that there are objective
>characteristics contained within this standard
>which determine how this self behaves in relation
>to other objects (assume that self *exists* and
>has *being* [or action]).
>Thus, what is objectively "true" for this self
>might be measured according to this standard, or
>base, formulation of self (a given). Then,
>*faith* is a characteristic of this <self> (meme)
>which (faith) is "encoded" into its (self's)
>abstract form: Or else, <faith> is a *virus*
>which contains the coding for a potential self

No, faith, to be a propagating meme, must only contain that which, when it comes in contact with a self, will cause the self to replicate it (communicate the infection to other selves), like any other meme. That's why memetics draws the parallels it does between meme and virus. The meme does not have to contain the blueprint for another potential self in order to do this, only the necessary instructions to alter the pre-existing selves into memetic replicators/communicators, specifically replicators/communicators of the infecting meme.

>(and might be called a virus rather than a meme
>since <self> would be the memetic pattern, or
>standard, and this pattern-- it is suggested-- is
>potentially invaded by the mutated *faith virus*
>such that >faith< might become superior to self
>and thereby disrupt the logic of the existence or
>being of this self for the replication of faith as
>a [subjective] standard, even to the point of

Possible, and on occasion actual, but not necessary.

>Faith thus allows grace (for example) if the
>object standard for existence is likewise
>subjectively mutated to a viral form (illustrated
>by the vanities-- pride, power, and glory); that
>is, faith provides allowances from ego-driven
>variations from reality due to human control and
>repression; or (another example-- faith shows
>grace.) in situations of complexity which
>confuse the standard for self-- though such
>complexity is necessary for the mutation of the
>meme to the replicating form, or virus.

In other words, faith gives assurance, even if that of which one is assured is illusory.

>Trust, on the other hand, is the interaction of
>grace and vanity. It is an example of infinite
>complexity and chaos-ification. a sense of void,
>or non-being (like "phenomenology", in which
>"spirit" [or group tendency] becomes active-- when
>self is negated-- such that self is simultaneously
>affirmed in such negation but projected upon an
>"other", or object(s) of desire).

Gotta work on that phenomenology; you still don't understand it (but then, you don't understand yourself, either, do you? The two are not unconnected).

So, *trust* is
>an example of inter-subjectivity. it is the
>(ego) illusion of self-existence as confirmed
>completely through "external" sources (as if such
>sources were not accessible to self,
>Faith is like saying "I know I can do it because
>that is who I am and that is what I do": Trust is
>like saying "I imagine I can do it because you
>can't stop me and because I haven't yet proven
>that I cannot".
One question: just who is this external self-conscious other one is intersubjectively placing one's trust in when one trusts the log that the last flood wedged over the river not to break when one crosses it? The fact is, trust does not require someone external to one's self in whom one trusts (unless logs have souls).

>B. Lane Robertson
>Get Your Private, Free Email at
Joe E. Dees
Poet, Pagan, Philosopher

Access your e-mail anywhere, at any time. Get your FREE BellSouth Web Mail account today!