The final enemy of a Man of Knowledge
Dion Janu Shore
The last enemy that a Man of Knowledge(TM) must face is knowledge,
itself.
It's amazing the things one sees and learns when one is seriously
interested in learning the fundamental nature of reality. The
fundamental nature of reality is that there IS no fundamental nature
of reality, save but for that which we choose for there to be. That
which we choose becomes our knowledge, and because it is simply what
we have chosen and not fundamentally real, IT is our greatest enemy.
We have to decide whether or not to believe that which we have decided
to be real. We not only have to choose our reality, but then we have
to choose whether or not to believe in it, knowing that we have chosen
it, and that we could have chosen any other reality one can imagine.
We have to decide whether or not to surrender ourselves to the
illusion we have created - we have to decide whether or not to allow
ourselves to forget that it is an illusion of our own making. Our
journey, our path - it cannot be complete until we choose. Yet how can
we? If we choose to believe it, then we have fallen prey to our own
deception, only to have begun the cycle all over again from the
begriming. If we never choose to permit ourselves to believe it, then
our journey can never be finished, because we will always be creatures
of doubt.
In the end, when we are ready for the journey to finish, we have to
settle in and look at the illusion we have created for ourselves. We
have to look at it long and hard one last time, and then we have but
to say to ourselves - to our Death, waiting in the wings behind our
left shoulder - we have to say, "Yes, this, I believe."
And then it is over.
phew....
What a journey this has been. :-)
http://www.USENETHOST.com 100% Uncensored , 100% Anonymous, 5$/month Only!
Dion Janu Shore
<Wyled...@Mindless.com> wrote:
<snip>
>If we choose to believe it, then we have fallen prey to our own
>deception, only to have begun the cycle all over again from the
>begriming.
>pins<
LOL! BeGRIMing... I love Freudian slips. :-) They go well with
Jungian petty-coats. ;-)
Akhet
http://www.FUCKHOST.com 100% Uncensored , 100% Anonymous, 5$/month Only!
SPAMMER !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dion Janu Shore
Would that I could stop them from placing that remark at the end of
all my posts, but I cannot. :-) You'd think, since I pay for the
privilege of posting through their site, that I'd not be forced to
yield my posts to their advertisements. But alas, such is not a choice
to be afforded me. :-(
So I'm not willingly spanning for them, just for the record. :-) But
admittedly, their forced addition to the end of my posts - that is
certainly spam. :-(
http://www.USENETHOST.com 100% Uncensored , 100% Anonymous, 5$/month Only!
thang ornithorhynchus
Explanation accepted. Pray tell, from whence derives your nick?
thang
"Rich and poor, we die, When you pass away, we cannot do nothing else.
When we pass away, it's over. So our chance is when we are alive."
Father Manuel Herrera, Hell's Kitchen, New York
Akhet
>Dion Janu Shore wrote in message ...
>
>all my posts, but I cannot. :-) You'd think, since I pay for the
>privilege of posting through their site, that I'd not be forced to
>yield my posts to their advertisements. But alas, such is not a choice
>to be afforded me. :-(
>
.......
Yeah, well.. I appreaciate you DUDE.. Dion Janu..
Here is my little advice; And absolute TEAMWORK, from 'Slider's' own
empty hands.. Hahahaha.. :)
news://news.aioe.org
news://freenews.netfront.net
And I privide this one to you as well.... news://77.120.192.10
NONE of these will inforce 'SPAMMER ADDS'... Where I absolutely understand,
how much it's just a BOOBY TRAP to those thinking there is such a thing as
Ubncencored, anonymous......
Try it... and post again...
And I shall welcome you, from al the good intent you can further provide.
--------
BTW;; Thanks slidy !... I this was useful to mee, you know.. :)
Good day to all.
.. I'm contemplating a miracle and it's always talking about YOU..
You all.. About how much it cares, and wish to tell you how much death is
an illusion, but the life we can share here and now holds such a value...
All that and about this 'knowledge', which appears from just a blindfolded
statement, seem to ignore LOVE.. And LOVE can bloom, through every life forms..
Even thought insignificant plants here and there.
As I can bend myself to it and offer just a smile from above;
I also leave a fart, a smelly one; We can easily notice.
...I'll get you through december......
After that; I shall need healing hands, none of yours can provide.
PEACE, friends... "It's all just happening." -Drummer boy, with a strong fist.
Jeremy H. Donovan
I am the final enemy of a man of knowledge, and I tell you that you
are a pecker head.
thang ornithorhynchus
Long as he's not peckerwood, that would make him a racist.
thang
(I thought you weren't coming back?)
>
>
>
>
>
>
Dion Janu Shore
<jeremyh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I am the final enemy of a man of knowledge,
LoL! :-)
> and I tell you that you are a pecker head.
Ah, you've seen my astral form then. ;-)
Seriously, Jeremy, I know Cleargreen et al took a great big
metaphysical crap all over you and your world view. But don't you
think holding on to the bitterness is just a bit unhealthy? I'm not
like them, never will be, and really rather despise what they stand
for about as much as you do. I'm being serious, here (in text only, it
could look like I'm trying to be coy or catty, but I'm not - I don't
do those, not without very good reason and there is no very good
reason in this case).
In any event, peace and good luck to you, Jeremy. :-)
Jeremy H. Donovan
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 14:59:40 -0800 (PST), "Jeremy H. Donovan"
>
> >I am the final enemy of a man of knowledge,
>
> LoL! :-)
>
> > and I tell you that you are a pecker head.
>
> Ah, you've seen my astral form then. ;-)
>
> Seriously, Jeremy, I know Cleargreen et al took a great big
> metaphysical crap all over you and your world view. But don't you
> think holding on to the bitterness is just a bit unhealthy? I'm not
> like them, never will be, and really rather despise what they stand
> for about as much as you do. I'm being serious, here (in text only, it
> could look like I'm trying to be coy or catty, but I'm not - I don't
> do those, not without very good reason and there is no very good
> reason in this case).
>
> In any event, peace and good luck to you, Jeremy. :-)
Thanks. I just think it's a funny line (in one CC book I believe
Genaro says 'I am the voice of seeing and I tell you that you are a
pecker head').
I'm not particularly 'bitter' toward Cleargreen. You say you despise
what they stand for. I wouldn't argue with the sentiment, but I feel
they're small potatoes at the plentiful table of human delusion. When
you say you're not like them, do you mean you're not vainly oblivious
to your self-serving illusions and not spending all your strength and
time pursuing an idealized pipe dream? Good, if it's true.
I do know people who passionately feel their lives were ruined in a
disastrous way by Cleargreen. Those people feel they were led into
horrible situations from which they have not recovered (near as I can
tell, the damage is indeed horrific). Fortunately, I'm not such a
person.
I believe the philosophy that "there's no fundamental nature to
reality besides what we choose" is completely untenable. If it was
true that reality is only what we choose, then the fundamental nature
of reality would be "the true nature of ourselves and how we make
choices" (that would be very much like Scientology btw).
Good luck fighting the final enemy of a man of knowledge. I cannot be
defeated. Unless I get hungry and go on break.
slider
jeremy wrote...
I believe the philosophy that "there's no fundamental nature to
reality besides what we choose" is completely untenable. If it was
true that reality is only what we choose, then the fundamental nature
of reality would be "the true nature of ourselves and how we make
choices" (that would be very much like Scientology btw).
### - the only point i disagree with the above being what 'you' (and a bunch of
others) 'want' to emphasise as being that fundamental reality (iow what you
'choose' it to be) which is reality as perceived by reason and rational science
'alone' to the exclusion of everything else... especially when it's pretty obvious
to anyone that ever lived that there's more to life, the universe and everything
than reason alone can possibly ever account for...
well, not unless you think there's maybe a rational god somewhere that worked the
whole universe all out with a pencil and a slide rule or something... and i
seriously doubt you think that, or even anything like it
iow, the universe (and everything in it) isn't rational, and only 'appears' to be
so from the pov of the rational mind which ultimately is only
reflecting/projecting and superimposing its 'own' criteria upon/over the
fundamental reality... an underlying reality which didn't come about at all by
rational means, and which in fact is only the leftover residue of an episode of
total chaos wherein equal amounts of matter and anti-matter totally annihilated
each other, albeit unevenly...
there's nothing actually rational about life, the universe and everything, that's
just us humans wanting (and saying) that it's so, and as such represents nothing
more than wishful thinking (the result of an inflated ego) on our arrogant, if not
thoroughly conceited, part (i.e. in exactly the same way humanity once readily
believed that the earth was actually the centre of the universe, which of course
it isn't and never was :)
thang ornithorhynchus
wrote:
Slider, pardon me for butting in. I sense an ambiguity in what you
are asserting, that is, the word "rational" means (non-mathematically)
reasonable, capable of reason, sensible, lucid etc. So, you are right
- the universe isn't rational, because only a human can be rational
(or irrational).
I'm not being patronising, but would you care to clarify what you
mean? Just for the sake of precision. You know that Donovan will
tear you apart on this so best we sort out the terms beforehand, and
then get down to arguing your point.
thang
>
>
>
slider
thang wrote...
>>there's nothing actually rational about life, the universe and everything,
>>that's just us humans wanting (and saying) that it's so, and as such represents
>>nothing more than wishful thinking (the result of an inflated ego) on our
>>arrogant, if not thoroughly conceited, part (i.e. in exactly the same way
>>humanity once readily believed that the earth was actually the centre of the
>>universe, which of course it isn't and never was :)
>>
>
> Slider, pardon me for butting in. I sense an ambiguity in what you
> are asserting, that is, the word "rational" means (non-mathematically)
> reasonable, capable of reason, sensible, lucid etc. So, you are right
> - the universe isn't rational, because only a human can be rational
> (or irrational).
>
> I'm not being patronising, but would you care to clarify what you
> mean? Just for the sake of precision. You know that Donovan will
> tear you apart on this so best we sort out the terms beforehand, and
> then get down to arguing your point.
### - as far as i'm concerned it's not butting-in if someone is contributing to a
conversation as opposed to hijacking (and/or disrupting) it for their own
whatever-purposes...
that said, i'm not sure what you're really asking as you appear to have already
clarified it somewhat yourself? :)
otherwise (plus he doesn't usually reply to my posts anyway), i'm basically
agreeing with jeremy that there's more to the fundamental basic reality than just
how people 'choose' to see/experience it, while at the same time suggesting that
reason (and its corresponding rational/scientific pov) is actually only just
another one of those 'choices' that people have opted for, perfected and learned
to relate to, often to the total exclusion 'of' that most basic and underlying
fundamental reality, a basic reality which actually exists as a constant that
everyone basically ignores in-favour of their 'own' (or shared)
constructed/construed pat-versions of it...
implicit in that being the means to 'access' that most basic of realities by
aligning oneself with it... i.e. by consciously and deliberately 'stepping-away'
from 'all' such human constructions and ideas (including that of reason per se as
it's currently wielded and used/applied in the world, something which has resulted
in only just another kind of dogma), in which case one begins to become cognisant
of what is an unwavering, underlying/fundamental, most basic reality... because
that's what's 'there' (what's left) when you 'remove' all our superimposed mental
and emotionally constructed projections, from the equation...
iow, temporarily turn off/suspend the internal dialogue that ultimately creates
and maintains all our rational constructs and projections, and the inevitable
result is an increasingly clear perception of the underlying reality that it
turns out we've been projecting all our crap over (and onto) all along...
('we paved paradise, and put up a parking lot' --for example? :)
which isn't to suggest that reason per se then disappears and/or is dispensed with
altogether, far from it... only that under 'those' conditions it's assigned a
secondary role instead of being allowed to always play the dominant one (i.e.
reason transforms into what it really is and is supposed to be: a helper, not a
dictator)
and which isn't actually as weird as it might at first sound, because anyone who's
ever experienced lucid dreaming knows 'exactly' what i'm talking about, in the
sense that this is 'precisely' what one 'has' to do in order to 'maintain' a lucid
dream once you're in one! ;)
---------------
"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant.
We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the
gift." --old uncle Albert :)
Jeremy H. Donovan
Our society doesn't necessarily honor either the intuitive (just
because it's intuitive) or the rational (just because it's rational).
People who do something extraordinary with either the intuitive (e.g.
musicians, poets, artists) or the rational (e.g. engineers,
scientists, politicians, business men) are often honored. And
actually, both intuition and rationality are utilized in all of the
pursuits I just named (I simply grouped them by which trait most often
predominates). Albert was a great physicist but not such a hot
philosopher.
Now Slider, you need to describe for us what 'the fundamental basic
reality' is, and we're all going to accept completely that your
description is right because you absolutely know what it is. Since
you know so much more than all the "rational" people, let's hear it -
please, give us your best description of the most fundamental basic
reality. And by all means, make sure your explanation is 'non-
rational'.
After you provide the description, please also tell us what you can
do, having arrived at certain knowledge of the fundamental basic
reality, that can't be done by the lady living across the street from
you or her 10 year old son.
Jeremy H. Donovan
wrote:
> Slider, pardon me for butting in. I sense an ambiguity in what you
> are asserting, that is, the word "rational" means (non-mathematically)
> reasonable, capable of reason, sensible, lucid etc. So, you are right
> - the universe isn't rational, because only a human can be rational
> (or irrational).
The premise is that only a human can be rational. Not sure that's
right. How about intuition. Can only a human utilize intuition?
Go back a paltry 20 million years. No humans, but there are thousands
of different kinds of animals living and dying (we don't know this
because we intuited it, btw). Are any of those animals using
rationality or intuition to speak of? Perhaps a little of both, but
probably not a whole lot of either. Both of those 'faculties' grow as
brains and nervous systems become more sophisticated.
My point is ... what difference does it make? I don't give a rat's
ass what 'type' of faculties are being employed or for 'getting away
from what humans usually do' (we already had hundreds of millions of
years of life here removed from everything human, and for 95% of human
history mankind had precious little in the way of advanced
rationality). The important thing is: since we're humans who have
both faculties, what can we know, and ... what can we DO with what we
know.
I don't give a rat's ass if a man intuits a truth first and then
proves it's true rationally, or if a man first proves a thing must
exist rationally and then intuits where to find evidence of it.
Either way, I just want real knowledge and capability, and evidence
that we're talking about something other than a big fat pile of crap
no one can do anything with (other than TALK TALK TALK).
slider
jeremy wrote...
> which isn't to suggest that reason per se then disappears and/or is dispensed
> with altogether, far from it... only that under 'those' conditions it's assigned
> a secondary role instead of being allowed to always play the dominant one
> (i.e.reason transforms into what it really is and is supposed to be: a helper,
> not a dictator)
>
> and which isn't actually as weird as it might at first sound, because anyone
> who's ever experienced lucid dreaming knows 'exactly' what i'm talking about,
> in the sense that this is 'precisely' what one 'has' to do in order to
> 'maintain' a lucid dream once you're in one! ;)
>
> ---------------
>
> "The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful
> servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the
> gift." --old uncle Albert :)
Our society doesn't necessarily honor either the intuitive (just
because it's intuitive) or the rational (just because it's rational).
People who do something extraordinary with either the intuitive (e.g.
musicians, poets, artists) or the rational (e.g. engineers,
scientists, politicians, business men) are often honored. And
actually, both intuition and rationality are utilized in all of the
pursuits I just named (I simply grouped them by which trait most often
predominates). Albert was a great physicist but not such a hot
philosopher.
### - i don't think albert was trying to be a philosopher as such, rather it's
just some of the interesting/revealing 'observations' he made (of us and of
society) when he turned (for various reasons) his cold eye upon those subject
matters and noted some quite damning things (about us/society) that appeared (to
him anyway at the time) to be going generally unnoticed... or else why did he even
mention/highlight them?
the point being that being the fastidious and exact person he was, 'why' should he
make such a statement about us + what was he thinking, and more importantly;
what exactly does he mean/imply by using that particular wording, which i'm sure
he was very careful, thoughtful, and exact about... as he was in most things...
i mean, i'm sure he was at least as aware as you of all the things you mention
above (and probably more because he was actually a bit of a genius), so knowing
that, surely he must be talking about/pointing to something 'other' (or more) than
just the obvious... so really then it's the 'context' in which he's framing his
observations that has to be examined in more depth, and without bias...
e.g. it's well known that einstein occasionally received crucial inspiration from
dreams (as did/do many others apparently) and so perhaps it is things of that
uncontrollable and irrational nature that he's actually referring to by his use of
the term 'intuition'
i mean, from a rational pov the logical expectation would be somewhat the reverse
of what he said, that logically reason would/should be king and therefore sacred
(to us) rather than some kind of nebulous and pretty much unobtainable 'intuition'
that doesn't appear to have any measurable parameters nor basis in rationality and
logic per se...
so either he was nuts (which i rather doubt), or he's actually trying to tell us
something of great importance that he notes usually goes unobserved for the very
reasons he gives us in the observation itself...
Now Slider, you need to describe for us what 'the fundamental basic
reality' is, and we're all going to accept completely that your
description is right because you absolutely know what it is. Since
you know so much more than all the "rational" people, let's hear it -
please, give us your best description of the most fundamental basic
reality. And by all means, make sure your explanation is 'non-
rational'.
### - heh so is that a trick question? because in order to explain or describe
anything to anyone, it is unavoidable then that one has to 'borrow' from the logic
and structure of language to do so... so a completely non-rational 'explanation'
is virtually impossible (basically because it's a contradiction of terms)
that said, plus bearing in mind the above limitations of language to accurately
describe anything of a non-rational nature (i.e. because all language is logically
based and structured to begin with) all we're left with (still using language i
mean) is the possibility of 'alluding' in various ways to something that may or
may not exist 'outside' (or beyond) what can be achieved with language and
description alone...
which of course brings us (for example) to things like poetry and prose, and the
'novel' use of language in order to 'allude' to things that exist but that cannot
be pinned down/defined in quite the same way as an engineer would the simple or
complex materials he gets to work with
the only 'other' way (or means) being to experience aspects of the non rational
directly, and so to 'know' it/them that way, directly, without the encumbrance (or
defining limitations) of language per se... something which at the moment is
impossible to us from the pov of communicating with others via an online newsgroup
for example...
however, that doesn't necessarily mean that i can't paint you a picture, and as
such provide you with a tiny glimpse of that fundamental basic reality that you
could then try and explain/describe to your own satisfaction to yourself...
e.g. one could possibly suggest that that most basic and fundamental reality is
that as experienced by all animals and life-forms on this planet, including us
humans, only we as a species seem to have collectively perceptually stepped away
from the direct perception of it in favour of our own projected ideas and rational
constructions of what we think (or would like to imagine) it's 'supposed' to be
about? (i.e. from religion to science; humanity has been busy for centuries
superimposing its own evolving rationales upon all and sundry with no real concern
as to their actual validity or not... religion, and how 'it' was foisted/imposed
on people, being the most obvious and blatant example of what can only be
truly called... an obsessive mania)
luckily... the question you ask is an intelligent one that artists down the ages
have been asking + attempting to answer all along, so there's much that can be
referred to as a kind of body of knowledge about it, albeit a kind of
abstract/formless one
which is actually a pretty good point... in that the 'forms' we're all familiar
with, are (or have been), all typically derived via the exclusive use of
descriptive language alone... the 'form-less' being tantamount to being invisible
because it singularly 'lacks' definition for example?
which, if you think about it, is precisely what Sartre (and i know you don't like
Sartre) must have realised at some point for him to go to that park and
deliberately attempt to 'drop' all the words (and their corresponding values)
until, for example, his perception of a tree root became something more (a lot
more actually) than how we're generally all used to perceiving such things...
iow, by deliberately suspending his thought and use of language, the defining
values of things began to collapse, and with them also went his fixed view of
them, in which case he then began to perceptually enter into the surreal (the
super-real) which is nothing less than the direct perception of the world the way
it really and ultimately is/wants to be without any perceptual interference on our
part... it's the world of Art, and/or the place (the real world?) where every true
artist necessarily draws a kind of intuitive inspiration from ('intuitive' because
it doesn't arrive/come to us by any known rational means but seemingly appears out
of nowhere)
"if it doesn't transport you to another world, then it's not Art" --unknown
the point being that all true artists are really only attempting to communicate
the existence of that 'other world' to us less educated types via whatever medium
they're into (non-commercial jazz artists typically dealing with/going-into the
'formless' for example)
After you provide the description, please also tell us what you can
do, having arrived at certain knowledge of the fundamental basic
reality, that can't be done by the lady living across the street from
you or her 10 year old son.
### - another good question... because all 'anyone' has to do to access that other
world, and any knowledge (intuitive) inherent in it, is to simply revert to silent
language-less type... in which case a whole host of hidden (or rather: buried)
silent abilities automatically rise to the surface, almost as if the dominance of
rationality in our lives deliberately puts a firm and secured lid on the whole
thing... which of course, it does :)
iow, whatever that fundamental most basic reality is and any knowledge or
understanding inherent to it, is readily available to any of us if only we care to
glance in its direction instead of doing what we normally do: the obsessive
manipulation of the rationally known and definable to the exclusion of everything
else, including that most fundamental and basic language-less reality that has
always existed, and will continue to exist long after the human species has passed
off into history...
i.e. it's impossible to define (or even accurately talk about) a language-less
state of reality, it's only possible to experience it :)
as to the abilities themselves... well you're already quite familiar with one of
them: lucid dreaming
iow, the ability for human perception to range far beyond the dictums and
limitations of reason and logic per se, which tends to keep everything focused
in one place and one place only: the rational/physical universe...
plus as far as i'm concerned lucid dreaming as we know it, and as an ability, is
actually only scratching the surface of what can ultimately be done with an
'unlimited' (i.e. 'un-governed' as in engineering for example) awareness... hints,
tips, and clues of which, just about 'everyone' experiences at one time or another
(many times actually) throughout their lives... only there's no premium placed on
that kind of thing except maybe by cranks and nutcases with cockeyed semi-rational
agendas (fucked up agendas, usually to obtain money/power/fame etc) of their
own...
plus i'm not suggesting that the world of reason is without any validity or use,
only that unless it's tempered by the direct knowledge and inspiration of the
'world of Art' (for want of a better description) then it is, and remains to this
day, a monstrosity!
e.g. this other quote of uncle albert's, which he obviously made while in the same
mood/mode as his first quote...
"All our lauded technological progress -- our very civilization - is like the axe
in the hand of the pathological criminal."
basically because... he maintains... we have forgotten the gift (inner silence) in
favour of honouring the servant (reason)
plus he even gives us a hint/clue as to how to access it...
"It's not that I'm so smart , it's just that I stay with problems longer ." ;)
thang ornithorhynchus
wrote:
That's a shame, that he seems to have a bloc as far as you are
concerned. I can't see why actually as at worst you would be mildly
irritating and nothing more. I can be much more irritating, actually
phasing from irritating to straight-out dickheadedness. And he and I
converse, as do you and I. So, I don't get it but then again I don't
have the history with him and you. I enjoy discussions with you
because we are so different mainly in thought processing. For the
opposite reason, I enjoy talking with him and actually miss him here.
You two oughta shake and make friends.
>
>implicit in that being the means to 'access' that most basic of realities by
>aligning oneself with it... i.e. by consciously and deliberately 'stepping-away'
>from 'all' such human constructions and ideas (including that of reason per se as
>it's currently wielded and used/applied in the world, something which has resulted
>in only just another kind of dogma), in which case one begins to become cognisant
>of what is an unwavering, underlying/fundamental, most basic reality... because
>that's what's 'there' (what's left) when you 'remove' all our superimposed mental
>and emotionally constructed projections, from the equation...
Fear of being a pedant, there's only one reality no plural. Whether
we perceive it is another question, or how we live it. Maybe there is
a multiplicity of shells around reality and we inhabit one of them.
Who knows. We don't even know if we *can* know reality. This then
leads to the question - if your survival needs are accommodated, what
the hell do you do with your life? Try to dig?
>
>iow, temporarily turn off/suspend the internal dialogue that ultimately creates
>and maintains all our rational constructs and projections, and the inevitable
>result is an increasingly clear perception of the underlying reality that it
>turns out we've been projecting all our crap over (and onto) all along...
I don't know how you can be sure about these things. Look, I don't
ascribe to your view because, while I don't know if this *is* reality
or just a shadow on a wall, I certainly don't have any answers.
Probably for a seeker (and yes, I am one of those), its best to start
from a point of absolute ignorance. So long as you have the desire to
know and know that you *need* to know.
>
>('we paved paradise, and put up a parking lot' --for example? :)
>
>which isn't to suggest that reason per se then disappears and/or is dispensed with
>altogether, far from it... only that under 'those' conditions it's assigned a
>secondary role instead of being allowed to always play the dominant one (i.e.
>reason transforms into what it really is and is supposed to be: a helper, not a
>dictator)
Reason is the only thing standing between us and extinction. We don't
have any other advantages really, no talons, night sight, short sleep
patterns, tough skin, renewable appendages etc. Just reason.
>
>and which isn't actually as weird as it might at first sound, because anyone who's
>ever experienced lucid dreaming knows 'exactly' what i'm talking about, in the
>sense that this is 'precisely' what one 'has' to do in order to 'maintain' a lucid
>dream once you're in one! ;)
>
Well see, most of my dreams are lucid (at the time) but I don't think
they are what you refer to. They seem lucid because its an alternate
form of consciousness with different rules. But, its also the form of
conscousness in which we are most vulnerable. Therefore, its second
rate but a physical and mental necessity.
>---------------
>
>"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant.
>We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the
>gift." --old uncle Albert :)
Well, he could afford to say that after his intuitive leap after which
he exclaimed on the street "Now I know how the sun works" or words to
that effect. But make no mistake, he was a supremely rational man.
>
>
take care
thang
We don't see things as they are; we see them as we are.
~ Anais Nin
thang ornithorhynchus
<jeremyh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jan 6, 4:38�am, thang ornithorhynchus <th...@spitzola.com.org.net>
>wrote:
>
>> Slider, pardon me for butting in. �I sense an ambiguity in what you
>> are asserting, that is, the word "rational" means (non-mathematically)
>> reasonable, capable of reason, sensible, lucid etc. �So, you are right
>> - the universe isn't rational, because only a human can be rational
>> (or irrational).
>
>The premise is that only a human can be rational. Not sure that's
>right. How about intuition. Can only a human utilize intuition?
We have no evidence of rationity in other organisms. Crows and otters
use tools, cetaceans evince empathy as do elephants, but we have no
evidence at all of rationality in other organisms. That means its
*likely* that only a human can be rational.
As for intuition, firstly you have to prove its existence. How about
intuition is just an unconscious form of rational thinking, or at
least an unascribed form of rational thinking. For instance, the
chemist who dreamt the benzene ring, how do you know it wasn't his
irrational unconscious (fact) lapsing into rational form (hypothesis)
while still asleep? How about if all intuitive leaps (unexplained
answers) are forms of rational thinking carried out in different
states of consciousness? I mean, these autistic prodigies who can
multiply many digit numbers by themselves in split seconds, they don't
know what they are doing but the mathematical operation itself is
certainly a totally rational (following the logic of math) operation.
I think its just a word Jeremy.
>
>Go back a paltry 20 million years.
Paltry it is. But you can't be certain there were no humans.
No humans, but there are thousands
>of different kinds of animals living and dying (we don't know this
>because we intuited it, btw).
No we never. We carbon dated it. Half lives of carbon isotopes and
all that...
Are any of those animals using
>rationality or intuition to speak of? Perhaps a little of both, but
>probably not a whole lot of either. Both of those 'faculties' grow as
>brains and nervous systems become more sophisticated.
No. They never did, unless there were humans then (possible under a
number of different scenarios). I still think intuition is just
rational thinking carried out under a different state of
consciousness. I mean, under your view of "intuition", the semi naked
caveman knows there is a sabretooth tiger behind the rock. Does he
move to the left or the right to escape it? Rationality will look at
the shadow from behind the boulder, absorb the smell and the sound of
the tiger etc. Intuition is a risk which if it doesn't work, means
the genetic bearer of the gift of intuition is no more. So,
rationality alone has carried us through to the present day.
>
>My point is ... what difference does it make? I don't give a rat's
>ass what 'type' of faculties are being employed or for 'getting away
>from what humans usually do' (we already had hundreds of millions of
>years of life here removed from everything human, and for 95% of human
>history mankind had precious little in the way of advanced
>rationality). The important thing is: since we're humans who have
>both faculties, what can we know, and ... what can we DO with what we
>know.
Speaking of rats, we have them in our palm trees and therein lies some
good but bloody stories of our two old cats...
No, we have the one supreme faculty (its in the wiring really) which
sometimes perhaps operates while we are under different states of
consciousness (eg asleep or daydreaming). "Intuition" is a phantasm.
Hey, Jeremy, I'm thinking of running a cult my son. I will tell the
truth, which will be a bit of a difference. When I don't know
something, I'll actually say I don't know. But, I feather the
ignorance with clues and help notes. No Books of Dzyan or
Rosicrucians, just plain old truth or simply don't know. As far as I
can tell, the last guy to do that was Crowley, who basically said "Do
what thou wilt".
>
>I don't give a rat's ass if a man intuits a truth first and then
>proves it's true rationally, or if a man first proves a thing must
>exist rationally and then intuits where to find evidence of it.
>Either way, I just want real knowledge and capability, and evidence
>that we're talking about something other than a big fat pile of crap
>no one can do anything with (other than TALK TALK TALK).
I agree. I love knowledge and the indexing and explanation thereof.
But perhaps the difference is, I know something is up. When I look at
plants, jungle, the stars, Hubble photos of ancient galaxies, other
people, my own family and myself, I know that the ratio of my
ignorance to my knowledge is vast. Most people don't acknowledge this
and that's contemptible. But its the damn truth and when one
approaches all of nature (and a Seagate 2TB hard drive is as much a
part of nature as your left pinky or a bit of gas on Aldebaran) in a
respectfull. intelligent and above all admiring manner, the jewels of
heaven will become yours.
thang
slider
thang wrote...
>>> Slider, pardon me for butting in. I sense an ambiguity in what you
>>> are asserting, that is, the word "rational" means (non-mathematically)
>>> reasonable, capable of reason, sensible, lucid etc. So, you are right
>>> - the universe isn't rational, because only a human can be rational
>>> (or irrational).
>>>
>>> I'm not being patronising, but would you care to clarify what you
>>> mean? Just for the sake of precision. You know that Donovan will
>>> tear you apart on this so best we sort out the terms beforehand, and
>>> then get down to arguing your point.
>>otherwise (plus he doesn't usually reply to my posts anyway), i'm basically
>>agreeing with jeremy that there's more to the fundamental basic reality than
>>just
>>how people 'choose' to see/experience it, while at the same time suggesting that
>>reason (and its corresponding rational/scientific pov) is actually only just
>>another one of those 'choices' that people have opted for, perfected and learned
>>to relate to, often to the total exclusion 'of' that most basic and underlying
>>fundamental reality, a basic reality which actually exists as a constant that
>>everyone basically ignores in-favour of their 'own' (or shared)
>>constructed/construed pat-versions of it...
>
> That's a shame, that he seems to have a bloc as far as you are
> concerned. I can't see why actually as at worst you would be mildly
> irritating and nothing more. I can be much more irritating, actually
> phasing from irritating to straight-out dickheadedness. And he and I
> converse, as do you and I. So, I don't get it but then again I don't
> have the history with him and you. I enjoy discussions with you
> because we are so different mainly in thought processing. For the
> opposite reason, I enjoy talking with him and actually miss him here.
> You two oughta shake and make friends.
### - it's not so much 'me' that jeremy hates, so much as the whole goddamn thing
and sheer nonsense of the world that he's lost all patience with and doesn't want
to know anything more about even if some facets of some of it are true, and
because he's not gonna get fooled again under no circumstances no how and no way,
and that's final!!! basically :)
plus considering some of the shit he's obviously been through (and that's only the
little bit i've heard about here, let alone anything else) i can't really say that
i blame him that much either? the only thing i 'can' say to him (and he'll
probably only tell me to eff-off anyway) being that we 'all' have to get hurt
jeremy, it's unavoidable basically, and is actually the only way we learn
prudence? everyone gets burned/disillusioned i mean, it 'has' to be that way -
everyone has to go through it like a stupid rite of passage or something dumb and
completely humiliating like that, it's how we dumb apes learn, if we're lucky
enough to learn that is, coz' sadly many don't even get to that? (i don't hate
jeremy, i'm not even angry with him + i've always left the door open if he ever
wants to chat or discuss something, what else can i do)
>>implicit in that being the means to 'access' that most basic of realities by
>>aligning oneself with it... i.e. by consciously and deliberately 'stepping-away'
>>from 'all' such human constructions and ideas (including that of reason per se
>>as
>>it's currently wielded and used/applied in the world, something which has
>>resulted
>>in only just another kind of dogma), in which case one begins to become
>>cognisant
>>of what is an unwavering, underlying/fundamental, most basic reality... because
>>that's what's 'there' (what's left) when you 'remove' all our superimposed
>>mental
>>and emotionally constructed projections, from the equation...
>
> Fear of being a pedant, there's only one reality no plural. Whether
> we perceive it is another question, or how we live it. Maybe there is
> a multiplicity of shells around reality and we inhabit one of them.
> Who knows. We don't even know if we *can* know reality. This then
> leads to the question - if your survival needs are accommodated, what
> the hell do you do with your life? Try to dig?
### - listen very carefully... there's only one reality seen and
perceived/experienced in a multiplicity of ways depending on many factors,
including one's education and initial introduction to it... the great 'difficulty'
being, for example, in the hypothetical problem of just how the hell do you
explain to a young child (of say 15) who's basically been brought up and raised in
what is ostensibly a huge prison, one so vast that to all extents and purposes
it's basically everywhere he goes and looks so there doesn't appear to be any
walls (no physical evidence) or exits to speak of... like just how do you convince
him, that beyond 'all he knows' and is thoroughly familiar with (because that's
all he's ever known) that there's actually another world out there, in fact the
'rest' of the world! the prison he knows and is familiar with being actually
only a very small part of the whole - like he'd probably just tell ya to fuck-off
or something, wouldn't he? (well that's what they do ;)
think about it... having been raised there he knows that prison like the back of
his hand! how things work, how it all functions... and while he may not yet
understand absolutely everything he sees and encounters, he knows that it all
kinda fits together in some kind of meaningful (or at least understandable)
manner, stuff that he's yet to maybe get hold of (i.e. because he's still young)
and that given time and maturity he'll eventually find his place in the scheme of
it all in terms of a purpose and a job, of which there's a huge list to choose
from etc etc, blah blah blah... (e.g. so what do ya wanna be when ya grow up son?
i think i wanna work in the kitchens dad coz' it looks like a good li'l number to
me ;)
like... just 'how' do ya tell that poor little happy bastard that 'everything' he
absolutely believes in, everything he's ever wanted to do and is looking forward
to, is basically a crock... and that 'real' life is actually passing him by
outside the prison without him (or anyone else) ever realising it?? (which is
precisely where they traditionally start stoning you to death i suppose lol:)
like, do you get the picture me' old koala? because people who've been
'institutionalised' very often don't even 'want' to come out, even if they could!
>>iow, temporarily turn off/suspend the internal dialogue that ultimately creates
>>and maintains all our rational constructs and projections, and the inevitable
>>result is an increasingly clear perception of the underlying reality that it
>>turns out we've been projecting all our crap over (and onto) all along...
>
> I don't know how you can be sure about these things. Look, I don't
> ascribe to your view because, while I don't know if this *is* reality
> or just a shadow on a wall, I certainly don't have any answers.
> Probably for a seeker (and yes, I am one of those), its best to start
> from a point of absolute ignorance. So long as you have the desire to
> know and know that you *need* to know.
### - i'm confident because i speak from personal experience and not just from
theory... plus it's not 'my' view, but a readily available view to anyone who
quietens down their internal dialogue and as a result automatically begins to
perceive beyond the lens of the rational self... each person's personal
interpretation and experience of it may differ, but that's something else
>>('we paved paradise, and put up a parking lot' --for example? :)
>>
>>which isn't to suggest that reason per se then disappears and/or is dispensed
>>with
>>altogether, far from it... only that under 'those' conditions it's assigned a
>>secondary role instead of being allowed to always play the dominant one (i.e.
>>reason transforms into what it really is and is supposed to be: a helper, not a
>>dictator)
>
> Reason is the only thing standing between us and extinction. We don't
> have any other advantages really, no talons, night sight, short sleep
> patterns, tough skin, renewable appendages etc. Just reason.
### - well you didn't meet my last girl friend then ha ha, she had absolutely no
reason whatsoever + a full set of talons, believe me! (kidding ;-)
seriously though, being intelligent and smart has nothing to do with reason,
rather we just learned to express our intelligence and smartness via the 'medium'
of reason because that's all we know! (which isn't actually very smart is it heh
heh ;)
>>and which isn't actually as weird as it might at first sound, because anyone
>>who's
>>ever experienced lucid dreaming knows 'exactly' what i'm talking about, in the
>>sense that this is 'precisely' what one 'has' to do in order to 'maintain' a
>>lucid
>>dream once you're in one! ;)
>>
>
> Well see, most of my dreams are lucid (at the time) but I don't think
> they are what you refer to. They seem lucid because its an alternate
> form of consciousness with different rules. But, its also the form of
> conscousness in which we are most vulnerable. Therefore, its second
> rate but a physical and mental necessity.
### - i cited lucid dreaming because it's a perfect example of a non (or less)
rational state of awareness that can only be maintained/prolonged (once you're in
it) by the deliberate and conscious 'holding-back' of rational-type concerns lest
ya quickly get booted from it...
iow, temporarily suspending the dictums of rationality per se to various degrees
in order to perceive on other levels of awareness, isn't totally alien to us, nor
is it a rocket science that only special/clever people can achieve...
in fact all the 'hard work' and effort actually goes/went into learning to think
and to talk ;)
Jeremy H. Donovan
wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 22:49:55 -0800 (PST), "Jeremy H. Donovan"
>
> >On Jan 6, 4:38 am, thang ornithorhynchus <th...@spitzola.com.org.net>
> >wrote:
>
> >> Slider, pardon me for butting in. I sense an ambiguity in what you
> >> are asserting, that is, the word "rational" means (non-mathematically)
> >> reasonable, capable of reason, sensible, lucid etc. So, you are right
> >> - the universe isn't rational, because only a human can be rational
> >> (or irrational).
>
> >The premise is that only a human can be rational. Not sure that's
> >right. How about intuition. Can only a human utilize intuition?
>
> We have no evidence of rationity in other organisms. Crows and otters
> use tools, cetaceans evince empathy as do elephants, but we have no
> evidence at all of rationality in other organisms. That means its
> *likely* that only a human can be rational.
You think "rationality" sprang into being suddenly with homo sapiens
sapiens? I think that's a strange idea. Chimps and Bonobos use crude
tools, and for say a million years, so did homo habilis, for example.
It's far more likely that the faculties for both rationality and
intuition evolved in small steps with earlier life forms, just like
everything else did. Admittedly, modern humans made a quantum leap,
but we did that upon an already evolved foundation.
Check this out:
http://www.greatapetrust.org/player/video.php?vid=31
> As for intuition, firstly you have to prove its existence. How about
> intuition is just an unconscious form of rational thinking, or at
> least an unascribed form of rational thinking. For instance, the
> chemist who dreamt the benzene ring, how do you know it wasn't his
> irrational unconscious (fact) lapsing into rational form (hypothesis)
> while still asleep? How about if all intuitive leaps (unexplained
> answers) are forms of rational thinking carried out in different
> states of consciousness? I mean, these autistic prodigies who can
> multiply many digit numbers by themselves in split seconds, they don't
> know what they are doing but the mathematical operation itself is
> certainly a totally rational (following the logic of math) operation.
> I think its just a word Jeremy.
You're approaching this topic similarly to how I would. Slider seems
to use the word 'intuition" as some sort of "all-seeing infallible
divine talisman". I agree that it's likely to be a consequence of our
brains being capable of existing in a great many states other than
normal waking consciousness. In addition, a lot of our sensory input
and brain activity remains "sub-conscious", and after we accumulate a
great deal of 'input experience' (only a small part of which we become
consciously aware of), it's only natural that "extra data" would
occasionally "bubble to the surface" and we would suddenly become
aware of having opinions we did not arrive at rationally. While such
impressions can often be accurate, they can also sometimes be in
error, and that's why "intuitions" should always be verified/
validated, just like rational conclusions. We are fallible creatures,
in general.
> >Go back a paltry 20 million years.
>
> Paltry it is. But you can't be certain there were no humans.
When I say "humans" I'm referring to "homo sapien sapien", and about
100,000 years back is as far as they go (see timeline below).
http://www.wsu.edu:8001/vwsu/gened/learn-modules/top_longfor/timeline/timeline.html
> Intuition is a risk which if it doesn't work, means
> the genetic bearer of the gift of intuition is no more. So,
> rationality alone has carried us through to the present day.
I don't quite agree. We are many things, not just rationality (this
is the one small point Slider is actually correct on). However, I do
agree that activities associated with advanced rationality (language,
writing, mathematics, etc.) are largely responsible for the major
quantum leap humanity has taken.
> Speaking of rats, we have them in our palm trees and therein lies some
> good but bloody stories of our two old cats...
Interesting. In the palm trees, eh?
> No, we have the one supreme faculty (its in the wiring really) which
> sometimes perhaps operates while we are under different states of
> consciousness (eg asleep or daydreaming). "Intuition" is a phantasm.
> Hey, Jeremy, I'm thinking of running a cult my son. I will tell the
> truth, which will be a bit of a difference. When I don't know
> something, I'll actually say I don't know. But, I feather the
> ignorance with clues and help notes. No Books of Dzyan or
> Rosicrucians, just plain old truth or simply don't know. As far as I
> can tell, the last guy to do that was Crowley, who basically said "Do
> what thou wilt".
All the way up to the Crowley part your idea is good, and similar to
my own (I have thought of different "cults" I could invent, usually
tongue-in-cheek). But Crowley? Yeesh.
> >I don't give a rat's ass if a man intuits a truth first and then
> >proves it's true rationally, or if a man first proves a thing must
> >exist rationally and then intuits where to find evidence of it.
> >Either way, I just want real knowledge and capability, and evidence
> >that we're talking about something other than a big fat pile of crap
> >no one can do anything with (other than TALK TALK TALK).
>
> I agree. I love knowledge and the indexing and explanation thereof.
> But perhaps the difference is, I know something is up. When I look at
> plants, jungle, the stars, Hubble photos of ancient galaxies, other
> people, my own family and myself, I know that the ratio of my
> ignorance to my knowledge is vast. Most people don't acknowledge this
> and that's contemptible. But its the damn truth and when one
> approaches all of nature (and a Seagate 2TB hard drive is as much a
> part of nature as your left pinky or a bit of gas on Aldebaran) in a
> respectfull. intelligent and above all admiring manner, the jewels of
> heaven will become yours.
I like that, and agree. This is why I became the final enemy of a man
of knowledge (tongue-in-cheek) - since it's impossible to become a man
of knowledge, mainly because there's a billion times more knowledge to
be found than anyone could ever ingest or utilize, and there will
always be more.
So especially if some guy tells me he's intuited 'the fundamental
nature of reality', I'll have to ask him to use this 'vast' knowledge'
to tell us one damn useful thing we didn't know before, such as say,
how galaxies are born. But nothing useful comes out of the guy's
mouth. Instead, it's 5000 lines of arrogant blibbering which contain
not one new thing he can DO or EXPLAIN with this alleged knowledge.
As a reference, check out:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=black-hole-quasar-building-galaxy-09-12-03
slider
jeremy wrote...
You're approaching this topic similarly to how I would. Slider seems
to use the word 'intuition" as some sort of "all-seeing infallible
divine talisman".
### - nope, that's just an emotional impression (of me) on your part? because
intuition is connected/belongs-with instinct more than rationality, thus every
living creature has 'intuition' (as they do instinct) by default
i.e. it's nigh on impossible to define or pin down, but intuition is knowing
something without having to first figure anything out, and is divorced from the
rational processes because it precedes the development of reason/rationality
so when a bit of it somehow leaks through our rational mental shields on
occasion (as it does from time to time by accident) we call that a moment of
intuition or a flash of inspiration because it's usually a fleeting experience
that can't seem to be deliberately repeated when we want it to...(i.e. because
it's not directly 'accessible' to reason)
plus seeing as i mentioned instinct, i'm gradually coming to think that what we
'call' intuition is actually nothing less than 100% intuition at-work? instinct
also being one of those acknowledged things that we can't really rationally
understand nor intellectually pin down beyond considering it something that maybe
seems to be 'hard-wired' into living creatures, something that somehow prompts
and/or controls their behaviour to varying degrees, something humans even pride
themselves on having superseded/risen above, like it's more something to do with
dumb animals than us oh-so-clever humans who're now so above it all etc etc...
yet our understanding (and consequent fast and high-handed dismissal) of instinct
may actually be right off the mark, especially if what we've been calling
intuition turns out to actually be a facet/aspect of instinct, and even more so
when reputable people like uncle albert found ways to access aspects of it in
order to help him solve modern-day rational problems...
yeah i think i like that... it's not intuition at all that people have been
experiencing, it's just flashes of our very little understood (and routinely
dismissed) 'instinct' that gets called into play by various, but generally
unconscious, ways... albert's way being to stick with the whatever-problem
until the answer somehow just... 'came to him'
the problem with the term instinct being that it's too animalistic to us so
elevated-above-the-animals humans to use/apply correctly, just as the problem
with the term intuition is too vague to be of any seeming practical use, even
though it still sounds a lot posher than instinct :)
So especially if some guy tells me he's intuited 'the fundamental
nature of reality', I'll have to ask him to use this 'vast' knowledge'
to tell us one damn useful thing we didn't know before, such as say,
how galaxies are born. But nothing useful comes out of the guy's
mouth. Instead, it's 5000 lines of arrogant blibbering which contain
not one new thing he can DO or EXPLAIN with this alleged knowledge.
### - sigh, if only you'd do some of the work/math yourself instead of wasting the
time scoffing and character assassinating me, then maybe you could even use some
of your own intelligence to figure things like that out?
i.e. with reason one perforce does rational (or even irrational) things, whereas
with intuition/instinct one necessarily does and/or experiences things that are
not borne of reason but of those levels of awareness instead... yet you keep
trying to mix the two?? (i.e. you keep trying to make intuition a part of the
rational world, which can't be done!)
e.g. from a rational pov there's currently no earthly reason to do lucid dreaming
beyond the mere entertainment and/or sheer novelty value of the thing, and as such
in an ostensibly rational world it tends to be dismissed as generally being of no
great importance or significance...
iow, the things and activities of intuition/instinct are literally a world away
from the things and activities of reason, so you can't use one to explain the
other, nor can intuition just be added to the lists of the abilities of reason
without it all going cockeyed and then turned into something it's not (like a new
cult or religion or something, and we certainly don't need any more of them!)
the stuff about how galaxies are born etc, is basically of absolutely no practical
use to us whatsoever beyond maybe further stimulating our already over-stimulated
powers of reason? otoh if an astrophysicist was to ponder the same question for
long enough so as to (according to einstein i mean) somehow evoke/prompt their
intuition to supply them with some new ideas, then that might even work! - as it
is i don't personally ponder such things beyond the occasional reflection on the
subject, i'm personally interested in other things than that such as the nature of
awareness and perception in general, and in human perception in particular...
so don't ask me about galaxies for christsakes, coz' that'd be like asking a jazz
musician to accurately speculate on drainage systems and pipes! (+ i hope you
can see the joke here instead of an insult which is not intended btw :)
thang ornithorhynchus
wrote:
Well its not obvious to me and he doesn't seem any more damaged than
the average human due to the uncertain nature of our course in space
time. I take it you mean being gypped by Carlos Castaneda and/or his
disciples? Well, that can happen to anyone - you just need to laugh
at your own gullibility *at the time* and get on with things. Real
catastrophes are the death of a spouse or child, premature loss of
mental function, unexplained suicides and the like. People even get
over those.
I know what you're saying but you do realise its fairly hackneyed
don't you? There are far fewer constraints on people's ability and
capacity to obtain knowledge now than ever before and no amount of
training/indoctrination (that's what you are saying) can erase that
now. We have the internet, the WWW, bulleting boards, usenet,
cryptography, mobile phones for instant video, youtube, etc etc. We
simply can't be kept in ignorance any more.
I don't agree. Our methods of education aresecond to none and achieve
the task of allowing those who complete their education to have the
tools to seek and obtain whatever knowledge they wish. The prison has
no walls nor bars, and it basically no longer exists.
Can I say, why do you speak in metaphors? Why not come straight out
and say what you want to say, without cloaking it in 19th century
metaphorical allusions? Why not say "The education system, the
socio-political machinery, and the military industrial complexes of
the world militate against the ability of the child to exercise his
imagination"? Or somesuch? Surely, if you know *precisely* what you
want to say, you can say it in precise terms? I have a touch of
Aspergers and need such precision, but I am certain others do as well.
You listen, me ol' pomegranate. There is only one reality. We do not
perceive much of it at all. We have a limited perceptual apparatus
which has limited purview (we don't for instance see infrared, or UV,
or hear ultrasonic) and we have a kludgy old biochemical computer
which evolved to meet less onerous challenges such as how to corner a
gazelle, or escape a tiger. We have recently discovered that the
visible universe in its vast entirety only represents 20% of the
actual "stuff" that *is* the universe. Where is the other 80% that we
don't see or feel? That 80% (dark matter) is some of the hidden
reality, but it is still the one reality. The same with the energy in
the universe, we only perceive and can measure a very small amount of
it. I'm convinced that if we could see reality for what it is, it
would be very unlike the one we see now. Its no jail or anything like
that, its just the way we are built. People from Aristotle to
Gurdjieff to Ouspensky have tried to quiet the mind and extend the
purview, without success. It just can't be done on the current
wetware we have evolved with.
>
>
>>>iow, temporarily turn off/suspend the internal dialogue that ultimately creates
>>>and maintains all our rational constructs and projections, and the inevitable
>>>result is an increasingly clear perception of the underlying reality that it
>>>turns out we've been projecting all our crap over (and onto) all along...
>>
>> I don't know how you can be sure about these things. Look, I don't
>> ascribe to your view because, while I don't know if this *is* reality
>> or just a shadow on a wall, I certainly don't have any answers.
>> Probably for a seeker (and yes, I am one of those), its best to start
>> from a point of absolute ignorance. So long as you have the desire to
>> know and know that you *need* to know.
>
>### - i'm confident because i speak from personal experience and not just from
>theory... plus it's not 'my' view, but a readily available view to anyone who
>quietens down their internal dialogue and as a result automatically begins to
>perceive beyond the lens of the rational self... each person's personal
>interpretation and experience of it may differ, but that's something else
>
Well the only person I have heard of who actually managed to stop the
mental static completely was Buddha, and there is no evidence
whatsoever that he actually existed. It can't be done either, read
some of Gurdjieff's stuff about his thought/concentration experiments.
The static, stray thoughts, mental wanderings, unwanted and
unwarrented mental intrusions etc etc cannot be stopped, they come
with the territory.
The only times I have peered through (or over) the veil have been on
my many experimentations with psilocybin and LSD (and to some extent
with good marijuana). Mushrooms in Bali for instance, when it was
legal. But in hindsight I'm not sure that wasn't just the pepped up
synaptic orchestra being played by mind chemicals out of control.
>
>
>>>('we paved paradise, and put up a parking lot' --for example? :)
>>>
>>>which isn't to suggest that reason per se then disappears and/or is dispensed
>>>with
>>>altogether, far from it... only that under 'those' conditions it's assigned a
>>>secondary role instead of being allowed to always play the dominant one (i.e.
>>>reason transforms into what it really is and is supposed to be: a helper, not a
>>>dictator)
>>
>> Reason is the only thing standing between us and extinction. We don't
>> have any other advantages really, no talons, night sight, short sleep
>> patterns, tough skin, renewable appendages etc. Just reason.
>
>### - well you didn't meet my last girl friend then ha ha, she had absolutely no
>reason whatsoever + a full set of talons, believe me! (kidding ;-)
>
>seriously though, being intelligent and smart has nothing to do with reason,
>rather we just learned to express our intelligence and smartness via the 'medium'
>of reason because that's all we know! (which isn't actually very smart is it heh
>heh ;)
I think it does. Reason cannot exist in the absence of intellect. One
can only reason if one has the intellectual apparatus to do so, many
humans in fact cannot reason because they are too far down the reverse
slope of the Gaussian curve, yet they are much more intelligent than a
dog, for instance. Reason for instance concerns permises and the
deduction of otherwise invisible conclusions from those premises.
Making something out of nothing, really. Taking two facts, or more,
and magically making appear a third or twentieth fact (the deduction)
which was otherwise invisible, purely through the exercise of
intellect. The usual example is: 1.All men are mortal;
2.Socrates is a man; 3.(Therefore,) Socrates is mortal. You can apply
it to fallacies as well, and while the method works, the conclusion
will be fallacious. In any case, you cannot deny it needs intellect
to make it work. I rest my case.
>
>
>
>>>and which isn't actually as weird as it might at first sound, because anyone
>>>who's
>>>ever experienced lucid dreaming knows 'exactly' what i'm talking about, in the
>>>sense that this is 'precisely' what one 'has' to do in order to 'maintain' a
>>>lucid
>>>dream once you're in one! ;)
>>>
>>
>> Well see, most of my dreams are lucid (at the time) but I don't think
>> they are what you refer to. They seem lucid because its an alternate
>> form of consciousness with different rules. But, its also the form of
>> conscousness in which we are most vulnerable. Therefore, its second
>> rate but a physical and mental necessity.
>
>### - i cited lucid dreaming because it's a perfect example of a non (or less)
>rational state of awareness that can only be maintained/prolonged (once you're in
>it) by the deliberate and conscious 'holding-back' of rational-type concerns lest
>ya quickly get booted from it...
>
>iow, temporarily suspending the dictums of rationality per se to various degrees
>in order to perceive on other levels of awareness, isn't totally alien to us, nor
>is it a rocket science that only special/clever people can achieve...
>
>in fact all the 'hard work' and effort actually goes/went into learning to think
>and to talk ;)
>
I don't see what you're getting at. Dreams are usually to let off
steam while the body heals itself, the mind is also healing itself.
The so called irrational nature of dreams is just the flow of
consciousness as imaged symbols sound bytes, and so on, all jumble
together, a bit like cleaning out your hard drives. Nothing more. If
you do this on purpose while you are awake and aware, its no longer
dreaming per se. Its something else, like a catatonic state or a
fugue state. All perfectly rationally explicable.
You see, even though I'm of Celtic descent, and I am quite
superstitious, its only because I feel there are laws of this universe
of which we know nothing (yet) which we might call at the moment, in
our ignorance, magic. So, I pay obeisance to unlucky colours, lucky
numbers, and so on, because there just might be something in it. But,
its all ultimately explicable in a rational sense, we just haven't
discovered the relevant laws yet (or the dark matter, dark energy,
Higgs particle, gravitons, etc etc etc). In fact, we are still in
that damn cave looking at the shadows on the wall and knowing that
they represent things happening outside the cave, but we haven't gone
outside yet to investigate for ourselves. Do you get what I mean?
Nuts like Carlos Castaneda prey on rubes who ascribe the appelation
"magic" to things which we can't explain yet (I'm certainly not saying
you're one, you appear to be quite cynical about him and his ilk - you
know, Lobsang Rampa, channeling, UFOs, all that mythology).
thang
>
>
>
>
slider
thang wrote...
> Well its not obvious to me and he doesn't seem any more damaged than
> the average human due to the uncertain nature of our course in space
> time. I take it you mean being gypped by Carlos Castaneda and/or his
> disciples? Well, that can happen to anyone - you just need to laugh
> at your own gullibility *at the time* and get on with things. Real
> catastrophes are the death of a spouse or child, premature loss of
> mental function, unexplained suicides and the like. People even get
> over those.
### - i've said as much to him me'self about that, the reason he's kinda stuck in
a time capsule being that he went 'anti' instead of just letting it all go? hence
his continuing digs and slurs towards old slider, who isn't anti-anything that
might or could be useful (e.g. 9 times outta 10 ya can usually turn bad to good as
all experience counts at least for something)
>>like... just 'how' do ya tell that poor little happy bastard that 'everything'
>>he
>>absolutely believes in, everything he's ever wanted to do and is looking forward
>>to, is basically a crock... and that 'real' life is actually passing him by
>>outside the prison without him (or anyone else) ever realising it?? (which is
>>precisely where they traditionally start stoning you to death i suppose lol:)
>>
>>like, do you get the picture me' old koala? because people who've been
>>'institutionalised' very often don't even 'want' to come out, even if they
>>could!
>>
> I know what you're saying but you do realise its fairly hackneyed
> don't you? There are far fewer constraints on people's ability and
> capacity to obtain knowledge now than ever before and no amount of
> training/indoctrination (that's what you are saying) can erase that
> now. We have the internet, the WWW, bulleting boards, usenet,
> cryptography, mobile phones for instant video, youtube, etc etc. We
> simply can't be kept in ignorance any more.
### - it would appear so wouldn't it? yet once someone has been trained to look
for and seek a certain 'kind' or 'type' of information, then that's what they tend
to always keep looking for ever afterwards? iow, if ya keep looking in the same
place for your info all the time then ya tend to keep finding the same 'kind' of
answers, no?
the point being that, by and large, people increasingly look for, and expect,
rational answers to rational problems... and even if they stumble upon something
'outside' of those criteria, then they still now want rational answers and
explanations even for that, or it just doesn't compute...
i.e. even an internet full of rubbish isn't going to help anyone find anything
other than just more rubbish, the point being that no one's interested in any kind
of genuinely alternate information anymore anyway, basically because... they've
forgotten the gift and honour the servant...
> I don't agree. Our methods of education aresecond to none and achieve
> the task of allowing those who complete their education to have the
> tools to seek and obtain whatever knowledge they wish. The prison has
> no walls nor bars, and it basically no longer exists.
### - it's a prison house of 'ideas' thang... and no one leaves (or even considers
leaving) because all they're expectations have been trained/groomed since birth to
look in one place and in one place only for virtually everything! - i.e. we don't
just have the 'ability' to reason, we're actually completely addicted to it hook,
line and proverbial sinker, and don't want anything else! (which if you understand
is actually a real problem humanity is currently suffering from;)
> Can I say, why do you speak in metaphors? Why not come straight out
> and say what you want to say, without cloaking it in 19th century
> metaphorical allusions? Why not say "The education system, the
> socio-political machinery, and the military industrial complexes of
> the world militate against the ability of the child to exercise his
> imagination"? Or somesuch? Surely, if you know *precisely* what you
> want to say, you can say it in precise terms? I have a touch of
> Aspergers and need such precision, but I am certain others do as well.
### - it's a fair dinkum question that deserves a fair answer me old fruit hehe,
although i'm not so sure you'll like it?
reason (or rather, the workings of reason) typically likes to pin everything down
('defines' things) so it can shuffle all the fixed pieces around to arrive at
novel formulations of them, thus does it expand itself and its own enterprises...
new formulations become fashionable for a while (hold sway) until superseded by
more engulfing formulations, ad infinitum...
the only problem being that anything that can't be properly 'defined' (i.e. nailed
down) doesn't fit the criteria, and as such is automatically rejected... thus has
reason per se expanded to become a mutually exclusive club of sorts that
increasingly admits of no deviation from the socially accepted norm (i.e.
dissenters will thus be nailed to trees, burned, strangled, tortured, ostracised,
laughed at, or just plain ignored depending on what's fashionable this month,
year, century, millennium or whatever hehehe)
the point being... trying to communicate to these... 'addicts' (rational junkies
heh, whose single-minded expectations are for things of the tangible only else
they just don't even see it or get it i mean) stuff that exists 'outside' of their
rational parameters (that prison house of established ideas that there appears to
no end of), things that don't have as their criteria 'definitions' as such because
they of the intuition and not of reason for example, necessitates a rather
convoluted approach if one is to circumnavigate their built-in battery of rational
defences that go on the alert as soon as they feel threatened in any way, shape,
or form...
there are, however, holes (for want of a better description) in those defences
that can be utilised under certain conditions in order to 'impart' information
that's virtually impossible to otherwise explain in clear and cogent terms, and/or
that would be rejected out of hand by the recipient because it's not at all what
they 'want' (or expect) to hear... and the use of metaphors (painting pictures
basically: images) is a tool that can often be employed to that effect :)
> You listen, me ol' pomegranate. There is only one reality. We do not
> perceive much of it at all. We have a limited perceptual apparatus
> which has limited purview (we don't for instance see infrared, or UV,
> or hear ultrasonic) and we have a kludgy old biochemical computer
> which evolved to meet less onerous challenges such as how to corner a
> gazelle, or escape a tiger. We have recently discovered that the
> visible universe in its vast entirety only represents 20% of the
> actual "stuff" that *is* the universe. Where is the other 80% that we
> don't see or feel? That 80% (dark matter) is some of the hidden
> reality, but it is still the one reality. The same with the energy in
> the universe, we only perceive and can measure a very small amount of
> it. I'm convinced that if we could see reality for what it is, it
> would be very unlike the one we see now. Its no jail or anything like
> that, its just the way we are built. People from Aristotle to
> Gurdjieff to Ouspensky have tried to quiet the mind and extend the
> purview, without success. It just can't be done on the current
> wetware we have evolved with.
### - well yes, the mistake is obviously in attempting to 'extend' anything? (i.e.
one can't just add the things of the intuition and instinct to say the dictums and
auspices of reason lest you end up with just another wacky mystical semi-rational
religion/belief-system, or some such practically useless thing that ultimately
does absolutely nothing to advance us in any way whatsoever, if in fact not the
very reverse)
the simple answer i suppose being to just let reason deal with the things of
reason, and the intuition/instinct with its things, and to stop trying to keep
mixing the two? (i.e. there are no 'recipes' for the things of the world of the
intuition/instinct, and because that would be a direct contradiction of terms
anyway)
and while we can't possibly define the intuition (nor should any attempt be made
to do so without fucking it all up) that doesn't mean we can't still identify some
of the things that belong to it + also note some of its effects, things that all
add up so as to give us a view of it of sorts? (mere glimpses are all one ever
gets of it anyway) enough anyway so as to be able to at least be able to relate to
it in something other than just another religious fucking frenzy! (haha, just my
sense of humour there, don't worry about it)
>>>>iow, temporarily turn off/suspend the internal dialogue that ultimately
>>>>creates
>>>>and maintains all our rational constructs and projections, and the inevitable
>>>>result is an increasingly clear perception of the underlying reality that it
>>>>turns out we've been projecting all our crap over (and onto) all along...
>>>
>>> I don't know how you can be sure about these things. Look, I don't
>>> ascribe to your view because, while I don't know if this *is* reality
>>> or just a shadow on a wall, I certainly don't have any answers.
>>> Probably for a seeker (and yes, I am one of those), its best to start
>>> from a point of absolute ignorance. So long as you have the desire to
>>> know and know that you *need* to know.
>>
>>### - i'm confident because i speak from personal experience and not just from
>>theory... plus it's not 'my' view, but a readily available view to anyone who
>>quietens down their internal dialogue and as a result automatically begins to
>>perceive beyond the lens of the rational self... each person's personal
>>interpretation and experience of it may differ, but that's something else
>>
> Well the only person I have heard of who actually managed to stop the
> mental static completely was Buddha, and there is no evidence
> whatsoever that he actually existed.
### - the buddhists do actually train themselves to quieten down the internal
dialogue as part of their meditation practices (i like the buddhists, they're
alright, they're not looking for trouble for instance ha ha ha :)
jean paul sartre reports having done it too, and even noted/documented some of its
effects upon perception... more, he and albert camus went to quite some lengths to
rationally communicate it to the rest of his fellow intellectuals in the form of a
new philosophy called Existentialism, and in dozens of novels between them wherein
many graphic and fairly practical examples are portrayed and exemplified for all
us lesser mortals/intellectuals heh :)
> It can't be done either, read
> some of Gurdjieff's stuff about his thought/concentration experiments.
> The static, stray thoughts, mental wanderings, unwanted and
> unwarrented mental intrusions etc etc cannot be stopped, they come
> with the territory.
### - this is exactly why i cited lucid dreaming as a working example, in that
it's actually about a 'reduction', or a 'holding-back' of reason to varying
degrees rather than that of stopping it together (i.e. under conditions of lucid
dreaming reason still functions to varying degrees, but it's not the same
reasoning as normal... in fact the order seems to be reversed in some sense, in
that reason kinda tags along behind the events, and is more like a voice in your
ear that accurately explains things as (or just after) they occur rather than
being a-priori or coincidental to events as per normal waking awareness... the
fact that such a reversal is actually achievable during waking awareness 'as well'
imho adds even another (quite big) twist to it all too! :)
> The only times I have peered through (or over) the veil have been on
> my many experimentations with psilocybin and LSD (and to some extent
> with good marijuana). Mushrooms in Bali for instance, when it was
> legal. But in hindsight I'm not sure that wasn't just the pepped up
> synaptic orchestra being played by mind chemicals out of control.
### - lol i enjoyed the line 'pepped up synaptic orchestra' hehehe (one for the
bag me'thinks) brains on steroids or something, just gotta have that crank baby
whoo-hoo! lol :)
plus drugs ain't where it's at, drugs are only a hint or a clue, and then ya gotta
put up with all the distortions? like crazy pink miniature elephants zooming
around like airplanes up and down the plastercine walls, yeah i been there
alright... but like, who the hell needs it! lol :)
### - and so that's the end of it all is it? end of story? really?
so ok, the kid in the prison that i mentioned before has just popped me right on
the nose hehe, he rests his case (is done with it basically) and will hear nothing
more about it, those are the rules, subject closed?
### - hahahahaha, plus forgive me for laughing hehe, so for you dreaming is
something completely perfunctory, similar perhaps to occasionally emptying the old
ball-bag if/when it all gets a bit overfilled or something no? lol (plus i can see
why you and jeremy can kinda get-along, you have something in common, you both
support the same football team/club:)
joking aside... i have to deduce that you haven't actually done much 'lucid'
dreaming then, else you'd have immediately understood what i was going on about
above? the point being that anyone who's ever lucid dreamed is automatically
forced to learn to discipline/amend their standard reasoning abilities in order to
prolong the lucid dreaming experience itself...
i.e. one's automatic and unavoidable reaction upon first entering into lucid
dreaming is to be going wow maaan, i actually made it, i'm really lucid dreaming!
and it's amazing and wonderful and fascinating, plus i feel so weird and
different, and i'm not sure i like it exactly, and boy what the fuck was that??
etc etc etc... until the incredibly delicate perceptual balance (bias) becomes
altered, and the next thing ya know you're back in bed not lucid dreaming anymore,
and yer goin' shit, shit, shit, and desperately trying to go straight back into it
only you bloody well can't, and you're screwed till next time lol... plus it takes
several sessions (and experiments) to start getting it right, in that one
increasingly learns to act as though lucid dreaming is the most normal thing in
the world to be doing, in which case one literally turns on one's heal and goes
off exploring in some kind of more nonchalant and uncaring manner, which is
tantamount to saying: just act now, and analyse it all later...
> You see, even though I'm of Celtic descent, and I am quite
> superstitious, its only because I feel there are laws of this universe
> of which we know nothing (yet) which we might call at the moment, in
> our ignorance, magic. So, I pay obeisance to unlucky colours, lucky
> numbers, and so on, because there just might be something in it. But,
> its all ultimately explicable in a rational sense, we just haven't
> discovered the relevant laws yet (or the dark matter, dark energy,
> Higgs particle, gravitons, etc etc etc). In fact, we are still in
> that damn cave looking at the shadows on the wall and knowing that
> they represent things happening outside the cave, but we haven't gone
> outside yet to investigate for ourselves. Do you get what I mean?
### - i do indeed... but do you get what i mean about the prison? (because they're
basically the same thing;) plus some people 'do' get out, but to our collective
shame it's only a fraction of the whole in every generation that ever accomplishes
it... the vast majority seemingly being only too happy to spend lives of drudgery
working down the mines or some other ultimately useless activity that's just about
as far away from any exits as is humanly possible
> Nuts like Carlos Castaneda prey on rubes who ascribe the appelation
> "magic" to things which we can't explain yet (I'm certainly not saying
> you're one, you appear to be quite cynical about him and his ilk - you
> know, Lobsang Rampa, channeling, UFOs, all that mythology).
### - awww no ufo's??? well thank fuck for that! (lol, ya just don't need 'em do
ya ha ha ha :)
'magic', like the words intuition and instinct, being loose terms that allude to
things that appear to occur occasionally for no rationally identifiable reasons or
purposes (hey wouldn't it be a blast if ultimately they all turned out to be
referring to the same thing? ;)
G
<jeremyhdono...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am the final enemy of a man of knowledge, and I tell you that you
> are a pecker head.
yeah but the enemy before that it bad art ;)
thang ornithorhynchus
wrote:
"...no practical use to us whatsoever?" Really? I am surprised that a
mystic, or a person who it trying to become a mystic, doesn't want to
know exactly how he fits into the one-verse. You're part of it mate,
like it or lump it. If I am part of something, then I want to know as
much about all of it (that is, the parts that aren't me) as I can. I'm
not sure how you define "practical use" but to me, practical use means
how I personally use it to fill out the picture of my surrounds
(nature). That's reality and truth, and way more important than
chasing stuff which *may* or *may not* be true. Its esoteric, that's
for sure, supernovae, fossil radiation, singularities and brown stars,
but its all part of the one-verse and I'm part of it. I'm made out of
spewed-out complex elements transmuted in thermonuclear fire from
simple H and so are you. I would stand less in awe of a ghost phasing
through the wall than I do, in fact, of galaxies, infinity and
eternity. Unfortunately, most people either don't have the equipment
to address such stuff or they have a major blind spot for some reason.
>
thang
slider
thang wrote...
>>so don't ask me about galaxies for christsakes, coz' that'd be like asking a
>>jazz
>>musician to accurately speculate on drainage systems and pipes! (+ i hope you
>>can see the joke here instead of an insult which is not intended btw :)
>
> "...no practical use to us whatsoever?" Really? I am surprised that a
> mystic, or a person who it trying to become a mystic, doesn't want to
> know exactly how he fits into the one-verse. You're part of it mate,
> like it or lump it. If I am part of something, then I want to know as
> much about all of it (that is, the parts that aren't me) as I can. I'm
> not sure how you define "practical use" but to me, practical use means
> how I personally use it to fill out the picture of my surrounds
> (nature). That's reality and truth, and way more important than
> chasing stuff which *may* or *may not* be true. Its esoteric, that's
> for sure, supernovae, fossil radiation, singularities and brown stars,
> but its all part of the one-verse and I'm part of it. I'm made out of
> spewed-out complex elements transmuted in thermonuclear fire from
> simple H and so are you. I would stand less in awe of a ghost phasing
> through the wall than I do, in fact, of galaxies, infinity and
> eternity. Unfortunately, most people either don't have the equipment
> to address such stuff or they have a major blind spot for some reason.
### - knowledge of galaxies, theoretical knowledge or otherwise, has absolutely no
practical use whatsoever beyond that of only further stimulating one's imagination
and/or perhaps sense of awe... iow there's absolutely nothing 'practical' or of
any 'immediate tangible use' about galaxies beyond stimulating an already
over-stimulated reason... and that if one's whole focus is in reducing reason
instead of further inflating it, then the drooling over galaxies would be
counter-productive to doing that, no?
of course you'll probably say, why should i even 'want' to reduce reason...
well for starters, how about for the same reasons sartre did? (i.e. no one could
ever call sartre an idiot or someone suffering from blind spots)
at which point in a very similar conversation to jeremy, he suddenly cops... well
i never liked sartre anyway so i didn't bother reading him ;-)
so much for reason then eh? :)
G
>
> - Show quoted text -
" ### - it would appear so wouldn't it? yet once someone has been
trained to look
for and seek a certain 'kind' or 'type' of information, then that's
what they tend
to always keep looking for ever afterwards? iow, if ya keep looking in
the same
place for your info all the time then ya tend to keep finding the same
'kind' of
answers, no? "
Is that why you've been here for so long ?
slider
ali-G wrote...
>it would appear so wouldn't it? yet once someone has been
>trained to look for and seek a certain 'kind' or 'type' of information, then
>that's what they tend to always keep looking for ever afterwards? iow, if
>ya keep looking in the same place for your info all the time then ya tend to
>keep finding the same 'kind' of answers, no? "
Is that why you've been here for so long ?
### - hehehe... on this funny little planet you mean? ;-)
happy new year matt, how are you?
G
Im suriving slider , moved from where i was and find myself somewhere
else - all be it - with snow keeping me pinned in this time !
how are you doing ?
Happy New Year too btw
G
Oh - Happy new year Thang , and of course the final enemy himself ;)
slider
G wrote...
>> Is that why you've been here for so long ?
>- hehehe... on this funny little planet you mean? ;-)
>
> happy new year matt, how are you?
Im suriving slider , moved from where i was and find myself somewhere
else - all be it - with snow keeping me pinned in this time !
how are you doing ?
Happy New Year too btw
### - you've moved eh? well they say a change is as good as a rest...
i'm actually enjoying the snow and the forced change of routine it's providing
(i.e. everyone else is moaning about it, but i'm finding it fun... must be the
child in me or something heh :)
G
I like the snow too but it doesnt really go down well with my rascal
( name of my mobility scooter ) Unfortunately those things are built
like monster trucks nor thave the motor to cope ( its over 9ft in some
parts round here )
Theres something kinda eirry about it , its like white out and as I;ve
yet to be out in 6 wks a bit surreal ( the longest in fact ironically
since I last wrote here I think and was still in black lodge - twin
peak reference )
Cant say this years started to well and every one I know seems to have
fallen ill will incurable issues ( kidney disease , cataracts etc )
but yeah if i could walk id enjoy it , I always loved snow sorta
reminds me of the night - its just covers and everything ( even you
live in a shit hole like i did for that year )
So did you pull any crackers this christmas ?
G
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gotq8AgUgSE&feature=PlayList&p=8D1C97A32A34C533&index=0
If David Lynch ever went on ski holiday :)
slider
G wrote...
### - i know what you mean by surreal + the world is actually kinda eerie all the
time, only we don't notice it very often unless something (like snow) drastically
alters the daily routine/fixed view...
christmas? i found christmas quite boring really... e.g. i woke up xmas
morning, played with me nuts pulled me cracker and went straight back to sleep!!!
lol (old jim davidson joke hehehe + was actually not that far from the truth ;-)
thang ornithorhynchus
wrote:
Matt? Matt? Rings a bell methinks...
Anyhow, ditto. There seem to be very few of us populating this group
nowadays. At least Jeremy has come back.
thang
G
Well i was pretty drunk If I remember on jagermeiter and bad music..
Yes, I m not sure thats it though , I mean that usually ( the snow
sorta shifts ) or theres some change in weather but its like a fridge
here , its not actually snowing but just staying , like the overall
temperature has been permanently altered - hence why the snows not
going.
Im not sure why Ithink this but when i look up into that sky , I just
dont see any give until the day that I die. :P
So youve been playing with yourself again ?
My realtives threatened to come but the weather brought an end to all
that - thank god
G
<th...@spitzola.com.org.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 16:48:15 -0800 (PST), G <matt.tip...@gmail.com>
I bet Jeremy remembers :)
Yes, i peeked here once and twice and it was dead - I actually though
slider had died or really made good on his promise to go to india
( btw what the hells in india ) ??
slider
G wrote
### - haha i hope you're right (that or lol it gets even worse :)
So youve been playing with yourself again ?
### - haha... "i'm a one-man band,
and nobody knows nor understands
is there anybody out wanna lend me a hand
with my one man band." --leo sayer :)
My realtives threatened to come but the weather brought an end to all
that - thank god
### - oh well at least you can't say you didn't get 'something' for xmas ;-)
------------------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2o2kdd_Veo
well everybody knows down ladbrook grove
you have to leap across the street
you can lose your life under a taxi cab
you gotta have eyes in your feet
you find a nice soft corner and you sit right down
take up your guitar and play
but then the law man comes says move along
so you move along all day
well I'm a one man band
nobody knows nor understands
is there anybody out there wanna lend me a hand
with my one man band
for three days now I haven't eaten at all
my my you must be getting so thin
and soon my cap won't be large enough
to drop a half a crown in
so hey there mister don't you look so sad
don't look so ill at ease
well I can play you any song you like
to cheer up that life you lead
well I'm a one man band
nobody knows nor understands
is there anybody out there wanna lend me a hand
with my one man band
and oh oh oh look at the rain falling
oh oh oh look at it rain
oh look at it rain
well nobody sees the minstrel boy as he sings his tale of woe
nobody sees him coming
nobody see him go
so hey there mister don't you look so sad
don't look so ill at ease
well I can play you any song you like
to cheer up that life you lead
well I'm a one man band
nobody knows nor understands
is there anybody out there wanna lend me a hand
with my one man band
well I'm a one man band
nobody knows nor understands
is there anybody out there wanna lend me a hand
with my one man band
oh I'm a one man band
just a one man band
oh I'm a one man band
leo sayer --1974
thang ornithorhynchus
wrote:
>On Jan 11, 11:29�am, thang ornithorhynchus
I remember you now, very despondent verging on despair. You are/were
sick at heart and in body if I recall correctly. Hope all that's
improved.
India? Haven't been there, but its the originating religion and
region of the Buddha, the caucasian (Indo-European) race, the
aboriginal race and a few others which inhabit the landbridge to
Australia, Sanskrit, bad smells, ridiculous overpopulation, beggars,
avarice, racism on a massive scale, nuclear warheads, and many many
other things. Oh yeah, some people go there for enlightenment
because, apparently, it can't be found in their own country.
thang
slider
thang wrote...
> Oh yeah, some people go there for enlightenment
> because, apparently, it can't be found in their own country.
### - bit cynical of you thang? plus i never thought i'd ever have to accuse you
of sounding like jeremy?? (i know you 2 intellectually get-on, but i thought the
wounded-bear act belonged to him alone, not you too :)
now as regards india hehe... what you are 'probably' referring to is the old
hippie-trail to goa, where 'some' of the visiting westerners (including richard
alpert for example, later called ram dass) reported meeting holy men there that
apparently led them to some sort of profound realisations etc, and wrote about it
(alpert's book 'be here now' for example)
mentioning india on here, however, has a different reference that even jeremy
probably understands as a standing cc joke? - e.g. in one story when people of his
party weren't around for any period of time and someone naively asked as to where
they all were, they received a curt (non-revealing) reply along the lines of oh
they've all gone to india (what all of them?? yes isn't it marvellous + it must
have cost a fortune! etc etc hehe, from taisha ablar's book i think :)
thang ornithorhynchus
wrote:
>
>thang wrote...
>
>> Oh yeah, some people go there for enlightenment
>> because, apparently, it can't be found in their own country.
>
>### - bit cynical of you thang? plus i never thought i'd ever have to accuse you
>of sounding like jeremy?? (i know you 2 intellectually get-on, but i thought the
>wounded-bear act belonged to him alone, not you too :)
Angry bear here, not wounded (although life wounds everyone, somehow,
sooner or later). Angry with events in my life over which I had no
control at a very young age, which essentially had no real cause
either. Anyhow, I'm no orphan as they say (although most of us become
orphans sooner or later as well). As for Jeremy, all you see of me
and know of me is my words here, in this forum. Its a long string to
equate me with someone whom I have never met (you've met him though,
haven't you?)
If you reach my age, not yet venerable, without becoming cynical, you
must suffer from Down's Syndrome or the like. Its a natural
progression, because the antonym is "innocent" (or naive) and no one
should be in *that* state at a mature age. You see the bullshit our
species is capable of, and the high points of splendour we are also
capable of. A militia/soldier tied to a tree in Salamau fighting what
he knows is his last fight at the age of 17 against the Japs, knowing
he will soon feel the hot lead traverse his plasm, but still waiting
for the first of the Imperial Army to round the corner...the first
cosmonaut in that little Sputnik coffin, or US test pilots in the X15.
Then, there is Bernie Madoff destroying thousands, Heydrich and
Eichmann and Mengele, on the other side of the coin so to speak. A
little bit cynical, me ol' fruit? You could say. At least when the
universe destroys, it does so impartially and disinterestedly, as when
a near-location type 1A supernova erupts and destroys countless
systems.
>
>now as regards india hehe... what you are 'probably' referring to is the old
>hippie-trail to goa, where 'some' of the visiting westerners (including richard
>alpert for example, later called ram dass) reported meeting holy men there that
>apparently led them to some sort of profound realisations etc, and wrote about it
>(alpert's book 'be here now' for example)
>
>mentioning india on here, however, has a different reference that even jeremy
>probably understands as a standing cc joke? - e.g. in one story when people of his
>party weren't around for any period of time and someone naively asked as to where
>they all were, they received a curt (non-revealing) reply along the lines of oh
>they've all gone to india (what all of them?? yes isn't it marvellous + it must
>have cost a fortune! etc etc hehe, from taisha ablar's book i think :)
>
Nah, I was alluding to all the people who travel there for
enlightenment as though they can find a shortcut to Nirvana or Heaven
or whatever. Its bullshit. Why would any self respecting god let
someone find a shortcut to heaven without doing the hard yards? Like
spending a few (hundred) lifetimes down here, or elsewhere, as a
qualifier. If people such as Gurdjieff can do the hard work (let
alone the Buddha), then why should anyone be entitled to take a
shortcut and obviate the hard yakka and go straight to base? Pure,
unadulterated, crystalline, limpid bullshit.
And if entities such as CC claimed himself to be existed, do you think
they would spend their miserable lives fleecing rubes who are either
too stupid or too wealthy to know any better? No way. They would be
convincing the damn masses, with great success, rather than niche
success like Castenada, Lobsang Rampa and all of those nimbrains back
to year -0.
A good way for people to start their machinations towards
enlightenment is to become aware, totally, of who they are and where
they are. Where they are was well said in the galaxy song in The
Meaning of Life (although now, 21stC, its proven that there are far
more stars than there are grains of sand on every beach on this
planet). Who they are is a difficult one, because you first have to
convince people that there is someone there. Its actually easier to
prove that there is no one there, we are just collections of images,
perceptions, environmental reactions and the like.
So, don't take offence because none was intended. At least you are on
a journey, the majority of people die face down rather than face up
(metaphorically). If its the wrong journey, or worse if its
meaningless, then hopefully you will find that out before you are too
old. I trust you are on the correct journey for yourself.
thang
slider
thang wrote...
>>> Oh yeah, some people go there for enlightenment
>>> because, apparently, it can't be found in their own country.
>>
>>### - bit cynical of you thang? plus i never thought i'd ever have to accuse you
>>of sounding like jeremy?? (i know you 2 intellectually get-on, but i thought the
>>wounded-bear act belonged to him alone, not you too :)
>
> Angry bear here, not wounded (although life wounds everyone, somehow,
> sooner or later). Angry with events in my life over which I had no
> control at a very young age, which essentially had no real cause
> either. Anyhow, I'm no orphan as they say (although most of us become
> orphans sooner or later as well). As for Jeremy, all you see of me
> and know of me is my words here, in this forum. Its a long string to
> equate me with someone whom I have never met (you've met him though,
> haven't you?)
### - nah never met... besides, he said he'd duff me up if i ever came around rofl
(i'm uk and he's usa haha ;-)
and no i don't think you're like him really, in fact you appear quite mellow
compared to jeremy hahaha, and that's the way i've always related to you + i
like/appreciate your fairly wise use of quotes at the end of posts (which imho is
precisely the way it's supposed to be done old chap;)
personally i wear my scars (from wounds) with a kinda pride? life marks us yes,
call them character lines perhaps, etched on the very faces of the people wearing
them... for through adversity we have arisen and arise (as all life did and
does) - and what characters it sometimes produces!!! :)
> If you reach my age, not yet venerable, without becoming cynical, you
> must suffer from Down's Syndrome or the like.
### - LOL :)
Its a natural
> progression, because the antonym is "innocent" (or naive) and no one
> should be in *that* state at a mature age.
### - hmm i dunno, once a man twice a child?
i.e.
"to be able to return to the place you started from,
and to see it for the first time." --life's secret, t.s. elliot
You see the bullshit our
> species is capable of, and the high points of splendour we are also
> capable of.
### - absolutely! (nature doesn't take any chances, it covers the whole range in
order to ensure at least 'some' will reach the highs :)
A militia/soldier tied to a tree in Salamau fighting what
> he knows is his last fight at the age of 17 against the Japs, knowing
> he will soon feel the hot lead traverse his plasm, but still waiting
> for the first of the Imperial Army to round the corner...the first
> cosmonaut in that little Sputnik coffin, or US test pilots in the X15.
### - the 16 year old kids gleefully signing up for apprenticeships to a lifetime
of making very specific nuts and bolts for machines and what-have-you they'll
probably never ever see the end product they're being used for... or the one's
committing a form of social suicide by joining the whatever-forces services of
varying description, it's all so futile isn't it, sheer waste, i know...
Standing at the window
A farmer's wife in Oxfordshire
Glances all the clock it's nearly time for tea
She doesn't see
The phantom in the hedgerow dip its wings
Doesn't hear the engine sing
But in the cockpit's techno glow
Behind the Ray Ban (R) shine
The kid from Cleveland
In the comfort of routine
Scans his dials and smiles
Secure in the beauty of military life
There is no right or wrong
Only tin cans and cordite and white cliffs
And blue skies and flight flight flight
The beauty of military life
No questions only orders and flight only flight
What a beautiful sight in his wild blue dream
The eternal child leafs through his
War magazine
And his kind Uncle Sam feeds ten trillion in
Change into the total entertainment
Combat video game
And up here in the stands
The fans are goin' wild
The cheerleaders flip
When you wiggle your hip
And we all like the bit when you take
The jeans from the refrigerator and
The the bad guy gets hit
And were you struck by the satisfying
Way the swimsuit sticks to her skin
Like BB gun days
When knives pierce autumn leaves
But that's okay see the children bleed
It'll look great on the TV
And in Tripoli another ordinary wife
Stares at the dripping tap her old man hadn't
Time to fix
Too busy mixing politics and rhythm
In the street below
(roger water's album : Amused to death)
> Then, there is Bernie Madoff destroying thousands, Heydrich and
> Eichmann and Mengele, on the other side of the coin so to speak. A
> little bit cynical, me ol' fruit? You could say. At least when the
> universe destroys, it does so impartially and disinterestedly, as when
> a near-location type 1A supernova erupts and destroys countless
> systems.
### - which is probably precisely why one should always strive to live 'in the
moment' instead of allowing one's attention to habitually wander off down all
these mind-blowing rational hi-ways and byways that ultimately does nothing (good)
for people really other than to turn their heads? (that's what i observe anyway,
potentially good people literally pissing their lives up the wall living in a
dream world, and congratulating themselves while doing so, a prison indeed)
>>now as regards india hehe... what you are 'probably' referring to is the old
>>hippie-trail to goa, where 'some' of the visiting westerners (including richard
>>alpert for example, later called ram dass) reported meeting holy men there that
>>apparently led them to some sort of profound realisations etc, and wrote about
>>it
>>(alpert's book 'be here now' for example)
>>
>>mentioning india on here, however, has a different reference that even jeremy
>>probably understands as a standing cc joke? - e.g. in one story when people of
>>his
>>party weren't around for any period of time and someone naively asked as to
>>where
>>they all were, they received a curt (non-revealing) reply along the lines of oh
>>they've all gone to india (what all of them?? yes isn't it marvellous + it must
>>have cost a fortune! etc etc hehe, from taisha ablar's book i think :)
>>
> Nah, I was alluding to all the people who travel there for
> enlightenment as though they can find a shortcut to Nirvana or Heaven
> or whatever. Its bullshit.
### - (you're making me laugh ha ha :) oh c'mon thang, this is history? the
hippies started it because they were determined to step-out/break-out from the
social norm, which back then was even worse than it is today (or maybe the reverse
is true, sometimes i'm not sure which?;)
the point being that there came a time when the real thinkers among the hippies
and beats of that time, realised that even anarchy isn't the answer (i.e. because
one way or another ultimately wars mean just more little babies getting blown up?)
and so came the time of the 'scattering' - which basically means that in search of
'culture-shock' they all headed out in different directions, india being only one
such direction some of them took, and we already know some of the stories and
rumours from there... others went in other directions... to south america for
example... they were all seeking and searching, reaching out from the urban
concrete jungles they were all raised in, determined to break the mould... plenty
went out, but others went 'in' (inner space) respected Aldus Huxley, and the rebel
timothy leary for example... it was the scattering, and the all work they did, and
even all the mistakes they made, ultimately served everyone because they literally
altered and reshaped our collective human consciousness to include other aspects
of reality (expanded our awareness) by laying trails all over the place :)
Why would any self respecting god let
> someone find a shortcut to heaven without doing the hard yards? Like
> spending a few (hundred) lifetimes down here, or elsewhere, as a
> qualifier. If people such as Gurdjieff can do the hard work (let
> alone the Buddha), then why should anyone be entitled to take a
> shortcut and obviate the hard yakka and go straight to base? Pure,
> unadulterated, crystalline, limpid bullshit.
### - cough it up matey, it's better out than in i always say! lol :)
there are absolutely no shortcuts... nevertheless a distinct effort has perforce
to be made lest people are swallowed alive by default?
what effort then? and in which direction? is still the intelligent question as far
as i can see... followed of course by the deliberate and purposeful conscious walk
towards it... what else! :)
there were no choices before (or very few) and now there's a multiplicity of them,
and one has to intelligently steer through all the bullshit + learn to learn from
one's mistakes without allowing oneself to become over-critical (or too cynical
either;)
and then there's a choice... you can allow yourself be crushed by it all and
pounded to pieces by the crashing waves, or, ya can attempt the impossible and
climb up on that big 'ole wave... and surf that sucker all the way home!
yee-harrrr!!! (slider laughing at such a silly but nevertheless accurate
metaphor:)
and no choice really, we were all born to ride that wave, well or badly being our
only possible part in it...
> And if entities such as CC claimed himself to be existed, do you think
> they would spend their miserable lives fleecing rubes who are either
> too stupid or too wealthy to know any better? No way. They would be
> convincing the damn masses, with great success, rather than niche
> success like Castenada, Lobsang Rampa and all of those nimbrains back
> to year -0.
### - oh castaneda was quite big wasn't he? (millions of readers i mean) even
called him the grandfather of something or another (can't remember now) didn't
they? (tsk, now where's that jeremy when ya need him, his encyclopaedic knowledge
of cc would actually come in handy right about now :)
> A good way for people to start their machinations towards
> enlightenment is to become aware, totally, of who they are and where
> they are. Where they are was well said in the galaxy song in The
> Meaning of Life (although now, 21stC, its proven that there are far
> more stars than there are grains of sand on every beach on this
> planet). Who they are is a difficult one, because you first have to
> convince people that there is someone there. Its actually easier to
> prove that there is no one there, we are just collections of images,
> perceptions, environmental reactions and the like.
### - aye, all true.. but then to be able to see a world in a 'single' grain of
sand also has some validity too doesn't it? (iow, there are too distinct sides to
our nature and both have to be equally addressed, no?)
> So, don't take offence because none was intended. At least you are on
> a journey, the majority of people die face down rather than face up
> (metaphorically). If its the wrong journey, or worse if its
> meaningless, then hopefully you will find that out before you are too
> old. I trust you are on the correct journey for yourself.
### - no offence even taken old man (i'm old too hehe:) and really only more a
case of say a maths guy talking to a literature guy and not always seeing
eye-to-eye... which is fine! because maybe that's even the way it's all supposed
to go and to be, else why do both alternatives even exist :)
G
<th...@spitzola.com.org.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 09:09:27 -0800 (PST), G <matt.tip...@gmail.com>
Not really I moved and managed to get out so in that sense yes - for a
while it was even a thrill to be on buses and just moving , all be it
in my new form , but it also got tireseome too when it only allowed to
go so far , and really to just the same places all the time.
So in short Im still just as bad and bit more demoralised given its
seem this all I can expect of life it seems.
No cures, No cures on nhs thats for sure and even if I had the money
just unproven stem cell therapy at best.
Sure, i know im not aware and asleep , but i dont and cant beat myself
up when so much of what allows for that is beyonf my control ( no
smell - no memories / emotion )
I havent read a " spiritual book " in ages , burned few atheists and
such like for fun , and just tried to improve what I can - but is all
pretty much distraction from my hopelessness as much as any real
insipiration or intent.
I was hoping this year to go somewhere to recharge myself -= but stuck
on this thing its almost seem pointless i,e. i cant do sport , any of
that things i used to do easily on crutches now without worrying about
pavement, rain , or batteries cutting out.
Dont get me wrong - i still get these urges to fill my heart with blue
skies and places that I wantd to ses in my youth but their few and far
between. ( i keep wanting to go to the burning man for example )
- I just dont feel the same pull or urge like i used to when i
believed there was still some cure , or could even smell - there is no
wonder any more just predictablity of pain and death , it would be
nice to think something magical can still happen but I admit those
days ( even if they were possible ) seem unlikely and as a result ,
given my efforts and luck , i have become very skpetical of life and
idea of what it used to mean too.
Not just because of myeslf either but other folk on the path ive seen
felled by health issues too .
its all a bit fuckin demoralising , and yet here i am
G
Didnt sound too miserable did it ?
Any way i guess i got half life time to catch up on you and ol slider
given im still considered middle age - unless I get lucky .
Inbetween I'll keep trying to search or that one kink in life armour
and hope something or someone somewhere is at least recording some of
this before i die.
thang ornithorhynchus
wrote:
>On Jan 12, 9:11�pm, G <matt.tip...@gmail.com> wrote:
You haven't changed actually, you are a bit more despondent than I
recall. Age has nothing to do with anything as we are all on the same
train, apart from the accumulation of wisdom and occassional flashes
of nostalgia. On the other hand, at least in my case, there is the
joy of new life (6 grandkids) and sort of plagiarising off the new
families etc of my two adult daughters.
I don't know what's wrong with you, but you sound as if you are hooked
up to some sort of machine. Can I say you better make the best of
this life because it just may be the only one you get? One of my
little granddaughters has a learning difficulty caused by problems
with processing sounds, her limit at the moment is sentences of 7
words which is increasing. She is a lovely little thing and you might
think this to be a curse but it ain't. She is well loved and has a
beautiful personality. She will probably face hurdles in the future
but her lovely spirit will get her through. THese are all things
faced by everyone as no one has a perfect life. In fact,
macrocosmically, life cannot be perfect. It can only be perfect on
the very very small scale (quantum).
You have 2X2 appendages, don't you? Get up and go man! What's
holding you back? I know a guy who is 98 years old, and old escaped
Jew who then fought Hitler with the Brits in southern Europe. His
daughter recently committed suicide and his MDL was taken from him
(eyes failing). It doesn't get him down, he is planning his 99th
birthday and I and my missus are going,fancy dress and all. If he can
do it, and remain indomitable, you can too.
thang
slider
G wrote...
its all a bit fuckin demoralising , and yet here i am
### - same as it is for everyone in one way or another old chum, life persists in
spite of the odds stacked against us + yours at least is obvious, whereas most
people live out their entire lives in total ignorance of what they've been up
against all along...
something similar i mentioned once to someone i was visiting in prison, in that at
least they 'understood' that they were in fact 'in' prison + even had a release
date... unlike everyone else on the outside who didn't even 'realise' they were
all in 'another' kind of prison, and no release date... a prison of the mind :)
so have you ever seen the movie 'the great escape' ? ;)
slider
thang wrote on the wall...
> You have 2X2 appendages, don't you? Get up and go man! What's
> holding you back? I know a guy who is 98 years old, and old escaped
> Jew who then fought Hitler with the Brits in southern Europe. His
> daughter recently committed suicide and his MDL was taken from him
> (eyes failing). It doesn't get him down, he is planning his 99th
> birthday and I and my missus are going,fancy dress and all. If he can
> do it, and remain indomitable, you can too.
### - well said :)
G
<th...@spitzola.com.org.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 13:20:54 -0800 (PST), G <matt.tip...@gmail.com>
No its not the simple- I dont mean to b snarky but my problems are not
that straightorwrd - i cant just get up because i can walk its not
appendage thing its connective tissue thing - or glue that holds folk
together if you like .
Ontop of that this glues thershold is ridicoulsly low - hence why I
cant travel in trains , buses , or most cars easily if at all -
I have other issues but this issue means i am bound to mobility
scooter and which in itself only has limited range and ability to go
places.
I know what you mean but it not applicable to everyone i.e. being born
that way is not the same losing something you had most of your life
because you dont know any different to compare, nor is losing the
ability to walk the same for an athelete in touch with their body ( as
i was ) compared to someone who never uses it to start with.
So i dont agree at all , that its the same .
G
yeah but there is no release date slider that the difference ,
trust me being aware of your prison doesnt really matter a shit if you
cant get out of it - that was my point i,e, i might as well be in the
herd oblivious for all the good being aware of it does other than
cause mroe suffering.
Of course it helps to be aware , but that kins of awareness usually
brings need to express and other things on physical level or others
that is not always possible.
THe end result is the same in the sense you are not calling the shots
and call me critical but that just sounds like prisoner to me, doesnt
matter if you aware or your
optimistic it just is .
and its not personal either but like a dickless man or disabled for
that matter you might as well forgot about having a sex life bud
G
yeah but there is no release date slider that the difference ,
slider
G wrote...
> its all a bit fuckin demoralising , and yet here i am
>
> ### - same as it is for everyone in one way or another old chum, life persists
> in
> spite of the odds stacked against us + yours at least is obvious, whereas most
> people live out their entire lives in total ignorance of what they've been up
> against all along...
>
> something similar i mentioned once to someone i was visiting in prison, in that
> at
> least they 'understood' that they were in fact 'in' prison + even had a release
> date... unlike everyone else on the outside who didn't even 'realise' they were
> all in 'another' kind of prison, and no release date... a prison of the mind :)
>
> so have you ever seen the movie 'the great escape' ? ;)
yeah but there is no release date slider that the difference ,
trust me being aware of your prison doesnt really matter a shit if you
cant get out of it - that was my point i,e, i might as well be in the
herd oblivious for all the good being aware of it does other than
cause mroe suffering.
Of course it helps to be aware , but that kins of awareness usually
brings need to express and other things on physical level or others
that is not always possible.
### - we've been over all this before... plus oh yes there is a release date for
all of us, only we're not told in advance when it's gonna be (which is the
advantage of someone in a real prison) - iow we get out anyway one by dying, but
because people don't dwell on that they live their life as though it's gonna last
forever, and so they never even make any attempts to escape...
the trick down here of course being to get out 'before' you're thrown out ;)
THe end result is the same in the sense you are not calling the shots
and call me critical but that just sounds like prisoner to me, doesnt
matter if you aware or your optimistic it just is .
and its not personal either but like a dickless man or disabled for
that matter you might as well forgot about having a sex life bud
### - if it's that important then where there's a will there's always a way? (van
gogh used to go to the local brothel for example heh heh heh, so just avoid the
spanish one's if you want to hang-on to your ear lobes that's all lol ;-)
G
<th...@spitzola.com.org.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 13:20:54 -0800 (PST), G <matt.tip...@gmail.com>
You say life can be perfect but i should make the best , that sounds
like recipe for disaster ..
I try to not think in black or white if I can but the best is very
relative subject.. what you call best implies choice - but most times
i do not have that , so its not even question of trying to do anything
other than survival and you dont need to be a human to do that - hence
why I wonder about the point of me being here.
G
> >>jazz
> >>musician to accurately speculate on drainage systems and pipes! (+ i hope you
> >>can see the joke here instead of an insult which is not intended btw :)
>
> > "...no practical use to us whatsoever?" Really? I am surprised that a
> > mystic, or a person who it trying to become a mystic, doesn't want to
> > know exactly how he fits into the one-verse. You're part of it mate,
> > like it or lump it. If I am part of something, then I want to know as
> > much about all of it (that is, the parts that aren't me) as I can. I'm
> > not sure how you define "practical use" but to me, practical use means
> > how I personally use it to fill out the picture of my surrounds
> > (nature). That's reality and truth, and way more important than
> > chasing stuff which *may* or *may not* be true. Its esoteric, that's
> > for sure, supernovae, fossil radiation, singularities and brown stars,
> > but its all part of the one-verse and I'm part of it. I'm made out of
> > spewed-out complex elements transmuted in thermonuclear fire from
> > simple H and so are you. I would stand less in awe of a ghost phasing
> > through the wall than I do, in fact, of galaxies, infinity and
> > eternity. Unfortunately, most people either don't have the equipment
> > to address such stuff or they have a major blind spot for some reason.
>
> ### - knowledge of galaxies, theoretical knowledge or otherwise, has absolutely no
> practical use whatsoever beyond that of only further stimulating one's imagination
> and/or perhaps sense of awe... iow there's absolutely nothing 'practical' or of
> any 'immediate tangible use' about galaxies beyond stimulating an already
> over-stimulated reason... and that if one's whole focus is in reducing reason
> instead of further inflating it, then the drooling over galaxies would be
> counter-productive to doing that, no?
Well rom scientific point it seems very pratical in terms of
understanding more about ourselves ,
Just because their looking out there for answers to my mind doesnt
make them any more wrong or righ than someone spiritual looking
within . I know you will say well reason this or reason that , but
thats unfortunately how science works - through reason .
>
> of course you'll probably say, why should i even 'want' to reduce reason...
>
> well for starters, how about for the same reasons sartre did? (i.e. no one could
> ever call sartre an idiot or someone suffering from blind spots)
never read satre, remind what reasons those were ?
G
Oh inside joke ( i love those ) esp when your not on the inside :P
Nah, your prob right Slidey but I was thinking more of shangri-la
i.e. india being on route to it .
G
> ### - nah never met... besides, he said he'd duff me up if i ever came around rofl
> (i'm uk and he's usa haha ;-)
>
he said that ?
Wow Id hate to imagine what hed try to do to me then ..he seems to
have pissed of again since I appeared , so maybe I should leave ?
Dont want to ruin the parade
G
Yes - but even prisons change and become worlds within themselvese
that can be just as distracting as anything that exists beyond the
bars.
This is the problem with prisons if you dont have the tools to either
get out or transcend them .
I know youd think being alone is virtual lot but being alone with
certain issues can actualy be very distracting i.e tinnitus and
silence can be deafening .
slider
G wrote...
> of course you'll probably say, why should i even 'want' to reduce reason...
>
> well for starters, how about for the same reasons sartre did? (i.e. no one could
> ever call sartre an idiot or someone suffering from blind spots)
never read satre, remind what reasons those were ?
The Park Scene from Nausea
Six o'clock in the evening
I can't say that I feel relieved or happy: on the contrary, I feel crushed. Only I
have achieved my aim: I know what I wanted to know; I have understood everything
that has happened to me since January. The Nausea hasn't left me and I don't
believe it will leave me for quite a while; but I am no longer putting up with it,
it is no longer an illness or a passing fit: it is me.
I was in the municipal park just now. The root of the chestnut tree plunged into
the ground just underneath my bench, I no longer remembered that it was a root.
Words had disappeared, and with them the meaning of things, the methods of using
them, the feeble landmarks which men have traced on their surface. I was sitting,
slightly bent, my head bowed, alone in front of that black, knotty mass, which was
utterly crude and frightened me. And then I had this
revelation.
It took my breath away. Never until these last few days, had I suspected what it
meant to 'exist'. I was like the others, like those who walk along the sea-shore
in their spring clothes. I used to say like them: 'The sea is green; that white
speck up there is a seagull', but I didn't feel that it existed, that the seagull
was an 'existing seagull'; usually existence hides itself.
It is there, around us, in us, it is us, you can't say a couple of words without
speaking of it, but finally you can't touch it.When I believed I was thinking
about it, I suppose that I was thinking nothing, my head was empty, or there was
just one word in my head, the word 'to be'. Or else I was thinking ... how can I
put it? I was thinking appurtenances, I was saying to myself that the sea belonged
to the class of green objects, or that green formed part of the sea's qualities.
Even when I looked at things, I was miles from thinking that they existed: they
looked like stage scenery to me. I picked them up in my hands, they served me as
tools, I foresaw their resistance. But all that happened on the surface. If
anybody had asked me what existence was, I should have replied in good faith that
it was nothing, just an empty form which added itself to external things, without
changing anything in their nature. And then, all of a sudden, there it was, as
clear as day: existence had suddenly unveiled itself. It had lost its harmless
appearance as an abstract category: it was the very stuff of things, that root was
steeped in existence. Or rather the root, the park gates, the bench, the sparse
grass on the lawn, all that had vanished; the diversity of things, their
individuality, was only an appearance, a veneer. This veneer had melted, leaving
soft monstrous masses, in disorder naked with a frightening, obscene nakedness.
I took care not to make the slightest movement, but I didn't need to move in order
to see, behind the trees, the blue columns and the lamp-post of the bandstand, and
the Velleda in the middle of a clump of laurel bushes. All those objects ... how
can I explain? They embarrassed me; I would have liked them to exist less
strongly, in a drier way, more abstract way, with more reserve. The chestnut tree
pressed itself against my eyes. Green rust covered it half way up; the bark, black
and blistered, looked like boiled leather. The soft sound of the water in the
Masqueret Fountain flowed into my ears and made a nest there, filling them with
sighs; my nostrils overflowed with a green, putrid smell. All things, gently,
tenderly were letting themselves drift into existence like those weary women who
abandon themselves to laughter and say: 'It does you good to laugh', in tearful
voices; they were parading themselves in front of one another, they were abjectly
admitting to one another the fact of their existence. I realised that there was no
half-way house between non-existence and this rapturous abundance. If you existed,
you had to exist to that extent, to the point of mildew, blisters, obscenity. In
another world, circles and melodies kept their pure and rigid lines.
### - pretty strong stuff imho, no? :)
slider
G wrote:
### - everyone has issues, so you're not unique in having some too... your problem
being that you think your issues are worse/harder than others, and maybe in some
respects that's true, but it's not all about the limitations of the physical body,
because look at jeremy, he apparently has a fairly sound body, it's just that his
ego remains rampant, and as such basically spoils the whole show 'regardless' of
how well he functions physically ha ha ;-)
the body isn't our enemy, only the mind :)
G
gimme a fucking second :)
Ok - while i read all that you can look at this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSaXgoWevUQ
dont say im not good to you.. I kow how hard it is to come by decent
films these days..
Here some more films to consider..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZa_jBoR-eQ
- ok that was a joke
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDtcNgNX3L8
But this last one is very good imo
G
But we still dont really understand the body well enough to know how
much of it actually inluences the mind i.e. if they can create obes
through tricking the physical body then its obviously not all just
mind .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnMUxKPmsEc
slider
G wrote...
> the body isn't our enemy, only the mind :)
But we still dont really understand the body well enough to know how
much of it actually inluences the mind i.e. if they can create obes
through tricking the physical body then its obviously not all just
mind .
### - obviously the body can influence the mind by for example, being a
distraction to it...
but only to the degree that you let it?
e.g. hatha yoga is a method that uses that same physical channel to bring calmness
to the mind instead of irritation...
iow, the choice is still ours :)
G
ahh , thats my point we dont know how much we control it really i.e.
mind irratation is relative - i agree you dont have to be super ill to
have it because obvioulsy i remember ( vaguely ) from before in my
mitoe days.
Is it really mental distraction if you cant control it i.e.
neurological or even as result of brain damage - as might be in my
case
Yes its true folk can train their mind to do things like those
magicians etc in ice , but even that can only be so long as opposed to
having to permanently live with it every day , same goes for stuff
like firewalking or cliff diving whatever
Have you tried Yoga yourself slider ?
G
that was nice piece btw from satre , i;ll need to find some of his
stuff to read perhaps.
I mean it doesnt hurt , does it ?
thang ornithorhynchus
wrote:
I like that. I too have visited people in prison but never thought of
it in the broader context.
slider
thang wrote...
>>its all a bit fuckin demoralising , and yet here i am
>>
>> - same as it is for everyone in one way or another old chum, life persists
>>inspite of the odds stacked against us + yours at least is obvious, whereas most
>>people live out their entire lives in total ignorance of what they've been up
>>against all along...
>>
>>something similar i mentioned once to someone i was visiting in prison, in that
>>atleast they 'understood' that they were in fact 'in' prison + even had a
>>release
>>date... unlike everyone else on the outside who didn't even 'realise' they were
>>all in 'another' kind of prison, and no release date... a prison of the mind :)
>
>
> I like that. I too have visited people in prison but never thought of
> it in the broader context.
### - and you wondered where metaphors sometimes come in useful? :)
---------------------
slider
G wrote...
that was nice piece btw from satre , i;ll need to find some of his
stuff to read perhaps.
I mean it doesnt hurt , does it ?
### - not if you use lots of lubricant hahahahaha :)
G
yer big one armed bandit.. :)
you should hook up with this guy I used to know who liked to go down
to south america all the time in search of sacred ass
it might get some of that nonsense out yer head ;)
G
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
no but ive seen socky try to disappear from this group many times :)
slider
matt wrote ...
### - we 'do' have to live with it all every day, but people have learned to avoid
confronting it by burying themselves in time-consuming and mind-engaging
activities designed to keep them so busy that they just haven't got the time to
ponder the mystery of existence nor the reality and difficulty (or oppotunities)
of their true life situation...
iow, their personal 'concerns' have literally been allowed to become
all-consuming, to the degree that people feel like they're being propelled along
without having to make any effort, never realising that they are actually putting
themselves into the position of being 'victims' of life in which they have little
or no say...
and although none of us bought tickets to come here, so in a sense we find
ourselves placed in a difficult situation without our permission and thus are
'subject' to life, it all depends on how one looks at that as to whether or not
one sees it all as being a gift or a curse?
personally, i cannot help but think it's a damn lucky shot to have ever been here
at all in shape or form, or even state of health... just to have been able/allowed
to get one's nose in the door of life, even if only for a moment (which our life
surely is anyway, a long moment) is just sooo absolutely fortuitous that's it's
amazing and incredible really (and mind blowing actually :)
and i know everyone's walking around with their heads filled to the brim with all
those (mostly useless) things they all routinely worry about... all the fucking
time... but being here (being alive) doesn't actually last for long (some shorter
than others i mean) and it seems like such a waste to me if people don't spend at
least 5 minutes genuinely savouring it all for what it simply is instead of
basically all running around like busy headless chickens for a whole lifetime
i.e. yes we all have our lives 'in the world' (of man) but there is also another
side to it all, such as that surreal and eerie feeling you got when gazing at the
whiteout-snow... but we've developed the former at the expense of the latter, when
really the balance between them should be much further to that surreal and poetic
aspect of life and living (Be-ing) well at least 50/50 anyway, although i still
say just left of centre is the optimum balance and (intelligent) place to be :)
as a young man i got involved with meditation rather than yoga, meditation being
a kind of yoga of the mind, i'd met some japanese dude in the uk who peaced-me-out
almost immediately... so i studied with him for a short while and even helped out
when he gave a series of seminars in london (put him up for the weekend, gave him
lifts in the car, stuff like that) the result of which being some very strange
experiences of what can only be described as being of a highly metaphorical and
allegorical nature, kinda like everything only had single clear and precise
meanings before, only now those very same meanings could shift/change just
depending on where i placed my weight/emphasis so to speak, so in that way
everything gradually became kind of doubled-barrelled to my view, something which
extends even into my conversation on occasion haha (wink to thang re metaphors ;)
rainbowguardian
news:hijg1e$b9r$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>
> the body isn't our enemy, only the mind :)
>
That's bull!!!!
With what kind of instrument then you are composing your answers???? With
your ass???
slider
rainbowguardian wrote...
>
>> the body isn't our enemy, only the mind :)
>>
>
>
> That's bull!!!!
> With what kind of instrument then you are composing your answers???? With your
> ass???
### - lol well it's nice to meet you too? ;-)
as to instruments for composition, i was using mind and personal experience, as
opposed to you who clearly only talks out of your ass? ;)
hey you're not one of those peeps with their head up their ass syndrome are you??
(hey crsds! quick! pass the culo-expanders m8! it's an emergency!! LOL :)
G
> "slider" <sli...@anashram.com> schrieb im Newsbeitragnews:hijg1e$b9r$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>
>
>
> > the body isn't our enemy, only the mind :)
>
> That's bull!!!!
> With what kind of instrument then you are composing your answers???? With
> your ass???
thing is slider yoga itself is based on stretching , increrasing
flexbility but what isnt understood is how that helps that mind -
aside from feeling better.
fasica - covers every aspect of the body - it like sheath and happens
to have receptos on it like nerves that trigger responses - emotional
including things reported by activating merdians.
It might be a lot of whats called the " mind " then is really being
influenced on tissue level msot are unaware of , and coming from
someone who is very aware of that areas ( myself ) i can tell you it
does cause things ( without any prep work ) to happen that normally
would not been achievable unless id been doing meditation or on
entheogens.
The way i see it then saying its all the mind while true is bit like
saying we have the potential for esp , leviation - the programmes all
there but there is no way to access it without bypassing or relearning
how to get there - i dont see why then ( when theres clear history of
people using things to affect the body without the mind work ) this
isnt possible via addressing the physical - esp given the physical
includes so many aspects , cells, vibrations most are even less aware
of than their thoughts.
G
heh - you had a histroy with rainbow brite if i recall - didnt you ?
I dont think this is the same dude , but ithink you know that
slider
G wrote:
>> the body isn't our enemy, only the mind :)
>
> That's bull!!!!
> With what kind of instrument then you are composing your answers???? With
> your ass???
thing is slider yoga itself is based on stretching , increrasing
flexbility but what isnt understood is how that helps that mind -
aside from feeling better.
### - as i understand it, in disciplining the body for prolonged periods of time
with stretches and controlled breathing the mind gradually becomes quiet, iow as
the mind's focus on the job in-hand intensifies all other thoughts and ideas are
slowly squeezed out/pushed away until only the work in hand becomes its only
focus...
so as the body becomes disciplined so does the mind indirectly learn to become
quiet via its concentrated focus... this single-mindedness being something people
don't usually exhibit under normal circumstances, something that once learned can
then be applied to other things and tasks that are normally way out of reach of
the average person who has yet to acquire that inner discipline and strength...
once that first initial level of inner concentration has been achieved the effort
then moves up a level to something more advanced, which also includes learning
basic meditation techniques (meditation-proper bringing even greater stillness to
the mind but without the required physical efforts of the beginners level) which
continues until the new state of perception arrived at via meditation eventually
becomes a 24/7 practice without even the need to sit and meditate... iow via those
techniques a slow + safe progression is gradually made from one permanent state of
awareness into another but higher state of awareness
at which point the identity of the person going through that process undergoes a
transformation, the discipline they acquired along the way (physical, emotional
and mental) saving/stopping them from going completely nuts when confronted with
the full implications of all the new possibilities created by such an elevation of
awareness and physical vibration :)
fasica - covers every aspect of the body - it like sheath and happens
to have receptos on it like nerves that trigger responses - emotional
including things reported by activating merdians.
It might be a lot of whats called the " mind " then is really being
influenced on tissue level msot are unaware of , and coming from
someone who is very aware of that areas ( myself ) i can tell you it
does cause things ( without any prep work ) to happen that normally
would not been achievable unless id been doing meditation or on
entheogens.
The way i see it then saying its all the mind while true is bit like
saying we have the potential for esp , leviation - the programmes all
there but there is no way to access it without bypassing or relearning
how to get there - i dont see why then ( when theres clear history of
people using things to affect the body without the mind work ) this
isnt possible via addressing the physical - esp given the physical
includes so many aspects , cells, vibrations most are even less aware
of than their thoughts.
### - everyone is aware of the possibilities created by the standard average state
of awareness, but not everyone is aware of the different sets of unusual
possibilities contained within other/different levels of awareness... e.g. with
thoughts and thinking we have access to average life in the physical world... but
via inner silence and the discipline required to attain it, we gain access to what
some have even described as being : a life more abundant (as sartre did for
example :)
Dion Janu Shore
<jeremyh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jan 2, 12:10�pm, Dion Janu Shore <WyledHe...@Mindless.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 14:59:40 -0800 (PST), "Jeremy H. Donovan"
>>
>> <jeremyhdono...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >I am the final enemy of a man of knowledge,
>>
>> LoL! :-)
>>
>> > and I tell you that you are a pecker head.
>>
>> Ah, you've seen my astral form then. ;-)
>>
>> Seriously, Jeremy, I know Cleargreen et al took a great big
>> metaphysical crap all over you and your world view. But don't you
>> think holding on to the bitterness is just a bit unhealthy? I'm not
>> like them, never will be, and really rather despise what they stand
>> for about as much as you do. I'm being serious, here (in text only, it
>> could look like I'm trying to be coy or catty, but I'm not - I don't
>> do those, not without very good reason and there is no very good
>> reason in this case).
>>
>> In any event, peace and good luck to you, Jeremy. :-)
>
>Thanks. I just think it's a funny line (in one CC book I believe
>Genaro says 'I am the voice of seeing and I tell you that you are a
>pecker head').
Ah! I hadn't recollected the reference. :-)
>I'm not particularly 'bitter' toward Cleargreen. You say you despise
>what they stand for. I wouldn't argue with the sentiment, but I feel
>they're small potatoes at the plentiful table of human delusion. When
>you say you're not like them, do you mean you're not vainly oblivious
>to your self-serving illusions and not spending all your strength and
>time pursuing an idealized pipe dream? Good, if it's true.
Most certainly. I also don't intend to waste any energy on denying it,
either. :-)
>I do know people who passionately feel their lives were ruined in a
>disastrous way by Cleargreen. Those people feel they were led into
>horrible situations from which they have not recovered (near as I can
>tell, the damage is indeed horrific). Fortunately, I'm not such a
>person.
That's good to hear.
>I believe the philosophy that "there's no fundamental nature to
>reality besides what we choose" is completely untenable.
The irony is that you have chosen to believe that. :-)
> If it was
>true that reality is only what we choose, then the fundamental nature
>of reality would be "the true nature of ourselves and how we make
>choices" (that would be very much like Scientology btw).
I'm not sure I see the problem with the position you're criticizing.
:-?
>Good luck fighting the final enemy of a man of knowledge. I cannot be
>defeated. Unless I get hungry and go on break.
Heh. :-)
>-Jeremy
>http://www.live365.com/stations/realistsillusion
http://www.USENETHOST.com 100% Uncensored , 100% Anonymous, 5$/month Only!
G
Im not sure satre did he was an atheist at heart and more intrested
indeining the process than using it - at least thats impression I get.
Hes was very good at it though so it might seem he was more aware than
he actually he was - but i dont know any one , you included ( i mean
loosely here because ive yet to meet a REAL warrior in the flesh )
whose atheist or not filled with that sort of , well restless energy ,
although I dont put you in the bracket - hence your name slider :)
I agree of course your life is enriched with inner silence - no
question - but that does not translate into " magical insights" that
going to change it or else we'd all be on costa de sol right now on
our yachts - perhaps
ok - but you know what i mean .. its like superman / clark kent deal
without the ability to really influence phyiscal world that much - or
at least not in direct way i.e. because the time frame / payback is
different for one.
Theres probably execptions to this , like myself and my own problems ,
but that doesnt mean because some dude can do something we all can do
it - there is fate etc etc too
I was looking at my own birthday or example as noticed more than a
trace of irony in the fact there seems to be history of bad luck ,
health thats affected well known people who were born on the same day
- is that coincidence then or something else ?
G
i posted that without finishing it but you got me thinkign any way
slider , im beat and got to talk to some assholes in 3 hrs - talk
later , its always pleasure to hear your thoughts.
DId you check out any of those films ?
I watched the road last night which seems to start the trend for all
these apocalyptic films starting to manifest - the book of eli being
another just out.
peace slider.
slider
G wrote...
>> ### - everyone is aware of the possibilities created by the standard average
>> state
>> of awareness, but not everyone is aware of the different sets of unusual
>> possibilities contained within other/different levels of awareness... e.g. with
>> thoughts and thinking we have access to average life in the physical world...
>> but
>> via inner silence and the discipline required to attain it, we gain access to
>> what
>> some have even described as being : a life more abundant (as sartre did for
>> example :)
>
> Im not sure satre did he was an atheist at heart and more intrested
> indeining the process than using it - at least thats impression I get.
### - "I realised that there was no half-way house between non-existence and this
*rapturous abundance.* If you existed, you had to exist to that extent, to the
point of mildew, blisters, obscenity. In another world, circles and melodies kept
their pure and rigid lines." --sartre
i.e. he certainly was an atheist, so for him to use terms like "rapturous
abundance" as he does in the above quote i recently posted of him sitting in the
park, actually has a double meaning because it's a play on the words of JC (his
'life more abundant' etc) which actually makes it even more interesting and
intriguing than it already is, no?
> Hes was very good at it though so it might seem he was more aware than
> he actually he was - but i dont know any one , you included ( i mean
> loosely here because ive yet to meet a REAL warrior in the flesh )
> whose atheist or not filled with that sort of , well restless energy ,
> although I dont put you in the bracket - hence your name slider :)
>
> I agree of course your life is enriched with inner silence - no
> question - but that does not translate into " magical insights" that
> going to change it or else we'd all be on costa de sol right now on
> our yachts - perhaps
### - not everyone is motivated by material gains (yachts and stuff) especially if
their spiritual experience was directly produced by having 'turned-away' from the
terms and values of the material world, like sartre did while sitting in that
park?
> ok - but you know what i mean .. its like superman / clark kent deal
> without the ability to really influence phyiscal world that much - or
> at least not in direct way i.e. because the time frame / payback is
> different for one.
>
> Theres probably execptions to this , like myself and my own problems ,
> but that doesnt mean because some dude can do something we all can do
> it - there is fate etc etc too
### - i tend to disagree... basically because if 'one' man can possibly play a
piano then just about anyone (with hands) can also learn to do it... so ok they
may not all have the same talent for it of say Bach or Beethoven, but they'd
definitely be able to play well depending directly on how much work they put into
it (i.e. so ok they might not turn into classical concert material, but that
doesn't mean they couldn't learn to play as well as say elton john or ray charles)
> I was looking at my own birthday or example as noticed more than a
> trace of irony in the fact there seems to be history of bad luck ,
> health thats affected well known people who were born on the same day
> - is that coincidence then or something else ?
### - sartre initiated his spiritual experience in the park by deliberately
'turning away' from the usual concerns of the 'suffering self' (e.g. by dropping
all the words and their associated values etc etc, whereon ego collapses) - the
point being that if only 'one' person in the world can do such a thing, then just
like a person learning to play the piano we're all capable of doing so too...
Akhet
Dion Janu Shore wrote in message ...
>>On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 14:44:28 -0800 (PST), "Jeremy H. Donovan"
><jeremyh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Jan 2, 12:10 pm, Dion Janu Shore <WyledHe...@Mindless.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 14:59:40 -0800 (PST), "Jeremy H. Donovan"
>>>
>>> <jeremyhdono...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >I am the final enemy of a man of knowledge,
>>>
>>> LoL! :-)
>>>
>>> > and I tell you that you are a pecker head.
>>>
>>> Ah, you've seen my astral form then. ;-)
>>>
>>> Seriously, Jeremy, I know Cleargreen et al took a great big
>>> metaphysical crap all over you and your world view. But don't you
>>> think holding on to the bitterness is just a bit unhealthy? I'm not
>>> like them, never will be, and really rather despise what they stand
>>> for about as much as you do. I'm being serious, here (in text only, it
>>> could look like I'm trying to be coy or catty, but I'm not - I don't
>>> do those, not without very good reason and there is no very good
>>> reason in this case).
>>>
>>> In any event, peace and good luck to you, Jeremy. :-)
>>
>>Thanks. I just think it's a funny line (in one CC book I believe
>>Genaro says 'I am the voice of seeing and I tell you that you are a
>>pecker head').
>
>Ah! I hadn't recollected the reference. :-)
>
(smile)... Thanks !
I finally got something out of this unknown expression to me:
http://lib.ru/KASTANEDA/kast07_engl.txt_Piece40.04
quote from a little later after this 'voice happened'..:
"He's caught," Genaro said to don Juan, referring to me, after don Juan
had swiftly jumped down and helped him to stand up. "He'll never say he's a
nincompoop. He's too self-important for that, but he's shivering in his
pants with fear of what might happen because he didn't confess he's a
nincompoop."
And then, obviously; 'nincompoop' is now a mystery to me. ^_^
Though I can access an acceptable definition:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/nincompoop
LOL.
quote a bit of what heppens next in the story:
"
Watching them laugh, I was convinced that only Indians could laugh with
such joyfulness. But I also became convinced that there was a mile-wide
streak of maliciousness in them. They were poking fun at a non-Indian.
"
"
------------
I had not read already, so much of CC's stuff; exept some quotes and related
bio's and all... All I can say is that piece of text was very 'lively'.
LOL... Peckerhead; Nincompoop...
:)
Kinda reminds me of that Groundhog day movie.
http://us.vdc.imdb.com/title/tt0107048/quotes
[Phil Connors is stopped by the police after some crazy driving]
Phil: Yeah, three cheeseburgers, two large fries, two chocolate shakes and one large coke.
Ralph: [to Phil] And some flapjacks.
Phil: [to Cop] Too early for flapjacks?
Go ahead; Make my day.. ;)
Groundhog Day
"Don't drive angry. Don't drive angry."
http://homepage.mac.com/dave_rogers/GHD02-05.html
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
G
When was the last you saw a Quadriplegic or retard playing the piano ,
much less having no 1 hits ?
The problem I have with your ideals Slider is that its secular as jame
randi is atheist - there is no common ground or attempt on either side
ro acknowledge the other ,other than in ignorance.
I have yet to meet any one on this path - even those hardcore - who
achieved anything that doesnt go beyond paradigm of what they think
its thier achieving - in that sense at leas the Dali lama is
attempting to reconcile the differences between the two.
That probably explains why those witches went out into the desert to
die i.e. they didnt want the whole legacy of cc to be pissed on even
though they knew it was bs.
CC died an average death , and in fact that only ones Im aware of who
do are those Buddhists who commit Thogal , but even those are few and
far between,.
G
I think its hard to assume what he did i.e. its not impossible to have
moments of awarness and when they do happen ( because thier so rare )
they would take on this christ like experince , I can vouch or this
this one time I was able to smell for one night or other times I am
aware - it hits you very hard - but I guess you being aware all the
time wouldnt ironically be aware of that , would you ?
Besides even if he was able to do that for moment conciously it take a
lot more than that i.e. practice in daily to change your yourself
beyond mentally reasoning it.
There are lots of little tricks like that you can use , but you can
mentally keep using them to remain in that state , remember the 1st /
2nd attention rule where cc has to keep taking peyote etc
Do you think being atheist he would be doing all that then , given
atheists look for reason - hence my point about that experince
probably being short lived.
Of course , I could be wrong , but if he did do as you claimed based
on what you said , youd think he would written whole lot more about it
than simply just a moment he did in his short novel.
slider
G wrote...
> ### - sartre initiated his spiritual experience in the park by deliberately
> 'turning away' from the usual concerns of the 'suffering self' (e.g. by dropping
> all the words and their associated values etc etc, whereon ego collapses) - the
> point being that if only 'one' person in the world can do such a thing, then
> just
> like a person learning to play the piano we're all capable of doing so too...
I think its hard to assume what he did i.e. its not impossible to have
moments of awarness and when they do happen ( because thier so rare )
they would take on this christ like experince , I can vouch or this
this one time I was able to smell for one night or other times I am
aware - it hits you very hard - but I guess you being aware all the
time wouldnt ironically be aware of that , would you ?
Besides even if he was able to do that for moment conciously it take a
lot more than that i.e. practice in daily to change your yourself
beyond mentally reasoning it.
### - the experience itself IS the explanation to anyone experiencing it... iow,
life and existence is primarily 'experiential' and only afterwards
'experimental' - 'realisation' being the key to repeating the experience, the
realisation that reason and rationality is actually a perceptual 'step-back' from
the direct experience of our existence...
There are lots of little tricks like that you can use , but you can
mentally keep using them to remain in that state , remember the 1st /
2nd attention rule where cc has to keep taking peyote etc
### - being and existing entirely 'in the moment' is the result of bringing the
intellect (and its arbitrary values) to a halt, wherein the 'world behind the
world' stands revealed for the first time in a deliberate and conscious manner
(anything accidental before, drugs etc, doesn't really count), the accumulated
experience of which eventually causes a permanent shift away from the daily
intellectual concerns of the intellectually created/projected self (which retreats
from view to a secondary position) leaving only the immediate experience itself,
which defies description and yet also somehow explains itself as the experience
unfolds (iow, under those circumstances all/any knowledge is 'direct' and/or
'self-evident')
Do you think being atheist he would be doing all that then , given
atheists look for reason - hence my point about that experince
probably being short lived.
### - 'not' believing in god (atheism) completely disappears along with believing
there 'is' a god (theism) when the intellect is quietened down, thus ultimately
proving that 'both' were only ever intellectual constructs to begin with ;)
Of course , I could be wrong , but if he did do as you claimed based
on what you said , youd think he would written whole lot more about it
than simply just a moment he did in his short novel.
### - he wasn't in the business of singing his own praises, but he did write more,
volumes more, in fact he and his friend albert camus, realising its importance
created a philosophy called Existentialism to explain it (and the processes
involved) to his fellow intellectuals...
so if you need (or want) rational explanations then they're available, the dozens
of novels they wrote afterwards (including Nausea)being created to demonstrate the
principles of that philosophy 'without' all the hard intellectual explanations
that only some people require in order to act on the information (i.e. people who
are totally given-over to reason like scientists and other philosophers for
example)
iow, for general understanding they also loaded their philosophy into a series of
plays (dramas/novels) that the readers gains flashes of insights from, in
basically the same way the greeks invented dramas/plays to demonstrate their
understanding of things (a picture/play tells a 1000 stories etc etc etc) so to
read those novels actually does something to your head...
i.e. because that's the way they were designed ;)
(personally i prefer camus's novels to sartre's, but that's just me, i like the
way camus writes)
for anyone not familiar with existentialism, the reading of those novels actually
represents then: the commencement of a fascinating + absolutely genuine journey of
brilliant discovery and ultimately life-enriching and enhancing experiences,
something that does nothing less than rock the known world to its very
foundations - which probably explains just why sartre was banned in the uk until
the 1960's, and people like Rimbaud almost completely ignored instead of being
held before our eyes from the moment we're born! (i.e. existentialists probably
make for very poor factory workers, scientists and engineers hehe, rimbaud for
example declared that life was 'far too short' to ever get involved in working for
a living! lol ;)
G
Im painfully aware of that i.e. too short to enjoy it when its there ,
not short enough when its not.
G
>
> - Show quoted text -
Came across this documentary that looks interesting . (
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrnzMpgISgo )
It reminds me of another one I recently watched with some pretty
trippy animation ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdOt1PoBY0c&feature=fvw
)
I dont think they mention satre or albert camus though .
slider
G wrote...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSaXgoWevUQ
dont say im not good to you.. I kow how hard it is to come by decent
films these days..
### - haha talk about disfunctional families!! for fuck sake! LOL ;-)
this movie was a riot hahaha + not the best i've ever seen but worth viewing if
only for its shock value...
so folks, you think you're well adjusted do you? well check this out lol :)
thanks for that (i haven't seen the other one yet) + here's one back to you that
you might enjoy (this film always moves me to a nice place, maybe it can move you
there too)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLPYzqYQlXE 'Slam' 1998
(there's a good copy on utorrent under this title:
Slam__1998____Winner_of_Golden_Camera_at_Cannes.torrent)
G
> G wrote...
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSaXgoWevUQ
>
> dont say im not good to you.. I kow how hard it is to come by decent
> films these days..
>
> ### - haha talk about disfunctional families!! for fuck sake! LOL ;-)
>
> this movie was a riot hahaha + not the best i've ever seen but worth viewing if
> only for its shock value...
>
> so folks, you think you're well adjusted do you? well check this out lol :)
>
> thanks for that (i haven't seen the other one yet) + here's one back to you that
> you might enjoy (this film always moves me to a nice place, maybe it can move you
> there too)
------ I havent watched it yet myself , I'VE been on recent tear for
interesting things to stock up and happened to come across it .
Heres another Im fixing to watch that looks like a surrealists treat
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fadhsuINHfk
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLPYzqYQlXE'Slam' 1998
>
> (there's a good copy on utorrent under this title:
>
> Slam__1998____Winner_of_Golden_Camera_at_Cannes.torrent)
Ahh I know who that is ... I never realised he acted though..
One of his music vids below..
G
>
> - Show quoted text -
I actually like his cover of blood sunday too , goes nicely with the
video ( all fan made - i think )
G
I;ll check that out - thanks...
I just got by watching korean version of hanzel and gretel that was
quite pleasant but nothing special.
Its good while Im doing my DIY to have something else there for me to
focus some of my attention on - I suppose reading would be better for
me though - but not so easy do when i have to adminster certain
approaches .
What do you think of those ebook readers ?
I noticed they already cracked Kindle i.e. so you can pick up any
ebook you like , but Im still bit iffy on .
In saying that however there are suprisingly quite a lot of books ,
even popular , like " the rebel " that arent qutie as easy abundant on
the ol p2p network as I thought.
At least according to what my Duck says.
quack quack
slider
G wrote...
> (there's a good copy on utorrent under this title:
>
> Slam__1998____Winner_of_Golden_Camera_at_Cannes.torrent)
I;ll check that out - thanks...
I just got by watching korean version of hanzel and gretel that was
quite pleasant but nothing special.
### - if you're into korean, there's a movie called... 'spring, summer, autumn,
winter, and spring', which is in subtitles but is still a lovely movie and well
worth the downloading/watching/experiencing...
Its good while Im doing my DIY to have something else there for me to
focus some of my attention on - I suppose reading would be better for
me though - but not so easy do when i have to adminster certain
approaches .
What do you think of those ebook readers ?
I noticed they already cracked Kindle i.e. so you can pick up any
ebook you like , but Im still bit iffy on .
In saying that however there are suprisingly quite a lot of books ,
even popular , like " the rebel " that arent qutie as easy abundant on
the ol p2p network as I thought.
At least according to what my Duck says.
quack quack
### - haven't used any e-readers yet, plus don't read as much these days as i used
to, last one being William Burroughs 'Last Words' (in hardback heh) - not bad from
a genuine brain/livewire, plus contains some great lines/observations as one would
expect from such an remarkable man...
------------------
December 16, 1996
"Scientists are mired in respectability. Does it not penetrate their
skulls that some phenomena might only occur once? Or at a certain
pattern in time--only every 3rd Tuesday, etcetera.
And they have an insatiable appetite for data: "More data!" they scream
"and nothing anecdotal." (This may be the only data in some cases.)
"Not conclusive!"
Is anything ever?"
--extract from William Burroughs final work: 'Last Words' :)
Dion Janu Shore
wrote:
>
>G wrote...
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSaXgoWevUQ
>
>dont say im not good to you.. I kow how hard it is to come by decent
>films these days..
>
>### - haha talk about disfunctional families!! for fuck sake! LOL ;-)
>
>this movie was a riot hahaha + not the best i've ever seen but worth viewing if
>only for its shock value...
Dayum. I must say, I like this one.
Doesn't he look a lot like Agent Smith? :-?
G
Yes, i suppose he does ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OGnqYMe3UQ&NR=1&feature=fvwp
yet again another one that says a lot for good ol human
relationships.. i know slider can relate to this one ;)
G
>
> ### - if you're into korean, there's a movie called... 'spring, summer, autumn,
> winter, and spring', which is in subtitles but is still a lovely movie and well
> worth the downloading/watching/experiencing...
++ looks quite nice film from the clips i saw.
>
> quack quack
>
> ### - haven't used any e-readers yet, plus don't read as much these days as i used
> to, last one being William Burroughs 'Last Words' (in hardback heh) - not bad from
> a genuine brain/livewire, plus contains some great lines/observations as one would
> expect from such an remarkable man...
>
> ------------------
I tried tow watch naked lunch once but for some reason got bit bored
with it .. but might look for the book and take it peek , wasnt
burroughs homosexual with some with one of the other beat generation ?
I've discovered a seris of animation ( manga ) which i dont usually
like ( basically couldnt stand the style before ) but has quite an
interesting story , pretty dark and gorey this clip is towards the
end .. - which basically before the beginning ( the seris got
cancelled for some banal reason like most great shows before the end )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNqBdlXuL8I&feature=PlayList&p=F419DB3D9F5A9A28&index=48