J.ohn (ACIM?) teaches TO WALK HOME BACKWARDS ON ONE'S HEAD?
JELLY
(subject: Re: Backwards on our heads)
(date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 04:56:55 +0100)
(references:<36hduaF...@individual.net>)
(message-id:<btg801992qthqian7...@4ax.com>)
:
: "J." <jl2...@netzero.com> wrote:
: (in-reply-to:<rtm601tl00cpr44t0...@4ax.com>)
: (message-id:<36hduaF...@individual.net>)
: :
: : JELLY wrote:
: : >
: [snip][81 lines]
: : >
: : > Don't forget, I'd like to know why you, J.ohn,
: : > don't do what "it" (A COURSE IN MIRACLES) asks?
: : >
: : > ~ JELLY
: :
: : Gee, Jelly. What makes you think I'm not doing
: : what ACIM asks? In order for you to say I'm not
: : doing something, clearly you must have some notion
: : of what I am not doing.
: :
: : Part of your confusion arises from what you see as
: : demands of Course study. I don't particually see
: : any demands at all. Just if I want to get this
: : result do this. If I want another result to that.
: : In fact, no demands at all, with the assurance
: : that whatever I do, I'm not damned to hell or
: : guilty, which is not saying there isn't a price
: : for taking a useless journey.
: :
: : So it just amazing to me, that you could see A
: : Course in Miracles which makes no demands at all,
: : only guides --as somehow fearful and manipulative.
: : Clearly in comparison between the two of us, you
: : are the most fearful and most of need of rules,
: : which is why you demand I act according to rules
: : and demands you infer and desire, but don't exist.
: : In other words you can do the workbook or not do
: : the workbook. Doing the workbook is not a demand.
: : Its a offer and suggestion. If you are willing to
: : read the Course 5 times but unwilling to do the
: : workbook, this suggests you fear being controled.
: : But how exactly can words control you, if you are
: : in control of your own mind? And if you are not in
: : control of your own mind, then obviously that is
: : your problem that you bring to Course study, not
: : something engendered by Course study.
:
: Interesting ... TEXT/response.
: Different, very, from you to "me".
: Yes J.ohn, quite clever :)
: Sort of a (original?) work of art, I'd say.
:
: Delightful, although, perhaps,
: probably, not everyone's cup of tea.
:
: A riddle? A "crime" scene? We'll see ;)
:
: (A) Seven occurrences of the word
: "demand(s)" in J.ohn's response.
: (B) Three occurrences of the word
: "fear(ful) in the last paragraph.
: (C) Four occurrences of the word
: "control(led) in the last 3 sentences.
: (D) ... (future expansion?)
: (E) ... (to be continued?)
:
: ~ JELLY
Above, in his work of "art", where J.ohn IMO
tries to paint (his artistic bullshit) over me,
so I look as if I'm [walking home backwards on
my head], or perhaps even to influence me to
(try to) [walk home backwards on my head], J.ohn
asks, ["But how exactly can words control you,
if you are in control of your own mind?"], which
IMO suggests (within its context) that ACIM and
its words (symbols for thoughts, ideas, concepts),
like all words, are just words, and always
perfectly harmless. That's very odd IMO, because
just around a day before it looks very much to me
as if J.ohn is arguing that (some?) words (ideas)
are not at all harmless:
# "J." <jl2...@netzero.com> wrote:
# (date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 20:04:36 -0600)
# (in-reply-to:<ctuajf$r...@library1.airnews.net>)
# (message-id:<36g3hnF...@individual.net>)
# :
# : > The truth of it is, a word is just a word.
# : >
# : > ~ Carrie
# :
# : Really? Argue that "cunt," is a colorful
# : expression in your next job interview.
# : Words or lets say the wrong words can
# : get one killed, much less lose you a job.
Putting the above together (so far, for the moment),
my [A riddle? A "crime" scene?] list extents to:
(D) Argue that words ((symbols for) ideas) are
generally [harmful or harmless] any way
that supports your case/goal, anyway.
~ JELLY
JELLY
(message-id:<BZ-dnc7IRf5...@giganews.com>)
:
: JELLY wrote:
: >
: > "~Deborah" <Hey_...@totally.valid> wrote:
: > (references:<j5p90118nkfl0t5qn...@4ax.com>)
: > (message-id:<28Kdnf3Ke4g...@golden.net>)
: > :
: > : > "JELLY":
: > : > Taking your suggested list of "power words" for a
: > : > count of occurrences within [J.ohn's work of "art"],
: > : > ~Deborah, here's the result:
: > : >
: > : > (a) 1x amazing
: > : > (b) 1x desire
: > : > (c) 1x offer
: > : > (d) 1x suggestion
: > : > 1x suggests
: > : > (e) 1x willing
: > : > 1x unwilling
: > : >
: > : > Obviously the "power words" you suggested, ~Deborah,
: > : > are hardly "J.ohn's **favorite** colors and forms"
: > : > within this particular piece of [J.ohn's work of "art"].
: > : >
: > : > ~ JELLY
: > :
: > : Thanks for noticing them Jelly!
: > :
: > : ~Deborah
: >
: > You're welcome, ~Deborah, but I didn't really.
: >
: > Funny, but this "story" has increasingly been reminding
: > me of some Picasso originals I looked at in a art gallery
: > about a year ago, where I thought/felt that the term
: > "work of 'art'" hardly was applicable for them, and that
: > these pictures were totally displaced there, and something
: > one might expect to be hanging on the walls of a mental
: > hospital (sometimes seen on TV), exhibiting the "art" work
: > of the patients. Simply said, I found those Picasso's
: > very ugly, sort of like used toilet paper :)
: >
: > ~ JELLY
:
: That's very brave of you, to say. ;)
:
: I have seen Picasso's that struck me that way.
: Far more, truth be told, than those I considered brilliant.
:
: I'm wondering what you're referring to as "this 'story'" that
: reminds you of your Picasso experience.
:
: ~ Lee
Hi Lee, so you think that was "brave" (LOL;) of me to say
about Picasso? Like I just said in a response to ~Deborah:
# What I said about Picasso's paintings referred
# *only* to a very small selection (which I didn't
# make) of his "art" which I saw on a very specific
# day in *one* gallery, which I called "*those*
# Picasso's". That's all :) Generally (I recall
# vaguely) that I used to like and prefer some of
# Picasso's *earlier* paintings.
With "this 'story'" I was referring to the
"picture(s)" J.ohn paints (of his perception) of me :)
~ JELLY
JELLY
(subject: Re: Backwards on our heads)
(message-id:<v5Wdndqn7v7...@golden.net>)
:
: > > Stephen:
: > > You could be doing the workbook instead of playing this game.
:
: > Pieter:
: > Isn't it up to Jelly,
: > what she does or not?
:
: ~Deborah:
: Just like it is up to Stephen to nudge her a little. :)
So, who's "playing" game(s) here?
And which game(s) is/are it/they?
~ JELLY
JELLY
(message-id:<42053e37$0$253$61c6...@uq-127creek-reader-03.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au>)
:
: JELLY wrote:
:
: >
: > No, you don't "see", you just imagine you do.
: > And also no to "hidden message word counting",
: > which is just you, J.ohn, falling back from
: > quite artistic bullshit to your everyday low
: > level bullshit.
: >
: > Really, I was quite impressed by your work of
: > "art" (which I've reinserted here), and my
: > counting words in it is nothing more than noticing
: > **your** favorite "colors" and "forms" which you
: > tried to paint over me. I might continue to play
: > with your work of (reinserted) "art", or not :)
: >
: >~ JELLY
:
: You could be doing the workbook instead of playing this game.
Hi Stephen :) how are you?
If I "did" the Workbook, would I then also post things like:
# Stephen Calder <cal...@in.com.au> wrote:
# (subject: I shouted)
# (date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 23:42:51 +1100)
# (message-id:<41fa3351$0$668$61c6...@uq-127creek-reader-01.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au>)
# :
# : A mother and her daughter, both known to me, were fighting in my
# : presence and it came to physical blows, just slaps at first, but then a
# : solid punch, accompanied by a very realistic groan, and the drawing of
# : blood. I didn't think. I just walked over very close to them and shouted
# : that's enough. The physical fight continued. I shouted again that's
# : enough. Louder this time. They stopped. I looked at them. Each went off
# : to her room.
~ JELLY
JELLY
(subject: Re: Backwards on our heads)
(message-id:<QN2dnXp5UqO...@golden.net>)
:
:
: "JELLY" <je...@mnet-online.de> wrote in message
: news:dvca019mu27jfdfpd...@4ax.com...
: dared to weird outward wear, his interior. I like
: to look at his pictures in books, and on the
: internet. Some would be ok for a wall. My
: preference is original artwork and my pocketbook
: doesn't stretch far enough to spring for a Picasso
: original. I think it a Picasso I recently heard
: in the news, that is in the hands of Elizabeth
: Taylor which has it accused as being one of the
: holocaust stolen paintings, accused by an heir of
: the family member it was stolen from. I may have
: the artist misremembered.
:
: I love the sketch of the peace dove and the people. :)
: http://www.masterworksfineart.com/inventory/picasso.htm#
:
: He certainly had an interesting way to depict what he saw.
:
: > You're welcome, ~Deborah, but I didn't really.
:
: anything about them without noticing them.
: Doesn't matter if you noticed them before they
: were pointed out to you or after. You still
: noticed them.
:
: So what is your story? How long you been telling it?
:
: ~Deborah
"Dearest" "~Deborah",
considering your above response,
I'm wondering if you became a therapist because:
- you were attracted by the ugly,
(eg. (Lee? most of?) Picasso's "art").
- you enjoy manipulating:
(eg. "authorship", "stories", people).
- getting lots of money for next to nothing.
- et cetera.
[contributions to this list welcome] :)
[ps. ~Deborah likes "noticing" lists]
What I said about Picasso's paintings referred
*only* to a very small selection (which I didn't
make) of his "art" which I saw on a very specific
day in *one* gallery, which I called "*those*
Picasso's". That's all :) Generally (I recall
vaguely) that I used to like and prefer some of
Picasso's *earlier* paintings.
Your interpretation about "winning" **your**
"noticing game" (which you introduced with a list
of *your* choice of "noticed" words), ~Deborah,
overlooks that text can be processed in many ways,
among them computer programs to count the occur-
rences of "words" (& word fragments) as nothing
other than letter sequences, completely stripped
of their context and most of their meaning :)
Why do you want to make (by "force"?) **your**
"noticing" word *list* to appear to be mine?
Your interpretation/projection/guess of **what**
I was referring to with 'this "story"' (would
perhaps be interesting if it weren't so typical
and transparent) is wrong. Try again :)
~ JELLY
JELLY
(subject: Re: "The Journey that never was" Authors to appear Friday Evening)
(references:<110a6fq...@corp.supernews.com>)
(message-id:<laeNd.157762$w62....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>)
:
: Hi jon,
:
: eluq wrote:
: >
[snip]
: >
: > We as humans are dreaming a dream, if so where is this dream?
: > If we are the dreamers where is the dream we are dreaming?
:
: LOL jon. First law of discussion regarding ACIM's dream metaphors:
: Overuse of 'dream' and its variants within a sentence or paragraph,
: assures a cross-eyed audience in search of the doors. ;)
FOMCL
Thanx Lee ;)
~ JELLY
[snip]
J.
> Above, in his work of "art", where J.ohn IMO
> tries to paint (his artistic bullshit) over me,
> so I look as if I'm [walking home backwards on
> my head], or perhaps even to influence me to
> (try to) [walk home backwards on my head], J.ohn
> asks, ["But how exactly can words control you,
> if you are in control of your own mind?"], which
> IMO suggests (within its context) that ACIM and
> its words (symbols for thoughts, ideas, concepts),
> like all words, are just words, and always
> perfectly harmless. That's very odd IMO, because
> just around a day before it looks very much to me
> as if J.ohn is arguing that (some?) words (ideas)
> are not at all harmless:
ROTFLMAO. What could possibly be harmful in the ACIM text, which
couldn't be rendered harmless by not reading, or not believing what it
says, or choosing to believe the opposite of what it says? Your claims
that you are somehow at the mercy of words in a book, is a very strange
claim. Even stranger when you can't even give an example of how you were
"harmed."
Lee
>>> ... Simply said, I found those Picasso's
>>> very ugly, sort of like used toilet paper :)
I gathered you were speaking of a crappy selection
of his work, rather than pronouncing against him,
as an artist. ;)
>
> With "this 'story'" I was referring to the
> "picture(s)" J.ohn paints (of his perception) of me :)
That makes sense. I thought perhaps you were speaking
more broadly ... maybe of your entire experience, here.
Thanks for the reply,
~ Lee
>
> ~ JELLY
~Deborah
"JELLY"
> "Dearest" "~Deborah",
> considering your above response,
> I'm wondering if you became a therapist because:
> - you were attracted by the ugly,
> (eg. (Lee? most of?) Picasso's "art").
> - you enjoy manipulating:
> (eg. "authorship", "stories", people).
> - getting lots of money for next to nothing.
> - et cetera.
> [contributions to this list welcome] :)
> [ps. ~Deborah likes "noticing" lists]
Your wonderings certainly reveal a lot about your thoughts.
> What I said about Picasso's paintings referred
> *only* to a very small selection (which I didn't
> make) of his "art" which I saw on a very specific
> day in *one* gallery, which I called "*those*
> Picasso's". That's all :) Generally (I recall
> vaguely) that I used to like and prefer some of
> Picasso's *earlier* paintings.
So you already stated. I got you the first time. Do you take everything as
a personal shot?
> Your interpretation about "winning" **your**
> "noticing game" (which you introduced with a list
> of *your* choice of "noticed" words), ~Deborah,
> overlooks that text can be processed in many ways,
> among them computer programs to count the occur-
> rences of "words" (& word fragments) as nothing
> other than letter sequences, completely stripped
> of their context and most of their meaning :)
> Why do you want to make (by "force"?) **your**
> "noticing" word *list* to appear to be mine?
what are you accusing now? You think I was trying to win at some game? I
won't knock you for your fiestiness and defensiveness. You are wrong
though.
I speak for myself. If you don't agree with me, no problem.
> Your interpretation/projection/guess of **what**
> I was referring to with 'this "story"' (would
> perhaps be interesting if it weren't so typical
> and transparent) is wrong. Try again :)
>
> ~ JELLY
I never guessed anything. I did ask you what your story was as you
mentioned story.
Are you calling Lee ugly?
~Deborah
~Deborah
It isn't a game. It is what is. I also nudge you to do the course lessons.
You still show enough interest in ACIM to be wanting to discuss it.
~Deborah
~Deborah
That is what you believe?
~Deborah
~Deborah
With the responses you gave to me Jelly, you are doing a great job of
painting a picture that makes John's depiction to be hitting the mark.
~Deborah
Stephen Calder
>"JELLY" <je...@mnet-online.de> wrote in message
>news:kfcb01d718g8i1pan...@4ax.com...
>
>
>>:
>>: You could be doing the workbook instead of playing this game.
>>
>>Hi Stephen :) how are you?
>>
>>If I "did" the Workbook, would I then also post things like:
>>
>>
You might describe miraculous experiences you have had.
It was a miracle to me that a simple two-word utterance could cause
immediate cessation of apparent abuse.
--
Stephen
Byron Bay, Australia
Daily text readings and lessons in audio form available at:
http://www.notabody.com/course_audio.htm
JELLY
(in-reply-to:<g8CdnfxWcuk...@golden.net>)
(message-id:<4206a954$0$250$61c6...@uq-127creek-reader-03.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au>)
:
: ~Deborah wrote:
:
: >"JELLY" <je...@mnet-online.de> wrote in message
: >news:kfcb01d718g8i1pan...@4ax.com...
: >
: >
: > > :
: > > : You could be doing the workbook instead
: > > : of playing this game.
: > >
: > > Hi Stephen :) how are you?
: > >
: > > If I "did" the Workbook,
: > > would I then also post things like:
: > >
: > >
:
: You might describe miraculous experiences you have had.
:
: It was a miracle to me that a simple two-word utterance
: could cause immediate cessation of apparent abuse.
I never claimed to be a "miracle worker/believer",
so what **exactly** are you asking me to describe?
If this is what you call a "simple two-word utterance"?
[Stephen: "I just walked over very close to them
and shouted that's enough. The physical fight
continued. I shouted again that's enough. Louder
this time. They stopped."] http://tinyurl.com/6o7rl
Doesn't it occur to you, Stephen, that the effect you
call "a miracle" was primarily/only caused by you
**shouting** AND the rest of your body language (which
you didn't mention here), which is very common social
behavior I've seen in various documentary films about
apes :)
~ JELLY
Stephen Calder
You're absolutely right. It was nothing.
Now what?