Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
all is fundamentally yhvh
2 views
Skip to first unread message
kamerm
May 14, 2013, 10:26:15 PM5/14/13
to
Hi iamyhvh,
your correspondence is painful to an empath, so you're on filter and this is
a bit of a shot in the dark -
all our combinatorics in the 90's were correct - you can't be yhvh as far as
you know (weasel words there) because what you know and can know is finite.
but there's a loophole - since then i've learned there's a dark layer to
what is - a simultaneous, syncronous, entangled union of all, from at least
from the big bang onward (not sure if "before" has meaning "outside" its
reference frame). specifically, to the degree your being expresses the
necessities of this dark union, you are yhvh and express the immediacy of
all that is (and quite beyond the bounds of your finite expression), but to
the degree you express the necessities of your location, you are you; the
more one the less the other - G-d's still small voice, etc is "still" and
"small" or there could be no here and now - no you. so to be completely
yhvh is escaping the combinatoric bounds we discussed, but is also
abandoning being you. don't do that while what is needs a you where you
are, or you're flying in the face of what is, that you aspire to understand
yourself as being. unclear? sorry - best i can do.
good luck
-k
your correspondence is painful to an empath, so you're on filter and this is
a bit of a shot in the dark -
all our combinatorics in the 90's were correct - you can't be yhvh as far as
you know (weasel words there) because what you know and can know is finite.
but there's a loophole - since then i've learned there's a dark layer to
what is - a simultaneous, syncronous, entangled union of all, from at least
from the big bang onward (not sure if "before" has meaning "outside" its
reference frame). specifically, to the degree your being expresses the
necessities of this dark union, you are yhvh and express the immediacy of
all that is (and quite beyond the bounds of your finite expression), but to
the degree you express the necessities of your location, you are you; the
more one the less the other - G-d's still small voice, etc is "still" and
"small" or there could be no here and now - no you. so to be completely
yhvh is escaping the combinatoric bounds we discussed, but is also
abandoning being you. don't do that while what is needs a you where you
are, or you're flying in the face of what is, that you aspire to understand
yourself as being. unclear? sorry - best i can do.
good luck
-k
noname
May 15, 2013, 8:29:25 AM5/15/13
to
kamerm
May 15, 2013, 10:28:02 AM5/15/13
to
to a.p.t - for Tim to chew if he likes, and j to reflect if he likes.
-k
noname
May 15, 2013, 4:42:46 PM5/15/13
to
contained and don't know what's going on with it, I'll butt out. <g>
There are things that could be said about the apparent topic, but it
seems to involve "God" which is as fugly a word as has ever been
rendered meaningless by overuse. The relationship between Man and World
is pretty much the same, but to remind myself, I'm busy butting out...
{:-])))
May 15, 2013, 6:14:29 PM5/15/13
to
noname wrote:
> kamerm wrote:
I doubt if Tim is here.
>> and j to reflect if he likes.
I'd written a few words earlier, this morning,
in terms of how when thinking about how one is,
one has already multiplied by dividing itself
into at least two.
My reflecting went on to suggest and wonder
about why one would speak of one
and to whom.
The words then were erased,
yet have now since returned.
>> k
>
>Well then since I've not much idea what your referenced correspondence
>contained and don't know what's going on with it, I'll butt out. <g>
I was confused also.
Tim had mentioned that he was God,
as well as IHWH, a few times.
>There are things that could be said about the apparent topic, but it
>seems to involve "God" which is as fugly a word as has ever been
>rendered meaningless by overuse. The relationship between Man and World
>is pretty much the same, but to remind myself, I'm busy butting out...
I like ideas of being the Universe
in various ways. Inflationary theory of ego
expansion shortly after a mystical experience
could account for trips and falls.
A hintergedanken reminds me of a mind,
or perhaps a thought, buried to some extent.
http://www.erowid.org/culture/characters/watts_alan/watts_alan_article1.shtml
"Something that you know deep down but can't admit."
Tim's admission of being God
isn't all bad in some of my estimations.
He appears to forget
about as often as he remembers.
Or, perhaps it's mirror images
of various aspects of my own Self
which have interested me as of late.
Four in the afternoon approaches.
It's almost a quarter past three now.
> kamerm wrote:
>> and j to reflect if he likes.
in terms of how when thinking about how one is,
one has already multiplied by dividing itself
into at least two.
My reflecting went on to suggest and wonder
about why one would speak of one
and to whom.
The words then were erased,
yet have now since returned.
>> k
>
>Well then since I've not much idea what your referenced correspondence
>contained and don't know what's going on with it, I'll butt out. <g>
Tim had mentioned that he was God,
as well as IHWH, a few times.
>There are things that could be said about the apparent topic, but it
>seems to involve "God" which is as fugly a word as has ever been
>rendered meaningless by overuse. The relationship between Man and World
>is pretty much the same, but to remind myself, I'm busy butting out...
in various ways. Inflationary theory of ego
expansion shortly after a mystical experience
could account for trips and falls.
A hintergedanken reminds me of a mind,
or perhaps a thought, buried to some extent.
http://www.erowid.org/culture/characters/watts_alan/watts_alan_article1.shtml
"Something that you know deep down but can't admit."
Tim's admission of being God
isn't all bad in some of my estimations.
He appears to forget
about as often as he remembers.
Or, perhaps it's mirror images
of various aspects of my own Self
which have interested me as of late.
Four in the afternoon approaches.
It's almost a quarter past three now.
kamerm
May 15, 2013, 6:27:52 PM5/15/13
to
no mystery - sometime in the mid to late '90's, Tim and I met in a.z. He
was "iamyahweh" and his schtick was challenging people to prove he wasn't.
We discussed the enormous but still finite combinatorics of what can be
sensed and remembered, and he concluded that since yahweh couldn't be
finite, he couldn't be yahweh.
I left a.z for a.p.t that year, so can't say what he's been up to since.
Appears "God" and "Lucifer" are consedered advanced but finite, and
therefore suitable roles? Dunno - would have to read his posts, and even
embedded in j's they reflect a pain and despair (or some such imblanace)
that wasn't his in the 90's, and that i can't accommodate now (my eldest is
teening poorly and needs me more).
*
Why's "God" such a fugly word?
-k
{:-])))
May 16, 2013, 7:56:07 AM5/16/13
to
kamerm wrote:
> ... and he concluded that since yahweh couldn't be
To have such an at
as far as 'tudes go
might be an it.
Interesting, in a way, to me,
reflecting upon an at it tude,
is how I may consider a Self
of mine to be God at times
but don't recall one being
as Mother Nature.
Prolly a macho thing.
Being the Universe
is m'ore gender-neutral.
Being an Intelligent Universe,
far smarter than my brain can contain
using words as cymbals crash lands
me on a different planet
than most are.
>Why's "God" such a fugly word?
Cuz God is such a bad-ass?
Laden with more baggage
than a camel's back is able to carry
pushing Him thru the Eye of a needle
tends to be a difficult thread
to weave into a tao
pretzel.
More sew like a rope,
or toothpaste.
The word is out of the tube.
A small piece of string
is able to be pushed thru the Eye.
God, instead of being the still voice,
evokes more push than pull at times.
The volcano resides, as an echo.
To hearden a pharaoh's heart
can be perceived as a fug-over,
an ugly thing to do, simply to show
who is whom, and to make a name
for his all mighty self.
Talk about an ego trip.
Maybe God/YHWH evolved over time.
In the beginning, speaking, doing, creating,
making people and all things, He was
such as He was. And would be
as He would be later on.
The drama
might be intense
on stages over the ages.
Now-a-daze, the term is archaic
for many a modern thinker of thought.
The picture was not pretty.
It really was rather ugly.
And, for many, remains.
Fugly might be a name.
Perhaps not of the 72.
Prehaps knot a Chang Ming.
A clumsy name, to say the least,
with far too many meanings
to juggle and communicate
precision with in tolerance.
> ... and he concluded that since yahweh couldn't be
>finite, he couldn't be yahweh.
Maybe he found his infinitude.
To have such an at
as far as 'tudes go
might be an it.
Interesting, in a way, to me,
reflecting upon an at it tude,
is how I may consider a Self
of mine to be God at times
but don't recall one being
as Mother Nature.
Prolly a macho thing.
Being the Universe
is m'ore gender-neutral.
Being an Intelligent Universe,
far smarter than my brain can contain
using words as cymbals crash lands
me on a different planet
than most are.
>Why's "God" such a fugly word?
Laden with more baggage
than a camel's back is able to carry
pushing Him thru the Eye of a needle
tends to be a difficult thread
to weave into a tao
pretzel.
More sew like a rope,
or toothpaste.
The word is out of the tube.
A small piece of string
is able to be pushed thru the Eye.
God, instead of being the still voice,
evokes more push than pull at times.
The volcano resides, as an echo.
To hearden a pharaoh's heart
can be perceived as a fug-over,
an ugly thing to do, simply to show
who is whom, and to make a name
for his all mighty self.
Talk about an ego trip.
Maybe God/YHWH evolved over time.
In the beginning, speaking, doing, creating,
making people and all things, He was
such as He was. And would be
as He would be later on.
The drama
might be intense
on stages over the ages.
Now-a-daze, the term is archaic
for many a modern thinker of thought.
The picture was not pretty.
It really was rather ugly.
And, for many, remains.
Fugly might be a name.
Perhaps not of the 72.
Prehaps knot a Chang Ming.
A clumsy name, to say the least,
with far too many meanings
to juggle and communicate
precision with in tolerance.
noname
May 16, 2013, 8:42:25 AM5/16/13
to
On 05/15/2013 04:27 PM, kamerm wrote:
meanings, you can't use the word "God" without inciting a war of
misunderstanding. God is this, God is that, God is something else, if
you can find any two people who have the same understanding of the word
"God" then they've probably had their heads poured full of the same
catechism. The word "worship" is as bad or worse; worship is this,
worship is that, something else, nobody can fucking agree on what this
shit means for a NY-second unless they've accepted the same fixed belief
system in which case there's no point discussing it to begin with
because they're done from the git-go.
I have some opinions about the God concept but they'd likely just start
a flamewar, mostly because I can't say anything useful about it since
all the relevant terms are hosed beyond belief. I will say the
following though, because this isn't a causal chain that I initiated and
saying these things provides an opportunity for it to quiesce, or not,
without my forcing the issue:
1. Although there may be a supreme being, no being can be certain that
it is supreme and not simply existing within a pocket universe
maintained by some higher-order being. Since no "God" can know that it
is actually "God", the whole God-concept is moot.
2. Any being that wants others to fawn over it rather than do what is
right is an egoic retard that needs its ass kicked by events until its
nose bleeds.
3. The way things are is the way things must be, because if things were
not precisely as they must be, the necessity for them to be otherwise
would have made them so. (Do not misinterpret that to mean that there
are no leanings whose fulfillment is incipient, because events do
continue to occur.)
4. Any law that is not self-fulfilling is not a law, it is a wish that
requires enforcement by those who are bound by the desire that it be law.
So, if that's not enough to start a flamewar, let me just add that if
there is a God then s/he is either a Taoist who doesn't do squat until
it happens on its own, or s/he is a jerkoff rowing upstream and getting
nowhere.
> noname wrote:
>> There are things that could be said about the apparent topic, but it
>> seems to involve "God" which is as fugly a word as has ever been
>> rendered meaningless by overuse. The relationship between Man and
>> World is pretty much the same, but to remind myself, I'm busy butting
>> out...
>> There are things that could be said about the apparent topic, but it
>> seems to involve "God" which is as fugly a word as has ever been
>> rendered meaningless by overuse. The relationship between Man and
>> World is pretty much the same, but to remind myself, I'm busy butting
>> out...
> Why's "God" such a fugly word?
Too many meanings that are too different, too few similarities in the
meanings, you can't use the word "God" without inciting a war of
misunderstanding. God is this, God is that, God is something else, if
you can find any two people who have the same understanding of the word
"God" then they've probably had their heads poured full of the same
catechism. The word "worship" is as bad or worse; worship is this,
worship is that, something else, nobody can fucking agree on what this
shit means for a NY-second unless they've accepted the same fixed belief
system in which case there's no point discussing it to begin with
because they're done from the git-go.
I have some opinions about the God concept but they'd likely just start
a flamewar, mostly because I can't say anything useful about it since
all the relevant terms are hosed beyond belief. I will say the
following though, because this isn't a causal chain that I initiated and
saying these things provides an opportunity for it to quiesce, or not,
without my forcing the issue:
1. Although there may be a supreme being, no being can be certain that
it is supreme and not simply existing within a pocket universe
maintained by some higher-order being. Since no "God" can know that it
is actually "God", the whole God-concept is moot.
2. Any being that wants others to fawn over it rather than do what is
right is an egoic retard that needs its ass kicked by events until its
nose bleeds.
3. The way things are is the way things must be, because if things were
not precisely as they must be, the necessity for them to be otherwise
would have made them so. (Do not misinterpret that to mean that there
are no leanings whose fulfillment is incipient, because events do
continue to occur.)
4. Any law that is not self-fulfilling is not a law, it is a wish that
requires enforcement by those who are bound by the desire that it be law.
So, if that's not enough to start a flamewar, let me just add that if
there is a God then s/he is either a Taoist who doesn't do squat until
it happens on its own, or s/he is a jerkoff rowing upstream and getting
nowhere.
kamerm
May 16, 2013, 11:15:22 AM5/16/13
to
{:-]))) wrote:
> kamerm wrote:
>
>> ... and he concluded that since yahweh couldn't be
>> finite, he couldn't be yahweh.
>
> Maybe he found his infinitude.
>
> To have such an at
> as far as 'tudes go
> might be an it.
>
> Interesting, in a way, to me,
> reflecting upon an at it tude,
> is how I may consider a Self
> of mine to be God at times
> but don't recall one being
> as Mother Nature.
>
> Prolly a macho thing.
>
> Being the Universe
> is m'ore gender-neutral.
>
> Being an Intelligent Universe,
> far smarter than my brain can contain
> using words as cymbals crash lands
> me on a different planet
> than most are.
if smart is as smart does, then the Universe is ultimately intelligent.
> kamerm wrote:
>
>> ... and he concluded that since yahweh couldn't be
>> finite, he couldn't be yahweh.
>
> Maybe he found his infinitude.
>
> To have such an at
> as far as 'tudes go
> might be an it.
>
> Interesting, in a way, to me,
> reflecting upon an at it tude,
> is how I may consider a Self
> of mine to be God at times
> but don't recall one being
> as Mother Nature.
>
> Prolly a macho thing.
>
> Being the Universe
> is m'ore gender-neutral.
>
> Being an Intelligent Universe,
> far smarter than my brain can contain
> using words as cymbals crash lands
> me on a different planet
> than most are.
if intelligence is how intelligence is done, and the way intelligence is
done is (according to humans) symbolic reasoning, then the Universe is dumb.
while "not suffering a witch/Canaanite/etc" drowns "love thy neighbor"?
fair enough, the word is too freighted to remain a Name in this domain
Thanks,
-k
kamerm
May 16, 2013, 11:29:24 AM5/16/13
to
particularly like the bit about opening ways, but not attempting to force
direction changes.
after much unfortunate experimentation, the handful of ways i've found to
invoke change without equal or worse unfortunate consequence are:
1) doing the work that falls to my station
2) removing a passive and genuinely unwanted obstacle (weasel word
intended)
3) intervening in "cusp" events as a midwife might - when both a baby and a
deadly breach are on the cusp of being, only the lightest of touches and
consequent recoils is necessary
4) scattering "bird seed" and not intervening in whether birds or squirrels
benefit
have repeatedly tested intervening to prevent horrible outcomes. However,
either my vision is too limited and my touch too gross, or beings love their
destiny's more than they let on even to themselves, and preventing even
unwanted consequence is an unacceptable violation of "free will" (that is,
of the "self-so'ing nature" of the violated). There may be a loophole here
in destiny (self-so'ing) vs. fate (environmental inertia or law of
consequences, both individual and collective) - perhaps anti-fate
interventions are practicable, but perhaps forunately for all, i haven't
been in a position to test that.
-k
Craig
May 16, 2013, 4:23:55 PM5/16/13
to
{:-])))
May 16, 2013, 4:43:33 PM5/16/13
to
noname wrote about:
> ... some opinions about the God concept ...
http://www.wisdomportal.com/Enlightenment/IndraUniverses.html
As the God of history,
YHWH would be an Indra.
Potential real enough to be
the Creator of some stuff and nonsense.
As well as fitting well within
a Hindu, dramatic-paradigm of sorts.
>2. Any being that wants others to fawn over it rather than do what is
>right is an egoic retard that needs its ass kicked by events until its
>nose bleeds.
There was a Star Trek episode
which provided a conceptual frame-work
for a very powerful being who was a child.
After messing around with the crew for a while,
his mother called him home for lunch or something.
>3. The way things are is the way things must be, because if things were
>not precisely as they must be, the necessity for them to be otherwise
>would have made them so. (Do not misinterpret that to mean that there
>are no leanings whose fulfillment is incipient, because events do
>continue to occur.)
To think there is a, " the way ..."
puts me in mind of how explanations explain.
It easy to mix up, match, and confuse words
as being whatever they are meant to describe.
To think there is the, " the way ... "
would be a type of explanatory thought-form.
Thoughts form as myth,
some of which are taken to be real, or actual,
and many of them might actually hold true.
>4. Any law that is not self-fulfilling is not a law, it is a wish that
>requires enforcement by those who are bound by the desire that it be law.
What is called or seen as a law
is probably a form of regularity.
To think there are laws
is to think in mythological terminology.
Rules and rulers may measure,
out or in, by various means, on average.
Some are more precise than others.
Some are of iron. Some of some other material
or immaterial sub stance or standard keeping.
Quantities become indeterminate
and indeterminable at many levels.
Qualities and attributes
can be the stuff perceptions are made of.
>So, if that's not enough to start a flamewar, let me just add that if
>there is a God then s/he is either a Taoist who doesn't do squat until
>it happens on its own, or s/he is a jerkoff rowing upstream and getting
>nowhere.
If there was a form of God
who spoke to Moses from a bush, who said
he had been known in ancient times by many names
but wanted to make himself known by a new name
then that is simply what there was, and had to be.
For thousands of years,
if the legends of the map are true, history unfolded
as it was foretold by those who could perceive
parts of it prior to its complete unfolding.
Tis an epic tale,
getting people to have faith,
to lose it, to regain it, to grow in it,
out of it and then sum.
Not everyone is of that flock.
They don't hear the voice.
Such is how things are,
apparently.
> ... some opinions about the God concept ...
>
>1. Although there may be a supreme being, no being can be certain that
>it is supreme and not simply existing within a pocket universe
>maintained by some higher-order being. Since no "God" can know that it
>is actually "God", the whole God-concept is moot.
Reminds me of an Indra story.
>1. Although there may be a supreme being, no being can be certain that
>it is supreme and not simply existing within a pocket universe
>maintained by some higher-order being. Since no "God" can know that it
>is actually "God", the whole God-concept is moot.
http://www.wisdomportal.com/Enlightenment/IndraUniverses.html
As the God of history,
YHWH would be an Indra.
Potential real enough to be
the Creator of some stuff and nonsense.
As well as fitting well within
a Hindu, dramatic-paradigm of sorts.
>2. Any being that wants others to fawn over it rather than do what is
>right is an egoic retard that needs its ass kicked by events until its
>nose bleeds.
which provided a conceptual frame-work
for a very powerful being who was a child.
After messing around with the crew for a while,
his mother called him home for lunch or something.
>3. The way things are is the way things must be, because if things were
>not precisely as they must be, the necessity for them to be otherwise
>would have made them so. (Do not misinterpret that to mean that there
>are no leanings whose fulfillment is incipient, because events do
>continue to occur.)
puts me in mind of how explanations explain.
It easy to mix up, match, and confuse words
as being whatever they are meant to describe.
To think there is the, " the way ... "
would be a type of explanatory thought-form.
Thoughts form as myth,
some of which are taken to be real, or actual,
and many of them might actually hold true.
>4. Any law that is not self-fulfilling is not a law, it is a wish that
>requires enforcement by those who are bound by the desire that it be law.
is probably a form of regularity.
To think there are laws
is to think in mythological terminology.
Rules and rulers may measure,
out or in, by various means, on average.
Some are more precise than others.
Some are of iron. Some of some other material
or immaterial sub stance or standard keeping.
Quantities become indeterminate
and indeterminable at many levels.
Qualities and attributes
can be the stuff perceptions are made of.
>So, if that's not enough to start a flamewar, let me just add that if
>there is a God then s/he is either a Taoist who doesn't do squat until
>it happens on its own, or s/he is a jerkoff rowing upstream and getting
>nowhere.
who spoke to Moses from a bush, who said
he had been known in ancient times by many names
but wanted to make himself known by a new name
then that is simply what there was, and had to be.
For thousands of years,
if the legends of the map are true, history unfolded
as it was foretold by those who could perceive
parts of it prior to its complete unfolding.
Tis an epic tale,
getting people to have faith,
to lose it, to regain it, to grow in it,
out of it and then sum.
Not everyone is of that flock.
They don't hear the voice.
Such is how things are,
apparently.
{:-])))
May 16, 2013, 5:48:10 PM5/16/13
to
kamerm
May 16, 2013, 6:58:29 PM5/16/13
to
>> 1. Although there may be a supreme being, no being can be certain
>> that it is supreme and not simply existing within a pocket universe
>> maintained by some higher-order being. Since no "God" can know that
>> it is actually "God", the whole God-concept is moot.
>>
>> that it is supreme and not simply existing within a pocket universe
>> maintained by some higher-order being. Since no "God" can know that
>> it is actually "God", the whole God-concept is moot.
>>
>> 2. Any being that wants others to fawn over it rather than do what is
>> right is an egoic retard that needs its ass kicked by events until
>> its nose bleeds.
>>
>> right is an egoic retard that needs its ass kicked by events until
>> its nose bleeds.
>>
>> 3. The way things are is the way things must be, because if things
>> were not precisely as they must be, the necessity for them to be
>> otherwise would have made them so. (Do not misinterpret that to mean
>> that there are no leanings whose fulfillment is incipient, because
>> events do continue to occur.)
>>
>> were not precisely as they must be, the necessity for them to be
>> otherwise would have made them so. (Do not misinterpret that to mean
>> that there are no leanings whose fulfillment is incipient, because
>> events do continue to occur.)
>>
>> 4. Any law that is not self-fulfilling is not a law, it is a wish
>> that requires enforcement by those who are bound by the desire that
>> it be law.
>> that requires enforcement by those who are bound by the desire that
>> it be law.
>> So, if that's not enough to start a flamewar, let me just add that if
>> there is a God then s/he is either a Taoist who doesn't do squat
>> until it happens on its own, or s/he is a jerkoff rowing upstream and
>> getting nowhere.
>
>
>> there is a God then s/he is either a Taoist who doesn't do squat
>> until it happens on its own, or s/he is a jerkoff rowing upstream and
>> getting nowhere.
>
>
> Thank you, noname,
>
> particularly like the bit about opening ways, but not attempting to
> force direction changes.
>
> after much unfortunate experimentation, the handful of ways i've
> found to invoke change without equal or worse unfortunate consequence
> are: 1) doing the work that falls to my station
> 2) removing a passive and genuinely unwanted obstacle (weasel word
> intended)
> 3) intervening in "cusp" events as a midwife might - when both a
> baby and a deadly breach are on the cusp of being, only the lightest
> of touches and consequent recoils is necessary
> 4) scattering "bird seed" and not intervening in whether birds or
> squirrels benefit
>
> have repeatedly tested intervening to prevent horrible outcomes. However,
> either my vision is too limited and my touch too gross, or
> beings love their destiny's more than they let on even to themselves,
> and preventing even unwanted consequence is an unacceptable violation
> of "free will" (that is, of the "self-so'ing nature" of the
> violated). There may be a loophole here in destiny (self-so'ing) vs.
> fate (environmental inertia or law of consequences, both individual
> and collective) - perhaps anti-fate interventions are practicable,
> but perhaps forunately for all, i haven't been in a position to test
> that.
for throroughness -
>
> particularly like the bit about opening ways, but not attempting to
> force direction changes.
>
> after much unfortunate experimentation, the handful of ways i've
> found to invoke change without equal or worse unfortunate consequence
> are: 1) doing the work that falls to my station
> 2) removing a passive and genuinely unwanted obstacle (weasel word
> intended)
> 3) intervening in "cusp" events as a midwife might - when both a
> baby and a deadly breach are on the cusp of being, only the lightest
> of touches and consequent recoils is necessary
> 4) scattering "bird seed" and not intervening in whether birds or
> squirrels benefit
>
> have repeatedly tested intervening to prevent horrible outcomes. However,
> either my vision is too limited and my touch too gross, or
> beings love their destiny's more than they let on even to themselves,
> and preventing even unwanted consequence is an unacceptable violation
> of "free will" (that is, of the "self-so'ing nature" of the
> violated). There may be a loophole here in destiny (self-so'ing) vs.
> fate (environmental inertia or law of consequences, both individual
> and collective) - perhaps anti-fate interventions are practicable,
> but perhaps forunately for all, i haven't been in a position to test
> that.
0) as so many including you have mentioned -
the easiest and most certain change is to oneself,
and by taking self out of contention, all else relaxes
into the new shape.
-k
noname
May 17, 2013, 7:56:24 AM5/17/13
to
harder to talk about things instead of easier. There is probably no
help for that.
When Man attempts to "do" something, the important factor is initiation.
When one tries to "do" something, it amounts to initiating a causal
chain in hopes of achieving a given end.
All initiation stems from desire. Without desire there is no want to
"do" anything. Causal chains are not initiated. Ripples do not expand
from their initiation. Mud can be allowed to settle. Doing without
doing is a matter of choosing which existing causal chains to ignore.
Desire, desirelessness, goals, success and failure, excess baggage...
all those are common topics in the TTC, and not by accident.
noname
May 17, 2013, 7:57:54 AM5/17/13
to
You left, you returned; do you remain as you were, or has life proceeded?
noname
May 17, 2013, 7:59:50 AM5/17/13
to
mystery behind stuff.
Craig
May 17, 2013, 5:37:48 PM5/17/13
to
Read all them customer reviews and you will have no doubt that you need it.
http://www.amazon.com/Hutzler-571-Banana-Slicer/dp/B0047E0EII/ref=sr_1_1_ha?ie=UTF8&qid=1368826513&sr=8-1&keywords=banana+slicer
Nothings remains as it were or is or whatever. How could that question
have any meaning?
Craig
May 17, 2013, 5:39:51 PM5/17/13
to
79 of 92 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Sliced banana perfectly- NOW WHAT? January 12, 2013
By Monkey man
The Hutzler 571 Banana slicer does what it says it does- slice bananas,
evenly, thouroughly, perfectly. But now I'm stuck, what do I do with all
the banana slices? I don't even know what to do with a whole banana. I
gave this product only one star because I wish the instructions were a
little more comprehensive. "Push down on banana evenly and Enjoy?!"
Enjoy what? How? Why can't all those scientists who came up with this
spend a little time more time for those of us who have a little trouble
figuring things out?
6 Comments |
Was this review helpful to you?
› See all 4,121 customer reviews
{:-])))
May 17, 2013, 7:15:46 PM5/17/13
to
noname wrote:
>Desiring, one is concerned with stuff;
>beyond desire, one can see the mystery behind stuff.
If one desires to go beyond desire
>Desiring, one is concerned with stuff;
>beyond desire, one can see the mystery behind stuff.
would seeing the mystery be impossible?
Does the mystery resolve itself
as one desires less and less?
Kinda like wu-wei?
Less is better.
Keep on dropping something
until 48 occurs?
I guess desire
can be as much a thing as any thing
one might do, or do without, or
do without doing.
Forgetting about desire
might be a dao.
Allowing it to flow.
Remembering to forget
could be a conundrum,
possibly problematic.
When desiring,
being concerned and involved
with whatever stuff may be,
eventually desire might fade, a way,
or be consumated in some way.
Either way, I can imagine desire
running its course, and then,
perhaps, a mystery of desire is clear,
if one cares, or does not care, enough, to notice.
Hunger, thirst, rest, play, desire
appears to me to be natural.
Being too serious, all too serious, when
that occurs, suggests a form of a problem.
Seeing how stuff, as things, arise mutually
tends to be a sighting of mystery.
Often going unnoticed,
a source of many, if not all, stuff.
Seeing dao as Dao
has resolution powers.
Magnificent
in small, medium and large ways.
Magnifying dao glasses
provide sites for soar eyes.
noname
May 18, 2013, 6:45:24 AM5/18/13
to
On the other hand, you can get so used to not getting what you want that
you just stop bothering and accept whatever you get.
Or ignore what's offered if it's not worth the trouble of accepting it.
People who truly believe that they can set out to do some specific
thing, and actually do just that, without being done by it, because it's
what they want to do, are so busy stirring the mud that they'll probably
never notice themselves being done by their doing.
{:-])))
May 18, 2013, 9:47:21 AM5/18/13
to
noname wrote:
>People who truly believe that they can set out to do some specific
>thing, and actually do just that, without being done by it, because it's
>what they want to do, are so busy stirring the mud that they'll probably
>never notice themselves being done by their doing.
Maybe that's why
>People who truly believe that they can set out to do some specific
>thing, and actually do just that, without being done by it, because it's
>what they want to do, are so busy stirring the mud that they'll probably
>never notice themselves being done by their doing.
when asked who someone is
a response is what that person does.
That guy, he's a cop. Or a fireman.
An actor. A politician. Etc.
As if a given name, Bob, is not
who the person is.
I can imagine having possessions
but not be possessed by them.
I can imagine living in nation-states
of mind and not being willing to fight
nor die for that type of myth.
I can even imagine religions, and
having respect for many forms of belief
without needing to make others believe
the same way I might by the use of force.
I can imagine forms of heavens and hells
and wonder about many levels
of consciousness.
Maybe some day the world and its people
will live as one, having transcended
narrow-bands of perception.
That day could be today
for any one who has the capacity.
I'm tempted to try to change the world.
Perhaps I will lose it, or myself,
during the process of
being involved.
The world, and all its people,
are already one all the time.
Some people like to fight and to die
for what they believe in. And to try
to make others believe as they do.
Not everyone is nice all the time.
It might be nice if everyone were.
If everyone was nice all the time
there might be no way to know it.
Nothing to compare it to.
Except, maybe history.
I wonder how nice, how good,
would be good or nice enough.
Perhaps today is that day.
- as well
niunian
May 18, 2013, 8:17:04 PM5/18/13
to
于 2013年05月18日 07:15, {:-]))) 写道:
> noname wrote:
>
>> Desiring, one is concerned with stuff; beyond desire, one can see
>> the mystery behind stuff.
>
> If one desires to go beyond desire would seeing the mystery be
> impossible?
>
> Does the mystery resolve itself as one desires less and less?
>
> Kinda like wu-wei?
Wu-wei, actually means Wu-wo-wei. In English, non-doing actually means
> noname wrote:
>
>> Desiring, one is concerned with stuff; beyond desire, one can see
>> the mystery behind stuff.
>
> If one desires to go beyond desire would seeing the mystery be
> impossible?
>
> Does the mystery resolve itself as one desires less and less?
>
> Kinda like wu-wei?
non-self-doing. It's not about desiring less. It's about desiring wise.
>
> Less is better. Keep on dropping something until 48 occurs?
>
> I guess desire can be as much a thing as any thing one might do, or
> do without, or do without doing.
>
> Forgetting about desire might be a dao.
in desire is to experience the work of dao.
>
> Allowing it to flow.
>
> Remembering to forget could be a conundrum, possibly problematic.
>
> When desiring, being concerned and involved with whatever stuff may
> be, eventually desire might fade, a way, or be consumated in some
> way.
>
> Either way, I can imagine desire running its course, and then,
> perhaps, a mystery of desire is clear, if one cares, or does not
> care, enough, to notice.
>
> Hunger, thirst, rest, play, desire appears to me to be natural.
>
> Being too serious, all too serious, when that occurs, suggests a form
> of a problem.
>
> Seeing how stuff, as things, arise mutually tends to be a sighting of
> mystery.
>
> Often going unnoticed, a source of many, if not all, stuff.
>
> Seeing dao as Dao has resolution powers.
>
> Magnificent in small, medium and large ways.
>
> Magnifying dao glasses provide sites for soar eyes.
>
Life is what we experience. To live life, desire is very much necessary.
niunian
May 18, 2013, 8:25:07 PM5/18/13
to
of what they are doing, better practice non-self-doing is very much in
order. There should be nothing wrong in what they desire and do if they
can get rid of their self even more.
noname
May 19, 2013, 6:30:14 AM5/19/13
to
There is a spectrum of "desire". At one end the individual is possessed
by his desires, will do anything for them. At the other end desires are
recognized as transient and unimportant.
Events place choices before us. We can respond to each, or let it pass.
Life can be lived without desire, in the sense of life's not being
controlled by desire. Initiating a causal chain out of desire amounts
to enslaving yourself to that desire; choosing to respond to a given
event in one way instead of another is more a matter of what you are
than what you want.
noname
May 19, 2013, 6:47:46 AM5/19/13
to
improve the world by setting out to improve it, but by following Tao
rather than following desire, you allow the mud of its apparent
imperfections to settle; by trying to improve it, you stir the mud.
> Perhaps I will lose it, or myself,
> during the process of
> being involved.
>
> The world, and all its people,
> are already one all the time.
>
> Some people like to fight and to die
> for what they believe in. And to try
> to make others believe as they do.
>
> Not everyone is nice all the time.
> It might be nice if everyone were.
>
> If everyone was nice all the time
> there might be no way to know it.
>
> Nothing to compare it to.
>
> Except, maybe history.
>
> I wonder how nice, how good,
> would be good or nice enough.
instead they make up rules for being "nice" and "good" and usually end
up opposing Tao.
When you read of the sage, he is seldom described as "nice" or "good",
more often the words "mysterious" and "ruthless" apply; following Tao
alone, the sage may appear heartless to those who have rules for being
"nice" or "good".
When choice boils down to move or stay put, it is easier to see whether
we are following desire or following Tao.
niunian
May 19, 2013, 6:59:45 AM5/19/13
to
other times it is very much possessed by desire. There is no middle
ground between them. The important thing is to realize that all is good
and necessary as part of journey in life.
noname
May 19, 2013, 7:19:55 AM5/19/13
to
states. On the other hand, there is a transition point between the two,
which is not so much a "middle ground" as a deciding place; without
such, no one could ever move from one state to the other. It is when we
become aware of that place and our existence in it that we become able
to choose, to interact as other than a helpless victim.
> The important thing is to realize that all is good
> and necessary as part of journey in life.
not always as they might better be. We can say that making bad choices
is how we learn better, that we must touch the stove to learn it is hot,
but even knowing it is hot our desires can lean us on it.
niunian
May 19, 2013, 8:30:23 AM5/19/13
to
we may come to a place to be free from its grip temporarily, to
recuperate, to rest, to reflect, and to awaken. However, life must go
on, therefore, once again we have to dive into the sea of desire in
order to live life. Your transition point is just a point where you make
a decision to either live life or postpone it for a later time.
In true freedom which is called enlightenment, one does not see oneself
being a victim of desire(life), one sees desire as a necessity and a
challenge in life.
>
>> The important thing is to realize that all is good
>> and necessary as part of journey in life.
>
> What we are offered always includes a way forward, but our choices are
> not always as they might better be. We can say that making bad choices
> is how we learn better, that we must touch the stove to learn it is hot,
> but even knowing it is hot our desires can lean us on it.
than our own self pity? absolutely nothing.
0 new messages