sirguessalot

hey Mike i recall how, when we met and hung out, my thoughts on that apparent contradiction during the infamous ascension of Jesus seemed to pique your interest a bit (though we were also saying goodnight at the time...so off we went) and so, i was wondering if you've given any time to it since? i can elaborate on any of it (if you want, or dare...lol). also, i think i brought it up this or the previous page of this thread.

thats funny, Danny makes me think of how human language and schools of thought, it seems, is deep in yet another phase of hyper-specialization (to match our hyper-growth, it seems). the jungle is more exotic with specialists than it ever has been. like so many compartments of jargon. where we are doomed to misunderstand a lot a lot a lot of things example, even within western medicine, some fields of study have a hard time communicating and collaborating at all, which has produced "heaps of piles" of mostly exclusive value-sets (tied to language), simple misunderstanding is the name of the game. same words, many different schools of fish. its ironic, too, how we are growing somewhat explosively, anthropologically, yet it is getting harder and harder to talk to each other reminds me of scriptural "Babylon," and how it seems we need a new "tongue" these days. one that serves us beyond the conventional limits of language (if we hope to dialogue regarding "God" at all)

i think we would probably do good for us to agree to disagree, Thom too many "fundamental" differences, ya know? (though we might also agree on more than it seems)

sorry Thom just an impression i got regarding what you were saying about literal air and death and whatnot 99.9% of the lessons of scripture are figurative, no? (not 50%, or 75%, but more like 99.9%, it seems) Jesus himself said he used them for a reason. Paul speaks in a mystery. Peter mentioned how easy it was to misunderstand him (and people twist it to their own demise) OT prophets spoke in riddles and enigmas a plenty (Song of SOlomon, anyone?) and yes, i actually do want to be free to think whatever i want as the spirit moves me. dont you? freedom is the component of discipleship and yes, words do mean things. and are quite alive. sometimes, they mean more than one thing which presents a new problem there purity is in their living nature not their hardened orderly literal nature the figures are very meaningful. something bullinger (and VP) got right, imo, is how figures are often truer than the literal truth when the figures baffle us, and in our "helplessness," we often call them literal which is when we get into more trouble, i think. but the figures are meant to come alive, as we compare spiritual things with spiritual words. there is also an element of "seeing the words" over simply reading them in a scientific way the words of the word originated from purer forms and archetypes, that have shapes that transcend written or spoken language language of light can "flash in our head like lightning" sometimes, radically altering the landscape of our mind against our will like earthquakes, or our inner scroll/map of the heavens being rolled up and removed i appreciate that. and i appreciate you, Thom and yes, i am being silly. like a child, at times just like the master himself taught lol

thanks for chimin in, Socks and taking the time there is that notion of commonality like you've described (which i dont recall the term used), but that is not how the composite view is developed, if i am understanding you correctly. The different traditions and philosophies are also recognized for their different values and strong suits quick crude examples: some are more interiorly developed some more exteriorly and some are more communally developed some more agentic some are a gift to rational and post-rational thought, and some are developed in their ability to handle old mythic representation etc... in that sense, the religions and philosophies are not forced into a box together with equal shapes, just because they have something in common but added to a neutral framework they hang on kinda forms itself around them and their values, common or otherwise making for one exotic huge never-finished model I think this is where is a high value placed on "lineage" when it comes to traditions. Those gemstones of practitioners in each tradition that are often buried under mountains of looser modern translations (which, btw, also have their place in integral theory...in fact, some folks are not upset with integral theory, per se, but get more upset at how certain other enemy philosophies are included) why not? to use some sort of inclusive principle as a baseline, that simply will not reject anything as completely untrue or invalid? the assumption that NO translation of truth is complete or absolute, but all expressed truths are indeed partial. in that, every one is somehow partially true, and those parts are almost never equal, or the same wavelength. in short, the idea that no one is smart enough to be 100% wrong. (there is more to it, too. i am not the best rep for integral theory) also, there is an emphasis on the difference between translative aspects, and transformative aspects of methods in that, experiences of things are very often similar (in transformative experience), regardless of names and language also, integral theory is quite complex. it has morphed and developed for over 30-40 years now. Ken Wilber did not coin the phrase "integral" either (i forgot who), nor is the only writer on the subject. and it takes quite a while to get a grasp of all the components of the theory. many times, critics obviously do not understand it before they critique it. which is understandable. reminds me of Zixar's great tagline "its not my fault if you didnt read the whole thing." happens a lot to Wilber's work. i think it is. They do comprehensive surveys and whatnot, and people from all walks of life and religions sit through the Big Mind process. and they found that, regardless of background, skepticism is basically the major thing that stops people from playing with it. (when publicly introducing the process, Genpo Roshi said that his mother and a Zen master where the only two who did not make it all the way) But the process is disarming enough, and the skeptical voice is such a vital part of the process, that even most skeptics will give it a shot.

so as not to so clumsily derail this thread... i actually think that "Mike" (via his master books) is onto something regarding the possibility that during an earthquake, graves would be opened. and by the time it made it into gospels, the story may have been embellished a bit (as with other parts of the gospels) but also, another possibility, is that the "appearing of the saints unto many" was an appearing in people's dreams, or as visions during meditation. (as opposed to the zombie invasion idea, or a bunch of apparitions floating around the city)

not sure what you mean by that but in light of the idea of a WET weekend...lololol it is written: if the "substance" of spirit is the very water we all always live in the fish do not know they are wet and so the goal of a spiritual teacher is not to add something new (like VPs spirit) but to skillfully point at the obviousness of God, who is everywhere or some such thing

another thing... if death is considered an enemy and we are supposed to love our enemies...?!? leaves a different kind of scriptural contradiction, i would think like...is Paul's "dying daily" only a literal physical death too?

yeah, i think n olonger mistaking the figures for the true is a big part of the OT to NT lesson i mean, do we think there will be a ten headed dragon rise from the sea? or that there is will be this lady riding on its back? or that there will be all these bird cages? or seven golden trumpets are gonna be blown by angels? or that there is this literal seven-eyed blood-covered lamb who reads books? etc... or that Paul was speaking of simple horticulture when he spoke of the "death" of a seed? and of the celestial and terrestrial bodies? is the death of the terrestrial body the only death Paul describes? yeah, the one-time group thing is has pretty much become the standard expectation of the expressions of a spiritual event horizon and the value and validity of inward experiences have become shipwreck, in a sort of modern western christian "bodyism," if you will i recall the confusing statements of the M.I.W. (men in white) when Jesus ascended: here, they tell them NOT to look up in the sky because Jesus is coming back the same way he entered heaven which, obviously, is NOT up in the sky which seems like a contradiction and so a good question might be... then how and when did he "enter heaven?" because that is how he is coming back, right? one basic scriptural notion that comes to mind is this... "the daystar rising in our hearts" "today is the day" is that then the path to heaven? our hearts? or some inward direction? the tiniest narrowest path? and somehow involved with our very breath (meet him in "air")? (not the literal sky) ive heard it said and written: that modern christian thought has more or less reversed things just as the apostles did for a bit where the "new birth" is considered a spiritual thing and the "return/arrival of Christ" is a physical thing ...when perhaps it is more likely exactly the other way around (or inside out) (or maybe not two different events at all) on somewhat of a side note: who are the apostles speaking to John of Patmos at the very end of the book of Rev? and who are the 24 elders, described as being quite alive and well in the throneroom of God beforethe lamb opened the seals? is death still their enemy?

thanks Garth and try not to read over-sensitivity into my response so much i'm as cool as a cucumber...really just like you :D--> p.s. by f-word i meant my use of the word "fart"

a few more thoughts... its not that death itself is destroyed (death itself being a destruction), but that it is the last enemy to be destroyed. when we no longer consider death the enemy, but as Paul described it...necessary for the seed to come alive... in other words...of all the enmities that live and thrive in the human heart and soul our perceptions and experiences regarding death itself is a final crossroads of sorts (like the fourth horsemen) and some sort of intersection between "heaven and earth" when death and hell are swallowed up in victory ("hell" being the anguish and pain associated with the process of dying) "death" becomes the path to rebirth, but perhaps better viewed as a "death of perception," which obviously comes with physical death which is why we might want to learn to "die before we die"

one of the common misunderstandings i see going on here, is regarding the timing and location of the infamous "destruction of the last enemy" sections. i know it can be a hard shift for many, but according to some, "to learn to die before you die" is a greater lesson of Christ and the early Christians. and a large part of the discipline required to do such amazing works, as recorded. as it allows for more courage to go out on a limb like they did, without fear for "self" much of modern christianity (and other religions) seems to see mere death of flesh as the primary meaning of "death" as it is used in scripture not that such bodily death isn't tragic, and often massively tragic, or that it does not play a part in this "dying before we die," but that the deep spiritual practices of the early disciples were towards the tasting and touching of this place beyond death imo, i think it is worth a re-read of the NT in this light also, sheds more light as to why carnal folks wanted to kill the preachers of this way disciple: "um...i can show you ways to die before you die" carnal: "oh yeah? prove it!" thwack! that being said... i also think the doctrines of "Are the Dead Alive Now?" are perhaps some of VPs most damaging "contributions" to christian spiritual understanding

sigh... last time i'll use the F-word around you, i guess last i recall, it used to be something funny, or cute, or even accidental (which was my first impression of your first impression) but dont worry, i dont even want to argue with you, man you'd probably keep me here for days, anyway but hey, here i go for a sec anyway...duh maybe i'll get lucky, eh? imo, the impressions in your most recent post are loaded with suggestion guised as arguments and now that you have for some reason admittedly allowed your first impression to become so strengthened as your primary impression i would be somewhat surprised if you ever bother to look into any of it any further, regardless of what i say (please surprise me...) i expect you might continue to "hmmmm" out your shallow but hardening impression, though just as uninformed as before, and yes, quite as rude as usual, if not a tad more (btw-when did voicing that someone is being rude become too rude and deserved of further rudeness? hmmmmmm? lol) and so yer right about possession of the thread...its all yours because i think it will be way too hard to ignore you, at this rate or try and write around you ummm... what a spaz :P--> thanks for nothing and...good luck with that, i guess :D--> and sigh :(-->...for what its worth...i dont think farting is some moral sin or character flaw, it usually just stinks and please, try and keep at least a few things clear before you further bury me in your boogers and poo (if that is what yer gonna do): -i never asked for an in-depth investigation as you suggested (i asked for thoughts, not gropes) -i did not specifically ask for a simple thumbs up or thumbs down (both of which might be considered farts or burps, imo). -i do not learn any of my responses from "these people" (i am actually trying pretty hard to keep up with your language style) -i dont think you are very qualified critic of "these people" (whatever that means) unless you think glancing at an event advertisment somehow qualifies you as such --> ;)--> i prefer momentarily exploring how things can be possible rather than endlessly arguing why they are not and yes, doubting everything at least once peace out, Todd

thanks for asking, Danny a lot of things, really. maybe most of all is the transparency of the organizers, and how well-documented the methods are. and how both old and new are respected by the institute that developed it. and how there is nothing new or super special to it, really. most of what is new and special, perhaps, is the arrangement, and the overall framework and presentation. and i really have come to appreciate both "cutting-edge" and "time-tested" philosophies and practices. Because much of the world, it seems, is stuck in one or the other (at the expense of both). i also really like the lack of prejudice (racial, academic and otherwise) inherent in the approach. and not due to some "everything is equal in value" flatland approach either, but an attempt at a rational and comprehensive evaluation of elements for what they are worth and the massive amount of live open dialogue that goes into "the work" also, even though i have yet to see as comprehensive and coherent an approach as integral theory, in an intellectual sense, there are also quite a few other valid and relevent emerging schools of thought and movements that i believe are touching on things the integral institute does not. no, i am not introducing "my new cult" to the GSC i am a cult of one...lol more like a wandering minstrel who pops in from time to time who likes to relate the tales of my journeys (in spite of the often sour mood that pervades)

i think confirming and denying are among the easiest things. denial is always immediately available. confirmation requires that you at least try and perform the injunction, or otherwise investigate. i mean, one can deny a place exists without ever stepping foot there. and one can confirm that such a place exists by simply going there. and of course, how an experience is translated is another issue... i think a big problem comes in when someone who has actually been there is interacting with someone who denies that it exists. sad for both, really. especially if the skeptic is willing to spend more energy on their position, or is otherwise self-programmed to simply mostly always deny and doubt things. (which is the gift of skepticism and the curse of the skeptic) a good example of this for me is when people vehemently deny the reality of "ghosts" and "hauntings." i know they have not seen and experienced what me and others saw and and experienced, more than once. not that my translation of what happened is absolute...but some abnormal events did occur. anyone who denies this is a fool (in this case). they might not know they are a fool (in this case). but i do. in fact, i cant help but know it. so i'm kinda screwed, too i think we need to cut each other some slack in regards to what is "real" and how we interpret reality, because there is new data pouring in all the time especially these days. but it will not be evaluated fairly and honestly if the evaluators disregard their own huge blind spots (i.e. shadows) the shrinks need a shrink the doctors need a doctor the scientists themselves need to be put under a better microscope if you know what i mean...

thanks, cm. yer right. i guess maybe i expected too much. hoping folks might look into things a bit more on their own more before they shoot. also, i forgot how rude people can be, and didn't expect the usual single-note critics to be the first to show up. i will not make that mistake again. sorry, my bad. being lazy. grumpy. busy. :P--> - the Big Mind thing is a group-facilitated process where people are led through a wide variety of the states of the human mind (all of which are present and useful now, including the skeptic ;)-->), culminating in the state of mind that holds all of them together. its quite amazing really. it is described as "unsticking our inner gears," simply by introducing us to them, and then unifying them. in a playful environment. In Salt Lake, Genpo Roshi does the Big Mind stuff for free to whomever walks in off the street. btw - "genuine Satori" is not some special magical hard to reach place (though many spend their life looking for it, climbing mountains and what not). which is what this process demonstrates. i think this is where people get hung up on the language. also, in many traditions, "Satori" is more or less baby food anyway. We can have an aha moment, then go right back into being a dork for the rest of our life. This can actually make things worse for us and others. Some can get real mean when they cannot "get it back." - the shadow work is based on Jung's (and other's) psychological work on shadows of the ego, but taking it a few steps further by adding 1st 2nd and 3rd person perspectives to the process of exploring them. I've attended a shadow workshop before, and it was life changing for everyone involved. Highly rewarding practice, in general...the notion that "the shadow is golden," and that our greatest teachers are usually hidden in the darknesses of our own soul. the least likely and least desirable place to look, usually (which is a big reason why we usually simply suck much of the time, living in fear of the darkness...within ourselves, usually) - the 3 body katas (body, soul, spirit) are something i am really interested in. i don't know much about them specifically, but i am familar with the concepts and have some experience practicing with the various "energy bodies." yes, they are there. and i could use 3 simple katas that cover the spectrum like that. - the AQAL theory and Integral studies part is more academic than anything, i think. World class, too (not just fat claims of it, like PFAL). About as inclusive and non-sacred as they get (as opposed to the exlusive and super-dooper sacredness of twi). I suggest taking a look into them before writing them off. Karl Rove, Bill Clinton, and Tony Blair read integral theory, which is interesting. The claims made on the webpage are quite justified, not hyped. These weekend things sell-out pretty quick, too. And this is a diversely professional and academic but playful and loose environment. And there are plenty of real degrees involved. I often wish that our corn-field cult experience hadn't burned us so bad that we are unable to step foot near classes and teachers. Its like so many of us have come to simply assume treachery and failure and error and deception, which is a travesty. When there are a lot of amazing things being learned in the world today, in spite of the growing BS. The universe seems quite stubborn that way, imo. thank God

great...so you more or less farted on my thread gee thanks :P-->

One of the reasons i ask, is because i am only slightly familar with Momentus (from what i've read here). But from what i do know of Momentus, it sounds like this wet weekend thing is different in more than a few ways. Though, i know how cult-shy we are. Which can tend toward knee jerk reactions to the idea of "spiritual workshops" and what-not.

I'm curious...why did you write this? What part reminds you of Momentus? And did you investigate before responding? (you don't have to answer, of course)

i know i wasnt asked, but... i think we often get caught up in the language, mostly either 1) we have a death grip on 2000+ years old mythic translations of reality or 2) we reject the partially valid notions expressed by those same old translations of reality or 3) something else entirely, of course which leaves us mostly unable to relate and we end up with things like: "i do not understand how you can believe such a thing, therefore you must be crazy" or even "i do understand how you can believe such a thing, i just dont understand why i cant change your mind about it, therefore you must be crazy"

Hi all came across this recently: Integral Wet Weekend and can't help but wonder what you guys might think of it some are gonna hate it, or fear it, of course but some might appreciate the value of it peace, +ODD (edidet for spellign)

yeah, i think both scriptural expressions of water and fire baptism are beyond simple direct physical correlations. Thus, a water-based ritual (like traditional baptism) can be involved in the more inward fiery process of spiritual change. Just as actual fire or heat may be involved with a more watery process of change and healing (such as a sweat lodge, or laser surgery). yes, and a path through many kinds of sub-deaths. like gold refined in fire seven times. our values come to many crossroads in life. be it our personal values, or the values of a society

yep but also, not all such baptisms are the same some are immersed against their will all at once, maybe by suprise like being mugged by a crook in the night some learn of it first then go in with eyes open and practice dipping their toes with a sense of discipline, responsibility, etc... and then there are all those points between

i think the argument as to whether man did or did not cause a warming trend is too simple to get anywhere but absolute dead end answers because periods of heating and cooling are obviously quite natural and... humanity simply is capable of initiating environmental changes, especially considering the unprecedented magnitude of this, our newest biggest global industrial humanity in earth history the previous 11 shifts did not have quite the same industrial cocktail we have now to interact with other questions, maybe, is not whether we (or the devil or god) caused it or not, but how might we have participated in it? maybe its just a tad early? or a tad faster than it would have been? it wouldn't take near as much as 100% causing it if a "tip" rests on the brink for centuries... i mean, can we accidentally trigger a large undersea earthquake? and in our histories, haven't we caused huge deserts that might not have otherwise been there? ? get over the blame game, i guess and fasten your friggin seatbelts maybe start thinking about making your ark...21st century style

i would say that "the devil" is more likely to be the cause of our being terrified of climate change and perhaps the cause of our denial of evidences and further possibilities of radical climate change, and our role in it and perhaps our incompetence and inability to deal with it as effectively as we might and perhaps the cause of our ignorance to the good things that have and will come out of climate change right alongside the bad things but not the actual cause of bad weather (as in a saturday morning cartoon sense of the relationship)