satori001

That's great, reikilady.

Anyway, it reminded me slightly of Crash. Two basically good guys go at it on account of "historical forces" beyond their control. Some of those forces may have been set in motion by unwise choices of their own making, and others maybe not. Nowhere near as well done as Crash, but thought-provoking.

A dictionary is only a guide, CW.

Samuel L. Jackson and JayLo's ex what'sisname. Critics didn't like it. I saw the TV version a few nights ago. Anybody else?

Main Entry: black humor Part of Speech: noun Definition: in literature and drama, combining the morbid and grotesque with humor and farce to give a disturbing effect and convey the absurdity and cruelty of life I would change the definition to this extent: ...combining the morbid and grotesque with humor and farce to give a disturbing effect and reveal the absurdity and cruelty of a person, circumstance, institution, culture, but rarely if ever all of life. "Life" is too broad and vague a subject for most black humor I've come across. My targets were TWI and Catholocism. Life is a lot bigger than they are.

that's a black bloomer... or do the bloomers go under the habit? the black humor is a bad habit.

A cult will always reinforce and appeal to dependent behaviors. Dependent behaviors may also become addictive. We depend upon certain natural relationships in our lives. Family, community, filial, fraternal, sexual... These natural relationships ("natural affection" may be the KJV term) center us and fulfill us emotionally. Deprived of them, we may substitute other relationships to compensate. It could be a chemical dependency, an obsessive interest, anything to bridge the gap we feel. A cult conforms itself to a natural relationship, and attempts to replace it. It might be your substitute father, or mother, or family, or "tribe," whatever tribe means to you, or even lover. The cult, as a counterfeit "father" for example, presents itself as the idealized version of the father who didn't fulfill everything we needed. It steps in with paternal cues, a "father figure," a demand for discipline, an authoritative voice, etc. A maternal cult might offer comfort and nurture, and demand submission to the family it offers. This is how they trigger behaviors and feelings already familiar to us, and allows them to side-step our defenses. The doctrine is important too, but the emotional component is what makes it a toxic tribe, an addictive social order, a.k.a., a cult. The doctrine is really there to support the behaviors that reinforce cycles of dependency. Everything else about doctrine is irrelevant, in a cult. It's just window dressing. Most cults use more than one approach because they are intelligent. They learn what works for them. They create a constellation of these relationship triggers, knowing some of us will respond better to some than others. Don't be fooled by the overt signs, or lack of them. Look for the emotional appeals, and the price demanded for satisfaction. Take a peek at Scientology, and of course, The Way International. For many of us, The Way was "Dad." Or a "lover," in that it supplied an abundance of partners. Bear in mind that not everyone in a cult is equally bound by their emotional needs. Some people are just there for the fun. When the fun stops, they leave. Others are so needy, they feel they might even lose themselves if they left. It takes all kinds, just like everywhere else.

It was black humor, but not a joke. The story reminded me of TWI's standard response to the criticism of "unbelievers." I thought the wording would pretty much speak for itself. As for the nun's fate, I've shared my opinion of the Catholic cult before. Crucifying a nun is isn't so extreme, considering the magnitude of human misery Catholicism brings into the world in God's name with their wretched teachings.

Here is the new list, same as the old list: Bashful, Doc, Dopey, Grumpy, Happy, Sleepy and Sneezy

Anybody following the testimony? His fantasies included hanging an 11-year old girl from the sewer pipe in her family's basement. He murdered the entire family. He's so matter-of-fact and polite, as if describing a bad movie he'd seen the night before to a class. Or maybe recounting a morbid dream, which the describer feels confident never really took place. His victims sound like characters of a narrative, not people. They each have a role, and he has a role. His drama unfolds, and they die, as if it were all agreed in advance. There's no malice in his voice, no anger at the victims, no remorse at their fate. It's just about the role they each play. When the play is over, everybody gets to go home, if they survive. It's as if he might have invited them to church the next Sunday, and given them a friendly scolding about locking their doors, and not trusting strangers. He provides commentary on the mind of a serial killer, as if he were his own confessor, eager to share what he'd learned with a rapt audience. O'Reilly called him "evil" tonight. That didn't take much imagination. Belaboring the obvious tells me we don't know much about what we call "evil." When we see Rader, we don't see the "monster" who committed those monstrous acts. We see its willing host. It's an odd thought.

The world will always condemn what it doesn't understand. Let's just be thankful that the priest took a stand and the nun was delivered.

Garth, isn't your post kind of lame? I mean, Coulter is frenetic, even hyperkinetic. "Vegetative" doesn't describe her at all, and she has constant media coverage. So what you're attempting doesn't even rise to the level of cheap shot. It does derail the thread, since she's not missing, and has nothing else to do with the topic.

Originally posted by laleo: More importantly, now that you brought it up, where did "gig" come from? The etymologist was stymied.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ "Greasespot Coupon" This coupon is worth $250 toward the purchase of a new monitor. There is no expiration date and it must be honored at ALL participating retailers. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Originally posted by laleo: Together, what do they accomplish? They should accomplish something generally "Christ-like" in each individual, supplying the agency and energy of the Creator to re-mold creation into its original image, one "miracle" at a time. Looking back now, I don't know what to make of those moments of healing; those moments when I thought I knew something or understood something beyond what I could have known or understood -- what was real and what was imagined. Same here. I feel the plausibility of something real (and "spiritual") behind the terrestrial fabric of our sense-perceptions and the cause-effect conclusions we draw from them. It's enough to go on, but nothing more. Also, I wonder how you're defining "power." Miracles? Or something more human? Miracles, the suspension of natural laws. If you feel like explaining, I'd like to hear about the experience you once had (or had many times, for all I know) that has you now putting it into a spiritual context. It was a single event, and a long time ago, probably the summer of '76 or '77. It gave me the clear and distinct sense that infinity and eternity were immediate and present, that I could (for example) reach to the horizon, and I could touch the sunset, as if it were a part of me. I never lost awareness of my surroundings. I only saw them in this new context, momentarily, a context in which my sense of "self" expanded to include our world, and the world(s) in which ours is suspended. It might have been a moment of "satori," as described by Clare Solloway, someone I've never heard of until her link came up in a search just now. The descriptions all seem fairly consistent, from one person to the next. She apparently has a "method." I don't know anything about that either. I can't really say that this was THE defining moment for anything, but certainly one of them. For a time in TWI I believed it might have been "possession." I probably put it out of my mind for a long time as a result. -- I may have misunderstood your question. I've had countless incidents, or co-incidents/coincidences, "teasers," which seem to reveal patterns of sympathy between inner thoughts and the outer world. Here's a recent example. Driving home from a "gig" (my latest bar band is a retro-rock/R&B thing, fun but otherwise unimpressive) a few weeks ago, I was thinking about the etymology of the word "gig." I couldn't guess what it might be, unless short for "engagement." A few days later, a radio talk show had on a well-known etymology expert/writer, and someone called in to inquire about the etymology of the word, "gig." Okay, it's a more popular word these days. In itself, it proves nothing. Many, many similar coincidental events prove nothing. But they do incline my imagination toward small "miracles."

Hear the story.

Despair can be funny.

I'll run through them tonight. Thanks!

Originally posted by sirguessalot: peace, Satori gotta tell ya, this thread has been a fascinating read but my timing sucks. i hope you have a good vacation I did, thanks. a few things come to mind... have you ever played in a chatroom? I have, but I don't think they serve this type of discussion. People need the time to reflect, if they're going to succeed in re-framing their beliefs in any other contexts. You can't do that in "real time." The illumination of a new, clear path can occur in a moment's reflection, but it still takes time to rearrange any mental furniture that is obstructing your view. The cup is always filling itself. It takes determination and discipline to empty it long enough to pour in something new. I'm not interested in your opinion. I'm interested in how you understand your opinion, its genesis, evolution... People get "windy" when they expound extemporaneously on abstracts (higher, conceptual stuff). A thread allows you to pare away the non-essential and get to your core meaning. and, you ever catch wind of the live doctrinal chat sessions some of us were playing with a few weeks back? I haven't had the privilege. i think you'd be pretty darn good at facilitating "open-space" and "talking circle" type dialogue sessions in fact, your idea of one-liners gave me an interesting idea for another talking circle "form" to play with also, the exchange betwen you and CM made me start thinking of some way of actually utilizing the different languages (like archaic bible speak) in order to get past them (but include them more objectively) I'm not sure how you could do that, when we all bring so many associations ("baggage") with KJV language. One-on-one, or in a closed setting maybe. But in an open forum, as much as possible, a common language is essential. I can't use KJV language as my own without feeling pretentious. For me it's a dead language, and ought to be. It has a great value for students, and worshippers no doubt, but little use for discussions like this one. In a way, it pre-empts the discussion and establishes its own implied conclusion. It usurps the present standard, "reason" (as much as possible), with another, KJV dogma. I've facilitated a number of discussions in a professional setting. I am kind of good at it, since you mention it, and I enjoy it btw - you ever hear of Genpo Roshi's "Big Mind Series?" Doesn't ring a bell. no, not another PFAL. but a simple "game" of using zen and psychology models to walk one thru various states of mind via a simple interactive Q&A dialogue pretty cool stuff I'll look for it. as it pertains to a brief something regarding "Whose Fault IS It?"... just blame this, i guess just this, as it is as it rises and falls even now where it moves it moves and where it sticks it sticks where it sees it sees where its blind its blind where there is smoke...blame fire (thank Something) Without dissection, or explanation, I'd like to see some "commentary" on this by the author. Thanks

Thanks. The sunscreen worked (but I still got a tan), there was lots of laughter, and all my sandcastles fell before the winged feet of a precocious 3-something, which is as it should be.

Farther than we think. There's a name for that phenomenon. The hundredth monkey? Something like that. I'm not back yet.

I'll be back in a week. Please talk amongst yourselves.

If that's the answer, then so be it.Why would "power" need to be incompatible with "love?" My "theory" is that they are inseparable. Or putting theories aside, they just oughta be, dang it. "...the spirit of power, and of love, and of a sound mind..." Why wouldn't all three go together, a "trinity" if you will? Three-in-one. That's not to say you can't experience love and be a bit crazy, or fail to "manifest pah-whirr frum-mawn hah!" But that none is complete without the other two, as my theory goes. (It's great to have opinions and theories again. I've been out of TWI for... ever, now, but I remember how nothing important was suitable, or even authorized, for speculation. Opinions were dangerous, and unadvisable.) I also suspect there is an order in which the three proceed. A sound mind, which is to say "peace" must come first. (Peace may itself follow from the direct realization of being loved, "perfectly," as someone like, say, God might love us.) Love, not simply expressed, but revealed and radiant, comes next. Power, the manifestation of love, follows as loves natural expression. I think the whole shabang goes down the terlit when we fail to understand these words, and that understanding does not come from a dictionary. Without spiritual understanding, you may as well chant from a phone book as pray. Your attention is not on God. It's on you-making-nice-words-to-your-mental-sketch-of-God. "Aren't I special?" you think. "God would have to look far and wide to find someone who can pray this well!" And yes, you are too precious for words. If the bible is a spiritual book (some of us have expressed reservations), wouldn't its every important concept require a spiritual context to be understood? And (I'm loathe to march in Wierwille's familiar Greek here, but...) understanding is the ginosko variety. A direct experience/revelation. The "glass, darkly" through which we see may be the physical/temporal context in which we attempt understanding spiritual experience. And we should try -if we can- to approach "revelation" as if we hadn't ever heard Vic utter the word. We might think of "revelation" here as "satori," to borrow a less familiar Japanese term - defined by me as "a moment's insight where all the pieces seem to fit together." (You might not know it, but I've always liked that word.) -edited for grammatical clarification, etc-

Honestly, I think that's unique to Wierwillianism, and whoever influenced his theology. It's quite possible. But then why would scriptures bring up anything about miracles and "dunamis" at all? Another metaphor?Experience would confirm it. I'd like to think there was more to it, even if we've gotten much of it wrong. Hope springs eternal, I guess. I like the Hebrews verse, although your reading is quite different than mine has been. My focus was always on "substance" and "evidence," and the apparent promise they held for a delivery at my doorstep. I get back to experiences that I might call "teasers." Patterns of events that indicate, to me at least, that there is some causal connection between the physical and spiritual, and in addition, human consciousness. Thanks for your post. Have a good vacation. I'll be doing the same, though I'm not gonna get much reading done.

Woo hoo! Then we're in great shape.