a good example of this for me is when people vehemently deny the reality of "ghosts" and "hauntings."
How about those that vehemently accept such?
I know you don't appreciate my imput. I tend towards the "smartass" end of the spectrum, no matter the subject, I admit. But don't you ever get tired of chasing rainbows? I mean, does ANYTHING tangible ever come out of any of your mind-expanding experiences?
I find I'm always far more intriqued by reality than I am by the often half-baked, spiritualized
"explanations" of same. Yes, the known laws of physics are more comforting to me than some garbled Jungian notion of "sychronicity" or somesuch.
But that's who I am, and maybe Garth is in that camp as well. The vague, the pseudo-scientific, the "feelings" based explorations of life's mysteries have zero allure. If there's no proof for something, then hypothesizing about it is a pointless fool's errand, for you don't even know if such a thing even exists yet.
But therein lies the rub. I don't set out to upset or antagonize, but our view of life itself is so disparate, it can be difficult to find common ground. Personally, I think you leave yourself open to disappointment far too readily, and are too willing to forgo critical thinking if something sounds "good". But then, that's how I (and possibly a few other of the GS "critics") view life. YMMV...
do you think it is possible that not all of them are blindly accepting, but that some are more or less obligated to process some actual experiences of "reality" that you may have never had yourself?
quote:
I know you don't appreciate my imput. I tend towards the "smartass" end of the spectrum, no matter the subject, I admit.
Yer right. I usually dont appreciate your input very much. And not due to the smartass part (a common ground between us, perhaps? lol), but because i know you are often uninformed (and seemingly willingly) about things you respond to as being so adamantly against. Which often serves to suppress free and open thought and dialogue (something you yourself might claim to value). Smartass can be light and useful, but it can also lead to dumb-foot real quick when it opens up to mocking, scorn, derision, ridicule, etc... Though some also easily justify indulging in these kinds of behaviours, too. Out of some unconscious dissatisfation with life in general (which i can also relate to at times)
Ironic, too, how you write "I tend towards the smartass end of the spectrum," and in the very next statement write: "But don't you ever get tired of chasing rainbows?"
I assume you mean chasing ever-elusive illusionary things (and not chasing "actual" rainbows, though i have chased them, too. Supernumeraries are my favorite kind).
I will also assume that since you mentioned how you tend towards an "end of the spectrum," you believe there actually is a spectrum to tend towards? (though whether your tendency is the end of it, or somewhere in the middle, is a simple semantic oversight, im sure. and you simply might not be aware of the fuller bandwidth)
Throughout the history of human thought and experience and science and whatnot, there are these perrenial notions and increasing evidence of an actual spectrum of human awareness, or some sort of "chain of being". and how human consciousness and understanding actually does exist and unfold in a rather stratified way, and how a variety of generic structures of consciousness serve as building blocks for evolutionary development, which eventually leads to more emergent structures.
particularly in the last half century, the rational scientific approaches have been applied along these lines, and in a wide variety of fields of cross-study, producing gobs of amazing data and valid questions of conventional thought. but sadly, there is also a growing pathological tendency to flat out deny the existance of any such stages or notions of hierarchy in human experience, in spite of the mounting evidence (this tendency is most common in old-fashioned boomers, these days, it seems).
how this plays out in "reality" is in memetic structures of values and behavior. and of the more recent contributions to this study of spectrum of experiences, a valuable one, is the notion that we are most healthy (alone and together) if all value memes are considered valid and vital aspects of this spectrum of being (though they may be experiencing shadows or some other exclusivity)
a quick point is, i guess, no matter what color of values you favor in this spectrum, one would do good to realize that there are more notes than one (or even two) on the ole anthropological flute. And most likely extending above you as well as below you.
quote:
I mean, does ANYTHING tangible ever come out of any of your mind-expanding experiences?
again, i can assume you have already answered this in your head, but i will tell you that my life (like most anyone else's) has been and continues to be an adventure of both improvements and failures and new discoveries and re-discoveries and change. I consider my perspectives to be the most valuable (and quite tangible) changes of them all. Also, keep in mind that many of my "mind-expanding" experiences are about more than simple mind-expansion. just as importantly, it seems, is heart-expanding experiences, and capability-expanding experiences. so many things learned and experienced, in fact, that someday i intend to write a detailed biography of my journeys, which is going to be a helluva project. But i think it wise to wait til i am old and wise like you, geo, before i go translating all these experiences prematurely. I consider myself nowhere near being done with it all yet.
i wonder, will you also deny the value or validity of even this approach to experience? Would my book be of value to you, or society?
if so, i would say that you have cut more than one note out of your own potential for translating "reality."
quote:
I find I'm always far more intriqued by reality than I am by the often half-baked, spiritualized
"explanations" of same.
I am not going to deny your self-imposed limits on what intrigues you, or the way you apply the word "reality" to definitions that only exist in your own mind.
i will assume that something being merely "half-baked" is contrary to your values (though it might only be my limited ability to explain something that is half-baked, not the actual fields of study i like to gab about). Its kinda like condemning sin for being a state of incompleteness. or a fetus for being unborn.
and i guess i can probably assume that "spiritualization" is likewise something invalid to your experience and understanding. To which i can partially agree, especially how you so loosely applied the term. the S-word (without the suffixes) has over a dozen useages in english alone
"spiritualized explanations," as i think you mean by it, simply are what they are. which are often vital parts beyond (or even below) your favorite note on the spectrum. both pre-rational and post-rational structures and ways of being have been proven to be necessary to our overall sanity, basically. like storytelling, or visionary logic, theory, science-fiction writing, and other such useless things.
quote:
Yes, the known laws of physics are more comforting to me than some garbled Jungian notion of "sychronicity" or somesuch.
again, as much as it might seem to suck, your personal level of comfort (or not) with a thing is NOT the same as "reality," except to you, perhaps. but i think you know this.
the "laws of physics," such as they are, are one of the most relevent contributions to human thought and understanding. yet, in their infancy, they are also clumsily (and perhaps innocently) suppressing other members of the overall "bandwidth" of human experience.
also, just because Jungian notions of synchronicity and are garbled to you, does not mean they are also not understood by millions of rational-minded and post-rational minded human beings that share your air and rolling dirt ball.
that ole "i do not understand X, therefore X must be crazy" has ...well, quite a flavor of "crazy" all its own, to put it bluntly.
quote:
But that's who I am, and maybe Garth is in that camp as well.
geo, who any of us "are" is not so cut and dry anymore(though not willy nilly anything goes either, just not so cut and dried). Our image of self has been proven to be more or less a mere construct of our own making. The boundaries of "self" and "no-self" and "other" cannot be so simply stated, except as a translation of our experience. this might seem garbled to you, but if you take the time to google around a bit on both modern and post-modern studies regarding this kind of thing, even stubborn ole "you" might never be the same to "you" again. :P-->
quote:
The vague, the pseudo-scientific, the "feelings" based explorations of life's mysteries have zero allure.
Again, just because they are vague to you, or you cant tell the often subtle differences between pseudo-science and the more cutting-edge and emerging sciences (that might be out of your reach), i can understand the lack of allure for you. especially considering the growing mountains of BS so-called science and fear-mongering myths in the world. if i was more stubborn than even you, perhaps, might throw in the towel in this regard too.
also, "feelings" are proving to be a highly complex sense of awareness and vital part of overall human perception, but one that is really taking a hit in the public and social eye, due to so many loud (and usually uninformed) objections to its inherent value (which, of course, is often also grossly overstated by those who favor that color of the spectrum). Most of this rejection of feeling seems to be coming from that camp that sits in the deathgrip of the classic existential nightmare. Like wailing banshees (and often cognitive geniuses), disconnected from inward "reality" due to the devaluation of "feelings" and the other softer things. Preservation of the flesh (and usually one's own) is highest priority.
"Cold hard reality is God. And God is absolutely dead"
or "softer is weaker" (though one might ask, does not the wind laugh at metal when cut at with a sword?)
quote:
If there's no proof for something, then hypothesizing about it is a pointless fool's errand, for you don't even know if such a thing even exists yet.
again, much proof is often readily available for many things that are rejected by extreme skepticism, but quite off-limits to those who will neither investigate, nor perform the injunctions.
and ironic, to say that hypothesis is a foolish endeavour regarding things not yet proven...and you call yourself rational... :o-->
can you imagine what you might have to be doing to survive right now if this was held as true? yikes
often enough, the ways to prove a thing (especially via the more time-tested traditions), is really as simple as drinking a cup of tea.
as simple as that, and yet it can be a million miles away
quote:
But therein lies the rub. I don't set out to upset or antagonize, but our view of life itself is so disparate, it can be difficult to find common ground.
whew. I agree. But there are ways of actually practicing intersubjectivity, as a science, or art form, or social experiment, however you feel comfortable looking at it. Any extreme and sustained stances on our own little world-views is most liklely to result in this often bleak lack of common ground between value memes. Whether our worldview is self-centered, ethnocentric, system-centric, or flatland plurality, if we have drawn our own lines, chosen our own compartment of consciousness to dwell in.
"I dont understand why those people are doing X. And it bothers me."
this has been described as the unending "war of the memes." until one can reach a value structure which allows one to transcend and include all previous value structures, all other value structures are naturally considered "insane" to us. Our value program, if you will, will not allow us to see things otherwise.
I mean, look around...the majority of human population is at war with itself, mostly over simple values and perceptions and misunderstandings (which are based on pictures and expections and fantasies that live mostly in our heads). According to quite a few psychological studies, most of us are pretty crazy this way, though we have also come a relatively long long way in evolution of consciousness (though things can also devolve quickly, if conditions present themselves)
quote:
Personally, I think you leave yourself open to disappointment far too readily, and are too willing to forgo critical thinking if something sounds "good".
I cant tell whether you think this of me, or of people in general, when they "let down their guard," "go out on a limb," that sort of thing. so i will address both, i guess
I personally have few disappointments in life, and all the crazy crap ive touched. Not because i have justified my bad experiences, but because i have seen most of them through to the end. This involves a wide mix of personal and social practices i have learned in my "walk." Yes, practices, like art forms for the soul. they exist, some are old, some are old old, some are new, some are new new, but they often help many more people than reported, without turning them into culties, or fools. Lives have improved, and gobs of books have been written on the subject.
Also, my doubter works fine. But like i have said before, i prefer to carry it in my pocket, not in my hand. Also, i do not forgo critical thinking when something sounds good. Though, just because something sounds good, i am not going to reject it, simply because i have been wrong about what is good or bad so many times before.
Point is, i know that your statement does not apply to me, though i freely admit having the kahoonas to try new things. I was raised quite the wild child, in a sense. And this has proven to give me more diversity of experience than most people i meet. To put it plainly, i typically have more data.
quote:
But then, that's how I (and possibly a few other of the GS "critics") view life. YMMV...
yeah, seems quite obvious.
(ok, are you selling water by the river now?)
:P-->
a suggestion for those who share your view: unless you always want to play the same role in this stage of life
do everyone a favor and maybe learn a few more notes on that flute
after all, we are all in "this" together, no?
all it takes is practice, really
maybe some more knowledge
and a will to go for it
peace, geo
p.s. i'll stick around with all this if you havent lost interest yet
you can go point by point, if you like
or just give some overall responses
im open to whatever
btw-please forgive if i take an assumption too far
... but because i know you are often uninformed (and seemingly willingly) about things you respond to as being so adamantly against. Which often serves to suppress free and open thought and dialogue (something you yourself might claim to value).
ROFLMAO!!!! :D--> :D--> :D-->
Now it is clear that you don't know our George Aar very well. ... At all. :D-->
Thanks for the belly laugh. ... I just couldn't let that one slip by.
I'm glad you had the chance to "share", but I'm afraid we just don't view the world in the same light. And sorry, I'm still not much impressed. But it's your life, waste it or improve on it as you see fit.
I was just trying to sort of hold out the olive branch and try to explain where it is that I'm coming from, rather than always just being the smartass.
Let me just say, I'm not unwilling to accept anything that comes along, I just require a - seemingly substantial- amount more proof than you would seem to.
And, yes, there's all sorts of stuff I dismiss out of hand, with only a cursory look. Why? Because after awhile you get a feel for things. After I spent some time looking into chiropractic methods, homeopathy, and some other "alternative" medicine practices you start to see the same themes repeated over and over. "Toxins stored in your body" "energy channels", "metabolic imbalances" and such like are the constant refrain of the alternative community's. After awhile you don't need to spend a lot of time "researching" crystal therapy or such like, you've already heard the (bogus) claims a gazillion times, so you can quite reasonably write them off after a cursory inspection. After a short time, we all develop a basic "sniff" test, I think.
Likewise with all sorts of "gee whiz" claims of the paranormal. After some initial reading about psychics, remote veiwing, telekenisis and such, you don't need to spend a lot of time studying mind readers or crop circles or other such baloney, you've already handled the same sort of claims with a different name.
The basic test I would apply then, to any of the wonderful, spiritual techniques being pandered is simply "Does this agree with the laws of physics" If the answer is an obvious "NO!", well, time to move on.
So, no, I'm not closed-minded - at least from my perspective - I'm just not interested in spending another nanosecond with some bogus spiritual guide or seer. If they can't express their tenets in terms that agree with physics, "well, thank you very much, I'll be going now." It would seem that such a mindset is anathema to your belief system, but there you go. That's the difference between us...
garth, my point was, that when kinds and categories of things are so consistently poo-pood (or misrepresented) in a public forum (because geo or you are uncomfortable with them), some "weaker" (or less invested) folks will naturally be inclined to stop exploring the subject, in spite of the poo-pooers neutralish intentions. i said that it often unknowingly serves to suppress...cuz i really dont think it is geo's intention to do so (most of the time).
and please dont tell me that you think geo (or you) are always informed enough about everything you "critique." like i said before, i dont think smartass knee-jerk reactions (as fun as they may be to the jerker) necessarily qualify as a valid critique, as opposed to disinformation and intimidation...by sheer volume and persistance, if nothing else.
i believe that things are viewed mainly from a personal perspective
perspective meaning what a particular person has experienced and seen work or not work
to the benefit of themselves or those things
that the person has chosen to be the benefactor
so in a sense we are all limited in our perspective cuz everyone has not experienced everything. which is why communication is such a treasured thing in my book
to see perhaps from another persons perspective is a selfless act that can be done so easily because i think it is built into us to care
so rather then write off a claim it could be put in the "it could be" category of our thinking
so perhaps expanding our view, perspective, insight into what could be possible
if it hasn't been proved wrong then it could be right or beneficial
Something interesting worth noting, I think (and not as it applies personally to George's response, but as it reflects a typical reaction from what is more or less a sort of belief system, or otherwise codified perspective, as self-styled skeptics themselves often explain).
ok, compare (bold is mine)
quote:
And, yes, there's all sorts of stuff I dismiss out of hand, with only a cursory look. Why? Because after awhile you get a feel for things.
and
quote:
After a short time, we all develop a basic "sniff" test, I think.
to
quote:
The basic test I would apply then, to any of the wonderful, spiritual techniques being pandered is simply "Does this agree with the laws of physics" If the answer is an obvious "NO!", well, time to move on.
The skeptical self might also then demand the use of laws of physics to prove the absolute reliability of these two vague methods of sniffing and feeling truth, before they are allowed to be pandered as valid.
And sometimes, it seems, the label of an obvious "NO!" is applied to a thing when it is not so obvious.
It all kinda reminds me of the following short conversations we (a) can have with our rational skeptical self (b).
a: "do you love ____?"
b: "yes"
a: "ok, prove it"
The skeptical aspect of our overall self may have no choice but admit that it doubts love for _____. In fact, it will probably have to doubt the reality of the feeling of love altogether, or call it something else entirely (not that a skeptic is unloving...true love is inescapable, imo. Like how it is often described as a "falling", or even a "rising" impulse).
Likewise, the skeptical "Iago" aspect of our self must always doubt the widest range of useful things, like possibility, the future, the past...even the reality of consciousness itself (Although i must add, not even the most diehard of skeptics are really 100% skeptical all the time (life requires that we do things without doubting, or we would not live through the day, i would think), but that it has been chosen as the leader of the overall self, or some other sense of most important value).
Which is why I think it helps to see that the skeptical mind is but a tool in a kit of humans being. To the depth and degree we reject skepticism, we can't doubt things (and imo, ALL things must be doubted to death, at least once). And to the depth and degree we (personally or collectively) are stuck in the skeptical voice...faith is shipwreck, hope is lost, and impossibilities seem to mount.
Which is why I think it is valuable to doubt skepticism itself, in order for it to become self-aware and allow the overall self to shift into "higher gears." There are notions that every state of mind has a shadow side (or dual nature), which is why all states of mind work (and play) best together.
To use a very common metaphor, I think of this like "lighting all candles in the temple" in order to see the whole "throneroom," where we meet Christ, who is the image of God...yada yada yada. How else can we be considered to be whole (sozo,saved) in the full spectrum of body, soul and spirit?
No new good "thing" needs to be added, per se (like vpw and ilk often say of holy spirit)
And no evil things need to be removed, per se (like vpw and ilk often say of devil spirits)
But all good things are already there, and simply need to be unfolded, unpacked, unwrapped
Like cracking open some everpresent and eternal seed
Already equipped with an untold and unfinished story of many many chapters
Here is something interesting about the study of light in the human body
i like the part about how oil effects this. makes me wonder how light might be "moved" in a good ole massage, or what might happen if a bucket of hottish mineral oil were to be poured long and slow over someone's forehead
makes me think of how the ancients who did these kinds of things may not have had the modern rational evidence to prove or measure what was happening, or the language to hold such evidence, but they had some form of demonstrable proof, even if they had to make up a story or song to explain it
to see perhaps from another persons perspective is a selfless act that can be done so easily because i think it is built into us to care
i just wanted to say, that i think this is spot on. because it is built into us to care, as another aspect of the overall self. which requires us to somehow, some way, find ways to feel what another feels, see what another sees, hear what another hears, etc...
And, as it pertains to biblical scriptural tradition, i see a strong association with that ole notion of "fire baptism" discussed in another thread. because this art of being one with other, or feeling what they feel, seeing what they see, is often one of the most painful things we can do. to step outside of our sense of self is a form of dying. the effort might even evoke an actual physical sensation of pain in the heart. some might not like the pain, but that pain is an important sign of something being burned away.
there is a practice i have learned along these lines, which is something i believe akin to the things our favorite holy kid taught about pnuema hagion. it deals most directly with matters of our own heart, and serves to literally open us up. it has been called "tonglen" in other traditions. basically, it goes like this...
...breathe out, and make your intent to shine forth as light, in whatever shape or form you can imagine. big or small. simply imagining light radiating from you as you exhale will stimulate change in your own soul. clean, clear, cool light-filled breeze.
...inhale, accepting whatever pain, darkness, trouble, anguish you are faced with. take it in and consume it upon the fires of your heart, as if it was as star. you can picture it as thick, hot smoky tar. or whatever. but the point is to inhale the darkness and transmute it to light on the next exhale. its pretty simple. like a recipe for cookies, or something.
to practice switching between these two intents every time you breathe, is a simple way of being that will change you from the inside out. and if you honestly practice this, and play at it, developing your own ways to open up evermore, you will not be able to stop the change that comes from within. so be warned. your love will grow, your compassion will grow. you will most likely never be the same again. and there is little to nothing stopping anyone from trying it right now.
next time someone ticks you off on TV, or your child is suffering, or someone's beliefs rub you raw...exhale good intentions for them (just try it), and inhale the darkness as it is. feel the darkness of your enemy's ignorance, perhaps. along with the darkness of your own inability not to hate them, or be saddened by them. whatever. then on the exhale, simply pretend that your very own natural breath fills both yourself and them with light and goodness. no, its not magic, or complicated. nor is it owned by any tradition or religion (though some may have done a better job at developing it). more or less, it is a gift of simple human feeling and function, inherent in our very makeup...indeed, we are beautifully and wonderfully made. beyond our wildest dreams.
also, what we often naturally do when we breathe our intent is the very opposite of this. we want to inhale the good, and exhale the bad. when we seethe, it is an exhale of negative will. when we are desperate or lonely, our deep sigh is often one of gulping as much light and goodness as we can for mostly our own sense of self.
this where the biblical notion of repentence may apply. as there comes a time to turn it all around. or inside out. upside down. stand it on its head. reverse the flow. reverse the will. just stop and do the opposite of what you have known of self, and how you can simply be as a manifestation of love itself, rather than a mere recipient.
"love your enemy," the kid said
and do it for real
anyway,
thanks cm.
this is one of the most direct living-level practical ways i have ever found to expand and open our perspective at the heart level, and i thought some here might want to know of it.
as to what all this has to do with WET weekend...nothing really. but another vital aspect of the overall self being exercised and stirred...that inward lover perhaps? or a way to give birth to our sense of "big heart."
Recommended Posts
George Aar
How about those that vehemently accept such?
I know you don't appreciate my imput. I tend towards the "smartass" end of the spectrum, no matter the subject, I admit. But don't you ever get tired of chasing rainbows? I mean, does ANYTHING tangible ever come out of any of your mind-expanding experiences?
I find I'm always far more intriqued by reality than I am by the often half-baked, spiritualized
"explanations" of same. Yes, the known laws of physics are more comforting to me than some garbled Jungian notion of "sychronicity" or somesuch.
But that's who I am, and maybe Garth is in that camp as well. The vague, the pseudo-scientific, the "feelings" based explorations of life's mysteries have zero allure. If there's no proof for something, then hypothesizing about it is a pointless fool's errand, for you don't even know if such a thing even exists yet.
But therein lies the rub. I don't set out to upset or antagonize, but our view of life itself is so disparate, it can be difficult to find common ground. Personally, I think you leave yourself open to disappointment far too readily, and are too willing to forgo critical thinking if something sounds "good". But then, that's how I (and possibly a few other of the GS "critics") view life. YMMV...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
wow. thanks for putting it out there like that George
and for being so clear about your view of life and reality
and who you think you are
one question, i guess:
do you really want me to respond to it all in detail, point by point?
cuz i will try, if you are game
(but i will try and answer these more direct questions though)
yes and yesthough after what you've just written, i feel it safe to assume you are simply not interested and see little or no value in my experiences, anyway
(though i kinda hope i'm wrong on this, and not just because i think you make for a pretty decent foil
:P-->)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Give it a shot if you'd like. But, as you've probably guessed, I'm not an easy "sell" anymore...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
ok. here goes
btw - if im selling anything
its water by the river...lol
do you think it is possible that not all of them are blindly accepting, but that some are more or less obligated to process some actual experiences of "reality" that you may have never had yourself?
Yer right. I usually dont appreciate your input very much. And not due to the smartass part (a common ground between us, perhaps? lol), but because i know you are often uninformed (and seemingly willingly) about things you respond to as being so adamantly against. Which often serves to suppress free and open thought and dialogue (something you yourself might claim to value). Smartass can be light and useful, but it can also lead to dumb-foot real quick when it opens up to mocking, scorn, derision, ridicule, etc... Though some also easily justify indulging in these kinds of behaviours, too. Out of some unconscious dissatisfation with life in general (which i can also relate to at times)
Ironic, too, how you write "I tend towards the smartass end of the spectrum," and in the very next statement write: "But don't you ever get tired of chasing rainbows?"
I assume you mean chasing ever-elusive illusionary things (and not chasing "actual" rainbows, though i have chased them, too. Supernumeraries are my favorite kind).
I will also assume that since you mentioned how you tend towards an "end of the spectrum," you believe there actually is a spectrum to tend towards? (though whether your tendency is the end of it, or somewhere in the middle, is a simple semantic oversight, im sure. and you simply might not be aware of the fuller bandwidth)
Throughout the history of human thought and experience and science and whatnot, there are these perrenial notions and increasing evidence of an actual spectrum of human awareness, or some sort of "chain of being". and how human consciousness and understanding actually does exist and unfold in a rather stratified way, and how a variety of generic structures of consciousness serve as building blocks for evolutionary development, which eventually leads to more emergent structures.
particularly in the last half century, the rational scientific approaches have been applied along these lines, and in a wide variety of fields of cross-study, producing gobs of amazing data and valid questions of conventional thought. but sadly, there is also a growing pathological tendency to flat out deny the existance of any such stages or notions of hierarchy in human experience, in spite of the mounting evidence (this tendency is most common in old-fashioned boomers, these days, it seems).
how this plays out in "reality" is in memetic structures of values and behavior. and of the more recent contributions to this study of spectrum of experiences, a valuable one, is the notion that we are most healthy (alone and together) if all value memes are considered valid and vital aspects of this spectrum of being (though they may be experiencing shadows or some other exclusivity)
a quick point is, i guess, no matter what color of values you favor in this spectrum, one would do good to realize that there are more notes than one (or even two) on the ole anthropological flute. And most likely extending above you as well as below you.
again, i can assume you have already answered this in your head, but i will tell you that my life (like most anyone else's) has been and continues to be an adventure of both improvements and failures and new discoveries and re-discoveries and change. I consider my perspectives to be the most valuable (and quite tangible) changes of them all. Also, keep in mind that many of my "mind-expanding" experiences are about more than simple mind-expansion. just as importantly, it seems, is heart-expanding experiences, and capability-expanding experiences. so many things learned and experienced, in fact, that someday i intend to write a detailed biography of my journeys, which is going to be a helluva project. But i think it wise to wait til i am old and wise like you, geo, before i go translating all these experiences prematurely. I consider myself nowhere near being done with it all yet.
i wonder, will you also deny the value or validity of even this approach to experience? Would my book be of value to you, or society?
if so, i would say that you have cut more than one note out of your own potential for translating "reality."
I am not going to deny your self-imposed limits on what intrigues you, or the way you apply the word "reality" to definitions that only exist in your own mind.i will assume that something being merely "half-baked" is contrary to your values (though it might only be my limited ability to explain something that is half-baked, not the actual fields of study i like to gab about). Its kinda like condemning sin for being a state of incompleteness. or a fetus for being unborn.
and i guess i can probably assume that "spiritualization" is likewise something invalid to your experience and understanding. To which i can partially agree, especially how you so loosely applied the term. the S-word (without the suffixes) has over a dozen useages in english alone
"spiritualized explanations," as i think you mean by it, simply are what they are. which are often vital parts beyond (or even below) your favorite note on the spectrum. both pre-rational and post-rational structures and ways of being have been proven to be necessary to our overall sanity, basically. like storytelling, or visionary logic, theory, science-fiction writing, and other such useless things.
again, as much as it might seem to suck, your personal level of comfort (or not) with a thing is NOT the same as "reality," except to you, perhaps. but i think you know this.
the "laws of physics," such as they are, are one of the most relevent contributions to human thought and understanding. yet, in their infancy, they are also clumsily (and perhaps innocently) suppressing other members of the overall "bandwidth" of human experience.
also, just because Jungian notions of synchronicity and are garbled to you, does not mean they are also not understood by millions of rational-minded and post-rational minded human beings that share your air and rolling dirt ball.
that ole "i do not understand X, therefore X must be crazy" has ...well, quite a flavor of "crazy" all its own, to put it bluntly.
geo, who any of us "are" is not so cut and dry anymore(though not willy nilly anything goes either, just not so cut and dried). Our image of self has been proven to be more or less a mere construct of our own making. The boundaries of "self" and "no-self" and "other" cannot be so simply stated, except as a translation of our experience. this might seem garbled to you, but if you take the time to google around a bit on both modern and post-modern studies regarding this kind of thing, even stubborn ole "you" might never be the same to "you" again.
:P-->
Again, just because they are vague to you, or you cant tell the often subtle differences between pseudo-science and the more cutting-edge and emerging sciences (that might be out of your reach), i can understand the lack of allure for you. especially considering the growing mountains of BS so-called science and fear-mongering myths in the world. if i was more stubborn than even you, perhaps, might throw in the towel in this regard too.
also, "feelings" are proving to be a highly complex sense of awareness and vital part of overall human perception, but one that is really taking a hit in the public and social eye, due to so many loud (and usually uninformed) objections to its inherent value (which, of course, is often also grossly overstated by those who favor that color of the spectrum). Most of this rejection of feeling seems to be coming from that camp that sits in the deathgrip of the classic existential nightmare. Like wailing banshees (and often cognitive geniuses), disconnected from inward "reality" due to the devaluation of "feelings" and the other softer things. Preservation of the flesh (and usually one's own) is highest priority.
"Cold hard reality is God. And God is absolutely dead"
or "softer is weaker" (though one might ask, does not the wind laugh at metal when cut at with a sword?)
again, much proof is often readily available for many things that are rejected by extreme skepticism, but quite off-limits to those who will neither investigate, nor perform the injunctions.
and ironic, to say that hypothesis is a foolish endeavour regarding things not yet proven...and you call yourself rational...
:o-->
can you imagine what you might have to be doing to survive right now if this was held as true? yikes
often enough, the ways to prove a thing (especially via the more time-tested traditions), is really as simple as drinking a cup of tea.
as simple as that, and yet it can be a million miles away
whew. I agree. But there are ways of actually practicing intersubjectivity, as a science, or art form, or social experiment, however you feel comfortable looking at it. Any extreme and sustained stances on our own little world-views is most liklely to result in this often bleak lack of common ground between value memes. Whether our worldview is self-centered, ethnocentric, system-centric, or flatland plurality, if we have drawn our own lines, chosen our own compartment of consciousness to dwell in.
"I dont understand why those people are doing X. And it bothers me."
this has been described as the unending "war of the memes." until one can reach a value structure which allows one to transcend and include all previous value structures, all other value structures are naturally considered "insane" to us. Our value program, if you will, will not allow us to see things otherwise.
I mean, look around...the majority of human population is at war with itself, mostly over simple values and perceptions and misunderstandings (which are based on pictures and expections and fantasies that live mostly in our heads). According to quite a few psychological studies, most of us are pretty crazy this way, though we have also come a relatively long long way in evolution of consciousness (though things can also devolve quickly, if conditions present themselves)
I cant tell whether you think this of me, or of people in general, when they "let down their guard," "go out on a limb," that sort of thing. so i will address both, i guess
I personally have few disappointments in life, and all the crazy crap ive touched. Not because i have justified my bad experiences, but because i have seen most of them through to the end. This involves a wide mix of personal and social practices i have learned in my "walk." Yes, practices, like art forms for the soul. they exist, some are old, some are old old, some are new, some are new new, but they often help many more people than reported, without turning them into culties, or fools. Lives have improved, and gobs of books have been written on the subject.
Also, my doubter works fine. But like i have said before, i prefer to carry it in my pocket, not in my hand. Also, i do not forgo critical thinking when something sounds good. Though, just because something sounds good, i am not going to reject it, simply because i have been wrong about what is good or bad so many times before.
Point is, i know that your statement does not apply to me, though i freely admit having the kahoonas to try new things. I was raised quite the wild child, in a sense. And this has proven to give me more diversity of experience than most people i meet. To put it plainly, i typically have more data.
yeah, seems quite obvious.(ok, are you selling water by the river now?)
a suggestion for those who share your view: unless you always want to play the same role in this stage of life
do everyone a favor and maybe learn a few more notes on that flute
after all, we are all in "this" together, no?
all it takes is practice, really
maybe some more knowledge
and a will to go for it
peace, geo
p.s. i'll stick around with all this if you havent lost interest yet
you can go point by point, if you like
or just give some overall responses
im open to whatever
btw-please forgive if i take an assumption too far
or project my own vista where it may not apply
cyber forums are a shallow connection
feel free to correct me
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
ROFLMAO!!!!
:D--> 
:D--> 
:D-->
Now it is clear that you don't know our George Aar very well. ... At all.
:D-->
Thanks for the belly laugh. ... I just couldn't let that one slip by.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Well, Sirguess,
I'm glad you had the chance to "share", but I'm afraid we just don't view the world in the same light. And sorry, I'm still not much impressed. But it's your life, waste it or improve on it as you see fit.
I was just trying to sort of hold out the olive branch and try to explain where it is that I'm coming from, rather than always just being the smartass.
Let me just say, I'm not unwilling to accept anything that comes along, I just require a - seemingly substantial- amount more proof than you would seem to.
And, yes, there's all sorts of stuff I dismiss out of hand, with only a cursory look. Why? Because after awhile you get a feel for things. After I spent some time looking into chiropractic methods, homeopathy, and some other "alternative" medicine practices you start to see the same themes repeated over and over. "Toxins stored in your body" "energy channels", "metabolic imbalances" and such like are the constant refrain of the alternative community's. After awhile you don't need to spend a lot of time "researching" crystal therapy or such like, you've already heard the (bogus) claims a gazillion times, so you can quite reasonably write them off after a cursory inspection. After a short time, we all develop a basic "sniff" test, I think.
Likewise with all sorts of "gee whiz" claims of the paranormal. After some initial reading about psychics, remote veiwing, telekenisis and such, you don't need to spend a lot of time studying mind readers or crop circles or other such baloney, you've already handled the same sort of claims with a different name.
The basic test I would apply then, to any of the wonderful, spiritual techniques being pandered is simply "Does this agree with the laws of physics" If the answer is an obvious "NO!", well, time to move on.
So, no, I'm not closed-minded - at least from my perspective - I'm just not interested in spending another nanosecond with some bogus spiritual guide or seer. If they can't express their tenets in terms that agree with physics, "well, thank you very much, I'll be going now." It would seem that such a mindset is anathema to your belief system, but there you go. That's the difference between us...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
garth, my point was, that when kinds and categories of things are so consistently poo-pood (or misrepresented) in a public forum (because geo or you are uncomfortable with them), some "weaker" (or less invested) folks will naturally be inclined to stop exploring the subject, in spite of the poo-pooers neutralish intentions. i said that it often unknowingly serves to suppress...cuz i really dont think it is geo's intention to do so (most of the time).
and please dont tell me that you think geo (or you) are always informed enough about everything you "critique." like i said before, i dont think smartass knee-jerk reactions (as fun as they may be to the jerker) necessarily qualify as a valid critique, as opposed to disinformation and intimidation...by sheer volume and persistance, if nothing else.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
fair enough, geo
and no, not anathema to me, honestly
just a travesty, i guess
truth is, some share and ambrace your purely physical worldview
but do not allow themselves to be limited to it alone
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
and i want to make it clear (to clear up any of the sloppier impressions that may have been left)
the folks who put on the WET weekend do not make claims contrary to the laws of physics
nor do they fully subscribe to the "paranormal" stuff in the strawmanish way geo set them up
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
i believe that things are viewed mainly from a personal perspective
perspective meaning what a particular person has experienced and seen work or not work
to the benefit of themselves or those things
that the person has chosen to be the benefactor
so in a sense we are all limited in our perspective cuz everyone has not experienced everything. which is why communication is such a treasured thing in my book
to see perhaps from another persons perspective is a selfless act that can be done so easily because i think it is built into us to care
so rather then write off a claim it could be put in the "it could be" category of our thinking
so perhaps expanding our view, perspective, insight into what could be possible
if it hasn't been proved wrong then it could be right or beneficial
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
Something interesting worth noting, I think (and not as it applies personally to George's response, but as it reflects a typical reaction from what is more or less a sort of belief system, or otherwise codified perspective, as self-styled skeptics themselves often explain).
ok, compare (bold is mine)
andtoThe skeptical self might also then demand the use of laws of physics to prove the absolute reliability of these two vague methods of sniffing and feeling truth, before they are allowed to be pandered as valid.And sometimes, it seems, the label of an obvious "NO!" is applied to a thing when it is not so obvious.
It all kinda reminds me of the following short conversations we (a) can have with our rational skeptical self (b).
a: "do you love ____?"
b: "yes"
a: "ok, prove it"
The skeptical aspect of our overall self may have no choice but admit that it doubts love for _____. In fact, it will probably have to doubt the reality of the feeling of love altogether, or call it something else entirely (not that a skeptic is unloving...true love is inescapable, imo. Like how it is often described as a "falling", or even a "rising" impulse).
Likewise, the skeptical "Iago" aspect of our self must always doubt the widest range of useful things, like possibility, the future, the past...even the reality of consciousness itself (Although i must add, not even the most diehard of skeptics are really 100% skeptical all the time (life requires that we do things without doubting, or we would not live through the day, i would think), but that it has been chosen as the leader of the overall self, or some other sense of most important value).
Which is why I think it helps to see that the skeptical mind is but a tool in a kit of humans being. To the depth and degree we reject skepticism, we can't doubt things (and imo, ALL things must be doubted to death, at least once). And to the depth and degree we (personally or collectively) are stuck in the skeptical voice...faith is shipwreck, hope is lost, and impossibilities seem to mount.
Which is why I think it is valuable to doubt skepticism itself, in order for it to become self-aware and allow the overall self to shift into "higher gears." There are notions that every state of mind has a shadow side (or dual nature), which is why all states of mind work (and play) best together.
To use a very common metaphor, I think of this like "lighting all candles in the temple" in order to see the whole "throneroom," where we meet Christ, who is the image of God...yada yada yada. How else can we be considered to be whole (sozo,saved) in the full spectrum of body, soul and spirit?
No new good "thing" needs to be added, per se (like vpw and ilk often say of holy spirit)
And no evil things need to be removed, per se (like vpw and ilk often say of devil spirits)
But all good things are already there, and simply need to be unfolded, unpacked, unwrapped
Like cracking open some everpresent and eternal seed
Already equipped with an untold and unfinished story of many many chapters
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
Here is something interesting about the study of light in the human body
i like the part about how oil effects this. makes me wonder how light might be "moved" in a good ole massage, or what might happen if a bucket of hottish mineral oil were to be poured long and slow over someone's forehead
makes me think of how the ancients who did these kinds of things may not have had the modern rational evidence to prove or measure what was happening, or the language to hold such evidence, but they had some form of demonstrable proof, even if they had to make up a story or song to explain it
thank god the map is never the territory
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
cm wrote:
i just wanted to say, that i think this is spot on. because it is built into us to care, as another aspect of the overall self. which requires us to somehow, some way, find ways to feel what another feels, see what another sees, hear what another hears, etc...And, as it pertains to biblical scriptural tradition, i see a strong association with that ole notion of "fire baptism" discussed in another thread. because this art of being one with other, or feeling what they feel, seeing what they see, is often one of the most painful things we can do. to step outside of our sense of self is a form of dying. the effort might even evoke an actual physical sensation of pain in the heart. some might not like the pain, but that pain is an important sign of something being burned away.
there is a practice i have learned along these lines, which is something i believe akin to the things our favorite holy kid taught about pnuema hagion. it deals most directly with matters of our own heart, and serves to literally open us up. it has been called "tonglen" in other traditions. basically, it goes like this...
...breathe out, and make your intent to shine forth as light, in whatever shape or form you can imagine. big or small. simply imagining light radiating from you as you exhale will stimulate change in your own soul. clean, clear, cool light-filled breeze.
...inhale, accepting whatever pain, darkness, trouble, anguish you are faced with. take it in and consume it upon the fires of your heart, as if it was as star. you can picture it as thick, hot smoky tar. or whatever. but the point is to inhale the darkness and transmute it to light on the next exhale. its pretty simple. like a recipe for cookies, or something.
to practice switching between these two intents every time you breathe, is a simple way of being that will change you from the inside out. and if you honestly practice this, and play at it, developing your own ways to open up evermore, you will not be able to stop the change that comes from within. so be warned. your love will grow, your compassion will grow. you will most likely never be the same again. and there is little to nothing stopping anyone from trying it right now.
next time someone ticks you off on TV, or your child is suffering, or someone's beliefs rub you raw...exhale good intentions for them (just try it), and inhale the darkness as it is. feel the darkness of your enemy's ignorance, perhaps. along with the darkness of your own inability not to hate them, or be saddened by them. whatever. then on the exhale, simply pretend that your very own natural breath fills both yourself and them with light and goodness. no, its not magic, or complicated. nor is it owned by any tradition or religion (though some may have done a better job at developing it). more or less, it is a gift of simple human feeling and function, inherent in our very makeup...indeed, we are beautifully and wonderfully made. beyond our wildest dreams.
also, what we often naturally do when we breathe our intent is the very opposite of this. we want to inhale the good, and exhale the bad. when we seethe, it is an exhale of negative will. when we are desperate or lonely, our deep sigh is often one of gulping as much light and goodness as we can for mostly our own sense of self.
this where the biblical notion of repentence may apply. as there comes a time to turn it all around. or inside out. upside down. stand it on its head. reverse the flow. reverse the will. just stop and do the opposite of what you have known of self, and how you can simply be as a manifestation of love itself, rather than a mere recipient.
"love your enemy," the kid said
and do it for real
anyway,
thanks cm.
this is one of the most direct living-level practical ways i have ever found to expand and open our perspective at the heart level, and i thought some here might want to know of it.
as to what all this has to do with WET weekend...nothing really. but another vital aspect of the overall self being exercised and stirred...that inward lover perhaps? or a way to give birth to our sense of "big heart."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.