Re: Keep your problems to yourself



[ I would like thoughts on a real life situation that just came to my
attention.

Ann and Bob have known each other for a very long time and live in the
same

house with there bedrooms next to the other. This morning Bob told Ann
he was

calling out to her in helpless physical agony for help overnight. She
told him

that he should not had called out because the neighbors may had heard.
She went

on to say to him that she did not want to heard about his troubles or
problems

and said that Bob just complained to much. Then Ann said she did not
want to

hear any more of Bob's complaints. This really happened and I'd like
some

feedback on it. Thank you.]



Well mister or missus Pat, IF this story is true, although it sounds
hardly credible, then one of three things spring to mind. 1. Ann had
some very big problem of her own on her mind at that time. So much so
that she cannot think about anything else right now. But her comment
about the neighbours might hear would seem to rule this out. She could
have got one of the neighbours to deal with it if she could not deal
with it at that point herself.

2. The thought of somebody being taken seriously ill might have just
freaked her out, and that being her reaction to it. Fear results in some
very strange actions and reactions. No accounting for some of them.



3. If neither of the above two are applicable here then Ann is simply a
very low tide human scumbag. For the reaction (not the cause of the
reaction necessarily) was totally inhuman.  One could of course ask her
why she thinks that she reacted that way; and see what she had to say.
The other question of course is as to if Bob was prone to doing this
kind of thing and thence the old CRY WOLF syndrome kicked in. But even
so, one could hardly take no action at all if somebody was in agony, and
one can hear the difference. Therefore one would have to check it out.



rwr







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Bill,

You reject capital punishment as barbaric, and then say sitting in a cell 23
hours a day and going mad is worse. If it is worse, then it is in effect crueler
than stoning, and I guess the crueler the more barbaric. The fact that the US is
so relatively affluent that we can incarcerate so many seperates us from most
societies  that have existed, that couldnt afford the costs of housing, feeding,
and guarding that many people.

As for meaning and the search for meaning and value, I guess that plays and has
played a huge part in so much of human history. Certainly the vision of
communism as the next stage of human evolution gave meaning to many lives of
20th century intellectuals and artists. 1984 was a book of delusion by a man who
had believed in this vision as long as he could. Likewise, the rise of Hitler
was connected with the vision of Germans awakening from their self absorbed and
self pitying state to unite for the greater good. FN's sister was very impressed
by Hitler, and told him that that Mein Kampf had given her the courage to face
the death that she knew was near with the courage the German people have always
displayed when dealing with life or death. And of course, Islamic people fear
westernization as a soulless force that is opposed to everything of value to
them. Bill, do u recall the line from Dylan's "Tangled Up in Blue" "We always
did feel the same.We just started from a different point of view."

Peace,
Tom
   ----- Original Message -----
   From: William
   To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 3:53 PM
   Subject: [existlist] Camus who?



   Mary, As I write this I am listening to the president of Iran at the UN. He
certainly presents absurd positions. Camus did not want to be known as an
existentialist, he thought of himself as an absurdist. Certainly there is a
difference between one who says absurd things and one who thinks the world is
absurd.
   Camus was the latter and I can see why he is a favorite of yours.He professed
pacificism yet he wrote for"Combat" in ww2. He fought communism and split with
Sartre over that ideology. His highly individualistic ideas could not allow
totalitarianism and so he supported the Hungarian revolt against the Soviets. I
remember watching the T-28`s in the streets of Buda-Pest. I wondered where our
Patton tanks were. Camus defended the US position in that show down.
   I like his anticapital punishment stance. I have always thought capital
punishment barbaric and think it should be banned. Certainly there are worse
things than being stoned.Sitting in a cell 23 hours a day and going mad comes to
mind.
   His contention that people must find meaning by collaberation against natural
or political enemies goes too far for me. I think meaningful work provides
enough meaning for me and I have had meaning enough.
   I certrainly agree that life is absurd from any observed viewpoint. Only a
theistic view of life can give it transcendental meaning. Otherwise life is
absurd and Camus was correct. It all goes back to FN and his correct concept
that god did not exist. Stephen Hawkins has recently weighed in on that matter
and you and I have dogs in that fight. Bill





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: Reflecting on Memories and Essence Memory
I am no authority on modern day computers and the algorithmic codes
which  they run, so I cannot comment, other than to say that they are
not human beings.  I did do some programming back in the early
seventies, but one cannot compare  that with modern day computers. I do
not feel that computers make a good analogy  to life.

I do know something about radio and heterodyne harmonics, and yes they
can be useful and they can also be a bloody nuisance. But I am far from
an  authority on these things, it was only a hobby, even though I did do
radio and  television repairs for a while back the sixties – a long
time ago :- ) Things  have moved on a long way since then. Same too with
cars. I could not repair  modern day cars for I don't even know what I
am looking at under the lid these  days. That was another world :- )
Well, you know what I mean.

As for people remembering only what they want to remember and seeing
only  what they want to see than I sure cannot go along with that silly
notion one  jot. Memories of 1940 are hardly the stuff that joy is built
upon. I do not  choose to remember it. I do not choose to remember
having no place to live and  not enough food to feed a sparrow. It
wasn't fun.

The other part which I would pick up on here, is the often stated thing
about people interpreting experience. I have been arguing against this
for fifty  years. If somebody has an acute pain in the guts then that is
what they have  got. There is nothing to interpret, for that IS IT. That
is what they are living  at that moment. As to what is causing it is
something else, and that can be  looked into. Same too with ANY
experience.

Somebody suddenly finds that they are existing in a place that they
don't  ever recall seeing before. They are there for a long time. But
they cannot think  about that at the time for thinking does not take
place there. It is a beautiful  place, and there is no world there or
anything found whilst alive on earth. It  is all around you, you are
floating around in it. It is coloured and three  dimensional, width,
breadth and depth. On returning one can describe it in fine  grain
detail. There is NOTHING to interpret about it, you just tell at as IT
IS  found to be. SIMPLE!  A kid could do it. What was it and what
caused it? That is something else entirely.

This notion of experience all being down to interpretation is CRAP! A
guy  gets run over by a car. Oh, no, it was not really that, you just
imagined it, it  was really a case of eating a jam doughnut on a cliff
top on a fine sunny day.  BULLSHIT ! The guy has been knocked down by a
car. As to why he got knocked down  by a car then one can look into
that.

If there are sour grapes about something then the two most commonly used
arguments are, 1. That you imagined it. 2. That you are just
misinterpreting it.  But no amount of talking and thinking undoes what
happened.

One is ALWAYS absolutely certain about ANY experience, and it is
axiomatic. As to what caused it is another question. But not knowing the
answers  as to what caused it does not take the living experience of it
away. And  experience is not a belief. It is what you GET. When you find
yourself in that  place which I have described in detail then argue with
it when you are there :-  ) Likewise argue with the journey to it when
you are there.

I have read many people and many academics talking about life and
consciousness and I am not amused. It would be nice if they wrote from
hindsight  not imagination and theories. Let alone beliefs. One day as a
kid I was in a  cinema and I was eating an apple. The lights went on and
I saw that the apple  had maggots in it. No amount of arguing, theories
or beliefs would take those  maggots away.  IT WAS SO! Why did that
apple have maggots in  it?  Well, it happens. The apple did not have
chocolates in it. It  was not up for interpretation. IT WAS MAGGOTS !

rwr

--- In  The-Primordial-Quest@yahoogroups.com, old bob <bbferrier@...>
wrote:
>
>
> Hi Sir Richard
>
> Static memory  and dynamic memory present two entirely different set
of events when its time to  consider their importance. An instant, or
"moment in time" can be captured with  a photograph for example. Any
number of photographs, of the same event from  different perspectives
will capture slightly different sets of experiences even  if they snap
their shutters simultaneously. For example, there is a slight
difference in the time it takes for the light from the same event to
reach the  film of each different camera. The difference in timing can
even be measured in  a few microns, a quarter wavelength of the speed of
light. This might raise a  question of whether or not this slight
difference is significance. Perhaps not,  but its the thingy that makes
holographs work, because the interference  patterns, from a coherent
light source require this (other than instantaneous  moment in time) or
it simply wouldn't happen.
>
> The point is  that the effects of an event can be captured in some
form of memory for  subsequent examination. Two such events can be
compared for examination at some  third time later. In devices that use
this idea for decision making use  algorithms to determine what
instructions are to be executed as a result of  predetermined flags set
during the observation of some event. The programing  logic is
conventionally named static and dynamic. Steady state logic deals with
events that happen at the same time. Sequential logic requires more
consideration.
>
> Subtle, but its the same state of affairs that  us people must deal
with when we examine our experiences to draw conclusions  that
eventually create a response to events that we experience. In general,
it  can make the conclusions drawn from an experience be different when
reconsidered. Consideration of a sequence of events becomes so
common-place that  the syndrome is probably taken for granted. The
resulting reactions determine  how significant the use of these
memories; however.
>
> This also  raises a question of a thingy called synchronicity. Events
are inter-related.  I've heard lengthy discussions on why two radio
transmitters should become phaze  locked, even though they are excited
by two independent oscillators. The  frequency drift of each oscillator
should be random; however, both transmitters  will drift exactly the
same when operating at the same time. This phaze lock is  accurate to a
quarter wave-length of the frequency of the transmitters,,,, and  that
pretty darned close ;-) Then there is another equally interesting thingy
that happens when these xmitters manage to get out of phaze, called
heterodynamics. Heterodyne frequencies can be just as useful as the
source  frequencies themselves. Interesting how events can become
inter-related. No  simple one-liner answer to that synchronosity
phenomenon.
>
> Back  to memories. Seems like people; in general, tend to remember
what they want to  remember. Just like they tend to see and hear what
they want to see an hear. Not  just real events either because some
religious fanatics seem to believe only  what they want to believe.
>
> old bob
> --.-




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

What is Life like without it?



What is a lifetime like without mystical and  psychic experiences in it?
I don't know;  you tell me, for I have not lived that. Having been
having them since the age of  three then it has all been a part of life
and existing. I know no other.  One cannot talk about what one does not
know,  nor comment upon it.



Most people seem to tell me that they do not have  them (and even though
millions are reported and documented, and from all walks  of life and
occupations). However, if MOST people do NOT have them, then I can  only
guess that life is fine that way too. So no problems. They are not
complaining and I am not complaining. I do not call them MAD because
they don't  have them.



What I do know for a fact is then when people do  have them then they
are usually shocked, and sometimes very worried about it. So  who do
they come to to ask questions and chat with?  You have guessed it; they
come to people who  have written about them.  Invariably in  private.
That somebody comes banging or your door or writes to you asking
questions does not make one a TEACHER. No way. That one write about them
does  not make one a teacher. It just makes one a reporter, and that IS
IT.



You meet somebody on the street in a place you do  not know, and you ask
them for directions. Does that make them a teacher?  No. If they know
the answer they will tell  you, if they don't then they cannot tell
you. End of story. If the person knows  the answer but does not assist
by telling you, then that person has a problem;  it does not cost
anything to give directions if one knows them. It is very rare  that I
have ever asked directions on the street, but on every occasion that I
did the person tried to help.  If they  knew then they told me, if they
did not know then they said sorry but they do  not know. It made no
difference who or what they were, and a gang of hooligans  has done the
same.



As for a lifetime with no mystical or psychic  experiences in it then do
feel free to tell me what it is like; for I don't  know. I can only
guess that it is OK. I can tell you what it is like having  them.  But
in a nutshell it is just fine,  and illuminating. Indeed, very exciting
at times. And it doesn't cost  anything.



RWR





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

What is the busiest place on earth



I have no idea, and I sure would not want to go  there wherever it is.
Crowds of that kind are OK occasionally, but to live in it  continually,
and to continually enjoy it would need whatever that takes. I would
take a guess that perhaps some places in China or India are, but it is
only a  guess. I have seen some places in London in the rush hour they
were bad enough,  but I would imagine that there are plenty worse. Here
people tend to like having  some space around them far better than
perpetually being in a vast crowd. Me to.  The biggest crowed that I
have ever been in was at a football match, it must  have been about 1947
or 48, there was 78 thousand packed into a stadium; all  standing. There
was just about enough room to breath in and out. But that was  only for
a couple of hours.  Most days  where I live one does see anybody; and
that is good :- ) Still, it is a choice  isn't it. If you like
crowds then go where the crowds are, if you don't then go  where
they ain't at.



When I was little my father and I would often talk  about tramps when we
had gone to bed. I think it was his favourite subject :- )  A tramp was
just one of those people who wandered around on their own, no home  and
no job. They were not junkies in those days. They must have loved the
freedom. They would work when they were hungry, and they usually found a
job to  do, clearing a path, or doing some gardening; anything. But the
idea of that  freedom to just roam anywhere at any time must have really
appealed to them.  They were often really interesting to talk to too.
But they sure did not flock  to where big crowds were. Had I been a
tramp then I would have gone to the  pretties place which I could find.
But I did that anyway, and without being a  tramp :- )  It was nice to
take your  shoes off and sit around your own fire in peace and quiet at
the end of the day,  and maybe with a friend at times. The best place
which I have lived contained no  more than three or four people for half
a mile either way.  When people are scarce then you tend to take  more
interest in them when you meet up. But each to their own eh. I love
walking  down a country lane, or over the hills, and not meeting
anybody. But when you do  then that is fine too. Just have a quick chat
and move on; like ships that pass  in the night. No problem.



rwr







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Change and Survival



[ We think DNA is the master template for life,it is possible that other
chemistry

may exist. If so we could face a competition unlike any man has
encountered. We

may face organisms with differeng metabolic systems. I point to the
sulpher

bacteria who have a decided advantage over oxygen metabolizers in some
habitats.

So, Dick, the concept of the fittest can be most variable on a new
planet.

Certainly an atmosphere seems necessary and it should be very close to
our

standing requirements. That is a huge test , atmospheric terraforming is
a

massive and time consuuming project which we do not have the present
capacity to

preform. The author of Genesis put his Adam and Eve in a fully evolved
eden with

no preditors and ample food and water. He had no notion of evolution so
the

first people had to arrive fully evolved and fully grown. That is why
genesis

makes no sense but the author had to answer that troubling
question,Where did we

come from?Until Darwin we still did not know that. Who I am and where I
came

from are all wrapped up in that word evolution and we have learned the
answers

to those questions.

It seems we would need integrate upon arrival on a new planet. Even if
there

were no big organisms the bacteriology would be new and could be very

deadly.Observe the sterility protocals we observe even on the lifeless
moon.

So the fittest become the survivors over any given time but they will
not be

static, they too will be evolving. At light years from their place of
origin

humans would change to adapt to the biologic requirements of the new
home. Your

proposed next link Homo Esinophilitis might be unable to recognise those
who

evolve on a new planet. One million years is significant time in primate

evolution and weather they could reproduce offspring with those who left
is an

interesting question. We are not ready to think in million year time
frames but

our geologists are developing the talent. I doubt we will be the same
species

when we live on another planet. Bill  ]



May I begin by stating the actual name; Homo Ensophicus; not Homo
Esinophilitis, whatever that might mean (perhaps you could explain). My
term has a strict meaning and which has been expounded. Mine is not
hypothesis for it is here now.



However, a million years into our future here on earth is pure
speculation and guesswork, there aren't even any theories, it is way
too far ahead. Same too with any possible life on any other planet,
either now, in the past or in the future. None has ever been found. It
might be one day, and it might not. One can make guesses for ten billion
years, and it is all pointless. But going and looking would be pragmatic
if and when we have the ability to do so. As for my DNA being the big
and only driver here then I do not know that to be true. If it was then
it would let me off the hook for calling some people silly blind
bastards, for it would not be me it would be the inside gene pool. There
would not be a me.  Also I can decide whether to breed or not; so much
for the genes in which case. Who and what rules? I do not doubt that the
genes are the ship builder, but they are not the crew. My body does not
dictate what I do. It does dictate some limitations however. AS YET.



As for other planets then I am having fun with that in the novel (The
Darsinian Inheritance) which is still in progress, but anyone be can
read it thus far. And assuming that I ever get time to finish it. But
this of course IS ALL FICTION. It is the only fiction book which I have
ever had a go at. I don't really think it is my thing, but it is
kind of fun playing with it. I have embedded a few facts into it, but I
don't tell what they are.



However, it is fun in that it contains four planets with human beings
living on them at different times, plus a space city society living in
satellites, and plus a very advanced form of alien life on another
planet. But all these people have a faculty for communicating with each
other on earth here and now via a time warp field put together by these
aliens for this purpose and the benefit of human beings.  But I will
tell you what it is like living here in a million years time if ever I
get there. In the meantime today has enough problems of its own.
Especially with religionists and other cultists. I would not take them
on a new planet with me. I would let them die out here and good riddance
to them; they are a cancer on the human condition and well past their
shelf life. ALL OF THEM.

   STICK WITH WHAT YOU KNOW AND KEEP SEARCHING.

Dick Richardson







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

It sounds as if Bob needs professional care which Ann is not capable of
providing. Mary

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "P C" <patcollins77@...> wrote:
>
> I would like thoughts on a real life situation that just came to my attention.
Ann and Bob have known each other for a very long time and live in the same
house with there bedrooms next to the other. This morning Bob told Ann he was
calling out to her in helpless physical agony for help overnight. She told him
that he should not had called out because the neighbors may had heard. She went
on to say to him that she did not want to heard about his troubles or problems
and said that Bob just complained to much. Then Ann said she did not want to
hear any more of Bob's complaints. This really happened and I'd like some
feedback on it. Thank you.
>

Tom, For some unknown reason I find a difference between cruel and barbaric.
When waxing moralistic I might equate the two but in strict terms they are not
the same.
I just watched  a bunch of Packistani goons off  a bunch of dress wearing
opponents. I really was not moved  except to try to identify their weapons which
were of NATO derivation . The killers were obviously worried they would get in
serious shit for wacking these  guys. They had to rekill one of the victims and
it took three more rounds of 308 to finish the dude. 308 is a full battle round
and when fired at the ground can generate wild richochets. I guess the hitter
was a merciful man and did the right thing in finishing the poor bastard off at
some risk to himself.
So I personally do not find  them particularly cruel and since they were wacking
bad guys I do not even find them barbaric. They used  modern weapons  and even
blindfolded the victims. It was just business and the soldiers were just
following orders. The barbarism came much earlier like when they signed the
papar to be a soldier. After that they were just doing what they were trained to
do. I think the trick of being civilized is to avoid  becomming part of the
killing machine. I have signed the paper more than once and have been upbraided
for my barbarism on this list. So be it.If you live you might learn but  it is
my police force and jailers who keep the poor bastards  in the lock up a few
blocks from here. I like Pontious Pilot, "Scribit scribendit". Most of us have
signed the paper one way or another. I think that may be why Mary so respects
Albert Camus, he seemed to understand much about crulity and barbarism. Bill

The Rarest Book on Earth



The rarest book on earth will be one of which there is only one copy.
And  thus the most difficult to get hold of. I don't know how many
books there are of  which there is only one copy ever made. I understand
that the owner of the  Microsoft Corporation got one of them for $8.3
million. I know where there is  another one. It is somewhere up in the
attic. But I don't think it will ever go  for $8.3 million. I
don't think it will go at all :- ) Even the British Library  and the
American Library of Congress has not got a copy; so that is rare indeed.
It is a Codex on the mysteries of the Human Mind, and therein is stuff
found  which has never been written down before. And what is it worth?
Nothing. There is rare and there is rare  isn't there. It is quite
funny really isn't it. I suppose the most important  books in the
world are the ones that the most people like and agree with. Isn't
that odd. I wonder what book has been read by the most people, and I
wonder why  they read it. Anyway, I will start the bidding off at $1.
But it will not go until it reaches a price  that will buy a pint of
beer. Tis thirsty work you know, and it only took sixty  years to
complete it. Bids can be placed (out of the public eye) at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Psychognosis_Archive/
<http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Psychognosis_Archive/>    where
there is also a photograph of it. And just think, the only copy in  the
world.  Happy bidding.  I bet it reaches $2 before I am dead. Oh well,
maybe not.



rwr





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "P C" <patcollins77@...> wrote:
>
> I would like thoughts on a real life situation that just came to my attention.
Ann and Bob have known each other for a very long time and live in the same
house with there bedrooms next to the other. This morning Bob told Ann he was
calling out to her in helpless physical agony for help overnight. She told him
that he should not had called out because the neighbors may had heard. She went
on to say to him that she did not want to heard about his troubles or problems
and said that Bob just complained to much. Then Ann said she did not want to
hear any more of Bob's complaints. This really happened and I'd like some
feedback on it. Thank you.
>

If Bob told Ann he was calling out in helpless physical agony and Ann said that
Bob just complained too much, Ann would appear to be evading what is reality for
Bob, and in a heartless manner.  In a situation like this, I am wondering
whether an inability to pay doctor's fees is part of the context.  Not knowing
either of these persons, and lacking knowledge of the wider context, it is
difficult to say much to the purpose.  One practical possibility is for someone
to pose the question to Ann, what would she hope for, from a neighbour, if she
were in that situation herself, of unbearable pain?  L.

Talking of unbearable pain



What is the most sever physical pain which you  ever known ? The worst I
have ever known although unbearable one had to bear it,  for there was
no choice. I cannot remember how long ago it was when I first had  it. I
am guessing that it was in my mid thirties. It woke me up one night and
it  gradually got worse over the next hour. I could not lay in bed. I
remember  finishing all scrunched up on the kitchen floor in a ball. The
pain was such  that the perspiration was just poring out of everywhere
and one felt giddy with  pain.  I had no idea what it was or what  was
causing it. It was somewhere in the lower abdomen and more towards the
rear  than the front. It built up to a climax over about and hour and
then gradually  declined for the next hour. After which it was totally
gone and I was fine, so I  went back to bed. One cannot describe what it
feels like. It is as though  somebody has taken all your stomach and
twisted it into a tight knot and then  stuck a red hot knife in it and
keeps twisting it. But it only ever happens at  night; so nobody else
knows that one has ever had it.



Since that time and over the years I have had  exactly the same maybe
about twenty times, with very long intervals between  events of it.
Always the same and always in the same location. But it is not  always
of quite the same severity of pain, but usually much about the same. It
usually last for somewhere between one and two hours. The last time it
happened  must have been about six months ago. I have never known what
it is or what  causes it, but it does not bother me. No matter how
painful it gets I can just  laugh at it, even though one is doubled up
in agony. I got passed caring about  it after about the third episode of
it.   I guess I will never know what it is, and I don't really care
much. It  comes and it goes. So you just lay there and wait for it to
go. It goes. Just  one of those things eh. I have often wondered as to
how sever pain would have to  be before one lost consciousness. Never
done that, although it might have been a  good idea at the time of the
occurrences. Perhaps one ought to give it a name.  How about
Beelzebub's knife or the Dragons Bite?  Amazing things bodies are
they not.



rwr







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Druids Back on the Scene



Coincidence that yesterday I mentioned about what if you had a means of
going back to Stonehenge four thousand years ago with today's
technology then  what would you do. For I see on the news this morning
that Druid-ism has been  made a recognised religion. That of course
means tax exemption, as with the rest  of them. I have no idea as to how
many Druids there are in Britain, and I don't  ever recall speaking
to one, but there plainly are a few.  But from what I have seen and read
of them  they are a pretty peaceful and unassuming lot, and much into
singing and dancing  and nature lovers. Nor do I ever recall them doing
any harm to anything or  anyone. Oh well, good luck to them. I wonder if
the christians will try to take  them out again. If not then perhaps the
muslims will. Isn't it all childish. Oh  well, tally ho and all
that.  As for me  then I will remain beyond them all; bondage to
anything, including time, is not  my scene.  They do say that two things
are certain: death and taxes. I don't believe in either of them.
Maybe they will  bring back Merlin :- )



Merlin of Exmoor (unbound)







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

The Ancient Druwide



The only way to know anything about the ancient Druwide is to jump into
a  time warp vortex and go back to Stonehenge four thousand years ago or
more,  because they never wrote anything down. The SEERS passed
everything on verbally  from generation to generation. Everything ever
written about them was from  outside sources and along with their bias
and fear of the unknown. The way of  life of the Druwide was not a
religion or any indoctrinated dictate of a belief  system,  it was
simply a way of living  due to what the SEERS had seen and knew. Any
stories told was done much the same  way as any ancient group of people,
by way of symbolic metaphors. But the  symbolism was not confused with
what the SEERS had seen and known.  The centre of their way was based
upon the  Immortality of Man and reincarnation. And their love was for
all things physical  and non physical.



How can one know today as to what they knew then?  Easy, by SEEING and
KNOWING what they had SEEN and KNOWN. It never goes away.  But
vocabulary improves as Time unfolds from Eternity. The Mind of Man is
ever  tied to the cross of Time and Eternity, it is the meeting ground
of inner and  outer dimensions. It is found to be so. One has to
sacrifice a little Time to  find Eternity. And then you KNOW. Don't
write it down lest they mess with it.  Eternity encompasses Time, but
Time cannot touch Eternity; and only that which  comes from Eternity
into Time can go back there. I AM that. So are you.



Merlin of Exmoor







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Why isn't everybody a Mystic? Part One



[ Why isn't everybody a  Mystic and a Time Lord such that you
describe? ]



Intrinsically they ARE, for we are all made of the  same stuff and in
the same way, and in the same place. Of all the manifest life  forms
that roam the earth then Man is the most wondrous of them all and of
another order of Being. Homo Ensophicus will be even better when it
comes. But  we have to make room for them to come here. We have to get
the place ready for  them. But they are coming. A few are here   now.
But why are not all people mystics now?  Well, list to me while I tell
you. But if I  tell you then you must share it with others, for it is
not just for your ears,  it is not a secret.



We are constructed of THREE parts, three layers,  three dimensions. Thus
we are a construction in a trinity of parts. The bottom  part, the
middle part, and the top part. You are not a flat one dimensional
thing. You are like an upside down pyramid of manifest ENERGY. Thus a
bit like  the vortex of a twister hurricane.  But  this vortex is
inter-dimensional. You cannot see it with the physical eyes or  touch it
with the physical hands. Neither are you this vortex, no more so than
you are your body. You are that which manifest up this vortex from the
bottom to  the top. You ride the waves of this vortex of energy. You
begin at the bottom of  this vortex (Eternity) and finish up at the top
– on earth. It is all very  simple, even though it is complex and
mysterious; for I don't know how it is  done. But I know why it is
done.



Now, you have to be careful with this and make  sure you get your head
around it. We ALL come from the CENTRE, outwards.  (Paradise is
INWARDS). How then can it be said to be at the `bottom'?  Easy,
think about it. Imagine you are sitting  on top of this vortex (which in
fact you are whilst here on earth) imagine now  looking DOWN it and you
will see that the bottom is also the CENTRE.  Imagine you are sitting on
top of high upside  down pyramid and looking down. The base, the ground
of its being, is downward  but at the CENTRE. Do you see? It is a VORTEX
of energy. It is an extended  emanation of energy from the ground of
being – OUTWARDS, and all is in orbit of  it. Upwards and outwards.
Like an explosion.



So, what exists at the bottom of this pile? LIFE !  YOU. And
consciousness and knowing, and understanding, and love and beauty. And
that is all.  Nothing else exists there.  The rest exists in extension
of it, in orbit of it – OUTWARDS. Those who would  tell you that
heaven is within you are fools, and they know not. Eternity is not
inside of you. But when you are in the paradesium of Eternity then you
are IN  IT. I have told you all this before hundreds of times. But they
don't listen,  they don't hear. They all know better don't
they. Well, they must know better  because they have a PhD bestowed upon
them due to their brilliance. So, don't  ask a Mystic about all
this, ask a scientist or a bishop :- )  They know FA about any of this
:- ) If it was  not sad and dangerous then it would be funny.   But it
isn't funny at all. It is dangerous.



Now, think on this. When a baby comes into this  world it is not
supposed to be a mystic; for a baby has other things to do at  that
time. They have to grope their hands around and touch things to get some
understanding of sight, touch, sound, distances, perspective, for this
is all  new to them.  Babies do not remember  where they came from or
why. They have a different job here at that time – to  get used to
time and space. Their brain cells have to be knit together for this
learning and being able to operate here. A baby cannot run across the
road and  dodge the traffic. But they can by the time they are three or
four. And by that  time they can also THINK and ask questions. And they
do just that, and how. It  is needed that they do. So, one thing at a
time, and enough for each  day.



This is getting a bit long so I had better do the  rest in part two. But
NOTE everything that has been said here so far, and DON'T  forget
it. THREE parts, a TRINITY, a Vortex of Emanation from the bottom and
the  dead centre of BEING. And you come up the pipe-line. To remember
and KNOW where  you came from and what you are then you have to go back
DOWN that pipe-line back  to where you came from, and then when back
there then you RE-UNITE with what you  ARE. A RE-UNION with your SELF in
its Primordial condition of BEING. In that  great eternal love in
Elysium, before time encroached upon your encompass. Watch  this space
for part two. No money, donations or thanks needed. Just tell me to
piss off, for I am used to it and I am a warrior because of it.



Merlin





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Once Upon a Time



Once upon a time, many years ago from now, I came  to the same
conclusion that many SEERS had come to in times long gone by.  That
conclusion was that it was best to write  nothing down about the
Mysteries, but simply to tell of them verbally if and  when need be. For
that way is the only way to recognise another SEER. And also  that way
nothing could be stolen and become spoiled and corrupted of the Grand
Mysteries of LIFE, and the End of Times and Beginning and the Middle.



But then, later, it occurred to me that it did not  matter if one wrote
it down, because those who were not SEERS would not  recognise it to be
true anyway; and that they would just scoff at it.  But, in writing it
down those who had seen  and known what SEERS  have seen and known  can
help new SEERS; for new SEERS are coming all the time, and they see and
know  what the old SEERS have seen and known. Added to which it can also
be useful to  non SEERS in the process of coming to SEE. Do you see?
So, there is no problem in writing it down;  and the benefits can
outweigh the pitfalls in real effect. So, if you are a SEER  then write
it down. In modern times the best way is via cyberspace, for it can
reach more ears and eyes. And those with the necessary equipment to SEE
and KNOW  will be on the path to SEE and KNOW.



Adopt no beliefs, rituals or practices, for they  will only prevent you
from SEEing and KNOWing the unity of the web of BEING.  That which you
believe will bind you to it, and stranded there you will be until  the
chains that bind are broken and you fly free of them. Then you will SEE
and  KNOW.



Merlin of Exmoor







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I expected crowds but the theater was empty. There were no young people but 
Gordon Gecko summed that up in a lecture in the movie. He spoke to a business
school class and called them losers. They do not have houses,cars or securities
they have debt  and unemployment. Why would the young be interested in a system 
that reduced their lives so drastically.
The show took lenghts to stay away from politics which made it glaringly
political. Gecko was the monster of deregulation and  out of the joint  he went
right back to work jerking off the system.
  Thr Federal Reserve meetings on the bail outs were instructive as the big money
men begged and threatned themselves into a government  financed solvency. Then
they had the gall to call their salvation socialism.
  So I culled a direction from this cinematic view of our new world order. I
think Obama will get out his veto pen and the drift leftward will dissolve into
an endless gridlock. The deregulated  business monster is dying a  slow
strangulation . The new health care and business regulation is starting to have
effects.Gecko makes a pithy comment that insurance is like selling cocaine in a
school yard. Here in an insurance town I have an advantage of watching what he
is talking about.Principal financial group just placed their long term bet. They
closed their medical insurance sector. The health care reform bill has scared
them away from the sector ,they think they can make more money in annuities and
life insurance than in health premiums.
  So We backed away from the abyess as the bubble did not burst. It is just
deflating, regressing into choatic disagreement. When you are poor and clueless
it is better to stay home and play video games.We have the perfect population
for just that. Bill

There is nothing so annoying as someone who thinks they know something. I have
trimmed a bubbling diatribe in my editorial fashion to the following few
absurdities, which suggest a knowing, a mysticism beyond knowing, or a
mysteriously mystic mystique mistake.

> Man is the most wondrous of them all

> they are coming.

> We are constructed of THREE parts, three layers, three dimensions.

> We ALL come from the CENTRE, outwards.  (Paradise is
> INWARDS).

> Those who would tell you that
> heaven is within you are fools

> A baby cannot run across the
> road and  dodge the traffic. But
> they can by the time they are three or
> four. And by that time they can also
> THINK and ask questions.

> No money, donations or thanks needed. Just tell me to
> piss off, for I am used to it and I am a warrior because of it.

> Merlin

Money or donations. Ha.
Hahaha haha.

There are so many inconsistencies and circularities of contradiction in the
"thought" of these words so as to make it a humor worth paying for... if that is
the humor of the type you enjoy. I find my interest in comedians changes. I used
to love Emo Phillips... but I don't find him funny anymore. I think
juxtaposition is funny, and in studying myself, it always seems humor comes from
an essence of the unexpected. At some point, Phillips became predictable. The
mannerism and the same old stories were not funny anymore. I do not pay the
price of listening as I can find so much more humor here. It may not last, and
likely it will get old.

We recently adopted 2 cats, as reward for having withstood the departure of two
others whose physical entity lies below the dirt in our yard, illegally. The new
beasts bring new wonders, sometimes to the side door -- sometimes alive, and
sometimes not. But one interesting comparison I was derived to make was a
comparison between man's 'brilliance', and that of a cat's. I had a daughter who
walked at 6 months, and another who with stubborn insistence on a different
means of locomotion (technically known as 'skootching'), did not walk till she
was 2 (years). The former is something of an athlete (with a disinterest in
athleticism) and the latter not an athlete (with an interest in athleticism).
Whether interested or not, or capable or not, neither were walking or running or
even killing and eating on their own at 4 months, let alone climbing to the top
of the swingset and strolling there well above the ground while waving
mercilessly at passing flies and the modicum of potential meals dangling in the
branches above their heads. The physical feat of roughhousing play and
acrobatics the two young felines can muster leaves one in awe of the fact that
at the same age the human is advanced of the curve in raising and holding aloft
their own unbearably fat heads. It may make one wonder just how wondrous that
wondrous being is, or how such self-perceived importance in a tiny achievement
of lifting a terribly fat head leads to the idea of superiority and mysticism.

"Merlin" Dickdick, who has called me out in the past over the indifference to my
own name, has adopted another himself, perhaps the right of the 'mystic' which
apparently he has presumed to become (and don't deny it, Dickyboy, you think you
are smarter than the lot of us no matter what version of hyperbole you choose to
dismantle your own thoughts with). Yet the amateurish rantings (that is,
unconvincing) are so much like the 'great' voices that have passed through this
virtual hall -- namely leDuard and Trinnydad to name but two -- who ranted and
raved and rotated and ruined their own ravenous rage in regular riffs of rot.
The blathering and meandering and claims of knowing seeping under the door to
the playroom like smoke of meaning the alarm has yet to detect, and somehow
never gets detected.

Paradise is within, but heaven is not. We are made of three wonderous parts, all
of which are unable to meet the physical prowess of a cat.

How is it that we see a miracle and mystique when we finally lift our fat heads
from the carpet to look around at the cats running physical circles around us,
and we claim by that wee gesture some type of superiority and then mysticism? It
is my charge that some blithering blatherers (this one included) would perhaps
assume incorrectly that their divine self-indulgence and self-centered
self-induced self-deluded self-ridiculing selfisms are myopic misanthropes of
the morphically mythical type... ahem, that the delusions of grandour affected
by their own mouth affect their ability to perceive their own error.

I habitually balance on the edge of my perch to look over the edge of the nest
and peer down at the waiting jaws of the cat into whose belly I will likely
stumble. I know it is dangerous to abandon the safety and solitude of the nest,
and yet I consider it for whatever unknown advantage I may imagine lies beyond.
And when I do take that step, which I may do with some conviction or not, or on
the other hand may stumble, trip or be pushed, it is then I may either find I
have talent or not for flying and save myself from the jaws as they approach me
and I them. Either I will learn from the fall that it wasn't a good idea to
depart at that moment, or that I can fly. Most likely it is one chance, and I
best make the most of it, or die trying.

I submit to you my original interpretation of a mystic:

http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/160003/sn/171633442/name/schlitzie_whats-the-point.\
jpg

Why is it that a mystic is not so smart as a falling bird?

Tayking D. Hint

Survival of the Fittest



That term rolls off the tongue nicely doesn't it, and therefore
problem  solved and question answered. What does `Survival' mean
and what does `fittest'  mean? What kind of survival and fit for
what?   As a modern human being living in the modern world I would not
be fit to  survive alone. Moreover, if alone here then I would not want
to survive, and if  I were the only human being here then humanity would
go out when I went out. I  would not even know which plants were safe to
eat and which ones not, and no  doubt it would not be very long before I
ate the wrong one, and then bingo, or  rather me-go amigo.



Let us suppose that there were two people left here, one man and one
woman, let us say they were twenty five, very fit and very intelligent
and spoke  the same language. Would humanity survive? They might tick
along for a while,  but folks have accidents, and stuff happens. I would
guess that humanity would  not survive here. Other things taken into
account this is still really a numbers  game. If there were a million
people then the odds of survival would be better  than if there were two
or ten. Survival, for the large part, is a collectivist  thing. People
working together for that end.



Human society today is divided into the wealthy and the not wealthy. If
the two mobs competed then who wins?   Obviously the wealthy would, for
they would have the weapons. It would  have nothing to do with which mob
were nice people and which were not. Imagine a  mob of three foot high
weaklings and who were all nasty characters against a  race of six foot
tall, strong, fit, nice, human beings, but the little critters  has the
weapons and the power. Who wins?   Obvious isn't it. The survival of
the fittest? Well, thus nasty little  critters would be the survivors
here. Who in their right mind would want to be  here with them? Is being
here the only and ultimate criteria?  If so then rocks win every time.
Rocks  survive reasonably well, and they don't have to do anything.
Do you ever get the  feeling that so many folks look at things in such a
parochial and blinkered way  that it is laughable?



Can you imagine the top scientists of his day ten thousand years ago
standing on a rock dictating to the others that he was the big I am
because his  cutting stone was the sharpest in the locality. Supposing
that the driving force  of change and unfolding was BEAUTY. What then?
Suppose it was greed. What then?  Suppose it was effectiveness and
innovation. What then?



As we see it at the moment, from today; we  observer a rapidly growing
population along with a radically shrinking source of  power. This does
not make a promising equation outlook for a future good life  here for
the many. Obviously the greedy will hive off the best and the others
will go to the wall – if they are allowed to do so; for the greedy
have the most  green-shield stamps, and they no doubt have godo on their
side too as they see  it :- ) I have no idea at all as to what survival
on this world is down to, but  it is plainly not any one thing.  But on
the bottom line there are things here which are alive and there are
things here  which are not alive. I wonder as to how many other rocks
out there on which this  applies. However, we know that life exits here,
for I am that thing, or a bit of  it anyway.   So we KNOW (not believe)
that in the vast scheme of the all there is this phenomenon called LIFE.
It  seems to be a pretty good survivor to me, and it pops up all over
the place.  Good for it.



But, if what I see of modern day humanity and  modern day civilisation
is the best that LIFE can do, then I would say scrap it,  and leave it
to the rocks and vegetation.   But I would not actually do that, for I
KNOW that they can do better than  this. It is not a case that I have
faith in humanity but rather the case that I  KNOW what exists at the
root of LIFE. It ain't going to go out. But it might on  this world,
and the way things are here of their own making and desires then I
would not shed any tears for that. The unfolding of the cosmological
base  principles will go on – somewhere. As a human being in this
society then I judge  myself not to be good enough and I judge the
society not to be good enough.  Maybe THAT is the driving principle for
change.



Can the cosmos have a desire?  I have no idea. But I know that I do, and
I  am a part of it, and the desire is for better than this. And onward
it goes. It  would be interesting if they ever looked at the bigger
picture wouldn't it. I  guess the mystics do that; not politicians
and bankers. If I want people to vote  for me for the next five years
then I must give the mob what it wants. They know  what they want right
enough. I wonder if they know what they need. For starters  they need
waking up. I would even question if they really know what they do  want,
let alone what they need. So many of them do seem to want instant
gratification of everything, and they want others to do it for them.
Not the sort of people that I would take on  an evolutionary journey
with me. Given the choice of course. Perhaps that is a  good reason for
a lifetime here being so short. It dumps the bloody lot of them  and
moves on. The moving finger having writ moves on. They say that one
cannot  go back to change a jot if it. That is true. But you can go
forward and change  it. If the will and courage is there to do it. You
and I will not be here in two  hundred years time, but I hope those who
are will be better at it than we were.  Something tells me that they
will be. Or somewhere any way.



Dick Richardson







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Your views on mysterious conscious events have been noted. But whether
you like it or not, agree with it or not – THEY HAPPEN. That is why
some people study consciousness and BEING. But you go play with your
cats and birds, that is your choice. Others choose to study other
things. It is not obligatory to study anything at all. But some are
curious about this or that. I am and always was very curious about the
nature of the human mind and consciousness – Due to mysterious
conscious events, and all of which were spontaneous not self induced.
And they were fun as well as being very illuminating. Not your ball
park?  Fine. But it interests many thousands if not millions of people.
QED. Given what you say then folks can only conclude that you don't know
anything. Do you not know when you want a shit?


--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "fictiveparrot" <knott12@...> wrote:
>
> There is nothing so annoying as someone who thinks they know
something.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Louise,

I recall a while back when Dick was saying at 3 and a half he had knocked
another somewhat older child out cold. I expressed my doubt as to the truth of
it, and you tended to believe him. The one statement he made a few months ago
that I do believe was that he had only met a few people in his life for whom he
had respect. When Dick first came here, I was on his side as a mystic being
attacked by dogmatic materialists, and even joined his group for a while. I left
after his group changed where only he could post. Dick speaks of how he has been
ridiculed etc. as if he is a victim, omitting the insults and condecension he
has expressed towards others. He would have us believe that he is beseiged by
famous scientists etc. for his wisdom.

I put him on my block list about a month ago, and no longer have my inbox
littered with his postings. Some of his things are interesting, but if being
like Dick is the result of mystic experiences, that is not a strong selling
point for them.

Peace,
Tom
   ----- Original Message -----
   From: fictiveparrot
   To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2010 1:42 AM
   Subject: [existlist] Re: What is a Mystic's Mistake? (or, How Birds Do It)



   There is nothing so annoying as someone who thinks they know something. I have
trimmed a bubbling diatribe in my editorial fashion to the following few
absurdities, which suggest a knowing, a mysticism beyond knowing, or a
mysteriously mystic mystique mistake.

   > Man is the most wondrous of them all

   > they are coming.

   > We are constructed of THREE parts, three layers, three dimensions.

   > We ALL come from the CENTRE, outwards. (Paradise is
   > INWARDS).

   > Those who would tell you that
   > heaven is within you are fools

   > A baby cannot run across the
   > road and dodge the traffic. But
   > they can by the time they are three or
   > four. And by that time they can also
   > THINK and ask questions.

   > No money, donations or thanks needed. Just tell me to
   > piss off, for I am used to it and I am a warrior because of it.

   > Merlin

   Money or donations. Ha.
   Hahaha haha.

   There are so many inconsistencies and circularities of contradiction in the
"thought" of these words so as to make it a humor worth paying for... if that is
the humor of the type you enjoy. I find my interest in comedians changes. I used
to love Emo Phillips... but I don't find him funny anymore. I think
juxtaposition is funny, and in studying myself, it always seems humor comes from
an essence of the unexpected. At some point, Phillips became predictable. The
mannerism and the same old stories were not funny anymore. I do not pay the
price of listening as I can find so much more humor here. It may not last, and
likely it will get old.

   We recently adopted 2 cats, as reward for having withstood the departure of
two others whose physical entity lies below the dirt in our yard, illegally. The
new beasts bring new wonders, sometimes to the side door -- sometimes alive, and
sometimes not. But one interesting comparison I was derived to make was a
comparison between man's 'brilliance', and that of a cat's. I had a daughter who
walked at 6 months, and another who with stubborn insistence on a different
means of locomotion (technically known as 'skootching'), did not walk till she
was 2 (years). The former is something of an athlete (with a disinterest in
athleticism) and the latter not an athlete (with an interest in athleticism).
Whether interested or not, or capable or not, neither were walking or running or
even killing and eating on their own at 4 months, let alone climbing to the top
of the swingset and strolling there well above the ground while waving
mercilessly at passing flies and the modicum of potential meals dangling in the
branches above their heads. The physical feat of roughhousing play and
acrobatics the two young felines can muster leaves one in awe of the fact that
at the same age the human is advanced of the curve in raising and holding aloft
their own unbearably fat heads. It may make one wonder just how wondrous that
wondrous being is, or how such self-perceived importance in a tiny achievement
of lifting a terribly fat head leads to the idea of superiority and mysticism.

   "Merlin" Dickdick, who has called me out in the past over the indifference to
my own name, has adopted another himself, perhaps the right of the 'mystic'
which apparently he has presumed to become (and don't deny it, Dickyboy, you
think you are smarter than the lot of us no matter what version of hyperbole you
choose to dismantle your own thoughts with). Yet the amateurish rantings (that
is, unconvincing) are so much like the 'great' voices that have passed through
this virtual hall -- namely leDuard and Trinnydad to name but two -- who ranted
and raved and rotated and ruined their own ravenous rage in regular riffs of
rot. The blathering and meandering and claims of knowing seeping under the door
to the playroom like smoke of meaning the alarm has yet to detect, and somehow
never gets detected.

   Paradise is within, but heaven is not. We are made of three wonderous parts,
all of which are unable to meet the physical prowess of a cat.

   How is it that we see a miracle and mystique when we finally lift our fat
heads from the carpet to look around at the cats running physical circles around
us, and we claim by that wee gesture some type of superiority and then
mysticism? It is my charge that some blithering blatherers (this one included)
would perhaps assume incorrectly that their divine self-indulgence and
self-centered self-induced self-deluded self-ridiculing selfisms are myopic
misanthropes of the morphically mythical type... ahem, that the delusions of
grandour affected by their own mouth affect their ability to perceive their own
error.

   I habitually balance on the edge of my perch to look over the edge of the nest
and peer down at the waiting jaws of the cat into whose belly I will likely
stumble. I know it is dangerous to abandon the safety and solitude of the nest,
and yet I consider it for whatever unknown advantage I may imagine lies beyond.
And when I do take that step, which I may do with some conviction or not, or on
the other hand may stumble, trip or be pushed, it is then I may either find I
have talent or not for flying and save myself from the jaws as they approach me
and I them. Either I will learn from the fall that it wasn't a good idea to
depart at that moment, or that I can fly. Most likely it is one chance, and I
best make the most of it, or die trying.

   I submit to you my original interpretation of a mystic:

  
http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/160003/sn/171633442/name/schlitzie_whats-the-point.\
jpg

   Why is it that a mystic is not so smart as a falling bird?

   Tayking D. Hint





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

What you believe is irrelevant cool cat



If you refuse to read this or that person because you do not like what
they say, or the way they say it, or do not accept what they say as
being true. Then that is your business and not one human being cares.
Refusal to read says more about you than it does about them.



As for claims I have made, well they happened. As for Nobel Prize
winners contacting me and writing then that does not impress me one jot.
Folks do what they do, and a dustman ranks just as high in my book. But
I still have the letters and there were are still are many witnesses.
But what you choose to believe is irrelevant.  As for knocking people
cold then many do it. All you need is one of those powerful punches that
knocks people cold. I had one in the right arm. But the left arm is
powder puff. Just the way one is born. And that did not happen once, but
quite a few times. The last time when I was in my mid twenties and it
was the first father-in-law when he was pissed and started a fight. He
was in hospital for two weeks.  The need has never arisen since; and
every time was self defence, no more.



The only reason I don't read your stuff as a rule is because I find
it so boring. I did try, but it was just too boring; including the
`poetry'. But if you are going to have a go at me then I will be
back EVERY time. I wish you would come and do it to my face. The
internet is a great place for cowards and bullshitters. But it also
happens to be a useful tool and I made good use of it.



rwr







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Morality and the Social Order



Social Order requires very little defining, for it  is its own
definition. Either a society is functioning well enough and  reasonably
harmoniously or it isn't.  If  they don't then they collapse and
there is no social order. Why would a person  want social order or want
social collapse? That is for each of them to say, for  only they can
know that. My own feelings about that is that it is far more
advantageous, and interesting, if social order exists. And for the
reasons  stated. Morality does not enter into it.



But, we each and all operate and conduct ourselves  by some criteria,
some personal principles, and that takes place with the  society. It
does not take place in a vacuum. Where do these personal principles
come from? I can only speak for myself, and you are welcome to speak for
yourself. But for me they have not come from anywhere; they are just
there,  inside. I did not buy them, and nobody gave them to me. I notice
too that  throughout life they have been modulated here and there to
some extent. But most  of that was done at a very early age. But, is
this packet of personal principles  called `MORALITY' ?  Well,
call it  whatever one will, it does not alter what it IS by calling it
something; no more  so than sight is altered by calling it sight.



I have heard it said by SOME religionists (not all  of them) that
without a religious belief system there would be no morality and  people
would not have these principles. Maybe in their case it is true, and
that  without their package of beliefs they would have no moral
prerogative.  But that is not for me to say, but rather for  them to
say. But what I can say for sure is that I and no doubt billions of
other people would also say is that one does not need a religion to have
principles and morals. Moreover, I see no need for them to use that as a
justification for them having one. Neither do I see a vast sweep of
evidence  which suggests that the activities of religionists is far
superior to those of  non religionists. More often than not it seems to
be the contrary. But  invariably only bad news makes the news.



This is also a question which I was asked on a  radio interview, much to
my surprise at the time. How can one have morals  without a religion. I
was quite shocked in fact.  It struck me as one of the most stupid
questions ever asked. If somebody is of the opinion that they have moral
principles because there is somebody up in the sky pulling strings, or
that they  got them from a book; well, let them live with it. Maybe they
need it for that  purpose. Maybe that is why religionists are
`good' – for some later reward. Are  they `good' ?
So many of then seem to hate each other.



I also often hear it said (usually by  teeny-boppers) that love is all
you need. As though being in love were some kind  of moral prerogative
or a choice even.   What has love got to do with morality and
principles?  NOTHING. Moreover, we need many things; food,  water, a
place to live and raise the children,   and so much more. Love is not
all that one needs. Also. It should be  obvious to all that love can
sometimes play skittles with peoples principles and  hurl them out of
the window. But not necessarily so.



But, in order for a society to work then one truly  must have principles
and use them; and even if some of those personal principles  conflict
with what the mass of society wants one has to grin and bear it. It is
not a case of forsaking ones principles but simply a case melding with
the  society without disrupting it for no good reason.  But where do
these principle comes from? Well  they have certainly not come from any
book or any being floating around in the  sky.  The simple fact is that
I don't  know where they come from, all I know is that they are
there.  But maybe this not knowing where something  comes from is the
problem for some of them. Maybe it is a case that they MUST  have and
answer for everything. And their religion being that answer for them.
But they certainly DON'T come from religion and morality and
principles seem to  do better without them anyway. And they are also
unconditional of  reward.



rwr







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Is it Tom or Joyce?



Is it Tom Smith or is it Joyce Smith? Or is it neither? Is it male or
female? Or neither. They talk about the morality of others when they
don't even use their real name on emails. COWARDS !



Dick Richardson
West Somerset. UK


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Yahoo doing strange things with emails



For some days now Yahoo has been resending old emails. Just delete where
applicable.



rwr





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

More on Moral Principles



Neither do I have any idea where these moral principles came from and
how  they got there. All I know is that they are there, and one makes
decisions by  virtue of what they are. There are some things which I
could just not do at any  cost, and there are things that I could not
stand by and watch being done. This  is all a part of the package of
what I call the Dignity if Man, and presumably  the seat of the TRUE
Knights of Humanity. And nothing to do with nobility,  religion, or
anything one had been told by anybody. It just IS. I have to  conclude
that one is simply born with them. Or born with a deficit of them
whichever the case may be. But it is ONLY me who is responsible for my
actions.  Nothing else. These principles are a part of ME. Not something
in the sky or  fairyland.



Also has it got absolutely nothing to do with the  mystical experiences
whatsoever, for it was all there long before they turned  up. And I
never found anything in any mystical experiences which related to
morality and principles, nor have they added to it nor detracted from
it;  nothing at all. There is no connection that I know of.  When young
of course it is the case that one  does not even know that they are
there until one is confronted with a situation  which makes one realise
that they are there. These of course are STRONG  compulsions, there are
also weaker ones, and some which boarder the IFFY  mark.  If one is an
IFFY compulsion then  one can question it and think about it and ponder
on what best to do in this or  that situation. However, where they are
STRONG compulsions then thinking about  them would make no difference,
for you have just got to do it anyway, or not do  it, whichever the case
may be.



Guessing at what these things are is not my game.  But if anybody knows
what they are and how they got there then they are welcome  to tell me,
but I am going to be a real shit bag in demanding to know how they  know
that. If somebody says that they do not know but they have as sound
justifiably theory then I would be happy to hear that too. And pick
holes in it  if I could.



In some mystical experiences one comes up against  this IMPLICATION that
we have existed incarnate before; but I have no  experiential knowledge
of that and I don't really give a hoot. But that could  also PERHAPS
explain as to how those principles got there from past experience.  But
that is ONLY a guess.  Then there is  the bit that could state that they
are inherent in the DNA structure and are  Hereditary that way. In my
own case that might well be the case, for they were  both very moral
principled people. But I am different from them. But also on  looking
into family histories there would seem to be too many cases which would
refute this theory entirely. So, I don't know. It is a mystery to
me, as so many  things are. But I don't need a religion to plug the
gaps. What I do know is that  for me any religion is so abhorrent to me
that even to pacify them would be  something which I could never do.
Whereas I could easily and willingly destroy  them all. But I cannot do
that, so I do not lose any sleep over it. I just hope  for a better
world where they are not on the scene.



It might be fun if people made a list of the  things which they could
never do, no matter what. And then watch for  correlations. Some might
say that one can never say never. But I feel sure that  I can, in a list
of things anyway.



rwr





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

A list of things that one could never do



A list of things that one could never do, are your prepared to do such a
list? If so go for it. It would be nice if they were in order of the
strongest compulsions downward. Say a list of ten at least, or as many
as you can think of at the time of writing it. I know which would head
my list, and you will not find it in any books.







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I have been checking the commodities prices. I find no market value for urine.
So if my boot is full of pee I can dump it out without penalty.
  Count the posts on the last page of posts, someone seems to be playing monopoly
while the rest of us are keeping within civilized manners. There is no reason
for this anarchy other than someone is being the bore.
  No one here, except the anarcist, has any interest in mystacism. This is not
the mysticism site and the anarcist plays the bully fool with  the childish
antics. That this group does not believe in you or your outlandish claims  is
perfectly evident. You are all tied up in a battle that has no meaning except in
your warped illusions. Please do not further embarass yourself as you are
erasing any work of merit you may have done in the past.Mr. Anarcist shut the
ego down and let us dry our socks of your detritus. Do not post here for two
weeks and we will not speak of you or your methods. Its time for time out. Bill

A list of things that I could not do



1. If somebody trusted me, an animal, a child, an  adult, then I could
never betray that trust. Not under any circumstances, ever.



2. I could never kill any living thing knowingly  and with deliberation.
Unless it was in self defence and there was no  choice.



3. I could never inflict pain on to any living  thing. Unless it was in
self defence and there was no choice.



3.  I could  never betray the country that I lived in. Unless it was so
corrupt that I had to  do it.



4. I could never take anything away from a thing  of beauty that would
make it less so.



5.  I could  never tell a lie knowingly, unless there were extremely
good and important  reasons for doing so.



6.  I could  not eat the flesh of a human being, not even to save my
life. But I would not  criticise those who did; providing they were
already dead.



7.  I could  never make love (sex) to a woman unless I loved her. To me
that would be  repulsive.



8. I could never have sexual relations with a man.  To me that is
repulsive.



9. I could never borrow anything unless I knew  that I could give it
back.



10. I could never do anything knowingly which  would prevent my going to
bed with a clear conscience and thence closing my eyes  and going to
sleep.



11. I could never say that I WILL do something. I  could only say that I
will if I can.



12. If asked to do something I will always try to  do it if it is a
reasonable request.



13. I will never ever do anything which I am told  to do; nor would I
tell anybody what to do. If in military service then I would  do both if
needs must.



14. I would never take anything which did not  belong to me. But I would
be happy enough to pinch food if there were no work  and the kids were
hungry.



15. I could never do anything which would detract  from the beauty of
that part of myself in transcendence, not that it would know;  but I
would know.



16. If trouble comes I could never run away from  it. Better to be
killed than to kill ones own integrity.



There are no doubt many more but I cannot think of  them off the top of
my head right now. I would never expect anybody to live by  my
principles, and I do not even judge as to whether my own are good or
bad. I  just do them regardless because it is what I am. One has to be
true to oneself  and ones principles. There is only one in here and I
have to live with it. I  can; and with no remorse. These things did nto
come from a book or from anybody  else; they are my own, and I did nto
invent them or choose them. But I have no  problem living woth them.



rwr







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Bill,

I suggest that you, Mary, and Louise join me in blocking dick. He will change
names but if we keep blocking eventually he will get the reality that no one is
listening. I myself am quite interested in mysticism, and at first felt close to
Dick. But his arrogance and ill manners reflects poorly on anyone, regardless of
their beliefs. I believe if a person is respectful and polite, I can respect and
learn from anyone. If nothing else, its educational to understand how different
people think even if their belief structures are very different.


Peace,
Tom


   ----- Original Message -----
   From: William
   To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2010 1:51 PM
   Subject: [existlist] Pouring piss from a boot



   I have been checking the commodities prices. I find no market value for urine.
So if my boot is full of pee I can dump it out without penalty.
   Count the posts on the last page of posts, someone seems to be playing
monopoly while the rest of us are keeping within civilized manners. There is no
reason for this anarchy other than someone is being the bore.
   No one here, except the anarcist, has any interest in mystacism. This is not
the mysticism site and the anarcist plays the bully fool with the childish
antics. That this group does not believe in you or your outlandish claims is
perfectly evident. You are all tied up in a battle that has no meaning except in
your warped illusions. Please do not further embarass yourself as you are
erasing any work of merit you may have done in the past.Mr. Anarcist shut the
ego down and let us dry our socks of your detritus. Do not post here for two
weeks and we will not speak of you or your methods. Its time for time out. Bill





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I think we are at the beginning of gridlock on a scale that has not been seen.
General Sherman was a great practitioner of the art in war. Scorched earth
denies the opposition sustinance and leaves the practitioners at  odds for
generations. Political gridlock can kill but that is not what it is designed to
accomplish. It is meant to demoralise the opposition and subvert their ideas.
If you spew hate during such times you become a front line participant,a zealot,
and those sort risk the most. I think the wiser course is to back away from the
front lines  and pick the lower fruit.
  If you rush out and invest in green energy you might feel yourself a hero of
the environment but you might not be able to pay your heating bill. The vested
interests are very real and if you use an alternative the owners will not supply
you,at reasonable cost, in the future.That is the threat of supply side
economics, they have the hammer. Of course the counter argument is that of the
nail, without a nail there is no market, no business,gridlock.
Investing in times of gridlock becomes a survivalist exercise, become Aesops
ant. The necessities come first and the idealisms and luxaries are seldom
available. The tactic is to hold out until the first line combatants have worn
out. What is left is what you can build upon. Bill