Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Highlights Thursday August 17th

Expand Messages
  • andrew macnab
    ... Hi Marcia.. Thanks for your graceful reading of my unusual post. C: I have spent portions of my day observing the movement of my thoughts as they relate to
    Message 1 of 1 , Aug 18, 2000
    • 0 Attachment

      >>>Christiana and Marcia:

      Hi Marcia..

      Thanks for your graceful reading of my unusual post.

      C: I have spent portions of my day observing the movement of my thoughts
      as they relate to the various posts you have made today. I have begun
      several letters to you.. and find that it is so difficult for me to
      communicate simply.. each letter seems endlessly verbose. So.. here I
      am with another attempt... no doubt, equally verbose.

      M: I love this about you.

      **C: You love my verbosity?? or my (gulp) attempts at clarity and
      simplicity? <smile>

      C:For all the affinity I feel with you, I have observed that we often
      *appear* to be on different sides of conceptual/perceptual frameworks. I

      suppose that is the nature of duality. So, I am challenging myself to
      look deeper..

      M: I have that feeling also but many times at the end of my 'response'to
      you, I have this recognition that we are really saying the same thing
      or similar things.

      **C: Yes, it is knowing that we are ultimately beheaded the same way
      that engenders compassion and recognition.

      C: From the resonance of "relational" affinity I feel with you, it is
      to hold space for this inquiry. To meet you as myself and to listen for
      what is beyond. Your various posts, as you responded to others, were met

      within me as a series of paradoxes, contradictions and mixing of levels.

      M: I perceive myself as responding from different levels. What is
      consistent on one level is paradoxical on another. I, in no way, make
      any claim to be consistent and non contradictory. Sometimes I feel very
      clear within and am merely trying to be as clear in my expression and
      other times I am working on clarification as I write. So your perception
      is correct.

      **C: Ah.. I see that in lieu of playing with the paradox, I'm been,
      myself, guilty of trying to hold or understand you on a single level.

      C:* focused inquiry point: you stated in your post to Michael, a list of

      conditions for your choices of whom to read and not read..

      M: What I was trying to do here was to show that different people speak
      from different centers but as long as all they do is speak from one
      center, then they are not necessarily relating in dialogue.

      **C: Hmm.. If I hear you correctly, your preference then is to feel
      the range of personhood within the singularity of being. Mine as well.
      For some here, the preference may be toward the opportunity to speak
      from the singularity.. a rare opportunity. For me this is a place to
      listen for the one voice amidst the many. There is only one center here
      and if I listen carefully enough, it contains the apparent difference.
      Dialogue is more available when I remember to yield.

      M: It was not meant to be a list of conditions but just an example.
      Actually I mostly read depending on how I am feeling. But I was not
      clear. See how communication is difficult? My emphasis was on how only
      one aspect is focussed on and what you picked up on was the part about,
      which did sound judgmental, now reading it. On that note, I just type
      and spell check. I rarely read over and 'fine tune.' Perhaps I should.
      Each moment my perception changes and if I 'fine tune', I have this
      superstition, perhaps, that what I was 'seeing' in that moment will be
      lost in all the correcting. Make sense?

      **C: Understood. Yet for me, in the fine tuning, seeing sometimes

      M: The thing that I have come to with 'typing' or ranking or
      categorizing of people, (myself included), is that this process itself
      tends to hold
      people in these positions that I have categorized them into. Especially
      with intimates. If I can allow that my mate, for instance, is not or not

      just anyway, blah, blah, blah then he has freedom to move and we
      can relate in the space between us. Make sense?

      **C: In this, perhaps, a request for authentic dialogue from
      beginner's mind, in lieu of what Gene calls "patching" the past. In
      this, I have learned much from Gene... "hold identity open and flat"...
      even "centers" dissolve.

      To the space between us, Marcia. It's the Living Heart.



      > **C: You love my verbosity?? or my (gulp) attempts at clarity and
      > simplicity? <smile>

      What I love is that you spell out exactly what you see yourself doing
      and then do it. There is a marvelous simultaneity to it. Do you see? :-)
      Or you spell it out as you are doing it. I love that when that happens.
      I have that with some few people. We look at each other on more
      than one level simultaneously. I love it when I can say....."Look at
      what I am doing," as I am doing it.



      >>>Gene sent a prose-poem he found:

      Angel Exhaust


      Letter from the Takeaway (2)

      Deep personal unhappness is not a good start. How abowt
      mild malaize. Subsuming ideologs rancid little fuckups.

      Deep personal conviction is never enow to make a curry.
      What we need is a job. Its nobody elses falt.

      But also 'I' az an incomprehensible large part of th known
      univers. Everytime I look it fills it.

      Cries fall from the page, iniquitus structures seep into

      poetry attracts the suffering fool, wile others program
      interactiv softwaer I am red

      Now then wher are we. I have got somwere & Im no further
      than i started

      We analyze from fundamental to randomness becuze its
      convenient. But in an infinitly extendable univers any
      point is an arbitrary set of relacions we alwayz find
      ourselvs in th midle of

      but somwhere in this vector between Halesowen and Cradley
      Heath transendent meaning: sucsess

      Wat we cal our lives arbitrary convencions establishd for
      owr habitual modes of perception- - my producers let me
      down. Ive forgoten how old i am. Im overqualified az a
      secretary. Its too interesting to get an erection. Im
      living w/ my mom. I see haf an howr of daylite. Its
      dificult for relacions not to form in hyperspacial axes
      all concevable structurs

      my life, as the saying gos, is compozd of thez
      tetrahedrons cubes octahedrons dodecahedrons icosahedrons

      Do yu understand me too wel. Do yu understand me too wel.
      Ye fuckin dont yknow.

      I got my langwage from TB Pawlicki. In the spirit of a
      raving sawcer paranoiack & dispassionat ironist of the new

      Its so exsiting purposiv discors wich beleves it is not
      abowt discours conceets it refers to somthing, escape
      onlie referent

      Wen sciens becoms pathological it iz poetry as far as it
      is sciens - -reding stochastick purpos into universal
      deluzion. Show us eny object or poeisis to rezist Why yoo
      rite it dis

      A nife a tinopener a Chicken Tikka a customer all
      legitimatly asking Whad is dis - -Hey fool- - yoo lazy
      boggar ynow. Yoo shud be sarve cashtomer yknow not reding
      book. Yu shud not be siting wen cushtomer gib order- -

      Wen a standing wave patern is acselerated to the velocity
      of th radiant waves wich create it, its 3 dimensional
      structur disapears altogether

      Im going to kick his fuckin hed in.

      It is an awkward transicion from aggresiv sexuality of the
      criminal underclas to a Tory Cabinet minister. Thats why
      impotens is important.

      Hey i told yoo bring this shit book, yu jas doing nathing
      reeding blady book, i tol yoo don bring dis- - yoo focking
      lazy boggar jus reading book

      yoo jus wark for maney yuno- - yoo nebber want to be
      muslim - -I want to make ewe good waitering but yu never
      lissen, yu jus wark for my money - -yu Inglish craftie
      peple ykno

      Yeh- - yeare not white yoo ar gipsie mongrel- - yoo
      Cristian peeple craftie boggar yuno. Yu ar fly ewe are not
      human even, yoo fly- - I kill yoo yu cunt- - if wan kick i
      braek yor hed ykno- - yoo Chrishtian fucking, yoos peple
      Cristien fuckin rarz clat, Iym not going to pay yu wazes -
      -yeah, yoo neber wark Friday- - I not gibbing it yu wazes
      - -

      The chickin is alwayz vibrating to random moleculer
      agitacion of heat (as far az the chicken is consernd the
      extra vibracioun it gets from being pluckt is just mor
      heet) yoo fark off man, fark off owt of my shop - -yeah- -
      yoo working for my wages en yoo getting labour yah - -I
      tel socell security- - yool not get wages

      yoo peple wil go to hell- - yoo shit man yu fockin
      barstard - -yu make oders suffering- - yoo tink yu are
      make them heppy - -ewe arsk them. Yoo fuckin Chrishten yor
      mother she make yu barstard - -barstard fock- - get get
      out. Yoo wil punish- - for tree generation- - parafrase
      metonymic phraze, Letters to another fuckin planet the
      lower classes - -yore fucking Hakim family wil go to Hell

      to an observer thru a clock slower present region,
      parafrastick riting present yore sishter dey Crishtian, I
      see yore sishter yeh width fuckin Irish rabbish shit -
      -yor sister dey go in street- - going to kill dat old
      woman & that Hazi - -dont tell her to pray she going to
      hell yeah- - she going to hell - -not laffing.

      Yoo fock yir sishter das what make them Cishtian allo dem
      - -yoo hab sex wid yor sister- - ew lisehn revocable
      declar- - yeh yoo heb sex

      Andrew Duncan made me Last modified: Tue Mar 26 15:51:04
      GMT 1996



      >>>Marcia and Harsha:

      I am such an analytical person. I earned my living
      putting together business plans and creating spreadsheets.
      The day I got my first glimpse of 'thinking about' as different
      than directly perceiving was, how to say it, profound.
      I directly perceived myself 'thinking about' something.
      A momentary perception, a sideways glance. To be able
      to identify a thought, an emotion, a sensation as separate
      and distinct functions is very interesting. I thought that
      thinking about was self-observing. I think this is a common
      trap for the thinking types.


      Thanks for sharing Marcia. Can you describe that moment and the context more
      fully? Do you call that self-remembrance in the terminology of your system?


      Hi Harsha,

      I didn't answer right away because I thought I saw that you
      were leaving for a few days.

      Harsha: Yes. Tomorrow morning. Until the end of the month.

      Marcia: I can describe 'a' moment if not the 'the' moment.
      Last Friday I was sitting with a group of friends intently
      discussing some aspect of consciousness. One person
      in the group was intently and emphatically explaining to
      me something. I was sincerely and intently listening.
      'Something' finer and higher woke up if just for a second.
      I glimpsed the entire whole scene; both the emphatic
      leader type and the sincere student type. I said something
      along the lines of....."Yes, but is there something in you
      that is noticing how sure you are and how sincere I am?"
      In that moment, he woke up and we didn't need to talk
      anymore about it.

      Harsha: That is hilarious Marcia! You are deeper than the deepest ocean.

      Marcia: In order to observe oneself, there has to be some self-
      remembering but self-remembering is not the observation
      itself. My understanding of self-remembering is a full body
      sensate awareness and emotional awareness. A sense
      of I Am. The observation would be, for example, of
      that which tugs to pull one away from this.

      Harsha: Yes, I understand what you are saying Marcia. Self-remembrance is a
      sense of I AM. Many terms are used by different people. In practice,
      Self-remembrance, I AM, Being, Clear Seeing, all point to the same thing. Do
      you recall in a post some time ago you had written that Self-remembrance is
      the last thing to go and I had responded to that. Self-remembrance or the I
      AM is the tip of the iceberg. But if one stays with that, it is enough.

      Marcia: You know I have been reading a bit about kundalini
      and it seems that an open heart is important. I suspect
      self-remembering has to do with active kundalini and
      an open heart. Make sense?

      Harsha: Yes. Self-remembering helps everything including the Kundalini
      Shakti. One can also say that it is due to the working of the Shakti itself
      that a person becomes aware and engages in Self-remembrance. Two ends of the
      same pole. Two sides of the same coin. And an open heart is like the sky
      because one can learn to fly easily in it.

      Marcia, you are vaster then the sky itself. Thank you for the richness of
      your presence and your many wonderful gifts.

      With gratitude and love


      >>>Jerry and Dave:

      >>>Jerry wrote:

      I spent some time on Anthropic website. http://www.anthropic-principle.com
      Anyone come across the nonduality connection? Is it implied
      somewhere? Can doomsday theory be applied to the doom of
      thoughts and conditioning?

      This principle points to very high probabilities that the Human race
      will terminate within 100 years, and supporting that principle are
      arguments that are relatively realistic within imaginable physical
      reason. Now it appears that the author has developed a field of use for
      anthropic reasoning, but it is clear that applying nondual premises to
      his Self Sampling Assumption (SSA):

      Every observer should reason as if she were a random
      sample from the set of all observers.

      could have some pretty far reaching implications.

      If in the SSA it is understood that "the set of all observers" is
      Unity Awareness, and any random sample within that set would
      represent a partial, distorted or invalid assumption, then we can
      see that we are in one heck of a predicament.

      The first assumption that the author, Nick Bostrom, makes, is that
      the random sample is a fair representation of the whole. He suggests
      we take a random sample and ask of it, "How do you see it?". Thought
      and conditioning are responsible for the response that the random
      sample will make.

      If you remove thought and conditioning, what is the random sample
      going to say?

      If we assume that THIS IS Unity Awareness, and that we are random samples
      it is possible to consider extinction of the human race in one lifetime!

      Unity Awareness exists outside of time, and this is IT. We are interpreting
      something into it. We are conditioning the image. There are no individuals.
      Others apparently die. Others apparently lived before us. Others will
      apparently go on after us. THIS IS IT, so what am I doing here?

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.