Highlights Thursday August 17th
>>>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
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
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
**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 andWhat I love is that you spell out exactly what you see yourself doing
> simplicity? <smile>
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
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
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
>>>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?
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: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?
>>>Dave: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?