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

Re: [The Existential Society] Outsiders looking in.....

Expand Messages
  • Bob M.
    Good morning Kathy, Sorry again for the delay, but too much contact with my everywhere fallen (self-entrenced) brothers and sisters can still sometimes
    Message 1 of 13 , May 14, 2005
      Good morning Kathy,

      Sorry again for the delay, but too much contact with my everywhere
      fallen (self-entrenced) brothers and sisters can still sometimes
      diminish my enthusiasm, strength, and optimism, at least for a time.
      Anyway, in this new day, I foresee Biblical Christianity eventually
      playing itself out (i.e. the setting up of the abomination that
      maketh desolate and the second-coming of Christ).

      And till then or towards this event it is my (our?) task to, as you
      too allude, attempt to awaken the wakeable (those not satisfied with
      being automatons) who remain fast asleep in the dust of the earth
      (dark, fallen, lifeless, loveless society).

      Krishnamurti's 'strategy' was obviously wrong as you say. His
      transformation was too much of a cakewalk, so to speak. Therefore in
      the practical down to earth realm of things he was quite a flop, yet
      then again perhaps his job was to 'save' only myself and a handful of
      others to carry on until the end. His longed for group of 10 or 20
      radically transformed people just may be 'out there' without him
      having ever realized it. Obviously the end wasn't scheduled to come
      in his days, and yes indeed, 'good intentions and hell' , as you say,
      surely was in play with him too. Had he any real brains
      (intelligence) about himself and life, he would have built his
      schools for the sake of teaching adults, not children, how to live
      and love and fully be.

      So in keeping it short, sweet, and simple, man, without divine
      intervention, cannot save the sinking ship he's on.

      http://www.barrylong.org/terrorism.html

      http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/Soar_Like_An_Eagle/message/53

      Happy trails and trials,

      Bob M. (NTB)
      ________________________________________________


      --- In theexistentialsociety@yahoogroups.com, kathykundalini@c...
      wrote:
      > Bob...
      >
      > Thank you for your insightful thoughts....My only question at this
      time would be how you see this quest for "awakening" can be seen in
      our social/historical context. That question would again involve:
      what you are awakening to? In other words, if the
      social/economic/political context is such that it produces people who
      (mis)understand their lives in certain ways, and they are obliged by
      these circumstances to continually reinforce this ignorance by way of
      the modes of surviving and living as dictated by our social-economic
      forms? In fact, isn't the whole social world created by way of
      concrete forms of alienation -- and wouldn't "awakening" involve a
      facing up to these facts and thus a seeing of the need to engage in a
      project of fundamental change? Isn't the "self-centeredness" that you
      wish to overcome a product of certain forms of alienated production?
      Wage-labor, commodity production, and capital accumulation, that is,
      capitalist society, immediately come to mind. How can we hope
      to "awaken" when the whole weight of society is geared to keep us
      asleep? You mention Krishnamurti's disclosure that when all was said
      and done, he "saved" no one. Well, my question would be -- was his
      strategy valid? By addressing the question of "being saved" merely on
      an individual level -- that is, by imagining a strategy that by its
      nature ignores the social-historical -- then one might be merely,
      once again, paving the way to hell with good intentions. The problem
      might be the need for real social change rather than individual
      awakening -- or rather, the problem might be seeing those two realms
      mutually exclusive rather than dialectically intertwined. By posing
      the question as how to do away with "self-centeredness" might you
      already be accepting a constricted and alienated view of what
      this "self" might be? In other words, you accept an individualized,
      personalized view of your "self" -- and then seek to abolish it, or
      at least, mitigate some of its "unawakened" effects. But by accepting
      this view, you are already accepting your own constriction -- in
      that, you are not seeing yourself, as a premise, as a larger social-
      self -- which already understands itself as a social, collective
      creation. In other words, you accept your "self" as a kind of private
      property, which you come to find constricting, and then you try to
      ameliorate that situation by coming less selfish. But I would ask how
      you came to be defined this way in the first place. What are the
      social forms that oblige us to experience ourselves in these ways? If
      we come to recognize ourselves as products of alienated forms of
      social development -- then it would be in our interests to abolish
      those conditions -- and perhaps in so doing we would recognize our
      need for a collectivised transcendence, we would actually move beyond
      the whole framework of "self vs other" (or the selfish vs non-
      selfish) and realize that we are each already a larger "social self" -
      - and that our real interest is in a kind of resonation with others,
      in that the constriction of our selves into private property will be
      transcended in a social-collectivised- communalized existence. In
      other words, we will see that our current problem is not that we
      are "too greedy" -- but rather that we are not greedy enough.
      Our "greed" right now is a constricted, frustrated, privatised,
      alienated greed -- which is also why this "greed" always involves our
      doing actions that are clearly against our own self-interests
      (destroying the environment comes to mind). By abolishing the
      conditions that create this alienation, we can then put our "greed"
      where it really belongs -- into the creation of a peaceful,
      beautiful, humanized world, where our desires can actually be taken
      seriously because we, ourselves, will have the means to actually make
      our desires a reality. Our collective, mutually-informed actions will
      evolve into a shared destiny of global transformation. But to bring
      this about will have to involve a real-historical transformation -- a
      transcendence of capitalism. In other words, until the totality is
      understood and transformed, then all our individualized,
      privatized "awakenings" will only mean more of the same -- little
      backwaters of moralisms, feel-goodisms, constricted individualism,
      and frustrating dead-ends.
      >
      > Meanwhile, don't worry about my use of an anti-depressant. It is
      very very mild, and, believe me, I am very capable of experiencing
      the highs and lows of feelings and emotions. Another side of
      my "transformation" is my vulnerability to very intense mood-swings,
      and these can be quite severe. The medication was prescribed by one
      of my therapists to help me keep my breakdowns a little under
      control. I was very hesitant to begin taking this medication, as I
      definitely did not want to find myself "flattened out" in my feelings
      and experience. But that has not been a problem at all. Actually, I'm
      not sure if the medication is really doing anything at all. But I am
      taking it, and I see no reason to stop. I think part of the issue for
      me may be the effects of certain other medications I am taking that
      have a way of intensifying my emotions due to hormonal fluxuations.
      And also, this new existence that I am living has just naturally
      opened me up to all kinds of new feelings -- so I tend to be a little
      intense and also vulnerable. As one of my therapists told me a few
      years ago when we began mapping out my path, she said, "Kathy, you
      will find yourself not only experiencing things with a new intensity,
      but you will be experiencing feelings you did not even know existed."
      She was sure right about that!..The whole experience was quite
      exhausting, and it changed every aspect of my life, so, yes, for now,
      I might need a little help to cope -- so I took my therapist's
      recommendation, and I take some mild medication. But trust me, if you
      knew me personally, you would not say that lack of intensity is a
      problem for me. (Quite the opposite for sure!)
      >
      > Kathy
    • kathykundalini@comcast.net
      Hi Bob .... If I understand what you are saying (with my ability to misinterpret, this is always questionable)...I think I disagree. You seem to be saying that
      Message 2 of 13 , May 16, 2005
        Hi Bob ....

        If I understand what you are saying (with my ability to misinterpret, this
        is always questionable)...I think I disagree.

        You seem to be saying that humanity's only hope is through fulfillment of
        some kind of biblical prophecy, as when you say:

        "I foresee Biblical Christianity eventually
        playing itself out (i.e. the setting up of the abomination that
        maketh desolate and the second-coming of Christ."

        Followed later by:

        "... man, without divine
        intervention, cannot save the sinking ship he's on."

        You, of course, are free to believe whatever you like -- but to me, this
        viewpoint is not only invalid, but also very dangerous. It ultimately
        represents a belief in a magical saviour to make it all better -- and
        believing in this allows one to engage in a kind of (pseudo)moralistic
        superiority, while, in fact, ignoring the real social-historical situation
        that is threatening human life on earth. In other words, it means remaining
        basically passive while expecting a heavenly father figure to clean up our
        mess. It allows one to not come to any kind of real theoretical
        understanding and certainly not to imagine real solutions or take part in
        any actual movement that might do the dirty work of actually changing
        things. In other words, it is to embody the kinds of (non)action (or
        diversionary action) that many Christians have been criticized for over and
        over again for the last 200 years. This viewpoint seems to advocate putting
        humanity into permanent infantile status -- in that, it relies on God to
        save us -- which means that we earthly people are incapable of
        self-understanding, and self-action, and that, in fact, God's little
        earthly experiment is a failure. We dirtied ourselves and now we need our
        diapers changed, and we can't do it ourselves, so let's hope our savior
        comes along to clean up our mess. Well why should a savior come along? To
        save what? A bunch of messy infants that soiled their crib? Maybe the
        savoir is busy living-it-up on another planet where the folks learned to
        take care of themselves -- maybe they learned a little responsibility (and
        learned to consciously face their circumstances.) As I said before -- there
        are certain social-economic realities that need dealing with, that, in my
        understanding, are behind the basic "out-of-control" nature of modern life.
        These realities are humanly created, and therefore can be humanly
        transformed. I will happily send you (or anyone else) a longer piece in
        which I outline my theoretical analysis of our current situation. Just ask
        and it is yours...

        Kathy







        Original Message:
        -----------------
        From: Bob M. new_trail_blazer@...
        Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 12:04:48 -0000
        To: theexistentialsociety@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [The Existential Society] Outsiders looking in.....


        <html><body>


        <tt>
        Good morning Kathy,<BR>
        <BR>
        Sorry again for the delay, but too much contact with my everywhere <BR>
        fallen (self-entrenced) brothers and sisters can still sometimes <BR>
        diminish my enthusiasm, strength, and optimism, at least for a time. <BR>
        Anyway, in this new day, I foresee Biblical Christianity eventually <BR>
        playing itself out (i.e. the setting up of the abomination that <BR>
        maketh desolate and the second-coming of Christ).<BR>
        <BR>
        And till then or towards this event it is my (our?) task to, as you <BR>
        too allude, attempt to awaken the wakeable (those not satisfied with <BR>
        being automatons) who remain fast asleep in the dust of the earth <BR>
        (dark, fallen, lifeless, loveless society). <BR>
        <BR>
        Krishnamurti's 'strategy' was obviously wrong as you say. His <BR>
        transformation was too much of a cakewalk, so to speak. Therefore in <BR>
        the practical down to earth realm of things he was quite a flop, yet <BR>
        then again perhaps his job was to 'save' only myself and a handful of <BR>
        others to carry on until the end. His longed for group of 10 or 20 <BR>
        radically transformed people just may be 'out there' without him <BR>
        having ever realized it. Obviously the end wasn't scheduled to come <BR>
        in his days, and yes indeed, 'good intentions and hell' , as you say, <BR>
        surely was in play with him too. Had he any real brains <BR>
        (intelligence) about himself and life, he would have built his <BR>
        schools for the sake of teaching adults, not children, how to live <BR>
        and love and fully be. <BR>
        <BR>
        So in keeping it short, sweet, and simple, man, without divine <BR>
        intervention, cannot save the sinking ship he's on. <BR>
        <BR>
        <a
        href="http://www.barrylong.org/terrorism.html">http://www.barrylong.org/terr
        orism.html</a><BR>
        <BR>
        <a
        href="http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/Soar_Like_An_Eagle/message/53">http:/
        /uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/Soar_Like_An_Eagle/message/53</a><BR>
        <BR>
        Happy trails and trials,<BR>
        <BR>
        Bob M. (NTB)<BR>
        ________________________________________________<BR>
        <BR>
        <BR>
        --- In theexistentialsociety@yahoogroups.com, kathykundalini@c... <BR>
        wrote:<BR>
        > Bob...<BR>
        > <BR>
        > Thank you for your insightful thoughts....My only question at this <BR>
        time would be how you see this quest for "awakening" can be seen in <BR>
        our social/historical context. That question would again involve: <BR>
        what you are awakening to? In other words, if the <BR>
        social/economic/political context is such that it produces people who <BR>
        (mis)understand their lives in certain ways, and they are obliged by <BR>
        these circumstances to continually reinforce this ignorance by way of <BR>
        the modes of surviving and living as dictated by our social-economic <BR>
        forms? In fact, isn't the whole social world  created by way of <BR>
        concrete forms of alienation -- and wouldn't "awakening" involve a <BR>
        facing up to these facts and thus a seeing of the need to engage in a <BR>
        project of fundamental change? Isn't the "self-centeredness" that you <BR>
        wish to overcome a product of certain forms of alienated production? <BR>
        Wage-labor, commodity production, and capital accumulation, that is, <BR>
        capitalist society, immediately come to mind. How can we hope <BR>
        to "awaken" when the whole weight of society is geared to keep us <BR>
        asleep? You mention Krishnamurti's disclosure that when all was said <BR>
        and done, he "saved" no one. Well, my question would be -- was his <BR>
        strategy valid? By addressing the question of "being saved" merely on <BR>
        an individual level -- that is, by imagining a strategy that by its <BR>
        nature ignores the social-historical -- then one might be merely, <BR>
        once again, paving the way to hell with good intentions. The problem <BR>
        might be the need for real social change rather than individual <BR>
        awakening -- or rather, the problem might be seeing those two realms <BR>
        mutually exclusive rather than dialectically intertwined. By posing <BR>
        the question as how to do away with "self-centeredness" might you <BR>
        already be accepting a constricted and alienated view of what <BR>
        this "self" might be? In other words, you accept an individualized, <BR>
        personalized view of your "self" -- and then seek to abolish it, or <BR>
        at least, mitigate some of its "unawakened" effects. But by accepting <BR>
        this view, you are already accepting your own constriction -- in <BR>
        that, you are not seeing yourself, as a premise, as a larger social-<BR>
        self -- which already understands itself as a social, collective <BR>
        creation. In other words, you accept your "self" as a kind of private <BR>
        property, which you come to find constricting, and then you try to <BR>
        ameliorate that situation by coming less selfish. But I would ask how <BR>
        you came to be defined this way in the first place. What are the <BR>
        social forms that oblige us to experience ourselves in these ways? If <BR>
        we come to recognize ourselves as products of alienated forms of <BR>
        social development -- then it would be in our interests to abolish <BR>
        those conditions -- and perhaps in so doing we would recognize our <BR>
        need for a collectivised transcendence, we would actually move beyond <BR>
        the whole framework of "self vs other" (or the selfish vs non-<BR>
        selfish) and realize that we are each already a larger "social self" -<BR>
        - and that our real interest is in a kind of resonation with others, <BR>
        in that the constriction of our selves into private property will be <BR>
        transcended in a social-collectivised- communalized existence. In <BR>
        other words, we will see that our current problem is not that we <BR>
        are "too greedy" -- but rather that we are not greedy enough. <BR>
        Our "greed" right now is a constricted, frustrated, privatised, <BR>
        alienated greed -- which is also why this "greed" always involves our <BR>
        doing actions that are clearly against our own self-interests <BR>
        (destroying the environment comes to mind). By abolishing the <BR>
        conditions that create this alienation, we can then put our "greed" <BR>
        where it really belongs -- into the creation of a peaceful, <BR>
        beautiful, humanized world, where our desires can actually be taken <BR>
        seriously because we, ourselves, will have the means to actually make <BR>
        our desires a reality. Our collective, mutually-informed actions will <BR>
        evolve into a shared destiny of global transformation. But to bring <BR>
        this about will have to involve a real-historical transformation -- a <BR>
        transcendence of capitalism. In other words, until the totality is <BR>
        understood and transformed, then all our individualized, <BR>
        privatized "awakenings" will only mean more of the same -- little <BR>
        backwaters of moralisms, feel-goodisms, constricted individualism, <BR>
        and frustrating dead-ends. <BR>
        > <BR>
        > Meanwhile, don't worry about my use of an anti-depressant. It is <BR>
        very very mild, and, believe me, I am very capable of experiencing <BR>
        the highs and lows of feelings and emotions. Another side of <BR>
        my "transformation" is my vulnerability to very intense mood-swings, <BR>
        and these can be quite severe. The medication was prescribed by one <BR>
        of my therapists to help me keep my breakdowns a little under <BR>
        control. I was very hesitant to begin taking this medication, as I <BR>
        definitely did not want to find myself "flattened out" in my feelings <BR>
        and experience. But that has not been a problem at all. Actually, I'm <BR>
        not sure if the medication is really doing anything at all. But I am <BR>
        taking it, and I see no reason to stop. I think part of the issue for <BR>
        me may be the effects of certain other medications I am taking that <BR>
        have a way of intensifying my emotions due to hormonal fluxuations. <BR>
        And also, this new existence that I am living has just naturally <BR>
        opened me up to all kinds of new feelings -- so I tend to be a little <BR>
        intense and also vulnerable. As one of my therapists told me a few <BR>
        years ago when we began mapping out my path, she said, "Kathy, you <BR>
        will find yourself not only experiencing things with a new intensity, <BR>
        but you will be experiencing feelings you did not even know existed." <BR>
        She was sure right about that!..The whole experience was quite <BR>
        exhausting, and it changed every aspect of my life, so, yes, for now, <BR>
        I might need a little help to cope -- so I took my therapist's <BR>
        recommendation, and I take some mild medication. But trust me, if you <BR>
        knew me personally, you would not say that lack of intensity is a <BR>
        problem for me. (Quite the opposite for sure!)<BR>
        > <BR>
        > Kathy<BR>
        <BR>
        <BR>
        <BR>
        </tt>




        <!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->

        <br>
        <tt><hr width="500">
        <b>Yahoo! Groups Links</b><br>
        <ul>
        <li>To visit your group on the web, go to:<br><a
        href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theexistentialsociety/">http://groups.ya
        hoo.com/group/theexistentialsociety/</a><br> 
        <li>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:<br><a
        href="mailto:theexistentialsociety-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsub
        scribe">theexistentialsociety-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com</a><br> 
        <li>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
        href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms of Service</a>.
        </ul>
        </tt>
        </br>

        <!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->


        </body></html>



        --------------------------------------------------------------------
        mail2web - Check your email from the web at
        http://mail2web.com/ .
      • Bob M.
        Hi again Kathy, Dangerous you say? Not anymore so than it was during the great cleansing that took place in the days of Noah. (Pseudo)moralistic superiority
        Message 3 of 13 , May 17, 2005
          Hi again Kathy,

          Dangerous you say? Not anymore so than it was during the great
          cleansing that took place in the days of Noah.

          '(Pseudo)moralistic' superiority you say. Why the need for
          the '(pseudo)moralistic'. Is not what is simply what is? Many are
          called-few are chosen? Let the dead bury their own dead? Straight is
          the gate, narrow is the way and few are they that find it? Consider
          the work of God; who can make straight what he has made crooked?
          Nothing much new under the sun here in this camp.

          The 'savior' concept I allude to is not of the typical petty and
          lame 'Graham style' (more road to hell paved with good intentions) of
          clinging to and riding on the coattails of a namby-pamby Jesus
          figure, but one more in the Tillich tradition of a torch-bearer of
          truth appearing in the flesh and prompting and instructing others by
          example of his own experiences and observations to not only walk in
          the footsteps of Christ the man, but then to go onward and beyond
          him. Likewise he would serve also to judge both 'the quick and the
          dead' in the process.

          Nietzsche put it quite nicely as follows:

          "But someday, in a stronger age than this decaying, self-doubting
          present, he must yet come to us, the redeeming man, of great love and
          contempt, the creative spirit whose compelling strength will not let
          him rest in any aloofness or any beyond, whose isolation is
          misunderstood by the people as if it were flight from reality-while
          it is only his absorption, immersion, penetration into reality, so
          that, when he one day emerges again into the light, he may bring home
          the redemption of this reality; its redemption from the curse that
          the hitherto reigning ideal has laid upon it. The man of the future,
          who will redeem us not only from the hitherto reigning ideal but also
          from that which was bound to grow out of it, the great nausea, the
          will to nothingness, Nihilism; this bell-stroke of noon and the great
          decision that liberates the will again and restores its goal to the
          earth and his hope to man; This Antichrist and Antinihilist; this
          victor over god and nothingness-He must come one day."

          Happy trails and trials,

          Bob M. (NTB)

          P.S. Feel free to place anything you'd like herein, so long as it
          meets the Yahoo guidelines Kathy.
          ______________________________________________

          --- In theexistentialsociety@yahoogroups.com, "kathykundalini@c..."
          <kathykundalini@c...> wrote:
          > Hi Bob ....
          >
          > If I understand what you are saying (with my ability to
          misinterpret, this
          > is always questionable)...I think I disagree.
          >
          > You seem to be saying that humanity's only hope is through
          fulfillment of
          > some kind of biblical prophecy, as when you say:
          >
          > "I foresee Biblical Christianity eventually
          > playing itself out (i.e. the setting up of the abomination that
          > maketh desolate and the second-coming of Christ."
          >
          > Followed later by:
          >
          > "... man, without divine
          > intervention, cannot save the sinking ship he's on."
          >
          > You, of course, are free to believe whatever you like -- but to
          me, this
          > viewpoint is not only invalid, but also very dangerous. It
          ultimately
          > represents a belief in a magical saviour to make it all better --
          and
          > believing in this allows one to engage in a kind of (pseudo)
          moralistic
          > superiority, while, in fact, ignoring the real social-historical
          situation
          > that is threatening human life on earth. In other words, it means
          remaining
          > basically passive while expecting a heavenly father figure to clean
          up our
          > mess. It allows one to not come to any kind of real theoretical
          > understanding and certainly not to imagine real solutions or take
          part in
          > any actual movement that might do the dirty work of actually
          changing
          > things. In other words, it is to embody the kinds of (non)action (or
          > diversionary action) that many Christians have been criticized for
          over and
          > over again for the last 200 years. This viewpoint seems to advocate
          putting
          > humanity into permanent infantile status -- in that, it relies on
          God to
          > save us -- which means that we earthly people are incapable of
          > self-understanding, and self-action, and that, in fact, God's little
          > earthly experiment is a failure. We dirtied ourselves and now we
          need our
          > diapers changed, and we can't do it ourselves, so let's hope our
          savior
          > comes along to clean up our mess. Well why should a savior come
          along? To
          > save what? A bunch of messy infants that soiled their crib? Maybe
          the
          > savoir is busy living-it-up on another planet where the folks
          learned to
          > take care of themselves -- maybe they learned a little
          responsibility (and
          > learned to consciously face their circumstances.) As I said before -
          - there
          > are certain social-economic realities that need dealing with, that,
          in my
          > understanding, are behind the basic "out-of-control" nature of
          modern life.
          > These realities are humanly created, and therefore can be humanly
          > transformed. I will happily send you (or anyone else) a longer
          piece in
          > which I outline my theoretical analysis of our current situation.
          Just ask
          > and it is yours...
          >
          > Kathy
        • kathykundalini@comcast.net
          Bob -- Well whatever it is you are trying to say appears to exemplify exactly what I was critiquing in my previous posting -- the infantile craving for The
          Message 4 of 13 , May 18, 2005
            Bob -- Well whatever it is you are trying to say appears to exemplify exactly what I was critiquing in my previous posting -- the infantile craving for The Authority, The Leader who will miraculouosly intervene to save the chosen few. This magical myth is even more dangerous than I first thought in that you choose to adopt an irrationality steeped in Biblical imagery combined with the expressed need for a fascististic "final solution." Your craven expectation of some macho-savior exudes the character-type of a frightened and disoriented child hoping against hope that Daddy will come at make it all right. This is dangerous because it represents a passivity and a disowning of the possibility of real action and real solutions (an attitude referred to by Sartre as "bad faith")...and this characterological rigidifation makes you extremely susceptible to fascistic projection onto some authoritarian avenger who will take control of your self-repressive fear of freedom and responsibility. Thus you risk falling into an enthrallment to some Power by way of your own character-armorings (self-repressions that are mapped onto your psyche and body). In other words, you sound like a perfect candidate for fascist indoctrination and manipulation -- and absorbtion into an irrational authoritarian movement made up of repressed, self-righteous lapdogs wagging their little tails in the service of the Top Dog Leader Supreme. Obviously this dynamic is active not just on the level of social vision or politics -- but is inherently psychological, which makes it very difficult to commicate about and discuss. I would only ask you if you have considered why you have these needs, why you have these vulnerabilities. Such a question would mean putting aside or bracketing the supposed truth-value of your attitudes, and to honestly probe your own psychology as to why you think the way you do -- why you are susceptible to one set of beliefs rather than another -- that is, what problems are you REALLY trying to solve, what energies or fears are you really trying to suppress and avoid, what frustrations are you really sublimating and why, what repressions are active in you -- and why their sublimated projection and release take the form that they do.

            *******
            "I recognized the deadly fear of the living in you, a fear which always makes you set out correctly and end wrongly. You had the happiness of humanity in your hands, and you have gambled it away. You had the world in your hands, and at the end you dropped your atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Through the centuries, you will shed blood where life should be protected, and will believe that you achieve freedom with the help of the hangman; thus you will find yourself again and again in the same morass. "
            "You are afflicted with the emotional plague. You are sick, very sick, Little Man. It is not your fault. But it is your responsibility to rid yourself of this sickness." (Wilhelm Reich)
            ********
            "If you want a Big Brother,
            you get all that comes with it." (Erich Fromm)

            ********
            Kathy




            -------------- Original message --------------
            Hi again Kathy,

            Dangerous you say? Not anymore so than it was during the great
            cleansing that took place in the days of Noah.

            '(Pseudo)moralistic' superiority you say. Why the need for
            the '(pseudo)moralistic'. Is not what is simply what is? Many are
            called-few are chosen? Let the dead bury their own dead? Straight is
            the gate, narrow is the way and few are they that find it? Consider
            the work of God; who can make straight what he has made crooked?
            Nothing much new under the sun here in this camp.

            The 'savior' concept I allude to is not of the typical petty and
            lame 'Graham style' (more road to hell paved with good intentions) of
            clinging to and riding on the coattails of a namby-pamby Jesus
            figure, but one more in the Tillich tradition of a torch-bearer of
            truth appearing in the flesh and prompting and instructing others by
            example of his own experiences and observations to not only walk in
            the footsteps of Christ the man, but then to go onward and beyond
            him. Likewise he would serve also to judge both 'the quick and the
            dead' in the process.

            Nietzsche put it quite nicely as follows:

            "But someday, in a stronger age than this decaying, self-doubting
            present, he must yet come to us, the redeeming man, of great love and
            contempt, the creative spirit whose compelling strength will not let
            him rest in any aloofness or any beyond, whose isolation is
            misunderstood by the people as if it were flight from reality-while
            it is only his absorption, immersion, penetration into reality, so
            that, when he one day emerges again into the light, he may bring home
            the redemption of this reality; its redemption from the curse that
            the hitherto reigning ideal has laid upon it. The man of the future,
            who will redeem us not only from the hitherto reigning ideal but also
            from that which was bound to grow out of it, the great nausea, the
            will to nothingness, Nihilism; this bell-stroke of noon and the great
            decision that liberates the will again and restores its goal to the
            earth and his hope to man; This Antichrist and Antinihilist; this
            victor over god and nothingness-He must come one day."

            Happy trails and trials,

            Bob M. (NTB)

            P.S. Feel free to place anything you'd like herein, so long as it
            meets the Yahoo guidelines Kathy.
            ______________________________________________

            --- In theexistentialsociety@yahoogroups.com, "kathykundalini@c..."
            <kathykundalini@c...> wrote:
            > Hi Bob ....
            >
            > If I understand what you are saying (with my ability to
            misinterpret, this
            > is always questionable)...I think I disagree.
            >
            > You seem to be saying that humanity's only hope is through
            fulfillment of
            > some kind of biblical prophecy, as when you say:
            >
            > "I foresee Biblical Christianity eventually
            > playing itself out (i.e. the setting up of the abomination that
            > maketh desolate and the second-coming of Christ."
            >
            > Followed later by:
            >
            > "... man, without divine
            > intervention, cannot save the sinking ship he's on."
            >
            > You, of course, are free to believe whatever you like -- but to
            me, this
            > viewpoint is not only invalid, but also very dangerous. It
            ultimately
            > represents a belief in a magical saviour to make it all better --
            and
            > believing in this allows one to engage in a kind of (pseudo)
            moralistic
            > superiority, while, in fact, ignoring the real social-historical
            situation
            > that is threatening human life on earth. In other words, it means
            remaining
            > basically passive while expecting a heavenly father figure to clean
            up our
            > mess. It allows one to not come to any kind of real theoretical
            > understanding and certainly not to imagine real solutions or take
            part in
            > any actual movement that might do the dirty work of actually
            changing
            > things. In other words, it is to embody the kinds of (non)action (or
            > diversionary action) that many Christians have been criticized for
            over and
            > over again for the last 200 years. This viewpoint seems to advocate
            putting
            > humanity into permanent infantile status -- in that, it relies on
            God to
            > save us -- which means that we earthly people are incapable of
            > self-understanding, and self-action, and that, in fact, God's little
            > earthly experiment is a failure. We dirtied ourselves and now we
            need our
            > diapers changed, and we can't do it ourselves, so let's hope our
            savior
            > comes along to clean up our mess. Well why should a savior come
            along? To
            > save what? A bunch of messy infants that soiled their crib? Maybe
            the
            > savoir is busy living-it-up on another planet where the folks
            learned to
            > take care of themselves -- maybe they learned a little
            responsibility (and
            > learned to consciously face their circumstances.) As I said before -
            - there
            > are certain social-economic realities that need dealing with, that,
            in my
            > understanding, are behind the basic "out-of-control" nature of
            modern life.
            > These realities are humanly created, and therefore can be humanly
            > transformed. I will happily send you (or anyone else) a longer
            piece in
            > which I outline my theoretical analysis of our current situation.
            Just ask
            > and it is yours...
            >
            > Kathy






            Yahoo! Groups Links

            To visit your group on the web, go to:
            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theexistentialsociety/

            To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            theexistentialsociety-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

            Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Bob M.
            Hi Kathy, I m quite aware that many of the things I try to convey here will only be understood by the hearts and minds of a few, and then at best perhaps only
            Message 5 of 13 , May 20, 2005
              Hi Kathy,

              I'm quite aware that many of the things I try to convey here will
              only be understood by the hearts and minds of a few, and then at best
              perhaps only limitedly and fragmentarily presently. But attempts must
              be made and I sit reasonably content with mine and without any need
              for further argument or attempts to prove anything. Actually though
              to carry on any further with this particular theme (end of the old-
              beginning of the new, at least on a collective level) I feel would be
              essentially non-productive in the awakening of others, which I must
              still continue to remind myself is job-one. Save for stating that
              rather than an 'irrational fascist authoritarian avenger' type that
              you somehow deduce appearing (according to me), the new man or men I
              have in mind would be more along the lines of a genuine
              teacher/friend who's thoroughly walked the walk, is thereby free of
              the bondage of self, totally void of self-interest, and deeply
              immersed in love, experience, understanding, and wisdom.

              Last evening while lying in bed with my wife before retiring for the
              night, I read aloud the following reflection of his childhood days by
              Sam Keen from his book, "The Passionate Life: Stages of Loving".

              "Where does my story, or yours, begin? When I trace the roots of my
              being, at what point do I distinguish between 'my' self and the soil
              in which I was planted? When can I first say 'I am'?.....I could
              begin with the birth of self-consciousness. One day, when I was nine
              years old, I was walking down Court Street in Maryville, Tennessee.
              Near the bottom of the hill, fifteen feet from an apple tree, on a
              part of the sidewalk that was smooth enough for skating, I knew
              suddenly and with blinding clarity that I was different than my
              parents, my brothers and sisters, and my playmates. Self-
              consciousness descended on me like a hawk. In a sense, I might date
              the origin of my self from this moment.....But my consciousess was
              swaddled in a cradle made by nature and culture long before I knew
              myself to be a person apart from others. I was neither father,
              mother, nor architect of my own being. No self-made man. I grew like
              a seed in humus that was composted of the residue of generations. A
              nexus of communication of the living and the dead wove the tissue of
              my mind and body. My individuality was born from a web of life too
              intricate to unravel. Thinking back on the context that created me, I
              can only conclude that I must start my story with this affirmation: I
              was loved; therefore I am. As Martin Buber put it, "In the beginning
              was relationship"." (S.K.)

              My wife and I then again reflected back on our own lives and
              discussed how we both see clearly now that our own early childhood
              feelings and experiences were near carbon-copies of Mr. Keen's. And
              it was also especially apparent (and quite painfully at times) to us
              that the 'God seed' or the foundation of an authentic self was
              somehow formed in us from the very beginning and that this was not
              the case with the vast majority of those around us. In our particular
              cases though we both went down the road to destruction as life went
              on, only to have been eventually 'called back' to the need to
              recapture and begin rebuilding the authentic self along with
              discovering the causes of our 'falls'. And here I've become once
              again fully aware of the twice-born nature of both my wife and myself
              and I'm now wondering if this was the case with Keen, Reich, Fromm,
              and others, of course. I've read much of Reich (liking the 'body
              armor' business while rejecting the orgone baloney) and Fromm (The
              Art of Loving) over the years, but I don't recall how they regarded
              themselves personally so far as being once or twice 'born'. And I
              think here of a pretty neat, long gone, older, but once-born cousin I
              had, and who served as a good male role model for myself in my
              childhood years. Although in retrospect as neat, wise, mature,
              responsible, successful, and good to and for myself as he surely was,
              I find in him there was a lacking in the sense of his being a fully
              whole and complete human being. A common grandmother (who raised him
              and obviously quite well) often said to me that she felt he was 'too
              good for his own good'. I think now I finally got the picture.
              Personally while I too would often let others 'shit all over me'
              (seemingly a real weakness in those with the inherent capacity to
              love), I could too rise to the occasion, at least at times, and tell
              many of them to go pound sand up their asses if need be, thank
              goodness.

              Anyway I think here of Nietzsche's man of 'great love and contempt',
              and the difficult balancing act that such a state of being entails,
              but the absolute need for attaining it, if one is to ever truly stand
              on his own two feet and walk fully upright and thereby being fully
              pleasing to our Creator.

              Lastly, I doubt there'll ever be a true 'final solution', although I
              believe there'll soon come a considerably lengthy time of great
              peace, harmony, and genuine brotherhood among all men here on planet
              earth. And once again, this will all come about by God's design and
              in His time, and not man's. Until that time, or till the end of my
              days, again I must continue to live fully in the solution and make
              awakening others both individually and collectively job-one. Though
              not by long-winded psychological, philosophical, or religious banter
              and rhetoric, theories and/or argument, but simply by sharing
              (freely) my own and other's personal down to earth living and
              spiritually growing experiences and observations.

              Be well Kathy,

              Bob M.
              ______________________________________________

              --- In theexistentialsociety@yahoogroups.com, kathykundalini@c...
              wrote:
              > Bob -- Well whatever it is you are trying to say appears to
              exemplify exactly what I was critiquing in my previous posting -- the
              infantile craving for The Authority, The Leader who will
              miraculouosly intervene to save the chosen few. This magical myth is
              even more dangerous than I first thought in that you choose to adopt
              an irrationality steeped in Biblical imagery combined with the
              expressed need for a fascististic "final solution." Your craven
              expectation of some macho-savior exudes the character-type of a
              frightened and disoriented child hoping against hope that Daddy will
              come at make it all right. This is dangerous because it represents a
              passivity and a disowning of the possibility of real action and real
              solutions (an attitude referred to by Sartre as "bad faith")...and
              this characterological rigidifation makes you extremely susceptible
              to fascistic projection onto some authoritarian avenger who will take
              control of your self-repressive fear of freedom and responsibility.
              Thus you risk falling into an enthrallment to some Power by way of
              your own character-armorings (self-repressions that are mapped onto
              your psyche and body). In other words, you sound like a perfect
              candidate for fascist indoctrination and manipulation -- and
              absorbtion into an irrational authoritarian movement made up of
              repressed, self-righteous lapdogs wagging their little tails in the
              service of the Top Dog Leader Supreme. Obviously this dynamic is
              active not just on the level of social vision or politics -- but is
              inherently psychological, which makes it very difficult to commicate
              about and discuss. I would only ask you if you have considered why
              you have these needs, why you have these vulnerabilities. Such a
              question would mean putting aside or bracketing the supposed truth-
              value of your attitudes, and to honestly probe your own psychology as
              to why you think the way you do -- why you are susceptible to one set
              of beliefs rather than another -- that is, what problems are you
              REALLY trying to solve, what energies or fears are you really trying
              to suppress and avoid, what frustrations are you really sublimating
              and why, what repressions are active in you -- and why their
              sublimated projection and release take the form that they do.
              >
              > *******
              > "I recognized the deadly fear of the living in you, a fear which
              always makes you set out correctly and end wrongly. You had the
              happiness of humanity in your hands, and you have gambled it away.
              You had the world in your hands, and at the end you dropped your atom
              bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Through the centuries, you will shed
              blood where life should be protected, and will believe that you
              achieve freedom with the help of the hangman; thus you will find
              yourself again and again in the same morass. "
              > "You are afflicted with the emotional plague. You are sick, very
              sick, Little Man. It is not your fault. But it is your responsibility
              to rid yourself of this sickness." (Wilhelm Reich)
              > ********
              > "If you want a Big Brother,
              > you get all that comes with it." (Erich Fromm)
              >
              > ********
              > Kathy
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.