Re: [Meditation Society of America] Re: Pallavi's question [Sandeep]
- Hi Gene,>
> ----- Original Message -----From: "Gene Poole" <gene_poole@...>
> To: <href="mailto:email@example.com">firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 10:52 PM[Meditation Society of America] Re: Pallavi's question [Sandeep]
>face=Arial size=2>sandeepc@b...> wrote:
> > >sandeep <
> > > Deception,
> > >
> > > manipulations,
> > >
> > > modus-operandi,
> > >
> > > guilt,
> > >
> > >
> > >canniness,
> > > canniness deciphering through
> > >shame,
> > > true compassion versus
> > >....
> > > needing a context to reply to a kid
> > >......all from a set of pictures put together by a kid.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >collection of the pictures, using
> > >
> > > The making of the presentation, the
> the contrastice-cream and survival,....sure,... that is savy young mind at
> > between an
> > >presentation.
> > > It is not a bewildered
> >again, wise one.
> > No?
> > Think
> > On an email list, an esteemed person
> > posts what is claimed to be a presentationcomposed by a 12 YO girl; and this becomes
> > an issue in itself,which it should be.Why?A presentation got put-together by a child and then I was moved to upload it.It presents a scenario as seen by a pair of young eyes/mind.That's all that happened, that's all that took place, as far as this List is concerned.What it all represented to you Gene, the issues that appear relevant to you,.........you believe, you don't believe, your need for proof, whether it is bewildering stuff or it's not,..... whether there is an agenda behind that posting.....all that is your stuff.And no doubt very relevant for Gene.
> > Sandeep, what is goingon with you? Do you imagine that you can or do control how any
> >posting is received?eh?When did I ever say, that the post SHOULD be received like such and such.All the "shoulds" appear to be from your side.As I said earlier, if you have an answer for Pallavi and you are moved to articulate it, ...please do so.if you don't,..that's your answer.
> > Do you imagine that responses whichare at variance with what you want to hear, are somehow
> > indicativeof flaws or shortcomings in the respondent?And do you imagine,........that's what I imagine?There is no variance dear Gene, for the simple reason, there is no expectation on what a response is to be from you, or from anybody else.
> > My comment was that I have no proofthat this PP was actually made by a 12 YO girl; and that is
> > stillan issue for me. I have no proof that you have 'hugged her' as she experienced her perplexity.That lack of proof is an issue for Gene, .........noted.
> > Frankly, as seen from here, theissue of 'what you (Sandeep) are up to, is an important one.Oh, the usual hoopla.:-)Nah, suggest what is of more importance, is the belief, that behind a happening,.............there is to be an "up-to agenda".
> > Are you trying to bring up in thereader, resonance with the suffering of the endangered and deprived?:-)A resonance for truly to be a resonance,...............just arises in the moment, to an impacting input.It cannot be contrived, neither by the poster or the one who views a posting.
> > I am sorry to say, that no sucheffort is required in
> > my case.Noted.No effort was being made for anybody's case, irrespective of how the posting was seen.> I am fully 'resonant' with the plight of the
> > suffering innocents of this world. I am 'sorry to say',the simple reason that I wish that I too were 'innocent';
> > for
> > but, itis too late for me. I may not be 'innocent' in the
> > same way as theputative suffering 12 YO girl, but neither
> > am I 'guilty' of causingher any suffering.Fine.Was not seeking a confirmation from you Gene, anyway.Or from anybody.
> > So what the hell is up with you,Sandeep? Where is your usual 'doo be doo be doo' non-attachment.LOLIt remains dooo bee doo bee dooo.The lint in ear or the wax in the eye, deafens the doo bee dooing.>and why do
> > you now hold everyone to yourunstated standards of
> > morality?LOLHolding everyone to some unstated standards of morality.Come on Gene, get some wadrobe to malfunction.
> > These are serious questions fromme, Sandeep; please let me know. Please post your answer here.
> > 12YO girls... kittens, puppies, dead babies and ice
> > are those REALLY the imagery which are relevant to a12YO
> > girl, in a 3rd world country?Interesting Gene.So you suppose 12YO girls... kittens, puppies, dead babies and ice cream, are not relevant in a 3rd world country?Have you ever travelled to a 3rd world country?Incidentally, it's not so much of "haves" versus have-nots"If you see the second set of pictures, it's more about kids caught in a war-scenario.For Pallavi, as much I have gathered, it's not so much as the deprivation,.... as much as kids paying the cost,....... when adults are busy settling scores.
>sandeep <sandeepc@b...> wrote:Hi Sandeep... thanks for your reply.
> Hi Gene,
I have digested it. (burp!)
Here is this:
"Both the revolutionary and the reactionary find it possible to
act bloodily and to justify their actions through an extreme form of
identification with various patterns of violence. The revolutionary
has an answer to the world's problems and attempts to make the
world over into that answer. The reactionary finds the status quo
pleasantly worthwhile and strives mightily to defend it. One of the
pitfalls in the process of discriminating violences is the
construction of one's personality in such a way that the
personality comes to equate itself with the very act of
"So we take the process of perception one step farther and call it
"apperception." Apperception may be understood as doubly removed
self-consciousness. Put another way, it is thinking thinking about
thinking. It is a nonjudgmental rendering of the self in all its
facets, both violent and nonviolent. We arrive again at paradox:
it is the self observed and--another Western heresy--not
interfered with. (The Heisenberg Principle is only an externalization
of filicidal violence down to the quantum realm.)"
- ----- Original Message -----From: "Gene Poole" <gene_poole@...>Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 02:29 PMSubject: [Meditation Society of America] Re: Pallavi's question [Sandeep]> >sandeep <sandeepc@b...> wrote:
>digested it. (burp!)
> > Hi Gene,
> Hi Sandeep... thanks for your reply.
> I have:-)You are welcome.
> From there:revolutionary and the reactionary find it possible to
> "Both the
> act bloodily andto justify their actions through an extreme form of
> identification withvarious patterns of violence. The revolutionary
> has an answer to theworld's problems and attempts to make the
> world over into that answer.The reactionary finds the status quo
> pleasantly worthwhile andstrives mightily to defend it.Yes, both accept the independent existential reality of that, ..............which one wants to change and the other wishes to resist any change to that.The rebel and the establishment,...........both as much identified.> One of the
> pitfalls in theprocess of discriminating violences is the
> construction of one'spersonality in such a way that the
> personality comes to equate itselfwith the very act of
> discrimination.Or to put it in another way,.........a prevailing sense of discrimination along with an associated sense of a stake with the discrimnation, ..............is the sense of the person.The body-mind organism, wired for survival and perpetuation does discriminate between what it senses as a threat to it's survival or what it senses as an opportunity to "malfunction some wardrobe" (appropriate pheromones gets exuded, in either case )The body fears and lusts, but is not anxious with either.The failure to address the fear may prove painful for the body,.............the loss of an opportunity for some nookey may mean raging hormones......but "suffering" is an alien concept for the body.Suffering being connoted as the sense of 'WHY ME",................. at the advent of pain.Suffering, anxiety, insecurity, anguish,........... need to seek/achieve/attain/obtain,.................the pleasures of the persona.
>"So we take the process of perception one step farther and call it
> "apperception." Apperception may be understoodas doubly removed
> self-consciousness. Putanother way, it is thinking thinking about
> thinking. It is anonjudgmental rendering of the self in all its
> facets, both violent andnonviolent. We arrive again at paradox:
> it is the self observedand--another Western heresy--not
> interferedwith. (The Heisenberg Principle is only an externalization
> of filicidalviolence down to the quantum realm.)"Apperception, is as much a conceptual term as the terms, realization, awakening, understanding, enlightenment.It is a mere pointing,................. to a perceiving,...............without a perceiver thereof.A perceiving of the immanence,...............in simultaneous transcendence.