Thursday, May 27, 2004

Self, or No-self?

Ask a thousand or hundred thousand people if they have a self, and they will likely say, "Yes, of course, ninny - it's in my head, or my heart, or my sex; somewhere in 'Me'".

That is the common view. Damn near everyone has it, just like every cow in a herd reports their cow-ness when asked about it (if they only had a brain/speech).

The uncommon view is that there is no self at all - not now, not later. Just a system of extremely organized living matter that operates on a push-pull, attract-resist, positive-negative, in-out, up-down circuitry. Self does not "go to the store". Self does not even decide to go there. The whole entire natural world requires certain "law-conformable" results, and each living material creature, performs their little dance, on time, and under budget.

That is the UN-common view. And a few, accidentally and externally-instructed (as well as a few damaged) others maintain such a view, just like there's always a few bad apples in every bunch of cows, er, apples.

But, and if you can finish my next sentence, you're even more uncommon than that... They are **Both** wrong, *not* both right: both wrong.

That is, the question of "is there or is there not such a 'thing' as 'self'" is the wrong question. And only lies and falsity results from wrong questions. It is of no more significance than questioning the existence of Snow White and the height, in feet-and-inches, of Sleepy - and you are very Sleepy if you get into that quagmire.

That, dear friends and republicans alike, is what the dead brain is, and it exists as real-ly as your arm exists and your finger exists, and can be brought to a screeching halt with a large screwdriver in the left nostril, and a big ball peen hammer, the same way your left forefinger can be brought to an end with a sharp knife. Try it, you'll see.

Only the uncommon-est of the uncommon have any possibilities - not the common, not the uncommon, for they - both of them - are simply part of the duality dance, yammering their made-up stories to one another. Full of fluff and non-sense, amounting to nothing at all.

To get yourself OUT of the dead brain before it's absolutely Too Late, is like using that screwdriver and ball peen hammer to perform a skilful bit of brain surgery upon yourself. Few, few, few there be who can stomach such a rare, rare, rare possibility.

But, dear compatriots and democrats alike, the Living Brain - the Future - is calling out to all... can you but hear it.

By the way - this possibility has NOTHING to do with spirituality, or enlightenment, nothing. It's about Understanding, top to bottom, inside out, and whack-birds. And, the dead brain can't get this in a million years. Only the Living Brain.

Tuesday, May 25, 2004

"My, my, my"

There have been, literally, thousands of years of denouncing the word "I", from, it being a form of disorienting egotism, or egoism, to, that it has some mystical connotation to your Angel in heaven. Some people, laughably, even use lowercase "i", or "this one", to suggest (to whom? who knows!) they understand something about the word which escapes others. But, in any case, everytime you say it (or "i", or "this one"), it has a disorienting effect - that can be seen by one and all who care to see it. It shores up "the illusion".

But, there is a word which is much more "dangerous", though - "My". Everytime you say or think, MY ("my opinion", "my thought", ESPECIALLY "my mind"), that's a farce. It's like a cow saying "Yes, that's my hoof, I created that hoof." That's just udder non-sense.

The most dangerous word is, "My".

But there is more to it than just that.


"Eye looks at rock."

Subject action Object.

Eye never confuses itself with the seen.

Ear never confuses itself with the heard.

Thus, "I" should never confuse itself with the thought - but it does.

The Mind, when it gets into the realm of what it made up, the second reality, it operates AS an object and a subject. It makes no distinction between the two. It takes the immaterial AS the material, which leads to all confusion.

Someone reveals publically the secret behind your delusion, naming you in the process, and what does the Ear do? What does the Eye do?

"Hey, you're on!"

What do I do?

What is my mind gonna say?


Just in case you might think this was about personal pronouns or speech/thought impediments or something, 'tweren't - but you knew that.

Expanded consciousness

The drive toward expanded consciousness is a real impulse in humans, not to be discounted. This drive gets all people out of bed in the morning, and up long enough to eat dinner and hit the rack. The ONLY difference between the so-called "them" and the so-called "us", is the difference in conscious awareness of what's happening in realtime.

Everybody alive can produce suitable descriptions of "what happened". No one without full consciousness can produce suitable descriptions of "what is happening".

Therein lies the division between "them" and "us".

To define one's personal spacetime as either "them" or "us", is to collapse the wave-form. And as Schrödinger knew, you don't want to do that. A collapsed wave-form must leave a dead cat, because that was one of the possibilities... but so was a live cat!!

Monday, May 24, 2004

The Great Pursuit

Why >>DO<< many people get "involved" (to some degree) with spiritual teachings: like Fourthway, Buddhism, Advaita, Christianity (not singling them out, there are hundreds of other ones)? It would be natural to think - especially if you'd never really thought about this before - that they do so, because their lives are perceived, either to be, meaningless, or painful in some way, or, they are driven by the pursuit of the unknown.

There are certainly other supposed reasons, but none of them get at the heart of the matter. They are all - just check with yourself - about some kind of "dis-satisfaction", and a desire to "cure it."

People do not pursue spiritual teachings for any reason whatsoever - no matter what they say. They also do not pursue food, air or shelter for any reason whatsoever. People and food, air, and shelter are part of the same thing - and one does not pursue the other, anymore than a fish pursues water. Without "the other" the fish, and the people, simply die off once and for all.

In fact, if one "finds themselves" pursuing a spiritual teaching, then they are absolutely no different - essentially - than one who "finds themselves" pursuing sports, music, politics, science or art. That is, there is no reason behind any of it, whatsoever.

Now, you can certainly disagree with the above, but, really, to what end would you be disagreeing? Would it be to prove the statements ill-conceived, or wrong, or to prove yourself more intelligent than the one who wrote them?

In any case, there is a very definite reason why pursuing any spiritual teaching at all - regardless whether you "think" (which is nothing more than belief, or worse, faith) your particular persuasion is better or more enlightened than some other - is absolutely pointless, and the sooner you get yourself cured from this "malady", the sooner you can start upon the Great Pursuit, which is Man's true destiny.

The "love/hate" relationship - if/then/else

People have a "love/hate" relationship with this medium, writing, whether it be on public forums, for others to see and evaluate, or simply into their own private journals or diaries.

The love/hate motivation is hormonal - that is, first there is the motivation, then there is the activation of centers to carry out the demands and requirements of that motivation - so, some write loving it, and others write hating it. Only the in-betweeners lurk; one can lurk forever in the darkness of unknowing, which is Bliss.

The love/hate motivation is a true "marriage of/in minds", in that one part of consciousness meets and falls in love with another part of consciousness, and marriage soon produces a virgin birth (virgin, because sperm cells can not pass the blood-brain barrier.) Knowing this, well, not knowing it, but seriously suspecting it, and having genetic certainty it is correct, the prefrontal cortex develops a plan to give birth to something - a truly wonderful something, but an unknown something.

The plan is written in the blood, and circulates the entire organism - that is, the entire system of man in humanity, is dedicated to giving birth from itself, into the physical external world, and into the nonphysical internal world of thought, mediated only by feeling, or temperament.

If it is one's temperament to attempt communication with other living humans, then one has to activate the intellectual circuits, one way or the other. Life only brings one's circuitry up to the level of activity to continue the race, to keep growing, surviving, expanding in it's apparent realm of the Universe.

It is quite possible that Totality consists of two things, not one. Universal Life - two things, and Life is an unnatural outcome in Universe law, the laws of the universe. Look at how extraordinarily rare is life, creatures, in this solar system, in this galaxy, in this known universe.

It is further quite possible that Life consists of two things, not one. Living Consciousness - two things, and consciousness is an unnatural outcome of Life alive, the laws of Life. Look at how extraordinarily rare is speech, writing, in this solar system, in this galaxy, in this known universe.

Consciousness, thus, if you're following, consists of two things, not one. Conscious Man - two things, and man is an unnatural outcome of cosmic consciousness. Look at how extraordinarily rare is conscious man in the solar system, in this galaxy, in this known universe.

Leave town or Love it to death

Most people who are following paths to Enlightenment, along any of the 4 ways, believe that, appropriate information from authorized sources, utilized in the proper manner for a sufficient duration, leads to a "change in being". Their all-consuming interest & desire is for a "changed being", and that is seen as an end-result to a life well-lived.

A few people here and there, see it quite differently. They believe that with changed being, they gain ready access to abundant new information. Their interest is in the realtime access of new information, originality of thought in all its possible forms, and that is their all-consuming interest & desire - to live in the Future, Now.

Superficially, these may appear the same - being only a "play on words". Info leads to Action leads to Change, versus, Change leads to Info. But they are as different as night and day, sleep and consciousness, death and life. That is because the first belief is spoon-fed to all humans by Life at birth through the DNA, to keep people in line, so they will put-out for 6 or 7 decades, all the while believing they are making gradual progress toward their presumed goals. The second belief is and must be acquired, and it goes counter to the aims of Life, because it is abrupt change, though Life will allow a few people to play around with it so long as a ground-swell does not develop (he said, with a big smiley face stuck on his nose, for such a ground-swell could no more develop than the Deuce of Clubs could beat the Ace of Diamonds in a Poker game.)

The guy and the mystic

Consider this story:

Rendition 1

A guy meets a mystic, and says "I've been searching for a fabled city, but after all this time, I do not even know where I'm headed anymore". Mystic says: "That, in you that doesn't know where you're going, knows where you want to go - and that's not an allegory."

Rendition 2

A guy meets a mystic, and says "I've been trying to achieve the enlightened mind, and once, I achieved the higher enlightened mind state, and it was quite impressive, though I've never achieved it again, so I'm still trying." Mystic says: "You know the mind you're in right now? That's the only mind there is - there IS no other." Guy: "That's not true. I experienced the higher mind once before." Mystic: Yes, it's true, you have only ONE mind, only ONE state of mind, and you're in it right now."

You have got to realize that you are much less certain that you know what you're doing, than you were years ago - if not, you've not made any progress at all. The part of you, that doesn't know - the ignorant, stupid part - is the part that knows.

Wednesday, May 19, 2004

Ninety-ninth percentile

99.99% of what passes for thinking in humans (going by the name - "informative"), is descriptions of "what to think", as distinct from "how to think". Read any newspaper, watch any TV news program, and note that everything conveyed is simply material the reader/hearer is implicitly advised to think about, themselves.

If the ordinary human mind did not function solely as a producer of more and more information, it might discover something about, "how to think". But, this is not likely to happen, because no ordinary human can discover this distinction for themselves, and even when they hear about it - like right now, for the first time - they immediately confuse the two issues into the one they already understand quite well.

For them (and their immediate reply to this entire proposition should bear this out), "what to think" is the same thing AS "how to think", supported by the quite reasonable viewpoint: "Let me now tell you my response to what you've just said, so you can start thinking in the correct way about what you've just said." And they will, again, quite reasonably, support that viewpoint with: "By thinking WHAT I have just said to you, you will then know HOW to think correctly about your viewpoint."

Notice, how confusing this all becomes, once you put words to it - when, in fact, it's as obvious as the nose on Jimmy Durante's face. Until a person sees the distinction for himself, between "what to think", and "how to think", he can not see the distinction, even if it's pointed out directly.

When discussing purely physical matters, the difference is very clear. "How to bowl a perfect game", is completely different from "What to do (bowl the highest score possible)", and no one, typically, believes that knowing WHAT to do, is the same as HOW to do it. Yet, when discussing non-physical intellectual matters, the difference is obscured, because everybody ordinarily believes they already KNOW how to think - though they will admit, if pressed, that a few people "seem" to be able to think a little better than they (and, not so surprisingly, MOST people think a lot worse than they).

Take some recent, pressing, current events - and notice the manner in which people everywhere talk about it, attempting, as always, to cover every possible angle of thought, and viewpoint, always endeavoring to reveal (for the first time in the particular conversation) that view, or idea, or concept, that NO ONE has yet mentioned. It's all, from top to bottom, a transferring (of energy) from one to another, consisting entirely of "what to think" (first think THIS, and then think THAT, and finally, to summarize, think THE OTHER THING.)

So, in case you were wondering "what's the point???" It is this; the unfailingly quickest way to determine whether another person knows "how to think", is to listen to them discuss virtually anything - from current events to their own anecdotal history. Are they making ANY ATTEMPT at all, to reveal something about the process-of-thinking itself? Or are they completely engaged in providing you more and more FACTS (things) to think about.

There is the ACT-of-thinking (the process), and the products-of-thinking (facts), and the two are not the same - any more than breathing IN is the same as breathing OUT. You only have to look at your own inner process of considering any idea - even this one - to discover the difference, or fail to do so.

ps- even if I told you "how to think", you'd hear it as just someone telling you "what to think".

Sunday, May 16, 2004

Shock the airwaves with your jive, turkey!!

Ever wonder why there are soooOOOOooo many frikin shock-jocks on the air, er, I mean gurus (and swamis and rishis and roshis and etc.) on the teaching circuit, ok, I mean shock-jocks??

It's because they are operating >>within<< the rules of engagement, but right up to the line, and only very infrequently breaking them. If one of them DARES to break the rules by crossing too far over the line, for too long, their license to offend is unceremoniously yanked; gurus included.

But, if there were no rules - and this couldn't happen except under the most exceptional conditions rarely seen on earth - the shock-jocks would dry up overnight, as would the gurus and swamis and for the same reasons. Once the rules of engagement are removed for all - when anything is possible - and everybody can shock, lie, cajole, con, with absolute impunity, no one particular will stand out as being unique. In a very real sense, the general level of activity, and noise, is raised by a noticeable degree.

But, of course, there ARE rules - and Life establishes those rules and they are generally immutable and unbreakable for all but the few who find out how (the shock-jocks don't know how, nor the guru-swamis). And, >>how<< is the keyword there. Not why, not when, not who. HOW!

And how!!!

How, NOW, brown cow...

The enlightenment myth

Anybody who falls into the abyss of 'seeking enlightenment', has for the most part, a sorry destiny. 99% of people who talk and write about it, think "it" (the big "e") is the ultimate state or condition of being alive and human on planet earth at this time and place in the continuum. And, they also believe, that if 99% of people believe something to be *true* then, god damn, it must be TRUE.

Yuk, yuk, yuk.

You know, if "it" (the big "e") was about growing a sixth finger on both hands, absolutely NO ONE would buy into it - since no one has ever been able to prove they could do it. If "it" was about entering bullet-time at will, or leaping tall buildings in a single bound, NO ONE would buy into it - since no one... If "it" was about rebuilding a Holley four-barrel carburetor in under an hour with one hand tied behind the back, NO ONE would buy into it - since no one...

But, since "it" is about something totally unprovable to anyone -regardless what the 3rd-generation "realizers" say who point to their 2nd-gen teacher, who points to his 1st-gen teacher - suckers are born every minute to look for and finally fall into the abyss. (The abyss needs to be fed, you know - it gets hungry too.)

The problem, is that the >>so-called<< (self-styled, supposedly "confirmed", "approved", and "sanctioned" by someone else) "enlightened" people doing all the talking about it, have failed - I say FAILED - to come up with a better word, a more up to date word, describing a more achievable process that can first be understood with the mind, and then worked with, by the masses they are preaching to. The reason for this failure, is their monstrous - MONSTROUS -self-centered-ness (it's always about >>how 'I' became enlightened'<<, and >>how I overcame 'MY' pain and suffering<<, and >>blah, blah, blah<<.) As such, and due primarily to this failure of theirs, anybody who falls into the abyss of seeking enlightenment, has for the most part, a sorry destiny.

There is a better word, and it's in the English Dictionary, and once you hear the word, uttered by someone who understands all the foregoing, it explains so god damn much about why attempting to achieve that which can not be proved to another person, is a fool's errand at best, and a circular journey at worst, that it just might be the source of the, now cliched statement, "Whoever has ears to hear let him hear."

For, believe it or don't believe - as will be mostly dictated by your genes and hormones anyway, and what you had for dinner last night -"it" (newly renamed by the other heretofore unnamed word from the dictionary) can be proved to another person, in exactly the same way an auto machanic can prove his mettle, by correctly diagnosing your leaky Holley and then fixing it - either he knows what to do and can do it, or he doesn't know what to do and can't do it.

While some might suggest: "Enlightenment is the only thing that makes life worthwhile", another view might be: "The only thing that makes life worthwhile is finding out what that god damn word is!!"

Tuesday, May 11, 2004

Time Travel, part2

Regarding the idea, mentioned earlier, that "Thought, any language-based energyform, is stuck in the moment of it's arising, therefore stationary to the flow of Time":

That sentence has two viewpoints:

Thought is not stationary to the flow of time because then it would be moving at the same speed as time - like the man racing the bullet. Thought only appears to itself to be moving at the same speed, stationary.

Thought is actually retreating into the past from the point of view of Time - the speeding bullet. As one is talking or writing or reading, that moment is retreating into the past of that bullet. In a very real sense, talking - and thinking - is moving into the past. It's a slowing down in relation to the forward movement of time.

"Thought must discover a way to travel at the same speed as Time, and then overtake it. Access to all the future of thought and all the past of thought, is the totality of thought."

Thought, thought up the idea of time travel, and there was not, nor could ever be, the idea of time travel, without the first thought to think it. No *Body* alone could do it, no animal could imagine it, sans a brain.

Physical time travel, becomes possible with the advent of thought in the universe. Pre-thought, unthinkable. Post-thought, Do-able.

Thought should be able to facillitate the movement of physical bodies through time, and possibly even beyond time.

Time Travel

Pretend Time flows at the speed of a rifle bullet.

You fire the rifle and the bullet leaves the muzzle.

Running fast enough you begin to overtake the bullet.

When moving as fast as the bullet, to you, it's stationary.

Moving faster than the bullet, to you, it's retreating, going into the past, though to it, it's still moving forward at the speed of a rifle bullet.

That is a reasonable description of travel into the future and travel into the past, could one but do it.

To travel into the future, forward in time, move as fast as a bullet.

To travel back to the past, backward in time, move faster than a bullet.

All that is a reasonable description of travel in a three-dimensional body moving through the fourth.

Now, thought - being a 3force/dimensional flowing energybody - is ordinarily locked in the present, in the moment of it's arising. It is stuck in the moment. Thought, any language-based energyform, is stuck in the moment of it's arising, therefore stationary to the flow of Time.

Thought must discover a way to travel at the same speed as Time, and then overtake it. Access to all the future of thought and all the past of thought, is the totality of thought.

That is as reasonable a description of omniscience and omnipresence as one is likely to read.

Being "in the now"

This idea, told and re-told to millions of people throughout the ages in many different tongues and verbiage all amounting to the exact same thing, has a REAL basis in fact, having to do with the impossibility of remaining IN the Now.

It's a time thing.

You must feel it with your whole being, ALL your centers of activity, ALL your nervous system circuitry, including thought - the crowning glory of living humans everywhere.

Remembering (with thought first) to be present, snaps you back or forward in time, into the presumed now-moment, and the worldwide inability to remain there has to do with the dimension of time pulling you into the future, into the past, stretching you so to speak.

Humans are made to be stretched by time - unlike the non-humans, the animals, that are made to be concentrated by time in time, concentrated on "being themselves", doing their "own particular thing" (according to genetic structure, size, term of life, etc. Dogs and Cows and Tigers must be dogs, cows, and tigers.)

Being stretched by time is the natural motivation to escape everybody feels "in the moment". That's why nobody can sustain it permanently, and that's how ALL the ideas from Eastern and Western Gurus, Rishis, Roshis, Masters, got started talking about Waking Up and Enlightenment. They had been fully stretched, and realized it. Buddhas and buddhas and buddhas must be buddhas.

It's not nor can ever be, personal. Time is stretching all humanity across and around the, what might be called, "universe of discourse". This sphere of thought encircling the planet, covering all possible ideas mankind can ever have, is made of the Prime Directive - "be in the now".

Thought can only spring from, the now.

You can't think >from the future<, or >from the past<. You must BE IN THE FUTURE as well, not just in imagination, but your entire nervous system, to think from the future, but you can't do that!!! Why? Because you are dragged back into the past by all your personal thoughts.

This email is being written in concert with that flow and prime directive, as is all thought/speech/worldwide - none can help it. It's "happening" right now, but for the mechanical mouthpiece/bodily-gestures/bovine-feelings, the "me", it's happening IN THE PAST.

This is what must be Seen, with your whole presence.

Monday, May 10, 2004


The way most people talk about enlightenment and waking up and liberation, you'd think it was some sort of "fog" that descends upon them ("Who knows why, who knows how?"); things apparently change for them - to hear them tell it, which they do tell, to anybody and everybody who'll listen, even seeking out others to listen to their story - but they can not detail what those changes are, precisely.

It's kind of like getting hit in the head with a ball-peen hammer - suddenly they're seeing stars (and angels and gods) and hearing voices (and angels singing and gods commanding) and, when they finally come down (come to) - which they almost always do, if the shock doesn't kill them, or leave them a candidate for the state asylum - they refer to the "experience" as being touched by god, and etc., etc., as if that explains anything. Flowery descriptions about doors opening, and "stepping into perfection", and suddenly "knowing the mystic language", and "lights being passed", does not explain enlightenment, anymore than "moving up the corporate ladder", explains the sexual urges of antelopes.

Before enlightenment - dumb as dirt about enlightenment.

After enlightenment - still, dumb as dirt about enlightenment.

(The "before enlightenment" crowd might tend to agree, the "after enlightenment" crowd would tend to not agree... surprise, surprise.)

Maybe there's much more to, what people refer to as, "enlightenment", than what even those same people who talk about it the most (and say "I am, most emphatically, I am! Let me tell you my story. Have you read my book?") understand, he said, most suggestively.

Suggestion number two:

Conscious observation of what is going in the nervous system at the time of the passage of energy through the device often referred to as, the mind, or even just, the brain, reveals that practically (operationally) all thought occurs in a very specific place in the nervous system, and also, that it CAN occur (though never does, yet) in other parts of the nervous system previously not "awakened", as in, not activated.

Suggestion number three:

Careful attention upon the flow of energy at the time of passage, reveals that the flow can be "diverted" (as it were), into new parts of the nervous system, heretofore unfed by such enriched energy, due to the continuous mechanical bleeding off of that energy, into "me", "I".

Suggestion number four:

Enlightenment without Understanding, is at "best", accidental, and at "worst", not enlightenment at all, but imagination - more dreams - or simply the sometimes strong memory of getting outside Time for a moment or two, but bringing nothing back. What happens next is the mechanical acquisition of descriptions (both from prior memories of books read, and sometimes reading new books) to "explain" what happened, but as "satisfying" as they may appear to be, they are neither fully satisfying nor proper explanations.

Bullet-time, and Building-jumping

It always makes me laugh outloud so that even the cats jump out of the room in utter amazement, when someone pushes the "experience" trap, over the concept of Thinking.

They are the ones, who would be so friggin afraid to jump from one building to another (because they had no prior "experience"), they would start to cry if forced, from behind, by certain death. "Do it or else, coward!"

They are the ones, who simply can NOT remember, that any thoughts they've ever had before, or are having right this instant... (hear it?) is part of the same "experience" they are already pushing.

But - sadly - because they can't remember that, can't Think about it, at all, they cower in place like a baby, in a puddle of prior remembrances of past experience, always touting them - to all and everybody - as being the quintessential bit of reality they are "connected to" (or so they say).

"Don't think," they say. "Stop all thought," they say, "Experience the Silence," they say. Without ever discovering what the hell they were just forced to say, nor why they were forced to say it.

All humans are forced to say the same things over and over, as obviously evidenced by the fact that people can't get into "bullet-time", nor "building-jump". Can't even discern what in the hell, THAT, could possibly mean. Such is life on planet earth.

-ps- bullets and buildings are metaphors, first, and symbols too.

The Exclusivity Club

I once joined a group, well, they allowed me to join, who were already large in number, and well-known to each other. Joining such an enclave, as the heretofore outcast, I was immediately and continuously aware of the fact, that I didn't have a clue how to behave, neither around the others, nor around the leader; I think Fred was his name, Smith or Something.

In the first month of daily gatherings, many people were "asked" to leave, not "You're Fired!", so much as, hinted to in the most, most vaguest of terms (ugh, that really rolls off the tongue doesn't it?), such as - I heard - having a certain dream last night in bed (and then, *he* left), or overhearing a passing shopper in the foodstore yesterday (and then, *she* left), etc.

One day, someone approached the leader, and timidly attempted to ask one of his, "heart-felt" questions, something really "near-and-dear", etc., and he said, "Uh, Master Smith, could I, uh, ask you a question?" And, after an odd look back at him, and the longest second I'd ever witnessed, he leaned into the ear of the questioner, and momentarily, he started for the door, and I never saw him again. Huh?!?!

Another day, another person tried to ask her question, and said, "Hi, swami Fred, ...?" And, well you guessed it. And I never saw her again.

So, I started to realize that there must be a book of rules, somewhere, and I missed getting my copy. So I set about a plan to acquire this RuleBook, because if people were being ushered out for name-calling improprieties, then either the list is a mile long, and couldn't be handed to someone anyway (to big, too bulky, too many pages), or, it hasn't been written down yet, and everybody is in exactly the same position as me - an absolute outsider, and absolute beginner, and discovering the "RuleBook to Enlightenment" doesn't yet exist - for anyone.

Oh Fuck! (said he, after it became clear that his perceptions were connecting with his thought processes and they to his deepist, inner-most feelings of awe and wonder.) Eeek!

Just as instantly, (said he) he got up from his seat, and calmly walked out the door.

The few of the few just got a little bit fewer.


Sunday, May 9, 2004

Magical versus Spiritual versus Scientific versus...

You See, Life is a greater process than humans can possibly imagine, yet red blood cells are sitting around coffee tables arguing over the reason those white cells don't seem to want to "get along" ("maybe they're ignorant, or unenlightened?"), always pushing and shoving and doing whatever in the hell they want to do - and the white cells are doing the same thing about the red ones, over at the other table.

Then, suddenly a group of them are called into action, and now they are racing for the door, totally clueless about what forces ripped them from their comfortable chit-chat just moments before, launched onward to a destiny they can't predict ("hey, maybe it's magic?").

Several minutes or hours later, after the "episode", the "mysterious episode" wherein they were all forced to behave in ways they can't comprehend at all, they are returned to their coffee tables, to await the next big event, and talk about what just happened.

The philosophers have plenty to say, of course, but their explanations are met with derision by the spiritualists, who oftentimes almost come to blows with the atheists, who generally like to side with some of the philosophers. But, the conversation whiles away their time in a most beneficial way, and their little cellular batteries are recharged until the next time they are needed.

Blood doesn't understand what the hell is going on with it, blood is simply being bloody - but that doesn't stop the constituents from all trying to come to some conclusive understanding about all the "why's" and "wherefore's" of their existence.

Humans don't understand what the hell is going on with them, humans are simply being humans - but... etc.

Neurons, on the other hand - you guessed it, right?

Neurons, on the other hand, have certain possibilities that blood and humans don't have - and you can take that to the bank, IF you can take that anywhere.

(If you can move information, from it's initial point of mechanical reception, to another place, then something (or someone) Wonderful happens - not magical, not spiritual, not mystical, but quite physical and subject to laws, some of which can be known. When information is moved - by forces unknown but NOT unknowable by humans - Eureka moments occur, great and small Epiphanies occur, and the fortunate human kind of, well, >>discovers<< something that even Life itself (sometimes) in that glorious moment didn't even know. And, when such occurs, ALL phenomena which have heretofore gone by those sorry misnomers (as magic, etc.), are seen for what they were: mis-named events, because they'd never been properly NAMED. This, is the intentional re-birthing of Adam in you.)