Logic vs Aliens
Sandra
In the end, I sense he wanted to have a different kind of discussion than the one I wanted to have. As he wrote to me personally: "I think we were presenting different worldviews - and each using the approach to “proving” that worldview that is congruent with it…. fun!"
Well, yes it was fun. Until it was not. I think it got competetive and personal, which is fine, but neither of us chose to look at this aspect, which in my humble opinion is a real problem if we are to engage in any discussion that purports to discover 'truth' and to serve the world at large.
I enjoyed having my mental wits excersized, and at the same time I rose to Julian's challenge quite unconsciously, and so participated and supported something (competetive win-lose discussions) I thought I was trying to do the very opposite of. Very interesting!
And a lot of points remained unaddressed - on both sides. I believe these points remained unaddressed because of our different aims, our different approaches, our very lack of self-awareness, not our differing worldviews.
So it's possible that the discussion never reached a certain altitude because of one major thing: at no point did either of us question our identification with whatever view or opinion we were presenting.
I came across a very interesting article in the NY Times about how people get pleasure at maintaining their fixed position even when new and better information is presented to them. Holding positions somehow stimulates the pleasure centers of our brain. If you are interested it is here:
A Shocker: Partisan Thought Is Unconscious
by Benedict Carey, NY Times January 24, 2006
Regarding the Alien thing. I spend very little time thinking about aliens. When I experience one, I'll be the first to let you know!
Regarding channellings.
Once again I'd like to quote my mathematical friend:
“It's the incredibly intelligent consistency in these cases that convince me that the “least complicated” explanations cannot be the “easiest explanations” like: an unconscious intelligent part of the personality is doing that. Could be. We do not know that. But it seems an unsatisfactory reason, not because I want to believe that “extraterrestrials” exist but because I cannot believe this reason, too. It seems too easy, or let's say: too sloppy. So, given the consistency of the material presented, it is hard to explain what is going on”
And I'll quote another friend's opinion, which I like a lot:
"However all these phenomena most certainly derive from the astral/affective worlds, or more rarely other regions like the subtle physical. So no, he is not channelling an alien civilization.
The whole subject of galactic consciousness and alien telepathy and so on is a fascinating one, Steven Guth refers to it under the rubric of Astrognosis, i prefer to call it Cosmecology. So there are interstellar psychic (subtle physical and astral) forces, but they are not technological civilizations like in science fiction. They are not even physical beings like you and I; i suggested to Steven once the term “astrodeva” may be useful in this context.
Not having seen his material I do not know if Bahsar is even tapping into astrodevas at all. It is probably more likely that he is just repeating the same New Age material as J.Z. Knight (Ramtha), Mafu, and others. All this stuff floats around as thoughtforms and people tap into it. There are a few channellers who are more interesting; Jane Roberts/Seth is exceptional."
My main and perhaps my only interest in channeled material is its content, particularly Seth.
If you are interested in taking a deeper look, I would suggest fellow zaadzter Paul Helfrich's extensive study of Seth's work. He has more personal experience with channelers than most people I know, and indeed explores how Seth's work relates to Ken Wilber's models; and has spent personal time with Ken himself.
You can begin with the library of articles here:
http://www.newworldview.com/integral.html
Have a look at:
Seth / Jane Roberts: A Conscious Creation Overview
and: The Dream-Art Science Sessions Abridged, as this outlines the channeling hypothesis, and interprets the core DAS sessions though an AQAL lens.
I'll quote from the Overview:
"In metaphysical terms, then, the channeling phenomenon often provides useful information about the nature of reality, the origins and nature of the universe, and strong clues about the purpose and meaning of life itself. In that sense, channeling has always served a larger sociological and community function. And to be fair, channeling abilities take time to develop similar to the skills of any mystic, scientist, or musician. As the developmental psychologists have mapped, we all go through adult stages of development that Integral Psychologist Ken Wilber has termed conventional operational, formal operational, and then postformal operational. It is in the postformal stage where the adult skill levels of a Buddha, Hawkings, or Mozart usually emerge. (Mozart was a child prodigy, and these stages can emerge at precocious ages. There are no hard and fast rules on how slowly or quickly anyone passes through them.)
So it’s likely that the majority of channeled sources will appear quite immature, even ridiculous in their beginning stages. And given that many people never learn the critical thinking, feeling, and intuiting skills necessary for discerning the utility of spiritual information, we often find conclusions drawn from channeled information biased by fanaticism, overinflated ego, religious dogma, and superstitious nonsense. Still, the words that describe any individual’s mystical experience, in themselves, hold incomplete and symbolic meanings as they are subjective in nature. And the concepts hinted at, like all classical perennial literature, as well as the more recent channeled bodies of information like the Seth Material, serve as a trigger for our own inner knowing. In other words, since the source of this knowledge is subjective, it is actually lying latent within each of us and doesn’t exist “out there” in the ether somewhere. So the most useful sources of channeled information will open new doors toward a greater understanding and realization of self. And, as the saying goes, “Teachers open the door, but you must enter yourself.”"
Finally, to logic.Logic is a fine tool. But based on false assumptions its conclusions are useless. And the use of logic becomes inappropriate if we use it as a hammer ( see below ); and when we forget that we are only only ever mapping life.
Julian made one or two assumptions that weaken his argument. You no doubt know the well used adage: When you assume, you make an ass out of u and me.
Unfortunately, it is easier to see someone else's ass than your own. So, with that in mind:
Julian assumed that since Bashar could not prove he was from an alien civilization, he was therefore delusional.
A priori we just do not know who is delusional and how much. And what share of the delusion we have in that game. We just don't know. Julian neither. (He might be in delusion if he really thinks he does.)
The second assumption Julian made was that because Bashar was delusional, he was in misery: in spite of absolutely no evidence that Bashar or Darryl Anka is in misery.
The third assumption was that "because" Bashar is in delusional and misery, we must put him out of it. This is a troublesome assumption, particularly in the field of social policy making.
The fourth assumption was that rational debate should have nothing to do with the province of deep listening. Perhaps some of you conflict resolution specialists (or NVC specialists) out there might have something to say about this one.
Now none of what I have written should detract from Julian's absolutely worthy aim to "present a 21st century spirituality based in humanism, adult cognition, psychological awareness and genuine practices."
I just suspect the discussion with Julian was subject to what Gary Jaron, oh yes, yet another lovely zaadster calls the 'tool trap".
Gary writes in his blog:
"Abraham Maslow once said something very important about ideas as tools; at the time he was commenting on the work and analysis being done concerning human psychology by Skinnerian psychologists. Maslow stated: “If the only thing you happen to have is a hammer, then you will tend to treat everything as if it were a nail. I call this the tool trap and I hope to help you find ways to compensate for it.
Maslow's realization is this: that every tool by its very nature imposes its nature, its essence, its usefulness and its uselessness, upon the user, and in doing so shapes the context of the user interacting with the environment. Hence if you have one tool you will unconsciously distort and ignore the actual nature of your environment and you will consider all the things around you only in accordance with the attributes associated with that tool. In Maslow's example of the hammer everything other than the hammer must be a nail, things to be pounded upon, to be interacted with and by the nature of the hammer."
I think I've written enough for today. It's time to go and have a look at my own ass. Or better yet, get some fresh air!
Access: Public
sneaky!
ummmm, please point out where you feel the debate got personal. i am not sure what you are referring to sandra…seriously.
ah, yes i see you are quoting the philosophical wisdom of assume = ass+u+me…well, what can i say, this one has been flooring me since at least 2rd grade! :O) but let's not be competitive. lol
as to your bold asssertions, you go!
let me see what i think:
Sandra: Julian made one or two assumptions that weaken his argument. You no doubt know the well used adage: When you assume, you make an ass out of u and me.
Unfortunately, it is easier to see someone else's ass than your own. So, with that in mind:
Julian assumed that since Bashar could not prove he was from an alien civilization, he was therefore delusional.
A priori we just do not know who is delusional and how much. And what share of the delusion we have in that game. We just don't know. Julian neither. (He might be in delusion if he really thinks he does.)
julian: i did not say that because bashar couldn't prove he was rom an alien civilization he was therefore delusional. that would be illogical. i said :
that either you thought he was actually channeling from an alien civilization or you thought he wasn't . period.
if you thought he was - that was based on zero proof and converesely was evidence of a certain gullibility.
if you thought he wasn't then either a) you would think he was delusional - ie he believes something both extraordinary and fundamental about himself and reality that is not true…
or b) you think he is a charlatan ie he knows it is not true but is pretending because this is his schtick and its a way to get credibility from credulous people who help bolster his credit and allow him to cash in - if you'lll excuse the silly wordplay :O)
that logic is iron clad sandra, and nowehere am i suggesting that bashar is delusional because he cant prove it. i am saying that if one believes him one is very gullible and that this is probably based in a) under developed cognitive ability ie critical thinking and/or b) a psychological defense system that has kept one's spirituality and worldview in a pre-reational place - exemplified by the longing to believe being stronger than ones rational perceptions. of course this has dangerous consequences as i have outlined.
these may seem personal to you, but as i said, they are in fact observations of the relationships between beliefs, cognition, proof and psychology, that i have written a lot about on my blog and that are backed up by numerous noted transpersonal and developmental psychological theorists and clinicians as well as the disciplines of serious philosophy and science.
Sandra: The second assumption Julian made was that because Bashar was delusional, he was in misery: in spite of absolutely no evidence that Bashar or Darryl Anka is in misery.
Julian: ummmm actuially you will find nowhere a reference to bashar being in misery. you must read more carefully if you want to refute my assumptions and try referring to things i actually said. oops is that competitive? no, actually i again am just interested in truth….
now i did say that someone who believed there was an 8 foot fuzzy blue monster under their bed (was this example too boring to remember? :O) was more than likely mentally ill. one of the defining factors of mental illness is that it creates suffering, precisely because ones mental representations of reality are grossly distorted. all of us of course have some inaccuracies and neuroses, but in these cases, as my example illustrates it is severe. contained within the signifier “monster” is the implication of something scary. if i believed in a non-existent blue very big monster under my bed, which is where i sleep - i would probably be a little freaked out and it is safe to say - SUFFERING, ne c'est pas?
Sandra: The third assumption was that “because” Bashar is in delusional and misery, we must put him out of it. This is a troublesome assumption, particularly in the field of social policy making.
Julian: I said nothing of the sort - this is your own assumption and based in some bone you have to pick elsewhere…
Sandra: The fourth assumption was that rational debate should have nothing to do with the province of deep listening. Perhaps some of you conflict resolution specialists (or NVC specialists) out there might have something to say about this one.
Julian: this was not an assumption, it was a statement regarding the fact that we perhaps had different ideas over the rules of engagement in an intellectual discussion/debate. i was saying that the point, counter point, logical argumentation socratic method was a style of discovering the truth of various ideas, and that this is in fact distinct from a therapeutic container or a group process space - both of which i am very familiar with and comfortable in.
sandra we are not having a conflict that needs resolving. we were discussing the relative value and usefulness of certain ideas and beliefs as they apply to reality.
in a graduate school discussion, a philosophy class, a healthy political debate, assessment of empirical scientific claims, it is the arguments, the facts, the logic that matters.
and as to “deep listening” i have to say the above assertions as to my assumptions are evidence of very little of that on your end my friend!
actually, in an intellectual discussion therapeutic listening would be condescending. this would be inappropriate unless backed up with really good arguments and used as a way to suggest an objective psychological reason for some distortion in an argument.
when holding space i am sensitive to the inner-child of my client/student. when debating worldviews with peers i am assuming ( oh no not that!) that we are adults who are willing to be in the fun rough and tumble of discovering truth through the evaluation of one thing: the strengths of the arguments themselves!
i for one thoroughly enjoyed our discussion and it felt very clean to me sandra.
to directly quote something i actually did say to you:
“please remember though i strongly refute many of your arguments - i bow just as deeply to your being. there is another beautiful distinction there and i celebrate it!
peace
~julian”
clever clever Julian ;-)
I'm utterly wrong about your assumptions.
I read between the lines, and of course this is thoroughly non-logical; and as I mentioned, my own ass, small though it is, does gets its way in there.
And I did it again, I got tool trapped! silly me. Ignore everything said about you, Julian. Maybe some of the other stuff will be of interest.
Namaste.
god (if there is such a thing, provable by logic) bless your small ass, sandra! :O)
hmmm reading between the lines is all very well - but it's good to read the lines too - and then perhaps check in about the interpretation, si?
looking forward to more!
>I'm utterly wrong about your assumptions.
humm! Back to the tool thing! .
I see in your exchange the phenomenon of un-noticingly-switching-from-'logic'-to-'feel'-to-back-to-logic thingie which I've tried to describe in email.
Assumptions, revealed in written words, are apparent to any reader via 'feel' and the writer puts them out there conscious-or-not. Often offered as a game where they can be denied – or not. That's *why* they *are* between the lines. (See OJSimpson in the news Nov2006 for an excellent denial of truths in the same line as they are written.)
Yet when what is seen between the lines is then described in words, the things easily felt and seen become hard things, they become facts which are in the realm of 'logic' and then logic points out that the words are inaccurate. The author feels the switch from her reply of “feel” to his “jump to logic” (his refusing to feel the feel-words) in the midst of this scorching, and chooses between a number of things, such as
surrendering: Backing Off,
staying in logic: Arguing Back,
choosing to feel: Logically Giving In with words sufficiently sophisticated to go over the non-feeler's head.
I know this might not be easy to follow. I don't write well. Or better said, I try to write about more than is easily described in words.
Sandra, what I see happening was an offer from J to logically talk about feel and since you are interested in logic, you accepted. But when the time came for J to feel your insight, he refused and he gave you back logic instead. Almost a betrayal. The unsaid game had been that his interest in insight/feel implies that when the time came to feel that he *felt*. But instead he stuck to logic – at which point you are (if you stay in the conversation) at his mercy as it were. If it stays logic you are exposed undefendedly to logic's condescension, being made-wrong etc.
I enjoy finding a logic mind that shows enough heart who will be willing to respond:
“I see where you are going with this and I don't choose to go there. I am comfortable in talking about it, but it wouldn't be fair for me to only argue etc about it, so rather than permit lopsided logic thing happen where you are sharing from the heart and I appear to be making you wrong, I'd like to back out of this and change the subject.”
Logic can only conclude things like right/wrong win/lose and that's it's nature. It's not enough that the Subject be Heart: both persons must be prefer Heart over Logic and that the discussion end with something more satisfying than the correctness-drug, the pleasure of logic.
Welp, that's what my logic says about what I feel and I'm sticking too it just as long as I don't think about it anymore!
Love,
Michael
Essentially what is happening in discussion between the logic-minded and the explorer of “that which can't be known,” is the steady hijacking of free discussion into logic-debate. This is actually violent, I think. It takes some bravery to explore what is unknowable. The previous age's benchmark of logic and knowing easily expose one to ridicule. The evolution of advanced thinking is only now moving into uncertainty and many arguers mask, probably unknowingly, that they are not going to permit uncertainty. They will insist, sooner or later and certainly before the end, (if only with remarks of summary) that the other position is less-than logical and less-than a good argument. As if that has any connect to a discussion on, say, the indescribableness of the taste of an apple. The fact is that there is no argument-ing when exploring not-knowing.
Open minds might want to watch for other minds which insist on arguments and proofs in realms where none lie. Logicians may appear to be no more than distraction and yet in the course of exploration, they are in fact obstacle. They get in your way. They can, and do, pronounce at any time, “You can't prove that!” Well! What are we to do? Continually answer that the taste of an apple can't be proven? I suspect, sad though this might feel, that these folk be left to gently live out their lives undisturbed as they have no intention of giving up their logic, even to the logically unknowing among us.
On that note, I'm off to have some porridge ;-)
oh my goodnes michael - could you be a little more obtuse and condescending please?! :O)
the voice you are using here is so faux academic and pretentious.
and you are not really saying anything.
the worldview i am consistently refuting here is precisely this:
it sounds like you automatically assume a mutual exclusivitybetween a kind of mystic wonder/not knowing (what i have been calling transrational) and the application of reason to that which can be known and evaluated in a rational way.
this is highly dualistic and - again with the “performative contradiction”:
you are championing not knowing as better, while critizing logic as being violent for thinking anything could be “better” than anything else. silly.
waht you propose is that there is some higher order of spiritual initiation that you are a part of that is exemplified by being “open” to the most silly ridiculous elements of new age nonsense that i have been using bashar as a stand in for.
the failure to use rationality to make healthy distinctions between higher spiritual states of consciousness and regressive fantasy is not new or special or evidence of depth - it is pathological at worst (and i have given many examples) and silly at best.
all i am proposing is:
using ones adult rational mind to distinguish between junk science, pre rational beliefs and spirituality that is a pscyhological defense against trauma and existential angst on the one hand, and authentic trans rational grounded mysticism on the other.
the tack you are continuing here from the previous bloggers in your clan is one in which you insist that such a distinction is not possible, and if it were, it would not be useful, it would be opressive and violent. au contraire.
my response to that is: failing to make the distinction between pre rational and trans rational modes of not-knowing/belief/spiritual open mindeness creates the new age mess on the one hand, where buddhism and channeled aliens sit on the same shelf of the bookstore and the religious insanity on the other hand that threatens to end human existence in the name of god.
not a one of you sweet folks has chosen to actually respond to this central idea, instead you keep stereotyping me as a coldly rational abuser who refuses to consider your “higher” claims about feelings, intuition and the wonder of not knowing, while not actually responding to the nuances of what i am actually saying.
one should not use feelings to evaluate claims like: weapons of mass destruction in iraq, wether or not water can retain the energy of thoughts, the existence of a mothership behind hale bop that is coming to take us away, or wether or not bashar is a channeled alien intelligence.
one should not use feelings in this regard anymore than one should use logic to determine wether or not you love someone or how you feel aboout the reality of death.
one should not use pscyhology to prove quantum physics or a slide rule to interpret rumi.
nor should one refute a rational logical argument with cop out poorly crafted critiques of logic. answer the points!
OR nake a strong case for why bashar or masuro emoto or nay of the other EXAMPLES i am giving actually fall into the realm of trans rational not knowing…i assert that they do not.
seeing as you too insist on your trite mischaracterization, i will repeat: i am a healer, yogi, dancer, musician, writer - i am all for feeling, intuition, mysticism, the scary-beautiful dive into the unknown process of self inquiry and dicovering the moment in all it's quivering wonder -
*as well as* integrating the exercise and application of the adult rational mind in order to have discernment as to the difference between naive spiritual bullshit and the real deal transformational jewels is a huge part of that!
the failure to make a distinction for example between the self evident mystery of not being able to put the tast of apple into words, or prove it and rigorously questioning claims about alien channeling is highly problematic.
the suggestion is that because certain things point out to us the great unknowable mystery that we are swimming in therefore *nothing* should be discussed using logic. regressive, pretentious and lazy, sir. and unfrotunately, it is through this loophole that the cultish spiritual charlatan set has always made millions, addled brains and ruined lives.
are you familiar with integral theory? here is a simple version of some of what it asserts:
the scientific method is the best approach for revealing truth in certain empirically verifiable areas. (example hard science)
the hermeneutical approach is best for revealing truth in certain interpretive areas. (example literature, painting, psychotherapy)
the logical deductive approach is best for revealing truth in certain reason base areas. (example philosophical debate)
the introspective meditative appproach is best for revealing truth in certain contemplative areas. ( consciousness, somatic psychological self-knowledge)
mystic not knowing is best when confronting the immensity of the mystery, shorn of all other modes of knowing, humbled but uplifted.
to confuse these modes of knowing and the objects they can clearly discern is to commit a massive category error.
countering my clear deconstruction of bashars claims that he is channeling an alien civilization with the weak but superior suggestion that one is in a state of not knowing and logic does not apply is not only spiritually arrogant and petentious, it is lazy and incorrect.
and in case your feelings too are tender here michael please bear in mind that for me, and i hope for you - there is a huge distinction between my harsh critique of a certain way of thinking, communicating and posturing and the respect i accord you as a fellow human being who is choosing to enter the dialog.
frankly i think that my directness, honesty and willingness to pursue a clean point counter point approach is potentially LESS “violent' than the thinly veiled one upsmanship, mischaracterizations and waffling that has been going on.
hopefully you can bring something different.
the funny thing is, this is the first time i feel i am getting personal in my responses.
and it is in response to continued mischaracterizations and off-the-point superior assumptions that are actually baseless.
try responding to the rest of it, mr. smarty pants :O)
yes i said it was the first time i was getting personal. it seems that perhaps there is some confusion again between 1) refuting arguments and asserting for your consideration the problems with certain worldviews (which we all have done equally in a great dialog) and 2) some kind of violent ad hominem.
in other words i may tear down a set of beliefs and poorly contructed ideas while doing your person absolutely no harm in the process - in fact this is the essence of reason - and it's spiritual imperative is to be more interested in truth than in making nice. (again to my examples of science, political debate, philosophy, grad school etc….here the above imperative is held as sacred - one's hurt feelings at having ones ideas critiqued are not!)
i wanted you to know that i was choosing to consciously respond personally based on your tone. *and* that i have no problem saying i still respect your humanity - though your position is silly. (does this make sense, or are we opposed to all distinctions and so personally identified that any assualt on IDEAS is seen as an attack on the SELF?)
my point is that y'all (seeing as you us the word “our”) felt it was personal before when it actually had to do with arguing points and was not personal - this is the frst time i actually ventured into the territory of calling out the personal traits.
a) i think the - you're getting personal and “violent” - accusation (without any responsible backing up) is a default position when your weak arguments are refuted.
i have already asked sandra to point out where specifically she felt that actually happened on my page - she has not. (still waiting - and happy to learn.)
i can only assume that my attempt to define pre and trans rational, my assertions about the difference between mental illness and enlightenment, my critique of new age silliness may have been somehow personally offensive - though i feel it was clean and well argued, as well as sincere…i am still happpy to be shown otherwise.
sandra has already attempted to show me my ass (her language - i take no offense - we all have one!) - but i handed hers back to her because her points were very weak and based in a lack of attention to what i was actually saying.
b) your arrogant superior spirituality and vague faux intellectual waffing that i have adressed above is in fact dualistic, reductionist and lazy. (please refute.)
let's not confuse glib one-up pseudo psychoanalysis with pointed backed-up responsible observations. (do you get the distinction i am making?)
punk!
i am happy to return to an actual discussion of the ideas and arguments above anytime now.
you might start by re-reading my above post and replying to something other than that one line. ( if you actually want to play - get in the game and commit to responding point by point at least a little …)
you miight also look at the part of the dialog where i suggested that it is in fact the faithful who are not open to reasonable debate that are responsible for the most actual violence- to reiterate: no genocide, cult suicide, jihad, inquisition, terrorist attack, abortion clinic sniper casualty, was ever caused by an excess of rational debate…
as i have said before i think we are in a pitched batttle between worldviews - the difference is - i am making that plain and constructing an argument for why one is better - you guys indirectly do the same while naively pretending to be “above all that”. come down of your cloud and maike a strong argument - i am all ears! respond to my actual points in a way that expands my mind - i am so ready….
otherwise, happy trails. we'll pick up somewhere else about something else. no problem.
cheers!
~julian
> this is the first time i feel i am getting personal in my responses.
That was exactly our point.
:-)
——
I've come back to modify to this comment to add a bit of civility as the short line above seems awfully bare.
I commented here on Sandra's blog because she was interested and I said what I had to say.
But have a great life!
thats cool michael. understood. deep namaste to you. (julian steps off the mat.)
for the record i was interested in what you had to say too…
if any here are interested in continuing the zaadz pages ping pong - i invite you to a new subject on my blog; ”The Many Faces of God”.
peace (and the rigor that deepens understanding and so too deepens and grounds the peace that passes all understanding) to all
:O)
> i am making that plain and constructing an argument for why one is better -
>you guys indirectly do the same while naively pretending to be “above all that”.
What if we *are*indeed* above all that? *big*grin*
What if you just got really lucky and actually had two enlightened beings show up on your one-of-a-million blog and you didn't notice? Wouldn't that suck?
>come down of your cloud and maike a strong argument - i am all ears!
>respond to my actual points in a way that expands my mind - i am so ready….
Welp, if you is so ready, you'll stop your brain long enough to hear what I'm about to say. Given that for thousands of years and millions of people lives' there has been an on-going effort to enlightenment with very little response, I find it unlikely that my little post herein will be read and seen and felt and acted upon.
But here goes anyway!
> this is the essence of reason - and it's spiritual imperative is to be
>more interested in truth than in making nice.
The nature of spiritual stuff is of “feel” and it may or may not have a reason-type component.
Julian, your default is not that – your words all come from Reason and that it *has* (sticking to the above quote) a spiritual imperative.
Your priority of view is like these outline patterns:
You:
!. Reason
A. spiritual imperative
Us:
1 Spirit (literally, that which we are, not what we have)
A. might have reasonable discussion
Until your priority flips, you will continually see us as acting superior and can't hear a word we say. (which is why Sandra never got back to you, I'm sure)
I'm not saying we're better. In fact I recommend that you never wake up, the truth is not much fun at all. Nearly all beings end their lives' on Earth being eaten alive. Bliss is just as sucky a trap as terrible suffering.
Yet nearly nobody wakes up who is not despairing of Reason, so you are unlikely to enjoy this at all. You love your Reason – and good! I certainly wish you a happy life! I Do Not think awakening worth anything and wouldn't do anything to bum anyone out enough to wake up. We have to volunteer.
The problem with all that, of course, is that many of us, against our will's actually, have no choice. We have had a glimpse and no longer buy into the insane mind's ideas racing around. Reason become, welp, this little thingie for communicating when no other method is available.
>this is the frst time i actually ventured into the territory of calling
>out the personal traits.
I wonder why you are here, Julian, on a spirit type site? The things most closely tied to that which you *are* are personal traits! I wonder what in the world you are *thinking* to be thinking you are somewhat spiritual when prior to this you haven't even addressed personal traits! The mind boggles!
I suggest you protect yourself and get out of here 'toot sweet' and go join a soccer club! *grin* You'll have a lot more fun than hanging around heavy assholes like us or the Lady's Spirituality Battalions flooding this site!
A few bloody shins (one or two at a time, to be sure) at soccer are a whole lot better than the deepest dark night of the soul imaginable – which is the fire we're playing with in spiritual exploration. I am deadly earnest when I quote some great sage who said waking up is a “total catastrophe.”
> as i have said before i think we are in a pitched batttle between worldviews
So I mean, there it is in a nutshell. We are presumably intending upon some aspect of spirituality and yet here you are saying you are in a pitched battle! Is there some kind of sense to you in this statement? Contrary to the way the mind works, consciousness and spirituality do not do 'battle.'
I believe that one of the very first realizations of spirituality (whatever the hell that is) is that there are no battles, there is only the mind thinking there are battles and running around in circles deluding itself. The fact that there are other minds willing to play out this stuff in the physical world has no bearing here, as the point is whether a single mind (yours in this case) notices it is battling instead of being.
I invite you to notice.
thanks for taking the time to respond michael! happy to hear your direct responses to my points.
allow me some reflections please:
you do have a worldview - you are presenting it in no uncertain terms. re read your own post if you doubt this. and you think this worldview is BETTER than mine. . great! you should, - why else would you hold it?
you are boldly and directly saying that you know something i dont because you assume i have not had the awakening you have had - or have not been through the “dark night of the soul.” this of course is a possibility, given that there really ARE stages of development and actual initiations into various states of consciousness and realizations of truth - i am so glad we agree on that - even if it is to hold the possibility that you have had an initiation i have not, and therefore have a deeper understanding of something…which is what you assert. now we are getting somewhere.
you say also that you think perhaps i have no place on a spiritual website and should join a soccer club (btw i appreciate and smile at the humor ..) now you are acknowledging that YOU have a definition of what a spiritual person is and i dont fit it. OK good - we are in agreement that spirituality is a definable thing and that it might be good to discuss what makes spirituality effective and what kinds of qualities a spiritual person should cultivate - cool!
AND THEN:
you claim that there is no room for debate and no battle over worldviews and that it is my lack of awakeness that leads me to deludedly think so…because a REALLY spiritual person would never dream that this was so. well i am glad that for the period prior to this switch in your post you were not being REALLY spiritual either, because now you have said what you actually think instead of adopting a posture.
the worldview “battle” i am pointing out is between two distinct perspectives (as you so kindly actually outlined in your “pattern “and suggested i needed to “flip” to your priorities before then putting me down for having a position….) i intentionally use the word battle because i think it is a healthy struggle between two sets of ideas - but i certainly dont think of it as warlike - in fact if you read through my posts i am suggesting that having healthy debate “battle” is the great offering of reason as an alternative to bloodshed.
AND its a way to find truth.
here's how i see the contrasting (isnt that a nicer word to use?)perspectives:
1) that spirituality is beyond reason and therefore all applications of reason are invalid when it comes to matters of spirit - now of course spirit is really everything and so if we want to “believe” in bashars claims or masuro emotos claims or sai baba's magic tricks or whatever ubiquitous charlatanry we want to it is spiritually incorrect to critique those beliefs based on reason, psychology, or science.
2) that actually the above view is partially true but incomplete, because really there are 2 broad kinds of spirituality:
a) trans rational spirituality which builds upon the rational stage of cognitive development, is able to think metaphorically without literalizing it, is in touch with critical thinking, is not a regressive defense against trauma and existential angst. it does not rely on belief in unreasonable and unprovable assertions of the kind that have historically caused disaster for human beings. trans rational spirituality gives us self-inquiry practices and healing modalities that initiate us into an adult relationship to reality, a reclaiming of sacredness, and a bitersweet awakening to this fragile and improbable human condition. it is not at odds with logic, psychology or science, but integrates their truths into a deeper and mroe complete worldview by including spiritual practice and experience.
b) secnod: rational spirituality - which is a naive regression into magical thinking, fantasies of omnipotence, denial of death, belief in angels, aliens, spirit guides and rituals that affect the outcome of situations or at the very least ensure that you get a parking space before the other guy…pre rational spirituality is more literal in its interpretation of metaphor/mythology/altered state experiences and is generally more gullible and prone to exploitation because it renders one child-like in ways that are not advantageous. pre rational spirituality is in many ways a defense structure against psychological pain and existential anxiety.
now i am almost certain that you are referring to trans rational openings when you talk about tyour “dark night of the soul.” i am sure you are talking about a stripping away of consoling beliefs and an initiation into existential adulthood that is both humbling and illuminating.
yet in our discussion so far i think your position unwittingly perpetuates the dualism between rationality and spirituality, which then allows those under your influence to be confused as to pre rational and trans rational spirituality - which can then create a regressed, magical, ungrounded, addle brained way of relating to reality - where properly people should be getting more grounded in adult cognition, emotional authenticity and embodied aliveness - in these three qualities arises a genuine spirituality.
in response to your position, your worldview, your assertions about what is and isnt spiritual, what the purpose of a site like this is, what a spiritual person should be like etc…this is my response. it contrasts with yours, points out some flaws and suggests some areas that may need rethinking. i know that may seem impolite, annoying or unlenlightened, but its the way reasonable people consider teh relative value of various points of view, and though you might judge that process as unspiritual, you yourself are doing it - we all are - thankfully!
oops! a portion of the above post should read:
b) second: *PRE* rational spirituality - which is a naive regression into magical thinking, fantasies of omnipotence, denial of death, belief in angels, aliens, spirit guides and rituals that affect the outcome of situations or at the very least ensure that you get a parking space before the other guy…pre rational spirituality is more literal in its interpretation of metaphor/mythology/altered state experiences and is generally more gullible and prone to exploitation because it renders one child-like in ways that are not advantageous. pre rational spirituality is in many ways a defense structure against psychological pain and existential anxiety.
that should make more sense….
anyway, if you are interested in what i mean when i say that (wether we like it or not) there really is a battle (and always has been) between differing worldviews about what spirituality is, see my latest blog post:
The Many Faces of God and let's start a new conversation.
adios. amores perros.
Yes, goodbye. Thanks for the verification, Julian, truly.
Good luck with your blogging, me I ain't yet decided to blogger-oo, but thanks, Sandra, and Julian, for this intro to the blog thing. I have a sense of what the medium is about now, thanks much!
Love,
Michael
————————-
My goal in life is to express all the over-brimming love I feel for the world and try to give all myself so that others will feel better and when I have spare energy, want to make sure all the bunny rabbits are warm and no creatures ever suffer at all, since most beings die being eaten alive, I hope to change all that.
or was all that God's plan? Well if so, I certainly know better than Him. Maybe He didn't have the whole picture. Like I do.
Love. That's the Answer!
;-)
.
i am curious michael: what is this reference to “most creatures dying being eaten alive?”
is this a joke about making sure the bunny rabbits are warm, or are you an animal rights activist?
blogging can be about/like many different things.
if you could recommend one book to me what would it be?
i recommend a brief history of everything by ken wilber for your consideration.
have agreat weekend
~julian
I'm offline for a few days…might have something to share when I'm back.
Loving this thread :-)
I guess it might be helpful here to write a bit about dialogue.
There is a real risk in dialogue. More than arguments you render yourself as authentically as you can. Also giving the other space to do the same.
When conversations turn into judging the rightness of one's own arguments and the wrongness of the others (can be on sliding scales, of course) than that is a discussion.
Often, I find, scepticism and 'devils advocates' are much too early on the scene. First views have to unfold: And really unfold they can only in dialogue with a person (or more) that is truly willing to listen, and maybe actually help you in refining your views.
Then, and in my view - as long as these communications happens basically between people willing to engage thus - only then it's time for the sceptic or devils advocate to get the stage and see what remains of the reasons and arguments gained in a dialogue.
What strikes me in these exchanges here - as they did on Julian's blog where they started? - is that often the positions are not so far apart. What seems to be part of the trouble though is that we want to be understood on our own terms. And that doesn't seem possible.
Much Love,
Mushin
And, by the way, have a most delightful trip, Sandra.
Much Love,
Mushin
I just discovered a beautiful quote that might be helpful in all of this:
To interpret spiritual approaches through categories like “data,” “evidence,” “verification,” “method,” “confirmation,” and “intersubjectivity” may be to enthrone these categories as somehow the hallmarks of knowledge as such, even if the categories are expanded in meaning from their current western usage. But might not a profound encounter with practices of spiritual inquiry lead to considering carefully the meaning of other comparable categories (e.g. dhyana, vichara, theoria, gnosis, or contemplatio) and perhaps to developing understandings of inquiry in which such spiritual categories are primary or central when we speak of knowledge? To assume that the categories of current western epistemology are adequate for interpreting spiritual approaches is to prejudge the results of such an encounter, which might well lead to significant changes in these categories.
(Rothberg, David: “Spiritual Inquiry,” in Transpersonal Knowing: Exploring the Horizon of Consciousness, eds. Tobin Hart, Peter Nelson, and Kaisa Puhakka (Albany, N.Y.: SUNY Press, 2000), pp. 175-176
i agree with this quote 100%
what ya'll keep missing - though i am trying to say it 100 different ways - is that i am not anti spiritual. nor am i trying to interpret authentic trans rational spirituality ( of the kind i am sure rothberg is referring) through a rational lense.
i AM using rationality to differentiate:
a) pre rational
regressive
belief based
fantasy spirituality
FROM
b) trans rational
transformational
inquiry based
practice based spirituality….
1) do you see the crucial importance for theorists, clinicians and those interested in healthy spirituality to make this distinction?
i AM saying that pre rational spirituality is a defense against existential reality and emotional pain.
2) i am saying that it is a BIG COP OUT to say that because something has been designated “spiritual” by the collective misguided zeitgeist - it is beyond rational critique! like for example:
the junk science claims of masuro emoto,
or sai baba's manifesting ash from the palm of his hand
(again please refute these examples directly if you can mushin)
3) do you see how defending pre rationality with it would be a misuse of the principle rothberg is suggesting?
he is talking about experiential states of concsiousness - largely resulting from PRACTICES - not addle brained gullible wishful thinking NEW AGE BELIEFS.
i am saying - along with the transpersonalists rothberg associates with that
“you have to be someone before you can be no one…”
in other words you have to have a healthy ego BEFORE you can transcend it.
in other words you have to have developed healthy rationality BEFORE you can transcend and include that into transrational consciousness.
failing this one has the kind of pre rational regressive ( <–i use this word in it's clinical not pejorative sense) unreasonable faux spirituality that i have been pointing out - a hallmark of which is this unwillingness to make distinctions and make adult critical obsevrations about things like (for example) channeling fucking aliens!
:O)
4) do you not see the importance of making a distinction between healthy and unhealthy non-rationality? seriously.
do you not see the importance of differentiating psychotic states from satori? what might be byond rational evaluation would be the value of satori and wether it was nirvikalpa or savikalpa samadhi or say - the power of the internalized good parental voice that one integrates from the relationship with a good therapist, or say the transformational moments in a state of ecstatic dance.
BUT we could observe, as i have, the violent instability induced by someone with a pre-existing bipolar condition from doing ecstatic dance. or the negative ungrounding side effects of having a spiritually immature therapist validate literally the delusional fantasies of a sexual abuse survivor who thinks they are being held hostage by an evil spirit. or the infalted and therefore spiritually blocked propensity of someone in the early stages of meditation to get caught up in their messiahnic enlightenment ego-fantasy…teachers of meditation, supervisors of therapists, and people who facilitate alternative therapies NEEED to be able to make these distincions in themselves an others. not to do so is highly irresponsible and not grounded in reality.
5) do you dissagree with any of the above? why?
6) do you not see the importance of acknowledging the difference between a psychologically defensive delusional belief system that distorts reality and a practice based set of experiential insights that clarify reality?
rothberg, welwood, kornfield et al are deep into this distinction making, as of course is wilber.
they are all transpersonalists (of a sort) and these distinctions are de rigeur - fairly central to the transpersonal discussion of tha last 25 years or so…..
transpersonal psychology is the marriage of things like meditation and psychotherapy with developmental maps of consciousness and stagewise growth including peak spiritual experiences and altered states.
it is NOT the marriage of alien trance channeling, misunderstood quantum physics, everyone's-enlightened-local-satsang, postmodern vagueries and life coaching!
i have for your convenience numbered the questions mushin, michael, sandra, mary or anyone else might respond to or refute directly.
this may help clarify what we are actually talking about and what we actually agree or disgree on, yes?
Hi Julian,
Do you get that I can understand what you write?
Do you get I beleive you so far have Not been able to understand what I write?
This is a fundamental thing which might interest you to meditate upon.
Please don't go off into some bit about me being arrogant. Somebody has to be “ahead” of someone else. What? You thought we were all born on the same day and since your're SO intelligent you must be “ahead?”
The mind of logic/arguing/war-of-viewpoints (all those mind things you mind loves so much) cannot understand me. You misinterprete and fail to grasp what I write and when I kindly reply again, you go off into another set of arguements.
This is totally different than me thoroughly understand you words and then replying that no, I don't believe that.
So I don't feel we are having a conversaion. You don't pay me enough to keep this up. You'll have to at least try to understand the difference in Logic and Feel / Mind and Heart before I'll continue much longer.
>but its the way reasonable people
Julian! You are assuming, repetiively, that I intend to be reasonable person! Please stop it!
I might, but only as a second thought, as a part in communicaton, be logic or REASONable. It is secondary to being present. Seconday to being that which I am, sometimes referred to as one's spirit.
> relative value
I have no interest whatsoever of relative values! This is a Logic/mind/judging things and I can do that standing on my head watching TV and playing chess. No interest over here, Julian! I have no value on values!
I've already got enough logic, smarts, reasonableness, judgements, and do not come to zaadz for more of that, even from a bright boy like you. I see you beleive those things are of use, cool for you, but they don't even permit you in the discussion you think you're in.
>and though you might judge that process as unspiritual,
This is your assumption. An apple is an apple.
Logic is definitely not spirit. The *mind* uses logic. Spirit uses something else entirely. If I write more here, then logic wants to jump in, and does totaly jump in in your case, to argue about the damn statement! You'll argue whether an apples tastes like an apple!
>you yourself are doing it - we all are - thankfully!
Shit, I thought you were thanking me for showing some reality. But now on re-read, I see you are “thankfully” believing we are all judging.
Sheesh.
Count me Out of your All which You think are judging, Julian. I judge less and less everyday, thank god. And to be frank, all I see in your comments is you furiously determined to collect, create and defend judgements. Judging more and more each day.
This is toxic to any spiritual progress as I have read in many books, ancient and new, and discovered in my own life.
I think I have Sandra's permission to say anything I want on these Comments on her blog, so until then I'll type with that belief. If I learn different, I'll come back and delete my posts.
Julian, the message you are thrusting here is absolutely counter to where one ends up in spiritual journey. Yet you put it out, these beginners' steps as if they as saying something. It's just your brain monkey mind jabbering away.
You must have encountered this before, and read these kind of things I write. You must have read all the kinds of things I'm saying. So what is this about? The books are full of them. Maybe you're reading those books about crystals and angels instead, in which case, man, we better both stop talking.
Julian, it's a real trial to only have one thing to say to you over and over, that you're stuck in your head of logic.
This is not a college course in logic. Logic will learn nothing spiritual and it will teach nothing spiritual-related here.
Spiritual quest is a CRASH COURSE IN LOSING LOGIC. And all spiritual teachers learned this lesson long before they started teaching or healing or attempting to help in any *spiritual* way.
I'll be interested and pleasantly pleased if I see your questions cease looking for argument and became integritously interested in learning something.
Till then, have an ole new age Namaste on me!
Michael
Hi Mushin,
Lovely reading your share.
I agree discussion doesn't seem possible. It's ok with me, yes.
Though I do prefer that the issues be able to be described and accepted, integrated too.
I don't get that the medium comes before the content. In fact for me, it seems pretty clear that a first step is to notice that getting to the result is more important than how it gets there. The willingness to let go of the medium, arguement in my case with Julian, is clearly imperitive if one is to be able to *hear* what I say. So I dunno! Can't be done by someone who insists or tasting with their brain! (methinks)
Oh, I should just wander off, I think. Highly likely someone is going to think my comments on Sandra's blog are part of discussion! Yikes!
Time for bed.
(PS I did like you comment and I've been meaning to track you down at Sandra's suggestion. Just haven't gottern to much computer time lately. Maybe I will, and if I do, I'll say Hi. [again])
oh you make me giggle you silly silly awakened man. gosh i hope to be like you one day. can i, please?! Come see The Alien Channel Part 4 - it wont be as much fun without you….
as usual, didnt see a single response to any of my questions - just another classic - “you're wrong, i am enlightened, you are a beginner and i am way ahead of you, let me know when you are ready to learn(tee hee) and THEN - this is not about judgements you sacriligious philistine!”
obi wan when did you go off your meds and stop doing vipassana?
did my icky questions confuse you? not to worry - slip back into bliss in time for satsang why dont you…
PS: don't let anyone catch you being competitive about not being competitive, Master…oh it's the dreaded dualistic-non-dual gom-boo puzzle. yikes!
yours sincerely
the impudent jabbering monkey who dared to think maybe you wanted to be reasonable!
:O)
this really is hilarious michael. thank you for that, at least!
sweet dreams.
~julian
PPS: as to your “understanding” - show me, baby - dont tell me. i am still waiting….
Come on over to The Alien Channel Part 4 and cast your VOTE
Well I guess it is time for me to wade in here.
Yes, anything goes on my blog comments.
I believe that the more we “show up” (albeit in a thoroughly limited fashion here via the medium of the typed word, which inherently encourages a mental approach) it becomes possible to glean beneath the words the being, the blind-spots, the unconscious conditioning, agreements, assumptions, belief systems, and so on and so forth. This is my wish.
The more that is written, the more is shown - even if there is an awful lot of 'telling', this perhaps, in the end, shows more than anything.
It is my wish that others read this exchange, and by doing so gain insights into themselves. As our (mine, Julian's, Michael's, Mushin's for now) thought patterns and ways of being-in-the world become more and more apparent, then perhaps those silent readers might see themselves more clearly, and perhaps begin to ask some questions about how they are, and by asking questions loosen up their own fixed ideas and ways of being - perhaps it is the only way to see one's own blind spots - by seeing another's.
So - dear Julian, I will state up front that I'm not here to discuss with you your various ideas - many of which I know all of us here completely 'agree' with.
This is not, why I'm here at this point. If you are, and if you see no further personal challenge and possibility for deeper personal insight and education by participating here, then by all means leave.
If you wish to stay, great!
I loved what Mushin wrote:
What seems to be part of the trouble though is that we want to be understood on our own terms.
So for Julian I get that you want to be understood, argued with, debated with, in a particular way - which you clearly define, about specific points, which you also clearly define.
I'm sure you got early on that no-one else here wished to participate in a point by point discussion of the relative veracity or importance of your statements. If there is no-one interested in your particular terms, and you continue to communicate according to those terms, then there is no dialogue, only monologue.
What are my terms? Lets have a look.
I would say that terms are that we are here to be as present with what is - as present as is possible given this medium. My terms are to include what is happening for me in the moment of reading and writing, as much as possible.
I hope to ask myself every time I state something as fact or as 'important':
Is this theory? Or is this my experience?
Can I speak from my experience?
If I can, can I share as simply and straightforwardly as possible, so no-one is excluded, including myself?
If I can't speak from personal experience then I'd better shut-up. No matter how wonderful or seemingly 'right' the words, it is my experience that if they are spoken as theory, they land no-where.
My terms are that we share from of having our priority on being present - in this way, there is always a place for theory, since we then include our present-in-the-moment response to that theory rather than simply state it as fact.
Now I don't always apply my terms - but it is what I strive for, and what I hope to have support from others to do. If this is not of interest to anyone here, then there is no communication - again, no dialogue, only monologue, me speaking to myself.
I'm sure you have felt the same thing, Julian, that you were speaking only to yourself. Or to a brick wall?
You do not answer the questions asked of you.
You often mention how your questions are not answered.
Clear indication that right from the start we are not participating in any kind of dialogue.
I have not answered your questions, not because I don't think they are worthy or interesting, but because I am more interested in what lies beneath the words. I'm more interested in you than what you have to say.
Does this make my 'terms' better? I have no idea.
So, why are we here? We are here.
This is what we know, this is what we can begin with.
Is it possible to have terms which are more inclusive?
Is it really an either / or thing?
Suggestions, anybody?
I would like to suggest that we all begin again, unless we wish to stand the brick walls up. It's possible that one of us or all of us decide to leave.
The question to ask, perhaps, is what is the most risky thing I could do right now? What is the thing that would be so unusual, the choice that would so push me beyond my envelope?
I suspect that leaving is not such a choice.
If we on zaadz cannot have a dialogue, then who can?
Are you willing to begin again?
From this moment. From right now - as you read these words.
What is happening for you?
And I will stop now, and I will answer the question myself.
ask any question you like sandra.
you'll notice i have restated mine very clearly. it is inevitable that our questions get lost in the shuffle of conflicting worldviews wanting to heard. i have no problem with that. thats why i restated my questions. i dont expect you to be able to keep my arguments straight while you are constructing yours. BUT if we answer eachother with integrity, point-by-point we might actually be having a conversation.
if you have answers for my questions please respond. i believe my above post is a great jumping off point if you wnat to go deeper. anything you feel you have the depth or strength to refute, please go ahead. i am excited to hear your actual position, even if it's a point by point refutation of the underlying premises you “intuit” by “being present”.
if you want to reframe the discusion you will need to be a lot less vague. yes, we are all interested in being present - how does that apply at all to the issues being discussed?
if you want to make a scathing indictment of what i am saying OR the way i am saying it you will need to actually say something, anything. i am all ears.
if you are bored - no problem. have the last word and i can be done too - no hard feelings. :O)
and i love the little “we all agree with your points” gambit. how nice! well in that case….bravo. what a turnaround…
dialog is not blocked by dialog. what are you really complaining about?
i am trying to read between the lines, to feel into the soul behind your words, to intuit the ghost that you are channeling - but it's so much easier online if you just come out and say it!
so far all i get is that you are offended by me making clear arguments and asking people to respond to them. this is somehow taboo?
bummer.
i am pointing out that these are conflicting worldviews - hence the brickwall feeling.
i have spent my time trying to point out the problems and blindspots with worldview you guys are representing (wether you know it or not).
i know that is quite upsetting, especially if there is a lot invested in the very thin areas of the belief system.
spiral dynamics is a great help here….http://www.wie.org/spiral/?ifr=af
you allude to problems and blindspots with what i am saying…… but then nothing coherent really emerges - of course one of the blindspots might be that i expect coherence in something i am going to take seriously - if so- oops! ya got me there…
begin again, sure!
where would you like to start?
i am just waking up and i know your day is almost ending - have a great night!
~julian
ask any question you like sandra.
I have already:
What is happening for you?
>If we on zaadz cannot have a dialogue, then who can?
>Are you willing to begin again?
>From this moment. From right now - as you read these words.
>What is happening for you?
When I was writing the I-see-everything post, I kept thinking, “Go ahead, write it, you can't *hurt* him, what's the harm in going ahead and writing what reads as utterly inappropriate, superior, etc.? And what I found is that those words were indeed my truth in that moment, that it's much easier to walk off, it's much easier to be democratic and “respect the other's opinion.” Yet, if it is indeed opinion and viewpoint Julian and I were writing, was it not even more imperative to to state what I feel about opinion, (which I see as part of logic/beliefs/et al)? Was I really authorized to censor what Julian reads from me?
I'm not sure one can really dialog truth. In my experience, the closer one is to truth, the closer one is to silence. Utter silence.
Truth is a zero that doesn't exist.
I also suspect that what many percieve as enlighenment or awakening is this running-down until thinking and everything else ends and the last thing there is is awareness. Just that. No emoting (even bliss) no thinking (even knowing) no connection (even conscious of self).
It doesn't feel right to me that I wrote that post, because when all is said and done there is only one thing left between persons *with* each other, and that as I see it is likely to be the heartfelt recognition of All in each other. And in my post there was no space for that. Yet I was, of course, fine to say those things, as everyone *is* interested in this or wouldn't be here. AT some point I find myself in the position as you say, Sandra, of choosing to stay in what is unfiting or – leave. I like the suggestion of beginning again, yes, thank You.
I will say a little more. I find it condescending to *not* say a person is being a monkey mind just because they're Not going to let it in, or that I'm being rude etc to say it.
(I notice that I am fully confident in what I write/wrote, that is, that I DO “know” I am speaking to a monkey mind. Let's see what the response was:
>'oh you make me giggle you silly silly awakened man. gosh i hope
>to be like you one day. can i, please?!”
Ah, ok, I feel ok with that – sounds like a monkey mind to me. I suspect that if Paul Lowe or Nadeen [who first suggested I do satsang], said something like that to me I'd feel horrible. Not giggle about him being a silly man.
So yes I see I'm coming from a place of awfully strong confidence in what comes out of me.) (interesting, because most of *I* doesn't see myself that way – but there it is!)
How am I to know if me saying it now might not lead to an entire path to new light which the other will be profoundly grateful for later? I know that happened to me many times – being humbled and forced by self to look at myself. Each humbling was a valuable gift.
So when I was typing, I felt to hold back, be nice, but an inner conscience I suppose, said to not censor, no matter what cost of appearance, the real question was Who am I to decide what people are ready to hear, No Matter what they are saying *about* it. If they are inviting the response, is it not for me to respond?
What I get though is that yes, say it, but in doing so, one is then connected perhaps for weeks of patient presence for anything to come of it.
And I certainly wasn't offering that. No fair! :-)
Imagine five thousand people assembled before a platform strewn with flowers and sacred symbols and then the great sage comes out and says what I wrote. Would it not be fully “let in” instead of rejected as it was here?
Julian is my great teacher of late, there is a lovely lesson He has given me which is percolating even now inside. No matter that his logic words can whittle even Sandra down to “oh yes I see you are right,” or discussion of “discussion ending” and maybe needing to start anew. My bullshit is true, Julians monkey is a genious. We *are* the fired kettle!
When asked about a non-spirit type monk, the Buddha said he kept him around to “keep the pot stirred.” Thank you Julian, you have stirred my pot and it feels like you have taught me a lot about logic and a lot about my arrogant self as brought forward.
Usually when I persist in pointing at something most don't want to look at, many delightedly dismiss me when I go too far, and some others wonder, “Wow, who is this guy, is he an idiot after all? One minute he seems like he actually see IT and the next minute he's totally arrogant full of himself.” I suggest I am neither. And I see in this moment that part of me does indeed want to be seen consistently? Yet in ten minutes, I won't care what I seem to anyone. Being utterly free is certainly a wild ride, but like a roller coaster, does indeed have as much hairy crashing sinkings as “ups.” One moment I would love so much to sit in bliss with Julian in *any* moment, even to be totally with his monkey, Yes!. Ah. But to meet a monkey, the urge is to be a monkey too. Truth seems to be to say, “You are being a monkey.” and if I was totally with him, he/monkey would laugh, I'd monkey/giggle with him and we'd move on. I don't suppose this can happen very oftern in text-internet-dialog.
Spectaular Sandra, I suspect at a Gathering, you might find Julian and I crashed out in a puppy pile or joyfully accusing each other of cheating in a game of checkers. Underneath any of this is a well of love, we must not forget that, you and I. We keep inviting into our lives sincere people putting all their strength into being real, and yes, Julian-Logic is a wonderful heroic effort too. Does it matter if one *appears* closer to the endpoint of the layers that are describable of words? No! I would say that a murderer, in a the middle of the act, who asks himself, “Am I really doing this?” is begun the same path. It is only time and surface refracton which hides truth from us – that he is just like us. If we cease to buy into time and refraction, then all is a lot easier to see.
.
Dearest Sandra,
(Not that I know I lot of Sandra's in the world and that you are the Dear-est of all the Sandra's, but that of all the Dear feelings I might have, the way I feel to you when I begin to type *feels* “Dearest:” *smile*)
Amazing though Julian is, this set of comments just feels icky for me, seeing my comments in this long scrolling page of things arguement and stuff. Under the surface of competive logic judgement etc is the threat of anger and dare I say it, hate boiling through. We know this, why ought we hang around someone denying they are Mr Logic when we know where that leads? Do we think we will change them? Save the world? Do we think that influence shifts in only one direction, open to closed? Do we not forget that it goes the other way too, that contamination flows also?
(he asks like the great professor who knows what he's talking about)
>2) i am saying that it is a BIG COP OUT to say that because
>something has been designated “spiritual” by the collective
>misguided zeitgeist - it is beyond rational critique! like for example:
which is just one random line out of pages of posts just like it.
Each of which is inspiration for *another* long set of argumentative comments like this.
This is not for me.
Like Julian says, my comments then too are argumentative and competitive, by the very nature of engaging logic minds: argument and competition and judgment.
With the above lines I quoted, what is one to do? Deny that I use the word “spirituality” in some way HE defines? It would be another argument and the monkey rejoices! The monkey will argue over Anything. It's what it does.
I totally get that this was a good idea, you're moving to your blog with this topic. Yet I wonder if it has achieved what you desire?
Me, I don't feel we ever addressed what you set out. It's all been about wherever Julian wanted to take it. (me I didn't know 'nuttin so I went with the flow, stepped right in)
I also feel a little sucked in, trying to respond, and pushing my edges with words until I write things which, if not FELT in their context are easily seen to be arrogant assholes bullshit. I don't wish to depend on friends staying quite because I'm dealing with the bull in the china shop, I prefer than when I get to my limit, that friends/others feel free to step in and point out what they see revealed in me. Feedback. I grow. Herein, I don't feel anyone is likely to say much to me since the bull is there. Like, “I'll wait until the mess cools down.”
No fun.
I just scanned to the top of this page and read:
>I wondered if I had anything more to add to the dialogue on Julian Walker's blog The Alien Channel and other spiritual circus sideshows.
<snip>
>In the end, I sense he wanted to have a different kind of discussion than
>the one I wanted to have.
<snip>
>Well, yes it was fun. Until it was not. I think it got competetive and personal,
Welp, this sounds to me like you had enough over there and came back to your space to wrap it up and invited a few friends to comment, and then Julian showed up? I wonder if this page didn't then turn into the kind of page you left behind?
And if so, is this about Julian's coming here to Your page? Because if so, I now feel to ask if you invited him? And having asked that, if you would have preferred not? And once this got going, is it even within you wildest possibilities to ask him to Not?
In the old days I would have written this back-channel, in email, but these days, I dunno, it's like I don't believe we are protecting _him_ that way, and I don't feel we need protection.
I *would* be back channel if I thought for one moment that being spoken of as if he wasn't going to read this would hurt him in any way, but I don't think he can be hurt. I really really mean it that it's a monkey mind and the monkey mind Actually Literally Can Not understand these words. Literally.
I can't hurt anyone with words anyway, and I'm fairly certain of the response: that we'll see a monkey mind happily to be splattering around in anything at all. Total blaaaah! mode. It's what it does.
Wow, I'm pretty sure of myself, huh? I must be enlightened. :-)
i really do giggle a lot when i read your posts michael. ahhhh yes, looking forward to hearing the eloquent and brilliant words from your post coming out of the mouth of an “enlightened being” on a flower strewn stage in front of - what was it 5000 people? do you even read this stuff back to yourself? :O) scary…
again: arguing points in a clear way only seems agressive if you are attached to your position and cant really back it up. if you can back up what you are saying and make clear distinctions and respond point by point it is invigorating and mutually educational. socratic method, anyone