Thursday, May 31, 2007

The Spiritual Side of Life. Part 2.

There are three basic stages in the life of a person engaged in spiritual development.
The first is characterized by the transition from "normal consciousness" to a "spiritual consciousness".
(NB. I really dislike the word "spiritual" because I find it horribly unspecific, and there are a lot of weird connotations behind it. I'm using it however, because it's instantly recognizable and it's simple. I would like to make it a little more clear what I mean here though. For me a spiritual state is one where the functions of normal consciousness are replaced with the functions of a conscious capable of expanded awareness and appreciation of singularities. I think that's fair enough. If you'd like to contest it, or if you think it's insufficient in anyway please let me know and we can discuss it.)

This shift usually takes the form of what Crowley called "the lesser trance of sorrow". I don't think this is a necessary step in a spiritually minded person's progress but it does seem common. This state is characterized by a realization of the futility of all "earthly" endeavors.
I personally went through this when I was about 13. I started thinking a lot about what I wanted to be when I was older and I just couldn't justify anything to myself. I just kept thinking that no matter what I choose it won't make any difference after I die. Even if I left behind something great, like a work of art, or a great idea, there would come a time when even that would dissolve and the people who new about the idea would die. This trance is often accompanied by an acute depressive state that subsides by realizing that the "earthly" pursuits are in fact futile but that there is another way. I quickly realized that if I were in "heaven" (the only concept in my vocabulary at the time that even approximated an enlightened state) I would be past all that, I wouldn't need these trivial ideas anymore. I just wouldn't care because I'd be past all that.
This left me with a deep calm for a while until I found my true path. I had found the reason and once I had found the way I was off running.
I think the important thing to remember with spirituality is that some people want it and others don't. There comes a point in spiritual development when you really can't force it anymore. You come to see that everything you know must be left behind and either you're compelled or you aren't. It's in your blood. No amount of philosophizing can change this (see ! & ?).
The true fulfillment of the spiritual path seems to lie in a state of consciousness that is entirely enigmatic to the mundane consciousness. Once you've reached a certain point it seems, you are no longer willing to admit that you've ever done anything at all. Like Crowley says "In fact, the man in Kether is out of all relation to these boots and hats." The enlightened mind is no longer willing to abide on the material plane. But it goes even further than that I think, he's out of all relation to the material.
He is out of all relation.
This also implies that he would be unwilling to affect anything so distant from "himself" or affect anything at all for that matter.
This is where my point lies. As Crowley says:

"But (you will doubtless say) I pith your ? itself with another ?: Why question life at all? Why not remain "a clean-living Irish gentleman" content with his handicap, and contemptuous of card and pencil? Is not the Buddha's goad "Everything is sorrow" little better than a currish whine? What do I care for old age, disease, and death? I'm a man, and a Celt at that. I spit on your sniveling Hindu prince, emasculate with debauchery in the first place, and asceticism in the second. A weak, dirty, paltry cur, sir, your Gautama!

"Yes, I think I have no answer to that. The sudden apprehension of some vital catastrophe may have been the exciting cause of my conscious devotion to the attainment of Adeptship --- but surely the capacity was there, inborn. Mere despair and desire can do little; anyway, the first impulse of {132} fear was the passing spasm of an hour; the magnetism of the path itself was the true lure. It is as foolish to ask me "Why do you adep?" as to ask God "Why do you pardon?" C'est son métier. "

What's the point if it's not good for your poor health, or won't bring you more money?
The answer is that the path of wisdom is innate in some people and not in others.
I was born to Adept, c'est mon metier.

I've already said a bit about the third stage (what little I know of it) but tomorrow I'll go over it again in a bit more detail along with the second stage.
For now read ! & ?.

Wednesday, May 30, 2007

13

I've been thinking a lot about death today
It's a comfort to think I'll be like they are.
Keep quiet and it'll pass I thought,
Just sit here on the banks and a boat will come
I'll just sit here and wait for it.
And came it did I saw it aways away and sat up.
I saw a man in it, not callous but serene,
I saw his face and I loved him.
He was blank as a night shade of Salvia,
and just as plastic I think.
I couldn't tell if he loved me back
but I still don't care.
I love the end and I can feel it as a part of me.
Death is the bringer of fortune in time,
It's all gotta go down sometime,
and has before I thought,
I loved him even more.
I can feel him beside me even now,
his breath isn't heavy but it smells like nothing else,
I can feel it on my bones as I love him,
He brought me here, he'll take me back,
Over and over and over again.
Is this hell?
Cuz I think I must be dreaming.
Doesn't everyone think of this
and feel the scent of peace
on the tips of every hair?
I can see him look at me from his boat,
I've been waiting so long and I love it.
I love waiting, it comforts me,
keeps me quiet when I can't feel it.
I'd like to meet him up close again,
I forgot how much to feel.
I forgot how much to smell.
It's not like they won't love me too,
I came to be with them.

Black Bush

The Spiritual Side of Life. Part 1.

The spiritual aspect of life is both the most complex and the most useful. Almost everything "spiritual" that you do has carryover to almost every other aspect of life. This is due to the fact that the basic spiritual exercises deal with the control of breath, the control of mind, the control of nature, the development of intuition, and the development of what can be called "life force."
I'd like to deal with each of these in their own place at a later time, but for now I'd like to go over what's obviously necessary for gaining a decent intellectual grasp of the whole matter.
Reading a spiritual text is often a developmental exercise in it's own right. The carryover isn't as great as some of the other exercises but there is still a whole heap of benefits. For instance, prolonged contemplation of texts like the Tao Te Ching or Liber AL will eventually lead to certain very "useful" realizations like the benefits of the path of non action, the power of love, true morality, and a lot of other very profound "secrets of life". Someone whose inclination is heavily intellectual could probably achieve a high level of realization just from contemplative readings, but it's my opinion that there are much more efficient (though sometimes significantly more uncomfortable) ways of attaining the same result.

For today though I'd like to give a brief outline of the specific texts that have helped me on my way. This list is by no means complete. For instance I've never really studied Islam, Voodoo, Santeria, the Essene traditions, Alchemy, Rosicrucianism, and a ton of others. I fully intend to at some point, I just haven't yet.

To start you should get a taste for everything.
I think it's a really good idea to realize that all religions are essentially the same with the only differeces coming from terminology.
This list is more or less copied from the general reading list of the brotherhood of A:.A:. Most of these texts can be found for free online through Sacred-Texts.com

Study the Taoist traditions with Lao Tzu and Kwuang Tzi.
The Buddhist traditions with The Suttas and The Dhammapada.
The Hindu traditions with the Bhagavad Gita, The Upanishads, The Vedas, and the books on Yoga (Siva Samhita, the hathayoga pradipika, the Aphorisms of Patanjali, and Raja Yoga by Vivekananda).
The Christian traditions with the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Pistis Sophia, and the spiritual guide of Michael Molinos.
The Thelemic traditions with Liber AL, Liber ABA, Liber Aleph, The Equinox, and The Confessions of Aleister Crowley (just to name a few).
The Qabalistic traditions with 777, The Book of Thoth, and the works of Eliphas Levi (which will also give you a fair grounding in Hermetic traditions). Qabbalah has a mixed heritage so you might also want to study some of the Lurianic texts to get the Jewish side of things, but from what I've studied the Hermetic tradition is both clearer and more complete (mostly due to Crowley's contributions).
Also the pantheons (taking each god and goddess to be a representation of either a force of nature or an aspect of the human condition) of all the pagan traditions, esp. the Egyptian, Greek, and Hindu.

This is a very good foundation of reading and if you are diligent you'll be different person when you're done.

Tuesday, May 29, 2007

The 5 Areas of Life. Intro.

I apologize for the lame ass post from yesterday but this time I had a really good excuse. I started writing my usual morning post and everything was going swimmingly when I realized that I might be on to something. I started systematically going through every area of life where I have found at least some degree of mastery and I figured that I should be sharing this everyone.
I've found a lot of really valuable information and developed a lot of very powerful techniques and realizations for living a highly fulfilled life.
You want to learn how to imitate my meager success?

I've broken down the areas of life into 5 sections.
I'll be dealing with each of them on separate days for the next week or two.
I'm gonna be as thorough as possible so it might take me a few days to get everything out on any one topic.

The 5 sections are:

1. The spiritual.
2. The intellectual.
3. The emotional.
4. The social.
5. The physical.

Now, there are a few things that overlap two or more of these sections, like money, sex, and love, so there might a slight bit of repetition but you don't mind I'm sure.
Also I'll be paying close attention in particular to those things (exercises, and books in particular) that have a strong carryover effect to two or more sections. This carryover effect is, I believe, a greatly overlooked concept in most people's lives. I'm absolutely certain that my refusal to spend significant time on anything that doesn't carryover to at least one other area of my life is the reason that I've been able to accomplish what I have at such a young age.

So hang on cuz you'll never be the same again.

Saturday, May 26, 2007

"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law"

I've been doing a lot of thinking lately about the interconnectedness of all things.
I've been considering things like Samadhi, entanglement, divinity, superposition, how Mandelbrot sets might be a reflection of natural processes and how it is very reasonable to say that existence is One.
I've been considering these things, and I find that the more I consider them the more one question in particular keeps popping up in my mind "if this is the natural state of being why do we usually feel so separate? Why are we given separate bodies, a separate ego, a distinct sense of being an individual when in reality we are merely reflections of the whole of existence? If we are unity why do feel like this?"

I think of these things and one experience in particular keeps coming back to me.

When you start reading anything of Aleister Crowley's you're often faced with a similar question. This idea was something he dealt with very thoroughly. He even devised meditations and exercises to help us comprehend this aspect of ourselves and how this idea can be resolved.
He called it the practice of the magical diary.

The exercise is really simple and really isn't as much work as it looks like at first (who's afraid of work anyway?).
Basically all you do is get a notebook and start writing out your life in as much detail as possible.
You can start by writing out a bit about your family, traditions your family has, your distant relatives, what parts of the world they came from, what kind of work they engaged in, and anything else that seems important.
Then you can start writing about your parents, how they met, what work they do, what are their hobbies, their body types, their humor and disposition, their parenting styles, how they see they see the world and anything else you can think of.
Now you can start writing about yourself.
Be as detailed as possible!
Write out your first memories, write out experiences from school, who your friends were and what they were like, how you liked to play, what interested you, what scared you, your views and attitudes about sexuality, and anything else.
Then as you start writing about yourself as a teen or a young adult (then later as an adult) start including more details about your political views, what books you read, what your personal philosophy is like, what your sex life is like, what you prefer sexually, your attitude towards sex in general (sex is important), your views on religion and how you came to those, who are your friends now, what are your hobbies and literally as much as you can think of.
(something you might find useful is writing on only one side of the page or do it on the computer so that you can fill things in as new memories pop up.)

After completing this exercise (which can take anywhere from a week to a month depending on how many hours a day you put in) you'll be able to read it over and intelligently trace some very obvious currents in your life. You'll find that perhaps as a young child you really enjoyed contact sports and anything martial but because of emotional imprint events those tendencies were suppressed and ended up coming out in your life in unhealthy ways. Or you might find that you've always really enjoyed drawing, ever since your first memories, and you find that some of your happiest memories are from the simple enjoyment of art.

You'll notice these currents as clear as day. They'll be unmistakable.

Then you might start asking yourself "why have I been struggling so hard against these things all my life when it's so obvious that I was born to do this?"

This is where it gets really interesting.
How can we deny that we are living a life with a definite purpose when we can see it so clearly once we gain even a little perspective?
How can we claim that we are not part of some plan when everything seems to fit together so perfectly (even the seemingly imperfect things)?

So I've been playing with the idea that we are not "separate" from this unity arbitrarily or by some fault of our own or of nature but by design.

We are all supposed to be doing something specific, our individuality is a sign of our function, and fulfilling that function seems to be necessary to the fulfillment of the function of the whole.

Friday, May 25, 2007

Demosthenes...

I just wanted to thank you for coming into my life.
Our relationship so far has allowed me to consider aspects of myself that I was unwilling to acknowledge before we started our discussion.
I can't believe how blind I was (and still am).

I honestly feel so blessed to be a part of such a perfect state of existence, and I'd like to show my appreciation by doing something for you.
I'm not sure yet what that would be, but if you can think of something, anything at all, I'll do whatever I can to make that happen for you.

Thank you again.
Hua Allahu Alazi, Lailaha Illa Hua.

Who Else wants to be Free of the Ego?

The ego likes to play games.
It hides behind a lot of things hoping that it won't be noticed. What it doesn't usually realize, however, is that we can pick it out from a mile away.
Anytime you find yourself statements of identity that's the ego.
Anytime you find yourself judging yourself or others that's the ego.
Anytime you feel superior or inferior, that's the ego.
Anytime you feel emotional pain, or seeking emotional pleasure, that's the ego.
Anytime you find yourself making statements like "I'm getting rid of the ego, what a good boy I am" that's the ego.
Basically the ego is very intimately tied up with conscious thought. It is very concerned with both right and left brain functions and the concept of time.
It loves to put labels on things, and judge whether those things are good or bad. That's basically it's job.
And it loves to take you out of the present moment to make those judgments.
If you ever watch yourself making judgments about things, labeling them good or bad, you're more often than not referencing a state of time. At that moment you are outside of the present moment.

Good news about the ego is that it's not so formidable as it seems. Both Crowley and the Buddha Sidartha thought that it was possible to do away with the ego with a very simple shift in awareness. It's just a matter of choice.

Like Eckhart Tolle says all you have to do is shift your mind from a state of thinking to a state of awareness. Just be aware of your surroundings without labeling them, without referencing your past experiences, or your future projections. Just settle into the present moment and appreciate pure awareness. It really is that easy.
Once you've found that odd state of being you can summon it whenever you like, and the more you do the less frequently you'll have to do it consciously.

In times when the ego would normally rear it's head, like times of anxiety or fear, all you have to do is acknowledge the ego, thank it for doing such a good job, and stay present and free from labels.

A couple little things that you can do to make it easier at first is to ask questions. The ego dissolves instantly when we start truly examining the situation in which it pops up. So the Meta Model of NLP or Byron Katie's inquiry process work really well for gaining some perspective on what's really going on.

Hello again Mr. Thacker.

Mr. Thacker we've obviously revealed a great blessing in our relationship. You see my arguments as superficial in the same way that I see yours.
It's curious that you think I was taking things personally. I thought the exact same thing about you a few times especially when that friend of ours first showed me your response to her bulletin. Seems to me we have more in common than either of us is willing to admit.

So where do we go from here?
Do you actually want to keep going with this train of thought and keep ourselves open to some sort of honest resolution?
I'm willing to admit my faults in the argument. Namely that my piece was too personal to be publicly accepted if you're willing to accept that at least for the one statement you picked out (if you're willing to allow me to isolate it) I sufficiently supported it using psychological principles (leaving entanglement out of it).
Other than that the only other thing left unresolved with this discussion is the "rules of art", especially with regards to universal language. You want to keep at it or move on?
I'm fine with moving on, I'm perfectly comfortable with my faults and failings in this situation.

So, let's hear your thesis! I'm excited for it.
Actually, before we start onto another train (hopefully one as invigorating as the last) do you mind if I ask a little about your background?
I know you've done your masters in phil. of religion. Is that right? What did you do your undergraduate work on? I also see that you at least have a personal curiosity about esotericism (ref. Zarathustra, Tao Te Ching etc.) but I'm just curious how far you've taken it in your personal life. Have you ever practiced any sort of transcendental meditation or anything similar? Any energy work, pranayama, asceticism, concentration practices, magick, or anything like these?
I'm just curious because if you have I think we have a LOT more to talk about than I first realized. BTW have you ever read any Eliphas Levi, Aleister Crowley, or Vivekananda? If you dig the Tao Te Ching you'll get a kick out of these (don't let all the qabalistic language deter you in Levi and Crowley, you're a bright guy, I'm sure you'll work yourself through it). If you do decide to tackle them make sure you don't make the mistake of underestimating them, (especially Crowley) like Lao Tzu they're deceptively simple sometimes.

But anyways, let's hear that thesis. I requested all the books from the library I could find by the guys you mentioned but unfortunately there was only a handful. Hopefully I'll be able to stay on the same page.

Cheers.

P.S. your link doesn't work, says the video has been removed or something.

Thursday, May 24, 2007

The Life of a Blogger

What's wrong with an Ego?

The ego is a curious thing isn't it?
Let me tell you a little story I heard recently.
A friend of mine was in a grocery store, just lookin around for a few things and he walked down one of the aisles.
While he was there a woman walked down the same aisle pushing a cart.
She had her little girl in the top part of cart and they were both just shopping.
Then for just a second the mum turned the corner and this little girl just started to wail.
My friend said it was one of those deep, throaty, blood curdling wails, like someone was trying to kill this kid.
Her mom had just turned the corned for literally about 2 seconds and this little girl frickin lost her mind. I guess she was convinced that her mom had left her for good, and that she'd be stranded in this grocery store with my friend. I thought to myself, hey that wouldn't be so bad, my friend's a nice guy, she'd have lots to eat, what's the big deal?
Right?
What's the big deal?
The funny thing is though that that little girl couldn't tell the difference between a non existent threat to her survival and an imaginary one.
She just didn't know what else to do but wail.
Our egos work in the same way. They're really quite naive. They work really well for what they're intended for, namely survival of the physical self, but what about when the threat is really just imaginary, or when we know that the physical self is actually a hindrance (e.g. transcendentalism and the like)?
What are we supposed to do when we confront situations that our ego tells us is dangerous?
How can we tell when it's just our ego talking and not a reasonable response to our environment?
How can we get rid of this pesky nuisance and start living a life that is more in tune with "reality"?

I'll talk a little more about this tomorrow.

Wednesday, May 23, 2007

Another Post to Demosthenes

I must confess Demosthenes, I was looking over your response again and I really just got bored with it. Your arguments are unsupported and superficial, and basically just a rehash of what we've already been through. I really just don't feel like walking you through your own arguments again and picking holes in them.
Let's just get a couple things straight for now and maybe tomorrow I'll feel like doing something more with what you said.
First of all yes it was very personal. I was just writing because that's what I do. Like I said in my first post I was simply expressing my state at the time using words that fit the mental picture I constructed to represent it. I respect your curiosity about my work but I still feel that it was grossly inappropriate to criticize it with the arguments you chose. If you just wanted to understand it better you could have approached me with more of an attitude of curiosity and less of an attitude of biased judgment. But that's just my opinion.
Second, if you're interested in my perspectives about certain things (the progress to enlightenment, humanity as parasites, the nature of art, how entanglement is essential to cosmology or whatever) I'd be more than happy to discuss these things with you but let's start fresh because we've made a mess of the last discussion and it's clear we're not ready to talk to each other about it (I think it was all founded on a ridiculous premise and was doomed right off the bat).
Third, if you really want to continue our previous discussion I think we should just focus on the nature of art, especially on what is and isn't permissible under the label of "art". That will simplify things and I think it will cut to the core of why you were attacking me.
Fourth, I'd really appreciate it if you'd be willing to talk a little about your perspective on the holographic universe. It's a subject I'm really interested in and the public library here has very few books on it. So if you're willing to talk I'm eager to listen.

I think that's all for now. Please consider the post I made on Monday as demonstrating my "metathesis" and my post yesterday (on art) as further support. Don't be too harsh on yesterday's though I haven't had a chance to look it over yet so I don't know if I'm missing anything or being repetitive etc.

In any case keep checking back cuz I might still deal with your response formally and provide you with some meat to chew on.

Tuesday, May 22, 2007

Kenny Rogers Jackass

What is Art?

What is Art?
can we really say what it is? can we really use language to define it? Can we come to some agreement about a definition or are we forced to admit that it's far too intangible to speak about? Where is true beauty but beyond the means of speech and logical form?
Where is that sense of accomplishment when we appreciate a great piece?
Where does our mind find it's sense when it's wrapped up in intangible images and flitting like butterflies on the tips of senselessness?
Can we talk about art at all?
Do we need to?
What part of the mind is at work when we appreciate something for it's undeniable beauty?
What part of existence are we appreciating in those time?
certainly it's no where near the same parts as when we calculate Riemann sums, or construct a mighty proof tree, or look out to the world and recognize that Fibonacci was right.
So what are we doing when we create?
What are we doing when we appreciate?
We're certainly not in a state of mind that allows for conscious consideration (that only produces shitty art).
We're certainly not in a state of mind that we can even call rational, unless we stretch it and force ourselves to label every conscious movement as rational.
So where are we?
We're in a space of expansion. We're free of those limiting thoughts of logic and language, free of the concept of time, sense, work, right, and wrong.
We come to a place where our liberty, our ability, our place of pure creation is paramount.
We come to realize our own deepest sense of what's truly going on around us.
"We aren't separate", we say.
"we're all conjoined in this ambient fluid of mush and light. All we have to do is stop putting the brakes on, abandon for a moment our constraints and give ourselves over to pure being, pure love."
Emotion is the first step, shifting from thought to consciousness is the second, recognition is the third.
The entire universe is made from three.
Above all else be free of the constraints of thinking and all it's implications.
Thinking implies limits.
Just be aware.
Health and happiness come rushing forward when we do this. They comfort us in our deepest sense. We come to realize that nature is our mother, the universe is our play ground, we are one with them, we come to them easily. The only thing that stands in our way is that which keeps us tied to our own ego.
We're geared to survive. Ego allows to live when we're learning about life.
It allows us to garner some sense of what might kill us, what might keep us safe.
We look around and value things, quanify and qualify, analyze and combine.
We like this when we're young, it tells us when to run, when to bask, and when to feel like the world is not a safe place.
But we forget that we don't need this. We are powerful creators, we can change reality with our thoughts and directed emotion.
We can feel safe while falling off a cliff or while feeling a bullet pierce into our hearts.
We don't need to analyze and combine.
We can live in the present moment, free of thought altogether, just basking in the infinite glow of love and radiance.
This is our birthright. The only thing that keeps us from living in perfect peace is not wanting to let go of that mechanical safety mechanism.
We cling to it until we see that everything is as it should be, life is in perfect balance, whatever we do, whatever happens, is exactly as it should be.
Art is a way to feel that, a way to express it to others who feel it, a way to develop it in ourselves, but is entirely obscured to someone who is still trapped in their own sense of right and wrong, safe and unsafe, life and death.
Free yourself from your own fetters and just rest in this moment for a bit.
Calm down and just see what you're seeing right now. Hear what you're hearing right now. But don't judge or label it. Just be for a moment. Remove those thoughts you're having, remove those judgments and past experiences. Remove those expectations and definitions. Just be in a state of pure experience.
Thats art.

Monday, May 21, 2007

Back to Demosthenes

Hello again Demosthenes (I'm curious why you chose that name), I just read your response and wanted to tell you something that may or may not change what you think of my piece (I don't think it's my best work of poetry, honestly I only published it because I thought someone might get a kick out of it).
First of all I often deliberately omit conclusions, a thesis, and incorporate a bunch of incoherence into some of my work. That’s part of the structure. The lack of "foot or measure" is just a cosmetic reflection of that (as is much of the wording).
This has honestly been a large part of my poetic work for a number of years.
Secondly a couple years ago I had the good fortune to meet with a couple of very respected "authorities" on poetry; Dr. Manijeh Mannani of the U. of A. and Dr.Ted Blodget (I think I spelled his name right). Both of these individuals are quite respected in their fields (Comparative Lit. and English Lit. respectively) and both have said that they have a lot of respect for my work, (including the above idea) and when we were discussing my early work Mannani confessed that she believes I'm the greatest poetic genius she's had the pleasure to talk with.

I just wanted to bring these points to the table for you to consider while I prepare a more formal refutation to many of your statements.
BTW I'd really like to read your thesis on the holographic universe if you'd be so kind as to share it.

My Confession.

I confess to being a man.
I confess that my body is the vehicle for my spirit and that the conduit for it's expression is fractured.
I confess to my heart, my head and my penis.
I confess to enjoying life and all that it has to offer.
I confess to enjoying all learning, all love, and sex.
I confess to being free.
I confess to being willing to protect my freedom in any and all ways.
I confess to violence.
I confess to nonviolence.
I confess to not caring if this may or may not imply the violation of local laws or customs.
I confess to being a citizen of the planet earth.
I confess to having the right to travel wherever I please, whenever I please, however I please.
I confess that every other man woman and child has the same rights as me.
I confess that there is great good in human pleasure, and that I'll take it in as many varied forms as I can find it.
I confess to being a criminal.
I confess to having a criminal record under the criminal code of Canada.
I confess to being free of this criminal code because I am free of sin.
I confess to having been pushed around by the guys with the guns.
I confess to not having a gun.
I confess to liking the thought of dieing for my ideals.
I confess to enjoying the thought that there are others like me.
I confess to enjoying the thought that there are others not like me.
I confess to being a man of my word.
I confess to having fun.
I confess to working myself sick.
I confess to playing myself sick.
I confess to being white, French, Canadian, male, tall, blond, strong, thin, healthy, young, smart, tolerant, intolerant, ignorant, enlightened, benighted, in the dark, pious, fulfilled, restless, in love, hateful, violent, perverted, sacred, indolent, resistant, changing, appreciative, grateful, pure, chaste, lascivious, lustful, controlled, uncontrollable, weird, shy, boastful, poetic, scientific, merciful and kind.
I confess to having impure thoughts.
I confess to having pure thoughts.
I confess to having imbalances.
I confess to my sins.
I confess to be free of sin.
I confess to absolve myself of sin.
I confess to not caring whether or not my sin keeps me from heaven, or keeps me in hell.
I confess to being apathetic.
I confess to being passionate.
I confess again to being a pervert.
I confess again to loving life, lust, sex, passion, flesh, boobs, ass, smooth skin, the smell of roses, spring mornings, walking with my girl, holding hands, pressing our cheeks together, watching movies, keeping focused, eating candy, taking showers, exercise, cuddles, hugs, expansion, newness, reciprocity, a good strong crush, eye contact, girls, music, getting drunk, getting high, experimentation, and keeping myself.
I confess to love.
I confess to hate.
I confess to will.
I confess to living in the breast in the goddess.
I confess to having the movement of the god within me.
I confess to circles.
I confess to squares.
I confess to two that create the third.
I confess to one being the soul of two.
I confess to my view of the world in three.
I confess to wanting to spit on the ignorance of bigots, the mindless, the TV watchers, the unhealthy, the religious, the baptists, the Mormons (and their ilk), the left handedness of Jesus, and the people who support him.
I confess to being a Thelemite because it's the only reasonable option.
I confess to wanting to be able to stand up in court and declare my religious views and have them protected under the constitution of Canada.
I confess to being bored with this.

Sunday, May 20, 2007

M.H. on Poetry, Psychology, and Quantum Physics.

Hi again. I tried to keep my response brief so if there's anything I didn't deal with just let me know.
For those of you just joining us this is a continuation of my discussion with Demosthenes about a poetic work I wrote and which Demosthenes has issues with. If you're curious to read the rest of it just look for the posts "We" and "Lex Orandi".

“I do not feel that Dummett and Popper were necessarily correct”
Could you support this? All you say is that Popper and Dummett use this idea as a way to place value on ideas but I’m pretty sure even they would say that’s exactly what they wanted. How is your position different from theirs other than merely stating that it isn’t necessarily so? Of course it isn’t necessarily so. There’s always room from reevaluation.

“prolegomena”
You’re using this term in a way that I’m unfamilar with so I’d like to make sure we’re on the same page. You allude to math and scientific method to evaluate cosmological theories and say that this is the same type of idea you’re refering to. So a prolegomena is basically a type of proof structure? I’m fine with that.
So this prolegomena is what you meant the whole time when you used the term authority? If so I’m fine with that too. I’d rather use the term prolegomena than authority though.

“I am referring to that level of accepted idea that has no proof.”
How’s about psychology and Quantum physics? You’ll have to be willing to accept a bit of empiricism with both of these though. Is that alright?

“Now in your psuedopoem (def: a work of poetry with neither foot nor measure)”
An unflattering choice of terms but fair enough. Most modern poets wouldn’t appreciate it however, seeing as how conventional structure is no longer seen as either necessary or complementary to the true spirit of poetry. I’ll leave it for now. (I’d definitely like to deal with this idea in more depth in a latter post so if you’re curious to see how I deal with it keep checking back).

“you make many statements that have no proof, but I believe many of them need proof.”
Is this just your opinion? I mean, are you simply trying to understand my work or are you trying to force me to admit that my work (especially the statement you had issues with in the last post) doesn’t fit with your personal biases and view points? How can you believe that a statement presented in a piece of art needs to be held philosophically accountable? I’d like you to support this.
If you’re just trying to understand what I have to say I gave you a bunch of acceptable interpretations in my last post. I’m also willing to accept any interpretation you’re willing to arrive at on your own. Such is the beauty of Art, the artist needn’t be attached to the piece. In fact it’s absolutely desirable for the artist to be distanced from it and to refuse to support it. This gives the piece that coveted quality of timelessness. The fact that it can be interpreted differently by different people (hopefully endlessly) gives a piece that stamp of “high art”. Case in point: the mona lisa.

“Not formal proofs, even, but simply proof that they can all be arived at from the same prolegomena.”
I’m always willing to entertain philosophical problems even when I think their inappropriately placed.
My first prolegomena: psychology. There is a generally accepted theory in psychology (based on empiricism. It’s the best proof structure available with psychology. I can elaborate on how the evidence is compiled if you want) that people have a mechanism (rather a set of them) in their mind (or brain, the distinction is trivial at this point) that allows them to cope with the enormous task of interpreting perceptions. This coping mechanism is composed of three functions: deletion, distortion, and generalization. These are necessary functions of the human condition and are as rigorously supported as anything in physics.
So I can use psychology as my prolegomena in this case by stating that these functions of the mind are ensuring that “reality” is being perceived in the most useful way possible based on past experience. This implies that, despite appearances, we are truly functioning at out greatest capacity.
Something like 400 billion bits of information are reaching our brains every second but our conscious mind can only cope with something like 50 bits. These mechanisms, therefore, allow us to sort through those 400billion bits and translate the most important ones (at least what we perceive to be the most important based on our how our past translations have or haven’t served us. There’s more to it than this but I’m trying to be brief. If you’re still unsatisfied I’d be happy to devote a whole post to this topic and deal with it in great detail) to our conscious awareness. We are functioning at maximum capacity 24/7. It may not look like it because most people don’t know how to reconcile what we want with how the deletions, distortions, and generalizations are taking place. This is how you can perceive a person that is engaged in “self-sabotage”. Both you and the other person are ignoring the mechanisms at work and misinterpreting the 400billion bits of information.

I can also use another Prolegomena: Quantum physics. I went into this in last post as well. I’ll just say briefly that since there is no other resolution (at least not so far) for the entanglement issue (which implies a paradox when it is assumed that there are two or more distinct observers) than to assume that we all are really just facets of a great, single, universal mind, then we are forced to admit that in the present moment (as opposed to the intellectual structures of past and future) we are each of us truly standing at the acme of human potential. The only thing keeping us from realizing this truth are those aforementioned mental mechanisms.
A third Prolegomena could found in religion as well. I’ll go into if you want but it doesn’t go much beyond the quantum interpretation, I’d really only have to get into it just to satisfy the narrow minded people who can’t see past their own religious prejudices.

“Nor is it acceptable to hide behind the idea of poetry.”
Who’s hiding? I can easily support the idea of artistic license if you want. In fact I will, just not in this post. For now just take a look at Dadaism, and the artistic revolution of the turn of the last century with all that non-representationalism. The artist needn’t answer to the viewer just so long as the viewer gets something out of it (be it exaltation, distaste, introspection, or, like you, a chance to interpret it in a way that leads to some new insights).

“Poem or prose, you did have a reason for your words… and those reasons should be ideas. Preferably, coherent ideas.”
Whether or not a poem conveys a coherent idea to the reader is much more dependant on the reader than the artist. I had a coherent idea in mind when I wrote this piece. I also had no idea whatsoever. What I mean by this is that I was working from a non conscious state of mind. I use visual spatial awareness (and sometimes auditory awareness) when I write much more than linguistic awareness. That’s not to say that I didn’t have a very definite vision of what I was writing, only that that vision is not liable in the same way my philosophical writing is liable. As you can see from the above I can support what I wrote and I can honestly say that I wrote the piece with the intention of conveying those ideas (at least to myself). I was not, however, concerned with how it would be interpreted because I would prefer to let the words that I chose to act as representatives of my “vision” to be interpreted by the reader however the reader prefers to interpret it.

“(to those who doubt authorial intent, I only ask why the sceptics bother to publish their works?)”
You must distinguish authorial intent with allowing the reader to be influenced by the piece how the reader sees fit. It must be based on their personal penchants and past experiences and being too clear in a work of art, especially when it comes to poetry, is going to effective stymie any chance of that. Authorial intent in poetry, novels, short stories or even pseudopoems, is very different than authorial intent in philosophy and hard science. The former seeks varied interpretation based on the reader’s subjectivity, the latter seeks a very specific interpretation based on the author’s views. Imagine what would change in your perspective if you accepted this distinction, even if only for a second, just to try it out.

“Even if this is meant relative to a person's awareness (in which case they are not at the end of themselves, they are at the limits of their awareness),”
I addressed this in my last post. I admit there may have been some things missing or misrepresented in my last post but I think I cleared most of them up in the above points. You’re statement, however, is open to suspicion. What are you alluding to when you imply that there might be other limits to the human condition besides limitations of awareness? Please, if you don’t mind, could you clarify what other limits you're referring to?

“I have observed that many people go through life as self-sabateur. Deliberately.”
First of all are you actually making the blind assumption that you know what is going on in someone’s head? You say “deliberately”. Doesn’t this imply that you know for sure that this person is fucking themselves over? Did this person say to you (or are you implying that your observation skills border on telekinesis) “I’m going to do this (whatever it might be) because I know it will hurt me. I’m also not willing to say that such pain is one of the ways in which I seek pleasure. I am doing this thing knowing that it will hurt me and knowing that such pain is honestly distasteful to me”? If you’ve honestly observed this I’d be hard pressed to not consider that person insane. True I did say “we have ALL been to the end of ourselves” and this does bar any perceived anomalies (should they come up), but you also said you weren’t concerned with the words per se, just the intention behind them. So I’d hope you’re willing to overlook my generosity with the use of the universal quantifier.

“Many people don't want to test there limits, or do well with what they have.”
Yeah that’s true superficially but you can look at in a way (the quantum way) that demonstrates progress regardless of intention. As William James said “we are embarked”. No matter how hard you try to struggle against it and no matter how convinced you are (consciously) that you’re succeeding, you, like everyone else, are at the fore front of human evolution with every passing moment.
Another way of looking at it would be that these people only think this way because of their perception of reality. Their deletions, distortions, and generalizations have told them that since right now they are safe, and doing something different might make them unsafe, they become unwilling to consciously change to admit that there is something else going on. These people are simply misunderstanding themselves, an unavoidable (from time to time) byproduct of the human condition. This does nothing to undermine my arguments.

“Enev Melanowski's hierarchy is strained by desperate men who above all else fear what they might actually be.”
Ok, their experience has led them to believe that change is dangerous. Even ignoring the quantum principles and the psychological interpretation of such a state this is still saying that those people are living at, or at least have been to, the end of themselves. They’re just afraid of it. That does absolutely nothing to reveal flaws in my original statement.

“Presuming that nature is engineered optimally and efficiently, it would seem that nature is stunted, especially in humans. We are, after all, a part of nature, and yet we are also one of nature's most damaging enemies.”
I’d like you to support this (where’s your authority?) before I make a comment. A hoard of recent research done by men like Bruce Lipton, Gregg Braden, and tons of others (especially environmental scientists) are very convincingly saying that this is just not true. Quite the opposite is true in fact.

“But your words here could have two different meanings. The first is that man is limited from reaching his full potential by his awareness (or lack thereof).”
True but only consciously limited. That true potential is always present. Every religion in the world would support this as well as quantum physics, neuroscience and psychology.

“The second, and more interesting to my mind, is that man's potential grows concordantly with his awareness.”
The Potential here referred to is the limitless potential of humanity. There is nothing we can’t do. The only limitation we experience is self imposed and dissolves with increased awareness. Is the Potential a fixed thing, static and mysteriously absent from our current experience? Not at all. Is it something that we can experience at every step and that changes as we develop? Yes. It’s both. As we experience new states of awareness we have access to more and more of that potential. So our experience of it is “dynamic” even though we can all attain to that level of “full potential” that would stand as a “static limit” only because it is infinite. I think we’d have to start using mystical language (the language of the Qabalah is well suited for this) to be able to deal with this fully. If your Qabalistic vocabulary is up to it we can get into it further if you’d like. Otherwise I’m not sure you’re gonna like what else I have to say. I guess for now I’d have to just say that we experience a dynamic, ever developing potential that will eventually lead to a state that could only be appropriately called “infinite potential”. If you want to call that state a static state that’s fine with me but at the same time you’d have to admit that it is a limitless state.
(after reviewing the above I could probably support this using physics if you’d like. I just don’t think it would be as satisfactory or rigorous as a Qabalistic treatment.)

Friday, May 18, 2007

Gettin the Point Across

Somehow I think the way this guy does it is a whole lot more effective.

The Fall of the Niche and the Rise of the Brand.

Where do we go from Niche Marketing?
You're an internet marketer, or maybe someone trying to get into it, and you're constantly faced with this idea of Niche Marketing.
"You gotta have a niche to work with! It's the only way to generate organic traffic! NICHE! NICHE! Gotta get the NICHE!"
But what about further down the line you ask?
Where's the next revolution in marketing going to take place?
Where are all of the niche marketers going to turn when all (or at least most) of the profitable niches are over saturated (which could very easily be in the next couple years)?
Will the niches simply get more refined and essentially branch off into subniches, then again into subsubniches, until finally we're being saturated with an overwhelming amount of sites about training golden retrievers named Bill that refuse to heel but that obey commands with the letter N in them?
Maybe, but god I hope not.
Would you want that?
So where are we headed then?
I predict that in the next few years marketing (especially on the net) will be all about the BRANDS.
Look at the people who are getting a lot of attention right now (attention=traffic=money). Go to YouTube and check out the big names, you got LonelyGirl and Daxflame. Sure they're not really selling anything but they could be. All they'd have to do is get a sponsor or two and there ya go. Cash flow out the ass.
People don't find them because they're looking up "funny movies" or "retarded kids" or anything like that it's completely viral. People spread the word simply because they're worth watching. They provide real content and they make their presence known in a community that seeks real content.
This is an awesome leap forward in a great new direction.
It will eliminate (or at least seriously reduce) the profit potential of spam, it will encourage individuality and creativity, and there are literally no limits as to how many people can earn a living.
This is essentially the shift from a competitive mind frame to a creative mind frame.
We can all make a living on the net because we will all be able to resonate with some community or other. All we have to do is develop our individuality to the point where it's interesting and engage in some real life creativity.

So stop developing your niche and start developing yourself.

Any Scientologists Wanna Dig Through My Garbage?

I just found this BBC program about Scientology. It's very tense and sort of interesting. I have absolutely no opinion of Scientology because I've never studied it but based on this program I'm not definitely not convinced that it isn't a cult.
It just seems like it's entirely lacking the necessary requirements of unconditional love, and the endless pursuit of perfection that necessarily characterizes true religion. I'd really like to dismiss the whole mess as a cult but I'd also like to hear from someone who is actively involved in the church.
Any takers?
I think it might be fun to have a Scientologist go through my trash.

Another note on Learning Chinese

Gotta dig the new autosave feature.
Learning Mandarin is FUN!
I love it. I can totally see myself using mandarin as my primary language. It feels like I should have been born speaking it. I'm just finding it so natural and easy it's incredible.
Apparently most people find it quite easy to learn to speak it but have a hard time writing it so maybe I'll be changing my tune once I really get into the writing. Whatever. I love it so far. So rich, so poetic. I always thought that English was the best language to write poetry in (probably because the only other languages I knew, French and Latin, are entirely unsuited to poetry), but now that I've caught a glimpse of Mandarin (standardized Beijing dialect) I can totally see myself writing poetry in Chinese.
I've been photoreading a Chinese/English dictionary, a couple books on grammar, and I'm constantly listening to vocabulary and pronunciation CDs. I'm also looking for some soap operas in Mandarin cuz I read on the learningstrategies.com forum that soaps are a good way to begin immersion. So if anyone knows where I can find some mandarin soaps I'd really love to know. I'm not sure at this point how to make it worth your while but I'm sure we'll find something.

Thursday, May 17, 2007

Wednesday, May 16, 2007

A Note About Learning Chinese

So I went ahead and started learning Chinese. I wanted to get a couple things done first so that I could fully immerse myself in the language without other obligations but when I saw how many books there were at the library I couldn't resist.

So I've got some vocabulary playing softly in the background right now, I'll be PhotoReading a Chinese/English dictionary every day, and watching a bunch of Chinese movies and shows. I'll start with ones that have subtitles then move on to ones that don't after a little while.

I tried immersing myself in the same way when I learned Latin but Latin audio and video resources are hard to come by. I was able to find a couple things and I played them constantly for a while which seemed to help quite a bit but I think a more thorough immersion will be better.

So if you're lookin to learn a new language and would like some ideas I got tons.

On top of what I already mentioned you could try some rhythmic memorization of vocabulary. It's a technique I learned from "Accelerated Learning for the 21st Century".
What you do is you pick out a musical piece from a list of specially chosen classical composers. (I can send you the list if you want, just leave a comment asking for it or subscribe and I'll send it to you). Then as you're listening to the piece recite your list of vocabulary words to the rhythm of the music. When you're done let the words incubate for a while (just let them sit in your mind without trying to recall them), preferably about 24hours. Then you recite them in a normal tone (without rhythm) while listening to another piece of classical music (from a different list. I can share that list as well).
I haven't tried this technique yet but it seems like it would work. I'll give it a shot and report back to you. Hopefully all goes well.

I'm also planning on doing some creative problem solving using Image Streaming (Genius Code) on how to better learn Chinese so if I come up with some good stuff I'll post it all here.

Be FREE!!

Tuesday, May 15, 2007

Success Books

I read a book today by Robin Sharma called "The Greatness Guide". If you're looking for something to help you get motivated, organized, and more successful it's a great resource. I realized later though that I had actually read the exact same book at least three times before!
I guess it wasn't the exact same book, they had different titles, authors, and slightly different wording, but essentially they were all exactly the same.
They all recommended prioritizing.
They all recommended keeping a journal.
They all recommended excercise and meditation.
They all recommended visualizing your goals.
They all recommended networking and all gave the same advice on how to go about it.

Books on success all seem to be saying the same things. I've yet to find a book that is really innovative on the topic of becoming more successful.

Bummer.

Good news is now I know that that type of book is rarely worth the half hour it takes me to read them.
Also now I know that if you want to improve your life in that area all you have to do is read one really complete book of this type.
Imagine getting all the wisdom that CEOs get from thousands of dollars of personal coaching from just a few hours of reading and feeling confident that you've gotten everything you need to level the playing field between you and them.

Don't trust me to be able to lead you in the right direction. At least not until you've read Jack Canfield's book "Success Principles". This is the most complete book in this genre I've found so far. It covers all the essentials and gives some really great new ideas.

Markings of an Albino Cave Hoek

Hi all,
if you were wondering why I posted a seemingly detached set of arguments rambling to some unknown figure it's because I got a comment on my poem "we" below. I forgot to mention in the Lex Orandi post that it was actually a response. I'm sure Demosthenes realized that but others might not have. I would like to elaborate on some of the topics quite a bit but I think I'll leave it till after Demosthenes responds.

Also, Demosthenes, I was reviewing my response again and I realized I'm still at a loss for how to "intelligibly" translate your notions of authority and encroaching. Especially in the context you used I was able to work myself into a few different interpretations. I think I used the interpretation that makes the most sense to me but that may not be consistent with your intentions. I'd enjoy it very much if you'd elaborate.

On to bigger and better things.

I had planned on developing a social experiment of sorts this week but I think I might leave it until next week. It was going to be an experiment in revealing to you your blind, unconscious, responses to sensationalism. I wanted to provide a context then bombard my blog with... stuff...
I will still do it, just not today and probably not tomorrow. I just have a couple other things I'd like to work on.

As a bit of an aside, I was wondering if anyone knows of any good resources for learning Mandarin Chinese? I've set a goal of becoming at least conversationally fluent in three months. I plan to test myself by going to china town and if I can keep a conversation going then I pass, if I can't then I'll put some more work into it.
I haven't been this excited to learn something in a while! It'll have to wait at least two weeks before I start giving it a good effort though. I've got too much on my plate right now to be tackling Chinese on top of everything else.

I'll post something a little more interesting later today. I hate reading bullshit posts like this on other people's blogs. "Get on with already" I say. "Say something useful!"

Monday, May 14, 2007

If you're not training like this you're kidding yourself.

Paul Chek is my new hero.
Here's an interview he did for T-nation. He's got the perfect perspective on life, training, health, and spirituality. It's easily one of the best articles I've read on training in a LONG time.

Also check out Mark Reifkind's blog. It's fantastic.

Sunday, May 13, 2007

Lex Orandi...

hello,
good to hear from you. Our friend is mutual.
To start my piece "We" was intended to be poetical (regardless of it's "pseudo" appearance). I wrote it as a free expression of my state. The words were not contrived through some filter of "knowing" I was simply using poetry to express a more remote state of consciousness that I enjoy playing with. I am however willing to entertain the rigorousness that you seem to like to play with.
Also "art" does have meaning (at least depending on what theory of meaning you're willing to accept. I personally have a hard time arguing with Dummett and Wittgenstein when they deal with meaning as use).

"You make some authoritative, absolute statements, such as 'we have all been to the end of ourselves'".
Please define your intentions when you use propositions like "authority". I find it too confusing to deal with otherwise. We'd be here all night.
That being said I'm just gonna go for the gusto and assume I know what you mean by this. My authority comes from experience, empiricism, modern psychology and plain old intuition. The reason I didn't demonstrate my authority is because it was meant more as a game than a philosophical position (this was a work of verse not prose). On the more rigorous side of things, however, I literally meant that every person is always working in the best way they know how with the resources available to them at their current level of awareness. This is sound psychology (I'm sure I could find quotes and peer reviewed sources if you really don't believe me).
Interpreted another way (this is poetry after all and poetry does work on levels even if it is pseudo) I'm willing to say that I meant we all (at least on some level) know what we are and aren't capable of. This is a weaker interpretation however.

"I ask only by what authority you speak."
Again I'm not entirely sure what you're after here. I'll assume you just want some support for what I said. Consider the statement "we have all been to the end of ourselves." Let's interpret it in a new way, a more rigorous analytical way (then maybe we'll address a synthetic interpretation). It's not unfair to break it down into reworded sentences such as "for every element that is aptly called an element of Humanity (We) that element has an awareness, and that awareness necessarily entails an awareness of what the element is capable of being aware of(awareness of awareness isn't unreasonable). That awareness of capacity marks one of the limits of what the element can aptly call 'self'." Is this awareness the only thing that marks our limits? No not by a long shot. Does it provide a tangible limit that may or may not be useful for dealing with one's present circumstances? Yes. Put in yet another way: people never knowingly fuck themselves over. No one wakes up in the morning and says to themselves "I'm gonna make things hard for myself". It does happen that a person's self awareness and awareness of their surroundings and of reality in general is so distorted, generalized and incomplete (owing to a necessary function of the human brain to cope with the staggering mass of information presented to it every second) that that person works in an inappropriate way. That is not to say that they are not functioning in the best way they know how (at the end of themselves) it just means that, for whatever reason (environmental factors, genetics, habit, or just due to misunderstanding of the presence or nature of those deleting, distorting and generalizing faculties) that person does not know how to get the results they want or that they have distorted what they think they want into what they are use to, or to what they think works for others (a poor M.O.). Whatever the case the human condition, just as nature as a whole, is engineered to function efficiently and optimally. Consciousness is designed to give us choice (a great creative faculty) but in so doing it also opens up the possibility of making strange choices. That's not to say that those choices are not always in the form of optimality based on the subjective relation of the element to it's environment.

"How is it possible to quantify a statement such as this? What metrics are used in its apprehension?"
Do we really need to invoke metrics? It is possible. I'm sure I could lay out a formal proof with Venn diagrams or quantifiers or whatever if you'd like but I'd ask you first to let me know why such formality is necessary. As far as I'm concerned this will only provide an analytic proof, not very interesting. The synthetic support for this is much more appropriate to the task of translating my intent (at least attempting to anyway).

"Are you speaking of an absolute human condition?"
Poetically no I hadn't intended that. But I am, obviously, willing to entertain the possibility. Like I said above it is a common psychological position that human behavior (used in a very broad sense so as to include mental and emotional behaviors as well as conscious awareness) is constantly working at it's current relative optimality.
Now, you might have been questioning my ability to support the statement in the context of "absolute human potential". If that's the case I'm not sure how I could reasonably support that except by referencing the ever elusive entanglement principle of quantum physics. By invoking entanglement we can now discard the conscious realizations of any one individual and accept that humanity as a whole (as well as every other aspect of existence and the universe) is inseparable and privy to the awareness of any and every awareness that has ever been, both human awareness or otherwise. So we can effectively say that if you believe in the existence of a man like Jesus (or his ilk), and that such a man was privy to the consciousness of godhead (even in a remote way, whatever that may mean) then every other part of humanity is likewise privy (this I assume would be the limit of human potential. Unless of course you're either unwilling to acknowledge Jesus as either the hight of human potential or a human at all. Either way I'd love to hear your arguments for that;). The only difference between Jesus and Joe Slob is that Jesus acknowledged and used that consciousness. Joe Slob has only availed himself of this consciousness through Jesus and has yet to call it up into conscious awareness. That is not to say that he is unaware of what Jesus was aware of (Joe Slob has been to the end of himself just as Jesus had) only that Joe is using a more remote aspect of himself to do it than Jesus did. Entanglement is unable to differentiate between individual minds. It literally supports the notion of universal consciousness, ever present, all pervasive. No one is exempt. So if Jesus did it he did it as a result of Humanity as a whole, and also if you are willing to say that Jesus did then you must say that the entire human race did as well.
Yet another interpretation of my statement. Not a bad one either.

"Is it possible to know such while being a part of the control group?"
It is just as supportable to say yes as it is to say no. That being the case is it even worth discussing? Probably not so let's just say that I'm willing to say "yes it is possible." How would I support that? This is not like Wittgenstein's case of the eye that can see everything but itself. Humanity has an advantage that it can collectively reflect on it's elements and on the whole. It's called communication (we've also previously invoked Entanglement so we can reference that as well). What you are proposing is like saying that we cannot know anything absolute about ourselves because we can't see our own faces. We can however introspect about the whole of ourselves and our parts. Also there are mirrors all around, and friends. If the opposite were true you would have effectively demolished the entirety of psychology and possibly a large part of philosophy. How could psychology stand as even a pseudo-science if your proposition were consistent with reality? Also we really wouldn't be able to say much about Logic or Language, maybe even physiology, neuroscience, or biomechanics, the very concept of introspection would have to be dismissed, infact I'm libel to think that the mind in general would have to be dismissed as merely a pipe dream, something left for the musings of confused poets.
I'm a bit unsatisfied with my treatment of this section so pleas be as brutal as possible with this as you can (that goes for the rest of it as well). It's the only way I'll learn.:)

"To quote myself (because it is a good quote), given a large enough context, any field of human study encroaches upon itself."
It sure does (if I'm translating your intention properly). But the good thing about this is that such a broad perspective is only useful when considering holistics. A good thing to do and a whole heap of fun, but a bit inappropriate in this context. Context is important otherwise we'd all have to face this "encroaching" at every turn and I don't think that'd be too much fun. In most cases we have to abandon broadness in favor of usefulness. If we didn't we'd have to do away with philosophy (at least a large part of it) and I'd be forced to ask you to stop philosophizing about my poetry (something I'm not willing to do). Popper deals with this concept nicely when he deals with the infinite regress. Seems to me Dummett treats it in the same way.
(reviewing this I'm no longer convinced that we're dealing with similar concepts. I'd really appreciate it if you'd elaborate on this. It might be fun to explore this in more depth with your help.)

Friday, May 11, 2007

We

We've all been to the end of ourselves, some more conscious than others, but all of us have in one way or another. And what comes of this? this is realization that we feel. we feel it in our veins, this is the peace that we feel in the breast of us. That is reflected in the stars and the sun and the person we sit next to. We've all felt it, some more conscious than others but we all have. We've all had that sense that we must be missing something when we look out into the world and think that we've mastered the art of seeing. We've all felt that we're missing our mark when we think that sight is the master of our thoughts. We've all been to heaven, we live in hell, we've all been in love with the eternal ecstatic trance of becoming. We are all becoming. We are all.
We've all been blind at some point or other, and seen past that, sometimes more consciously than others.
We're all alone in our minds when we think, but when we feel we can sense the eternity of the presence. We are all present in the time frame of eternity, though some more consciously than others.
We are free. All of us, in every way. We are divine, benediction, compassion, walking love, thinking harmony, eternal masses of stone and mortar. We are the rest, the few, the many, the full, the void, the universal consciousness.
We are light and dark, and we are pure light. We are dual and we are one.
We are the sun and son, the daughter of the starry heavens, in the sky of the tempest's abode. We haven't succumb to no devils, we don't have any guns, we've never been murderers, we've never been murdered. We are god in the flesh of the roses, and the sky in the vestments of earth. We are the wind in the trees and the leaves that rustle and the peace of the spring in the city.
We are light, effulgent, luminous, void, eternal, deified, and deifying.
We are creators both of us and of the world.
We are the last, the first, the greatest, the least, the middle, the edge, the measure, the sum.
We are that we are.
There is no other than we.

The Shift of the Ages

The last couple days me and my girlfriend have been watching Gregg Braden's presentation on the shift of the ages. It's fascinating seeing the perspective of an obviously qualified scientist (I think he was a geologist and aerospace engineer or something like that) on such topics as enlightenment, the advent of a new age of humanity, resurrection, the shroud of Turin, and especially compassion. He's a brilliant man.
I can't help but wonder what will actually happen when the earth reaches the moment of zero-point magnetics, the pulse of the earth reaches 13 beats per second, and we finally reach the point of greatest density in that photon field thingy.

I think every man, woman and child should watch this presentation (and everything else by Gregg Braden that you can get your hands on).







Thursday, May 10, 2007

A couple Poems I Wrote for my Girlfriend

Openings

Such days of perfect passion
I never want to end.
I want them all to come
To be as pleasant and fulfilling.
Soft and sweet relaxing
Smoothness of the sounds
I lay and limp I rest me
On the Love-bed of my Passions.

Thoughts for Kristina

While waiting.

Dancing in the land of Adventure and Romance,
Dancing in art in the hopes to aspire.
Coming to sense that the beauty's in feeling,
In feeling the whole and in parts all the while.

Vitium Regum

I'm thinking of starting some satellite blogs to handle the diversity of my interests. I'm going to be starting a site devoted to books. I'll be doing reviews, critiques, and all things literary. I think I'll call it either VitiumRegum or LibriRegum (the vice of kings or the books of kings respectively). If you have an opinion please share.

This brings me to a great topic: the vice of kings. Why did I choose that name? Well, I originally wanted to call my blog Coagula, latin for coagulate, to bring together. It's a philosophical/mystical idea concerning the essential elements of nature. I can't remember who said it originally but someone posited that the human thinking mechanism can be separated into two distinct functions: to analyze (separate, solve) and to combine (coagula). This is a very similar idea to what Wittgenstein said when he broke down logic into two functions tautology and contradiction. Essentially the same ideas.
I wanted to call it coagula but that was taken. So I thought to myself "what would be another way of saying that?" and instantly I thought of Love. Love is of the same class of action. But a blog named love seems a bit hokey, so I thought some more. Then I thought of Compassion but to me that brings to mind Buddhism and all sorts of weak religious connotations. I really don't feel like that would be a good representation of who I am. I'm a lot of things but I think few people would ever call me weak. So I thought of the Thelemic equivalent which is "the vice of kings". Because in the Book of the Law it says "compassion is the vice of kings." There, done and done. Now I wish I would have used the Latin phrase but oh well.

Wednesday, May 9, 2007

Older Dave Chapelle

How to check a baby's diaper

What do you have in common with Crows?

Crows are incredibly intelligent animals. Their societies are complex and hierarchic. One North American species the New Caledonian Crow has developed tool making capacities (once thought to be only present in higher primates) and the Hooded Crows of Israel have been known to use bread crumbs for fishing. This level of intelligence is attributable to their enlarged frontal lobe, a characteristic found in only two other bird species, Ravens and Parrots.





Liber Librae

Liber Librae

Language

Language is a limit of life.
Not THE limit but one of them.
It can be said that language governs money.
It can also be said that politics is one of the ways to translate language into action.
Isn't a president merely a speaker and a writer?
What governs language but logic?
What governs logic but intention, and emotion?
What is intent?
What is emotion?
Thought?
Energy?
The interaction of two planes of existence?

Tuesday, May 8, 2007

Monday, May 7, 2007

cool tornado

Mitt Romney for the 2008 election

I was just visiting Mitt Romney's blog out of curiosity. He's gov. of Massachusetts I think and he's running for the 2008 election. It seems like his major platform for this election is the obvious hot topic of the preservation of the "nuclear" family. He's all about preserving and strengthening the traditional family unit. I'm curious to know how any reasonable adult could possibly buy into that? Sure it's a great campaign move because it would easy to use that topic to create buzz on both sides of the issue, it's emotionally charged, and a lot of people in the US strongly (and blindly) agree with him. Politically it's probably a really smart move but I'm forced to ask a question like "how do you address the fact that this is a blatant statement of prejudice and intolerance. To judge a certain sexual penchant as unworthy of the same respect as any other is simply bigotry. There is not enough scientific evidence to support the claims that same sex marriage is any worse (either for the children or for the couple) than a traditional marriage. Is your platform not, in essence, encouraging bigotry and intolerance, two of the biggest causes of social unrest? How can you conscientiously condone the propagation of these attitudes in a country that is notorious for that in the first place?"

I've already posted a few questions to the same effect on his site and I'm still waiting for a reply. I sure am curious how he's able to skirt around this issue.
I've also asked him how he can reasonably support the US military presence in the middle east knowing that it isn't sanctioned by the UN. That should be interesting.

It sucks knowing that he's got the best shot in this election. Good thing I'm not American.

Sunday, May 6, 2007

Feel the Father of God

A Tip for Next Time you Masturbate

Sex is the cultivation of Jing energy.
As though we needed another reason to do it.
The end of sex however is the real matter.
To have sex with the ultimate goal of genital orgasm is to rob yourself of the fullness of all that is truly possible. With the control of the sexual energy comes the possibility of the dissolution of universal boundaries for the practicer.
Shifting from an orgasm centered view to an energetic view can be enormously gratifying and can take place instantaneously. Just start noticing your arousal not as a means to an end but an end in itself.
That feeling of arousal is the energy that should be controlled.
Taken from the usual orgasm centered perspective arousal is just the catalyst of the goal but from a Tantric or Taoist perspective arousal is the vital energy of life. You can start cultivating this energy by simply being aware of it and cultivation can lead to some amazing occurrences. For both men and women it can mean the development of multiple orgasms, greater health and vitality, spiritual realizations, emotional health, stronger connections with your lovers, and just a better overall experience. Neglect of the cultivation of Jing energy can lead to numerous detriments such as less vitality, poor health, mental blocks, addictions, and general dissatisfaction with life in general.
So next time you masturbate just be aware of the feeling in your body you get as you become aroused. Notice it flowing through every part of you. Try moving it around with your thoughts (intend it to move somewhere) and see what happens. Also, notice your breathing. Breath deep and even and you'll start experiencing some of the fullness of this energy.

Have fun.