Re: Matt and the ladder of perfection

October 17, 2004

" Matt Lamoreux " wrote:

---Boy, I'm with you there...except maybe about the " Truth " part. If you're

comprehending the darkness with a mind that grasps the world in distortions

and generalizations, how can we ever hope to understand life outside such

inherently flawed filters?

My experience is that the work undoes the filters.

---I have a friend who is a member of MENSA, and he believes that an NDE is

a vehicle to " the truth " . According to him we know what we really are, in an

altered state saturated with trauma and unconsciousness, a " Near Death

Experience " . I used to belong to a group of people who would use trance to

make journeys through an inner world, and they would come out of that trance

with " the truth " and their " filters " destroyed by Klingons in a Galaxy far

away. I believe that if we are to " love what's real " , we should also be able

to live with the possibility that we don't know what that is, and because of

our tool for discovering the world (our brain), it's very likely we will

never know. I have experimented with indirect hypnosis, and in that state a

perfectly good mind can mistake themselves for a woman when they're a man,

can be sitting down and believe they are standing up. That's how malleable

the substance of " reality " is. It is the " Silly Putty " of the cosmos. So you

will forgive me then, when I seriously doubt that anyone here, including

you, knows what " undoing the filters " means. We all simply get to a place,

and plant our flag and say " Until more information comes to the contrary,

this is the truth " . Only death, " undoes the filters " , " The Work " , just

tweaks them so we get a bigger array of choices.

---Why " drop the delusion? " Look at what it brings you on its back. It

brings you insight, it helps you struggle against it and from there comes

learning and data for change or to simply make the status quo better.

Yes Matt - my experience is that insight is an endless addictive

filter. There's a place behind, under however you wish to say it that

i drop to and experience something so profound that I'm willing to do

the work because I want more of it - the final addiction - to lose

myself in What Is and give up individuality.

--- " What is " always comes from " individuality " and a perceptual field

created by our experience and constructed understanding of the world we grow

up in, otherwise a tree falling in a forest with no one there doesn't make a

sound. No matter how far we think we've transcended " Ego " , it is always

there helping us create even the delusion of having cut loose of it. I can

talk people into the idea that they are " free " and able to see what other's

can't, and there's nothing you can do to convince them otherwise. But what's

obvious to me is that their " insight " comes to them through the same

mechanism we all use to understand Life. In the " spilt brain " experiments of

Sperry, the mechanism we use to comprehend our world is revealed for all its

inconsistencies and flaws. The two spheres collude with one another to

" explain " what they see, and they don't care if they lie about it. In the

middle of this deception, the conscious " I " thinks it's doing all this

" naming " unassisted, so nothing is really accounting for its collaborative

facets. In the midst of all this deception and collusion, some people say " I

have clarity " now. And I have to tell them " You have a point in your journey

that you can call clarity today, but tomorrow it will evolve into something

else otherwise you just have religion " . " The Work " , could very easily

degrade into a religion. It happens....if you let it.

---It belongs where it is, because if it wasn't there...who would you be?

The joy of being a " no one " or " only one " is incomprehensible to the

mind that hasn't consciously experienced it. We all know it's there -

it's what we are. Your dialog for me sounds like you want only happy

stories that this earth can bring to you - For me the earth is

incapable of bringing any happy stories (they all only seem happy

when seen through a delusional filter)...only That Which Is can bring

happiness.

---I think I am the antithesis of " happy stories can be our only objective " .

My " thing " is to remind people that " loving what is " could include sometimes

just that. In other words, you don't have to rush to " fix " shit all the

time. As far as " being happy " I know two people can be in the same

experience and one can be happy and the other one not. " What Is " isn't doing

that, the flaws in their " filters " are, filters that delete, distort and

generalize because that's the best that our consciousness can do to

comprehend the world around it. Now I can apply magical standards to things

and wash my concepts in " magical thinking " , and this could get me by for

years. But in the end I will face the reality of my life on this planet the

hour when it passes from me into the Void. My last breath will be " what's

real " with no delusions, no " happy story " , just " Peace " (the absence of

thinking). In the mean time...I am a story, and so are you...and there's

nothing real about either of them or us. You are either " someone " , or you

are " dead " .

>

> ---Don't change for me. You're perfect just the way you are. And

that's no

> bullshit...I mean it. If you get lucky and happen to " tweak " something

> later, I'll like that too. I " Love what is " . This isn't hard.

You get to do this for as long as it still brings you happiness.

Happiness for me is the day when none of this worked and opened a

whole new world up.

---And that will be the day when your mind can no longer think " happy " or

compare to and experience in the comparison " sad " . Can you guess when that

will be?

> ---Now you've given me a woody.

Yes, but can you and woody ever find true and lasting happiness?

---The goal of my " woody " is to perform a biological function he called on

to do so. It doesn't have to be " happy " to do that...I'm a guy. Now, there

IS a way to have " Everlasting Happiness " though. What you do is convince

yourself that " sad " is " happy " , and from that moment on it all runs together

into " happiness " simply because that's what you call it that day. It's not

impossible to do, so many times people live in sad relationships but say

they're happy, and they believe it. Some people are chewed up by their

addictions until they're rotten shells of what they once were, but still

insist the moment their addiction has them they're happy. I think " lasting

happiness " would come from a consciousness Ok with feeling shitty, sad,

depressed and hopeless. If you can incorporate that into something greater

than boxes marked " happy " and " sad " , whatever comes out of that mix has to

be " true and lasting " .

October 17, 2004

" Matt Lamoreux " wrote:

" You have a point in your journey

> that you can call clarity today, but tomorrow it will evolve into

something else otherwise you just have religion " . " The Work " , could

very easily degrade into a religion. It happens....if you let it.

Absolutely clarity is what is in this moment...my experience - now -

okay - now. I notice a changeless place where happy and sad doesn't

exist that is always here...I'm pretty clear about that but don't

always lean into it.

No religion is a fabulous religion - but still a religion.

> In other words, you don't have to rush to " fix " shit all the

> time. As far as " being happy " I know two people can be in the same

> experience and one can be happy and the other one not.

I just wish to experience the experience - if possible -

>

> ---And that will be the day when your mind can no longer think

" happy " or

> compare to and experience in the comparison " sad " . Can you guess

when that

> will be?

For me it was last week...

> > ---Now you've given me a woody.

>

> Yes, but can you and woody ever find true and lasting happiness?

>

> ---The goal of my " woody " is to perform a biological function he

called on

> to do so.

Oh Matt - I need to do the work on this woody thing. The goal of a

woody is to perform a biological function? Wow- how deliciously

moralistic and yet a little low of the fun index.

Matt's how to be happy all the time explanation...

> What you do is convince yourself that " sad " is " happy " , and from

that moment on it all runs together into " happiness " simply because

that's what you call it that day. It's not impossible to do, so many

times people live in sad relationships but say they're happy, and they

believe it. Some people are chewed up by their addictions until

they're rotten shells of what they once were, but still insist the

moment their addiction has them they're happy. I think " lasting

happiness " would come from a consciousness Ok with feeling shitty,

sad, depressed and hopeless. If you can incorporate that into

something greater than boxes marked " happy " and " sad " , whatever comes

out of that mix has to be " true and lasting " .

What's wonderful about life is we get to define it - we get to believe

our definition. What's sad about life is we get to define it - we get

to believe our definition. Only when no definition works and we want

OUT do the filters begin to drop and the ride of life begins. Up to

that point - you're simply one of the sleep walkers and nothing anyone

says can wake you up...we each has to decide to wake up - and that's a

challenging decision to make. Just my noticings and experience...

up to this moment in time...but I'm not stopping here.

Blessings - Jan

October 18, 2004

What's wonderful about life is we get to define it - we get to believe our

definition. What's sad about life is we get to define it - we get to

believe our definition. Only when no definition works and we want OUT do

the filters begin to drop and the ride of life begins. Up to that point -

you're simply one of the sleep walkers and nothing anyone says can wake you

up...we each has to decide to wake up - and that's a challenging decision to

make. Just my noticings and experience...

up to this moment in time...but I'm not stopping here.

---The " filters " never " drop " . Even elightenment is a filter. It's all done

with smoke and mirrors, the " Grand Illusion " being how parts of ourselves

deceive and collborate with one another to create the magic show of the

self.

October 18, 2004

Dear Matt,

Am 17.10.2004 um 19:45 schrieb Matt Lamoreux:

>>> ---Boy, I'm with you there...except maybe about the " Truth " part.

>>> If you're

>>> comprehending the darkness with a mind that grasps the world in

>>> distortions

>>> and generalizations, how can we ever hope to understand life

>>> outside such

>>> inherently flawed filters?

>> My experience is that the work undoes the filters.

> ---I have a friend who is a member of MENSA, and he believes that an

> NDE is

> a vehicle to " the truth " . According to him we know what we really

> are, in an

> altered state saturated with trauma and unconsciousness, a " Near Death

> Experience " . I used to belong to a group of people who would use

> trance to

> make journeys through an inner world, and they would come out of that

> trance

> with " the truth " and their " filters " destroyed by Klingons in a

> Galaxy far

> away. I believe that if we are to " love what's real " , we should also

> be able

> to live with the possibility that we don't know what that is, and

> because of

> our tool for discovering the world (our brain), it's very likely we

> will

> never know. I have experimented with indirect hypnosis, and in that

> state a

> perfectly good mind can mistake themselves for a woman when they're a

> man,

> can be sitting down and believe they are standing up.

Sounds like what I have when I dream!

> That's how malleable the substance of " reality " is. It is the " Silly

> Putty " of the cosmos.

I agree. Reality is what I perceive. If I don't accept it, it hurts.

And this pain *is* gentle, in that it is a reminder that I am going to

war with " what is " .

So how do you know you are not dreaming, now?

In the end, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter whether you are a man,

or a woman, it doesn't matter what you believe. It doesn't matter

whether you stand or sit, and it doesn't matter whether you make a

shopping list or not.

When I am hypnotized, and I believe that I am standing, reality is that

I am standing, that's it. Whatever that would look like to you.

And to me, that is freeing.

> So you

> will forgive me then, when I seriously doubt that anyone here,

> including

> you, knows what " undoing the filters " means. We all simply get to a

> place,

> and plant our flag and say " Until more information comes to the

> contrary,

> this is the truth " . Only death, " undoes the filters " , " The Work " , just

> tweaks them

How can a question *do* something? Not even an answer does, as long as

you don't *hear* it and take it inside. " The Work " is not a process,

it's the questions, a vehicle to find the answers.

> so we get a bigger array of choices.

I don't even find I have more choices than before, If I get to choose

between love or hate, I will *always* choose what feels more

comfortable.

>>> ---Why " drop the delusion? " Look at what it brings you on its back.

>>> It

>>> brings you insight, it helps you struggle against it and from there

>>> comes

>>> learning and data for change or to simply make the status quo

>>> better.

>> Yes Matt - my experience is that insight is an endless addictive

>> filter. There's a place behind, under however you wish to say it

>> that

>> i drop to and experience something so profound that I'm willing to do

>> the work because I want more of it - the final addiction - to lose

>> myself in What Is and give up individuality.

> --- " What is " always comes from " individuality " and a perceptual field

> created by our experience and constructed understanding of the world

> we grow

> up in, otherwise a tree falling in a forest with no one there doesn't

> make a

> sound. No matter how far we think we've transcended " Ego " , it is

> always

> there helping us create even the delusion of having cut loose of it.

Why would I want to do that?

> I can talk people into the idea that they are " free " and able to see

> what other's can't,

I doubt it. I believe you talk to them, and some will react in the way

you describe.

And some won't.

> and there's nothing you can do to convince them otherwise.

With that, I agree. As there is nothing I can do not to convince them

otherwise.

> But what's obvious to me is that their " insight " comes to them through

> the same

> mechanism we all use to understand Life. In the " spilt brain "

> experiments of

> Sperry, the mechanism we use to comprehend our world is revealed for

> all its

> inconsistencies and flaws. The two spheres collude with one another to

> " explain " what they see, and they don't care if they lie about it. In

> the

> middle of this deception, the conscious " I " thinks it's doing all this

> " naming " unassisted, so nothing is really accounting for its

> collaborative

> facets.

Ok. I would not call it " deception " , but then, why not?

> In the midst of all this deception and collusion, some people say " I

> have clarity " now. And I have to tell them " You have a point in your

> journey

> that you can call clarity today, but tomorrow it will evolve into

> something

> else otherwise you just have religion " .

> " The Work " , could very easily degrade into a religion. It

> happens....if you let it.

What's the difference between clarity and religion?

To me, religion is believing without knowing, whereas clarity is

believing only what is true (in my perception).

And there doesn't seem to be a lot of what I can know for sure.

And there seems to be a lot you know. So I don't see that you have a

religion. You seem to know what is true, and that looks like clarity to

me, whatever your doctors call it, and whatever proofs they have for

that.

>>> ---It belongs where it is, because if it wasn't there...who would

>>> you be?

>> The joy of being a " no one " or " only one " is incomprehensible to the

>> mind that hasn't consciously experienced it. We all know it's there

>> -

>> it's what we are. Your dialog for me sounds like you want only happy

>> stories that this earth can bring to you - For me the earth is

>> incapable of bringing any happy stories (they all only seem happy

>> when seen through a delusional filter)...only That Which Is can bring

>> happiness.

> ---I think I am the antithesis of " happy stories can be our only

> objective " .

> My " thing " is to remind people that " loving what is " could include

> sometimes

> just that. In other words, you don't have to rush to " fix " shit all

> the

> time. As far as " being happy " I know two people can be in the same

> experience and one can be happy and the other one not. " What Is "

> isn't doing

> that, the flaws in their " filters " are, filters that delete, distort

> and

> generalize because that's the best that our consciousness can do to

> comprehend the world around it. Now I can apply magical standards to

> things

> and wash my concepts in " magical thinking " , and this could get me by

> for

> years. But in the end I will face the reality of my life on this

> planet the

> hour when it passes from me into the Void. My last breath will be

> " what's

> real " with no delusions, no " happy story " , just " Peace " (the absence

> of

> thinking).

And that is what you may find, if you let inquiry help you. You don't

have to pass away for that.

When you undo only the stressful thoughts, it doesn't necessarily leave

you " with only happy stories " .

And as long as I see that there is *anything* to " fix " my work is not

done.

And, yes, " what is " is not doing anything. That's my experience, too.

> In the mean time...I am a story, and so are you...and there's

> nothing real about either of them or us. You are either " someone " , or

> you

> are " dead " .

And sometimes we don't even let people die, but insist that they stil

are " someone " , don't we?

>>> > ---Don't change for me. You're perfect just the way you are. And

>>> that's no

>>> > bullshit...I mean it. If you get lucky and happen to " tweak "

>>> something

>>> > later, I'll like that too. I " Love what is " . This isn't hard.

>> You get to do this for as long as it still brings you happiness.

>> Happiness for me is the day when none of this worked and opened a

>> whole new world up.

> ---And that will be the day when your mind can no longer think

> " happy " or

> compare to and experience in the comparison " sad " . Can you guess when

> that

> will be?

And we may be talking about the same thing, anyway.

>>> > ---Now you've given me a woody.

>> Yes, but can you and woody ever find true and lasting happiness?

> ---The goal of my " woody " is to perform a biological function he

> called on

> to do so. It doesn't have to be " happy " to do that...I'm a guy. Now,

> there

> IS a way to have " Everlasting Happiness " though. What you do is

> convince

> yourself that " sad " is " happy " , and from that moment on it all runs

> together

> into " happiness " simply because that's what you call it that day.

> It's not

> impossible to do, so many times people live in sad relationships but

> say

> they're happy, and they believe it.

They may be right. The relationship is sad, to *your* measures. It may

be ok for them.

> Some people are chewed up by their

> addictions until they're rotten shells of what they once were, but

> still

> insist the moment their addiction has them they're happy.

Same thing, they may be living *your* nightmare, not theirs.

> I think " lasting happiness " would come from a consciousness Ok with

> feeling shitty, sad,

> depressed and hopeless.

Well, it may not see it as shitty, sad, depressed and hopeless.

> If you can incorporate that into something greater

> than boxes marked " happy " and " sad " , whatever comes out of that mix

> has to

> be " true and lasting " .

Could you give an example?

Thank you,

October 18, 2004

> That's how malleable the substance of " reality " is. It is the " Silly

> Putty " of the cosmos.

I agree. Reality is what I perceive. If I don't accept it, it hurts.

And this pain *is* gentle, in that it is a reminder that I am going to

war with " what is " .

So how do you know you are not dreaming, now?

---Because I'm awake.

In the end, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter whether you are a man,

or a woman, it doesn't matter what you believe. It doesn't matter

whether you stand or sit, and it doesn't matter whether you make a

shopping list or not.

When I am hypnotized, and I believe that I am standing, reality is that

I am standing, that's it. Whatever that would look like to you.

And to me, that is freeing.

---Goody. Then reality would have room for people to whom those things did

matter. And they would be just as free and maybe freer, because they didn't

feel compelled to explain why things didn't matter to them.

> So you

> will forgive me then, when I seriously doubt that anyone here,

> including

> you, knows what " undoing the filters " means. We all simply get to a

> place,

> and plant our flag and say " Until more information comes to the

> contrary,

> this is the truth " . Only death, " undoes the filters " , " The Work " , just

> tweaks them

How can a question *do* something? Not even an answer does, as long as

you don't *hear* it and take it inside. " The Work " is not a process,

it's the questions, a vehicle to find the answers.

---How could a question not " do " anything? My questions and answers seem to

confuse you a lot. That's doing something isn't it?

> so we get a bigger array of choices.

I don't even find I have more choices than before, If I get to choose

between love or hate, I will *always* choose what feels more

comfortable.

---Do something different sometime, choose the thing that hurts and let it

teach you something.

>>> ---Why " drop the delusion? " Look at what it brings you on its back.

>>> It

>>> brings you insight, it helps you struggle against it and from there

>>> comes

>>> learning and data for change or to simply make the status quo

>>> better.

>> Yes Matt - my experience is that insight is an endless addictive

>> filter. There's a place behind, under however you wish to say it

>> that

>> i drop to and experience something so profound that I'm willing to do

>> the work because I want more of it - the final addiction - to lose

>> myself in What Is and give up individuality.

> --- " What is " always comes from " individuality " and a perceptual field

> created by our experience and constructed understanding of the world

> we grow

> up in, otherwise a tree falling in a forest with no one there doesn't

> make a

> sound. No matter how far we think we've transcended " Ego " , it is

> always

> there helping us create even the delusion of having cut loose of it.

Why would I want to do that?

---You don't have a choice.

> I can talk people into the idea that they are " free " and able to see

> what other's can't,

I doubt it. I believe you talk to them, and some will react in the way

you describe.

And some won't.

---There is a part of us, another self if you will, that is highly

susceptible to input and doesn't judge it or try to filter it. Some people

call it a " soul " , some people call it the " unconscious mind " , but it's

always there operating to orchestrate each person's private " reality " . This

" Other " can be brought out in the context of carefully crafted language, a

phenomena everyone responds to at different levels of awareness. Doubt if

you will, but I'd suggest you understand the concept before you announce how

people will " react " or not...and pick up a book on Dr. Milton son while

you're at it. He is a powerful object study in the nature of the biology and

physiology of human consciousness.

> and there's nothing you can do to convince them otherwise.

With that, I agree. As there is nothing I can do not to convince them

otherwise.

---You " agree " with a point I suspect you've misunderstood. People hold on

to things that have long given up their usefulness, but because something is

" held on to " , it doesn't mean there's no more room for a different solution

to intervene somewhere along the line.

> But what's obvious to me is that their " insight " comes to them through

> the same

> mechanism we all use to understand Life. In the " spilt brain "

> experiments of

> Sperry, the mechanism we use to comprehend our world is revealed for

> all its

> inconsistencies and flaws. The two spheres collude with one another to

> " explain " what they see, and they don't care if they lie about it. In

> the

> middle of this deception, the conscious " I " thinks it's doing all this

> " naming " unassisted, so nothing is really accounting for its

> collaborative

> facets.

Ok. I would not call it " deception " , but then, why not?

---It's called a " deception " in my private dictionary, because the facts can

never be analyzed without the influence of deletions, distortions and

generalizations, but we keep trying any way. On the one hand this is pointed

out to us daily, and dabbled with here...yet people go right on plodding

through the morass of linguistics armed with the same assumptions and

misunderstandings even as they announce that they aren't bound by them and

have elevated themselves above that fray. You and I know that language is a

flawed medium, yet we still use it to describe our thoughts about reality

and a place where language isn't confusing the issue all the time, even as

we talk about an abstraction like " clarity " as if it were a noun. If you

know better, and keep on doing it, that is a deception, of the self and all

those who continue to play that game and still claim to " love what is " while

struggling against its imperfections with words.

> In the midst of all this deception and collusion, some people say " I

> have clarity " now. And I have to tell them " You have a point in your

> journey

> that you can call clarity today, but tomorrow it will evolve into

> something

> else otherwise you just have religion " .

> " The Work " , could very easily degrade into a religion. It

> happens....if you let it.

What's the difference between clarity and religion?

To me, religion is believing without knowing, whereas clarity is

believing only what is true (in my perception).

And there doesn't seem to be a lot of what I can know for sure.

And there seems to be a lot you know. So I don't see that you have a

religion. You seem to know what is true, and that looks like clarity to

me, whatever your doctors call it, and whatever proofs they have for

that.

---If you are stuck in the " trance " that religion is clarity, there is no

difference. A person can be an advocate of " The Work " , and even in a sea of

chronic inquiry believe that only , and the four questions, can define

the essence of Life. There is no other process, or strategy, or philosophy

that can enhance that, or help one grow. I see this happen a lot. People

latch on to something that is a " self help " strategy designed to make you

" free " , and become bound to it, use it as a weapon to win arguments not

personally evolve, use it as a tool to avoid not confront and learn

from...and in their trance of " I'm getting this " , they have no idea that

they're not. That is the function of " religion " , to satisfy, placate and

avoid. Do you know anyone who does that with " The Work " ?

>>> ---It belongs where it is, because if it wasn't there...who would

>>> you be?

>> The joy of being a " no one " or " only one " is incomprehensible to the

>> mind that hasn't consciously experienced it. We all know it's there

>> -

>> it's what we are. Your dialog for me sounds like you want only happy

>> stories that this earth can bring to you - For me the earth is

>> incapable of bringing any happy stories (they all only seem happy

>> when seen through a delusional filter)...only That Which Is can bring

>> happiness.

> ---I think I am the antithesis of " happy stories can be our only

> objective " .

> My " thing " is to remind people that " loving what is " could include

> sometimes

> just that. In other words, you don't have to rush to " fix " shit all

> the

> time. As far as " being happy " I know two people can be in the same

> experience and one can be happy and the other one not. " What Is "

> isn't doing

> that, the flaws in their " filters " are, filters that delete, distort

> and

> generalize because that's the best that our consciousness can do to

> comprehend the world around it. Now I can apply magical standards to

> things

> and wash my concepts in " magical thinking " , and this could get me by

> for

> years. But in the end I will face the reality of my life on this

> planet the

> hour when it passes from me into the Void. My last breath will be

> " what's

> real " with no delusions, no " happy story " , just " Peace " (the absence

> of

> thinking).

And that is what you may find, if you let inquiry help you. You don't

have to pass away for that.

When you undo only the stressful thoughts, it doesn't necessarily leave

you " with only happy stories " .

And as long as I see that there is *anything* to " fix " my work is not

done.

---If you can some time, read a summary of Alfred Korsybsky's " Science and

Sanity " . This will help you get a better grasp of the thing I'm leading with

here and maybe you will better understand what I'm saying. As long as our

cognitive faculties are only able to understand the world through deletions,

distortions and generalizations, even when we do " The Work " , we will only be

at a part of the consciousness spectrum that reveals itself to us as total

reality. You can bask in your revelations due to Inquiry, and like Brigham

Young declare " This is the place " , but in the end the lesson you discover

there even as you declare it otherwise, is never complete or exact...there's

always more to it. That ends, only when you die, not after you ask yourself

the four questions. The four questions only peel back the onion one more

layer, and if you stop there...don't think you understand the nature of the

onion.

And, yes, " what is " is not doing anything. That's my experience, too.

---I don't think I said " What is " is doing nothing. But I can see where you

might draw that conclusion. To be able to even grasp " What is " , you have to

shape that concept with stories that define a facsimile...and due to the

nature of the " tool " that does the shaping, you will always be wrong. The

act of being wrong, can be described as " doing something " .

> In the mean time...I am a story, and so are you...and there's

> nothing real about either of them or us. You are either " someone " , or

> you

> are " dead " .

And sometimes we don't even let people die, but insist that they stil

are " someone " , don't we?

---Yes we do. That's how we understand and talk about who's died.

>>> > ---Don't change for me. You're perfect just the way you are. And

>>> that's no

>>> > bullshit...I mean it. If you get lucky and happen to " tweak "

>>> something

>>> > later, I'll like that too. I " Love what is " . This isn't hard.

>> You get to do this for as long as it still brings you happiness.

>> Happiness for me is the day when none of this worked and opened a

>> whole new world up.

> ---And that will be the day when your mind can no longer think

> " happy " or

> compare to and experience in the comparison " sad " . Can you guess when

> that

> will be?

And we may be talking about the same thing, anyway.

---My guess is we're never really talking about anything different. Yet if

we don't strive to differentiate even with the imperfections in language,

we'd all just be sitting here staring at our key boards, never challenging

anything, never struggling with our imperfections to arrive at some sort of

consensus that unites and heals.

>>> > ---Now you've given me a woody.

>> Yes, but can you and woody ever find true and lasting happiness?

> ---The goal of my " woody " is to perform a biological function he

> called on

> to do so. It doesn't have to be " happy " to do that...I'm a guy. Now,

> there

> IS a way to have " Everlasting Happiness " though. What you do is

> convince

> yourself that " sad " is " happy " , and from that moment on it all runs

> together

> into " happiness " simply because that's what you call it that day.

> It's not

> impossible to do, so many times people live in sad relationships but

> say

> they're happy, and they believe it.

They may be right. The relationship is sad, to *your* measures. It may

be ok for them.

---That simply restates what I've said like it's something new. Here's how

we avoid that sort of thing in the future if you're interested. I am talking

about generalities, to make a point. My generalities are imperfect, because

that's how generalities are...imperfect. Now the reader has a choice: they

can understand the point and agree or disagree with that, or break my balls

with " corrections " as they fix me first, get what I'm saying second. I don't

give a shit if it's their " sad " or my perception of what is " sad " for them.

I was talking about " having everlasting happiness " , and my point is that

people can be " sad " and call that " happy " , and that's one way of having

happiness.

> Some people are chewed up by their

> addictions until they're rotten shells of what they once were, but

> still

> insist the moment their addiction has them they're happy.

Same thing, they may be living *your* nightmare, not theirs.

---I don't give a shit if it's my nightmare or theirs . Try to get my

point here before you do the " My version of something " versus " Someone

else's " circle jerk. That way you can focus on what I'm saying, not what

you're thinking because you want to corect me first, and get my point

second. ate.

> I think " lasting happiness " would come from a consciousness Ok with

> feeling shitty, sad,

> depressed and hopeless.

Well, it may not see it as shitty, sad, depressed and hopeless.

---Yeah, yeah...so what? In " Consciousness 101 " that's the first lesson in

the book , and I believe it is a consensus. Perceptual reality is

relative, but language has no real way of attending to that in the

explanation unless you just want to be argumentative...and frankly I don't

have time for that. I don't care what a person sees as " shitty, sad,

depressed and hopeless " as opposed to my own view of that, my point is that

those things can exist in someone's life as something else...a version of

the same concept you offer as an embellishment or counter argument, and it

comes off as neither. We are talking about the same thing, but you keep

trying to correct my version of it. Relax, and read what I'm writing and

then think before you respond so we're not just screwing around here in a

pissing contest.

> If you can incorporate that into something greater

> than boxes marked " happy " and " sad " , whatever comes out of that mix

> has to

> be " true and lasting " .

Could you give an example?

---Yes I can.

---What I discover here on this list is a whole lot of people all involved

in " me " . Even when I'm talking about you I'm talking about me, and when

you're talking about me you're talking about you. I guess we get so

distracted by that we end up busting each other for it...with a sort of

" aha " , like two old men snapping each other with a wet towel in the shower

at the rest home. I think, I don't know but I think, that real " freedom " , is

simply letting everything alone and just being in it all. This " state " of

just " being in it all " is more " true and lasting " , than our attempts to

define and understand it. Our definitions change as we evolve, and what's

real about that is only what we observe...when we name what we're

experiencing we only create imperfect snap shots of it.

---If this list, to a person, suddenly really understood what it means to

" Love What Is " , and then did it, all at once...no one would post anything

and we would be confronted by the resounding silence of " knowing " . Our words

would all scatter like birds from a tree top, and glide away into the world

to find their own nests, and pockets of simply " being " . This part of what

we're trying to be about here, transcends words, transcends our perceptions

of what the words mean, and becomes a single " something " we can all stand

around and describe like we're telling about what it is in a unique and

different way, but we're not. The answer to all this can only be " silence " ,

and to struggle against the silence is also a part of the reality that

plagues human beings...it's is a part of " What's real " . This part of what we

are here, this illusive, ghostly part...unnamed and misunderstood completely

and gloriously, that is " true and ever lasting " .

---Now, I need to get something done today...and that's what I'm going to do

next.

October 18, 2004

Dear Matt,

Am 18.10.2004 um 19:19 schrieb Matt Lamoreux:

>>> > That's how malleable the substance of " reality " is. It is the

>>> " Silly

>>> > Putty " of the cosmos.

>> I agree. Reality is what I perceive. If I don't accept it, it hurts.

>> And this pain *is* gentle, in that it is a reminder that I am going

>> to

>> war with " what is " .

>>

>> So how do you know you are not dreaming, now?

> ---Because I'm awake.

Oh! Right! ;-)

>> In the end, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter whether you are a

>> man,

>> or a woman, it doesn't matter what you believe. It doesn't matter

>> whether you stand or sit, and it doesn't matter whether you make a

>> shopping list or not.

>> When I am hypnotized, and I believe that I am standing, reality is

>> that

>> I am standing, that's it. Whatever that would look like to you.

>> And to me, that is freeing.

> ---Goody. Then reality would have room for people to whom those

> things did

> matter. And they would be just as free and maybe freer, because they

> didn't

> feel compelled to explain why things didn't matter to them.

Right. They might not feel compelled to do anything. Until they do.

But that's for you to answer.

>>> > So you

>>> > will forgive me then, when I seriously doubt that anyone here,

>>> > including

>>> > you, knows what " undoing the filters " means. We all simply get

>>> to a

>>> > place,

>>> > and plant our flag and say " Until more information comes to the

>>> > contrary,

>>> > this is the truth " . Only death, " undoes the filters " , " The

>>> Work " , just

>>> > tweaks them

>> How can a question *do* something? Not even an answer does, as long

>> as

>> you don't *hear* it and take it inside. " The Work " is not a process,

>> it's the questions, a vehicle to find the answers.

> ---How could a question not " do " anything? My questions and answers

> seem to

> confuse you a lot.

Well, that's not my experience.

> That's doing something isn't it?

Matt, a question invites me to answer, and if I don't answer it, it is

as if you never asked it. Can you relate to that?

It is only when I look for an answer myself, that I can feel confused,

irritated, etc. So your experience is different? That's interesting!

And when you give an answer, it's up to me to validate it, put it

against my description of the world, and see if it matches, or not. How

many answers have you given that have been left unheard? Did they do

something?

And if you had not given certain answers and not asked certain

questions, there had been a different outcome somehwhere? Is that

really true?

I can't find *one* place where a question or answer of mine had changed

something. Not one person that had been better off with a different

answer of mine, not one missed opportunity to say anything. - Not one

that I could *really* know.

And I hear that you are quite an important guy, steering a part of the

world with your questions and answers.

I love how much you care for everyone, Matt!

>>> > so we get a bigger array of choices.

>> I don't even find I have more choices than before, If I get to choose

>> between love or hate, I will *always* choose what feels more

>> comfortable.

> ---Do something different sometime, choose the thing that hurts and

> let it teach you something.

How do I do something different?

The only places I can go with pain, are places that I thought where the

*best* choices for others or myself, and the ones I felt most

comfortable with.

How can I choose the thing that hurts, when I don't believe I can take

a choice at all? How is that possible?

Sounds like going to a blind man, and telling him to look.

>>>> > Yes Matt - my experience is that insight is an endless addictive

>>>> >> filter. There's a place behind, under however you wish to say

>>>> it

>>>> >> that

>>>> >> i drop to and experience something so profound that I'm

>>>> willing to do

>>>> >> the work because I want more of it - the final addiction - to

>>>> lose

>>>> >> myself in What Is and give up individuality.

>>> > --- " What is " always comes from " individuality " and a perceptual

>>> field

>>> > created by our experience and constructed understanding of the

>>> world we grow

>>> > up in, otherwise a tree falling in a forest with no one there

>>> doesn't make a

>>> > sound. No matter how far we think we've transcended " Ego " , it is

>>> always

>>> > there helping us create even the delusion of having cut loose of

>>> it.

>> Why would I want to do that?

> ---You don't have a choice.

True. Can't do anything than accept it, whatever it looks like. And

then, not even that.

>>> > I can talk people into the idea that they are " free " and able to

>>> see

>>> > what other's can't,

>> I doubt it. I believe you talk to them, and some will react in the

>> way

>> you describe.

>> And some won't.

> ---There is a part of us, another self if you will, that is highly

> susceptible to input and doesn't judge it or try to filter it. Some

> people

> call it a " soul " , some people call it the " unconscious mind " , but it's

> always there operating to orchestrate each person's private

> " reality " . This

> " Other " can be brought out in the context of carefully crafted

> language, a

> phenomena everyone responds to at different levels of awareness.

> Doubt if

> you will, but I'd suggest you understand the concept before you

> announce how

> people will " react " or not...and pick up a book on Dr. Milton son

> while

> you're at it. He is a powerful object study in the nature of the

> biology and

> physiology of human consciousness.

Oh, I see. You read it in a book somewhere.

Well, then you must be right.

>>> > and there's nothing you can do to convince them otherwise.

>> With that, I agree. As there is nothing I can do not to convince

>> them otherwise.

> ---You " agree " with a point I suspect you've misunderstood. People

> hold on

> to things that have long given up their usefulness, but because

> something is

> " held on to " , it doesn't mean there's no more room for a different

> solution

> to intervene somewhere along the line.

I may have interpreted that point in a different way than you. And I

can see how it can be called what you call it.

Of course there is room everywhere. And everyone is free to go wherever

he is drawn to.

And I can try to direct you, and if you respond, I may think it was me

who did that.

And again I ask you, Matt: if you had not taken action, *anything*

would be different?

I hesitate to ask you for one example you hold valid. I hear how much

you love your stories, and I wouldn't want to take them away from you.

Then, I see that I couldn't, and that it is up to you to hold them dear

or not.

I mean, all this knowledge of yours *has* to be worth *something*,

right?

There is so much evidence, that you have to be able to get *anyone* to

agree with it.

>>> > But what's obvious to me is that their " insight " comes to them

>>> through the same

>>> > mechanism we all use to understand Life. In the " spilt brain "

>>> experiments of

>>> > Sperry, the mechanism we use to comprehend our world is revealed

>>> for all its

>>> > inconsistencies and flaws. The two spheres collude with one

>>> another to

>>> > " explain " what they see, and they don't care if they lie about

>>> it. In the

>>> > middle of this deception, the conscious " I " thinks it's doing

>>> all this

>>> > " naming " unassisted, so nothing is really accounting for its

>>> > collaborative facets.

>> Ok. I would not call it " deception " , but then, why not?

> ---It's called a " deception " in my private dictionary,

Yes, I heard that.

> because the facts can

> never be analyzed without the influence of deletions, distortions and

> generalizations, but we keep trying any way. On the one hand this is

> pointed

> out to us daily, and dabbled with here...yet people go right on

> plodding

> through the morass of linguistics armed with the same assumptions and

> misunderstandings even as they announce that they aren't bound by

> them and

> have elevated themselves above that fray. You and I know that

> language is a

> flawed medium, yet we still use it to describe our thoughts about

> reality

> and a place where language isn't confusing the issue all the time,

> even as

> we talk about an abstraction like " clarity " as if it were a noun. If

> you

> know better, and keep on doing it, that is a deception, of the self

> and all

> those who continue to play that game and still claim to " love what

> is " while

> struggling against its imperfections with words.

Didn't deception have something to do with neglecting?

Is it " not wanting to see what I know is true " or " not being able to

see what is true " ?

Maybe that's why I wouldn't call it deception: I am not sure what it

means ;-)

Can you show me a flaw? The orange-apple thing did not convince me.

>>> > In the midst of all this deception and collusion, some people say

>>> " I

>>> > have clarity " now. And I have to tell them " You have a point in

>>> your journey

>>> > that you can call clarity today, but tomorrow it will evolve into

>>> > something

>>> > else otherwise you just have religion " .

>>> > " The Work " , could very easily degrade into a religion. It

>>> > happens....if you let it.

>> What's the difference between clarity and religion?

>> To me, religion is believing without knowing, whereas clarity is

>> believing only what is true (in my perception).

>> And there doesn't seem to be a lot of what I can know for sure.

>> And there seems to be a lot you know. So I don't see that you have a

>> religion. You seem to know what is true, and that looks like clarity

>> to

>> me, whatever your doctors call it, and whatever proofs they have for

>> that.

> ---If you are stuck in the " trance " that religion is clarity, there

> is no

> difference. A person can be an advocate of " The Work " , and even in a

> sea of

> chronic inquiry believe that only , and the four questions, can

> define

> the essence of Life. There is no other process, or strategy, or

> philosophy

> that can enhance that, or help one grow.

Although herself says otherwise, as you know.

> I see this happen a lot. People

> latch on to something that is a " self help " strategy designed to make

> you

> " free " , and become bound to it, use it as a weapon to win arguments

> not

> personally evolve, use it as a tool to avoid not confront and learn

> from...and in their trance of " I'm getting this " , they have no idea

> that

> they're not. That is the function of " religion " , to satisfy, placate

> and

> avoid. Do you know anyone who does that with " The Work " ?

I don't see anything wrong in it. Use it, if it serves you. That goes

for *anything*, even for the work.

When children play, who *cares* if they know it's only a game? They

look so happy!

Tell them about war and death, if they ask, but why bother if they

don't?

And I am not saying that you should deceive them and hide things you

think of as uncomfortable. Or do it, whatever feels right.

>>>>> >>> ---It belongs where it is, because if it wasn't there...who

>>>>> would

>>>>> >>> you be?

>>>> >> The joy of being a " no one " or " only one " is incomprehensible

>>>> to the

>>>> >> mind that hasn't consciously experienced it. We all know it's

>>>> there

>>>> >> -

>>>> >> it's what we are. Your dialog for me sounds like you want

>>>> only happy

>>>> >> stories that this earth can bring to you - For me the earth is

>>>> >> incapable of bringing any happy stories (they all only seem

>>>> happy

>>>> >> when seen through a delusional filter)...only That Which Is

>>>> can bring

>>>> >> happiness.

>>> > ---I think I am the antithesis of " happy stories can be our only

>>> > objective " .

>>> > My " thing " is to remind people that " loving what is " could

>>> include

>>> > sometimes

>>> > just that. In other words, you don't have to rush to " fix " shit

>>> all

>>> > the

>>> > time. As far as " being happy " I know two people can be in the

>>> same

>>> > experience and one can be happy and the other one not. " What Is "

>>> > isn't doing

>>> > that, the flaws in their " filters " are, filters that delete,

>>> distort

>>> > and

>>> > generalize because that's the best that our consciousness can do

>>> to

>>> > comprehend the world around it. Now I can apply magical

>>> standards to

>>> > things

>>> > and wash my concepts in " magical thinking " , and this could get

>>> me by

>>> > for

>>> > years. But in the end I will face the reality of my life on this

>>> > planet the

>>> > hour when it passes from me into the Void. My last breath will be

>>> > " what's

>>> > real " with no delusions, no " happy story " , just " Peace " (the

>>> absence

>>> > of

>>> > thinking).

>> And that is what you may find, if you let inquiry help you. You don't

>> have to pass away for that.

>> When you undo only the stressful thoughts, it doesn't necessarily

>> leave

>> you " with only happy stories " .

>> And as long as I see that there is *anything* to " fix " my work is not

>> done.

> ---If you can some time, read a summary of Alfred Korsybsky's

> " Science and

> Sanity " . This will help you get a better grasp of the thing I'm

> leading with

> here and maybe you will better understand what I'm saying. As long as

> our

> cognitive faculties are only able to understand the world through

> deletions,

> distortions and generalizations, even when we do " The Work " , we will

> only be

> at a part of the consciousness spectrum that reveals itself to us as

> total

> reality.

So you found a way to see past these distorsion's? Or Alfred did?

> You can bask in your revelations due to Inquiry, and like Brigham

> Young declare " This is the place " , but in the end the lesson you

> discover

> there even as you declare it otherwise, is never complete or

> exact...there's

> always more to it.

Definetly. It's a lifetimes work. But why bother about " enlightement "

for eternity? Can I just get it *now*?

> That ends, only when you die, not after you ask yourself

> the four questions. The four questions only peel back the onion one

> more

> layer, and if you stop there...don't think you understand the nature

> of the

> onion.

I didn't say: stop. " to be stuck in perfection still is being stuck. "

(quote of , isn't it?)

I said that you can experience peace and stillness within yourself. And

the work is far from being *the* way. Now, the work is that way that is

most discussed in this lwi-group, of course.

>> And, yes, " what is " is not doing anything. That's my experience, too.

> ---I don't think I said " What is " is doing nothing. But I can see

> where you

> might draw that conclusion. To be able to even grasp " What is " , you

> have to

> shape that concept with stories that define a facsimile...and due to

> the

> nature of the " tool " that does the shaping, you will always be wrong.

> The

> act of being wrong, can be described as " doing something " .

Matt, " what is " is slapped into my face so many times a day I can't

even count them! What is hard to grasp about that?

I'm right, you're wrong, I am too fat, you are too pale, he is too

tall, she is too ... anything. That *is* reality. Sometimes.

And to peel the relality-onion is " undoing " . A term I heard first from

Castañedas " Don " . Most spiritual book I ever read! With

great insights!

>>> > In the mean time...I am a story, and so are you...and there's

>>> > nothing real about either of them or us. You are either

>>> " someone " , or

>>> > you are " dead " .

>> And sometimes we don't even let people die, but insist that they stil

>> are " someone " , don't we?

> ---Yes we do. That's how we understand and talk about who's died.

And I hear that some people feel they are still around, with their

spirits present in the house.

It's like: " I lost my father. I need God to tell me where he is, and

that he is fine there " . Can be a very stressful thought for some

people.

Then we may find out the answer: there he is, in that urn on my

bookshelf! Thank God, I thought I lost him!

Can be a relief for some.

>>>>> >>> > ---Don't change for me. You're perfect just the way you

>>>>> are. And

>>>>> >>> that's no

>>>>> >>> > bullshit...I mean it. If you get lucky and happen to

>>>>> " tweak "

>>>>> >>> something

>>>>> >>> > later, I'll like that too. I " Love what is " . This isn't

>>>>> hard.

>>>> >> You get to do this for as long as it still brings you

>>>> happiness.

>>>> >> Happiness for me is the day when none of this worked and

>>>> opened a

>>>> >> whole new world up.

>>> > ---And that will be the day when your mind can no longer think

>>> > " happy " or

>>> > compare to and experience in the comparison " sad " . Can you guess

>>> when

>>> > that

>>> > will be?

>> And we may be talking about the same thing, anyway.

> ---My guess is we're never really talking about anything different.

> Yet if

> we don't strive to differentiate even with the imperfections in

> language,

> we'd all just be sitting here staring at our key boards, never

> challenging

> anything, never struggling with our imperfections to arrive at some

> sort of

> consensus that unites and heals.

I hear you. And to me it sounds like: if we didn't run, we could never

get back home.

>>>>> >>> > ---Now you've given me a woody.

>>>> >> Yes, but can you and woody ever find true and lasting

>>>> happiness?

>>> > ---The goal of my " woody " is to perform a biological function he

>>> > called on

>>> > to do so. It doesn't have to be " happy " to do that...I'm a guy.

>>> Now,

>>> > there

>>> > IS a way to have " Everlasting Happiness " though. What you do is

>>> > convince

>>> > yourself that " sad " is " happy " , and from that moment on it all

>>> runs

>>> > together

>>> > into " happiness " simply because that's what you call it that day.

>>> > It's not

>>> > impossible to do, so many times people live in sad relationships

>>> but

>>> > say

>>> > they're happy, and they believe it.

>> They may be right. The relationship is sad, to *your* measures. It

>> may

>> be ok for them.

> ---That simply restates what I've said like it's something new.

> Here's how

> we avoid that sort of thing in the future if you're interested. I am

> talking

> about generalities, to make a point. My generalities are imperfect,

> because

> that's how generalities are...imperfect. Now the reader has a choice:

> they

> can understand the point and agree or disagree with that, or break my

> balls

> with " corrections " as they fix me first, get what I'm saying second.

> I don't

> give a shit if it's their " sad " or my perception of what is " sad " for

> them.

> I was talking about " having everlasting happiness " , and my point is

> that

> people can be " sad " and call that " happy " , and that's one way of

> having

> happiness.

Sorry, Matt, I didn't mean to correct you. Sometimes I am a hard case,

so I like reflecting over what you say, so I know I got it.

And only when I say it in my words, and get you to approve of that, I

can know if I got you wrong.

Yes, you talk a lot about generalities, and I never experienced a

generality. I can work better, when given concrete examples.

Like: " My wife looks sad, when I hang on to the computer on those

stupid mailing lists. And she doesn't say anything about it, and

doesn't try to change it, so it may be her way to get the world

turning. Her way to happiness " , or something like that.

>>> > Some people are chewed up by their

>>> > addictions until they're rotten shells of what they once were,

>>> but

>>> > still insist the moment their addiction has them they're happy.

>> Same thing, they may be living *your* nightmare, not theirs.

> ---I don't give a shit if it's my nightmare or theirs . Try to

> get my

> point here before you do the " My version of something " versus " Someone

> else's " circle jerk. That way you can focus on what I'm saying, not

> what

> you're thinking because you want to corect me first, and get my point

> second. ate.

Ok. Show me how. ;-)

By the way, I don't give a shit about your nightmares, either.

>>> > I think " lasting happiness " would come from a consciousness Ok

>>> with

>>> > feeling shitty, sad,

>>> > depressed and hopeless.

>> Well, it may not see it as shitty, sad, depressed and hopeless.

> ---Yeah, yeah...so what? In " Consciousness 101 " that's the first

> lesson in

> the book , and I believe it is a consensus. Perceptual reality is

> relative, but language has no real way of attending to that in the

> explanation unless you just want to be argumentative...and frankly I

> don't

> have time for that. I don't care what

Yes, I hear that. It's not very hard to hear what you don't care

about. Thank you.

I am not saying: take pain, and call it freedom. Tada: see, you're

happy!

> a person sees as " shitty, sad,

> depressed and hopeless " as opposed to my own view of that, my point

> is that

> those things can exist in someone's life as something else...a

> version of

> the same concept you offer as an embellishment or counter argument,

> and it

> comes off as neither. We are talking about the same thing, but you

> keep

> trying to correct my version of it. Relax, and read what I'm writing

> and

> then think before you respond so we're not just screwing around here

> in a

> pissing contest.

Matt, I don't see you as jerking off, or pissing around, or screwing,

or whatever you would like to call it.

>>> > If you can incorporate that into something greater

>>> > than boxes marked " happy " and " sad " , whatever comes out of that

>>> mix

>>> > has to

>>> > be " true and lasting " .

>> Could you give an example?

> ---Yes I can.

> ---What I discover here on this list is a whole lot of people all

> involved

> in " me " . Even when I'm talking about you I'm talking about me, and

> when

> you're talking about me you're talking about you. I guess we get so

> distracted by that we end up busting each other for it...with a sort

> of

> " aha " , like two old men snapping each other with a wet towel in the

> shower

> at the rest home. I think, I don't know but I think, that real

> " freedom " , is

> simply letting everything alone and just being in it all.

Yes.

> This " state " of

> just " being in it all " is more " true and lasting " , than our attempts

> to

> define and understand it. Our definitions change as we evolve, and

> what's

> real about that is only what we observe...when we name what we're

> experiencing we only create imperfect snap shots of it.

You could be right.

> ---If this list, to a person, suddenly really understood what it

> means to

> " Love What Is " , and then did it, all at once...no one would post

> anything

> and we would be confronted by the resounding silence of " knowing " .

> Our words

> would all scatter like birds from a tree top, and glide away into the

> world

> to find their own nests, and pockets of simply " being " . This part of

> what

> we're trying to be about here, transcends words, transcends our

> perceptions

> of what the words mean, and becomes a single " something " we can all

> stand

> around and describe like we're telling about what it is in a unique

> and

> different way, but we're not. The answer to all this can only be

> " silence " ,

> and to struggle against the silence is also a part of the reality that

> plagues human beings...it's is a part of " What's real " . This part of

> what we

> are here, this illusive, ghostly part...unnamed and misunderstood

> completely

> and gloriously, that is " true and ever lasting " .

Yes, again.

> ---Now, I need to get something done today...and that's what I'm

> going to do

> next.

Good for you! :-)

Love,

October 18, 2004

" Matt Lamoreux " wrote:

>

> ---The " filters " never " drop " . Even elightenment is a filter. It's

all done

> with smoke and mirrors, the " Grand Illusion " being how parts of

ourselves

> deceive and collborate with one another to create the magic show of the

> self.

So are you speaking from experience or from a book?

My experience is that I've been to a place that simply just was -

absolutely no filters - no mind -...and then a thought appeared.

Blessings - Jan

October 19, 2004

Right. They might not feel compelled to do anything. Until they do. But

that's for you to answer.

---I'll pass.

> ---How could a question not " do " anything? My questions and answers

> seem to

> confuse you a lot.

Well, that's not my experience.

---See what I mean?

> That's doing something isn't it?

Matt, a question invites me to answer, and if I don't answer it, it is

as if you never asked it. Can you relate to that?

It is only when I look for an answer myself, that I can feel confused,

irritated, etc. So your experience is different? That's interesting! And

when you give an answer, it's up to me to validate it, put it

against my description of the world, and see if it matches, or not. How

many answers have you given that have been left unheard? Did they do

something?

And if you had not given certain answers and not asked certain

questions, there had been a different outcome somehwhere? Is that

really true?

I can't find *one* place where a question or answer of mine had changed

something. Not one person that had been better off with a different

answer of mine, not one missed opportunity to say anything. - Not one

that I could *really* know.

And I hear that you are quite an important guy, steering a part of the

world with your questions and answers.

I love how much you care for everyone, Matt!

---I'm " steering " you aren't I? Look how much space you took to support your

premise here. Think of the neurons that fired to produce this stuff. Look at

the words generated, the typing that was involved. Look at all the work it

took for you to say my questions and answers don't " do " anything. No it

doesn't make me " important " , it just demonstrates that you're not paying

attention to yourself.

>>> > so we get a bigger array of choices.

>> I don't even find I have more choices than before, If I get to

>> choose between love or hate, I will *always* choose what feels more

>> comfortable.

> ---Do something different sometime, choose the thing that hurts and

> let it teach you something.

How do I do something different?

The only places I can go with pain, are places that I thought where the

*best* choices for others or myself, and the ones I felt most

comfortable with.

How can I choose the thing that hurts, when I don't believe I can take

a choice at all? How is that possible?

Sounds like going to a blind man, and telling him to look.

---Time for you to stop using " What is " as a tool for doing nothing. I can

give you a hint about what I'm saying though...stop inhibiting yourself with

" Nothingness " . Sometimes in your immediate vicinity you impact with " mass "

and have to react to it or fall over the coffee table. To love " what's real "

is to also see the perceptual and strategic advantages that gives you.

No matter how far we think we've transcended " Ego " , it is

>>> always

>>> > there helping us create even the delusion of having cut loose of

>>> it.

>> Why would I want to do that?

> ---You don't have a choice.

True. Can't do anything than accept it, whatever it looks like. And

then, not even that.

---You can make decisions around the evidence of anything and choose. What I

am talking about there is choice among a sea of delusions. Consciousness is

built on layers of hallucinations, and in that context you can't " fix " that,

it's how we're built.

>>> > I can talk people into the idea that they are " free " and able to

>>> see

>>> > what other's can't,

>> I doubt it. I believe you talk to them, and some will react in the

>> way

>> you describe.

>> And some won't.

> ---There is a part of us, another self if you will, that is highly

> susceptible to input and doesn't judge it or try to filter it. Some

> people call it a " soul " , some people call it the " unconscious mind " ,

> but it's always there operating to orchestrate each person's private

> " reality " . This

> " Other " can be brought out in the context of carefully crafted

> language, a

> phenomena everyone responds to at different levels of awareness.

> Doubt if

> you will, but I'd suggest you understand the concept before you

> announce how

> people will " react " or not...and pick up a book on Dr. Milton son

> while

> you're at it. He is a powerful object study in the nature of the

> biology and

> physiology of human consciousness.

Oh, I see. You read it in a book somewhere.

Well, then you must be right.

---I AM right, and not only did I " read it in a book " , but I observed it in

myself and experimented with what I learned there on others. I went beyond

one dimensional learning and expanded outward into other possibilities,

because that's what is real...lots and lots of variations on one theme. If

you're going to discuss cognition and perceptual reality, my suggestion

would be to not just dip into a few New Age tomes or even a short skinny dip

in " Loving What Is " . Drink deep from the artesian well , at least if

you're going to discuss this stuff with me.

>>> > and there's nothing you can do to convince them otherwise.

>> With that, I agree. As there is nothing I can do not to convince

>> them otherwise.

> ---You " agree " with a point I suspect you've misunderstood. People

> hold on

> to things that have long given up their usefulness, but because

> something is

> " held on to " , it doesn't mean there's no more room for a different

> solution

> to intervene somewhere along the line.

I may have interpreted that point in a different way than you. And I

can see how it can be called what you call it.

Of course there is room everywhere. And everyone is free to go wherever

he is drawn to.

And I can try to direct you, and if you respond, I may think it was me

who did that.

And again I ask you, Matt: if you had not taken action, *anything*

would be different?

I hesitate to ask you for one example you hold valid. I hear how much

you love your stories, and I wouldn't want to take them away from you. Then,

I see that I couldn't, and that it is up to you to hold them dear

or not.

I mean, all this knowledge of yours *has* to be worth *something*,

right?

There is so much evidence, that you have to be able to get *anyone* to

agree with it.

---Right now, you have spent about fifteen to twenty minutes explaining to

me why nothing I've said so far has had any impact on your thinking or my

thinking or anyone else's thinking. We are not " doing " anything yet you give

me power over you every time you type a word to a response to me, and I give

you power over me when I respond to that. I have reduced you to taunting

me, you have reduced me to spending way too much time explaining myself. All

this came about from a post I sent to this list, that wasn't directed to you

but you responded to any way. I did something, and you responded to it, and

now the archives on this list have our " debate " permanently recorded. All

these things happened, and are happening right now. If you think it's all

predetermined, if you believe everything is cut in stone and will happen

anyway whether you act on it or not...if you believe that being right takes

the place of wisdom...then everything you say makes sense to me in that

context, until I compare it to my model of the world where there is cause

and effect and constant change that is accomplished every day just by

experiencing Life and taking responsibility for yourself in what you're

" doing " and " not-doing " and I just...laugh.

>>> > But what's obvious to me is that their " insight " comes to them

>>> through the same

>>> > mechanism we all use to understand Life. In the " spilt brain "

>>> experiments of

>>> > Sperry, the mechanism we use to comprehend our world is revealed

>>> for all its

>>> > inconsistencies and flaws. The two spheres collude with one

>>> another to

>>> > " explain " what they see, and they don't care if they lie about

>>> it. In the

>>> > middle of this deception, the conscious " I " thinks it's doing

>>> all this

>>> > " naming " unassisted, so nothing is really accounting for its

>>> > collaborative facets.

>> Ok. I would not call it " deception " , but then, why not?

> ---It's called a " deception " in my private dictionary,

Yes, I heard that.

---Excellent.

> because the facts can

> never be analyzed without the influence of deletions, distortions and

> generalizations, but we keep trying any way. On the one hand this is

> pointed out to us daily, and dabbled with here...yet people go right

> on plodding

> through the morass of linguistics armed with the same assumptions and

> misunderstandings even as they announce that they aren't bound by

> them and

> have elevated themselves above that fray. You and I know that

> language is a

> flawed medium, yet we still use it to describe our thoughts about

> reality

> and a place where language isn't confusing the issue all the time,

> even as

> we talk about an abstraction like " clarity " as if it were a noun. If

> you

> know better, and keep on doing it, that is a deception, of the self

> and all

> those who continue to play that game and still claim to " love what

> is " while

> struggling against its imperfections with words.

Didn't deception have something to do with neglecting?

Is it " not wanting to see what I know is true " or " not being able to

see what is true " ?

Maybe that's why I wouldn't call it deception: I am not sure what it

means ;-)

---I thought you " heard " that I have another dictionary than you do, the

Oxford English one, not 's Dictionary.

Can you show me a flaw? The orange-apple thing did not convince me.

---What flaw? I thought we were talking about reality? Cripes keep up

dude.

>>> > In the midst of all this deception and collusion, some people say

>>> " I

>>> > have clarity " now. And I have to tell them " You have a point in

>>> your journey

>>> > that you can call clarity today, but tomorrow it will evolve into

>>> > something

>>> > else otherwise you just have religion " .

>>> > " The Work " , could very easily degrade into a religion. It

>>> > happens....if you let it.

>> What's the difference between clarity and religion?

>> To me, religion is believing without knowing, whereas clarity is

>> believing only what is true (in my perception). And there doesn't

>> seem to be a lot of what I can know for sure. And there seems to be

>> a lot you know. So I don't see that you have a religion. You seem to

>> know what is true, and that looks like clarity to

>> me, whatever your doctors call it, and whatever proofs they have for

>> that.

> ---If you are stuck in the " trance " that religion is clarity, there

> is no

> difference. A person can be an advocate of " The Work " , and even in a

> sea of

> chronic inquiry believe that only , and the four questions, can

> define

> the essence of Life. There is no other process, or strategy, or

> philosophy

> that can enhance that, or help one grow.

Although herself says otherwise, as you know.

> I see this happen a lot. People

> latch on to something that is a " self help " strategy designed to make

> you

> " free " , and become bound to it, use it as a weapon to win arguments

> not

> personally evolve, use it as a tool to avoid not confront and learn

> from...and in their trance of " I'm getting this " , they have no idea

> that

> they're not. That is the function of " religion " , to satisfy, placate

> and

> avoid. Do you know anyone who does that with " The Work " ?

I don't see anything wrong in it. Use it, if it serves you. That goes

for *anything*, even for the work.

When children play, who *cares* if they know it's only a game? They

look so happy!

Tell them about war and death, if they ask, but why bother if they

don't?

And I am not saying that you should deceive them and hide things you

think of as uncomfortable. Or do it, whatever feels right.

---There are people in this world that avoid things, and people who confront

them. The former learn how to be weak and helpless and driven to places they

may not want to go passively and like sheep, the latter learn how to create

their own space on their own terms and make their own peace with reality.

Each are a valid citizen of the city of " What is " . If I am going to work

myself up enough to confront reality and all that it is, and achieve

understanding and growth in the process and find my strength there, then

that's the model of my expectations through " The Work " and that's what I

gravitate towards in my conversations about it, that's the standard that I

seek in others to learn from and share by.

---If all anyone is doing here is creating a giant excuse for their own

inability to take charge of themselves and live, I tend to avoid that sort

of state of mind. " The Work " is not an excuse in my book, for doing

nothing...nor do I have a lot of time for people who think that way. That's

a choice I've made...something I've learned by asking questions and getting

answers and opting to be a human being that responds to challenges in the

environment with creativity and art, not like a mushroom sucking up shit and

loving the darkness, and calling that enlightenment. That's what I do with

what I learn from Inquirey, I change the things I can, and make the best of

the things I can't....but I don't " do nothing " .

So you found a way to see past these distorsion's? Or Alfred did?

---No, I factor distortions into my perceptual reality, acknowledge they're

there, and build my stories and expectations on that observed limitation of

the tool I use to understand my world with. What Alfred Korsybsky did was

spark a whole school of thought generated around the phenomena of

linguistics. He is associated with the phrase " The map is not the

territory " . In other words, the tools we use to describe or explain

" reality " , are never reality itself, just a map of it. That's why when

people here say they know " the truth " , or they know " what's real " , I

remember the thing telling them that (their brain) can only create a

facsimile of those realities within its own margins of understanding, and

because of the mechanisms in it that make it work, it can never reveal to

anyone beyond the context of sensory experience...what it's trying to

describe from experience itself.

---This is what I've read and observed, but can never know if it's " true " ,

simply because the mechanism I understand that concept with is driven by

deletions, distortions and generalizations that are demonstrated in the

words I use to describe things. The " flaw " if you will, is there in the

thing itself...a " flaw " , until I step back and accept it as a part of what

is " real " in my perceptual field of understanding. Beyond that, neither you

or I can discuss things without deluding ourselves into thinking the

mechanism that understands all this, can magically overcome its biological

limitations and do what it was never designed to do...otherwise we would

simply be mushrooms, sitting astound in the dark while everything else

evolves around us (something some of us opt for anyway, but I will pass

on...at least until dementia sets in and my body leaves me no choice). Our

biological systems thrive on challenges, destruction of old things and

building of the new on that destroyed ground...something that happens even

at the level of our cells and their base nucleus. Even a corpse is " doing

something " .

> You can bask in your revelations due to Inquiry, and like Brigham

> Young declare " This is the place " , but in the end the lesson you

> discover

> there even as you declare it otherwise, is never complete or

> exact...there's

> always more to it.

Definetly. It's a lifetimes work. But why bother about " enlightement "

for eternity? Can I just get it *now*?

---Sure you can. If you're satisfied with that. Are you satisfied with that?

Then just declare it, and " have it now " . If no " little voice " pops in there

and whispers " , you're not ready " , then you've got it dude. The mind is

a neat little tool that can be convinced of anything even if new data comes

along to refute it. (Just look at our political parties). It's easy, just

declare it, keep telling yourself it's so and pretty soon you'll be

convinced. Believe me, it's just as good if not better, that following the

story about " it's hard to be enlightened and takes a lot of time to get

there " . At any point we can all say " This is the place " , and the journey is

over...until you finally realize it's not, and then you have to start

declaring all over again, with new stipulations.

> That ends, only when you die, not after you ask yourself

> the four questions. The four questions only peel back the onion one

> more

> layer, and if you stop there...don't think you understand the nature

> of the

> onion.

I didn't say: stop. " to be stuck in perfection still is being stuck. "

(quote of , isn't it?)

I said that you can experience peace and stillness within yourself. And

the work is far from being *the* way. Now, the work is that way that is

most discussed in this lwi-group, of course.

---And once again I reiterate to you that you can declare " This is the

place " anywhere along that journey, and you can be exactly right...until

death shows you another finality, that doesn't change with new data, new

experiences, new input.

>> And, yes, " what is " is not doing anything. That's my experience, too.

> ---I don't think I said " What is " is doing nothing. But I can see

> where you

> might draw that conclusion. To be able to even grasp " What is " , you

> have to

> shape that concept with stories that define a facsimile...and due to

> the

> nature of the " tool " that does the shaping, you will always be wrong.

> The

> act of being wrong, can be described as " doing something " .

Matt, " what is " is slapped into my face so many times a day I can't

even count them! What is hard to grasp about that?

I'm right, you're wrong, I am too fat, you are too pale, he is too

tall, she is too ... anything. That *is* reality. Sometimes.

And to peel the relality-onion is " undoing " . A term I heard first from

Castañedas " Don " . Most spiritual book I ever read! With

great insights!

---And you were making fun of me getting " wisdom' from a book. To type the

word " undoing " with quotes it took nine key strokes, and another second or

two to count them to make my point. To talk about " undoing " I had to " do "

something. I like Castañedas and my Mexican neighbors still use

medicines taught them by " Don 's " where they come from. There are

millions of them, literally. But I am not ready to sit here with you an say

that " reality " can be defined through chemical inducement and altered

states. That's like having someone explain to you this really cool theory of

worm holes after he's taken some huge tokes off a very large bong. I know

the story of Castañedas, I also know the story of cognitive science,

hypnosis and altered states. I choose the latter to define the boundaries of

my reality, mainly because my psychiatric condition distorts reality enough

for me...I don't need a chew of peyote to make it any worse. I am not

interested in being " spiritual " , I am interested in being sane. Meet me at

that cross road.

>>> > In the mean time...I am a story, and so are you...and there's

>>> > nothing real about either of them or us. You are either

>>> " someone " , or

>>> > you are " dead " .

>> And sometimes we don't even let people die, but insist that they stil

>> are " someone " , don't we?

> ---Yes we do. That's how we understand and talk about who's died.

And I hear that some people feel they are still around, with their

spirits present in the house.

---Happy Halloween.

It's like: " I lost my father. I need God to tell me where he is, and

that he is fine there " . Can be a very stressful thought for some

people.

Then we may find out the answer: there he is, in that urn on my

bookshelf! Thank God, I thought I lost him!

Can be a relief for some.

---Part of my " disability " , is that my head feels like a radio receiver and

I hear voices talking all the time...not to me, to each other. This was a

" problem " for me until I discovered quantum theory, and merged it with what

I know about cognitive science, and " non-local " awareness. I'm just going

off the top of my head now but I think the guys name was Buchanan, who

postulated a theory about the nature of brain cells being capable of

receiving and sending signals in extremely low frequencies due to their

shape, biochemistry and water containment. My psychiatrist just nodded and

wrote me a prescription when I told him that. But because of my own

involvement with " non-local " experience, I am not entirely uncertain

whatever left their father at his moment of death is not " alive " in another

form and watching over them and their family. Then again, there is the

obvious fact staring at us of that urn. I can live with that too. That urn

is pretty substantive, and a lot more real than quantum theory.

I hear you. And to me it sounds like: if we didn't run, we could never

get back home.

---I couldn't have said that better.

Sorry, Matt, I didn't mean to correct you. Sometimes I am a hard case,

so I like reflecting over what you say, so I know I got it.

And only when I say it in my words, and get you to approve of that, I

can know if I got you wrong.

---All right then, I " get " reflection.

Yes, you talk a lot about generalities, and I never experienced a

generality. I can work better, when given concrete examples.

Like: " My wife looks sad, when I hang on to the computer on those

stupid mailing lists. And she doesn't say anything about it, and

doesn't try to change it, so it may be her way to get the world

turning. Her way to happiness " , or something like that.

---I just counted five generalities there, and a lot of mind reading. " My

wife looks sad " (what does " looking sad " look like, and how are you sure

you're seeing " sad " , it can be so many other things?) " Those stupid mailing

lists " , (what mailing lists are " stupid " , and how do you know they're

" stupid " , can you tell them from the " smart " ones?) " And she doesn't say

anything about it " , (About what, the " stupid lists " or " hanging on to the

computer " ?) " She doesn't try to change it " , (change what, " the hanging on to

the computer " or the " stupid lists " ?). What does it mean to " get the world

turning " ? Your example is rife with generalities because that's the nature

of cognition and the language we create to express experience. In the end I

come away with a general meaning of what you've said, and I understand that

your wife gets just as annoyed at you with the time you spend on mailing

lists as mine does. But nothing you said made that any clearer to me, I

filled in the blanks with my own understanding of your generalities. In

linguistics I believe that's called " transderivational searching " , the

attempt to find meaning in things through comparisons of personal

experience.

>>> > Some people are chewed up by their

>>> > addictions until they're rotten shells of what they once were,

>>> but

>>> > still insist the moment their addiction has them they're happy.

>> Same thing, they may be living *your* nightmare, not theirs.

> ---I don't give a shit if it's my nightmare or theirs . Try to

> get my

> point here before you do the " My version of something " versus " Someone

> else's " circle jerk. That way you can focus on what I'm saying, not

> what

> you're thinking because you want to corect me first, and get my point

> second. ate.

Ok. Show me how. ;-)

---I'll " tell " you how, and then you can decide if I'm " showing " you on your

own. Read first what I'm saying with your inner voice silent for a moment,

then with what you understand so far let your own ideas reshape what you

thought you read into what you think you understand about it.

By the way, I don't give a shit about your nightmares, either.

---That's good, because if you did you wouldn't be able to sleep nights, not

one moment of nocturnal sleep...ever. And there would be no dark place in

your home that wouldn't be occupied by some demon or another. You can trust

me on that.

>>> > I think " lasting happiness " would come from a consciousness Ok

>>> with

>>> > feeling shitty, sad,

>>> > depressed and hopeless.

>> Well, it may not see it as shitty, sad, depressed and hopeless.

> ---Yeah, yeah...so what? In " Consciousness 101 " that's the first

> lesson in

> the book , and I believe it is a consensus. Perceptual reality is

> relative, but language has no real way of attending to that in the

> explanation unless you just want to be argumentative...and frankly I

> don't

> have time for that. I don't care what

Yes, I hear that. It's not very hard to hear what you don't care

about. Thank you.

---I was beginning to doubt that was true. Let's see if it holds up to

reality.

I am not saying: take pain, and call it freedom. Tada: see, you're

happy!

---Let me appraise you of something else I don't care about. I don't care if

you don't understand anything I've said here even though I've spent a lot of

time explaining to you what I mean. What I've done is hone and reaffirm what

I know right now for myself, and I am reasonably satisfied that you don't

present a completely viable alternative to that. That doesn't mean that I'm

right and you're wrong, it's just that statements like " Tada: see you're

happy! " sound very much like I've been talking to some recalcitrant teenager

here...and I hope that's not your best shot dude.

> a person sees as " shitty, sad,

> depressed and hopeless " as opposed to my own view of that, my point

> is that

> those things can exist in someone's life as something else...a

> version of

> the same concept you offer as an embellishment or counter argument,

> and it

> comes off as neither. We are talking about the same thing, but you

> keep

> trying to correct my version of it. Relax, and read what I'm writing

> and

> then think before you respond so we're not just screwing around here

> in a

> pissing contest.

Matt, I don't see you as jerking off, or pissing around, or screwing,

or whatever you would like to call it.

---I guess you're the only one doing those things then. I stand

corrected...LOL!

>>> > If you can incorporate that into something greater

>>> > than boxes marked " happy " and " sad " , whatever comes out of that

>>> mix

>>> > has to

>>> > be " true and lasting " .

>> Could you give an example?

> ---Yes I can.

> ---What I discover here on this list is a whole lot of people all

> involved

> in " me " . Even when I'm talking about you I'm talking about me, and

> when

> you're talking about me you're talking about you. I guess we get so

> distracted by that we end up busting each other for it...with a sort

> of

> " aha " , like two old men snapping each other with a wet towel in the

> shower

> at the rest home. I think, I don't know but I think, that real

> " freedom " , is

> simply letting everything alone and just being in it all.

Yes.

---I also believe that " freedom " is not a ticket to " do nothing " . Do you

agree with that?

> This " state " of

> just " being in it all " is more " true and lasting " , than our attempts

> to

> define and understand it. Our definitions change as we evolve, and

> what's

> real about that is only what we observe...when we name what we're

> experiencing we only create imperfect snap shots of it.

You could be right.

---I am right.

> ---If this list, to a person, suddenly really understood what it

> means to

> " Love What Is " , and then did it, all at once...no one would post

> anything

> and we would be confronted by the resounding silence of " knowing " .

> Our words

> would all scatter like birds from a tree top, and glide away into the

> world

> to find their own nests, and pockets of simply " being " . This part of

> what

> we're trying to be about here, transcends words, transcends our

> perceptions

> of what the words mean, and becomes a single " something " we can all

> stand

> around and describe like we're telling about what it is in a unique

> and

> different way, but we're not. The answer to all this can only be

> " silence " ,

> and to struggle against the silence is also a part of the reality that

> plagues human beings...it's is a part of " What's real " . This part of

> what we

> are here, this illusive, ghostly part...unnamed and misunderstood

> completely

> and gloriously, that is " true and ever lasting " .

Yes, again.

---Yes what?

> ---Now, I need to get something done today...and that's what I'm

> going to do

> next.

Good for you! :-)

---Good for me? I'm getting ready to oil my front deck. What are you doing

right now? I can guess...just like me some thirty minutes ago...writing to

another " stupid mailing list " . We're hopeless , forever doomed to be

haunted by those " sad looks " as you put it, but once in a while my wife says

" Get up and do something asshole! " , and my trance is broken and I become

useful once more...for a little while anyway.

---Have a good day today dude. And thanks for the challenges and new

information. I value your observations, they change things.

October 20, 2004

Hey Matt,

Am 19.10.2004 um 19:34 schrieb Matt Lamoreux:

>> Right. They might not feel compelled to do anything. Until they do.

>> But

>> that's for you to answer.

> ---I'll pass.

I'd need more info on what we talked about, here, to give you a hint.

And my thought is that you don't need one. ;-)

>>> > ---How could a question not " do " anything? My questions and

>>> answers

>>> > seem to confuse you a lot.

>> Well, that's not my experience.

> ---See what I mean?

As much as I turn it: no. Well, maybe you mean that: nothing.

>>> > That's doing something isn't it?

>> Matt, a question invites me to answer, and if I don't answer it, it

>> is

>> as if you never asked it. Can you relate to that?

>> It is only when I look for an answer myself, that I can feel

>> confused,

>> irritated, etc. So your experience is different? That's interesting!

>> And

>> when you give an answer, it's up to me to validate it, put it

>> against my description of the world, and see if it matches, or not.

>> How

>> many answers have you given that have been left unheard? Did they do

>> something?

>> And if you had not given certain answers and not asked certain

>> questions, there had been a different outcome somehwhere? Is that

>> really true?

>> I can't find *one* place where a question or answer of mine had

>> changed

>> something. Not one person that had been better off with a different

>> answer of mine, not one missed opportunity to say anything. - Not one

>> that I could *really* know.

>> And I hear that you are quite an important guy, steering a part of

>> the

>> world with your questions and answers.

>> I love how much you care for everyone, Matt!

> ---I'm " steering " you aren't I?

Oh Matt, of course you are.

And you are doing that so well, that I am not even aware of it.

And all the time you exactly knew where I was going.

How lovely.

> Look how much space you took to support your

> premise here. Think of the neurons that fired to produce this stuff.

> Look at

> the words generated, the typing that was involved. Look at all the

> work it

> took for you to say my questions and answers don't " do " anything. No

> it

> doesn't make me " important " , it just demonstrates that you're not

> paying

> attention to yourself.

Thank you for letting me notice.

>>>>> >>> > so we get a bigger array of choices.

>>>> >> I don't even find I have more choices than before, If I get to

>>>> >> choose between love or hate, I will *always* choose what feels

>>>> more

>>>> >> comfortable.

>>> > ---Do something different sometime, choose the thing that hurts

>>> and

>>> > let it teach you something.

>> How do I do something different?

>> The only places I can go with pain, are places that I thought where

>> the

>> *best* choices for others or myself, and the ones I felt most

>> comfortable with.

>> How can I choose the thing that hurts, when I don't believe I can

>> take

>> a choice at all? How is that possible?

>> Sounds like going to a blind man, and telling him to look.

> ---Time for you to stop using " What is " as a tool for doing nothing. I

> can

> give you a hint about what I'm saying though...stop inhibiting

> yourself with

> " Nothingness " . Sometimes in your immediate vicinity you impact with

> " mass "

> and have to react to it or fall over the coffee table. To love

> " what's real "

> is to also see the perceptual and strategic advantages that gives you.

I have never noticed doing nothing.

Those times it felt most like that, though, were the times when I

thought that I *was* to do something.

I love how clear you are about that.

>>>>> >>> No matter how far we think we've transcended " Ego " , it is

>>>>> >>> always

>>>>> >>> > there helping us create even the delusion of having cut

>>>>> loose of

>>>>> >>> it.

>>>> >> Why would I want to do that?

>>> > ---You don't have a choice.

>> True. Can't do anything than accept it, whatever it looks like. And

>> then, not even that.

> ---You can make decisions around the evidence of anything and choose.

Of course you can.

> What I am talking about there is choice among a sea of delusions.

> Consciousness is

> built on layers of hallucinations, and in that context you can't

> " fix " that, it's how we're built.

Sure. Everyone can see that.

>>>>> >>> > I can talk people into the idea that they are " free " and

>>>>> able to see

>>>>> >>> > what other's can't,

>>>> >> I doubt it. I believe you talk to them, and some will react in

>>>> the

>>>> >> way

>>>> >> you describe.

>>>> >> And some won't.

>>> > ---There is a part of us, another self if you will, that is

>>> highly

>>> > susceptible to input and doesn't judge it or try to filter it.

>>> Some

>>> > people call it a " soul " , some people call it the " unconscious

>>> mind " ,

>>> > but it's always there operating to orchestrate each person's

>>> private

>>> > " reality " . This

>>> > " Other " can be brought out in the context of carefully crafted

>>> language, a

>>> > phenomena everyone responds to at different levels of awareness.

>>> Doubt if

>>> > you will, but I'd suggest you understand the concept before you

>>> announce how

>>> > people will " react " or not...and pick up a book on Dr. Milton

>>> son while

>>> > you're at it. He is a powerful object study in the nature of the

>>> biology and

>>> > physiology of human consciousness.

>> Oh, I see. You read it in a book somewhere.

>> Well, then you must be right.

> ---I AM right,

Yes, you are.

> and not only did I " read it in a book " , but I observed it in

> myself and experimented with what I learned there on others. I went

> beyond

> one dimensional learning and expanded outward into other

> possibilities,

> because that's what is real...lots and lots of variations on one

> theme. If

> you're going to discuss cognition and perceptual reality, my

> suggestion

> would be to not just dip into a few New Age tomes or even a short

> skinny dip

> in " Loving What Is " .

Thank you.

> Drink deep from the artesian well , at least if you're going to

> discuss this stuff with me.

How would I know what I will discuss next?

>>>>> >>> > and there's nothing you can do to convince them otherwise.

>>>> >> With that, I agree. As there is nothing I can do not to

>>>> convince

>>>> >> them otherwise.

>>> > ---You " agree " with a point I suspect you've misunderstood.

>>> People hold on

>>> > to things that have long given up their usefulness, but because

>>> something is

>>> > " held on to " , it doesn't mean there's no more room for a

>>> different solution

>>> > to intervene somewhere along the line.

>> I may have interpreted that point in a different way than you. And I

>> can see how it can be called what you call it.

>> Of course there is room everywhere. And everyone is free to go

>> wherever he is drawn to.

>> And I can try to direct you, and if you respond, I may think it was

>> me who did that.

>> And again I ask you, Matt: if you had not taken action, *anything*

>> would be different?

>> I hesitate to ask you for one example you hold valid. I hear how much

>> you love your stories, and I wouldn't want to take them away from

>> you. Then,

>> I see that I couldn't, and that it is up to you to hold them dear

>> or not.

>>

>> I mean, all this knowledge of yours *has* to be worth *something*,

>> right?

>> There is so much evidence, that you have to be able to get *anyone*

>> to agree with it.

> ---Right now, you have spent about fifteen to twenty minutes

> explaining to me

not to you, Matt, to me. You didn't hear it, did you?

> why nothing I've said so far has had any impact on your thinking or my

> thinking or anyone else's thinking. We are not " doing " anything yet

> you give

> me power over you every time you type a word to a response to me, and

> I give

> you power over me when I respond to that.

And I don't experience the power you give me, nor the power you have

over me.

And I may have said just that because of the power you gave me.

> I have reduced you to taunting

> me, you have reduced me to spending way too much time explaining

> myself. All

> this came about from a post I sent to this list, that wasn't directed

> to you

> but you responded to any way. I did something, and you responded to

> it, and

> now the archives on this list have our " debate " permanently recorded.

> All

> these things happened, and are happening right now. If you think it's

> all

> predetermined, if you believe everything is cut in stone and will

> happen

> anyway whether you act on it or not...if you believe that being right

> takes

> the place of wisdom...then everything you say makes sense to me in

> that

> context, until I compare it to my model of the world where there is

> cause

> and effect and constant change that is accomplished every day just by

> experiencing Life and taking responsibility for yourself in what

> you're

> " doing " and " not-doing " and I just...laugh.

Good for you that you laugh!

And I never said anything about predetermination - it may be a useful

concept for some people.

And I haven't said anything about cause and effect - that may be a

useful concept for some people, too.

I invited to investigate how one's actions in one's life had *ever*

changed anything.

Don't hear from me that no one should do anything.

And I don't invite you, I don't invite me, I invite *everyone* who may

read this.

And of course everyone is free to accept it, or not.

And I will do that until I don't need to hear it anymore.

I feel I can take care off my thinking and only my thinking.

And that may be an illusion.

Who cares?

Not me, as long as it works for me.

>>>>> >>> > But what's obvious to me is that their " insight " comes to

>>>>> them

>>>>> >>> through the same

>>>>> >>> > mechanism we all use to understand Life. In the " spilt

>>>>> brain "

>>>>> >>> experiments of

>>>>> >>> > Sperry, the mechanism we use to comprehend our world is

>>>>> revealed

>>>>> >>> for all its

>>>>> >>> > inconsistencies and flaws. The two spheres collude with

>>>>> one

>>>>> >>> another to

>>>>> >>> > " explain " what they see, and they don't care if they lie

>>>>> about

>>>>> >>> it. In the

>>>>> >>> > middle of this deception, the conscious " I " thinks it's

>>>>> doing

>>>>> >>> all this

>>>>> >>> > " naming " unassisted, so nothing is really accounting for

>>>>> its

>>>>> >>> > collaborative facets.

>>>> >> Ok. I would not call it " deception " , but then, why not?

>>> > ---It's called a " deception " in my private dictionary,

>> Yes, I heard that.

> ---Excellent.

>

>>> > because the facts can

>>> > never be analyzed without the influence of deletions,

>>> distortions and

>>> > generalizations, but we keep trying any way. On the one hand this

>>> is

>>> > pointed out to us daily, and dabbled with here...yet people go

>>> right

>>> > on plodding

>>> > through the morass of linguistics armed with the same

>>> assumptions and

>>> > misunderstandings even as they announce that they aren't bound

>>> by them and

>>> > have elevated themselves above that fray. You and I know that

>>> language is a

>>> > flawed medium, yet we still use it to describe our thoughts

>>> about reality

>>> > and a place where language isn't confusing the issue all the

>>> time, even as

>>> > we talk about an abstraction like " clarity " as if it were a

>>> noun. If you

>>> > know better, and keep on doing it, that is a deception, of the

>>> self and all

>>> > those who continue to play that game and still claim to " love

>>> what

>>> > is " while struggling against its imperfections with words.

>> Didn't deception have something to do with neglecting?

>> Is it " not wanting to see what I know is true " or " not being able to

>> see what is true " ?

>> Maybe that's why I wouldn't call it deception: I am not sure what it

>> means ;-)

> ---I thought you " heard " that I have another dictionary than you do,

> the

> Oxford English one, not 's Dictionary.

> Can you show me a flaw? The orange-apple thing did not convince me.

> ---What flaw? I thought we were talking about reality? Cripes

> keep up dude.

I am curious, didn't you say in perception of reality there were

deletions, distortions, etc., and flaws of language?

And I ask you to be as explicit as you can be, so it is easier for me

to investigate.

>>>>> >>> > In the midst of all this deception and collusion, some

>>>>> people say " I

>>>>> >>> > have clarity " now. And I have to tell them " You have a

>>>>> point in your journey

>>>>> >>> > that you can call clarity today, but tomorrow it will

>>>>> evolve into something

>>>>> >>> > else otherwise you just have religion " .

>>>>> >>> > " The Work " , could very easily degrade into a religion. It

>>>>> >>> > happens....if you let it.

>>>> >> What's the difference between clarity and religion?

>>>> >> To me, religion is believing without knowing, whereas clarity

>>>> is

>>>> >> believing only what is true (in my perception). And there

>>>> doesn't

>>>> >> seem to be a lot of what I can know for sure. And there seems

>>>> to be

>>>> >> a lot you know. So I don't see that you have a religion. You

>>>> seem to

>>>> >> know what is true, and that looks like clarity to

>>>> >> me, whatever your doctors call it, and whatever proofs they

>>>> have for

>>>> >> that.

>>> > ---If you are stuck in the " trance " that religion is clarity,

>>> there

>>> > is no

>>> > difference. A person can be an advocate of " The Work " , and even

>>> in a

>>> > sea of

>>> > chronic inquiry believe that only , and the four questions,

>>> can

>>> > define

>>> > the essence of Life. There is no other process, or strategy, or

>>> > philosophy

>>> > that can enhance that, or help one grow.

>> Although herself says otherwise, as you know.

>>> > I see this happen a lot. People

>>> > latch on to something that is a " self help " strategy designed to

>>> make

>>> > you " free " , and become bound to it, use it as a weapon to win

>>> arguments

>>> > not personally evolve, use it as a tool to avoid not confront and

>>> learn

>>> > from...and in their trance of " I'm getting this " , they have no

>>> idea that

>>> > they're not. That is the function of " religion " , to satisfy,

>>> placate and

>>> > avoid. Do you know anyone who does that with " The Work " ?

>> I don't see anything wrong in it. Use it, if it serves you. That goes

>> for *anything*, even for the work.

>> When children play, who *cares* if they know it's only a game? They

>> look so happy!

>> Tell them about war and death, if they ask, but why bother if they

>> don't?

>> And I am not saying that you should deceive them and hide things you

>> think of as uncomfortable. Or do it, whatever feels right.

> ---There are people in this world that avoid things, and people who

> confront

> them.

No. There is people who do things that you would do different.

And you call it avoiding.

An avoiding *is* a confronting something else.

> The former learn how to be weak and helpless and driven to places they

> may not want to go passively and like sheep, the latter learn how to

> create

> their own space on their own terms and make their own peace with

> reality.

> Each are a valid citizen of the city of " What is " . If I am going to

> work

> myself up enough to confront reality and all that it is, and achieve

> understanding and growth in the process and find my strength there,

> then

> that's the model of my expectations through " The Work " and that's

> what I

> gravitate towards in my conversations about it, that's the standard

> that I

> seek in others to learn from and share by.

And this is not a description of reality. It is a description of your

world.

> ---If all anyone is doing here is creating a giant excuse for their

> own

> inability to take charge of themselves and live, I tend to avoid that

> sort

> of state of mind. " The Work " is not an excuse in my book, for doing

> nothing...nor do I have a lot of time for people who think that way.

Really? Looks like a lot of time you spent here, already.

And I hear what you are saying.

Has an intersting turnaround, if you want to know the truth. ;-)

> That's

> a choice I've made...something I've learned by asking questions and

> getting

> answers and opting to be a human being that responds to challenges in

> the

> environment with creativity and art, not like a mushroom sucking up

> shit and

> loving the darkness, and calling that enlightenment. That's what I do

> with

> what I learn from Inquirey, I change the things I can, and make the

> best of

> the things I can't....but I don't " do nothing " .

Dear group,

What I hear from Matt, is that he differentiates passive from active

people, and that he feels different in the presence of the different

groups.

Now, the question is: can I find that in myself?

And when I found it, I can go and ask: he is passive. - Is that true?

(Even only in that specific situation I found) - Can I really know

that?

I picted it out, because it looks like a " big one " to me.

Comments or thoughts on that?

Matt,

I apologize to you for speaking to the group about you here. I have the

thought that you may not like it.

I use you only for my realization. And I think you knew that.

>> So you found a way to see past these distorsion's? Or Alfred did?

> ---No, I factor distortions into my perceptual reality, acknowledge

> they're

> there, and build my stories and expectations on that observed

> limitation of

> the tool I use to understand my world with. What Alfred Korsybsky did

> was

> spark a whole school of thought generated around the phenomena of

> linguistics. He is associated with the phrase " The map is not the

> territory " . In other words, the tools we use to describe or explain

> " reality " , are never reality itself, just a map of it.

Yes, and what we see, is a map, too. A map of our thoughts.

> That's why when

> people here say they know " the truth " , or they know " what's real " , I

> remember the thing telling them that (their brain) can only create a

> facsimile of those realities within its own margins of understanding,

> and

> because of the mechanisms in it that make it work, it can never

> reveal to

> anyone beyond the context of sensory experience...what it's trying to

> describe from experience itself.

So, everyone can experience " the truth " , and no one can " show " it to

someone else?

So no one will ever know if others experiences " the truth " or not?

> ---This is what I've read and observed, but can never know if it's

> " true " ,

> simply because the mechanism I understand that concept with is driven

> by

> deletions, distortions and generalizations that are demonstrated in

> the

> words I use to describe things. The " flaw " if you will, is there in

> the

> thing itself...a " flaw " , until I step back and accept it as a part of

> what

> is " real " in my perceptual field of understanding. Beyond that,

> neither you

> or I can discuss things without deluding ourselves into thinking the

> mechanism that understands all this, can magically overcome its

> biological

> limitations and do what it was never designed to do...otherwise we

> would

> simply be mushrooms, sitting astound in the dark while everything else

> evolves around us (something some of us opt for anyway, but I will

> pass

> on...at least until dementia sets in and my body leaves me no

> choice). Our

> biological systems thrive on challenges, destruction of old things and

> building of the new on that destroyed ground...something that happens

> even

> at the level of our cells and their base nucleus. Even a corpse is

> " doing

> something " .

I am confused... haven't you said that mushrooms don't?

>>> > You can bask in your revelations due to Inquiry, and like Brigham

>>> > Young declare " This is the place " , but in the end the lesson you

>>> > discover there even as you declare it otherwise, is never

>>> complete or

>>> > exact...there's always more to it.

>> Definetly. It's a lifetimes work. But why bother about " enlightement "

>> for eternity? Can I just get it *now*?

> ---Sure you can. If you're satisfied with that. Are you satisfied

> with that?

Good question. It's as much as I can get.

> Then just declare it, and " have it now " . If no " little voice " pops in

> there

> and whispers " , you're not ready " , then you've got it dude. The

> mind is

> a neat little tool that can be convinced of anything even if new data

> comes

> along to refute it. (Just look at our political parties). It's easy,

> just

> declare it, keep telling yourself it's so and pretty soon you'll be

> convinced. Believe me, it's just as good if not better, that

> following the

> story about " it's hard to be enlightened and takes a lot of time to

> get

> there " . At any point we can all say " This is the place " , and the

> journey is

> over...until you finally realize it's not, and then you have to start

> declaring all over again, with new stipulations.

Or not.

>>> > That ends, only when you die, not after you ask yourself

>>> > the four questions. The four questions only peel back the onion

>>> one

>>> > more

>>> > layer, and if you stop there...don't think you understand the

>>> nature

>>> > of the

>>> > onion.

>> I didn't say: stop. " to be stuck in perfection still is being stuck. "

>> (quote of , isn't it?)

>> I said that you can experience peace and stillness within yourself.

>> And

>> the work is far from being *the* way. Now, the work is that way that

>> is

>> most discussed in this lwi-group, of course.

> ---And once again I reiterate to you that you can declare " This is the

> place " anywhere along that journey, and you can be exactly

> right...until

> death shows you another finality, that doesn't change with new data,

> new

> experiences, new input.

Let's see about that when death came.

>>>> >> And, yes, " what is " is not doing anything. That's my

>>>> experience, too.

>>> > ---I don't think I said " What is " is doing nothing. But I can

>>> see where you

>>> > might draw that conclusion. To be able to even grasp " What is " ,

>>> you have to

>>> > shape that concept with stories that define a facsimile...and

>>> due to the

>>> > nature of the " tool " that does the shaping, you will always be

>>> wrong. The

>>> > act of being wrong, can be described as " doing something " .

>> Matt, " what is " is slapped into my face so many times a day I can't

>> even count them! What is hard to grasp about that?

>> I'm right, you're wrong, I am too fat, you are too pale, he is too

>> tall, she is too ... anything. That *is* reality. Sometimes.

>> And to peel the relality-onion is " undoing " . A term I heard first

>> from

>> Castañedas " Don " . Most spiritual book I ever read! With

>> great insights!

> ---And you were making fun of me getting " wisdom' from a book.

No, I wasn't! ;-)

> To type the

> word " undoing " with quotes it took nine key strokes, and another

> second or

> two to count them to make my point. To talk about " undoing " I had to

> " do "

> something. I like Castañedas and my Mexican neighbors still use

> medicines taught them by " Don 's " where they come from. There are

> millions of them, literally. But I am not ready to sit here with you

> an say

> that " reality " can be defined through chemical inducement and altered

> states. That's like having someone explain to you this really cool

> theory of

> worm holes after he's taken some huge tokes off a very large bong. I

> know

> the story of Castañedas,

I was conviced you do. Then you also know that Don doesn't stop at

hallucinogenics (or chemistry), and regards them as useful for getting

free from strict concepts,

and teaches much more that just that.

I don't think we have to discuss that further, though.

> I also know the story of cognitive science,

> hypnosis and altered states. I choose the latter to define the

> boundaries of

> my reality, mainly because my psychiatric condition distorts reality

> enough

> for me...

Would you care to tell about how it does that?

> I don't need a chew of peyote to make it any worse. I am not

> interested in being " spiritual " , I am interested in being sane. Meet

> me at

> that cross road.

;-)

>>>>> >>> > In the mean time...I am a story, and so are you...and

>>>>> there's

>>>>> >>> > nothing real about either of them or us. You are either

>>>>> >>> " someone " , or

>>>>> >>> > you are " dead " .

>>>> >> And sometimes we don't even let people die, but insist that

>>>> they stil

>>>> >> are " someone " , don't we?

>>> > ---Yes we do. That's how we understand and talk about who's died.

>> And I hear that some people feel they are still around, with their

>> spirits present in the house.

> ---Happy Halloween.

>> It's like: " I lost my father. I need God to tell me where he is, and

>> that he is fine there " . Can be a very stressful thought for some

>> people.

>> Then we may find out the answer: there he is, in that urn on my

>> bookshelf! Thank God, I thought I lost him!

>> Can be a relief for some.

> ---Part of my " disability " , is that my head feels like a radio

> receiver and

> I hear voices talking all the time...not to me, to each other. This

> was a

> " problem " for me until I discovered quantum theory, and merged it

> with what

> I know about cognitive science, and " non-local " awareness. I'm just

> going

> off the top of my head now but I think the guys name was Buchanan, who

> postulated a theory about the nature of brain cells being capable of

> receiving and sending signals in extremely low frequencies due to

> their

> shape, biochemistry and water containment. My psychiatrist just

> nodded and

> wrote me a prescription when I told him that. But because of my own

> involvement with " non-local " experience, I am not entirely uncertain

> whatever left their father at his moment of death is not " alive " in

> another

> form and watching over them and their family. Then again, there is the

> obvious fact staring at us of that urn. I can live with that too.

> That urn

> is pretty substantive, and a lot more real than quantum theory.

>> I hear you. And to me it sounds like: if we didn't run, we could

>> never

>> get back home.

> ---I couldn't have said that better.

>

>> Sorry, Matt, I didn't mean to correct you. Sometimes I am a hard

>> case,

>> so I like reflecting over what you say, so I know I got it.

>> And only when I say it in my words, and get you to approve of that, I

>> can know if I got you wrong.

> ---All right then, I " get " reflection.

>

>> Yes, you talk a lot about generalities, and I never experienced a

>> generality. I can work better, when given concrete examples.

>> Like: " My wife looks sad, when I hang on to the computer on those

>> stupid mailing lists. And she doesn't say anything about it, and

>> doesn't try to change it, so it may be her way to get the world

>> turning. Her way to happiness " , or something like that.

> ---I just counted five generalities there, and a lot of mind reading.

> " My

> wife looks sad " (what does " looking sad " look like, and how are you

> sure

> you're seeing " sad " , it can be so many other things?) " Those stupid

> mailing

> lists " , (what mailing lists are " stupid " , and how do you know they're

> " stupid " , can you tell them from the " smart " ones?) " And she doesn't

> say

> anything about it " , (About what, the " stupid lists " or " hanging on to

> the

> computer " ?) " She doesn't try to change it " , (change what, " the

> hanging on to

> the computer " or the " stupid lists " ?). What does it mean to " get the

> world

> turning " ?

Yes, those are generalitites, and I attach explicit thoughts to that.

Feelings come up when I say " my wife looks sad " . Feelings I can

experience.

They are quite permament, better as when I say " people look sad " -

can't picture that one, can't even put a face on them - actually I can,

like the face of my wife - but then I am back at the original sentence.

> Your example is rife with generalities because that's the nature

> of cognition and the language we create to express experience. In the

> end I

> come away with a general meaning of what you've said, and I

> understand that

> your wife gets just as annoyed at you with the time you spend on

> mailing

> lists as mine does. But nothing you said made that any clearer to me,

> I

> filled in the blanks with my own understanding of your generalities.

exactly.

I am having trouble filling in the blanks when talk gets " too " general.

> In linguistics I believe that's called " transderivational searching " ,

> the

> attempt to find meaning in things through comparisons of personal

> experience.

>

>>>> >>> > Some people are chewed up by their

>>>> >>> > addictions until they're rotten shells of what they once

>>>> were,

>>>> >>> but

>>>> >>> > still insist the moment their addiction has them they're

>>>> happy.

>>>> >> Same thing, they may be living *your* nightmare, not theirs.

>>> > ---I don't give a shit if it's my nightmare or theirs . Try

>>> to

>>> > get my

>>> > point here before you do the " My version of something " versus

>>> " Someone

>>> > else's " circle jerk. That way you can focus on what I'm saying,

>>> not

>>> > what

>>> > you're thinking because you want to corect me first, and get my

>>> point

>>> > second. ate.

>> Ok. Show me how. ;-)

> ---I'll " tell " you how, and then you can decide if I'm " showing " you

> on your

> own. Read first what I'm saying with your inner voice silent for a

> moment,

> then with what you understand so far let your own ideas reshape what

> you

> thought you read into what you think you understand about it.

>

>> By the way, I don't give a shit about your nightmares, either.

> ---That's good, because if you did you wouldn't be able to sleep

> nights, not

> one moment of nocturnal sleep...ever. And there would be no dark

> place in

> your home that wouldn't be occupied by some demon or another. You can

> trust

> me on that.

>>>>> >>> > I think " lasting happiness " would come from a

>>>>> consciousness Ok

>>>>> >>> with

>>>>> >>> > feeling shitty, sad,

>>>>> >>> > depressed and hopeless.

>>>> >> Well, it may not see it as shitty, sad, depressed and hopeless.

>>> > ---Yeah, yeah...so what? In " Consciousness 101 " that's the first

>>> > lesson in

>>> > the book , and I believe it is a consensus. Perceptual

>>> reality is

>>> > relative, but language has no real way of attending to that in

>>> the

>>> > explanation unless you just want to be argumentative...and

>>> frankly I

>>> > don't

>>> > have time for that. I don't care what

>> Yes, I hear that. It's not very hard to hear what you don't care

>> about. Thank you.

> ---I was beginning to doubt that was true. Let's see if it holds up to

> reality.

>

>> I am not saying: take pain, and call it freedom. Tada: see, you're

>> happy!

> ---Let me appraise you of something else I don't care about. I don't

> care if

> you don't understand anything I've said here even though I've spent a

> lot of

> time explaining to you what I mean. What I've done is hone and

> reaffirm what

> I know right now for myself, and I am reasonably satisfied that you

> don't

> present a completely viable alternative to that. That doesn't mean

> that I'm

> right and you're wrong, it's just that statements like " Tada: see

> you're

> happy! " sound very much like I've been talking to some recalcitrant

> teenager

> here...and I hope that's not your best shot dude.

Let me quote what I said differently:

>> I am not saying: " take pain, and call it freedom. Tada: see, you're

>> happy! "

makes more sense?

>>> > a person sees as " shitty, sad,

>>> > depressed and hopeless " as opposed to my own view of that, my

>>> point

>>> > is that

>>> > those things can exist in someone's life as something else...a

>>> > version of

>>> > the same concept you offer as an embellishment or counter

>>> argument,

>>> > and it

>>> > comes off as neither. We are talking about the same thing, but

>>> you

>>> > keep

>>> > trying to correct my version of it. Relax, and read what I'm

>>> writing

>>> > and

>>> > then think before you respond so we're not just screwing around

>>> here

>>> > in a

>>> > pissing contest.

>> Matt, I don't see you as jerking off, or pissing around, or screwing,

>> or whatever you would like to call it.

> ---I guess you're the only one doing those things then. I stand

> corrected...LOL!

Thank you ;-)

>>>>> >>> > If you can incorporate that into something greater

>>>>> >>> > than boxes marked " happy " and " sad " , whatever comes out

>>>>> of that

>>>>> >>> mix

>>>>> >>> > has to

>>>>> >>> > be " true and lasting " .

>>>> >> Could you give an example?

>>> > ---Yes I can.

>>> > ---What I discover here on this list is a whole lot of people all

>>> > involved

>>> > in " me " . Even when I'm talking about you I'm talking about me,

>>> and

>>> > when

>>> > you're talking about me you're talking about you. I guess we get

>>> so

>>> > distracted by that we end up busting each other for it...with a

>>> sort

>>> > of

>>> > " aha " , like two old men snapping each other with a wet towel in

>>> the

>>> > shower

>>> > at the rest home. I think, I don't know but I think, that real

>>> > " freedom " , is

>>> > simply letting everything alone and just being in it all.

>> Yes.

> ---I also believe that " freedom " is not a ticket to " do nothing " . Do

> you agree with that?

Yes I do. Isn't that what we have been talking about for the last weeks

or something?

>>> > This " state " of

>>> > just " being in it all " is more " true and lasting " , than our

>>> attempts

>>> > to

>>> > define and understand it. Our definitions change as we evolve,

>>> and

>>> > what's

>>> > real about that is only what we observe...when we name what we're

>>> > experiencing we only create imperfect snap shots of it.

>> You could be right.

> ---I am right.

>

>>> > ---If this list, to a person, suddenly really understood what it

>>> > means to

>>> > " Love What Is " , and then did it, all at once...no one would post

>>> > anything

>>> > and we would be confronted by the resounding silence of

>>> " knowing " .

>>> > Our words

>>> > would all scatter like birds from a tree top, and glide away

>>> into the

>>> > world

>>> > to find their own nests, and pockets of simply " being " . This

>>> part of

>>> > what

>>> > we're trying to be about here, transcends words, transcends our

>>> > perceptions

>>> > of what the words mean, and becomes a single " something " we can

>>> all

>>> > stand

>>> > around and describe like we're telling about what it is in a

>>> unique

>>> > and

>>> > different way, but we're not. The answer to all this can only be

>>> > " silence " ,

>>> > and to struggle against the silence is also a part of the

>>> reality that

>>> > plagues human beings...it's is a part of " What's real " . This

>>> part of

>>> > what we

>>> > are here, this illusive, ghostly part...unnamed and misunderstood

>>> > completely

>>> > and gloriously, that is " true and ever lasting " .

>> Yes, again.

> ---Yes what?

Yes, You're right.

>>> > ---Now, I need to get something done today...and that's what I'm

>>> > going to do next.

>> Good for you! :-)

> ---Good for me? I'm getting ready to oil my front deck. What are you

> doing

> right now? I can guess...just like me some thirty minutes

> ago...writing to

> another " stupid mailing list " . We're hopeless , forever doomed to

> be

> haunted by those " sad looks " as you put it, but once in a while my

> wife says

> " Get up and do something asshole! " , and my trance is broken and I

> become

> useful once more...for a little while anyway.

;-)

> ---Have a good day today dude. And thanks for the challenges and new

> information. I value your observations, they change things.

You're welcome, Matt

And thank you.

Love,

October 29, 2004

Hi,

Am 27.10.2004 um 19:43 schrieb Matt Lamoreux:

>> Dear Matt,

>> what you say is beginning to make sense to me...

> ---I'm sorry.

Don't be.

>>>>> >>> > ---I'm " steering " you aren't I?

>>>> >> Oh Matt, of course you are.

>>>> >> And you are doing that so well, that I am not even aware of

>>>> it. And

>>>> >> all the

>>>> >> time you exactly knew where I was going. How lovely.

>>> > ---I wouldn't call it " lovely " . Personally I'd be embarrassed.

>> Embarrasement comes from fear, and like fear, needs a future.

> ---All my " embarrassment " needs is an icedent that embarrasses me. If

> I'm

> embarrassing myself " in the future " then I just haven't allocated my

> time

> properly and don't have enough to do.

So choose to be embarrased, if you think it serves you.

When I see that I was wrong, I get excited! A whole new world appears!

Embarrasement now actually doesn't need future, it does need a past. It

comes from an " I should have ... different " . As far as I can see. And

if you can see more from where you are, feel free to point it out at

me.

>>> > But that's an

>>> > individual perceptual choice, and actually, it can't be helped

>>> if you

>>> > think

>>> > about it. Wolysnky sort of spelled the process out in

>>> " Trances

>>> > People Live " . Everyone is consciously or unconsciously steering

>>> > everyone

>>> > else, a fundamental of basic communication. As far as knowing

>>> > " exactly "

>>> > where you are going " , I think you know that's a farce, because

>>> you

>>> > don't

>>> > even have the answer to whatever " exact " direction you're

>>> headed, and

>>> > you're

>>> > supposed to be the driver of your own bus...I hope.

>> You know, Matt... you may be right with everything you say. Like I am

>> sitting in the driver's seat of my life.

>> All of this is not about saying that I am not. I understand it can be

>> heard this way. I can hear it that way, and I used to hear it that

>> way. And

>> if I had to guess, I'd say that you think you do know that you're

>> right.

>> I am not saying that you're not.

>> I use the work to investigate my thinking... Only because something

>> is

>> a certain way, it doesn't mean I can not inquire it.

>> " I have to take responsibility " - Is that true? Well, yes! Of course

>> it

>> is!

>> Good.

> ---Good (?).

The right answer is the one you give to yourself. There's no wrong

answer. Any answer is good.

>> And who are *you*, how do you treat people who don't agree with that

>> story, who have a different story? How do you react, when you

>> experience something that doesn't go along with that story?

> ---If it doesn't resonate with what I know now, I might reject it

> unless it keeps fluttering against the window pane, and then at some

> point I might

> notice I like the pattern on the wings of that butterfly. I may not

> always acknowledge the source, but eventually I notice it integrating

> into my new,

> evolved, perceptual field. This is what has always happened to me in

> the past, and I have no reason to expect that it won't happen to me in

> the

> future. I believe...to love change, is to love what's real.

So you have this big perceptual field and you keep watching how it

becomes bigger and bigger, evolving?

Sounds beautiful.

I wonder if the point won't come when so many integrated in it, that

nothing else will fit anymore. If such a point could come, wouldn't I

reject everything that's not in it?

And who are *you*, how do you treat people who don't agree with your

story? How does " rejecting it " look like when it comes to people?

>> And who would you be - in that same situation - if you did not have

>> that story (true or not?)? How would you treat these same people? How

>> would you live your life?

> ---There would be another story to replace the first one, even if

> that replacement story simply stated that I was using stories to

> understand my

> world (tisk tisk). I can't help it, it's how my brain is made.

It's a good answer, and it is a theory.

And who would *you* be? How would you treat them?

>> So, what is the difference between these two stories? (story and

>> " anti " -story) Which one feels kinder, more comfortable?

> ---I'm feeling them right now, hmmm. I don't know, they both feel

> like stories to me. They don't need to be " kinder " or " more

> comfortable " , they

> just need to be themselves, I " Love what is " .

So it doesn't matter wich one you believe?

>> Now, when I see wich one is more comfortable, I will always choose

>> that one. I can't *make* me belief the other one anymore. Unless I

>> still

>> have a reason to hold onto it, wich is more valuable to me than the

>> comfort I experience with the other one.

> ---That is what I call a " reasonable criterion " . Mine is a little

> different. I pick the story from which I will learn the most from,

> whether it's

> " comfortable " or not. That's the one that will give me " peace " ...my

> guess is.

And what does peace give you? comfort or discomfort?

>> That's why I don't see a choice.

> ---Ok , (as I sit here reading your multiplexing of choice making

> as you explain to me why you don’t choose anything) But then, that

> negative

> hallucination you live with is " what's real " (sigh) and " what is " .

" I have to make a choice " is very heavy upon me. " I don't have to make

a choice " feels much lighter.

Of course I can't know wich one is true.

It's both a dream! So wich one shall I " choose " ?

I think I take the " light " one.

>> Now, if the original story hurt, or gave discomfort in *any* way,

>> there has to be one, that states something different. Because

>> " suffering "

>> means wanting two things at the same time. If you find an example

>> that shows something different, I would really like to hear that. And

>> that's

>> where the turnaround comes in.

> ---Does there have to be a story " that states something different? " I

> don't know that this is true.

Stories exist in duality. So, ... yes! You can negate *any* story.

> A dictionary defines it as, [suffering?]

A dictionary is a book someone wrote.

> " To tolerate or endure evil, injury, pain, or death " . To suffer is to

> " tolerate " painful things.

Yes. At the same time it is to avoid something that *may* be more

painful. And I haven't found a thing yet, that is more painful that

" suffering " .

> I could have a choice when it comes to tolerating " evil, injury or

> pain " , but as far as I'm concerned I must " tolerate death " .

" tolerate " as " acknowledge " ? You must tolearte anything that is true.

> What this points out to me

> then, is that " reality " is not simply contained in the context of

> " four questions " or any set of rules we can employ here. In it’s

> natural state it

> is more chaotic than that. It has no rules, it has no doctrine, it

> has no Katism to define and congeal it into simple, rational, leaden

> forms. To

> " love what's real " I would think, is to love the probability that

> your theory about what's real is " all wet " , and part of the process of

> realizing

> that could be the act of letting go of all the control energy it must

> take to try to formulize reality which in its natural state is

> chaotic...until we

> try to give it order...with our stories.

And what do you get for this? Chaos, I hear. Pain, I hear.

I don't do theory, Matt. And I don't want to control.

>> Now, all of this " realization " is worthless, if I don't start to

>> *live* the turnaround, because up to that point, it is mere theory.

>> And to live it, means to tell others, to make amends, whatever.

> ---Ow, this is really a shit load of rules here and I'm starting

> to get psychologically constipated trying to follow them.

Well, then I suggest you stop trying.

> I'm not sure there are any " have to's " connected to reality except the

> act of getting old and then dying,

Well, dying can save your ego from getting old. " The only 'have to's'

are paing taxes and dying " , my father used to say.

> and even those things are relative with a slight attitude adjustment.

> What your " theory " feels like to me is dogma, that is personalized. I

> can

> see a situation where someone can realize something, but chose not to

> live it or even acknowledge it. But the " truth " revealed there doesn't

> go away

> because it wasn't " lived " .

And what is that " truth " worth, if it isn't lived?

When your cage is open, what does it serve you to know you could live

liberty? As long as you don't take that step?

> I believe the only thing that can be happening right now, is that you

> are being , as is presented to me and to the world, and is

> created by .

What you can see is how I am " presented " to you. And as soon as you see

me, you start putting your stories on me. No matter what the world

does.

That would be *your* stories. And that's the only thing that can

happen. Another story.

That's my experience, too.

> I don't expect you to proselytize your dogma to give it meaning, it is

> the story you've written to understand yourself...that's all. You have

> the right to change it to meet your personal evolutionary needs, but

> you don't have the obligation to make sure everyone else understands

> it. At least you're not obligated to me.

Matt, try to use simple words when speaking to me.

And what you say here, is my experience, as well.

>>> > I understand " what is " enough to know there is nothing " exact "

>>> about reality, and I understand people enough to know that they

>>> wouldn't know " exact " if it hit them in the ass this morning. That's

>>> not " lovely " , it's just the way it is, a fact that constantly

>>> supports itself in the minds of anyone paying attention...and

>>> comprehending what they read or otherwise experience in real

>>> time...right here...with me.

>> Matt, I can't know you. That's just not my experience.

> ---Are you talking about in the Biblical sense, because if you are

> not " knowing " me is a big ten-four.

What " biblical sense " ? What's a " ten-four " ?

>> I thought I knew people. I knew what they did, why they did it, what

>> they thought, and, of course, what they *really* wanted, needed, or

>> had to do. And there wasn't much peace in that.

> ---All I expect you to understand about my statement in the paragraph

> you're commenting on is that so many times we " think " we hear

> something, and then launch into this " thing " about what we thought we

> heard. There's no " error " or " sin " in that, because in the end we can

> only respond to what we think we hear the other person say.

Yes, I do.

> There are ways we can mitigate

" mitigate " ?

> that with a little more effort than labeling it " lovely " . We can ask

> for clarification. We can thrash around until we find a place where

> both parties can say they have " an understanding " or like Ari...we can

> just " get sick " . But if we want people to take the time to honor our

> attempts at trying to communicate things that are important to us...we

> need to give them something more than " lovely " . And that's my story

> about mutual respect, and coming to agreements on complex, but

> important things.

Matt, I neither want you respect, nor your honoring me.

And If I give you something, and don't welcome *every* reaction of

yours, it is because I wanted something, and I didn't get it.

I don't expect any reaction from you, so I don't need to give you

anything else than what I am giving you. Even a " lovely " would do it.

>>>>> >>> > it just demonstrates that you're not paying attention to

>>>>> yourself.

>>>> >> Thank you for letting me notice.

>>> > ---Will you pay attention to yourself or just " notice " ?

>> not your buisness. And not even mine.

>> Did you ever *make* you pay attention, when you couldn't?

> ---It is my business to know if you're paying attention or just

> noticing.

Ok. So it is your buisness to know.

How is it possible for you to know anything about me? Whatever I tell

you, it may be true, it may be a lie. It may be true now, but not

tomorrow. I may say the truth, and you don't believe it.

> It helps me decide if I'm just wasting my time.

Now, *that* may be your buisness. How you " waste " your time. Will you

expect *me* to listen? Or will you listen yourself? If what you are

saying is *so* valuable that I should listen to it, why don't *you*

listen? Or do you?

> Yes, there was a time when my situation " made " me pay attention when

> everything else wanted me to simply mentally go away, and that was in

> a war zone when if I had my head up my as for any reason, I was

> probably going to die.

You didn't have to. You wanted something. You wanted to live. And of

course it is worthless to you when I say it. And I hear you *could* pay

attention. You lived. This will probably just sound " smart " -ass to you,

anyway.

> Sometimes there are things outside a war time experience that call on

> us to have that kind of concentration, that kind of focus, like life

> for instance...a condition from which no one gets out alive.

And can you *make* yourself pay attention, when you don't?

Is there a situation in your life, when you did not pay attention,

although you could have?

And can you really know you could have?

>> > ---My impression of your stance on this is that " choice " is

>> really something " after the fact " .

Yes.

>> You take the apple that looks redder, bigger, etc. instead of the

>> other one that doesn't look as tasty, and then you tell yourself the

>> story of how you had something to do with it.

> ---Here's the mechanism that causes that sort of thing ,

> Sperry exposed it in his " split brain " experiments. One brain

> hemisphere experiences, the other " tells the story " about what the

> experience means, but a third entity, the " self " , claims

> responsibility for the result as if nothing else had a hand in it.

> This mixed up and complex dynamic is the result of a shit storm of

> choices made from the level of the cell on up to higher functions of

> our biological systems.

Sounds cool.

> Some of those " decisions " may be coercive, but they are still

> decisions, still choices. This is a little more complex that what

> rates an " Of course you can " .

Ok.

>>>>> > > ---Right now, you have spent about fifteen to twenty minutes

>>>>> > > explaining to me

>>>> > not to you, Matt, to me. You didn't hear it, did you?

>>> > ---If that's the case, why didn't' you just keep it to yourself?

>> I wrote it, so I could read it. Kept to myself, every insight is

>> worthless.

> ---Arrrgh, more rules!

You don't like rules, do you? And, see above.

>> I have to say it, so I can hear it, and you have to say it, so I can

>> hear it.

> ---If I didn't respond to this, would you still understand what I've

> said about it with my " not saying " ? Let's see.

If you don't say it, it's because I don't have to hear it.

>>>>> > > why nothing I've said so far has had any impact on your

>>>>> thinking or my

>>>>> > > thinking or anyone else's thinking. We are not " doing "

>>>>> anything yet

>>>>> > > you give me power over you every time you type a word to a

>>>>> response to me, and

>>>>> > > I give you power over me when I respond to that.

>>>> > And I don't experience the power you give me, nor the power you

>>>> have

>>>> > over me. And I may have said just that because of the power you

>>>> gave me.

>>> > ---What power? I forgot what we were talking about.

>> About the powers we give each other, although we are not " doing "

>> anything.

> ---Ah yes, 's story about " doing " again, as " does " something

> explaining to Matt why he's " not doing " anything.

Not " not doing " , not having anything to do with his doing. And maybe

you have. It's just:

" I don't know if I have anything to do with my doing. I notice I do

things. I notice I get up in the morning. And it feels much " easier " ,

more " freely " to go to work without having the thought " I have to " " .

And I think this arose out of the discussion about " choice " .

>>> ---There is someone, who sits in your chair, lives where you live,

>>> owns a computer that connects to a list about " Loving what is " , who

>>> types on a keyboard rearranging bits and bytes, and glowing

>>> phosphors " changing things " and is confused about whether " actions

>>> in one's life have ever changed anything " .

>> You use my " confusion " quite often. I don't think that we mean the

>> same thing here.

> ---I mean what I mean when I say " confusion " .

Now, that's wisdom!

> You're the guy who has the unique (to me) viewpoints concerning the

> act of doing. To me doing is a no-brainer.

Yes, it is! What a simple way to say it!

> I'm not confused about that.

>>> From where I'm sitting that's a huge disconnect. Of course. It

>>> happens...and that's what's real, but is this warrior properly armed

>>> in a quest to explore the possibilities of reality, when a huge

>>> chunk of it slips by them and they " don't care " ? It makes me wonder

>>> about how serious you are about this subject. Oh I'll debate it with

>>> you sure, but in the end shall we let it all drift off into " that's

>>> your belief, this is my belief " and that's what we've accomplished

>>> here, to restate the obvious? And then we both nod sagely to one

>>> another and depart...like a bad Bruce Lee movie? Can you hear me

>>> yawning?

>> I can hear that you like yawning.

> ---Because I do something, doesn't mean I " like " it.

Oh, ok.

> See how we fill in the blanks sometimes...with erroneous material?

> That's like my wife saying I " like " shouting. I don't like shouting,

> it's just that that's what I resort to when I think people don’t hear

> me. It's counter productive, I should wean myself of it some day.

Your wife may be right, though!

I am aware, that whatever I do is because I want to do it. I am unaware

about the reason why I would want that, sometimes. Accepting that, has

always been the first step for me to find I have more possibilities

than that.

So I still shout at my kids, sometimes. I don't start hitting things

around me, anymore. Back then, to hit or break something was my only

way of not hitting them.

Now, when I shout at them, it is because they are violating a story I

hold sacred, yet.

>> As long as everything works out, no one ever cares who is in charge,

>> or how it works.

> ---If I'm on a flight, and the pilot is mismanaging the controls

> because of inexperience or inebriation, and the plane still

> lands...I'm going to do what I can to see that pilot fired, because

> the next time it might not " work out " for the other guys on that

> plane. Sometimes " working it out " isn’t enough. That happens too.

Yes, and you would probably do that.

Now, that's not what I meant by " working out " , because not everething

went as you would have expected it, and you even took notice of that.

To take you example, the pilot would do lots of mistakes. If you didn't

notice, it " worked out " .

>>>> I am curious, didn't you say in perception of reality there were

>>>> deletions, distortions, etc., and flaws of language? And I ask you

>>>> to be as explicit as you can be, so it is easier for me to

>>>> investigate.

>>> ---Yes, sort of like you weren't listening to the first part or

>>> something...and kept asking me to be " explicit " and I kept saying

>>> back to you my best tool for being " explicit " is marred with

>>> deletions, distortions and generalizations...and you should deal

>>> with that. I think that's sort of how that went down, at least from

>>> my end.

>> I still don't know what to deal with. Give me your best shot of

>> distortion and deletions and try to be as explicit as you can.

> ---I'll use your last sentence here.

>

> --- " Give me your best shot (how do I " shoot " to you the abstraction of

> " distortion " that in itself is a distortion of my natural

> capabilities? Am I to assume that I understand this metaphor in it's

> entirety as you mean it and plunge ahead on that assumption?)

> distortions and deletions (which distortions and deletions? This is a

> generalization of which I am asked to decide what constitutes

> distortions and deletions to you and pick and choose from that which

> your haven't listed), and try to be as explicit, (your definition of

> what " explicit " would mean is deleted and I am left to create my own

> criterion which may not jive with yours) as you can (a distortion of

> the idea that I can be explicit, when we haven't agreed on what it

> means in the context of this challenge) " .

>

> ---Now consider this: as full of deletions, distortions and

> generalizations as this single sentence is, this is the primary tool

> EVERYONE uses here to discuss " reality " with. What I suggest you

> attempt to " deal " with here, is that in the context of this tool we

> are stuck with in our efforts at communication, you will get nothing

> " explicit " out of me or anyone else for that matter that won't be

> built on personal assumptions and derivations again, rife with

> deletions, distortions and generalizations.

>

> --See?

Oh, you are saying that I can't hear you, but only what I think you

said, and I may or may not realize that what I heard is not what you

meant, because of my stories?

>>>>> ---There are people in this world that avoid things, and people

>>>>> who confront them.

>>>> No. There is people who do things that you would do different. And

>>>> you call it avoiding. An avoiding *is* a confronting something

>>>> else.

>>> --- " To avoid " something is simply to avoid it, and that is moving

>>> away from something, not toward it.

>> You can't move away from something without moving towards something

>> else. Well, at least talking from duality.

> ---We can put ourselves in a field of consciousness in which

> everything is in a scalar and happing all at once, all the time. At

> that level of perception I believe your concept of the nature of

> avoidance would be true. Crazy people go there often, but they usually

> don't have a job to go to or family to support. Most of us are

> " vectored " , and are either going to something or away from something

> else. I suppose " not avoiding " could be argued in the context of the

> sort of paradigm you present, but then it also serves as an excuse for

> not confronting things for some...a tool I've never learned from,

> except to be afraid with.

When I take the smaller piece of cake, I may be " avoiding " the bigger

one, because I think it is not good for me.

I may as well prefer to eat the smaller one, because I like to stay

thin.

The perception isn't bundled with the action.

....

> ---I'm busting your nuts , trust me on that. And I apologize. But

> I think when the dust settles we will have learned something...so it’s

> worth the pain.

No pain here.

>> Either I fight for my belief, or I accept yours. And it doesn't mean

>> that I have to attach to yours. But as long as I attach to my

>> belief, I will find people who fight it.

> ---More rules. What's with all this " fighting " crap. Didn't we decide

> sometime a while back that during these hours that I am writing this

> it is called " the day " , and later on it will be called " the night " ?

> Didn't we all decide what is " up " and what is " down " somewhere? Are

> you fighting for your right to go against that grain? Put your sword

> up and go home dude, that's unnecessary. You just proclaim in your

> Kingdom your opposition to the agreed on " norm " , and deal with the

> isolation and confusion that brings...or the " freedom " .

" up, down, day, night " ... that's concepts, too. And they seem to be

useful for many people. I use them. And when I use them with someone, I

better know how he intends them. The just don't have to be true for me.

And it doesn't have to be wrong, either. But to question them is my

only tool for investigating on their influence on my thinking. And

that's the only way I know to get to know my " beingness " , or the " I " or

whatever you would call it.

Where do you draw the line between " stuff agreed upon " and " stories " ?

>>> > That way people will have a chance to avoid the hassle of

>>> spending a lot of time only to produce obvious and predictable

>>> conclusions.

>> To " spend time " is an interesting concept.

> ---It's just a metaphor for Christ sake...LOL!

And how many philosopher's have discussed about it?

And what is the impact of this metaphor on my life?

>>>> ---If all anyone is doing here is creating a giant excuse for their

>>>> own inability to take charge of themselves and live, I tend to

>>>> avoid that sort of state of mind. " The Work " is not an excuse in my

>>>> book, for doing nothing...nor do I have a lot of time for people

>>>> who think that way.

Sounds like you know someone who uses " the work " as an excuse for doing

nothing?

>>> In the end, bottom line, as you have told be consistently here...it

>>> doesn't matter if you gage your world in terms of " passive " or

>>> " active " . But within the context of me trying to make a point, for

>>> us to communicate at all, you need to meet me at my model of the

>>> world, and I need to meet you at yours.

>> And until we do that, we'll fight.

> ---No, you'll fight, and I'll watch.

Then we have either met at a point, or we have split.

>>> What you may detect in me, is a natural irascibility, that comes

>>> with being chronically grumpy, argumentative, and a genetically

>>> spawned indisputable pain in the ass. Please don't take it

>>> personally...I don't.

>> The things I detect in you that I don't like, are those inside of me

>> that I can't accept and try to hide.

>> You hold a mirror in front of me, and if I don't like what I see, I

>> can work on it only in myself. Because there's a lot of mirrors

>> around.

>> Unless all mirrors aren't empty, my work is not done.

> ---In the cradle behaviorists say a baby first discovers their own

> face, and then compares that to other faces as he tries to understand

> the people around him in relationship to himself. That is a " mirror " ,

> yes.

Good comparison.

>>> Hell, we can't even cope with death. We think we live forever. As

>>> long as this situation exists, we can never really know what's true,

>>> or " show it " to someone else...we can only do the best we can within

>>> the context of the illusion of communication.

>> Yes, we match and exchange our stories.

> ...within " the context of the illusion of communication " .

within the illusion of our stories.

>>> ---We can create stories to help us cope with this concept. But in

>>> the end we are left with the reality inherent in the principles of

>>> cognition, the fallacies of language, and the imperfections built in

>>> to our humanity so that we have to keep trying to share our version

>>> of " the truth " until we can sit down and agree that we have reach a

>>> consensus of truth's facsimile...and that's good enough. I think

>>> that is an integral part of " Loving What Is " , to be able to accept

>>> the moment when the four questions fail to bring you peace, or help

>>> your relationships, or get you back on your diet. Even when those

>>> things fail, the person left is the person that " is " , and whether

>>> they are brighter, more enlightened or more " centered " isn't the

>>> point.

>>> The point is how much, and what parts of reality they are really

>>> ready to " love " .

>> These questions never bring me anything. They just direct the way to

>> go.

> ---They bring you the direction in which to go.

Yes, and it's up to me to take it or not.

> > ---Then hold on to this thought...if you're satisfied with that

> > today, will

> > you be satisfied with it tomorrow?

> let's wait for tomorrow to find out?

> Who cares about the future?

>

> ---In the context of how we establish where we are in time, we must

> deal

> with the past via memories, the present via current experience, and

> the

> future though imagined consequences of not learning from the former

> two. I

> care about the future, when in the future is a meeting time I want to

> make,

> or health issues I need to attend to today that could impact how I

> enjoy the

> future (so I stopped smoking, drinking, and guzzling coffee and

> gobbling

> candy bars). I suppose you could disenable that tool that

> consciousness

> creates for us to help us navigate through time, but then what you

> usually

> have left is someone unable to appreciate the surprises the future

> could

> bring, if we prepare or don't prepare for it now.

What I suggest is that you could attend your meeting and the health

issues, without having a concept of the future.

And I suggest that people who do not attend these meeting and don't

take care of their health issues, may or may not have a concept of the

future.

In my experience, I loose *nothing* when I let go of stories of future,

past, or *any other concepts*.

>>> ---That's not what I heard from my end. What I heard is a lot of

>>> " Well it's going to happen anyway " stuff...but then it's been three

>>> weeks and all, I could have hallucinated that part.

>> Ok. It's not going to happen.

>> Better?

> ---How about... " Let's wait and see what happens? "

Perfect.

Have a nice weekend,

Sign In

Re: Matt and the ladder of perfection

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation

Activity