APOCALYPSE or FAIRY TALE?

[Bob Michael]

Hey Bob,

When you're posting and feel the need to separate text with a line, could you please make that line short enough such that it does not create a horizontal scroll bar.

e.g.
__________________________________________________________

Thanks in advance.

Yes Dan, I noticed the problem I was creating yesterday on my own and compensated accordingly.

[Bob Michael]

Alex:

It would seem to me that the idea---fact, future, metaphor, take it as you will---of a New Jerusalem has little that would relate it to an 'Ark': either a retreat where certain people go (like a cave), or perhaps like some sort of spaceship that takes them up, up and away. I think you are 'mixing genres', but this has the effect of befuddling your own meaning.

Perhaps you have not been able to attract followers for this reason? If you were to clarify exactly what you are attempting, and importantly what is in it for the prospective follower, that might help to get you where you want to go.

Bob:

If I haven't said it before perhaps we might envision the 'Ark' as a 'Golden City of Love, Truth, and Understanding'. An adventure that will more or less unfold of itself or perhaps we might say 'naturally'. Something along the lines of what Walt Whitman dream'd in a dream:

I dream'd in a dream I saw a city invincible to the attacks of the rest of the earth.

I dreamed that was the new city of Friends,

Nothing was greater there than the quality of robust Love, it led the rest,

It was seen every hour in the actions of the Men of that city,

And in all their looks and words.
_______________________________

Or perhaps something along the lines of what Aurobindo's sidekick (the Mother) envisioned:

Earth needs a place where men can live away from all national rivalries, social conventions, self-contradictory moralities and contending religions; a place where human beings, freed from all slavery of the past, can devote themselves wholly to the discovery and practice of the Divine Consciousness that is seeking to manifest itself.
_______________________________

Or maybe Satprem:

Satprem (Bernard Enginger), in his book 'On The Way To Supermanhood' speaks of the need for a City of Truth, a City of the Future wherein: "the fakers are automatically eliminated by the very pressure of the Force of Truth, driven out, like fish, by a sheer excess of oxygen."
_______________________________

Or J. Krishnamurti:

".....Those who really desire to understand, who are looking to find that which is eternal, without beginning and without end, will walk together with a greater intensity, will be a danger to everything that is unessential, to unrealities, to shadows. And they will concentrate, they will become the flame, because they understand. Such a body we must create, and that is my purpose. Because of that real understanding there will be true friendship - which you do not seem to know - there will be real cooperation on the part of each one. And not because of authority, not because of salvation, not because of immolation for a cause, but because you really understand, and hence are capable of living in the eternal. This is a greater thing than all pleasure, than all sacrifice..... My only concern is to set men absolutely, unconditionally free." (J. Krishnamurti - Dissolution Speech - 1929)
_______________________________

Or Blake in his 'Jerusalem':

AND did those feet in ancient time
Walk upon England's mountains green?
And was the holy Lamb of God
On England's pleasant pastures seen?

And did the Countenance Divine
Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
And was Jerusalem builded here
Among these dark Satanic mills?

Bring me my bow of burning gold:
Bring me my arrows of desire:
Bring me my spear: O clouds unfold!
Bring me my chariot of fire.

I will not cease from mental fight,
Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand
Till we have built Jerusalem
In England's green and pleasant land.
________________________________

Or as D. H. Lawrence tried and admittedly failed:

"I had hoped and tried to get a little nucleus of living people together. But I think it is no good. One must start direct with an open public, without associates. But how to begin, and when, I don't know."

"Humanity as it stands and myself as I stand, we just seem mutually impossible to one another."

"The chief feeling is, that men were always alike, and always will be, and one must view the species with contempt and find a few individuals to rule the species."
_______________________________

Or last, but not least, Henry Drummon's 'City Without A Church':

What Christianity waits for, as its final apologetic and justification to the world, is the founding of a City which shall be in visible reality a City of God. People do not dispute that religion is in the Church. What is now wanted is to let them see it in the City. One Christian City, one City in any part of the earth, whose citizens from the greatest to the humblest lived in the SPIRIT of Christ, where religion had overflowed the Churches and passed into the streets, inundating every house and workshop, and permeating the whole social and commercial life - one such Christian City would seal the redemption of the world.

Some such City is what John saw in his dream. Whatever reference we may find there to a world to come, is it not equally lawful to seek the scene upon this present world? John saw his City 'descending out of Heaven'. It was, moreover, no strange apparition, but a City which he knew. It was Jerusalem, a new 'Jerusalem' (the holy City).

[Bob Michael]

Alex:

Christians generally believe (whether it is stressed or not is another question) that at the End of Time God will sort of reconstitute the Earth, perfect the Earth. This happens after all sort of terrible battles (as I assume you know). After all that is accomplished, then the Good Stuff, like rain, begins to descend from Heaven.

Bob:

What "Christians generally believe" is the great human problem. So us 'chosen few' need to discard all of broken-down Christendom's monkey business and start anew. Even if we may employ some of it's original principles.

Alex:

According to John, the New Jerusalem is "pure gold, like clear glass" and its "brilliance [is] like a very costly stone, as a stone of crystal-clear jasper." The street of the city is also made of "pure gold, like transparent glass". The base of the city is laid out in a square and surrounded by a wall made of jasper. It says in Revelation 21:16 that the height, length, and width are equal and they measure 12,000 stadia (2200 km). John writes that the wall is 144 cubits, which is assumed to be the width since the length is mentioned previously. 144 cubits are about equal to 65 meters, or 72 yards. It is important to note that 12 is the square root of 144. The number 12 was very important to early Jews and Christians, representing the 12 tribes of Israel, and the number of months in a year. The four sides of the city represented the four cardinal directions (North, South, East, and West.) In this way, New Jerusalem was thought of as an inclusive place, with gates accepting all of the 12 tribes of Israel from all corners of the earth.

Bob:

The number 12? I immediately think here of Bill Wilson's 12 step program of recovery for alcoholics. And that Bill shared Robert J. Oppenheimer's concern about the danger of a total nuclear conflagration. He also believed that A A, which urged people to live on a spiritual basis, had the power to save the world. He also felt that a society that put such a high premium on money, power, and prestige was doomed. I think he may have really been on to or perhaps even the start of something big here. And his whole game plan happened to be derived from fundamental Christian principles. Though Bill didn't feel Christ was 100% God, which is also the case with myself.

Alex:

Honestly, I think many people have worked to extract or distill from the recorded mission of the man Jesus Christ just such an ethical practice. I think even Thomas Jefferson did such a thing. It is lamentably nowhere near as simple as you seem to wish it to be. You point in the direction of the issue of 'sanctification': what it means (what it IS) to live in a state that is, by virute of doing it, living it, blessed or sanctified by God. Kelly is working on that, according to her. So is David Quinn. Diebert in his neo-Nietzschean way is also attempting it. How about Beingof1? And Jufa? And Jupiviv? And then of course there is Bob Michael.

Bob:

Yes, everytime something good does get off the ground, sooner or later (usually sooner), Satan, the darkness, or the 'human, all-too-human' element enters into the picture and clips its wings. Which has happened to all the religions and I must say to A A too. However, the fundamental founding principles of all these things continue to remain intact, well, and alive. Though understood by so very, very few, if any. Yet, on second thoughts, perhaps these founding principles all had some flaws in them? Or perhaps without a living Teacher or Leader, along with the overwhelming darkness of the world, they remain totally ineffective in radically changing men's minds and hearts?

Alex:

Sadly, the only one who seems to have really installed himself, permanently, in that state of beatification is The Talking Ass®. And all he does these days is sit on his haunches in Spring's glorious fields watching the bumblebess buzz and sniffing the mint---going out in joy, being led forth in peace. Is there an answer in that for the rest of us? I don't know.

Bob:

I think when a person takes this approach (or escape from responsibility), sooner or later the beatification begins to fade, the bumblebees start to buzz in funny ways, and the old insanity starts to creep back in again. At least this has been my experience.

Alex:

More and more, I think you may want to forge connections with David and Kelly. In my shrunken mind, 'no self' generally means 'no person'. But, I am an Afflicted One as Kelly has oft proven...

Bob:

I don't know here. David says his "aim in life is to awaken as many people as possible to the nature of Reality." This is certainly an honorable aim or goal and it happens to be mine also. Yet I can't help but to wonder whether he has enough down-to-earth living experiences under his belt for such a task? He speaks of a "life of the mind" and of being a "highly logical thinker who spends his days immersing himself in the Infinite." This may all be well and good, yet I feel if these traits are not balanced with 'living' in down-to-earth "Reality", similarly to all the (lost) people around him (that he wants to 'save'), rather than seemingly running from it or avoiding it, I doubt very much if he'll be of any real value in the successful awakening of anyone. The authentic spiritual life or being one with the Infinite is not merely a theory or a logical or intellectual adventure, it has to be LIVED in all its fullness and glory. Then alone is one truly a light or a bright, shining example unto others. As for Kelly, I know next to nothing about her. Though I, like the Infinite, place far less demands on a woman in these matters then I do on a man.

David also mentions on his profile page that he underwent a 'major existential crisis'. Has he ever shared the details of this experience? I think doing so may be of benefit to others.

So far as the 'no self' goes there's many cliches, explanations and interpretations on the matter. Which often gets quite frivolous or gamey. Though if, and when, one becomes fully human or fully divine (take your pick), he'll understand these things.

Alex:

There is an interesting book by Eric Fromm in which he analyses, I think from a somewhat Nietzschean perspective, the psychology of the Christian Believer (The Dogma of Christ and Other Essays on Religion, Psychology and Culture). It is not too flattering but it is highly interesting. There is a simmering streak of anger and desire to see retribution enacted in much of the mood of the typical Christian. To get even with this terrible world. I would suggest, very tentatively, that some part of your own trip, which I don't fully grasp, may have a link or two to these sentiments.

Bob:

Sharp as Fromm was, I find there are three things he failed to realize.

1. Most people are constitutionally incapable of attaining to authentic human selfhood. Or the reason for this fact.

2. Many of those who are capable of doing so will lack the necessary courage to fully undertake the adventure and consequently miss the mark. As he himself did.

2. An all-out nuclear holocaust will be absolutely necessary for the completion and perfection of the human species.

Alex:

I think we all feel this way toward this crazy world though. Why just ask David and Kelly what they think of it, or Diebert. None too happy are any of them. But I also think that all these billions and billions of weird human souls are here because they are part-and-parcel of the Creator, of 'God'. There may be someone, somewhere, who looks down on you with the same contempt you look upon them. And he may feel just as justified as you seem to in wiping you-them out.

Bob:

Insane and chaotic as the world may be, it's perfectly the way it's supposed to be and can't be any different than it is. And if we're to effectively change it for the better, we must first change ourselves. Which is to discover and root out every last trace of our false or unhuman conditioning which we unavoidably or choicelessly gleaned to various degrees from this considerably 'fallen' or dehumanized world we live in.

Alex:

It seems to me that if one 'trusts God', trusts existence, that one has the option of understanding it is out of our hands, and being directed to God-only-knows what ends. There is a certain 'comfort' expressed in, say, Isaiah 55, starting especially at 55:8.muero porque no muero.

Bob:

If we can let God or the Infinite pull ALL of our strings, so to speak, then we're 'there'. In the kingdom.....let's call it the 'Kingdom of Love'. Whereby we'll again be able to see the world through the eyes of a little child.

[cousinbasil]

@Bob Michael

I know I said I would bow out for now, but that has proved more difficult than I had thought. You write:

What "Christians generally believe" is the great human problem. So us 'chosen few' need to discard all of broken-down Christendom's monkey business and start anew. Even if we may employ some of it's original principles.

It seems to me that there are a lot of self-proclaimed "us chosen few" out there who interpret Christan teachings as they see fit. This is just an observation - I am not saying it is a bad thing by any means. I am simply pointing out that everyone doing so makes none of them seem very chosen. Also, you seem to use the term "monkey business" a lot, apparently for behavior with which you have problems. Since monkeys are amusing and bumbling rather than evil or threatening, perhaps you should use a more pejorative expression.

Yes, everytime something good does get off the ground, sooner or later (usually sooner), Satan, the darkness, or the 'human, all-too-human' element enters into the picture and clips its wings.

Or the ACLU!

Sadly, the only one who seems to have really installed himself, permanently, in that state of beatification is The Talking Ass®.

I seem to recall a certain macaw...

Insane and chaotic as the world may be, it's perfectly the way it's supposed to be and can't be any different than it is. And if we're to effectively change it...

Please read the part in [my] italics. This underlies much of your message, Bob. Can you see the why one finds this inescapably contradictory?

It seems to me that if one 'trusts God', trusts existence, that one has the option of understanding it is out of our hands, and being directed to God-only-knows what ends. There is a certain 'comfort' expressed in, say, Isaiah 55, starting especially at 55:8.

Alex, I don't know to what extent you are merely playing Devil's Advocate, but this observation is really at the heart of my objection to fire and brimstone rhetoric, including much of Bob's. Although, Bob, you occasionally adopt this very stance yourself.

Why not leave the prognostication to self-righteous douche-bags like Pat Robertson? Doesn't the truly wise person realize one's feelings and fears do not amount to the ability to predict the future? Believing you are the voice crying in the wilderness is a delusion. It puts you in the worst company.

[Alex Jacob]

Thanks for all those cool quotes and selections, Bob. It gives an idea of how deeply these visions and ideas have penetrated.

An aspect of this that interests me quite a bit, that is when it comes to the notion of establishing a City of God and all that, is that such a desire, such a hope, or plan, or intention, is an utter imposition on 'the world'. Meaning, it does in no sense arise from the world but is an 'imposition' from the top down. If one is going to think or dream in terms of Judeo-Christian Outcomes, one is (I think) going to have to enter into the whole notion of the Revelation of this particular God in time and in history. And draw a distinction, a sharp distinction, between this God with his will and intensity and, say, perhaps all the other local gods, or the 'pagan gods'. But, it is it seems to me impossible to muse on this God with its outcomes, its imposition of will, and not to think of the whole issue of taming. That is to say, a process of literal assault on 'the world', a process of conquering, breaking apart organic power-structures, inculcating a distinct (very foreign and 'unnatural') morality and ethic on the unruly and unruled earthly tribes.

In order to arrive at that City of God and to see it descend from the Heavens and superimpose itself on this earth, the unruliness of man has to be conquered. He has to be 'yoked' to the plow of culture. And of course, as Nietzsche so interestingly wrote about, this is a long process of 'historical punishment'. To create this civilized, responsive, malleable subject requires generations of torture and violence. Society imposes its rules and any deviation from those rules is severely punished. And that has been our own cultural process. We are people who have been---literally---'whipped into shape'.

We may think that this process is about 'persuasion' or 'gentle discourse' or 'ethical stimulation', but those methods only work with those who, substantially, have been already domesticated. The process of enforcing this 'will of God', with the outcome of a Heavenly City, is in its essence one of violence against all that which is in resistance, and that is in essence untamed humanity, with all its unconsciousness, desires, self-will and ouright recalcitrance.

Out desire to 'get out from under all that' is very interesting to look into. To essentially 'resign' from this historical project, to go back to the 'old ways', to revivify the temples of the old gods, the pagan gods; to forget, to indulge, to waylay. I think we have to take all this into consideration when we examine the 'discourses of rebellion' of our modernity, and also to see to what degree we ourselves are active participants in that rebellion.

I would like to suggest---tentatively to be sure---that the whole project of GF, beginning as it does with Solway and Quinn and Rowden, is very oddly placed in the camp of 'rebellion'. Queerly, simultaneously, it also attempts what might be called 'another octave' of Service to an Ideal that, like these stories and images of a City of God, have been established in our consciousness, in our being, at a very profound level. At the same time, in some of the religious and philosophical modalities selected, there rises up again the fact and the danger of service to 'gods' that become 'snares for you'. Judges 2. [Also Exodus 23:33, Numbers 33:55]

I would also mention, only because I find all this quite interesting, that from the sound of it, from the look of it, the QRS-K (D, you are in there to be sure, and R and N too) wish to utterly do away with that fact or that notion or the hallucination (take your pick) which is the Revelation that put all these ideas into motion in our culture and our history. I have said a few times that this is rather absurd since it is through these historical processes that our very selves have been created. We are outcomes of 'all that'! We literally CANNOT just will to 'do away' with it but are forced to carry it all to its conclusion.

When we expand and open up all these problems we are left with a most extraordinary problem to 'solve'.

[Pam Seeback]

Alex Jacob: I would also mention, only because I find all this quite interesting, that from the sound of it, from the look of it, the QRS-K (D, you are in there to be sure, and R and N too) wish to utterly do away with that fact or that notion or the hallucination (take your pick) which is the Revelation that put all these ideas into motion in our culture and our history. I have said a few times that this is rather absurd since it is through these historical processes that our very selves have been created. We are outcomes of 'all that'! We literally CANNOT just will to 'do away' with it but are forced to carry it all to its conclusion.

When we expand and open up all these problems we are left with a most extraordinary problem to 'solve'.

Alex, we cannot just will to 'do away' with the historical self, but if there is to be an individual conscious union with what are now metaphors called Perfect Order, Perfect Peace and Perfect Harmony, the historical self will indeed need to 'go away.' If this is not allowed to happen within one's consciousness, it is my observation that man will go mad from his belief that there can be a conclusion to the historical self, whatever is his vision of "My Perfect Conclusion." I have accepted at the deepest level of my 'soul', that I am done with such madness of belief. Ergo, my journey of 'ending the history of Pam. And in doing so, hopefully being of comfort and inspiration to those who are of like mind. As I said at the opening of this paragraph, we cannot just will to 'do away' with the historical self, but what we can to to bring about history's dissolution, is to walk the path of "the language of [self's] history being dissolved."

Very few have identified this crossroad of thinking as succinctly as did Shakespeare when he said: To be or not to be.

I choose to be.

[jufa]

Thanks for all those cool quotes and selections, Bob. It gives an idea of how deeply these visions and ideas have penetrated. The problem though is all are s tolen concept, stolen I say, because they are the interepreted struggles and pains of someone elses living and awareness being pawned off to make others believe one is a studious person who has a vision incorporated with all those quoted, and it is a known fact, each quoted individual walked in their own shoes to gain the knowledge stolen herein and applied as ones own wisdom. It is as God told the scientist who told God He wasn't needed anyone because they could create life. And God said is that right, show Me. And the scientist reached down and grabbed some dirt, and God said, wait, get your own dirt, you can't use what I have created to prove your creation of life.

An aspect of this that interests me quite a bit, that is when it comes to the notion of establishing a City of God and all that, is that such a desire, such a hope, or plan, or intention, is an utter imposition on 'the world'. Meaning, it does in no sense arise from the world but is an 'imposition' from the top down. If one is going to think or dream in terms of Judeo-Christian Outcomes, one is (I think) going to have to enter into the whole notion of the Revelation of this particular God in time and in history. And draw a distinction, a sharp distinction, between this God with his will and intensity and, say, perhaps all the other local gods, or the 'pagan gods'. But, it is it seems to me impossible to muse on this God with its outcomes, its imposition of will, and not to think of the whole issue of taming. That is to say, a process of literal assault on 'the world', a process of conquering, breaking apart organic power-structures, inculcating a distinct (very foreign and 'unnatural') morality and ethic on the unruly and unruled earthly tribes. No one God, Goddess can be defined by any man. And when such is attempted it is because of historical rhetoric pimped to those who have not taken the responsibility to find out for themselves the reality of Life, not the living of it. There is no Judeo-Christian God, nor Muslum-Moslem, Buddhist, Zen, or any other God of definition except in the thoughts of man's indoctrinated beliefs. If this is not true, someone Please tell me where a God, outside of myself can be found, stood before, and claimed to be personal. If any God is personal to anyone, there is no need for faith. All one has to do is uncork the bottle, rub it, and a genie will appear at one beck and command to do what one ask.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[cousinbasil]

We may think that this process is about 'persuasion' or 'gentle discourse' or 'ethical stimulation', but those methods only work with those who, substantially, have been already domesticated. The process of enforcing this 'will of God', with the outcome of a Heavenly City, is in its essence one of violence against all that which is in resistance, and that is in essence untamed humanity, with all its unconsciousness, desires, self-will and ouright recalcitrance.

There is little gentle about the apocalypse which Bob envisions, at least as he has been describing it here. If I am correct, Bob, you see the violence as inescapable? It seems as if Bob has been saying he sees no one who has been "substantially domesticated" to the extent that gentle discourse is an effective alternative. In fact, it is the very domestication itself that is the culprit, as it seems to have required relinquishing what it means to be truly human.

To essentially 'resign' from this historical project, to go back to the 'old ways', to revivify the temples of the old gods, the pagan gods; to forget, to indulge, to waylay. I think we have to take all this into consideration when we examine the 'discourses of rebellion' of our modernity, and also to see to what degree we ourselves are active participants in that rebellion.

Any such desire to resign from the "historical project" as you put it is based on imaginary notions, usually consisting of some false conception that there ever was a time when "things" were better.

I would like to suggest---tentatively to be sure---that the whole project of GF, beginning as it does with Solway and Quinn and Rowden, is very oddly placed in the camp of 'rebellion'.

I don't find that so odd, Alex. Any attempt to point out societal delusions is bound to appear rebellious.

What I see as doomed is the very "process of enforcing the will of God" and expecting the "outcome of a Heavenly City." If one believes in God, one cannot logically "enforce God's will," since God would be the one that does that.

[Alex Jacob]

Jufa writes: "There is no Judeo-Christian God, nor Muslum-Moslem, Buddhist, Zen, or any other God of definition except in the thoughts of man's indoctrinated beliefs. If this is not true, someone please tell me where a God, outside of myself can be found, stood before, and claimed to be personal. If any God is personal to anyone, there is no need for faith. All one has to do is uncork the bottle, rub it, and a genie will appear at one beck and command to do what one ask."

Yes, 'God' is an interpretation and, thus, an imposition.

At the same time, 'God' indeed is like a genie in a bottle inside of us, or part-and-parcel of us. Rub the bottle in the right way, pull of the cork, and God appears.

This might all get really complex, perhaps too complex to handle (this conversation that is). While it is true that one can only have an experience of whatever one means or discovers of God at some inner (silent, internal) level, we also perceive or conceive of God as operating on many different levels. To my mind, the most complete general and encompassing conception of 'God' on all these levels comes out of the Hindu school. God in an 'ultimate' sense is Brahman:

• prajnānam brahma = Brahman is knowledge
  ayam ātmā brahma = The Self (or the Soul) is Brahman
  aham brahmāsmi = I am Brahman
  tat tvam asi = Thou art that
  sarvam khalv idam brahma = All this that we see in the world is Brahman
  sachchidānanda brahma = Brahman is existence, consciousness, and bliss

And though this points to some very high conceptualizations (the description of it), still man lives in a limited self, with his necessity of imposing a certain social order, deciding right and wrong, and establishing conceptual orders for others to envision their reality.

All this in UNAVOIDABLE. No matter what, no matter where and when, this is just part and parcel of life.

It follows (on some level) that just as a seer perceives something as grand and impossible to describe as Brahman, and the consciousness of which has 'created' structure and order in the world (universe), that too there is (inherently) such a 'project' in the world of man. That is how the Hindu idea seems to 'ramify'.

And so awareness of consciousness descends, or the effects of consciousness descend down into all the doings of man. It can all be worked out with nifty charts, colored diagrams, transparencies, slide-show presentations and (you guessed it) guided meditations. (Wee bit of a joke there. The point is that it is exactly in this way that the conceptualizing tendency in man functions).

So, while it is true that there is 'no God that a man can produce', like pulling a bag of gumdrops out of your pocket and saying 'Look!', we infer God, and an activity of God in the world of men.

And we have stories that present this order of perception, not the least of which is the Hebrew Revelation. It just happens to have been, and of course still is, the major idea that has, like a giant lever, given tremendous 'lifting force' to 'our culture'.

But from this point on it is a game of imposition. So, in life, any clear idea, and defined idea, moves in the world like (if you will) a 'sword', so too a notion of an overarching or underpinning order is necessitated...perhaps by cognition and perhaps in language.

The issue becomes in deciding what 'God' you support.
____________________________________________________

CB wrote: "I don't find that so odd, Alex. [I described QRS as being involved in 'rebelliousness'.] Any attempt to point out societal delusions is bound to appear rebellious."

It is something else I mean since a quite equal critical activity in respect to our consumer, 'female-driven' culture exists strictly within Judeo-Christian discourse. They are part of a rebellion that arises in a more general sense 'against' the cultural attainments of 'the West'. That is to say, against the matrix that produced them. (They are people in this sense 'turned against themselves'.) Their narratives and attitudes (I speculate) operate like 'an acid' that disintegrates self, society, relatedness, and a whole conceptual order that supports these 'things'. They seem to be involved in another, distinct, 'imposition'. But it isn't as 100% thing. The tendencies are there. (And each in our own way we have them too---all of us).

[jufa]

This might all get really complex, perhaps too complex to handle (this conversation that is). While it is true that one can only have an experience of whatever one means or discovers of God at some inner (silent, internal) level, we also perceive or conceive of God as operating on many different levels. To my mind, the most complete general and encompassing conception of 'God' on all these levels comes out of the Hindu school. God in an 'ultimate' sense is Brahman: Allow me to give you the object of those different levels, and say to you that what is presented above:

To my mind, the most complete general and encompassing conception of 'God' on all these levels comes out of the Hindu school.

, as all you present below in your selective means given by others is no different than what you and I present to one another as relativism. This, in my understanding, means there is always a product of deceit from one who cannot give their own definitive meaning or relevation as to the word meaning they express or quote in the exactness of the Spirit of the original expression or one who stated that quoted.

Allow me to explain what I'm saying here. No one, and I mean no one is truthful to what they present to people because one always presents images of comprehension to others based on what another's image has presented to them. This is saying what you have given to me as the body and intellect of Alex Jacob is a body of images which I seem only one image of. Someone else sees the image of Alex Jacob different. This represent that which you do not give to me in my comprehension of the body of A. Jacob, is a glass darkly which has no clearness, and this means A. Jacob is so covered with reflectives images even he cannot see into the invisibility of himself. This means to jufa, even the concept of your

conception of 'God' on all these levels comes out of the Hindu school.

is the vanity which The Preacher speak of and has no volume or value, not even to youself, for nothing you present go beyond what was presented by those who put it into your consciousness in the beginning, And one thing is certain, you have no idea what the intent and purpose of anothers words are in their reality of living. It is only when your statement:

God in an 'ultimate' sense is Brahman:

can explain who, what, when, where, and what Brahman is can be a voucher which will cause on to say: Hum, I never seen those steps, or that light before which will take one higher unpon the path of their reality. Conscience.

• prajnānam brahma = Brahman is knowledge
  ayam ātmā brahma = The Self (or the Soul) is Brahman
  aham brahmāsmi = I am Brahman
  tat tvam asi = Thou art that
  sarvam khalv idam brahma = All this that we see in the world is Brahman
  sachchidānanda brahma = Brahman is existence, consciousness, and bliss

The above list is not of A.Jacob comprehension as to why this list represent a collective truth, for each have their own relativism of uniqueness which cannot be equal to my relativism. When, therefore, your intellectual presentation has touched and married my intellectually acceptance to be the exactness of your, meaning of word presentation is irrelevant.

And though this points to some very high conceptualizations (the description of it), still man lives in a limited self, with his necessity of imposing a certain social order, deciding right and wrong, and establishing conceptual orders for others to envision their reality. The law of the material universe is you get what you ask for. There is no exception to the rule, and that rule is applicable to the highest and lowest thinker, and all in betwixt. All in between our observation of living from here to here, and there to there is our own reflected images seen through the eyes of our comprehension of that reflected in the eyes back to us of us from our own intepretated images. I cannot be sitting here writing this to you as an image, as you cannot be there reading to me as an image. How can the image in your head be the image of me you believe you see accept in your conscious wareness, if it is true I am separated from you when I am One here, not there? Are you not One also there, bute not here? Which one is real to you? The One me in your head, or the One me sitting here writing this to you? Where do I become a conceptualization to you?

All this in UNAVOIDABLE. No matter what, no matter where and when, this is just part and parcel of life. And you are correct, all is UNAVOIDABLE which you are aware of because it is your parcel of life, and you cannot go out of you, so how can anything you are aware of be unavoidable which you have not eliminated from you?

It follows (on some level) that just as a seer perceives something as grand and impossible to describe as Brahman, If Brahman cannot be described, touched or felt, Brahman cannot be reached, and Brahman is not real. So what use can He/She/It be to anyone reaching to touch and feel? and the consciousness of which has 'created' structure and order in the world (universe), that too there is (inherently) such a 'project' in the world of man. That is how the Hindu idea seems to 'ramify'. A Hindu idea is no better or worse than a Christian idea. or Zen Buddist, or Moslem, or Zoroastrianism. None of these ideas are solutions, only pointers. And none are as absolute to you as your own vision beyond these ideas.

And so awareness of consciousness descends, or the effects of consciousness descend down into all the doings of man. Consciousness does not descend nor ascend, for Consciousness is omnipresent. There is no where you can go in your awareness where Consciousness is not, so the elevation or descension is of the man, not of Consciousness. Consciousness does not move.It can all be worked out with nifty charts, colored diagrams, transparencies, slide-show presentations and (you guessed it) guided meditations. (Wee bit of a joke there. The point is that it is exactly in this way that the conceptualizing tendency in man functions). Never found my path to wherever, or dimension, or level in meditation or reading, or on a interpreted human thought chart. My chart has been in the living of the moving Spirit of jufa eliminating what "they say" is right or wrong by going into the core of jufa's thoughts to be on a level of what cause jufa to think this or that, and in the thinking, what the idea planted, instilled, or given jufa by incestral DNA strains of the first Adan/Eve [allegor] who believed God to be an object of their subjective interpretation of THE UNKNOWN?

So, while it is true that there is 'no God that a man can produce', like pulling a bag of gumdrops out of your pocket and saying 'Look!', we infer God, and an activity of God in the world of men. There is no activity of A God in man. Man only demonstrated the activity of his human thinking. Tell me, or give evidence of the activity of God emanating from man.

And we have stories that present this order of perception, not the least of which is the Hebrew Revelation. It just happens to have been, and of course still is, the major idea that has, like a giant lever, given tremendous 'lifting force' to 'our culture'.You have stated a correct order of perception, but only the perception of a man born to die. And man's perception cannot change the order of the perception of that which created all, even the order of perception

But from this point on it is a game of imposition.It can never be from this point on unless one is in denial, for the point on has always been the continuum of ones awareness regardless of what that awareness has one stationed at So, in life, any clear idea, and defined idea, moves in the world like (if you will) a 'sword', so too a notion of an overarching or underpinning order is necessitated...perhaps by cognition and perhaps in language. Ha, indeed in life, but there is only one life you bear witness to by awareness, and that is your life of awareness. All that you are aware of you are aware of because you give your life to its presence in your awareness by acknowledging and thus giving your awaking life of awareness to what is in your head.

The issue becomes in deciding what 'God' you support. The issue is, and has always been what God has you believed in, given life to, and live within as its human conscious of Spirit. Can you live in the metaphor or are you living as the metaphor? And is the metaphor the reality of Cause?

Lets walk this one out and talk together!!

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[Alex Jacob]

Jufa writes: "The issue is, and has always been what God has you believed in, given life to, and live within as its human conscious of Spirit. Can you live in the metaphor or are you living as the metaphor? And is the metaphor the reality of Cause?"

I think the essence of what you wish to convey, as a challenging question, is summed-up here.

I think you are right to say that we all deal on reflections that are knocking around in our mind.

I think that that is the inevitable nature of the kind of limitation we are in. Also, it is an outcome of the sort of conceptualizing mind we have.

Everything that we might present or communicate to any other person is a relativistic approximation.

To say that no one is 'truthful', either in perceiving what another relates or in summarizing (explaining, re-communicating), is perhaps true, except that the intent involved in deliberately lying is quite different from being forced to deal on approximations, and in a domain of constant misunderstanding.

Still, I think you are not taking into consideration the possible fact that, because we are all 'related' and because in so many different ways our 'conceptualizing machines' function similarly, our 'reflections' and our 'approximations' are not completely off the mark.

Also, when we see or read someone's 'reflection' about something, say for example Blake:

• I will not cease from mental fight,
  Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand
  Till we have built Jerusalem
  In England's green and pleasant land.

We are drawn into its meaning, or we enter into its meaning, and we participate in its meaning. We can start with the immediacy of a shared experience---standing before a waterfall, say---and relate to one another what we think and feel, and we may find great areas of concurrence. Similarly, even at great remove in time and space, we can 'touch' and recieve the impressions of another: and then we cast those images back onto 'reality' through our own reflecting minds. This is one of the miracles of consciousness and is not necessarily a failing...

So, to answer you---but in truth I think it is you who wishes to make some very specific points which are crucial to your views, to that you wish to communicate---I think we most certainly 'live in metaphor' and we also 'live as metaphor'. And simultaneously there are people who transcend the metaphor and live/experience in an immediacy. I would myself call that 'visionary experience': perhaps a sharpening or intensification of Metaphor---after all, we are 'metaphor machines!'---but this is what we essentially have to go on.

The internal experience* is, as you seem to say, the only thing we can really be truthful about (everything else is 'received reflection') and yet it is when we compare the recorded or reflected experience of others with our own Vision that we may begin to discern...better. So, if in my case I find a formulation that expresses similar to myself my own experience (as in the Vedic scripture I included), I don't think I necessarily 'lie' or engage in untruthfulness in presenting it. You see, we already 'agree' on so many different tacit levels. Our consciousness is non-different in so many ways.

Again, the key seems to be in deciding among all the 'Gods' presented which one seems the more true; which mission in the world one most feels sympathy with; which project of imposition one most agrees with.

And when one has come to a conlusion, when one has clarified one's values, then the hard part comes. Every clarification of values is a decision one is making so that it is not A and B but one or the other. When one chooses one is taking a stand in this world. And the war begins there... (And I mean this on all its possible levels, and in the most problematic and difficult sense).
____________________________________________________

*As you likely know, in the Kabalistic conception of man, our mind and consciousness is described as Yesod, a reflecting sphere. What are we to 'think' of even the brightness of the bright sun if we 'see' everything as metaphor?

Joy of Cooking: Closer to the Ground.

Metaphors can move through time: Get Together

[jufa]

Hi Alex! To myself I am not attempting to prove right or wrong here. I am attempting to move beyond where we began our conversation of exchange and ride the advancing elevator of words meaning as far as I can comprehend in this world where all that is occurring is mind producing our outer objective visions, then mind attempting to dismiss those visions by causing one to believe their inner subjective feelings are not one and the same relativism of awareness of those visions. Mind battling mind is the phase I present.

So the right is wrong in the sense of non-definition of exact comprehension, and the wrong is right in the sense of similarity of collective relativism when experience is exact comprehension to the individual has nothing to do with relativism of exact conscious awareness of experience. Neither right or wrong is a gage for the truth presented by man's words because that which belongs to you cannot be a base or standard for me to follow in the exactness of your foot steps, and vice verse, so meaning is relative only to relativity, but not to collectivism of experience of exactness.

I have indeed consider:

our 'reflections' and our 'approximations' are not completely off the mark.

in the realization that pointers are necessary for going backwards or forward according to ones movement of Spirit. But pointers and directions are just that, they take one nowhere. It is the individuals who walks the walks, and talks the talks of their living and gathering of understanding of what is occurring in their lives of living, not reading. One can retain knowledge, but retaining knowledge and being able to apply that knowledge to all phased of ones life is the key which moves the climber higher and higher upon the path of the stars of brightness who has left the direction of how man can walk out of humanism of intellectual determinism with his body intact. Do you know what body I am speak on?

To be aware of being the metaphor of living, one has to be aware they are the myth makers of the reflected images of the metaphor. In this realization all similitudes of relativism are not reflections from without, but that of the one reflecting of their outer objective visions and inner subjective feelings. Can another reflect my inner experiences when I cannot reflect them by exactness of memory? I reflect only fragments, and in expounding on the fragments I lie by not presenting a clear and defining moment of actuality of and in the picture I place before you.

When any man comes to a conclusion in their human life, they will find themselves looking down and wondering why they can seem themselves unable to move, speak, touch, taste, smell, hear, or think themselves out of the casket which holds the reflected body they livedd, moved and had their reflections of objective thought being in, which objective thoughts are their reflected body covering they made for themselves of material intellectual mattered images they believed they would be able to occupy eternally.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[Bob Michael]

I never said it was the final answer. What I'm suggesting is that some of the boys here haven't even reached the level of knowledge which Fromm discusses.i.e. understanding how they psychologically escape their own freedom through the use of destructiveness and other means. It would be a good starting point for them because, quite frankly merely understanding the logical implications of "Ultimate Reality" really doesn't seem to be causing any genuine internal transformation.

Very true. And without a genuine internal transformation there'll be no full and true understanding of "Ultimate Reality." And even if someone does undergo a genuine internal transformation, there's still no guarantee that they will have acquired full and true understanding of "Ultimate Reality," or that they are fully sound or sane minded either. A good (living) example here is Eckhart Tolle. Though there have been and continue to be many others who may have similarly been geniuses of the mind, but were not geniuses of the heart. Which separates the men from the boys regarding this whole business of genius. And if one does not fully understand "Ultimate Reality," which requires fully understanding oneself, he'll be of no real value to others in their own radical transformation and ensuing journey of self-overcoming or self-surmounting.

[Bob Michael]

Bob, every word I speak and you speak and everyone speaks is 100% vanity. Solomon did not say part or some is vanity, he said "All is vanity."

First, according to my understanding most Bible scholars don't attribute the book of Ecclesiastes to Solomon. Though, what ever the case may be, the point the author was trying to get across was that mankind everywhere seeks happiness and fulfillment in sensual gratification and the possession of material things. Or that he lives a self-centered life. And that a life lived as such is an empty and meaningless existence, or a thing of total vanity.

He does however finish up his book on a positive note by stating "Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of life." He should have added that if one does this well his life will be full of peace, joy, and happyness, and will be truly purposeful, and NOT a thing of vanity at all. But, wise as the writer may have been, I don't think the guy had both oars in the water, so to speak. Nor did he seem to understand, appreciate, or conquer woman either. I find it's important to read others with a critical, unbiased, and discerning mind. Which takes time to acquire.

[Dennis Mahar]

The cosmological argument of first cause based in the assumption of Me here/God there is very shaky ground.
To go on and then ascribe a personality and a plan looks extremely jittery.
What Solomon said or Jesus said or Mahommed said or Buddha said or indeed what Simple Simon said doesn't prove anything.
Remember these guys are projections.
They each were written up decades after their demise by committees of memorisers.

All I can see in this thread is premature ejaculation.

[Alex Jacob]

• "When any man comes to a conclusion in their human life, they will find themselves looking down and wondering why they can seem themselves unable to move, speak, touch, taste, smell, hear, or think themselves out of the casket which holds the reflected body they lived, moved and had their reflections of objective thought being in, which objective thoughts are their reflected body covering they made for themselves of material intellectual mattered images they believed they would be able to occupy eternally."

• "Let the dead bury their dead, but you go and proclaim the kingdom of God."

____________________________________________________

But it only looks jittery to the jitterplexed, Dennis.

Still, there is an idea that comes from the Sankrit language. The word is Rita: "Sacred order, cosmic law; truth."

I would suppose that the idea, coming as it does through Vedanta, and from the early Vedists, is the notion that there is a kind of natural order in the cosmos, and that human-kind as part and parcel of the cosmos, also has an inherant order, with which we might 'harmonize'. Just as everything comes into manifestation as a result of a Divine Word ('Om'), and derives from that Divine Word (initiating force), so too should the human world. In the best of possible worlds, the Rulers would know this and would inflict on the Earth and the Earth people Heaven's design... ;-)

Whip your historical project into shape!

At the very least, as romantic as we might view it, the idea is 'sound' insofar as it comes out of a human tendency or desire to respond to the 'will' of the Totality, the Wholeness of Life, and to create organic structures in human society that, somehow, reflect the Whole.

[cousinbasil]

Devo! Nice!

[Bob Michael]

The cosmological argument of first cause based in the assumption of Me here/God there is very shaky ground.
To go on and then ascribe a personality and a plan looks extremely jittery.
What Solomon said or Jesus said or Mahommed said or Buddha said or indeed what Simple Simon said doesn't prove anything.
Remember these guys are projections.
They each were written up decades after their demise by committees of memorisers.

All I can see in this thread is premature ejaculation.

Two men looked out through prison bars - one saw mud, the other saw stars.

Surely we must be in the last days!

[Dennis Mahar]

I'd better not say too much at this point.
else Santa mightn't come down my chimney on the 25th.

[jufa]

"Let the dead bury their dead, "when he came nigh to the gate of the city, behold, there was a dead man carried out, the only son of his mother, and she was a widow, and much people of the city were with here. And when the Lord saw her, he had compassion on her, and said unto here, Weep not And he came and touched the bier , and they that bore him stood still. And he said, Yound man, I say unto thee, Arise, And he that was dead sat up, and began to speak, and he delivered him unto his mother,"

but you go and proclaim the kingdom of God."

Know of no one who can proclaim the kingdom of God, for no one has demonstrated, beyond alegory and abstractness who, what, when, where, and why a God, no less the kingdom of God exist other then IN ONES HUMAN MIND.

I do know that everyone can proclaim the kingdom of their Unconditioned Mind [you do this by your dismissal of that which I present to be accepted or rejected] when and if they eliminate the conditions of their own reflections. The irony of this though, no one can stand face to face with themselves. And should they stand before a mirror, even then their inner reflection cannot be seen.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[Pam Seeback]

"Let the dead bury their dead, "when he came nigh to the gate of the city, behold, there was a dead man carried out, the only son of his mother, and she was a widow, and much people of the city were with here. And when the Lord saw her, he had compassion on her, and said unto here, Weep not And he came and touched the bier , and they that bore him stood still. And he said, Yound man, I say unto thee, Arise, And he that was dead sat up, and began to speak, and he delivered him unto his mother,"

but you go and proclaim the kingdom of God."

Know of no one who can proclaim the kingdom of God, for no one has demonstrated, beyond alegory and abstractness who, what, when, where, and why a God, no less the kingdom of God exist other then IN ONES HUMAN MIND.

I do know that everyone can proclaim the kingdom of their Unconditioned Mind [you do this by your dismissal of that which I present to be accepted or rejected] when and if they eliminate the conditions of their own reflections. The irony of this though, no one can stand face to face with themselves. And should they stand before a mirror, even then their inner reflection cannot be seen.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

This is the bottom line, isn't it? That the man of feeling-intellect lives a metaphorical, reflected, conditioned life - no word or symbol IS the thing. It is amazing to me that most people who have attained even a measure of wisdom can see the truth of this statement, and yet, this wisdom is pushed aside again and again, everyone scrambling to present their metaphorical, reflected, conditioned life as if it is THE 'truth' or a truth.

Man is the great cosmic joke to himself. Can I laugh my way out of this insane world of the Godman ego? Worth a try...:-)

[Dennis Mahar]

You get the joke.
It appears in the moment of it appearing and moves on.
Why the frustration?
Serenity is possible?

[Alex Jacob]

Hi Jufa,

You wrote: "Know of no one who can proclaim the kingdom of God, for no one has demonstrated, beyond alegory and abstractness who, what, when, where, and why a God, no less the kingdom of God, exist other then IN ONES HUMAN MIND."

In respect to the last few posts: I don't know exactly where you wish to go. I personally think that much of what you say makes sense. But I don't know where you wish to go with it.

As response to the above quote, I would say that it is exactly in the human mind (human awareness to expand the idea a bit) where this Kingdom of God exists.

It certainly does seem to me to be true that our awareness (our mind, our memory, the whole apparatus) is interestingly and strangely tied to and invested in the reflections as opposed to the 'reality'. So, what Moving Always writes:

• That the man of feeling-intellect lives a metaphorical, reflected, conditioned life - no word or symbol IS the thing. It is amazing to me that most people who have attained even a measure of wisdom can see the truth of this statement, and yet, this wisdom is pushed aside again and again, everyone scrambling to present their metaphorical, reflected, conditioned life as if it is THE 'truth' or a truth.

Yet even with all that, and at least in your presentation, your prose, there is the sense of disembodiment. In what world do you live? Of what does your daily life consist?

What I mean is that 'no matter what' people live in the sort of mental and conceptual world you describe. We are forced to. And still, as I have been trying to point out, there is a way in which awareness (say of 'brahman') refracts down into different levels of consciousness, and into human life.

(And BTW, I quoted 'let the dead bury their dead' as a way of expressing what I think you are getting at: there is a huge amount of 'dead' stuff that people call 'their life', their understanding. It is dead (reflected) but they take it as 'alive'. From one angle, the Jesus quote could have a whole new range of meaning.)

Moving Always has written: "Can I laugh my way out of this insane world of the Godman ego?"

Most likely not. But it may help. What I would ask of you is to propose a viable alternative, not as a neatly-expressed verbal extraction, but as a way for an individual or a family to live in the immediacy you seem to propose. Cite some example of this immediacy, or even better a group or a culture that has existed in it. What sort of culture was it? What did they do? How did they make their living? What sort of legacy have they left behind? When they communicated, did they do it without metaphor or allegory?

[Pam Seeback]

Moving Always has written: "Can I laugh my way out of this insane world of the Godman ego?"

Most likely not. But it may help. What I would ask of you is to propose a viable alternative, not as a neatly-expressed verbal extraction, but as a way for an individual or a family to live in the immediacy you seem to propose. Cite some example of this immediacy, or even better a group or a culture that has existed in it. What sort of culture was it? What did they do? How did they make their living? What sort of legacy have they left behind? When they communicated, did they do it without metaphor or allegory?

Alex, I agree, laughing helps, but of course, it is not the way out of the insane world of the Godman ego. Why? Because laughing is a product of the Godman's illusion of 'knowing or being God.' Which means, for me, there is only one way out of the insanity of analyzing my life, of which laughter is a part, and that is to eliminate my futile search for a cause of my life. I am born of this belief in causality, as do I die of this belief in causality. Birth, death, birth, death - time to get off the merry-go-round of 'what matters to me.'

As for how I live my life practically while I am practicing living my metaphorical life of birth-death ascension is "to be in the world, but not of the world." I am married for 35 years to a lovely man who, although he does not understand my inner world, wholeheartedly supports my choice to 'live it.' I gave birth to two children, whom I love dearly, who also know of my 'deep thoughts' [as they call them] but who also do not understand 'why' I have them. The pull of these two worlds, for me, one of being in my earth thoughts and one of being purged of my earth thoughts, is my day-to-day living of my journey of being between these two worlds of 'me'. What keeps me 'going' is the awareness that there will be a moment when I will no longer be aware of two worlds, but of One and only of One.

An example: When I had both my kids, I was not consciously on my path of pure spirit realization [my awakening, however, was 'brewing']; I was, to both of them, just "Mom." 33+ years later, if either of them were asked, I do believe they would say that their Mom raised them in the spirit of love and in the spirit of 'let your conscience by your guide.' Both of them know now, however, that by way of my present thought pattern of my 'deep thoughts', that if I was again of childbearing age, I would not have children. As does my husband know, that if he and I met today, he and I would not be married. To be in the world, but not of the world, to me, is an evolving/expanding movement of my thought continuum to realize my complete conscious union with the Singularity of the life of 'me.' One could say that this expansion is one of love or of compassion, words to express that once one becomes aware that Life does not need a physical body to be [aware], they cannot help but 'love', for Life, being that it is omnipresent, cannot help but 'love' [be] Itself.

To me, any utopia that man can imagine based on his earthly attachments, is doomed to be one of a patriarchy or a matriarchy, the 'benevolent' or 'not so benevolent' dictator of "thou shalt not." I can think of no utopian group that has escaped this inevitable "Daddy/Mommy knows best" mindset. Which is not of love, which to me, is unconditional, but of imagined conditions that are to be met, "or else." It is the "or else" that so fucks up the human soul/mind/psyche. In some measure, all of us have been fucked up by the shadow of the intellect that is aware of the dangling axe of "or else."

A long post to end up back where it began. For me, there is but only one way to end the mind fuck of the intellect, and that is to stop letting it have its way with me. Precept by precept, line by line, here a little, there a little, I will refuse its offer to propagate its lies that my unconditioned thought heaven can be blended with my conditioned thoughts of what heaven should be. Conditioned 'me': a moment by moment 'goodbye'. Unconditioned Me: a moment by moment 'hello.'

[Bob Michael]

C/B:

It seems to me that there are a lot of self-proclaimed "us chosen few" out there who interpret Christian teachings as they see fit. This is just an observation - I am not saying it is a bad thing by any means. I am simply pointing out that everyone doing so makes none of them seem very chosen.

Bob:

I suppose what I'm trying to point out by using the term 'chosen few' is that only a relatively few people are biologically fit to attain to oneness with themselves, life, and God or the Infinite. Though the bulk of those who claim to be among the 'chosen few' are oblivious to just what it takes to qualify for kingdom entry, and chances are very good that they're not 'there', and never will be.

C/B:

Also, you seem to use the term "monkey business" a lot, apparently for behavior with which you have problems. Since monkeys are amusing and bumbling rather than evil or threatening, perhaps you should use a more pejorative expression.

Bob:

I picked that term up as a youngster from my dad. Who, when I would try to pull off some shenanigans, would often firmly tell me to "cut out the monkey-business." Which sooner or later I would do. Sometimes he would tell me to "cut out the goddamned monkey-business." And of course then I would surely do so quite abruptly. He would also sometimes tell me to stop the monkey-shines. He also used to sometimes refer to other people as lame brains, knuckleheads, and boneheads. Today I think I understand the point he might have been trying to get across here in a far deeper way than he ever did. Sometimes I use the word mischief for what I feel is off-the-wall or human, all-too-human behaviors. Yet I can't get too heavy with criticizing other people's actions and behaviors, since most of them know not what they do, are incapable of ever changing, and aren't even responsible for their ways of error. Since they are a product of their conditioning or enculturation which they had no say whatsoever about and which usually goes so deep that there's no awareness of it or the generally violent and destructive manner in which it plays itself out in their lives.

C/B:

Bob wrote: Insane and chaotic as the world may be, it's perfectly the way it's supposed to be and can't be any different than it is. And if we're to effectively change it...Please read the part in [my] italics. This underlies much of your message, Bob. Can you see the why one finds this inescapably contradictory?

Bob:

Yes, but this is a matter of a lack of understanding on the part of others and not myself.

C/B:

Doesn't the truly wise person realize one's feelings and fears do not amount to the ability to predict the future? Believing you are the voice crying in the wilderness is a delusion. It puts you in the worst company.

Bob:

There's no "feelings and fears" involved in my 'prophecy'. It's simply the product of a super-sensitive and highly-refined human being who's very much in tune with himself, life, the nature of the fallen human condition, and the way out. Or one might say here that God-consciousness is simply the consummation of human refinement.