The Problem With Women Today

[paco]

Tell me what you think of this.
http://theproblemwithwomentoday-reality ... gspot.com/

The problem with women today is as follows, they aren't getting enough pick up lines.=)

[Trevor Salyzyn]

The problem with women today is as follows, they aren't getting enough pick up lines.=)

As if women need even more morons praying to them everywhere they go. They're already insane enough as it is.

[Alex Jacob]

Prince wrote: "Spoken like a true post-modernist."

David writes: "More specifically, you don't like the way I focus on the high-end of life, the way I constantly try to drive people's minds through that narrow gate and beyond into an ultimate understanding of Nature as a whole. To you, this represents a drive away from everything you are familiar and comfortable with.

"You do not see the value of doing this, nor do you understand it. To you, it seems like an escapism, a running away from the world - the "world" in this case being everything you are familiar and comfortable with. You don't see it as it really is - namely, as another way of living in the world, as a way of interacting with things, all things, in a fundamentally different matter. No, to you, it balloons into the preposterous scenario that I am running away from things altogether."

Funny, this nut-case who flutters around here, who seems to be attracted to your 'teachings' (or perhaps not, God only knows) identifies me as 'post-modernist' without realizing that what I am actually speaking about is modernism. Not post-modernism but modernism quite specifically.

It is really stupid of you to write: "...you don't like the way I focus on the high-end of life, the way I constantly try to drive people's minds through that narrow gate and beyond into an ultimate understanding of Nature as a whole", and is a fundamental misunderstanding of what I try to communicate.

There are a group of reasons why you have no choice but to misperceive me, to hallucinate me into a Demon, to see me less as a person and more like a force of nature, like gravity, that you must resist and if you don't suffer some horrible cost. But it is all misperception on your part.

You suppose that because I don't come out in support of your supposed high-mindedness, your methods, your strategies, that therefor I cannot conceive of the Divine or that I don't have a relationship to it. In the limited structure of your faulty logic-system (please note), which occurs within a reduction you insist on (i.e. you must make it be like that, there is no other alternative available to you), you have no choice but to perceive me like that. Yet, this is very, very far from the truth.

Apparently, I don't schizophrenically divide life into categories that I then separate from each other. Life is a unity, and all that happens to us happens within this structure. Within the structure of my body and my mind, on this (physical or whatever it is) plane of existence, in the context of all that I am: thoughts, emotions, sensations, nature, consciousness, unconsciousness---all of it. It is a principal characteristic, or perhaps achievement is a better word, of 'modernity' (I do mean this in a more elevated and elite sense, in a Nietzschean sense), that we really gain an understanding of our 'location' (as I am fond of saying), of our matrix.

It is both heaven and hell, satanic and divine, matter and spirit, and whatever we do (or don't do) will take place within this matrix.

In no sense do I recommend whatever it is that you hallucinate that I recommend, and you fundamentally misunderstand what I am objecting to. It's not that you don't have the mental equipment to grasp it, it is a software issue: you work with antiquated software I guess is a way to put it.

Again we have to bring all of this Will into the present, into our physical/spiritual selves, and we have to translate from the 'graveyard of outmoded meaning' a kind of 'new song' if you will permit me.

"You don't see it as it really is - namely, as another way of living in the world, as a way of interacting with things, all things, in a fundamentally different matter."

Oh no, I most certainly DO see it as 'another way of living in the world', and if it is your chosen and decided way, what else might I say about it? But on a public forum whose purpose is to really plunge into things and to sound them out I see your 'methods' as outmoded, rhetorical, limiting, and all that occurs when someone 'holes-up' within a dogmatic, rigid stance and can no longer see the myriad of fine points. The whole thing hinges in the subtlety of what we are really dealing with. That is, the subtlety of the movements of the Spirit. You like to believe that you are, in this specific sense, the bee's-knees when it comes to a sophisticated, 'spiritual' Nietzscheanism, but seen in another way you are just a mediocre, inexperienced dullard who has missed the point! Whose limited structure will continually force him to miss the point. You constantly imply that I must humble myself before you, but I just laugh, because (seen in another way) it could be you (and your ridiculous posse) that needs to remember something about 'humility'.

"If a person is addicted to heroin for a long time and knows no other way of life than that of constantly getting high, then that becomes his "world". To him, even the very idea of going straight is nothing short of escapism."

It is a gross example, an example for a dullard's mentality. To return to one of the subjects of this 'conversation' we could talk about 'women' (or 'pussy' as I say: inflamed, sensuous, and desirous of dick) and 'gold' (which YOU get from the Australian government like a mental patient who can't care for himself).

For you (from the sound of it, as a sort of a prude), you can't even sit on the same bench with a woman, and we certainly aren't going to find you with a beloved pair of panties that you sniff voluptuously from time to time, saying 'Oh God! Oh God!'. You can't have sex and you can't have relationships. Women are some sort of slug-like critter that you recoil from. It starts there and extends far, far beyond it. You have divided the world, and for you there is a Heaven-realm that you separate from a Worldly-realm---this terrible 'mundane' you refer to so often, the worst swear-word in your vocabulary. You have all these rules and regulations that you must follow in order to be this spiritual person. It is presented like a bad soap-opera, with Nietzschean drama. And it seems to be modelled on something pretty similar to Ramakrishna, from the late 1800s and early 1900s. From a really antiquated and decidedly 'pre-modern' point of view (that no one really even practices anymore, that recedes into the past, that is like a relic). The only ones who play within that structure, it seems, are some old, tired hippies. It simply does not speak to us if presented in this stupid, divided form. (There is really so, so much to be said about this, and also the other possibilities that are open to us, to our spirituality, to our movement and motion in the world, and very little of that is ever mentioned on this forum, and this I mention as a 'public service').

[Carl G]

All that yak to say the same old "that ain't me, jack, and, you're an old man who don't know diddly."

If you're not going to give substance, could you at least be brief?

[Alex Jacob]

My Favorite Grumpy Girl:

1) I was editing my post, making it better (expanding it!), and your stupid and useless comment caused an editing line to appear! And I hate that.

2) I suggest to you (you especially in fact) that you are not grasping what I am talking about, and why it differs tremendously from your characterization. Do I really have to spoon-feed you? Is your bib clean?

3) If this keeps up I will fly up to 'Arizona', hunt you down, tie you up, and recite my posts starting from August 2007, one after the other, until you achieve 'enlightenment'.

[Robert]

Take out the papers and the trash
Or you don't get no spendin' cash
If you don't scrub that kitchen floor
You ain't gonna rock and roll no more
Yakety yak (don't talk back)

Just finish cleanin' up your room
Let's see that dust fly with that broom
Get all that garbage out of sight
Or you don't go out Friday night
Yakety yak (don't talk back)

You just put on your coat and hat
And walk yourself to the laundromat
And when you finish doin' that
Bring in the dog and put out the cat
Yakety yak (don't talk back)

Don't you give me no dirty looks
Your father's hip; he knows what cooks
Just tell your hoodlum friend outside
You ain't got time to take a ride
Yakety yak (don't talk back)

Yakety yak, yakety yak
Yakety yak, yakety yak
Yakety yak, yakety yak

(The Coasters)

[Carl G]

Alex, I'm not your fave, not grumpy, and not a girl. You weren't making your post better. My comment was not stupid, nor was it useless. And you will not fly to AZ. That's 7 lies in one short post. But I do appreciate your brevity!

[Alex Jacob]

Qui peut être le père de ces deux enfants de putain?

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Spoken like a true post-modernist.

Post-structuralism, the most common form of postmodernism, is a deliberate handicap. It's a refusal to use or build structures in an attempt to understand structures. Essences, foundations, human nature, a priori, and necessity -- concepts like these have to be removed. So, when someone sounds like a post-modernist accidentally...

[brokenhead]

You suppose that because I don't come out in support of your supposed high-mindedness, your methods, your strategies, that therefore I cannot conceive of the Divine or that I don't have a relationship to it.

David is the gatekeeper, doncha know.

In no sense do I recommend whatever it is that you hallucinate that I recommend, and you fundamentally misunderstand what I am objecting to. It's not that you don't have the mental equipment to grasp it, it is a software issue: you work with antiquated software I guess is a way to put it

.
You're being too kind.

That is, the subtlety of the movements of the Spirit. You like to believe that you are, in this specific sense, the bee's-knees when it comes to a sophisticated, 'spiritual' Nietzscheanism, but seen in another way you are just a mediocre, inexperienced dullard who has missed the point! Whose limited structure will continually force him to miss the point.

That's more like it.

There is really so, so much to be said about this, and also the other possibilities that are open to us, to our spirituality, to our movement and motion in the world, and very little of that is ever mentioned on this forum, and this I mention as a 'public service'

Why Alex, don't you know that A=A?

[Trevor Salyzyn]

...they are a complete and utter idiot.

[David Quinn]

Prince wrote: "Spoken like a true post-modernist."

David writes: "More specifically, you don't like the way I focus on the high-end of life, the way I constantly try to drive people's minds through that narrow gate and beyond into an ultimate understanding of Nature as a whole. To you, this represents a drive away from everything you are familiar and comfortable with.

"You do not see the value of doing this, nor do you understand it. To you, it seems like an escapism, a running away from the world - the "world" in this case being everything you are familiar and comfortable with. You don't see it as it really is - namely, as another way of living in the world, as a way of interacting with things, all things, in a fundamentally different matter. No, to you, it balloons into the preposterous scenario that I am running away from things altogether."

Funny, this nut-case who flutters around here, who seems to be attracted to your 'teachings' (or perhaps not, God only knows) identifies me as 'post-modernist' without realizing that what I am actually speaking about is modernism. Not post-modernism but modernism quite specifically.

No, you're definitely a postmodernist through and through. The rejection of absolute truth, the reduction of everything to "narratives" and "cultural forces", the inability to intellectually discriminate between things, and an overall aimlessness - these are all classic postmodernist traits.

It is really stupid of you to write: "...you don't like the way I focus on the high-end of life, the way I constantly try to drive people's minds through that narrow gate and beyond into an ultimate understanding of Nature as a whole", and is a fundamental misunderstanding of what I try to communicate.

So the words "adolescent", "mental-imprisoning", "moralistic", "sick", "dangerous", "death", etc, that seemingly dripped from your keyboard were just things I hallucinated?

I can only go by what you write, and what you write, behind all the puffery and prancing around, is a consistent condemnation of the idea of going through that narrow gate.

I know you hate being nailed on anything, but come on, at least take a little responsibility for your own behaviour.

There are a group of reasons why you have no choice but to misperceive me, to hallucinate me into a Demon, to see me less as a person and more like a force of nature, like gravity, that you must resist and if you don't suffer some horrible cost. But it is all misperception on your part.

You're not a Demon. You're simply a man with very little imagination and vision who has to make up for it with a lot of reading and absorbing of cultural myths, and who has to straightjacket everyone he meets into little boxes in order to feel bigger than them.

You suppose that because I don't come out in support of your supposed high-mindedness, your methods, your strategies, that therefor I cannot conceive of the Divine or that I don't have a relationship to it. In the limited structure of your faulty logic-system (please note), which occurs within a reduction you insist on (i.e. you must make it be like that, there is no other alternative available to you), you have no choice but to perceive me like that. Yet, this is very, very far from the truth.

What you and I call the "Divine" are two very different things. What you call the "Divine" is really a subtle form of emotionalism and an extension of your own egotism.

Apparently, I don't schizophrenically divide life into categories that I then separate from each other. Life is a unity, and all that happens to us happens within this structure. Within the structure of my body and my mind, on this (physical or whatever it is) plane of existence, in the context of all that I am: thoughts, emotions, sensations, nature, consciousness, unconsciousness---all of it. It is a principal characteristic, or perhaps achievement is a better word, of 'modernity' (I do mean this in a more elevated and elite sense, in a Nietzschean sense), that we really gain an understanding of our 'location' (as I am fond of saying), of our matrix.

It is both heaven and hell, satanic and divine, matter and spirit, and whatever we do (or don't do) will take place within this matrix.

It is true that all these things take place within the matrix, but this alone doesn't mean that they are all conducive to the flowering of spiritual consciousness.

Child molestation takes place within the matrix, but does this make it a spiritual activity? Your inability to discriminate between spiritual activity (that which promotes consciousness of truth) and non-spiritual activity (that which hinders or destroys the potential for truth-consciousness) goes to the heart of your postmodernism and your desire to remain safely esconced within your vague, foggy world.

In no sense do I recommend whatever it is that you hallucinate that I recommend, and you fundamentally misunderstand what I am objecting to. It's not that you don't have the mental equipment to grasp it, it is a software issue: you work with antiquated software I guess is a way to put it.

I am opposed to your broadening away from the narrow gate. This is a timeless objection, not an antiquated one.

If you gave some sort of inkling that you know what it means to go through that narrow gate, then I would probably treat you very differently. But I get nothing from you in that regard at all.

You constantly imply that I must humble myself before you, but I just laugh, because (seen in another way) it could be you (and your ridiculous posse) that needs to remember something about 'humility'.

A simple humility towards truth will do me.

It is ironic, but those who are humble towards truth are often perceived as arrogant, while those who appear humble tend to be very arrogant in the face of truth.

"If a person is addicted to heroin for a long time and knows no other way of life than that of constantly getting high, then that becomes his "world". To him, even the very idea of going straight is nothing short of escapism."

It is a gross example, an example for a dullard's mentality. To return to one of the subjects of this 'conversation' we could talk about 'women' (or 'pussy' as I say: inflamed, sensuous, and desirous of dick) and 'gold' (which YOU get from the Australian government like a mental patient who can't care for himself).

Ouch!

For you (from the sound of it, as a sort of a prude), you can't even sit on the same bench with a woman, and we certainly aren't going to find you with a beloved pair of panties that you sniff voluptuously from time to time, saying 'Oh God! Oh God!'. You can't have sex and you can't have relationships. Women are some sort of slug-like critter that you recoil from. It starts there and extends far, far beyond it. You have divided the world, and for you there is a Heaven-realm that you separate from a Worldly-realm---this terrible 'mundane' you refer to so often, the worst swear-word in your vocabulary.

It is far more mundane than that. This division you talk about emerges naturally the moment a person adopts a specific goal in life.

For example, if a person decides that his goal in life is to win an Olympic gold medal in the marathon, it becomes natural for him to begin discriminating between what will aid his goal and what will hinder it. He might decide that training and exercise and healthy eating are desirable things to do, and that he should abandon smoking and partying. He doesn't need to think that the latter are inherently bad or evil. He simply recognizes that they are at odds with his goal.

Similarly, when a person values truth and decides upon enlightenment as his goal, he naturally begins to discriminate between what promotes truth-consciousness and what doesn't. He might decide that reasoning, open-mindedness, and desire for ultimate understanding are desirable, and that he should abandon bigotry, pettiness, mental-prisons, cultural conditioning, attachment, self-destructive behaviour, etc. Again, he doesn't need to think of the latter as being inherently bad or evil, just a hindrance to his goal.

Of course, if a person doesn't have any goals at all, or if he settles for a variety of minor goals, then he no longer has any basis to make such discriminations. He will most likely slide into your own postmodernist perspective on things and regard all and sundry in the same light.

Again, everything that I describe here is very mundane and natural. Your attempt to cast it all into some sort of dramatic Christian mythology is bizarre and irrelevant.

You have all these rules and regulations that you must follow in order to be this spiritual person.

No rules at all, other than to love the truth above all else.

-

[Rhett]

Alex,

Rhett wrote:

"Regarding your assertion, "there is no such thing as a 'fully conscious, undeluded mind', when you say this you in effect claim to be personally less than fully conscious and to be deluded. This has implications for you personally, for what you write, for how other's regard what you write, etc. It is one statement about yourself that i agree with, but i suggest to you that the state can be improved upon."

"For example, there is truly no reason why delusion has to exist in any given mind, either in any given moment, or over a period of time. Your statement is analogous to, for example, claiming that a yellow rose is necessarily present in every mind. It's clearly not."

I think my assertion is utterly simple, intuitively obvious. To say there is no such thing as a 'fully conscious, undeluded mind' does not mean that there are not brilliant minds, subtle minds, blissful minds, and of course the sort of minds that 'you' seem to admire: the mind of certain Eastern sages, Buddhists, Crazy Wsdom teachers, whatever. But the category 'enlightenment' or 'enlightened'---this is simply obvious---is a subjective category. There are hundreds if not thousands of people who claim such a 'title' or who have been given it. If it were a unique and singular 'thing', all of them would act more or less the same way, or say the same thing, or give the same sort of advice. But they don't. Each remains a unique individual, with foibles, appetites, mistaken attitudes, etc. This does not mean that there are not men, and I suppose women, who have achieved unsusual, elevated, or difficult to attain states of mind. But when you look at it, the use of the word 'enlightened' is just an adjective to describe a certain stance. Krishnamurti, if I remember correctly, spoke about very sophisticated states of mind that, in essence, could be learned. That is, with the proper training you could attain states of mind far beyond the average. There are dozens of different gradients to these states and they all have Sanskrit names. Krishnamurti, again if I remember correctly, did not seem to place a great deal of merit in these states. But he did hold a type of focus or awareness or perhaps 'realitionship to being' (existence) in great esteem, and spoke of that in his talks.

My point is that nomatter what state one attains, one still have to live in a body, one still has to deal with one's terrestrial existence, and still has to face all the same issues as all other living beings. There is also the possibility that what one is calling 'enlightenment' is not that at all. Almost all of the so-called 'enlightened teachers' who have come from the East to the West have been shown to be...very interesting men, men who attained very interesting or even relevant viewpoints, who may or may not have had something valuable to impart to others, but in each case, when one digs under the surface (went below the 'image management'), you found there just another human being, like yourself, doing this and doing that, getting by, etc.

This notion of the 'perfect man'---I say this just as a side-note---does not exist in Judaism. Men are seen as what they are: imperfect, striving, but capable of great things, great ideals, great accomplishments within the temporal space of a life lived. The Eastern religions. which likely played a role in engineering the Divine Person of Jesus, always seem to employ exaggeration when they speak of great men's accomplishments. It is a question of the use of language. In no sense does this mean that there are not men who can and do have strong, memorable and lasting effects on others---I am thinking of Ramana Maharshi who, many said, seemed to produce changes in people who simply came to sit in his sangha.

True, I am not claiming 'enlightenment' and I have certainly never claimed to be 'free of delusion'. To be truthful, this seems like a ridiculous, and vain, class of pursuit. Why bother? It has far more to do with language and the use of words than it does with 'reality'. It seems far more 'sane' to me to arrive at a clearer, if more realistic, stance about who we are and what we are than it is to pursue a concept of 'enlightenment' tied to grandiosity, potential narcissim, not to mention a (potential) suppression or denial of one's real nature.

Different people here regard what I write in different ways, Rhett. That is just a simple statement of fact. Some feel quite threatened by what I propose, and seek to find ways to villify me, or demonize me, of feminize me, but in any case to marginalize these ideas so that they don't have to be considered. Others appreciate and understand what I am saying and why I say it. (I think they are more mature and have 'been round the block a time or two')

I am though quite obviously saying that David has been captured by his grandiosity and seems, to all appearances, to cultivate dangerously mistaken ideas about his own self. If it isn't completely obvious to you, he implies that he has a 'fully conscious, undeluded mind', and he both represents himself and defends himself (against all comers) in these terms. The people who buy into this are people who have been primed to accept the ideational possibility of such a perfected state of consciousness. You have to have an attraction to it in order to want and need to defend it. My 'evil' is to state, openly and yet with infinite good humor that the whole platform of holding oneself up as 'enlightened' is complete bullshit and should be seen through.

There is a great deal at stake with mistaken notions about oneself and one's capabilities. There is such a thing as a 'Ponzi scheme of the mind' and it takes numerous players to get it rolling and to maintain it.

Finally, what I propose is sane, balanced assessment of oneself, a realistic relationship to life, and slow, continuous progress toward realizing higher ideals in oneself, in combination with economic development, social development, service to one's community, education, etc. I know that the sound of this strikes many here discordantly. It almost HURTS. It is so much easier to engage with vain imaginings, to imagine as real things that aren't. That is also why I refer to a sort of 'pathology' among young boys, a Peter Pan complex, etc.

Enlightenment, periods for which delusion is not present, 100% not present, is entirely possible and does occur, and is of key importance to the spiritual path. If understanding of this is not aimed for, if knowledge of ultimate truth is not sought, there is no spiritual path. If the absence of delusion is not placed on centre stage, and if its pursuit is denigrated, all genuine spirituality is castigated.

Placing focus on categorisation of events into "persons", leading lives, making mistakes, . . . is trying to steer away, to stay mediocre, to maintain delusion out of weariness, and try to be okay about it.

The belief in inherent existence, the belief that "people" inherently exist, that consciousness is beholden by a body, is an imagination, a false imagination. Understanding this is key to enlightenment, is key to the absence of delusion. This does not mean that imaginations should be abolished, that they cannot be of practical use, . . . indeed, when free of delusional content, imaginations can be entirely useful and sane.

To try to render all spiritual endeavour into a hobby, a pursuit, fundamentally similar to others, including academic pursuits, is to, metaphorically speaking, throw a gold watch into a river. It attempts to dilute a key and manificent occurence, an exceptional event, into a bland everyday thing that it is not.

Enlightenment does exist. Logically it can exist. The existence of failures, of failed attempts, and of mild and medium accomplishments, does not make a statement about the essence of enlightenment.

[Alex Jacob]

Rhett,

All that you have shared is just a group of abstractions. It is some stuff you have heard, have thought about, and repeat. What is missing---vitally missing---is the first-person point-of-view. Instead of speaking reciting what you think is 'true', imagine as true, or hope to be true, it could all (and should all) become infinitely more real if you were to talk in the first person singular. Because as it is, 'you' don't know what you're talking about...
_________________________________________________________________

David writes: "Child molestation takes place within the matrix, but does this make it a spiritual activity? Your inability to discriminate between spiritual activity (that which promotes consciousness of truth) and non-spiritual activity (that which hinders or destroys the potential for truth-consciousness) goes to the heart of your postmodernism and your desire to remain safely ensconced within your vague, foggy world."

I personally don't believe in post-modernism, but I am not completely opposed to, say, the term 'late-modernism'. I do think that there IS such a thing as indecisiveness in thinking, or to overwhelmed thinking, or to an acute over-abundance of information, sensation, image, etc. I suppose that is what you want to refer to by 'post-modernism'. And I certainly won't say that 'late-modernism' does not present challenges or that I do not deal with those challenges (and problems). But this is sort of what I am talking about: Though I know this is not the case with you (who know the Truth and for whom there is no more Questions, only Answers proffered), I am very definitely saying that, as I see things, we are duty-bound to deeply ponder the meaning the meaning of these terms, spirituality, religion, high and low, divine, terrestrial, mundane, what it means to lead a 'spiritual life', a moral life, and in short to live in this sphere of existence where we and everything else is taking place. Absolutely and completely I accept that this is a huge and vast problem, that it stands before us and we cannot avoid it, and that (from the look of it) most will fail this process.

From the look of it, though, your tactic is NOT to take up this challenge, and I think it may be your basic lack of education that determines this 'choice'. You only have access to a limited palette of information and ideas, and being at the core a true-blue conservative, with a definite puritanical streak, the easiest option is to back-up into conventional views, which is kind of like backing out of 'late modernism' and desperately seeking an anchor in a previous epoch of classical modernism---a strange, foreign, decidedly non-Nietzschean territory BTW, that is to say Ramakrishnaism and this pre-modern or late-Medieval orientation. Really, it just gets weirder and weirder with you. How you could EVER and with a straight face propose that Nietzsche, who plunged so deeply into the issues and problems of late-modernism would even or could even have admired or condoned YOUR conservative tactics and choices is beyond me.

I can't 'fix' you, man, and I don't really want to. I am in this conversation because my path has been about dealing with these problems from another angle---and I have lived the agony of confusion within my own 'body'. I am not representing myself as owning or selling any particular solution, but I am vitally interested in these questions and in the outcome of these questions. That is why I have stayed on here and why I bother to converse with someone who is, in fact, unconversable.

"I am opposed to your broadening away from the narrow gate. This is a timeless objection, not an antiquated one."

Again, what we need is an ever-increasing spiritual subtlety, a Nietzschean subtlety if you will permit me the term. I could also say that we need an ever-increasing Christian subtlety, and a Hindu subtlety, and on and on. I certainly would never dismiss the term 'narrow gate', it would be hard to do this in the strict sense of the Jesus-mission. Jesus was a Jew and spoke from the Jewish tradition, he was not a Brahman worshipping in front of a sacrificial fire. But we do have a pretty strict and defined idea of what is the 'narrow gate' for a Brahman-worshipper. All the data is there, all we have to do is refer to it.

But, for 'us', I would simply suggest that the nature of the 'narrow gate' has not been forever decided. Oddly enough---disturbingly enough---it is really Life that provides answers to such questions, and sometimes the answers go against our 'rehearsals' of 'timeless spiritual truths'. With that, I would say that any person who reads here on GF will have many different 'answers' that have to do with their own life, their own 'road'. For someone, the 'narrow gate' could be finding a way to simply love another person, to take the personalist message to another level. It could be very many different and distinct things. It could very well be that this 'narrow gate' might be very much more hard to approach or pass through than the 'narrow gate' you present, with all its dogmatic, determined tones. And at the same time what I propose does not annihilate ideas related to absolute absolutes, as it pertains to this life or this plane of existence (cosmologically or metaphysically). I only suggest that when we live in life, our spiritual path is always more local, more immediate. In your case though, and surely in the case of your 'posse', this present incarnation is your last, and all that you say is just a fond-farewell before, like a snowflake on the water, you return to the Infinite.

You see what I'm getting at?

"If you gave some sort of inkling that you know what it means to go through that narrow gate, then I would probably treat you very differently. But I get nothing from you in that regard at all."

Ah, yes: 'Obstinacy makes it impossible for us to hear, for all that we have ears'.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Enlightenment, periods for which delusion is not present, 100% not present, is entirely possible and does occur, and is of key importance to the spiritual path.

No, Rhett, the period of enlightenment was followed by modernism. Read a book for a change.

[Alex Jacob]

Oh, almost forgot. I wanted to clear up a small issue. Something that Sue said that---and I admit this---really threw me for a loop. My ego got all wrapped up in it and it took me 2 full days to regain myself. As all who read here know, ole Alex is far from perfect.

A few days back---it is even still a little hard for me to think about it---I was accused of having an Elk. She referred to me and then said 'and his Elk'.

My mouth dropped when I read this. I rubbed my eyes. Diod she really write that, I asked? She did write it, and she meant it.

To Whom it May Concern:

Alex Jacob has no truck with Elks. They are dirty, perverse, domineering, undependable, variable, conniving creatures that lack grace and good manners. Let them bugle till Kingdom Come in the Northern forests I say!

While Macaws have many flaws (hey, that rhymes!) they are noble, intelligent, TRUE friends of man.

I wanted to clear this up.

Thank you.

Very truly yours,

---Alex Jacob

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Brokenhead, can you puzzle out why our friend is now completely paranoid of us?

[Shahrazad]

Trevor, how did you reach that conclusion?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

If you have the answer as to how the UB was produced, I am all ears.

It was your claim that ""The UB was NOT channeled". Channeling meaning in general "speaking for nonphysical beings or spirits". The Urantia papers contain many references to higher-dimensional or spiritual non-human authors who are giving their perspective on this planet and its reality. One might discuss the nature of this intelligence but it falls clearly in the category of channeling unless someone wants to make the case the letters appeared out of nowhere - which nobody really does. Some of the people involved were just afraid of being lumped in with the competition, that's all. Like Christians sometimes not wanting to be called religious.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I am not representing myself as owning or selling any particular solution, but I am vitally interested in these questions and in the outcome of these questions.

Then why not just shutting up? You don't because in contradiction with what you just wrote you do own and sell a lot of solution, loads of oils and lubricates. It's indeed like is being said to you: the line of thought hashed around on this forum you dislike, you reject for very personal reasons. You believe perhaps that somehow you can derail or influence anything here but the only thing getting derailed and influenced is you. Every word you utter functions like an incantation to ward off the evil. Behind any good entertainer's act hides sadness, hurt, a deep knowing of suffering with no way out. A reasonable stance because there is no way out unless through some finality.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Sher, "Alex and his ilk" referred to Alex and brokenhead. Brokenhead was defending Alex's views.

Now, after 2 days of thinking about his ego, Alex refuses to be associated with brokenhead, calling 'Elk' (an obvious-as-dirt pun) "dirty, perverse, domineering, undependable, variable, conniving creatures that lack grace and good manners."

He refuses to trust brokenhead, or any others, to represent his views in any way. Paranoia is the word that describes lack of trust. Egotism describes that strong urge to own a viewpoint (an egotism he revealed elsewhere by projecting it onto David).

Yet Alex considers himself a friend of man!

[Alex Jacob]

You are getting more and more confused, Trev. Brokenhead's a swell guy and I like him just fine. Sue really should have said 'Alex and his macaw' but she tried to associate me with Elks (is 'Ilk' a regional spelling for the Australian Elk?)(I didn't know they had Elks there. Did they swim there with the platypus?)

I don't want to freak anyone out, anymore than they obviously are, but Weisenheimer channels Alex in his spare time. And when Alex is not psychotically typing posts, he channels Weisenheimer. Mutually, their Truths are projected into this Plane from a far, far away star. But I can't tell you its name. We come before you in peace. We mean you no harm!
_____________________________________________

Diebert, are you getting a little cranky these days?

"Then why not just shutting up? You don't because in contradiction with what you just wrote you do own and sell a lot of solution, loads of oils and lubricates. It's indeed like is being said to you: the line of thought hashed around on this forum you dislike, you reject for very personal reasons. You believe perhaps that somehow you can derail or influence anything here but the only thing getting derailed and influenced is you. Every word you utter functions like an incantation to ward off the evil. Behind any good entertainer's act hides sadness, hurt, a deep knowing of suffering with no way out. A reasonable stance because there is no way out unless through some finality."

Shutting up is not an option, really.

The rest of what you wrote doesn't follow, for me. It is different to offer something, to put it out there on the table, than to 'sell' it. But persuasion is certainly a part of selling, I admit you that. But selling has as its end one outcome, buying. Selling is for 'philistines' who, it really seems this way, are only immitating what goes on in the culture at large: blunt, unsubtle, like a hammer to the skull.

I don't reject the focus with which the Forum-Fathers bring their philsophy into the world, I reject elements of the content. Have you ever stopped to think what would (will) happen if David begins to construct a bridge to my Posts 'o' Genius instead of always fighting against them, tooth and nail? Truthfully, we have more in common than you would think. (Heaven help me).

On what basis would I derail anything that goes on here, Diebert? You are giving me influence I clearly don't have. Do you think I am here to take on disciples? Have I convinced you of anything? Anything that can be expressed other than in some Dutch double-speak?

"Every word you utter functions like an incantation to ward off the evil".

For as long as David uttters words of unTruth, he is my mortal enemy until the End of Days! I am that fierce! I am that committed to tRuTh! Late modernism will crumble away and yet my Words will remain!

"Behind any good entertainer's act hides sadness, hurt, a deep knowing of suffering with no way out."

Has the subject shifted? Are we now going to talk about the sources or the existence of 'sadness, hurt, or suffering'? That would be a novel shift, wouldn't it? Kind of girlish but novel.

Okay: "Who here has 'sadness, hurt or suffers?" Step forward there my adolescent friends! Don't stampede each other to be the first to confess before your 'mother' Alex!

Diebert, you asked me to stop 'entertaining'. (To put Wesienheimer on a cruise ship for Tahiti). I stopped. I have written 6 posts with NO REFERENCE TO THE PSYCHO MACAW! What more do you want from me?

Are you guys gonna ban me now?!

Heeeelp! Heeelp!

[Tomas]

.


-Alex-
Are you guys gonna ban me now?

-tomas-
Brokie will be banned before you would be.

Why? .. you deny being a butt-buddy whereas he has said he has been.

As far as Help Help Weisenheimer - that whole area is his personal swimming/sunning pad? Merci!

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Alex, it seems impossible for you to hide your naivety about so many topic matters. You say that it is different to offer something, to put it out there on the table, than to 'sell' it. Or that selling has as its end one outcome, buying. But you haven't figured out yet that the sell is created by anything that one is ready to lose, to pay by accepting even what is generously made available. The moment someone buys from you, it makes you a salesman. That's why every word you utter, every gesture you make is still an exchange. Only dummies deny this, washing their hands with every act.

[brokenhead]

-tomas-
Brokie will be banned before you would be.

Why? .. you deny being a butt-buddy whereas he has said he has been.

I shall ask you to clarify what you mean here, Tomas.

Diebert, are you getting a little cranky these days?

What do you mean "these days"?

He refuses to trust brokenhead, or any others, to represent his views in any way. Paranoia is the word that describes lack of trust. Egotism describes that strong urge to own a viewpoint (an egotism he revealed elsewhere by projecting it onto David).

Yet Alex considers himself a friend of man!
Sher, "Alex and his ilk" referred to Alex and brokenhead. Brokenhead was defending Alex's views.

Now, after 2 days of thinking about his ego, Alex refuses to be associated with brokenhead, calling 'Elk' (an obvious-as-dirt pun) "dirty, perverse, domineering, undependable, variable, conniving creatures that lack grace and good manners."

He refuses to trust brokenhead, or any others, to represent his views in any way. Paranoia is the word that describes lack of trust. Egotism describes that strong urge to own a viewpoint (an egotism he revealed elsewhere by projecting it onto David).

Yet Alex considers himself a friend of man!

Trevor, what's with you? Why should Alex not speak for himself? Don't you do that?