Sharing Negative Karma Across The Collective Consciousness

[Alex Jacob]

Amanda, I implied that that was part of the issue, but it is certainly not all. You jump far too quickly.

You illustrate, perhaps, another part. This 'using a ladder' to get to the 'choicest fruit'. What you mean by 'ladder' (or 'fruit' for that matter), who really knows? But in the real world, almost straight across the board, a man has to make tremendous sacrifices ('the ladder') to be able to get and hold the basket with all the fruit in it. Even men who seem to be at the top of their game, who play the game and seem to 'win', can be closely examined, and this winning is, at least in one way of looking at it, not a great deal more than having been successfully tricked: to have tricked oneself and to have been tricked by another. But that 'another' is plural, social, physical, biological, also mercantile.

If a man is genuine and true to himself, the whole game begins to take on a suspect flavor.

According to those here, this is the 'feminine'. Unconscious impulse, the appetites and desires of the 'Id', the bait and the trap of unconsciousness, of samsara. They give this 'feminine' a female face, the face of a woman, and they choose not to have relationships with that 'woman'. They stand apart from her and they 'analyse' her.

They 'privilege', if you will, a certain way of being a man---the rational, the clear-seeing, the philosophical---as being, in a literal sense, man's only salvation. It is this 'masculinity' that is the origin of just about all the tools and concepts that we now have and use in this world. 'Woman' is, in a very real sense, superfluous in all of this. And because, at least from their rhetoric one gathers this, they have no relationships, it means they aren't fucking women, and have no interest in the juicy fruit. There is almost no 'ethic' of wishing to create anything with women, such as a family, and there is no definition of an alternative ethic to the madness of a consumer-impelled male-female relationship. (Like 'leaving society', going back to the land, dropping the TeeVee of a cliff, reading the Bible, etc.) Their ethic is exclusively solitary. Nevertheless, some who write here are married, or like women, or just enjoy having sex with them from time to time.

But it gets even more complex, more labyrinthine. From all I have read, from all of them and many others (but not all), all that is 'emotional' (a very loaded word here) and 'intuitive' and especially 'artistic' (God forbid you would ever quote a poem or refer to something except in pure rational terms, mathematically), is part-and-parcel of 'the feminine', of the 'unconscious', and must be avoided at all cost. Indeed, it must be excised if a man wants to approach 'wisdom'.

They hold in great esteem a 'philosopher' by the name of Weininger, who wrote in the 20s of so, whose definitions of women and femininity they not only accept but are part of the world view and the rhetoric they represent to the world.

(I await your trite, reflexive 'comments' with smiles and winks and hahas and lols...)

[elderwoodxxx]

Oh Alex I was merely expanding on your little analogy with the use of metaphor.. It is obvious from your response that you really do posses a lot of confusion between man and woman!!. If a man 'feels' he has to make sacrifices then of course that is the/your perception. There are no sacrifices other than the egotistical wants which all people have. Whether male or female it does not matter.

If a man is genuine and true to himself, the whole game begins to take on a suspect flavor.

All any one can be is true to them selves and what you have to learn is that most people are not. They feel obligatory 'hardships' and 'pressure' in 'trying' to do the right thing. Right things of course are not always the easiest. If you 'love' something then let it go, any attempt to grab and hold onto it only serves to create discord pushing the other away, creating distance and doubt.

The secret is selflessness. If one trys to take and own another then this is where problems arise. I say many times that I am no 'egos' prize. No person 'owns' another but within our present practices some like being 'owned' some like 'owning'.

They 'privilege', if you will, a certain way of being a man---the rational, the clear-seeing, the philosophical---as being, in a literal sense, man's only salvation. It is this 'masculinity' that is the origin of just about all the tools and concepts that we now have and use in this world. 'Woman' is, in a very real sense, superfluous in all of this.

This just shows your ignorance Alex! what exactly are you 'trying' to assert to male and females. We are not another species!! The way you 'create' separation through misunderstanding shows your lack of discerning judgement!. Let me guess you see woman as a reproductive machine to contine the species and hope she gives birth to a male, other than that she serves no purpose other than to wash your socks and service your goods? How shallow are you????

But it gets even more complex, more labyrinthine. From all I have read, from all of them and many others (but not all), all that is 'emotional' (a very loaded word here) and 'intuitive' and especially 'artistic' (God forbid you would ever quote a poem or refer to something except in pure rational terms, mathematically), is part-and-parcel of 'the feminine', of the 'unconscious', and must be avoided at all cost. Indeed, it must be excised if a man wants to approach 'wisdom'.

again what ignorance!! From all you have read? So you take and prize highly the subjective opinions of another above your own experience and understanding as a highly prized truth do you? emotional, intuition and creational art must be avoided?? What on this earth do you 'think' makes us all 'human'??? Wisdom explains emotion, explains intuition and explains creativity and these are fundamental constructs of HOW to perceive the labrynth! Once one understands emotion it is so EASY to transcend them. They teach us all that we need to know. The entrapments of Samsara will remain entrapments if you continually supress them!

While ever you ascribe to anothers perceptions you are certainly not making any of your own! You may perceive my words as 'trite' but really Alex ask your self one question.. Do you really understand yourself including your emotions and HOW you can make them how you want? We are not trapped because of them.. we can be liberated and control our own reality to experience comtentment and bliss..when ever we desire. I say again YOU are NOT a machine. Dare you to 'feel' or do you have to diffuse your uncertaintainty with yet more humour to make you 'feel' better?!! hahaha

amandaxxx

[brokenhead]

If you 'love' something then let it go, any attempt to grab and hold onto it only serves to create discord pushing the other away, creating distance and doubt.

"Love is a nose/And you better not pick it..."

[Carl G]

Amanda,

I think you misunderstood Alex's post. Either that or I did; Heaven knows sometimes Alex's words come like quicksilver in the most elixeric way but other times his posts appear like great unwieldy blocks of constipatory cheese, and this unfortunately was one of those.

I believe Alex's point was that these views of feminine/masculine are those held by the intelligentsia here at Genius, not necessarily those he himself holds.

[brokenhead]

hahaha

What's with the maniacal laugh at the end of your posts? You sound like a mad scientist.

[elderwoodxxx]

I think you misunderstood Alex's post. Either that or I did;

I probably did.. Of course Alex looks objectively and i wrote from the context of those thoughts being his own,.. but then how do we know what are his own? and what are his observations exactly all of the time..

I have re read it with this new context and yes i see your point, but my writing still stands although aimed at the 'general' consensus here therefore.

What's with the maniacal laugh at the end of your posts? You sound like a mad scientist.

hahaha

You perceive it as manic.. but i was just having a private joke to myself in relation to what another had said about the joking...

Amandaxxx

[Alex Jacob]

Awhile back, Amanda-kins, you mused that perhaps you might need to read a little better what others write, and this is one of those cases. I made an effort to give you some background and to answer the question you asked. I said it was 'public service'.

This is good advice for all of us: Think before you ejaculate! (There are 5 distinct levels of humor in that simple phrase).

Okay, you have arrived here, you blunder into all arenas with no preparation, yet everyone treats you graciously nonetheless, but then you continue to read badly and to blurt-out responses before you have thought them through.

My opinion about some of what you write is that your New Agisms are pretty linked to 'PC formulations'. Popular ideas about what is true (correct). PC-think is a kind of indoctrination, and when you combine this indoctrination with the goop and gunk and slorp from the New-Age Fog Machine, you quickly get up shit creek without a paddle.

"We are not another species. The way you 'create' separation through misunderstanding shows your lack of discerning judgement."

[I deleted your exclamation points, they reminded me of the Tongue-!Click language of the South African Bushmen...]

I read a pretty extensive study years ago, carried out by men and women, where they studied the communication techniques and the social interactions between boys and girls (boys-boys, girls-girls) and something one of the women who conducted the study said, that has stuck with me, is 'It was as if we were studying different species'.

There have been many different studies, both popular and sociological, over the last few decades that point in the direction of substantial differences between men and women. So, I would only push back at you this word 'discernment'. If you'd become a little less drunk on the New-Age Narcotic Fog; if you'd read a little better and hesitate before jumping to conclusions; if you would 'discern' a little better yourself, Oh Mouthpiece of the All! It'd turn out much better for all.

"Let me guess you see woman as a reproductive machine to continue the species and hope she gives birth to a male, other than that she serves no purpose other than to wash your socks and service your goods? How shallow are you".

Madame Nature is the one who established all females of all species as 'reproductive machines'. This reminds me of a 'conversation' with Ms Pye. She was bewailing all that the social Mr God (patriarchal idea structures about divinity that are really socially enforcing) had done to women, and it occurred to me that the real devil, the real demon, was not Mr God but Madame Nature: a merciless mistress! It is in fact 'Mr God' (the ethics of Christianity, virtually alone) that allowed the notion of freedom of women to come into existence. Considering the pagan hell, Christianity has been a God-send for womankind.

If you are asking me (I was after al trying to purvey to you the views of our Glorious Founders, and was not revealing my own views which are more subtle, more nuanced) what role I personally wish for women, my honest answer is that...I really can't comment. Looking back over things, I see that I never really had any intention of marrying the women I was with. The ideal of a family was never my ideal. My entire purpose in love and in sensuality has been exclusively personal, self-oriented. Maybe the best way to describe it would be to employ the symbol of Odysseus: many years of voyaging, with relatively short sojourns. Women have been way-stations for me, I have accessed them for mantic purposes, but I have always remained unattached. It really would, I think, be marvellous to have women friends and associates of, say, the level of Isak Dineson: full, rich, thoughtful women with a story to tell. But these women are so much rarer even than their male counterpart. (I was thinking of Isak Dineson because I came across a work of hers today On Marriage).

It is all a peculiar paradox. On one hand, there are oodles of delicious females that one can enjoy for sensual and sexual purposes (I live most of the time in Latin America), but it is very difficult to find that so-desired 'prepared woman'. But what prepares that prepared woman? Almost exclusively it is her familiarity with the literary and intellectual work of men.

The best ideal, it seems to me, is that offered in a pretty traditional Judeo-Christian marriage arrangement, which is probably the very best 'arrangement' that has come into existence to date, and that informs modern, egalitarian marriage. It is clearly the best for raising kids, and it is probably also best if there is a religious-spiritual foundation in the home, and each partner is serving the role that both Madame Nature and Mr God has provided for them. (Where is Ms God, you ask, in all this? You have a point there, and she is best defined, I think, through the Goddesses of the Hearth, the Home, with lovely touches of Field & Flower, just as the better Gods are those of the trades, of industry and invention and creativity, and of real fulfillment of the masculine role, protector-ship and such).

[brokenhead]

You perceive it as manic.. but i was just having a private joke to myself in relation to what another had said about the joking...

I didn't say manic. I said maniacal. Either way, you should be polite and share your private joke with the class.

[brokenhead]

Okay, you have arrived here, you blunder into all arenas with no preparation, yet everyone treats you graciously nonetheless, but then you continue to read badly and to blurt-out responses before you have thought them through.

My opinion about some of what you write is that your New Agisms are pretty linked to 'PC formulations'. Popular ideas about what is true (correct). PC-think is a kind of indoctrination, and when you combine this indoctrination with the goop and gunk and slorp from the New-Age Fog Machine, you quickly get up shit creek without a paddle.

Are you saying Amanda sounds like this?

[elderwoodxxx]

ok not really that funny but here it is..

The owner of the company I work for is like this – humor is a coping mechanism to support his irrational psyche. When he feels depressed, sad, angry, frustrated, hurt, then he resorts to comedy to diffuse the affects of those emotions on the mind and body. However, a sage is beyond these emotions altogether, and so he doesn’t need to use humor as a sort of pain reliever.

and then I said to alex..:

Dare you to 'feel' or do you have to diffuse your uncertaintainty with yet more humour to make you 'feel' better?!! hahaha

That was all.

Awhile back, Amanda-kins, you mused that perhaps you might need to read a little better what others write, and this is one of those cases. I made an effort to give you some background and to answer the question you asked. I said it was 'public service'.

alex I did correct myself in an offer of my own mistake, thereby asserting the fact that I am always OPEN and i dont mind admitting if i have perceived something out of context.. DO YOU???

Okay, you have arrived here, you blunder into all arenas with no preparation, yet everyone treats you graciously nonetheless, but then you continue to read badly and to blurt-out responses before you have thought them through.

Excuse me? Do you really 'feel' so threatened that you have to pull another down to exalt yourself.. do you really 'feel' people are getting at you? this is an EGO reaction you do realise this dont you??? I am fully prepared, I do not read badly, and do not blurt.. your accusations only serve to fuel your own awareness or 'lack' thereof.. you did say 'you came down to earth', and now dwell in the mist....Emptyness resounds here.

Popular ideas about what is true (correct).

popular ideas?? Of course truth is all formed from what IS.. and so of course my ideas will resound with it! I follow NO other , One cannot 'follow' when matters of the SELF are being portrayed.. It would seem that you obviously 'think' this. What do you portray about your own SELF

There have been many different studies

You cannot take anything subjective or carried out within the subjective mind as gospel. Humans are extremely good at creating what they think from subjective perceptions.

If you'd become a little less drunk on the New-Age Narcotic Fog;

You keep refering to this new age 'fog' what exactly confuses you alex?
Every 'age' is a new age.. as it comes after the one before.. there is nothing new about the SELF.

and it occurred to me that the real devil, the real demon, was not Mr God but Madame Nature

How confused you are. The only evil that floats around is that which we construct within our own being, namely through actions and negativity, doubts and confusion.

Almost exclusively it is her familiarity with the literary and intellectual work of men.

Are you forgetting the works of women?? You seem somewhat 'blind' and evidentially assuming when it comes to women..but as you do say in your concluding remarks is that women form the back bone of the house..

You really felt with that mail that You had to defend your pride, even after I had corrected perceptions..by acknowledging myself in wrongness. This just shows you really do secumb to the emotional attachments that are samsara.

amandaxxx

[Carl G]

Alex, your shaman rap seems lost on Amanda, and your misogynistic truths aren't getting your message across, either. Damn, and you seemed so close. Maybe some You Tube links!

[Iolaus]

Ryan,

While I do think that there is truth to what you write about the use of humor, I think that perhaps you have not considered that things are pretty funny, and humans have an amazing capacity for seeing the funniness, and they laugh in every sort of culture and situation. And if you squint a little differently, you'll note that this is a mark of consciousness, not unconsciousness. As a sage wannabe on this forum, you are stuck in this disgust-for-humanity rut. It ain't much fun. But still I like you.

One time many years ago my children and I were at a friend's house who had an 8-month old baby. My son, who was 10, made a long series of absurd faces, and this baby found it hilarious. His laughter was so cute, and he was laughing to the utter extent of possible amusement with great and varied peals of laughter, that we all laughed at the sound of it, not at the faces. What has this small baby got to do with any of this psychologizing, or with feeling disconnected from nature? No, this little human recognized absurdity!

It is intelligence, I tell you, even divine.

I used to play tag and hide and seek with my dog, who was a particularly merry soul, and I felt sure she was amused at her own ability to always outwit me, in a "gotcha!" kind of way, but it isn't the same.

Carl,

This is all you can come up with, to basically distinguish us from other animals, our humor?

No, like Reaganomics, I aim to lift all boats. I find that animals have been denigrated by a humanity that feels like an unworthy worm itself. We are both greater than we have been led to believe.

We are distinguished from the animals by our vastly superior intelligence and there is just no question about it. Humans are so much beyond the animals that in a way we really are no longer in the same ballpark of existence.

Yet even our intelligence is possessed by them in rudimentary form. The thing is, an animal can be quite clever so long as it is within their sphere, the sphere of their species, but our intelligence seems unlimited in what it can reach for, and desire.

[elderwoodxxx]

To sum it up.. Laughter in whatever form or guise is the 'music of the soul' A spontaneous outburst of it, reminds us that actually we are all here to 'enjoy' the journey, and that the journey is the important part. Without it we would reach a destination having no idea where we came from and thus will have never realised we even had a journey in the first place. We created existence to 'exist' in form. To enjoy the fruits of our blessings and to experience life in linear time to give us wisdom and understanding of who we all really are.

amandaxxx

[Alex Jacob]

Amanda, why do you think I am 'pulling you down'? It is the EGO that always wants to be up, and anyway---Upanishadically---there is no up or down: only the ALL'S majestic cosmic vibrations!

"Of course truth is all formed from what IS... and so of course my ideas will resound with it!"

More involuntary neoplatonism.

In a manner of speaking you could say that all truth comes from the One, in the sense of the one kosmos, and in a matter of speaking you could say that all truth is one, that there is a singular truth (somewhere, in or out there). Oddly enough even Lord Chomsky (as in Noam Chomsky) infers a universal platform to language and to ethics, and his humanism is informed by that idea.

But let's take an example and work with it. If you had been taken from your mother and raised in the wild by wolves, would you at some point have sat down, meditated on the ALL, and suddenly realized all truth? This is the direct implication of your assertion, and also of the Vedas. That it is all 'there', vibrating in the background. All you have to do is tune into it, like a New Age radio station, and there! it just flows through you.

But it doesn't quite work like that. It is our context that produces us and our sense of 'truth'. We have to have vast preparation before we could even articulate the stuff we do.

"Are you forgetting the works of women?"

Not at all. Literarily, all the works of women derive from the works of men. And that is because Mistress Nature, the cruelest of all cruel bitches (that is to say also The Goddess) set women up with the terrible burden of being the 'reproductive machine' of the species. And it is only modern culture, and especially Judeo-Christian culture, that has begun to modify and mollify those cruel dictates.

Yet, the world that women enter is a world that has been defined, invented, constructed, extracted, by men. Who knows? Maybe ther'll be some tremendous reversal? But as it stands (and Carl, this one's for you) It Is A Man's World.

No? What's your problem, Carlitos? Okay, to help you with your 'moves'---Never take no for an answer! ;-) (A 'no' is a request for more information).

[elderwoodxxx]

Amanda, why do you think I am 'pulling you down'? It is the EGO that always wants to be up, and anyway---Upanishadically---there is no up or down: only the ALL'S majestic cosmic vibrations!

I know this! And you know that I know this, for i say that it is. so i know that you know that i know you know.. etc ;-)

In a manner of speaking you could say that all truth comes from the One, in the sense of the one kosmos, and in a matter of speaking you could say that all truth is one, that there is a singular truth (somewhere, in or out there). Oddly enough even Lord Chomsky (as in Noam Chomsky) infers a universal platform to language and to ethics, and his humanism is informed by that idea.

all truths do come from the one. and what wonderful sense the one has just made.

If you had been taken from your mother and raised
in the wild by wolves, would you at some point have sat down, meditated on the ALL, and suddenly realized all truth? This is the direct implication of your assertion, and also of the Vedas. That it is all 'there', vibrating in the background. All you have to do is tune into it, like a New Age radio station, and there! it just flows through you.

Apparently so. But who can say what works for each individual that is an expression from the one. That is why we have 'different' religions, all ways to 'see' the one. we all have trapped karma/negativity to transcend. I really do believe that inner voice or intuition is the Universal all, seeping through into what we perceive as the conscious. As i menationed in my previous post our experiences in linear time serve to teach us all about this ONE, about who we are. Being conscious of different aspects of this one, then bring that unconscious isness into the realm of the outward experience. whether that be simple awareness of ones own actions and consequenses, to ones awareness of awareness, to reasons why, to being consciously aware af consciousness itself. I have these little 'yogi' t bags and the tag on each one gives a little piece of wisdom, one that comes to mind is that we are all spiritual beings having a human experience. That of course reminds us of the deep connectedness of all things.

Think of a tree we are leaves, we can rustle to another leaf, or shout but in the end the leaves all serve their purpose. Are they aware they are part of the tree? do leaves know their inner Self? ;-) As individual manifestations of consciousness, we form the beauty of the whole. One expressing as the many, and many in expression of the one.

certain animals are linked into their 6th senses.. dogs often 'bark' before the human is aware of such dangers and for example where are the bees? ;-) Phychic abilities present within us are capable from each and everyone if we just knew how to access them. we already know that we only use about 23% of the brain or so.

But it doesn't quite work like that. It is our context that produces us and our sense of 'truth'. We have to have vast preparation before we could even articulate the stuff we do.

Indeed again 'karma' experience, learning, knowledge etc etc...evolution..

Yet, the world that women enter is a world that has been defined, invented, constructed, extracted, by men. Who knows? Maybe ther'll be some tremendous reversal? But as it stands (and Carl, this one's for you) It Is A Man's World.

Tell me about it. And i could just as much 'hate' them for it, but then i would be no better than they. of course we are gender generalising here. we must question and each one will always question to learn for themselves but when circles have no end isnt it time to step off the merri go round and look at it for what it truly is? A ride.


Amandaxxx

[Ryan Rudolph]

Iolaus,

While I do think that there is truth to what you write about the use of humor, I think that perhaps you have not considered that things are pretty funny, and humans have an amazing capacity for seeing the funniness, and they laugh in every sort of culture and situation. And if you squint a little differently, you'll note that this is a mark of consciousness, not unconsciousness. As a sage wannabe on this forum, you are stuck in this disgust-for-humanity rut. It ain't much fun. But still I like you.

One time many years ago my children and I were at a friend's house who had an 8-month old baby. My son, who was 10, made a long series of absurd faces, and this baby found it hilarious. His laughter was so cute, and he was laughing to the utter extent of possible amusement with great and varied peals of laughter, that we all laughed at the sound of it, not at the faces. What has this small baby got to do with any of this psychologizing, or with feeling disconnected from nature? No, this little human recognized absurdity!

It is intelligence, I tell you, even divine.

Okay, I’ll admit that laughter can have some minor role in your life, but the problem is that many humans live entirely for laughter, and as a result they lack any sort of sense of seriousness and responsibility. Their responsibility extends as far as their immediate family, but not much farther. Families only care about each other because they are emotionally attached, and they're genetically programmed to care. Strangers don’t care about one another to the same degree. I still wanted to emphasize that most comedians are tragic figures. For instance: Look at Krusty the clown, from the sitcom, the Simpson’s, his obligation to try to be funny all the time, and entertain people is the cause of his depression and his misery.

Humor should be spontaneous, and arise indirectly through poking fun at universal absurdities of the moment, rather than contrived, planned, and rehearsed humor directed at particular individuals. The problem with conventional socializing is that people feel pressure to entertain each other through humor, story telling and so on. It creates a sort of false sense of what normal communication should be. This occurs because not many people have actually sat down with each and communicated seriously and honestly what we are here for. Basically, I’m suggesting that our purpose of life is not to entertain each other constantly, it is to enlighten each other, and yes, one can enlighten another using a tiny bit of humor, but one should be careful because it can just become another conditioned pattern. For instance: Some people I know use the same sort of wit and humor as when I used to know them from High School, they haven’t grown much, They have found a formula that works for them, and have stuck with it. However, in my opinion, there is something rather sad about such a social adaptation. The habit was formed to feel more normal, to feel like one has something to offer. Such an adaptation is anti-social, but it was developed by an insecure mind that was trying to feel more social. There is a certain tragedy to it all.

Another problem I have with humor is many times it is an exaggeration of the real, it always involves stretching how things are. When the truth is presented naked as it is, it is beyond humor, it has a certain intense seriousness to it. In essence, the real is divine, while many times, humor is an exaggeration of the behavior of the anti-divine. And a problem I have with women’s treatment of babies is that they have babies for themselves, not for the babies sake. They use an infant for entertainment by pushing its buttons to reap a response. For instance: My parents used to make me perform in front of guests because there were certain words I couldn’t pronounce, and so I remember feeling awkward that people were laughing at me when I spoke, and in actuality it created an inferiority complex early in life where I constantly rehearsed what I was going to say to people before hand to prevent being laughed at. And then my parent's were bewildered when they discovered that I had a nervous habit of saying words twice out loud before feeling satisfied with the pronunciation. I was only 4 years old, but all those memories are still stored in the brain cells. However, my parents and their friends found that cute, you see, they found it cute that I couldn’t say certain words, and rather than teaching me how to speak properly, they exploited my weakness as long as they could, all in the name of cuteness and humor, they didn’t educate me on how to pronounce certain words how they ought to be spoken. The treated me like an inferior child that could not be taught anything because I needed to remain cute for them. When in actuality, they should have treated me like an adult early in life. Parents are sadistic demons you see, but that's cute.

In essence, it is the feminine desire to exploit cuteness to its maximum potential that creates a lot of misery in the world. For instance: Women dressing up their daughters from an early age, and showing off their cuteness to company - it creates so much vanity and ego-structure! for both the daughter and mother, it is a movement of evil, all in the name of cuteness! Women should be taught to look like "Plain Jane", and not to draw sexual attention to themselves. I have a lot of respect for novels such as Jane Eyre because it illustrates some of the Christian values of how women ought to behave.

[Alex Jacob]

Ryan writes:

"For instance: Look at Krusty the clown, from the sitcom, the Simpson’s, his obligation to try to be funny all the time, and entertain people is the cause of his depression and his misery."

I was thinking about Krusty today, actually.

Sadness

More sadness.

This is sick Jewish humor, people, and IT'S DESTROYING OUR NATION!

[elderwoodxxx]

I note your reference to Jayne Eyre 1863, and will offer a brief understanding of Pride and predjudice 1813, Both Authors Bronte and Austin respectively wrote these novels 19thc..a time of Victorian prosperity which allowed a large, educated middle class to develop. Societies structures were questioned by these women.

Pride and predjudice's main characters Elizabeth and Mr Darcy were of course from middle and upper class respectively. Mr Darcy's predjudice was that of women ought to be skilled in all areas to define the ideal, while 'lizzy' constantly challenged those ideals of his stereotype, herself secumbing to believing he was most arrogant in his assertions. It was not until events namely Darcey's kindness in 'saving' the morals of her family did Lizzy see her own blindness with regard to her perceptions of his arrogance. Darcy, realised the accomplishments of 'lizzy's' perspective and thus the two happily overcame each others Pride and Predjudice against the other.

what Austin achieved with her work was the portrayal of how societies divide continues to cast judgements and stereotypes upon another.

The respect we all should have is of the individual being, that which we already are. Not stereotyped, judged, or indeed made to feel inadequate because of what then forms what we perceive as limitations. If one looks to our own perceived limitations we can acknowledge them in all honesty and lay them bare for what they really are. A constuct of another upon us. Our perceived 'weaknesses' are indeed often our greatest virtues. For in acknowledgement of our own 'limitations' we can then grow, learn, understand and transcend. We all have what we need to learn. We all create circumstance with which to gather wisdom from. Continue to supress issues and be doomed to repeat them. (Samsara/Karma) My once perceived weakness was that I doubted 'me' far too much, a few gentle kind words, a nudge in the right direction, belief from another, and I too realised that I had only been doubting myself. I believed in others, so why then not me? My own doubts turned into my greatest assets. I believed. Then i learned that fear did not exist unless i created it. Fear created from anothers own doubt projected onto me. I have now re perceived all past experience with new understanding and released past pent up/ trapped Karma. I am truly free to be able to create the experiences i now want, as i am well aware what action will create what out come. I now am in charge of me. Instead of being blindly led by the blind.
(My doubts have thoroughly led me to research an awareness of exactly what i am aware of.. I dont believe it until I have proof. The more i research my understanding the more proof i attain.. Incidently because of this it is finally getting through to me that i must just trust the flow of the cosmos. All things happen, where you acknowledge that anything is possible.

Amandaxxx

PS Has any one located any of those 'gentleman' with honour from these times.. you mention how women should behave but what about you men?

[Tomas]

Alex, your shaman rap seems lost on Amanda, and your misogynistic truths aren't getting your message across, either. Damn, and you seemed so close. Maybe some You Tube links!

Don't goad Alexi on!

Enough of the YouTube crapola (unless they are his own creation).

Amanda? I thought her name was Trixie :-/


.

[elderwoodxxx]

Trixie? lol where did that come from?..do tell why do you perceive me as such lol.. Is that because i am unyeilding in my belief.. I tell you I am as solid as a rock, yet like the wind ;-)

amandaxxx

[Ryan Rudolph]

Alex,

This is sick Jewish humor, people, and IT'S DESTROYING OUR NATION!

That is why I don’t like the worship of comedy, when worshipped, no one truly respects the tragedy of life that is comedy.

Take Homer Simpson’s character – The Baffoon is exaggerated to such an extreme degree that he becomes totally divorced from actual stupid men in reality. Stupid men can watch the Simpsons and feel smart because it is such an exaggeration. The problem with such exaggerated comedy is that is doesn’t achieve what comedy is supposed to achieve, which is reveal man to himself, and make him a bit wiser, a bit more intelligent, a bit more serious, a bit more humble, and a bit more compassionate…

If stupid men were illustrated as they actually are without any sort of exaggerations, it wouldn't be all that funny. It would be quite tragic, it would illustrate a man on his knees weeping for the loss of a wife that left him for another man, while he is stuck paying child support, and in his confusion, he blames her, not realizing that it was his foolish attachment to another that caused his own misery. You would see the shaking, the anxiety, the thoughts of suicide, the thoughts of revenge and murder. That is the comedy that should replace the Simpsons, but I wonder why no one would laugh if such a comedy show were put on television? because it is too close to reality, it is the truth, it is the stupid man as it he actually is, he is you and me.

[Tomas]

Trixie? lol where did that come from?..do tell why do you perceive me as such lol.. Is that because i am unyeilding in my belief.. I tell you I am as solid as a rock, yet like the wind ;-)

amandaxxx

Trixie

Tri = 3

xxx = 3

A wordplay (and some math) on amandaxxx

.

[Alex Jacob]

"A Jewish man lies on his deathbed, surrounded by his children.

"Ah," he says, "I can smell your mother's brisket — how I would love to taste it one last time before I die."

So one of his sons hurries down to the kitchen, but he returns empty-handed.

"Sorry, papa. Mama says it's for after the funeral."
____________________________________________________

There are so many levels to comedy like The Simpsons. Truthfully, because I don't have teevee, I have only seen the show a few times, and more often in Latin America overdubbed in Spanish (the program is very, very popular in Latin America, and most do not realize this is pure Jewish parody, right from the Ashkenazi mind). It is almost unreal the influence of Jewish culture through America and American mass media. And while this may be an irrelevancy to you, it is not at all to me, because it is humor of a certain sort that is a uniquely Jewish 'offering'. Ironic and satirical humor is something that is just such a part of the picture, I don't see why you even bother to stress over it. The original Homer Simpson comes from a Nathaniel West novel called Day of the Locust, and he was very much a figure of comic-tragedy. Nathaniel West's work is satirical and often terribly funny, but certainly he is aware of human pain.

You have focused on all the parts of humor that you don't like, but what about Heyoka?

Thunderbird and Trickster

Also, you don't seem aware of the healing potency of humor.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Alex,

Also, you don't seem aware of the healing potency of humor.

Well, it causes euphoric chemicals to be released in the brain so as I said before, it behaves as a natural pain reliever.

However, in my opinion, humans abuse and exploit the pleasurable power of humor in the same way that they abuse everything else in this world that causes a bit of pleasure. IE: sex, food, drink…

[Alex Jacob]

Okay, but that is not my relationship with humor, nor my use of it, nor my interest in it. Your original criticism was of my use of humor. I am not trying to perfect myself in your eyes, and I am not convinced that I have good reasons to even be moved by your doctrines, whatever they may be. I am not uninterested in what you think and do though. I am not even telling you to laugh more, or cry more, or learn to master the triple backward flip.

Talking to you, though, is sort of like talking with an AI machine...It's trippy!

And as long as I got you here though, I got a joke for you!

A man walks into shul (temple) with a dog. The shammas (sexton) comes up to him and says, 'Pardon me! this is a House of Worship, you can't bring your dog in here!'

'What do you mean', says the man, 'this is a Jewish dog! Look!'

And the shammas looks carefully and sees that in the same way that a St. Bernard carries a brandy barrel round its neck this dog has a tallis (prayer shawl)bag round its neck.

'Rover!', says the man, 'daven!' (pray)

'Woof!' says the dog, stands on his hind legs, opens the tallis bag, takes out a kipa and puts it on his head.

'Woof!' says the dog, stands on his hind legs, opens the tallis bag, takes out a tallis and puts it round his neck.

'Woof!' says the dog, stands on his hind legs, opens the tallis bag, takes out a siddur (prayer book) and starts to daven.

'That's fantastic!' says the shammas, 'absolutely amazing, incredible! You should take him to Hollywood, get him on television, get him in the movies, he could make a million dollars!'.

'Talk to him will ya?', says the man, 'he says he wants to be a dentist'.