Impossible to know with accuracy

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Locked
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Impossible to know with accuracy

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

It's impossible to accurately judge another's understanding or delusion based on their language. This only becomes more and more clear. Why? Because those who are wise are free. So it can not even be done based on their actions.

Nevertheless it's the common and logical conventional/worldly belief, at least in the western world, that the majority of people are not 'enlightened'.

Apologies for having attempted to judge so in the past.

As far as I'm concerned, if someone tells me they have completely recognized the true timeless and boundless nature, or oneness, etc, etc, (if it's not alex) I'll believe them. (Though it helps if you don't add on any more if it's going sound look like you believe in some imaginative and overly complex gibberish... Looking at you Jup.)
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 5:05 am

Re: Impossible to know with accuracy

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

Definition of delusion. Who knows, might be helpful.
I talk, God speaks
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: Impossible to know with accuracy

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

I can only imagine how great a comedy witnessing your life would be =D

"Wifey, children, sit around the table and listen here. We live by higher ideals than the rest! Why? Because we are well read of course."

But having you here is good enough.
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 5:05 am

Re: Impossible to know with accuracy

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary. As a pathology, it is distinct from a belief based on false or incomplete information, confabulation, dogma, illusion, or other effects of perception.
It really does seem that this is a good pleace to start. We must immediately put on the table that, even or especially in the GF special definition of the word 'delusion', which is however employed uncritically, we immediately broach the topic of mental health and psychological pathologies. One naturally wonders just how far a critical analysis of 'delusion' would be allowed to go, for afterall if one is going to locate 'delusion' in others, one must also submit to a critical look at one's own possible delusions. And everything - everything! - hinges in this. So, at the very least let us take the topic of 'delusion' as a real and an important thing.

We can all name dozens of good examples of people holding 'beliefs with strong convictions' in the face of 'superior evidence to the contrary'. And we also see that, sometimes, the deluded one is the victim of the limited range of vision of the person or group who locates their understandings in 'superior evidence'. We also know that the originally deluded understanding (let's say of earth-centric astronomy) can turn the tables on 'superior evidence' as social convention, and assert itself as the 'genuinely true'.

We also might recognise that a so-called deluded person may be holding to, or may have become convinced by, and may thus have 'sound reason' to believe what is normally accepted to be delusive belief, strictly on the basis of intuited understanding without a base in 'superior evidence'. For many things there may in fact be no way to assemble 'evidence'. I would suggest that most of the assertions of 'wisdom' in various cultures - you know, those compendiums of wisdom statements - are in this category. Usually, it is not the young who understands the message in these statements, but those who have lived and have a good deal of experience in life. They read the 'wisdom assertion' and it doesn't need to be 'proved'. They get it because it jibes with an understanding gained.

Critical statements about the general assumptions of the 'forum' are increasingly unpopular and resented, but be that as it may it must be said that statements about what is 'wise' are always contingent to declarations of what is 'delusive'. In order to define wisdom you have to be able to recognise and define its opposite. And thus you have to establish a general metaphysics as an apriori. But to establish a metaphysic of that sort is at the very same time to take a position against an established metaphysic. And essentially we can, I believe, locate the GF Project within this metaphysical definition and redefinition.

Thus the 'modern world' and 'modern society', in the eyes of the critical GF person, is visualised as a general zone of chaotic delusion. Argument is brought to bear in support of this platform and, at least it appears so to me, a specific valuation-projected is initiated. In order to condemn the present it is necessary to undermine its values and to establish a different set of values as better, more important, more 'real' essentially. Thus the GF Project is obviously that of defining the 'more real real' within an unstable and shifting matrix that is understood as 'unreal'. The 'initiation process' is one of induction into a new way of visualising 'the world' and also 'reality' and as such it is a rebellion-project against a dangerous present, or as Spider Mother often points out, against Seduction. It is understood that at avery point, at all junctures and perhaps as understructure to the reality in which we find ourselves (maya thus defined) we may be 'seduced' at any moment. Indeed it must be assumed that we are seduced, and that we live within seduction. In the Heideggarian sense then our 'worlding along' in this 'worlding world' is entering in and participating in a seduction. To be here is to have been seduced.

Well dear children, I only want to put out a few different ways that the notion of 'delusion' can be explored, both in support of the GF Vision and then, obviously, in contradistinction to it.

Along with 'delusion' and together with it, a definition of 'intelligence' may be useful:
"Intelligence n . 1. capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc. 2. manifestation of a high mental capacity. A partial definition: Intelligence is generally defined as the capacity to acquire and apply knowledge. Civilization is a product of people with a high enough intelligence to acquire and apply information, form concepts and ideas, and solve problems of language, farming, architecture, transportation, manufacturing, distribution, economics, and government. Intelligence seems even more important in the higher aspects of what we call civilization: law, religion, medicine, philosophy, literature, music, art and science."
_________________________
"Those who have handled sciences have been either men of experiment or men of dogmas. The men of experiment are like the ant, they only collect and use; the reasoners resemble spiders, who make cobwebs out of their own substance. But the bee takes a middle course: it gathers its material from the flowers of the garden and of the field, but transforms and digests it by a power of its own. Not unlike this is the true business of philosophy; for it neither relies solely or chiefly on the powers of the mind, nor does it take the matter which it gathers from natural history and mechanical experiments and lay it up in the memory whole, as it finds it, but lays it up in the understanding altered and digested.” ---Francis Bacon
I talk, God speaks
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: Impossible to know with accuracy

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

lol, the definition of intelligence =D Great stuff, great stuff.

Here if you decide you are willing to learn, rather than endlessly ego-masturbate.
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: Impossible to know with accuracy

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

Listen to your heart
when it's calling for you.
Listen to your heart
there's nothing else you can do.
I don't know where you're going
and I don't know why,
but listen to your heart.
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 5:05 am

Re: Impossible to know with accuracy

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

Does that come with a chord progression?

The heart, eh? Well this is an interesting turn of events. Thinking it over (well, I suppose I could have mulled it sentimentally yet instead I thought it over), it is surely fair to say that 'heart' is a complex metaphor. Just scratching the surface of it quickly indicates that to define what 'heart' means - and especially in the general context of GF - is no easy affair.

It is possible that you have gone off your rocker or turned a bend in the river, but for the enlightened and illumined, what does 'heart' mean?
I talk, God speaks
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Impossible to know with accuracy

Post by Russell Parr »

Gustav, as usual, your posts eventually go from something vaguely on topic into a full blown "sideline commentary" filled with accusations, name calling, and personal opinion regarding the overall purpose and direction of the forum, all of which are neither relevant nor warranted. It is little more than sentiment driven rambling dressed up in surface dwelling intellectualism. It reveals what looks to be the hidden agenda: making it about yourself. The verbosity is a vain attempt to gloss over this, and serves only to fool probably no one but yourself.

Back on topic...
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Impossible to know with accuracy

Post by Russell Parr »

It is indeed an interesting aspect of enlightenment that it cannot be absolutely verified except for within oneself. God reveals himself to the individual alone. Anyone who claims that someone's enlightenment, whether their own or others, has been verified by a third party can be declared unenlightened on this basis alone.

An interesting dynamic relevant to this is that the above truth doesn't stop a sage from borrowing perceived wisdom of others. One could mistake this to be a form of verification of others, which goes against the above. But in reality it is merely evidence that the sage recognizes that the borrowed words can be interpreted in an enlightened manner.
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 5:05 am

Re: Impossible to know with accuracy

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

Russell, your last few posts have been composed nearly entirely of dark accusation which, from my angle, read rather paranoiacally. Along with my acute 'Sadism of Idea' to which I have made a life-commitment, I also tremendously enjoy the opportunities for high humor. The stone-faced seriousness, the tendency to offense, the 'attack posts': all these things are humorous to me. Please don't blame me for enjoying myself. Is it such a sin?

The more that you talk, Russell, the more I realize how confused you are. You are speaking now about God and God's revelation? You are indicating that it is God that supervises 'enlightenment'? That doles it out so to speak? And you are implying that you have this relationship with 'God'? And myself - the deluded fool - I am being stared down upon by you and by God in contempt for my hard-heartedness and my 'stupidity' to not see what you-all are on about?

Russell, do you have any sense what you are saying? This is religious nuttery! (And I see religion as an important and necessary thing, but not like this!)

I reject the 'enlightenment' that you define, and I am a sadist against the structure that you have built inside yourself that enables you, with a straight face, to carry on with the comic charade which to all appearances you are taking in deadly earnest. I am the prancing fool, not you ...

The only enlightenment I recognize - though it must always be defined and redefined - is one of sobriety and recognition of responsibility to what has allowed us to become what we are: the long hard slog to gain understanding, strength and power within our realm of manifested and phenomenal existence. Intelligence and wakefulness and an awareness of who we are. That sort of thing. It is really 'nationality' taken in the most exalted way. What I mean by 'responsibility' and such is quite beyond your ken, not because you could not understand it, but because you have not really thought things through.

The 'enlightenment' that you define is meaningless except as an example of sheer introversion, possibly of a narcissistic variety. Your statement about it places it in a category of meaninglessness. (I didn't write that description, you did). It sound like I am insulting you - I am not because in fact I don't really care about you or your path. I see an opportunity to write (sadistically) against what I see as childish and silly assertions. I can't believe that you use the term 'sage' with a straight face!

I am a corrective, a Sadistic Avatar of the Dark Heart, a descension into the flesh of a More Complete Truth. (I may also be the Thane of Cawdor too, I am still thinking on it).
I talk, God speaks
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: Impossible to know with accuracy

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

.
Last edited by SeekerOfWisdom on Sat Apr 23, 2016 4:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Impossible to know with accuracy

Post by Russell Parr »

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:Russell, your last few posts have been composed nearly entirely of dark accusation which, from my angle, read rather paranoiacally. Along with my acute 'Sadism of Idea' to which I have made a life-commitment, I also tremendously enjoy the opportunities for high humor. The stone-faced seriousness, the tendency to offense, the 'attack posts': all these things are humorous to me. Please don't blame me for enjoying myself. Is it such a sin?
"More about me."
The more that you talk, Russell, the more I realize how confused you are. You are speaking now about God and God's revelation? You are indicating that it is God that supervises 'enlightenment'? That doles it out so to speak? And you are implying that you have this relationship with 'God'? And myself - the deluded fool - I am being stared down upon by you and by God in contempt for my hard-heartedness and my 'stupidity' to not see what you-all are on about?
"God reveals himself to the individual alone" is obviously a metaphor that should be interpreted in the context of the rest of what I posted. Where is your flexibility? It doesn't have to mean what you want it to.
I reject the 'enlightenment' that you define, and I am a sadist against the structure that you have built inside yourself that enables you, with a straight face, to carry on with the comic charade which to all appearances you are taking in deadly earnest. I am the prancing fool, not you ...

The only enlightenment I recognize - though it must always be defined and redefined - is one of sobriety and recognition of responsibility to what has allowed us to become what we are: the long hard slog to gain understanding, strength and power within our realm of manifested and phenomenal existence. Intelligence and wakefulness and an awareness of who we are. That sort of thing. It is really 'nationality' taken in the most exalted way. What I mean by 'responsibility' and such is quite beyond your ken, not because you could not understand it, but because you have not really thought things through.
Your prefered definition of enlightenment is shallow and of low calibre.
The 'enlightenment' that you define is meaningless except as an example of sheer introversion, possibly of a narcissistic variety. Your statement about it places it in a category of meaninglessness. (I didn't write that description, you did). It sound like I am insulting you - I am not because in fact I don't really care about you or your path. I see an opportunity to write (sadistically) against what I see as childish and silly assertions. I can't believe that you use the term 'sage' with a straight face!
This just goes to show your failure in understanding the things you criticize.
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 5:05 am

Re: Impossible to know with accuracy

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

The self is always the subject, Russell. The reference point is always oneself. What one does with that, well now that is the question.

It is not at all 'obviously a metaphor', in fact it is not really a metaphor at all. It is a turgid statement with a bizarre mis-metaphor. The statement in fact requires a great deal of clarification, and it requires that you know what you are talking about. It is sloppy-speaking if it were only pious theology and some sort of twist on mysticism.

Sometime back Diebert posted an excerpt from Ecce Homo:
At this point I can no longer evade a direct answer to the question, how one becomes what one is. And in giving it, I shall have to touch upon that masterpiece in the art of self-preservation, which is selfishness... Granting that one's life task — the determination and the fate of one's life task — greatly exceeds the average measure of such things, nothing more dangerous could be conceived than to come face to face with one's self by the side of this life task. The fact that one becomes what one is, presupposes that one has not the remotest suspicion of what one is.

[...]

It is precisely in this quarter that we must begin to learn afresh. All those things which mankind has valued with such earnestness heretofore are not even real; they are mere creations of fancy, or, more strictly speaking, lies born of the evil instincts of diseased and, in the deepest sense, noxious natures — all the concepts, " God," " soul," "virtue," "sin," "Beyond," "truth," "eternal life." ... But the greatness of human nature, its "divinity," was sought for in them... All questions of politics, of social order, of education, have been falsified, root and branch, owing to the fact that the most noxious men have been taken for great men, and that people were taught to despise the small things, or rather the fundamental things, of life".
'I can no longer evade a direct answer to the question, how one becomes what one is'. There is a great deal of thought-provoking material here, as well as a need to cut through bullshit and (in my view) understand what is vital.
Russell wrote:Your prefered definition of enlightenment is shallow and of low calibre.
I'd say, in barbed response, that you do not have any idea at all of what you are speaking. You are pretending. It is a farce. At least in my 'argumentation' I avoid the 'excluded middle'!
I talk, God speaks
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 5:05 am

Re: Impossible to know with accuracy

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

Seeker? Comments?
A Madman wrote:It is precisely in this quarter that we must begin to learn afresh. All those things which mankind has valued with such earnestness heretofore are not even real; they are mere creations of fancy, or, more strictly speaking, lies born of the evil instincts of diseased and, in the deepest sense, noxious natures — all the concepts, " God," " soul," "virtue," "sin," "Beyond," "truth," "eternal life." ... But the greatness of human nature, its "divinity," was sought for in them... All questions of politics, of social order, of education, have been falsified, root and branch, owing to the fact that the most noxious men have been taken for great men, and that people were taught to despise the small things, or rather the fundamental things, of life".
I talk, God speaks
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 5:05 am

Re: Impossible to know with accuracy

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

...lies born of the evil instincts of diseased and, in the deepest sense, noxious natures...
Let us suppose that someone suggested - to either you Russell or you Seeker - that what you are on about seems to come from 'evil instincts' or 'diseased, noxious natures'?

I mean this too as a general question, for everyone, for we moderns, for those of us now in our dire plight. It is really 'the question to be asked'

Can you two be so sure that you are really involved in healthy currents?

(See, I don't think that you are. Sorry. I am just not convinced. But despite appearances I am not here to scrap with you in pitched or vicious battles. To understand what is unhealthy and diseased is really what it is about. Certainly the Founders had that in mind).
I talk, God speaks
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Impossible to know with accuracy

Post by Russell Parr »

So that everyone knows, I've been made a moderator. I intend to uphold the direction and rules laid out by the founders.

Gustav, after much thought, I've decided that your posts do not warrant a proper response. I do not care to go down the usual avenue that you attempt to drag these discussions, as it is counter-productive and disruptive to what the rest of the participants are here for. If you can't see this, that is your problem, not mine.

As stated in Board Conduct and Usage, "[...]disrupting the board for malicious purposes or continual gratuitous abuse of members will not be tolerated." In my opinion, you often teeter on this line. I ask that you try and stay on topic and to keep your personal assessments about the participants to a minimum.
Beingof1
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: Impossible to know with accuracy

Post by Beingof1 »

Russell wrote:So that everyone knows, I've been made a moderator. I intend to uphold the direction and rules laid out by the founders.

Gustav, after much thought, I've decided that your posts do not warrant a proper response. I do not care to go down the usual avenue that you attempt to drag these discussions, as it is counter-productive and disruptive to what the rest of the participants are here for. If you can't see this, that is your problem, not mine.

As stated in Board Conduct and Usage, "[...]disrupting the board for malicious purposes or continual gratuitous abuse of members will not be tolerated." In my opinion, you often teeter on this line. I ask that you try and stay on topic and to keep your personal assessments about the participants to a minimum.
And Seeker and yourself never, under any circumstances do this? Oh sure, pull my other leg. I know from personal experience you yourself have done this to me.

If I were the moderator: as long as someone was engaging in discourse that appeared cogent and thoughtful, I can only learn and grow. There are two ways to learn: 1) expansion of previous understanding. 2) Overturning our previous concepts to view understanding from a different or higher perspective.

If all of the sages in history like Jesus, the Buddha and Lao Tzu had simply walked away from debate, we would have learned very little. I find it interesting that the ego needs agreement and validation. If this does not occur "BAN EM" screams the mob that I hear echoing from the ages of Socrates, Jesus and Gandhi.

Grown ups - do not ban others - that is a childlike mentality. Mature and wise folks use those that need understanding as steps on a rung for transcendence. I can only learn and teach others by those that present arguments that disagree.

Grow up please - even a small amount of power corrupts those that believe they 'know more' than the sages themselves.
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: Impossible to know with accuracy

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

.
Last edited by SeekerOfWisdom on Sat Apr 23, 2016 4:35 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Beingof1
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: Impossible to know with accuracy

Post by Beingof1 »

Oh and Russell - anytime you want a formal debate - if you are feeling froggy -jump.

No logical fallacies including ad hominin attacks.

BTW - I have been on this board for a very long time and have never, not once, been threatened with being banned.
Beingof1
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: Impossible to know with accuracy

Post by Beingof1 »

Seekerofwisdom:
Same goes for you Beingof1 =D
I am waiting by the phone :)
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 5:05 am

Re: Impossible to know with accuracy

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

I placed this post down in The Spider Pit (heh heh) but moved it up here since some others have posted in this thread.
The GF Rule Book wrote:"Genius does not necessarily discourage or denounce ideas and beliefs, only the false reasoning that underpins them. This is the essence of what serious philosophical inquiry ought be. Overt attempts at spamming or disrupting the board for malicious purposes or continual gratuitous abuse of members will not be tolerated. Other than that the theme is, basically - go for it."
Russell wrote: I do not care to go down the usual avenue that you attempt to drag these discussions, as it is counter-productive and disruptive to what the rest of the participants are here for. If you can't see this, that is your problem, not mine.
There is something that you will need to get clear about: according to Dan's outline 'serious philosophy' is desired as long of course as it is well-reasoned. Obviously, GF has had, and may still have, a clear idea or ideology as to what is 'false reasoning underpinning [beliefs, ideas]. I assume, Russell, that you do recognise that a certain problem lies there? Who decides, or how is it decided, what is 'false reasoning' and what is not?

I clearly see that my topics and my reasoning [and the conclusions of my reasoning] tend to produce oppositional stances and statements. But never has this been an issue in the history of this forum as far as I am aware. You must recognise that I certainly do understand, and have always understood, that my ideas irk numerous persons who write here. But is irking others what you mean by counter-productivity? By your definition I might assume that for you 'philosophy' can only be restricted to the rather narrow conversation you seem to enjoy on very specific and limited definitions (as in Talking to a Wall).

For example, I have wished to bring up the topic of Heideggerian metaphysics. Obviously a philosophical topic if ever there was one. Is the topic a no-no and will it be considered 'disruptive'? Is it a no-no to post a snip by, say, Nietzsche and comment on it?

In a certain sense, Russell, I understand how it is that you see me as 'dragging' conversations in certain directions.
Seeker wrote:He simply disagrees and sees us as having a form of delusion which is acidic (especially because it is considered absolute), which he is trying to bring to our attention.
I put it differently. Our cultures suffer 'delusion' and we are in a juncture that is profoundly confused. It is not that *you* are deluded (you-plural) (though I may note delusions from time to time)(according to me) but that we don't seem to have clear definitions about what 'deluded' means. Just above I suggested examining it. The offer was not taken up.

Also, I suggest that some ideas and also modes of action (the activities we choose, the ideas we entertain) can act like acids. But then I'd have to say what the acid is eating away, and there is where our disagreements lie.
I talk, God speaks
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: Impossible to know with accuracy

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

.
Last edited by SeekerOfWisdom on Sat Apr 23, 2016 4:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 5:05 am

Re: Impossible to know with accuracy

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

If no definition exists, it would seem that the term is little useful.

I have a 'personal experiential understanding' that, it seems, does not jibe with yours.

If we can make no statements about what delusion means, and cannot communicate what we mean, again the use of the term seems absurd.

I propose that we can say many things about delusion. We can certainly make many clear statements about what is, and what is not, delusion.

You use the term 'idiot' quite often. An idiot is (by the definition) a mentally handicapped person, or an imbecile, or a moron. What exactly does the word mean, for you? When you call someone an idiot, what do you mean to say?
I talk, God speaks
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: Impossible to know with accuracy

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

Your understanding hasn't gone far enough or deep enough into the mystery to realize there is only one clear and ultimate truth.

Not going to help you with it right now though xD Just answering your question.
Beingof1
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: Impossible to know with accuracy

Post by Beingof1 »

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:What's in it for me Being? Better ways to spend my day.
"You have eyes--can't you see? You have ears--can't you hear?' Don't you remember anything at all"?
-- Jesus

There was a Genius Forum member that I talked to for years and we had only known each other from this forum and The Ponders Guild, a now defunct talk board. At first he thought I was full of hot air, slightly delusional and just another attention seeker.

We finally met in person for the first time last year after having dialogue for over 12 years. Its funny, I moved to within 30 miles of where he lives after a 1300 mile cross country move - but once you know, consciousness does remarkable things like that don`t ya know.

He wants more talks - simply amazing how that when one does not ever deceive themselves what one can learn. He thinks I should be teaching in public and giving demonstrations of what I have learned from my father and grandfather and have expanded on. He knows now and we are both grateful for the kindred connection.

His name is Carl and the old timers here will remember him.

But by all means youngster - keep plugging along through trial and error, it works, no really.
Locked