GENIUS FORUMS

Jufa wrote:

Yet it is different from the kiss you gave, and still kissing, the QRS's? It's a stinky position when you are following someone from behind with your lips perched aint it? Taste nasty too I bet. Don't know, but I'll lay 5 to 10 on it.

Pam,

Can you explain how the law of reciprocity applies to Jufa's statement please?

Dennis Mahar wrote:Jufa wrote:

Yet it is different from the kiss you gave, and still kissing, the QRS's? It's a stinky position when you are following someone from behind with your lips perched aint it? Taste nasty too I bet. Don't know, but I'll lay 5 to 10 on it.

Pam,

Can you explain how the law of reciprocity applies to Jufa's statement please?

Pam does not know this, and she does not speak for me. Ask me yourself, but then if you would do this, it would mean you are a liar also, being you have stated you do not wish to correspond with me unless you can feel, or become aware of expansion. Let me retract this, you are a liar, for any communication you have concerning me, direct or indirect makes you a liar.

I assume you rather be in the presence of the expansion of butt holes opening up when they fart. Watch out for your head, Pam's words just might come true. Off with the head of dualism.

Best advise I can give. Let me go man, and stop shaking me, because you do not want to awaken this sleeping giant.

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

Jufa,
You said 'you are only as good as the one you come up against' several times.
What you failed to realise when you came to this forum was the fact you were immediately and completely out of your league.

Please sit on your hands.
Thankyou in advance.
I'm talking to pam.

Pam,
You said about the law of reciprocity:

This law applies to every man, regardless of how enlightened or unenlightened he believes himself to be. Said another way, same message: what a man thinks, so is he; as a man continues to think, so he shall remain.

Jufa says:

There is a first principle of law which supersedes the law of recciprocity

WTF?

Can you two get back to the bunker and rehearse the script properly.
The giant should not be sleeping on the job.
The team lacks obedience/discipline.

Pam does not know this, and she does not speak for me. Ask me yourself, but then if you would do this, it would mean you are a liar also, being you have stated you do not wish to correspond with me unless you can feel, or become aware of expansion. Let me retract this, you are a liar, for any communication you have concerning me, direct or indirect makes you a liar.

I assume you rather be in the presence of the expansion of butt holes opening up when they fart.

This raises a very interesting question! Did Jesus enjoy potty humor when he was a juvenile?

Well he was just a (delusional) mortal man, not the son of a deity, so in all likelihood, yes.

Jufa's Giant gonna rain down eternal damnation on yo' poor ass,
Got dem ol' sphincter blues again.

Dennis Mahar wrote: WTF?
Can you two get back to the bunker and rehearse the script properly.
The giant should not be sleeping on the job.
The team lacks obedience/discipline.

Dennis, from what I can gather the script as well as the people are close to the teachings or methods of "A Course in Miracles" (ACIM). Are you familiar with it? Possibly we're dealing with teachers and evangelists from this loosely organized movement or cult-thought-system as some describe it.

Personally I've mixed feelings with ACIM. One can easily recognize the various Eastern and Judeo-Christian concepts and the power of such ideas for people with not much former experience with them apart from superficial encounters. So in that way it's a good introduction and might easily change people's lives around. The doubt I have is the cult-like, hypnotic approach of how the material of the course book is supposed to be digested in a very repetitive, non-rational sense. This way the changes in thinking might be close to a form of light self-hypnosis. Are ideas embraced like new clothes to wear or does one actually penetrate the issues at hand? Perhaps the answer is not so black and white but overall I found all ACIM teaching pretty muddy and opaque, much like many of Pam's and Jufa's posts. It's not a matter of agree or disagree, but to me a matter of thickness or limitation which is present in the form. The content is not even touched upon yet, and seems often being kept safely out of reach.

Diebert,

Dennis, from what I can gather the script as well as the people are close to the teachings or methods of "A Course in Miracles" (ACIM). Are you familiar with it? Possibly we're dealing with teachers and evangelists from this loosely organized movement or cult-thought-system as some describe it.

it's of that nature isn't it?

I don't know what they are doing on this forum where people have tasted emptiness and simply can't be seduced by form.That puzzles me.

We can only deal with this as an Art Critic might.
It certainly appeared to me as Theatre.

We'd have to look at Script and Performance.

Early thoughts of mine had it as a Good Cop/Bad Cop piece of schtick.
Jufa with an implied, portending, ever present threat of violence. He was too much. A halfway decent producer would look elsewhere in the talent pool.
I thought Pam as performance was excellent. Ulysses might well have required double wraps to the mast to resist the Song of this Siren. It was she, as you say got the light, hypnotic experience happening. That light, insistent patter that beckoned the lonely seeker, that carrier of unfulfilled desire...beckoning, seducing, drawing to the Ocean of Love and Mercy..
I thought she was channeling Mother Mary at times..
A triumphant, bravura performance!

The script as you say is muddy/opaque, of thickness, limitation.
To get 'bums on seats' they'd have to seriously strip religion from the Story. The child abuse by the priests has left distrust and a bitter taste for at least 90% of the population.
Hang on!, that stat doesn't apply in America does it? What was I thinking?

Dennis Mahar wrote:I thought Pam as performance was excellent. Ulysses might well have required double wraps to the mast to resist the Song of this Siren. It was she, as you say got the light, hypnotic experience happening. That light, insistent patter that beckoned the lonely seeker, that carrier of unfulfilled desire...beckoning, seducing, drawing to the Ocean of Love and Mercy..
I thought she was channeling Mother Mary at times..

Interesting description and perhaps then indeed some incarnation of the religious myth and archetype as claimed, but then with all warning labels removed. Why the past tense suddenly? ;-) And what if you're the hidden really good cop providing the ultimate contrapuntal?

Diebert,

Interesting description and perhaps then indeed some incarnation of the religious myth and archetype as claimed, but then with all warning labels removed

It's an interesting archetype in the Jungian transpersonal pantheon. It's name there is the Priestess.

It projects 'cool, mature reasoning' at the surface. The reasoning is a set of symbols strung out like a set of pearls. All appearances are evaluated into the set of symbols which have become sacrosanct and are repeated over and over.
In this case symbols like Tao, Buddha, Jesus.
These symbols are as lightning rods...they have mystical power...magical meaning.
There's a deeper intuitive level to the archetype...emotion/feeling/irrationality.

This is the seductive level where the symbols as a felt experience enchant, bedazzle, grant dizzying euphoria.

Others get the invitation to 'step into my thoughts' as a possibility of the transmission of the feltness of the power of the symbols.

Alliteration like:
Principles and Patterns
Myth and Metaphor
trance inducing, hypnotic, pulling power.

The archetype as it draws others to it, gains power over others often turns shadowy by becoming possessive, entwining, suffocating, domineering.
Which is the warning label you mentioned Diebert.

Because the archetype is so meaning hungry and is all about the enchantment of sacred meaning.
It cannot fathom a statement by David in the fullest sense when he says he sometimes looks back and reads Jesus etc. and rocks with merriment at the vacuosness of what those guys said.
Being absent of meaning is something this archetype is deaf to.

Dennis:
Others get the invitation to 'step into my thoughts' as a possibility of the transmission of the feltness of the power of the symbols.

Carmel:
...yet, they seem unwilling or unable to step into anyone else's thoughts. Such is the nature of preachers.

Dennis:
Alliteration like:
Principles and Patterns
Myth and Metaphor
trance inducing, hypnotic, pulling power.

The archetype as it draws others to it, gains power over others often turns shadowy by becoming possessive, entwining, suffocating, domineering.
Which is the warning label you mentioned Diebert.

Carmel:
I don't find it hypnotic, merely redundant an repetitive, as most preachers are. It doesn't hold any power over me as I have immunized myself against this sort of religious dogma. I would, however, agree that it is suffocating and domineering.

Dennis:
Being absent of meaning is something this archetype is deaf to.

Carmel:
Apparently so, Pam keeps talking about the "silence" of her vision, but yet...

Dennis wrote:Because the archetype is so meaning hungry and is all about the enchantment of sacred meaning.
It cannot fathom a statement by David in the fullest sense when he says he sometimes looks back and reads Jesus etc. and rocks with merriment at the vacuosness of what those guys said.
Being absent of meaning is something this archetype is deaf to.

Interesting analysis. Reminds me of something Kierkegaard wrote:

"The greatest possible misunderstanding about religious matters between one human being and another occurs when you take a man and a woman, and the man wants to teach her religion, and the whole bliss inherent therein, in this being for God, then becomes the object of her amorous love."

- Soren Kierkegaard

Dennis:
Others get the invitation to 'step into my thoughts' as a possibility of the transmission of the feltness of the power of the symbols.

Carmel:
...yet, they seem unwilling or unable to step into anyone else's thoughts. Such is the nature of preachers.

Yes.

Carmel:
I don't find it hypnotic, merely redundant an repetitive, as most preachers are. It doesn't hold any power over me as I have immunized myself against this sort of religious dogma. I would, however, agree that it is suffocating and domineering.

Good for you.
Obama looks to me as another one who puts people under a spell, enchants them with a vision. Whats your take on him?

Carmel:
Apparently so, Pam keeps talking about the "silence" of her vision, but yet...

Authentically, it started off as a vow of silence but that was a bit hard for the preachers to maintain if you get my drift, so it got downgraded to a 'vision' of it. Incidentally, we're still meant to notice that as ethereal/spiritual.

Kelly, referring to K,

"The greatest possible misunderstanding about religious matters between one human being and another occurs when you take a man and a woman, and the man wants to teach her religion, and the whole bliss inherent therein, in this being for God, then becomes the object of her amorous love."

It really is an erotically charged atmosphere.

Dennis:
Obama looks to me as another one who puts people under a spell, enchants them with a vision. Whats your take on him?

Carmel:
Yes, he does seem to have that effect on people. I guess I'm immune from that effect as well. I'm not inclined to go into an in depth analysis of him at this point, so I'll just say, in brief, that I have a tendency toward cynicism with regard to all politicians.

Dennis:
Authentically, it started off as a vow of silence but that was a bit hard for the preachers to maintain if you get my drift, so it got downgraded to a 'vision' of it. Incidentally, we're still meant to notice that as ethereal/spiritual.

Carmel:
I noticed that Campbell was mentioned several times in some posts. I read his book called "The Power of Myth" over 20 years ago. It was an interesting read and served a purpose at the time, but it's not something I would necessarily revisit, for too long, as it gets a little "suffocating" as you stated.

I decided to pull out the book, I opened and randomly came upon this passage:p.143

Bill Moyers: "What does mythology tells us about how to get into touch with that other self, the real self?"

Joseph Campbell:
"The first instruction would be to follow the hints of the myth itself and of your guru, your teacher, who should know. It's like an athlete going to a coach. The coach tells him how to bring his own energies into play. A good coach doesn't tell a runner exactly how to hold his arms or anything like that. He watches him run, then helps him correct his own natural mode. A good teacher is there to watch the young person and recognize what the possibilities are - then give advice, not commands."

--

Applying this concept to spiritual "teachers", the most effective ones often employ this method, which has a certain grace and patience, as opposed to the "preachers" who shout out commands and reiterate dogma.

Carmel,

so I'll just say, in brief, that I have a tendency toward cynicism with regard to all politicians.

That would be a tendency to all and any information or source of information that arrived in your space wouldn't it?
How you deal with it.
How did you get to this discriminating way of being?
If someone came at you with your preference 'Grace and Patience' would that enchant you?


That thing that Pam was doing is broadly named 'conversational hypnosis'.
politicians, preachers, advertisers, police, managers train at it. It's so widespread it isn't noticed.
It's about getting power over you in the guise of being a friend.

It's about power and control dressed up as 'sweetness and light'.
It's about the careful placement of certain Speech Acts in a conversation.

I was looking over at the KIR website at Robert drawing up quotes from the Masters and using them as weapons against QRS...that would be a form of conversational hypnosis, the repition, the intent, the form of it...the having an agenda about something..

I'm only interested in getting at human being as inquiry.
The 'what's so' of human being.
Getting at the deeply embedded conviction that it's a dangerous world, that has human being
floundering and compensating for that insecurity in a quest for power over others.

Dennis:
That would be a tendency to all and any information or source of information that arrived in your space wouldn't it?
How you deal with it.
How did you get to this discriminating way of being?

Carmel:
The short answer is "Nature and Nurture". There are a variety of factors that have caused me to be of a skeptical nature. With regard to religion specifically, I was raised in an essentially atheistic environment, so it's easy for me to see religious dynamics from a third party, objective viewoint. Also when I was young 18-19, I read a few books on the subject of the psychology of religion and cults.

Dennis:
If someone came at you with your preference 'Grace and Patience' would that enchant you?

Carmel:
It's possible that I might be enchanted briefly, only because grace and patience seem to be so rare, but I wouldn't likely stay stuck in enchantment for very long. My discrimination would return at the first discrepancy.

Dennis:
That thing that Pam was doing is broadly named 'conversational hypnosis'.
politicians, preachers, advertisers, police, managers train at it. It's so widespread it isn't noticed.
It's about getting power over you in the guise of being a friend.

Carmel:
That's interesting, I wasn't familiar with the term "conversational hypnosis". I did a brief search on it and yes, I can see how some politicians and preachers use that technique.

Dennis:
I was looking over at the KIR website at Robert drawing up quotes from the Masters and using them as weapons against QRS...that would be a form of conversational hypnosis, the repition, the intent, the form of it...the having an agenda about something..

I'm only interested in getting at human being as inquiry.
The 'what's so' of human being.
Getting at the deeply embedded conviction that it's a dangerous world, that has human being
floundering and compensating for that insecurity in a quest for power over others.

Carmel:
Interesting, yes, but do you think we're all trying to contol each other's thoughts every time we speak, even the meek among us? ...or are there other possible motivations?

Personally, I can distinguish my own motivations by how attached I am to the outcome of what I say. If my ego is overly involved, then I am more attached to the outcome, conversely, when I'm speaking from a place of truth, I have no sense of attachment to the outcome of my words. I say what I have to say, then let the thoughts land where they may...or not, doesn't matter...We're all just tiny ripples in the pond...

Carmel:
Interesting, yes, but do you think we're all trying to contol each other's thoughts every time we speak, even the meek among us? ...or are there other possible motivations?

To get at that we have to come at it like this.
Our basic experience is being here in a world, we can't say 'not here' and 'no world'.
sitting here there are colours, shapes, sounds, smells, texture. When is it never like that?
Our basic experience is a holistic, unified experience of being in a world.
No conceptual framework is needed for touching, smelling, tasting, feeling, and hearing to happen. These all arise prior to any conceptualizing, although concepts sometimes (apparently) appear so instantaneously following the experience, the direct experiencing is misconstrued as the conceptualizing.
Concepts are a system of symbols used to describe reality.
So, we have two apparently distinct attributes of our experience. The first attribute is direct experiencing, which occurs through each of the five senses. The second attribute of experience is the conceptual framework that arises seemingly on top of this direct, immediate experiencing.
These concepts attempt to define, in “objective” terms, just what the hell is going on.
When we get into a conversation we are 'conceptualising, verbalising an abstract image'.
We exchange labels.
Are we trying to get 'what the hell is going on' under control?

Does any labeling alter, affect or in any way change that basic experience of being here in a world?
In a conversation is there the experience of a labeling competition or a competition between people for 'labeller of the week'. Is conversational hypnosis a technique to get a labeling protocol up for a win, to have the labeller experience gratification / the expansion of me?

To use labels like pure thought, transcendant ego, consciousness, mind etc. simply confuses because a chain of questions arises.
Pure Thought as opposed to what?
That kind of thinking is corrupt and useless.
Too much meaning confuses and takes us away from the realisation of our true nature, the basic experience.
It's enough to say God and experience the awe of that, what is the point of painting pictures about heavens/hells, laws of this and that, blah, blah..unless it's a compulsion to capture others to exploit them.
At the least it's seduction into a way of thinking by the seducer upon the seducee.

Dennis Mahar wrote:No conceptual framework is needed for touching, smelling, tasting, feeling, and hearing to happen. These all arise prior to any conceptualizing, although concepts sometimes (apparently) appear so instantaneously following the experience, the direct experiencing is misconstrued as the conceptualizing.

I'm not sure one can so easily draw dividing lines between before and after. For example expectation causes a neural feedback which influences the coming experience. In the end also the concepts are still part of one unified experience, like fruits hanging on a tree are still part of the tree's complete cycle.

Does any labeling alter, affect or in any way change that basic experience of being here in a world?

The way we label, the exposure, technique, exchange rate or media, are definitely influencing the way things are experienced. The brain is very plastic, it's able to rearranges itself slowly and subtly as response to how one deals with the world.

Pure Thought as opposed to what?

Hmm, what about your:

True Nature, the Basic Experience.

I changed the caps just to tease :)

Diebert,

I'm not sure one can so easily draw dividing lines between before and after.

Why not?
We experience then label.
I saw a TV docu once, using MRI that showed a 9 second delay before the 'me' thought it as 'my' experience and then started to fit it into a pattern.

The way we label, the exposure, technique, exchange rate or media, are definitely influencing the way things are experienced. The brain is very plastic, it's able to rearranges itself slowly and subtly as response to how one deals with the world.

Conditioned.

I changed the caps just to tease :)

You did.

Dennis Mahar wrote:We experience then label. I saw a TV docu once, using MRI that showed a 9 second delay before the 'me' thought it as 'my' experience and then started to fit it into a pattern.

There's more about that research well described and annotated in the works of for example Daniel C. Dennett, like his book "Freedom evolves".

But it's important to understand the sequence doesn't matter that much apart from realizing "we" are not as superficial as our briefest impressions. The sky slowly darkens until at some point rain drops fall down a long way until they splash on my bare skin. I can call the experience rain and to label it I might include whatever I decide needs to be included to make sense, the clouds, the weather pattern, gravity, the forecast, my wet hair and my words.

In other words: touching, smelling, tasting, feeling, and hearing to happen give rise to consciousness, reflections and from there on concepts, quite naturally, to deal with them. That process can and will be disturbed at times, just like taste buds can be off or one can run a fever. But it doesn't mean it's not needed - it just happens, the birth of an experience and the final conceptualization of it, as form of feedback, are part of the same crystallization process! A smell, a taste, they will not register, not mean anything, not stick in memory, without some level of abstraction kicking in at some point.

The way we label, the exposure, technique, exchange rate or media, are definitely influencing the way things are experienced. The brain is very plastic, it's able to rearranges itself slowly and subtly as response to how one deals with the world.

Conditioned.

Caused. Like everything else that exists, or is experienced, naturally. The point was here that one should be careful when trying to divide the label from the experience. One can pretend that there's no connection, but also that is a game, a virtualization with its own underground "truth language" attached.

You seemed to sidestep a question which I'll try to make more clear:

Dennis wrote:To use labels like pure thought, transcendant ego, consciousness, mind etc. simply confuses because a chain of questions arises. Pure Thought as opposed to what? That kind of thinking is corrupt and useless.

Then you go on about that it "takes us away from the realisation of our true nature" and "the basic experience". Wouldn't a chain of questions arise with these alternative terms like "true nature" or "basic experience". Are they better than pure thought or concsiousness? How?

Then you go on about that it "takes us away from the realisation of our true nature" and "the basic experience". Wouldn't a chain of questions arise with these alternative terms like "true nature" or "basic experience". Are they better than pure thought or concsiousness? How?

The sense of being here in a world.
Language that conveys the basic experience. Gives access to the sense of what it's like. Brings it into the reality of it.
We are not things. Language like transcendental, consciousness, pure thought could be used to describe paint so useless are they as authentic signifiers.
Keep it simple, make it real.

The sky slowly darkens until at some point rain drops fall down a long way until they splash on my bare skin. I can call the experience rain and to label it I might include whatever I decide needs to be included to make sense, the clouds, the weather pattern, gravity, the forecast, my wet hair and my words.

That's good, conveys reality.

A word like 'enchantment' gets you immediate access. You know it without further questions and towers of meaning built around it that takes you further away from actual experience. Gets you straight there to the livingness of it. Zen.

the clouds, the weather pattern, gravity, the forecast,

That would be the It domain where science sits and gets at causal relations.

Kierkeggard gets into the I domain of subjective truth and making commitments.

We take our 'findings' into the We domain and try to persuade each other variously of the worth of our findings.

Who or what does all that appear to?

Dennis Mahar wrote:Language like transcendental, consciousness, pure thought could be used to describe paint so useless are they as authentic signifiers.
Keep it simple, make it real.

You prefer "sense of being", "basic experience", "the reality" and "true nature"? Perhaps those words mean something to you, something real but why would you suggest "pure thought" would not be real to someone else? It seems a meaningless dispute over which expressions lead to "reality". I always assume someone is already living inside the senses, no matter how wrapped up into some emotional or thought-filled framework. Holes or sand castles: we're all still playing on the beach.

A word like 'enchantment' gets you immediate access. You know it without further questions and towers of meaning built around it that takes you further away from actual experience.

Some say that about 'cellar door'. But are we really discussing anything else but a sense of awe or wonder, or concentrating on this or that sense experience? But can what is accessed here be really called "actual" or "immediate"? Your own example of the 9 second delay would counter this. It's still construction, no matter how tear jerking it might be! Adding vivid experiences do not itself make something more "complete" or "direct".

the clouds, the weather pattern, gravity, the forecast,

That would be the It domain where science sits and gets at causal relations.

Causality goes way beyond science. Science just is a narrow application of that principle which holds still true for lets say a farmer caring for his crops or even for a pig rooting around in the dirt.

Diebert,

Holes or sand castles: we're all still playing on the beach

Good expression.
There is the possibility of playing authentically.

It behooves us well to engineer languaging that appraises us of our situation. I'll repeat that 'appraises us of our situation'.

languaging like consciousness, ego, transcendental etc..expensive sounding words, actually hold us away from an authentic experience of our situation.
We hide in these conceptions of neatly tied little packages to protect ourselves from the terror of the unknown.
Over and over the mantra of words are repeatedly forced out there as a bulwark to ward off the hugely confrontational possibility that it actually has no meaning it all.