GENIUS FORUMS

Found this quote and thought of this thread;

In dark ages people are best guided by religion, as in a pitch-black night a blind man is the best guide; he knows the roads and paths better than a man who can see. When daylight comes, however, it is foolish to use blind old men as guides. - Heinrich Heine, Gedanken und Einfalle

Animus, you state that by using "vague arbitrations" that we commit grosser and grosser errors of perception.

And yet, in terms of religious/spiritual awareness/understanding, and of psychological understanding, symbolism is not only commonly used, but in terms of abstract concepts, it can be much more realistic to the non-physical concepts discussed than using more "definitive" terms. Definitive terms, by definition, more clearly define these abstracts, and by doing so more "definitively", thusly distort such concepts. This is why I heavily lean towards that which is symbolic. I am often conveying either psychological, artistic, creative, "otherworldly", or spiritual concepts.

Language and words are already symbols which point to something, rather than being that something. Symbolic language, takes that one step further by using words, such as masculine or feminine, and further than the traditional meaning of the word, symbolically refers to much more, rendering such symbols/words as very potent.

syzygy wrote:Animus, you state that by using "vague arbitrations" that we commit grosser and grosser errors of perception.

And yet, in terms of religious/spiritual awareness/understanding, and of psychological understanding, symbolism is not only commonly used, but in terms of abstract concepts, it can be much more realistic to the non-physical concepts discussed than using more "definitive" terms. Definitive terms, by definition, more clearly define these abstracts, and by doing so more "definitively", thusly distort such concepts. This is why I heavily lean towards that which is symbolic. I am often conveying either psychological, artistic, creative, "otherworldly", or spiritual concepts.

Language and words are already symbols which point to something, rather than being that something. Symbolic language, takes that one step further by using words, such as masculine or feminine, and further than the traditional meaning of the word, symbolically refers to much more, rendering such symbols/words as very potent.

Huh? Your explanation of the use of vague and abstract terminology, seems to depend on a set of vague and abstract terminology. You haven't defined any of these terms; "otherwordly", "spiritual", "non-physical", etc..

I really don't know what you are talking about; I know what Dan or Kevin means when either says "spiritual" because they have clearly defined their usage in their writings. But had I not read any of their work, I'd be just as confused. And this is my objection to their use of terms like "masculine" and "feminine", they appear as overly simplified arbitrations that only a select few will be able to grapple with, leaving everyone else wondering what the heck they are talking about.

The reasons for using such abstractions are spurious, especially when it is considered to be ubiquitous. Gautama writes:
I have taught the truth which is excellent in the beginning,
excellent in the middle, and excellent in the end;
it is glorious in its spirit and glorious in its letter.
But simple as it is, the people cannot understand it.
I must speak to them in their own language.
I must adapt my thoughts to their thoughts.
They are like unto children, and love to hear tales.
Therefore, I will tell them stories to explain the glory of the Dharma.
If they cannot grasp the truth in the abstract arguments by which I have reached it,
they may nevertheless come to understand it, if it is illustrated in parables.
http://members.optushome.com.au/davidqu ... Gospel.htm

We aren't a bunch of children here, this is Genius forums, we are presumably capable of understanding those more finely evolved abstractions and need not rely on simplified and childish metaphor. We are in the light of day, we need no blind men to guide us.

I have listened to you (syzygy) explain things like this, quite at length, only you and I know how much I've listened, and I consistently arrive at the conclusion that I don't actually know what you are talking about.

I think you have some rather fanciful notions of what is "otherwordly" or "spiritual" or "non-physical", and escape into this vaguery in order to protect your views from pure reason. In our conversations you've agreed with a reductionist 'map', but simultaneously rejected it as being "dual" and professed another world in which the reductionist view (science) is all wrong and only those who experience "the light" can attain any knowledge what-so-ever.

All-the-while, any concept you could extrapolate from this experience of "the light" is never-the-less "dual". To me, it comes across often as delusion or denial and not a genuine run at truth. Explanations tend to get more descriptive, more discrete and less arbitrary (although inevitably remaining arbitrary) the closer we get to a genuine understanding. There is nothing to be said about the "non-dual" outside of affirming its reality, the very act of speaking upon it renders it dual.

Perhaps it is useful for waxing poetic, I enjoy poetry that incorporates a variety of metaphor and similitude, but when it comes to a discourse on philosophy, I feel like this approach is disingenuous.

In formal psychology, even in folk psychology, there is little talk of "the light", the "otherworldly" or the "non-physical". None of these terms ever appear anywhere in the study of formal psychology.

Of course, formal psychology has evolved from folk psychology to behaviourism, to neuropsychology. Currently, the neuropsychology and evolutionary psychology approaches deal with issues of psychology in very discrete terminology. The Big 5 personality measure itself consists of over 25 specified traits. The Big 5 are a further arbitration, but it should be clear to any practicing psychologist what exactly each of the 5 consist of in terms of their finer traits.

The Big Five factors and their constituent traits can be summarized as follows:

Openness - appreciation for art, emotion, adventure, unusual ideas, curiosity, and variety of experience.
Conscientiousness - a tendency to show self-discipline, act dutifully, and aim for achievement; planned rather than spontaneous behavior.
Extraversion - energy, positive emotions, surgency, and the tendency to seek stimulation and the company of others.
Agreeableness - a tendency to be compassionate and cooperative rather than suspicious and antagonistic towards others.
Neuroticism - a tendency to experience unpleasant emotions easily, such as anger, anxiety, depression, or vulnerability; sometimes called emotional instability.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_p ... ity_traits


Even this model has met a lot of criticism for being too simplified and narrow in its scope. When you embark on the dual, on describing a fraction of a whole, the more definite and discrete the abstraction, the less it is confused with the rest.

One exception - as regards 'formal' psychology - is Humanistic Psychology, which intends to examine human psychology without dissection, without arbitration, but never-the-less commits the act of dissection anyway, the primary difference is that Humanistic Psychology's arbitrations are motivated by an emotional sense and not any evidentiary or rational basis. For example, in terms of Free-Will, Humanistic Psychology holds that Humans do have free-will, and the reason for this is entirely about not wanting to reason about it, not wanting to dissect it, but humanistic psychologists will dissect society and the interactions between people, they also to very degress dissect or reduce the individual mind, but only where there is no threat to emotional attachments.

Animus wrote:In formal psychology, even in folk psychology, there is little talk of "the light", the "otherworldly" or the "non-physical". None of these terms ever appear anywhere in the study of formal psychology.

In psychological experience of individuals, regarding the terms used to describe the farther reaches of spiritual-human experience and perception, any and all terms to describe that which is not common, or that which is otherworldly, are utilized. As in the commonly known term "enlightenment".

The vast majority does not have experience in enlightenment, or with advanced levels of spiritual perception. This goes for psychologists, neurologists, etc. Given this is the domain of relatively few, it's understandable that there is not a common language that is used and widely understood on such topics. And yet, people do have a degree of understanding of the symbols and what such symbols tell them, albeit on a limited basis. They still can understand what all these terms mean, metaphorically speaking.

Animus wrote:I have listened to you (syzygy) explain things like this, quite at length, only you and I know how much I've listened, and I consistently arrive at the conclusion that I don't actually know what you are talking about.

Logic and reason is a tool for explaining and rationalizing one's experience. It provides a map. To experience the spiritual is something else. The map is not the territory.

There is a vast difference between intellectually understanding spiritual concepts, and experiencing them.

Y'all gonna come down and see what's up at the Talking Donkey Ranch? Y'all drop in, hey?
_______________________________________________________

Ah, but syszygy is attracted to Jungian psychology, which is a mental and imaginal avenue...opening up...into...almost whatever territory one wants it to be. It CAN BE a kind of mystical psychology, and a mystifying psychology. The very nature of the beast is to resist concrete definitions, to feel uncomfortable with the concrete and the exact. To understand the Jungian branch of psychology, it has to be examined in its context and also to see what it reacted against (clinical, atheistic, Freudianism, strict scientific materialism, etc.) Unfortunately, it often turns out that reactionism leads to a school of thought separating from another and evolving certain tendencies that are latent to it. Jungianism is ever-so-inclined toward the most outrageous presuppositions, because that was Carl Jung's essential stance. Though he was a doctor he was steeped in a sort of pagan spiritualism: his sister was a medium (or was it his cousin?), his mother had strange occult experiences, etc. Jung's whole thrust went directly against the strict materialism of the day and he just went farther and farther into his mystical view. But, no one better than Jung knew how to keep it in some sane bounds. He qualified many of his more outrageous speculations and separated what he himself felt/believed from what could be demonstrated. The positive side of Jung is that he allows a certain kind of relationship to the 'otherworldly' to be maintained (a conceptual pathway stays open to a sense of the Divine), the negative is that it attracts every and any wingnut from the surrounding countryside, and they all sense they can 'hole-up' in vague concepts, whole symbolic worlds, an undefined and un-understood 'collective unconscious' (that can be anything one wants it ti be).

[I could write an account of Jungianism that is very positive and more glowing, BTW. Jungian philosophy contains many wonderful elements and ideas.]

I think we need to go back to syszygy's diagram of the two overlapped circles, because this is really the expression of a core idea. It is a way to impose (operative word: impose) a pseudo-balance and a pseudo-equality onto this plane of existence, men and women, the cosmos, etc. The diagram is a story, a narrative. These sorts of narratives, as we know, are quite popular these days. They are a little like fairy-tales or children's tales. White lies we tell ourselves to help us feel more comfortable in distressing circumstances? (I.e. life).

I can make hide nor hair of it.

There is a vast difference between intellectually understanding spiritual concepts, and experiencing them.

This ass---a little the worse for flea-bites---agrees one hundred percent. Two hundred percent! Many, many percents! In short, I agree. Let that be entered nto the record.

Though the experience of the Divine takes place in a realm beyond langauge, this does not necessarily mean that our prose has to sound like we have just smoked mushrooms...

Our language can remain precise (as was Jung's, BTW).

Animus wrote:The more direct and definitive the terms are, the less opportunity for misinterpretation and disagreement.

While I may present something symbolically, I am also glad to at any time clarify or provide more definitive explanations if something is not clear. Although providing the symbolic representation can be important and may be my first form of communication, once done, I am happy to draw more clearer lines as needed, for anyone who asks for it.

Of course, this will not guarantee that someone will understand what I'm talking about, because again, the indicators are just the map, they are not the territory. When I am referring to something "otherworldly", in the sense that it is not at all general experience, it is otherworldly because it's like another world for most people to hear about, even when it's entirely natural, and the type of experience anyone can have.

And still, I can easily clarify what types of things the Jungian sense of masculine or feminine refer to. Or I can clarify about the symbolically male or symbolically female ways of processing information. So far, I'm not hearing anyone asking for clarity in any specific case.

Animus wrote:

syzygy wrote:Animus, you state that by using "vague arbitrations" that we commit grosser and grosser errors of perception.

And yet, in terms of religious/spiritual awareness/understanding, and of psychological understanding, symbolism is not only commonly used, but in terms of abstract concepts, it can be much more realistic to the non-physical concepts discussed than using more "definitive" terms. Definitive terms, by definition, more clearly define these abstracts, and by doing so more "definitively", thusly distort such concepts. This is why I heavily lean towards that which is symbolic. I am often conveying either psychological, artistic, creative, "otherworldly", or spiritual concepts.

Language and words are already symbols which point to something, rather than being that something. Symbolic language, takes that one step further by using words, such as masculine or feminine, and further than the traditional meaning of the word, symbolically refers to much more, rendering such symbols/words as very potent.

Huh? Your explanation of the use of vague and abstract terminology, seems to depend on a set of vague and abstract terminology. You haven't defined any of these terms; "otherwordly", "spiritual", "non-physical", etc..

I really don't know what you are talking about; I know what Dan or Kevin means when either says "spiritual" because they have clearly defined their usage in their writings. But had I not read any of their work, I'd be just as confused. And this is my objection to their use of terms like "masculine" and "feminine", they appear as overly simplified arbitrations that only a select few will be able to grapple with, leaving everyone else wondering what the heck they are talking about.

The reasons for using such abstractions are spurious, especially when it is considered to be ubiquitous. Gautama writes:
I have taught the truth which is excellent in the beginning,
excellent in the middle, and excellent in the end;
it is glorious in its spirit and glorious in its letter.
But simple as it is, the people cannot understand it.
I must speak to them in their own language.
I must adapt my thoughts to their thoughts.
They are like unto children, and love to hear tales.
Therefore, I will tell them stories to explain the glory of the Dharma.
If they cannot grasp the truth in the abstract arguments by which I have reached it,
they may nevertheless come to understand it, if it is illustrated in parables.
http://members.optushome.com.au/davidqu ... Gospel.htm

We aren't a bunch of children here, this is Genius forums, we are presumably capable of understanding those more finely evolved abstractions and need not rely on simplified and childish metaphor. We are in the light of day, we need no blind men to guide us.

My apologies. I didn't see this post yesterday.

I am always quite prepared to get more definitive if asked for clarification, and actually love to do so. The thing is, considering when talking of the non-physical, otherworldly, etc., they are vast, inclusive terms. For example, the ALL, includes ... all....so when I clarify this term, as I define it, it becomes distorted from that which it actually is. This is in order to suit the human-ego idea of "I can understand everything", which most people are coming from, when really all we can have is approximations of spiritual truths in order to develop a map to our own experiential understanding. The logical correlate pales in comparison to the truth it represents. It's common that one not having a personal experiential understanding, and coming from a place of ego, expects to understand that which it has not prepared itself to understand. (preparation for progressively more transcendental experiential knowing/knowledge , through purification, inner experience, contemplation, etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosis)

Often people end up focusing on the finger pointing to the moon and the beauty and mystery of the moon is obscured rather than revealed. Granted, in general, people are very happy to do this, as it is a function of the ego. The truth is, it actually keeps one from understanding that which one claims to seek. So while I am happy to clarify, in order to do the subject matter justice, it is not my focus, and nor am I interested in discussing differences in personal style and preference, etc.

In terms of Jesus and Buddha, yes, they did use terms everyone can understand...with the use of parables and metaphors. There are not words for "the light" as I know it, except for "God", etc. Most people don't often name and seek to understand that which they can't conceive of, which is why such understanding is not mainstream. And as in this thread, when quibbling over the nature of God, we are getting more definitive in terms of whether it's masculine or feminine, and how so. ie: directive, receptive, active, not-active, etc.

I'm off to a family function, and if you'd like to hear a limited, distorted based-on-the-context-of-the-moment-and-subject-to-change-in-other-contexts definitions of spiritual, otherworldly, etc, I will be back to share.

As for menoftheinfinite, you know I have taken issue with their approximations of spiritual concepts in linear form, in that their definitions lose truth through definition. When one has experienced the energy they speak of--the moon, so to speak, that they point to--one notices such things. This is different than someone seeking to experience the energy of "the moon", who are happy to have more detailed maps to help them find their own way. From a human perspective, it's all relative. And from what you've told me in such regard, you fully understand this (by your explanations of how the menoftheinfinite understand the approximate nature of any such map/definition through the linear representation of holistic concepts)

I'd like to see the "Ten Challanges of an Inebriated Woman."

Not that the current discussion isn't interesting.

@ Syzygy's last post:

As you said, the definitions lose truth through definition....thus they become false, because they can't lose truth without becoming untrue. -> also, perhaps you mean that those definitions obscure the truth, but I think I tend to hold reservations, since, what really obscures truth is the mind and it's 'false' ideas to begin with. once you are rid of the false ideas, it becomes possible to learn the actual truth, and when false ideas pop up again, they must be dealt and layed to rest before moving on. Alas, i have no idea about what you mean by someone seeking to experience the energy of the moon, I don't think there's a guide that can help you there on it's own.


on a personal note Kevin and Quinn writes in a form I read through without word being the real barrier, but mental processes only, without any profound knowledge of fancy english words.

I suspect it's part of the process of understanding the definitions of the various things, and going throug the line of proofs, which indeed, for me, is a bit of a mental hurdle. When I think i've got it in my mind it slips off once again and something seems to be missing in the understanding again...

Anders Schlander wrote:@ Syzygy's last post:

As you said, the definitions lose truth through definition....thus they become false, because they can't lose truth without becoming untrue.

they definitely become false, in my understanding. I cannot describe what I have seen in visions, except through approximations, which are not what I see. They are merely representations I used to convey the gist of the idea. They are false images. This is why I suggest people look to the spirit of the message, rather than get attached to the representation, which is merely an indicator.

-> also, perhaps you mean that those definitions obscure the truth, but I think I tend to hold reservations, since, what really obscures truth is the mind and it's 'false' ideas to begin with.

If I am understanding you, this is why I have spent years on message boards discussing this stuff--because there is so much potential for clarity. I only talk about this stuff when I feel it is to the greater good in creating awareness. It's a fact that the definitions obscure spiritual truth in one way, but I can see how it can benefit people, greatly in others.

once you are rid of the false ideas, it becomes possible to learn the actual truth, and when false ideas pop up again, they must be dealt and layed to rest before moving on.

I agree.

This is why I'm not willing to partake of power struggles, and personal likes/dislikes/preferences of style. The subject matter is sacred. Literally. I treat it as such.

Alas, i have no idea about what you mean by someone seeking to experience the energy of the moon, I don't think there's a guide that can help you there on it's own.

ultimately if a person is to experience the moon, they'll have to find their own way. sometimes a map or some direction is helpful. But when someone experiences it, one will definitely not confuse a map for the moon. And one will find all maps very lacking compared to the real thing.

some of my limited-to-the-context perceptions.

otherworldly: to me, I often use this term to describe what is uncommon for people to 'see'. Or to consciously perceive. At the same time, people experience and perceive the 'otherworldly' unconsciously all the time, because it is what we are, fundamentally. I experience the 'otherworldly' in common every day experience, by having opened my perception to it. It is here in each moment, right before my eyes, and everyone else's eyes. The vast majority of people have been conditioned to be cognizant of merely slivers of that which is really 'there' in front of us. And to overlook so much.

The spiritual 'visions' I personally experience are 'otherworldly' in the sense that there are not 3-d correlates to what I've seen spiritually. What I see are of "another world", meaning they are unlike anything I can imagine or speak of directly. Therefore, I will represent them artistically, through spiritual symbols, metaphorically, or through psychological concepts, which translates to outlining practical applications.

non-physical: this would tend to refer to that which is not matter. when I use this term, I tend to refer to that which cannot be seen with the physical eyes.

spiritual: I tend to consider the spiritual to be that which is beyond the 3-d. It refers to the subtle physical levels, to me, as in David Bohm's implicate order. It is the field from which all matter and possibility spring from, and further, includes all realms of soul/spirit/energy, etc. At the same time, the spiritual is right here, right now, laced within ALL.

These "definitions" are limited to my thoughts/view in this moment, and are by no means exhaustive. They are subject to change as my perceptions change, and given the parameters of each new context I speak in.

Interesting to consider neoplatonism in the context of this conversation.

Talking Ass wrote:Interesting to consider neoplatonism in the context of this conversation.

nice.

I relate to many schools of thought, and for some reason, those stemming from Plato seem to hit home.

My spiritual awareness has come from 15 years of spiritual experience. I will add on "definition" or relationship to schools of thought after the fact. And yet, in general, I have spent limited time studying the varying schools of thought, hence am only somewhat aware of the ones I've come across. I can see the truth in all views/beliefs.

it may also be relevant to mention that when I discuss these concepts, I am speaking from my direct spiritual experience and understanding, rather than from teachings or schools of thoughts, including when I will use schools of thought to provide a map (as with Jungian references).



"The opposite of a fact is falsehood but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~Niels Bohr

it may also be relevant to mention that when I discuss these concepts, I am speaking from my direct spiritual experience and understanding, rather than from teachings or schools of thoughts, including when I will use schools of thought to provide a map (as with Jungian references).

Still, our perceptions come to us through a 'lens', and the lens is provided by our fore-bearers and contemporary society---our milieu. It is hard to make strict classifications and get any school of thought or perception to stick within it, but Jung fits in pretty nicely as a form of neoplatonism.

My spiritual awareness has come from 15 years of spiritual experience. I will add on "definition" or relationship to schools of thought after the fact. And yet, in general, I have spent limited time studying the varying schools of thought, hence am only somewhat aware of the ones I've come across. I can see the truth in all views/beliefs.

It's you and a whole generation, really. Our spiritual experience, the patterns of our visions, their content and texture, are pretty tied-up with the cultural movement that has produced them. So we are speaking not only about an individual (you or anyone else) but a particular juncture in time, a snapshot of how perception is organized. A very interesting thing about the psyche is that it gets activated by our 'intent'. It takes up and mirrors the things that are 'fed' to it. There are times that spiritual experience comes hard and fast and intense, and other times where it is all quiescent. What Anders Schlander said: "...what really obscures truth is the mind and it's 'false' ideas to begin with. once you are rid of the false ideas, it becomes possible to learn the actual truth, and when false ideas pop up again, they must be dealt and laid to rest before moving on", is, I think, an attempt to get out from under the mind and the mind's projections. It becomes a 'drying up' of the well that produces an abundance of imagery, sensation and 'stuff', and the desire/hope to return to an uncluttered, simply, free and pure position within perception. (Many of the people who appear here are 'aspiring non-dualists after all).

They don't seem to have too much use for a neoplatonist psychology and 'spiritual experience', but they don't have much use for a Talking Ass either, nor his barn, nor his magnificent imagined countryside, nor the landscape of his thoughts.

They don't have time either for a proud, impoverished donkey trying to make a buck on the side.

It's tough out there, syzygy.

Talking Ass wrote:

syzygy wrote:it may also be relevant to mention that when I discuss these concepts, I am speaking from my direct spiritual experience and understanding, rather than from teachings or schools of thoughts, including when I will use schools of thought to provide a map (as with Jungian references).

Still, our perceptions come to us through a 'lens', and the lens is provided by our fore-bearers and contemporary society---our milieu. It is hard to make strict classifications and get any school of thought or perception to stick within it, but Jung fits in pretty nicely as a form of neoplatonism.

It's important for me that I differentiate between the lens and that which is perceived through the lens. It's my understanding that our perceptions come to us from beyond the lens. I agree about our fore-bearers, and contemporary society and the lens we look through. And yet such concepts are of the world of definition. The defined is as valid as anything (I don't prioritize "spiritual" over "material", ego or "illusory"-based concepts, as they are all relative to the context.) At the same time, on the level of the Eternal or Infinite, which we are all immersed in beyond our generally accepted concepts, time is irrelevant, so even concepts like "beyond the lens" no longer have much value.

Talking Ass wrote:

syzygy wrote:My spiritual awareness has come from 15 years of spiritual experience. I will add on "definition" or relationship to schools of thought after the fact. And yet, in general, I have spent limited time studying the varying schools of thought, hence am only somewhat aware of the ones I've come across. I can see the truth in all views/beliefs.

It's you and a whole generation, really. Our spiritual experience, the patterns of our visions, their content and texture, are pretty tied-up with the cultural movement that has produced them. So we are speaking not only about an individual (you or anyone else) but a particular juncture in time, a snapshot of how perception is organized. A very interesting thing about the psyche is that it gets activated by our 'intent'. It takes up and mirrors the things that are 'fed' to it. There are times that spiritual experience comes hard and fast and intense, and other times where it is all quiescent. What Anders Schlander said: "...what really obscures truth is the mind and it's 'false' ideas to begin with. once you are rid of the false ideas, it becomes possible to learn the actual truth, and when false ideas pop up again, they must be dealt and laid to rest before moving on", is, I think, an attempt to get out from under the mind and the mind's projections. It becomes a 'drying up' of the well that produces an abundance of imagery, sensation and 'stuff', and the desire/hope to return to an uncluttered, simply, free and pure position within perception. (Many of the people who appear here are 'aspiring non-dualists after all).

I agree with all of this. This is why I am little attached to my ego, my views, my beliefs, and my "definitions" beyond the current context I speak to. This is also why I'm little interested in debating such phantoms that arise in the moment and which dissipate just as quickly. The only Truth I know, comes from Light experiences and visions, which precede my thoughts and are of a spiritual nature (otherwordly, non-physical). I understand that since I am going to communicate through the aforementioned lens, any Truth I talk of will be relative, and yet, my focus remains on that which is Pristine and Sacred. It remains True more than anything I can fathom or that I've known in my physical lifetime/experience.

While our cultural movement may produce our perceptions, they are not the Source of them.

I do agree about intent, which is why I am clear in my dedication and will-less-ness to the Sacred. And the concept of living from Christ consciousness, straddling the two worlds of Sacred/profane, if you will. independent of the good opinion of other people. This consciousness is beyond ego and definition, and yet only a representation of the Sacred.

when I hear something so timeless and beautiful as this, I am reminded that there are many paths to the Eternal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxvIql80DsA

Well, I couldn't relate. It was sort of twinkle-fingered and sentimental. Here is a friend of mine working out an old folk melody. What range! What manly sentiments! Enjoy!

Talking Ass wrote:Well, I couldn't relate. It was sort of twinkle-fingered and sentimental. Here is a friend of mine working out an old folk melody. What range! What manly sentiments! Enjoy!

can you please define your terms..............

twinkle-fingered?? sentimental???

nice video and friend btw....

Talking Ass wrote:Well, I couldn't relate. It was sort of twinkle-fingered and sentimental. Here is a friend of mine working out an old folk melody. What range! What manly sentiments! Enjoy!

try this version...it's...well, shall we say a little less "twinkle-fingered". or sentimental.

what I LOVE about androgyny (note Gary Numan's obvious androgynous look...) is the balance...the effeminate meets manly...

Animus...these lyrics are up your alley...the beauty is balanced by menace, death chants, mayhem, etc...



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnvOGO387ag

Down in the park
Where the machmen meet
The machines are playing `kill-by-numbers
Down in the park with a friend called `five

I was in a car crash
Or was it the war?
Well, Ive never been quite the same
Little white lies like I was there

Come to zom-zoms, a place to eat
Like it was built in one day
You can watch the humans
Try to run

Oh, look, theres a rape machine
Id go outside if it looks the other way
You wouldnt believe
The things they do

Down in the park
Where the chant is death, death, death
Until the sun cries morning
Down in the park with friends of mine

We are not lovers
We are not romantics
We are here to serve you
A different face but the words never change

oh...and the Marilyn Manson version--it's beyond androgynous, it's otherworldly!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGb-rnWhzIk

I don't know, Syz. All I want to do is assassinate him. If for some reason that doesn't work, we'll have to up the anty.

Here, here is gorgus singin' embodied! Or this, if you're into tenors. A duet perhaps?