--- In [email protected], turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "Ann" <awoelflebater@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote: > > > > > > > > I just don't understand people i guess. > > > > > > > > BTW, all you folk who feel a need to seek out the awakened... > > > > > > > > When was the last time you got checked? > > > > > > I was having similar thoughts earlier today, on the train > > > back to Paris. Buck cites some "new gun in town" as some- > > > one who is supposedly awakened. And why? Because he *says* > > > he is, probably. > > > > > > If you look at it rationally, that is the *only* evidence > > > we have that an "awakened" state actually exists -- people > > > interpreting their subjective experience in terms of some > > > past or present dogma about enlightenment or awakening > > > and saying, "Yep, I'm there." > > > > > > Yet many people find these *claims* both inspiring, and > > > believable. Go figure. > > > > Simply put yourself in a place in time about 30 years > > ago, even further back. Remember how you viewed the > > world then, back when you were in your late 20's, 30's > > maybe even your 40's and what you found interesting, > > worthy of investigation. Why do you act as if you were > > never someone who did precisely what you condemn others > > for? > > It is *precisely* because I've been there, done that > with this stuff that I can laugh at it.
Ah, but big difference between laughing at "it" and laughing at yourself for having spent umpteen years pursuing "it". >It is because > they have never done anything *else* or believed any- > thing *else* that certain people cannot, and feel as > if they should get uptight about being laughed at. How the hell do you know if "they have never done anything else"? How can you possibly make this blanket statement and expect anyone to take you seriously or, even, that you could have written that with a straight face? > > > > Personally, I think that the reason people think this > > > way is to Justify Their Investment In A Lifetime Spent > > > Believing In Woo. To me, it's the *same* phenomenon we > > > see in Nabby hoping beyond hope that crop circles are > > > the result of Woo, or that a supposedly spinning statue > > > is an example of Woo. Any Woo Will Do. > > > > Woo is cool. Woo is woo for a reason. We all want woo > > to exist because it means there is more than meets > > the everyday eye. > > Which is *precisely* the wrong approach. This is not an "approach", this is my thought. I don't approach my day looking for woo with my spy glass or ghost meter. >The everyday > IS what is majestic. Having to invent something "more" > to revere is what people who cannot appreciate the > wonder of the everyday do with their lives. Of course life is amazing and wondrous and unknowable on many levels but it can seem limited by how open our minds and senses are. To be slapped in the face by some extraordinary event or person or sound because suddenly we are more open or we come across something we have never experienced before this is woo for me. Spaceships, saints and talking dogs are not what I'm talking about here - although they could be. > > > You appear to like magic, illusion, the mysterious. > > Why? Probably for the same reason I do. It indicates > > there is more than we currently know. It means we > > might actually be surrounded by wonderful, deeper > > even scarier things than we usually witness. > > Isn't that just a way of saying, "I find the everyday > boring and uninteresting, so I have to search for > something flashier and more Woo Woo to believe in > to get my rocks off? Nope. Maybe this is the case for others but not me. I don't go out looking for anything in particular and I certainly don't find life boring. Others might, maybe you did so you stuck around Rama all those years to liven it up. I know being around Robin was not very boring, in fact, it was quite dramatic. But it wasn't particularly woo (except in moments) and I 'm not a woo addict or seeker. > Seems to me it would be more > productive to learn to appreciate the wonder of the > everyday. Sure it would. > > > Some things people define as woo is preposterously > > laughable but some is subtle enough to truly grab > > the attention, is worthy of more than a smirk. > > People who cannot handle being smirked at because > of their beliefs should keep those beliefs to them- > selves or hide in an ashram somewhere that they > don't have to interface with people who don't share > them. They're ONLY beliefs. Better still, let's sterilize the bastards. > > > > It's as if they feel that if they can find even *one* > > > example of Woo -- no matter how anecdotal it may be, no > > > matter how based on hearsay and subjective claims it > > > may be -- that one example of Woo will justify all the > > > time, money, and energy they spent pursuing Woo. > > > > Why so condescending? Would you prefer it if everyone > > simply accepted the fact that Primetime TV and a > > holiday at Disneyland were as good as it gets? > > I don't seen any difference between those who feel > that they need something like TV or Disneyland to > distract them from the banality of their lives and > those who feel that they need Woo to do the same > thing. I'm not talking about 'distracting' themselves with TV and Disneyland. I said some people think that that is all there is. They either can not or will not look for what is deeper, truer. > > > > TM "checking" isn't going to do anything to get rid of > > > such longings, and such hopes. Neither, it seems, is > > > the presentation of rational thought, or the scientific > > > method. The desire for Woo is all-consuming, whatever > > > form of Woo it is that the seeker seeks. > > > > Now you're stretching it a bit. You always do this; > > you take a premise that might hold some merit and > > you take it to this ludicrous extreme encompassing > > everyone and the far limit of what this might entail. > > And? What's that to you? What it is to me is that I read this stuff and find it off the mark, untrue, a parody of real life. > > You are a black and white guy. Let's see some nuance. > > "You should think and act and write the way *I* > want you to." Yeah, right. I didn't say that. I said, "Let's see some nuance." It's not the same thing. It appears you fail to be able to read nuance either. > > > > If they can find even *one* person they can convince > > > themselves is awakened or enlightened, then (they think) > > > awakening or enlightenment EXIST, and their lives spent > > > believing that they exist were not a waste. If they can > > > find even one example of what they consider real magic > > > or Woo, then magic and Woo EXIST, and again their lives > > > were not wasted pursuing it. > > > > Oh, the "theys" and the "theirs" of the world. Let's > > just ridicule them to death. > > No, let's just ridicule them in the hope that someday > they learn to laugh *along* with how ridiculous they > are rather than get uptight when someone points it out. >
