noozguru, I read once that 1 ounce of alcohol kills 10,000 brain cells.
Forever! I figure I need all the ones I have left!
On Friday, January 31, 2014 3:57 PM, Bhairitu <noozg...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
A lot of people drink occasionally for social reasons. It loosens the tongue
and in general can make folks a little more pleasant to be around (not counting
those whose over indulgence turns them in to belligerent and often violent ass
holes). However MADD did a good job of getting rid of the drinking social
scene and probably are partly responsible for the reclusive "online"
socializing we have in the Internet age.
On 01/31/2014 12:33 PM, TurquoiseB wrote:
>--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote:
>>
>> People drink to transcend self, to get away from the
image of themselves. So in that sense, that activity is
the same as transcending in TM. The small self is
transcended when you pass out, the activity of drinking
ceases.
>
>I would say instead, whether it relates to whiskey, or drugs, or meditative
>experience, that the "transcendence" is achieved long before the point of
>passing out. All that is really necessary for many psychic wanderers in search
>of the transcendental experience, is the *shift* of awareness from one
>localized plane of awareness to another.
>
>In Castanedan terms, one "shifts one's state of attention," allowing the self
>access to other, congruent, states of attention. Alcohol can do this, drugs
>can do this, mediation can do this, and even *intent* can do this. You just
>declare internally that you're sick and tired of the same old same old way
>you've been seeing things, and just shift to a new way of seeing things.
>
>> If an automobile comes to rest and stops moving, does
that make it more self sufficient? The whole idea of an
automobile is self-sufficiency in motion.
>
>And, according to some supposed sages, the whole idea of the "human being" is
>that it is most "in touch" with the Tao or the flow of life when it is in
>motion. Stasis inhibits this flow. Movement encourages it.
>
>> This play on words has limits. Self-sufficiency on an
individual level is defined as the condition or quality of
being adequate or sufficient on the level of a person's
essential being that distinguishes them from others.
>
>Or even if it doesn't. I don't necessarily see "inability to perceive
>otherness" as an indicator of self-sufficiency. I can envision people (to
>limit things to MMY's 7 states) in CC being self-sufficient, or in GC being
>self-sufficient, or in UC being self-sufficient. Theoretically, in this latter
>SoC the perceiver no longer makes the distinction between "self" and "other,"
>but that does not necessarily -- in my view, at least -- imply
>self-sufficiency. Only self-sufficiency implies self-sufficiency, not the SoC
>one brings to it.
>
>> When talking about enlightenment, this is not what it
means, though independence may be a by product of changes
in experience. With the big E the sense of individuality
is reduced or eliminated and the small self is replaced
with the experience of continuity and intimacy of all
things, a practical death of the ego-sense.
>
>At times. And then, unless one's experience was sudden and from that point on
>never-changing (unlike mine), things keep changing. Some days, no
>individuality, no self. Other days, nothing but self. Still other days,
>no-self congruent with self. So which of these is "highest," or "best?" My
>suspicion is none of them.
>
>> The small self may also be extinguished by being a
drunk which often leads to death, but that is probably not
such a cool experience, the part leading up to death, that
is.
>
>Better than dying of pancreatic cancer after a life of abstinence, given the
>testimony of friends who have departed from this world using both of those
>methods.
>
>> Turq's comments about those uber expensive whiskeys
reveals a caste system for drunkeness. The super rich
drunk can afford to wall themselves away from the world,
private and in posh style, maybe in a fifty room mansion,
and pass out on only the finest rarest forms of alcohol,
while the lowest caste drunk has to publicly pass out on
the sidewalk, often in very unpleasant weather, using only
the cheapest of wine. In a way the latter is in a better
position spiritually if he does not die because he has
nothing to lose, having lost all possessions, self
respect, and care for what others think of him (or her).
The super rich drunk has a lot more to lose.
>
>My comment -- as I'm sure you understand -- was an attempt at humor, slightly
>burdened with a dig at the TMO's notion of pricing for its products. Truly
>good Scotch may in fact be worth more than the TMO's million dollar courses.
>:-)
>
>
>
