On Jan 1, 8:00 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote:
> I think Orn and Vam have pointed to much of value that has been around
> for a long time on many occasions. Molly too, is much more
> knowledgeable than me in more "modern" techniques. There are, for me,
> "matters of spirit" of substantial importance in what we might be/
> come. I even believe, after many years of involved disappointment,
> that we could and should develop decent managers. Many of us in here
> would not differ much if given a free hand to sort out practical
> problems. Even jibes coming from Gabby and me reveal interests in
> doing the right thing, however much our humour may be pointed at
> zealot adherence to "right things", or Chaz at his "darkest". I am
> rarely inclined to think of anyone in here as the kind of monster
> likely to cover up as those involved in the Baby P saga managed to do,
> no doubt thinking they were virtuous creatures.
> In all my post-scientific academic work I have found a dire
> unwillingness to genuinely explore what matters against an empirical-
> practical background of the use of deception. One cannot forever
> deconstruct - this is nihilistic - yet as Orn says (more or less) we
> struggle to work from scientific grounding. Freud once said one can
> get so methodological that one ends up forever polishing spectacles
> and never looking through them. Chaz's warning above about
> institutionalisation within the limits of the cult is forever
> profound.
I think this is why I never want to belong. Even to the cult of
science whose "Pillars" are founded on demonstrable evidence; there is
still the matter of choice and "interest" (aesthetically, politically,
socially) in which bits of evidence are thought worthy to demonstrate.
It is left for us to always remain sceptical and aloof so as not to
get dragged down into the depths of certainty, or drift into realms of
belief "must be" conclusions.
> The story of Islamist cults forever refining Islam to the point they
> can kill other Muslims because they are no longer Muslim is merely
> another exapmle of "chosen people" lunacy - perhaps at its "best" in
> Numbers 31 where Moses' ethnic cleansing is trumpeted. "High
> standards" can be chronically pathetic and evil.
There are other cults whose validity we tend to take for granted. I
think here of the cult of "legitimacy" which has determined that the
(unprecedented) foundation of the state of Isreal which has so upset
the pride of Palestine. The unthinking acceptance of this particular
myth supports the current bombing of ordinary people in Gaza to the
further detriment of any possible kind of peace in the ME.
> A long way from this, I would point to a couple of young female
> students using poetry in one of my personal development classes,
> expressing the dismal realisation that their dumb jobs in a major
> hotel chain were truly piss poor. The good news is that their
> performance across the board improved and they got new jobs. A small
> "triumph". I think they could well have succeeded by different routes
> with others here.
> There has to be more than whatever work we can do like this.
>
> On 1 Jan, 18:49, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 1, 6:32 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > “Yes, and the results of this and most religions has been to retard
> > > human scientific and social progress. I think it matters what the "7
> > > magic steps" lead to, or what the "5 supreme pillars" uphold, or what
> > > the "23 theses" assert. It is not enough to follow and fulfil, the
> > > choice is all important. They seem to be of the same category - self
> > > improvement rackets.” – chaz
>
> > > chaz, as Neil says, I think you have something here. We are in full
> > > agreement about it mattering what a set of methods leads to, any
> > > grouping of pillars upholds as well as what differing theses assert.
> > > We also appear to be in full agreement about following.
>
> > > What I don’t understand about your posting though is what you think is
> > > being ‘fulfilled’. Nor do I understand what you mean by saying that
> > > the choice is all important.
>
> > Mea Culpa. I was reacting to more than your own posting but also to
> > Lonlaz, who stated: " People who truly try, truly try to follow all
> > Seven Strategies, or the tenets of the Celestine Prophecy, or whatever
> > will eventually get their efforts worth. They will achieve their
> > ideal selves, and will still have themselves to contend with. "
> > This I feel is simply untrue, and that reflects my comment on choice.
> > As for fulfilment, this is illusory in that most schemes (self help,
> > religions, etc.), define the conditions of their own success thus
> > limiting the individual who becomes institutionalised within the
> > limits of the cult.
>
> > > As to the appearance of anything being in the category of self
> > > improvement….let alone rackets, this of course is in the eye of the
> > > beholder…as is ‘the results of this and most religions…’.
>
> > > Such ideological positions as far as I can tell arise from personal
> > > experience(s). This alone is neither good nor bad. It just is. Of
> > > course it can be said to only be true for the one who experiences and
> > > reacts to said experiences. (subjectivity)
>
> > > Yet, what I’m pointing at later in my post seems to be of a different
> > > order from most of this. Where it may be of the same nature would be
> > > when associated with the goal, function and result of many schools of
> > > self observation. Without knowing the ground of that which observes,
> > > adequate scientific preparation to discuss observations has not been
> > > completed.
>
> > > On Jan 1, 9:11 am, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 1, 6:41 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > “…I think that this is possibly a positive effect of the self-
> > > > > improvement racket. People who truly try, truly try to follow all
> > > > > Seven Strategies, or the tenets of the Celestine Prophecy, or whatever
> > > > > will eventually get their efforts worth. They will achieve their ideal
> > > > > selves, and will still have themselves to contend with.” – Lonlaz
>
> > > > > As you say, there are exoteric and esoteric initiations. This is true
> > > > > even for the over 2,500 year old schools of Buddhism. And, yes they
> > > > > have their functions and results.
>
> > > > Yes, and the results of this and most religions has been to retard
> > > > human scientific and social progress.
> > > > I think it matters what the "7 magic steps" lead to, or what the "5
> > > > supreme pillars" uphold, or what the "23 theses" assert. It is not
> > > > enough to follow and fulfil, the choice is all important.
> > > > They seem to be of the same category - self improvement rackets.
>
> > > > And, while often there is full focus
>
> > > > > and sometimes it appears to be completed or what is being observed is
> > > > > taken away with differing results, one of which is as you say, the
> > > > > self disappears. When this state is known, that in itself is quite
> > > > > something to have been revealed.
>
> > > > > As Neil would say, you have something there. And, even the notion of
> > > > > self-improvement, racket or not, reveals a specific level of
> > > > > subjectivity.
>
> > > > > This all said, what you call their ‘ideal selves’ puzzles me. Of
> > > > > course you follow this with a dichotomy of ‘themselves…to contend
> > > > > with’. Perhaps a reflection upon some level of disillusionment.
>
> > > > > It has been a while since I’ve discussed this stuff here, so will take
> > > > > a small leap.
>
> > > > > The objects of attention can be as simple as the breath, a
> > > > > visualization etc. to something as total as mind itself. Is there a
> > > > > stage where mind itself dissolves?
>
> > > > > What is the state where mind knows itself fully?
>
> > > > > While appearing to be koan like, these are valid questions and not
> > > > > just metaphysically.
>
> > > > > On Dec 31, 10:08 pm, Lonlaz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > When studying the occult, I was introduced to the idea of
> > > > > > initiation.
> > > > > > In the occult usage, it was a ritual, either short and intense, or
> > > > > > long a grueling to produce koan-like effect. A person puts their
> > > > > > full
> > > > > > concentration into something, their whole self is engaged, and then
> > > > > > the subject of focus is completed, or taken away.. and for a while
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > self disappears with the task, and something is revealed.
>
> > > > > > I think that this is possibly a positive effect of the self-
> > > > > > improvement racket. People who truly try, truly try to follow all
> > > > > > Seven Strategies, or the tenets of the Celestine Prophecy, or
> > > > > > whatever
> > > > > > will eventually get their efforts worth. They will achieve their
> > > > > > ideal selves, and will still have themselves to contend with.
>
> > > > > > On Dec 31, 8:22 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > In theory, bumblebees should not be able to fly, but they do.
> > > > > > > Because
> > > > > > > they have to. But people, no matter how smart or how skilled they
> > > > > > > might be, do not always get off the ground. We are all born with
> > > > > > > common sense, but we don't always, or often, use it.
>
> > > > > > > Must we drift without direction the rest of our lives? Are we
> > > > > > > doomed
> > > > > > > if we seem incapable of using our common sense? No, says
> > > > > > > bestselling
> > > > > > > author and professional speaker Barry Siskind. In Bumblebees Can't
> > > > > > > Fly, he shows you how to develop and follow his Seven Strategies
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > Common Sense. After mastering these simple yet shrewd strategies,
> > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > will begin to make more confident decisions, improve your
> > > > > > > foresight,
> > > > > > > listen to the wisdom already deep within you - and fly, like the
> > > > > > > bumblebees!
>
> > > > > > > Yeah, right! Sadly for this dork and many other flat earth common
> > > > > > > sensers, we do know how the bumblebee flies in theory and
> > > > > > > practice.
> > > > > > > They make use of turbulence, like moths. The seven simple yet
> > > > > > > shrewd
> > > > > > > strategies come to you from a berk daft enough not to do basic
> > > > > > > research on the metaphor central to his pitch. This is the
> > > > > > > essence of
> > > > > > > personal development - first find a market segment so stupid it
> > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > swallow any old tosh and then write that old tosh!- Hide quoted
> > > > > > > text -
>
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
""Minds Eye"" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
