I met Joseph Campbell and had a talk with him (for about 15 min or so with him doing most of the talking). That was around 1979 and at that time he did not seem to understand the meaning of the myths that he was talking about. I asked him about his own myths also. He told me it was "A shot of Scotch and a steak about yea thick" holding his fingers up about two inches apart. I think latter in his life it might have been different but he definately did not understand what I was speaking to him about at the time. He was not aware at that time.
He was a very funny guy and he definitely made me laugh though. He had this great story of this Jesus freak meeting him in Manhattan and asking whether he "knew Jesus" or something like that. I can not do the impersonations like he did but he was very funny. Several monastics I met at the time had a much better understanding of what I was experiencing. On May 8, 5:29 pm, Tinker <[email protected]> wrote: > No Molly, I have no inner conflict. > I have been humbled beyond your imagination. My mind was blasted wide > open by truth. > The truth is that Life here and now Can evolve into the spiritual > realm. Actually, what we would be doing is incorporating the spiritual > realm into our physical existence. > Are you familiar with Joseph Campbell's archetype 'dream of utopia'? I > don't believe it's what you're talking about. > You have accepted dogma that limits knowing. That did not stop me from > going beyond their teaching. Thank you :-) > > I really do Love you Molly, and I think you are a brilliant lady. I'm > sad that you can't see me clearly.(please know that is a statement > relevant to this situation, not a condition of the man:-)) > > peace & Love > > On May 8, 4:40 pm, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > The original question, Is the Dream Dead... is a paradox only if you > > see Heaven (or whatever word you choose) as a dream or dead, or in > > your case both, to establish the inner conflict. There is a humility > > and open mindedness that is needed to reconcile this paradox. If you > > view life as real or dream; right or wrong; more or less...the dream > > will be dead in that it is unattainable in duality. If you think that > > you have gone beyond the spiritual thinking of the past, you are > > thinking from ego and not the potentiality that is spirituality, that > > includes everything and all that is. You cannot attain it or get > > beyond it or argue it. It just is... > > > Everybody now, dobe dobe do...... > > > On May 8, 4:15 pm, Tinker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Molly, please read the response to Slip. > > > Try it on yourself. > > > > peace & Love > > > > On May 8, 4:04 pm, Tinker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > My dear Lady, > > > > > He sounds to me like someone telling their grandfather he ought to > > > > find a lady and have some kids :-) > > > > I've been through all of that BS and it goes nowhere. > > > > I'm talking about taking action here and now to bring about the > > > > evolution of mankind to become spiritual beings. > > > > All of your spiritual beliefs are 'wannabe' what I'm talking about. > > > > > peace & Love > > > > > On May 8, 3:29 pm, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Don't be so quick to dismiss what Justin is trying to tell you. There > > > > > is a truth for you there. > > > > > > On May 8, 1:07 pm, Tinker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Guess again :-) > > > > > > > peace & Love > > > > > > > On May 8, 3:55 am,Justintruth<[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > So, who’s right? Is it one out of the jumbled clusterfuck of > > > > > > > > spiritual > > > > > > > > beliefs? Or is it the Fact, that Life IS here and now. > > > > > > > > The ‘Dream of Utopia’ points at Life, not some spiritual other > > > > > > > > shit. > > > > > > > > That’s why I ask if it’s dead. > > > > > > > > Well Ok, but you are setting up a false dilemma. Above you have > > > > > > > capitalized the following words "Fact", "Life" and a double > > > > > > > capital of > > > > > > > "IS". > > > > > > > > Basically, if you consider what something is, like "its red" or > > > > > > > "its > > > > > > > round" you are considering its nature, or its essence. It is > > > > > > > possible > > > > > > > however to cease to consider what is and turn your consideration > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > the fact that it is. When you do you transcend what life is and > > > > > > > consider the fact that it is, or to use your writing, the Fact, > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > Life IS. Now, it turns out that you can experience the fact that > > > > > > > life > > > > > > > is in some very, what are called, "profound" ways. You can either > > > > > > > appreciate its meaning fully or not. When you no longer are > > > > > > > considering what is but the fact that it is you are going beyond > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > physical to the metaphysical, or going beyond the natural to the > > > > > > > supernatural or going beyond the sensory to the extrasensory. > > > > > > > That is > > > > > > > the "some spiritual other shit" because it is not what is, but > > > > > > > rather > > > > > > > is the fact that it is. That is why it is "other" or > > > > > > > transcendent. It > > > > > > > is also Immanent meaning roughly "here and now." That is why "the > > > > > > > Fact, that Life IS here and now" IS "some spiritual other > > > > > > > shit"... it > > > > > > > just happens to be YOUR "some spiritual other shit". > > > > > > > > It turns out that the appreciation of the meaning of the fact that > > > > > > > life is in its fullest sense is the experience underlying all of > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > religions. The meaning of that experience is expressed, > > > > > > > indirectly > > > > > > > through the books and stories that constitute the religious texts > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > genuine religious activity and mythology is about the problem of > > > > > > > knowing what it means to be and is part of the intellectual > > > > > > > history of > > > > > > > mankind. > > > > > > > > You might think it is easy to know what it means. It is not. > > > > > > > > Now many activities and beliefs interpret these texts literally. > > > > > > > For > > > > > > > them God is basically like any other thing capable of either > > > > > > > being or > > > > > > > not being and they believe he "happens" to be. They interpret > > > > > > > religion > > > > > > > not existentially but essentially. They think it is about what is > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > the fact that it is. These people are fundamentalists. Their > > > > > > > interpretation is truly not even religious. It is just bad > > > > > > > science. > > > > > > > > However, when the religions are not interpreted essentially then > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > can see their value. Their value is in their appreciation of the > > > > > > > meaning of "the Fact, that Life IS here and now." So you raise a > > > > > > > false > > > > > > > dilemma between religion and what you are saying. > > > > > > > > With respect to Utopia I recommend that you read Kierkeguard on > > > > > > > despair "The Sickness Unto Death". He analyzes what despair > > > > > > > really is > > > > > > > and how one falls into its clutches. It is truly a very big > > > > > > > problem. > > > > > > > Utopia is not being realized because of something that is called > > > > > > > Maya > > > > > > > or illusion in the hindu literature. It is called original sin in > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > christian literature. In the Hindu litterature it is noted that > > > > > > > all > > > > > > > suffering comes from a failure to realize the true nature of life. > > > > > > > > To put as close to your terminology as I can: When "the fact, that > > > > > > > life that life is here and now" fails to become "the Fact, that > > > > > > > Life > > > > > > > IS here and now" then there is suffering. > > > > > > > > You should be careful about prematurely cutting out the meaning > > > > > > > of the > > > > > > > religions because you correctly realize that their literal > > > > > > > interpretation is false and even distracting. > > > > > > > > Now to the most important question: Is the dream dead. I think the > > > > > > > answer is no. Not even in the most evil would I say dead... or at > > > > > > > least not completely incapable of being resurrected. We know > > > > > > > basically > > > > > > > that there is this problem, the problem of Maya or original sin > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > there is this clouding of our vision but religious experience > > > > > > > still > > > > > > > happens. The real question can be posed in terms of the myth of > > > > > > > Lot > > > > > > > and his fleeing of his city. The dream is alive. We are like in a > > > > > > > game > > > > > > > with the stakes doubling. The technical capabilities we have for > > > > > > > communication now are making possible a major reawakening. They > > > > > > > also > > > > > > > make possible our destruction and these capabilities, the ones we > > > > > > > currently have are nothing compared to what is in the biological > > > > > > > design / neurology synergy. We are about to become very capable. > > > > > > > Are > > > > > > > we responding to it is the question. > > > > > > > > Good luck. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
