“…I am materialist only in believing that anything divine should not simply be attained by averting eyes, though I believe something more spiritual has to be part of our daily affairs. I believe it can be organised - though the rub is we need control of the organising through a system in which integrity is demonstrated, not made sacred in a regime of truth. The divine may be fine, but sadly it can be faked. Somewhere, somehow, we need to be able to contribute, have this recognised and be left alone yet not isolated from support we should expect from our contributions. We probably have the technology to organise this for the first time…” – Neil
Fully agreed upon Neil! Your first part about ‘averting eyes’ immediately brought to mind the Beatles song which includes the words “..living is easy with eyes closed misunderstanding all you see…” http://www.metrolyrics.com/strawberry-fields-forever-lyrics-beatles.html http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Strawberry+Fields+Forever There is no way to the divine that I know of that simply ignores appearances. To me, such a notion is absurd. Organization would seem to be innate for anything in fact of the oneness of us all. Further, such a ‘system’ would have to be based upon the fundamental structure of mind itself. In no other way could integrity be demonstrated. And, yes, charlatans abound. Without an agreed upon view including method, goals etc., the omnipresent attempts at coerced uniting will continue. My plan is to find another job, last one ended yesterday...and teach. On Jun 26, 9:55 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > I would guess we are all troubled by that focus on words that leads to > a myriad of books that only help in obscure ways and which makes an > industry out of the clutter. I'm at the end of a long experiment I > need to write up. Orn's a bit older than me, but we have both harked > back to a time when jobs could pay pretty well and didn't seem to be > in short supply. These days, I despair that the main industry is > about providing useless training for jobs that aren't there. I do see > a case for us all to need to be able to 'see the Emperor naked' and > further to be able to talk about the madness and not inventions about > the 'clothes'. > I was at a two-day training event this week, based on utter cock > derived from a book called 'Chicken Soup for the Soul' - all homilies > around being rejected 132 times before publication and the success of > self-made men and women who have triumphed over adversity. Everyone > there could see this within minutes of the start. All anyone there > wanted was a job that would bring some security - this being the very > thing not on offer. All the stories were known to me to be as false > as claims made at pyramid selling events. The book of invisible > thread had apparently sold 195 million copies - very scary. The > trainer seemed to be a believer, though a fairly good egg who reminded > me of my Auntie Jean. What capitalism offered once was the chance of > a decent wage and the ability to move on to another - my guess is that > what we liked about it was the freedom from the overbearing authority > of people with riches and the ranking system of education and > equivalents of the Domesday Book. > On my way home, I saw one of the idiots who was allowed to cause so > much grief to me and Sue when they lived next door. He was driving a > car. He is nearly always drunk or drugged and can't have a licence, > is probably disqualified, the vehicle probably unsafe and so on. He > and his partner have lived by defrauding benefits and crime for over > 20 years. She is on trial for arson and awaiting sentence for a > serious assault. They are an industry - every year they cost around > £100,000 in benefits and in the legal system around their 'petty' > crimes (like throwing a fire-bomb at a family home). One of the women > on the course applied for a gardening programme only to be told it was > only for people who had committed crimes. One could go on, but this > is the problem - what is going on is so obvious we shouldn't have to > explain and describe it, but already be working on putting things > right. > My guess is that we need control of the small things that make life > reasonably free, and that we have actually become cowed by authority > systems we won't see. The 'Baby P' case in the UK is a classic. It's > clear none of the participants in this baby's cruel life and death was > prepared to act on the obvious evidence of eye and good sense. These > people were cops, social workers, doctors and so on, all caught up in > cowardly kow-tow. The whistle-blowers were all crudely stamped down, > as surely as the young child shouting out the 'Emperor is naked' would > be hung as a witch. Our systems are already 'sacred' in that they > have eliminated fair criticism through a taboo of fear. I am > materialist only in believing that anything divine should not simply > be attained by averting eyes, though I believe something more > spiritual has to be part of our daily affairs. I believe it can be > organised - though the rub is we need control of the organising > through a system in which integrity is demonstrated, not made sacred > in a regime of truth. The divine may be fine, but sadly it can be > faked. Somewhere, somehow, we need to be able to contribute, have > this recognised and be left alone yet not isolated from support we > should expect from our contributions. We probably have the technology > to organise this for the first time. > We now have two cats and an interloper called Arbuthnot with a > magnetic collar who sneaks in and sleeps on the spare bed. My plan is > a little job that pays the bills and to write. > > On 26 June, 23:21, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > “Orn, Neil spoke of practical levels of transparency, meaning 'who is > > governing what' in down to earth English. You are guessing your way > > to > > the domain of the divine and the new tools of deception. Calling this > > a parallel conversation would be an euphemism for lifting up the > > thinking lazy on the one hand of the scales.” – gabby > > > Again, I’m glad to hear from you gabby; however, the above troubled me > > enough for a re-read of neil’s posts. I did find personal and read > > observations about the term transparency as well as preferences. > > > I assume that we all have similar preferences…at least there has been, > > over the years, a lot of lip service to the same. So, since there was > > nothing that I could find that was practical in the sense of changing > > the status quo, unless perhaps one includes pointing out things to see/ > > observe, I followed suit. In this sense, yes, it is parallel. > > > As for guessing, I used the term because of course, not having lived > > as long ago as my surmising was looking at, it is all I can do…guess. > > > However, when it comes to how humans are, today at least, including > > myself, this I can say I do know about and did project this throughout > > much of history (as a guess). > > > Oh, I did offer a suggestion too at the end about the need for the, > > perhaps obvious?.., observation this all started out with. > > > So, all in all, I guess I don’t find the intellectual butcher shop you > > do…perhaps it is a Deutsch thing? > > > On Jun 26, 1:05 pm, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Orn, Neil spoke of practical levels of transparency, meaning 'who is > > > governing what' in down to earth English. You are guessing your way to > > > the domain of the divine and the new tools of deception. Calling this > > > a parallel conversation would be an euphemism for lifting up the > > > thinking lazy on the one hand of the scales. > > > > On 26 Jun., 18:33, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > "...I fear this is on the decline." - ARCHY > > > > > ..not so sure myself. I do know that the art of deception has a lot of > > > > new technology (tools) these days. My guess is that the nature of this > > > > aspect of how one presents them self to others hasn't changed much if > > > > at all for centuries, perhaps longer. > > > > > This sort of ego image seems to be an innate aspect of our > > > > psyche...wishing to present a good or at least 'practical' "self" to > > > > perceived others. The practical aspect of course has to do with how > > > > one adapts to their environment, humans included. > > > > > For us all to be able to say the emperor is wearing no clothes means > > > > we all must see this clearly and not project other things upon it. > > > > > On Jun 26, 8:27 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > A lot of people are certainly very disturbed by transparency - one can > > > > > read Freud as saying we push most of what's pretty obvious out of > > > > > consciousness or Norbert Elias as saying we sweep it all under the > > > > > carpet of manners. Makes me queasy to be honest Orn, partly because I > > > > > think there are some basics where we shouldn't let deception rule. > > > > > The bugbear is the thought of bad government - power rarely allows > > > > > transparency. I tend to like countervailing structures and to know > > > > > who is governing what. I fear this is on the decline. > > > > > > On 26 June, 15:33, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > "...more practical levels of transparency." - archy > > > > > > > Not so sure how much I would have to do with such a state...seems > > > > > > more > > > > > > to be the domain of the divine. > > > > > > > On Jun 25, 3:59 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Some quite old sociology probably would help if we could > > > > > > > recognise it > > > > > > > in our thinking and action more often. Goffman talked about > > > > > > > 'total > > > > > > > organisations' - from which we might recognise that many have very > > > > > > > little choice and all of us should be wary of total thinking. > > > > > > > Just as > > > > > > > we yearn for integrity, someone is using the ploy of sincerity on > > > > > > > us - > > > > > > > just as we may realise this we may be using the shell of > > > > > > > scepticism in > > > > > > > order to certainly not be able to trust. In the end thinking > > > > > > > doesn't > > > > > > > have to be this piss-poor and we could have more practical levels > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > transparency. > > > > > > > > On 25 June, 23:24, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > It's a tough job, but someone has to do it! ;-) > > > > > > > > > On Jun 25, 2:00 pm, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Orny, what would I do - what would the world do - without you > > > > > > > > > correcting me and my eye-sight! > > > > > > > > > > On 25 Jun., 19:00, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > gabbers, as nice as it would be to give grasshopper the > > > > > > > > > > credit for > > > > > > > > > > playing the oldest, here is a photo, and yes, the sound > > > > > > > > > > too...of the > > > > > > > > > > oldest. 'Bill', in your article is playing wood (bamboo), > > > > > > > > > > this is > > > > > > > > > > vulture wing bone. > > > > > > > > > > >http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8117915.stm > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 25, 9:05 am, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Relax, dj, that rope has long been > > > > > > > > > > > cut.http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/mus... > > > > > > > > > > > > On 25 Jun., 17:39, frantheman > > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > And how would House Johnson deal with the Fremen? Are > > > > > > > > > > > > you prepared for > > > > > > > > > > > > everything planned by Molly's Missionaria Protectiva > > > > > > > > > > > > (aided by the > > ... > > read more »- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
