The divine by definition cannot be guessed or faked. But yes, writing or teaching about it makes room for more.
On 27 Jun., 06:55, 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 > > ... > > Erfahren Sie mehr » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
