[FairfieldLife] "Gone Mental" (was Re: WHY TM CAN'T BE LEARNED FROM A BOOK)

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" 
 wrote:

> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra  wrote:

> Now I don't say that passion should overwhelm reason; I try
> to keep passion in check. But I do certainly believe that a
> point of view can be expressed with the requisite
> incisiveness and rationality without at the same time
> eschewing what is personal.
> 
> Yes. There is always something of a person left. But it is
> not a necessary element. When one gets into a spiritual
> direction in life we always start out thinking in terms
> that the personal aspect of life is somehow going to get
> better. What we do not know at that point is the very
> existence of what is personal, the ego, the person we
> think we are, is the target to be annihilated by the
> spiritual process. If you want to experience god, you have
> to be as transparent as clear glass in water. Something of
> you will still be there, but not quite.

And yet, even if one is experiencing God, unless one
is a renunciate living in a cave, one still has
interactions with other people.

Yes, in that case one presumably sees God in other
people as part of that experience, but one's
interactions with them are still on the level of the
personal, even if they are experiencing God too.

One's personhood may have been annihilated as a
result of one's experience of God, but somehow one
needs to be able to summon it up again as a sort of
user interface for purposes of interaction. No?


> Remember, Barry seems to think the posts you write can
> be distilled into a single sentence or paragraph.

I'm sure Barry's *understanding* of Robin's posts could
be distilled into a single sentence or paragraph.
Whether that distillation would encompass the totality
of their meaning (or even a significant percentage
thereof) is another question altogether. (Especially
since Barry claims he never reads Robin's posts.)

IMHO, Robin should remember Barry's feeling about his
posts in terms of what it says about Barry rather than
of what it has to say about Robin's posts.

[FairfieldLife] "Gone Mental" (was Re: WHY TM CAN'T BE LEARNED FROM A BOOK)

[seventhray1]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra  wrote:
>
> Dear Steve,
>
> Sorry about the unhappy ending. I looked in on the second period,
thinking to myself: seventhray1 is there somewhere in the crowed; I
wonder if I can pick up his individual consciousness based upon what I
have imprinted of him at FFL?

It was a rather dull game until the third period.  The Blues have a new
coach and this was the second game  under his leadership, so I knew they
would get sparked eventually, which they did.  However penalty shots to
determine the winner are somewhat anticlimatic in my opinion, which is
what happend.  And of course both Maple Leaf goals where scored in power
plays as was one of the Blue's goals.  The exciting part was when the
Blues tied it up late in the third period.  I was there with my daughter
and her friend.  I admit we moved around a little as there were some
nice unoccupied seats.  (I hope I don't get blasted for that).
>
> But couldn't find you:-) But it was interesting to know that someone
from FFL was present there watching the usually wretched Maple Leafs
punish the Cardinals for their glorious feat.  On the way down to the
game it was mentioned that the Maple Leafs were hoping to break a two
game losing streak.  But evidently, they are still in first place.
>
> I don't suppose you saw any of the World Series, else you would have
told us.  Oh yes, I was fortunate enough to have four tickets to every
game.  Two field box seats and two higher up seats.  I was able to go to
one NLDS game, and my kids went to one NLCS game, and game seven of the
WS.  The balance of tickets were given to customers and employees, and
to a third party who buys most of the regular season games.  It is such
an expensive propostion to be a season ticket holder that the only way I
can afford them is to sell most of the regular season games to a third
party with the promise of making post season games available if they
should make it that far.

As I'm sure you know, game six was especially memorable, and I did score
some points with one of our employees who attended that game with one of
our customers.
>
> Hope your daughter got to the bottom of Cassius and Brutus.  She has
been a little disappointed in act 4.  Said it bothered her a little that
everyone killed themselves.
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" steve.sundur@
wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Good stuff. Now I'm off to see the Blues play the Maple Leafs.
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra  wrote:
> > >
> > > "Gone Mental" (was Re: WHY TM CAN'T BE LEARNED FROM A BOOK)
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" steve.sundur@
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb 
wrote:
> > > > > So the time may be approach-
> > > > > ing in which I'm not gonna find anything posted here inter-
> > > > > esting enough to reply to. It's all been done to death and
> > > > > argued endlessly *in exactly the same words* for decades
> > > > > now. SO been there, done that.
> > > >
> > > > We are not worthy!
> > >
> > > Some are more worthy than others. :-)
> > >
> > > > Actually, I think if Barry wanted to be honest about it,
> > > > his posting here is more akin to what we probably all did
> > > > at least once or twice when we were eight year olds - namely
> > > > ringing someone's door bell and then running away.
> > > >
> > > > I mean, sheesh, if you are into pushing peoples buttons,
> > > > why not stick around every once in a while instead of going
> > > > and hiding behind a tree.
> > >
> > > Barry Wright: Why bother? Everything I need to know about who got
> > > their buttons pushed and how severely they got pushed
> > > is visible in Yahoo's Message View.
> > >
> > > Santa Claus: Barry, Baby, you are asserting something without any
feel
> > for the way it is playing in reality. This is called perfect
subjective
> > dislocation from the necessary feedback which the universe is giving
> > you. Get it, Barry? When you blow your nose on your sleeve, there is
> > some mucus there which, if you want to still look pretty, you have
to
> > remove.
> > >
> > > You can't just say: The Kleenex idea, it's just an opinion. My
sleeve
> > is just as good an absorber of my snot as your bloody Kleenex. I
don't
> > need no fucking Kleenex—You wimps.
> > >
> > > I blow my snot on myself and you guys offer me a Kleenex: Hey, I
guess
> > I pressed your button once more!
> > >
> > > Barry Wright: And I thought I stated quite explicitly that I don't
> > > feel I "owe" anyone here anything. Not a response to
> > > something they post, and certainly not an argument
> > > or an impassioned defense of something I said.
> > >
> > > Santa Claus: If you tell us, Barry, that ice-cream tastes good
because
> > of the placebo effect, we are not exercised about this. It don't
bother
> > us ice-cream eaters that much. Even though you used to be one of
those
> > who licked down to the bottom and then ate the cone.

[FairfieldLife] "Gone Mental" (was Re: WHY TM CAN'T BE LEARNED FROM A BOOK)

[maskedzebra]

Dear Steve,

Sorry about the unhappy ending. I looked in on the second period, thinking to 
myself: seventhray1 is there somewhere in the crowed; I wonder if I can pick up 
his individual consciousness based upon what I have imprinted of him at FFL?

But couldn't find you:-) But it was interesting to know that someone from FFL 
was present there watching the usually wretched Maple Leafs punish the 
Cardinals for their glorious feat.

I don't suppose you saw any of the World Series, else you would have told us.

Hope your daughter got to the bottom of Cassius and Brutus.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> Good stuff.  Now I'm off to see the Blues play the Maple Leafs.
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra  wrote:
> >
> > "Gone Mental" (was Re: WHY TM CAN'T BE LEARNED FROM A BOOK)
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" steve.sundur@
> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > > > So the time may be approach-
> > > > ing in which I'm not gonna find anything posted here inter-
> > > > esting enough to reply to. It's all been done to death and
> > > > argued endlessly *in exactly the same words* for decades
> > > > now. SO been there, done that.
> > >
> > > We are not worthy!
> >
> > Some are more worthy than others. :-)
> >
> > > Actually, I think if Barry wanted to be honest about it,
> > > his posting here is more akin to what we probably all did
> > > at least once or twice when we were eight year olds - namely
> > > ringing someone's door bell and then running away.
> > >
> > > I mean, sheesh, if you are into pushing peoples buttons,
> > > why not stick around every once in a while instead of going
> > > and hiding behind a tree.
> >
> > Barry Wright: Why bother? Everything I need to know about who got
> > their buttons pushed and how severely they got pushed
> > is visible in Yahoo's Message View.
> >
> > Santa Claus: Barry, Baby, you are asserting something without any feel
> for the way it is playing in reality. This is called perfect subjective
> dislocation from the necessary feedback which the universe is giving
> you. Get it, Barry? When you blow your nose on your sleeve, there is
> some mucus there which, if you want to still look pretty, you have to
> remove.
> >
> > You can't just say: The Kleenex idea, it's just an opinion. My sleeve
> is just as good an absorber of my snot as your bloody Kleenex. I don't
> need no fucking Kleenex—You wimps.
> >
> > I blow my snot on myself and you guys offer me a Kleenex: Hey, I guess
> I pressed your button once more!
> >
> > Barry Wright: And I thought I stated quite explicitly that I don't
> > feel I "owe" anyone here anything. Not a response to
> > something they post, and certainly not an argument
> > or an impassioned defense of something I said.
> >
> > Santa Claus: If you tell us, Barry, that ice-cream tastes good because
> of the placebo effect, we are not exercised about this. It don't bother
> us ice-cream eaters that much. Even though you used to be one of those
> who licked down to the bottom and then ate the cone. The deliciousness
> of ice-cream: just so you know, everyone: That was trained moodmaking.
> >
> > Maybe. Maybe not. But if in trying to tell us ice-cream just tasted
> good because we were told it was good, then it isn't really a matter of
> opinion, Barry: it is a matter of negative wish-fulfillment.
> >
> > It is not a question of opinion. It is a question of the sensation in
> your mouth. For some reason you tasted a different brand of ice-cream
> [by the way, I stopped eating that damn ice-cream myself—not good
> for me; still I don't say it didn't go down good with me at the
> time]—and then found yourself having to kill off the old ice-cream
> memories.
> >
> > But your ice-cream maker—your second one—didn't he choke to
> death on one of his own cones? My opinion, maybe; but if he's not
> sending you any e-mails, and can't be located anywhere, maybe it's not
> an opinion. Your last Guru, Barry: he's dead. That's my strongest
> opinion.
> >
> > You aren't, are you—merely giving your opinions when you get your
> hate on about someone on FFL, are you, Barry boy? Opinions mean some
> absence of knowledge. But you, surely if you were only expressing
> opinions in your hatred, would have to question the truthfulness of
> these opinions. And since you give us your opinions about, say, the
> geocentric reality of the universe, us Galileos, have to set you right:
> the universe is not Barry-centric; it is, as far as we can
> tell—scientists will back this up with their
> opinions—heliocentric.
> >
> > Is Sati merely a matter of opinion, Barry? Should a woman be obliged
> to throw herself upon her husband's funeral pyre? Is your hatred of Judy
> mere opinion? Do you hold your views to be opinions only? How can an
> opinion generate intense feelings of hostility? And why, Barry dearest,
> do you ever refuse to argue out your case?

[FairfieldLife] "Gone Mental" (was Re: WHY TM CAN'T BE LEARNED FROM A BOOK)

[seventhray1]

Good stuff.  Now I'm off to see the Blues play the Maple Leafs.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra  wrote:
>
> "Gone Mental" (was Re: WHY TM CAN'T BE LEARNED FROM A BOOK)
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" steve.sundur@
wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > > So the time may be approach-
> > > ing in which I'm not gonna find anything posted here inter-
> > > esting enough to reply to. It's all been done to death and
> > > argued endlessly *in exactly the same words* for decades
> > > now. SO been there, done that.
> >
> > We are not worthy!
>
> Some are more worthy than others. :-)
>
> > Actually, I think if Barry wanted to be honest about it,
> > his posting here is more akin to what we probably all did
> > at least once or twice when we were eight year olds - namely
> > ringing someone's door bell and then running away.
> >
> > I mean, sheesh, if you are into pushing peoples buttons,
> > why not stick around every once in a while instead of going
> > and hiding behind a tree.
>
> Barry Wright: Why bother? Everything I need to know about who got
> their buttons pushed and how severely they got pushed
> is visible in Yahoo's Message View.
>
> Santa Claus: Barry, Baby, you are asserting something without any feel
for the way it is playing in reality. This is called perfect subjective
dislocation from the necessary feedback which the universe is giving
you. Get it, Barry? When you blow your nose on your sleeve, there is
some mucus there which, if you want to still look pretty, you have to
remove.
>
> You can't just say: The Kleenex idea, it's just an opinion. My sleeve
is just as good an absorber of my snot as your bloody Kleenex. I don't
need no fucking Kleenex—You wimps.
>
> I blow my snot on myself and you guys offer me a Kleenex: Hey, I guess
I pressed your button once more!
>
> Barry Wright: And I thought I stated quite explicitly that I don't
> feel I "owe" anyone here anything. Not a response to
> something they post, and certainly not an argument
> or an impassioned defense of something I said.
>
> Santa Claus: If you tell us, Barry, that ice-cream tastes good because
of the placebo effect, we are not exercised about this. It don't bother
us ice-cream eaters that much. Even though you used to be one of those
who licked down to the bottom and then ate the cone. The deliciousness
of ice-cream: just so you know, everyone: That was trained moodmaking.
>
> Maybe. Maybe not. But if in trying to tell us ice-cream just tasted
good because we were told it was good, then it isn't really a matter of
opinion, Barry: it is a matter of negative wish-fulfillment.
>
> It is not a question of opinion. It is a question of the sensation in
your mouth. For some reason you tasted a different brand of ice-cream
[by the way, I stopped eating that damn ice-cream myself—not good
for me; still I don't say it didn't go down good with me at the
time]—and then found yourself having to kill off the old ice-cream
memories.
>
> But your ice-cream maker—your second one—didn't he choke to
death on one of his own cones? My opinion, maybe; but if he's not
sending you any e-mails, and can't be located anywhere, maybe it's not
an opinion. Your last Guru, Barry: he's dead. That's my strongest
opinion.
>
> You aren't, are you—merely giving your opinions when you get your
hate on about someone on FFL, are you, Barry boy? Opinions mean some
absence of knowledge. But you, surely if you were only expressing
opinions in your hatred, would have to question the truthfulness of
these opinions. And since you give us your opinions about, say, the
geocentric reality of the universe, us Galileos, have to set you right:
the universe is not Barry-centric; it is, as far as we can
tell—scientists will back this up with their
opinions—heliocentric.
>
> Is Sati merely a matter of opinion, Barry? Should a woman be obliged
to throw herself upon her husband's funeral pyre? Is your hatred of Judy
mere opinion? Do you hold your views to be opinions only? How can an
opinion generate intense feelings of hostility? And why, Barry dearest,
do you ever refuse to argue out your case?
>
> Barry, if you expressed your attitude and beliefs *as if you knew when
you stated them* they were just opinions, and they held only this status
with you, then why are you bothered when we come back with our opinions
about your opinions? You say x is y here at FFL. Does that mean that if
someone realizes that x is not y, that making this known to you
constitutes your having pressed their buttons?
>
> If you truly felt everything everyone said here on FFL was just
opining, then why not join in the fun and defend yourself against
counter-opining? You seem to take very seriously everything anyone says
here contra your own opinions, because you are silent and unresponsive.
This decision *never ever to rebut those who disagree with you*, that is
decision you make at the level of opinion? As in: it is my opinion tha

[FairfieldLife] "Gone Mental" (was Re: WHY TM CAN'T BE LEARNED FROM A BOOK)

[seventhray1]

Hey, thanks for the reply.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> Those who don't feel that their opinions ARE opinions
> are welcome to make a big to-do about that and act
> like drama queens. I shall graciously allow them to
> do so, while chuckling from behind my tree. :-)
>

[FairfieldLife] "Gone Mental" (was Re: WHY TM CAN'T BE LEARNED FROM A BOOK)

[richardwillytexwilliams]

turquoiseb:
> Thanks for mentioning this. I will check it out,
> possibly even later tonight, since it turned out
> to be a 20-minute download. Pirate. :-) 
>
You turned out to be quite the software pirate!

Do you ever pay for anything, or are you just poor? 

You probably even stole Bruse Cockburn albums! Maybe 
your next move should be to China - you'd fit right 
in! Go figure.

"The latest offensive in the content industry's 
never-ending war on copyright infringement is the 
Stop Online Piracy Act, which was introduced in the 
House two weeks ago. It incorporates key provisions 
of the Senate's Protect IP Act as well as another 
Senate bill that makes unauthorized streaming a 
felony..."

'The Stop Online Piracy Act: Big Content's full-on 
assault against the Safe Harbor'
Ars Technica:
http://tinyurl.com/6tm3fyk

[FairfieldLife] "Gone Mental" (was Re: WHY TM CAN'T BE LEARNED FROM A BOOK)

[turquoiseb]

-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>
> Okay, this is your "Amy" riff of the day.

LOL. I get that. :-)
. . .
> While I'm at head trips folks here may want to check the Milla
> Jovovich movie "Face in the Crowd".  This is a psychological
> thriller where she plays a woman who suffer "face blindness",
> the inability to remember people's faces. This is not a really
> great movie but they did pull off the experience of face
> blindness very well.  And that makes it quite a head trip
> as you're not sure who she's talking to or meeting with.
> http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Faces_in_the_Crowd/70201277
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1536410/

Thanks for mentioning this. I will check it out,
possibly even later tonight, since it turned out
to be a 20-minute download. Pirate. :-) Anyway,
I would probably watch it just for Milla Jovovich
I've been a real fan ever since I learned that
she made up Leeloo's language in "The Fifth
Element". I even liked her in the "Three Musk-
eteers" movie I ragged on recently. Trapped in
a videogame production and script, I thought she
did a damned good job as Milady Winter, one of
the greatest female characters ever created in
literature. She definitely brought a new light
to the character.

Since we're on the subject of movies, I'm 32
minutes into "A Dangerous Method." The fact that
I've paused it to read FFL should not be taken as
a positive review. :-)

So far, it's got the period and its mannerisms
down pat, but it's also been a curious mix of
underacting on the part of heavyweights Viggo
Mortenson (as Sigmund Freud) and Michael
Fassbinder (as Carl Jung), and overacting on
the part of Keira Knightley (as Sabina Spielrein,
former patient of both, who went on to become
a noted therapist herself).

I'll be interested in seeing how it portrays the
disputes that Jung had with Freud. All three of
the original characters were certainly fundamental
to the birth of the science we call psychoanalysis.
A good scene involves Freud, in his first meeting
with Jung, "correcting" him, Judy-style, when he
calls what they're co-inventing "psychanalysis."
Freud tells him in no uncertain terms that his
word "psychoanalysis" is better. As portrayed
here, Freud was clearly a man used to getting
his own way.

The main problem I have with watching this movie
is that I keep chuckling at inappropriate points
during the dialogue between Freud and Jung, because
I keep remembering this Loose Parts cartoon.  :-)

  [http://cdn.svcs.c2.uclick.com/c2/2928b550a05b012e2f8200163e41dd5b]

Re: [FairfieldLife] "Gone Mental" (was Re: WHY TM CAN'T BE LEARNED FROM A BOOK)

[Bob Price]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbLfXGVGz-4&feature=related



From: maskedzebra 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 8:26:45 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] "Gone Mental" (was Re: WHY TM CAN'T BE LEARNED FROM A 
BOOK)



"Gone Mental" (was Re: WHY TM CAN'T BE LEARNED FROM A BOOK)

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > So the time may be approach-
> > ing in which I'm not gonna find anything posted here inter-
> > esting enough to reply to. It's all been done to death and
> > argued endlessly *in exactly the same words* for decades
> > now. SO been there, done that.
>
> We are not worthy!

Some are more worthy than others. :-)

> Actually, I think if Barry wanted to be honest about it,
> his posting here is more akin to what we probably all did
> at least once or twice when we were eight year olds - namely
> ringing someone's door bell and then running away.
>
> I mean, sheesh, if you are into pushing peoples buttons,
> why not stick around every once in a while instead of going
> and hiding behind a tree.

Barry Wright: Why bother? Everything I need to know about who got
their buttons pushed and how severely they got pushed
is visible in Yahoo's Message View.

Santa Claus: Barry, Baby, you are asserting something without any feel for the 
way it is playing in reality. This is called perfect subjective dislocation 
from the necessary feedback which the universe is giving you. Get it, Barry? 
When you blow your nose on your sleeve, there is some mucus there which, if you 
want to still look pretty, you have to remove. 

You can't just say: The Kleenex idea, it's just an opinion. My sleeve is just 
as good an absorber of my snot as your bloody Kleenex. I don't need no fucking 
Kleenex—You wimps.

I blow my snot on myself and you guys offer me a Kleenex: Hey, I guess I 
pressed your button once more! 

Barry Wright: And I thought I stated quite explicitly that I don't
feel I "owe" anyone here anything. Not a response to
something they post, and certainly not an argument
or an impassioned defense of something I said.

Santa Claus: If you tell us, Barry, that ice-cream tastes good because of the 
placebo effect, we are not exercised about this. It don't bother us ice-cream 
eaters that much. Even though you used to be one of those who licked down to 
the bottom and then ate the cone. The deliciousness of ice-cream: just so you 
know, everyone: That was trained moodmaking.

Maybe. Maybe not. But if in trying to tell us ice-cream just tasted good 
because we were told it was good, then it isn't really a matter of opinion, 
Barry: it is a matter of negative wish-fulfillment. 

It is not a question of opinion. It is a question of the sensation in your 
mouth. For some reason you tasted a different brand of ice-cream [by the way, I 
stopped eating that damn ice-cream myself—not good for me; still I don't say it 
didn't go down good with me at the time]—and then found yourself having to kill 
off the old ice-cream memories.

But your ice-cream maker—your second one—didn't he choke to death on one of his 
own cones? My opinion, maybe; but if he's not sending you any e-mails, and 
can't be located anywhere, maybe it's not an opinion. Your last Guru, Barry: 
he's dead. That's my strongest opinion.

You aren't, are you—merely giving your opinions when you get your hate on about 
someone on FFL, are you, Barry boy? Opinions mean some absence of knowledge. 
But you, surely if you were only expressing opinions in your hatred, would have 
to question the truthfulness of these opinions. And since you give us your 
opinions about, say, the geocentric reality of the universe, us Galileos, have 
to set you right: the universe is not Barry-centric; it is, as far as we can 
tell—scientists will back this up with their opinions—heliocentric.

Is Sati merely a matter of opinion, Barry? Should a woman be obliged to throw 
herself upon her husband's funeral pyre? Is your hatred of Judy mere opinion? 
Do you hold your views to be opinions only? How can an opinion generate intense 
feelings of hostility? And why, Barry dearest, do you ever refuse to argue out 
your case?

Barry, if you expressed your attitude and beliefs *as if you knew when you 
stated them* they were just opinions, and they held only this status with you, 
then why are you bothered when we come back with our opinions about your 
opinions? You say x is y here at FFL. Does that mean that if someone realizes 
that x is not y, that making this known to you constitutes your having pressed 
their buttons?

If you truly felt everything everyone said here on FFL was just opining, then 
why not join in the fun

[FairfieldLife] "Gone Mental" (was Re: WHY TM CAN'T BE LEARNED FROM A BOOK)

[whynotnow7]

Enjoyable, again MZ. It is by proving through your posts that you have a clear 
mind and heart that I am able to enjoy your dialogues immensely, like watching 
an intricate jigsaw puzzle being assembled that at the end, despite the large 
number of pieces, forms a coherent whole, without a trace of self 
aggrandizement or tinge of nastiness. Well done!

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra  wrote:
>
> "Gone Mental" (was Re: WHY TM CAN'T BE LEARNED FROM A BOOK)
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > > So the time may be approach-
> > > ing in which I'm not gonna find anything posted here inter-
> > > esting enough to reply to. It's all been done to death and
> > > argued endlessly *in exactly the same words* for decades
> > > now. SO been there, done that.
> >
> > We are not worthy!
> 
> Some are more worthy than others. :-)
> 
> > Actually, I think if Barry wanted to be honest about it,
> > his posting here is more akin to what we probably all did
> > at least once or twice when we were eight year olds - namely
> > ringing someone's door bell and then running away.
> >
> > I mean, sheesh, if you are into pushing peoples buttons,
> > why not stick around every once in a while instead of going
> > and hiding behind a tree.
> 
> Barry Wright: Why bother? Everything I need to know about who got
> their buttons pushed and how severely they got pushed
> is visible in Yahoo's Message View.
> 
> Santa Claus: Barry, Baby, you are asserting something without any feel for 
> the way it is playing in reality. This is called perfect subjective 
> dislocation from the necessary feedback which the universe is giving you. Get 
> it, Barry? When you blow your nose on your sleeve, there is some mucus there 
> which, if you want to still look pretty, you have to remove. 
> 
> You can't just say: The Kleenex idea, it's just an opinion. My sleeve is just 
> as good an absorber of my snot as your bloody Kleenex. I don't need no 
> fucking Kleenex—You wimps.
> 
> I blow my snot on myself and you guys offer me a Kleenex: Hey, I guess I 
> pressed your button once more! 
> 
> Barry Wright: And I thought I stated quite explicitly that I don't
> feel I "owe" anyone here anything. Not a response to
> something they post, and certainly not an argument
> or an impassioned defense of something I said.
> 
> Santa Claus: If you tell us, Barry, that ice-cream tastes good because of the 
> placebo effect, we are not exercised about this. It don't bother us ice-cream 
> eaters that much. Even though you used to be one of those who licked down to 
> the bottom and then ate the cone. The deliciousness of ice-cream: just so you 
> know, everyone: That was trained moodmaking.
> 
> Maybe. Maybe not. But if in trying to tell us ice-cream just tasted good 
> because we were told it was good, then it isn't really a matter of opinion, 
> Barry: it is a matter of negative wish-fulfillment. 
> 
>  It is not a question of opinion. It is a question of the sensation in your 
> mouth. For some reason you tasted a different brand of ice-cream [by the way, 
> I stopped eating that damn ice-cream myself—not good for me; still I don't 
> say it didn't go down good with me at the time]—and then found yourself 
> having to kill off the old ice-cream memories.
> 
> But your ice-cream maker—your second one—didn't he choke to death on one of 
> his own cones? My opinion, maybe; but if he's not sending you any e-mails, 
> and can't be located anywhere, maybe it's not an opinion. Your last Guru, 
> Barry: he's dead. That's my strongest opinion.
> 
> You aren't, are you—merely giving your opinions when you get your hate on 
> about someone on FFL, are you, Barry boy? Opinions mean some absence of 
> knowledge. But you, surely if you were only expressing opinions in your 
> hatred, would have to question the truthfulness of these opinions. And since 
> you give us your opinions about, say, the geocentric reality of the universe, 
> us Galileos, have to set you right: the universe is not Barry-centric; it is, 
> as far as we can tell—scientists will back this up with their 
> opinions—heliocentric.
> 
> Is Sati merely a matter of opinion, Barry? Should a woman be obliged to throw 
> herself upon her husband's funeral pyre? Is your hatred of Judy mere opinion? 
> Do you hold your views to be opinions only? How can an opinion generate 
> intense feelings of hostility? And why, Barry dearest, do you ever refuse to 
> argue out your case?
> 
> Barry, if you expressed your attitude and beliefs *as if you knew when you 
> stated them* they were just opinions, and they held only this status with 
> you, then why are you bothered when we come back with our opinions about your 
> opinions? You say x is y here at FFL. Does that mean that if someone realizes 
> that x is not y, that making this known to you constitutes your having 
> pressed their buttons?
> 
> If you truly 

Re: [FairfieldLife] "Gone Mental" (was Re: WHY TM CAN'T BE LEARNED FROM A BOOK)

[Bhairitu]

On 11/10/2011 01:53 AM, turquoiseb wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>> On Nov 8, 2011, at 11:09 AM, turquoiseb wrote:
>>> The reason is that in the years between then and now
>>> I've had many more experiences, some of which put the
>>> earlier experiences in the shade and "raised the bar"
>>> on my internal Woo Scale. What I used to consider a 9
>>> I now consider a 4. I'm sure you get what I'm talking
>>> about.
>> Oh yes, definitely. It was a long time before I was able
>> to wrap my head around the fact that TM-style phenomenon
>> were largely mental plane phenomenon. The light mental
>> bliss I thought was so special, was just a mere shadow;
>> the kundalini, mere prana-kundalini and the visions
>> mental mirages. The perspective of time and experience
>> changes everything.
> What's amazing to me lately is how profoundly many
> on this forum have "gone mental," in that they seem
> to live almost entirely in their heads. They get so
> attached to their ideas and beliefs, and seek to argue
> them and defend these ideas and beliefs as if they had
> real substance, or as if they had any real existence
> at all *outside* their heads.
>
> That's the main reason I can no longer identify with
> many of the things discussed here enough to participate
> in such discussions. I'm really not like that. To me
> ideas and beliefs are like toys. You take them out of
> the toy box and play with them for a while, just for
> their entertainment value. When you get bored with one
> toy, you take out another and play with it for a while.
>
> So I'm finding it increasingly difficult to *comprehend*
> those who are so attached to their own ideas and beliefs
> as to feel that 1) they are synonymous with something
> they call "truth," 2) that anyone who believes something
> different than they do is obligated to debate these ideas
> and beliefs with them, and 3) that ANY of this matters.
>
> I don't feel any of that. I just spout opinions, for the
> fun of "trying them on" and rapping from that POV for a
> while. When the rap is done, often so are the ideas or
> beliefs. To me they really ARE nothing but toys, things
> without any substance that flit across the surface of my
> mind from time to time. They're either entertaining AS
> they flit by, or they aren't. If the former, I rap about
> them for a while; if the latter, I click Next and look
> for some idea that might be entertaining enough to...uh...
> entertain for long enough to dash off a post about it.
>
> Then again, I don't believe in even the concept of "truth."
> I honestly don't believe that such a thing has ever existed
> in the entire history of planet Earth, or ever will. All
> that ever HAS existed were humans spouting opinion. That
> IMO is the content of all scriptures, "revealed writings,"
> dharma talks, philosophy, et al.
>
> I find it difficult to even *comprehend* people so attached
> to the things they believe that they feel the need to argue
> and "defend" them, or worse, attempt to convince others that
> they are something approaching "truth." As a result, I find
> it almost impossible to take such people seriously. When
> someone trots out a mentation toy here and claims that it's
> "truth," my first impulse is to laugh at them as the overly
> serious dweebs they are. My second impulse in the past has
> been to write something provocative, to see exactly *how*
> attached they are to the mentation toy.
>
> But that's starting to wear on me. The people who feel that
> others are obligated *to* argue with them, or to somehow
> "defend" what is NOTHING BUT OPINION, ON ALL SIDES
> just are not gonna lighten up. So the time may be approach-
> ing in which I'm not gonna find anything posted here inter-
> esting enough to reply to. It's all been done to death and
> argued endlessly *in exactly the same words* for decades
> now. SO been there, done that.
>
> Some seem to have no problem with this. They strike me as
> the kinds of people who might still be listening to their
> old Monkees records, and still believing them not only
> original (which they never were), or originated by actual
> musicians (which the Monkees themselves never were). I
> just can't get off on the same-old-same-old-ness of it
> all any more.
>
> What I DO like are the occasional interactions I have here
> with people who seem to function more like myself, and use
> ideas as playthings. We have fun from time to time throw-
> ing out ideas like real musicians throw out a good melody
> line, and then riff on it, just for the fun of it. But
> those conversations have become few and far between, and
> there are possibly not enough of them to warrant my
> continued participation.
>
> All I can say is that if becoming convinced of the "truth"
> of one's ideas and beliefs has the effect of making people
> so *angry* when those ideas and beliefs are challenged or
> poked fun at, then I'm not convinced it's a good thing.
> Feels more like fundamentalism and ego-enha

[FairfieldLife] "Gone Mental" (was Re: WHY TM CAN'T BE LEARNED FROM A BOOK)

[richardwillytexwilliams]

> > > The reason is that in the years between then and now 
> > > I've had many more experiences, some of which put the 
> > > earlier experiences in the shade and "raised the bar" 
> > > on my internal Woo Scale. What I used to consider a 9 
> > > I now consider a 4. I'm sure you get what I'm talking 
> > > about. 
> > >
> > Oh yes, definitely. It was a long time before I was able 
> > to wrap my head around the fact that TM-style phenomenon 
> > were largely mental plane phenomenon. The light mental 
> > bliss I thought was so special, was just a mere shadow; 
> > the kundalini, mere prana-kundalini and the visions 
> > mental mirages. The perspective of time and experience 
> > changes everything.
> >
turquoiseb:
> That's the main reason I can no longer identify with
> many of the things discussed here enough to participate
> in such discussions. I'm really not like that. To me 
> ideas and beliefs are like toys. You take them out of
> the toy box and play with them for a while, just for
> their entertainment value. When you get bored with one
> toy, you take out another and play with it for a while.
> 
So, you've never been married. But, doesn't hanging out at
bars and cafes get boring after forty years? Maybe you
should just face reality and get a job so you can support
a family. It's a little late, you're what over 50, but
anything is possible. You're not even a homeowner, right?

My advice to you is to get over the MMY and Rama, and just
move on with your life. Are you thinking you can hide
from life forever? You're a little old to be still living
in a commune in downtown Amsterdam, incessantly posting
about your old gurus!

[FairfieldLife] "Gone Mental" (was Re: WHY TM CAN'T BE LEARNED FROM A BOOK)

[maskedzebra]

"Gone Mental" (was Re: WHY TM CAN'T BE LEARNED FROM A BOOK)

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > So the time may be approach-
> > ing in which I'm not gonna find anything posted here inter-
> > esting enough to reply to. It's all been done to death and
> > argued endlessly *in exactly the same words* for decades
> > now. SO been there, done that.
>
> We are not worthy!

Some are more worthy than others. :-)

> Actually, I think if Barry wanted to be honest about it,
> his posting here is more akin to what we probably all did
> at least once or twice when we were eight year olds - namely
> ringing someone's door bell and then running away.
>
> I mean, sheesh, if you are into pushing peoples buttons,
> why not stick around every once in a while instead of going
> and hiding behind a tree.

Barry Wright: Why bother? Everything I need to know about who got
their buttons pushed and how severely they got pushed
is visible in Yahoo's Message View.

Santa Claus: Barry, Baby, you are asserting something without any feel for the 
way it is playing in reality. This is called perfect subjective dislocation 
from the necessary feedback which the universe is giving you. Get it, Barry? 
When you blow your nose on your sleeve, there is some mucus there which, if you 
want to still look pretty, you have to remove. 

You can't just say: The Kleenex idea, it's just an opinion. My sleeve is just 
as good an absorber of my snot as your bloody Kleenex. I don't need no fucking 
Kleenex—You wimps.

I blow my snot on myself and you guys offer me a Kleenex: Hey, I guess I 
pressed your button once more! 

Barry Wright: And I thought I stated quite explicitly that I don't
feel I "owe" anyone here anything. Not a response to
something they post, and certainly not an argument
or an impassioned defense of something I said.

Santa Claus: If you tell us, Barry, that ice-cream tastes good because of the 
placebo effect, we are not exercised about this. It don't bother us ice-cream 
eaters that much. Even though you used to be one of those who licked down to 
the bottom and then ate the cone. The deliciousness of ice-cream: just so you 
know, everyone: That was trained moodmaking.

Maybe. Maybe not. But if in trying to tell us ice-cream just tasted good 
because we were told it was good, then it isn't really a matter of opinion, 
Barry: it is a matter of negative wish-fulfillment. 

 It is not a question of opinion. It is a question of the sensation in your 
mouth. For some reason you tasted a different brand of ice-cream [by the way, I 
stopped eating that damn ice-cream myself—not good for me; still I don't say it 
didn't go down good with me at the time]—and then found yourself having to kill 
off the old ice-cream memories.

But your ice-cream maker—your second one—didn't he choke to death on one of his 
own cones? My opinion, maybe; but if he's not sending you any e-mails, and 
can't be located anywhere, maybe it's not an opinion. Your last Guru, Barry: 
he's dead. That's my strongest opinion.

You aren't, are you—merely giving your opinions when you get your hate on about 
someone on FFL, are you, Barry boy? Opinions mean some absence of knowledge. 
But you, surely if you were only expressing opinions in your hatred, would have 
to question the truthfulness of these opinions. And since you give us your 
opinions about, say, the geocentric reality of the universe, us Galileos, have 
to set you right: the universe is not Barry-centric; it is, as far as we can 
tell—scientists will back this up with their opinions—heliocentric.

Is Sati merely a matter of opinion, Barry? Should a woman be obliged to throw 
herself upon her husband's funeral pyre? Is your hatred of Judy mere opinion? 
Do you hold your views to be opinions only? How can an opinion generate intense 
feelings of hostility? And why, Barry dearest, do you ever refuse to argue out 
your case?

Barry, if you expressed your attitude and beliefs *as if you knew when you 
stated them* they were just opinions, and they held only this status with you, 
then why are you bothered when we come back with our opinions about your 
opinions? You say x is y here at FFL. Does that mean that if someone realizes 
that x is not y, that making this known to you constitutes your having pressed 
their buttons?

If you truly felt everything everyone said here on FFL was just opining, then 
why not join in the fun and defend yourself against counter-opining? You seem 
to take very seriously everything anyone says here contra your own opinions, 
because you are silent and unresponsive. This decision *never ever to rebut 
those who disagree with you*, that is decision you make at the level of 
opinion? As in: it is my opinion that no matter what Robin or anyone's else 
says, I should not respond? But if *that* is but an opinion, Barry, then 
perhaps it is a mistaken opinion. Perhaps your refusal to enter into the 

[FairfieldLife] "Gone Mental" (was Re: WHY TM CAN'T BE LEARNED FROM A BOOK)

[whynotnow7]

"So the time may be approaching in which I'm not gonna find anything posted 
here interesting enough to reply to. It's all been done to death and argued 
endlessly *in exactly the same words* for decades
now. SO been there, done that."

Really?? We have heard this swan song from you before, and it hasn't amounted 
to much, but I personally would find it awesome if you would stop with your 
overall mood of whining, and go away for awhile.:-)

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> >
> > On Nov 8, 2011, at 11:09 AM, turquoiseb wrote:
> > >
> > > The reason is that in the years between then and now 
> > > I've had many more experiences, some of which put the 
> > > earlier experiences in the shade and "raised the bar" 
> > > on my internal Woo Scale. What I used to consider a 9 
> > > I now consider a 4. I'm sure you get what I'm talking 
> > > about. 
> > 
> > Oh yes, definitely. It was a long time before I was able 
> > to wrap my head around the fact that TM-style phenomenon 
> > were largely mental plane phenomenon. The light mental 
> > bliss I thought was so special, was just a mere shadow; 
> > the kundalini, mere prana-kundalini and the visions 
> > mental mirages. The perspective of time and experience 
> > changes everything.
> 
> What's amazing to me lately is how profoundly many 
> on this forum have "gone mental," in that they seem
> to live almost entirely in their heads. They get so
> attached to their ideas and beliefs, and seek to argue
> them and defend these ideas and beliefs as if they had 
> real substance, or as if they had any real existence 
> at all *outside* their heads.
> 
> That's the main reason I can no longer identify with
> many of the things discussed here enough to participate
> in such discussions. I'm really not like that. To me 
> ideas and beliefs are like toys. You take them out of
> the toy box and play with them for a while, just for
> their entertainment value. When you get bored with one
> toy, you take out another and play with it for a while.
> 
> So I'm finding it increasingly difficult to *comprehend*
> those who are so attached to their own ideas and beliefs
> as to feel that 1) they are synonymous with something 
> they call "truth," 2) that anyone who believes something
> different than they do is obligated to debate these ideas 
> and beliefs with them, and 3) that ANY of this matters. 
> 
> I don't feel any of that. I just spout opinions, for the
> fun of "trying them on" and rapping from that POV for a 
> while. When the rap is done, often so are the ideas or
> beliefs. To me they really ARE nothing but toys, things
> without any substance that flit across the surface of my
> mind from time to time. They're either entertaining AS
> they flit by, or they aren't. If the former, I rap about
> them for a while; if the latter, I click Next and look 
> for some idea that might be entertaining enough to...uh...
> entertain for long enough to dash off a post about it.
> 
> Then again, I don't believe in even the concept of "truth."
> I honestly don't believe that such a thing has ever existed
> in the entire history of planet Earth, or ever will. All 
> that ever HAS existed were humans spouting opinion. That 
> IMO is the content of all scriptures, "revealed writings,"
> dharma talks, philosophy, et al. 
> 
> I find it difficult to even *comprehend* people so attached
> to the things they believe that they feel the need to argue 
> and "defend" them, or worse, attempt to convince others that
> they are something approaching "truth." As a result, I find
> it almost impossible to take such people seriously. When
> someone trots out a mentation toy here and claims that it's
> "truth," my first impulse is to laugh at them as the overly
> serious dweebs they are. My second impulse in the past has
> been to write something provocative, to see exactly *how*
> attached they are to the mentation toy. 
> 
> But that's starting to wear on me. The people who feel that
> others are obligated *to* argue with them, or to somehow
> "defend" what is NOTHING BUT OPINION, ON ALL SIDES
> just are not gonna lighten up. So the time may be approach-
> ing in which I'm not gonna find anything posted here inter-
> esting enough to reply to. It's all been done to death and
> argued endlessly *in exactly the same words* for decades
> now. SO been there, done that. 
> 
> Some seem to have no problem with this. They strike me as
> the kinds of people who might still be listening to their
> old Monkees records, and still believing them not only 
> original (which they never were), or originated by actual
> musicians (which the Monkees themselves never were). I 
> just can't get off on the same-old-same-old-ness of it
> all any more. 
> 
> What I DO like are the occasional interactions I have here
> with people who seem to function more like myself, and use
> ideas as playthings. We have fun from time to time throw-
> ing

[FairfieldLife] "Gone Mental" (was Re: WHY TM CAN'T BE LEARNED FROM A BOOK)

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > So the time may be approach-
> > ing in which I'm not gonna find anything posted here inter-
> > esting enough to reply to. It's all been done to death and
> > argued endlessly *in exactly the same words* for decades
> > now. SO been there, done that.
> 
> We are not worthy!

Some are more worthy than others. :-)

> Actually, I think if Barry wanted to be honest about it, 
> his posting here is more akin to what we probably all did 
> at least once or twice when we were eight year olds - namely 
> ringing someone's door bell and then running away.
> 
> I mean, sheesh, if you are into pushing peoples buttons, 
> why not stick around every once in a while instead of going 
> and hiding behind a tree.

Why bother? Everything I need to know about who got
their buttons pushed and how severely they got pushed
is visible in Yahoo's Message View. 

And I thought I stated quite explicitly that I don't
feel I "owe" anyone here anything. Not a response to
something they post, and certainly not an argument
or an impassioned defense of something I said. 

What I say is OPINION. What *they* say is OPINION.
Neither of these OPINIONS has anything to do with 
"truth" or anything even remotely like it. I am 
content with merely stating my opinions and then 
watching the reactions to them. Some, it would seem, 
are not. They feel that they are "owed" some kind of 
argument or debate or discussion about their opinions, 
as if by offering up one that is contrary to theirs 
you "have" to become a captive audience to how they
got their buttons pushed, or their attempts to push 
yours in response. Not my idea of discussion, sorry.

I just spout opinions, and allow others to do the
same. I hold no one on this forum's (and, for that
matter, no one on this planet's) opinions to be 
better than my own. They are on exactly the same 
equal footing as what they are -- OPINIONS. 

Those who don't feel that their opinions ARE opinions
are welcome to make a big to-do about that and act 
like drama queens. I shall graciously allow them to 
do so, while chuckling from behind my tree.  :-)

[FairfieldLife] "Gone Mental" (was Re: WHY TM CAN'T BE LEARNED FROM A BOOK)

[seventhray1]

I just can't help myself.
If the typical form follows, we should be hearing shortly about Curtis
and Marek as examples of  "high value posters".  But really, isn't the
"manly" thing to do just stop posting, without the long pre-amble, 
"Okay guys, I putting everyone on notice.  I may quit posting soon", 
followed by, "Okay everyone, I really, really mean it this time.  I may
see fit to end my participation here."  Jesus man, just do it or not do
it, but quit the whining.  It does not become you.
Remember this.  Now here's a man!  Make to at least the brass balls near
the end.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-AXTx4PcKI


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" 
wrote:
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote:
>   So the time may be approach-
> > ing in which I'm not gonna find anything posted here inter-
> > esting enough to reply to. It's all been done to death and
> > argued endlessly *in exactly the same words* for decades
> > now. SO been there, done that.
>
> We are not worthy!
> Actually, I think if Barry wanted to be honest about it, his posting
> here is more akin to what we probably all did at least once or twice
> when we were eight year olds - namely ringing someone's door bell and
> then running away.
> I mean, sheesh, if you are into pushing peoples buttons, why not stick
> around every once in a while instead of going and hiding behind a
tree.
>

[FairfieldLife] "Gone Mental" (was Re: WHY TM CAN'T BE LEARNED FROM A BOOK)

[seventhray1]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
  So the time may be approach-
> ing in which I'm not gonna find anything posted here inter-
> esting enough to reply to. It's all been done to death and
> argued endlessly *in exactly the same words* for decades
> now. SO been there, done that.

We are not worthy!
Actually, I think if Barry wanted to be honest about it, his posting
here is more akin to what we probably all did at least once or twice
when we were eight year olds - namely ringing someone's door bell and
then running away.
I mean, sheesh, if you are into pushing peoples buttons, why not stick
around every once in a while instead of going and hiding behind a tree.

[FairfieldLife] "Gone Mental" (was Re: WHY TM CAN'T BE LEARNED FROM A BOOK)

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
> On Nov 8, 2011, at 11:09 AM, turquoiseb wrote:
> >
> > The reason is that in the years between then and now 
> > I've had many more experiences, some of which put the 
> > earlier experiences in the shade and "raised the bar" 
> > on my internal Woo Scale. What I used to consider a 9 
> > I now consider a 4. I'm sure you get what I'm talking 
> > about. 
> 
> Oh yes, definitely. It was a long time before I was able 
> to wrap my head around the fact that TM-style phenomenon 
> were largely mental plane phenomenon. The light mental 
> bliss I thought was so special, was just a mere shadow; 
> the kundalini, mere prana-kundalini and the visions 
> mental mirages. The perspective of time and experience 
> changes everything.

What's amazing to me lately is how profoundly many 
on this forum have "gone mental," in that they seem
to live almost entirely in their heads. They get so
attached to their ideas and beliefs, and seek to argue
them and defend these ideas and beliefs as if they had 
real substance, or as if they had any real existence 
at all *outside* their heads.

That's the main reason I can no longer identify with
many of the things discussed here enough to participate
in such discussions. I'm really not like that. To me 
ideas and beliefs are like toys. You take them out of
the toy box and play with them for a while, just for
their entertainment value. When you get bored with one
toy, you take out another and play with it for a while.

So I'm finding it increasingly difficult to *comprehend*
those who are so attached to their own ideas and beliefs
as to feel that 1) they are synonymous with something 
they call "truth," 2) that anyone who believes something
different than they do is obligated to debate these ideas 
and beliefs with them, and 3) that ANY of this matters. 

I don't feel any of that. I just spout opinions, for the
fun of "trying them on" and rapping from that POV for a 
while. When the rap is done, often so are the ideas or
beliefs. To me they really ARE nothing but toys, things
without any substance that flit across the surface of my
mind from time to time. They're either entertaining AS
they flit by, or they aren't. If the former, I rap about
them for a while; if the latter, I click Next and look 
for some idea that might be entertaining enough to...uh...
entertain for long enough to dash off a post about it.

Then again, I don't believe in even the concept of "truth."
I honestly don't believe that such a thing has ever existed
in the entire history of planet Earth, or ever will. All 
that ever HAS existed were humans spouting opinion. That 
IMO is the content of all scriptures, "revealed writings,"
dharma talks, philosophy, et al. 

I find it difficult to even *comprehend* people so attached
to the things they believe that they feel the need to argue 
and "defend" them, or worse, attempt to convince others that
they are something approaching "truth." As a result, I find
it almost impossible to take such people seriously. When
someone trots out a mentation toy here and claims that it's
"truth," my first impulse is to laugh at them as the overly
serious dweebs they are. My second impulse in the past has
been to write something provocative, to see exactly *how*
attached they are to the mentation toy. 

But that's starting to wear on me. The people who feel that
others are obligated *to* argue with them, or to somehow
"defend" what is NOTHING BUT OPINION, ON ALL SIDES
just are not gonna lighten up. So the time may be approach-
ing in which I'm not gonna find anything posted here inter-
esting enough to reply to. It's all been done to death and
argued endlessly *in exactly the same words* for decades
now. SO been there, done that. 

Some seem to have no problem with this. They strike me as
the kinds of people who might still be listening to their
old Monkees records, and still believing them not only 
original (which they never were), or originated by actual
musicians (which the Monkees themselves never were). I 
just can't get off on the same-old-same-old-ness of it
all any more. 

What I DO like are the occasional interactions I have here
with people who seem to function more like myself, and use
ideas as playthings. We have fun from time to time throw-
ing out ideas like real musicians throw out a good melody
line, and then riff on it, just for the fun of it. But
those conversations have become few and far between, and 
there are possibly not enough of them to warrant my 
continued participation. 

All I can say is that if becoming convinced of the "truth"
of one's ideas and beliefs has the effect of making people
so *angry* when those ideas and beliefs are challenged or
poked fun at, then I'm not convinced it's a good thing.
Feels more like fundamentalism and ego-enhancement to me.