Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Cramulus

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 788
I like your frame, p3nt.

I REJECT the idea that this was a "leak"--this is exactly what the system was designed to do, scrape data and fence it to companies who can use it strategically.

It's like that old saying - on social media, you aren't the customer, you're the product.

Think for Yourself, Schmuck! / Re: Reality Safari: Gurdjieff
« on: Yesterday at 04:40:52 pm »
So i've started reading Beelzebub's Tales..

I am about 1/3rd of the way through at the moment. At first it was hard due to all the made up words and then I was like 'oh hey this is just a weird scifi book'.

Now I am kind of getting into it and there are bits that seem to make sense and other bits that are super far out.

I also made it about 1/3rd of the way through, then I figured I should start with something more clear.

One of the cool things about Beezlebub's Tales is that it takes a little while for it to unfold itself in your brain. You may read it and have no effect, but a week later, something will click.

It's interesting how the language is intentionally exhaustive. It's trying to tax your intellect so that it gets bored and lazy. You have to stay present while reading it - I said elsewhere, it's a bit like training wheels.

[/quote]Maybe I should have read something of Ouspensky's first. I can definitely see the benefits of reading this kind of thing in a group - some passages and chapters seem to have a lot to unpack that's clearly going over my head.

Yeah I reccommend In Search of the Miraculous as a primer.

Right now I'm reading Unknowable Gurdjieff by Margaret Anderson -- (after picking it up in a used book store) it's tight, accessible, and short -- intended for the newcomer. If you want something even shorter than In Search Of, then it might be a good place to start.

Glimpses of Truth (also published under the title "Views from the Real World") is a transcript of several elemental Gurdjieff lectures - it's also a nice way to drink 'from the source' in short form.

Any Gurdjieff seeker will also tell you - some parts of the work are only accessible by groups. Reading about it on your own can only take you so far. Parts of the Work are better transmitted through the oral tradition than through the written word. That's not to say that your time reading about it is wasted! Not at all. But if you live near a big city, try to track down Fourth Way groups that may meet there - it's worth it. It's one thing to read about it. It's another thing to experience it personally.

Think for Yourself, Schmuck! / Re: Meaning
« on: Yesterday at 04:32:15 pm »
Oh, just remembered, there's a good video on this topic - earmarking to re-watch later:  Is Math a Feature of the Universe or a Feature of Human Creation?

Back to front:
Quote from: JHMIII, Constructing Reality
If we agree that life is more than a dream, that our consciousness dwells in a universe that includes things other than itself, then what is the nature of those things?
Is what I think Hofstadter was getting at.

Can you elaborate? I get a little murky around GEB. And I don't quite follow the quote - is it saying that the "nature" of those things is the 'meaning'? Then you're saying meaning exists independently of consciousness, yeah?

If you were to destroy all the physical scientific text books, and every copy of a religious text say the bible, and wait say a few hundred years. The bible wouldn't reemerge, at least not unchanged.
The physical laws would reemerge, mostly unchanged because they are based on measurement, they are reproducible based on unchanging laws.

I think, by the way,
that the bible would reemerge, but in a different form, from a different perspective.

There are a few 'things' at the core of all religions. Margaret Anderson writes about the origin of Gurdjieff's thoughts: "In Gurdjieff's own words, this traces back to 'initiate people'. Or, in another's words, 'the Gnostics were not the inventors of this ancient knowledge, any more than Gurdjieff was'. All "cults", religions, teachers, go to this common "initiate source" or pool or storage-place and take from it whatever they are able. Then of course they falsify, until nothing is left of the original truths and their vitality (I mean by "common source", available to all who are able to take from it.)"

There a few varieites of mystical experiences, but they actually have a lot in common. If you go off into the desert and starve yourself and eventually have a VISION, and it CHANGES YOU... you will be in good company. There are a few 'truths' which people seem to arrive at independently, despite being in vastly different times and places.

Gurdjieff thought that a truth was "objective" if it could be seen clearly despite being described in different terms by 10 different blind men who all have their hand on only one part of it. Which is handy, because any single verbal description of these truths is woefully inadequate. ("the tao that can be spoken is not the eternal tao")

PS: I guess that should be taken with a grain of salt, becuase there have been multiple Mansons in history and that doesn't make their observations a 'truth'.

61 people clicked on this thread.

1 new guy answered.

60 old timers don't want to admit they got got.

I wish I got got, this went over my head tho?

sorry I am a total dumbass and fool
and also Springsteen sucks balls, so if this is some kind of lyric reference it's lost on me

Think for Yourself, Schmuck! / Meaning
« on: Yesterday at 02:28:10 pm »
Is Meaning something that we create with our minds?

Or does it exist in the universe--external to our minds?

For years, I took the first position -- likely influenced by Camus et al. After all, a book or film can have many different "readings" and none of them may be "correct". The 'meaning' is subjective! So likely the universe is like that too, no?

Now I am experimenting with the second position.

Hofstadter, author of Godel Escher Bach, thinks that meaning is something we decode.  He'd point out that the 'meaning' of 1+1 isn't a human construct.

Hosfstadter asserts that meaning emerges from these isomorphic relationships between concepts. The notion that meaning is generated only by humans--something that exists only in brains--he called biological chauvinism. He thinks 'formal systems' generate meaning, and humans don't create it, they decode it.

what do you cats think?

« on: March 19, 2018, 04:50:26 pm »
Hello i'm new here and i'm working with Hire tempo travellers service in Jaipur
Jaipur sightseeing taxi
Jaipur to Agra cab
Best regard
Rajat singh

Nice try "Rajat", the ultimate villain of the Dark Sun D&D campaign setting

humans will always triumph, asshole

Think for Yourself, Schmuck! / Re: Odd but thought provoking dreams
« on: March 19, 2018, 02:09:23 pm »
There's a line in Twin Peaks, when Cooper is explaining his experiences in the red room, with the giant. He says,

"Not a dream, but a vision... The mind revealing itself to itself."

these moments are powerful, you should return to them at different times, in different states of consciousness, and see how they feel

the key question is, I believe, who had the dream?

which part of you got access to the metaprogramming console?

do you finally remember who you really are?

Apple Talk / Re: Erisian Avatars
« on: March 19, 2018, 01:53:43 pm »
Klaus Nomi - strange little alien, came from outer space, spent his life strange and sad--but we are all more beautiful for his presence... Eventually, he returned to the stars.

Apple Talk / Re: Your personal musical anthem to Discordianism
« on: March 19, 2018, 01:44:54 pm »
Today, let's go with this one - a song about the Age of Aftermath:

Klaus Nomi - After the Fall

about how the freaks shall inherit the earth

Think for Yourself, Schmuck! / Re: Reality Safari: Gurdjieff
« on: March 14, 2018, 01:27:40 pm »
Our small group finished reading In Search of the Miraculous. Would definitely reccommend it. Though take it with a grain of salt--Ouspensky's relationship to Gurdjieff is complicated, and he gets hung up on certain things that are immaterial. As an intellectual, he also lets the specifics occlude the metaphor.

I'm also just wrapping up James Moore's biography of Gurdjieff, which was also a fantastic read. Even if you don't get into the actual Fourth Way stuff, Gurdjieff himself was a fascinating character--just reading about his life is a crazy ride.

Just wanted to share a few fragments which have struck me.

Every week, they have us try a different practical exercise in self observation. One of them takes a little time and patience, it's about 10 minutes of focusing on different body sensations, on inhabiting your limbs and feeling how your attention changes your experience of them. Someone in our group noted that the first few days were easy, but on day 3+ he had a lot of trouble focusing. He was given a good piece of advice - losing focus doesn't mean you're failing. Observing how you lose focus is part of the exercise.

We lose our focus constantly! What's happening in that exact moment? feel it out... become acquainted with it.

I was invited to another talk at the Gurdjieff foundation in Manhattan. This talk was about listening. It's interesting -- at first, I found the talk a little dry, and repetitive. But over the next few days, my thoughts kept returning to it. There was a lot said which I didn't understand, and the meaning gradually unfolded. It was almost like it was being digested by my slower emotional center, rather than the quick intellectual center. Maybe that's why everybody talks so slowly and deliberately at these things... every word counts. "Every note is a full octave on another plane"

Listening to your partner is has a lot to do with being present. This is something I struggle with; I'm often in my head, analyzing and going on tangents, and my attention strays from the conversation. I zone out. I forget what they are talking about and then I pick it up from context. But when I'm talking to someone with a presence, someone who is really there, in the here and now, they are listening to every word I'm saying, giving it full attention and consideration.

That's why one of the exercises Gurdjieff reccommends is to mentally put yourself in your conversation partner's shoes. What would it feel like to be them, right now? Imagining this takes all three of your brains.

It also helps develop the egolessness that is behind the veil. Because there is something that is alive in this universe, and that is shared. It's not individualized. Our personalities and our bodies make us think of ourselves as separate, but the spark animating the meat is collective, ancient---it was born in the first cellular life and we will pass it on like torchlight, a continuous unbroken light from the beginning of humanity until its final breath.

And being a good listener is part of it. When you listen, and you can feel the words affecting you, you're not just processing them with your intellect but also feeling the emotions behind them, how the subtle postures and body movements are all expressions are intertwined with it.... when you're really listening .... there is something in the universe that listens to other parts of the universe, and it's not just egos.

RPG Ghetto / Re: Unified Vidya Games thread
« on: March 02, 2018, 02:22:37 pm »

I especially love doing those civil war battles with frenzy/rally/route

killing that dragon priest sounds really tricky! - good looks on sending him to the wraiths

Think for Yourself, Schmuck! / Re: Magnet Theory of Social Change
« on: February 26, 2018, 04:53:27 pm »
lemme crunch this a little bit - is this your position?

that basically, it's easiest to affect the people nearby you (people with slightly different opinions), and that by moving enough of them, they can act as a larger gravitational center which pulls in people from further away?

Think for Yourself, Schmuck! / Re: In Praise of the Corpus Callosum
« on: February 26, 2018, 04:32:55 pm »
>>What if you believe you have truly made a good-faith effort to understand your opposition's position, and came to the conclusion that their way just plain sucks? What is your recourse to something better?

Let's talk about the small self for a second, because maybe it will give us clues about the Big Collective Self....

If you follow me that the individual self has three distinct "processors" (intellect / emotions / body), then it seems like a lot of data you encounter doesn't get processed in the right way. The intellect can't figure out what to do with it, nor do your emotions, so the body processes the information as physical stress. A lot of the physical tension and fatigue you experience is maybe because of Ideas or Emotions that you can't work with and resolve... and they gotta go somewhere. And now your shoulders are tight and your breathing is weird.

If somebody tells me "the shop is closing in 5 minutes", I experience this physical stress, but this stress is a part of my motivation to act, to find what I need, and buy it, before the store closes.

But a lot of the time, I'm getting hit by data which affects me, but it doesn't lead to an action or motivation. It's not something I can act on. Sometimes we do get frustrated at the self ("Dear body, I know you want cake but STFU for a second"). Maybe I will act, but in a way that is unproductive (like, when you're hungry and you lash out at people).

Or sometimes I do have stupid ideas, and another part of my mind stops me from acting on them --that's what I think you're talking about! Can we feel what alchemy is happening within us in that exact moment?

Quote from: Mexico City Blues by Jack Kerouac
Is Ignorant of its own emptiness—
Doesn’t like to be reminded of fits—

So what do you do when you notice this happening in yourself? When one part of you wants something, but the rest does not?

I speak only for myself here

but in my internal monologue, there are two good responses to bad ideas

1. to dispel it by examining its weakness -- like of course I can't take a 9 week vacation, because of reasons

2. if that doesn't work, to stop elaborating on it - like sometimes when the train is coming, you just get this impulse to step off the platform and let it cream you - you are not suicidal, but your imagination plays out how effortless it would be to do something like that -- and you don't do it, but you also don't need to have a long internal debate about it.

It's unhealthy to focus on things you can't affect in any way whatsoever. But these things outside of our locus of control also become points of obsession, they are the borders of our agency and we naturally want to conquer that geography.

So maybe you're not debating with Random Internet Idiot because you are illustrating the folly of his shitty ideas, maybe you are debating because you are wishing for some kind of environmental control which is actually beyond your agency. And any energy you spend debating is actually wasted.

Think for Yourself, Schmuck! / In Praise of the Corpus Callosum
« on: February 26, 2018, 02:56:38 pm »
If you don't support the two party system, at least support the Corpus Callosum.

The Corpus Callosum is the wad of brain matter that connects the left and right hemisphere.

It is said that the mind works in an antagonistic way - one part of the mind asserts something, another part scans it for weakness and puts that forward. Through this push-pull** between left and right hemisphere, a good idea is developed.

**perhaps subsitute the word "romance" or "wedding"

This is the physical incarnation of the Hegelian dialectic (Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesus). It's Gurdjieff's Triamazikamno, the "third force" (The Holy Affirming, the Holy Denying, the Holy Unifying). All positions are incomplete until they have been tested and refined.

And if our culture is acting, right now, like two separate hemispheres that cannot communicate, it suggests some flaw in our collective Corpus Callosum.

What's going wrong with one hemisphere's signal that the other hemisphere can't process it? Our collective brain is not processing data well, the antagonism just seems to escalate instead of resolve, refine, and unify.

Is there a way to act as this piece of neural hardware within the greater brain? Can an individual help shephard the signals from left to right in a way that actually transmits information?

Thanks for that. I'm trying on new Jesus shades, so please permit me to ramble in my exploration of this passage.

I hadn't read that bit about eunuchs, and I was unaware of the etymology of it as Bed Owner, I guess meaning Celibate?

That bit about divorce --- my reading of it is this, please let me know if you think I've erred -- Jesus says that in marriage, two souls have joined and become one. Taken from the perspective of the Esoteric Jesus, the secret mystery jesus which represents the conscious evolution of the individual, this speaks to a self-unification. The unrefined raw self is full of different egos and impulses, automatic actions and involuntary processes. The spirit is somewhere in there, fighting for control of the self, but it is overwhelmed and drowned out by impulses and incidental material desires.

So in marriage, the number of these selves is reduced - one overcomes the ego through reconciliation with the Other. The Other becomes part of the self too. In the sense of "two becoming one", marriage doesn't merely represent a romantic bond between two people, it also represents that the self has become a component of a larger entity, a family, and that this is the new ego. (and as an aside, the family, of course, is a component of a larger body too) This new, greater self sometimes acts in a way that is good for itself, but not necessarily good from the perspective of an individual ego. Making sacrifices for the family--this is only possible if the small self recognizes the bigger self and how it is more real, more worthy, than the ego.

And in that sense, I agree with Jesus here --- "What God* has united, let man** not separate"

*God, in this sense, being the refined self, the greatest unity of human spirit, the conscious self which is more than a self. The self which is the congregation, the nation, the whole human race united and acting as a complete organism.

**Man, in this sense, is the small self, the ego, the body, the individual, the person who is anchored in the material world and knows no higher truth than his stomach and his dick.

Then Jesus says -- If they want to get divorced, after making that commitment, after becoming the better person, it would have been better if they were not married.

((doesn't that sound like Jesus is saying divorce is preferable to a marriage where there is no Unification of Self and Other?))

And then Jesus adds, as an aside, this bit about Eunuchs. Why? On the surface, it seems to be connected because we're talking about people who share beds. So he might as well mention people that don't have sex at all and how they become a part of God. But maybe, through the esoteric lens, we can see a different take here...

Maybe it's because Jesus is talking about Marriage, ie unification of self and Other, as a means of becoming a larger part of God. These "Bed Owners" are people who are not tempted by the material world, and thereby have less gravity keeping them anchored here in the world of flesh, the chambers of the small ego. The Eunuch is someone who is not hungry for the material world, so it's easier for them to be part of "God's family". These people are not forbidden from spiritual unity -- "let he who is able to receive it receive it."

Kinda like saying - the sex drive seduces the body. It keeps us doing body work instead of spirit work. And spirit work does involve body work; sex isn't bad, it's sacred! But proper use of sexuality doesn't fragment the self, it unifies self and other. Sexual energy is a powerful force, it is a part of holiness. But if you let it run unchecked, it can destroy you and your higher self. Marriage is like an oath that you're going to commit this powerful dynamo to a bigger engine.

It seems a stretch to me, to say that the Eunuch here is actually an indicator that sometimes people are born gay / genderfluid / whatever and that they're good to enter the kingdom of heaven too, despite not being able to get married. Cause in my progressive 2018 mystery cult reading of this thing, Jesus is kinda saying "Not all people overcome the small self God through family, some overcome the small self because they don't have the same sex drive we do - either through biology or self mastery." But your point about Jesus accepting The Queers is still in here, I think.

So, getting back to it -- Matthew 19:5-8 reads

“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female*,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

*The creator made people into separe entities so that they could unify. Yes he names Male and Female specifically, but couldn't this be talking about opposites, essences? Two things that would regard each other as Other and then overcome it?

They are no longer two, but one flesh!

the word Flesh here is really interesting - namely because of how Christianity positions Flesh as the diminished form of Spirit. He could have said One Spirit, but he specifically says one Flesh. The two people have become one physical body. They have overcome their physical separation. This "single being of flesh", the "married person", what gender is it? It seems immaterial, doesn't it?

Marriage is about fusing two small spirits together to make one larger spirit. Another way of saying it is - marriage is about entering a union where you agree to sacrifice the small drives for the bigger picture. And by sacrificing the smaller needs, the smaller self, you've become a larger part of God.

That sacrifice of the small ego for the larger consciousness -- the mastery of ones impulses and sex drives in the service of something larger than the self -- the unification of Self and Other -- I don't think gender needs to be a part of that except in the sense that there must be something different in order for it to be united.

Sorry that rambled so far, Joe. Really didn't mean to make this a 40 page long rant hahahah

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 788