shadows

[elcie]

Such inspiring words, sleepy........the pen truly is mightier than the sword. What a powerful thing is an idea!......

 

The human brain.......a few ounces of base matter...and yet the path to infinity!......

 

Sobering to think that we are also capable of the reverse....on that note, it's time to change my signature......

[90_hour_sleep]

Such inspiring words, sleepy........the pen truly is mightier than the sword. What a powerful thing is an idea!......

 

The human brain.......a few ounces of base matter...and yet the path to infinity!......

 

Sobering to think that we are also capable of the reverse....on that note, it's time to change my signature......

 

the reverse.......what do you mean?

[elcie]

Well, we are capable of great ideas....who knows what the future will bring? I am an optimist in that I believe that we are capable of finding solutions to all of the problems that we create for ourselves, in society that is.

 

And yet....and yet.....we develop wonderful new technologies and yet a few will find a way to exploit others with them or actively seek to harm others. Utopia was a wonderful concept but....how is it possible when the spirit of chaos seems to be part of our make up?

 

eg; What a wonderful idea the Internet is. Our communication with other people, other cultures, to me, makes the idea of world peace, a possibility in the future. So why are viruses created?.... scams perpetated?...and all the other negative aspects that are now part of the cyberworld.....

 

We have written about the darkness within us before.....it's the dichotomy of being human I guess, and that's reflected in every aspect of our lives. That wonderful video of that girl playing the piano shows the wonderful heights a human being can aspire to........and yet Charlie Manson is also a human being! Endlessly thought provoking to me!

 

I suppose I'm being a bit morbid at the moment. Just as well I get the chance to read your journal and read some of the wonderful quotes that are truly inspirational!

[90_hour_sleep]

"Theres no story that ain't been told

There's no gimic that ain't been sold

There's no ocean that never been swam

There's no jaba that ain't been slammed

There's no road that ain't been traveled

There's no doctor that ain't been baffled

Ain't no thug that never cried

Ain't no preacher that never lied

There's no rumor that ain't been passed

Ain't no question that no ones asked

There's no tree that won't get chopped

There's no bomb that won't get dropped

Ain't no path that no ones laid

Ain't no beast that ain't been afraid

There's no feat that no one can

There's no saga that never began

Ain't no snow that didn't melt

There's no punch that ain't been felt

There's no skill that no ones learned

There's no planet that he ain't turned

There's no feud that never dissolved

There's no problem that ain't been solved

There's no tale that no ones told

There's no beauty that won't get old

There's no garden the sun ain't beamed on

There's no shoulder that ain't been leaned on

There's no color that ain't been seen

Purple, yellow, forest green

There's no desert that ain't seen rain

Nobody here that ain't felt pain

There's no biggot that ain't been clowned

There's no treasure that I ain't found

Ain't no cave they never explored

Ain't no mother that ain't been ignored

There's no leader that ain't been led

There's no blood that ain't been shed

There's no dish they never made

Ain't no brick they never laid

Everything left's been done before

[90_hour_sleep]

mintiya,

 

Or you've got one 'savior', one 'martyr', one 'fixer-upper' whose need to be needed outweighs their desire for actual love.

 

so...which one are you? i've always been the 'savior'...although at times...i've been the 'needer' (although never on a level that exceeded the 'needing' of the other). noone wins. speaks volumes to my own experiences too. i've found it difficult to reciprocate romantic love for women who feel like my 'clients'. there's an element of trust there. does this person really love me...or she is so blinded by her own need to be needed that she'll do whatever it takes to keep me around?

 

wow...that sounds harsh. i don't mean it to be harsh. i'm thinking these relationships have been exposing my own limitations. there's a certain level of 'need' that i feel capable of tolerating...and embracing. i value that need...as it is an expression of vulnerability. but there's a line for me. i think of it like an overload relay on a motor. if it's drawing heavy for too long...it's going to kick out to protect the motor. am i any different? am i designed to withstand the stress indefinately...perhaps to my own detriment? and for what? maybe at some point the savior becomes the martyr?

 

it's no easy line to draw. but there's been a bit of a realization that there needs to be some semblance of balance in any sort of union. a union where equality has the potential to exist...even if that equality is not always maintained as such.

 

So when I see people in an immense amount of pain...And myself...I am so hopeful for all of us because I know that right there, that is the cusp, they, me, we, are right on the edge of liberation. If we can just ride out that pain for awhile and not give into it(bandage, destructive distraction, relational distraction, so on so forth), there's so much to be gained you can't even measure it. But our natural inclination to self-soothe with things that AREN'T actually soothing at all, nothing more than temporary relief but produce long-term negative effects...It puts the brakes on. Then each time we go through intense pain, we are not only feeling the present but everything else we put hold on...Until it becomes so huge, massive and overwhelming that we've buried what's good inside of us, good in the world, good in others, and have lost sight of liberation. Even the idea of it.

 

and...we're back to ''old leather'' now, aren't we...

 

i love what you've said here. reminds me a bit of eckhart tolle...and his take on the 'philosophy' of pain. he refers to it as 'the pain body'. we can lull the pain body to sleep (through distraction, as you've mentioned)...and in doing so we're easily lured in to a false sense of relief -- a false sense of healing. in reality...all we've done is delayed the process. the pain is still there. dormant...but waiting for new pain to awaken it...and strengthen it. can recall my own ''meltdown'' a few years back. essentially it was the accumulation of 25 or so years of distraction...of running...of always doing the habitual thing...however destructive. lulled into a sense of complacency. what a sense of relief. perhaps it's that cusp that you speak. step to the edge...and step off. or...walk away. it's a choice. but i think the choice to step off becomes a realistic option the deeper one goes into suffering; although, i'm sure there's always a latent risk of being swallowed as well.

 

One thing I know, is that I don't want to be that way. And I could go that way, I have started the path but I try to get back on track. To me, there isn't anything more sad than watching a good-hearted person you love self-destruct, and being absolutely powerless to do anything about it but hope for them.

 

it's...heartbreaking...

 

i know...

 

 

 

snuff?

[90_hour_sleep]

''if you're fond of sand dunes...and salty air.

quaint little villages...here and there.

you're sure to fall in love...''

 

a mosaic of rain drops...on a canvas of lightning...

the thunderous soundtrack...with backing vocals on vinyl...

 

i remember when it all made sense...

 

clara...dear, dear clara...

[Cheetarah]

Snuff.

 

Kinda get what you meant now with 'just...not now.' Newfound understanding replaces sassiness...haha.

[90_hour_sleep]

Snuff.

 

Kinda get what you meant now with 'just...not now.' Newfound understanding replaces sassiness...haha.

 

well...i'm glad you have newfound understanding. that makes me happy. but Allah willing...don't lose your SASS!!!!! i love your sass!

 

no time for typos...

 

...just...not now. maybe we'll emerge from that fog together. i'm still in it...

 

breathe it in, minty...breathe it in.

[90_hour_sleep]

a continuation of...the shortest run-on ever....

 

 

When you say "this" person, you mean someone who has not split off from their caring nature or in some way numbed out in an effort to avoid pain?

 

Well...yes, and no. I don't think such a person truly exists; however, I do feel that there are perhaps those among us who have ceased to 'split' as a way to deal. To be honest...I'm not sure I really have any interest in meeting the hypothetical being who has never gone to lengths to numb pain. It feels disconcerting. Does that make sense?

 

Love Conquers All...

 

I remember that one!

 

Operationally, you side with me?!?! What?!?! Take it back. I won't have it.

 

You know, Vampy (note the capital 'V')...what if...what if the primordial goo was nothing but gooey goodness? And I'm not talking about sunshine and unicorns here. I just mean...what if the nature of existence is fundamentally ''good'' (and that word - 'good' - is really just a bit inadequate here...and also a bit misleading I think. A bit generic...isn't it?). I don't mean the polar opposite of 'bad' or 'evil'. I just mean...without malice. I agree that these things exist...but do they exist at the origin of things? Maybe I'm leaning on my inner purist here, and suffocating a bit on my idealistic whims...but what if we're all born without malice. What if we're born with naught but that gooey goodness that isn't goodness at all...but something entirely intangible?

 

I do understand the point you're making...and yes...I can appreciate it's relevence.

 

Even as a scientist at heart though, I don't feel it. I don't feel it at all. Observers who report no remorse? Really? Like...it's evidence? Exhibit A expresses no remorse by any of our appreciable standards. Well...perhaps science is flawed. It wouldn't be the first time. And is there a sadder set of circumstances. Watching those who one considers 'friend' disappear beneath something with no substance. Something which lacks any sort of coherent definition. What if the opposite of goodness has no real substance. What if the opposite of goodness is merely a lack of that very same goodness? It's not evil. It's not bad. It's not some longer wavelength on the energy spectrum. It's just...a void. It's an empty space (between the emptys of eternal emptiness). It's a missing link...which happens to have the effect of madness...or perceived madness. And how maddening it would be to be missing such a critical element to one's being.

 

But then...maybe it's never missing at all.

 

But I also believe that these kinds of events ask of a person which way they want to steer their lives, and some people I believe are incapable of going down a road that will lead to care, love and the desire to cultivate these things. If they were capable of something else, they would do it. Because the only thing I believe is a true constant is that no one wants to suffer.

 

No one wants to suffer...

 

And yet...we do suffer. Does the very presence of suffering in our lives indicate that we are not capable of something else?

 

I don't think of this in terms of a capacity. I think of it in terms of paralysis. Because...I have seen the extreme. Up close...and very personal. And science often fails in it's ability to be personal...because the very act of becoming personal tends to be compromising to it's foundations. So...I think it misses something. There's an absent element of observation. I'd agree that this is of great benefit under the right circumstances. Some might say...it's essential. But isn't it conceivable that it falls short in some instances? That's my feeling here. Mental health in particular has an unfortunate tendency to focus on the 'illness'. Its system of categorization reduces people to a sum of parts (or symptoms...or disorders)...with little regard to the 'whole' person. How can such a system adequately observe the overall state of one's being?

 

I think there's always a capacity. It's always there. Whether it's observable or not is entirely irrelevant. How can one even begin to observe something in another which by necessity comes from within (Let alone come to conclusions about it's existence, or apparent lack thereof)?

 

I do agree that there are those who experience periods of extreme paralysis in this sense...often indefinately. Does that mean the capacity is not there? Who am I to say. Does my belief in it to be so, make it so?

 

My inner scientist is seizing just now...because I feel science has utterly failed on this front.

 

And if all effort to bring them closer to that fails, and they have absolutely minus desire to seek it or consciousness, to what extent can we say they no longer have the potential, at least in this life?

 

Perhaps my one concession here, Vampy. Is there ever any guarantee that one will find what is within? ''...at least in this life...'' Now, that is interesting. If the capacity was never there to begin with, then what difference would another lifetime make? Nail your own coffin. Or (as I'm thinking is more likely) throw 'em in your air-nailer and start the next 'assault'.

 

Certainly, even if they COULD care, it doesn't mean that they ARE caring or ever will.

 

No. A person who can love, won't necessarily open to loving. But the ability to love is still there...at the very core of one's being (perhaps long forgotten...or denied...but still there). And that's what I care about. It's what I know. It's where my Faith lies. It's my Motherly instinct.

[90_hour_sleep]

"The same life i was living well before, i`m taking back soon as i open that door

`cause every day i wake up to this war

I load up my gun and i can`t tell you what for."

 

 

[tiredofvampires]

Yes, to continue shortest-ever run-ons! With my usual knack for brevity, of course.

 

This is going to be a bit hard (and almost with a certain reluctance), because truth be told, in a way I feel that most of the way through this, I'll be taking the Devil's Advocate against some major pillars in my own life. And in fact, I’m not all that certain that “ultimate truth” doesn’t contain so many paradoxes and seeming contradictions, that in a blatant assault on the scientific model (which I agree in many spheres of inquiry is a beautifully exacting but equally limiting tool), it would seem there may be no one correct answer. Which is wholly disillusioning and unsatisfying.

 

But no one ever said this would be satisfying.

 

The very nature of existence — if you’re going to take a classical view, as put forth by my favorite metaphysician and psychologist, Sid G. — is that of unsatisfactoriness. Our very birth being predicated on primordial “ignorance” and dissatisfaction — so even though we are endowed every single one of us inherently with the ability to “wake up” and thus become “awakened”, for all of us, simply being here implies we come also endowed with what are considered three major obstacles in their many permutations: greed, hatred, and delusion. Freeing oneself of these completely is everyone’s “birthright.” And potential. However long that may take.

 

So far so good. There is nothing about this I disagree with. So in theory — and therefore, then operationally! (haha, listen to you! “Take it back”?? Even this is not good enough for you? That’s just like you isn’t it?...TCH! never, ever satisfied. Nothing I say is ever good enough for you. Always wanting more. More more more...) -- in theory my post should stop here as I salute you in this:

 

No. A person who can love, won't necessarily open to loving. But the ability to love is still there...at the very core of one's being (perhaps long forgotten...or denied...but still there). And that's what I care about. It's what I know. It's where my Faith lies. It's my Motherly instinct.

 

I'm so glad you're getting, it, too -- a bit o' this: "I JUST KNOW." Bitten by the bug of permeating self-knowledge and uncontestable intuition, eh! I love your inner Mommy, I truly do. Welcome to the club. I would never question someone's Faith in their own experience, especially experience that one can't demonstrate or even explain to others. Those kinds of experiences to me are the most personal, intimate, authentic -- and sacred. They defy the need for justification or proof -- or even consensus -- to be true.

 

So if someone were to say to me, “I KNOW that a Higher Power exists because I have felt Him/Her/It/Them”, I would say, I can’t refute that. That is TRUE. Absolutely. Your experience cannot be trumped by mine. What you feel internally — what you’ve had a direct experience of — is yours, and I honor that. If a person said, “I KNOW that the name of this Higher Power is (fill in name) and they look like this and say these things because they have appeared to me this way,” I’d say, that is a very direct experience, and again — who am I to contest this? If a person says, “I know that there’s nothing out there but atoms that care nothing for anyone, in which a discussion of malice or goodness is totally irrelevant, and entropy will eventually disintegrate all existence, after matter has reached the outer limits of the known cosmos at the end of its journey expanding, and that’s what I KNOW to be true about reality,” wouldn’t that be something I’d have to honor as well?

 

And so what of the person who says, “I KNOW that human nature consists of goodness?” What of the person who says, in a short step from that, “We ARE love, incarnate. We were born out of love, from love, and are one love — our very nature is love, and the divisions only appear to exist” (ooooohhhhh, that’s a good one, wooboy, can I roll with that!!) -- they are also expressing the deepest conviction, and the faith of that conviction. And what they KNOW is right. As right as all the others.

 

But then this is where it starts to get a bit sticky.

 

Because some of these "known realities" don’t really fit well together. In fact, taken as a whole, they are mutually exclusive. So then we are left with a big problem — whose “knowing” is right? Whose knowledge is limited and whose isn’t? How is this not arbitrary? Can we all be right? And if so, how does that reconcile these disparities and irreconcilable differences of “knowing”? Is it possible no one is right? Is it possible everyone is both right and both wrong? How does that make sense? The whole thing is now turned on its head. Because unless you’re starting to claim that your “knowing” is THE TRUTH (uh oh...that’s not gone too well before...) and THE answer about the nature of existence, what we have here is a level playing field where everyone is just going with: tah-dah! Their OWN experience. And that is all anyone can ever go on.

 

For this reason, I in my “knowing” of my own Motherhood and your “knowing” about the essence of human nature is not an exact parallel. Again, I very much respect what you feel you know and am NOT discrediting it. But the difference is that my knowing about my essence as mothering goes relates to a very direct, personal experience of MYSELF alone. It’s me tapped into what I feel and know at the core levels about my own being. And that’s not a matter of “faith”. Faith, as I see it, more often than not applies to our trusting something that is outside own inner selves and lives, something over-arching. When I say I KNOW I am born to be a mother, that’s based on self-inspection entirely. If I’m talking about the nature of the human condition and possibly all of existence though — that becomes subject to interpretation and extrapolation of my own direct inner experience. Do you see the difference? One is very much about my own self-knowledge, the other is a lot more extensive and inclusive in scope. Can I really claim that I know the nature of all humanity just because I have a revelation that is deeply personal and absolutely convincing to me, and feels transcendent? Even if it’s based on repeated experience and observation, my own limited experiences, perceptions and observations with other humans and myself are just that: my limited experiences, perceptions and observations. Because as soon as I compare notes to someone else who has had a different revelation, we are back to not having a standard, a template, a universal truth anymore. (I'll add here that so many from diverse backgrounds who have had mystical/transdendent experiences have reached the same conclusions about "the nature of reality", so that lends a little more credence to a "spiritual empirical consensus" -- but still...)

 

What is cherished notion and what is “truth”? What part of what I “know” and have faith in is a bonfide, CORRECT realization about the true nature of things, and what part of that is an assumption — an extrapolation, a subjective perception -- that I am now entertaining and then projecting on the rest of all humanity and creation?

 

Enter the scientist. With admittedly, a small “s.”

 

On a side note, one thing I love about the Dalai Lama is that he's such a big fan of direct observation and science, he has said that if science ever proves any of these teachings to be wrong, all the scrolls should be burned, as they will have no more use.

 

I think it’s fair to say at this point, while I believe that we all have the ability to “wake up”, and I believe (BELIEVE) in a fundamentally unobscured “true nature” -- I do not abandon skepticism. I have doubt because of the contradictions and arbitrariness that exist as I've detailed, as well as some humility in the face of my own ignorance. Do I really know — KNOW, without a shred of a doubt -- what every person is capable of doing and IS? Based on my own impressions, perceptions and experiences? That feels like an unsteady position to take. So perhaps I am agnostic even about my most cherished beliefs. When I was your age — believe me, I was absolutely convinced. And that was very satisfying, because I'd been a vascillator forever. But then that was shaken, too. And is that a good development or a hindrance? Honestly, I envy people who have faith — in anything. And that also has changed. I used to disparage faith as for the weak and too easy, for people who need to rely on doctrine or something artificially concretized for the sake of a crutch. No longer. I feel faith makes a person strong. Or is it that a person of faith is a strong person? If it’s true faith and not just blind belief systems, I see it as a strength. And the ease it gives to a life now seems almost covert-worthy. So I’ve gone from moderate contempt to wondering if I lack something important. Faith. I struggle with it, and partly because “I have trust issues”, lol, BUT partly because I feel I’m being true to my sense of inquiry not to completely foreclose on other possibilities than the one I prefer most.

 

So yes, I have faith in very few things. And the only things I have faith in are defined by my having DIRECT personal, investigative experience without there being any possible contradiction that I can find. For I am nothing if not an empiricist, even when it comes to intangibles. I would say, thinking deeply about it, I can only identify two things I have faith in (and I’ll let ya know if I come up with others that are escaping me now):

 

-- the universe is “perfect”, and by that I mean there is nothing out of place or happening wrongly; there is nothing in it that does not belong, just the way it is

-- love is the most important force in this world, and there is no such thing as too much of it; love is what we must do and be

 

The first one, I have faith in, and would call axiomatic because there is simply no exception I can find to it anywhere. So it is self-evident. I have proof everywhere — it is everything that is happening, that is created. What is not created and doesn’t happen, doesn’t belong — and therefore is not part of existence. All the rest is what we have. If anyone can effectively contradict this, I’m all ears.

 

The second falls a little more along the lines of something subjective...so, starting to break down just a bit, haha. I mean, this could be argued — someone could say, “I think the best thing a person could ever do is kill off inferior races.” If that’s their reality, do we simply agree to disagree? Again, where is this line drawn? My experience and observation is that love antidotes suffering in nearly all cases, and if not, only because of an impasse, not the force of love itself. And we want to relieve suffering, no doubt — because suffering is simply a crummy thing to deal with if it can be alleviated, LOL (hey, if it's good enough for you, it's good enough for me). So provisionally...I have faith in love. I am profoundly partial to it. I have faith that whatever I do, if I do it with love, it’s better than with something else inside my heart. That is my effort anyway.

 

From there — statements like, “We ARE love” or “our very nature IS love”, while a natural go-to conclusion, is where that little fault line lies for me. That little edge of uncertainty and awareness of a partiality entering. Is my partiality The Partiality? And here’s the real question: from a pragmatic standpoint, do I need to know that? Does this need to be answered, or can it remain a mystery? Can I deal with the ambiguity? Is it possibly an exercise in futility? It would be very warm and gooey indeed to fully throw myself into my leanings, my cherished sense of faith, and never come back. It would be COMFORTING. And SATISFYING. And EDIFYING. And all the mooshy, gooshy, yummy, swirly things that run my best days and moments. “How can it be wrong when it feels so right, baby?” I feel “right” on those days and in those moments, and isn’t that proof enough to administer a verdict on everything? But in the end...I have to wonder if it’s a subtle torque to accept and want comfort, when in fact all I really NEED to do is APPLY what I can see in front of me. I can see that love heals. I can see that it relieves suffering. I can see that it dissolves boundaries. I can see that it heals ME. All of this not infallible, I’ve noticed — but it’s true enough of the time that I feel a strong conviction around it. So I will go there and go there. Which is why I say — operationally — I am acting on this as an “ultimate reality”, even though I am tempted (and I suppose, do, if I think about it hard enough) leave a crack in the door for not knowing what ultimate reality is.

 

I will exalt in my experience of love as transporting and at times, mystical, but perhaps there is room to do that and stay one nano-step from KNOWING anything about it for sure. Is that possible? It must be...if I’ve done it.

 

If I sound uncertain here, it’s because — I am. And this could be a permanent condition. Who was it who said, "the older I get, the less I realize I know?"

 

Well, this is not a fun feeling entirely. Yikesss.... I think I may have actually just ruined a week-long reverie for myself. Nothing new there, though.

 

To be honest, there are days I’m more convinced of this “reality” than others. And I don’t know which of those states is the righter. I wish I could say I knew these things, because it would simplify things a WHOLE lot. What an intense relief that would be! I would still call what I feel, “Faith,” just the way you do — except that if I leave the door open for it not being absolute, then how badly is Faith compromised? I don’t know how much doubt cancels out faith, but it would almost seem an all-or-nothing proposition. SEEM. Ah, yet more paradoxes!

 

But all the greatest of teachers and thinkers I’ve known and respect — both ancient and contemporary -- have correlated doubt with faith in a positive, direct relationship, not an inverse one.

 

Yet I’m also envious of the simplicity that comes with absolute faith in something. Damn this goddamn spiritual flip-flopping!! Inconvenient. Inconvenient truths?

 

Hey, you know, if I might dare? Is this okay? — I think I’ll need to break this post up into two, because I’m not quite done addressing some things here in the nitty gritty about the “goo”, and god help me, making this all one run-on post would be utterly unseemly.

 

Like this isn’t already unseemly! I mean....I have thought about starting a journal here for years...and now that you’ve started one, why would I need one if I can just hijack yours? Hyeh hyeh hyeh!!! j/k, Sleepers!!...I promise (I think I promise) Part 2 will be a little less cumbersome.

 

Hope it’s okay...I’m usually a little concerned about presumptuously overstepping in people’s journals...but I’m banking on this being cool beans with you.

[tiredofvampires]

So with that groundwork laid, I race to the finish line in my representing the Devil. Please take your time, and rest your weary head!

 

But first this --

 

Well...yes, and no. I don't think such a person truly exists; however, I do feel that there are perhaps those among us who have ceased to 'split' as a way to deal. To be honest...I'm not sure I really have any interest in meeting the hypothetical being who has never gone to lengths to numb pain. It feels disconcerting. Does that make sense?

 

Well, as I've told you elsewhere...just speaking for myself, I have sat here and wracked my brains to think of a situation where I have "gone to lengths" to numb pain, and I'm really, really drawing a blank. I have been in states of tremendous suffering, where I was fully hating the pain I was in and completely warring with it in aversion, but "tuning it out" is not my particular pattern. And when I think of "numbing," I think of "tuning out." I suppose there are things I've done to distract myself (and sometimes, it felt like an important survival tactic), but I've posted about this before...I feel somewhat like a raw nerve that is continually exposed. To not just my pain, but pain in general. Pain "out there", and in those close to me. I feel it very keenly. I'm not sure I'd equate avoidance or distraction with "tuning out," but "inability to feel" is what numbness is, and I can't say I've sought that anesthesia out. Inability to feel does in fact feel foreign to me -- even though I can imagine how it feels based on brief episodes of depersonalization where I was in an altered state that felt utterly alien to me.

 

what if the primordial goo was nothing but gooey goodness? And I'm not talking about sunshine and unicorns here.

 

Nor Toll House choc chip morsels...

 

I just mean...what if the nature of existence is fundamentally ''good'' (and that word - 'good' - is really just a bit inadequate here...and also a bit misleading I think. A bit generic...isn't it?). I don't mean the polar opposite of 'bad' or 'evil'. I just mean...without malice. I agree that these things exist...but do they exist at the origin of things? Maybe I'm leaning on my inner purist here, and suffocating a bit on my idealistic whims...but what if we're all born without malice. What if we're born with naught but that gooey goodness that isn't goodness at all...but something entirely intangible?

 

(highlighted portion to be put on mental file) First of all, yes -- I do think the word "good" is both generic and problematic. Because it's a human concept/evaluation, and where human concepts are concerned, there is the problem of anthropocentricity and again, a projection of our values upon the entire universe. So we can talk about different planes of existence, and both are valid -- the human realm where we must live in a world of values and beliefs, and another plane where this becomes quite arbitrary and irrelevant and possibly a human invention. Or, a human interpretation, is more accurate. In fact, outside of needing a commonplace word as shorthand, I'm beginning to think that I don't believe there is any such thing as "evil", but that's another discussion for another time.

 

But lemme just jump ahead for a sec, to tie in something you said with the above quote:

 

Perhaps my one concession here, Vampy. Is there ever any guarantee that one will find what is within? ''...at least in this life...'' Now, that is interesting. If the capacity was never there to begin with, then what difference would another lifetime make? Nail your own coffin.

 

Ah ha!!! Nailed!!! Nailed I am, and I have nailed myself! Good 'n' nailed, I feel! So well-nailed am I, this might require....a five finger death punch!!!!

 

So what you're saying is that you believe people are born without malice and that it does not exist at origin (I refer you back to the highlighted statement on mental file.) So then, malice just...spontaneously arises? Even though the conditions for malice do not exist at the beginning -- that state will somehow arise "magically" from the goo which lacks any capacity or capability for such? What you are proposing is that the fundamental nature of human existence does not include malice, and yet it arises at some point. But then, you have asked me -- in a reversal of the question -- how it can be that a person without goodness at the very beginning could spontaneously develop it (over the course of lifetimes)? You're asking me, if it was not there at the beginning and its conditions were absent then, how could it ever arise?

 

So you are asking me the same question you should be answering for yourself. Indeed, if malice does not exist at the origin, and we are free from it, how DOES it ever arise? Just as if someone lacks inherent goodness at the origin, how does it ever arise? (And I'm going to assume here that you and I would agree people do things "maliciously" in this world, even if that be characterized by "an absence of goodness".)

 

I've got a hammer, if you'd like to borrow it. I've even got one last nail if you're coming up short.

 

Even as a scientist at heart though, I don't feel it. I don't feel it at all. Observers who report no remorse? Really? Like...it's evidence? Exhibit A expresses no remorse by any of our appreciable standards. Well...perhaps science is flawed. It wouldn't be the first time.

 

You know, my aunt -- the expatriot living in Scotland, who never wants to set foot in this country again -- she's worked in the creative arts with mental health patients. And she would so adopt you in half an expatriotic NY minute for this. And the rest that you've said about the flaws of the mental health "system". She does not "believe in" mental health diagnoses -- that we can say someone is "bi-polar" or "schizophrenic." She is completely opposed to the idea of "labeling" people this way, rather than just seeing them as variations of the human condition.

 

I disagree with this position -- again, it's a type of radicalism. We have many ways of understanding reality, as this discussion is pointing up. It's like trying to nail down the color of a prism. Certainly, medical science has a lot to answer to in stigmatizing people, chopping them up into bits and viewing them as parts instead of wholes. And anyone can easily create a system of dehumanization from this. But that's a problem with how labels are being used in my opinion more than the labels themselves. I've really got a bone to pick with labels in general -- but the fact is there is a practical world we live in that requires them. I am a "woman". You are a "man." Should we do away with those labels, too, or are they useful? The nomenclature isn't the culprit. It's people who cling to the nomenclature at the cost of everything and anything else, and can't see past it, creating a sterile, branded vision of a human being. The nomenclature itself can be not only useful to help identify patterns that are widely recognized (so, for instance, two doctors consulting about a patient can distinguish between schizophrenia and bi-polar symptoms and pathology), but in many instances, NAMING a condition can be liberating and healing. I was watching a program about a mental institution in Indonesia which has all the trapping of the Dark Ages -- people shackled, being treated with painful superstitious treatments, and lying in their own excrement. And what this journalistic piece was focusing on is a doctor's campaign to educate local populations about the nature of psychiatric illness as a disorder of the brain, just like any other disease is a disorder of that organ system. And as such, stigma relating to ancient belief systems -- you know the drill, it's caused by evil spirits or something possessing a person, etc., or something the family has done wrong -- needs to be done away with and replaced with scientific education. There was one patient interviewed who had been locked up there who was finally medicated for bi-polar disorder, and he reported that it was a revelation that he simply was ILL, and needed TREATMENT for a certain medical problem. And he was thriving on his meds. He said he was "cured" -- that he was now happy and stable, and "even better than before I got ill." So we can't just dump out these kinds of victories. People can find great relief and quite the opposite of being dehumanized, find their humanity again when a good, compassionate doctor says, "You are suffering from a medical disorder and this is not your fault. We just need to treat it so you can get better." So it's not the label or the medication even. It's the misuse of these things. A good healer will use every tool in the box if the shoe fits, without prejudice.

 

So there are things that we may lack from birth, such as certain neurotransmitter equilibrium. The brain is so complex, certainly we can't imagine all of us are created with the same abilities, emotionally. Even the structures of our brains vary -- and in those structures, the materiality of all that is empty space and intangible arises. We now have materiality, from the immaterial world. But here it is, apparently. Matter and substance, and something tangible. And as it happens, in this narrow spectrum of visibility, science has its place.

 

And what science finds is that in some people, areas of the brain associated with empathy -- the ability to feel another's pain, and therefore respond with kindness, compassion, etc. -- are not functioning at the levels of healthier people. Yes, this is a narrowly observable world, but it is the material extension of "ultimate reality" -- and without materiality, we wouldn't even be having this conversation over thousands of miles. So it matters. Materiality matters, lol!! I don't think it's the whole story, by far -- but given what it is, is this possible:

 

Lemme make an analogy -- a very audacious one (and should this fall flat on its face with you, please feel free to chuck in a hackneyed art analogy any time you please! ). You know, a light switch has the "capability" of turning on a light, right? That's what its function is. It's capable of turning on a light, most of us would agree. But what if the wires to the light fixture are severed? Does the light switch now have the capability to turn on the light?

 

In the same way, might we say that everyone has the capability to "wake up" to their inner goodness -- the goodness that is everyone's birthright and potential -- but that in some cases, the hardwiring of such is that they, for all intents and purposes, cannot access that which they are "capable" of? Could it be their "wires" -- in the material world -- are severed?

 

So then maybe the word "capable" is provisional and needs to be qualified. I don't think this is just a semantic issue....but maybe someone can't be "capable" of something better than malice under the conditions they are in, even though on some ultimate level (which defies the science of it), there is still an awakened potential within them? The way to that would be a deep karmic mystery. Whether we want to appeal to other lifetimes (which I do only as an escape clause, lol, not because I feel it to be very relevant) or not, karma is far, far too complex to try to make linear sense of it. It has never been encouraged that we try to know the workings of karma and our consciousness. But in the framework of a given life -- an individual's life -- I'm asking if we might be able to say "this person is not capable of being a caring person"? I think it is possible.

 

I also think that it's a funny thing, the word "capable". "C'mon, you're capable of better!" Oh? How do we know that a person is capable of something they aren't manifesting? I see it all the time on this board -- yes, I feel some people are "capable" of something better in the sense that anyone theoretically has a capacity for better. But in this moment, in the here-and-now, we are all only doing what we are capable of, it seems. How can this be argued? What is not happening is not capable of happening, if you're just talking about the NOW. And then from there, suppose a person lives a whole lifetime with kindness and caring being inaccessible to them. Does that mean they just failed their capabilities? Or that in the final analysis, they were not caring because they could not be. If life is just a series of "now's" -- and every now does not produce kindness or caring -- the word "capability" becomes a bit remote.

 

As for what outside observers think about people who are considered beyond help -- sociopaths/psychopaths, for instance -- it's not just their looking at Exhibit A and calling it "remorseless." Such people are asked what their experience is, and they REPORT first-hand they are not feeling remorse. They do not behave as a person with remorse, they say they don't have remorse, and at what point do we just take that as what it appears to be? Of course, there are miracles. And amazing stories of change. And those really do make you think and re-evaluate. The human spirit is full of resilience and versatility. I live for that sheet. But it's also a very individual thing, with case-by-case situations. So I can't say that just because one person was "capable" -- another will be. How did one person come to reconnect that severed wire, while another did not? Could it have been less completely severed -- maybe just frayed, with a patchy signal -- in one case and not another? Did one person just have the luck to be paid a visit by a Master Electrician who could repair the breech, and the other, not?

 

So I challenge any paradigm that concludes anything about a person. But I also harken to what patterns show up that can be defined, because those have been essential to understanding -- and advancing -- this plane of reality.

 

Does the very presence of suffering in our lives indicate that we are not capable of something else?

 

No, it doesn't. Of course we can suffer and yet be capable of something else. What I'd say is that suffering is necessary but maybe not sufficient for something else (better) to arise.

 

But I do like your contrast of "incapability" and "paralysis." That makes a lot of sense to me. "Paralysis" fits well. And I think it makes sense to think of that in both the immediate material world (which is somewhat limited), and that which is beyond the observable and linear world (which is less limited). So, definite concession to YOU.

 

So to just conclude this short discourse, while I may agree with you that there is an ultimate reality (beyond the observable) that includes love, caring, the release from suffering, and full awakening to all of this -- and that it's available to everyone in some grand scheme -- paradoxically, it still feels like a stretch to say, "...naturally...we are all fundamentally caring creatures." Which is your original quote on the thread that started all this. It's a very tiny leap from, "we have the capacity/potential to become liberated" to "we are all fundamentally caring creatures," in my opinion. Given what I've tried to tease apart above. You may feel this is self-contradictory, and it would appear to be so. And the Devil will soon be relieved of my services, thank goodness, because I'm inclined your way. But I feel a fine shade of distinction here that will stand as my reasoning for both agreeing with you and disagreeing with you. And that paradox.

 

It really does depend on what your definition of "is" IS.

 

Thought I'd end it on a presidential note.

 

Thank you for this opportunity to share so liberally and extensively in your space. Haha...so much for "less cumbersome"! Best intentions laid.

 

Hopefully that poster in OT will feel they've gotten their money's worth.

[90_hour_sleep]

i'm glad your shoulder's feeling better.

 

and nope...i still love you...even with all this.

[tiredofvampires]

I think maybe I could have summed up all of that by saying, "While I might be able to say, 'any person fundamentally COULD BECOME a caring creature', it's not the same as saying, 'any person IS a fundamentally caring creature.'"

 

Sorta.

 

If you wanted the Cliff Notes version.

 

lol

[90_hour_sleep]

cliff notes...

 

this feels like oil and water.

 

who are you...and what have you done with ToV?

[90_hour_sleep]

came upon a little bird yesterday...flaying itself against a window in a mad panic. i approached...and with a few words of gentle encouragement...cupped my hands around the little guy. at first...he was a frenzied mess. but then...it's like he just let go of his fears. i made my way outside...and removed my cover hand. and then...he just sat there...and looked at me. the faintest rush of warmth made it's way through my bones. a smile.

 

maybe i saved this bird. or maybe it saved me.

[elcie]

came upon a little bird yesterday...flaying itself against a window in a mad panic. i approached...and with a few words of gentle encouragement...cupped my hands around the little guy. at first...he was a frenzied mess. but then...it's like he just let go of his fears. i made my way outside...and removed my cover hand. and then...he just sat there...and looked at me. the faintest rush of warmth made it's way through my bones. a smile.

 

maybe i saved this bird. or maybe it saved me.

 

A special moment.........love it!!!

[Silverbirch]

came upon a little bird yesterday...flaying itself against a window in a mad panic. i approached...and with a few words of gentle encouragement...cupped my hands around the little guy. at first...he was a frenzied mess. but then...it's like he just let go of his fears. i made my way outside...and removed my cover hand. and then...he just sat there...and looked at me. the faintest rush of warmth made it's way through my bones. a smile.

 

maybe i saved this bird. or maybe it saved me.

 

Yer just made me go all gooey!

[90_hour_sleep]

^^

 

gooey is good

[90_hour_sleep]

random sign in the middle of nowhere...

 

''go out and make a miracle...''

[90_hour_sleep]

132 days, 5 hours, 42 minutes and 21 seconds

[elcie]

^ ^ ^

 

Is this about that asteroid they found?..........do you know something that I don't?

[90_hour_sleep]

^ ^ ^

 

Is this about that asteroid they found?..........do you know something that I don't?

 

no...it's more personal, elc.

 

clearly i'm in the dark on this asteroid business though.

[elcie]

I hope it's something good then......

 

About the asteroid. The newsman on TV was talking about something REALLY important -I'm not sure if it was Paris or Kim - and accross the bottom of the screen was being scrolled the words that scientists had found an asteroid really close to earth. I'm glad we've got our priorities right!!

 

(oops....have to go or I'll be late for my bodypump class.....the end of the world can wait, yes?)

[elcie]

Hi sleepy, sorry for the abrupt previous post!

 

I'm a bit obtuse sometimes.......

 

I was in the middle of lunges when I suddenly realized that your countdown could have been 'from' something rather than 'to' something. If that's the case, then I hope those days, hours, minutes and seconds are a journey to a better place in your life.....