BS: Insanity: Amos or Martin Gibson?....

Subject: RE: BS: Insanity: Amos or Martin Gibson?....
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Jan 05 - 10:28 AM

brucie..that Little Hawk feller..*tsk*...he gets by with a lot, being from Canada and all. (You know how that is!)...

Is he doing a good thing? Well, lemme see...it just depends on whether you WANT to feed yer mind on conceptual cotton-candy .. ;>).

I guess it ain't a bad thing...like, it won't wear out the seat of yer skivvies to go 'round contemplating the multiplicity of the universal Godness of all cogent things what walks 'n crawls....prob'ly won't even cause yer hair to fall out.

Now, me, I just cain't seem t' get aholt of whatever it is he's a mumblin' about....but I don't spect it'll cause the downfall of civilization or nothin'......not right away, ennyhow...(well, unless G.W Bush gets wind of it and tries to integrate it all with the rest of his furrin' policy!) .....but don't try to winter over with nothin' ELSE to chew on....

ok? that do it?

Subject: RE: BS: Insanity: Amos or Martin Gibson?....
From: Peace
Date: 11 Jan 05 - 10:29 AM

Or even hyperspace and travel into the past, future or present. I think yer onto somethin' here, Amos.

Subject: RE: BS: Insanity: Amos or Martin Gibson?....
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 11 Jan 05 - 10:48 AM

Amos, if you keep that up I'll feel compelled to enter the fray. . .you're squandering perfectly good BS over here.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Insanity: Amos or Martin Gibson?....
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jan 05 - 12:19 PM

Don't report me, please, Stilly. I didn't start this thread, IIRC -- I only spoke up in my own defense, usually a mistake, but it didn't see fair to go on the offensive against an unarmed man.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Insanity: Amos or Martin Gibson?....
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jan 05 - 12:32 PM

And we can't have that, can we? No, BS is too valuable to be squandered, heaven knows!

Bill, I am going to quote to you from a book I am presently reading (and it's the best book on the process of developing expanded consciousness and spiritual realization that I have EVER read yet)...

Ahem!

"The problem with the ego is not that it is wrong; it is just that it is limited and distorted. To conceive of the ego as an enemy is to become polarized, bringing forth conflict, guilt, anger, and shame. Positionalities [ideas based on the concept of duality and separation] support the ego. By enlarging context opposites are transcended and problems are dissolved."

The italics, and the part in the brackets were added by me, for emphasis...

Now, I'll give you an example. People in different religions fight over petty points of doctrine, such as whose prophet is the REAL prophet or the best one, whose book is the REAL book or the best one, whether one should eat pork or not, etc...

That's because they are ignoring huge areas they share in common and obsessing over details. They fail to enlarge the context.

I look at religions, and I see a common thread running through all of them, which if seen ends forever the religious quarrels and religious wars. I see the eternal truth in EVERY holy book, every great prophet, and every sacred tradition. I don't care about the minor difference, which have all arisen through the development of unique cultures under different historical conditions.

I enlarge context, and that eliminates conflict and produces brotherhood.

Another example: People look at politics and obsess over the details, by narrowing context again. They blithely ignore the fact that they have far more in common with one another...all the same basic concerns, in fact...and go out and attack one another over petty details, such as...political party alleigances, financial opportunities, national identity, flags, anthems, past grievances, and other superficial nonsense like that.

They have failed to enlarge context to include themselves among ALL humanity. They have sunken into a tribal, utterly parochial and childish consciousness. I see one single humanity, all of whom love their children, seek self-expression and freedom, and want to live a peaceful, happy, productive life free of fear. I enlarge context. No one stands outside my tribal identity, because my trive is the Human Race, and beyond that...the whole biosphere.

Enlarging context is exactly how to produce peace and prosperity on Earth. Narrowing context is how to produce division, fear, cutthroat competition, and destruction.

Subject: RE: BS: Insanity: Amos or Martin Gibson?....
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Jan 05 - 12:34 PM

In my observation, Martin Gibson is insane. Amos is in sane.

The difference may appear subtle, but it is all-important.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Insanity: Amos or Martin Gibson?....
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Jan 05 - 12:38 PM

Hmm. And the book you are quoting, Little Hawk is. . . ? And by whom?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Insanity: Amos or Martin Gibson?....
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jan 05 - 12:40 PM

Don:

Very kind, but I don't think the adjective takes a preposition! :D


A

Subject: RE: BS: Insanity: Amos or Martin Gibson?....
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jan 05 - 12:41 PM

The differences are illusory. At a higher level of awareness, Amos and Martin Gibson and yes, even Don Firth, are one and the same Spirit, manifesting in 3 very unique and juicy roles, for the pleasure of indulging in controversy! It is their individual egos that can't deal with such a notion of Oneness. They're afraid they might die and cease to exist, if they surrendered to the notion of peaceful Unity.

LOL! That statement oughta drive at least a few people up the wall.

Subject: RE: BS: Insanity: Amos or Martin Gibson?....
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 11 Jan 05 - 12:41 PM

President Chirac is in Seine.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Insanity: Amos or Martin Gibson?....
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jan 05 - 12:47 PM

Little Hawk:

I am sorry to tell you this, but the Big Pool Union of All in One SPirit thing is a misnomer. It is just subtly wrong enough to ensnare millions in the belief they are One when they are not.

As for They're afraid they might die and cease to exist, if they surrendered to the notion of peaceful Unity. you may keep your opinions of others' beliefs to yourself. Because vociferous condescension is not exactly a trait of enlightenment either, now is it?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Insanity: Amos or Martin Gibson?....
From: s6k
Date: 11 Jan 05 - 12:49 PM

yeh but you still fancy eachother

Subject: RE: BS: Insanity: Amos or Martin Gibson?....
From: Peace
Date: 11 Jan 05 - 12:51 PM

"vociferous condescension"

That happened one time when I had a bad cold. I sneezed on the windshield. WHAT A MESS.

Subject: RE: BS: Insanity: Amos or Martin Gibson?....
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jan 05 - 12:56 PM

I wouldn't dream of standing in the way of whatever you wish to presume, Amos. :-)

Tell me what would get humanity farther...Oneness or division? Of what avail is it for you to quarrel with Martin Gibson? Or with anyone?

Subject: RE: BS: Insanity: Amos or Martin Gibson?....
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jan 05 - 01:01 PM

And, Amos, the number of people I have met who honestly believe (and PUT INTO PRACTICE THE BELIEF) that we are all One...I can count easily on the fingers of one hand.

They do not number in the millions, my friend. They are one in a million.

Subject: RE: BS: Insanity: Amos or Martin Gibson?....
From: freda underhill
Date: 11 Jan 05 - 01:16 PM

please keep the noise down. i'm trying to sleep.

Subject: RE: BS: Insanity: Amos or Martin Gibson?....
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jan 05 - 01:17 PM

Yes, it's rather late right now in Oz, isn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Insanity: Amos or Martin Gibson?....
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 11 Jan 05 - 01:30 PM

I am the walrus.. Koo koo ca Choo. Or is it A-Choo? A walrus with a runny nose is not a site to cherish.

Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: Insanity: Amos or Martin Gibson?....
From: Peace
Date: 11 Jan 05 - 01:31 PM

If everything is all one, why do we have the number two.

Subject: RE: BS: Insanity: Amos or Martin Gibson?....
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Jan 05 - 01:36 PM

One small problem with that. Since everyone on this human level is limited in their perceptions and can rarely grasp the total picture of anything, be it the cosmos as a whole or a political issue, if everyone agreed on everything, stagnation would be the inevitable result and there would be no point in the possession of our unique gift of individual consciousness. It is through the exchange of different viewpoints that knowledge, both individual and collective, advances. To attempt to suppress the expression of any individual's unique viewpoint is to embrace not just ignorance, but evil.

I am an Ancient One and I have read much and I have given a great deal of thought to this matter. Oneness exists in the sense that we are all one with the Cosmos. We are all one in that we are part of Life. One can find manifestations of Unity everywhere. But--on this human level, we are all individual consciousnesses. And this is where we are now supposed to be.

Achieving Oneness, in the sense of attaining Nirvana, is actually to become non-existent.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Insanity: Amos or Martin Gibson?....
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jan 05 - 02:11 PM

2 is what you have when you decide to divide the One into 2 observable parts...an arbitrary, but possible decision. If you decide to divide the One into trillions of observable parts, then you have the observable Universe. It's still One Universe.

A jellyfish is one jellyfish, but if you look at it under a microscope you will find that it is many millions of little cells cooperating efficiently together in a common purpose. They cooperate effectively because they are One in consciousness, and they naturally accept that they are One. We would be well advised to do the same, rather than fighting against one another.

Subject: RE: BS: Insanity: Amos or Martin Gibson?....
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jan 05 - 02:19 PM

I am not suggesting agreement on everything...I am suggesting goodwill on everything. There will always be differing viewpoints, differing proposals, and differing choices...and that's good! It leads to innovation and advancement.

Peace is established by people of goodwill, and can be maintained despite disagreements, provided one is willing to live and let live.

So, Don, I believe we are actually in agreement on this matter...individuality is indeed a splendidly valuable thing, and should be encouraged.

Subject: RE: BS: Insanity: Amos or Martin Gibson?....
From: Peace
Date: 11 Jan 05 - 02:20 PM

So, there is either a universal oneness or there is a universal collection of a trillion onenesses.

Grasshopper, take the pebble from my hand . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Insanity: Amos or Martin Gibson?....
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jan 05 - 02:20 PM

Golly Gee, Polka Dottie!! Didja hear what Rootie Kazootie said about the pursuit oF Cosmic Oneness? Mebbe you and me should go down to that Krishna temple and get some free food, big boy, and after we can find ourselves a sweet little corner somewhere and grab some of that transcendental nookie, huh? How's about it? I get SO close to being One with All when we ...well, you know...c'mon, c'mon!!!

Seriously, brother Hawk, let me re-word what I yams aying so as not to be misunderstood. When you transcend your current identitiy and find out the fullness of all you are, your self, THEN you can explore the willing union of self with others and with All, because you won't have an ego. But merge as you might, you will still be you. Being you does not mean you have a Terran-type ego at all. The scope of the intermediary ground is mindboggling.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Insanity: Amos or Martin Gibson?....
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Jan 05 - 02:25 PM

I believe that's what I said. . . .

But the individual cells of a jellyfish are not conscious in the same way that we are conscious.

There is only one way that we, on this human level, can accept this kind of "oneness" That is to completely suppress our individual consciousness (and conscience) and obey our leaders. In that way, we can, indeed, become a single unit, like a jellyfish (the consciousness of which is in doubt). But do we really want that?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Insanity: Amos or Martin Gibson?....
From: GUEST,John Hardly
Date: 11 Jan 05 - 02:26 PM

sheesh. Go away for a few months and now we're voting on Amos' sanity.

Or was that "Santatee"? A Santatee is an endagered species that, when not frantically spending late December delivering gifts world-wide, swims gently around the Gulf inlets of Florida. Like a walrus without the tusks -- all blubber and no bite.

As I've never seen Amos on Christmas Eve, I'm inclined to believe that he may be a Santatee. Of course, I've never seen him swim either.

Subject: RE: BS: Insanity: Amos or Martin Gibson?....
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jan 05 - 02:28 PM

And...achieving Oneness is not to become non-existent, it is to become existent in a far fuller sense of the word. It is to become existent with expanded awareness...while still functioning as a unique expression in manifestation.

I can play "Hamlet" in the Earthly play if I want to...and yet become aware that I am not just "Hamlet". I am the actor, and I will still be the actor after Hamlet is dead and the play has ended!

Most people lose themselves in the part. They become convinced that they ARE Hamlet or Ophelia or Rosencrantz, etc...and get caught in the emotional dramas of fear, excitement, ambition, tragedy, despair, conceit, jealousy, desire, lust, romance, revenge, and so on.

Emotional dramas can become very convincing, very entertaining, to the point where they completely devour the participant...who forgets that he is in fact an actor playing a part, and he will not die in the play nor will he lose his love or his reputation.

Martin Gibson's part in the drama is quite interesting, and often very amusing to me. To some people, it's just bloody annoying. But look at the zest he gives to the part! Amos's part is far more likable by most people's standards. I think they are both playing parts which have considerable merit.

Subject: RE: BS: Insanity: Amos or Martin Gibson?....
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 11 Jan 05 - 02:34 PM

Quote "A walrus with a runny nose is not a site to cherish.

Jerry "

A Mudcat with a runny anything, is that a sight to cherish?

Giok(¦¬]>

Subject: RE: BS: Insanity: Amos or Martin Gibson?....
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jan 05 - 02:43 PM

Now you guys are getting silly... :-)

Don, my "leader" is within me, not vested in somebody outside of myself. Same goes for you. But...if I want to learn a new guitar technique, I go to someone who can show it to me. He's more experienced than I am in that particular matter. If I want to learn more about meditation or quieting the mind or moving kundalini or a new healing technique, I do likewise. I go to those who are more experienced at it, and have demonstrated it in a way that I can appreciate.

That does not mean that the practitioner then becomes my "leader" who then dominates the whole rest of my life. I have no such leader. I am my leader.


Amos - I do not intend to leave my ego behind or to destroy it. I intend to master it, instead of letting it lead me around by the nose for the rest of this mortal life. I intend the ego to become a useful servant, not a petty tyrant, as it is in most people. I intend to enlarge my awareness, not obliterate it in cosmic Oneness. I still have enough ego left, believe me, to get just a tad annoyed at your attempts to ridicule what you have seemingly only the vaguest notion of...given that you mentioned the "Krishna temple", of all things...and it's your little ego that prompts you to engage in such ridicule in the first place.

Zing! Little Hawk's ego and Amos's ego stalk portentiously into the ring, waving their little fists as the crowd roars for blood! (chuckle...) Little Hawk looks very fetching in a harvest-gold lycra Star Trek outfit, while Amos is clad in his armour of intellect, emblazoned "I cogitate, therefore I am!".

I hope Martin gets a laugh or two out of this...

Subject: RE: BS: Insanity: Amos or Martin Gibson?....
From: Peace
Date: 11 Jan 05 - 02:46 PM

. . . when you can take the pebble from my hand it will be time for you to leave.

Subject: RE: BS: Insanity: Amos or Martin Gibson?....
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jan 05 - 02:47 PM

I've been taking some Qi Gong, Bruce, but I'm not that advanced yet. Not nearly so, in fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Insanity: Amos or Martin Gibson?....
From: Peace
Date: 11 Jan 05 - 02:57 PM

OK, best two outta three?

Subject: RE: BS: Insanity: Amos or Martin Gibson?....
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 11 Jan 05 - 03:07 PM

Remind me.. what was this thread about? Maybe you're right, Amos. A shovel is a long, wooden-handled digging impletment. Or perhaps it's a fignewton of our minagination, as Pogo would day.

Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: Insanity: Amos or Martin Gibson?....
From: pdq
Date: 11 Jan 05 - 03:24 PM

If our struggle is to achieve the number one, then this entire thread is number two.

Subject: RE: BS: Insanity: Amos or Martin Gibson?....
From: s6k
Date: 11 Jan 05 - 03:45 PM

this entire thread IS a number two... you know what I'm talking about!

Subject: RE: BS: Insanity: Amos or Martin Gibson?....
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Jan 05 - 03:49 PM

you all know MY habit is to go Googling to see if I can find what the heck we're talkin' about....so I tried my hand at "oneness"..

and lo 'n behold!, it was there! Wid pichers and everything!

all umpty-'leven varieties!

I don't know if my poor atrophied sensors will ever find 'oneness', but I get the feeling from lookin' that it's all swirly & hazy and colored funny, and I might get queasy from just being there...or maybe I AM there...I mean here...and THAT'S why I feel like this!

Subject: RE: BS: Insanity: Amos or Martin Gibson?....
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jan 05 - 03:55 PM

Ah, mein freunde Leedle Hawk!!

I am witchoo pal, not agin ye.

I just didn't want to have any expectations levied on me, is all. Thanks for stepping into that ring in that Lycra thing for all the world to see. And this armo is actually trompe l'oeil body paint, exquisitely rendered by a 30 year old artist -- ex-Miss-America-- who has been coming to me for consciousness-raising lessons and offered to do the paint job in exchange. Pretty neat , innit??

:D


A

Subject: RE: BS: Insanity: Amos or Martin Gibson?....
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Jan 05 - 04:01 PM

Ah, but Little Hawk, at the moment, I am playing the part that has been given to me. In the same way that, say, Sir Laurence Olivier was fully aware that he was Olivier while on stage playing Hamlet, I am equally aware that I am playing a part while in this world (that, as Shakespeare so aptly said, is but a stage [perhaps in two senses of the word "stage"]). While I am here, I would be remiss not to play my part as well as I possibly can, and if that part calls for occasional confrontation, well, that's the within nature of the play. To deviate from the role I am called upon to play would be to fail to adequately present the work of the Author of that play, n'est-ce pas?

Another way of putting it:   if, while in the eighth grade, I was so intent on getting into the nineth grade that I neglected the full and proper pursuit of my eighth grade studies, I might discover that I must repeat the eighth grade. Counterproductive.

Perhaps this was best expressed by Rabbi Zusya of Hanipal. He said, "In the world to come, they will not ask me, 'Why were you not Moses?' They will ask me, 'Why were you not Zusya?'"

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Insanity: Amos or Martin Gibson?....
From: freda underhill
Date: 11 Jan 05 - 04:04 PM

for all we know, the Oneness could be a big, muscular, sweaty, idol who smokes and has smelly armpit hair. and thats why its taking so long for all those Buddhist monks to attain Oneness, because they're ideating on something swirly n hazy without form or body odor.

maybe its time to stop washing armpits in the name of Oneness.

Subject: RE: BS: Insanity: Amos or Martin Gibson?....
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jan 05 - 04:07 PM

Well, all things considered, folks, this has been an interesting and even humbling thread, I gotta say. I seriosuly had to examine my own arrogant, loud-mouthed, polysyllabic ways to see if they were as insane as some folks reckoned. I have given it much thought, and I have thought as well about the kind and humorous and many-faceted personalities that I know as my friends here at the Mducat.

I have thought about it hard, and I submit to you that even saying as much is prima facie evidence that insanity is not my category. I think it is a truism that reflecting on your own sanity is not a luxury the insane can really afford.

But I have gone further and reached a second conclusion. When I look at my friends and the roles we play here on the 'Cat, I realize I could be badly and madly mistaken, and I in fact might be insane, but given the places I hang out and the souls I call friend, it really doesn't matter to me if I am!!

Hope this puts the matter to rest. Monosodium will have to answer on his own behalf.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Insanity: Amos or Martin Gibson?....
From: Peace
Date: 11 Jan 05 - 04:08 PM

But, sister underhill of the OZite realm: there are TWO armpits.

Subject: RE: BS: Insanity: Amos or Martin Gibson?....
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jan 05 - 04:14 PM

Yeah, and besides, armpits have names (mine, for example are called Izzy and Wiffy). Even if you don't name yours, they are your "left armpit" and "right armpit". How in the name of all that is perfect you gonna find ineffable ineluctable transcendental union with some Nameable Thing, when everyone knowns the It that is All is No It, Nameless and Perfect in its luminescent Allness of Permanent and all-Transcending Out-Thereness beyond all lines, degrees, kinds, dimensions, names or categories known to us lesser mortals.

No way does it have smelly armpits!!!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Insanity: Amos or Martin Gibson?....
From: freda underhill
Date: 11 Jan 05 - 04:15 PM

yes, each armpit is a parallel universe, and we are the mites crawling on the hairs.



Sister Freda of the Little Sisters of the Armpits.

Subject: RE: BS: Insanity: Amos or Martin Gibson?....
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Jan 05 - 04:23 PM

"But . . . there are TWO armpits."

That would seem to negate the concept of Oneness. Perhaps that is an illusion!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Insanity: Amos or Martin Gibson?....
From: Peace
Date: 11 Jan 05 - 04:34 PM

Must be, Don. Are there not "Twice-told Tales", "Two Years Before the Mast", TWO humps on a Bactrian camel, one lump or TWO my dear, etc? However, are not the above encapsuled in a single post? If there is no tree falling in the forest, does that then mean the lumberjacks are on strike? Are these questions simply facets of a whole? Is this the yin-yang of which our ancestors spoke? Did I do lots of things I shouldn't have in the 1960s? Funny you should ask.

Subject: RE: BS: Insanity: Amos or Martin Gibson?....
From: Once Famous
Date: 11 Jan 05 - 04:58 PM

Well, I am not at all humbled.

But I could go for a candybar or something about now.

Subject: RE: BS: Insanity: Amos or Martin Gibson?....
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Jan 05 - 05:09 PM

"Tea for Two," "A Tale of Two Cities," "It takes two to tango," "Twa Corbies. . . ."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Insanity: Amos or Martin Gibson?....
From: Once Famous
Date: 11 Jan 05 - 05:13 PM

Two boots up your decrepit ass.

Subject: RE: BS: Insanity: Amos or Martin Gibson?....
From: DougR
Date: 11 Jan 05 - 05:16 PM

LH: your post, January 9, 3:50 PM, first paragraph. You are correct.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Insanity: Amos or Martin Gibson?....
From: Peace
Date: 11 Jan 05 - 05:20 PM

This is the post to which Doug refers:

"So, given those beliefs, Doug's opinions seem entirely just and proper to Doug. Therefore, he can still be a nice guy."

Doug IS a nice guy. I would second that motion anytime.