A Veces, La Verdad 2008-07-08T15:35:25Z User 522 http://www.newciv.org/nl/newslog.php/_v522/ OrgSpace NewsLog

The middle man is that which stands between you and the source. The middle man is the doctor, the medium through which one attempts to communicate with and care for one’s body. The middle man is the news media, the medium through which most people get their ideas about events in the world around...

The middle man is that which stands between you and the source. The middle man is the doctor, the medium through which one attempts to communicate with and care for one’s body. The middle man is the news media, the medium through which most people get their ideas about events in the world around them. The middle man is one’s mind, the medium through which one attempts to perceive one’s environment. The middle man is the priest, the rabbi, the imam, the supposed mediums through which one may access the divine.

The middle man’s worth is expediency. In other words, he saves us time and energy…or at least, he should. The news media filters out all of the ‘insignificant’ events in the world so that we do not have to travel throughout the globe, witnessing all events and having to decide for ourselves what’s significant. The doctor has spent at least seven or eight years in fervent study of the body. He knows what amino acids are and he knows what your spleen does. He knows your vehicle better than you do. The mind acts almost completely similar to the news media, filtering out events of which you do not need to be aware so as not to bog down your consciousness with trivialities. The priest knows exactly where you may find your Higher Self.

The middle man inevitably begins to appear a lot like the Demiurge in the Gnostic myth. The Demiurge is a false god, falsely believing that anything he creates come from himself, not knowing that things only emanate from the Father, the true God. The doctor believes that he creates your body, or at least, creates your body’s health. The truth is that you can create your body’s health, and that you merely delegate this power to him. All will be rainbows and sunshine if the doctor is decent, lucid and able—he will make your body happy. But if he were truly all of these things, his aim would not be your continued dependence upon him. His aim would not be your continued existence as a stupid, weak and disempowered child. His aim would be to gently push you towards being comfortable with allowing the Source to flow through you, i.e. his aim would be education rather just maintenance.

There is a saying in Zen Buddhism, “If you meet a Buddha on the road, kill him!” The meaning of this saying is obvious: even a Buddha can ultimately be an obstacle to obtaining truth for oneself. In a real world setting however, it could far more rewarding to sit with the Buddha a while, make a decision as to whether to trust him, and ask him if he would be so kind as to point to the truth. One could go to every door in the world and never know that the truth was actually just next-door. A Buddha could really save one some time.

Middle men seem to be particularly destructive when it comes to truth and divinity. Geoffrey Filbert writes in Excalibur Revisited that when L. Ron Hubbard ran the so-called Power Processes, Hubbard never actually “flattened,” or finished, the one that reads, “Tell me a Source.” Hubbard stopped at a half-truth, Self as Source, and never arrived at the other side, i.e. Self as not-Source. It’s interesting then that Hubbard and his church began to posit themselves more and more as the Middle Man when it came to scientology technology, going as far as to attempt to copyright the truth that had been obtained through years of arduous research by many, many gifted people. Geoffrey Filbert, in typically brilliant fashion, knew the higher truth and went about copyrighting and freely publishing that which the church attempted to own and conceal from the public. Geoffrey Filbert killed the Middle Man.

Max Sandor wrote recently in his blog that “there are strong indicators that the BASIC GLUE of non-optimal behavior patterns, some call it 'case', may in fact be based on what falls under the heading of the fuzzy word 'vanity.’” Through the lens of vanity, one could come to a better understanding of the problem of the middle man. Who cannot identify with a need to be needed? Whether it’s a friend, a child, a nation or a student that is in need of you or your expertise, it feels pretty damn good to know that you helped that entity reach a higher ground. Maybe it felt too damn good. It doesn’t take long to look into one’s environment and discover a mother or father who, because of vanity, has deliberately engineered his or her child to remain in constant need of his or her care. The need to be needed is the need to be Source. But, as was mentioned above, the truth is that everything is Source…and yet nothing is Source! It’s just another game, an extremely fun and rewarding one if one has the ability to play both sides (the definition of pan-determinism). It feels great to be needed and it feels different, but just as great, to be in need. There should no seriousness there, just a spirit of play.

It’s worth noting that a middle man, if he or she is not the truly nurturing, educational-type, will begin to produce the opposite of what he or she is supposed to offer. So parents, who are to some extent responsible for teaching their children how to survive, end up destroying their child’s capacity to survive independently of them. A doctor, if one were to take the multitude of pharmaceuticals he has prescribed for one, will end up destroying the body to which he has taken an oath to heal. A religious group will begin to suppress the truth, all in the name of truth, while offering lies to its adherents; all the while making it that much more difficult ‘to become whole again,’ (which comprises the real meaning of the word “religion”). The news media will claim to present unbiased coverage when the content of their reports is always anything but neutral. Could one imagine a world where before every newscast and on the front page of every edition of every newspaper there was this disclaimer, “According to principles ‘discovered’ by Alfred Korzybski, any content that you find here will inevitably amount to an abstraction, a half-truth. The word is not the thing. It is up to you, our viewers and our readers, to discover the whole truth for yourselves.”

There is a strong chance that one’s middle man will refuse to be killed. He has enjoyed the feelings of godliness he has gotten because you have needed him. “You want to kill me? How disrespectful! I have made you what you are. I HAVE CREATED YOU.” The truth is that you have trusted him, he has helped you. Perhaps you were once dependent upon him, but now you stand educated and you have gained your independence. You say, “Before, I almost regretted having to kill you. But now I am going to enjoy it.”
]]> http://www.newciv.org/nl/newslog.php/_v522/__show_article/_a000522-000011.htm 2008-07-08T15:35:25Z 2008-07-08T15:35:25Z

The plot of these dreams was that there was two elements that could not be one. It was inside the reality of these dreams that impossibility, a seemingly wholly intellectual notion, became a feeling...

They tell me I was diagnosed with Asthma around the age of three. I say “they tell me” because I don’t remember. In fact, I don’t remember much about any asthmatic symptoms nor any asthma attacks when I was a child. Although there is a very real possibility that I was a victim of Munchausen by Proxy, it’s far more likely that I may have had mild symptoms of asthma that were exaggerated by my mother. In any case, an aura of sickness and death surrounded me at a very young age. Mortality was something that I contemplated early in my life because along with the asthma I was also regularly ill with respiratory infections and once or twice, pneumonia. This air of death and sickness caused me to see everything, i.e. other people, my environment, my body, “myself,” as being very different than from where I was looking. I saw things as if they were a million miles away. I could see “me,” or my personality so to speak, as some cold distant object. It was a unique type of aloofness, not exactly social in nature because I always had close friends, but psychological or spiritual. Although it bears stating that being ill did force me to be absent quite a bit from school and other social activities. I remember many days spent at home, either with her or when she couldn’t get the time off of work, my grandmother. I felt so out-of-the-flow on these days, like I was outside of life.

Not being rooted in my body or in this world to any significant degree, I became rooted in my mother and my relationship with her. It’s clear that this is what she wanted as well, promoting my illness and dependency as she did. She had these wonderful intentions backed by an overwhelming selfishness and a high-degree of stupidity. In other words, she was highly destructive. There is nothing like a sense of righteousness to justify sin.

Although I’m not so sure of how asthmatic I really was, I was with fever quite a bit in my early days. Sometimes, along with the fever, I was visited by delirium. It wasn’t very strong; it wasn’t as if I couldn’t recognize my surroundings or anything. Yet, I can remember playing video games and feeling as if I was “inside” the game. That was quite frightening and confusing. By far the most terrifying and prominent facet of the delirium was the dreams. Most of them were confounding and highly disturbing but there was a certain type of dream, not necessarily recurring because it took different forms, that absolutely put “the fear of God” in me (to use a Midwestern colloquialism).

I would awaken, sweat-drenched and alone, overtaken by abject terror. The impressions of the dreams were so strong that long after I awoke, it would be as if I were still dreaming. The perceptions and sentiments of the dreams would stay with me. At the time, the meaning of the dream seemed utterly enigmatic. I had no idea what it meant and at such an age, I wasn’t even aware that dreams could have messages or meaning. I simply thought they were things that just happened. The terror of these dreams was infinitely compounded by the fact that I had no idea how to communicate about them. Perhaps I didn’t want to talk about them, or perhaps I intuitively knew that no one else would understand them, not the least of which my mother.

The dreams were not concrete; they consisted of colors, vague shapes, and were for the most part, emotional in nature. I remember there were a few different colors, but mostly purple. I remember at one point thinking there was something that appeared to be a purple train, but it was most definitely not the clear-cut image of a train. This may have just been my mind, after the dream and even within it, trying to make sense out of something that was very, very abstract.

The plot of these dreams was that there was two elements that could not be one. It was inside the reality of these dreams that impossibility, a seemingly wholly intellectual notion, became a feeling. It was truly the feeling of impossibility. I was utterly horrified by it. It was a sucking feeling, cold like a rail of steel. Later, I could feel remnants of it when I would contemplate things I thought were impossible. For instance, I remember looking at a riding lawnmower in my garage and thinking how it was impossible to drive it through the window of the backdoor. This wasn’t just a thought; it had a terrifying feeling attached to it. There are still moments when I imagine something impossible and I feel tinges of this feeling.

I’ve contemplated these dreams quite a bit over the years. The only meaning at which I’ve arrived is that the notion of two represented my beingness and the beingness of my mother. They could not be one after the fact, or after manifestation. This would only create a group-mind, which is not true unity, only attachment. Perhaps the dreams represented the impossibility of love arising within the world. It seems likely to me that love can only be arrived at by going up, not down. It can only be achieved by realizing the Individuality of Source.

I would really love to hear anyone’s opinions on these dreams. I believe that they, to a large degree, represent something that is very significant for me in this lifetime. Although I recanted an interpretation above, it does not seem wholly satisfactory to me. Maybe this is because I have yet to experience Absolute Love…I have to say that despite the terror that I still remember, I would still totally love to have just one more of these dreams.
]]> http://www.newciv.org/nl/newslog.php/_v522/__show_article/_a000522-000010.htm 2008-05-01T23:43:35Z 2008-05-01T23:43:35Z

Not really. I wasn’t born in what we Ohioans call “the county.” In fact, I lived only on the edge of it from the ages of seven to twenty-four. Yet, it is in my blood…and I forgot.

I live in the city now, which might be a misleading notion in that the population of Springfield is only 65,000. I mean, how big can a city be with such a tiny population? But now that I am here, I pretty much stay here. The looming houses in my district, the whisking of traffic, the sirens from the nearby hospital all press in on me. I sort of enjoy the feeling of mass that it gives me.

Now I recognize that my new home cannot compare to my home in “the county,” with its fruit of colossal space and near-silence. Space so big that my loneliness felt all right to me—it almost felt natural there. At any moment I could pedal a bit on my bicycle and be in a place where no one could think me crazy for talking to the horses, to the cattle, to myself. No one could see me cry and beg forces as-yet-unknown to guide me through the chaos that up that point was_my_life.

I felt lucky in the fall when the fields were void of corn and I could gaze mindlessly for miles, sometimes spinning in circles to try and achieve a panoramic view; sometimes sitting cross-legged in some empty field, smoking cigarettes, brushing off the curious insects as they tried to ascend my body. I have to admit it was difficult to perpetually appreciate the beauty of how the Midwestern sky met the land—it could become a mere fixture if one did not take it always as something new.

There was one road, long and straight for miles, forest on one side, vegetable fields on the other. I wish that road never ended. I wish I could ride it forever, forever in the company of my friends the cows, forever sweating lightly under the lovely summer sun.

There was the lake, her Spirit so present and bright I could sense her life even in my days of youth, my days of darkness. She was there in a way that my mother never could be, no mother ever could be. She didn’t mind my company, she didn’t mind it at all. She even allowed me and my friends to windsurf her waters.

Today I found myself once more at the edge of her waters and I suddenly obtained the full truth of something Geoffrey Filbert told me in conversation: everything is a delight. I admit it’s true: I have discovered a divinity beyond my wildest childhood dreams but I have failed to notice that my blood runs hot. Has my love affair with erasure ended? Hardly, although I recognize that I do want something very different than my desire to see it all disappear.

I never liked wearing hats but I feel an affinity for them growing. I hear wedding bells…

O God I am not like you
In your vacuous black,
Stars stuck all over, bright stupid confetti.
Eternity bores me,
I never wanted it.

What I love is
The piston in motion—
My soul dies before it.
And the hooves of the horses,
Their merciless churn.

And you, great Stasis—
What is so great in that!
Is it a tiger this year, this roar at the door?
Is it a Christus?
The awful

God-bit in him
Dying to fly and be done with it?
The blood berries are themselves, they are very still.

-- from “Years” by Sylvia Plath
]]> http://www.newciv.org/nl/newslog.php/_v522/__show_article/_a000522-000009.htm 2008-03-27T05:18:16Z 2008-03-27T05:18:16Z

“Yes, sire.” One may be familiar with this form of address, which usually took place when a servant interacted with English royalty. Implicit within the address is an acknowledgment of the supposed divine nature of the royal personage, as the word “sire” means heavenly body or star. It’s in thi...

“Yes, sire.” One may be familiar with this form of address, which usually took place when a servant interacted with English royalty. Implicit within the address is an acknowledgment of the supposed divine nature of the royal personage, as the word “sire” means heavenly body or star. It’s in this way that the word “desire” means, at least etymologically, ‘away from heaven.’ If one posited that heaven was some vague refuge of pleasure, then this etymological ‘discovery’ offers little insight. However, posit that heaven is this case signifies Wholeness and the word “desire” becomes a key that unlocks truths about life and the pursuit of happiness.

Games are created through desire. One has to want the goal; one has to want to win for there to be a game. If one did not care in the least, no game would ever be created or played. And one cares because there is a lack. One has to be in some sort of a state of unwholesomeness to conjure the concern or desire that a game demands. Geoffrey Filbert once told me that with anything there is the positive and the negative…and then there is how much one really cares. In other words, there is the goal, the anti-goal and desire.

Is one innately deficient? To put it another way, does one have no choice but to care? One idea that may prove otherwise is the notion that a restricted state can only originate from a state of greater freedom. Ibn ‘Arabi, a Spanish Sufi, spoke much about the fact that determined things can only originate from non-determination. With this in mind, it could be said that one is actually innately Whole and that one creates deficits for oneself in some effort to participate in game play. From a certain perspective then, any belief that one is in any way deficient, and that one is need of anything, would amount to a LIE. This may explain the recent findings that Max Sandor published on his blog at sandorian.us. Max writes: “In short, ANY ATTACHMENT to a desired object will result in that object to go AWAY, and NOT to be attracted.” Perhaps this is because one’s Higher Self will not tolerate such a lie, the lie that one needs anything. Max goes on to mention a “winning strategy.” He writes: “Relinquish attachment to the positive pole and resistance to the negative and ACT as if the result wouldn't matter!” One ‘acts’ as if the result wouldn’t matter because the result really doesn’t matter! At least, it doesn’t matter as far as one’s eternal happiness is concerned.

It’s been my experience that whenever I find myself attached to something, there appears a Voice that demands my flight from it. It’s as if this Voice will not tolerate such a substandard condition as being in need; it seems it cannot stand my harboring such a false belief in the face of Reality, the reality that I am Whole. Hate may begin to come into play as hate becomes a propellant. One may begin to hate that to which one is attached, as a means to better achieve a “freedom from” and thus ultimately a “freedom to.”

It seems everyone is engaged in the pursuit of Wholeness but it’s this wrong belief, the belief that it’s what’s “out there” that will bring one wholeness, that prevents them from truly achieving what they ultimately already have and ultimately already are. Deciding that heroin, sex, procreation, wealth, etc., will bring them everlasting happiness, they pursue these things of the world with uncontrollable fervor. Yet the most they can hope to achieve is temporary wholeness, a brief pleasurable union as they fall back and as the chase begins once again. In the Pali Canon, someone once asked Siddhartha Gotama why anyone would want to achieve Nirvana. He said essentially it’s because people shun woe and embrace weal. So once a person comes to fully understand that it’s no object of the world that will bring them true weal, and that there is a path that bears the potential to do so, they can shed their false ideas and look to that which may actually bring them eternal wholeness. But there is no reason why they couldn’t enjoy the temporary pleasures of the earth in the meantime!
]]> http://www.newciv.org/nl/newslog.php/_v522/__show_article/_a000522-000008.htm 2007-08-28T16:21:29Z 2007-08-28T16:21:29Z

Many people seem to be quite miserable on this planet, some more than others. Yet an interesting and for some a surprising feature of this misery is that when thoroughly examined, it seems it’s there because people want it to be there. People want to feel bad. This is quite obviously insane but...

Many people seem to be quite miserable on this planet, some more than others. Yet an interesting and for some a surprising feature of this misery is that when thoroughly examined, it seems it’s there because people want it to be there. People want to feel bad. This is quite obviously insane but as with any insanity, there is order to it, there is a noble spiritual goal in its midst. Gurdjieff commented on this seemingly strange state affairs when he said that man will give up his pleasure long before he’ll give up his pain. His contention was that perhaps this results from man’s desire to be noble. His explanation may be a specific instantiation of a more general truth: people want to be miserable because it’s beautiful. Aesthetics may answer the question of why people are seemingly drawn to pain, confusion, helplessness and failure.

I can remember being in class in college and announcing to the students around me that I had discovered the answer to the age-old paradox, the one that asks how God can create a rock He cannot lift. (For those of you unfamiliar with the paradox, if God can create a rock that He cannot lift, well, then He cannot lift it and He is thus not omnipotent. If God cannot create the rock, then He is obviously not omnipotent. This paradox presupposes that for God to be God, He must be omnipotent). My answer was that He could do it through a lie. He could create the rock, knowing full well that He is able to lift it. Then, He could “forget” or make Himself unconscious. He could somehow, through some mechanism, repress this knowledge. Outraged, the other students around me claimed that I had not solved the paradox because the ultimate result is that God is unable to lift the rock and is thus no longer omnipotent. False. He can lift the rock, He is still omnipotent but He can’t because He has chosen to forget or repress his ability. If God is omnipotent, He must also be completely free, free to choose whether or not to lift the rock.

This paradox is really a question of how a God may become a creation or how a God may become human. In “The Phoenix Lectures,” Hubbard describes just how this change may occur. He says it comes about through altering one’s creation. Yet simply practicing what he refers to as alter-isness does not necessarily cause one to lose control of one’s creation. It’s in altering a creation to the point that one’s role in the creative process goes out view that can make a God into a man. Hubbard discussed at length what he called The Legend of the Creator: persistence is created when a being alters a creation by postulating that it was in fact created by someone else. Such an action, making someone other than oneself responsible for one’s creations, brings about persistence as well as a plethora of experience that must be inherently foreign to a being with endless potential creative power. Weakness, desperation, helplessness, anguish, really a whole host of experiences and sensations become available to a being when it loses control over creation. It’s quite possible that this may explain why beings are ‘down here’ in the first place.

In his essay, “The Subtle Choking-Chains of Aesthetics,” Max Sandor suggests it is through the use of aesthetics, as an alter-isness of creation, that can make a god into a man. He writes: “How can an almighty Being with limitless potential degrade to a completely other-determined entity? The only way, it seems, was the voluntary attribution of an aesthetic to a 'lower' state of sensation.” Sandor is answering the paradox in the same way that I did above, except his answer is more specific. I said it could happen through a lie. He said that lie is aesthetics. He goes on to explain that when a being introduces or injects aesthetics into an event, terminal, phenomenon etc., this introduces high-frequency energy. Ultimately, this introduction obscures the so-called truth of the phenomenon and if one cannot see the truth of it, one certainly will not be able to control it. One ends up with a beautiful mystery, which may describe what life looks like to most inhabitants on this planet.

Spirits seem to have an innate attraction to beauty. They love it. When a being makes things like pain, loss, failure and misery beautiful, it has set quite the trap for oneself. When it introduces this high-frequency energy (aesthetics) into an event or terminal, it can no longer see how it may have created this event or terminal in the first place. The result is persistence of that particular condition. In the end, this means that an important step in restoring one’s power is developing the willingness to see life as less than beautiful.

As an example, I had a friend who according to my perception, had clearly become a weak, selfish and emotionally manipulative person due to decisions he had made in his childhood. Yet I can remember as I described the less-than-ideal conditions of my own childhood, he said to me, “I never had that experience. My parents were great. I had no problems.” In other words, he is telling me that he had a beautiful childhood. In my own life, I’ve noticed that in a recent break-up with my girlfriend, I was experiencing feelings of loss and longing. They were quite powerful, even paralyzing at times. Concurrently, these feelings were quite beautiful to me, stuff of which a million love songs have been written. When I ‘spotted’ the aesthetics in these feelings, the fact that I was creating them and desiring them would naturally come into view. Most of the time, I would choose to divorce these feelings from the aesthetics and the magnitude of the feelings would drop to almost nothing. Sometimes though I left the aesthetics there and simply enjoyed the beautiful sadness.

Standing behind the pursuit of truth and beauty (or lack thereof) is an inappropriate identification of certain goals with others. The average person seems to fear the truth as they fear it will destroy their beautiful life. They see the only way to create a beautiful life is through beautiful lies. They do not want to analyze the reality of their relationship with their spouse or the genuine intentions of their governments or their placement here in the physical universe because as they have charged these things with aesthetics, they naturally don’t want to see their work of art desecrated. The truth is that truth is destructive, but to build something with true foundation, one has to clear out any substandard structures first. So it seems that the ability to create beautiful truth is a sign of real spiritual maturity.

* Go to http://orunla.org/pnohteftu/ch421216.html for a great drill to get one in touch with one's use of aesthetics ]]> http://www.newciv.org/nl/newslog.php/_v522/__show_article/_a000522-000007.htm 2007-08-09T14:44:33Z 2007-08-09T14:54:03Z

In the current political discourse, one aspect that I see neglected by even the most astute commentators is the role of fiat currency (paper money) in the conflict with Iraq and with the seemingly imminent conflict with Iran. The US campaign in Iraq has been called a “blood for oil” campaign with...

In the current political discourse, one aspect that I see neglected by even the most astute commentators is the role of fiat currency (paper money) in the conflict with Iraq and with the seemingly imminent conflict with Iran. The US campaign in Iraq has been called a “blood for oil” campaign with the understanding that the Bush administration, representing corporate interests, is simply commandeering the oil in Iraq. In light of an incisive article by Krassimir Petrov called “The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse,” the supposed rationale for the so-called “blood for oil” campaign looks like somewhat of a half-truth.

Petrov writes that the US is an empire in the sense that it taxes other nations. It does not do so directly but by inflation. It buys resources from other nations and pays them back later with devalued dollars. This is easy to understand. If a person buys a house on loan at a certain rate of interest, as long as that person prints enough money to ensure that the rate of inflation is higher than the rate of interest, that person is actually buying the house for less.

Other nations are forced to do business with the American regime for they must hold the dollar. Why? The dollar is the dominant exchange currency for oil and of course, everyone needs oil. Therefore the nations of the world use the American dollar because they simply must possess it. Backing the American dollar with oil not only keeps it afloat and valuable in the global economy but it also provides the American empire a means to tax the world. Keeping the dollar as the dominant exchange currency for oil is what is motivating the push to establish stronger and stronger control in the Middle East. In light of this information, it’s interesting that according to Petrov, Saddam Hussein attempted to demand Euro for the oil produced in his country. Shortly thereafter, Iraq was attacked and invaded. Now it looks as if the Iranians have gone one step further by not only selling their own oil for Euro but creating an exchange where anyone may do so.

If the US regime did back out of its campaigns in the Middle East, as more and more citizens of the US and the world are demanding, what would happen to the American economy? The US would then lose its control of oil therefore rendering it unable to ensure that the American dollar was being backed by oil. Hypothetically, nations could begin using another form of currency to purchase oil (likely the Euro). The American dollar would then be used less and less on the global market thus its essence would soon be revealed: total worthlessness. Due to the fact that the US has been producing less and less goods of its own, this trend would be recognized as a serious shot in the foot. These goods would no longer be able to be obtained for stacks and endless stacks of useless paper are not going to satisfy foreign sellers. Horrific devaluation of the dollar and serious economic depression would be a very grim and probable reality.

Understanding the role of fiat currency in the US conflicts in the Middle East should make anyone who has an opinion a little more careful of what they wish for. Not to suggest that these campaigns should at all be supported but their opposition should be tempered by the suggestion of a concurrent idea as to what should be done concerning the ultimate worthlessness of the American dollar.
]]> http://www.newciv.org/nl/newslog.php/_v522/__show_article/_a000522-000006.htm 2007-04-18T19:52:38Z 2007-04-18T19:52:38Z

I encountered a synchronicity the other day. Mere hours after reading Flemming Funch's blog on Free Will I went to class only to have my friend Jenny hand me a paper she had written on free will. I got to thinking about the subject and this is the result. I don't think it in any way is typical ...

Is there free will? Yes. But as G.I. Gurdjieff claimed, “man is a product of external influences,” thus humans have ultimately become machines. Nearly every impression they receive they merely react as they have been wired to do. In other words, man is having just too much damn fun being a creation to bother with free will. Yet free will is in fact the only thing that’s going on, it’s just that beings have abandoned their volition for one reason or another.

The hallmark of being human is playing the innocent victim. “Who? Me? How the hell could I create the conditions of my life? I didn’t ask to be raped! I didn’t ask to be born a male! I didn’t ask to have these people as parents! I didn’t ask for any of this!” What if you pretended just for a moment that you did? What if you really did create this, all by yourself, all for yourself? Then with all of these conditions, what would you be trying to teach yourself?

Look what happens when someone makes such a suggestion. Remember the guy who suggested we “keep our own counsel?” He’s the one who claimed that when you seek, you will find; when you find, you will be troubled; once you are troubled, you will marvel; once you marvel, you will reign over ALL; and that after this you will achieve rest. They crucified him, the other human beings in his community, the custodians of the game. They couldn’t tolerate someone suggesting that beings are always senior to the games they are playing.

Free will is unconditional and yet is not. Initially it is in the sense that one is totally free to decide whether to play or not (this includes whether one has created the game oneself or another has created it). But once one agrees to participate, one must limit oneself in one fashion or another. Free will is not unconditional in a conditioned universe, not once a being has involved itself in a game. It’s like if someone wants to play soccer. Before one enters, one has to agree not to touch the ball with one’s hands (unless you’re the goalie of course). If you try to play against the rules, you will be punished. In soccer you are normally carded until you are thrown out of the game. In the game of life, the punishment can be a little more severe (how about electro-shock therapy?). Now a person may say that although touching the ball with one’s hands is against the rules, one is still capable of doing it. This is correct. But what happens when one has agreed to the rules and then forgotten? When one has simply lost the knowledge of how to touch the ball with one’s hands (technology) and that this was ever a choice in the first place? In other words, what happens when one is no longer senior to the rules of the game but has succumbed to them? By all appearances it seems as if this being has no free will when the truth is that the only way it could have gotten itself in such a position is by giving it up of its own accord!

Imagine a group of beings hanging around in space, bored. They agree to create a game for themselves. One facet of their game is that no one is to read the others’ thoughts. This makes them all very happy for some time. After a while one being begins to be displeased with its limited perception. It’s just feels so unnatural to this being and after all, what does it have to hide? But when it reaches out and tries to “see” into everyone else, it cannot—it has forgotten how. Now what if everyone else has forgotten that it was ever possible to do it in the first place? Then this lone wolf may seem just plain fucking nuts. That’s how you can really make a game serious. Make agreements then “forget” or lie that you ever made them in the first place. Hell, blame them on God—then your tragedies will really be tragedies.

What of the paradox where it is asked just how God may create a rock He cannot lift? What if he were to create a universe with rocks and trees and humans (kind of like this one) and then somehow He identified Himself with a body? What if He does this and then forgets that He ever had? Now the mystery is no longer just how He does it, the mystery is now how He has forgotten.

This limited condition God finds Himself in is created through a lie (or maybe thousands of them). As a body or a creation, he honestly believes that someone else created the huge boulder that He cannot lift. And he (as a body) is right—God did! He is totally unconscious of the fact that He is the Source of not only the rocks but everything else as well. This is how a lie becomes real, through forgetfulness, through unconsciousness.

One might contest this whole construction and say that ultimately God is still totally in control as He is the Source of not only the rocks but the lies as well. This is what it looks like objectively but subjectively, as a body with supposedly only sense perception available to Him, things look very, very different. In fact, one might be able to conjecture that objectively none of this ever happened at all, that ultimately there is nothing that exists at all, that everything only seems real due to subjective perceptions educed through a huge black cloud of forgetfulness. As it says in the Gospel of Truth, “Forgetfulness did not exist with the Father, although it existed because of him.” If one looks back all the way down the line, then even a totally psychotic, insane existence brought about through lies and forgetfulness could come only from oneself. Although, as it mentions in the Gospel, this mess has nothing to do with oneself

It could be that this whole universe was created as a way to prove the paradox referred to above. Don’t people know all-too-well the experience of powerlessness, of being human? Haven’t they had enough? And that’s just it. This forgetfulness is the preferred method of bringing about certain conditions to the game of life, i.e. seriousness, prolonged participation, loss, particular emotions, desperation, loneliness, the fun of survival through consumption.

Through this example, one can begin to see how a being(?) ultimately begins to split itself into two, into a creator and a creation (actually, this being probably isn’t being just one creation…). The more one “not-ises” or uses denial as a means to erase conditions, the more this seemingly insuperable divide widens. The more one loses touch with oneself as Source the more one’s life is going to seem out of one’s hands. Also, the less communication there is between oneself as God and oneself as creation the more the relationship between the two will fall into the reward/punishment variety. One begins to live a black and white existence that demands enforcement as a means for determining which roads to take in life. In other words, one has begun to become really dumb. One rewards and punishes a dog because that dog lacks the ability to communicate thus understand why it must behave a certain way. The dog only understands yes and no commands—a black and white existence. As a person grows in consciousness, as he or she becomes more pure and aware, the more this person is going to be able to communicate and contact itself as God. This is another way of saying the more truly spiritual one becomes, the more powerful one becomes. (I can remember sitting in session once and feeling the divide between myself and myself as source almost reduce to nothing). The Gnostic Christians seemed to have picked up on this whole idea. This may explain the origin of their theories on the Demiurge (or YHWH as many of them made this association) and the “real” God. They said that the less black one’s heart seemed to be, the more God looked like a loving and forgiving God as opposed to a jealous, unforgiving Judge.

Unconsciousness is not the only way to go about things. Think of the soccer example presented above. The players can touch the ball but they choose not to do it. Although many may make it this way, soccer glaringly lacks the seriousness that pervades the game of life. Perhaps most importantly, one knows that one can always walk away from a game of soccer. One is not stuck on the field with walls on all sides, surrounded by players who have forgotten that they don’t have to play either, players who will do ungodly things to one another just to win.

James Carse had a vision of a new type of game, an infinite game. He expresses in his book the idea of playing through conscious agreement. As he says, one moves when the light turns green, not because the light turns green. Despite overwhelming appearances otherwise, everything is a choice. This is really the only way to play games because, if it ain’t a choice, THE GAME IS PLAYING YOU. When one plays games through conscious choices and agreements, there is no need for enforcement and there remains plenty of room for things like fun, understanding, growth, forgiveness, challenges, freshness, presence of mind and ultimately, departure.
]]> http://www.newciv.org/nl/newslog.php/_v522/__show_article/_a000522-000005.htm 2007-02-14T01:16:05Z 2007-02-14T15:22:03Z

"I'm not a woman, I'm not a man. I am something that you'll never understand." --from I Would Die For You by Prince

* To opponents of homosexuality in general: To try and impose ultimately arbitrary restrictions upon another person is to expose oneself to the same possible oppression. Of course, a person who is propelling these restrictions does not see them as arbitrary and normally has a justification for them, i.e. "It's unnatural," or "The Bible tells us it's wrong." Could this be the source of every conflict? Person(s) A disallowing Person(s) B to freely determine the conditions of Person(s) B's life? It goes without saying that any person is only as free as everyone else, but as far as consenting, willing and able adults: anything should be acceptable.

* Homosexuality has become a haven for males who like/prefer/choose to behave in a feminine manner and for masculine females (Hence the shortage of what are referred to as "tops" amongst male homosexuals). However, homosexuality inherently has nothing to do with males being feminine or females being masculine. In fact, homosexuality is merely an "appearance," for two males may possess the same body type but to attract and thus interact with one another, one will be feminine, the other masculine. In other words, function is senior to form. In the same vein, heterosexuality also is simply an "appearance," heterosexual relationships usually involve an identification of form and function. This does not have to be the case: a male does not need to be masculine and a female does not need to be feminine in a heterosexual relationship. My contention here is that there is no difference between a heterosexual relationship and a homosexual relationship; they both can be reduced to a mere "appearance," where the underlying essence of each lies in the interaction between the androgynous beings involved.

* It seems to me that bisexuality is less acceptable to people than homosexuality. Homosexuality is understand by people like this: a man, similar to a woman, is strictly attracted to men. It's easier for people to make this jump than to accept that a person can be attracted to both males and females.

* Heredity also plays a role in considering sexuality. People who accept homosexuality, including homosexuals themselves, believe that this is "just the way they are." This makes it easier for heterosexuals to accept homosexuality because it becomes this indirect way to reinforce their own sexuality, "Homosexuals are just the way they are...and I am just the way I am--heterosexual!" On the other hand, bisexuality becomes somewhat of a wrench in the spokes in this regard. A person can choose whether to be with a male or female? Rather than reinforcing the idea that one is born a particular way, or is built to strictly behave in a certain fashion, bisexuality says that one can choose, one has the freedom to be with either a male or female.

* There is a trend amongst those concerned with problems stemming from gender roles and sexual repression that there need not be a distinction between masculinity and feminity. They are attempting to reconceptualize gender as transcendent of this binary distinction (crazy, I know).

They are in error. The confusion can easily be solved by distinguishing between male/female and masculine/feminine. The former pair represent physical structures, which are ultimately irrelevent when it comes to whether a person chooses to behave in a masculine or feminine manner. The latter represent function.

Masculinity and feminity are abstractions that signify certain qualities. The two are not exactly divisible--there is a gray area. But transcending this binary distinction entails embracing them, understanding them, confronting the full reality of them both. This is where many go astray with these ideas. They believe that the solution lies in eradicating the distinction, and even perhaps eradicating the vocabulary. However, the confusion lies not in the terms or reality of the terms. It lies in people's lack of understanding, which ultimately translates as people's unwillingness and inability to fully express both sides of the coin.

Furthermore, there is a wonderful side-effect of embracing both functions: one realizes that one is truly neither masculine nor feminine but that these are simply ways in which one can relate to the world (one can certainly relate as neither male or female as well). Here, the result that the mis-guided philosophers have hoped to achieve is achieved, but by the opposite means compared to their recommendations: rushing towards the problem area rather than running away from it, embracing and permeating an area rather than escaping from it.

* One misconception about bisexuality is that it lends itself to over-sexualization, i.e. a bisexual is attracted to everyone. Here again people are introducing this hereditary idea of sexuality into the situation: a person cannot turn on or turn off sexual attraction. A friend once told me that to him, homosexuality was acceptable, but bisexuality represented what he called "total wanton behavior." That is, when a person possesses the desire to "fuck everything in sight."
]]> http://www.newciv.org/nl/newslog.php/_v522/__show_article/_a000522-000004.htm 2007-01-16T13:05:39Z 2007-01-16T13:05:39Z

The other day at work I was being utterly bombarded with passive-aggressive behavior...

The other day at work I was being utterly bombarded with passive-aggressive behavior by my fellow employees. As I was sweeping the floors, I was thinking that the pattern consisted of a failure to act (usually failure to communicate) and then an agressive display as the person threw blame and accusations all over the room. Looking a little more deeply, I realized that this term "passive-agressive" is very accurate on one hand but totally imprecise on the other. It's actually a pattern of someone acting at cause (willfully withholding communication) and then playing the victim (effect). So when I was being confronted by this behavior (in other words, others blaming me for something) I simply looked back to when they willfully failed to do something.

So Jon, my fellow employee, I am sorry but if you wanted someone to clean the dishes so you didn't have to do it you should have spoken up when you were asked. Your failure to communicate is not my responsibilty. I didn't appreciate you blaming me and then accusing me of doing nothing but eating Chinese food and talking on my cell phone. By the way, I wasn't talking, I was checking one voice mail. In case you're wondering, it was my girlfriend and she had to tell me that she had heard The Cars tune "I Think You're Just What I Needed" in her bar. In the end, I simply have to thank you for walking out and forcing me to complete your closing duties for you. I enjoyed sweeping and mopping the floors UNTIL 12:30 IN THE MORNING!!!

What doesn't kill me...]]> http://www.newciv.org/nl/newslog.php/_v522/__show_article/_a000522-000002.htm 2006-11-29T15:54:47Z 2006-11-29T15:54:47Z

Anyone unfamiliar with the ideas of the Sufi Ibn ‘Arabi might be missing out some brilliant ideas and perspectives...

Anyone unfamiliar with the ideas of the Sufi Ibn ‘Arabi might be missing out some brilliant ideas and perspectives. Despite that he was working within a more or less strict cultural environment (as most environments were in the 12 century), exploring his ideas is like taking a breath of fresh air. He seems to have been primarily concerned with delineating the relationship between the higher realities (God), lower realities (the world) and everything in between (Ideas). It’s here that there is a very conspicuous similarity between his ideas and the ideas that in Scientology were called the conditions of existence (see “The Phoenix Lectures” by Hubbard for probably the best elucidations of this concept).

According to ‘Arabi, the only proper attitude to hold towards God (or the Absolute, as he called it) was the synthesis of two perspectives. One was called tanzih and was informed by man’s faculty of reason. This faculty instructs a person that since God is infinite, He cannot be contained in anything of the world. In other words, God is transcendent. The other complementary yet contradictory perspective is that of tashbih was informed by man’s faculty of imagination. Bearing God’s infinite nature in mind, it informs a person that God is every-thing.

So it seems that if God is truly infinite then both of these perspectives must be true, and yet must be false. If God is infinite He cannot be delimited to a finite thing. But this in fact is delimiting God. So He must have the capacity to be contained within space and time. But this is also delimiting God. It’s clear that this paradox is not to be resolved on a normal level of consciousness.

This paradox is also present within Scientology’s ideas known as the conditions of existence. Is-ness is As-isness in the sense that Is-ness could never be without the underlying As-isness giving it its power or reality. Yet Is-ness is not As-isness because it’s there look after look, observation after observation. In other words, reality cannot be As-isness because it persists. Geoffrey Filbert is saying just this when he writes in Excalibur Revisited that all one is ever really dealing with is absolutes.

Not surprisingly, Siddhartha Gotama also presents these ideas but unlike Ibn ‘Arabi, he seems to have elucidated them in a more practical light and in less invalidating manner. Using the anatta doctrine, one realizes more and more that one has nothing whatsoever to do with the world (this mess)--the world is not I. Yet if one practices the Brahmavihhara States, one can be more and more identified with the world--the world am I. Practicing both of these exercises, one approaches the resolution of the paradox that is present in both Ibn ‘Arabi’s ideas about God and the world and Scientology’s ideas called the conditions of existence.

For Ibn ‘Arabi this paradox is the paradox of the transcendence and immanence of God. For Gotama, it concerns the transcendence and immanence of Self. However, to ‘Arabi’s credit, he did not seem to suffer from the normal afflictions of the religiously fervent monotheist. In other words, God was the Self to him.
]]> http://www.newciv.org/nl/newslog.php/_v522/__show_article/_a000522-000001.htm 2006-11-22T17:25:21Z 2006-11-22T17:25:21Z