Abortion

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

The view "say yes to life, all of it", is absurd, as it hosts mutually exclusive options. Life, after all, offers all kinds of things - from having sex to not having sex, from eating banans to eating faeces, from making an effort to choose, to trying not to choose, anything. It is impossible to actually say yes to all of life. Only a madman or a liar would be proponents of "say yes to life, all of it".

But your, and Miller's view is not actually "say yes to life, all of it"; your view is merely a very specific, very choosy way of saying yes to some things, and saying no to many others. It is therefore misleading to call it "say yes to life, all of it".

That's the choice for you? Have sex, don't have sex, deciding between feces or bananas? :bugeye:

Do you know the difference between a strawman and a real argument?

What aspect of the acceptance of life did you not understand? What does it mean to accept it? The idea of saying yes to life is accepting it, to embrace oneself, your nature. Nothing more. The choices you make are the choices you make but you are not speaking of choice when you say that one should only have sex for reproductive purposes, you are advocating a religious based abstinence, not responsible behaviour.

You need to go back and read the post as the meaning has obviously slipped right past you. But actually I don't think you can understand the post because your mind is already rigidly bouncing from black to white 'eat faeces or bananas' 'have sex, don't have sex'. Rigid and without balance.


Have you ever known physical passion? If so did you sit in its reverie and ask 'should I have sex, or not have sex?' Upon considering a meal did you really ask yourself 'should I eat faeces or bananas today?' Seems more like your quandary is whether to 'be or not to be'. Seriously Miller is speaking of embracing ones life and actually living it and enjoying it, no-resistance to pain and suffering, not trying to avoid it. Something you also may not understand as you see ALL of life as a Hell that needs to be 'overcomed'! How bloody anemic! You don't master it you flee from it. Its all a burden and a drudgery. If you have mastered something you need not abstain from it like a bloody alcoholic.

Re-posting:

He was suggesting ACCEPTANCE of all the things we may find disturbing in ourselves as a way of reconciling internal conflicts. So for example, instead of denying ones sexual desires and lust we embrace them. Embracing them doesn't mean we have to physically act on those desires every time they are presented but it also doesn't mean that we have to deny them or shame ourselves or even refrain from acting upon them. Repression leads to the magnification of the impulse and desire. It drives it out of its proper place and makes it 'important', we repress what we fear not what we have mastered. So for example the anorexic feels out of control with food so they repress their hunger and desire for food but they haven't mastered or controlled food or their desire which is why they choose starvation over reasonable, responsible indulgence. Ultimately this cycle of self denial leads to hatred of their bodies, the seat of all desire.

So for example a homosexual who represses his desires because he finds them odious will reject his nature in favor of an illusion about himself (creating further conflict and neurosis). He will grow to hate his desires and externalize it by hating anyone who displays those qualities and even damn those who freely and happily engage in such behaviours. His repression becomes life killing, warped. Finally it limits his ability to experience joy and totality.

Another example is becoming completely disappointed with life and nature because it doesn't conform to our personal morality. So the person who weeps and wimpers over every destructive act will not be able to function in a natural environment rife with destruction, pain, suffering, death and disease (in short change). Instead they will go around believing that the world and nature and the universe should be 'other' than what it actually is. Since they lack the capacity for indifference (detachment), objectivity and acceptance of 'reality' they become neurotic and all of life in its natural flowing form will look and feel odious to him, in short the experience would seem like hell.


As Nin once said "You don't see life as it is, you see it as you are"

Or rather

"Life is without meaning. You bring the meaning to it. The meaning of life is whatever you ascribe it to be. Being alive is the meaning." Joseph Campbell

Joseph Campbell also put it another way, he wrote:

“The warrior's approach is to say "yes" to life: "yea" to it all.”



So go on feces man! Signal, my anemic mate, I have 1000 different ways of drawing your blood via the word.

 

[visceral_instinct]

That's the choice for you? Have sex, don't have sex, deciding between feces or bananas? :bugeye:

Do you know the difference between a strawman and a real argument?

What aspect of the acceptance of life did you not understand? What does it mean to accept it? The idea of saying yes to life is accepting it, to embrace oneself, your nature. Nothing more. The choices you make are the choices you make but you are not speaking of choice when you say that one should only have sex for reproductive purposes, you are advocating a religious based abstinence, not responsible behaviour.

You need to go back and read the post as the meaning has obviously slipped right past you. But actually I don't think you can understand the post because your mind is already rigidly bouncing from black to white 'eat faeces or bananas' 'have sex, don't have sex'. Rigid and without balance.


Have you ever known physical passion? If so did you sit in its reverie and ask 'should I have sex, or not have sex?' Upon considering a meal did you really ask yourself 'should I eat faeces or bananas today?' Seems more like your quandary is whether to 'be or not to be'. Seriously Miller is speaking of embracing ones life and actually living it and enjoying it, no-resistance to pain and suffering, not trying to avoid it. Something you also may not understand as you see ALL of life as a Hell that needs to be 'overcomed'! How bloody anemic! You don't master it you flee from it. Its all a burden and a drudgery. If you have mastered something you need not abstain from it like a bloody alcoholic.

Re-posting:

He was suggesting ACCEPTANCE of all the things we may find disturbing in ourselves as a way of reconciling internal conflicts. So for example, instead of denying ones sexual desires and lust we embrace them. Embracing them doesn't mean we have to physically act on those desires every time they are presented but it also doesn't mean that we have to deny them or shame ourselves or even refrain from acting upon them. Repression leads to the magnification of the impulse and desire. It drives it out of its proper place and makes it 'important', we repress what we fear not what we have mastered. So for example the anorexic feels out of control with food so they repress their hunger and desire for food but they haven't mastered or controlled food or their desire which is why they choose starvation over reasonable, responsible indulgence. Ultimately this cycle of self denial leads to hatred of their bodies, the seat of all desire.

So for example a homosexual who represses his desires because he finds them odious will reject his nature in favor of an illusion about himself (creating further conflict and neurosis). He will grow to hate his desires and externalize it by hating anyone who displays those qualities and even damn those who freely and happily engage in such behaviours. His repression becomes life killing, warped. Finally it limits his ability to experience joy and totality.

Another example is becoming completely disappointed with life and nature because it doesn't conform to our personal morality. So the person who weeps and wimpers over every destructive act will not be able to function in a natural environment rife with destruction, pain, suffering, death and disease (in short change). Instead they will go around believing that the world and nature and the universe should be 'other' than what it actually is. Since they lack the capacity for indifference (detachment), objectivity and acceptance of 'reality' they become neurotic and all of life in its natural flowing form will look and feel odious to him, in short the experience would seem like hell.


As Nin once said "You don't see life as it is, you see it as you are"

Or rather

"Life is without meaning. You bring the meaning to it. The meaning of life is whatever you ascribe it to be. Being alive is the meaning." Joseph Campbell

Joseph Campbell also put it another way, he wrote:

“The warrior's approach is to say "yes" to life: "yea" to it all.”



So go on feces man! Signal, my anemic mate, I have 1000 different ways of drawing your blood via the word.

Oh man. I gotta give this an award for best post ever.

 

[lightgigantic]

That's the choice for you? Have sex, don't have sex, deciding between feces or bananas? :bugeye:

Do you know the difference between a strawman and a real argument?

What aspect of the acceptance of life did you not understand? What does it mean to accept it? The idea of saying yes to life is accepting it, to embrace oneself, your nature. Nothing more. The choices you make are the choices you make but you are not speaking of choice when you say that one should only have sex for reproductive purposes, you are advocating a religious based abstinence, not responsible behaviour.

You need to go back and read the post as the meaning has obviously slipped right past you. But actually I don't think you can understand the post because your mind is already rigidly bouncing from black to white 'eat faeces or bananas' 'have sex, don't have sex'. Rigid and without balance.


Have you ever known physical passion? If so did you sit in its reverie and ask 'should I have sex, or not have sex?' Upon considering a meal did you really ask yourself 'should I eat faeces or bananas today?' Seems more like your quandary is whether to 'be or not to be'. Seriously Miller is speaking of embracing ones life and actually living it and enjoying it, no-resistance to pain and suffering, not trying to avoid it. Something you also may not understand as you see ALL of life as a Hell that needs to be 'overcomed'! How bloody anemic! You don't master it you flee from it. Its all a burden and a drudgery. If you have mastered something you need not abstain from it like a bloody alcoholic.

Re-posting:

He was suggesting ACCEPTANCE of all the things we may find disturbing in ourselves as a way of reconciling internal conflicts. So for example, instead of denying ones sexual desires and lust we embrace them. Embracing them doesn't mean we have to physically act on those desires every time they are presented but it also doesn't mean that we have to deny them or shame ourselves or even refrain from acting upon them. Repression leads to the magnification of the impulse and desire. It drives it out of its proper place and makes it 'important', we repress what we fear not what we have mastered. So for example the anorexic feels out of control with food so they repress their hunger and desire for food but they haven't mastered or controlled food or their desire which is why they choose starvation over reasonable, responsible indulgence. Ultimately this cycle of self denial leads to hatred of their bodies, the seat of all desire.

So for example a homosexual who represses his desires because he finds them odious will reject his nature in favor of an illusion about himself (creating further conflict and neurosis). He will grow to hate his desires and externalize it by hating anyone who displays those qualities and even damn those who freely and happily engage in such behaviours. His repression becomes life killing, warped. Finally it limits his ability to experience joy and totality.

Another example is becoming completely disappointed with life and nature because it doesn't conform to our personal morality. So the person who weeps and wimpers over every destructive act will not be able to function in a natural environment rife with destruction, pain, suffering, death and disease (in short change). Instead they will go around believing that the world and nature and the universe should be 'other' than what it actually is. Since they lack the capacity for indifference (detachment), objectivity and acceptance of 'reality' they become neurotic and all of life in its natural flowing form will look and feel odious to him, in short the experience would seem like hell.


As Nin once said "You don't see life as it is, you see it as you are"

Or rather

"Life is without meaning. You bring the meaning to it. The meaning of life is whatever you ascribe it to be. Being alive is the meaning." Joseph Campbell

Joseph Campbell also put it another way, he wrote:

“The warrior's approach is to say "yes" to life: "yea" to it all.”



So go on feces man! Signal, my anemic mate, I have 1000 different ways of drawing your blood via the word.

This is bogus philosophy.

True, repression achieves nothing (and in many cases, worse outcomes), but the idea that one can wield desire alone as a sufficient blueprint for drawing up one's nature is total nonsense. Rather one takes a desire and proceeds with "now that I have it, how am I going to utilize it".

IOW a whole swag of values, conditions and impressions (or one's "nature") comes to bear on how one acts (or alternatively, chooses not to act) on a desire. The only thing more stupid than to suggest that one doesn't partake of renunciation is to suggest that one doesn't partake of attachment.
IOW its our nature that determines how actionable our desire is

For instance, take the example of sex.

You advocate that the passion of the act is what stands unchallenged.
Someone else advocates that the ability to follow through with the commitment to what normally ensues is what stands unchallenged.

In both scenarios there are values that detail whether the said party will proceed with the act or renounce it. IOW both of them are saying a yes (or a potential no) to life - the conflict lies in the values that frame the "yes"

A critique on who comes out the better is not achieved by heralding one's call to pleasure (after all a hog could suddenly enter the assembly and set us straight on whats the most delightful thing to eat).
IOW trying to set the audience straight doesn't require a disclosure on the heights of one's pleasure or the frequency of it (which seems to be what your doing for your authoritative call of the role of sex - I mean if the pursuit of pleasure is what one is after, then of course one would be doing it more frequently since one has less to factor in - much like a reduced sense of discrimination enables a hog more frequent occasions for joy at the banquet table than any other ) - Such disclosure however is certainly effective for preaching amongst the converted .....

Rather a critique of who comes out the better is achieved by looking at the values that underpin it.
I think signal's point is that a world view that only encapsulates one's pleasure is necessarily more shallow and small than a world view that encapsulates looking at the consequences of the pursuit of such pleasure.
So to come back to Nin's quote - You don't see life as it is, you see it as you are - the aperture of life afforded by what you suggest is necessarily more reduced.

Actually the ability to fall in with the latter, or the ability to see the ramifications of one's acts and act accordingly, is what we generally classify as "wisdom".

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Oh shut up LG, no one put coins into you.

No one spoke of a philosophy you retard its a perspective.

Your response just shows how much nonsense you can spout on something you STILL mis-comprehend. Calls to pleasure, hight's of pleasure and frequency, what a tool you are! Please don't offer gibberish as a response if you don't know what the fuck was posted. What do YOU know of pleasure after all? All you know is the 'wisdom' written in books or that you hear at the ashram. Wisdom, the quality of having experience, is what you are LACKING. That is why you sound like some tin cup banging against crystal on the bloody subject of 'pleasure' or even pain for that matter. Urgh!

Now run along I'm sure there's a guru somewhere waiting to change your nappies.

 

[lightgigantic]

Oh shut up LG, no one put coins into you.

your services also come free of charge

No one spoke of a philosophy you retard its a perspective.

perspective without philosophy?
interesting
:scratchin:

Now run along I'm sure there's a guru somewhere waiting to change your nappies.

You would you recommend?
Anais Nin?

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

The post has been edited. I suggest you put down your penis and go back and read it.

Nin? She's an artist. Lived a full rich life.

Perspective comes with experience, philosophy without experience breeds people like you spouting things they learned from others but nevertheless fail to understand.

I don't service anyone, unlike yourself. Meanwhile I'm sure god wouldn't want you as a water boy such a witless bore you are.

 

[lightgigantic]

The post has been edited. I suggest you put down your penis and go back and read it.

Your genital fixation aside, your re-edit doesn't add much except a further sojourn into your talents for name calling
:shrug:

Nin? She's an artist. Lived a full rich life.

lol
correction
she lived a life

Perspective comes with experience, philosophy without experience breeds people like you spouting things they learned from others but nevertheless fail to understand.

the truth is that you are not an island of such complexity

I don't service anyone, unlike yourself.

6000+ posts of pure neutrality
impressive!

Meanwhile I'm sure god wouldn't want you as a water boy such a witless bore you are.

actually a good job description for a witless bore is someone who insists on seeing the world through their insignificant desire

(I guess they become slightly entertaining when they add a bit of searing name calling to their charade of hosing down the deck with estrogen/testosterone .... as the case may be)

 

[wynn]

As Nin once said "You don't see life as it is, you see it as you are"

Or rather

"Life is without meaning. You bring the meaning to it. The meaning of life is whatever you ascribe it to be. Being alive is the meaning." Joseph Campbell

Joseph Campbell also put it another way, he wrote:

“The warrior's approach is to say "yes" to life: "yea" to it all.”

 

[wynn]

Oh shut up LG, no one put coins into you.

No one spoke of a philosophy you retard its a perspective.

Your response just shows how much nonsense you can spout on something you STILL mis-comprehend. Calls to pleasure, hight's of pleasure and frequency, what a tool you are! Please don't offer gibberish as a response if you don't know what the fuck was posted. What do YOU know of pleasure after all? All you know is the 'wisdom' written in books or that you hear at the ashram. Wisdom, the quality of having experience, is what you are LACKING. That is why you sound like some tin cup banging against crystal on the bloody subject of 'pleasure' or even pain for that matter. Urgh!

Now run along I'm sure there's a guru somewhere waiting to change your nappies.

Sweetie, the moment you are able to create one cubic milimeter of space or one second of time, I will bow to you. But no sooner.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Sweetie, the moment you are able to create one cubic milimeter of space or one second of time, I will bow to you. But nosooner.

No I'm not looking for sycophants. Try responding to the post I wrote you. No, its easier and less challenging to post pics. Are you beginning to merge with LG? Haha! I understand, its a little too difficult to stand alone and defend or comprehend a post isn't it zygotes?

LOL! I love it! One little nudge and both of you slip off your lotus flower :roflmao:

But hey anyone reading this can see I actually made efforts to READ and RESPOND to the issue at hand. Both of you either obfuscate, attack posts that weren't directed towards them and even like to wallow in the mire. Well done my chaps

May the godless be with you :thumbsup:

Fucking posers the both of you!

 

[wynn]

No I'm not looking for sycophants. Try responding to the post I wrote you. No, its easier and less challenging to post pics. Are you beginning to merge with LG? Haha! I understand, its a little too difficult to stand alone and defend or comprehend a post isn't it zygotes?

LOL! I love it! One little nudge and both of you slip off your lotus flower :roflmao:

But hey anyone reading this can see I actually made efforts to READ and RESPOND to the issue at hand. Both of you either obfuscate, attack posts that weren't directed towards them and even like to wallow in the mire. Well done my chaps

May the godless be with you :thumbsup:

Fucking posers the both of you!

Oh well, like they say:

Never wrestle a pig. You'll get dirty and the pig will like it.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Or, like they say, never hold a mirror up to the self-deluded as their posture will collapse.

 

[lightgigantic]

....
But hey anyone reading this can see I actually made efforts to READ and RESPOND to the issue at hand. ....

just don't look in that mirror, sis

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

just don't look in that mirror, sis

Is that the best you can do? :bugeye:

Re-use my own remarks? You haven't provided a mirror you nit wit! Maybe you should take a page out of Signals book, at least he caught the gist of 'One little nudge and both of you slip off your lotus flower...and even like to wallow in the mire.'

What paltry brains were bestowed upon thee

But here, I'm feeling generous tonight, maybe this will seep through the concrete of your rigid, obtuse mind:


Jiddu Krishnamurti : Can understanding be given by another? Can love be taught? Can a guru, a teacher, or a book lead you to love? Can they teach you how to be merciful, to be generous, and the way of understanding? Can you follow another and be free? Can you accept authority and yet be free? Surely there is creativeness only when there is freedom, inward freedom, when there is no fear, no imitation. Understanding comes only through self-knowledge, the knowledge of your total process, and not one part of it, the psychological or the physical, for they are interactive. Who is the ignorant man? An ignorant man is he who does not know himself, the learned man is ignorant if he does not know himself. The merely learned man, by giving wrong value to knowledge, is caught in the net of his own stupidity.


There is no creative joy in following, in copying an example; creativeness comes into being only where there is freedom.

 

[lightgigantic]

Is that the best you can do? :bugeye:

Re-use my own remarks? You haven't provided a mirror you nit wit! Maybe you should take a page out of Signals book, at least he caught the gist of 'One little nudge and both of you slip off your lotus flower...and even like to wallow in the mire.'

What paltry brains were bestowed upon thee

But here, I'm feeling generous tonight, maybe this will seep through the concrete of your rigid, obtuse mind:


Jiddu Krishnamurti : Can understanding be given by another? Can love be taught? Can a guru, a teacher, or a book lead you to love? Can they teach you how to be merciful, to be generous, and the way of understanding? Can you follow another and be free? Can you accept authority and yet be free? Surely there is creativeness only when there is freedom, inward freedom, when there is no fear, no imitation. Understanding comes only through self-knowledge, the knowledge of your total process, and not one part of it, the psychological or the physical, for they are interactive. Who is the ignorant man? An ignorant man is he who does not know himself, the learned man is ignorant if he does not know himself. The merely learned man, by giving wrong value to knowledge, is caught in the net of his own stupidity.


There is no creative joy in following, in copying an example; creativeness comes into being only where there is freedom.

I'm not sure how this post lends credibility to your tirade
If you're trying to say you accept no teachers and this is what has contributed to the brilliance of your being and the unsurpassed excellence of your world view, why quote someone?
:shrug:

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Oh boy. *shakes head*

I give up! You don't see the difference in acknowledging a quote as a quote and simply using someone's else's offensive IN THE EXACT FORM IT WAS THRUSTED AT YOU as an offensive to the same person who originally created it. The usage on your part is weak but you did so anyway.

You're a lost cause my friend. Go. I free you to remain the twit that you are.

Evidently the twit also didn't understand the substance of Krishnamurti's quotes either.

 

[lightgigantic]

Oh boy. *shakes head*

I give up! You don't see the difference in acknowledging a quote as a quote and simply using someone's else's offensive IN THE EXACT FORM IT WAS THRUSTED AT YOU as an offensive to the same person who originally created it. The usage on your part is weak but you did so anyway.

You're a lost cause my friend. Go. I free you to remain the twit that you are.

Evidently the twit also didn't understand the substance of Krishnamurti's quotes either.

I just think it would be better if such persons would actually follow their teachings and not initiate or impart any sort of instruction .. since that is apparently a big no-no in their books

 

[wynn]

I just think it would be better if such persons would actually follow their teachings and not initiate or impart any sort of instruction .. since that is apparently a big no-no in their books

He he. There was a discussion on this before, with Lucy. Said Carcano:

He never claimed to teach anything yet they kept going to ask. I think if anyone really listens and understands what he says they would not seek him out for anything, it was always those who were looking for a 'beyond' that kept going back to U.G or seeking him out to begin with.

Very well then, he should have simply met them at the door and told them to go away...with an idle hand gesture.

"There is no spiritual dimension, no vedanta tradition, no beyond, ok? You're all just biochemical machines programmed by selfish genes in a universe of random molecular accidents. Go and stimulate the pleasure centers of your brain until you keel over and die. Case closed...bye!"

See how easy that was? No books, no fame, nothing to teach aside from the same line you've heard a billion times from the prevailing high priests of nihilistic materialism.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2333319&postcount=63

 

[Lori_7]

Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund
People can also see thangs that ant thar an be burdoned by it.!!!



Do you thank i woud be happier if i beleived like you do.???

who cares? what in the hell does happiness have to do with this!?!

 

[mordea]

There is so much shit on the last page of this thread, that if I printed it out, it would not be fit to wipe my asshole.