|
Home > Archive > Abuse recovery > June 2006 > Love and mental jujitsu
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Love and mental jujitsu
|
|
| William Blake Jr. 2006-06-28, 4:20 pm |
| When one loves someone passionately, there are many who want to portray
such a thing as a sin and tell them instead to love everything.
When that is done, someone like Gail Klein (ed. note: poster on another
group) comes in to say that when one loves everything what one loves is
really oneself, as according to her ideology everything is reflection
of self and what one loves when one loves everyone ultimately then is
oneself.
This attitude she then equates with narcissism.
But you have just said that preferential love is a sin! And then you go
and say that general love is nothing more than narcissism!
In light of such manipulations, it becomes requisite then to bring back
the preferential, passionate, human love, in which one loves someone or
something outside of oneself, or outside any expanded concept of
oneself, for their inherent worth and inherent magnificence. To love,
that is, someone or something that is quite, quite different from
oneself or any expanded concept of self, and not only to love generally
but passinately and preferentially, valuing them for their wonderful
qualities - qualities that furthermore are distinct from anything that
is found in self, and that can therefore in no way be seen as any kind
of self-reflection.
In light of this therefore I say this:
I love what, and whom, I love -
For their inherent worth and inherent splendor.
I do not see myself in flowers I kiss; I do not see myself in clouds
and storms I write poetry about; I do not see myself in the Renaissance
art; I do not see myself in Yosemite Park; I certainly do not see
myself in Julia's photographs or kind and beautiful ladies or people I
care about.
I love the people and things I love for what they are, in and of
themselves.
And that constitutes removal from self (or anything that such things
make one feel about self, or seeing in others reflection of self, or
expanded concept of self, or anything similar) -
which makes the love involved directed externally, particularly and
precisely, without any feedback loop into the self -
And if general love is to be labeled a form of bringing all things to
the self, then this is a way of bringing good things to others.
Ilya Shambat.
| |
|
| "William Blake Jr." <ibshambat@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1151517851.734575.135200@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I do not see myself in flowers I kiss;
but since flowers have neither any desire to be kissed by you nor any
response to being kissed by you, you may be able to grasp that you don't
kiss them as any sort of caring or nurturing gesture toward them, but to
celebrate your own love of the fact that you (splendid being that you are)
love flowers.
now if you could bring yourself to stop blathering on about it and take up
the study of horticulture, that would be moderately interesting to hear
about. but you know, everyone likes flowers. the fact that you love them
isn't interesting to anyone but you, and you pontificate on your love as if
it were of mandatory interest to the world because... you're a narcissist.
the proof of this is that one gleans absolutely nothing of the things and
people you write about except how you feel about them. no idea of what
flowers are like, or renaissance art is like, or julia is like. they're all
just thin covers for you.
and so for all that follows.
> I do not see myself in clouds
> and storms I write poetry about; I do not see myself in the Renaissance
> art; I do not see myself in Yosemite Park; I certainly do not see
> myself in Julia's photographs or kind and beautiful ladies or people I
> care about.
>
> I love the people and things I love for what they are, in and of
> themselves.
>
> And that constitutes removal from self (or anything that such things
> make one feel about self, or seeing in others reflection of self, or
> expanded concept of self, or anything similar) -
>
> which makes the love involved directed externally, particularly and
> precisely, without any feedback loop into the self -
>
> And if general love is to be labeled a form of bringing all things to
> the self, then this is a way of bringing good things to others.
>
> Ilya Shambat.
>
| |
| William Blake Jr. 2006-06-29, 2:20 am |
|
cal wrote:
> "William Blake Jr." <ibshambat@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1151517851.734575.135200@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> but since flowers have neither any desire to be kissed by you nor any
> response to being kissed by you, you may be able to grasp that you don't
> kiss them as any sort of caring or nurturing gesture toward them, but to
> celebrate your own love of the fact that you (splendid being that you are)
> love flowers.
>
> now if you could bring yourself to stop blathering on about it and take up
> the study of horticulture, that would be moderately interesting to hear
> about. but you know, everyone likes flowers. the fact that you love them
> isn't interesting to anyone but you, and you pontificate on your love as if
> it were of mandatory interest to the world because... you're a narcissist.
>
> the proof of this is that one gleans absolutely nothing of the things and
> people you write about except how you feel about them. no idea of what
> flowers are like, or renaissance art is like, or julia is like. they're all
> just thin covers for you.
You don't know what you are talking about.
First of all, much of my writing (especially pieces about nature, such
as "Snowstorm," "Sunset Clouds" and "Heat Lightning") precisely express
the essence of things, and not only that but draw parallels between
them and all kinds of other things, arriving at a far more complete
representation than if I were to only describe them as they appeared.
Secondly, there is nothing wrong in combining expressions of how I feel
about something with expressions of what I see in them. Yes, there are
poems where I am only talking about my feelings for someone or
something; they are far from a majority. In most, what I do is combine
mind and heart, or the external observation and internal emotional
experience, to come up with a far more complete picture - one that sees
the internal experience and external effects - than if I were to
operate from either perspective acting alone. If you have not noticed,
most of my Julia poems ("Abyss full of Stars," "Enchantress," "Heaven
in her Mind" and others) do just that. In fact I've written an essay
("Applications of Integrative Cognition") where I speak about this
method and show how it can be applied to all kinds of situations and
pursuits, from journalism to psychiatry to art.
Third, I have been putting out things that I believe can be of benefit
to people (including the aforementioned essay), in spite of the hatred
that has been coming at me, because I believe that these things can be
of benefit to some of the people in the audience. Someone concerned
only with his self-interest or his ego would do such a thing.
Finally, and this is most important: When intelligence becomes a club -
a way of thinking, a paradigm - it stops being intelligent and becomes
stupid. People prevail upon each other to think the same way, and in
the process they attack or trivialize or worse any other perspectives,
thus creating a groupthink leading people to commit hideous errors
under the name of intelligence. It is then that it becomes necessary to
untie gordian knots that form under such circumstances -
something that can be only done through integrative cognition.
So I tell you what. Read the things I've told you about, check my
weblog at http://ibshambat.blogspot.com, and tell me if what I write is
only a gloss for myself, or if I don't care about anyone, or if I am
somebody who is lacking in compassion. And then we can compare notes.
Ilya Shambat.
| |
| William Blake Jr. 2006-06-29, 2:20 am |
|
William Blake Jr. wrote:
cal wrote:
"William Blake Jr." <ibshambat@hotmail.comwrote in message
news:1151517851.734575.135200@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>but since flowers have neither any desire to be kissed by you nor any
>response to being kissed by you, you may be able to grasp that you don't
>kiss them as any sort of caring or nurturing gesture toward them, but to
>celebrate your own love of the fact that you (splendid being that you are)
>love flowers.
>
>now if you could bring yourself to stop blathering on about it and take up
>the study of horticulture, that would be moderately interesting to hear
>about. but you know, everyone likes flowers. the fact that you love them
>isn't interesting to anyone but you, and you pontificate on your love as if
>it were of mandatory interest to the world because... you're a narcissist.
>
>the proof of this is that one gleans absolutely nothing of the things and
>people you write about except how you feel about them. no idea of what
>flowers are like, or renaissance art is like, or julia is like. they're all
>just thin covers for you.
You don't know what you are talking about.
First of all, much of my writing (especially pieces about nature, such
as "Snowstorm," "Sunset Clouds" and "Heat Lightning") precisely express
the essence of things, and not only that but draw parallels between
them and all kinds of other things, arriving at a far more complete
representation than if I were to only describe them as they appeared.
Secondly, there is nothing wrong in combining expressions of how I feel
about something with expressions of what I see in them. Yes, there are
poems where I am only talking about my feelings for someone or
something; they are far from a majority. In most, what I do is combine
mind and heart, or the external observation and internal emotional
experience, to come up with a far more complete picture - one that sees
the internal experience and external effects - than if I were to
operate from either perspective acting alone. If you have not noticed,
most of my Julia poems ("Abyss full of Stars," "Enchantress," "Heaven
in her Mind" and others) do just that. In fact I've written an essay
("Applications of Integrative Cognition") where I speak about this
method and show how it can be applied to all kinds of situations and
pursuits, from journalism to psychiatry to art.
Third, I have been putting out things that I believe can be of benefit
to people (including the aforementioned essay), in spite of the hatred
that has been coming at me, because I believe that these things can be
of benefit to some of the people in the audience. Someone concerned
only with his self-interest or his ego would never do such a thing.
Finally, and this is most important: When intelligence becomes a club -
a way of thinking, a paradigm - it stops being intelligent and becomes
stupid. People prevail upon each other to think the same way, and in
the process they attack or trivialize or worse any other perspectives,
thus creating a groupthink leading people to commit hideous errors
under the name of intelligence. It is then that it becomes necessary to
untie gordian knots that form under such circumstances -
something that can be only done through integrative cognition.
So I tell you what. Read the things I've told you about, check my
weblog at http://ibshambat.blogspot.com, and tell me if what I write is
only a gloss for myself, or if I don't care about anyone, or if I am
somebody who is lacking in compassion. And then we can compare notes.
Ilya Shambat.
| |
| Yalki Palki 2006-06-29, 8:21 am |
|
"cal" <cal1360@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e7ujha$32m$1@news.datemas.de...
> "William Blake Jr." <ibshambat@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1151517851.734575.135200@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> but since flowers have neither any desire to be kissed by you nor any
> response to being kissed by you, you may be able to grasp that you don't
> kiss them as any sort of caring or nurturing gesture toward them, but to
> celebrate your own love of the fact that you (splendid being that you are)
> love flowers.
>
> now if you could bring yourself to stop blathering on about it and take up
> the study of horticulture, that would be moderately interesting to hear
> about. but you know, everyone likes flowers. the fact that you love them
> isn't interesting to anyone but you, and you pontificate on your love as
> if
> it were of mandatory interest to the world because... you're a narcissist.
>
> the proof of this is that one gleans absolutely nothing of the things and
> people you write about except how you feel about them. no idea of what
> flowers are like, or renaissance art is like, or julia is like. they're
> all
> just thin covers for you.
>
> and so for all that follows.
>
Ilya is a 40 year old guy who still lives at home, has no job and wears
Batman pajamas.
| |
|
| On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 06:29:59 -0400, "Yalki Palki"
<WoHochtDieBus@Bumsenbombers.de> wrote:
<shit flushed>
XXXX off, moron
| |
|
| "William Blake Jr." <ibshambat@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1151552484.106138.251450@x69g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
> So I tell you what. Read the things I've told you about, check my
> weblog at http://ibshambat.blogspot.com, and tell me if what I write is
> only a gloss for myself, or if I don't care about anyone, or if I am
> somebody who is lacking in compassion. And then we can compare notes.
i don't think narcissistic writing is a literary crime, or even particularly
offensive. for me it just lacks the virtue of being interesting, which isn't
compensated for by quantity nor answered by being invited to read more and
more of it.
nor do i claim that everything i've read by you is narcissistic. but it's
the dominant attitude and taste, and the defence you're trying to mount here
is also narcissistic. i have no wish to get into a belabored discussion
about you. incredibly, you're not that important to me. i've stated my
opinion and i leave it with you.
| |
|
| "Yalki Palki" <WoHochtDieBus@Bumsenbombers.de> wrote in message
news:AYNog.2099$UT.104@fe08.lga...
>
> "cal" <cal1360@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:e7ujha$32m$1@news.datemas.de...
>
> Ilya is a 40 year old guy who still lives at home, has no job and wears
> Batman pajamas.
i don't know anything about the circumstances of his life, and have no
reaction to comments like this apart from noting a malice in them which
puzzles me. from his writing alone, i form the impression of an intelligent,
reasonably cultivated, but emotionally arrested individual who's been
struggling for years to catch up... and has made some headway.
| |
|
|
"cal" <cal1360@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e80p07$ij2$1@news.datemas.de...
> "Yalki Palki" <WoHochtDieBus@Bumsenbombers.de> wrote in message
> news:AYNog.2099$UT.104@fe08.lga...
>
> i don't know anything about the circumstances of his life, and have no
> reaction to comments like this apart from noting a malice in them which
> puzzles me. from his writing alone, i form the impression of an
> intelligent,
> reasonably cultivated, but emotionally arrested individual who's been
> struggling for years to catch up... and has made some headway.
>
Headway? Where? His poetry is the product of a child's mind. While a child
may create something simple and yet beautiful, his is not. It is elementary,
unsophisticated and mechanical and ultimately quite boring and tedious.
|
| |
|
|