Yoga - Hooting with the owls

Author

Hooting with the owls

ibshambat2004@hotmail.com

2005-07-20, 2:08 pm

So Mr. Bat had a fine ole night hooting with the owls! And not only the

owls, but the howls. The owls make the howls and the howls make the
owls and over the backbone of the H they form a mirror image of each
other. As in, eviLive.

It's been a fine night for Mr. Bat, out on the streets of Alexandria.
First I read Mr. Khodorkovsky's epistle from the jail: "True freedom is

within," "a result of pursuing one's principles" - and of course the
main question to ask is, "Are your principles truly yours?" And then,
"By what authority?" And then, "After what process?" And finally, "To
what extent true?" (and of course the idea that transitional stuff is
destructive: No, you first reject what you don't like, then you figure
out what you do like and affirm it). (and the correlated concept of
self-awareness: Self-awareness in terms of a false set of beliefs is
wrong and can only be done in terms of true beliefs) (and the corollary

concept of taking responsibility for one's life: That only becomes
possible truly when you've studied and experienced and have an informed

knowledge of what you truly want: all else leads to wasted lives).
After philosophy class (continuing education program) at the community
college, in which was discussed Spinosa's concept of God being
self-existing manifesting through all people who are modes (and it is
the purpose of the mode, I presume, to refract the light until it
creates a picture that is most appealing, with each mode shaped by
substance & reshaping substance and self and - hey, Mr. Self-existing
One, could you please notice me and what I've done with your substance
(oh and tell me the true causes of things, in what cases it's linear &
in what cases it's over-determined & in what cases it's a web & of what

or what behind the web (and as a mode could I be good this way or could

I be good another way or could I let you be me for a second so you
could show me the ropes or could you let me in your shoes here for a
moment so I have compassion for you or could you and I work together
here for a second and to reshape one another with our essentiality so
that we could establish flux between the self-existing and the
merely-existing and allow the emanation to respond to the core with
experimental results its actions [true/false/transcendent] while the
core enlightens the emanation with its continued manifestations of
self-existence) - I see this fashionable black woman rubbing lotion on
her hands, and I say she smells tasty, and she asks "Do you want to eat

me?"

So I get out of class, it's 10:25, my bus leaves, it's a gorgeous
summer night so I walk down the street. I keep hearing "Theirs not to
make reply, theirs not to reason why, theirs but to do and die" - while

professors leave the parking lot, one in a Beetle - and I keep merrily
heading down the road, occasionally kissing a flower. I see the den of
the enchanted she-spider hanging in the air between the trees. That den

of the enchanted she-spider, thank the grounds of being for that, I can

just get lost in those embraces and those enfoldments and that gentle
caressing mist between trees seeking to shroud life with its delicacy
and bring it into its complete resplendor. And all night long it's
something with "95" (year of the enchanting she-spider) it's something
with "56" (year of my muse) or the next number "57" (year of Sputnik in

space - not coincidental) it's something with "7:07" or "9:11" or all
along the same line.

I remember from previously: The movement outward is hardest from most
closed-minded places and easiest from most open-minded. The worst ones
are the hardest, while the better ones are freer because much of the
work has been done for you. The places with greatest political and
social obstacles are ones that have least to offer, and whose people
have most legitimate reason to go somewhere else. The same is true for
all propaganda, family-values, militaristic, religious, Marxist,
feminist or any other: The less the place has to offer and the worse it

is, the more propaganda and moral bludgeoning it requires. Which
creates an inverse relationship between actual moral quality of the
social order and amount of moralizing done by the social order. A
social order that is most malignant is one that is most moralizing. The

more malignant, the more moralizing; the more actually morally
upstanding, the less propaganda and moralizing required. Which is the
reason that moralizing societies lead to the worst abuses against
people. Some think this is coincidental, I see direct and inevitable
relationship.

I see some toughs loitering outside King's Pizza and wait at bus
station, walking around the corner and stand at bus stop watching
restorateurs leave in cabs, and here I am again in treespace while bus
does not come and I keep walking. And there I run into the whole
sociopath nonsense and say in response that that is a concept that
underlies the economic system and political system and to apply it to
Wollmann without applying it to Gates is despicable - and then I keep
reiterating: What we have here is a science selling out to a political
interest: adopting as health the interest of American middle class and
its dogmas and pathologizing what speaks otherwise: That it speaks to
American dogmas rather than Soviet ones does not make it any less of a
manipulation: And that once again the perceived pathology includes
everyone from Voltaire to Rockefeller, Carnegie and Wolfowitz onwards -

and that the entire economic system is based upon it and yes Cujo that
means you.

And then I notice something more on this issue: Through manipulation of

social climate and attitudes and actions and reactions pursuant those
attitudes, consequences are assigned to actions that are not natural,
but rather artificial & create an impression of good actions being bad
and bad actions being good. We see that run through all societies and
times. We have, for example, Pakis saying that romance is disastrous
and proving it by killing those who fall in love. We have, for example,

Cubans saying that business is antisocial and proving it by killing
those who do business. The idea of God being through all things is used

to excuse deliberate social manipulation, by modes and creators of
modes, as though those were divinely ordained rather than manmade. The
obvious problem is that substance may manifest through nodes, but
nodes, involving choice, mean that they are not obligated to the ground

of being but are as such nodes capable of deliberate choice,
God-ordained or not!

And then it is used to impose this order as though it was divine. Which

requires calling the bluff. If God is through all things, in other
words, then not only the order you create but the order I create is
manifestation of God - as is the order created by any of your other
enemies.

So we have environmental science claim that environment exists
according to its order, unless disturbed by man (devil #1). We have
systems like Confucianism that claim society as a matter of social
order having a place for everyone - place according to divine order -
unless that order is disturbed by man's ego (devil #2). We have
economic science that has applied this to economic activity and said
that all things are guided by "invisible hand" when in a "free-market"
context, with everyone competing against everyone, unless disturbed by
intellectually conceived and goal-directed political action (devil #3),

even as this same science adopts will and ego and montarily defined
self-interest (combination of devil #1 and devil #2) as basic concept
of legitimate human interest and claims the competition within
framework of law to be the natural order. After which we have the
concept of intellectual-political action uniting people in what it
believes to be intellectually right ideology; that seeks to educate
people based on intellectual and philosophical ideas and shared
interest (and which the economic mindset sees as meddling or evil or
arrogance - the same way the social interest was to the economic
mindset from the beginning - even as the media-intellectual-political
ideas created anyway necessitate for the people to move toward a place
of politics and philosophy and awareness of their civilization beyond
the dogmas of laissez-faire and even to protect laissez-faire demand
political and intellectual action on the part of the business class).
In this political-intellectual order the devil (devil #4) is
spirituality, which main proponents of this ideology see as being one
or another form of mental malfunction - much like the capitalists think

of the political-intellectual. Once that stops working, after many
corpses and disfigurements, and people start realizing after collossal
battling that, no, spiritual experience is real, the next step seeks to

create an order of people united in their spiritual experience and
loyal to their knowledge and conception of the divine. In that order,
the devil #5 is attained will (the people familiar with the subject
know what I'm talking about). In all cases, we see a concept of nature,

then society, then economy, then intelligence, then spirituality, then
attained will, being divine; which order in all cases starts through
one or another stage of will-assertion. Each level considers itself
divine - unless disturbed by the artifact of man's deliberate act of
choice and of will as it stands to disrupt these supposedly divine
workings. And what each level fails to understand is that the case of
something being divine does not make what goes to the next level less
divine.

Each of these deified orders regard the next one as being demonic in
origin. It refers to it as one or another form of hubris, without
realising that according to a previous order it itself has been
regarded as hubris, and that what works is for gradations of hubris to
build on itself! We have Dan Mocnsny here, an evolutionist, saying that

the problem with the world is that "freaks won't know their place" when

if his belief in evolution is true then it is the freaks that are the
source of all evolution, and it is their "place" to move the world
forward (and yes Dan, you most certainly are a freak and there is
nothing remotely bad about it - the problem is what you do with your
mutation). The social order is based on man - the demon vis-a-vis the
natural order. The capitalist economy is based on ego - the demon
vis-a-vis the social order. The politics and ideology are based on
ideology-based action, which is the demon vis-a-vis capitalism. The
same dynamics work at the next levels. And what we are seeing at every
level is, essentially, demonization of the next stage of liberty, until

it is either supplanted by it or unless it subverts it to perpetuate
itself.

How do I define liberty? AN ACT OF DIRECTING WILL DELIBERATELY. Liberty

is an act of saying, essentially, I EXIST. And as corollary of that: I
direct my action. And note to Gail and Mickey: Whether you like it or
not (and note number 2: If God did not like arrogance then he would not

have created signs Leo and Scorpio, and especially He would not have
created a Scorpio with Leo rising, Pluto opposite Jupiter and Uranus
square Saturn).

The interesting part consists, once again, in the absolute insistence
of each preceding order ind the demonic quality of the coming one. The
new order gives promise to lift man to a higher level; the previous
order attacks by claiming that motive to be based in thinking oneself
better than the authority by which the order is believed to be ordained

(and to which will is made to believe to be subjugated). Essentially
each order considers the preceding level to be divine and the following

one as based in disruption of divine order. Both are right, and both
are wrong. If all is God, then so is what man does (and to all the
you-think-you're-God people, the response is: "ye are gods" is part of
the New Testament, it's a matter of how you use it). As the situation
rises, the deliberateness quotient rises, but the complexity of the
system builds. The life becomes more free of the preceding level, but
more tied to the following level. The devil becomes the shaper and is
then himself exceeded.

Now based on similar observations made two centuries ago, was developed

a historical inevitability model: That politics would overcome
capitalism and lead to a global order based on all-unifying political
action based in shared interest of all. The problem with this model was

a problem common to Tauruses: A grossly incomplete concept of human
nature, that accepts what he believes to be bottom line as the only
legitimate interest and anything else as form of deviance or insanity:
A concept we see among many in the capitalist world that Marx tried to
supplant and whose error he perpetuated in its essence while claiming
to overcome it in ideology. He took a futuristic outlook and put it in
service of barbaric mentality and created just what would be expected:
A futuristic barbaric order! An order that put the first man in space
while keeping its people in a barbaric condition. The very people he
claimed to speak for - at the expense of all actual human traits.

Now based on the step-by-step approach I've talke about previously, we
see in many cases a hierarchial mentality develop: Of claiming the next

level of separation from the ground of being to be the higher level of
mind, beneath which all else is to be subjugated. I object to this idea

because even the most technologically advanced order has not created
anything approaching a rainforest, a tiger or an experience of romance,

and the so-called lower levels possess legitimacy and deserve respect
just for their sheer complexity. That something is preceding does not
make it inferior, and true human experience involves experience of such

things as nature and passion (or at least, anyway, an experience that I

seek for myself and seek to make possible to similar tastes).

The problem of hierarchial thinking - and the resulting cruelty and
oppression against experience that make the most of existense - led to
thought, among feminists among others, that this model is patriarchial,

whereas the feminine way is holistic and regarded to be more in tune
with life. Now while noticing as needed an obvious reverse snobbery in
this situation - to regard yourself as being in tune with life for
being a woman rather than a man is as ridiculous as it is to regard
yourself more human for doing manual labor rather than for being a
professor - we are confronted with two potentials for improvement and
two potentials for evil. The problem in hierarchial thinking is
suppressing experience of life, seeing emotions or sexuality as lower
functions, spitting on nature, despising things one had no chance of
being able to create and robbing life of its color. The problem with
holistic thinking is that fails to differentiate in quality and seeks
to achieve similar outcomes - a condition that of course shackles the
best.

The problem with American feminism, as I have repeatedly stated, is
that it is just as authoritarian, as abrasive, as cruel and as
malicious in enforcing the feminist social role as the patriarchy was
in enforcing its concept of what women should be. Which has rightfully
led to reaction by many women of intellect and initiative. We see many
educated upper-class young women in India deliberately choosing
subservient role because they see it as natural. We see many women in
America reject feminist values because they rightly claim them to be
inappropriate, wrong, limiting or against their religion. The
beautiful, successful, intelligent Russian women of my acquaintance, my

generation or previous one, all tell me the same thing: That American
feminists are insane; that they don't understand what being a woman is
all about; that they rob women of the best qualities that come with
being a woman and impoverish not only what she is but what she can get
out of life. That they've bought into man's value system and in so
doing destroyed the uniquely good and beautiful in the woman - in the
same way as, well, as Marx bought into the materialistic value system
and sought to make it a part of his collectivistic ideology and as a
result caused a still more oppressive form of materialism to the very
people whose interests he claimed to espouse.

As I see independent-minded women say again and again, Unisex does not
work. It is not right for them; it is not fulfilling for them; it is
not what they want. The problem with former system was not its
differentiation of feminine traits and masculine traits; it was the
belief that one set was superior to the other - which I, of course,
regard and always did regard to be complete idiocy. (Priest says: Men
and women are different in roles, not in value). As a poet, I am in
love with female beauty, tenderness, gentleness, and emotional richness

- the qualities that I see, in women who have them, to be far better
than traits of the next man (or, rightfully, of the woman who does not
have these traits). These are the qualities that make a world worthy of

human habitation! These are the qualities that I, rightly, would like
to see more in the world - whatever the woman in glasses in the
academia has to say about it - and that most certainly does mean
protecting the women who have these qualities from those, women and
men, who would like such traits not to exist! The problem is not the
beautiful traits; the problem is a competition-based culture that fails

to value, respect and reward such traits! And if feminism is in any way

to be honest to its claimed goals - to give woman freedom of choice and

of who to be - then it has to live with women choosing, deliberately,
to have these traits, whether or not the feminist wants them to have
them - whatever it thinks about their cultural origin or their
psychological fundamentals - and what it, in its arrogant claim to
speak for the rights of all women while denying the real women the
right to be who and what they want to be, completely overlooks as
virtues that women are uniquely capable of having and that make life
worthwhile, for women who have these traits and for people around them,

when they find the way to a man who rightly appreciates them and
rightly rewards them for having such qualities!

It's not "feminist vs. misogynist" or any such nonsense. It's this:
That under the pretext of women's advancement you people denied women
the freedom to be what you do not want them to be! And yes, we are
seeing women rightly rejecting this authoritarianism left and right, in

the same way as we saw the world righty reject Marxism. And in standing

up to - that - women truly assert their liberty. It's very
heart-warming to see women say to the psychological bullies that claim
to speak for them that, no, they don't represent women. In the same way

as it's heart-warming to see black people stand up to the African "big
men" and gangsters who claim that they represent Africa while killing
Africans - and to see industrial workers stand up to the unions that
attack workers for working well and say that they don't speak for them
either.

The problem with feminism is the same as the problem with Marxism. It
adopted the enemy's value structure and concept of what makes a genuine

human interest or mentality, and then sought to beat them at their own
game. This can be done only at the expense of hideous disfigurement and

ultimately degradation of the very people the ideology claims to help.
And the next step beyond feminism - as articulated by smart,
strong-minded women again and again - is HEALTHY HETEROSEXUALITY -
defined as CELEBRATION OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN WITHIN THE
FRAMEWORK OF MUTUAL LOVE AND RESPECT. And yes, that does mean standing
up to bullies on either side of the aisle, both idiots who think women
to be inferior and monsters who want to rob women of being women.

To go back to the hierarchial model. What I seek to state is that the
fact of something being on a lower level in the hierarchy of
organization does not make it inferior or having less to offer people.
Thus, for example, we see many people, who are quite capable of
intelligent thought, do such things as commune with nature and revel in

romantic passion. The reason is this: To do such things is to
experience the totality of life as life is meant to be experienced in
total. The beauty and interconnectivity of nature does not go away
because man lives in St. Louis; indeed it is in that interconnectivity
that is found an aspect of mankind that corresponds with life itself,
at the level near the ground of being that is most profound and is in
many ways the most complex (What economy ever produced a rainforest?)
Romantic love, I explain in the same way as did Ayn Rand: A passionate
affirmation, with the totality of one's being, of the other person: An
act of saying yes with one's whole entity to what the other person is;
a statement that puts one in touch with the truth of life as it is
expressed throughout one's beingness and in the other, in both one's
consciously known values and unconsciously known ones. It is, likewise,

a case of experiencing life at a more profound level and a more
complete level - and to make such things possible (and to make possible

for such things to thrive and survive longterm) is a secret to securing

life worthy of human existence.

Now there is much ado about the idea that a man who presumes to act out

of his volition or use his mind is seeking to be God-like. To people of

such conviction, I would like to offer the Biblical story at Mount
Sinai, in which God was going to kill off the Jews until Moses told him

that if He were to do so, He would not have worshippers. This shows of
course that, whether God be omnipotent, omniscient, or omnipresent, He
is not infallible - that man's perspective supplements God's
perspective - that man comes up with ideas that God hadn't come up with

- and that is further the case not only for people regarded as wise by
one or another culture or priestry, but especially for people who have
unique ways of combining information, whom cultures may not regard wise

or benevolent at all, but whose perspective, being unique, supplements
that of the culture and corrects it in its endemic errors (in the same
way that sometimes even a carpenter's perspective supplements that of
God).

I keep developing the psycho-ethical equilibrium concept: The world at
any given time is at equilibrium point among people's just-world
concepts; which equilibrium is constantly shifting as people's
condition changes and so do just-world concepts, with both feeding into

each other. I remember my comment that, when someone is being bullied,
there's a pressure on people to regard that person as wrong - then I
recognize how difficult it is to maintain one's sense of self as good
in presence of constant nastiness or to maintain sense of another
person's good when they are being savaged or the sense of goodness of
self and the world in presence of hideousness all around - and well,
that still may very well be a flaw in design, but one I see as
something that can be overcome - though not simply by effort of will,
by no means, as will simply embodies one's basic beliefs and
convictions - but rather by having a structure of convictions that are
structurous of a will and by which these convictions manifest and are
part of formation of interdependent reality pursuant your just-world
convictions.

I hear about God-in-all-through-all of Spinosa, Jungian version of
this, Platonic and I look at how this is exclusive of free will - at
the same time I have to watch for barbaric beliefs of people who are
not schooled in such concepts and deliberate manipulations of those who

want to blind people to cultural factors especially when those be their

own - and I say that hey, Confucians equated social order with this
("li") and Taoists claimed it to be part of natural way toward which
deliberate action and social order is hindrance - and then I say how
we've seen an abomination of all abominations: American psychology
deriving from spirituality the idea of collective consciousness and
then used it to mean what they wanted psychosocial environment to
become - creating a "li" type condition to freeze-dry in eternities a
sociocultural moment and set of false convictions and interests - using

the consciousness movement sellouts to deify precisely the thing that
they sought rightly to overcome and shoving, through character
destruction and psychological violence, the lie of the deliberately
created construct being natural or divine, down people's throats.
Creating this abomination of all abominations; Bigotry, barbarism and
sheer malice using spiritual tools to enforce itself and claiming to be

spiritual consciousness of civilization! Treating its dissidents as
demons! And claiming for itself absolute authority over people's lives,

while denying them any freedom of will and choice and thought: An
encompassing American "li," the deviation from which is deviation not
only from sanity but indeed from divine order! Confucianism on American

soil, ladies and gentlemen, denying not only deliberate choice but
denying people the knowledge of the Choices That Went Into Creating
This Situation - that pass off social construction as part of divine
will or all that is while not only ignoring the fact of human will
(modes, right?) in formation and co-formation of social reality but
denying people the RIGHT TO MAKE A CHOICE, period!

Which means that any meaningful concept of liberty means breaking down
that construct. And yes Mickey, that means you.

So I take off my shoes and socks and take off my shorts. I'm walking
down the street in underwear, and still seeing the den of the enchanted

she-spider in front of me and pulling me further ahead into her grasp.
Oh! You know how much I need you, devour me, why don't you, and turn me

into food for webs. The she-spider laughs. I would be corrupt if I were

to use such feelings for short-sighted purposes. I'm only pulling you
to where the self-existing one lives. That's whom you want to talk to,
then you could actually have informed choice & to reason why would be
yours.

I put my shorts back on while passing a school ("don't want no
stupidity there") and then take them off while out of view. I remember
"in the middle of the road only yellow stripes and dead armadillos" and

I walk between yellow stripes and a SUV approaches from behind and I
think maybe I could disprove that but it shows no signs of seeing me so

I move off and well I think the middle-of-the-road view can sometimes
work and in some cases may even be optimal, but it also is taxing and
hard to maintain energy (and some things are furthermore not to be
integrated, as compromise with what wants you dead leaves you
half-dead: Dialectic works for legitimate pairs of existents, while in
other pairs of existence one is all-good and other is all-bad in which
what is needed is not dialectic but radicalism, and in other existents
still we have some convoluted mixture), so on occasion it will happen
that one extreme topples the moderate and then the two need to fight or

make up and, well, just that you came up with this solution in DC as a
politician at 50 does not mean that it it true for Puerto Rican at 30
or the 15-year-old rape victim or the German retirees or the bus driver

in India or people in Ethiopia or Ukraine. And yes, I do expect the
same things to be said by the next or the preceding, and see that as
part of the job. Moving equilibrium, right? Composed of just-world
hypotheses, shifting all the time.

And then - far right. Path to the greenery, and inside it a brook. I'm
in my shorts with bare feet, and I hear Well if you're so in touch with

the light then go into here, through darkness, through brambles, and
let it carry you. I do, while at one point laughing at a vine above me
(she once swung on a vine too and it broke but she lived - here I think

vine is a helping hand, a high place extending me hand I need as it
hangs off the emanation of the self-existing and looks like umbilical
cord but only apparently mimics that adaptation to lead out and up) -
and so I walk through and find myself in the brook, and I stand as they

tell me, and I take off all things and let she-spider weave all around
me and be enfolded by her skin and remember the river nymphs and know
the true meaning of communing. The river nymphs Ms. LL said were always

lonely and sought to be loved, but found upon contact with man that he
saw them as satanic and wanted to either kill them or put them in
horrible place - and I said I am with you I won't stand to let you be
killed whatever that means to my salvation - and then I hear about
hardness of walls and I say that I will show what is under the wall
("earth hard - fire under it"), as I rummage through rocks - rocks
polished by water - rocks arranged meticulously - I take a rock that
has flat bottom and circular top, the presentation I presume of model
of being - until I find WHAT WAS UNDER THE WALL.

This one is all black, containing many black rocks within a
fused-together ground of being shape of an L. No spheres, no polish,
nothing. Absolutely uncompromising. A bit of a nematode I conjecture, a

bit of a coral reef I conjecture, a bit of a colony in which each is
its own seed and whole being manifests through all. So I think OK this
is the integrative synthesis, with self and structure reshaping both
and belonging to each other, making best of each other and best for
each other through synthesis and abrasion and creating synergy within
framework of checks and balances - actually I think this later, what I
think here is:

If you WWIIers or Xers still don't get a clue, the clue is as follows.
That particular society combined the worst of spirit and matter:
Regimented and intellectually oppressive as in religion and barren of
all emotional and spiritual experience as in rationalism. And the
purpose of mind is to combine the best of all possible worlds. A world
that makes the best of spirit and matter: Full of emotional and
spiritual and experiential richness (the best of spirit) - and with
real liberties and well-being (the best of matter). And yes that means
the best of all possible worlds; and if you say you can't have the best

of all possible worlds then I say that it is the purpose of mind to
make the best of all possible worlds and if we don't have the best of
all possible worlds then we either aren't thinking or are being
sabotaged or are sabotaging ourselves.

("And what if humanity does not deserve that?" Whether or not that is
so, your job as a human is to make that possible. "And what about
original sin?" Well if there is such a thing as original sin then it
speaks to the totality of the human nature including all agendas
belonging to it, including desire to control your children or run your
community or control people's behavior or make money or shape your
country or stand in anyone else's way, so the concept applies to
anything you may do and is for that reason meaningless to all practical

action - in the same way for example as the concept of all things being

illusion becomes meaningless by the same standard.)

So I am out of the stream and walking past a cemetery. It says
"Mitchell" (Hey you know who) then "Bowie" and before all of them in
the middle, "Shepherd." (and I guess the ones behind you are sheep, and

well guess where they are now). Then: "Onion" and "Simpson" (I start
laughing: Hey boss, thanks for that) followed by "Stuart." OK, you got
my attention (someone else knows significance of that too).

Then there's the church that talks about 11:00: Christianity 101:
Repentance and I see this as initiation ritual akin to all others in
other religions (you reject sin or the world of sin or ego and then you

proceed on path to illumination or enlightenment) and then I think I
don't repent things under consideration so I hear then let's manipulate

the events in society and in people's lives in such ways that they
would suffer negative circumstances and you would be seen as a culprit
or as a wrongdoer and I say This is your social manipulation done using

deliberate effort of will and mind and is in no way a natural
consequence of those actions, so the one guilty is not me or my loved
ones but you. I remember the observation that said non-Christians got
headaches and mental pain and I remember that state of affairs when in
Christian school and of course this is not natural state of being
non-Christian but state induced by Christian people's thoughts and
prayers - you think you don't do magic? Your whole mindset is magic -
and so I start thinking well am I not bringing murderous memes of
Christianity to those whom I don't want killed and - that was the
problem before, I kept bringing shit to those I did not want to bring
shit and I hoped Christianity would free me of that

So I reiterate what I said before, There's the true spiritual attitude
that fills world with richness and the religious component that
regiments, and there's the logic-based worldview that gives
circumstantial liberty but disallows any feeling or thought or
existence that actually makes life worthwhile, and I say there's ways
to combine it with 00 rate of return (religious applied to behavioral
standards - material applied to emotion: no liberty, no richness, aka
pure evil), 01 (religious applied to behavioral standards - spiritual
applied to emotion: no liberty, but richness, the experience of the
Mexican), 10 (material applied to behavioral standards - material
applied to emotion: Liberty, no experience, the experience of the
Unitarian), and the prize: 11: Material applied to society and
spiritual applied to experience: Liberty AND life worth living.

Now this has happened once in American history: The path from 10 moved
to 11. The Transcendentalism. A more traumatic transition: From 00 to
11: the Hippies. And in both cases they were described as being
spoiled. Will you people learn? IT IS MEANINGLESS TO GIVE PEOPLE
CIRCUMSTANTIAL LIBERTY, OR PEACE, OR PROSPERITY, IF THEY ARE NOT
ALLOWED TO LIVE! What happened was not merely rebellion; It was
improvement: It was progress: It was the next level. It was the
innovation upon what existed previously. You've created a civilization
in which people have rights. Now, it can be a civilization in which
people can actually live. AND Integrate the spiritual component, while
Building it, On top, Of, The, Intellectual, Structures, That, You,
Created!

In other words: Liberty AND emotional richness! Mind AND spirituality!
Not only have statutory liberty, but make it possible to actually live!

Like I said, what's the point of being free if you are not allowed to
feel, or to live, or to have beautiful experiences and beautiful
existence? We have New Agers freeing themselves by saying that they
must essentially be a world to themselves - that others are reflection
of self but not important - that romantic love is a myth - that
everyone creates their reality (corollaries: that everyone who's being
mistreated caused it, that the privileged Westerner created conditions
of his privilege and the Ethiopian has done the same for himself, that
any feeling worth having is to be exculcated, that leader can do
anything to his subjects because they would be creating their reality
through his actions and you can do what you want to another because
they caused their reality) - and what I'm saying is, This is monstrous!

So you've found a way to be free, I see that; but you've done it by
becoming cold and heartless and malevolent! And utterly lacking in
compassion, ethics or any sense of what your ideas would mean for the
world as a whole.

The problem I've seen with a lot of spiritual adepts is that they
become cold, heartless, and cruel, and that's simply not a direction I
would accept any spirituality taking me! What's the point of having
spirituality if you end up cold? "You are the river" - no, a river is a

flow, it is a flux, it is a relationship. "Just be love" - an
impossibility: You cannot be love because love is something that is
felt by one thing for another - you can love but you cannot be love:
You can be fire, you can be light, I've been motion and verb for a
while, you can even be self-existent for a while if you swing that way
but you cannot BE love. The Bhakti Yoga is not based on "being love";
it is based on devotional love of God bringing one into Godspace. In
the same way as love for the next person creates similar flux that
reshapes both.

And meanwhile we have (from a Castaneda group leader and publisher of
"Tucson Poet") the poetic imagery of the civilizaition being a giant
eros-extracting mechanism directing lifeforce toward consumption. What
does this mean, and where does this lead? If eros is something to be
extracted and used to fuel economy - what world do we have? As Robert
Tkotch rightly stated, a population completely and deservedly
emasculated in every respect that counts. A population in which, to
paraphrase Onion, 90% of the population are permanently sedentary, all
their life force expropriated. A population that attacks the true river

- the true flux - the true manifestation of eros: The passionate love
between man and woman. And that, by attacking the basis of all true
emotional experience, becomes this and this absolutely: An
expropriation and usurpation of life. Itself. Apparently "God is love"
becomes "military-industrial complex is love" the upshot of which is:
Pepsi loves you.

I've seen this malignant element in thought of aforementioned spiritual

adepts: Their claim of passion between woman and man as "a shortcut." A

shortcut? A shortcut to what? Enlightenment? What if they aren't
interested in enlightenment - what if they are simply interested in
living? No, it is a better technology. It is a claim on existence. It
is a birthright of human beingness. It is the truth of experience, and
without such things being possible all the progress you have means
nothing!

Don't you YET understand? To have liberties, is meaningless unless you
can actually have an existence worthy of experiencing! It puts a
question to the whole idea of, "Well what do we have these liberties
for?" To have legal liberties, without a freedom to feel, to
experience, to have life worth having, is like having walls without a
building inside of it! Once again, WHAT ARE THESE LIBERTIES FOR? Is it
worth fighting to protect liberties without it being acceptable to
live? if it is impossible to have a fully human, fully passionate,
fully experienced, existence? Don't just say you've made this building
(and everyone owes you their life, and then go down in history as yet
another set of tyrants who fed in order to choke while people
legitimately start asking if maybe it's better to surrender some of
these liberties for the sake of spirituality), make it habitable so
that your work actually BENEFITS the world! Put furniture, paintings,
carpets inside so that somebody actually BENEFITS from what you've
created! Put this work in service of human interest, use hardware to
carry beautiful works and beautiful artifacts and ideas that allow
people to develop beautiful thoughts and emotions and by implementing
them in their lives and sharing them with each other not only make life

beautiful for each other but actually create a social order that does
the world the honor for existing - that makes possible life worth
living - that Consummates the Edifact of Civilization and allows light
to manifest through the structures of manifestation and create a
livable world rather than simply a working economy!

So we hear intellectualists argue that emotions are necessarily
entrapping and regressive, and I say, Ridiculous - and to paraphrase
someone, what's so freeing or rational about the emotion of hate. And
then we hear religious people argue that you're not independent. Well,
I may be independent or I may not be independent; Khodorkovsky just
told us a way to be free whatever the circumstances. And there's Mickey

saying that that makes you arrogant and I say SO BE IT, Be arrogant
when dealing with people like Mickey, STAND BY your thoughts, STAND BY
your feelings, stand by your being and right to exist as an independent

unit of volitional consciousness and a being who feels - and for people

to be able to do that is the only way to defeat dictatorship and
oppression by any name, whether it come from people who think you
arrogant for having your own thoughts or people who think you infantile

for having feelings worth having or from the marriage in hell between
psychology and religion to create an encompassing American "li" the
devation from which is a deviation from sanity and goodness itself (and

Scott Peck as its ultimate arbiter). Yes, I read that the idealist's
strategy is to create a holistic synthesis that gets everyone to agree
- and I keep saying that's fine and good and a noble project, but don't

tell me that that means I have to submit to this if I see and know to
the contrary!

So I see two complementary half-rights half-wrongs: Religion being
oppressive of behavior but enriching of experience, and rationalism
creating circumstantial liberty but denying freedom to feel and to
experience life. And I say that the poet's way is to combine the best
of both: To have circumstantial freedom and the freedom of passion and
beauty and inspired, beautiful, passionate, romantic existence. You may

claim the latter to be an impossibility. But I've seen it work and
would fight for it for the next person. And to the people who regard
such things badly, I say, This is the prize of existence, and anything
against that is against all the good in humanity. It is for this that
every great person has ever striven, and to make such things possible
for the next person is one's duty before America and one's duty before
humankind.

Ilya Shambat

jonkoot

2005-07-20, 2:08 pm

Dear Ilya:

Once again you prove a veritable plethorae of mental masturbations in
your salutory responses to mental inclinations surrounding the nature
of the human being.Specifically the mind ,and its ability to torment
the body and soul which houses it.Yes you have a mind, quite sharp and
intelligent, full of hyperbole., and yes even knowledge, in fact your
concern and frustration confirm in you a humanity.
But I will contest with you the notion that ROMANCE is a natural
occurring condition.This is a farce my friend.Romance is the pen
ultimate of societal conditioning.Romance is the GReat Delusion whch
like a placebo, feeds the illiterate masses much as religion is the
Opiate of those same masses.

But there is an element of living which liberates individuals from the
shackles of this unmitigating delerium.It is called the XXXX It
Zone.Yes my friend, the XXXX it zone.That place where you simply tire
of the insanity and psychosis which impels you endlessly and hopelessly
to attemtp to employ Reason over experience in order to assuage your
own psyche.

That you have failed is equally apparent in the unending diatribe of
your conversation.The least shall become most,and the most shall become
least.What does this inspire in you my friend?EQUALITY.
Yes, that is what it says apparently so well hidden as to be
undecipherable to tthe superior intellect of the educated mind.And
perhaps it is this inability to conquer the simplicity of the XXXX it
zone which truly hampers you from abandoning yourr pathetic efforts to
save the world and yourself from the obvious cyclone of mental
information that consumes you.

I too have wanted to take my cock into my hand ,and dream of a XXXX
that was true, to hold that pure essence of feminine gentility, and
surrender to the epitome of human emotional release.But just like going
on vacation ends with the return to our menial workaday existence in
reality where bills and responsibilities await our responsible
transactions. in order to maintain this existence to the best of our
ability, so too the orgasm is finally acheived, and the dirty socks are
placed in the laundry to be cleaned, once again.Once this ambition to
be included by sheer mental ejaculations is achieved even if only in
delusion and fantasy, the reality of gooey sperm runnig down your leg.
or massing on your sock sticky on your palm must be faced, and unless
you are a neanderthal, or simply too tired to face the next day, from
all this physical exertion in thrashing your penis into ground
oblivion, you must eventually pull the sock off your cock, and toss it
in the dirty laundry.
Now, had you done this my friend, you might enjoy a temporary respite
from your minds inferno, desperately trying to make sense out of what
is apparently irrelevant information concerning the universe of human
existents.XXXX IT!Yes who gives a shit!No One cares as much as the
liar, who has the most at stake in iterating and reiterating the
position of defenses against these intrusions to his/her laizze affaire
mental masturbations.

If you are finished(which I doubt) but for the sake of argument I will
assume} ,if you are finished ranting and raving about social orders and
political conditions, religous ambiguity , and the nature of man
according to such esteemed minds as are availing your espousals, then
let me inform you, the answer to your accusations, the conclcusion to
your diatribes, the solution to your questions, and the most important
imperative etc. etal, i.e. of this dogma and convoluted torment of a
restless cranium, is this.

You, my friend according to my diagnosis based upon personal experience
are in need of a good XXXXing, and that is too say, you need to grab
your cock in your hand and imagine that illustrious magnificents which
has been denied to you on account of the proportions with which you
were genetically endowed.You claim LOve as the impetus and motivator of
your epistle, but the love you espouse is like an empty gong!What
really motivates you Ilya?My guess is slavery.You are enslaved to an
ideal.An ideal which does not exist in heaven or hell, nor has it been
created on earth.
This ideal is a fabrication, based upon fairness and equality, two very
human suppositions invented by society to enforce and coerce a willful
manipulation of our primitive nature into an otherwise civilized
condition.

I share your pain Ilya.I too am the helpless prisoner of my own
lackings.I too am the disease of my own making.
And in response to these limitations, and failures, have also looked to
God, and Reason to appease and alleviate my ravaged pschic conditions
of pathetic circumstance.

Yes it is true, in my quest for relief from abhorations of thought, the
result of consideration, and such other notions, embryonically
delivered to my own mental awareness by means of what media these
societeies of humankind produce in past and present state of being here
on thsi orb we call our home,

Let me say this to you my friend.Let me say this:

"XXXX shit piss nigger cunt faggot punk, motherXXXXer goddamned it to
hell .Not only this, but while we are at it, cocksucker pedophile baby
XXXXing shit eating dog XXXXing piece of shit.No?
How about this then.Honky XXXXX Punk sissy boy. or perhaps spic, wop,
chink gook nip, prick, and opf course beneath all of this ,here I am,
lunatic, embecile idiot, XXXXwad dimwit stupid dumbshit . The catdog
cattawampus motherXXXXing shave your butt and walk backwards
cuntlicking faggot punk sissy XXXXX that I am.

So you see my friend, I too have felt the fear and deciet of my
ownmind, and felt the hatred and ignorance of my own conception of
those anomolies.I have failed nad surrendered to the Devil, onl;y to
fnd a trapped messiah, yearning for salvation, not for himself,but for
the pathetic likes of me, a fellow prisoner captive to this cyclonic
delusion of mortal fraility, and whta this discovery has awakened in me
is response, and determination.
These things of human will, these conditions of hopelessness and
dewspair are not mediated, but rather conjoined with a greater
condition of exasperation which is to say Comedy and yes, mercy,
forgiveness and understanding, self soothing generation of
introspection.

and what is all this say to me?
I'M XXXXed!
screwed blued and tattooed.~I'm in a world of shit, and yes, I am
another turd in the bowl.a bowl that never flushes. but instead sits
there and rots in its own putrid vomit and spew.and it stinks.It smells
to high heavens Ilya.This is Salvation my friend, for it is here in the
sewer of human conditions where honesty can finally be approached, and
yes the Grace of God is found finally.

For after resolving to forgive myself, and having realized the
unpardonable error of my own mind, I am in a position to forgive and
understand others more generously.This is that point of creation where
the creator having testified to my own inadequacies simply chooses to
shut up,and allow the truth to speak ofr itself for once, and we shall
see what we shall see.

So Ilya, my friend, peace be with you, that peace which exceeds all
human capacity to comprehend.May mercy find you within,and shine forth
dimly towards your environment that you might finally discover the
gentle reflection of community which surrounds and embraces you with
the same condition,

That imho is love, or what humanity has thus far made of this romantic
notion invented or realized by civilized effort, and without this we
have paradise, whichis our previous estate of being before creation
played th grand trick upon human kind of sharing the burden of
maintenance and realization with our kind.
It is only fair that we, should suffer for so great is the reward of
our comprehensions, that suffring becomes a gracious annullment of our
inconcievable debt to creation.this then is that mercy from the Garden
of Edenic youth from which we transpired unto our current state of
stupidity.

Peace and Love hugs and kisses too, oh lord don't let me be
misunderstood.and thank God for the selfless sacrifices of those whom
have gone before to attain this simple model of actuation, yes, for
want of an identifieing concern, in Jesus name, ha ha,,ha,,
and it is this Jesus universal Buddha incarnate, that diminishes of
tyrant God to brotherly traveler to whom I speak, much as I would speak
to you,for friends can get away with things that enemies could never
achieve.That is the great gift of mutual respect which the Golden Rule
instills in us one at a time from age to age learned by experience,
awakened awaiting mistress of the night.

Hail Mary full of grace, Dos duh Vedanya.

Philip Lewis

2005-07-21, 10:53 pm

ibshambat2004@hotmail.com wrote:
> So Mr. Bat had a fine ole night hooting with the owls! And not only the
>
> owls, but the howls. The owls make the howls and the howls make the
> owls and over the backbone of the H they form a mirror image of each
> other. As in, eviLive.
>
>
> It's been a fine night for Mr. Bat, out on the streets of Alexandria.
> First I read Mr. Khodorkovsky's epistle from the jail: "True freedom is
>
> within," "a result of pursuing one's principles" - and of course the
> main question to ask is, "Are your principles truly yours?" And then,
> "By what authority?" And then, "After what process?" And finally, "To
> what extent true?" (and of course the idea that transitional stuff is
> destructive: No, you first reject what you don't like, then you figure
> out what you do like and affirm it). (and the correlated concept of
> self-awareness: Self-awareness in terms of a false set of beliefs is
> wrong and can only be done in terms of true beliefs) (and the corollary
>
> concept of taking responsibility for one's life: That only becomes
> possible truly when you've studied and experienced and have an informed
>
> knowledge of what you truly want: all else leads to wasted lives).
> After philosophy class (continuing education program) at the community
> college, in which was discussed Spinosa's concept of God being
> self-existing manifesting through all people who are modes (and it is
> the purpose of the mode, I presume, to refract the light until it
> creates a picture that is most appealing, with each mode shaped by
> substance & reshaping substance and self and - hey, Mr. Self-existing
> One, could you please notice me and what I've done with your substance
> (oh and tell me the true causes of things, in what cases it's linear &
> in what cases it's over-determined & in what cases it's a web & of what
>
> or what behind the web (and as a mode could I be good this way or could
>
> I be good another way or could I let you be me for a second so you
> could show me the ropes or could you let me in your shoes here for a
> moment so I have compassion for you or could you and I work together
> here for a second and to reshape one another with our essentiality so
> that we could establish flux between the self-existing and the
> merely-existing and allow the emanation to respond to the core with
> experimental results its actions [true/false/transcendent] while the
> core enlightens the emanation with its continued manifestations of
> self-existence) - I see this fashionable black woman rubbing lotion on
> her hands, and I say she smells tasty, and she asks "Do you want to eat
>
> me?"
>
>
> So I get out of class, it's 10:25, my bus leaves, it's a gorgeous
> summer night so I walk down the street. I keep hearing "Theirs not to
> make reply, theirs not to reason why, theirs but to do and die" - while
>
> professors leave the parking lot, one in a Beetle - and I keep merrily
> heading down the road, occasionally kissing a flower. I see the den of
> the enchanted she-spider hanging in the air between the trees. That den
>
> of the enchanted she-spider, thank the grounds of being for that, I can
>
> just get lost in those embraces and those enfoldments and that gentle
> caressing mist between trees seeking to shroud life with its delicacy
> and bring it into its complete resplendor. And all night long it's
> something with "95" (year of the enchanting she-spider) it's something
> with "56" (year of my muse) or the next number "57" (year of Sputnik in
>
> space - not coincidental) it's something with "7:07" or "9:11" or all
> along the same line.
>
>
> I remember from previously: The movement outward is hardest from most
> closed-minded places and easiest from most open-minded. The worst ones
> are the hardest, while the better ones are freer because much of the
> work has been done for you. The places with greatest political and
> social obstacles are ones that have least to offer, and whose people
> have most legitimate reason to go somewhere else. The same is true for
> all propaganda, family-values, militaristic, religious, Marxist,
> feminist or any other: The less the place has to offer and the worse it
>
> is, the more propaganda and moral bludgeoning it requires. Which
> creates an inverse relationship between actual moral quality of the
> social order and amount of moralizing done by the social order. A
> social order that is most malignant is one that is most moralizing. The
>
> more malignant, the more moralizing; the more actually morally
> upstanding, the less propaganda and moralizing required. Which is the
> reason that moralizing societies lead to the worst abuses against
> people. Some think this is coincidental, I see direct and inevitable
> relationship.
>
>
> I see some toughs loitering outside King's Pizza and wait at bus
> station, walking around the corner and stand at bus stop watching
> restorateurs leave in cabs, and here I am again in treespace while bus
> does not come and I keep walking. And there I run into the whole
> sociopath nonsense and say in response that that is a concept that
> underlies the economic system and political system and to apply it to
> Wollmann without applying it to Gates is despicable - and then I keep
> reiterating: What we have here is a science selling out to a political
> interest: adopting as health the interest of American middle class and
> its dogmas and pathologizing what speaks otherwise: That it speaks to
> American dogmas rather than Soviet ones does not make it any less of a
> manipulation: And that once again the perceived pathology includes
> everyone from Voltaire to Rockefeller, Carnegie and Wolfowitz onwards -
>
> and that the entire economic system is based upon it and yes Cujo that
> means you.
>
>
> And then I notice something more on this issue: Through manipulation of
>
> social climate and attitudes and actions and reactions pursuant those
> attitudes, consequences are assigned to actions that are not natural,
> but rather artificial & create an impression of good actions being bad
> and bad actions being good. We see that run through all societies and
> times. We have, for example, Pakis saying that romance is disastrous
> and proving it by killing those who fall in love. We have, for example,
>
> Cubans saying that business is antisocial and proving it by killing
> those who do business. The idea of God being through all things is used
>
> to excuse deliberate social manipulation, by modes and creators of
> modes, as though those were divinely ordained rather than manmade. The
> obvious problem is that substance may manifest through nodes, but
> nodes, involving choice, mean that they are not obligated to the ground
>
> of being but are as such nodes capable of deliberate choice,
> God-ordained or not!
>
>
> And then it is used to impose this order as though it was divine. Which
>
> requires calling the bluff. If God is through all things, in other
> words, then not only the order you create but the order I create is
> manifestation of God - as is the order created by any of your other
> enemies.
>
>
> So we have environmental science claim that environment exists
> according to its order, unless disturbed by man (devil #1). We have
> systems like Confucianism that claim society as a matter of social
> order having a place for everyone - place according to divine order -
> unless that order is disturbed by man's ego (devil #2). We have
> economic science that has applied this to economic activity and said
> that all things are guided by "invisible hand" when in a "free-market"
> context, with everyone competing against everyone, unless disturbed by
> intellectually conceived and goal-directed political action (devil #3),
>
> even as this same science adopts will and ego and montarily defined
> self-interest (combination of devil #1 and devil #2) as basic concept
> of legitimate human interest and claims the competition within
> framework of law to be the natural order. After which we have the
> concept of intellectual-political action uniting people in what it
> believes to be intellectually right ideology; that seeks to educate
> people based on intellectual and philosophical ideas and shared
> interest (and which the economic mindset sees as meddling or evil or
> arrogance - the same way the social interest was to the economic
> mindset from the beginning - even as the media-intellectual-political
> ideas created anyway necessitate for the people to move toward a place
> of politics and philosophy and awareness of their civilization beyond
> the dogmas of laissez-faire and even to protect laissez-faire demand
> political and intellectual action on the part of the business class).
> In this political-intellectual order the devil (devil #4) is
> spirituality, which main proponents of this ideology see as being one
> or another form of mental malfunction - much like the capitalists think
>
> of the political-intellectual. Once that stops working, after many
> corpses and disfigurements, and people start realizing after collossal
> battling that, no, spiritual experience is real, the next step seeks to
>
> create an order of people united in their spiritual experience and
> loyal to their knowledge and conception of the divine. In that order,
> the devil #5 is attained will (the people familiar with the subject
> know what I'm talking about). In all cases, we see a concept of nature,
>
> then society, then economy, then intelligence, then spirituality, then
> attained will, being divine; which order in all cases starts through
> one or another stage of will-assertion. Each level considers itself
> divine - unless disturbed by the artifact of man's deliberate act of
> choice and of will as it stands to disrupt these supposedly divine
> workings. And what each level fails to understand is that the case of
> something being divine does not make what goes to the next level less
> divine.
>
>
> Each of these deified orders regard the next one as being demonic in
> origin. It refers to it as one or another form of hubris, without
> realising that according to a previous order it itself has been
> regarded as hubris, and that what works is for gradations of hubris to
> build on itself! We have Dan Mocnsny here, an evolutionist, saying that
>
> the problem with the world is that "freaks won't know their place" when
>
> if his belief in evolution is true then it is the freaks that are the
> source of all evolution, and it is their "place" to move the world
> forward (and yes Dan, you most certainly are a freak and there is
> nothing remotely bad about it - the problem is what you do with your
> mutation). The social order is based on man - the demon vis-a-vis the
> natural order. The capitalist economy is based on ego - the demon
> vis-a-vis the social order. The politics and ideology are based on
> ideology-based action, which is the demon vis-a-vis capitalism. The
> same dynamics work at the next levels. And what we are seeing at every
> level is, essentially, demonization of the next stage of liberty, until
>
> it is either supplanted by it or unless it subverts it to perpetuate
> itself.
>
>
> How do I define liberty? AN ACT OF DIRECTING WILL DELIBERATELY. Liberty
>
> is an act of saying, essentially, I EXIST. And as corollary of that: I
> direct my action. And note to Gail and Mickey: Whether you like it or
> not (and note number 2: If God did not like arrogance then he would not
>
> have created signs Leo and Scorpio, and especially He would not have
> created a Scorpio with Leo rising, Pluto opposite Jupiter and Uranus
> square Saturn).
>
>
> The interesting part consists, once again, in the absolute insistence
> of each preceding order ind the demonic quality of the coming one. The
> new order gives promise to lift man to a higher level; the previous
> order attacks by claiming that motive to be based in thinking oneself
> better than the authority by which the order is believed to be ordained
>
> (and to which will is made to believe to be subjugated). Essentially
> each order considers the preceding level to be divine and the following
>
> one as based in disruption of divine order. Both are right, and both
> are wrong. If all is God, then so is what man does (and to all the
> you-think-you're-God people, the response is: "ye are gods" is part of
> the New Testament, it's a matter of how you use it). As the situation
> rises, the deliberateness quotient rises, but the complexity of the
> system builds. The life becomes more free of the preceding level, but
> more tied to the following level. The devil becomes the shaper and is
> then himself exceeded.
>
>
> Now based on similar observations made two centuries ago, was developed
>
> a historical inevitability model: That politics would overcome
> capitalism and lead to a global order based on all-unifying political
> action based in shared interest of all. The problem with this model was
>
> a problem common to Tauruses: A grossly incomplete concept of human
> nature, that accepts what he believes to be bottom line as the only
> legitimate interest and anything else as form of deviance or insanity:
> A concept we see among many in the capitalist world that Marx tried to
> supplant and whose error he perpetuated in its essence while claiming
> to overcome it in ideology. He took a futuristic outlook and put it in
> service of barbaric mentality and created just what would be expected:
> A futuristic barbaric order! An order that put the first man in space
> while keeping its people in a barbaric condition. The very people he
> claimed to speak for - at the expense of all actual human traits.
>
>
> Now based on the step-by-step approach I've talke about previously, we
> see in many cases a hierarchial mentality develop: Of claiming the next
>
> level of separation from the ground of being to be the higher level of
> mind, beneath which all else is to be subjugated. I object to this idea
>
> because even the most technologically advanced order has not created
> anything approaching a rainforest, a tiger or an experience of romance,
>
> and the so-called lower levels possess legitimacy and deserve respect
> just for their sheer complexity. That something is preceding does not
> make it inferior, and true human experience involves experience of such
>
> things as nature and passion (or at least, anyway, an experience that I
>
> seek for myself and seek to make possible to similar tastes).
>
>
> The problem of hierarchial thinking - and the resulting cruelty and
> oppression against experience that make the most of existense - led to
> thought, among feminists among others, that this model is patriarchial,
>
> whereas the feminine way is holistic and regarded to be more in tune
> with life. Now while noticing as needed an obvious reverse snobbery in
> this situation - to regard yourself as being in tune with life for
> being a woman rather than a man is as ridiculous as it is to regard
> yourself more human for doing manual labor rather than for being a
> professor - we are confronted with two potentials for improvement and
> two potentials for evil. The problem in hierarchial thinking is
> suppressing experience of life, seeing emotions or sexuality as lower
> functions, spitting on nature, despising things one had no chance of
> being able to create and robbing life of its color. The problem with
> holistic thinking is that fails to differentiate in quality and seeks
> to achieve similar outcomes - a condition that of course shackles the
> best.
>
>
> The problem with American feminism, as I have repeatedly stated, is
> that it is just as authoritarian, as abrasive, as cruel and as
> malicious in enforcing the feminist social role as the patriarchy was
> in enforcing its concept of what women should be. Which has rightfully
> led to reaction by many women of intellect and initiative. We see many
> educated upper-class young women in India deliberately choosing
> subservient role because they see it as natural. We see many women in
> America reject feminist values because they rightly claim them to be
> inappropriate, wrong, limiting or against their religion. The
> beautiful, successful, intelligent Russian women of my acquaintance, my
>
> generation or previous one, all tell me the same thing: That American
> feminists are insane; that they don't understand what being a woman is
> all about; that they rob women of the best qualities that come with
> being a woman and impoverish not only what she is but what she can get
> out of life. That they've bought into man's value system and in so
> doing destroyed the uniquely good and beautiful in the woman - in the
> same way as, well, as Marx bought into the materialistic value system
> and sought to make it a part of his collectivistic ideology and as a
> result caused a still more oppressive form of materialism to the very
> people whose interests he claimed to espouse.
>
>
> As I see independent-minded women say again and again, Unisex does not
> work. It is not right for them; it is not fulfilling for them; it is
> not what they want. The problem with former system was not its
> differentiation of feminine traits and masculine traits; it was the
> belief that one set was superior to the other - which I, of course,
> regard and always did regard to be complete idiocy. (Priest says: Men
> and women are different in roles, not in value). As a poet, I am in
> love with female beauty, tenderness, gentleness, and emotional richness
>
> - the qualities that I see, in women who have them, to be far better
> than traits of the next man (or, rightfully, of the woman who does not
> have these traits). These are the qualities that make a world worthy of
>
> human habitation! These are the qualities that I, rightly, would like
> to see more in the world - whatever the woman in glasses in the
> academia has to say about it - and that most certainly does mean
> protecting the women who have these qualities from those, women and
> men, who would like such traits not to exist! The problem is not the
> beautiful traits; the problem is a competition-based culture that fails
>
> to value, respect and reward such traits! And if feminism is in any way
>
> to be honest to its claimed goals - to give woman freedom of choice and
>
> of who to be - then it has to live with women choosing, deliberately,
> to have these traits, whether or not the feminist wants them to have
> them - whatever it thinks about their cultural origin or their
> psychological fundamentals - and what it, in its arrogant claim to
> speak for the rights of all women while denying the real women the
> right to be who and what they want to be, completely overlooks as
> virtues that women are uniquely capable of having and that make life
> worthwhile, for women who have these traits and for people around them,
>
> when they find the way to a man who rightly appreciates them and
> rightly rewards them for having such qualities!
>
>
> It's not "feminist vs. misogynist" or any such nonsense. It's this:
> That under the pretext of women's advancement you people denied women
> the freedom to be what you do not want them to be! And yes, we are
> seeing women rightly rejecting this authoritarianism left and right, in
>
> the same way as we saw the world righty reject Marxism. And in standing
>
> up to - that - women truly assert their liberty. It's very
> heart-warming to see women say to the psychological bullies that claim
> to speak for them that, no, they don't represent women. In the same way
>
> as it's heart-warming to see black people stand up to the African "big
> men" and gangsters who claim that they represent Africa while killing
> Africans - and to see industrial workers stand up to the unions that
> attack workers for working well and say that they don't speak for them
> either.
>
>
> The problem with feminism is the same as the problem with Marxism. It
> adopted the enemy's value structure and concept of what makes a genuine
>
> human interest or mentality, and then sought to beat them at their own
> game. This can be done only at the expense of hideous disfigurement and
>
> ultimately degradation of the very people the ideology claims to help.
> And the next step beyond feminism - as articulated by smart,
> strong-minded women again and again - is HEALTHY HETEROSEXUALITY -
> defined as CELEBRATION OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN WITHIN THE
> FRAMEWORK OF MUTUAL LOVE AND RESPECT. And yes, that does mean standing
> up to bullies on either side of the aisle, both idiots who think women
> to be inferior and monsters who want to rob women of being women.
>
>
> To go back to the hierarchial model. What I seek to state is that the
> fact of something being on a lower level in the hierarchy of
> organization does not make it inferior or having less to offer people.
> Thus, for example, we see many people, who are quite capable of
> intelligent thought, do such things as commune with nature and revel in
>
> romantic passion. The reason is this: To do such things is to
> experience the totality of life as life is meant to be experienced in
> total. The beauty and interconnectivity of nature does not go away
> because man lives in St. Louis; indeed it is in that interconnectivity
> that is found an aspect of mankind that corresponds with life itself,
> at the level near the ground of being that is most profound and is in
> many ways the most complex (What economy ever produced a rainforest?)
> Romantic love, I explain in the same way as did Ayn Rand: A passionate
> affirmation, with the totality of one's being, of the other person: An
> act of saying yes with one's whole entity to what the other person is;
> a statement that puts one in touch with the truth of life as it is
> expressed throughout one's beingness and in the other, in both one's
> consciously known values and unconsciously known ones. It is, likewise,
>
> a case of experiencing life at a more profound level and a more
> complete level - and to make such things possible (and to make possible
>
> for such things to thrive and survive longterm) is a secret to securing
>
> life worthy of human existence.
>
>
> Now there is much ado about the idea that a man who presumes to act out
>
> of his volition or use his mind is seeking to be God-like. To people of
>
> such conviction, I would like to offer the Biblical story at Mount
> Sinai, in which God was going to kill off the Jews until Moses told him
>
> that if He were to do so, He would not have worshippers. This shows of
> course that, whether God be omnipotent, omniscient, or omnipresent, He
> is not infallible - that man's perspective supplements God's
> perspective - that man comes up with ideas that God hadn't come up with
>
> - and that is further the case not only for people regarded as wise by
> one or another culture or priestry, but especially for people who have
> unique ways of combining information, whom cultures may not regard wise
>
> or benevolent at all, but whose perspective, being unique, supplements
> that of the culture and corrects it in its endemic errors (in the same
> way that sometimes even a carpenter's perspective supplements that of
> God).
>
>
> I keep developing the psycho-ethical equilibrium concept: The world at
> any given time is at equilibrium point among people's just-world
> concepts; which equilibrium is constantly shifting as people's
> condition changes and so do just-world concepts, with both feeding into
>
> each other. I remember my comment that, when someone is being bullied,
> there's a pressure on people to regard that person as wrong - then I
> recognize how difficult it is to maintain one's sense of self as good
> in presence of constant nastiness or to maintain sense of another
> person's good when they are being savaged or the sense of goodness of
> self and the world in presence of hideousness all around - and well,
> that still may very well be a flaw in design, but one I see as
> something that can be overcome - though not simply by effort of will,
> by no means, as will simply embodies one's basic beliefs and
> convictions - but rather by having a structure of convictions that are
> structurous of a will and by which these convictions manifest and are
> part of formation of interdependent reality pursuant your just-world
> convictions.
>
>
> I hear about God-in-all-through-all of Spinosa, Jungian version of
> this, Platonic and I look at how this is exclusive of free will - at
> the same time I have to watch for barbaric beliefs of people who are
> not schooled in such concepts and deliberate manipulations of those who
>
> want to blind people to cultural factors especially when those be their
>
> own - and I say that hey, Confucians equated social order with this
> ("li") and Taoists claimed it to be part of natural way toward which
> deliberate action and social order is hindrance - and then I say how
> we've seen an abomination of all abominations: American psychology
> deriving from spirituality the idea of collective consciousness and
> then used it to mean what they wanted psychosocial environment to
> become - creating a "li" type condition to freeze-dry in eternities a
> sociocultural moment and set of false convictions and interests - using
>
> the consciousness movement sellouts to deify precisely the thing that
> they sought rightly to overcome and shoving, through character
> destruction and psychological violence, the lie of the deliberately
> created construct being natural or divine, down people's throats.
> Creating this abomination of all abominations; Bigotry, barbarism and
> sheer malice using spiritual tools to enforce itself and claiming to be
>
> spiritual consciousness of civilization! Treating its dissidents as
> demons! And claiming for itself absolute authority over people's lives,
>
> while denying them any freedom of will and choice and thought: An
> encompassing American "li," the deviation from which is deviation not
> only from sanity but indeed from divine order! Confucianism on American
>
> soil, ladies and gentlemen, denying not only deliberate choice but
> denying people the knowledge of the Choices That Went Into Creating
> This Situation - that pass off social construction as part of divine
> will or all that is while not only ignoring the fact of human will
> (modes, right?) in formation and co-formation of social reality but
> denying people the RIGHT TO MAKE A CHOICE, period!
>
>
> Which means that any meaningful concept of liberty means breaking down
> that construct. And yes Mickey, that means you.
>
>
> So I take off my shoes and socks and take off my shorts. I'm walking
> down the street in underwear, and still seeing the den of the enchanted
>
> she-spider in front of me and pulling me further ahead into her grasp.
> Oh! You know how much I need you, devour me, why don't you, and turn me
>
> into food for webs. The she-spider laughs. I would be corrupt if I were
>
> to use such feelings for short-sighted purposes. I'm only pulling you
> to where the self-existing one lives. That's whom you want to talk to,
> then you could actually have informed choice & to reason why would be
> yours.
>
>
> I put my shorts back on while passing a school ("don't want no
> stupidity there") and then take them off while out of view. I remember
> "in the middle of the road only yellow stripes and dead armadillos" and
>
> I walk between yellow stripes and a SUV approaches from behind and I
> think maybe I could disprove that but it shows no signs of seeing me so
>
> I move off and well I think the middle-of-the-road view can sometimes
> work and in some cases may even be optimal, but it also is taxing and
> hard to maintain energy (and some things are furthermore not to be
> integrated, as compromise with what wants you dead leaves you
> half-dead: Dialectic works for legitimate pairs of existents, while in
> other pairs of existence one is all-good and other is all-bad in which
> what is needed is not dialectic but radicalism, and in other existents
> still we have some convoluted mixture), so on occasion it will happen
> that one extreme topples the moderate and then the two need to fight or
>
> make up and, well, just that you came up with this solution in DC as a
> politician at 50 does not mean that it it true for Puerto Rican at 30
> or the 15-year-old rape victim or the German retirees or the bus driver
>
> in India or people in Ethiopia or Ukraine. And yes, I do expect the
> same things to be said by the next or the preceding, and see that as
> part of the job. Moving equilibrium, right? Composed of just-world
> hypotheses, shifting all the time.
>
>
> And then - far right. Path to the greenery, and inside it a brook. I'm
> in my shorts with bare feet, and I hear Well if you're so in touch with
>
> the light then go into here, through darkness, through brambles, and
> let it carry you. I do, while at one point laughing at a vine above me
> (she once swung on a vine too and it broke but she lived - here I think
>
> vine is a helping hand, a high place extending me hand I need as it
> hangs off the emanation of the self-existing and looks like umbilical
> cord but only apparently mimics that adaptation to lead out and up) -
> and so I walk through and find myself in the brook, and I stand as they
>
> tell me, and I take off all things and let she-spider weave all around
> me and be enfolded by her skin and remember the river nymphs and know
> the true meaning of communing. The river nymphs Ms. LL said were always
>
> lonely and sought to be loved, but found upon contact with man that he
> saw them as satanic and wanted to either kill them or put them in
> horrible place - and I said I am with you I won't stand to let you be
> killed whatever that means to my salvation - and then I hear about
> hardness of walls and I say that I will show what is under the wall
> ("earth hard - fire under it"), as I rummage through rocks - rocks
> polished by water - rocks arranged meticulously - I take a rock that
> has flat bottom and circular top, the presentation I presume of model
> of being - until I find WHAT WAS UNDER THE WALL.
>
>
> This one is all black, containing many black rocks within a
> fused-together ground of being shape of an L. No spheres, no polish,
> nothing. Absolutely uncompromising. A bit of a nematode I conjecture, a
>
> bit of a coral reef I conjecture, a bit of a colony in which each is
> its own seed and whole being manifests through all. So I think OK this
> is the integrative synthesis, with self and structure reshaping both
> and belonging to each other, making best of each other and best for
> each other through synthesis and abrasion and creating synergy within
> framework of checks and balances - actually I think this later, what I
> think here is:
>
>
> If you WWIIers or Xers still don't get a clue, the clue is as follows.
> That particular society combined the worst of spirit and matter:
> Regimented and intellectually oppressive as in religion and barren of
> all emotional and spiritual experience as in rationalism. And the
> purpose of mind is to combine the best of all possible worlds. A world
> that makes the best of spirit and matter: Full of emotional and
> spiritual and experiential richness (the best of spirit) - and with
> real liberties and well-being (the best of matter). And yes that means
> the best of all possible worlds; and if you say you can't have the best
>
> of all possible worlds then I say that it is the purpose of mind to
> make the best of all possible worlds and if we don't have the best of
> all possible worlds then we either aren't thinking or are being
> sabotaged or are sabotaging ourselves.
>
>
> ("And what if humanity does not deserve that?" Whether or not that is
> so, your job as a human is to make that possible. "And what about
> original sin?" Well if there is such a thing as original sin then it
> speaks to the totality of the human nature including all agendas
> belonging to it, including desire to control your children or run your
> community or control people's behavior or make money or shape your
> country or stand in anyone else's way, so the concept applies to
> anything you may do and is for that reason meaningless to all practical
>
> action - in the same way for example as the concept of all things being
>
> illusion becomes meaningless by the same standard.)
>
>
> So I am out of the stream and walking past a cemetery. It says
> "Mitchell" (Hey you know who) then "Bowie" and before all of them in
> the middle, "Shepherd." (and I guess the ones behind you are sheep, and
>
> well guess where they are now). Then: "Onion" and "Simpson" (I start
> laughing: Hey boss, thanks for that) followed by "Stuart." OK, you got
> my attention (someone else knows significance of that too).
>
>
> Then there's the church that talks about 11:00: Christianity 101:
> Repentance and I see this as initiation ritual akin to all others in
> other religions (you reject sin or the world of sin or ego and then you
>
> proceed on path to illumination or enlightenment) and then I think I
> don't repent things under consideration so I hear then let's manipulate
>
> the events in society and in people's lives in such ways that they
> would suffer negative circumstances and you would be seen as a culprit
> or as a wrongdoer and I say This is your social manipulation done using
>
> deliberate effort of will and mind and is in no way a natural
> consequence of those actions, so the one guilty is not me or my loved
> ones but you. I remember the observation that said non-Christians got
> headaches and mental pain and I remember that state of affairs when in
> Christian school and of course this is not natural state of being
> non-Christian but state induced by Christian people's thoughts and
> prayers - you think you don't do magic? Your whole mindset is magic -
> and so I start thinking well am I not bringing murderous memes of
> Christianity to those whom I don't want killed and - that was the
> problem before, I kept bringing shit to those I did not want to bring
> shit and I hoped Christianity would free me of that
>
>
> So I reiterate what I said before, There's the true spiritual attitude
> that fills world with richness and the religious component that
> regiments, and there's the logic-based worldview that gives
> circumstantial liberty but disallows any feeling or thought or
> existence that actually makes life worthwhile, and I say there's ways
> to combine it with 00 rate of return (religious applied to behavioral
> standards - material applied to emotion: no liberty, no richness, aka
> pure evil), 01 (religious applied to behavioral standards - spiritual
> applied to emotion: no liberty, but richness, the experience of the
> Mexican), 10 (material applied to behavioral standards - material
> applied to emotion: Liberty, no experience, the experience of the
> Unitarian), and the prize: 11: Material applied to society and
> spiritual applied to experience: Liberty AND life worth living.
>
>
> Now this has happened once in American history: The path from 10 moved
> to 11. The Transcendentalism. A more traumatic transition: From 00 to
> 11: the Hippies. And in both cases they were described as being
> spoiled. Will you people learn? IT IS MEANINGLESS TO GIVE PEOPLE
> CIRCUMSTANTIAL LIBERTY, OR PEACE, OR PROSPERITY, IF THEY ARE NOT
> ALLOWED TO LIVE! What happened was not merely rebellion; It was
> improvement: It was progress: It was the next level. It was the
> innovation upon what existed previously. You've created a civilization
> in which people have rights. Now, it can be a civilization in which
> people can actually live. AND Integrate the spiritual component, while
> Building it, On top, Of, The, Intellectual, Structures, That, You,
> Created!
>
>
> In other words: Liberty AND emotional richness! Mind AND spirituality!
> Not only have statutory liberty, but make it possible to actually live!
>
> Like I said, what's the point of being free if you are not allowed to
> feel, or to live, or to have beautiful experiences and beautiful
> existence? We have New Agers freeing themselves by saying that they
> must essentially be a world to themselves - that others are reflection
> of self but not important - that romantic love is a myth - that
> everyone creates their reality (corollaries: that everyone who's being
> mistreated caused it, that the privileged Westerner created conditions
> of his privilege and the Ethiopian has done the same for himself, that
> any feeling worth having is to be exculcated, that leader can do
> anything to his subjects because they would be creating their reality
> through his actions and you can do what you want to another because
> they caused their reality) - and what I'm saying is, This is monstrous!
>
> So you've found a way to be free, I see that; but you've done it by
> becoming cold and heartless and malevolent! And utterly lacking in
> compassion, ethics or any sense of what your ideas would mean for the
> world as a whole.
>
>
> The problem I've seen with a lot of spiritual adepts is that they
> become cold, heartless, and cruel, and that's simply not a direction I
> would accept any spirituality taking me! What's the point of having
> spirituality if you end up cold? "You are the river" - no, a river is a
>
> flow, it is a flux, it is a relationship. "Just be love" - an
> impossibility: You cannot be love because love is something that is
> felt by one thing for another - you can love but you cannot be love:
> You can be fire, you can be light, I've been motion and verb for a
> while, you can even be self-existent for a while if you swing that way
> but you cannot BE love. The Bhakti Yoga is not based on "being love";
> it is based on devotional love of God bringing one into Godspace. In
> the same way as love for the next person creates similar flux that
> reshapes both.
>
>
> And meanwhile we have (from a Castaneda group leader and publisher of
> "Tucson Poet") the poetic imagery of the civilizaition being a giant
> eros-extracting mechanism directing lifeforce toward consumption. What
> does this mean, and where does this lead? If eros is something to be
> extracted and used to fuel economy - what world do we have? As Robert
> Tkotch rightly stated, a population completely and deservedly
> emasculated in every respect that counts. A population in which, to
> paraphrase Onion, 90% of the population are permanently sedentary, all
> their life force expropriated. A population that attacks the true river
>
> - the true flux - the true manifestation of eros: The passionate love
> between man and woman. And that, by attacking the basis of all true
> emotional experience, becomes this and this absolutely: An
> expropriation and usurpation of life. Itself. Apparently "God is love"
> becomes "military-industrial complex is love" the upshot of which is:
> Pepsi loves you.
>
>
> I've seen this malignant element in thought of aforementioned spiritual
>
> adepts: Their claim of passion between woman and man as "a shortcut." A
>
> shortcut? A shortcut to what? Enlightenment? What if they aren't
> interested in enlightenment - what if they are simply interested in
> living? No, it is a better technology. It is a claim on existence. It
> is a birthright of human beingness. It is the truth of experience, and
> without such things being possible all the progress you have means
> nothing!
>
>
> Don't you YET understand? To have liberties, is meaningless unless you
> can actually have an existence worthy of experiencing! It puts a
> question to the whole idea of, "Well what do we have these liberties
> for?" To have legal liberties, without a freedom to feel, to
> experience, to have life worth having, is like having walls without a
> building inside of it! Once again, WHAT ARE THESE LIBERTIES FOR? Is it
> worth fighting to protect liberties without it being acceptable to
> live? if it is impossible to have a fully human, fully passionate,
> fully experienced, existence? Don't just say you've made this building
> (and everyone owes you their life, and then go down in history as yet
> another set of tyrants who fed in order to choke while people
> legitimately start asking if maybe it's better to surrender some of
> these liberties for the sake of spirituality), make it habitable so
> that your work actually BENEFITS the world! Put furniture, paintings,
> carpets inside so that somebody actually BENEFITS from what you've
> created! Put this work in service of human interest, use hardware to
> carry beautiful works and beautiful artifacts and ideas that allow
> people to develop beautiful thoughts and emotions and by implementing
> them in their lives and sharing them with each other not only make life
>
> beautiful for each other but actually create a social order that does
> the world the honor for existing - that makes possible life worth
> living - that Consummates the Edifact of Civilization and allows light
> to manifest through the structures of manifestation and create a
> livable world rather than simply a working economy!
>
>
> So we hear intellectualists argue that emotions are necessarily
> entrapping and regressive, and I say, Ridiculous - and to paraphrase
> someone, what's so freeing or rational about the emotion of hate. And
> then we hear religious people argue that you're not independent. Well,
> I may be independent or I may not be independent; Khodorkovsky just
> told us a way to be free whatever the circumstances. And there's Mickey
>
> saying that that makes you arrogant and I say SO BE IT, Be arrogant
> when dealing with people like Mickey, STAND BY your thoughts, STAND BY
> your feelings, stand by your being and right to exist as an independent
>
> unit of volitional consciousness and a being who feels - and for people
>
> to be able to do that is the only way to defeat dictatorship and
> oppression by any name, whether it come from people who think you
> arrogant for having your own thoughts or people who think you infantile
>
> for having feelings worth having or from the marriage in hell between
> psychology and religion to create an encompassing American "li" the
> devation from which is a deviation from sanity and goodness itself (and
>
> Scott Peck as its ultimate arbiter). Yes, I read that the idealist's
> strategy is to create a holistic synthesis that gets everyone to agree
> - and I keep saying that's fine and good and a noble project, but don't
>
> tell me that that means I have to submit to this if I see and know to
> the contrary!
>
>
> So I see two complementary half-rights half-wrongs: Religion being
> oppressive of behavior but enriching of experience, and rationalism
> creating circumstantial liberty but denying freedom to feel and to
> experience life. And I say that the poet's way is to combine the best
> of both: To have circumstantial freedom and the freedom of passion and
> beauty and inspired, beautiful, passionate, romantic existence. You may
>
> claim the latter to be an impossibility. But I've seen it work and
> would fight for it for the next person. And to the people who regard
> such things badly, I say, This is the prize of existence, and anything
> against that is against all the good in humanity. It is for this that
> every great person has ever striven, and to make such things possible
> for the next person is one's duty before America and one's duty before
> humankind.
>
>
> Ilya Shambat

The gist of this, though, disparages the very institutions that
empowered people in the first place, whether it be feminism or the
unions or rap.

And that is purely nonsense.

Istitutions need to change to survive and this is a constant process of
adaptation.

But to discard the notion of empowerment or the structures that provide
them is just plain silly.

Updating, though, a constant reassessment of philosophy, is cetainly
prudent and helps to keep things applicable.

ibshambat2004@hotmail.com

2005-08-01, 6:00 pm

Are you of the Church of Subgenius?

Regarding romance, no. I've struggled towards it through a morass of
deception comprised by, well, people like you, and proved it to exist.

I even have evidence.

http://www.shadowpoetry.com/bookstore/poemstojulia.html

"Sing of hardness of walls" - Aye my friend, BUT WHAT'S UNDER THE WALL?

jonkoot wrote:
> Dear Ilya:
>.................