Beliefs/ Origins

[Halfglass]

I had a classic archetype visit not long ago. It felt bogus...a cartoonish offer of some "holiness" (don't ask). I remember McKenna saying that in the trip/trance he'd say to himself, "Okay, here comes the archetype, we'll just let this go now!" But what are we to make of the archetype? Does it invalidate other seemingly real encounters with the Other? Maybe the boundaries of what was thought to be of the spirit world and the physical world were, to the emerging self-aware "unit" (pseudo/man of a hundred thousand years ago) so indistinct that it made no difference--and why should it? Whether an owl flying at night was believed to be a flesh-and-blood animal or a spirit, wouldn't be important to the survival of the "unit."

In the modern brained humans, the forcing of the irrational into that brain, against the logic that wants to protest against the seemingly impossible feats that are being introduced--like beliveing, self-convincing/brainwashing as it would seem it must be, in something like Christ walking on water say...we have forced the brain into a precarious position. It may be that the emergence of the ego coincided with the belief in a God, (one that was vengful or given to anger by reason or way of storms, droughts, earthquakes etc.) and the two are not mutually exclusive, that is the ego and a belief in an Overbeing.

In the model of oneness, (idealism or a self-aware universe--we are that "god" from the void) the psychedelic paradox, which is the self looking into the self and so coming up answerless in a search for origin, will remain always a deadlock and undecipherable.

[ March 17, 2004, 03:14 PM: Message edited by: Halfglass ]

[jezebelle]

Halfglass:
Such is the "angst" of man. "Angels with assholes" knowing its' diviness must pass through death, so rude.

forcing of the irrational into that brain, against the logic . . .

Yet the irrational-part is a whole half of brain.

In this book, Mystics, Magicians and Medicine People (Doug Boyd) a patricarch opens up (our author doug boyd's) pathway of perception between two sides. The problem however is the "knowing" doesn't allow for the act of . . . expressing the event. In the context of language you lose the the direct experience of knowingness and this quandary is discussed. Apparently in the old days there were many experienced beings, that could be lucid awake in both the hard and soft body. There was a line {open} between the regular thinking place and the deep knowing place.

So here we are trying to draw our lines, and how you activate daily, is no easy quest.

There was an interesting point at the end of the book, that humans should take care of the human affairs while being in the human mode.

Love and chi, jez

[egret]

jezebelle said: “The problem however is the "knowing" doesn't allow for the act of . . . expressing the event. In the context of language you lose the the direct experience of knowingness…”

I’m beginning to feel that there really are only two basic things a human does: Seeing and Saying (of course, most of the time most of us run around on automatic, but that doesn’t count). And its like there’s a single organ to do both, like the mouth, and you’re not allowed to talk with your mouth full. I mean, full perception gets you to a place where words or any kind of formulation necessarily reduce the vision. On the good side they reduce it to something understandable, and communicable, but on the bad, they convince us too often that the truth lies in what was said, not what was Seen. But Saying isn’t just words, its also, probably, more abstract images, analogies, faces put on things that really have none, etc. That may be our task as humans: to Say; that is what human’s do. But it is the devil’s bargain.
We’re like bees collecting honey from the Infinite. For what purpose…?

[Halfglass]

Jez: You are the funny one! "Angels with assholes" Lol. (Death is the fuckin' rudest idn' it?) Egret: In the closed-eye trip, all those lil' thingses out there move about by soul-sniffing, interatcing like a visuaudiofeeeel. They are somewhat willing to check a drifting essence-of-human out, as he bounces along the grey nightway!

[Proteus]

Hey Halfglass, Jezebelle, and egret: Halfglass wonders if the ego and the idea of God emerged at the same time. Makes sense to me. As soon as you posit an "I," you can't help but create (by implication if nothing else) a not-I. We then develop a notion that all things and people are not-I and discriminate among the not-I's comparing them to our presumably constant self. Who could be more not-I than an infinite Overbeing compared to whom we are fumbling monkeys?

Not saying the universe isn't chock-a-block full of beings, just noticing that once language enters the picture, we can't help but distancing our "selves" from them by the very act of noticing them through words.

[jezebelle]

Egret: You may have something there. But how does sound fit in? A form of perception, like seeing?

Proteus well said. Tis the rub.

Why did humankind turn away from the spiraling awareness of the group-mind, to develop the ego? There are many theories on that. One I like, is the idea that we have energy centers that are laying dormant, that can only be activated once we are in outerspace. (Timothy Leary - Game of Life)
Somehow collectively, we are creating a new lifeform, is one idea that makes sense to me.

Halfglass: I am digging The Cosmic Serpent and it gets all my attention.

[jezebelle]

Egret: You may have something there. But how does sound fit in? A form of perception, like seeing?

Proteus well said. Tis the rub.

Why did humankind turn away from the spiraling awareness of the group-mind or DNA, to develop the ego? There are many theories on that. One I like, is the idea that we have energy centers that are laying dormant, that can only be activated once we are in outerspace. (Timothy Leary - Game of Life)
Somehow collectively, we are creating a new lifeform, is one idea that makes sense to me.

Halfglass: I am digging The Cosmic Serpent and it gets all my attention.

[jezebelle]

shit how did that happen?