----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> >Um, I don't care how high you want to climb up the rope of tautology here
> >Steve, the point remains. Do you think that the act of stripping away
> >limiting ideological garbage is itself, a limiting ideology?
> >If so, please
> >explain your position in detail so the slow kids can keep up.
> Because you have invented and are retaining this notion that you are
> "limited" ... which is what makes it so.
Again, you're simply abstracting the issue one level. Fine: the retention
of the notion of limitation IS the limitation. THAT'S what we need to strip
away. You wanna crawl up to the -next- level? (No, no Jason, it's the
retention of the -belief- in the -notion- of limitation that is the
In any case, observationally your belief is clearly wrong-- or do you not
see millions of ongoing examples of individual humans falling prey to
limiting belief structures?
> > >2) Understand your personal power.
> > Or do you have power to hold back the waves?
> >That too. We humans are industrious little critters. You can get
> >surprisingly good results from a little bit of rebar and a pinch of
> OK, King Canute. I am just trying to inject a bit of perspective
> into your slightly egomaniacal world view.
Huh? I -do- have an ego (it's true) but in what fashion have you seen it
reflected unflatteringly in my previous post?
> > >3) Understand your environment.
> > And all of the other environments.
> >Sure. Of course, they have decreased relevancy to our existence if we
> >actually get to live in them.
> All environments are mental constructs .. sense data isn't direct.
> "The world is located in consciousness" (Kuhlenbeck).
> Our (E-1) brain generates a phantom median eye out of the same
> action potential/ neural information that carries generic sense-data ...
> this is the ONLY explanation of consciousness that squares Leibnitz' Law.
I agree. You're going to make me do this again, ain'tcha? Okay...
Environments have decreased relevancy to our existence is we don't actually
get to "mentally interface" with them.
> > >Others will disagree, but: reality is, after all, a game.
> You sound like a conventionalist, human-been philosophy student now ...
> "game" is just a metaphor. Perhaps you should qualify by saying "reality
> LIKE a game" ..
> but I would still disagree. Sure, a playful attitude is often a good thing
I don't think you're getting what I'm getting at, but that's probably
because I haven't expended enough effort. If you're persistent enough, you
might coax a moderate rant out of me on the subject. There is a Lost Tribe
track called Gamemaster (used more famously by Mr. Paul Oakenfold,) that
points at the concept, but is (somewhat unfortunately) shrouded in some
mystical-druid-earth-goddess mumbo jumbo.
I'm not directly referrencing some core truth of reality, but rather
remarking on an empowering means by which we might consider interfacing with
it. I'm not talking Rocket Science (tm) here either-- simply: a) be aware
of how we are capable of interacting with reality, and b) take advantage of
it to optimise our existence.
> >And what are you pretending to be now?
> 1) Post-human
> 2) Bodhisattva (fully-enlightened being)
> 3) Grandmaster Hodos Sphenodon (magus, games programmer)
> 4) Steve Nichols (when have to visit the shops and pay my taxes)
> By rehearsal and constant practice, we become more like the think
> we pretend to be, but they are all "thought-constructs" still.
> It is just a case of finding our most accurate/ comfortable option.
> All these roles are subject to change ... the point is we should aim
> to become "more than human." Immortality is earnt, not given.
If "pretending" to be those things adds observable value to your existence,
and aids in achieving certain goals, then I say go for it. (Premises which
are, perhaps, debatable.)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:30 MDT