Mark Grant (
Fri, 11 Apr 1997 20:19:17 +0000

On Fri, 11 Apr 1997, ard wrote:

> That appears to be "normal" for humans, does it not? Can we not see the
> same thing happening on this list when it comes to "mysticism"; i.e.;
> judgement made without examination?

Uh, I don't think that means what you think it means... or at least that's
not my dictionary's definition. It's certainly not what I think it means.

> Since all humans have different values, world-views, etc. they would each
> see their lives as they are; uniquely different. It would not be
> reasonable to expect any two individuals to have the same life, or to even
> share the same world-view, would it?

Um, I still don't understand the question 8-(.

> The point being, that when
> humans began making and using machines extensively, they had a mechanistic
> view of the Universe, including bodies. Now they appear to be doing the
> same with the body, which has to be a gross over-simplification of this
> very complex item.

But if it's not just a machine, then what is it? I've met many people who
tell me 'But the brain isn't a computer', or 'But the body isn't a
machine', but none of them have ever been able to tell me what they are.
I'll accept that we might have 'souls' who sneak into our bodies through
quantum mechanical effects, but that seems to be the only other option.

> If you have never "been there", you don't really "know" what 100% Bliss
> requires, do you?

Why? You mean that if I climbed 99% of the way up Mt Everest I'd have no
idea of how to get to the top or what it would be like up there?

> It also sounds like Joseph Campbells' "follow your bliss".

Or Bach's comments on 'selfishness' in 'Illusions', or Leary's, or a lot
of existentialist writing. They're all looking at the same problems and
finding the same solution.

> We have seen this too. Perhaps if they first understood themselves, they
> would also understand their habits.

Which rather fits into the other threads about ambitions and gender roles.
Most of my friends from school seem to have wandered into random roles
outside of their choosing, because they simply didn't have a clue as to
what they really wanted from life. This seems to be a much greater danger
than setting out to do great things against all the odds.

> "...chagrin..." disappointment....comes from expectation....this
> explains why he "never did get the hang of ego-loss"

Hmm... I'm not sure of what you're saying. Crowley knew an awful lot and
did an awful lot. His problem was expecting that people would admire him
for it. Well, that and wanting to be the Anti-Christ when he wasn't. Now
that's one ambition which probably should be stopped early on ;-).


|Mark Grant M.A., U.L.C. EMAIL: |