What Does it Mean to THINK?

First off, I am not a fan of being or becoming a prisoner of the Mind. To the same effect, the Mind, like the Ego, has an important function to serve. It is a tool, so learn how to use it. But it's important to discern and make sure that you do not identify with it.

You are not your Thoughts, just like you are not your Ego.

You have a brain. USE it, but don't BECOME it.

Yeah, at first this made absolutely no sense to me either.


BLlllllllllllah. I must vent. I've just read a blog post by Celtic Rebel entitled, "Why Must I Suffer Fools?"

A year ago, had I read it, I would have classified him as an egotistical, elitist ass wipe. I probably wouldn't have read the whole thing, just give it a brief skim and then either leave in a huff or leave a really sarcastic comment to "bring him down a peg or two." But now, I realize that reaction of defensiveness stemmed from somewhere else. Even something as benign as annoyance can point to something much deeper.

My own ignorance.

And how profound it is -- despite the fact that I've received assessments from people that I pretend to know everything or come off as elitist... not that they're even using that word correctly. They're using elitist in a way that the word would have to be defined as, "Someone who uses big words I'm too lazy to look up or talks about concepts that appear complicated on the surface" or "someone who refuses to make every post a digestible affirmation of what I already understand and agree with."

Oy(L).

WHY must THIS fooL be made to suffer fooLs??? It isn't FAIR! Bahahaha. Siiiiiiiigh. Yep. I don't know everything. Never claim to, and never will because there will always be something new to learn. That is the nature of Creation.

(Oh, good lord. I can just hear a vapid Darwinist going off a talking point of -- "'Creation'? Look! There, you see? She's a creationist! How ignorant!!!"

Siiiiiiiigh.

Irony fails those who cast stones.


Siiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigh. I'm probably an even bigger fool to even suffer fools. To even engage with them.

To say, "Oh, well it's because you think they're beneath you."

Siiiiiiiiigh. That is a reaction. Not a valid assessment. And it's a reaction to protect hurt feelings.

Yes, it's important to feel things -- but you are not your literal feelings. Because someone makes you angry does not make that person wrong.


Now I'm coming to a realization that when someone dismisses what I say with, "Well, that's just your opinion" or "Well, I think you're wrong. Dude, don't get mad, that's just what I think."

What is an opinion but a personal viewpoint and belief or judgment that rests on insufficient grounds of evidence?

As for thinking -- real, critical thinking -- doesn't that ask for you to utilize that tool you call your brain to come up with an idea or understanding that begins as entirely your own? What happens to it once it's out there, well... no one can really own. But the actual process of thinking -- that's freedom.

So the question I want to ask these peoples is this: is this what you really THINK, or is this something you've AGREED to believe?

An agreement is contractual by nature. What is a contract? It's a consent between 2 or more parties to agree on something under specified terms. There is no freedom in a contract. If you break one of the stipulations, the contract is vulnerable to being declared as null and void.

So when it comes to hearing something in the "news" (Think about it: N E W S -- North, East, West, South -- isn't it a reorientation of direction in consensus "thinking"?) usually information is posited. And, when you see the source as "credible" you tend to affirm or agree with the information, that it is real.

Off of THAT, one forms an opinion.

(note to self: be more mindful of pronouns in next blog post.)

Usually, when one is presented with news, one is asked to choose one: is what happened a GOOD thing or a BAD thing? That's where one is tricked into thinking that one is thinking.

But really, one is only fortifying a predetermined contract of what one agrees IS reality. That CNN and MSNBC is reporting on what actually "matters." They in-form us, keep us in line in this consensus-based reality and deliberately confuse us to distract us from asking harder questions, or questioning anything at all outside of what choices they've presented before us.

DUDe. It's kind of like the process of voting, isn't it?

Sorry, I meant for this to be an essay, but it's turning into this tangential process for me. Siiiiiiiiigh. I don't even know who I'm apologizing to. Myself? Quite possibly.

Does this absolve me of entering into an agreement of any sort? Of course not.

Something is happening, and other people tend to agree with what is really going on. And yet, I'm not contractually bound to these people. But I do think that we have a tacit agreement to look into alternative news sources and come up with conclusions independent of the reporter when we see the information connect to a much larger narrative of what is going on.

But, as it stands, right now I am in the process of thinking.

And too often people I talk to do not do enough of that. What I mean is that they tend to mistake "thinking" for "agreement" and are nothing more than pots calling the kettle black when they say my postings are "nothing more" than opinions, implying that critical thinking or labor wasn't involved.


Whatevers. Whoever smelt it delt it.

What the Frak? Final Facebook Rant.

In the process of letting it go.

::deep breath::

FWOOOOOOOOOOOOSH...!

RANT OF THE MOMENT:

Knowing a fact is not learning a truth.

Verbal sparring based upon empty talking points is not a real conversation.

I've learned sh*t and wanna share. That's IT. BASTA.

So why are people so friggin greedy, half-invested in debunking the Real and half-invested in wanting to Know? Greedy, greedy, greedy, needy, needy, needy.

Have I ever pretended that I was an expert academic on the subject of EVERYTHING? So why are you treating me like I'm some professor at some dinky arse panel discussion? So the only way I have any credibility is if I footnote every single thought and topic of conversation?

Really?

And so... what are YOU doing? The same? Funny how whatever it is that you expect from me is exactly what you avoid dishing out.

"Gimme more facts. More facts! Cuz you're wrong/lame/withoutValue until you gimme more facts! Cuz I'm too lazy to research for myself, you got to do it all for me to even listen to you, so I'm just gonna sass ya and harass ya until you fess up!"

or

"More facts, more facts, more facts - where are your footnotes? I need facts for me to pick apart -- I mean, if one piece of the puzzle is wrong, then it is all wrong. Research, toil in those fields, mine me more diamonds until you find one that is pristine. And then, and ONLY THEN might I TRY to understand you. Otherwise you're full of shit."

or

"I don't want to invest in your Truth until you tell me why the frak it MATTERS. If you can't tell me why it matters, then your point is without value."

Oh. A bottom line. So you need a return on an investment?

LOOK, ASSHOLE: I'm not trying to SELL you ANYTHING, so why the frak are you structuring our interaction like some kind home loan or job interview and then pretend to call it a conversation/dialogue? If you think that's a conversation, you're already tripping.

Sorry, no need to rain on your parade, but I'm not recruiting at the moment.

LISTEN: How are you gonna "get it" if your understanding of what is Real and what Matters is so short-sighted?

Siiiiiiiiiigh.

Ask an intelligent question, I dare you.

Talk to me if you really want to share ideas, because otherwise you are circling a drain and I don't want to follow you down there. Cuz there's nastiness and hair ball crap down there.

You want an ATM? Hit up Wells Fargo or J.P. Morgan and Chase.

No mo investments. This bank is CLOSED.

Codex Alimentarius: Criminalizing Vitamins, Minerals and Herbs

For more information on codex alimentarius: http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2008/05may/RICR-080522.php

Perception: Strength as Weakness and Vice Versa

Reminder: re-read Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.

So often we are taught to be "modest" and "humble" - but what function does humility - false or genuine - have for us as humans?




Altruists as "eviL".



This makes sense to me; at the same time it is so difficult to apply in the context of family, especially as a child of immigrants because there are so many obligations - familial and otherwise - that I am expected to play. That - because my internalization of these "values" and my inability to speak fluently in more than English - I have a hard time having a real conversation about, logically looking at what these roles mean, matter and do when they are performed.

It makes me think, though, putting my grandparents first is an understood sign of respect. At the same time, I know, at my core, that as humans, they are no more important than I am...despite the level of deference I show to them.

Which isn't exactly altruistic, per se.



There is a difference between religion and spirituality, which I shall get into on another post. I also have issues with her exaltation of skyscrapers in lieu of the stars, because I do see their existence as creative entities working in odd concert.



I think social responsibility is problematic. Her perspectives on responsibility are interesting, I do think personal responsibility is important.

The perspectives on Iran - also... erhmmm... are much more complicated than stated, and yet, I wonder if... if complications were something that came about "naturally" or if they were engineered in some manner.

Donahue seems to be taking something personally.



BobbLebot is sLeepies. But shall extend and explain this post at another juncture.

Lights

There are lights, some like tiny blue stars that flicker in the intensity of their brightness, others like burning suns radiating a golden light. Most everyone has a light. But like light pollution that shrouds the stars that hang above large cities, there is a lot of artificial light that dims the lights in all of us.

I can't see literal light.

But there is a quality that can be sensed, that any of us can sense. And sometimes it's not quite darkness, but it's like it's so hazy... like so much artificial light is going on in one's understanding of reality that it's hard for the real light, the original light to shine through.

Anyway, it's kind of pretty, seeing, or even imagining all these lights walking around the city, in the streets, across a room - like stars forever forming new patterns and constellations.

This blue planet is swimming in constellations. But there's also a lot of artificial lighting and external stimulation that kind of drains, dims and darkens the brightness of the stars within ourselves. I can see it. And so can you.

It's weird. But makes sense. If any of this makes sense.

Some shine brighter than others, and there are a few that have a very peculiar, particular quality. The weird ones. They tend to have a lot more clarity in the nature of their creative expression. But things like insecurity or external stimuli like excess entertainment tends to dim their inner twinkle lights.

I really like these people. Because they're not all hippy dippy, but down to earth and have a real human smell to the way their lights shine.

And even when they're acting like assholes, I tend to have more patience with them, because they're all just coming into their self hoods like myself. So we stumble and get distracted along the way. But it does concern me, because they're unaware or are ashamed of the very qualities that make them so rare and choose to actively dim their brightness in the presence of others.

BobbLebot's speaking BabbLebot again.

I suppose... por ejempLo, I've got a soul speaker in one corner, a weird one, but has a fuzzy clarity to his light. (Paradoxical, I know.) The source is clear, the edges are fuzzy. In another corner I know a thundercat who's a stealth weirdo. He's intensely and intelligently weird with a very humanish smell to him. His light's more amber/yellow, like a sun. Very fuzzy, warmer than it is bright at the moment.

The affect is there, but the clarity in light isn't. But I could tell that it once was. It flickers. Like a street lamp that can't make up its mind whether or not it wants to stay lit. Fluttering like butterflies or allergy-inflicted eyelashes. Eyelids? Eyelashes sounds better.

Babyface, his is such a cute and intelligent light. Can't decide what color or tones yet. It floats around like a bubble unless something catches its attention. Then it kind of stays still and glows brighter and brighter. And then dims quickly when it gets overstimulated and exhaustimicated.

Thumbprints, I suppose. Everyone has their own signature.

What's mine? Hmmmm... I dunno. Mebbe someone else can tell me. I'd like to think it's a twinkle, twinkle shiny star the bops all over the place. If I have a star inside me, it's probably one that doesn't sit still for very long. But then again, I don't know for sure. Cuz I don't have a mirror.

And there are other lights, really pure and bright. Otherworldly. And they don't smell very human - but in a good way. I suppose it's like those lights are kind of beyond the superficial fallacies that most of us go through.

But anyway, here's an example of a light that doesn't smell very human and burns very brightly. Blue-whiteish. Not quite ultraviolet.





Lights like these give me a lot of comfort in knowing there are those that don't need to be "helped" along, but just ARE. Each and every burning star.

2012, Selfhood, Shadow Selves, omgz etc.

More so than any other lecture that I've studied this summer, this is the one that truly encapsulates a lot of the way in which I now perceive myself, my purpose and the importance of the human connection in a very cerebral way.

Yes, it's 3.5 hours and if you're allergic to "conspiracy theory", skip 23 minutes into the presentation when Tsarion begins to talk about Consciousness. It is an amazing presentation that I am so stoked to share with anyone who is open to the idea that the otherworldly may not be so otherworldly after all. In fact, it may be our very reality and we can choose to shape it with our very Consciousness.

In other words: briLLiance!

Oh, Bama...

Okay, so here's a youtube vid that's unnecessarily titled, "Barack Obama, Wolf in Sheep's Clothing" - and it's from this 2012 myspace group - but I don't think you have to be a 2012 enthusiast or lover of ominous music in order to glean a lot of interesting information from this video and new perspectives on, yes, the Obama campaign, but also new perspectives on the way in which government and politics function. Historically and presently. And to pay attention to repetitions and patterns while opening an eye and an ear, a sense of awareness, of what is going on beyond rhetoric.

Obama is a very charismatic politician. But what percentage of your vote is riding on charisma, on a very talented, smart personality? When it comes to speeches, he is brilliant. Yes, he's got speech makers who help him out from time to time, but the delivery is all his. And yes, we can admire him for that. But is it logical to use that as a major brownie point in terms of giving yourself over to this person to lead you? Because what he is buying from you, in the end, is your faith. For there is no way for you to know where exactly he will lead this country.

Change. I do believe it. But what kind of change is it that we are looking for? And are we looking in the right places for change?




This Obama-as-Messiah, very much in the eye of the beholder. But it is very real, this affect, this need for a political savior because there is no "yes we can" in the hearts of those voting who believe they can "save" themselves.

So let's go into the very people Obama will be working with when he gets elected into office. I say when because there is no if about it. Let's say he is a single, autonomous person. This is the system he is walking into.



How much will the vote be based upon real, concrete visions of creating change, and how much of it will be based upon real, concrete emotions?



The thing is, if we are looking for change, we will not find it. Not the kind that lasts. Not the kind that we intuitively want or envision in a very abstract way. Why?

Because change is created. It is not found, it is not discovered and it is not brought into fruition by a leader we invest in.

It's in investment that's first made in ourselves. Plant it, grow it, take good care of it - and, when it's ready, enact it externally.


I suppose what concerns me are what happens to voters when they get too wrapped up in all the rhetoric and emotions of it all. Emotions are important and are a positive force under certain conditions. When they are coming from within and processed accordingly. But when they are exploited from without, then it becomes a very real concern.

Let me ask you - are you afraid of disliking Obama? Are you afraid of seriously considering all parts and parcels of his platform? I'm not talking about editing out all the "bad" stuff and just paying attention to the stuff you like.

If you answered yes to the 2 above questions, what does this tell you about yourself? About the campaign? About what we are investing our energy in?