Too Gray Now

Ok, Causality - let me see if an illustration might be better. Most of what people identify as "causes" today are not. In medicine (Western), we do a LOT of symptom relief... and say that a certain "symptom is CAUSING me discomfort"... So in the name of being more comfortable, we medicate and treat symptoms which are "causing" discomfort. The cause of the commmon cold remains a mystery... but DANG - we sure do sell a lot of symptom relief for this ailment. Causality is the puppet master. It is the place where the sign resides... The Buck Stops Here. When I was a kid... religion taught that a girl could get pregnant if a boy simply put his penis into her.... Sorry. But once the that this was widely discredited as NOT true... the fear motivation departed... and my graduating class only had 13 girls who were either not pregnant or had not been pregnant when it came time to graduate. (More than 50%). So causality is the bone-chilling, truth about what the real reasons are... To bad the Baptists which spread this mis-information did not hold causality in a higher regard. Possibly fewer kids would have "risked" their futures.

It is more or less a universally accepted axiom that true causality can never be an object - ever. Because that which appears - - is built from a causality. Causality is that which gives a reason for a thing. If some thing has no causality - then it is not a thing. In the origins of a thing is burried its reason... which comes from pure REASON. The ultimate reason is THE causality. Like the life of a seed - is its causality for growth. Its not the parts of the seed or the sun that makes it grow... those are all contributors - but they do not embody the causality. B) These words may sound odd to the ears of those who are only comfortable reading KJV Bible English... but, sometimes that language is simply pre-wired to religious answers so as to prevent someone from thinking through their own thoughts. Using unfamiliar words can "jog" your mind into a place where you say... "Is that what I believe? Or is that just my hand-me-down-dogma talking?" Anyone else wanna have a go at this???

Ya know, love is a huge deal. It is a language - because it communicates. As we grow, our perspective changes. Seems like things around us change. Like in this poem... God Got Bigger They had a very little God In ancient Israel’s day. A God of Hate and Jealousy Though not of stone or clay. A God superior to the rest… (But still so very small.) A God for just the chosen best… (But NOT the God of all.) But then God started to grow. (Although He didn’t change.) Beyond concepts from their law From hideous and strange… To higher heights of love and peace To worship without fear… God grew and grew and grew, The nearer THEY drew near. The more we know and learn of God The more our spirit grows. ‘Tis the sweeter, meeker, kinder God which grows and Grows, and Grows!

Thanks, Roy. Kind of like someone pointing out the window, and everyone in the car hears them shout - "Look Everyone!!! A Rainbow!!" Ever notice how everyone stops talking, and everyone looks? And for a moment - everyone remembers how wonderful and special a moment of goodness can be. Best to you -

Man oh man... that is beautiful. Really.

Dang... Danny I almost the EXACT experience. We talked for hours. What a great, kind .... and scared young woman.

Why? Well - simple. I think if Moon had a chance to be on this thread when he was a kid - we (at least some of us) would have tried VERY hard to keep him from being stuck on his notion of "one way to view truth". Ya know... if more people knew that there are different ways - I bet there would be fewer Cult leaders. At least there would be fewer Cult followers. ;)-->

About Sun Myung Moon. First thing I noticed was the background of his family. What a bunch of negative spiritual crap went on in his family. Really. People going nuts left and right and needing exorcisms. All kinds of hideous stuff. As a boy, he gets a few revelations, and is asked some questions in those conversations with God, (not unlike what I have experienced). But this is about where our train tracks diverge. Moon practiced a whole different kind of or approach to journaling. Rather than see what God had to say, just like the first few times, he got the idea that he needed to quit waiting for God an he needed to start searching, in earnest. He would ask God questions, then God would tell him “yes” or “no” – but no additional details. His journaling sessions sounded like cross examination of a hostile witness on the court stand. And, boy oh boy, he had to sweat for the questions. He had to seek, big time – All he could squeeze out of God was a “yes” or a “no”. He had to fill in the questions and invent the whole premise – kind of like a Perry Mason show, that wouldn’t stop. Since Moon considered himself to be an intelligent person and a scientist, he was very “open” to “logical” suggestions or questions that would come to him. One account of him was his test in front of God with Satan watching and how he told Satan to admit to his “theory” of what happened in the Garden of Eden. (Which takes up more than 50% of Moon’s explanation of how he got to be the Messiah. – so it was pivotal to him) Satan refused to admit to Moon’s explanation of what went down in the Garden of Eden – said it did not happen that way. So, he (Moon) turned to God and said – “Ok – then YOU tell him that I am right!”. God said, “Nope. Sorry. It didn’t happen that way”. So he argued with God. Told God that it “Did so happen that way!!” – and that God had better quit screwin’ around because He knew that what he (Moon) was saying was in fact true. With more exasperation, he pressed the issue. He was NOT going to go down on this one. But, twice God gave him a “no” answer. Finally, he wore God down. God said it DID happen – just like the way he (Moon) said. THEN, like a gloating child, he turned to Satan (since it was now 2 against 1) and THEN Satan confessed that Moon had it right. All of this he considered to be a test by God - to prove to Satan that he (Moon) “figured it out” on his own – it was not just some “cheap” revelation that God simply gave to him – that he got for free – no sir – He had to work for this. He made this one his own!! This became the center piece of his future revelations: that God needed a second coming of the Messiah (Why a second coming? Not for reasons that most think… this was because the job never got finished or done right the first time by Jesus.) Moon was open to this suggestion because he had already won round 1 with God and the Devil and frankly, if he could convince God and the Devil to change their minds… then he must be THE second coming! Moon was the right guy in the right place at the right time. Korean “prophecies” in the 40s had already been given that the second coming of Christ would occur in Korea, and probably in the hot bed of Christian thought - in the area of Pyongyang. Which just happened to be Moon’s home area. Anyway, I found this all rather interesting.

Those of you who know about Rev. Moon - please cut me just a little slack. I think his re-telling of his "Snow on the Gas Pumps" type of moment (this is how a Cult leader gets informed that they have a cult to start.) For Moon it was not snow on the gas pumps - but the story has some good learning in it.

Oh, one more thing... As an example that different awarenesses have different answers... Check out the following - see if truth ONLY has ONE perspective or way to view it - then there is a very real opportunity to follow a cult leader.

SirGuess – I just read your entire post as if it was Bill Murray’s voice from “What About Bob?”. That quote could have been an out-take from that movie – (You know - the movie where he is a nut and tracks his therapist down - after his therapist went on his summer vacation – but Bob (Bill M) absolutely refuses to go away – and drives his “sane” therapist (Richard Dreyfuss) insane. :D-->). Anyway… **** so I guess, SirGuess, it is my move? BTW, I never was any good at Chess. Required too much scheming for me. Anyway, here is my move. PROXIMITY: It can do a lot for your perception! Ever notice that when it comes to objects – ones that ya can see – they usually require your proximity? So if you are not “there” – then neither is the object “there” for you to observe… (if ya go by what ya only can see at any given place in time.) I think as silly and obvious as my statement is, it explains how people perceive “truth”. We all “see” objects when we are aware of them. We can only be aware of them if we are NEAR where THEY are. Consciousness has different places because awareness has different levels. What objects you “see” at one level – depends on your being THERE (proximity – or “nearness” in your awareness). If a person leaves THERE and goes somewhere else, they will not see that object anymore. So, see what I mean… people see objects – because of where THEY are. If people don’t quite see something they say.. “That is FAR fetched”. Or “That’s a stretch!”. People use common language that point to the fact that they are not “there” – and therefore, they do not see it. Every level of consciousness or awareness has its own set of objects which can be seen. It’s own mysteries. Jesus taught in parables – so that seeing - they would not see (those who were all caught up in the awareness of the Roman rule of Jews) and hearing - they would not hear. He was only trying to point out the objects to those who were “near” or nigh unto the kingdom of God. He not only met people where they were at, he allowed people to stay where they were at. He honored the natural gap to exist which different awarenesses cause. He did not walk in and start to ridicule average people for not seeing something… (unless those people happened to be passing themselves off as men of God – spiritual seers.) He knew exactly why some would see and others would not. Jesus did not speak about objects in the same sense the “scroll scholars” talked about them. They always tried to peek into things they did not understand – by pushing and prying on words. They invented notions that were not there. They wanted to define objects they had never seen. OK. Someone else’s move. :)-->

Just in case you need a second picture to add to the sense of scale...

Cool Always liked BJ. I think the Lion King used this song, yes? I like how you captured that sense of Christ - which I believe is the scent of life. A person can sniff out truth if thier nose can follow and they can tell the difference between Christ and a bunny scent. Seems like you and I want to smell "the kid" more than the hippetty hoppetty of contemporary fads. Guess that is why we are still posting on this rather quiet thread. Anyway, I like fads, too :D--> A Love of life. I do not love explanations. Sometimes, I think we wrestle within ourselves with the realities of the Kingdom of God. Like a dysfunctional married couple - fighting, kicking, shouting, crying - ... finally it all gives way to tired tumble - and a deep embrace and you both give way and yield to the sensation of being one - . Words no longer need to be spoken, - but who cares... it was words that started the fight anyway... We (all of our real inner forces) should embrace. We should tumble. We should stop starting fights with a childish insistance that everything must be explained - which would lead to the erradication of mystery. Christ in us is a fantastic mystery. If ever fully explained, its mysterious reign would/will be broken. Every bit as seductive and outrageous as the mystery of what happens between a man and a woman in the act of union - a deep mystery like this should not sucumb to mere pre-mature explanation. It's deep meaning can not be transfered by explanation. In the form of revelation it can be transfered.... Some things just need to be lived... ya know?

This might be a choo choo, but - Often, I hear people talking about wanting to change, or needing to change. But, being frustrated that they do not change. Subjects get discussed, objects get identified, necessity gets assigned... but nothing happens. in otherwords, they do not seem interested in changing their awareness/conciousness which follows such a process as mentioned above. For too long, I thought that "I" was my mind. (Mind: the sentient side of my being that has thoughts, feelings, knowledge, intuition, etc.) Now, I think that my "I" has a mind - but is not defined by or even properly represented by - that mind. This simple thought can prove to be very powerful and empowering - it can allow your mind-caused problems to take on a much lower profile - giving your "I" a new level of being. One which has much more freedom and a new level of humility. After all, isn't this part of the subject/object entanglement that gets expressed very well with an observation like: ... we live and move and have our very "being" in God.

I like what you stirred up - Sirguess, and CM, and Roy. Seems like those who first showed up have turned their sets off a long time ago --> Ever noticed, there can be some "off the wall" things on TV if you turn it on when nobody is watching? ( read: far-out-things-that-must-be-subject-to-scrutiny-which-serves-the-masses-with-the-side-benefit-of-turning-the-critical-eyes-away-from-what-is-currently-in-vogue) Much of what most people call - riveting programming (Reality TV) - is about as interesting to me as watching a Test of the Emergency Broadcast System. I enjoy a place to watch some different programming. This thread is like that. Interactive programming. People program themselves with the help of what is around us, using "safe" GUIs that are distributed as a sort of experiencial Shareware. People get it figured out and then look for a way to .ZIP it up --- so they can summarize their complex path which led them to their place. Seems like eventually, when you play all this out... Many people lead a life of letting others put notions in their heads, then look for just the right words to describe the idea. Kind of lke looking for a Hallmark card. You know, someone else wrote it, but it says what you don't think you can. In a way, the ideas that y'all have left here are becoming the next set of Hallmark card "messages". Written for those who have exhausted themselves at least once, wrestling with what seemed like, a thought which refused to unpack itself. Then someone comes along with some freeware - and "BANG" there is your catch of the day, laying neatly as two fillets at your feet. .ZIP it up or un-ZIP it - pack it up or unpack it. No matter, subject or object - everyone likes a package, wrapped up, pretty. But OH!! The Radical Suprises that await the next person who lifts the lid!

CM - you are knockin' on some unified theory doors. I always liked that sound of the knuckles on that approach to truth. Roy, Glad you decided to play. :)--> And just for the record, I don't know who will pass the "test", either. I do think that those who believe they got truth figured out, will likely be dealt a "do-over" sometime - just so they can come up with a different answer.

I liked it because it is playful. :)--> And it sounded like a young kid's attempt to reconcile the angry words he/she has heard come from the thought-parents (you know, the ones who control the two major approaches to giving answers for your life) Sounded like ... paying homage to both parents who have answers - the ones named "Science" and "God". Kids don't like it when parents fight. Reminds me of my youngest - 12 years ago - when she would tell you a 20 min. story of the complete Bible. (She was 4). She would take her children's Bible (which had at least one picture per page) and - she would look at the pictures and relay the story - as she remembered it. It was very entertaining!!! The ideas she could come up with were... Was it accurate? As far as her recollection - much of it was... AND she had no problem filling in her blanks of understanding with some "made up stuff". Yup. This is a nice piece... Thanks, +odd

CM... I'm glad you grabbed onto that low fruit. Most people think that expressions are trite - I find them, often, VERY interesting. I think you did an excellent job, pointing out the implications of the trite statement. The impact of how a person looks at (perspective) of the self - is amazingly powerful. Just went to see the Phantom of the Opera at the theater. The Phantom's image of his "self" was a mirror of his contorted visage. His view of his self led to destruction of his own making. I found learning in this character. Learning about the impact of isolation and shame on a self. Please allow me to go a bit further - If a creator is an object - then a destroyer is an object, too. (Kind of like saying if a quarter is a coin, than the heads side of it is every bit as much the “coin” as the tails side.) A destroyer seems to sense himself as an object and sees his self as - wounded and detached (i.e. sees his "self" as cut off from intimacy with others BUT at the same time deeply connected to those things which isolate and wound him). This seems to generate the energy and motive and means that an alienated self needs to accomplish destruction. Geee... and we all know that we are urged by those “who are supposed to know” – that a healthy self image is one which is independent. News flash… independence is only one small step away from isolation. And isolation does wound a self. And a wounded self becomes capable of amazing destruction. Bottom line: the creative self does not flourish in the awareness of a subject/object relationship – but the destructive mechanisms require at least one “self” to BE the object and at least one OTHER “self” to BE the subject. Welcome… to the Phantom of the Opera – we are living it. This play, for many people, is their “reality”.

Danny had that thang goin' on - :D--> You know... I Ob-ject! I am an object. Actually, I think he sparked something in what he said, on a more serious note. If the "self" is any example of being a chip off the ole' block (READ: Created in God's Image)... Then God must be an object - because that is what WE are convinced we are. We sure do a lot of convincing... us humans... trying to convince others... Hmmmmm My experience meter still points to "BS Salesman" every time I get around people who spend an inordinate amount of time trying to convince others... He (she) is usually the one who is a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic. :P--> I think, people think that God is an Object - because they think each of us are objects... And each of us spends a LOT of individual time trying to explain our SELVES (personal, individual, self)to others - Why would we do that? Hmmmm??? Maybe we are not individuals, seperated from God... Maybe... Religion has spent so much time on sin because it is rooted in a duality of evil and good. As long as we are on the evil side... we are seperated. Lord only knows... rel;igion sells the shi* out of that idea!!! Forget the idea of Christ - that we are one with God. His idea, like Paul's - was that we live and move and have our very essence of being in God. We have no REAL essence or REAL being - seperated from God. Just a false sense of self. Sopmeone has been sellin' something... do ya think??? Religion... the purveyor of objects. ;)-->

CM - that is a good quandry you have identified!! (Although it sort of looks like I killed the thread – maybe you and I can talk about this :)--> ) First thing that stands out to me is the idea of trickery. By what standard are we to determine if something is, in fact, “real”? (As if a “standard” has the ability to protect us from everything we are by nature, - easily deceived by trickery.) Nonetheless, mankind seems bent upon “direct observation” of a thing via some device as being the most SURE and required of scientific tools. We think a standard insulates us from ourselves... frankly, I think that is silly. I think we are easily tricked and deceived. A simple magician’s show can leave most of us baffled for years! Rather than trying to pretend that we KNOW – we ought to be more genuine and honest. But we don’t do that well (mankind doesn’t “do” genuine – it does not seem to come to us “naturally”). What mankind seems to do very well is argue our point of perception. We do personal perception statements VERY well… Yet it takes a tremendous amount of work to try and prove a perception. So, we require proofs. Proofs are required before we confer our sacred judgment and honor upon a thing by calling it true and real. Unconcealed. In the open. CM, seems like some people invent a “reality” where the only things that are allowed to exist as a MEMBER of that REALITY are those things that will predictably show up… Yes, those objects which will come out into the open and react in a predictable way (like a dancing bear) to stimuli which they introduce. This select club has a limited membership, as you can imagine. They call themselves skeptics, but – I think they put too much faith in the ability of the human mind to “think clearly” and be “objective”. Personally, I think these are two of humanities weakest traits. And simply bolting on a pair of binoculars or squinting through an electron microscope does little to alleviate the inherent weakness of man’s ability to PERCEIVE reality. (Shoot, even the electron microscope has simply enabled us to look deeply enough into the atom to say… “Where did it go? It was there just a second ago? It disappeared!!” Just like a magician’s trick! Man’s inability to observe is STILL perplexing him.) So when are people gonna smell the coffee? Quantum physics has given us at least one fantastic insight… and that is…. we don’t know squat. Spirit has a physics. It is just a different physics than we have embraced at this time. Electrons have an explanation of where they go when they disappear, too. --> Stuff that goes on “behind the curtain” can go a long way to explaining and informing us. But, if people say that there is NOTHING behind the curtain because we can not measure it, I fear we loose all hope of knowing “reality”. …. And until that day comes along (meaning that “knowing” will no longer be limited to fleshly apparatuses of perception …) skeptics will remain… …but I prefer to be numbered with those who are comfortable leaving the safety and security (or prison if you prefer) of the realm of tidy answers… As a matter of fact… anyone can leave this dead-end flatland, today! As you said, CM: “Or is there something really there that is real and will grow and those dark sayings of old will lighten the place up, the mind...” If a person can live with a high degree of uncertainty, then I am CERTAIN of at least one thing... that person can grow in wonder and awe at the beauty we have that surrounds us! If certainty and “reality” is a requirement for people in order that they will act... it should be known that at the end of the road is a dead-end sign. A “Relative” type of experience in life acts like a new set of batteries in a flash light. The light won’t last forever, but – it will give you some light so you can get up and walk... and explore... Or we can just sit in the dark - without a light, waiting for reality and certainty to find us…

(Geee... will this ever END??)) > People who give up on imagination… are usually a sad, sourful group. I think some people are bummed out when they figure out that their FINAL answers are no good, anyway. They are just temporary. Temporary answers are likely all that we have in this our current “reality”. Life teaches us this. The whole body of human knowledge teaches us this. Flat earth…? Only a FINAL answer for a while. Are we, as aging adults, to bury our heads in the sand and suggest that there is nothing else to know? "Everything that can be invented has been invented." Charles H. Duell, U.S. Commissioner of Patents, in 1899 This is silly. Just look at most old people. Are they full of joy? No. Then where did the joy go? Sore joints? Don’t think so. Is the fact that they have given their “final answer” and now actually have a reason NOT to progress, and have a vested interest NOT to see things in a new light – is this hindering the production of AWE and Joy?? Is the stifling creative possibility to be enshrined as the REAL product of old age? Is such a lack of joy inevitable for us all who are Too Gray Now? HELL NO!!!  If we see things as being new – if we look for new ways to understand things, are we chasing rainbows?... or are we in fact practicing the reality that our perspective affords us? Hasn’t life taught us that – our answers are likely only good enough to move us along in the process of learning – kind of like manna – it rots if you hold onto it too long? Can we not appreciate the child’s point of view? Must we ruin their joy by forcing them to see life through adult eyes before they are ready to find their next temporary reality? Who would do such a thing? I think that life’s prize of joy often goes to the child (not because it must, but because aging folks often do not engage with life in a way that lets them have a temporary reality). Why? Are the early answers in life supposed to hold us prisoner? Can we never change? Do I, as an old guy… want to avoid the shame and the embarrassing explanation of how a cult deceived me into spending years wrapped up in someone else’s reality – which is NO LONGER my reality? I do not think that is something to be ashamed of… I think anyone who changes should be congratulated. At least – you might finally win life’s prize of joy - AGAIN!!!

(So, what is your Point TGN) Explaining the parable: 1. God is NOT an object… if we, the audience, believe that the dangling manifestations we see (the alive stuff in this world) on life’s stage are truly independently alive, and we believe (I mean we really do no know, OK?) that they came from nothing, and that they are going nowhere – then God can not be an object because… first and foremost, He is NOT on stage. (Sounds like childish denial at work, or a kid who has had his/her imagination ripped out by the roots by someone who told them the equivalent that Santa was dead.). 2. To others… God IS a puppeteer type “object” if they think that the alive things in this world are in fact alive and have a purpose and are under His puppet control. In short, they THINK they see strings going to everything!! And they think that God is holdoing all the strings! 3. Finally, to others, God is NOT an object or a puppeteer if they think that God simply is… the energy comprising all manifestations – on stage and behind stage and in the audience. Nothing is independent of him. So, the answers that are possible have nothing to do with a single perspective about reality… Because, there isn’t one. So my answer to Todd’s question, “Depends upon your perception of reality and how you think everything works.” Like the movie “Toy Story” – when Buzz Lightyear is confronted with the “truth” from the lips of the more well adjusted Woody… that Buzz is just “…A TOY!!” – Perception and awareness change the reality we all see. (By the way, the thing that brings joy and life to Toy Story is NOT when Buzz finally gets a dose of reality… it is the fact that the WHOLE movie is based upon the conjecture and premise that toys ARE alive – every time a REAL person is not looking. And they only broke the rule, once… for evil Syd who used his imagination to steal, kill and destroy).

(continued...) ... not necessarily. Here is where you have to be more careful. The question is who or what is moving them and who or what is causing the speaking. The little kids will believe, and some of the older kids WANT to believe (at least a little bit) that it is real – because that makes the faux-reality more entertaining. So the child creates the idea in his/her own mind that “life” is embodied in those creatures. The child imagines. One with more belief than the other. When this happens, the child becomes a co-creator (so as to speak) of the entertainment – completing with his/her own mind what the puppeteer is trying to achieve. That is the reality of the moment. The audience creates the “magic”, while the puppeteer creates the forms/objects that hold it. To say that the child’s imagination is insignificant or plays no role, is to deny the AWE!! on the face of your own child. Passing question, as a parent do you think that is REAL amazement and joy on your child’s face?

Puppet Show Another Example: Think of watching a puppet show with your own child at the age of 4. (Notice their look of AWE during the performance!!) Then, repeat the process with them at the age of 8. Where did the AWE go?? You most likely heard something like “That was completely silly!!” But let’s think about it… There was no willful deception. I mean the strings were out there for everyone to see! This is not like the Santa deal where it is the parents’ fault that they created a credibility problem with the kids. The art of puppetry is considered to be of a high caliber if the actions of the puppets weave an entertaining diversion from “true reality” and create a “temporary reality”. Little kids in the audience don’t care about an adult’s definition of reality. They don’t need it. I mean, why mess up your 4 year old’s enjoyment by trying to explain to them “what is REALLY going on”. Everyone in the audience, except probably the youngest of children, knows the performance is “faux”. Although kids and parents alike might be intrigued if the backdrop and façade were to fall down during the show – exposing the REALITY of the show – I would think that most watchers do NOT want to meet the puppeteers until after the show. Kids LIKE watching toys being animated, as if they were alive! (Why do you think that Toy Story was so popular?) Is the story reality? Don’t ask your child!! Let your 4 year old figure it out on his or her own – you can even help them if they have questions… but DANG – don’t volunteer your understanding of reality and ruin a perfectly good show just because you want to show-off how smart you are!! But the reality that the puppets ARE moving should never be used as a foil to suggest to the kids that the characters are ACTUALLY moving and talking. That should constitute lying!! Right???

...IS Santa Dead? First, let’s look at what compels us to even have answers. Most people start to grab onto their FINAL answers by the age of 50-60. I mean the kind of answers that a person would not be ashamed of taking to his /her grave. I mean…. Who wants to admit to being MORE confused at age 55 than we were at age 20?  But, in reality, most of us start the process of thinking that given explanations are “un-satisfactory”…. by the age of 6-7. We begin to dismantle the apparatus that allows us to be satisfied with an answer that fine when we were 4 or 5. This is the end of the idea that any temporary answer is fine. From then on, skepticism is the order of the day. Innocence has run its course. (I remember one kid that I went to school with, his parents were poor… so instead of making their kid think that he was a bad kid (because he would not be getting any presents), and still not wanting to tell him their FINAL answer… they told him that Santa was dead. This was, of course, a temporary answer.) Early answers are designed to be outgrown. They can never be final answers… or can they?