Blog

Sarah: What can I do? I keep getting involved with jerks. It's unfair! I want my relationships to be very rewarding and very pleasurable.

My relationship is very rewarding and very pleasurable. I have been trying to capture as best I can some of the nuances which we do which I don't see others doing.

Sarah: I only have so much time. I want to spend as much of it as I can with people who rock.

A fellow did a study of creative geniuses to try and understand what set them apart.

He found that they weren't appreciably "better" than people who were just good at what they did. Nor did they make fewer mistakes. But they did have a few behaviors which set them apart.

One was a passion for practice. They just do a lot more of what ever it is they are a genius at than those who are merely good.
Another was they were very quick to notice and abandon anything which they found substandard.
Finally they did not allow old finished works to pile up.

There was a constant rhythm of practice on what was good, not pursuing what was bad and the making of room for more work.

Jerks are practice which doesn't work.
You can't know that before you try, but you can get better at recognizing them for what they are and stopping as soon as you do.
Practice rocking and those who also rock will notice.
Stop with those you find jerks and you will have time for those who rock.
It all fits together like clockwork but it demands that you don't care if you hit a few jerks on the way.

If you try and avoid the jerks, you limit your practice and exposure to people who might rock.

Shmendrick: I trust well intentioned people, and anyone with a pattern of being destructive I don't trust.

I have never met a well intentioned person without patterns of being destructive.

My trust is not about you or what you do. My trust is about me and how I choose to relate to other people. It is a standard which I set for me to live up to.

Sure I get "burned" from time to time, but so what? That's just life and there is no reason to sulk about it.

The payoff of choosing to trust - even knowing the risks - is far greater than any of the losses.
And in knowing the risks it is possible to mitigate some of them if you wish.

The funny thing about trust is that people tend to respond to whoever chooses to set the tone.

If you are cagey, they are cagey. If you are open, they are open.
Even the most untrustworthy person is affected by this as it is an ingrained social behavior.

Sure some people are dicks, but there are a lot of people who just don't know yet what trust is all about. If you show them, they will step up, and not only will you have a new friend, you will have made a difference in another's life.

Shmendrick: My loyalty was wasted on people who gave no loyalty back, my concern was for people who's only concern was for themselves.

Loyalty and concern are never wasted. You placed them with people who did not wish them and they let you know that.

Sure its disappointing, but suck it up a bit there. If you aren't willing to risk doing the right thing with the wrong person, you will never find the right people.

Shmendrick: I will not be manipulated by my feelings by people who essentially live and do bad things solely at the sufference of people who love them and are enabled thus.

Actually you still are being manipulated by them, long after they have gone on to mess with others, because you still care about what they did so strongly that it greatly influences your life.

Right now you would be an example of attachment. You are anticipating certain things you don't like based on remembering certain things you don't like and it is influencing your interpritation of events now which have no real connection. This is the mental state referred to as dukkha, sometimes called suffering.

Non-attachment is not detachment or unattachment. Denying what happened or pretending it didn't happen will not help.

Each person is a fresh story. Some have happy endings, some sad. Some are long stories, some short. In Bambi the hunters are villians. In Sleeping Beauty the hunter is a hero. Don't become attached to a particular feeling or prejudice about hunters or you will miss the truth about this hunter in this story.

Its the same with friends and girl friends. Let what happened just be what happened and refocus on what is happening now, fresh, without prejudice. Have some faith in yourself and your new friends.

Valerie: I'm a parent, so of course I know what non-attachment is! Anyone who has a kid who's sick or in danger knows how 'real' non-attachment is in that moment.

Non-attachment is not detachment (holding away) or unattachment (no connection).

It doesn't mean being a cold and passionless blob who is indifferent to or avoids the pain and suffering of others.

It means allowing the flow of events to be what they are, neither trying to pull nor push them.

When my child is sick, that is what is happening and that is what my attention is focused on. When my child is well, that is what is happening and that is what I focus on. I am not attached to him being well when he isn't. There is no point to such a thing nor would it help him. Instead it would cause us both suffering, maybe worse if I could not focus on his needs of the moment.

Non-attachment is accepting each "this moment" for what it is and letting it arrive and leave without effort.

When I'm sick will you be here to hold my hand while I puke my guts out and then clean up for me and comfort me?
Will you sit vigil with me through the dark teatime of the soul?
Will you be there to share my joys? Can I count on you to make the rent?
Will you watch and care for the kids? When I die will your smile send me off?
Will you joyfully accept what I offer?

I'm glad you seem large-souled and can find kindness in your heart for those you don't know, but really that is no different than having a crush on some teen heart throb in terms of romantic love.

Live with me day in and day out. Know me, both my strength and my weaknesses. Stand beside me and have our children.
Then at the end of our lives, when you say you love me, I will know what it means.

Dragonfly: The simple fact that you exist makes you a part of God, in my eyes, and that and only that is the premise on which my unconditional love for you is based. and since your being created by God is not something you can change, even if you choose to temporarily deny it, i have no choice but to love you unconditionally.

To love me you must base that love on knowledge of me, not on your affection for your ideas about god.

Dragonfly: Romantic love is very selfish to the extent that it requires the "one" (already limiting) we "love" to seek and find love only in us.

You confuse romantic love with sexual love, reproductive instincts and our bizzare notions of marriage.

You have not plumbed romantic love to its full depths. There is nothing selfish about it. It is a giving of yourself and an accepting of what another offers. It is applied agape. Love actually expressed with another for as long as you both care to, both merry met and merry parted.

Lay down you life for another, not all at once in a splash of empty heroics, but over the course of your entire lifespan while accepting the same from them.

True love might not know distinctions but you are distinct and must make choices in how you express your love.

You have the seed, you love all the ground for planting in, but you still must plant it some where and nurture its growth to know its full flowering.

Chaz: We've all heard about reincarnation but, what is it really? and how does it pertain to us?

The "soul" of the being is not some ephemiral fantasy but instead it is its core foundation - the DNA.

This soul is then reincarnated into a new form before the old one fails and falls into disrepair.

It is what is fundimentally alive and each time it is reincarnated, it builds consciousness from scratch, from a single cell.

I have noticed that parsimony of language runs concomitant with depth of understanding.

Via: And "knowing" this, you have effectively limited the communication, and the contact, you are receptive to.

When I encounter what is purposefully obtuse I know that I am not the intended audience because understanding how to be obtuse is not what I seek.

What I seek is to be succinct and germane to convey what I have to say with clarity.

Luckily my capacity has been measured and tested enthusiastically over the years and has yet to be found wanting.

Via: but i agree, the intended audience is definitely not those who cling to simple answers.

They are just not more complex than is needed to explain what is being explained.

Particularly when we are discussing such things as stopping and stepping beyond the discursive mind, couching the discussion in unnecessarily obtuse language is at least obviously counterproductive and possibly even showing off.

Via: Zenilke clarity divorced from warmth of feeling is painfully inadequate, however measured.

Clarity is its own thing. Employed by buddhists who practice well but certainly not limited to them.

My warmth of feeling may not be to your liking, but it to has not been found wanting by those who seek its comfort.

If you really like his stuff then pursue it and don't worry so much about what I may think.

But posting it here opens it up for discussion and it would be disingenuous of me to whisper bland PC acceptances in your ear when I actually feel differently on the matter.

He has chosen a highly academic style which may be appropriate for impressing professors and baffling students, but it does not convince me that he has actually settled the matter himself and so he is still seeking to impress others with his academic and intellectual skill while protecting his ideas with a coating of obscurity.

Read him and then read some one like Ralph Waldo Emerson. Emerson is clearly a man of immense intellect writing at his full capacity without any dumbing down, but he writes cleanly and precisely. He clearly understands something and is seeking to convey not just his understanding but his appreciation for it as well.

Millie: You know its those damn log ones and the trigonometric crap that kills me. Its been six years since I had a trig class and I am in exponential and log hell right now. I am sitting in class unable to add 2+2 because its getting so wicked.

Math is a language and like all languages the only way to ever fully get it is to practice constantly until it locks in and you can think in it.

A step short of that, but good enough to pass, is to practice constantly particular parts until you just get used to what you need to know for the class.

My favorite assistant is a little program called Derive. Handles up to calculus, graphs, factors, solves, etc. I think the new one even steps you through its solution.

Millie: Well thanks Swarm but the problem is not doing them so much as learning why they work. I could memorize the stuff (like I did the first time around) but the problem is that someday soon I will be teaching it and I better be prepared for any and all questions.

That's what I was saying. The only way to learn why they work is to work them over and over.
Its also why I brought up Derive, since one of its new features is to show you how it found the answer it did. This speeds up the learning process by removing the need to wait till you see the prof again if you get stuck.

Good luck on the math teaching bit. I can't say I ever had a good math teacher so I empathize with your frustrations of the past.

The thing with my very best teachers have always had, no matter what the subject, was an honest enthusiasm for the subject and for learning.

Anne Marie: Swarm...is there anything that you believe in that can't be explained?

Of course, I'm as human as the next guy. I just don't expect anyone else to accept my wild-assed beliefs unless I can substantiate them in some way. I also work hard to avoid making grandiose conclusions. It is difficult, but the truest thing I can say about such things is "I don't know."

For example, I've had an experience of being outside of time and space at the end of the universe dancing at the party to celebrate everything and the anticipation of everything. Not a dream or imagining, but the actual feeling of being there, dancing, with all my being filled with joy for what was, on the cusp of something beyond my understanding, waiting.

Anne Marie: Have you ever had an experience in your life that just kind of leaves you unable to find any answers for?

That's why the pat answers of religion leave me cold. I've been to the mountain.

No matter how much you may think you know god, ask yourself, what kind of god is one I can just know so easily?

Only delusions of god are easily known in my experience. Anything you think you know about God is a delusion, including that there is one. Whatever actually is, cannot be captured so easily in a single concept. Shoot, I can't even approach meaningful truths without finding myself knee-deep in paradox.

Anne Marie: While I have never experienced God per say (at least I don't think so) I imagine it would be along those lines, no?

Do you really want to? It's possible. The technologies for these sort of things are pretty well worked out and there are a number of paths you could select. It's pretty much a case of learning to look with a bit of will to practice. But it's not all peaches and cream. The cool stuff is generally on the other side of your innermost fears. It can be awesome, and awesome can as easily be great dread as well as great wonder.

Anne Marie: I have had my own experiences myself such as being able to tell when someone close to me has died as well as if someone is sick or I will be seeing them soon ( the latter in form of dreams).

I actually have a "theory" (strictly for fun) about the rarity of such phenomena.

I suspect that non-local consciousness is actively deselected from the gene pool.

In a world where uncounted of lives are ending in bloody struggle (from people dying everywhere to the bugs you crush with every step), where you must kill or be killed, having non-local consciousness would be a definite distraction from the more survival oriented local consciousness.

For an uncommon phenomena, forms of non-local consciousness seem to be fairly common.

Anne Marie: Why are people ashamed to express these feelings or thoughts or visits from God or whatever people want to refer to them as?

Well, for one thing there really isn't much to talk about. Most people can't control or predict such things and training other people to do them is even rarer, so you say something like "I have this weird experience I can't really explain." and the other person says 1) that's weird alright , 2) Wow! I have this other weird experience that I can't explain too, or 3) you are blessed, insane, possessed, in league with... or just plain whacked out. Then there is a long pause and every one goes back to talking about things that can be talked about.

My pet peeve, of course, is people who in one breath say they can't explain it and in the next breath say, it must be ... (god, esp, the devil, whatever).

A hot topic in the news has been cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammed which caused violent protests throughout the Mid East. Two Wings maintains that she is tolerant of Muslims, but not of the protesters, who are not "really" Muslims.

Two Wings: You say you are tolerant and accepting while I am intolerant and unaccepting.

If you are using tolerant as I have defined it, I would say that I am tolerant and you have a veneer of tolerance based on your acceptance. Those who are not acceptable you want changed before you will tolerate/accept them.

That is why I object to mucking with tolerance to make it include things like acceptance and respect. I can tolerate people I don't accept or respect and see them for who they are without having to change or spin them. There are a lot of people you will never accept and never respect that you can still tolerate.

Right now you turn a blind eye to them or pretend they are something they aren't. That may be nice intolerance. It may even be nicer intolerance than my tolerance, but it is still intolerance.

I am suggesting you admit there are people who are odious blights on the anus of humanity and yet tolerate them being that way any way. Don't alter them by saying they aren't "really" Muslims, don't pretend that they have to be evil-doers, or secret secularist power mongers. Just tolerate them for who they are, religious Islamic bigoted rabble-rousers, as they are, based on the actual evidence they present.

Two Wings: How is it that you are not being intolerant of ALL religionists when you ridicule our belief in the Creator?

Tolerance doesn't require I accept or respect your beliefs; nor are beliefs deserving of tolerance in and of themselves as they are not beings.

I am not hindering you in any way. I'm not seeking you out or causing you actual harm. We are having an entirely voluntary discussion in an area for the exchange of differing views.

Telling you that your belief in a creator is a bunch of hooey, and why, is my responsibility as the holder of that particular differing view.

I'm not even asking you to like, accept, or respect my position. This is a discussion, not a love-in.

You are certainly free to expound your views which differ from mine, as you have done.

Two Wings: Your statement, "Oh, you should really try to pull some strings with your creator friend and get him to create himself." What is that?

It was a bit of wry humor which encapsulates my point. Sorry you didn't enjoy it.

Two Wings: Isn't that the judgement of an elitist? Out of 6 billion people on the planet 3/4 of them consider that the Creator has done so...

Two Wings: ...but because it wasn't done to Swarm's satisfaction, it isn't so, the Creator doesn't exist.

Ordinary evidence can imply ordinary existence, but ordinary evidence cannot imply extraordinary existence.

A creator is an extremely extraordinary claim. Even extraordinary evidence is insufficient. It is possible to imply ordinary existence because of known parallels, but there are no known parallels to a creator god.

The only acceptable evidence for the existence of a creator is the creator itself. Nothing else cuts the mustard, and until you can pony up an actual god all claims that you make about its existence or properties are categorically denied as mere fantasies and delusions.

That's right. The issue, if substantiated, is too important to trust to another or to delegate. Particularly when there is so much in the way of overt lies and deception going around. Prophets this and profits that. Nope, homie don't play that game. I'm at least as good a judge as any other human so pony up your god or admit you don't have anything concrete.

Two Wings: Five THOUSAND years of RECORDED history of Manifestations of the Creator are irrelevant?

Don't even get me started on all the whack shit people have believed was a good idea for thousands of years. Just consider how long war, murder and slavery have been with us.

Damn straight. And you sell yourself way, way, way too short if you are willing to settle for less.

Taking your views, which I consider deranged, seriously and allowing you a chance to defend them and being open to the possibility of proof is beyond tolerance.

If we are talking you have a measure, how ever small is may seem, of my respect.

One of the joys of not being religious is shucking the need to pretend to employ weird standards of behavior.

I'm impudent and arrogant. If it gets too high just ask and I'll try to tone it down a bit.

All people use each other. It is part of being social animals.
Or, is it people who use in ways you don't approve of that you object to?

Two Wings: ...and intolerant of those who call themselves something when they are not.

Two Wings: No, I do not tolerate people who call themselves Muslim and do not act accordingly...

Protesting the violence is not even the same thing as naming the people apostate the way you are.

I draw the line at causing direct harm. I will do my best to tolerate anybody, no matter how odious, so long as they do not directly harm others. Protesting and burning embassies I find wrong, but shooting into the crowd and killing four protestors I cannot tolerate.

No one follows him or adheres to his book. He is dead and not going anywhere. "His" book is a convoluted mess full of contradictions.

Two Wings: They aren't living up to what MOST people who love Muhammad agree should be done in this situation.

I've not seen any attempts to characterize the views of "most" Muslims, but there sure seem to be a good number who think they are living up to his ideals despite what you think. Further, "most people" seems mainly to mean "people who I approve of." Oddly enough I don't think the approval of a Bahai counts for much with a Muslim about who is and isn't Muslim.

I don't have to know what the definition is. I only have to know that Muslims, not Bahai, are the place to start looking if I need more information.

Two Wings: Why should YOUR judgement as to if they are or are not Muslim count?

Unlike you, I am not making a judgement. I am accepting them at their word when they claim to be Muslims and I have no reason to believe there is any deception in their claims. I'm also telling you that your judgement of them is intolerant and unfounded. Further, it is possible to be a bad Muslim and still be a Muslim and their brothers seem to still accept them as Muslims.

No where have I seen a paper saying "Those bad protestors! They are no longer Muslims."

You, a Bahai, declaring them non-Muslims is even more impudence and arrogance than I can muster. Good work.

Two Wings: You say that GOD must appear to YOU in order for Him to exist for ALL

I don't really care since I think its all bunk any way. It'd be pretty cool if I turned out incorrect and I got a divine visitation, but don't hold your breath.

I'm saying that if you want me to acknowledge your claims about god, you have to pony up the god to substantiate those claims.

Just evidence them. For example, why should I accept your claims in unsubstantiated form? Why should you? Is there no religious quality control at all??? Oh, that's right, there isn't.

I knew a punk band that only played for the completely deaf, who quite enjoyed it. Beethoven wrote his best works completely deaf.

Two Wings: You can't be musician and not know how to play. Musicians have to LOVE the music...

No they don't. They just have to have a will to play. That, as far as I can tell is the bare minimum based on my experience as an audience and as a performer.

Now it is true that they usually do love it, but again we get to the difference between necessary and sufficient.

Not based on your standard of loving the music or being musicians since it is pretty obvious if you followed their careers they did love the music and are musicians.

"... Morvan and Pilatus pressured Farian to let them sing on the next album, ...Farian released the group's second album under the name The Real Milli Vanilli, and the resulting LP Moment Of Truth spawned two singles, "Keep On Running" and "Too Late (True Love)". ...Farian chose to re-record the album ... The US version (self-titled) included three additional tracks...The album received extensive distribution on RCA Records ... Rob and Fab were signed to Kenny & Ricki Taylor's Joss Entertainment label to release their self-titled Rob & Fab album in 1993. ... In 1997, Milli Vanilli appeared on the premiere episode of VH1's Behind The Music. In April, Rob & Fab signed to Farian's studio again to record a new album using their own voices. Pilatus and Morvan took voice lessons from Mario Bellefonte, lead voice instructor for the Metropolitan Opera Company. They also received training from English pronunciation experts to perfect their language skills ... Rob & Fab began the promotional tour for their comeback album, Back and in Attack, on 3 April 1997. Exactly one year later, in 1998, and shortly before the new album's release, Pilatus was found dead from an alcohol and drug overdose in Frankfurt, Germany. He was 32. ... Today, Fabrice Morvan is pursuing a solo career and released his first solo album, Love Revolution, in 2002. He also performs light alternative music in clubs throughout the U.S."

===from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milli-Vanilli

Two Wings: Now, who is it that has "issues" is showing "intolerance" and what is it you are calling over half of the people here?

You accept the preposterous notion of a creator god based on no actual evidence.
gullible: Easily deceived or duped.

Two Wings: You said, "Men who have selfish and corrupt desires sooner or later spawn religions to control the weak willed and gullible." Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mussolini, on and on and on, all men with philosophies on how to construct societies that were corrupt either from the very beginning or evolved here over time. NOT religions.

First of all, putting Marx in there shows a profound ignorance of Marx.
You forgot Mao.
Mussolini was really small potatoes, you might as well include Franco, who was the only successful Fascist so far.

Second, all of those people used secularized versions of religion to wreak their havoc.

Men who have selfish and corrupt desires often spawn religions to control the weak-willed and gullible. These don't have to be big full-blown affairs like xtianity. It can just be little cults of personality like Jim Jones or Charlie Manson. Religion is too easy a means of thought control for such people to pass it by. The really smart ones make their "religion" so that it exists within the context of a greater religion for protection.

Two Wings: All the world religions require that their actions must justify their words.

Two Wings: According to both Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica the Baha'i Faith is considered a World Religion

Two Wings: It is a requirement of the Faith that DEEDS not words be the adornment of the faithful.

So? Everybody says that, except fundies, but how is it required? It is at best a nice sentiment. Now perhaps you Bahai take it more seriously, but Muslims were the topic. And no matter what the Quran says, I can see what is done.