Wordless Wonder

February 17, 2005

Stefan wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote:

> ...

>

>>I do not have endless stories about indescribable me for I am, for

>>lack of better words, no more than air that is able to do stuff;

>>ungraspable, unseeable, existing.

>>Sounds weird and that is what it is like. There are experiences

>>undergone and these stories of experience are like the stories of

>>others that can be told and retold as it is, shared for gaining

>>understandings in all the ways that that can happen.

>

>>From the level of intuition I understand you. Only one question, you

> say it is weird. Weird even for you? Would you say your state is worth

> to be attained for others?

Not weird to me, it is all I have. Others have said that it is weird.

I have no definable state that I know of except what I experience, what

I do and what I have shared. I do not know the worth of what I

experience or the worth of the way I experience. I do not know if one

attains this or it just happens as it seems it has with me. It seems

that mine happened as it is and now I am learning all the words and

descriptions and ideas about it here in this place and expressing about

it and seeing what it is and seeing how others experience it. Before I

did not talk much about it. No one there to listen and exchange as done

here.

Even here though it seems that most people want to talk about ideas and

concepts not what they experience as it is. So I have no idea if this is

worth anything. It could all be a neurosis or a psychosis in some

people's estimation, or self-centered ramblings, or delusion, or

enlightenment or stupidity, or arrogance or closet guru behavior or some

other projection. To me, it is the way I am and one may name it and

value it as one is and does.

>

>>What I was actually referring was the stories about indescribable

>

> me, the indescribable you.

>

> I see, I have many such stories. But my main sadhana has been to doubt

> everything.

Doubting is for the doubter not for the thing doubted. I can doubt all

things at once. Nothing exists except me. Then I doubt me. There is no

me. And all inner being sense is propensities, twiddlings of no

significance whatsoever, there is no rhyme or reason or meaning or

meaninglessness. The appearance is the no different than other organic

appearances. The sounds that come from the mouth are the cries of the

human species and mean little beyond survival in the way accustomed, the

niche lodged in. There is no doubt anymore foe there is no doubter,

doubt being just a fakery of the human makeup that allows flexibility in

response to a changing environment being softwired. All talk is

gibberish and thought is nonsense all that is done is just the way it

is. The aggressive are what they are. The weak and the timid and

dominated are what they are. All the variations on a scheme of whatever

making is what it is. We do as we do as we given in the appearance.

There is no humankind, there is no culture of civilization, there is

nothing but tunnels and caves and mounds and aeries, and scratchings and

howlings and noise and going to and fro across the landscape doing our

killings and feedings and gaterhings and birthings and dyings in the

round that we do daily, here and over the surface of the earth. There is

no humanity, there is nothing but this. And all this in this place you

and I are nothing to speak of in any way. There is no concern or worry

only survival as it is. We here in this place are just surviving in

doing this talking, posting. There is no doubt anymore because doubt and

the doubter has ben doubted out of existence........

>

>>Such explanations, for example, try to

>

> explain indescribable me or, if you prefer, the capacity [that posts,

> speaks, does], as neuronal firings, or as dependent arising, or as

> Atman, Brahman, God or neurosis or psychosis or anything in words that

> tries to get at the origin and nature of indescribable me or

> indescribable you. I cannot get at me. I am aware this is happening,

> like posting, and there seems no way to perceive me as an object. No

> can do. It seems to me that this can be experienced by anyone and if

>

>>experienced directly it is immediately understood, one to the other,

>>and there is communion on it.

>

> You mean, it can be experienced by anyone that he cannot get at

> himself as an object... that he simply " is " ... yes. But above you have

> said:

>

> " I am, for lack of better words, no more than air that is able to do

> stuff; ungraspable, unseeable, existing. "

>

> You know that you are existing. How can you know it? From where is the

> sense of " existing " being perceived? Is it possible to be in a natural

> state as long as this question is not solved.

There is nowhere where it is, it is here as I write as you read I can

tell it to you can I not? Boo! Instantaneous knowing. Catch this word,

" ball. "

Yes, it is all that there is. Try and solve it, Stefan. That is what is

necessary until futility in trying to solve that which cannot be is

experienced. That buck stops with you. Not me. I have nothing to do

directly with your buck stopping.

>

> ...

>

>>This leave little ole airy me and airy you if you experience it. The

>>delicious mystery and wonder of it always remains and it seems that

>>meaning and meaninglessness and absolutes and relatives are

>>unnecessary and living is simple for what is there to do but to do as

>>we are. Some question how can this be and I say try it and see.

>

> Many masters have said, the experiencing of " that which cannot be

> experienced " is possible when " you " disappear. You become the

> experience itself and the experiencer disappears. Does this make sense

> for you?

Yes. Me is not a who. I am not a who. Now let me drop the pronouns. As

capacity, all sorts of of things can be done like appearing personal or

if required impersonal. There is no dropping out of experience or

dropping into some special experience. " That which cannot be

experienced " is that free and types of sensations that occur when there

is no " person " dominating and distorting experience. That is all it

means. It does not mean supernormal whatever or special altered states

and all that. These are not undergone. Others may undergo them and these

can be had by manipulating the appearance enhancing its antenna and

concentrating its faculties and training it up to get that. It is mere

training and effort and some seem to get in passing on to more

significant things.

>

>>When you say, " I am the same as you... " only few people would

>>understand what I really mean " are you referring to the

>>indescribable you or to our common humanity in appearance?

>

> I was referring to the undescribable me, because truly one cannot

> differ from another. In fact there is only one. At least this is what

> my intuition tells me.

Yes. me, you, all as indescribables are the same. Our basic human

appearance is also basically the same and the different endowments of

the appearance allow for unique expression and experiences and all that

human life can and cannot be in its wonder and mysteries. Being only

able to see the indescribable me in all others, and all the

indescribable yous as me makes for no harm in all relationships. That is

why no morals or ethics or laws etc., are necessary. Those things govern

persons acting in worlds disconnected from others as them, where I am

you and you are me.

> I hope my persistent questions do not bother you :-)

>

> Love

> Stefan

There is no bother. It is a great pleasure.

Love,

Lewis

>

> **

>

> If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription,

sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups:

>

> /mygroups?edit=1

>

> Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta

group and click on Save Changes.

>

February 17, 2005

Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote:

>

> Stefan wrote:

>>You mean, it can be experienced by anyone that he cannot get at

>>himself as an object... that he simply " is " ... yes. But above you

>>have said:

>>

>> " I am, for lack of better words, no more than air that is able to do

>>stuff; ungraspable, unseeable, existing. "

>>

>>You know that you are existing. How can you know it? From where is

>>the sense of " existing " being perceived? Is it possible to be in a

>>natural state as long as this question is not solved.

>

>There is nowhere where it is, it is here as I write as you read I

can

>tell it to you can I not? Boo! Instantaneous knowing. Catch this

>word, " ball. "

I could catch it because I knew the meaning of " ball " ... although,

really those are just four letters, or x pixels on my screen perceived

by my eyes... what do you want to tell me?

I understand that " existing " is here. But who is sensing the

existence? Who is the knower? Since you are not, just a piece in the

surf? I also sense that I exist. When I focus on this sense it is like

an embracing of everything being. It is completely quiet but

vibrating, a buzz that contains everything, a sounding silence,

peacful. Limitless. And as soon as it catches " ball " it is shimmering

in thousand colours. All which makes me a person is part of it. The

person is part of it but it itself has nothing to do with the person.

I can sense it but I cannot catch hold of it.

>Yes, it is all that there is. Try and solve it, Stefan. That is what

is necessary until futility in trying to solve that which cannot be

is

>experienced. That buck stops with you. Not me. I have nothing to do

>directly with your buck stopping.

I know. I go back and forth, the more I feel limitless the more I feel

as a prisoner in my personal life. Did you have this experience?

>Yes. Me is not a who. I am not a who. Now let me drop the pronouns.

>As capacity, all sorts of of things can be done like appearing

>personal or if required impersonal. There is no dropping out of

>experience or dropping into some special experience.

For me it is like this, although I am telling myself that it cannot

be. That truth is what is, whatever it is, however it feels. Letting

go of everything - letting it go as it goes ...

But when I let it go as it goes... I become forgetfull of the sensing

that I exist and days pass, I am entangled in all kind of activities

but not aware of anything. And when I remember myself it is like

coming home.

You say that you are ordinary, yes I see what you mean. Still... was I

not ordinary at those days of forgetfullness as well. I am not looking

to become anything special. I want to be free, I want to be at home.

> " That which cannot be experienced " is that free and types of

>sensations that occur when there

>is no " person " dominating and distorting experience.

I still wonder to whom does this occur.

>That is all it

>means. It does not mean supernormal whatever or special altered

>states and all that. These are not undergone. Others may undergo them

>and these can be had by manipulating the appearance enhancing its

>antenna and concentrating its faculties and training it up to get

>that. It is mere training and effort and some seem to get in passing

>on to more significant things.

Understanding seems to be the only significant thing to me... until it

is understood.

Love

Stefan

February 17, 2005

Stefan wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote:

>

>>

>>Stefan wrote:

>

>>>You mean, it can be experienced by anyone that he cannot get at

>>>himself as an object... that he simply " is " ... yes. But above you

>>>have said:

>>>

>>> " I am, for lack of better words, no more than air that is able to do

>>>stuff; ungraspable, unseeable, existing. "

>>>

>>>You know that you are existing. How can you know it? From where is

>>>the sense of " existing " being perceived? Is it possible to be in a

>>>natural state as long as this question is not solved.

>>

>>There is nowhere where it is, it is here as I write as you read I

>

> can

>

>>tell it to you can I not? Boo! Instantaneous knowing. Catch this

>>word, " ball. "

>

> I could catch it because I knew the meaning of " ball " ... although,

> really those are just four letters, or x pixels on my screen perceived

> by my eyes... what do you want to tell me?

It is the capacity to experience, to do, to see without being able to

experience the experiencer, a doer or a seer. It simply is there each

moment alert.

>

> I understand that " existing " is here. But who is sensing the

> existence? Who is the knower? Since you are not, just a piece in the

> surf?

Ultimately there is no knower that can be objectified. This is an

impenetrable mystery to me. This mystery is imagined to be things

concepts like Unmoved mover, God or G_d or Brahman or Atman or Anatman

and so on. The mystery, the wonderment is. To know the knower in the

ordinary way means to be able to examine and see and define it. Whenever

this sort of thing can be done to something, it is not a knower, it is

an object and " the knower. " is doing. So you will chase a tail if you

try to know the knower. The knower is indescribable " you " and you cannot

examine you can you? If you can make indescribable you an object and

subject at the same time then there is no knower at all. The object is

the subject and subject is the object. No solution to it in my

experience. I just rest in my ignorance, my inability to know me in an

ordinary thinking way.

I also sense that I exist. When I focus on this sense it is like

> an embracing of everything being. It is completely quiet but

> vibrating, a buzz that contains everything, a sounding silence,

> peacful. Limitless. And as soon as it catches " ball " it is shimmering

> in thousand colours. All which makes me a person is part of it. The

> person is part of it but it itself has nothing to do with the person.

>

> I can sense it but I cannot catch hold of it.

That is my experience as well, ungraspable. It is sensed by something

finer than intellect and cannot be perceived directly or objectified.

>

>>Yes, it is all that there is. Try and solve it, Stefan. That is what

>

> is necessary until futility in trying to solve that which cannot be

> is

>

>>experienced. That buck stops with you. Not me. I have nothing to do

>>directly with your buck stopping.

>

> I know. I go back and forth, the more I feel limitless the more I feel

> as a prisoner in my personal life. Did you have this experience?

Oh Yes! My appearance and me are one individual appearance among many

and indescribable me is without limit and the appearance as it is is not

so. So at first it feels like imprisonment because there are limits in

the appearance. Those limits do not allow the expression of

indescribable me as I am without limits and so there is the realization

of the appearance's conditioning, its limits inherited from living while

asleep. My appearance seems fully able to live limitlessly within the

bounds made in relationships with all the other appearances, whatever

they maybe, such as gravity, object density, social relations and so on.

This conditioning is released through having wide ranges of experiences

that allow the appearance to respond as it is and when it does so its

limits are handled in darkness and lessened and extinguished and new

formations in the darkness occur that allow greater free as it goes.

For example, a common limit is emotional investment and attachment to

concept or thing or person. Indescribable me does not emanate emotions

or thoughts or desires, imaginings, memories, perceptions and what have

you. These are products of the appearance that I am one thing with. The

appearance produces these objects in its mysterious way to live and

navigate through the world and these are available for use as it goes.

That is as simple as I can say it. Any thing more is over kill

But I could go a step further and invest emotion, time, energy,

belief, confidence and so on in a concept like mind and believe there is

one and make up its parts and chart its operations and products and

produces formulas of what comes out if this or that goes in and create

in imagination a machine that produces all these things and add to it an

unconscious part to explain mysterious happenings not accounted for by

the other gears and parts and set it up with regulatory mechanisms like

a conscience and a shadow side for all stuff I put away and don't want

to look at and create, free will so that I can control it and make it

produce what I want and all sort of concepts of how this machine

operates under different conditions and have all sorts of solutions and

patches and repairs when it breaks down and repair people on standby and

so on. If I think and believe this is my mind and I am sure there is

this mind and it is use to explain all that happens to me internally and

assume that all this happens to others as well, then I have created a

mind that will work as designed and one that will be at odds with what

the appearance actually does. There will be conflict if this model does

not match what the appearance is as it is. So there will conflicts as I

try to follow and control this mind while the appearance is doing as it

does without concern for this creation. In short, there will be attempt

to forcibly control the appearance through the concept of mind and the

the appearance will ignore this control as do as it does. This forced

disunity will create suffering and anguish and confusion and ignorance.

To give up such a mind after years of holding to it is not easy. And the

years of holding on to it and acting in the way of this creation creates

habits and ways of doing that accumulate and settle in the appearance

that becoming learned, automatic, habitual, rigid behaviors and

behavioral responses that operate at the surface of the appearance,

overriding the appearance natural functioning and creating splits and

divisions and so on.

And attachment to this mind and the sense of control it seems to give is

not easy to give up because of the false security one achieves through

investing the mind with all sorts of notions of personality and personal

definitions and free will and so on. To lose this mind is one helluva of

an experience and it is held onto with great gusto.

Such a mind creation is a limit in the appearance. I am sure it

understandable how such a limited, small, and contorted mind creation

can go against what indescribable me is by affecting the appearances

ability to experience unlimitedness in daily life. Such a mind creation

over mediates experience so that only the crudest experiences are

undergone and the crudest products are produced in the appearances with

all the consequences these bring.

Who needs such a mind? Experiencing as it is without mind mediation

dissolves mind mediation and mind as it goes.

>

>>Yes. Me is not a who. I am not a who. Now let me drop the pronouns.

>>As capacity, all sorts of of things can be done like appearing

>>personal or if required impersonal. There is no dropping out of

>>experience or dropping into some special experience.

>

> For me it is like this, although I am telling myself that it cannot

> be. That truth is what is, whatever it is, however it feels. Letting

> go of everything - letting it go as it goes ...

>

> But when I let it go as it goes... I become forgetfull of the sensing

> that I exist and days pass, I am entangled in all kind of activities

> but not aware of anything. And when I remember myself it is like

> coming home.

Yes.

>

> You say that you are ordinary, yes I see what you mean. Still... was I

> not ordinary at those days of forgetfullness as well. I am not looking

> to become anything special. I want to be free, I want to be at home.

>

Yes.

>

>> " That which cannot be experienced " is that free and types of

>>sensations that occur when there

>>is no " person " dominating and distorting experience.

>

> I still wonder to whom does this occur.

Does there need to be a who? Does it matter? Isn't a who just a

conceptual matter and is not experience a good arbiter?

On the other hand, make up a who if you need one. Call it what you will

as your experience gives it. I did. I call it me. This works fine for me.

Who are you Lewis? I am me. Who is me? I am me. Who is I? I is me. What

are you? I am not a what. I am me. Why are you? I don't know. I just am.

Where are you? I am right here. Where? Here in front of you. How are you

right here? I do not know, I am just here as you are. When are you? I am

now. Where were you yesterday at three o'clock? At work....

>

>>That is all it

>>means. It does not mean supernormal whatever or special altered

>>states and all that. These are not undergone. Others may undergo them

>>and these can be had by manipulating the appearance enhancing its

>>antenna and concentrating its faculties and training it up to get

>>that. It is mere training and effort and some seem to get in passing

>>on to more significant things.

>

> Understanding seems to be the only significant thing to me... until it

> is understood.

>

> Love

> Stefan

And more and more endless understandings await, there is no end to it it

seems. The wonder and mystery make one curious so we explore and engage

all things.

Love,

Lewis

>

February 17, 2005

Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote:

>Ultimately there is no knower that can be objectified. This is an

>impenetrable mystery to me. This mystery is imagined to be things

>concepts like Unmoved mover, God or G_d or Brahman or Atman or

>Anatman and so on. The mystery, the wonderment is. To know the knower

>in the ordinary way means to be able to examine and see and define

>it. Whenever this sort of thing can be done to something, it is not a

>knower, it is an object and " the knower. " is doing. So you will chase

>a tail if you try to know the knower.

>The knower is indescribable " you " and you cannot examine you can you?

>If you can make indescribable you an object and

>subject at the same time then there is no knower at all. The object

>is the subject and subject is the object. No solution to it in my

>experience. I just rest in my ignorance, my inability to know me in

>an ordinary thinking way.

In advaita tradition they say that becoming one with the knower (the

" I am " ), can open the door to another level beyond the " I " . At least I

have understood Nisargadatta in this way.

Somehow you are saying the same when you speak of futility which was

the door to your " helpless " acceptance, as I understood you. Only,

again the mystery: acceptence of what? Who creates that which you

accept? Wordless wonder...

....

>And more and more endless understandings await, there is no end to it

>it seems. The wonder and mystery make one curious so we explore and

>engage all things.

Thank you for this wonderful posting,

your have touched my heart and -

given me confidence

Stefan

February 17, 2005

Stefan wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote:

>

>>Ultimately there is no knower that can be objectified. This is an

>>impenetrable mystery to me. This mystery is imagined to be things

>>concepts like Unmoved mover, God or G_d or Brahman or Atman or

>>Anatman and so on. The mystery, the wonderment is. To know the knower

>>in the ordinary way means to be able to examine and see and define

>>it. Whenever this sort of thing can be done to something, it is not a

>>knower, it is an object and " the knower. " is doing. So you will chase

>>a tail if you try to know the knower.

>

>>The knower is indescribable " you " and you cannot examine you can you?

>>If you can make indescribable you an object and

>>subject at the same time then there is no knower at all. The object

>>is the subject and subject is the object. No solution to it in my

>>experience. I just rest in my ignorance, my inability to know me in

>>an ordinary thinking way.

>

> In advaita tradition they say that becoming one with the knower (the

> " I am " ), can open the door to another level beyond the " I " . At least I

> have understood Nisargadatta in this way.

>

> Somehow you are saying the same when you speak of futility which was

> the door to your " helpless " acceptance, as I understood you. Only,

> again the mystery: acceptence of what? Who creates that which you

> accept? Wordless wonder...

> ...

>

It is not an action of acceptance of something, Stefan. Being helpless

is an inability to do this or that. No effort is involved. It cannot be

helped. Futility does its work and one is unabled or disabled or

incapable of preventing an action or engaging in an action. It happens

as it is. There is a completeness of unwisdom of undertaking.

One way to feel what it is like to be helpless and unable to do anything

about something that happens as it does is to sit and notice your

breathing going in and out. If you do not practice concentrated

breathing (I don't), then your breathing will be rather shallow and

quiet with a slight in and out movement of the of the chest and/or gut

area. Sit awhile and just experience this without doing anything

special, eyes can be open, closed, head turnings, it does not matter.

You are having an experience of natural breathing, of inhaling and

exhaling. You do nothing to make this happen it just happens as it is on

its own.

As you are experiencing this well, notice all the the little things that

go with inhaling and exhaling.

Next, take as large an inhale as possible trying to leave no air in your

lungs and try to hold this air in your lungs and long as possible,

refusing to exhale using all your effort to do so. Remain seated and

notice how this experience progresses and ends.

Generally, pressure builds up in a certain way and gets to the point

where you simply have to exhale.

You cannot do otherwise.

You are helpless in this.

Not only were you helpless to prevent exhaling, you were trying not to

do what the pressure was working towards making you do, exhale.

Your effort to not exhale was futile, an unwisdom in undertaking, in the

face of the mounting pressure to exhale, it being a natural phenomena.

Did you make a decision to exhale? Were you able to do otherwise? Your

action of holding your breath was disabled against your desire. You were

helpless, it was futile. It was helpless acceptance. This is what I am

referring to.

When I try all ways to do something and fail, (hold my breath against

the whole of nature), there is futility - completeness of failure or

unwisdom of undertaking and I simply realize in [completeness] that such

an undertaking is unwisdom and it cannot be done.

From then, there is no effort possible in doing it, it is completely

realized as fully unwise. Being such, such behavior becomes disabled and

in its place effortless effort (breathing) replaces it and I do

(breathe) as I do. There is clarity.

The same thing goes for other doings. When we realize the complete

unadulterated unwisdom of doing certain things, we are simply unable to

do them anymore and such inability result in effortlessness in non-doing

and it is beyond volition and the darkness has it. It just happens

because of the nature of the appearance. In its place a new form may

appear to replace the unabled one or nothing at all. The idea of doing

and non-doing cannot be done with volition. Advocates of non-doing

mislead in talking about non-doing. One cannot do non-doing. Non-doing

is a by product of complete futility, of a natural inability to act in a

certain way. Non-doing occurs on account of inability.

So if you ardently struggle and wrestle with your questions to the end,

to the end of the earth, to the abyss and into it to the bottom, ( " Who

creates that which you accept? " " Wordless wonder...? " ) then you may

realize the complete futility of it, and then you will be unable to

engage in it again for you have done all that is humanly possible and

come into that place where all is known not by whos and whats but by

wonder and awe and senses and sensations beyond the appearance's crude

intellect, emotion and will.

And if someone says, " Aha, I have solved it, " that is, that which you

found to be a futile enterprise, then with great curiosity you go see

this wonder to see if it is true and then you take the solution as your

own try it and see if is indeed true and having wrestled with giants

this is nothing. If the offering works, you have made things new, if

not, you go on as you have. There is no loss or concern either way.

Beyond I Am there is that which illuminates making one the stories told.

>

>>And more and more endless understandings await, there is no end to it

>>it seems. The wonder and mystery make one curious so we explore and

>>engage all things.

>

> Thank you for this wonderful posting,

> your have touched my heart and -

> given me confidence

>

> Stefan

Your welcome Stefan and thank you for allowing me to be as I am.

Love

Lewis

February 17, 2005

In a message dated 2/17/05 7:33:58 AM, lbb10 writes:

> L: Even here though it seems that most people want to talk about ideas and

> >concepts not what they experience as it is. So I have no idea if this is

> worth anything. It could all be a neurosis or a psychosis in some

> >people's estimation, or self-centered ramblings, or delusion, or

> enlightenment or stupidity, or arrogance or closet guru behavior or some

> other projection. To me, it is the way I am and one may name it and

> >value it as one is and does.

>

P: Lewis, have you read any U.G. Krishnamurti, he is not the famous Jiddu,

but the one who called his enlightenment, 'the great calamity?' If nothing

else you will find him an interesting clinical case.

February 18, 2005

Pedsie2 wrote:

>

> In a message dated 2/17/05 7:33:58 AM, lbb10 writes:

>

>>L: Even here though it seems that most people want to talk about ideas and

>>

>>>concepts not what they experience as it is. So I have no idea if this is

>>

>>worth anything. It could all be a neurosis or a psychosis in some

>>

>>>people's estimation, or self-centered ramblings, or delusion, or

>>

>>enlightenment or stupidity, or arrogance or closet guru behavior or some

>>other projection. To me, it is the way I am and one may name it and

>>

>>>value it as one is and does.

>>

> P: Lewis, have you read any U.G. Krishnamurti, he is not the famous Jiddu,

> but the one who called his enlightenment, 'the great calamity?' If nothing

> else you will find him an interesting clinical case.

Yes. Someone on on this list referred to " UG " a couple of months back

and I did not know anything about " UG " and so I spent 5 hours or so

experiencing him through autobiographical material, video clips,

speeches and so on on two sites. He is a curious fellow and I enjoyed

his experiences since he is quite willing to expose them and that is

refreshing. He seems to have no fear about being wrong or argued with

and that is also refreshing. In his clips, he defended his positions

from experience and that is what it is.

He prefers to have his experiences explained by moving up from

materiality, the body, physicality. This is also interesting to me for

it provides a contrast to my experience. I do not start there at all. I

start from mystery and wonder and work in any direction as required. For

me there is unmediated experience where concepts and assumptions of any

sort are dissolved and there is no distinctive knowledge and there is

ineffableness as a common experience, active quiescence where, as you

put it, the observer, observation and the observed are one. There are no

distinctions in this experience, no knower, no object, no observation,

unless called from it and required to make them, to explain something

for example and in doing so things become divided into parts that

relate. This makes for a multitude of starting points, each valid in

their way, none more valid than another as it is done according to the

demand in a relationship between others.

So, one may start from physicality if that is suitable for

understanding. Or one may start from God, if that is suitable. Or one

may start from mindfulness, if that does the trick or from emptiness if

that resonates. Poetry works, scriptures work, gurus work, all of it

works depending on the relationship one has with the other and the

places one starts from.

My place, if one can call it that, is mystery where I don't know with

the intellect anything at all, it is darkened and there is a _____ness "

that obviates blankness and no-thingness. That is as close to it as I

can get in words. When I come out of this place, all sorts of

possibilities emerges in speech, writing and communications and in

similar behaviors, there is limitless possibilities of expression,

anything can be said, there is no limit. In behaviors other than these

in the relationships with others there is also infinite possibilities

and there are incapabilities and capabilities that hem the appearance to

do this or that and not to do this or that. A crude example is I can say

devilish and nasty things and I am incapable of devilish and nasty

behavior that reflect those devilish and nasty words spoken. Does

Stephen King do the evil and horror he writes about, is he capable of

it? Is he evil and horrible to write of it?

So what we say does not mean that is what we do and what we are, or what

we are capable and incapable of in daily relations with others and what

is expressed does not necessarily indicate a solid state of what we are

and so when one condemns another at the moment something is said is

folly. One must question, inquire to know the meaning of the words.

Think of these words by Jesus. What would people think and react if you

said these words in your way to them.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

John 8:37-47

37 I know you are Abraham's descendants. Yet you are ready to

I know you are Abraham's descendants. Yet you are ready to kill me,

because you have no room for my word. 38 I am telling you what I have

seen in the Father's presence, and you do what you have heard from your

father.”

39 “Abraham is our father,” they answered.

“If you were Abraham's children,” said Jesus, “then you would do the

things Abraham did. 40 As it is, you are determined to kill me, a man

who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do

such things. 41 You are doing the things your own father does.”

“We are not illegitimate children,” they protested. “The only Father we

have is God himself.”

42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for

I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent

me. 43 Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to

hear what I say. 44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want

to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning,

not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he

speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45

Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! 46 Can any of you

prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe

me? 47 He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not

hear is that you do not belong to God.”

Matthew 12:47-49

47 Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside,

wanting to speak to you.”

48 He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?”

49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers.

Matthew 8:21-23

21 Another disciple said to him, “Lord, first let me go and bury my father.”

22 But Jesus told him, “Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead.”

Matthew 5: 27-29

27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ 28 But I

tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already

committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes

you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose

one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.

30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it

away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your

whole body to go into hell.

Matthew 18:1-9

1 At that time the disciples came to Jesus and At that time the

disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom

of heaven?”

2 He called a little child and had him stand among them. 3 And he said:

“I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little

children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Therefore,

whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom

of heaven.

5 “And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me.

6 But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to

sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around

his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

7 “Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to sin! Such

things must come, but woe to the man through whom they come! 8 If your

hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is

better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands

or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. 9 And if your eye causes

you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to

enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the

fire of hell.

Matthew 6:24-33

24 “No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and “No

one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the

other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You

cannot serve both God and Money.

25 “Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will

eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more

important than food, and the body more important than clothes? 26Look at

the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns,

and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable

than they? 27 Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life?

28 “And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field

grow. They do not labor or spin. 29 Yet I tell you that not even Solomon

in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. 30 If that is how God

clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is

thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little

faith? 31 So do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall

we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ 32 For the pagans run after all

these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. 33 But

seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will

be given to you as well. 34 Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for

tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.

Matthew 10:32-39

32 “Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him

before my Father in heaven. 33 But whoever disowns me before men, I will

disown him before my Father in heaven.

34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did

not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn “ ‘a

man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter in law

against her mother in law–36 a man's enemies will be the members of his

own household.’

37 “Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of

me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of

me; 38 and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not

worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses

his life for my sake will find it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Pete, I do not know where you start. I do know that you use the brain as

a means to explain experiences you have as I use darkness at the moment

and so on with what others use. Is that where you start? Or is there

another place before that? Where does UG start? I do not know. I can use

other means to explain my experience, including the brain, or Lacan's

unconscious as little as I know of it, or God, or the universe and have

done so in the past. The experiences remain the same the explanations

evolve with exposure to new concepts and ideas.

It seems to me it does not make a difference if one is going by what

experiences directly rather than by what some else explains. I feel

comfortable with darkness because it is close to my experience. The

brain as " sentient meat " does not ring a bell but if I de-materialize

the brain up into quantum level parts and see this swirling in an

appearance of similar quantum or smaller level swirling parts then I

have a unique swirling energy field that is completely embedded in other

moving energy fields similar and dissimilar densities (humans, animals

and rocks, for example) and these inseparable energy fields all have

responsive qualities and subsist on the interrelations and it is sensed

that these fields have capacities and incapacities in their responses to

other energy fields (hand can't go into rock) for whatever reasoning can

be devised. This does not change my experience and works to explain it

to someone else. No belief or conviction in the explanation is needed.

It is simply made up to resemble experience.

Lewis

February 18, 2005

In a message dated 2/18/05 7:57:27 AM, lbb10 writes:

Hey Lewis, what's up with all those bible quotations? That sure was

good for a chuckle! Chanelling a Xtian saint today? )))

Well, Lewis, since the darkness seems to be your centerpiece, what is its

qualia?

> L: Pete, I do not know where you start. I do know that you use the brain as

> >a means to explain experiences you have as I use darkness at the moment

> >and so on with what others use. Is that where you start?

>

P: I don't start anywhere. I don't require any explanations any more, and

none

is even a close representation of 'what is.' To communicate with others the

sense of unity and unreality of independent entities, I would say sometimes

phenomenality is the behavior of the Whole. A rock is the Whole rocking,

a brain is the Whole braining. I like to emphasize that there is no

awareness

apart from the brain because this has deconstructing value for those who

want to use disembodied awareness as a raft to eternal life. There is no

inside or outside. All is a seamless whole. The skull can't cleave the

universe in two.

Nothing new below

> & & &

> L: another place before that? Where does UG start? I do not know. I can

> use

> other means to explain my experience, including the brain, or Lacan's

> unconscious as little as I know of it, or God, or the universe and have

> done so in the past. The experiences remain the same the explanations

> evolve with exposure to new concepts and ideas.

>

> It seems to me it does not make a difference if one is going by what

> experiences directly rather than by what some else explains. I feel

> comfortable with darkness because it is close to my experience. The

> brain as " sentient meat " does not ring a bell but if I de-materialize

> the brain up into quantum level parts and see this swirling in an

> appearance of similar quantum or smaller level swirling parts then I

> have a unique swirling energy field that is completely embedded in other

> moving energy fields similar and dissimilar densities (humans, animals

> and rocks, for example) and these inseparable energy fields all have

> responsive qualities and subsist on the interrelations and it is sensed

> that these fields have capacities and incapacities in their responses to

> other energy fields (hand can't go into rock) for whatever reasoning can

> be devised. This does not change my experience and works to explain it

> to someone else. No belief or conviction in the explanation is needed.

> It is simply made up to resemble experience.

>

> Lewis

>

February 18, 2005

In a message dated 2/18/05 6:16:43 PM, lbb10 writes:

> > Well, Lewis, since the darkness seems to be your centerpiece, what is its

> > qualia?

>

> Same as yours experienced differently since my appearance is not as

> yours is and I could not know what your qualia are really like. Is your

>

> >>.'

>

> >Ok. And for me there is no " what is. " " What is " is also a concept that

> becomes a crutch for some. It can be an iron wire that binds strongly.

> >It can be the refuge of the insecure, the rock of false certainty, fools

> >gold, the hiding place of the deluded.

>

P: Lewis, you wrote above: " The darkness is a metaphor, Pete, for

impenetrability of certain

operations. " Lewis that is also as much a concept as 'what is.' That if held

on to, can be an

iron wire. Plus can you be sure this impenetrability is not the product of

your brain?

>

> P: To communicate with others the

> > sense of unity and unreality of independent entities, I would say

> sometimes

> > phenomenality is the behavior of the Whole. A rock is the Whole rocking,

> > a brain is the Whole braining. I like to emphasize that there is no

> > awareness

> > apart from the brain because this has deconstructing value for those who

> > want to use disembodied awareness as a raft to eternal life. There is no

> > inside or outside. All is a seamless whole. The skull can't cleave the

> > universe in two.

>

> L:>So there are no words to start. A coming out from wordlessness makes

> words like " A is seamless whole " possible, which by the way always has

> >an inside and outside as all wholes do and may be divided in any way one

> wants without losing the seamlessness. It is an object therefore it is

> >susceptible to such treatment. Remember Parmenides?

>

> >Awareness has been used in that way to bring security that there is

> something at least that is not a object. Yet it is an object a part of

> >something else and if spoken about as such becomes objectified as all

> >other conceptual ephemera like " what is. "

>

> >Sometimes I wonder if you believe those brain stories rather than just

> >use them to explain wholeness and deconstructing awareness fixations.

> >Tell me Pete how you see these below. Do you prefer one over another or

> >use them in different ways. My use is below the list.

>

P: Sometimes I do. Belief could be used like shirts for certain occasions.

For

example earlier I was plastering a hole in a wall and I hit a low ceiling

with my

head, it made me a little dizzy, and I was reminded I have a brain, and that

it could bleed. So for a few minutes I firmly believed I had a brain. Now I

feel

alright, so I can't entertain the possibility that the brain is an evolving

organ,

not of Pete, but of the universe as a whole. And it would certainly change,

become more efficient, enter into symbiotic relationships with computers,

and one day it will be discarded as were saber teeth.

>

February 18, 2005

Pedsie2 wrote:

>

> In a message dated 2/18/05 7:57:27 AM, lbb10 writes:

> Hey Lewis, what's up with all those bible quotations? That sure was

> good for a chuckle! Chanelling a Xtian saint today? )))

No channeling. I find most of those words would be provocative if I said

them to someone I just met or was talking to as Jesus reportedly was. He

was just talking to people he just met or some people that knew for a

short while. So if someone just met said to me that he could not go with

me somewhere because his father died and I said " Dude, let the dead bury

the dead " what do you think the newly met person would think? " Oh yeah,

forgot about that. Let's go Lewis, you the man. " Or how about cutting

off hands and gouging out eyes because of sin. Or denying my mother and

brothers because they were not into nondualism and saying only the dudes

and dudettes here were my family or me telling people not to worry about

paying bills and feeding their children or taking care of their health

because God will take care of it, or saying to nondualists here that

their father is the devil, you know like that.....Why would anyone

listen to these words? They seem like nonsense spoken by someone who was

nonsensical or crazy. This is one of the reasons why Jesus got nailed to

the cross; he did not say things that people could readily understand

and that were easily interpreted as something other than his meaning as

well as those getting his meaning. His words of both kinds got him into

a great deal of trouble and his words were used to convict him of

blasphemy and became the condition with others that led to his capture,

sufferings and death on the cross.

>

> Well, Lewis, since the darkness seems to be your centerpiece, what is its

> qualia?

Same as yours experienced differently since my appearance is not as

yours is and I could not know what your qualia are really like. Is your

blue the same as the blue as I experience? Now way to tell.

The darkness is a metaphor Pete for impenetrability of certain

operations. There is no black or dark. It is a simple word used

throughout the ages to point to unknowable knowing, dark knowing,

darkened intellect, intuition, chaos and other operative conditions that

cannot be examined like superficial thoughts, feelings, desires,

perceptions, imaginings and so on that appear in the way they do as objects.

>

>>L: Pete, I do not know where you start. I do know that you use the brain as

>>

>>>a means to explain experiences you have as I use darkness at the moment

>>>and so on with what others use. Is that where you start?

>>

> P: I don't start anywhere. I don't require any explanations any more, and

> none

> is even a close representation of 'what is.'

Ok. And for me there is no " what is. " " What is " is also a concept that

becomes a crutch for some. It can be an iron wire that binds strongly.

It can be the refuge of the insecure, the rock of false certainty, fools

gold, the hiding place of the deluded.

To communicate with others the

> sense of unity and unreality of independent entities, I would say sometimes

> phenomenality is the behavior of the Whole. A rock is the Whole rocking,

> a brain is the Whole braining. I like to emphasize that there is no

> awareness

> apart from the brain because this has deconstructing value for those who

> want to use disembodied awareness as a raft to eternal life. There is no

> inside or outside. All is a seamless whole. The skull can't cleave the

> universe in two.

So there are no words to start. A coming out from wordlessness makes

words like " A is seamless whole " possible, which by the way always has

an inside and outside as all wholes do and may be divided in any way one

wants without losing the seamlessness. It is an object therefore it is

susceptible to such treatment. Remember Parmenides?

Awareness has been used in that way to bring security that there is

something at least that is not a object. Yet it is an object a part of

something else and if spoken about as such becomes objectified as all

other conceptual ephemera like " what is. "

Sometimes I wonder if you believe those brain stories rather than just

use them to explain wholeness and deconstructing awareness fixations.

Tell me Pete how you see these below. Do you prefer one over another or

use them in different ways. My use is below the list.

1. Brain science produces a constantly changing story or stories of

phenomena experienced when examining the appearance called brain.

2. Brain science produces accurate knowledge of the real deal material

brain that exists as seen and described.

3. a mixture of 1 and 2

4. none of the above

5. other_____________________________

I pick 4 for me as I am. I have not the foggiest idea what the

appearance is. This is seems to be permanent condition until something

happens to the way it is with me. I use 1 for general purposes of

explanation about this and that, discussion and fun. I use 2 for talking

with philosophers, psychologists, neuroscientists, and other scientists

who believe in this stuff real and all that that entails. I stay away

from 3. And I am always interested in 5, new conceptions as it is -

curiosity. Are there other alternatives? Let me know.

Lewis

February 18, 2005

Pedsie2 wrote:

>

> In a message dated 2/18/05 6:16:43 PM, lbb10 writes:

>

>>>Well, Lewis, since the darkness seems to be your centerpiece, what is its

>>>qualia?

>>

>>Same as yours experienced differently since my appearance is not as

>>yours is and I could not know what your qualia are really like. Is your

>>

>>>>.'

>>

>>>Ok. And for me there is no " what is. " " What is " is also a concept that

>>

>>becomes a crutch for some. It can be an iron wire that binds strongly.

>>

>>>It can be the refuge of the insecure, the rock of false certainty, fools

>>>gold, the hiding place of the deluded.

>>

> P: Lewis, you wrote above: " The darkness is a metaphor, Pete, for

> impenetrability of certain

> operations. " Lewis that is also as much a concept as 'what is.' That if held

> on to, can be an

> iron wire. Plus can you be sure this impenetrability is not the product of

> your brain?

>

It is concept and it can be an iron wire if substituted for experience

and believed. Impenetrability is also a concept. It is a label for the

experience of not being able to describe what is happening as I can do

others. I live with it everyday and it is no bother. I can experience an

appearance commonly called a fish. I can describe it in my language. I

can experience a thought, feeling, desire and describe these in words.

Both of these can be matched to some degree with others and others can

do the same.

And then I have these other experiences that are sensed and that are not

available for examination, they are in the dark. These are almost all

activities such walking, talking, moving about, any appearance activity.

These are in darkness. Can you describe to me how you manage to speak a

coherent sentence, the process that is involved? If you can than, I may

be able to do as you do and come out of this darkness. No one I know has

been able to do it. There is only speculations and experience does not

give it.

The ideas that the brain does it is so far from the process itself to be

laughable when I see scientists make leaps of logic from brain to

speech. We find Broca and Wernicke's areas in the brain, futz with it,

see brain disorders and damage and see its effect on speech and scan and

do all sorts of things to these areas and then say with confidence " Here

are the language centers of the brain.! " Then what? Can anyone explain

how in any way whatsover how speech is produced from those areas? How a

single sentence is formed? There is nothing. Zero. Nada. Will there be?

Perhaps and why not? Does it matter? Will an explanation help to improve

speech or remove the darkness of it?

So as far being a product of the brain the darkness could be. Why not?

It could be a product of Brahman or God too as the creators of us. It

could be a product of evolutionary development an adaptive mechanism

centered not in the brain alone but throughout the entire appearance

that prevents knowledge of certain actions for such knowledge interferes

with survival. There is no reason to suppose the brain and the nervous

system is the central system of the appearance. Why is it made the

center? This is laughable too and later it will be demonstrated to be an

error in thinking.

If one had to think about batting an eyelash to prevent a dust mote from

getting into the eye or whether to run from a predator or to secrete

hormones at the proper time and so on would be a burden to great to bear

in consciousness and volition. So, God used evolution to create this

slowly and not in six days. So now we got a scientific God doing the

work in a way we wish to understand. We can make it up and if it feels

close to experience we go yeah. Who knows? I don't. You don't. Does

anyone? All we have are theories and speculations and that is all that

can be given the nature of language and concepts in finite time and

space. In brain science we have not even found the surface to scratch

yet. Our ignorance is enormous and yet we think we know a thing. We have

a couple more millennia to go before we get our heads on straight so

that we can do some real science.

>> P: To communicate with others the

>>

>>>sense of unity and unreality of independent entities, I would say

>>

>>sometimes

>>

>>>phenomenality is the behavior of the Whole. A rock is the Whole rocking,

>>>a brain is the Whole braining. I like to emphasize that there is no

>>>awareness

>>>apart from the brain because this has deconstructing value for those who

>>>want to use disembodied awareness as a raft to eternal life. There is no

>>>inside or outside. All is a seamless whole. The skull can't cleave the

>>> universe in two.

>>

>>L:>So there are no words to start. A coming out from wordlessness makes

>>words like " A is seamless whole " possible, which by the way always has

>>

>>>an inside and outside as all wholes do and may be divided in any way one

>>

>>wants without losing the seamlessness. It is an object therefore it is

>>

>>>susceptible to such treatment. Remember Parmenides?

>>

>>>Awareness has been used in that way to bring security that there is

>>

>>something at least that is not a object. Yet it is an object a part of

>>

>>>something else and if spoken about as such becomes objectified as all

>>>other conceptual ephemera like " what is. "

>>

>>>Sometimes I wonder if you believe those brain stories rather than just

>>>use them to explain wholeness and deconstructing awareness fixations.

>>>Tell me Pete how you see these below. Do you prefer one over another or

>>>use them in different ways. My use is below the list.

>>

> P: Sometimes I do. Belief could be used like shirts for certain occasions.

Certainly the case for me.

> For

> example earlier I was plastering a hole in a wall and I hit a low ceiling

> with my

> head, it made me a little dizzy, and I was reminded I have a brain, and that

> it could bleed. So for a few minutes I firmly believed I had a brain. Now I

> feel

> alright, so I can't entertain the possibility that the brain is an evolving

> organ,

> not of Pete, but of the universe as a whole. And it would certainly change,

> become more efficient, enter into symbiotic relationships with computers,

> and one day it will be discarded as were saber teeth.

>

Great imagination and that is the fun of it. To see the universe as a

living thing and each appearance as a cell or unit in it and growing and

developing and used by it. One doesn't need to sustain a bloody bump on

the head to dream that up.

It is classic Pete, it is the classic projection, to we create the

universe after our own image and likeness. Pete you have become God

creating the universe after your image and likeness (the universe is

like your brain/body and each of us is one of the different types of

cells with our particular functions, some in the brain some in the feet

some in the liver some in the blood, etc.) and thinking ahead a bit it

is seen that the brain thingy is an impediment that could be discarded

and replaced. Very good. Replaced with what is a good question.

And for your own interest, I have been saving this for you and now is

good time to mention it since you speak of discarding the brain. It does

seem that you need something but not quite the amount of organization of

sentient meat normally imagined by scientists. Perhaps you read about a

college student (and now others) years ago who had no detectable brain.

This student just had a thin lining of cerebral cells about 1 millimeter

thick due to hydrocephalus and he functioned as well as everyone else,

graduating college with honors in mathematics. This student and about

600 men and women who had little or almost no brain demonstrated (not

all) normal to high IQs and normal physical functioning were studied by

the late Dr. John Lorber of Sheffield University in the 70s and 80's

(see Lorber, John, " Is Your Brain Really Necessary? " Science 210,

December 1980.) and this web page for some ideas of the studies and findings

http://flatrock.org.nz/topics/science/dual_identities.htm

The issues raised by these very little or tiny brains rocked

neuroscience and these studies are still have not hit the mainstream

because of the wrenches it throws into current scientific thinking on

the brain especially the focus on the cerebral cortex. The tiny little

minds doing the gatekeeping on neuroscience do not like this sort of

thing. It is a good thing to know and a good way to put the brain in a

place less central or important and letting it be what it is just one

part of whole appearance and not the center of anything more than we

think of say, the thyroid gland.

Lewis

February 19, 2005

Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote:

>

> Pedsie2@a... wrote:

>

> >

> > In a message dated 2/18/05 6:16:43 PM, lbb10@c... writes:

> >

> >>>Well, Lewis, since the darkness seems to be your centerpiece,

what is its

> >>>qualia?

> >>

> >>Same as yours experienced differently since my appearance is not as

> >>yours is and I could not know what your qualia are really like. Is

your

> >>

> >>>>.'

> >>

> >>>Ok. And for me there is no " what is. " " What is " is also a concept

that

> >>

> >>becomes a crutch for some. It can be an iron wire that binds strongly.

> >>

> >>>It can be the refuge of the insecure, the rock of false

certainty, fools

> >>>gold, the hiding place of the deluded.

> >>

> > P: Lewis, you wrote above: " The darkness is a metaphor, Pete, for

> > impenetrability of certain

> > operations. " Lewis that is also as much a concept as 'what is.'

That if held

> > on to, can be an

> > iron wire. Plus can you be sure this impenetrability is not the

product of

> > your brain?

> >

>

> It is concept and it can be an iron wire if substituted for experience

> and believed. Impenetrability is also a concept. It is a label for the

> experience of not being able to describe what is happening as I can do

> others. I live with it everyday and it is no bother. I can

experience an

> appearance commonly called a fish. I can describe it in my language. I

> can experience a thought, feeling, desire and describe these in words.

> Both of these can be matched to some degree with others and others can

> do the same.

>

> And then I have these other experiences that are sensed and that are

not

> available for examination, they are in the dark. These are almost all

> activities such walking, talking, moving about, any appearance

activity.

> These are in darkness. Can you describe to me how you manage to speak a

> coherent sentence, the process that is involved? If you can than, I may

> be able to do as you do and come out of this darkness. No one I know

has

> been able to do it. There is only speculations and experience does not

> give it.

>

> The ideas that the brain does it is so far from the process itself

to be

> laughable when I see scientists make leaps of logic from brain to

> speech. We find Broca and Wernicke's areas in the brain, futz with it,

> see brain disorders and damage and see its effect on speech and scan

and

> do all sorts of things to these areas and then say with confidence

" Here

> are the language centers of the brain.! " Then what? Can anyone explain

> how in any way whatsover how speech is produced from those areas? How a

> single sentence is formed? There is nothing. Zero. Nada. Will there be?

> Perhaps and why not? Does it matter? Will an explanation help to

improve

> speech or remove the darkness of it?

>

> So as far being a product of the brain the darkness could be. Why not?

> It could be a product of Brahman or God too as the creators of us. It

> could be a product of evolutionary development an adaptive mechanism

> centered not in the brain alone but throughout the entire appearance

> that prevents knowledge of certain actions for such knowledge

interferes

> with survival. There is no reason to suppose the brain and the nervous

> system is the central system of the appearance. Why is it made the

> center? This is laughable too and later it will be demonstrated to

be an

> error in thinking.

>

> If one had to think about batting an eyelash to prevent a dust mote

from

> getting into the eye or whether to run from a predator or to secrete

> hormones at the proper time and so on would be a burden to great to

bear

> in consciousness and volition. So, God used evolution to create this

> slowly and not in six days. So now we got a scientific God doing the

> work in a way we wish to understand. We can make it up and if it feels

> close to experience we go yeah. Who knows? I don't. You don't. Does

> anyone? All we have are theories and speculations and that is all that

> can be given the nature of language and concepts in finite time and

> space. In brain science we have not even found the surface to scratch

> yet. Our ignorance is enormous and yet we think we know a thing. We

have

> a couple more millennia to go before we get our heads on straight so

> that we can do some real science.

>

> >> P: To communicate with others the

> >>

> >>>sense of unity and unreality of independent entities, I would say

> >>

> >>sometimes

> >>

> >>>phenomenality is the behavior of the Whole. A rock is the Whole

rocking,

> >>>a brain is the Whole braining. I like to emphasize that there is no

> >>>awareness

> >>>apart from the brain because this has deconstructing value for

those who

> >>>want to use disembodied awareness as a raft to eternal life.

There is no

> >>>inside or outside. All is a seamless whole. The skull can't

cleave the

> >>> universe in two.

> >>

> >>L:>So there are no words to start. A coming out from wordlessness

makes

> >>words like " A is seamless whole " possible, which by the way always has

> >>

> >>>an inside and outside as all wholes do and may be divided in any

way one

> >>

> >>wants without losing the seamlessness. It is an object therefore it is

> >>

> >>>susceptible to such treatment. Remember Parmenides?

> >>

> >>>Awareness has been used in that way to bring security that there is

> >>

> >>something at least that is not a object. Yet it is an object a part of

> >>

> >>>something else and if spoken about as such becomes objectified as all

> >>>other conceptual ephemera like " what is. "

> >>

> >>>Sometimes I wonder if you believe those brain stories rather than

just

> >>>use them to explain wholeness and deconstructing awareness fixations.

> >>>Tell me Pete how you see these below. Do you prefer one over

another or

> >>>use them in different ways. My use is below the list.

> >>

> > P: Sometimes I do. Belief could be used like shirts for certain

occasions.

>

> Certainly the case for me.

>

> > For

> > example earlier I was plastering a hole in a wall and I hit a low

ceiling

> > with my

> > head, it made me a little dizzy, and I was reminded I have a

brain, and that

> > it could bleed. So for a few minutes I firmly believed I had a

brain. Now I

> > feel

> > alright, so I can't entertain the possibility that the brain is an

evolving

> > organ,

> > not of Pete, but of the universe as a whole. And it would

certainly change,

> > become more efficient, enter into symbiotic relationships with

computers,

> > and one day it will be discarded as were saber teeth.

> >

>

> Great imagination and that is the fun of it. To see the universe as a

> living thing and each appearance as a cell or unit in it and growing

and

> developing and used by it. One doesn't need to sustain a bloody bump on

> the head to dream that up.

>

> It is classic Pete, it is the classic projection, to we create the

> universe after our own image and likeness. Pete you have become God

> creating the universe after your image and likeness (the universe is

> like your brain/body and each of us is one of the different types of

> cells with our particular functions, some in the brain some in the feet

> some in the liver some in the blood, etc.) and thinking ahead a bit it

> is seen that the brain thingy is an impediment that could be discarded

> and replaced. Very good. Replaced with what is a good question.

>

> And for your own interest, I have been saving this for you and now is

> good time to mention it since you speak of discarding the brain. It

does

> seem that you need something but not quite the amount of

organization of

> sentient meat normally imagined by scientists. Perhaps you read about a

> college student (and now others) years ago who had no detectable brain.

> This student just had a thin lining of cerebral cells about 1

millimeter

> thick due to hydrocephalus and he functioned as well as everyone else,

> graduating college with honors in mathematics. This student and about

> 600 men and women who had little or almost no brain demonstrated (not

> all) normal to high IQs and normal physical functioning were studied by

> the late Dr. John Lorber of Sheffield University in the 70s and 80's

> (see Lorber, John, " Is Your Brain Really Necessary? " Science 210,

> December 1980.) and this web page for some ideas of the studies and

findings

>

> http://flatrock.org.nz/topics/science/dual_identities.htm

>

> The issues raised by these very little or tiny brains rocked

> neuroscience and these studies are still have not hit the mainstream

> because of the wrenches it throws into current scientific thinking on

> the brain especially the focus on the cerebral cortex. The tiny little

> minds doing the gatekeeping on neuroscience do not like this sort of

> thing. It is a good thing to know and a good way to put the brain in a

> place less central or important and letting it be what it is just one

> part of whole appearance and not the center of anything more than we

> think of say, the thyroid gland.

>

> Lewis

That Lorber brain issue, if true, is certainly remarkable in the view

of contemporary science.

We tend to think of large things as important and small things, as the

example you mention, the thyroid gland, as having only a partial role

of functioning in the human body. But we really don't know the whole

truth unless we see the whole picture _and_ together with every

detail. A mobile phone from the early 90's was a pretty big chunky

device. Today's mobile phones are much smaller. Are today's mobile

phones less capable than the older ones?

I have a speculative idea that matter is just curved space, and that

space itself could hold far more possibilities and " content " than a

mere void as space is reckoned to be by today's science. What if

matter is just the outer surface appearance of space? How much space

is there in an atom? How much " solid matter " is there in an atom?

Maybe space is what is solid, and matter only an appearance, fleeting

wave forms, in that space. How much space is there in a human brain?

How much matter is there in a human brain?

/AL

February 19, 2005

Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote:

>

> Pedsie2@a... wrote:

>

> >

> > For

> > example earlier I was plastering a hole in a wall and I hit a low

ceiling

> > with my

> > head, it made me a little dizzy, and I was reminded I have a

brain, and that

> > it could bleed. So for a few minutes I firmly believed I had a

brain. Now I

> > feel

> > alright, so I can't entertain the possibility that the brain is

an evolving

> > organ,

> > not of Pete, but of the universe as a whole. And it would

certainly change,

> > become more efficient, enter into symbiotic relationships with

computers,

> > and one day it will be discarded as were saber teeth.

> >

>

> Great imagination and that is the fun of it. To see the universe as

a

> living thing and each appearance as a cell or unit in it and

growing and

> developing and used by it. One doesn't need to sustain a bloody

bump on

> the head to dream that up.

>

> It is classic Pete, it is the classic projection, to we create the

> universe after our own image and likeness. Pete you have become God

> creating the universe after your image and likeness (the universe

is

> like your brain/body and each of us is one of the different types

of

> cells with our particular functions, some in the brain some in the

feet

> some in the liver some in the blood, etc.) and thinking ahead a bit

it

> is seen that the brain thingy is an impediment that could be

discarded

> and replaced. Very good. Replaced with what is a good question.

>

> And for your own interest, I have been saving this for you and now

is

> good time to mention it since you speak of discarding the brain. It

does

> seem that you need something but not quite the amount of

organization of

> sentient meat normally imagined by scientists. Perhaps you read

about a

> college student (and now others) years ago who had no detectable

brain.

> This student just had a thin lining of cerebral cells about 1

millimeter

> thick due to hydrocephalus and he functioned as well as everyone

else,

> graduating college with honors in mathematics. This student and

about

> 600 men and women who had little or almost no brain demonstrated

(not

> all) normal to high IQs and normal physical functioning were

studied by

> the late Dr. John Lorber of Sheffield University in the 70s and

80's

> (see Lorber, John, " Is Your Brain Really Necessary? " Science 210,

> December 1980.) and this web page for some ideas of the studies and

findings

>

> http://flatrock.org.nz/topics/science/dual_identities.htm

>

> The issues raised by these very little or tiny brains rocked

> neuroscience and these studies are still have not hit the

mainstream

> because of the wrenches it throws into current scientific thinking

on

> the brain especially the focus on the cerebral cortex. The tiny

little

> minds doing the gatekeeping on neuroscience do not like this sort

of

> thing. It is a good thing to know and a good way to put the brain

in a

> place less central or important and letting it be what it is just

one

> part of whole appearance and not the center of anything more than

we

> think of say, the thyroid gland.

>

> Lewis

Yes! I heard about this before -

Is Your Brain Really Necessary?, and it

was on the back burner in relation to the discussion

with AL of brain and consciousness. Glad you

mentioned it, and thanks for the

link, Lewis. I like what you wrote above:

" put the brain in a

> place less central or important

and letting it be what it is just one

> part of whole appearance and not the center of anything "

~freyja

February 19, 2005

I like what you wrote above: " put the brain in a place less central

or important and letting it be what it is just one part of whole

appearance and not the center of anything "

Sorry Lewis, your messages are nearly always taste a tad to long for

my taste. I take here something Frejya has picked up. A few

questions:

1. why and by whom do you think has the brain has been put in a

central or important position?

2. what is the brain? You say, let it be what it is, but, do you

really know what the brain is? I don't.

3. what is " whole appereance " and why is the brain a part of it?

What if the brain is the whole appereance? Can you know for shure?

Why should " whole appereance " have parts and a part called brain?

4. What is appereance? Is it different to something you would be

able to name, to define, to depict or describe?

5. Are you able to put the brain in whatever place you like and

whenever? Don't you have reflexes? Go to a neurologist, let him take

a status on you and you will see how little control you have on your

brain? Visit an endocrinologist and then take an about-turn to a

psychiatrist. At last but not least think in terms of your

profession as anthropologist! Don't fool yourself and others. There

is very, very little you can do about " brain " .

Putting the brain in a less central position ia a gain a central

position.......so there.

All:One

Kip Almazy

February 19, 2005

In a message dated 2/18/05 10:37:14 PM, lbb10 writes:

> http://flatrock.org.nz/topics/science/dual_identities.htm

>

P: What bullshit, Lewis! Why anyone should believe such nonsense

just because it's in writing, and some crackpot professor in

England made some bogus research? That guy's name shows

only in two sites in google, and both sites are new age mystical

pseudo science sites. This guy's is not in any encyclopedia.

If his findings had any credence, even if controversial, his

name would be all over the place, and other neurologist would

have replicated his findings. You just want to believe that

bullshit, Lewis. Ask yourself why?

February 19, 2005

Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " <kipalmazy>

wrote:

>

> I like what you wrote above: " put the brain in a place less central

> or important and letting it be what it is just one part of whole

> appearance and not the center of anything "

>

> Sorry Lewis, your messages are nearly always taste a tad to long

for

> my taste. I take here something Frejya has picked up. A few

> questions:

>

> 1. why and by whom do you think has the brain has been put in a

> central or important position?

> 2. what is the brain? You say, let it be what it is, but, do you

> really know what the brain is? I don't.

> 3. what is " whole appereance " and why is the brain a part of it?

> What if the brain is the whole appereance? Can you know for shure?

> Why should " whole appereance " have parts and a part called brain?

>

> 4. What is appereance? Is it different to something you would be

> able to name, to define, to depict or describe?

>

> 5. Are you able to put the brain in whatever place you like and

> whenever? Don't you have reflexes? Go to a neurologist, let him

take

> a status on you and you will see how little control you have on

your

> brain? Visit an endocrinologist and then take an about-turn to a

> psychiatrist. At last but not least think in terms of your

> profession as anthropologist! Don't fool yourself and others. There

> is very, very little you can do about " brain " .

>

> Putting the brain in a less central position ia a gain a central

> position.......so there.

>

> All:One

> Kip Almazy

Hi Kip,

I don't know about Lewis, but I get that

his is an attempt to address the sense of

separation in terms of focusing on questioning

that the brain has the central role in managing

consciousness....which perhaps still stems

from a very subtle fear and misunderstanding

and reluctance to let go of the fundamental

mind/body split.

Here is a selection from a book called

" Molecules of Emotion " by Candace B. Pert, PhD,

Research Professor in the Department of

Physiology and Biophysics at Georgetown

University Medical Center where she also

conducts AIDS research. She was featured in

Bill Moyers' book and PBS series

Healing and the Mind and lectures extensively

throughout the country.

begin excerpt

Naomi illustrated the principle of the mind

becoming matter, preceding matter, organizing

matter, by singling out the young man in our

audience and planting a thought in his mind

that made him blush. Thoughts and emotions

came first, and the peptides followed, causing

the blood vessels in his face to open.

As the sages in India understood, the non-stuff,

the " no-thing " , is the source, and the stuff,

the material phenomenon, manifests from there.

This is such a fundamental shift for the

Western mind, but one that science can help

us understand. Originally, we scientists

thought that the flow of neuropeptides and

receptors was being directed from centers in

the brain -- the frontal cortex, the hypothalmus,

the amygdala. This fit our reductionist model,

supporting the view that thoughts and feelings

are products of neuronal activity, and that the

brain was the prime mover, the seat of

consciousness. Then as a result of my own and

other people's work in the laboratory, we found

that the flow of chemicals arose from many sites

in the different systems simultaneously - the

immune, the nervous, the endocrine, and the

gastrointestinal -- and that these sites formed

nodal points on a vast superhighway of internal

information exchange taking place on a molecular

level. We then had to consider a system with

intelligence diffused throughout, rather than

a one-way operation adhering to strictly to the

laws of cause and effect, as was previously

thought when we believed that the brain ruled over

all.

So, if the flow of our molecules is not directed

by the brain, and the brain is just another nodal

point in the network, then we must ask--

Where does the intelligence, the information that

runs our bodymind, come from? We know that information

has an infinite capability to expand and increase,

and that it is beyond time and place, matter and

energy. Therefore, it cannot belong to the material

world we apprehend with our senses, but must belong

to its own realm, one that we can experience as

emotion, the mind, the spirit, an inforealm! This is

the term I prefer, because it has a scientific realm

to it, but others mean the same thing when they say

field of intelligence, innate intelligence, the wisdom

of the body. Still others call it God, or Holy Spirit.

Reductionists will always argue that the molecules

come first, are the primal force, and that thoughts

and emotions follow as a kind of epiphenomena of the

molecules. And they've got good evidence: Doesn't

the flow of peptides change the physiologic responses,

which then create the feelings we experience? Doesn't

the chemical release of endorphins cause the feeling of

pain relief or the euphoria of the runner's high?

I don't deny this, but what I'm saying is that we

must recognize that there is a two-way system of

communication at work. Yes, the release of endorphins

can cause pain relief and euphoria, But conversely,

we can bring about the release of endorphins through

our state of mind. I like to think of mental phenomena

as messengers bringing information and intelligence from

the non-physical world to the body, where they

manifest via their physical substrate, the neuropeptides

and their receptors.

-end excerpt-

" Molecules of Emotion " Candace Pert, PhD

~freyja

February 19, 2005

Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote:

>

> In a message dated 2/18/05 10:37:14 PM, lbb10@c... writes:

>

> > http://flatrock.org.nz/topics/science/dual_identities.htm

> >

>

> P: What bullshit, Lewis! Why anyone should believe such nonsense

> just because it's in writing, and some crackpot professor in

> England made some bogus research? That guy's name shows

> only in two sites in google, and both sites are new age mystical

> pseudo science sites. This guy's is not in any encyclopedia.

> If his findings had any credence, even if controversial, his

> name would be all over the place, and other neurologist would

> have replicated his findings. You just want to believe that

> bullshit, Lewis. Ask yourself why?

>

jus>

Well, Pete, let us not forget where

FUNDING comes from, eh?

Them's there big ole' bucks in

all those drugs for 'brain disorders'

ADHD, depression, Alzheimers,

non-specific feelings of anxiety...

etc.,

you ever see these TV commercials

where they hawk a pill for someone

just

experiencing the ebb and flow of

LIFE? C'mon!

~freyja

>

February 19, 2005

Nisargadatta , " carolina112900 "

<freyjartist@a...> wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " <kipalmazy>

> wrote:

> >

> > I like what you wrote above: " put the brain in a place less central

> > or important and letting it be what it is just one part of whole

> > appearance and not the center of anything "

> >

> > Sorry Lewis, your messages are nearly always taste a tad to long

> for

> > my taste. I take here something Frejya has picked up. A few

> > questions:

> >

>

> > 1. why and by whom do you think has the brain has been put in a

> > central or important position?

>

> > 2. what is the brain? You say, let it be what it is, but, do you

> > really know what the brain is? I don't.

>

> > 3. what is " whole appereance " and why is the brain a part of it?

> > What if the brain is the whole appereance? Can you know for shure?

> > Why should " whole appereance " have parts and a part called brain?

> >

> > 4. What is appereance? Is it different to something you would be

> > able to name, to define, to depict or describe?

> >

> > 5. Are you able to put the brain in whatever place you like and

> > whenever? Don't you have reflexes? Go to a neurologist, let him

> take

> > a status on you and you will see how little control you have on

> your

> > brain? Visit an endocrinologist and then take an about-turn to a

> > psychiatrist. At last but not least think in terms of your

> > profession as anthropologist! Don't fool yourself and others. There

> > is very, very little you can do about " brain " .

> >

> > Putting the brain in a less central position ia a gain a central

> > position.......so there.

> >

> > All:One

> > Kip Almazy

>

> Hi Kip,

>

> I don't know about Lewis, but I get that

> his is an attempt to address the sense of

> separation in terms of focusing on questioning

> that the brain has the central role in managing

> consciousness....which perhaps still stems

> from a very subtle fear and misunderstanding

> and reluctance to let go of the fundamental

> mind/body split.

>

> Here is a selection from a book called

> " Molecules of Emotion " by Candace B. Pert, PhD,

> Research Professor in the Department of

> Physiology and Biophysics at Georgetown

> University Medical Center where she also

> conducts AIDS research. She was featured in

> Bill Moyers' book and PBS series

> Healing and the Mind and lectures extensively

> throughout the country.

>

> begin excerpt

>

> Naomi illustrated the principle of the mind

> becoming matter, preceding matter, organizing

> matter, by singling out the young man in our

> audience and planting a thought in his mind

> that made him blush. Thoughts and emotions

> came first, and the peptides followed, causing

> the blood vessels in his face to open.

> As the sages in India understood, the non-stuff,

> the " no-thing " , is the source, and the stuff,

> the material phenomenon, manifests from there.

>

> This is such a fundamental shift for the

> Western mind, but one that science can help

> us understand. Originally, we scientists

> thought that the flow of neuropeptides and

> receptors was being directed from centers in

> the brain -- the frontal cortex, the hypothalmus,

> the amygdala. This fit our reductionist model,

> supporting the view that thoughts and feelings

> are products of neuronal activity, and that the

> brain was the prime mover, the seat of

> consciousness. Then as a result of my own and

> other people's work in the laboratory, we found

> that the flow of chemicals arose from many sites

> in the different systems simultaneously - the

> immune, the nervous, the endocrine, and the

> gastrointestinal -- and that these sites formed

> nodal points on a vast superhighway of internal

> information exchange taking place on a molecular

> level. We then had to consider a system with

> intelligence diffused throughout, rather than

> a one-way operation adhering to strictly to the

> laws of cause and effect, as was previously

> thought when we believed that the brain ruled over

> all.

>

> So, if the flow of our molecules is not directed

> by the brain, and the brain is just another nodal

> point in the network, then we must ask--

> Where does the intelligence, the information that

> runs our bodymind, come from? We know that information

> has an infinite capability to expand and increase,

> and that it is beyond time and place, matter and

> energy. Therefore, it cannot belong to the material

> world we apprehend with our senses, but must belong

> to its own realm, one that we can experience as

> emotion, the mind, the spirit, an inforealm! This is

> the term I prefer, because it has a scientific realm

> to it, but others mean the same thing when they say

> field of intelligence, innate intelligence, the wisdom

> of the body. Still others call it God, or Holy Spirit.

>

> Reductionists will always argue that the molecules

> come first, are the primal force, and that thoughts

> and emotions follow as a kind of epiphenomena of the

> molecules. And they've got good evidence: Doesn't

> the flow of peptides change the physiologic responses,

> which then create the feelings we experience? Doesn't

> the chemical release of endorphins cause the feeling of

> pain relief or the euphoria of the runner's high?

>

> I don't deny this, but what I'm saying is that we

> must recognize that there is a two-way system of

> communication at work. Yes, the release of endorphins

> can cause pain relief and euphoria, But conversely,

> we can bring about the release of endorphins through

> our state of mind. I like to think of mental phenomena

> as messengers bringing information and intelligence from

> the non-physical world to the body, where they

> manifest via their physical substrate, the neuropeptides

> and their receptors.

>

> -end excerpt-

>

> " Molecules of Emotion " Candace Pert, PhD

>

> ~freyja

Yes, the brain, molecules, endorphins e t c could be an effect of mind

and not a cause. Or maybe a better view is, as we get from Candece;

mind/body is a two-way system, where cause-and-effect relationships

are not one-way streets.

/AL

February 19, 2005

HI Kip,

What is below is very long. Look at it. See how long it is? Perhaps you

cannot read something this long about me and you and what you raise.

I answered you questions to the best I am able.

Good luck.

Lewis

kipalmazy wrote:

>

> I like what you wrote above: " put the brain in a place less central

> or important and letting it be what it is just one part of whole

> appearance and not the center of anything "

>

> Sorry Lewis, your messages are nearly always taste a tad to long for

> my taste. I take here something Frejya has picked up. A few

> questions:

>

> 1. why and by whom do you think has the brain has been put in a

> central or important position?

Those who use it as their central way to explain human behavior and who

depend on brain as an explanatory device in what they do as a profession

or in how they explain human behavior. Anyone who does that would

qualify. The list is very very long and I am sure you know many of the

characters, professional and not so; Evolutionary biologists, social

biologists, physical and biological anthropologists, neuroscientists,

psychiatrists, certain clinical psychologists, medical doctors of a

certain stripe such as oncologists, neurologists and other clinical

specialties and so on, educators who believe in ADD and ADHD and other

brain assumed brain based disorders, cognitive and linguistic

scientists, some philosophers, experimental psychologists, nondualists,

including, some Buddhists and Advaita Vedantists and all the rest that

depend on brain in for their livelihoods, explanatory security and the

many who use it to explain in offhand ways why and how we do things who

get it from the professionals and specialist through private and public

foundations, medical academic, government and otherwise, the media,

personal treatments, books and so on. Something like that.

>

> 2. what is the brain? You say, let it be what it is, but, do you

> really know what the brain is? I don't.

I never said that Kip. Where did I say that? Be accurate. The words are

there. As I said in the post, I have not the foggiest idea about it. Why

do you ask me? Stories are stories. I provided a list of brain models

that can be used. I am familiar with all of them. Do you have a certain

interest? These stories can be discussed. So here they are again. Pick

and use as needed.

1. The Penrose-Hameroff's Orch OR model of consciousness

http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/publications.html#penrose

2. Francis Crick and Christof Koch's neurobiological theory of

consciousness.

http://www.klab.caltech.edu/~koch/crick-koch-cc-97.html

3. Karl H. Pribram's Holographic Model of Brain and Consciousness.

http://www.acsa2000.net/bcngroup/jponkp/

4. Ricciardi and Umezawa's Quantum Dynamical Model

http://www.pabst-publishers.com/Psychologie/psyzeit/cogproc/1-2000/vitiell1.htm

5. Quantum Field Theoretical Approaches to Consciousness

http://www.consciousness.arizona.edu/quantum/Lecture7.htm

6. James Newman and Bernard J. Baars's Global Workspace Theory

http://cogweb.ucla.edu/CogSci/GWorkspace.html

7. Rodney M. J. Cotterill's neural correlates of consciousness

http://info.fysik.dtu.dk/Brainscience/1997b.pdf

>

> 3. what is " whole appereance " and why is the brain a part of it?

> What if the brain is the whole appereance? Can you know for shure?

> Why should " whole appereance " have parts and a part called brain?

Brain is the whole appearance? That is a new one. When looking at the

human appearance and seeing it with the eyes in dissection we see

various appearances and name them. There is the thing in that part

called the skull that is isolated from all other tissue, cells and bone

and is called the brain. That is what is done conventionally.

Can I know for sure? I do not know anything about it really. Never

dissected a body and only have seen pictures of it and there is a mass

of stuff all connected together and then cut away and labeled and

diagrammed and functions described and interrelations made with the

other pieces. Why one thing is called and labeled described that way is

done by others and that is what they come up with and you can read about

in the thousands of books on it.

As far the whole appearance and parts and brain goes that is the visual

of the body and its dissection conventionally made. It is convention. No

reason at all to think it " is " the whole appearance. Just shorthand for

that that is not all dissected up into all sorts of parts like

mind/instinct/brain/nervous system/ circulatory system etc. Even though

I see appearances like that moving around and my own there is a sense

that it is not separate as it looks and there is intimate relation

between all the appearances so that there is one and not many and many

and not one. The sense is strongly there and I can't shake it. The

divisions are conventional and my use of the word appearance is

conventional as well. Is not all language and concept conventional and

provisional, approximations?

> 4. What is appereance? Is it different to something you would be

> able to name, to define, to depict or describe?

I described that above. It has no special status. It is describable and

there is no reason to do so unless required and that can be had in the

millions of books that deal with the human appearance in all its

manageable aspects. That is clear. As I use it and experience it, it is

not dissected as much as it can be as when the human appearance is

divided into " ...../what is/beyond being/

being/awareness/god/atman/anatman/mind/reason//will/

emotion/instinct/unconscious/archetypes/real/shadow/superego/ego/imaginary/symbo\

lic/brain/

organ systems/.....And all the other divisions that can become

deliciously complicated and fun to think about or lost in or confused

about. It is simple.

>

> 5. Are you able to put the brain in whatever place you like and

> whenever?

I do not put it anywhere in some place whenever. Others do that for me

in their dissections and explanations whether is it is old brain model

of neuronal meat in bone case or the newer ones speculated on using

molecular biology, biophysics and quantum physics where the usual brain

disappears altogether into a field of interaction between quantum

particles. I have read on all of these models as I have posted before

and again above. I do not know what they mean in experience. The quantum

model gives some inkling of a flow I experience between appearances,

perceptions and that is all. I do not experience " brain " at all, or

brain as hologram or neural correlates. Interesting these models are,

these stories, and is understandable as a story if one knows all the

related parts in it (neurobiology, molecular biology, quantum physics,

etc.) and they are only labels and descriptions and admitted models

still unproved and that do not jibe with experience in any way. So if I

wish to put the the brain all over the body it is possible in the

quantum physics model. They made it. I use it. Don't you do the same?

Don't you have reflexes?

What are those Kip? By definitions, it would seem that reflexes and

responses and instinct modified is all that occurs and so? An reflex is

" a reaction, involuntary movement or response to a stimulus applied to

the periphery and transmitted to the nerve centers in the brain or

spinal cord. " How does one experience reflexes and understand them that

way? I cannot understand. For me, it is behavior that emerges from

darkness. That definition is no better than mine. It points to nerve and

brain as the center. Is it? Could you demonstrate it for me without a

simple description with leaps of logic and gaps in evidence?

For an outside scientific observer, some behavior is labeled and

described as reflex or what have you. They study it and make

descriptions. It is an understandable explanation that does not explain

my experience. It is short on jibing with my experience. Is that sort of

thing understandable to you? So I cannot know what it is they are

talking about by experience. That is me, I begin with experience as I

am. Their explanations do not match completely or explain coherently my

experience. They are descriptions with out precision as is mine.

Now can they use those descriptions to do things like train people and

animals? Or to understand in a certain way or to behavior to themselves

and others? They can and do. What does that have to do with my

understanding through experience. Nothing much it seems and it can be

used for other matters in useful or not useful ways and so what is the

problem? Why raise this? Something to defend here. You can use reflexes

as a concept any way you do as can I and as can others. Why is this an

issue?

Go to a neurologist, let him take

> a status on you and you will see how little control you have on your

> brain?

I do not know what it is. And it seems to me I have no control at all as

I have said many times. So what difference does it make about that

thingy being controlled or not. I do not experience brain how can I

control or not control it? What is your point? Are you trying to chop

down an invisible tree? It is futile.

I thought you said above you don't know what the brain is Kip, now you

go along with the neurologists? That is fun. You probably need it for

your work and that is understandable, so use it. It is a profession

based on its stories as is mine and what would your profession be

without a brain. Nothing of course. Nothing to explain behavior with. In

social anthropology, we do need people to have brains or minds, except

for those using Levi-Strauss, who is a sort of religious figure given

the interesting mind stuff he promoted and the dedication of his

students and followers. As we do the work in the social anthropological

way, we generally omit or substitute a black box and leave it empty. We

simply look at what people do and say and how these relate in the ways

they do to what is created, maintained and changed and developed. So

most of our discipline is safe if people have no brains. Anthropologists

laugh at psyche people saying they have mind and brain fetishes and

contort themselves in their beliefs because they apply them to

themselves and wrapped in dark mental mantles with screwed up faces.

Psyche people in turn say ...well you know what they say about other

social scientists and those in the same profession who mock them.

Different realities, brain and no brain to do a doing, a profession. But

there is a brain, that you know nothing about is it not so? Are you able

to speak and think in and do in your profession without using brain? :-)

As I said in the post that you may have not read carefully, that is in

the thread, that when talking to people who believe their labeling and

descriptions as real then I talk with them on their terms. Makes sense

does it not?

In message 19936 it says:

Nisargadatta/message/19936

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sometimes I wonder if you believe those brain stories rather than just

use them to explain wholeness and deconstructing awareness fixations.

Tell me Pete how you see these below. Do you prefer one over another or

use them in different ways. My use is below the list.

1. Brain science produces a constantly changing story or stories of

phenomena experienced when examining the appearance called brain.

2. Brain science produces accurate knowledge of the real deal material

brain that exists as seen and described.

3. a mixture of 1 and 2

4. none of the above

5. other_____________________________

I pick 4 for me as I am. I have not the foggiest idea what the

appearance is. This is seems to be permanent condition until something

happens to the way it is with me. I use 1 for general purposes of

explanation about this and that, discussion and fun. I use 2 for talking

with philosophers, psychologists, neuroscientists, and other scientists

who believe in this stuff real and all that that entails. I stay away

from 3. And I am always interested in 5, new conceptions as it is -

curiosity. Are there other alternatives? Let me know.

Lewis

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Pete did not answer using this framework for his reasons and this is a

nonduality world/list, not neuroscience or psychiatry.

Visit an endocrinologist and then take an about-turn to a

> psychiatrist. At last but not least think in terms of your

> profession as anthropologist! Don't fool yourself and others. There

> is very, very little you can do about " brain " .

Will this help anything? Will this get rid of my delusions Kip? Perhaps

medication will help? In your field what would you label or diagnose me

as having? Seriously, tell me. Let others hear your diagnosis of me. Do

not worry about confidentiality. I do not mind.

It is clear that there is no fooling going on, mine or for others. I

have not experienced one person here who is not intelligent so who is

there to fool? Perhaps it is difficult for you to accept that I can be

in fact ignorant of everything, of all appearances and speak of them as

if I know them going from one to another as I do. Is that little bit

confusing for you Kip? Is it that this is impossible in your world of

mind that you inhabit to have existing two or more seemingly

contradictory positions?

Is it impossible to be not knowing and knowing at the same time on the

same appearance? Is paradox frustrating? Is chaos uninviting? Is reason

and logic sublime and paradox and chaos unpleasant? In the conventional

world paradox and chaos are usually avoided by using reason and logic to

exclude them, especially among the those living in the western

hemisphere, to create one defining reality, to create the real as

opposed to the unreal to have ontological security. For me all of these

are clear seas to swim in freely as it is, there is no separation in

them. What is it for you, Kip? How many realities are there for you?

One, two, many, none? Does one override the others or obviate the

others. There is no obviation in my experience.

I cannot know anything as I am. All is indistinct and I can be and do in

this indistinctness without any problem. When it comes time to

communicate, to speak, then there are all sorts of worlds using

different languages and concepts to explain this and that and it is

clear to me that there is no one way to do this and those holding

different views and perspectives on the same thing usually do not

associate because there is soon pickiness over the difference in

thinking and beliefs because world foundations are disturbed and then

their are arguments about these to protect the worlds, the ontologies

and it can go to dying and/or killing over these ontologies and versions

of reality as if those distinctions mattered in the long run or short run.

Encountering this diverse world as I am there grows as it is an interest

to learn all of these ways of talking and explaining these conventional

realities so that I may freely enter all the worlds that are created by

others. I believe none of it since I cannot and not being able to do so

is me. I enjoy and respect their stories and that is what they are to me

and these stories may work excellently, well, or less so or not at all,

and we create using them both that which is harmless and useful for this

and that and that which is harmful for this and that and all the degrees

in between. Is there something wrong with seeing your profession or mine

or anyone's as doings based on the stories (read models and theories) we

use to do it? And, this is not psyche clinic Kip, this is a world of

nonduality talk is not? Are your realities slipping one into the other?

Sometimes nondualist, sometimes doctor of mentality and body? Or always

the doctor of mentality and body a la Lacan or just Kip or what? I do

not know. Tell me, who are you or what are you or......however are you?

> Putting the brain in a less central position ia a gain a central

> position.......so there.

Now you sound again like above in the start like Judi Rhodes who kicked

me off her list after a few hours of posting yesterday with questions

she did not wish to answer at the end of the rope ranch. She in effect

called me an asshole of assholes, wrote a private email announcing it

and may have, I am not sure, posted the same on her list. Like her you

also do not like to answer simple questions. There are lot of people who

do not like to answer questions. What is there to lose? Is there

something to lose in answering a question directly? We do as we are.

There is no need for a hidden central position for me. What is my

central position? It is clear. Is it hidden so that I have to play the

endless sickening game of one-upmanship and whose smarter or do I have

to worry about not being right or being found wrong? I revealed all that

I am. And anyone can see me for what I am or see me as they imagine and

project me as desired and can bash me as desired on every open point

made or display of me. I have said it over and over, plainly and clearly.

I need no positioning no central place that is secret. I do not hide

behind an unrevealed no-thing or something or a filter or a ego or what

have you. For me, utter mystery is me, as is everything to me and

inseparable to this are the inseparable worlds of language and concept

and culture and diversity. The mystery I am is always and when speaking

here I remain as I am and converse as I am in the tongues spoken here

and other tongues. I am here as it is open to you and all as I always

been. There is no reason to assume more. If you can't believe it, ask

and find out. Check it through less superficially and forever hold your

peace in the way you can or not.

>

> All:One

> Kip Almazy

February 19, 2005

Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...>

wrote:

What is below is very long. Look at it. See how long it is? Perhaps

you cannot read something this long about me and you and what you

raise.

I will read it someday, Lewis, thanks for the response. But, what

are you hiding behind such a verborrhea? That you have no clue?

There is nothing wrong with it, Lewis. Nobody has a clue what life

actually is or the brain or consciousness or whatever. There are

models and concepts, ideas, illusions, ideologies, religions,

scientifical theories and all that stuff. All these things can be

discussed. Nobody is wrong or right.

So please be so kind and drop that " guru-stink " , it stinks really my

friend and don't tell me I am projecting some shit, I am not telling

nobody here where to put the brain.

See? Capice?

)

All:one

Kip Almazy

February 19, 2005

Here a little poem to you, Lewis. I think you know it

The Self

It is small and no more visible than a cricket

in August. It likes to dress up, to masquerade,

as all dwarfs do. It lodges between

granite blocks, between serviceable

truths. It even fits under

a bandage, under adhesive. Neither customs officers

nor their beautifull dogs will find it. Between

hymns, between alliances, it hides itself.

It camps in the Rocky Mountains of the skull.

An eternel refugee. It is I and I,

with the fearful hope that I have found at last

a friend, am it. But the self

is so lonely, so distrustful, it does not

accept anyone, even me.

It clings to historical events

not less tightly than water to a glass.

I could fill a Neolithic jar.

It is insatiable, it wants to flow

in aqueducts, it thirsts for newer and newer vessels.

It wants to taste space without walls,

diffuse itself, diffuse itself. Then it fades away

like desire, and in the silence of an August

night you hear only crickets patiently

conversing with the stars.

-- Adam Zagajewski

February 19, 2005

Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote:

....

> > position.......so there.

>

> Now you sound again like above in the start like Judi Rhodes who kicked

> me off her list after a few hours of posting yesterday with questions

> she did not wish to answer at the end of the rope ranch.

LOL! Poor Judi. Maybe she is a real master in dismantling egos, or she

has a severe control issue to come to terms with. Or none of these, or

both. I shall try to not judge people, because I honestly don't know.

But I find it funny and a bit comforting that I am not the only one

that did not last long on that list.

/AL

February 19, 2005

Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman "

<anders_lindman> wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...>

wrote:

> ...

> > > position.......so there.

> >

> > Now you sound again like above in the start like Judi Rhodes who

kicked

> > me off her list after a few hours of posting yesterday with

questions

> > she did not wish to answer at the end of the rope ranch.

>

> LOL! Poor Judi. Maybe she is a real master in dismantling egos, or

she

> has a severe control issue to come to terms with. Or none of these,

or

> both. I shall try to not judge people, because I honestly don't

know.

> But I find it funny and a bit comforting that I am not the only one

> that did not last long on that list.

>

> /AL

Still got Judi-on-the-brain syndrome, AL?

What's THAT about?

ROFL

your friend,

freyja

February 19, 2005

Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman "

<anders_lindman> wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " carolina112900 "

> <freyjartist@a...> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " <kipalmazy>

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > I like what you wrote above: " put the brain in a place less

central

> > > or important and letting it be what it is just one part of

whole

> > > appearance and not the center of anything "

> > >

> > > Sorry Lewis, your messages are nearly always taste a tad to

long

> > for

> > > my taste. I take here something Frejya has picked up. A few

> > > questions:

> > >

> >

> > > 1. why and by whom do you think has the brain has been put in a

> > > central or important position?

> >

> > > 2. what is the brain? You say, let it be what it is, but, do

you

> > > really know what the brain is? I don't.

> >

> > > 3. what is " whole appereance " and why is the brain a part of it?

> > > What if the brain is the whole appereance? Can you know for

shure?

> > > Why should " whole appereance " have parts and a part called

brain?

> > >

> > > 4. What is appereance? Is it different to something you would

be

> > > able to name, to define, to depict or describe?

> > >

> > > 5. Are you able to put the brain in whatever place you like and

> > > whenever? Don't you have reflexes? Go to a neurologist, let him

> > take

> > > a status on you and you will see how little control you have on

> > your

> > > brain? Visit an endocrinologist and then take an about-turn to

a

> > > psychiatrist. At last but not least think in terms of your

> > > profession as anthropologist! Don't fool yourself and others.

There

> > > is very, very little you can do about " brain " .

> > >

> > > Putting the brain in a less central position ia a gain a

central

> > > position.......so there.

> > >

> > > All:One

> > > Kip Almazy

> >

> > Hi Kip,

> >

> > I don't know about Lewis, but I get that

> > his is an attempt to address the sense of

> > separation in terms of focusing on questioning

> > that the brain has the central role in managing

> > consciousness....which perhaps still stems

> > from a very subtle fear and misunderstanding

> > and reluctance to let go of the fundamental

> > mind/body split.

> >

> > Here is a selection from a book called

> > " Molecules of Emotion " by Candace B. Pert, PhD,

> > Research Professor in the Department of

> > Physiology and Biophysics at Georgetown

> > University Medical Center where she also

> > conducts AIDS research. She was featured in

> > Bill Moyers' book and PBS series

> > Healing and the Mind and lectures extensively

> > throughout the country.

> >

> > begin excerpt

> >

> > Naomi illustrated the principle of the mind

> > becoming matter, preceding matter, organizing

> > matter, by singling out the young man in our

> > audience and planting a thought in his mind

> > that made him blush. Thoughts and emotions

> > came first, and the peptides followed, causing

> > the blood vessels in his face to open.

> > As the sages in India understood, the non-stuff,

> > the " no-thing " , is the source, and the stuff,

> > the material phenomenon, manifests from there.

> >

> > This is such a fundamental shift for the

> > Western mind, but one that science can help

> > us understand. Originally, we scientists

> > thought that the flow of neuropeptides and

> > receptors was being directed from centers in

> > the brain -- the frontal cortex, the hypothalmus,

> > the amygdala. This fit our reductionist model,

> > supporting the view that thoughts and feelings

> > are products of neuronal activity, and that the

> > brain was the prime mover, the seat of

> > consciousness. Then as a result of my own and

> > other people's work in the laboratory, we found

> > that the flow of chemicals arose from many sites

> > in the different systems simultaneously - the

> > immune, the nervous, the endocrine, and the

> > gastrointestinal -- and that these sites formed

> > nodal points on a vast superhighway of internal

> > information exchange taking place on a molecular

> > level. We then had to consider a system with

> > intelligence diffused throughout, rather than

> > a one-way operation adhering to strictly to the

> > laws of cause and effect, as was previously

> > thought when we believed that the brain ruled over

> > all.

> >

> > So, if the flow of our molecules is not directed

> > by the brain, and the brain is just another nodal

> > point in the network, then we must ask--

> > Where does the intelligence, the information that

> > runs our bodymind, come from? We know that information

> > has an infinite capability to expand and increase,

> > and that it is beyond time and place, matter and

> > energy. Therefore, it cannot belong to the material

> > world we apprehend with our senses, but must belong

> > to its own realm, one that we can experience as

> > emotion, the mind, the spirit, an inforealm! This is

> > the term I prefer, because it has a scientific realm

> > to it, but others mean the same thing when they say

> > field of intelligence, innate intelligence, the wisdom

> > of the body. Still others call it God, or Holy Spirit.

> >

> > Reductionists will always argue that the molecules

> > come first, are the primal force, and that thoughts

> > and emotions follow as a kind of epiphenomena of the

> > molecules. And they've got good evidence: Doesn't

> > the flow of peptides change the physiologic responses,

> > which then create the feelings we experience? Doesn't

> > the chemical release of endorphins cause the feeling of

> > pain relief or the euphoria of the runner's high?

> >

> > I don't deny this, but what I'm saying is that we

> > must recognize that there is a two-way system of

> > communication at work. Yes, the release of endorphins

> > can cause pain relief and euphoria, But conversely,

> > we can bring about the release of endorphins through

> > our state of mind. I like to think of mental phenomena

> > as messengers bringing information and intelligence from

> > the non-physical world to the body, where they

> > manifest via their physical substrate, the neuropeptides

> > and their receptors.

> >

> > -end excerpt-

> >

> > " Molecules of Emotion " Candace Pert, PhD

> >

> > ~freyja

>

> Yes, the brain, molecules, endorphins e t c could be an effect of

mind

> and not a cause. Or maybe a better view is, as we get from Candece;

> mind/body is a two-way system, where cause-and-effect relationships

> are not one-way streets.

>

> /AL

AL, do you need to 'get' that from Candace?

I thought you already knew that on your own.

And that is also what I was saying in

our dialogue as well, but, I guess

the 'experts' are needed to validate it.

well anyway, here's some old rock lyrics

for you

" I'm just looking for clues at the scene

of the crime,

life's been good to me so far....

I can't complain, but sometimes

I still do,

life's been good to me so far....

I just keep moving on without knowing why....

life's been good to me so far "

~Joe Walsh

February 19, 2005

Pedsie2 wrote:

>

> In a message dated 2/18/05 10:37:14 PM, lbb10 writes:

>

>>http://flatrock.org.nz/topics/science/dual_identities.htm

>>

>

> P: What bullshit, Lewis! Why anyone should believe such nonsense

> just because it's in writing, and some crackpot professor in

> England made some bogus research? That guy's name shows

> only in two sites in google, and both sites are new age mystical

> pseudo science sites. This guy's is not in any encyclopedia.

> If his findings had any credence, even if controversial, his

> name would be all over the place, and other neurologist would

> have replicated his findings. You just want to believe that

> bullshit, Lewis. Ask yourself why?

Are you mad Pete? Are you a lunatic?

Did you read the article Pete in the " respectable journal " Science? Did

read his authored books or other materials?

1. Spina bifida--neural tube defects : basic research, interdisciplinary

diagnostics and treatment, results, and prognosis /

Publisher:Berlin;New York: De Gruyter, 1986.

2. Anomalies of the fetal head, neck, and spine : ultrasound diagnosis

and management /Philadelphia : Saunders, 1988.

http://www.indiana.edu/~pietsch/lorber-references.html.

Lorber is a specialist and was not focused on this subject of little or

brains, this was something of an aside to his studies of hydrocephalus

and spinal bifida that he came upon that student by accident. He is not

known for this study because it was not something taken up by others to

my knowledge other than Rupert Sheldrake who uses the cases for his

purposes which is not brain science. It would be a uphill battle against

contemporary view.

Did you ever hear of John D. Spillane? Look him up on the internet and

in the encyclopedia Britannica encyclopedia and then tell me something

about him. He is a respected scientist. Because he is not on the

internet in volumes or the encyclopedia and is cited obliquely in an

article on theology is he by you reduced to crackpot status? Your

research methods and analytic methods need work.

How do you know Lorber is a crackpot? Because you read what someone else

said about Lorber or what what pseudo scientists want to use his work

for? I am surprised at you Pete. Before you judge, learn something,

don't assume. Don't believe what others say as you have done or judge

superficially. Find out for your self and not from the internet that is

filled with spurious information and lacks most material still under

copyright.

Second, the issue is not with what is said by Lorber, what he thinks

about it. It is the type of brains themselves that give pause. Who knows

how they managed to live with brains as described. Those 600 are cases

in point about what one thinks of the brain. That is all.

If you knew the story well because you read the materials instead of

pseudo science sites you would know that Lorber exaggerated his claims.

And that the claims are not as important as the issues raised by those

people with so little brains who functioned normally as to the nature of

brain function and the challenges it poses to current theories and

models. It is interesting, it gives pause, it helps to see other ways.

And how are you going to replicate tiny brains Pete? And who cares?

Your reaction is surprising and I wonder again how fixated you are on

the brain. Brain fetish have you?

I have told you so many times that I do not believe these stories. Why

project that same image again and again that I do. There is no want to

believe in anything seeing that I can't do it as I am. You told me you

do not need any explanation and I gave it you to add to your mix of

explanations that you do give. Your reactions may seem that you believe

these brain stories and anything that disrupts them there is piss coming

out. Or perhaps, you are pissed thinking I believe in this stuff and

passing bullshit to you that you did not expect. That is incorrect for

the umpteenth time.

Whatever it is that set it off, bullshit is bullshit and since you have

not read any of it I do not see how you can make that statement. Read.

Learn it and then call it what you want. Before that I take what you say

as one of your passing episodes and means nothing much and is forgotten

with this.

Lewis

Wordless Wonder

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Popular Days

Popular Days

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation