Jan/From bus to train...

[Guest guest]

"Jan Barendrecht" <janb

Re: Re: Jan/primary bus: shunted?

>

>Gene: I must take issue with the following:

>

>..."_No one can provide earth with an extra sun_."

>

>Gene: Now Jan... as much as I love your entertaining and

usually correct commentary, this time you have gone... too far.

>I hope you can knowledgeably retract that statement.

>You are one of the few people on Urth who can know what I

mean by this.

 

 

 

Jan: ..."The major synchronizer for cycles of activity and rest is the

spinning earth, giving the cycle of day and night. Introducing

a second sun would disrupt this cycle, causing death; who

could do that? From the perspective of interdependent arising,

there can't be an earth with two suns as biological life

requires a cycle of light and darkness. "

 

Gene: The issue of sleep is irrelevant, if one can see two suns, arrayed in

the sky like two eyes. In this scenario, there are still cycles of dark, as

the planet spins.

 

 

G:>To continue: You present what seems to be an inarguable weave of

>representations. Yet, you are using one 'level' to cancel and then again,

>affirm, another 'level'. Can you freely choose, to arbitrarily assign

>reality in such a manner, and then later, to cancel, using the same

>criteria? If so... upon what basis can you possibly criticize, or even

>reasonably compare?

 

Jan:..."One might ask if the conditions required for biological life

as known, specifically, "higher" animals, are arguable."

 

Gene: Yes, one might ask that. But if one does so, it is to use the

supposed 'reality' of 'verifyable' and 'scientific fact' to disprove, or

even ward-off, what is to that one, seemingly unimaginable.

 

If we suppose that cycles of light, and gravity, are necessary

prerequisites for any particular thing... we have established a firm

criteria for comparison, yes? I am trying to point out that really, nothing

can be proved, in such a way as to establish such criteria, so that to call

upon such, is to lean on an infirm support.

 

I respect the way you express yourself, yet I try to point out, that

sometimes, your offered 'proofs' are as ephemeral as the 'fantasies' you

yourself attempt to cast light upon, for the good of all.

 

To depend upon the 'reality' of the sun, gravity, biological determinism,

etc, may seem a firm ground, but I must offer, that for me, it is anything

but firm. You frequently offer your personal K-evolve experiences as an

opening for our understanding of your POV... I offer, in a similar way,

that my own experiences have revealed that I have nothing such as

'verifyable physical reality' to depend upon. As a consequence, I ask if

you can step into the space between A and Z, and even beyond Z. It is

unnecessary to always fall back upon analogies of physicality to prove or

disprove anything.

 

 

 

J:>..."One's birthright could be called the right to regain the

>seemingly lost unconditional happiness. "

>

>Gene: This is a resonable statement...

 

Jan:..."It isn't when one considers the agonies of a "factory born"

pig, destined for the slaughterhouse. Regarding intelligence,

a pig is comparable to a dog and can be held as a pet. "

 

Gene: Calling upon the suffering of such a torutured Being... as proof...

of what? That gravity is real, and that we "must" sleep?

 

Please keep in mind... that in these postings, if you do not see mention of

_everything_, that this is not proof of ignorance of _anything_. I do not

need to be whacked with a suffering piglet, to be made aware of anything.

 

 

>Gene: This is an unreasonable statement.

You skip from 'A' to 'Z' with no mention of processes 'B~Y'.

 

Jan: ..."OK. Where is the "I" in dreamless sleep? Are you happy or

unhappy when waking up from it?

Where is the "I" when absorbed in performing arts or an

unusual sunset? It is quite possible to get the "taste" from

'Z'. And to my knowledge, what you are labeling as 'Z', still

isn't the "end"; it could be called "far enough"."

 

Gene: The point of "I" in 'dreamless sleep (dreamless to whom?) is taken,

yet irrelevant. If one walks from point A to point E, each step is taken; a

record is taken. We can agree that such a record is not proof of anything,

and that also, cannot be used to disprove anything. Yet, the record exists,

and we must deal with, NOT dismiss or be in denial of, memory.

 

If we could summarily dismiss what is between A and Z, the example of the

suffering piglet would be totally empty; obviously, for you, it is an

example which is not empty. The piglet suffers; and somehow, it seems that

you do, too, if the example is relevant to you.

 

If we could _compress_ the (memory) experiential-space-record between

points A and Z, like this: and label it, we could create an archive, and

leave a lot of free memory-space in which to play and enjoy, thus to be

free.

 

G: >I suggest to point out, that indeed it is permissible to have

memory of 'before' 'during' and 'after'. To see, compare, weigh,

understand, and then... to possibly move on, to ~Z. It is unreasonable to

state that remembering or knowing, disqualifies from ~Z. It is

permissible to have it all!

 

Jan: ..."This would imply the memory of "before" is seen unchanged from

the perspective of "after" and is unlikely; the facts will

remain but not the former impressions, associated with the

facts. In a state of weightlessness, the feeling of gravity is

forgotten almost immediately whereas behavioral adaptation to

the consequences isn't.

 

Gene: I see no such implication. I point out that apprehending, is not

necessarily by understanding; that established filters of 'verifable truth'

(opinion always) obscure what is current, although they may lead to be able

to communicate via certain established standards.

>Jan: ..."Phantasies about supernatural side-effects of this

>realization is a side-effect of not yet having realized this

>simple truth."

>

>Gene: You seem to be burning 'our' bridges, before we come to

them... why?

 

Jan: ..."The dictionary gives for fantasy:

 

1. The creative imagination; unrestrained fancy. See synonyms

at IMAGINATION.

2. Something, such as an invention, that is a creation of the

fancy.

3. A capricious or fantastic idea; a conceit.

4. a. Fiction characterized by highly fanciful or supernatural

elements. b. An example of such fiction.

5. An imagined event or sequence of mental images, such as a

daydream, usually fulfilling a wish or psychological need.

6. Music.See FANTASIA.

7. A coin issued especially by a questionable authority and

not intended for use as currency.

8. Obsolete. A hallucination.

 

J: So I could return the question: Who would like to cross

bridges on 4. or 5.? Doesn't the SF channel deliver enough

enjoyable fantasy?"

 

Gene: I don't know. What I do know, is that to define someone's thought as

a 'conceit' and a 'fantasy', is to elevate one's own thought to the plane

of the 'objective'. It is at that stage, that one must become responsible

for all of one's own pool-shots, or begin positing 'absolute causes' as

excuses.

>..." So instead of thinking about unity, love,

>harmony etc., with associated phantasies of petting lions,

>tigers and leopards and creating black holes, the

>ideas/feelings/thoughts of separateness, hate, disharmony etc.

>will no longer arise because the "I" no longer arises and that

>is what constitutes Peace beyond understanding."

>

>..."Jan "

>Gene: Again, you cut out the middle, as though it does not

actually exist.

 

Jan: ..."Who would want to separate things in "lower, middle and

higher"? "

 

Gene: Who posited such a demarcation?

I can ask you, who devides into 'before, during, and after'?

Or for that matter, into "if, then" chains, stated deterministically?

 

 

 

Jan:..."Attraction and repulsion, one of the pairs of opposites.

Gravity doesn't have an opposite; matter can only attract

matter, but other forces (electrical, magnetic) can provide

both an attractive and a repulsive force."

 

Gene: Thus... no object... no gravity? No objective, no attachment?

 

/In case of electro-mag/ Thus... polarity is always and only, in media...

>Gene: >No amount of convincing... will change the actual

'properties'. Thus, in that 'ultimate relationship',

>meaning is also certain.

>How does 'biological' organism stay 'together'... and what

does this have to do with a 2nd sun... and black holes???

Please rethink your conclusions!

 

Jan: ..."A biological organism is changing continuously. It is fitted

with an incomplete auto-repair function. Biological organisms

have a cycle of rest and activity, determined by a planetary

rotation that will enable a cycle of light and darkness, which

is impossible in the presence of a second sun. Depending on

size, a sun can develop into a black hole."

 

Gene: Incomplete autorepair denotes the loss of resolution of the _alias_.

>Gene: I suggest to allow all levels to be discrete at least in

mind, perhaps labled to be so.

One level does not disqulify another level, without itself

ceasing to exist... which itself precludes any anihillation. Thus all

levels are indeed discrete; we may access them thus.

 

Jan: ..."The levels do not exist apart from their perceiver. On a stair

with two steps it is always possible to add more steps. "

 

Gene: What you say, is acknowledged. One may choose steps, or not.

 

In the process of analysis or leading to knowing by that means, certain

criteria are ceded.

 

If as you state by your overall presentation here, that there is _ knowing

which is by no way of knowing_, for you to then disqualify any way of

knowing by any other way of knowing, is to deny the actual knowing, even

that of no way. Do you follow me?

 

In any event, I point this out, not because I am disturbed by an

inconsistancy in your presentation; but because I am concerned that it is

an insoluable puzzle to others.

 

This is like asking, "where do you stand?"

>G: Any dismissal... is by certain criteria, deemed real by

someone, yes???

>Perhaps a more moderate, or more radical, approach may be

tried...

 

Jan: ..."There are as many approaches as there are bodies. The analogy

is the ride with a train; one can relax and sleep, or look

through the window and wonder if the rusty bridges won't

collapse, the engine and the breaks won't fail or robbers will

raid the train. One has to pay attention when starting the

journey and when leaving the train. Beginning the ride means

the certainty of arriving at the destiny. When the train is

moving, some are enjoying the sights, some are scared by the

sights, some will relax and rest etc. "

 

Gene: Agreed. It is a fine analogy.

 

The question here is... who is the conductor on that train?

 

It is the conductor who states the upcoming stations, conditions, enforces

the rules, etc.

 

If I ask, "When is Danske?" and he says, "Danske is always, and never, it

is only in the mind of mapmakers, whom you obviously are under sway of, and

in collusion with!", of what use is that answer to me?

 

So, as long as there are 'questions', the answers are telling. If

conversation, words. Understood.

 

I wish you well,

 

==Gene Poole==

[Guest guest]

Lieve Gene en Jan,

 

I have the idea that some of these discussions are before our time,

like the two suns.

 

Two Suns?

 

We have millions of Suns, we have a

Galactic Center, but we don't have two Suns for Earth, so i am lost,

but that's okay, the scenery is great, and i for one can always follow

one sun~Zon.

 

But, I have to tell you that at least I am getting absolutely lovely

laughter, so, thank you :-) ... don't bother responding just enjoying..

 

L*L*L

~ RAinbo ~

[Guest guest]

On 10/10/99 at 12:09 PM magus wrote:

>"Jan Barendrecht" <janb

>Re: Re: Jan/primary bus: shunted?

>

>>

>>Gene: I must take issue with the following:

>>

>>..."_No one can provide earth with an extra sun_."

>>

>>Gene: Now Jan... as much as I love your entertaining and

>usually correct commentary, this time you have gone... too

far.

>

>>I hope you can knowledgeably retract that statement.

>

>>You are one of the few people on Urth who can know what I

>mean by this.

>

>

>

>Jan: ..."The major synchronizer for cycles of activity and

rest is the

>spinning earth, giving the cycle of day and night.

Introducing

>a second sun would disrupt this cycle, causing death; who

>could do that? From the perspective of interdependent

arising,

>there can't be an earth with two suns as biological life

>requires a cycle of light and darkness. "

>

>Gene: The issue of sleep is irrelevant, if one can see two

suns, arrayed in

>the sky like two eyes. In this scenario, there are still

cycles of dark, as

>the planet spins.

 

Two suns that close, turning around each other, wouldn't that

pose a problem? Before an equivalent of Kepler could arise,

computers would have to be invented first. Assuming of course

the planetary orbits are stable long enough to permit the

equivalent of evolution. Perhaps the equivalent of the sun-god

Ra could arrange that. No, there would be a sun-god and a

sun-goddess, attracting each other but never (?) uniting

Planetary disasters could be "explained" as a divine marital

quarrel and on the planets, devotees of the god can battle or

unite with the devotees of the goddess. Interesting

scenario?

>

>G:>To continue: You present what seems to be an inarguable

weave of

>>representations. Yet, you are using one 'level' to cancel

and then again,

>>affirm, another 'level'. Can you freely choose, to

arbitrarily assign

>>reality in such a manner, and then later, to cancel, using

the same

>>criteria? If so... upon what basis can you possibly

criticize, or even

>>reasonably compare?

>

>Jan:..."One might ask if the conditions required for

biological life

>as known, specifically, "higher" animals, are arguable."

>

>Gene: Yes, one might ask that. But if one does so, it is to

use the

>supposed 'reality' of 'verifyable' and 'scientific fact' to

disprove, or

>even ward-off, what is to that one, seemingly unimaginable.

 

One can imagine everything. If one considers astral worlds

etc. to be real, so be it. It reminds of stories concerning

people who saw 1,300 past lifes passing by in a vision. No

problem if someone says "that's real because I saw it

happening". I would say "images passing by, interpret them or

don't". Or write a poem or a story.

>If we suppose that cycles of light, and gravity, are

necessary

>prerequisites for any particular thing... we have established

a firm

>criteria for comparison, yes? I am trying to point out that

really, nothing

>can be proved, in such a way as to establish such criteria,

so that to call

>upon such, is to lean on an infirm support.

 

Well, suppose there is no light, no gravity, no matter. Then

there are no criteria and there IS nothing to prove or to

support which simplifies greatly.

>I respect the way you express yourself, yet I try to point

out, that

>sometimes, your offered 'proofs' are as ephemeral as the

'fantasies' you

>yourself attempt to cast light upon, for the good of all.

 

Why see things as proof? The fact that learning is impeded

without sleep doesn't prove learning is an absolute

requirement. It indicates only that biological life as

presently known is functioning that way. Under the banner of

"time is money" it probably won't take long to design

genetically engineered animals that don't require sleep, so

they can eat at night too and grow faster.

>To depend upon the 'reality' of the sun, gravity, biological

determinism,

>etc, may seem a firm ground, but I must offer, that for me,

it is anything

>but firm. You frequently offer your personal K-evolve

experiences as an

>opening for our understanding of your POV... I offer, in a

similar way,

>that my own experiences have revealed that I have nothing

such as

>'verifyable physical reality' to depend upon. As a

consequence, I ask if

>you can step into the space between A and Z, and even beyond

Z. It is

>unnecessary to always fall back upon analogies of physicality

to prove or

>disprove anything.

 

That would indicate a difference of interpretation. I wouldn't

even consider offering anything not verifiable by scriptures

or not comparable to the experiences of others "on the road".

To my knowledge, experience comes through the senses, whether

"internal" or "external" so non-physical reality could mean

experience with "inner" senses. Subtle matter is still matter

and many so called siddhis apply to this region. Is that what

you mean?

>

>

>J:>..."One's birthright could be called the right to regain

the

>>seemingly lost unconditional happiness. "

>>

>>Gene: This is a resonable statement...

>

>Jan:..."It isn't when one considers the agonies of a "factory

born"

>pig, destined for the slaughterhouse. Regarding intelligence,

>a pig is comparable to a dog and can be held as a pet. "

>

>Gene: Calling upon the suffering of such a torutured Being...

as proof...

>of what? That gravity is real, and that we "must" sleep?

 

No proof at all. Just an indication a perspective can be

found, contradicting a statement, true from another

perspective. The case of the unhappy pig merely served as an

indication that there are no rights at all; all rights are

man-made.

>

>Please keep in mind... that in these postings, if you do not

see mention of

>_everything_, that this is not proof of ignorance of

_anything_. I do not

>need to be whacked with a suffering piglet, to be made aware

of anything.

 

No ignorance was assumed. The case of the unhappy piglet could

be called a step beyond the range A...Z.

>

>

>>Gene: This is an unreasonable statement.

>You skip from 'A' to 'Z' with no mention of processes 'B~Y'.

>

>Jan: ..."OK. Where is the "I" in dreamless sleep? Are you

happy or

>unhappy when waking up from it?

>Where is the "I" when absorbed in performing arts or an

>unusual sunset? It is quite possible to get the "taste" from

>'Z'. And to my knowledge, what you are labeling as 'Z', still

>isn't the "end"; it could be called "far enough"."

>

>Gene: The point of "I" in 'dreamless sleep (dreamless to

whom?) is taken,

>yet irrelevant. If one walks from point A to point E, each

step is taken; a

>record is taken. We can agree that such a record is not proof

of anything,

>and that also, cannot be used to disprove anything. Yet, the

record exists,

>and we must deal with, NOT dismiss or be in denial of,

memory.

 

There is far more in memory than what can be consciously

recalled. The classical example was for experienced drivers,

if one could remember when and where switching gears after a

drive with the car in a city. The record is there, recalling

will fail. So what do you define as memory: record or recall?

 

>If we could summarily dismiss what is between A and Z, the

example of the

>suffering piglet would be totally empty; obviously, for you,

it is an

>example which is not empty. The piglet suffers; and somehow,

it seems that

>you do, too, if the example is relevant to you.

 

It is possible to know a creature is suffering while knowing

it is empty simultaneously. The example is relevant because it

indicates there are creatures who couldn't possibly desire or

"deserve" such a life of suffering. So one can contemplate on

karma and causality.

>If we could _compress_ the (memory) experiential-space-record

between

>points A and Z, like this: and label it, we could create

an archive, and

>leave a lot of free memory-space in which to play and enjoy,

thus to be

>free.

>

>G: >I suggest to point out, that indeed it is permissible to

have

>memory of 'before' 'during' and 'after'. To see, compare,

weigh,

>understand, and then... to possibly move on, to ~Z. It is

unreasonable to

>state that remembering or knowing, disqualifies from ~Z. It

is

>permissible to have it all!

>

>Jan: ..."This would imply the memory of "before" is seen

unchanged from

>the perspective of "after" and is unlikely; the facts will

>remain but not the former impressions, associated with the

>facts. In a state of weightlessness, the feeling of gravity

is

>forgotten almost immediately whereas behavioral adaptation to

>the consequences isn't.

>

>Gene: I see no such implication. I point out that

apprehending, is not

>necessarily by understanding; that established filters of

'verifable truth'

>(opinion always) obscure what is current, although they may

lead to be able

>to communicate via certain established standards.

 

Could you elaborate the difference between understanding and

apprehending? according to the dictionary they're the same and

English is (at best) a second language.

 

[...]

>

>>Gene: Again, you cut out the middle, as though it does not

>actually exist.

>

>Jan: ..."Who would want to separate things in "lower, middle

and

>higher"? "

>

>Gene: Who posited such a demarcation?

 

In that case, please explain the use of the term "middle":

>Gene: Again, you cut out the middle, as though it does not

>actually exist.

Can a "middle" exist without "lower, higher" and if yes, what

is the meaning of middle?

>I can ask you, who devides into 'before, during, and after'?

>Or for that matter, into "if, then" chains, stated

deterministically?

 

You did: >G: >I suggest to point out, that indeed it is

permissible to have

>memory of 'before' 'during' and 'after'.

 

Before, during and after are arbitrary demarcations based on

interpretation of perception. The experienced driver,

"forgetting" where and when changing gears (steps in

transmission). No problem.

>

>

>Jan:..."Attraction and repulsion, one of the pairs of

opposites.

>Gravity doesn't have an opposite; matter can only attract

>matter, but other forces (electrical, magnetic) can provide

>both an attractive and a repulsive force."

>

>Gene: Thus... no object... no gravity? No objective, no

attachment?

 

No desires, no attachment.

>

>/In case of electro-mag/ Thus... polarity is always and only,

in media...

 

Polarity indicates separation.

[...]

>Gene: Incomplete autorepair denotes the loss of resolution of

the _alias_.

 

Incomplete autorepair is linked to reproduction and loss of

the biological structure. Science is working at a "fix" for

the autorepair

[...]

>

>If as you state by your overall presentation here, that there

is _ knowing

>which is by no way of knowing_, for you to then disqualify

any way of

>knowing by any other way of knowing, is to deny the actual

knowing, even

>that of no way. Do you follow me?

 

The ways of knowing, different from intuition and inference,

would make in interesting thread.

>

>In any event, I point this out, not because I am disturbed by

an

>inconsistancy in your presentation; but because I am

concerned that it is

>an insoluable puzzle to others.

 

I'm not aware of puzzles, so it could be a valid argument.

>This is like asking, "where do you stand?"

 

A classical answer would be "nowhere". In principle every

perspective is correct for its perceiver and probably it is

inconceivable to see that all perspectives are relative so

correct/incorrect does not apply. Which leaves nowhere.

 

[...]

>

>The question here is... who is the conductor on that train?

 

In Latvia, very often nobody

>It is the conductor who states the upcoming stations,

conditions, enforces

>the rules, etc.

>

>If I ask, "When is Danske?" and he says, "Danske is always,

and never, it

>is only in the mind of mapmakers, whom you obviously are

under sway of, and

>in collusion with!", of what use is that answer to me?

 

With such an answer, I would have to conclude being mapmaker

too and interpret as: be vigilant, as no one can really

help you, but as a mapmaker, the knowledge of "when" has to be

"inside"!

>So, as long as there are 'questions', the answers are

telling. If

>conversation, words. Understood.

>

>I wish you well,

>

>==Gene Poole==

 

Stories can be entertaining, exemplary, humorous etc. A story

can be made up of questions, answers, conversations, all

consisting of words. It is the interpretation that matters.

When Osho was on TV, one could see some laughing, some stunned

and some getting angry, yet all were hearing the same spoken

words. Just creatively imagine to be without interpretation,

hearing the words spoken by Osho; would one still laugh, be

stunned or get angry?

 

Wishing you well too,

 

Jan

[Guest guest]

Jan,

 

We decided in chat tonight that

Gene, the Abominable 600 foot Snowman

had seen you invent a black hole and your

finger prints were left :-)

 

Good Morning,

~ Rainbo ~

[Guest guest]

On 10/11/99 at 2:02 AM RainboLily wrote:

>RainboLily

>

>Jan,

>

>We decided in chat tonight that

>Gene, the Abominable 600 foot Snowman

>had seen you invent a black hole and your

>finger prints were left :-)

>

>Good Morning,

>~ Rainbo ~

 

Oops - sorry - I forgot to put up a fence to prevent the

experiment from becoming known. Just wanted to find out if

information disappears in a black hole, or that it is

reradiated. When, much to my surprise, I saw millions of

Sanskrit letters suddenly appearing on the galactic X-ray

interpreter, the Bible was thrown into the black hole but it

flew back as the first edition of the Vedas. So I tried to

grab that, burned my fingers on the book but lost it as it

transformed into a big OM. Must have forgotten to wipe off the

fingerprints

 

Jan

[Guest guest]

 

Jan Barendrecht <janb

< >

Monday, October 11, 1999 9:30 AM

Re: Re: Jan/From bus to train...

 

>"Jan Barendrecht" <janb

>

>

>

>On 10/11/99 at 2:02 AM RainboLily wrote:

>

>>RainboLily

>>

>>Jan,

>>

>>We decided in chat tonight that

>>Gene, the Abominable 600 foot Snowman

>>had seen you invent a black hole and your

>>finger prints were left :-)

>>

>>Good Morning,

>>~ Rainbo ~

>

>Oops - sorry - I forgot to put up a fence to prevent the

>experiment from becoming known. Just wanted to find out if

>information disappears in a black hole, or that it is

>reradiated. When, much to my surprise, I saw millions of

>Sanskrit letters suddenly appearing on the galactic X-ray

>interpreter, the Bible was thrown into the black hole but it

>flew back as the first edition of the Vedas. So I tried to

>grab that, burned my fingers on the book but lost it as it

>transformed into a big OM. Must have forgotten to wipe off the

>fingerprints

>

>Jan

>

Dear Jan,

 

Whew, what a relief it is to know THIS! I have long suspected that

significant portions of my memory were disappearing into a black hole, and

this would explain why they are coming back garbled into meaningless stuff

like lyrics from pop songs, which nonetheless SEEM highly significant to me.

Indeed , who DID put the bop in the _____(garbled.) Look, you can just have

all the lost socks, etc.. but the entire year of 1985?? C'mon...something

important must have happened to me and I want it back.

 

The excuse of unintended effects is understandable, Jan..we never known that

in advance, but is it too late to undo this invention of yours? You could

lose a lot of friends when word of this gets around.

 

Your pal till the end, (but of what I am not sure.)

 

Glo

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/10/1999 10:14:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

janb writes:

 

<< Just creatively imagine to be without interpretation,

hearing the words spoken by Osho; would one still laugh, be

stunned or get angry? >>

 

When I can "be without interpretation," I AM Osho!

 

H.

[Guest guest]

On 10/11/99 at 1:15 PM Gloria Lee wrote:

>

>Jan Barendrecht <janb

> < >

>Monday, October 11, 1999 9:30 AM

>Re: Re: Jan/From bus to train...

>

>

>>"Jan Barendrecht" <janb

>>

>>

>>

>>On 10/11/99 at 2:02 AM RainboLily wrote:

>>

>>>RainboLily

>>>

>>>Jan,

>>>

>>>We decided in chat tonight that

>>>Gene, the Abominable 600 foot Snowman

>>>had seen you invent a black hole and your

>>>finger prints were left :-)

>>>

>>>Good Morning,

>>>~ Rainbo ~

>>

>>Oops - sorry - I forgot to put up a fence to prevent the

>>experiment from becoming known. Just wanted to find out if

>>information disappears in a black hole, or that it is

>>reradiated. When, much to my surprise, I saw millions of

>>Sanskrit letters suddenly appearing on the galactic X-ray

>>interpreter, the Bible was thrown into the black hole but it

>>flew back as the first edition of the Vedas. So I tried to

>>grab that, burned my fingers on the book but lost it as it

>>transformed into a big OM. Must have forgotten to wipe off

the

>>fingerprints

>>

>>Jan

>>

>Dear Jan,

>

>Whew, what a relief it is to know THIS! I have long suspected

that

>significant portions of my memory were disappearing into a

black hole, and

>this would explain why they are coming back garbled into

meaningless stuff

>like lyrics from pop songs, which nonetheless SEEM highly

significant to me.

>Indeed , who DID put the bop in the _____(garbled.) Look, you

can just have

>all the lost socks, etc.. but the entire year of 1985??

C'mon...something

>important must have happened to me and I want it back.

 

The black hole was put in action in 1970 and has been stable

ever since; in 1985 you could have been so shocked by the

arrest of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh (Osho) that it caused a

trauma; this explains the popmusic, as Osho was a proponent

(practitioner ? of "make love, be happy".

>

>The excuse of unintended effects is understandable, Jan..we

never known that

>in advance, but is it too late to undo this invention of

yours? You could

>lose a lot of friends when word of this gets around.

 

I will have to disappoint you; there is nothing I haven't lost

yet; would it be possible to lose more then everything? It

could mean the "more" than everything has to be multiplied

with the square root of minus one; that trick always works in

math

>Your pal till the end, (but of what I am not sure.)

>

>Glo

 

If the singularity at the "bottom" of the black hole is the

seed, developing into a Big Bang for another universe, there

won't be an end, just infinite fractal branching. So let's

toast to "pals without beginning or end"

 

Jan

[Guest guest]

On 10/11/99 at 6:08 PM Hbarrett47 wrote:

>Hbarrett47

>

>In a message dated 10/10/1999 10:14:25 PM Eastern Daylight

Time,

>janb writes:

>

><< Just creatively imagine to be without interpretation,

> hearing the words spoken by Osho; would one still laugh, be

> stunned or get angry? >>

>

>When I can "be without interpretation," I AM Osho!

>

>H.

 

Holly, suppose you suddenly enter a room where Osho is being

interviewed. As an experienced practitioner of Self-enquiry,

you aren't interpreting. Would you give the same answer?

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/12/1999 9:33:09 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

janb writes:

 

<< Holly, suppose you suddenly enter a room where Osho is being

interviewed. As an experienced practitioner of Self-enquiry,

you aren't interpreting. Would you give the same answer? >>

 

 

If I were not interpreting, I would not see him at all, I'd only be aware of

a proprioceptive sense of beingness that is sort of aroused and buzzing and

humming. Lately the hum is an F# major chord. Am I missing the question?

Holly

[Guest guest]

On Tue, 12 Oct 1999 14:38:55 EDT Hbarrett47 writes:

> Hbarrett47

>

> In a message dated 10/12/1999 9:33:09 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

> janb writes:

>

> << Holly, suppose you suddenly enter a room where Osho is being

> interviewed. As an experienced practitioner of Self-enquiry,

> you aren't interpreting. Would you give the same answer? >>

>

>

> If I were not interpreting, I would not see him at all, I'd only be

> aware of

> a proprioceptive sense of beingness that is sort of aroused and

> buzzing and

> humming. Lately the hum is an F# major chord. Am I missing the

> question?

 

I'm not sure, but F# major is

my favorite key for singing

"Amazing Grace." Btw,

"proprioceptive" is one

heckuvan adjective!

 

 

http://come.to/realization

http://www.users.uniserve.com/~samuel/brucemrg.htm

http://www.users.uniserve.com/~samuel/brucsong.htm

_

 

_________________

Get the Internet just the way you want it.

Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!

Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

[Guest guest]

On 10/12/99 at 2:38 PM Hbarrett47 wrote:

>Hbarrett47

>

>In a message dated 10/12/1999 9:33:09 AM Eastern Daylight

Time,

>janb writes:

>

><< Holly, suppose you suddenly enter a room where Osho is

being

> interviewed. As an experienced practitioner of Self-enquiry,

> you aren't interpreting. Would you give the same answer? >>

>

>

>If I were not interpreting, I would not see him at all, I'd

only be aware of

>a proprioceptive sense of beingness that is sort of aroused

and buzzing and

>humming. Lately the hum is an F# major chord. Am I missing

the question?

>Holly

>

This time, no...

Some sounds can be strange, like FSK: not hum, but switching

between two sine waves. An F# major chord certainly sounds a

lot better

 

Jan