so what
_/-|O*
_/-|O
LIFE'S EASY
YOU REALIZE
LIFE'S HARD
I DONT WANT
LIGHTENMENT
*
8
^
HE WAS A BAD ACTOR
BUT BRUCE LEE TRIED
This is a real piece of work.
REAL PIECE OF WORK
four pebbles
the poem in my pocket
the tea in the oven
the girl in my head
the book in my bed
You cant know who you are
But you can assume
Your position
Nun caught with
passion & pencil
Writin' the nuts!
Little Bai is a cook
in a unit of the
Chinese People's
Liberation Army.
One day while sweeping the compound
he discovered seven eggs in a pile of straw.
He picked up the eggs
and took them to the kitchen.
Whose hen laid the eggs?
The cook squad leader and little Bai
asked a lot of people in the village,
but could not find out.
Three days past and
the seven eggs still lay on the table.
After supper the squad leader
said to everyone, "We
should hurry to find
who the eggs belong to."
Then they began to discuss
the matter.
After a long while,
Little Bai finally said,
"I have a way, but I don't know how good it is."
The squad leader said, "How? Quick, go on."
"That hen is used to going there," said Little Bai.
"Surely it will go there again to lay.
If we catch the hen we'll be able to find who the eggs belong to."
Everyone said, "That's a good way."
Next day after lunch
the squad leader sent Little Bai to wait
near the pile of straw.
After a while a black hen ran toward the pile.
At once Little Bai rushed over.
He caught the hen and picked up three more eggs.
Little Bai took the ten eggs and,
carrying the hen,
went from house to house to inquire.
Finally he found the owner of the eggs.
It was Uncle Huang, an old poor peasant.
Uncle Huang gripped Little Bai's hand
and said with emotion,
"What a fighter!
What an army!"
The "Critique of Judgement"
is Kants third and crowning work of his critical-transcendental philosophy. In it, he expounds his theory of aesthetics, broken down into two divisions, the "Analytic of the Beautiful" and the "Analytic of the Sublime".
The "Analytic of the Beautiful" attempts to explain what we perceive to be beautiful, which is, Kant contends, a four-step process.
First, the material for the perception of the beautiful is supplied by the faculty of sensibility, as the basis of the judgement of the beautiful.
Secondly, the faculty of the understanding is linked, by means of a unique causal mechanism, to the faculty of the imagination, thus enabling a judgement to be made.
In the third part of the process, the judgement is presumed to be disinterested, i.e. "purposive without purpose" -- the subject making the judgement, Kant argues, has no stake in the object of contemplation (being disinterested). Which is to say, he/she regards it as merely beautiful for its own sake.
Fourth, this judgement of the beautiful, though singular in logical form, -- i.e., "the vase is beautiful", has the status of universal validity, since the judgement is made in the "a priori" supposition that all rational beings should regard it as valid. Kants valuable formulation is that there is a distinction between an object which is sensually attractive (the basis of a mere "sensory judgement") and the true object of aesthetic contemplation -- the beautiful itself.
However this reductive analytic aesthetics fails to acknowledge that the line between the sensory and the aesthetic may be very unstable. It also cannot preclude the dimension (stressed by later aestheticians such as Nietzsche and Freud and many contemporary philosophers of art) of the drives, out of which the whole realm of the aesthetics exclusively derives, though via the sublimation of affects and percepts, thus ruling out by fiat that any aesthetic contemplation could be "disinterested".
The "Analytic of the Sublime" is perhaps the most enduring contribution of Kantian aesthetics, which has been seized on by one of the leading philosophers of postmodernity, namely, Lyotard. Kant defines the sublime as possibly being contained in an object "even devoid of form, so far as it immediately involves, or its presence provokes, a representation of limitlessness, yet a superadded thought of its totality." -- In other words, the sublime lies beyond the confines of sense-experience, leading us to form concepts of pure reason.
Like the rest of Kants critical philosophic works, "The Critique of Judgement" is written in the eighteenth century style of the German academy, and is devoid of anything even remotely resembling a single literary flourish. It is best approached as reference text. A livelier work of critical-transcendental aesthetics would be Schillers "Letters On the Aesthetic Education of Man". Schiller casts his own artistic, political and ethical interests within the paradigm of his master Kant, but being a man of letters, he at leasts presents the theory to the reader in a more amenable form.
sentimental
writing
art
found
naked
otherwise
i made
naked
otherwise
i elevated
naked
otherwise
factoids, visual & textual - interesting, inspiration, raw material, can neither throw nor give away
interesting packaging - i can use this, or use it for an idea, to produce something
free take one / paper to use for stationary - dont throw away. give away
odd paper, envelopes, usps supplies
bulk paper and blank books
for the rev matching on the upshift you need to decrease the angular velocity of the secondary shaft. That's a lot easier because all you need to do is make a short pause (by going through neutral without blipping the throttle and just let the rpm drop naturally due to the engine's internal friction).
When Its Real, You Do Not Need To Believe In It, You Only Need To Try It.
If the reader would like to test this model to see for him- or herself that it functions in the real world, consider the following:
It is possible to relate an experience to other people who have had a similar experience, even when it is difficult or impossible to convey the experience by description in words. That is the key to understanding why experience is so essential. If you have not had experiences common to the experiences of another person, then often the other person cannot learn from your experiences and you cannot learn from theirs. That is also why true understanding comes only after doing, and why apprenticeship is often the best way to really learn a new skill. Hands-on learning-by-doing rises above the description and makes the words real.
You can read a manual that will tell you how to operate the gas and brake pedals of a car, but you cannot "educate" your foot until you actually attempt to use the gas and brake pedals.
This is true of deep spiritual experiences. In part, the Talmudic commentaries on Mishneh Ain Dorshin discuss Rabbi Akiva’s and his three companion’s (circa 100 C.E.) experiences in PaRDeS (Paradise) in their meditations. Rabbi Akiva, also known as a master kabbalist and a master of the Hebrew alphabet, is traditionally considered to be the person who first wrote down the teachings about creation and the Hebrew alphabet in the most basic kabbalistic text, the Sefer Yetzirah (the Book of Formation). Rabbi Akiva's spiritual experiences cannot be properly or fully appreciated by anyone who has not had similar experiences for themselves. Intense prayer and strict adherence to religious obligations certainly can provide a touch of a similar experience, but they cannot really prepare a person for the actual PaRDeS experience to any extent beyond that which the person has already experienced. Only Rabbi Akiva is said to have returned from this experience whole and intact. One leaves PaRDeS (or Chapel Perilous) as one enters. Rabbi Akiva entered "b’shalom" – whole and at peace – so he returned that way. One of his companions died in PaRDeS and did not return. Another returned but was no longer well, and the third returned with his intellect intact, but he was no longer spiritually sound.
There is no royal road to the insights available in PaRDeS, and the experience(s) cannot be obtained second-hand. It is not possible to know these spiritual truths without experiencing them for yourself, and it is not possible to communicate what you know – with its full integrity and depth of meaning – with someone who has not had a similar experiences. ...And, just as it would be impossible for a child to evaluate sexual experiences, it would be foolhardy for someone to judge the importance of spiritual experiences when they themselves have not had similar experiences.
This is from chapter two of Pirke Avot (the teachings of the rabbinic sages), Artscroll prayerbook translation, p. 551: "He used to say: Treat His will as if it were your own will, so that He will treat your will as if it were His will. Nullify your will before His will, so that He will nullify the will of others before your will."
Usually such religious teachings are taken to be admonitions. They are assumed to be a means to teach people how to behave well. But if we are really being taught a science of consciousness, we should expect that statements such as this might be more than admonitions. They might have real, practical meaning. This is very interesting because it suggests a real experiment in faith that could be tested and proven. In fact, it is an experiment that I designed (although I am far from the originator of the general technique) over a decade ago to demonstrate the reality of a science of consciousness to skeptics on a computer conference. Anyone who is able to actually follow the directions will find that the teachings of the Jewish sages (and the comparable teachings of Christian and Moslem sages), as quoted above, are exactly – and demonstrably – correct.
THE CAR PASSING TRICK
It is essential, if this experiment going to work, that you NOT take it seriously at first. It must be ONLY for amusement (at least at first). This is the "bitul" aspect (bitul is the Hebrew term for self-abnegation of will, will-less-ness, and humility). Think of it as a "controlled folly" (as Carlos Castenada put it in his works on Yaqui Indian "sorcery".)
So, do not believe the following, just try it. If you do believe it, you are disqualified.
The reason what you are about to do, and especially its outcome, MUST be a "folly" is because if there is any desired outcome whatsoever, your ego will be involved and you will not have nullified your will. That is not bitul. (It is interesting to speculate that this might be because, physically speaking, conscious ego involvement collapses the "wave equation" prematurely and prevents the experiment from working.)
The necessity of nullifying your will provides some additional guidelines for the experiment. You must either be completely alone, or the people you are with must never know what you are doing. (You can do this without telling your companions.)
If you tell anyone before you try the experiment, your reputation and the credibility of the experiment will be riding on whether or not you are "successful." This is not bitul. This is ego involvement and it engages rather than nullifies your will, so the experiment will not work.
If you intend to tell anyone after the experiment – either bragging about success, or mocking the foolish-superstitious experiment if you fail – your ego will be involved and the experiment will not work.
Now, if you are already a person who can nullify their will, like a tzaddik (saint), these precautions are not necessary. But, it is best to start out without presuming you are a tzaddik.
(Presumptiveness is willfulness.) Willful ego-consciousness is inextricably tied to our 3-D bodies. The experience of "hyper"-reality is not consistent with 3-D reality, because 3-D reality is causal and deterministic. Although this is a repeatable experiment with consistent effects, it is definitely NOT physically causal in the usually understood sense. What other sense is possible, you ask? Read on.
If the experiment is going to have meaning for you, you must be prepared to keep it entirely to yourself. You may, however, repeat the experiment to your heart's content. You will find that IF and WHEN you are able to meet all the conditions, the experiment will become reliable – from your point of view. Of course, there won't be any other point of view, because you are never going to tell anyone about any particular experiment at any time when it could be externally checked on. Without humility, the experiment will fail. You cannot objectively demonstrate this experiment to anyone else. You can only encourage them to try it, and, if they succeed, to discuss their and your common experiences.
This experiment is exclusively repeatable and subjective. It only works in consensus reality IF you are a genuine prophet. Since it is unlikely that anyone reading this is a prophet, we can neglect this case.
You may wonder how it is that I am going to be able to tell you what I can without ruining the experiment for myself. You will never know WHEN the experiment has worked for me, so, in any given instance, you will not know that anything has occurred. Likewise for everyone else.
Okay, here is an example of what to do. Remember it is only an example. You will have to interpret it and try something equivalent to it in your own particular circumstances.
The situation: I am driving down a narrow country highway with only one lane in each direction. Passing is not allowed and/or it is too dangerous because the road is too winding to see far enough ahead.
I am in a hurry to get to my destination and am zipping along merrily down this country lane when I come up behind farmer Brown who is driving his model T at 20-miles per hour. I was happily going along at 45-miles per hour, and could safely continue to do so IF farmer Brown weren't in the way.
What to do?
I could risk the chance of an accident or a ticket and cross the double yellow line to pass farmer Brown. But, it's not that much of an emergency. (If it were a real emergency, I would have a real stake in getting to my destination in a hurry and I would have a very difficult time trying to remain bitul. See more on this, below.)
I could pull up behind farmer Brown, flash my headlights, honk and make an angry gesture. But, alas, we already know that farmer Brown has declining eyesight and doesn't hear so well anymore – else I wouldn't have evoked the stereotype of "farmer Brown in a model T", and he wouldn't be driving so slowly in the first place.
So, I decide to try the experiment:
The first condition is that I actually desire to pass farmer Brown. This is my will. I will later have to give up on my desires and nullify my personal will.
I pull up behind farmer Brown, but not so close that he would feel pressured by me. Just so he sees I'm present.
Actually or in my mind's eye, I smile at him. I imagine that I can look into his eyes through his rear view mirror and I, in my imagination - or for real, if possible - greet him with my eyes.
I form the thought: "Top of the morning to you, sir. Do you mind if I pass you? I would be pleased if I could." This is my statement of my will.
Another thought that works is tied to the casual/friendly feeling connection you make with a person as you are trying to get by them in a crowded hallway. You sort of tap the person on the shoulder and they quite naturally and unconsciously make way a bit as you squeeze by.
I drop back a bit more from behind farmer Brown, and I COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY GIVE UP on EVER passing him. I submit my will to God’s will. This step is vital and it CANNOT BE FAKED. I must nullify my will or nothing will happen. Unless I actually give up all hope and expectation of passing, and resign myself to God's will by following farmer Brown to the ends of the earth or to my destination – whichever comes first – nothing will happen. If I get uptight that nothing is happening, then nothing will continue to (not) happen. Often it is not possible to actually give up. When this is the case for you, you will know this is true, and you will observe that the experiment doesn't work.
1. When all the conditions are met, When I clearly form the thought that I would like to see manifest
2. AND when I feel my need and lovingly share my feelings about it
3. AND when I completely let go of my wish by nullifying my will to God's will,
.....then and only then IT happens.
At the very instant when I have actually nullified my will to God's will (just as in the biblical story of the sacrifice of Isaac) and given up on anything happening, and I am completely resigned to follow farmer Brown forever, Farmer Brown will inexplicably pull over or turn off the road and let me pass. Or some other means will open up that allows me to pass. (In essence, just as with Abraham and Isaac, God provides the alternative for the sacrifice.)
Sometimes all that is required for me to actually give up and let go of my will to pass farmer Brown is for me to turn on the radio and get lost in some discussion or music. At the instant that the radio catches my attention, the instant that I drop my will – and not a moment before – the obstacle will disappear.
This "car passing trick" is especially useful when you find yourself behind a police officer traveling at the speed limit on an otherwise completely open road. No one is foolish enough to speed by a police officer when the officer doesn’t have some other problem to occupy his or her attention. (It is always safe to speed past a police car after a fire-engine red sports car speeds by first. )
You may have to experiment for a very long time before you will get the hang of it. It may work for you the first time and then it won't work again until you get out of the habit of counting on it. (Counting on things is not consistent with a state of bitul.) In fact, it won't work at all at first for some people, because, try as they might, they can't turn off their ego expectations. This will even be true for very pious persons who observe all their religious obligations.
You have to keep running variations on this experiment UNTIL JUST AFTER YOU CAN GIVE UP ON IT so that it will REALLY be a controlled folly and you really will be in a state of self-abnegating bitul. After a large number of attempts, you will naturally stop expecting anything to happen. Then, when your will is dropped, you will be caught by surprise. After the first breakthrough, if you are not ego pushy, it will become easier and easier to the point where this just works naturally whenever you can actually afford to give up on getting what you want. It will stop working entirely the first time you are tempted to demonstrate "your" ability for someone else. That turns on ego. Ergo, no effect.
You can also make an experiment of preventing the effect this way from time to time. You will find that the willful ego-switch turns the effect on and off with absolute precision.
This is not magic. It is the opposite of magic. Magic is based on power-tripping one's own will. The "car passing trick" is based on nullifying your will to God's will. It is a example of how a kabbalistic perspective on our traditional teachings can be instructive and helpful in real life.
This is a science of consciousness. It should be tested, not believed.
Whatever you do, do not attempt this in any way that is inconsistent with your understanding of what is right. Improperly understood this experiment can lead to "siddhi-tripping" and idolatry. Be careful, but if you are up to it, I think you will find a startling experiential proof of the reality of the teaching in Pirke Avot.
...And if you know someone else who has had the same experience, you will have someone with whom you can share this subjective demonstration – in objective discussion.
Have a happy folly.
Note: An earlier version of The Car Passing Trick appeared as an essay in The Zen of Close Encounters (Edited by Paul David Pursglove, © ‘95, The New Being Project, POB 3070, Berkeley, CA 94703).
Song of Childhood
By Peter Handke
When the child was a child
It walked with its arms swinging,
wanted the brook to be a river,
the river to be a torrent,
and this puddle to be the sea.
When the child was a child,
it didn’t know that it was a child,
everything was soulful,
and all souls were one.
When the child was a child,
it had no opinion about anything,
had no habits,
it often sat cross-legged,
took off running,
had a cowlick in its hair,
and made no faces when photographed.
When the child was a child,
It was the time for these questions:
Why am I me, and why not you?
Why am I here, and why not there?
When did time begin, and where does space end?
Is life under the sun not just a dream?
Is what I see and hear and smell
not just an illusion of a world before the world?
Given the facts of evil and people.
does evil really exist?
How can it be that I, who I am,
didn’t exist before I came to be,
and that, someday, I, who I am,
will no longer be who I am?
When the child was a child,
It choked on spinach, on peas, on rice pudding,
and on steamed cauliflower,
and eats all of those now, and not just because it has to.
When the child was a child,
it awoke once in a strange bed,
and now does so again and again.
Many people, then, seemed beautiful,
and now only a few do, by sheer luck.
It had visualized a clear image of Paradise,
and now can at most guess,
could not conceive of nothingness,
and shudders today at the thought.
When the child was a child,
It played with enthusiasm,
and, now, has just as much excitement as then,
but only when it concerns its work.
When the child was a child,
It was enough for it to eat an apple, … bread,
And so it is even now.
When the child was a child,
Berries filled its hand as only berries do,
and do even now,
Fresh walnuts made its tongue raw,
and do even now,
it had, on every mountaintop,
the longing for a higher mountain yet,
and in every city,
the longing for an even greater city,
and that is still so,
It reached for cherries in topmost branches of trees
with an elation it still has today,
has a shyness in front of strangers,
and has that even now.
It awaited the first snow,
And waits that way even now.
When the child was a child,
It threw a stick like a lance against a tree,
And it quivers there still today.
just enough ELECTRICAL WIRING to impress your man
All batteries are 1.5 volts. Ds, Cs, AAs, AAAs, all of them. Even a watch battery has the same voltage as a big D: 1.5 volts. (Of course, if they are smaller, they can't hold as much electricity, so they wear out faster.) What about the 9-volt battery with the little snaps on top? Inside there's 6 little batteries. 6x1.5=9 volts.
Car batteries are 12 volts. (Yes, there are 8 smaller batteries inside.) If your car battery was dead, you could run over to 7-11, hook up 8 D's in a long column, and that might work!
If your radio needed a D, but you only have a AAA, you can connect the AAA + to + and the - to -, and it would work, but not as long. If your radio takes a watch battery, but you only have a D, you could hook it up, and have it last much much longer than the watch battery.
Car batteries are 12 volts. (Actually they are mostly a special kind now and there's not 8 cells inside.) Car batteries are rechargeables, and they get charged while you're driving.
if you ever ...
there's a committee of 14 people
who decide what images
will be on postage stamps.
ernest borgnine and karl malden
have been on the committee.
see, this is what i'm talking about.
"The concept that 'The simpler the form of a letter the simpler its reading.' was an obsession of beginning constructivism. It became something like a dogma, and is still followed by "modernistic" typographers... Ophthalmology has disclosed that the more the letters are differentiated from each other, the easier is the reading. Without going into comparisons and details, it should be realized that words consisting of only capital letters present the most difficult reading- because of their equal height equal volume, and, with most, their equal width. when comparing serif letters with sans-serif, the latter provide an uneasy reading. The fashionable preference for sans-serif in text shows neither historical nor practical competence."
- Josef Albers, Interaction of Color (New Haven, 1963, revised edition 1975), p. 4.
"I would hope that people, no matter what age, would find something to identify with in my books, pick up one and experience a personal sense of discovery. That's great. But for them, not for me. I think that if you're creative person, you should just go about your business, do your work and not care about how its received. I never read reviews because if you believe the good ones you have to believe the bad ones too. Not that I don't care about success. I do, but only because it lets me do what I want. I was always prepared for success but that means that I have to be prepared for failure too.
I have an ego, I have ideas, I want to be articulate, to communicate but in my own way. People who say they create only for themselves and don't care if they are published...I hate to hear talk like that. If it's good, it's too good not to share. That's the way I feel about my work.
So I'll keep on communicating, but only my way. Lots of things I won't do. I won't go on television because who am I talking to? Johnny Carson? The camera? Twenty million people I can't see? Uh-uh. And I won't give any more interviews."
-- Shel Silverstein, From Publishers Weekly, February 24, 1974
MONEY CREATES TASTE
JENNY HOLTZER WROTE
BRUCE LEE WAS A BAD ACTOR
BUT HE TRIED HIS BEST
Don't sweat the petty things
and definitely don't pet the sweaty things.
