Thursday, December 28, 2006

Update on the Trinitarian Structure of Modern Humans (12.26.08)

Now, I'm not an anthropopogist. But I did stay at a Holiday Inn, and I do know a thing or two about a thing or three. And one of the things I know is that pre-human hominids only became human because of the specifically trinitarian nature of the human developmental situation: mother-father-helpless baby. This, by the way, is one of the many reasons I do not believe intellignt life will ever be found on other planets, because genes and natural selection are only the necessary but not sufficient cause of our humanness.

In other words, even supposing that life arose elsewhere and began evolving large brains, a large brain would never be sufficient to allow for humanness. Rather, the key to the entire enterprise -- the missing link, so to speak -- is the extremely unlikely invention of the helpless and neurologically incomplete infant who must be born approximately 12 months "premature" so that his brain can be assembled at the same time it is being mothered. If we had come out of the womb neurologically complete, then there would be no "space" for humanness to emerge or take root. We would be Neanderthals. Literally.

Those who have read my book know that I do not find this at all incompatible with a spiritual view. For one thing, I never rule out the invisible hand of providence. Furthermore, infantile helplessness is the space where verticality enters the evolutionary picture. All other animals are completely limited and determined by their genes. Only humans have the privilege of being ushered into a transcendent, non-genetic vertical world of love, truth and beauty which is both timeless and anterior to their discovering it. It was always "there," but only became accessible as a result of the unique circumstances of human development.

Comes now a study by two real anthropologists, Professors Stine and Kuhn, who (unwittingly) provide further evidence for the Gagdadian view: "Diversified social roles for men, women, and children may have given Homo sapiens an advantage over Neanderthals, says a new study in the December 2006 issue of Current Anthropology. The study argues that division of economic labor by sex and age emerged relatively recently in human evolutionary history and facilitated the spread of modern humans throughout Eurasia." Coming out of the contemporary academic milieu, they apparently cannot help putting a quasi-Marxist spin on their findings, seeing them merely in economic terms rather than drawing out their psychological implications: "The competitive advantage enjoyed by modern humans came not just from new weapons and devices but from the ways in which their economic lives were organized around the advantages of cooperation and complementary subsistence roles for men, women, and children." Sort of a combination of Adam Smith and Eve.

To back up a bit, there was a time when two distinct versions of... of folks roamed the planet... much like today, actually. That would be the Neanderthals and us -- or Homo sapiens sapiens. Neanderthals emerged around 250,000 years ago, taking their bow and exiting the evolutionary stage around 30,000 ago. Signs of division of labor only appear with the arrival of modern humans (not Neanderthals) into Europe around 40,000 years ago. (Interestingly, this is right around the time of the "creative explosion" of Homo sapiens sapiens discussed in Chapter 3 of my book, an unprecedented outpouring of cave art, musical instruments, body decoration, burial of the dead, and other distinct evidence of actual "humanness.")

An article in the Times notes that, "At sites occupied by modern humans from 45,000 to 10,000 years ago... there is good evidence of different occupations.... It seems reasonable to assume that these activities were divided between men and women, as is the case with modern foraging peoples. But Neanderthal sites include no bone needles, no small animal remains and no grinding stones for preparing plant foods."

The question is, "what did Neanderthal women do all day?," since the roller derby was a far off dream, and the WNBA only came into existence in the late 20th century. Neanderthal skeletons "are so robustly built that it seems improbable that they just sat at home looking after the children, the anthropologists write. More likely, they did the same as the men, with the whole population engaged in bringing down large game."

In other words, it seems that Neanderthals were not trinitarian but essentially binarian (adult-child) or perhaps even unitarian, in that everyone, even children, participated in the hunt. The study again focuses on the economic angle, speculating that modern humans, because of "their division of labor and diversified food sources, would have been better able to secure a continuous food supply." Furthermore, unlike the Neanderthals, they wouldn't have put their "reproductive core" -- that is, women and children -- at such a great risk.

But there is a shadow side to this picture, and that is the evolutionary effect that completely devoted mothers would have had on children. In chapter 3.3 of my book, Humans and How They Got That Way: Putting the Sapiens into Homo, I argued that it is completely reasonable to assume that humans became human in the distant past in the identical way that they become human today. I can see that I'm not going to have time to flesh out the entire theory here, but that is what the book is for. But the bottom line is that as human brains became larger and larger (and pelvises became narrower due to bipedalism), it became necessary for women to give birth earlier and earlier, to the point that infants had to be born neurologically incomplete, to such an extent that much of the brain's development had to take place outside the womb -- a pattern completely unique among the primates.

More than anything else, it was this delayed development, or neoteny, that created the possibility of our acquisition of humanness. But that is not all. Because human infants were born in this way, it obviously became increasingly necessary for human mothers to specialize in mothering -- otherwise, these helpless infants would not have survived. But there was an obvious benefit, as I believe that this situation of increasingly helpless babies and increasingly devoted mothers created a sort of runaway positive feedback loop for greater intelligence:

"It seems obvious that, in order for babies to survive, they had to become adept at 'evoking' the environment they needed to survive -- specifically, an intelligent, caring mother. Perhaps it sounds odd, but it seems an inescapable conclusion that, in order for babies to specialize in babyhood, they had to 'select' mothers who were intelligent, capable, and empathic enough to be up to the task of caring for them. Think about it: caring for a helpless infant is at least as complex and challenging on a moment-to-moment basis as hunting for game. [Memo from relatively new father: I was not wrong about this -- ed.] Let's face it: those mothers who did not develop these complex mothering skills may have gotten their genes into the next generation, but not long enough for that generation to do the same."

As I said, I don't have time to present the full argument with all of its implications here. However, you will note on page 127 of my book that I cited research indicating that the brains of Neanderthals were actually larger than ours, but that they seem to have become fully developed at an earlier age. In other words, it seems possible that they were not born as premature, so that the window of development slammed shut sooner, so to speak. What this suggests to me is that they were more animal than human, more under the influence of genes than of humanness. All Neanderthals were hunters because that is what their genes designed them to do. Hunting was not a "role," any more than hunting is a role for cats or coyotes. Roles were invented by modern humans, those roles being father, mother, and helpless infant.

And as I also argued in my book, once you have the abstract category of any role, then in effect you have every role. This is why it is foolish for feminists to be upset at the idea that the female of the species was selected by the baby for the role of mothering, because it actually means that women are liberated from genes to choose any role they want to, whether it is the role of mother or the role of Neanderthal roller derby queen.

There is nothing which is more necessary and more precious in the experience of human childhood than parental love.... nothing more precious, because the parental love experienced in childhood is moral capital for the whole of life.... It is so precious, this experience, that it renders us capable of elevating ourselves to more sublime things--even divine things. It is thanks to the experience of parental love that our soul is capable of raising itself to the love of God. --Meditations on the Tarot

92 Comments:

Blogger Gandalin said...

Bob,

The evidence for the absence of sex-related work differences in Neanderthal sites is in my humble opinion underwhelming.

What is much more important, again merely in my opinion, is the absence of any evidence of domesticated canines in Neanderthal sites.

12/28/2006 08:37:00 AM  
Blogger Punditarian said...

When the red-wolf ancestors of the modern dog selected Homo sapiens rather than Homo neanderthalensis for social and cultural elevation, it gave our ancestors an incalculable advantage. The combination of an opposable thumb and the ability to create spoken language on the one hand, with social sophistication and superb sensory equipment on the other paw, did the trick.

A couple of Australian ethologists have written about this.

12/28/2006 08:41:00 AM  
Blogger GeorgeD said...

I can handle this as long as the invisible hand of providence is seen to be at work here. No God = no man.

12/28/2006 08:42:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

And vice versa, in the Eckhartian sense.

12/28/2006 08:53:00 AM  
Anonymous will said...

>>I do not believe intellignt life will ever be found on other planets, because genes and natural selection are only the necessary but not sufficient cause of our humanness<<

. . . although if Spirit serves as a universal Archetype, the "image of God" could possibly be forged anywhere, with any genetic material. That is, once the given conditions of a planet produce a relatively evolved lifeform, it might be that the Spirit Archetype is programmed so as to produce the same trans-animal, "division of labor" sentience evident in humans. Evolution, but a higher sort.

Anyway, it appeals to me on a certain level that the Creator would find a multitude of forms in which to replicate His Image - those forms having the capacity to manifest His love and Light.

Plus, lotta stars out there, billyuns and billyuns . . . they're out there for a reason. Perhaps they're there for soley for us - perhaps each star represents a different state of consciousness, a different dimension in the eventual human experience. Or perhaps they are there as part of the great Life Wavelength, programmed by the Creator to give birth to His Image in the highest sense.

12/28/2006 09:05:00 AM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Gandalin-
Good point.
No doubt Neanderthals would have ate dogs if they had the opportunity.

I guess it would be difficult to domesticate or train dogs if they didn't last past lunch.

12/28/2006 09:07:00 AM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Angels and demons are aliens.
Then there are others (types of angels?) near the throne of God, according to the book of Revelations.

If there is other worldly life forms out there, it makes no sense for the EU to launch a probe telling them where we are.
I mean, the EU is assuming any intelligent life out there would be benevolent towards us.

Typical leftist thinking.

12/28/2006 09:16:00 AM  
Blogger GeorgeD said...

Bob where does vice versa leave the anterior nature of truth? If truth is anterior so is God.

"I am the way, the truth and the life" Christ says.

12/28/2006 09:30:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

The operative words are "I am."

12/28/2006 09:38:00 AM  
Blogger River Cocytus said...

It would be the ultimate hat-trick to create a world in which 'half spent was the night' -- a 'new' world, that like the human in his prime, is not 'new' like the helpless infant, but is fully aware of himself? Its almost like, as where God could create a tree in its prime, he could also create a whole existence in its prime. So in that sense, the switch may have indeed been flipped on 6000 years ago.

Wouldn't that be an ephing laugh riot?

'So, you're both right. Kind of.'

'But you're also both wrong. Again. Kind of.'

Because God created Adam in his prime-- not as a baby-- and Adam grew old and died (after the fall) and so creation will do the same.

Almost like, within the instance of the fall, both the 'past' and 'future' in the material realm were changed forever.

Wacky.

12/28/2006 09:38:00 AM  
Blogger GeorgeD said...

Okay Bob but that can easily get one to full blown relativism as in "I (a')m okay you're okay and all the leftist garbage we all seem to deplore and reject.

12/28/2006 09:44:00 AM  
Blogger River Cocytus said...

Perhaps you meant, "I AM"?

12/28/2006 09:46:00 AM  
Anonymous Petey said...

Yes, you are too.

12/28/2006 09:49:00 AM  
Blogger Iggy Bliss said...

Very interesting. Fascinating actually. I especially like how this meshes with God's purposes relationally. From Father Son & Holy Spirit on through to the Golden Rule, God demonstrates achieving his purposes relationally. Really thought provoking. That's it - you sold me - I'm buying the book!

~~~
Here's something I'll toss out for batting about (forgive me if it's been discussed before - I've been reading here since October and am generally too full from feasting to go back and devour past posts). I'm curious as to the 'Bobblehead' nomenclature. It just seems to me perhaps a bit too reflexively concurring for all the heady concepts displayed here. After all, it certainly seems that the readers here filter these pearls through their brainpans (as I would think Bob would approve). While it may be said that the head that bobbles reflexively to Truth would be a wise one indeed, our gracious host is certainly human, no? Just curious in an amused way.
Ig

12/28/2006 09:54:00 AM  
Blogger River Cocytus said...

peters, you know as well as I do that there's a difference between the Tent and the Temple.

As one of them angel dudes said: "Worship me not, for I am a fellow servant. Worship God."

12/28/2006 09:56:00 AM  
Anonymous hoarhey said...

If,

"Because human infants were born in this way, it obviously became increasingly necessary for human mothers to specialize in mothering -- otherwise, these helpless infants would not have survived. But there was an obvious benefit, as I believe that this situation of increasingly helpless babies and increasingly devoted mothers created a sort of runaway positive feedback loop for greater intelligence:"

Then can be said that an all pervasive, something for nothing welfare state could have the effect of actually reversing this evolutionary trend or at least slowing it down? That is, until it transforms intelligence into victimhood to the point of collapsing under the weight of its own victims.


Do you hear that John Edwards?
.....moron.

12/28/2006 10:05:00 AM  
Blogger NoMo said...

It seems that the simplest of concepts can absolutely befuddle even the greatest of minds. Who is the biggest GOD? What religious world view best explains the REALITY in which we live? Is it big bang, evolution, billions of years, modern “science”, etc., OR a universe spoken into being a few 1,000 years ago (since time is nothing more than our way of measuring change) by a loving and just, all-powerful, all-knowing, ever-present God, God-inspired revelation that provides us with our entire story and purpose, and availability of a truly personal relationship with that God, etc.?

What if all the attempts to integrate these two very different perspectives are simply due to an unwillingness to seriously consider the simplicity of the story and purpose revealed to us in the Bible? Can it ALL really be that simple? I would ask how can The Truth not be that simple – to be accessible by anyone?

“Believe” is an active verb. It is transformative. It is regenerative. It initiates real spiritual (vertical) growth.

Much of the discussion yesterday with P2 et al, was about “exousia”. In my small mind, this is nothing more than the combined activity and manifestations of the Church / Body of Christ (all believers exercising their various spiritual gifts) at any point in time and space. Is it tangible in macro ways? -- not necessarily. Is it tangible in the radically changed hearts and lives of individual believers? -- without question.

In simplicity is humility and beauty. Pride complicates away from simplicity – it is driven to do so.

12/28/2006 10:36:00 AM  
Blogger Gandalin said...

Bob,

In all seriousness you are dead-on regarding neoteny.

The perception that neoteny is responsible for the possibility of the development of a spiritual identity is quite good.

Neoteny is also responsible for the evolution of human language.

As the example of Hawaiian creole in the early 20th century shows, adults don't need a full fledged language to communicate activity-oriented information to each other; they can use a pidgin. Children, however, need a real language in order to carry out the work of childhood: play, which means the creation of a world. Language is the means through which children invent the world.

Since adults don't need language in order to communicate work-related commands, etc, language can not have been invented by adults; it was invented by children, who needed language in order to play.

Thus, neoteny is the master key to the development of human language, and hence to all human culture.

I had not realized that neoteny was also the master key to our spiritual life.

12/28/2006 10:37:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Yes, it is where the divine seed takes root. The image of the divine child is obviously quite pertinent here.

12/28/2006 11:02:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

To quote our Unknown Friend, "There is nothing which is more necessary and more precious in the experience of human childhood than parental love.... nothing more precious, because the parental love experienced in childhood is moral capital for the whole of life.... It is so precious, this experience, that it renders us capable of elevating ourselves to more sublime things--even divine things. It is thanks to the experience of parental love that our soul is capable of raising itself to the love of God."

12/28/2006 11:04:00 AM  
Anonymous GLASR said...

More street cred there than in my theory. The logic and connectivity feels unassailable, at the moment. Roots are kinda deep too. The simplistic vision I had was based on - as time compresses, the more intellectually deficient I become. Forget who kindly pointed out that what I see is innocence NOT all knowledge. Hmmmmmm .......


"The Starfish and The Spider"

12/28/2006 11:42:00 AM  
Blogger Jamie Irons said...

Bob,

Spelling quibble. It's neoteny.

This annoying fussiness seems to be a side effect of education in the classics. ;-(

More seriously, you and your readers might enjoy Nicholas Wade's Before the Dawn, which has to be the best popular science book I've read in decades (and I read entirely too many of them).

Wade is The New York Times' science writer; it seems that not all that issues from The Gray Lady is evil. (Most of it, but not all of it!)

Jamie Irons

12/28/2006 02:15:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Thank you! Didn't have time to spell check this morning.

12/28/2006 02:26:00 PM  
Blogger NoMo said...

Bob - "Gagdaddan view" might better be "Gagdaddyan".

:]

12/28/2006 02:28:00 PM  
Anonymous cousin dupree said...

C'mon people, step it up! You have to be better at catching Bob's embarassing typos before they've been sitting there all day!

12/28/2006 02:33:00 PM  
Blogger NoMo said...

cous - its not that they don't catch them sooner, its just that they're too timid to speak up...

yeah.

12/28/2006 02:48:00 PM  
Blogger River Cocytus said...

Frankly, that's the first time I've seen the word.

So... you know.

12/28/2006 03:00:00 PM  
Anonymous Fat Freddys Cat said...

I would suggest that the primary "trinitarian" structuring modern human beings whether male or female are these unquestioned assumptions.

Namely that we are inherently separate from Real God or the Radiant Transcendental Being in which all of this arises.
That we are inherently separate from the World Proces.
That we are inherently separate from each other and all othere sentient beings.
There is a saying in one of the Upanishads: Where there is an other fear (spontaneously) arises.
Altogether we live in a fear saturated "culture" and this fear over-rides and distorts all other formative processes of human development.

The politics & "culture" of fear rules!

These presumptions of separation are particularly rigidified in western "culture". They are an integral part of the Christian world view.

12/28/2006 03:15:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interesting post.

I think there are other animals, however, that parent their young. One two I know of for sure are crows and ravens, who mate for life and raise their young over 3-4 years, with older kids helping socialize the younger ones.

Like human infants, young corvids are born still in formation -- and they must learn the social codes the same way human children do. Maybe only one exception of many.

But then maybe Ravens experience verticality. After all, in some regions they created the whole world.

12/28/2006 03:16:00 PM  
Blogger NoMo said...

fat freddys cat - Fear is an integral part of Christianity and Judaism --"To fear the Lord is to hate evil" (Prov 8:13).

Hmmmmm.

12/28/2006 03:43:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

Gandalin said "... need a real language in order to carry out the work of childhood: play, which means the creation of a world. Language is the means through which children invent the world..."

ooh! Oh! I Posted on... unh, well actually I haven't yet, i, er... Gagdad! It's all your fault! If you would stop this site from being so darned interenting & eating up ALL my spare time... ungh... argh...

sigh.

I will post this weekend, I will post this weekend, I will...

12/28/2006 04:14:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

Iggy Bliss said "...It just seems to me perhaps a bit too reflexively concurring for all the heady concepts displayed here...."

I think what we've got here is a type of Natural Selection, a Survival of the Cosmosist.

Look back over just the last few days, and you'll see a number of step-ins and step-outs disagreeing, or starting off agreeing and then disagreeing and disappearing as the minor agreements on non-essential's are displaced by disagreements on essentials.

How many different handles have commented here since The Big Blog? Thousands? well ok, compensating for Bob & Will's Cybil-onnomous entries, at least several hundred separate commentors.

Of all those, there is but a large handful of regular bobblehead posters. Do you really think we stick around to curry textual favor for the Big Bobber?

As I realized a while back when I printed out 4 days of Post/comments which took up 47 pages of double columned 8x10's... that's a lot of effort to put out, especially when you have to pay for your own coonskin.

Nah, we agree, and we return, because we agree on the essentials, and Gagdad has a way of illuminating those essentials that are a tad farther in, or just to the side of where we might have bothered looking on our own, and that's a big draw - is for me anyway.

BTW, as I mentioned to Integralist, my entry here was on a disagreement with what was a non-essential, and have kept coming back for the essential essentials ever since.

Plus the coonskin just looks plain cool. Hard to top that.

12/28/2006 04:34:00 PM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Van-
"Plus the coonskin just looks plain cool. Hard to top that."

You have found the Key, Master Van!
Well, one of them anyway...

Dan'l Boon and Davey Crockett were many generations ahead of their time.

12/28/2006 06:06:00 PM  
Blogger Gandalin said...

There are many animals which mother their young, but the human is practically the only species which fathers its young. In the ongoing debates on the importance of real families, a number of commentators have pointed out the contributions made to both sons & daughters by fathers, but particularly to sons. How much of the pathology of our urban wastelands is not at least to some degree attributable to the absence of fathers.

That again must have something to do with neoteny.

The family unit can not have existed before the grossly premature infant could be born, and the grossly premature infant could not have survived without the family.

These must have developed in tandem.

There is a psycho-spiritual analogy here somewhere.

12/28/2006 06:39:00 PM  
Anonymous Bowled Under said...

I have been reading for a few days now, and honestly the comments section interests me more than the blog post. Is this accepted? Do you guys/gals realize that the "response" section has its own buzz?

No offense: I find Gagdad Bob mildly interesting in the same sense that a good sermon stimulates...(yawn)...He seems...ego-driven...to put it mildly. Is this the elephant in the drawing room?...{Can I say this, Bob, without fear of censure? Just being honest.} But it's the conversations in the foyer that really bring me closer to a Relationship With God. So intriguing! Here is where it is possible to see how ego really interacts with spirit. And I find ego has taken root!


Let's see how this first arrow flies. I may be blasted into smithereens...

12/28/2006 06:48:00 PM  
Anonymous Mike Andreyakovich said...

My blog has a few thoughts on the book, now that I have a copy...

12/28/2006 06:55:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

Bowled Under said... "without fear of censure?"

I blast you with the power of the almighty SHIFT KEY!!! BE COWED AND CRAWLING BEFORE MY CAPS!!!

(smoke clears)

Still there? Hmm, guess that doesn't work. Ah well, guess you're safe then. Probably missing something in the posts, but safe.

[Just remember the SHIFT key is watching. and Cousin DuPree... but I hear he's stuck in the Murphy bed again, so you might be able to relax]

12/28/2006 07:00:00 PM  
Blogger Iggy Bliss said...

Van,
Can't disagree with your general take on my bobblehead question. I'll only clarify that I've had no disagreement at all with Bob since I've been reading (I merely have a tendency to lurk rather than post). It's strictly an aesthetical image thing. A symbol of reflexive agreement rather than the thoughtful (and soulful) contemplative dialogue that goes on. Never thought anyone was "currying textual favor"..Maybe it's just that I don't like bobblehead dolls, heh. 'Twas a whimsical and silly question at best. But I'll stop short of withdrawing it.

12/28/2006 07:08:00 PM  
Anonymous cousin dupree said...

Bowled Under--

Amen! Tell the truth brother! You don't even know the half of it --

I ain't gonna work for Gagdad Bob no more.
No, I ain't gonna work for Gagdad Bob no more.
Well, he puts his cigar
Out in your face just for kicks.
His bedroom window
It is made out of bricks.
The National Guard stands around his door.
Ah, I ain't gonna work for Gagdad Bob no more.

I ain't gonna work for Petey's blog no more.
No, I ain't gonna work for Petey's blog no more.
Well, he talks to all the servants
About man and God and law.
Everybody says
He's the brains behind Bob.
I ain't gonna work for Petey's blog no more.

12/28/2006 07:12:00 PM  
Anonymous Bowled Under said...

Pardone Moi. I read Gagdad Bob's post while I was watching Rutgers...

This particular post is actually interesting. I may re-post under a different pseudonym.

I'm no anthropologist, but I can understand how Henry Ford's specialization of tasks wreaked havoc on the industrial status quo. So if God decided to suddenly similarly delegate, it is reasonable to assume that the same effect would have occured. (Albeit without EF Doctorow there to chronicle it in vivid prose.)

12/28/2006 07:16:00 PM  
Anonymous bowled under said...

Forget what I just said. I just realized I'm way too stupid for this blog, something I never would have realized in the absence of this blog, so I guess I owe Bob an apology for helping me realize my hamfisted density.

12/28/2006 07:20:00 PM  
Anonymous Bowled Under said...

Ha! OOPs! I invoked the wrath of the dreaded inbreed, and I sense the minions at the cave entrance. So be it, Brother Bob. At another time, during another Bowl, with another beer, perhaps. May I refer to you in my recounts as the "Crimson Tide"?

12/28/2006 07:20:00 PM  
Anonymous Bowled Under said...

BTW, Seems I have an imitator. Wow. For my first time out, I show promise.
Gagdad Bob, I didn't write that recant. Could you delete it?

12/28/2006 07:23:00 PM  
Blogger Lisa said...

This is so sitcosmic! Just like the Facts of Life. Where's George Clooney with a mullett when you need him or was that a coonskin cap? Hmmmm.

12/28/2006 07:32:00 PM  
Anonymous B said...

I'm really just a shallow man posing. I look up all these big words. It's just me being stoopid! And Pissive/Aggrissive!

You are a Latter Day Saint, and I am a rock by the side of your path. Forgive me, Gagdad almighty! Go, Rutgers!

12/28/2006 07:56:00 PM  
Anonymous Bowled Under said...

Someone is not imitating me! That was me, the posting by B!

12/28/2006 07:59:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

Iggy Bliss said "'Twas a whimsical and silly question at best. But I'll stop short of withdrawing"

Questioning whether you are truly questioning is always a good question to ask (just make sure that DuPree isn't standing behind you with the tongs. I'm just sayin'. I mean, look at Bowled Under, wrenched out of himself into a doppleganger that's stalking himself... fearful thing those tongs. They do look cool though, all medeval and such.)

12/28/2006 08:08:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

Ahh! Beware the Tongs! Run Away!!!

12/28/2006 08:10:00 PM  
Anonymous bowled under said...

Are you saying I'm not an inimitable ass? Because I resemble that!

12/28/2006 08:26:00 PM  
Anonymous Bowled Under said...

I thought they looked medevil.And such.

12/28/2006 08:30:00 PM  
Anonymous Bowled Under said...

BTW: someone's imitatimg my ass.

12/28/2006 08:32:00 PM  
Anonymous cousin dupree said...

Awfully cheeky of them.

12/28/2006 08:34:00 PM  
Blogger NoMo said...

Settle down, or NoMo's gonna quote some scripture at you...careful...

12/28/2006 09:13:00 PM  
Anonymous Jacob Churosh said...

Belated Xmas gift for Bob and the rest:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxrXUxhTj80

Now here's a guy who got tuned in to the spaces between things; the last musician I've known who could keep an audience on the edge of their seats just by playing the way he always played...

12/28/2006 09:38:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

Gagdad and crew, have you seen the Boston Tea Smoking party cooking up at the end of yesterday's post?

Send in the Tongs!

12/28/2006 09:42:00 PM  
Anonymous Joan of Argghh! said...

Van-

"In the multitude of words there wanteth not sin: but he that refraineth his lips is wise."

It's the scripture I've been meditating on today, lest I be once again drawn into the Twilight Zone.

:)

12/28/2006 09:55:00 PM  
Blogger Lisa said...

Thanks for the link, Jacob! Good god, that man plays the piano more like a lover than a mere instrument. Interesting how each player can have their own unique voice or sound and space and then come together in such a beautiful and complete way. Now that's integration!

12/28/2006 09:56:00 PM  
Anonymous Joan of Argghh said...

Jacob, Lisa's right! It's awesome and her glowing review sent me right there. It's another Mmmm!Mmmm!Good! moment in the Cosmos.

Muchas gracias!

12/28/2006 10:03:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

Joan of Argghh! said...
"... lest I be once again drawn into the Twilight Zone."

The Twilight Zone! I should have recognized Rod Serling lurking in Stage Left; that explains the Trolls in Sheeps PsychIdyllic Clothing.

Thanks, I'll read some scripts now and go to bed.

g'night Sophialogo à Go-Go

12/28/2006 10:14:00 PM  
Anonymous psychoprincess said...

Wah?
Was it sumfink I said?

12/28/2006 11:44:00 PM  
Blogger PrincessSpirit said...

Regarding the above Fake Poser:

Why, I do believe Inty was here today!
His calling card shows. Or perhaps it was his cousin Troll. They all look and grunt alike.

You're not even observant, much less clever...cuz any regular knows I would never type so little. Moron. :D

You cant play yourself, and you cant play anyone else, due to your hostilities & issued. Somone needs some Anger Management, I see, LOL!

Get Thee Reparented - obviously you fell way short in the Neoteny department!

- P2 -

12/29/2006 02:50:00 AM  
Blogger PrincessSpirit said...

RC, again! Bingo: you name the finished work perspective (eternal perspective) once again. That occurs when one actually experiences Gods perspective, thinks out of the human box. Great to see!

God's Eternal Perspective, in the end, is the only One that Truly matters: for in It, Man Is.

Living with that experience here-now is...transcendent. Eternal.

Trolls never talk like that!

- P^2 -

12/29/2006 03:00:00 AM  
Anonymous just a follower said...

PP,
Hang in and keep fighting ignorance, grl. Don't let the sheep in wolves clothes pull their tricks. He who lacks faith is still a troll in my book. As always, u rule!

12/29/2006 03:23:00 AM  
Anonymous Scepter or specter said...

I tried to swear off for the year, but Van's alarm sent me digging into yesterday's posts. Am I mistaken, or did Doris just get her oats?

12/29/2006 03:45:00 AM  
Blogger River Cocytus said...

well, it was obvious in the key misuse of the colloquial 'sumfink'.

Its adorable to imitate people for about, 5 seconds.

Then it gets like Ace of Spades. At least, when you do your fake ids, do something funny... like...

12/29/2006 05:05:00 AM  
Anonymous The Babies said...

We demand Bob rescind his scurrilous statements!

We are not helpless!

Just... help challenged.

12/29/2006 05:07:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

Scepter or specter said...
"...did Doris just get her oats?"

With all that typing, I'm sure that she's at least 'got blisters on m' fingers!"

12/29/2006 05:31:00 AM  
Anonymous resistance is futile said...

Okay… I’m in.

P2, I've been lurkin' here for a while and I've never seen anything like you! You just go on with your total Princess self and don't give the trolls an inch!! LOL!

I so totally understand everything you're saying. It's so simple and everyone wants to make it out like it's some BIG DEAL, or pull you off tract or attack you just cuz you know how to write down what’s in your head.

You probably have lots of silent blog-fans like me but it’s hard to know cuz folks are being silly and posting under fake names cuz they’re cowards, and others are like me, just being quiet and watching and learning from you, girl.

I can’t believe the Rac-Goon squad’s attitude toward you. If you were wrong in posting so much, wouldn’t Bob say something? But he hasn’t and that’s why they were all nice and polite at first but now that they feel threatened they’re starting to try and steal all your flavor, heh.  That stoopid Arggh chick thinks she’s all that and said some pretty mean stuff and I don’t think she ever really adds anything to discussions, just likes to be little Miss Snark-a-lot.

Even Will who seems to be somebody Bob really respects is dissin’ on the Princess, like he Bob died and lef Will in charge. Who cares if some guy is wanting to get to know you better? Don’t the old folks know what the internet is for? (hee!hee!) You ain’t journaling, you’re journeying, girl, and we’re all along for the ride. Don’t stop now!!

12/29/2006 06:31:00 AM  
Blogger River Cocytus said...

Also, beware of 'honey pots' -- people who try to 'pump you up' at the expense of others.

They are trying to play to your ego, especially if they are calling someone who isn't an idiot, an idiot.

The goal of the 'honey pot' rhetorically is to get you to tacitly agree to things that are 'incriminating' by offering you something nice.

In this case, it is an attempt to foment division between the commenters here.

You should be ashamed.

12/29/2006 06:53:00 AM  
Blogger River Cocytus said...

PS- that 'you' is directed to 'resistance'.

(What his real moniker is doesn't matter, for the game of monikers is just a game.)

12/29/2006 06:55:00 AM  
Anonymous psychoprincess said...

resistance is THE MAN!
You go boy.
(my e-mail is on my blog)

P2

12/29/2006 08:33:00 AM  
Anonymous psychoprincess said...

Oh, and Van,

You might possibly benefit from some personalized, one on one counseling from me. Sumfink to think long and hard about. ;)
(e-mail is on my blog)

P2

12/29/2006 08:38:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

ROFL

12/29/2006 09:13:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm feeling sick...

12/29/2006 10:02:00 AM  
Anonymous uss ben said...

LOL! Glad I wasn't drinking and reading!

12/29/2006 11:45:00 AM  
Anonymous Joan of Argghh! said...

We're all goin' to Hell for this, you know.

12/29/2006 02:51:00 PM  
Blogger ximeze said...

Pity the counselees, more like.

12/29/2006 03:49:00 PM  
Blogger ximeze said...

Oh course, once one figures out that one is actually paying money to someone more disturbed than oneself....

Must be most salubrious.

12/29/2006 03:56:00 PM  
Anonymous Unashamed said...

RC said: "They are trying to play to your ego, especially if they are calling someone who isn't an idiot, an idiot."

I am TOO an idiot!! It's Will that's not an idiot!

(Oh. Maybe that's what you meant.)


Meanwhile, P2 has trotted out the "nazi" line on the other thread. This means Godwin's law has been enacted by a stand-in noun for Hitler, and all further posts by P2 are hereby relegated to the "idiot" category.

12/29/2006 03:58:00 PM  
Blogger ximeze said...

If it walks like a duck & quacks like a duck.... guess what?

12/29/2006 04:14:00 PM  
Anonymous Joan of Argghh! said...

Well, yeah, it was a duck long ago, when it first flapped in here, with dubious creds and creeds and screeds.

"Pity the counselees". Yep.

But is it considered quackery?

12/29/2006 04:53:00 PM  
Anonymous psychoprincess said...

unashamed? ...how about integralist.
Thought you could hide eh?

Van?
How about the offer eh? ;)

P2

12/29/2006 05:39:00 PM  
Blogger PrincessSpirit said...

RESIST & JAF: Its the nature of the crowd, R & JAF, to act this way. Been here before, will be here again. Whoopee-Doo. Now you know why GBOB has developed a thick skin! Cant say I blame him.

Words are words especially when they come from people who are a
friend" one minute & they turn on a dime the next. It happens. I have to laff cuz I know it happens to them also whether they admit it or not. And all the time they are hurling insults at me, they actually speak of them selves.

Thanks for your support, especially RESIST - I am articulate and at least I seek to iron things out first, before I "switch" on people like Van evidences - for no reason, actually. Its their contempt coming out. Has to come out somewhere. I benefit either way, whether they act Godly or not. Least I dont have to answer for what they do, just my own words and what I do.

Now we know why LUTHER was horrified and didnt wanna "lead the crowd." THIS is why no one in our position wants it! Its like evil babysitting with a bunch of schizos. He loved them, and hated them. Easy to see why. Now you see what it usually deteriorates into.

Faithful people keep to Our values and serve the Ideals we do - name-calling and insults from the peanut gallery never stopped the Christian Sniper from hitting his target! Doesnt stop God either.

Keep the Faith, you two also! You both know how to support your Faith you follow instead of betraying it "cuz you feel like it" - Well Done! LOL, You tickle me, and You are rare, as You can see...

- PsychoPrincess -

If its not in Blue its Not me, its one of the aholes who dont have courage enuf to be themself - what else can be expected of the feeble-Spirited?

12/29/2006 05:42:00 PM  
Blogger PrincessSpirit said...

X & JOAN: You two are the biggest quackers in here - I guess you would know about Ducks then. You both are too obvious. "Bitter, party of 2, your table is waiting." Misery loves company.

- PsychoPrincess -

12/29/2006 05:44:00 PM  
Blogger PrincessSpirit said...

Yes RC, I hear you. I've been in "worse" than this, np. INTY is just such a honey pot when he feels like it - its why I will not talk to him, too unstable, too chaotic. Obviously here today - TRYING to imitate moi. Doesnt do very well, either. Sad he doesnt have enuf of his own identity, he has to try to steal other. Least its clear Whom he serves. That makes target practice easier! Had a great day skiing, what matter the quackers then?

You are younger than most here, yet you show greater Spiritual Maturity than older ones here who know better. I'm sure it isnt lost on them.

First rule you learn in Psychology: People have the right to act how they choose, and they often choose ahole & saint & everything in between - its their choice. You get rather used to the "revolving door" self they display especially if you've worked with real MPD cases. Its a trip! They arent the ones to bother with, thats what they dont understand. Our true target is elsewhere...keep Him in your sights. Its the mark of the True Marksman, as Christian Sniper knows.

- PsychoPrincess -

12/29/2006 05:57:00 PM  
Anonymous integralist said...

psycho,

How are the thighs feeling tonight? ;%)

12/29/2006 10:58:00 PM  
Blogger PrincessSpirit said...

Saddam in his skivvies:

http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/

He's officially executed now. Pictures of his dead relatives, etc. on this blog by Punditarian. Forewarned is forearmed.

- P^2 -

12/30/2006 02:50:00 AM  
Anonymous integralist said...

The site I'd like to see:
www.psychoprincessinherskivvies.com
Now that could warm a mans heart! ;)

12/30/2006 01:19:00 PM  
Anonymous psychoprincess said...

I was using googlemaps and found myself on the road to damascus, and now I see the error of my ways.

I bow down to Joan of Arrgghh!!!

I am not worthy.

I'm not.

- PsychoPrincess -

12/30/2006 04:59:00 PM  
Blogger PrincessSpirit said...

People as obsessed as Inty obviously continues to tell us about himself do not demonstrate Integralism.

You can imitate my name, even in blue as you've now managed to find a way to do. But you still can not evidence real true Intregralism.

Keep going further down the Vertical as you are happy to do. It's the exact foolishness-minus-balance you exhibit here in this forum that tells others you don't have Integralism and that you're imbalanced.

You condemn your own self with your continued antics as you keep insisting to play the fool. Its an unintegral spiritually negative choice. Anyone not blind can see you do not practice nor have any skill with Integralism.

- PsychoPrincess -

12/31/2006 05:20:00 AM  
Blogger PrincessSpirit said...

You are the Wolf in the fold who is truly "scary", but I know your type well. So do your worst against me, and when the dust clears, we shall see who is the Liar & fraud, who has applied internal Integralism skills, and who does not. Your god against my God - I'm game! Are you up to the test? I'm not afraid to be tested.

Why would I sink to your childish level by imitating you? LOL, its you that's putting so much energy into imitating me and others. It says much about you, nothing favorable.

- PsychoPrincess -

12/31/2006 05:25:00 AM  
Anonymous sen.rukmini@gmail.com said...

very interesting nd fascinating. However study of feminist observation is weak. FAscinating nevertheless!

1/10/2007 02:41:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home