Wednesday, March 19, 2008

Slack Liberation Theology (3.13.10)

If we could only somehow get to the bottom of it all. Isn't that what we're trying to do? Have a direct, unmediated encounter with reality, whatever that is?

Science has a lot of answers. But only to very narrow and specific questions. If you ask the wrong question, for example, "Why are truth and beauty so intimately related?", you get no answer at all. Worse, some questions just generate paradox, like, "What was before the big bang?"

Various sciences abstract from the meaning of being as a whole, which is only possible because truth emanates from being -- which is itself a timeless truth which we may know with certainty on pain of the impossibility of knowing anything. But science alone can never explain the existence of the truth-bearing scientist, any more than you can give birth to yourself.

Sciences develop very technical languages to convey this truth of Being -- for example, the language of quantum mechanics or the hyper-sophisticated coding of the human genome. But again, these languages aren't Being itself. The map is not the territory. The human genome project is not alive, nor can you make a cosmos out of mathematics.

Being just is. We can describe it any way we like, but our description can never exhaust the infinite ocean of Being. It perpetually flows into our little vessel of human knowing without being diminished one iota.

In my book, I use the symbol "O" to stand for the infinite and unknowable ground of ultimate reality from which our existence is derived, the latter of which is like a spark thrown from a central fire. It can never be known. We can only know "about" it. On the other hand, we can experience its heat and light directly -- or its warmth and illumination.

In fact, we can know many things about O, just as I can know many things about you. But I can never know you in the same way you know yourself in an unmediated way, from the inside. Only you can have this kind of "inside information" about yourself.

Thus, observational science proceeds in the direction of O--(k), while logico-deductive science proceeds in the direction of (k)-->O. (k) is the realm of everyday dualistic knowledge about O. This knowledge may be known objectively and passed like an object from mind to mind.

For example, the theory of natural selection is (k) about the ultimate unknowable mystery of the living O. It is not to be confused with O. For surely, O is alive, and yet, it can hardly be reduced to a biological object, which is only an effect, not a cause.

At risk of pointing out the obvious, the theory of natural selection cannot tell you how O evolved to the point that it could hypothesize and know a truth about itself, any more than musical notation can account for the existence of music.

Music is completely unperturbed by all the efforts to capture and contain it. All the music that has been produced in the history of the world has not yet made a dent in it. We will never "run out" of music.

Music will continue to flow forever, just as will language. Language will never explain the ceaseless creativity of language. It just flows and flows and flows, regardless of your theory or system. It is truly a mirror of the infinite, since it is one of the primary modes of O. "The Word" was with O from the beginning, and the beginning is always now: Yes, When He prepared the heavens, I was there. When He drew a circle on the face of the deep.... I was beside Him as a master craftsman (Proverbs 8:27).

Science must satisfy itself with (k), which is fine. Obviously, (k) has its place so long as we exist, as we must, in the "separative illusion." Since most cultures revolve around (-k), I am thankful I won the cosmic lottery and live in a place that mostly honors (k). For any method of science is correct, on its own level, to the extent that it submits to O and allows itself to be molded and determined by the limited object or domain it is studying.

But for most of history -- and in much of the contemporary world, in particular, the Islamic world -- this direction is reversed, and reality is determined and molded by (k), which automatically converts it to (-k). To be precise, in the case of the Islamic world, it is overrun with the more pernicious (-n), which never touched O to begin with. (Obama's hateful Trinity Church is a fine example of [-n].)

Worse yet, when (k) replaces O, one then lives in the parallel loooniverse of -O, or ø, which is where so much of contemporary leftist wackademia resides. Whenever you deny O, you will simply replace it with ø, and fall from essence to existence.

In fact, you may even elevate yourself to O, as do so many secular fundamentalist fanatics. They do this in both trivial and profound ways, from dictating how the infinitely complex system of the economy should be governed, to making it against the law to discuss O in public schools.

We in the West suffer from a different problem than the one that afflicts the (-n) Muslim world. Unfortunately, our culture does more than honor (k). Rather, it elevates it to the highest. The secular world tries to eradicate O and replace it with mere (k), which automatically places you in an abstract, substitute, and counterfeit world at least one degree removed from reality.

Religions, properly understood, attempt to restore our primordial relationship with O. Fundamentally, they contemplate the holy and manifest mystery of Being by trying to enter it directly -- not talk about it but from within it. And when they do talk about the mystery, it is not in the manner of (k)-->O (or at least it shouldn't be). Rather, the direction is reversed, and it is O-->(n).

(n) is not to be confused with (k). To take just one obvious example, it would be a grave error to reduce the words of Jesus to mere (k). Rather, Jesus spoke in almost pure (n). You will note that Jesus used no technical terms at all.

Obviously, specialized (k) can be quite technical. Most of it is well over -- or under -- your head. But (n) is often quite homespun and plain -- even rustic -- sounding. The Tao Te Ching, for example, contains no technical terms at all. Nor do the Upanishads or the Talmud. Nor, for that matter, did most of the great philosophers of history employ any technical language: Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Schopenhauer. Only when (k) started to become confused with O did we see this great confusion in philosophy, a confusion that pervades the contemporary academic world.

In fact, sad to say, contemporary philosophy has detached itself entirely from O. It now consists of nothing more than (k) about (k), which, suffice it to say, is merely (-k) as it pertains to metaphysics, the latter of which being the science of the Real.

If revelation is an objective manifestation of O, the intellect as such is its subjective manifestation, the one mirroring the other.

The scientistic world of (k)-->O is a barren one that is unfit for humans. Being spontaneously gives itself to us, but in order to appreciate that, we must adopt an attitude of receptiveness. If we do not maintain this receptive attitude, the world cannot open up and give of itself from within -- within to within. Although the way of the jnani is not the way of the bhakti, in that it is "intellectual," there is considerable overlap, in that it is nevertheless a love relationship. It is phil of sophia, a passionate longing for Truth and Reality. Love opens up, or "liquifies" the hardened or frozen world of the self-projecting ego, and aligns us with the eternal source of divine Slack.

55 Comments:

Blogger Robin Starfish said...

Selection
hunting the holy
in a city full of holes
one thread unites them

3/19/2008 10:22:00 AM  
Blogger Mike L said...

In fact, sad to say, contemporary philosophy has detached itself entirely from O. It now consists of nothing more than (k) about (k), which, suffice it to say, is merely (-k) as it pertains to metaphysics, the latter of which being the science of the Real.

Bob:

As somebody with a terminal degree in philosophy from a secular university, I agree with you that most contemporary "analytical" and "continental" philosophy is like that. But that's not all there is to contemporary philosophy. There are plenty of theist, Thomist, esoterist, and other philosophers out there who get what you're getting at with 'O' and endeavor to say what can be said accordingly. I am one of them.

What you're really complaining about is secular philosophy, which gets most of the press. About that, I share your critique.

Best,
Mike

3/19/2008 10:30:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Cooncur. It's just a semantic difference, as I don't consider theist, Thomist, or esoterist philosophies "contemporary" but timeless.

3/19/2008 10:43:00 AM  
Anonymous Babuji Maharaj said...

Fellow Travelers!

Join me in protesting the fifth anniversary of the immoral Iraq War.

Only the leading edge of the trans-spiritual wave, people like us, can make a difference. We have the power to change this country. And we will change it NOW!

3/19/2008 11:03:00 AM  
Blogger River Cocytus said...

lol.

Because you know, praying is this kind of wishing to the giant genie in the sky.

3/19/2008 11:10:00 AM  
Anonymous Petey said...

babuji--

All Coons join you in condemning the immoral war of the Islamists against the American liberation!

3/19/2008 11:11:00 AM  
Blogger julie said...

I'll drink to that, Petey!

3/19/2008 11:19:00 AM  
Anonymous Babuji Maharaj said...

Petey,

I think you're missing the point of this site, which is love and devotion to the peace and ISNESS that IS Ja.

All war is immoral, whether for "American liberation," as you call it, or for big oil, corporate greed, or any other purpose.

War is war. Plain and simple.
Ja is love. And war is against all that IS Ja. The two cannot coexist.

Pay attention to spiritual sites like this one, Petey, and maybe you too will one day know the peace and love the Ja.

3/19/2008 11:21:00 AM  
Blogger River Cocytus said...

What I find interesting, RE the talk of Atma/Maya, is that it is often misunderstood - the meaning of 'Illusion'.

To those who seek esotericism outside of a tradition (for it is a philosophy) it will eventually simply be hitched to their own desires, i.e. denial of the separation.

But proclaiming our oneness to God does not make it so.

However, I recognize the illusory nature of the world; not that I understand it. The real question is much like this: You see a man walking down the street, and you pass through him. If he were a projection of light, he would be an illusion, because he is not what he seems to be. But is not every man, who has the image of God but is marred by sin also an illusion, because he appears to be that image and yet is not what he appears to be?

Just a thought.

3/19/2008 11:22:00 AM  
Blogger julie said...

Oh, Ja?

3/19/2008 11:33:00 AM  
Blogger River Cocytus said...

babu: The enemy makes war on you all day, and all you have to say is 'peace'? Earthly War is an analogue of its higher form, just as Spirit->Mind->Life->Matter. What is evil about War is that in winning it we always damage or destroy what is good in some fashion, but yet we also may acheive good through it or because of it. Therefore a simple moral judgement on war, as being 'Good' or 'Evil' in a strict sense is impossible. War is at best 'necessary', though it is often couched in terms that make it seem righteous or battled against in terms that make it seem demonic.

The pretence does not effect the object of the pretence, so it may be safely said, like what Bob says of Music, that all of the warring that has been done doesn't really change what War is, that is the nature of it, nor does it exhaust the possibilities of battle.

I would object to labeling war as a unilateral good, or as a unilateral evil. For we are reminded in scripture of how Israel was chastised by the war done against them with ill intent.

The real war is spiritual, in which we do battle against evil by good. It shares the same nature as physical wars, just as it is also like an athletic contest.

A true strategist knows this instinctively, and understands when he finds himself in a battle, marshalling his forces to his aid whatever they may be.

The idea that Love is entirely separate from war is like taking God and removing his omnipotence. If God is not all-powerful, who cares who he is? And if he is all-powerful, than he is the most fearsome, dread and awesome thing possible.

Christ reminds us of this with his breaking up the money-changers in the temple. He comes to Love, and father-love chastises and disciplines to make its beloved stronger.

3/19/2008 11:33:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

When the sin lives within the sinner who gives it life, how can one love the sinner and hate the sin?

3/19/2008 11:35:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I find an uncomfortable tension in the fact that war is a necessary tool to ward against the suffering that evil would do unto us, but at the same time, is the source of much suffering in of itself.

Can the paradox be resolved on the Earth below, or is it just another example of the many dynamic tensions that shape our relative existences?

3/19/2008 11:44:00 AM  
Anonymous rabid said...

Maybe you should just work on the "uncomfortable tension."

3/19/2008 11:48:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rabid, if only life were so simple...

3/19/2008 11:53:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The Magician has achieved balance between spontaneity and the unconscious, and deliberate action and the conscious. His practical lesson is concentration without effort, and his theoretical lesson is intellectual vision without effort, but these are based - the UF warns - on prior practice and discipline, without which we become charlatans."

3/19/2008 11:56:00 AM  
Anonymous Babuji Maharaj said...

"The enemy makes war on you all day, and all you have to say is 'peace'?"

River--

The cycle of violence and illusion will never end if we don't at some point take a stand and say peace.

Only then will Ja Be Known.

3/19/2008 12:01:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

Anonymous, that's a question with which people have struggled for ages. Ask yourself, how can a child love its father, but hate the fact that its father chooses to drown in alcohol instead of being a good parent? It is possible to love someone for who they are, but to hate what they do to themselves and others. It's easier to understand these feelings in the context of family, whom we often can't help loving even when they drive us crazy. It's harder to conjure those feelings for strangers, where often all we can see is the sin. That's where "loving thy neighbor as thyself" comes into play.

It should be noted that there is a world of difference between "love the sinner, hate the sin" and tolerating the presence and action of true Evil. For instance, I can lament the fact that Palestinians lead, by their own choice, a hard life that dehumanizes themselves and demonizes the Jews, and pray that their hearts will soften and they will open their eyes to the Truth; this does not change the fact that, for as long as they hate the Jews more than they love their own children, I will support any action on the part of Israel to defend herself from their Evil depredations.

Any soldier who shoots a suicide bomber before he can blow up a market full of innocents, or blows up the rocket launchers assaulting their bases and cities is doing that which is right and necessary. Anyone who thinks fighting against Evil is itself a Bad Thing is a fool who actually facilitates the spread of Evil.

Cowering and prostrating oneself before the Beast does not make it go away, nor does holding out a flower and telling it you love it; those things simply make the ghastly jaws salivate in anticipation of the feast soon to come. You are welcome to give of your own life so easily, if you choose; you are not free to drag others along with you.

3/19/2008 12:02:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You must have a more capacious soul than I, Julie, for I find it difficult to "simultaneously contain" both the compassion and mercy of God along with His justice, fear and awe.

3/19/2008 12:10:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

babe mirage,

War! Hah! What is it good for!? Say it again!

(off the cuff, starting form recent times):
-Ended the Frenchie Sun Kings attempt to conquer europe,
-Ended the British attempt to end Republican Gov't,
-Ended Slavery,
-Ended Randolph Hearst's attempt to sell more papers (oh... wait a minute... well, there's usually a bad apple in every bunch - Gave young Churhill a job and chance to see New York)
*-Ended Germant's attempt to conquer europe,
*-Ended Germany's Axis powers attempt to conquer the world,
*-Ended USSR's attempt to conquer the world,
*-Ended Saddam's attempt to conquer Kuwait,
*-Ended Saddam,
-*Is currently ending your chance of ending us.

War, for proper reasons (that would be in defense of Republican Gov't's defending Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness), isn't nearly so bad as leftist's attempt to end war, avoid war or wage peace (see asterix's).

3/19/2008 12:13:00 PM  
Anonymous Babuji Maharaj said...

Van ity --

When you come to know the peace of Ja, you will know that war only perpetuates the never-ending karmic cycle of violence.

All you need do is break the chains of Zaebos that give you the illusion that war is inevitable.

3/19/2008 12:22:00 PM  
Blogger Gecko said...

Babuji,
What Petey said.
By the bye, have you read:
J. Edgar Hoover's "Masters of Deceit"
"A fellow traveler is one of five types of dangerous subversives as defined by FBI director J. Edgar Hoover in his book, "Masters of Deceit: The Story of Communism in America and How to Fight It,"[1] who might promote the goal of a Communist overthrow of the United States government. The five types were:
1) The card-carrying Communist. A Communist who openly admits membership in the Communist party.
2) The underground Communist. A Communist who hides his Communist party membership.
3) The Communist sympathizer. A potential Communist who holds Communist views. While the card-carrying Communist was known as a 'Red,' a Communist sympathizer was sometimes known as a 'Pink' or 'Pinko.'
4) The fellow traveler. Someone who is not a potential Communist but nevertheless may hold views shared by Communists. A Fellow traveler was also called 'Pink' or 'Pinko.'
5) The dupes. Someone who is obviously not a Communist or a potential Communist but whose views may coincide with some of those of the American Communists. Examples are a prominent religious leader who opposed increased military expenditures and war, or a prominent jurist who opposed Red-baiting tactics on civil liberty grounds. A dupe was also called 'Pink' or 'Pinko.'"
Namaste.

3/19/2008 12:37:00 PM  
Blogger debass said...

Surrendering to evil is suicide, which is against everything I believe in. It's true, I will be at peace because I will be in heaven. But the world will not be more peaceful because we surrender. Evil will just find someone else to attack. If you want to protest war, you should go to the ME and protest against the Islamists. They are the ones making war. Funny, I don't see any so called "peace groups" over there.
History has shown that peace protesters have extended wars and gotten more people killed. So who is doing the bidding for evil?

What happened to the black community to go from jazz (truth and beauty) to hip hop?

3/19/2008 12:37:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

Needling aside, anyone who has looked at a childs face as their Father leaves for War, or seen their face day in and day out while they are gone - tenses up at the latest new blurb of a soldier killed, seen the Father come home with the memories of children he's just given candy to have their intestines splattered onto his Humvee's windsheild etched permanently into his brow, or his friend come over for dinner minus the hand he had before he left... with any of that in mind, and knowing it is a cleaner account than that of the full realities of War, no one could say War is a Good.

But War is often necessary, and it is Good that Good people are strong enough to face up to it, to do what needs to be done, and not push it off into the future where it will fall, swelled with fermenting evil, onto the shoulders of those who are young today, to endure in their time.

War is not a Good. Neither are its vintners such as babe mirage, whose mincing only ensures its gathering potency.

3/19/2008 12:40:00 PM  
Anonymous bob f. said...

Is war something that we choose to do, or is it something that happens, like the proverbial sh*t?

The assumption that we can somehow be 'against' war and then avoid it, is akin to being 'against' death or famine or pestilence; and, oh, why can't we all just get along?

If war is a natural happening, like earthquakes and volcanoes, protesting it is pretty much pointless, other than to boost one's own ego, 'my aren't I enlightened and holier than thou...'

3/19/2008 12:41:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

babe mirage said "When you come to know the peace of Ja..."

If your perversion of peace prevails, the only 'Ja' you'll come to know is that of 'Ja vol mein Furher!".

Save time - go join Ghandi today.

3/19/2008 12:42:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

Anonymous,
"...I find it difficult to "simultaneously contain" both the compassion and mercy of God along with His justice, fear and awe."

That's because it is difficult. I look at it in a similar way to how I treat my dogs (this is a very imperfect analogy, by the way; he relationship between God and man is so very much more). I love them, and try as best I can to take care of them. This sometimes means I do things they fear and don't understand, even things that sometimes cause pain, such as clipping their toenails or cleaning out their ears or putting a hood on their heads to keep them from injuring themselves. They don't get it, and probably never will. And that's just how it must be.

There is much that God may do that will seem horrible to me, especially at the time, but I accept that I don't get it. And I don't attribute all bad things to God - free will has far more to do with it, 99.9% of the time, I think. Some of the worst times in my life have directly resulted in some of the best things in my life. Can I be angry, then, that something bad happened, or can I instead be thankful that there was far more to the story than that?

People choose to be and to do Evil. Unfortunately, this is a choice that they must be allowed to make; that is the price of free will. Also, sometimes randomly bad things must be allowed to happen; they aren't necessarily punishments from God, they are simply the hazards that must be faced as part of a dynamic universe. Cells can become cancerous, tsunamis can wipe out a coastline, and totalitarian dictators can slaughter their subjects by the thousands. To be divinely protected from all of that would mean that our love, when given, is not given freely (and would therefore be worthless), and that we would have no reason to grow and surpass ourselves.

Nobody plays, for any length of time, games that don't offer challenges to be overcome. No book, written about a character who never had troubles, trials, or struggles, nor knew anybody who did, would be an interesting read; such a character would be completely one dimensional and probably really irritating as well.

Life is not meant to be easy all the time; it is how we deal with the challenges in our path that shapes us and makes us who we are.

3/19/2008 01:06:00 PM  
Anonymous Baba Rum Raisin said...

Babu:

When you come to know reality, you will know that appeasement only perpetuates the never-ending karmic cycle of violence.

You must break the chains that give you the illusion that appeasement is inevitable.

3/19/2008 01:29:00 PM  
Anonymous Babuji Maharaj said...

Bab Rum Raisin,

Babuji Maharaj does not teach "appeasement." He teaches utter withdrawl from the karmic cycle of violence and oppression.

No war. No appeasement. Just simple withdrawl from all that is not Ja.

But you may cling to your strawman and keep pretending he is made of iron!

3/19/2008 01:53:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well put, Julie.

Clarity comes slowly on days like today...

3/19/2008 01:55:00 PM  
Blogger River Cocytus said...

"that war only perpetuates the never-ending karmic cycle of violence."

That's the problem! You need a karmannihilation! The enemy is overcome not throught peace, but through swordlessness.

3/19/2008 01:57:00 PM  
Anonymous ximeze said...

Umm, Babu

I think you're missing the point of this site, which IS love and devotion to Petey.

Good thing I had a chance to lube-up my goon-gear - it had gotten kind of stiff thru lack of use this past winter. Warm weather comes & critters of all sorts start to show up.

Babuwienie: where do you get off decreeing the 'point of this site' at all & to Petey, of all Raccoons?

"Pay attention to spiritual sites like this one, Petey, and maybe you too will one day know..."

So, people like you, are the leading edge of the trans-spiritual wave?

Bwaaaaahahahahahaha!

Yes, did catch the 'us' you tossed out - nice try, but you won't suck in any Kits with that one.

I suppose it's futile to ask if visitors here can get any dumber. More like, I should change the level of the measurement-bar.

Sigh

Better make sure the Binford MegaShopVac is ready to go, too.

3/19/2008 02:02:00 PM  
Anonymous Baba Rum Raisin said...

My dear Babu:

Violence itself is morally neutral. What makes it moral or immoral -- except to a moral imbecile such as yourself -- is the use to which it is put. The two are as different as a properly functioning autoimmune system that violently attacks the body's invaders, vs. an autoimmune disease which attacks itself, or a fire that warms vs. one that burns down the house.

In fact, diseased souls such as yourself are analogous to viruses within the body politic that prey on weak minds. You, sir, are a Mind Parasite to which all Raccoons have eternal immunity.

3/19/2008 02:09:00 PM  
Anonymous Baba Rum Raisin said...

By decree of Petey.

3/19/2008 02:11:00 PM  
Blogger gumshoe said...

Today's bowl of "Special K":

"Obviously, specialized (k) can be quite technical. Most of it is well over -- or under -- your head. But (n) is often quite homespun and plain -- even rustic -- sounding. The Tao Te Ching, for example, contains no technical terms at all. Nor do the Upanishads or the Talmud. Nor, for that matter, did most of the great philosophers of history employ any technical language: Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Schopenhauer. Only when (k) started to become confused with O did we see this great confusion in philosophy, a confusion that pervades the contemporary academic world.

In fact, sad to say, contemporary philosophy has detached itself entirely from O. It now consists of nothing more than (k) about (k), which, suffice it to say, is merely (-k) as it pertains to metaphysics, the latter of which being the science of the Real."


i know the site attracts trolls
who are convinced Bob is a gasbag.

its sad to think
they'll pass this gem right by.

well done,sir.

3/19/2008 02:24:00 PM  
Anonymous ropata said...

On Good Friday we remember "Greater love hath no man than this, that he would lay down his life for his friends"

There is no peace to be had with the forces of darkness; they must be recognised for what they are and overcome. Love is not always easy or gentle; it sometimes requires a sacrifice of Everything.

God judged that it was worth the cost, to fulfil His plan..
The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to release the oppressed,
to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor.

3/19/2008 02:33:00 PM  
Anonymous ropata said...

As to the original post; this bit was very nice:
Being just is. We can describe it any way we like, but our description can never exhaust the infinite ocean of Being. It perpetually flows into our little vessel of human knowing without being diminished one iota.

Essentially, materialists understand science as applied materialism. The purpose of science is to confirm materialism. So scientists find evidence that supports materialism. If not, they must just keep looking.

For example, when intelligent design theorist Michael Behe pointed out evidence against unguided Darwinian evolution in Darwin's Black Box, Richard Dawkins, a materialist, said Behe should just keep looking until he finds a materialist explanation. But Behe disagreed because the problems he was finding were fundamental, like the hard problem of consciousness. They signaled that something was wrong with the materialist approach.
From The Mind-Body Problem

3/19/2008 02:42:00 PM  
Anonymous ximeze said...

River,
Thanks for setting me straight.

Here, I've been thinking for the last 25 years that karmakarmakarmachameleon was what was needed.

Silly me

3/19/2008 02:46:00 PM  
Blogger Smoov said...

Leftist bathroom reading material:

True Enough: Learning to Live in a Post-Fact Society

Just when Ja think Ja know the limits to their ponderous stupidity...

3/19/2008 03:09:00 PM  
Blogger walt said...

Now y'all have gone and done it!

30-plus posts means that ol' yeller dawg going to be sniffin'-round ... another late night for everybody!

Word up, people!

3/19/2008 03:30:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

Ximeze said "Here, I've been thinking for the last 25 years that karmakarmakarmachameleon was what was needed."

Eh. It comes and goes....

3/19/2008 03:44:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

And a big 'Cooncur on what Gumshoe said

3/19/2008 03:45:00 PM  
Blogger Lisa said...

Red, Gold, and Gree-ee-e-een!

3/19/2008 03:51:00 PM  
Blogger QP said...

Something for the late night leftist trolls:

"Mikhail Gorbachev, the last Communist leader of the Soviet Union, has acknowledged his Christian faith for the first time, paying a surprise visit to pray at the tomb of St Francis of Assisi."

3/19/2008 05:19:00 PM  
Anonymous ximeze said...

Lisa & Van,
Knew I could count on you! Had to search Boy George on Youtube since I could not remember how to spell Chameleon.

OMG! I remember 70's garb as pretty much the worst, but guess I've managed to block just how bad the ones from the mid 80's were.

Ugh, and the hair.....

The Horror came rushing back - a particularly vile, PTSD inducing, cropped/spiked/bleached number.... that I was sure was ALL THAT

Ohhhh, now I feel sick

3/19/2008 05:55:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

Ximeze, I knew a girl in jr. high who actually managed to get her bangs standing at least 7 or 8 inches straight up, every day. I was astounded at the effort she put into her look, especially when my mom was still picking my clothes.

Oh, the horror; I'm sure, though, that in a couple decades we're going to look back at today's fashions, shake our heads, and wonder what we were thinking.

3/19/2008 06:45:00 PM  
Anonymous ximeze said...

Course, incriminating photos can be great fun at 20-plus reunions - 10 year ones, people are still trying to impress each-other & take themselves way too seriously. HA! Just wait.

Especially when adult beverages are involved, ISS warnings & plenty of tissues are a must.

Say, didn't Van at some point fess-up to prancing around in spandex? One can only hope Big Hair was also in evidence.

What I would do to see that!

Thought he looked lovely in his hospital gown, but perhaps the cool wires attached to his head have influenced my judgement.

Whaddaya say Van, care to cough-up?

3/19/2008 07:24:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

Ximeze,
I'm not going to try to figure out how Slack Liberation Theology and O->k and O->n somehow ended up in 80's fashion faux paus & spandex... (need some new letters for that one),

(but if you show me yours, I'll show you mine)

;-)

[And wouldn't this be just the perfect time for 0->y to show up.]

3/19/2008 08:15:00 PM  
Anonymous ximeze said...

Van:
1st paragraph is a clear red-herring. You're not about to distract me from my quarry by using logic. Besides, by now you should know females are secure against that tactic.

As for your attempt at barter:
Fat chance Charlie Brown - me Lucy!

3/19/2008 11:21:00 PM  
Anonymous supine feline said...

Can someone point me to a brief "legend" for all the single letters (O, k, n, etc) that are used here? I can follow most of what is said until I hit the chemistry. Then I'm lost, right where it gets interesting. It's at that point that I begin to make assumptions based on what I think I already know. Unless I miss my guess, exploring what I think I know is the point of this blog. Thanks. (I understand that this is all explained in Bob's book. I don't have the book. Yet.)

3/20/2008 05:31:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

Ximeze said "As for your attempt at barter: Fat chance Charlie Brown - me Lucy!"

O-->oh, sorry, n->o... you see, there's no returning to the 80's music scene, without also returning to the jungle of the Musicians wild kingdom in all of it's glory. That would be where the musician roars with his ... instrument, and then relaxes, and the lioness (ooh, no, too many unwanted associations there, such as cubs...eek!), the lionette offers and provides drink & food, some sparkleies and other goods and ... services - so she can tell her friends, who will then continue the offerings in exchange for a nod while roaring. It was a jungle back then.

Ahh... mam... er... memories.

And… why was it I grew up again?

3/20/2008 05:38:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

supine feline said "Can someone point me to a brief "legend" for all the single letters (O, k, n, etc)"

Outside of the New Testavus for the Restavus, todays post... and I think at least one other, you pretty much just have to keep looking at them. I sympathize - still strains my brain. In reading the book, I cursed that chapter blue (sorry Petey)... but then there was a moment when it clicked and accomplished its goal. It's annoying, but it does work.

3/20/2008 05:43:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

For babu moo-moo ja,

Marine Cpl. David Thibodeaux's playing your song.

3/20/2008 06:12:00 AM  
Blogger Sal said...

Thanks, Bob and all, for the refresher.

Usually eschew arguing with the atheist/apolitical/leftist child, but got suckered in yesterday.
And not being a quick thinker on my feet or very articulate, never have much effect. In fact, I'm afraid I rather let the side down.

I would prefer my child not think me a moron, but there it is.

A blessed Triduum to those observing.

3/20/2008 06:23:00 AM  
Blogger Warren said...

"Baba Rum Raisin" - now there's a reference I haven't run across in a very long time. I really miss the "wrinkled old goat scrotum" (as he once called himself).

A creation of the late, great Doug Kenney, I believe.

3/20/2008 01:19:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home