Sunday, March 15, 2009

God's Food Pyramid: How Can You Have Any Pudding if You Don't Eat Yer Meat?

Being that I've been posting the Antichrist updates of posts from one year ago, I'm falling behind in my weekend review of posts from two years back. So here's one from early March '07. I don't know about you, but I really look forward to this exercise, because I am always surprised by what I find. I sure wish I could find the time to organize the Gnowa's Arkive into a book or something. But by the time I retire, there will be something like 10,000 posts to wade through (20,000 if Obama's pro-regressive economic policies aren't reversed)....

*****

Reader Bob says, "I love what you're doing with the Arc of Salvation. I think we have a huge problem with the Arc remaining fossilized in geography though. As a technologist myself, I don't see how we survive what the non-Coons are about to do to us with our own coonkind's technology -- I do believe we all need to become Coons."

Another reader asked me what I thought about a book by an eminent physicist whose thesis is that time does not really exist. True, a number of reviewers felt the book was so boring that they thought it would never end, but endless time is not the same as timelessness.

Obviously this physicist has never heard of the Islamists, who are months away from the nuclear bomb but centuries from the nuclear age. That's a long time. In other words, it takes only one Islamist to disprove all of the quantum physicist's elegant theories about the non-existence of time. For time is not an empty and abstract category of mere duration, nor is it merely an illusory by-product of change. Rather, human time -- which is a distant echo and reflection of divine time -- is both full and directional.

Of all people, the scientist should be aware of the various developmental stages he had traverse in order to end up a scientist capable of detached, abstract cognition about the foundations of reality. A rock cannot do this. Nor an animal, a child, or a radical imam. The changes that occur on the way from child to man are not merely horizontal but vertical. As Ken Wilber has said, true development -- which is to say transcendence -- is not just a matter of rearranging the furniture on the floor of a building, but taking the elevator to the next floor.

Any materialist has failed the first test of spirituality -- or "temptation in the wilderness" -- which is to not try to turn stones into bread, or quantity into quality. For in so doing, the materialist inevitably reduces bread to stones, or life to death, spirit to matter. We are left with only stones, so there is "nothing left to eat," speaking metaphysically. And with nothing to eat, there is no way to grow into spiritual manhood. But if time is an illusion -- or a mere "quantity" -- then growth cannot be real anyway. A man is just a large child.

Those of a materialistic bent like to say that religion is speculative, but in a very real sense, the opposite is true. When it comes to metaphysics -- the science of the absolute -- the scientist can only speculate, while the religiously informed person has access to a realm of perennial knowledge and truth that is as stable and secure as a rock, for it is the "axis of the Real." It reflects truths that cannot be untrue. For example, Paul's delineation of vertical levels of maturity along this vertical axis is a universal truth of spirituality: "When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things."

Thus, at its very heart, Christianity is clearly both evolutionary and developmental. No Christian could ever maintain that "time is an illusion," for time is of the essence of Christian life -- again, not the abstract quantitative duration of the physicist, but the explicitly qualitative time that distinguishes the spiritual child from the spiritual adult in the arc of salvation.

Elsewhere in the same epistle Paul proposes a three part schema of spiritual development: infant, child and man. Each requires a different kind of "food." In 1 Corinthians 3:3, he implies that the infant, or "babe," is equivalent to the carnal man, an ironic reversal of secular hubris, in that carnal man is but a spiritual babe in the woods. The infant can only be fed milk rather than solid food (which is for the child) or meat ( which is for the adult).

Thus, as one moves up the developmental axis of spirituality, we eventually graduate to meat -- not only meat, of course, but as a supplement to the other foods. To try to live only on meat would be somewhat analogous to trying to live only on vitamin pills, which are highly potent but not necessarily nourishing if taken out of context. Metaphysics without religion is like the vitamins without the food that "activates" the vitamins, so to speak.

Needless to say, a Raccoon is not just carnivorous, but omnivorous. If you check out the library of a typical Coon, the first thing you will notice is that they'll eat almost anything -- literature, poetry, science, psychology, philosophy, scripture, theology, mysticism, the Sacred Teachings of J.R. "Bob" Dobbs -- but not in an indiscriminate manner. Rather, they respect the "food pyramid," which obviously has a top and a bottom. You've seen the Raccoon food pyramid on the back of any dollar bill -- it has that little eye at the top, radiating light.

An eye radiating light? How does that work? Isn't that a premodern idea? I thought the eye only receives light. How can it radiate light?

Don't worry. We'll get to that.

Not infrequently we have visitors in the Cosmos who are infants or children, which is why they find me indigestible if not frankly nauseating. I'm trying to think of a delicate way to put this, but those of you with babies of your own are certainly accustomed to dealing with the full spectrum of bodily fluids. Let us just say that Dupree's unenviable job is to clean up the projectile vomit these babies leave behind here. We had some last night, but we let Skully swab the deck, although his impulse is usually to deck the slob. (Apologies for the eliminationist rhetroric, but it's really just a very direct form of zen-like chin-foo illuminationist rhetoric: thwack!)

Paul says to his audience -- which by now numbers in the billions, including you -- that there was a time when he could not speak to you as an adult -- not as a spiritual person but only as a carnal one. Furthermore, he "fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able; for you are still very carnal." Why is that? Because, "where there are envy, strife, and divisions among you, are you not carnal and behaving like mere men?"

Well? What say you?

When Paul refers to "divisions among you," he also means divisions within you -- which is to say, within oneself. For among other things, both the line of spiritual development and the arc of salvation are a function of increased integration -- which is to say wholeness, which is to say centration. If your eye [I] is single, then the whole body is full of radiant light; conversely, if it is divided, your I is full of darkness.

Full of darkness? Darkness does not actually exist in any positive sense. Rather, it is only the absence of light, a seemingly paradoxical fact, since the cosmos is made of light. So how can someone be "full" of "absence?" If it is the nature of light to radiate, how do we end up with all these non-radiating lacunae of darkness, both individually and collectively?

Before discussing how it happens, let us just stipulate that it only happens all the time. As a matter of fact, the human being is the only living thing that can be "filled with darkness." Light is knowledge just as love is its heat, which is why these individuals and cultures are filled with an absence of each -- which is to say envy and strife, just as Paul says. Our adversaries are cold and dark, to say the least.

For envy is both a cause and an effect of existential emptiness. It is truly "darkness visible," because it represents insatiable emptiness, exactly analogous to the black holes of quantum cosmology. The strife that accompanies these hungry ghosts is simply the "giant sucking sound" produced by their contact with the world. The perennial class envy of the left is simply the clattering noise produced by institutionalized darkness as it tries to pull down everything round it. This is why it is so indiscriminate and cannot just attack "wealth." Rather, you will have noticed that it also always pulls truth, beauty, and decency into its vortex -- the three "faces" of metaphysical light. In this regard, Obama is playing the lead role a very old tragedy that he is far too unsophisticated to comprehend.

A black hole is an emptiness that pulls everything into it, including light, which becomes "inoperative" in its presence. The primordial property of light, like love, is to "radiate," and in fact, light is a property of the divine radiation rather than vice versa. The envious, divided person is a black hole who will suck the light out of you to no purpose whatsoever-- no good purpose, anyway. The light simply disappears beyond the event horizon, into the darkness of their corrupted soul. Elsewhere in the cosmos, light radiates into darkness, but in the case of a black hole, light is surrounded and swallowed up.

Talk to the mullahs! Yes, why not? Why not talk to a black hole? Indeed, why not pound sand, piss up a rope, and take a flying you-know-what at a rolling donut?

The U.N.? A black hole of darkness visible within the heart of light. If Turtle Bay were any closer to Washington D.C., perhaps the Shining City on A Hill would be pulled into the Valley of of the Shadow of Death. Understood metaphorically, this could actually happen, since it has already happened to most of the rest of the world, which has fallen into this night-cloaked principality ruled by the Cosmocrats of the Dark Aion.

Paul goes on to suggest that human beings may be the efficient or formal cause of their own evolution, but that the Creator is the final cause. In other words, you may cultivate the soil, plant the seeds, and water the garden -- in fact, it is your duty to do so -- but you are not responsible for the growth that results. Rather, as Paul says, "God gives the increase," which is another way of saying that we do not invent ourselves but become ourselves. We are God's "field" or "building," and the strength and resilience of your building will be tested by fire. Oh my yes. If it is built on a foundation of reality it will endure, but otherwise it will be brought low.

Again, time is not mere duration, but the time it takes for something to become what it is -- say, an acorn to become an oak tree or a milk-drinking infant to become an omnivorous Raccoon.

Now, a recent visitor suggested that I am "manichean" in my views. Manichaeism is a dualistic philosophy that divides the cosmos into good and evil in the manner of the Zoroastrians, who saw all of reality as a struggle between Ahriman, the god of darkness, and Ahura Mazda, the god of light.

This charge is plainly untrue, as the differences between Manichaeism and the One True Doctrine are evident. (In fact, I said so in the Coonifesto, where it is written (p. 252) that Ahriman is his own worst enemy, not a separate ontological reality.) That is, Manichaean theology, according to Professor Wiki, postulates "two natures that existed from the beginning: light and darkness. The realm of light lived in peace, while the realm of darkness was in constant conflict with itself. The universe is the temporary result of an attack from the realm of darkness on the realm of light," so that the cosmos is literally said to be the result of a mixture of light and darkness. This is obviously quite different from the conception of the cosmos as a creation radiating from the Sovereign Good.

In fact, "A key belief in Manichaeism is that there is no omnipotent good power. This claim addresses a theoretical part of the problem of evil by denying the infinite perfection of God and postulating the two equal and opposite powers mentioned previously. The human person is seen as a battleground for these powers: the good part is the soul (which is composed of light) and the bad part is the body (composed of dark earth). The soul defines the person and is incorruptible, but it is under the domination of a foreign power, which addressed the practical part of The Problem of Evil. Humans are said to be able to be saved from this power (matter) if they come to know who they are and identify themselves with their soul."

Here is a perfect example of what we were discussing yesterday, that is, the garbled interpretation of the Divine Message as a result of human impurity. For the truth is that existence is a battle between light and darkness, but with extremely important modifications. But at the moment, I am running short of time, so I suppose I'll have to continue this line of thought tomorrow, assuming anyone -- including me -- is interested. For now, just remember, Phase I: milk. Phase II: solid food. Phase III: meat.

Or, in the immortal words of Mr. Pink Floyd, How can you have any pudding if you don't eat yer meat?

62 Comments:

Blogger julie said...

...the infant, or "babe," is equivalent to the carnal man, an ironic reversal of secular hubris, in that carnal man is but a spiritual babe in the woods.

See also yesterday's Froth.

When Paul refers to "divisions among you," he also means divisions within you -- which is to say, within oneself. For among other things, both the line of spiritual development and the arc of salvation are a function of increased integration -- which is to say wholeness, which is to say centration. If your eye [I] is single, then the whole body is full of radiant light; conversely, if it is divided, your I is full of darkness.

This is another one of those things that I've known for a long time, but am only barely beginning to know. But even that little bit of knowledge makes all the difference.

3/15/2009 10:02:00 AM  
Blogger walt said...

"The ... divided person is a black hole who will suck the light out of you to no purpose whatsoever-- no good purpose, anyway. The light simply disappears beyond the event horizon, into the darkness of their corrupted soul. Elsewhere in the cosmos, light radiates into darkness, but in the case of a black hole, light is surrounded and swallowed up."

That description fits a recent experience. In that particular case, many words were spoken by the person, but without apparent meaning, or relevance to anything -- as though everything just exists "in solution" along with everything else. Probe though I did, I could find no "substance" in what was said -- just words, words.

The effect was that all expressions were a pouring from the empty into the void -- a black hole, as you say. Gave me the willies.

This evokes the image of the leaky vessel, the inability to contain or retain anything, of a person so fragmented that they come across like scattered leaves....

This can't be a good thing.

3/15/2009 10:37:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Very good. One of the keys of modern psychoanalysis is the idea that one's counter-transference reveals objective information about the interior state of another. But of course, in order to be effective, one must be in a totally "receptive" mode -- which is why Bion talked about the need to "suspend memory, desire, and understanding." Furthermore, one cannot allow the incoming message to be altered and shaped by one's own mind parasites.

If you can do this, you will notice all sorts of messages that people are giving out, some subtle, others overwhelmingly palpable. In this regard, you will notice that the (K) is always riding piggyback on a more primitive process of (L) or (H). A therapist can address the (L) or (H) directly, but it is obviously very difficult to do it in your personal life without sounding condescending or belittling. However, Mrs. G will be the first to tell you that my doing this with her was extremely helpful, at least after I successfully dodged the flying plates. She is now a beacon of reason, without losing any of her feminine charm.

3/15/2009 11:00:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Now that I'm thinking about it, I know that Mrs. G would agree that the key moment came when she realized that I had no interest whatsoever in controlling or devaluing her, but in helping her achieve her potential and become more free. This required a leap of faith, and now she just assumes that I'm here to help, unless proven otherwise.

3/15/2009 11:04:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

... and I don't want to imply that I had no "issues" of my own. They were just different issues.

3/15/2009 11:07:00 AM  
Blogger walt said...

It's very funny -- now that your comments come with a photo, they seem much more "personal."

"...you will notice all sorts of messages that people are giving out, some subtle, others overwhelmingly palpable."

This is like the saying attributed, I believe, to Emerson:
What you are speaks so loudly I can't hear what you're saying.

And just to be clear -- part of what disturbs me about being around people like I was describing above is that I've seen that fragmented state first-hand, in myself, and know its taste.

Oops - I see you beat me to the confessional! But it's that first-hand knowledge that makes me both intolerant and more tolerant simultaneously.

3/15/2009 11:15:00 AM  
Blogger julie said...

She is now a beacon of reason

That she is :)

3/15/2009 11:27:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Yes, for example, when I'm in the presence of one of those primitive leftist rhetorical storms, I know they are just "evacuating," and that it is utterly pointless to respond with a rational or factual point. In fact, if I did so, it would very likely just be a disguised expression my own (H), since it serves no other purpose. I get no joy out of arguing with someone who is totally unreceptive, although there was a time I did, because I enjoyed the feeling that went along with it. Many people don't realize they are addicted to these types of bad feelings.

3/15/2009 11:30:00 AM  
Blogger walt said...

Many people don't realize they are addicted to these types of bad feelings.

Ooooh! You just said a mouthful. And woe to him or her that points this out while the storm is in progress!

3/15/2009 11:38:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Yes, for so many people, especially on the left, politics is simply a means of organizing their irrational hates. Most human problems are existential and ontological, but people who fail to understand this will inevitably seek political solutions to them -- for example, more money for "education."

This is again where conservatives are at a distinct disadvantage, because few people want to be told that their problems are their own. This is the reason why it is so difficult for conservatives to get a toehold on the Republican party, because Republicans get re-elected by imitating Democrats, i.e., by promising stuff and buying votes.

3/15/2009 11:50:00 AM  
Blogger julie said...

Completely aside, I recognize that first tune on The Lady and the Unicorn - Dead Can Dance has a version. Interesting difference between them - this sounds like an old English tapestry.

3/15/2009 12:03:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

John Renbourn is a legendary British folk musician, also one fifth of the legendary Pentangle. He brought a kind of jazz & blues sensibility to his playing, whereas Dead Can Dance bring more of a world music/Arabic/quasi-operatic sensibility. But I always get a kind of dark vibe from them as well... maybe because Brendan Perry sounds like Jim Morrison.

3/15/2009 12:38:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

Perry has a very dark timbre to his voice - somebody linked to one of their videos here a while back, and I was surprised to see how British he is. I had always pictured him as Sioux or similar. But I think the dark vibe also comes at least a little from the music they choose - many of their songs are either melancholic or even moonbatty.

I'd never heard of Renbourn, but I do like the sound. It reminds me of being back in school in England, studying about the Battle of Hastings and the Domesday book.

3/15/2009 12:59:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Here's Pentangle. That's Renbourn on the left. A unique sound, because they mix the traditional folk with a jazz drummer and bassist, so it swings.

3/15/2009 01:06:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

Oooh, cool! I like that a lot. Very raccoonish, mixing the old with the new while maintaining the integrity of both.

3/15/2009 01:20:00 PM  
Anonymous lame duck said...

Half way through The Wheel of Fortune in MOTT and all I can say is "wow". Incredible book, especially this chapter.

Thanks for the introduction to it.

3/15/2009 02:21:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Yes, if someone doesn't realize that MOTT is a spiritual masterpiece, it is only because they are incapable of realizing it. Their opinion is hardly a comment about the book, only about their own inadequacies.

The greater a work is, the more it takes the measure of us, rather than vice versa.

3/15/2009 02:31:00 PM  
Anonymous lame duck said...

I'm pickin' up what you're throwin' down, my man.

If only us Catholics knew more of what we possessed in our faith...

3/15/2009 02:54:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Tell me about it. Balthasar is out of this world. Then again, it's not easy to serve a billion people with every possible level of intelligence, various character traits, different spiritual gifts and vocations, diverse languages and cultures, etc.

3/15/2009 03:11:00 PM  
Anonymous lame duck said...

Let me refine that last comment I made. It was kind of a flippant afterthought. The higher thought might be -- if only we all knew what and who we are; what we're meant for; and what we could truly possess...

Sorry, I'm babbling now and that's not my job.

Back to reading.

3/15/2009 03:15:00 PM  
Anonymous lame duck said...

You're right, which is why religion is so beautiful. It serves the simplest mind to the loftiest one (if one is only willing to look). The sacraments are truly Divine genius because they are accessible to everyone, and achieves their work above and beyond intelligence, temperament and all the rest.

3/15/2009 03:20:00 PM  
Anonymous lame duck said...

The simplicity and depth of the Eucharist alone...

K, I've had too much coffee today. Time to get out for a run.

Lurk again soon.

3/15/2009 03:25:00 PM  
Blogger Joan of Argghh! said...

Dear Raccoons I think you'll want to to see this.

3/15/2009 04:32:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

Ooh... a tasty repOst today. And,

"Many people don't realize they are addicted to these types of bad feelings."

walt said... "Ooooh! You just said a mouthful. And woe to him or her that points this out while the storm is in progress!"

Yep, on both sides of the nonversation. Best not to forget about Uncle Remus and the tar-baby.

Not that I'd know anything about that.

ahem.

3/15/2009 04:42:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Thank you, Miss Joan. That is a really nice piece on VM.

3/15/2009 04:52:00 PM  
Blogger Ricky Raccoon said...

“Balthasar is out of this world.”
That’s quite a statement atop, “MOTT is a spiritual masterpiece”. I certainly agree with the latter. So Bob, would it be more difficult to begin Balthasar with volume three Theo-logic?...since you have said a good deal of the other volumes go into repetitive, extraordinary depth and well beyond the mission of a raccoon...

3/15/2009 05:04:00 PM  
Blogger Ricky Raccoon said...

Yes. Thanks, Joan.

3/15/2009 05:19:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

Ricky, I was wondering the same thing about volume three. After all, I'm going to need something new to sink my teeth into in a week or so...

Bob?

3/15/2009 05:28:00 PM  
Blogger Ricky Raccoon said...

Julie, I slammed the thing in reverse on that one… as any raccoon would do the same.
Poor Bob…
Well… he started it :-D

3/15/2009 05:33:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Rick:

For me, Volume One of the Theo-Logic has been my favorite, followed by volume one of the Glory of the Lord (I haven't yet started the Theo-Drama).

However, I'm not sure I can give any kind of general recommendation, because it is so dense and difficult. I really have no idea if others will respond to him in the same way I have. Very, very different from, say, Schuon, who is such a model of clarity and brevity. Schuon always leaves a little out, Balthasar always floods your little cup. Nevertheless, suffice it to say that I have been blown away. He definitely drinks from the firehose.

3/15/2009 05:36:00 PM  
Blogger Ricky Raccoon said...

Thanks, Bob.
Envelope please…
“I'm not sure I can give any kind of general recommendation...”
I really need to get a t-shirt made or something…
Julie, on your mark, get set..

3/15/2009 05:42:00 PM  
Blogger Ricky Raccoon said...

Geez…just remembered by the Van interview and his stage fright. The other day you mentioned Bion’s “thoughts and what to do with them” and “thoughts thinking you instead of you thinking them”. Reminded me of phobias. Had a bad one for flying once, literally out of the blue :-) and it felt very much a “thought thinking me” thing. Bob would you say phobias are a form of “thoughts thinking you”?

3/15/2009 05:47:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

I don't think I've ever highlighted so much of a book. In fact, it would have been easier to highlight the passages I don't want to go back to. As I said, very difficult to reduce it down to anything less than what it is.

Anyway, I will be back at it tomorrow morning, trying to bobtize the Theo-logic and reduce it to blog-bytes.

3/15/2009 05:48:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Re phobias -- yes, I suppose so, in that a phobia involves an absence of containment. As Bion would say, it's an upsurge of beta-elements with insufficient alpha function. Thus, you might say that it's the failure of proto-thoughts to become proper thoughts.

3/15/2009 05:52:00 PM  
Blogger Ricky Raccoon said...

I remember thinking the same about MOTT…wanting to dip it in a bucket of highlighter, would be easier. Eventually lead to Dilys proposing a scanned searchable edition of MOTT. Speaking of, she hasn’t been around here in awhile…I don’t think.

3/15/2009 06:02:00 PM  
Anonymous Mrs. G said...

I wanted to comment on Bob's point about when I became more trusting of him. Actually, when I talk to people about it, I usually say that I stopped being paranoid that he was trying to manipulate me or devalue me.

Years ago, Dr. Laura used to mention this technique on her radio show, and I found it incredibly helpful. I decided that I would give Bob the benefit of the doubt in every instance for two weeks and then see what happened. I could always go back to being a bitter and suspicious PITA, after all.

So for two weeks, no matter what Bob said, I consciously assumed that he meant it in the best possible way. "You are going to go out wearing that?!" He must be trying to help me look my best. "Don't ask me if I'm in a bad mood when you're the one who is moody." I'm sure that he is trying to help me realize that I'm not quite myself and that he would love it if I were in a good mood. "Don't blame me when it's you who doesn't want to spend time with your parents." I guess I'd better think about whether I'm blaming Bob instead of taking responsibility; maybe he doesn't want my parents to hate him.

You get the idea. The more I tried it as if it were an experiment, the more I realized he didn't mean me harm. It was quite a shock, but also a relief to realize that I was misjudging him in many cases. And that those times that he seemed most cranky, he was often reacting to me being tense and testy.

Those two weeks turned into months then years. I even was able to help many of my patients to do the same with their spouses. But I wouldn't have been able to unless I had done it first and knew what it felt like to really fear the worst. You can only try this if you have married a good man, but once you get that part down, it's amazing how easy it is for we women to misunderstand and then take offense at comments or attitudes that are often innocent or even meant to help.

I hope this makes sense. I also had a huge leap of faith to develop a relationship with God and more recently Jesus, and I'd be glad to share that. But you might have had enough of me for one day :)

Mrs. G

3/15/2009 06:05:00 PM  
Blogger Ricky Raccoon said...

"You are going to go out wearing that?!"

…later this night, Bob says, “You’re bringing that up again!?”

:-D

3/15/2009 06:19:00 PM  
Blogger Ricky Raccoon said...

Actually, Mrs. G, I’d love to hear more…

3/15/2009 06:21:00 PM  
Anonymous Petey said...

If only our trolls could learn from Mrs. G's witness! Let go and let Bob.

3/15/2009 06:33:00 PM  
Anonymous Cousin Dupree said...

Rick:

Sometimes women have a hard time with the concept that the point isn't to look good to gay men and other women.

3/15/2009 06:38:00 PM  
Blogger Ricky Raccoon said...

Honey, I don’t know what that man’s talking about.
(close one)

3/15/2009 06:40:00 PM  
Anonymous Cousin Dupree said...

Hey, why should gay men make all the decisions about what women should be wearing! It makes no sense!

3/15/2009 06:44:00 PM  
Blogger Ricky Raccoon said...

Bob, I want to tell you I like the new photo, but I wouldn’t want you to get the wrong idea.
So I’m not even going to bring it up.

3/15/2009 06:44:00 PM  
Blogger Ricky Raccoon said...

Hey, I voted for the toga party.

3/15/2009 06:45:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

Actually, Les, I was just thinking earlier that it would be awesome if we heard a lot more from you :)

Dupree,

Of course, if we let straight men have too much to say about how we dress, there's always the risk of ending up in either hookerware or a burka...

But yeah, I really really hate that gay men pretty much dominate the world of women's clothing design.

3/15/2009 06:51:00 PM  
Blogger Ricky Raccoon said...

Burka? …are we still talking about straight men?

3/15/2009 06:56:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Back in around 1980 there was a very funny piece in National Lampoon about what fashion would look like if heterosexual men were in charge. I remember one picture of a model going down the catwalk with nothing but a mattress on her back.

3/15/2009 06:57:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

I was thinking of the type who don't want anyone else looking at their woman. (Deeply unhealthy, but they're out there)

For those types, at home, it's probably still hookerware...

3/15/2009 06:59:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

*snork*

A mattress? Was she wearing a beer coaster for a hat?

3/15/2009 07:00:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

And did it come with matching knee pads?

wv says mardi gras - were beads involved?

(sorry, couldn't resist :)

3/15/2009 07:42:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

More Evan Sayet on why liberals hate what is right. I just started watching, but it's supposed to be very good.

3/15/2009 08:45:00 PM  
Blogger jwm said...

Here's a rare find. You will be most happy to have read this, even though it will take a couple of clicks to get to it.

Go over to American Thinker. My Socialist Past The article is superb, but the real gem is in the comments. Scroll down to a post by Gail S: The Law of diminishing returns vs. The Law of exponential returns. It's as Raccoonish a piece as I have ever seen.

JWM

3/15/2009 08:47:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

Julie said "Of course, if we let straight men have too much to say about how we dress, there's always the risk of ending up in either hookerware or a burka..."

Ridiculous.

There is definitely no way you'd end up wearing burkas.

3/15/2009 09:28:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

I stand corrected ;)

3/15/2009 10:01:00 PM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Gagdad Bob said...
Now that I'm thinking about it, I know that Mrs. G would agree that the key moment came when she realized that I had no interest whatsoever in controlling or devaluing her, but in helping her achieve her potential and become more free. This required a leap of faith, and now she just assumes that I'm here to help, unless proven otherwise."

Thanks, Bob. Um, do you make house calls?

Aye, I often wonder "why does she think I'm tryin' to control her?"
I've never intended to "gain power" over her in some way. I just don't think like that, so it's still somewhat of a shock when I hear it.
Perhaps I need to draw on my chin-foo to counter the "ducking Coon, flying plates" episodes. :^)

Thanks Mrs. G. for that valuable insight.

3/16/2009 06:11:00 AM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

"We had some last night, but we let Skully swab the deck, although his impulse is usually to deck the slob."

Deck the slobs with bows of folly,
FalalalalaaaalalalaHoooo. Thwack!

Damn! Now I got that song in my head! Like a song parasite or somethin'.

3/16/2009 06:16:00 AM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Heh. Ben fell asleep again. Whatta lightweight.

Now I got his account all to myself.

Never tell a privateer yer password. Or let him see you type it in. Unless you intend for him to use it.
Now where did he put that credit card?

Skully wizdum #28

3/16/2009 06:21:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

For some reason, Mrs. G thinks that you folks aren't all that interested in what she has to say, so I have to encourage her to comment. Partly it's because watching monkey boy all day long leaves her a bit mentally depleted, so she's not sure about her ability to communicate coherently to a post-four year old audience. I'll try to explain to her that Skully is like a four year old in a man's body...

3/16/2009 06:33:00 AM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Aye. I'm mostly still on the
milk n' grog diet with an occasional ribaye steak.

I liked Mrs. G.'s comment and I think I understand it:
Trust Skully, he won't run yer ship aground. I mean, someone has to pilot the ship into it's birth.

Mrs. Skully is givin' me the glassy-ayed stare. Of course she jes' woke up, so mebbe it's too much to vertrep right now.

3/16/2009 07:28:00 AM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Anyone know where I can order cheap grog online? With free shippin'?

Zounds! Those muscle relaxers must pack a whollop! Ben is out fer the count.

Doc Skully strikes again! Ha har!

3/16/2009 07:32:00 AM  
Blogger Susannah said...

"but in terms of awe before the numinous O, which tosses out scientific theories like grains of sand on the beach." I really liked that. :) Liked the whole thing, actually.

3/17/2009 09:30:00 PM  
Blogger Susannah said...

Oops, wrong post...up too late, I guess!

3/17/2009 09:31:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home