Friday, January 05, 2007

Dodging Dupree's Question

Finally, perhaps we're getting somewhere. Dupree asked what I thought was a reasonable question of Integralist. As a matter of fact, it is the same question I asked myself at a certain point around 15 years ago, and which began an inevitable transformation in me. I actually remember the moment distinctly, as I was sitting in the the exact spot where I am now, working on a paper for a psychohistorical journal.

First, the question (actually, several related questions) Dupree asked -- by the way, have you noticed a certain growth in Dupree's own level of maturity since he moved in last year? -- anyway, the question (preceded by a comment) was:

"To the extent that you politicize problems that are existential, psychological, or spiritual, you are a member of 'the left.' How is your own life going in these here United States? Are things okay for you? If not, whose fault is it? What do you need to do to turn things around?"

Integralist's response -- wholly inadequate, even evasive, I might add -- was "you may be right that I am (overly) politicizing issues that are existential, spiritual, etc. But I am only of the 'Left' in relation to folks on this board; to some of my more leftist friends (and parents), I am more right. But, as my moniker says, I like to think that my worldview embraces both Right and Left."

As you can see, he began to answer the question, but does not seriously reflect on it before pleading "all my friends do it, and besides, it's all relative. I'm to the right of them and the left of you. Therefore I'm integral."

Integral or rudderless?

He continues: "As for my life, well that is a personal question!"

Yes, exactly. We are Raccoons. We have nothing to hide. What are you, and what are you hiding?

"It is a work in progress...why do you ask?"

I won't presume to speak for Dupree, but I think I can sense what he was driving at. He wants to know if Integralist has been able to make his own life fully functional before making sweeping judgments about how to solve other people's problems. Because, depending on how you achieve -- or fail to achieve -- your potential, there is a good chance that that is going to be your "recipe" for others. How can it be otherwise? One doesn't discover the key to the universe and not share it. To the contrary, everyone is full of advice on life and how to live it -- including the most clueless and dysfunctional people who have not come close to mastering their own impulses, let alone lives -- for example, the Hollywood nitwiteratti.

Integralist shares one last banality before ending with a rhetorical question: "I will say that as I have gotten older I have become more conservative (although still a raging bleedin' heart compared to most folks here! ;). So I understand the move from Leftism 'rightward' as a kind of maturation, but my own journey has been towards integralism, not the Right. But who knows what the future will bring?"

Spot the contradiction: 1) as I have gotten older I have become more conservative, 2) I understand the move from left to right as a kind of maturation, and 3) but my own journey has been towards integralism, not the Right.

Who knows what the future will bring? Why, Dear Leader does, of course. Obviously, if the same trajectory of maturity continues, Integralist will become, like us, more of a bleeding mind conservative but continue calling it "integralism." At least until he looks down at the ground upon which he is standing, and realizes he is in a new territory that is "against his religion" -- his real religion being leftism, not integralism. Religious conversions are very painful, and mine was no exception. Like virtually everyone of my generation, I had an extremely simplistic identification with liberalism that was about as sophisticated as "four legs good, two legs bad." Long after I began to realize that two legs weren't so bad after all, I still identified myself as a four legged. Then something finally "snapped," and that was it. I looked down at the ground upon which I was standing, and suddenly realized that it wasn't the same ground as Ted Kennedy, or Howard Dean, or Nancy Pelosi -- even though, by then, I was a continent away from them! Indeed, an entire cosmos away. It just took a long time to realize it and accept it.

It reminds me of a Jewish friend. As you know, Jews vote 90% Democrat, even though the Democratic party is no longer the repository of Jewish values -- indeed, it is now, along with academia, the main repository of anti-Semitism. I told him flat out: "You're not Jewish. You're just Democrat." For it was true. I think you'll find that almost all serious Jews are conservative. Its just that most Jews are not serious about their religion, but simply have the cultural identification. I know this because I married into a family of typical Jewish anti-Semites, bless their bleeding hearts.

But I digress. A recent poll by the AP shows the irrationalism behind the leftist critique of America. (By the way, if anyone should be aware of this, it is Jews, who have prospered in America like no other group. My father-in-law, for example, has had an extraordinarily successful and culturally rich life -- largely because he has Jewish values despite the absence of Jewish religion. What is his complaint? It is not a rational complaint, because in his case, it is simply derived from scripture -- scripture for him being the editorial pages of the New York Times. His life is fine -- better than fine -- but if the Times says this is the worst economy since the great depression, then it must be true. One is tempted to say: if gaps in income are such a terrible thing, just give some of yours away until you feel comfortable again. But please, don't ask the government to take mine away at the barrel of a gun!)

But I digress again. The AP poll shows the dramatic contrast between the personal satisfaction of the average American versus how they feel about the nation at large -- which, you might say, is the contrast between the ground under their feet and the false picture that is relentlessly pounded into us by our "two legs bad" MSMistry of Truth. The survey simply asked people how the year 2006 had been for them and their family. A remarkable 76% responded that it had been a good one. However, when asked the same question about the country, 58% saw the year in a negative light. How can this be? How to reconcile the contradiction? How does the personal 76% plunge to collective 42%? Again, partly it has to do with the unremitting negativity of the liberal media and its political action wing, the Democratic party.

It is a truism that if this were a Democratic administration the media would be ceaselessly touting the remarkable economic achievement of the past four years -- high employment, low inflation, soaring stock market, reduced taxes with record high government receipts, and a diminishing deficit which, in any event, is historically below average as a percentage of GNP. The percentage of Americans who own their own homes is at an all time high, and even the size of today's typical home is larger than ever. Leisure time -- a key component of Slack -- is at historically high levels, as is the percentage of household expenditures used to buy nonessential items (another key measure of Slack). "Poor" people today have things that were undreamt of even by the wealthy of just 30 years ago -- including this here internet. In a remarkable editorial in the WSJ, Brian Wesbury writes,

"In 1982, Time magazine’s Person of the Year was a machine -- the personal computer. Twenty-four years later, after being empowered by the computer, the 2006 Person of the year is -- 'You'.... The most interesting thing about this progression is that it did not result from consumer demand. Demand does not create wealth. Consumers were not marching in the streets 30 years ago complaining about the fact that there was no way to share their daily activities and innermost thoughts with thousands of their closest friends. People were not begging for personal computers, email, broadband, the Web, or blogs. Entrepreneurs, futurists, scientists and the very early adopters birthed this technology: Today’s average consumer was either clueless or still in diapers.

"Even though some of this technology existed in the 1970s, the economic environment of those times was not conducive to its rapid development or deployment. Tax rates were high and regulation was stifling. This held back innovation, creativity and productivity. To offset this malaise, many macroeconomists counted on the Fed to hold interest rates low by printing more money, which only stoked inflation. The resulting stagflation created a lousy environment for new inventions.

"In the early 1980s, tax rates were cut, government interference in the economy was reduced, and the Fed followed a tight money policy. As stagflation was cured, entrepreneurs got to work. In garages, basements and cinderblock buildings, today’s technology promptly came to life even before its full usefulness was understood. It took more than a decade for the Internet and email to become real consumer products. It was the supply of this technology that fueled its growth, not the demand for it."

Not the government, not leftists, not the relentlessly negative MSM, but the individual creativity of people who simply looked at the ground beneath them and took it from there. In 1980, if we had adopted leftist "solutions" to their perceived "problems" we would never have developed the remarkably innovative solutions to our problems -- many of which did not even yet exist. Rather, real progress would have been strangled in its crib.

For example, my mother had type I diabetes, as do I. Her's was extremely difficult to control -- she ultimately suffered a stroke -- while mine is relatively easy, so long as I am strictly disciplined, in the manner of a yeomanly Beaglehole. Imagine if, in 1980, to make my mother's life "easier," we had "compassionately" imposed socialized medicine on the land. This would have undoubtedly stifled the remarkable developments that have made my own diabetes so easy to manage. Perhaps today I would have "free" healthcare for my diabetes -- except that it would be the same lousy treatment that was available to my mother. No thanks! Yes, my health insurance is expensive, but I also know that the ongoing innovation of the free market will, at the very least, lead to an external pump that will be able to mimic the pancreas within the next five years or so. I do not want "free" health care at the expense of future innovation. Liberals talk about tax cuts "stealing from our children." To the contrary, if I selfishly demand socialized medicine today, it will in all liklihood delay an actual cure for diabetes should Future Leader ever develop it.

But the left, because it is not rational but a secular religion -- a raging bleeding heart instead of a compassionate bleeding mind -- never learns. It is a hateful religion, full of bile, venom and envy. Just listen to the tone of this recent piece by Bill Moyars, For America's Sake. He says that conervatism is just a "Trojan horse" that "disgorged" its

"hearty band of ravenous predators masquerading as a political party of small government, fiscal restraint and moral piety." There is "no end to the number of bodies" that neoconservatives "are prepared to watch pile up on behalf of illusions that can't stand the test of reality..." Contrary to the direct testimony of the vast majority of Americans who say that life is good for them, the real story of America is "the anonymous, disquieting daily struggle of ordinary people, including the most marginalized and vulnerable Americans but also young workers and elders and parents, families and communities, searching for dignity and fairness against long odds in a cruel market world.... Everywhere you turn there's a sense of insecurity grounded in a gnawing fear that freedom in America has come to mean the freedom of the rich to get richer even as millions of Americans are dumped from the Dream.... [B]ecause of the great disparities in wealth, the 'shining city on the hill' has become a gated community whose privileged occupants, surrounded by a moat of money and protected by a political system seduced with cash into subservience, are removed from the common life of the country. The wreckage of this abdication by elites is all around us."

Misery and cruelty everywhere you turn. Insecurity and wreckage all around us.

"In many ways, the average household is generally worse off today than it was thirty years ago, and the public sector that was a support system and safety net for millions of Americans across three generations is in tatters."

Really? Is this even possible? Of course not. It's just a false religion. He even says so, blasphemously comparing the struggle to impose leftism on America to "the mustard seed to which Jesus compared the Kingdom of God, nurtured from small beginnings in a soil thirsty for new roots, our story has been a long time unfolding."

So again we return to Dupree's observation: To the extent that you politicize problems that are existential, psychological, or spiritual, you are a member of "the left."

And to his question: How is your own life going in these here United States? Are things okay for you? If not, whose fault is it? What do you need to do to turn things around?

Integralist, we're waiting. Tell us about the ground under your feet. And remember, you're only as sick as your secrets -- irrespective of whether they are personal or political.


Related this morning on Dr. Sanity: For the Children, So They Never Have to Grow Up.


Anonymous said...


Good article (have you ever written a lousy one?) -hmm potential for April 1st.

Anyway, as you've pointed out, and in some ways was pointed out the other day by someone, the left seem to be stuck on the 1920's model of their classical ideology.

This makes me wonder about the whole mechanics of why one would stay in such a stuck spot in terms of awareness or understanding.

It reminds me of my friend, Rose, who was an Art Major, and her Professor wanted her to write a term paper on "The Marxist Interpretation of Baroque Art".

Why bother?

Baroque Art, like other things, sits withint its own historical context. Understanding it as such, has greater value than a reinterpretation or revision.

So whats the deal (behaviorally) do you think with this "need" or intense desire amongst those we call "the left" to severely distort reality?

At face value, they seem to wish to not be interfered with. That is, the ones I have encountered up close and personal, are juveniles, albeit old as me, or older.

So it is like some kind of rebellion, and personal salve for the self image as far as I've encountered it.

Your thoughts?


PS -heard this guy on the radio this morning, this sounds good:

The Tyranny of Tolerance: A Sitting Judge Breaks the Code of Silence to Expose the Liberal Judicial Assault

by Robert H. Jr Dierker

Hardcover: 288 pages
Publisher: Crown Forum (December 26, 2006)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 030733919X
ISBN-13: 978-0307339195

Anonymous said...

Bob: The problem with the left is not that they make the personal political, but that they make the political personal.

As Pete Wood points out in A Bee In The Mouth, a book that's getting a lot of (forgive me) buzz around NRO and its readers, the Left seem to believe that if they can feel more deeply and react more instinctively and honestly, then that makes them more right about everything. Their cause and their sometimes-brutal passion for it legitimize each other, so to speak. They are passionate (and angry) because they know they are right, and they know they are right because they are passionate.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Sanity's post leads through links to Van der Leun and this:

The anti-semitic propaganda in these tales intended for children in pre-war Germany sounds suspiciously like Moyer's (If one reads the entirety of that link as well), and indeed the left's vilification of the capitalist 'haves,' does it not?

Anonymous said...

"if gaps in income are such a terrible thing, just give some of yours away until you feel comfortable again. But please, don't ask the government to take mine away at the barrel of a gun!)

Sorry Bob, I stopped reading here because this was and exremely profound point that most liberals seem to miss...

Anonymous said...

>>the dramatic contrast between the personal satisfaction of the average American versus how they feel about the nation at large -- . . . and the false picture that is relentlessly pounded into us by our "two legs bad" MSMistry of Truth<<

I'm not sure if the sense of existential malaise that the average American feels these days can entirely be ascribed to the leftist negativity of the MSM, though the MSM surely has its impact.

"Apocalypse" is something of an undercurrent meme - even shows up in movie title - which I believe issues from not only 9//11 and the threat of other, worse terrorist acts, but the Indonesian tsunami, Katrina, and to a certain extent, the political polarization which is on daily view.

Bob has even posted on the odd, turbulent dreams that OCers and those of their spiritual ilk tend to have as of late. All this adds up, I think, to some truly revolutionary spiritual change in the works, something that runs far deeper than what people generally might believe - or might even be capable of believing at present.

It may be that the "average American", (indeed the average citizen of the world), experiencing this psychic unease, will tend to ascribe his or her feeling to a more tangible "political" cause, a tendency abetted by the negativity-obsessed MSM, of course.

I would describe this "existential malaise" as a sense of having one's consensus reality undermined, of having foundations swept aside - slowly at first, but at an increasing tempo. Doesn't exactly make for a sense of stability, particularly for those whose foundations are false, ie., not rooted in spiritual ideas.

NoMo said...

Bob - Just announced your coondidacy and already dodging questions...nice.

Anonymous said...

Ah yes, the $64,000 question for young Grasshoppah.

Leave now and float eternally in the clouded emotional delusions and voodoo solutions of leftism.
Stick around to eventually ascertain cause and effect reality and the self evident solutions to problems which arise as a result of seeing things clearly here on planet earth while at the same time distinguishing the leftist screw-job put upon him by Mommy, Daddy and “friends”. Then, discovering the hard but ultimately fulfilling adventure of growing from integralist metrosexualism into manhood.
The choice is yours, choose wisely. :)

Anonymous said...

And DuPree is becoming somewhat of a wuss compared to the gator wrasslin', hard drinkin' SOB he was before he floated out of the swamps and ended up at your place.
The guy won't even go catfish noodlin' with me anymore.

Anonymous said...

I have a question for Integralist and those like him who've commented here in recent days about our narrow view of moral behavior or what have you -

Integralist - assuming you are familiar with the ten commandments and at least vaguely with Jesus' POV - exactly which of those rules of behavior do you disagree with and just exactly how far do you feel you need to go deviancy wise to feel "free" to do whatever you want?

Anonymous said...

Integralist metrosexualism!

The horror.

Anonymous said...

Bob, I'd like to hear more about your spouse; what you've said about her father/family is interesting.

How does your specialty (verticality) mix with monogamy? What are the specs for the best marriage?

I'm writing a book called "Monogamy by the Numbers," the premise being that there are standards in the conduct of love (the Truth of Love, as it were), and I'd like to hear your take on Man, Woman, and God in bed together.

Anonymous said...

Brilliant, again.

Buried in the middle of a paragraph was this fine diamond: "Religious conversions are very painful, and mine was no exception."

That's the key that unlocks the Big Door. Spiritual rebirth is the most difficult task we are faced with, and the only way to touch the word behind the world. We are asked to get out of our own way, yet can't do it ourselves. Catch-22.

Enter grace, which changes everything. I for one cannot imagine making sense of this world without having been touched by that amazing grace. It's like a new set of eyes.

I have no idea whether our friend Integralist (who reminds me of a character from Pilgrim's Progress, btw) has had such a life-altering event, but I suspect it's still pending. I see him as climbing over the wall into the path from time to time, getting a taste of the Way, arguing a bit, then retreating back over the wall. One day he will figure out that all it takes is to come around and enter through the gate. Then raccoons will look a lot different.

To quote St. Francis once again -

Don't change the world; change worlds.

Anonymous said...

"a support system and safety net for millions of Americans across three generations is in tatters."

OK, just who sponsored the brutal commercial&aesthetic neighborhood-leveling land-grab of Urban Renewal? Who embraced the various sexual revolutions that leave the expectations of "family" in shreds? Who initially lionized the drug-and-hiphop culture of degradation?

Not to mention the dark psychological fallout of "diversity" and identity politics.

I just finished a book that is the polar opposite of Integral's large-chunk Evasive-Generalist monologue, Michael Lewis' The Blind Side: Evolution of a Game. Read it for the fierceness and results-orientation of sports, as well as values, and you will see how the cutting edge of diligent and creative help comes from individual compassion and initiative, and no help at all comes from lumbering big government. Get on board, Little Children!

Yeah, if you're uncomfortable that some have more than others, go do active personal work to share your resources. Start with generous tipping. Automatic-withdrawal contributions to disaster relief. Figure it out. To tax-and-seize and thus divert mine, is like my recent delirious demand that the household heat be turned up to 90 degrees: Poor me, I've got the flu! No, blankets and hot-water-bottle wisdom of cooler heads must prevail.

Feel better soon!

Anonymous said...

Well, Bob asked Integralist about whether his life was going well or not, and I will chime in that the question is more difficult to answer than it might seem.

Take for instance my acquaintance Charles--wears no shoes (owns none), no possessions, lives in the woods somewhere and camps out in-situ. Never has any cash.
Is always in a good mood and seems happy. Cheerful, energetic, spontaneous, at peace.

Myself: Master's degree in English,a great girlfriend, money in the bank, comfortable home, easy job, lots of friends and family, plenty of leisure time--and I'm, well not unhappy, but unsettled. Nervous. Well, yes, unhappy.

I blog looking for an answer to my "problem." Or, specifically, why I have a problem at all where none seems to exist.

I'm "left" without a clue; now I reach out to God to show me the way.

Anonymous said...


"Man, Woman and God in Bed Together!?"

You stole this title -- not to mention the idea -- from me, and you know it. I am prepared to defend the Beaglehole honor in court. You have not heard the last of me.

River Cocytus said...

anonymous- fitting, as God said:

"I am the beginning and the end."

God is the end to all things, and thus no thing beside Him can be an end unto itself.

Sue talked about 'calling' yesterday in a comment. Doing what one is called by God to do is Eudaimonia; for it is living for God whom is an end to all things, rather than living for things -- which have no end at all.

"For the eye is never full of seeing, nor the ear of hearing."

Anonymous said...


The answer is obvious.
Take your shoes off and go live in the woods!

Anonymous said...

Pepper dear -

The Colonel once attempted to write a book entitled Man and Woman and God In Bed Together At Yale, an endeavor that died on the vine when it was pointed out to the Colonel that the title bore a certain resemblance to that of a book by WF Buckley.

Oh, do be a good lad and take the Colonel up on his court challenge.

Anonymous said...

Your comments reminded me of Jesus' words: And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. Matt. 24:6
It always struck me that he is referring as much to the "hearing" about bad things as the things themselves. It may be what you say is true, but not yet. Meantime, be not troubled, which I take to mean that it does no good to be troubled about the "world" since that is in God's hands.

Anonymous said...

I agree, Joseph, be not troubled.

On the other hand, trust in Allah, but tether your camel.

I've got my camel tethered in the garage. Camels are really smelly, by the way.

Anonymous said...

for Beaky the Parrot -

Van Harvey said...

Anonymous said "...I blog looking for an answer to my "problem." Or, specifically, why I have a problem at all where none seems to exist."

I'm curious here, how about a philosophical diagnostic test:
Question #1 - What do you Value? Not like or enjoy or get all exerted over, but Value?
Question #2 - Do you consider Truth to be graspable... is there anything about which you can say this is True or this is False?

If you can't say that something is true, that you believe in it (this doesn't have to be religous), how can you Value anything? If there's nothing you Value, you won't care about anything being True or False. And if that's the case, then why would you feel Happy? Happy about what? For what reason?

You can have all kinds of cool stuff, but stuff can only bring about ever reducing pleasurable sensations, for instance Marriages based on Looks and Sex are notoriously brief (check latest news from Hollywood for an example), Marriages based on Love, Friendship, Interest in the person and what they have to say lasts for life (Gerald & Betty Ford married, what, 58 years?).

It's only conceptually & spiritually that you can understand, value and experience True satisfaction; and that requires believing that Truth exists and can be understood by you. With that psychic foundation, then your Values, stemming from a respect for and cultivation of Truth and Virtue, can return Value back into your experience of life, the fruition of which is Happiness.

I don't believe there's a short cut.

Course we could try and give Pelosi & Co. pass a minimum Happiness law - ought to be as effective as a minimum wage law. Such spiritual economics has the same basis in reality.

robinstarfish said...

nancy dons her crown
george thinks i will bury you
pound that veto shoe

Anonymous said...

>>Marriages based on Love, Friendship, Interest in the person and what they have to say lasts for life (Gerald & Betty Ford married, what, 58 years?)<<

Right on the jingle, I think, Vanz.

I might add to that mix "shared sense of spiritual mission".

Van Harvey said...

Willy said..."I might add to that mix "shared sense of spiritual mission"."

Good point. Although... hmm, are we talking creed or quality? My guess would be that if in quality they weren't in the same ballpark they wouldn't get past friends to Love; on the other hand I could see two who did make it through past friends to Love but whose creeds (say Irish Catholic & Irish Protestant in the '70's, or [insert opposing creeds here]) were opposed - though arguing often, prospering all the same?

NoMo said...

will / van - I'll throw in mutual respect and commitment.

Anonymous said...

Life is good, very good.

NoMo said...

...and humility...

Anonymous said...

Vanaman -

I don't think creed and quality are mustually exclusive, but, yes, quality, depth, insight into the shared spiritual mission would be paramount, I believe.

One not even has to subscribe to a creed per se to have a share-able sense of spiritual mission, obviously.

I think a shared sense of spiritual mission trumps all the usual "compatibility" factors by a mile. Obviously, some cultural affinities enter into a good relationship, but I think the real dynamic element of a marriage, the thing that keeps it constantly renewed and ever-expanding in creativity is the sense of shared spiritual mission.

In this respect, a relationship between two people who don't have all that much in common re creeds, talents, interests, etc. might even be better than one that does - the sense of shared spiritual mission would then be fed by differing perspectives, which would give each partner a new vista, new insights as to how their spiritual mission play out in the world.

NoMo said...

glasr - and my 2 yr old grandson would respond, "Life IS very good, pa."

Anonymous said...

Nomo, I think if a relationship is really based on shared sense of spiritual mission, the respect, commitment, and humility in the relationship will be assumed. There will always be challenges with respect to these things, of course, but the challenges will be met - if there is a genuine sense of shared spiritual mission.

Van Harvey said...

WillybillyfofillyBannanaRamaNoNillyFeeFieFoFilly - Willy said "...I think a shared sense of spiritual mission trumps all the usual "compatibility" factors by a mile."

(Had to reach back 40 years for that one, even my fingertips are giggling after transcribing it!)

I agree. Even if aquired after meeting, once that understanding is created, it becomes foundational and all else is built upon it.

NoMo said...

Will - My wife and I were married 3 weeks after we met -- 30 years and 3 fine sons ago. So, until our very different spiritual senses converged after a few years (only by God's grace, I would add), mutual respect and commitment (and strong attraction) pretty much carried the day. To your point, though, had that convergence not occurred, there is a strong likelihood that we would not have made it.

Anonymous said...

Bob - great post again - it goes back once again to Ann Coulter's idea that liberalism is a religion, and that, being so, it is more based on faith in things that can't be proven than on real evidence. The fatal flaw of that religion is that it is godless; i.e, without any central source of right and wrong, wisdom, or inner life, hence the title of the Coulter book in which she makes this assertion. Ann certainly takes a sarcastic and tongue-in-cheek approach to her subject matter, but her barbs are more often on target than not.

ximeze: Thanks so much for the well wishes - yes I am indeed back, after recovering from a third abdominal surgery to repair an incisional hernia caused by the previous two, which would account for my long absence.

luke: "Marxist Interpretation of Baroque Art" - ROFL, dude. Why stop there? Why not have "The Existentalist Interpretation of WB Sitcoms"?

I really, naiively I guess, thought better of Bill Moyers, but I can see that he is a purveyor of the same excrement as Michael Moore and co; he just makes it sound more intelectual. The only Mustard Seed I can see is his brain, and the only horse that I can see is the rear end of the one that Moyer's diatribe brings to mind.

Hey, was anyone else out there nauseated by Pelosi's speech yesterday? Did anyone else hear "I am Woman" playing in the background, or was that just my own mind paraite? If we would have a female as Speaker, I nominate Joan!

Anonymous said...

felonious fergus ~

followed the link for beaky. cool, huh?

ximeze ~

thanks for the description of some of beaky's culinary habits. she isn't spoiled, is she? of course not.

i acquired a gray many years ago as partial payment for a backgammon game gone awry for my opponent who doubled once too often. unfortunately, a bronco ripped from a tree in africa. never warmed to my gentle ministrations, forever mistrustful. took food from me only when he was hungry, but that was it. an eventual escapee who outwitted friends caring for him during my vacation. it was in a semi-tropical clime so i like to think he survives.

they were devastated and replaced him with a young, already tame, hand fed yellow nape who said 'hello' when we first met!
'lucy' had free reign of my apartment for many years, surviving a theft and then was stolen again. i couldn't bear to get another.

Anonymous said...

Yes, I did not mean to imply one should leave just anything to God, for God clearly expects us to act where we can, all the while remaining untroubled. So, tether your camel, or, perhaps more up to date, change your engine oil.

Anonymous said...

The working presumption of prior unity--rather than the search for unity--is the right and true context for all human exchanges. If there is the working presumption of prior unity, then ego-surrendering cooperation and tolerance make perpetual peace. If there is no working presumption of prior unity, then human interactions become a mere game of competitive egos. And that competitive game is, now, on the verge of destroying humankind and the Earth itself.
That competitive, and, at last, constantly confrontational ego-game inevitably produces a situation in which EVERYBODY is trying to dominate EVERYBODY else. That relentlessly competitive and confrontational situation is a lunatic-asylum game that, ultimatelt, threatens the very survival of life on Earth.
The entire world is now on the verge of absolute destruction--and for no justifiable reasomn whatsoever. The Measure of Truth is not being brought to bear on this situation. Therefore, there is, aparently, no readily applicable means for controlling the madness. It appears there are only competing crowds of factionalists, each crowd advocating its local :absolute: in political or religious or whatever terms. Nothing--no Truth of Greater Reality--is presumed to be senior to the local beliefs, claims, and demands of "Everyman".

The human world has become a kind of insane sporting event, at which people threaten one another and carry on in an insane manner--something like the gladiatorial contests in ancient Rome. It is madness. And TV also plays and produces that insanity. Everywhere, people and groups look to get attention by getting themselves on TV--often through the exercise of rotten and demented violence, and through the exercise of an altogether aggravated disposition. The human world of nowtime is a lunatic asylum and absurd soap opera. That absurd soap opera actually controls the destiny and experience of the total world of human beings--and the world soap opera is, in its root disposition, totally indifferent to human life, and the world altogether.

The absurd soap opera ego celebrated by Time's person of the year rules!!
Beavis & Butthead rules.
Beavis & Butthead are really "doing" America.

Anonymous said...

Bob, once again you assume the worst. One of the main problems with posting here is (once again) exemplified in your post: you refuse to read what I am actually saying, instead using me as a Leftist straw man. Talk about selective comprehension! In the process you miss the ways in which we actually agree, or what we do share.

I didn't as much "evade" Dupree's question as I gave a cursory response. There are a few reasons for this--and they aren't the ones you speculate (by assuming the worst; where is your spirit of generosity, Bob?).

The main reason is that I think ideas should be entertained on their own merit without external cridentials, whether age, race, career, marital status, parental status, education, etc. I haven't shared any of that--although there has been speculation. Some folks here assume I am "young" (whatever that means) because I am not as "wise" as they are; you and Dupree imply that my life is going poorly because I don't see the world as you do.

I am not opposed to sharing personal information, and am generally quite open about my life, both internal and external, but only in situations where I feel that something I share won't be used against me. I don't feel that this is such a place.

Now while I gave Dupree a cursory answer, I gave him an honest one: my life is a work in progress. There is evolution, there is deepening, life becomes more and more saturated with Mystery and Love. I can certainly say things are "better" than they were a few years ago, or moreso a decade ago, but there is still so much to explore, become, surrender to...

But you also have to understand my perspective: I don't hold a final end-state as a goal, a conversion to a right way of thinking and being, a complete (and static) enlightenment; rather, I value a continual evolution, deepening and surrender. As Chogyam Trungpa said, the path is the goal.

Anonymous said...

Jenny, I don't have a problem with the ten commandments or Jesus's teachings, far from it. What I have a problem with is a narrow, literal, or "one-note" interpretation of those teachings. Furthermore, I think there needs to be flexibility depending upon context.

Remember that those commandments were formulated within a specific culture and received by a specific individual. Any spiritual vision or revelation is always translated and interpreted into a cultural and personal context. Where Christians see "Christ" as Jesus of Nazareth, Tibetan Buddhists experience/see what may be the very same entity/consciousness as Avalokitesvara, the Bodhisattva of Compassion.

If this is a hard pill to swallow, just look at the wide hermeneutic variation within Christianity.

Does that answer your question?

Anonymous said...

I don't think "the path was the goal" for Chogyam Trungpa. I'm pretty sure booze and young women were the goal. You gotta work at it to to die of alcoholic cirrhosis when you're only 47.

Ah, the heroes of the new age.... It never ceases to amaze....

Anonymous said...


Heard the Pelosi speech, had to turn it off mid-stream before I puked. I'm not really big fan of Coulter (her books are kewl) but would rather hear her speak than Nancy anyday. Am trying to keep flashbacks from rising as I type this. Shades of Sheehan, Hitlery, Wellesley (UGH!), "I AM Woman Hear Me Roar" 70s Music, Cher, Jane Fonda, Burning-bra protests, Norma Rae movie, Liberated Women Unite, Womens Rites blah freaking blah spinning in my head. Years of bs they tried to shovel in my head on what it meant to be a liberated WO-MAN (WithOut-Man) makes me wanna hurl & grab the nearest bucket.

Have to go rest now......oh, the is spinning...can't finish reading G-BOBs blog...They wonder why I Hate the 70s! Luved the Go-Go Boots!

- Princess -

Anonymous said...


"To the extent that you politicize problems that are existential, psychological, or spiritual, you are a member of "the left." -"
Yes, and as Eric Hoffer and Eric Voeglin so persuasively put it, the "true believer" in a gnostic heaven on earth, tends to make earth a hell while disavowing heaven. But aren't "true believers" as Integralist points out, found on both the right and the left? Could it be that Coulter and Limbaugh might just have personal "issues" (interesting how glibly reference to personal-psychological problems
is so often designated now by a political term) which their
passionate, no, let's say fanatical, "conservative" views express, albeit symbolically? I know that, in your leftist days, you wrote on this subject, castigating conservativiam itself as psychopathological. Being psychohistorically minded, I read your articles (on Buckley and Limbaugh) with great interest. But clearly they were flawed, not only by acceptance of the wildly speculative dogmas of Lloyd DeMause, but more importantly also by using psychological insight to attack, polemically, from a sharply partisan leftist viewpoint. Could it be that, like David Horowitz, your current one-sided, sharply partisan animus against the left relates to an inner battle that has yet to be won?

Anonymous said...

The narcissistic new age hermeneutical theological all-purpose loophole question is always:

"What would Jesus do if he were me."

Works every time.

Anonymous said...

Uncle Carbuncle, Thank You for your post. It quite revived me! I love what you wrote! Keen, Very Keen! You Rock! :D

- Princess -

Gagdad Bob said...


Could be. But I personally don't think so.

The thinking of my earlier days was flawed for at least four reasons: 1) bad ideas pursued with all of my native intelligence, 2) no real familiarity with, or appreciation of, the good ideas that disproved my bad ideas, 3) little in the way of personal gnosis, at least not assimilated and interiorized in any systematic way, and 4) an egoic desire to be published and to be respected by other scholars in a community that is almost exclusively leftist.

Anonymous said...

That was his private life. Don't forget he did say alot of good things. ;)

Anonymous said...

Who or what does Integralist surrender to?

I keep hearing you say you "evolve, surrender and deepen" To What or Whom do you surrender and serve? To Mystery as you call it?

Seems to me you surrender and serve only self. You serve no higher being or law than your self.

Your life becomes "saturated with mystery and love?" You think your behavior here to be loving? It has certainly been a mystery. Your posts and behaviors here in reality speak otherwise. You would clue into reality more often than your denial allows if you would divest your self of it.

Why do you think it is that most here, except you, continue to identify your self with the Left though you protest vociferously? Ask your self the question. The answer might help you deepen your supposed surrender, to grow in love and evolve if you have courage to embrace honest answers in opposition to your avoidance of such.

Anonymous said...

Wisely you do not name your camel, for as Clint Eastwood said, you don't name something you might have to eat.

Anonymous said...


Not to put words in Bob's mouth but perhaps there's a little atonement goin' on?

ximeze said...

Thanks! Very Cool

Did not know about that one & Beaky loves to have new stuff to reseach. She eye-balled the photo, leaned waaay over to check it out & then settled back on my shoulder, once she realized the webcam was not on & that could not be Her.

No, not pampered at all. She had fun just now, looking at all the photos of Greys we checked out. Now she's over in her nite-cage, grinding her beak. Loved it.

Are you familiar with Alex, subject of "The Alex Studies"?
Google that, or Irene Maxine Pepperberg (author & researcher), get lots of hits, with lots of links. Have a copy & read it when it first came out, thought it was really cool, but wanted a family member, not a reseach target.

Zoot, how horrible, the 2time bird-snatch! Don't think I'd be able to do it again either.

After 15yrs of companioning a Blue Fronted Amazon, my parents retired, sold up & spent the next 20yrs traveling. Of course, Pedro needed a stable place, so a home had to be found. Fortunately, this was Brazilia & Dad's driver was a bird guy, with really great set-ups at his home.

We heard later that Pedro was the only one who got to live inside with the family, got to watch TV (soccer games) & listen to the radio - tuned to Opera, just for him, because the bird had learned from Dad, a love of Classical Music. Would go nuts for Soprano Arias, whistling & la,la,la-ing along, barely missing any notes of an aria he knew.

Mom got a chance to tell Beverly Sills, at a reception, that our Amazon LOVED her singing.
Bubbles was NOT amused! no sense of humor, I guess.

Now, some 25yrs later, Mom still can't talk about the hand-over, I'll bet she made my Dad do it.

Anonymous said...


Please explain the different contexts you propose for the varied meanings of the 10 commandments.

I chose this not as I am a Fundy, but as they are simple statements and easy to juxtapose.


Anonymous said...

Luke, OK, I'll start with a couple:

I am the Lord your God; you shall have no other gods before Me.

If we take this literally, then "God" is the Judeo-Christian deity, Yahweh. If we open our interpretation, "God" is a being/consciousness, a Oneness, that is seen and symbolized by virtually every culture in different ways, in the case of ancient Jews, Yahweh.

The second part of that commandment does not mean "no other gods before the Christian God," but "no other gods before the One" (that appears to different cultures--and individuals--in different forms).

You shall not make for yourself an idol.

This is pretty straightforward: don't worship the "appearance," worship the "essence." Don't confuse the cultural version with the universal one.

How's that? Do you want some more? ;)

NoMo said...

integralist - You're clearly not getting the help you need here...perhaps you should look elsewhere/upwhere. But, get help.

Anonymous said...

Integral or Rudderless? hmmm...I hope Integralist is not Integral in the same sense that it’s wielded in the copy of Aurobindo’s Integral Yoga that I have, and would still like to get to. This inane pitch to hunt and gather (integrate?) culturally-based k’s to realize and define O is getting oh-so old and giving cause for some serious late-night vertical hunger.

River Cocytus said...

Integralist: Idols go far deeper than that. An Idol is an antechrist, which is anything that seeks to replace the position occupied by God.

So if God says, "I will send you a comforter", then God is your comfort. In this way, any way that you seek to comfort yourself outside of God becomes idolatry.

Thus knowing who The Lord Thy God is, is essential to obeying the other commandments.

The Truth of it is all-interlocking, but one must be willing to assume that 'Yahweh' is not just the cultural 'God' of the Israelites; but in fact an understanding of the True and only God, or 'O', the Oneness, as Bob would put it.

In fact, Yahweh, Jehovah, Elohim, (however you wish to refer to him as) is the One God. The essence that is anterior to nature, and whose nature is essential.

The commandments were NOT formulated, but rather, spoken to Moses by God. This is consistent, as the Bible itself was not 'handed' to men by God, but rather part and parcel was revealed throughout the ages. (Paul notes this.)

God is in effect trying to say, "These are the essential commandments."

Christ splits them, or integrates them rather, into 2 - the first 5 (including honor thy mother and father) go under 'Love God with all...' and 5-10 go under 'Love thy neighbor...'.

The issue is that Christianity is revealed, and whole, and has real power, and creates rebirth, and is in its very nature different than any natural religion. There is no other Christ!

Until you see this you will be forced to spout falsehoods about Christianity/Judaism, for instance that the Commandments were 'formulated'. The Torah, which is one of the most reliable historical documents, contradicts you. So, what will it be? What if the 10 really were spoken to Moses by God, and he carved them (in their own language) into those stone tablets (remember, he had to do it twice, since he flipped out and broke the first ones.)

John said:

"But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him."

Him is Christ. Both Literal (Jesus), Spiritual (the Son), Metaphysical (The Logos) and so forth. But God is prior to all things, so you get to God by cutting away the excess, not by infinite pluralism.

By the way, interesting juxtaposition:

Carbunkle says:
"That competitive, and, at last, constantly confrontational ego-game inevitably produces a situation in which EVERYBODY is trying to dominate EVERYBODY else."

Integralist says next (though not in reply):
"I am not opposed to sharing personal information, and am generally quite open about my life, both internal and external, but only in situations where I feel that something I share won't be used against me."

-- Yes, that is what it is about for you, isn't it?

Anonymous said...

UNman's secret identity revealed, (thanks to Political Diary and AtlasShrugged):

"Andrew Cuomo, the son of former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo and the state's new attorney general, certainly has a different conception of his office from the traditional one. Following on the activist heels of his predecessor Eliot Spitzer -- now the state's governor -- Mr. Cuomo has announced he is naming top deputies to be in charge of "social justice" and "economic justice." Never before have such offices been created in any state attorney general's office.

Mr. Cuomo's move is a clear sign he plans to align himself with a wing of the Democratic Party that has adopted such loaded terms as a cover for a philosophy of redistribution and class warfare.

As the late Nobel Prize-winning economist F.A. Hayek noted, social justice is in the eye of the beholder. When that beholder is the top prosecutor for the state, with the power of prosecutorial discretion at his disposal, citizens should grab their wallets and their liberties, because both may be in jeopardy."

*shudder!* Eschew evil, chil'ren. Don't entertain it for a minute or else this is what you'll get.

Anonymous said...

I don't understand the abuse toward Integralist. My read has him behaving civilly; his biggest "offense" here is that he doesn't share Bob's ideas from the outset, and doesn't seem to be led easily from his current position to the ones espoused here.

If this crowd has some spiritual IQ (verticality), why isn't it in evidence here? Is it because Integralist has made a few jibes, behaved badly at times? He's one against many! Of course he behaves badly at times. As did most of you, to hear you recall your own "leftist" days.

From my perspective, there is too much ego defense and too little light in action. When I am feeling "enlightened", I have no need to defend my knowing to those who feel differently. That is a characteristic of that gnosis. The line that I have seen posted here often, that "well so-and-so came here and was hurling insults, so I (we) have a right to act in kind" shouldn't work for anyone here. But does it? I think gut checks are needed on both sides of this argument.

For me, I read with interest here that my own spiritual truths should come complete with a specific set of politics too. I have never considered that before, as none of my spiritual teachers seemed all that interested in politics. I am understanding more, particularly from reading the comments section in the past week because of Integralist's questions.

However coming from a place of spirit, these viewpoints are hard to digest when accompanied by the anger and hatred and ego of Joan of Arg, of Princess spirit, of Luke, of River C, to name only a few instances & personalities guilty of this behavior. Van, you asked a question of integralist, regarding what he valued. I value understanding and peace, and the fruits it brings. I understand better through reading here that there is a necessary side to strength and anger. But I don't feel any spiritual necessity for the kind of anger and hatred directed toward someone who is obviously seeking, else he would not be here. I see only a different side of the same ego-blindness they seem to hate.

And in writing this, I realize that I try to direct my strength toward the battle I fight daily, moment-to-moment: the war between flesh and spirit. That's an internal one, and when my battles spill out of me toward others, I can only smile at my lesson, and dive back inside. It has nothing to do with you.

Thank you Gagdad Bob for hosting this kind of dialogue.

Nova said...


I know a number of people like you who are serene, spiritually oriented men and women. They are very good and decent people and I have learned much from them.

But we live in the real world where action counts. Political action affects millions of lives directly. One cannot achieve enlightenment when one is dead of malaria at age 1. "Well-intentioned" leftists and greens rigorously suppressed the use of DDT for indoor spraying in Africa for several decades, all the while knowing that this resulted in vastly higher rates of malaria, and literally millions of dead children. This is profoundly evil. Spirituality cannot evolve in a vacuum. We must resist evil where we can, and atheistic leftism is demonstrably wrong, and often evil, in virtually every way that counts.

Perhaps if you knew more about the politics of the Left--about the 150+ million slaughtered by leftists in the 20th century--you would find it less comfortable in your peaceful bubble.

Anonymous said...

I'm harmless, Windblown. Just not... blown about by the wind.


Lisa said...

Everyone has to admit, at least to themselves, that the rebuttal or what some would call abuse, is one of the most interesting parts of the comments. It would be very boring not to mention unrealistic if every comment was the same, lovey-dovey, and agreeable. A cyber-verbal smackdown is needed once in a while from both ends. If that's the worst thing that you encounter today, consider yourself fortunate and be grateful you don't have to deal with real ones.

Anonymous said...

Windblown speaks and answers for Integralist as he Is Integralist yet again. Integralist gives himself away even when he's hiding. Such are the foibles of hardcore narcissists.

Windbag, whining about justice when you've violated others and given none to them earns no respect for your falsely claimed victimhood. Readers weren't born yesterday to fall for your tired fingerpointing at others fouls when your own are extremely outrageous.

Why do you not simply vacate if it's so demeaning and humiliating for you here? Any fellow with common sense would by now. Surely they'll hold the door for you as you exit merrily with your narcissistic dogma intact.

The ones you named pegged you quite accurately as their aim is unerring. Bravo for them! Suggest you deal with the resultant mess you created when you decided to make yourself an easy target. Save a shred of your windblown tattered dignity while there's time. You are quite responsible for the impression you leave on others; favorable or not it's your own doing. This one's been a veritable train-wreck for you, old boy.

As manipulative as you imagine yourself being, you are quite unaccomplished at working a crowd. First year politicians manage to get on better than you have, ole chap. You've managed to coerce nearly everyone against you. Your methods are quite antiquated and backfiring. Not good for votes and winning arguments. Your defense of your position is a most colossal failure and dismal defeat.

To stay is obvious folly.
To leave is obvious defeat.
To change your self is obvious Wisdom.
Choose well, old boy! Do try not to F it up again as the Americans say!

Anonymous said...

While I admire your restraint towards Integralist on one level, on another level I sense the kind of pacifism and moral relativism that the Christian left is generally infected with; since it is cloaked in the Christian name, it claims immunity from critisism, scrutiny, and honest exegesis. I think that some of the strong reactions Inty has gotten here derive from the fact that much of his material is the same tired old noncommittal, fence-sitting,above-the-fray, less-partisan-than-thou prognisticating that most of us have heard over and over from those who are trying to hide the fact that they really have no solid beliefs and principles, and criticise those of us who do as primitives or neanderthals. I think that Bob's postings, as well as the many works he cites, when read carefully, point towards a vertical reality that much more truly represents man's highest possible state of being than the humanistic groping of leftists and atheists. But this state of being demands a commitment of faith, which by definition means adopting what is seen as Truth, and leaving behind that which is not Truth.

Integralist is trying to have his cake and eat it, exibiting classic moral and spiritual relativism by trying to cut and paste "truths" that are incompatible together into one garbled and incoherent stew. While this is harmless as a mere intellectual excercise, and Inty certainly has a right to it, what provokes a lot of us here about it is his efforts to,in the subtle way that fence-sitters do, elevate himself above the fight that the rest of us fight against true evil and psychopathology. In today's world, infested with Jihadism and militant leftism, these ideas have real and dangerous consequences to the citizens of this country, as well as freedom loving people everywhere in the world. "Tolerance", in this context, is simply the enabling of evil, and aquiecence to, rather than confrontation with, that which is not Truth. You certainly don't see much tolerance for our side from DailyKos and from Hollywood, which kind of renders their complaints about intolerance hypocritical at best. I personally welcome the more heated political atmosphere in this country now; it forces people to declare one way or the other where they stand, and forces them to be willing to have their ideologies tested by the fire of public debate. Integralist is trying to hide from that battle behind a cloak of flowery "everybody's beautiful" declarations, like the hippies of old, like a political draft-dodger if you will. I myself have chosen the side of God and spiritual Truth, and have no shame in having made that choice.

"choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve" - Joshua 24:15

Anonymous said...


I didn't notice this before but in the What Is Enlightenment issue with the Gagdad interview, Bob is identified as an Integralist in a section classifying different leading edge thinkers.


Anonymous said...


Bob is probably the most all encompassing, still alive and kickin', able to spell it out integralist I've ever come across.
Cause when you begin the integration, it actually leads somewhere.

Anonymous said...


You have chosen two good examples.
I am not angry here, but some will suspect my directness is a whoop down 'tude. I am just going to cut to the heart of the matter.

What you have revealed by your response is that you are prideful and rebellious to the truth.

Truth changes you, you do not redefine truth to make yourself feel better about yourself. This is precisely what you do. You also use redefinition to avoid the real truth and having it settle into your heart and life.

The context within which we discuss "The 10 Commandments" places it precisely into Judeo-Christianity. The use of the definite article "the" should make this obvious.

Pardon me while I quote you:

"If we take this literally, then "God" is the Judeo-Christian deity, Yahweh."

Contextually, whom was speaking to Moses at that time? Was it some apparation of the Vedanta faith? Was it Mohammed's Allah?

No. It was the Judeo-Christian God.

You then proceed to self mollification by redefinition of God to your own preferences.

"If we open our interpretation, "God" is a being/consciousness, a Oneness, that is seen and symbolized by virtually every culture in different ways, in the case of ancient Jews, Yahweh."

Nonsense. The gods of human sacrifice are not "one" with the God of the Judeo-Christians.

Furthermore, the God of Judeo-Christianity places himself at the center of things my not speaking in vague, idealistic words which permit one to vaccilate.

You either accept his revealing of himself, or you do not. By redefinition, you are not talking about "God" as revealed in the Bible, but about your own ideas.

You do not open your definitions of God to suit your whims and wants about mystery of understanding. You can find out how God has revealed himself and let that change YOU.

What if, instead, you open your mind to what has been revealed in the Bible, and then decide? Rather than front-loading a redefinition which side-tracks you away from the truth at your own discretion?

So much for Integralism of new ideas.

You seem also to have a lack of understanding of the term "Yaweh" -which I covered before. Yaweh is a cognate associate of what God wishes to reveal. (I'll do this phonetically)

So Yaweh (or Jehovah if you must) -- Jehovah-Ashwah -the Lord is my helper. This is the name Joshua, and also Jesus. Jehovah-Sidkanu -the Lord is my righteousness.

These are but two examples, and more can be found in books like "Titles of the Triune God" or "The Names of God" -previously cited.

The point being, is that God specifically revealed what he was about to do, with the use of the names. He then went on to do so / prove this.

You cannot redefine things to suit yourself outside the contexts with which they occur, and call it good thinking, good morality, or anything good.

It is what it is. It is an excuse for you to not move ahead with truth (if that IS what you intend) -it is only BS for you to jump under and stay warm while you redefine anything that cuts back against your sensitive ego.

I further quote you:

"You shall not make for yourself an idol.

This is pretty straightforward: don't worship the "appearance," worship the "essence." Don't confuse the cultural version with the universal one."

You imply a wishful thinking viewpoint here. God did not, in contrast, imply that he would prefer you seek a oneness or essence of himself.

He wants you to seek HIM. That is different than the "God Consciousness" notional junk.

Step out of the self created mystery hunt.

You wish to define your own "essense" and this is your error. God is, apart from your awareness, your ability, or your redefinitions.

"How's that? Do you want some more? ;)"

I've seen enough to clinch the nail regarding your rhetorical perspective of not wanting to be in the light.

The choice is yours.

As my good friend, Al's father said, "You can't break any of the commandments, until you break the first one, first."

By making yourself your own God, of course you have no problem with you -the problem is with the universe and the individuals in it, which do not conform to you, as your own God.

We all have this propensity, due to our egos. But, with liberals, this is their given stance. They march at their own pace and insist the universe is out of step, and get testy when called on it.

Continually standing at the door of growth, and protesting that others will not step back into the darkness, and that this is not integration, or Integralism, is a meager excuse for not walking through the door yourself.

You will grow tiresome, like an ignorant child, as you continue to layer your arguments with your supercilliousness. It will not fly, because it cannot fly. It will just continue to grow in stink.

To fly, you must evolve towards the light, and within the light of God, and he within you.

The truth is all around you, yet you seem to desire to resist this truth, by shouting in the rain, that you are not wet, and that your reality is greater than reality itself, and God.

What you miss is this: God is a person, a personality, an individual who is wanting a relationship with you as an individual.

This is made clear, as he speaks in the first person when (for example) he gave Moses the 10 commandments.

God is not an idea, or a philosophy, or a cogitation with which you redefine to suit yourself.


Anonymous said...

As always, an oasis in a sea of insanity. I've been helped immensely by the many insightful posts of the Alpha Racoon, mr. Bobguy. I'm one of many, I'm sure, who read and don't often post comments, but I'm moved often by such a wonderful perspective on life and eternity. I think much of what comes through to windy and let's just multicultiintegrateit type of mindset as anger, is really compassion on fire. Behind much of the 'bleedin mind' world view, is a true understanding of the absolute death, misery, destruction and bondage that the "leftwearebetterthanyouworldview" is truly from the pit and is the religion of 'satanhumanistrelativist'. We see the fruit of this and it is, if you will, righteous indignation. I think it really is put in a very loving and compassionate way, by Mr. Bob and so many posters, but still pointing clearly to folly and inconsistancy from the secularist. This will always come across as angry, vitriolic, hateful or whatever to someone who is yet in darkness and living in a world without God. Words do mean things and it is the way we must communicate with each other, it is the way we talk to God. The darkness hates the light and will not come to it, and woe unto men when they call good evil and evil good. This is and always will be the world we are in till the Lord comes. Oh, and by the way, some of The Big Racs' riffs are drop dead funny. Thanks again, Mr. Bob, it is a great blog.

Van Harvey said...

Windblown (uh-huh) said..."Van, you asked a question of integralist, regarding what he valued. I value understanding and peace, and the fruits it brings."

While I'm waiting for a program to compile, I'll cough up an off the cuff definition again of Truth. Truth is a factual identification of things as they are, within a given context (And with the implied and hopefully assumed proviso "of Reality ).

Understanding is a process dependent on integrating your sensory and mental perceptions of reality within a given context and recognizing the potentiality for your successfully doing just that - the positional cakes that Integralist is trying to have and eat as well, undermines or flat out denies that process as being valid.

Everything you wish to say you believe is assaulted and endangered by such a position, truly understanding anything is made impossible by holding such positions, and No peace can result from such ideas being put into practice.

I will cheerfully talk with someone who holds such ideas but does not understand their true meaning and implications, but when it becomes apparent that they do understand their position and its implications, but just want evade admitting it and while trying to get me or others to succumb to them as well - I do get angry, and there is as much chance of my feeling apologetic for such anger as if they had threatened one of my kids - which they potentially are doing.

Anonymous said...

Thank you, all who took time to reply to me.

My initial draw to the blog was confronting the idea that a spiritual aspiration should come with a corresponding set of politics. This idea is new and strange to me, and I am here to learn of what Bob speaks. So far I don't agree with everything, but I recognize that ego can trap me, that only through questioning MY beliefs can I arrive at MY Truth. That's the time-tested method, is it not?

Van, Tsebring:
I am not defending Integralist. I am questioning the value of ego-driven responses to someone's set of ideas, given the spiritual nature of the blog. Both Tsebring and Van did a good job of explaining why Inty is an irritant deserving of some rebuke, but no one justified the degree of negativity. Van, you came closest for me with your equating blog anger and parental protectivism. Clearly stated, and as a parent I see where you are aiming.

Joan of Arg:
I chose "windblown", not "blown about by the wind", or "blowin in the wind". My intention with that name was to convey the image of someone who has faced a strong wind, as in both the strength of opinion and belief on this blog, and of individual negative comments, which tend to "blow my hair back".

With due respect, as I have read well-reasoned arguments from you and know you don't always write like you did with Integralist and Princess:
I don't think you are harmless at all. And I don't think you think that either. Your response to my posting seem filled with the same kind of disingenuousness Inty has been hit hard for. Your harsh challenge to "integralist" was what moved me to weigh in with my own POV. It's hard, when one is considering matters of spirit, not to be moved by that style of prose. But it's a downward, visceral movement, not upward. I submit that you were moved downward, too. Even by your own reckoning. I could very well be wrong about that.

Yes, I agree. Without the conflict, this site would be much less interesting. Indeed, maybe BECAUSE of the conflict this blog has kept my interest and has engaged me. I hope that is not the case, but I recognize the "Jerry Springer" aspect of the blog and how it works to keep a pop-cultured audience tuning in. I agree with you that conflict is a good thing.

But: My point is one of degree and intent of the criticism.
Those who blog & comment make real, conscious effort to formulate and express thoughts accurately, then to post them to a forum for discussion or contemplation. There is nothing harmless about that effort to the writer. Anyone who writes knows the power of the process. The idea that writing an angry, hateful invective is somehow "not real" is a dark idea. I submit that a premeditated, written attack on a blog is more real to spirit than a spontaneous conflict arising in the course of day-to-day living. Very real, and very influential in biasing someone for or against an expressed set of values.

Whom Do You Serve:
You assume I am someone I'm not, then write to me about words and ideas that are not mine, complete with personal attacks toward someone you don't even know well enough to recognize. This exemplifies ego-driven, rather than spirit-driven posting. I will try to respond to ideas and opinions addressing me and my words.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. You raise bigger issues. Something I have contemplated since coming here is whether or not I am a "moral relativist" as described by the OneCosmos platform. My first reaction when facing an idea that threatens the boundaries of my spiritual sanctuary is to reject it. But that is only ego talking, the recognition of which is the first phase of possibility for change. I don't fit any of the other descriptors you mention ( immunity from criticism, scrutiny, and honest exegesis). I would hope that my very presence here, and the spirit of my words, carries this belief. It is ONLY through MY questioning of MY ideas and beliefs that MY Real Truth is arrived at.

I am a reincarnationist, if that can be considered a belief system. I believe that nothing in this life happens without self planning on some level of consciousness.. I believe that we all choose the lives we are leading, that we choose them daily, even moment-by-moment. I believe we each are ultimately responsible for everything that happens to us. I am questioning my idea that I should leave everyone else alone to learn their lessons so long as there is no perceived harm to others. I wholly reject the salesmanship approach of my Christian upbringing, that of "winning souls for Christ". I have replaced that process with the understanding that if I cannot live my truth, it does not exist.

My original point, rehashed: The indulgence of ego when arguing a point on this blog yields (to my way of thinking) spiritually negative results for all involved. True spiritual advancement yields a corresponding grace in all manner of actions, conspicuous often here by its absence.

Thanks again, Gagdad. If you could know how many times I have inwardly cursed you and this blog, you would smile. In a good way.

Anonymous said...

Did you get a new boyfriend named Wind?

Anonymous said...

BTW, my spine will be arriving any day.

Van Harvey said...

To all those who seek after the fuzzy wuzzy milque toast feelings fest,

If anyone here has somehow managed to tie their sense of huff & puffing self-esteem to a moniker... well, they have my sympathy. Those poor souls aside, the idea that arguing your ideas and values, even defending them against jagged assertions is somehow ego-driven has the ring of a passive aggressive assault to me.

Anyone this side of a real-McCoy Avatar who claims to act without influence of ego, is fooling no one but himself, if that, and they should know that their self preening is visible to all who reads it. I'll bet even Beaky takes note, wondering how feathers can be made to shine so brightly.

IMHO anytime you try to pretend that reality, especially self-reality, is something other than what it is, you deepen your separation from reality and truth. Engaging your ideas is the best way of exercising your inner Self, and of discovering the strength of the Truths you intellectually hold. If your truths are questioned, and you perceive a chink in your assumptions, the last thing you should do is try to defend them or shout your opponent down - you should be diving into that gap and attempting to rip the error away; even and especially if it turns out to be not just a peripheral feature, but a central pillar of what you hold true. What in Gods name would you benefit from, by defending, and living by, falsehood and Error?!

On the other hand, not arguing your ideas - not attempting to point out to someone honestly holding flawed ideas why you think them flawed, and calling that manners or compassion, is strange. Especially within an area specifically designed for such engagement (its not as if we're passing casually on the street "Hello, Nice day isn't it? By the way, your ideas dragging the world down into filth! Ta!") with the impression that their values are sound - is again curiously ... I'm not sure the word... perhaps passively poisonous.

Implying that anything other than sedate, faux-polite discussion is akin to the flatter than flat, no ideas involved, ASSerstion exertions of something like Jerry Springer, implies that you've never given the matter a passing thought yourself.

Van Harvey said...

And besides, with all the serious matter out of the way, sometimes a few fun spirited recreational slamming zingers are just plain fun.

Anonymous said...

Say Watson,

One must wonder why it is that Windblown is overly concerned for poor Integralist? Remember, the chap I told you of who has been obnoxious to people here? Are they pals? If Windblown truly believes in Reincarnation as professed, surely, whatever Integralist crafts for himself karmically is his alone to bear responsibly. The concept of karma is one a true Reincarnationist knows and firmly upholds. They certainly are not ones to defend others ill, evil and vile behaviors, knowing the principle of Reciprocity is foundational to Reincarnation.

I'm afrad something smells amiss, once again, dear Watson. Amusing.

Further, the pseudo-defensive tone and attempted guilt-trip scolding quality Windblown takes on automatically smells exactly like Integralist, still, so much so they seem to be twins or perhaps one and the same person. Windblown answering questions posed to Integralist certainly seems to again point to Windblown being confused in identity or of like spirit as Integralist if not one and the same person. We've all seen how Integralist loves to hide his true self behind many different facades, aliases and victim masks when he refuses to take well-deserved heat and refuses to answer valid questions.

Seems to me the little boy who cries Wolf! ought to first be 100% sure he is not one. Secondly, he would wise to not lie to people if he desires to be trusted or believed. Integralist blew that image apart with his poor judgment, unlovingness, trustworthlessness, fickleness, lack of grace, evidentiary retaliations, obvious resentments. Instead, he continues to be a little boy crying Wolf whenever he decides to play victim.

More shuck n jive, Watson.

Integralist types needs no defender. One hopes he is quite adult enough to clean up his own messes he makes and wipe his own bottom at his age. Immature types refuse to respond in adult fashion to messes they craft for themselves leave it for others to do which is parasitic irresponsible behavior.

Or he dons a new personae as if donning a new self-suit tailor made in order to lend legitimacy, to cloak his retaliatory impulse to play victim, cry foul, make excuses, scold, guilt trip and finger point at others, to seek to recruit others to join his cause or side. Why is that?

Immaturity, my dear Watson, Insecurity.

No real sense of Faith. Hence no real sense of Godly identity. No one may rightfully claim Godly identity when their own idea of God changes as the seasons change or as a wind blows about and shifts course.

Shifty. Yes. Quite. Huffle-puffling. Elementary, dear Watson. Elementary indeed.

-Whom Do You Serve?
aka Sherlock

Anonymous said...

The Further Adventures of Sheerluck Who-mes and his sidekick, Dr.Watsup:

Who-mes, you've deduced that Integral is really Windblown! How do you do it, man! It's uncanny!

Really elementary, my dear Watsup. I start with a personal observation, vest my ego in its truth, then I build my premise backwards from that. The more I think and develop my idea, the more true it becomes!

But how can you always be right, Sheerluck?

Why, kindergarten, my good man: Never allow yourself to know anything other than that which must first, by necessity of Absolute Truth, be true!

God, you are a genius, man! One can only wonder at what a simple place this world can become when seen with powers of observation such as yours. Tell me...
...What about God?

God? Why, pre-elementary. Everything is connected. It's all one, really. God tells us what to do, and we do it.

What about free will?

Oh, we have plenty of free will. So long as we freely choose to think the same way and have the same goals as God wants us to. It's all been revealed to me, you understand.

And those others, who think differently?

Why, they are wrong, of course. Watsup, have you been visiting my tobacconist? Look here, let's go over it from the beginning, using my powers of deduction:

I have a thought. It is a right thought because I think it, because I am good, and because I am smart.

Now someone else has a different thought. Their thought is different from mine. Is it a right thought? Let's examine it, and notice that it is different from mine, therefore it is wrong. See how simple?

Is everyone wrong who thinks differently from you?

Well some are just sick or stupid. Those we pity, and give charity toward. But we must give it personally so as to obtain ego satisfaction. We can't allow anyone to give it on our behalf.

The others are ignorant and wrong, and doomed to hell. They are evil, putrified animal droppings. They are vile trolls and are the worst kind of subhuman cretins! Why even their mother's own...

OK, I get it Sheerluck. Basically, they are wrong.

Yes. Different from me, therefore wrong. Elementary.

I've heard some speak of karma, of individual paths to enlightenment. Do you know anything about that?

Of course I do! Yes, there are individual paths to enlightenment. And they all lead to my way of thinking, because my way of thinking is right. We've been over all this before, Watsup.

Well then are they really individual paths?

Do individuals think them? Then yes. They just all lead along the same path, which is the path I have already laid out and thought for you.

If someone feels satisfied with their path, must they vote for a particular politician?

Of course Watsup! It's all mixed up together, religion and government, once you start thinking right!

What about that country, America, that started out their government by separating church and state? Since you have clarified my thinking and I now see that right thought leads to voting for a specific politician, is that country wrong for separating church and state? Isn't right thought the same as religion?

Of course! You are on a vertical path, Watsup! Right thought comes only from God, and leads to voting for a particular politician. And America separated church and state because they believed that we could all eventually think the way I do. Right way thinking.

How's that working out for them Who-mes? It must be going horribly, since they separated two things that should not, by Your Right Way of Thinking, be separated.

Many people are deluded and imagine that they are happy when in fact they are not, since they don't think like me. They are evil and putrid.
And, other countries are coming along and confusing America's right thinkers. Recently America had to go over and get some oil and stop some other countries from thinking wrong, and it...well, it caused a division among the right thinkers, because its, well, they're using up more oil than they went to get, and some people are getting killed, but not by us. It's by wrong thinkers. So it's not our fault. It's someone else's fault. The wrong thinkers. They are evil, and nothing more than putrified animal droppings! They are vile trolls and the worst kind of subhumans! Why even their own mother's...

Yes. We've been over that, Who-mes.

Ah well. Nothing like a good intellectual excercise, eh Watsup? But enough about me. What do YOU think about me?

You're the greatest sleuth of all time. I still can't get over how you deduced that Integralist is really Windblown.

Let's go over it again:
Are they saying the same thing? Yes! Is it what I am saying? No!
Then using logic and my big brain, we can deduce that They are in fact THE SAME PERSON! Read what I wrote about it, and you'll see that it's even MORE true! Comment on it yourself Wazzup, and you'll come to understand it just as well as I do. Say, be a good Doctor and hand me that mirror and that syringe...

Anonymous said...


SOP before pissing on someone: Check which way the wind's blowing. LOL!

Anonymous said...


As you can readily observe from the verbiose vitriole which the git still speweth, it was a most wicked googly hit! He's quite chuffed, isn't he?

Jolly corking good! Over the moon on that one, old chap. Yes. Quite.

-Whom Do You Serve?
aka Sherlock

Anonymous said...

Um...Sherlock? Whats with posting by my name? Here we go again...Inty, stop posting as me, please. I don't speak to you anymore, am already convinced it's a meaningless endeavor. Guess no one else wants to play so you pick on me again. Oh well. Silence is golden in your case & best applied liberally.

- P^2 -

Anonymous said...

My apologies, Princess. Fear not, it isn't the irrascible cur's post hounding you yet again. My next comment was intentioned for you, but I redundantly hit the post button twice.

What I wrote was, "I understand now why PrincessSpirit refuses to speak to you. My American colleague commented 'She practices the truism 'Silence is Golden.' It's a new truism to my ears, thus, I wanted to thank you for your pleasant reminder." Quaint and succinct. Quite.

Humblest apologies for any consternations caused, Princess. I rather admire you Yanks patience, wit and aplomb handling this chap, who is a thorn in your blog. Why, I'm absolutely gobsmacked! You Yanks are far more English than I ever expected!

-Whom Do You Serve?
aka Sherlock

Anonymous said...

Hmmm...Ok, Sherlock. Unsure of you, but I suppose apology accepted. Please, don't let it happen again. Inty interrupts the flow enuf already. Hope the truism helps, it works great for me.

Ah: What on earth does "gobsmacked" mean? Cheers!

- PrincessSpirit -

Anonymous said...

Princess, "Gobsmacked" means to be quite astonished, most pleasantly surprised. -Whom Do You Serve?

Anonymous said...


You were right. Whom is Being Served and Princess are the same entity. The affectation changes, but the hangup on Christ as Crusher gives her away.

Remember, each of us gets his own in time and in requisite dosages. Let the slug crawl through the salt. A bird or a dog will come along and return it to the food chain

"Nasty little free spirit inty, trying to take my precioussss..."

Anonymous said...

My dear Anyone,

'Twas not I who spoke of Christ, you're quite mistaken. Merely asked a rhetorical queston addressed to someone else - or was that You as well? You betray yourself yet again. Nor did I speak of this Crusher. Obviously you're quite daft and mixed up with yourselves. You or your sidekick posed as me and it failed miserabley. Rather poor sports all the way around. Ashamed to address the likes of you further due to your low IQ level. Quite simply, you're no one I'd be interested in knowing.

You are a rather noisome tiresome fellow, chuffed or not. A one note with no sense of humour. A sad chap, indeed. Quite.

-Whom Do You Serve?
aka Sherlock