Saturday, March 31, 2007

Learned Ignorance and the O->k Operating System (4.05.10)

As you may have gnosised, my last few posts have been about "politics" -- or let us say that when I write about political philosophy, the spirituality becomes implicit, whereas when I write about spirituality, the politics returns to the implicate realm. It's just a matter of "rOtating the ball," since we can only be consciously aware of one thing at a time within the sphere of consciousness.

As I have mentioned before, this is how I regard the "unconscious" which Freud was the first to describe in a systematic way -- not as something "below" the conscious mind, but "within" it -- and vice versa. In other words, the mind is somewhat analogous to the "total flowing atmosphere," so to speak, of the earth. If one looks at a cloud in the sky, for example, one is generally not aware that what is available to the senses is actually a small visible "ripple" standing out against the backdrop of a much more encompassing meteorological process. (For those of you in Rio Linda, "meteorology" is not the study of meteors.)

It turns out that the subatomic realm operates in this fashion as well. A subatomic "particle" is not actually a separate entity, but the local manifestation of an oceanic, wavelike reality which is nonlocal and unmanifest. In my view, thoughts can be seen in the same way, as analogous to clouds produced by the total atmosphere or subatomic particles floating atop the oceanic field of quantum energy. If O represents the ocean of total consciousness, (k) is a little grain of sand tossed upon the shoreline between ego and Self. There is always a complementary relationship between O and (k), just as there is between wave and particle. This relationship "cannot not be," any more than there can be time without eternity, horizontal without vertical, interior without exterior, male without female, or Herman without Toots.

Being that he was the product of an intellectual zeitgeist that represented the apex of the mechanistic/materialistic/positivistic worldview -- a worldview that no one believes anymore, except for philosophical retards and other atheists -- he constructed his theories of the mind along these lines. Freud actually had two different models of the mind, but both were misleading because they were rooted in the fashionable mechanistic and reductionistic metaphysics of the day.

I don't want to get sidetracked into a history of psychoanalysis, so at risk of oversimplification, let us just say that in one model, Freud regarded the mind as "layered," so to speak, with the unconscious "below" the conscious mind. In his second model, he developed the idea of different "forces" pushing each other around, namely, id, ego, and superego. The point is that both models clearly borrow from a domain with which we are familiar -- the physical world -- and transfer concepts appropriate to it to the study of the non-physical world. But of course, the mind is not an object and it doesn't have layers. Whatever the mind is, it is not a machine or a bag full of stuff, even though we often look at it that way.

In my first academic paper, published some 16 years ago, I attempted to re-vision psychoanalysis based upon a new metaphysical understanding rooted in theoretical ideas emerging from quantum physics. When Freud set forth his metapsychology, it was with the intention of making psychoanalysis reflect the leading edge of scientific inquiry in his day. Therefore, I asked mysoph the question, "what would psychoanalysis look like if it reflected the vast changes in our understanding of how the universe works?" So I did that. But did anyone notice? Noooooooo. Plus ça change...

Now, where am I going with this, you might ask? I was provoked in this direction by a typically O-racular comment made by the mysterious Ms. Dilys, a "pioneer Coon." I mentioned to her that I had recently been immersing myself in some psychoanalytic reading, something I hadn't done in awhile, and noticed the marked effect it had on my mind -- even my spirit. In fact, this is the reason my recent posts veered explicitly into politics, because I had entered a different mental space -- a different world, really. The writing simply reflected my entry into this alternate mindspace.

It wouldn't at all be going too far to say that immersing oneself in psychoanalysis is very much analogous to using a different operating system to navigate one's mind. Again, the mind is an infinite ocean of subjectivity. That is what it is: O. But in order to think about O, or to translate it into local knowledge, we require an operating system. This is where "all the trouble arises," because people tend to fall in love with their operating systems, and not realize that there are other systems -- some very good ones and some very, very bad ones. Islamism is an example of the latter. On the oppsosite end of the spectrum, our classically liberal founders came up with the best political operating system ever devised.

Obviously, in my opinion, leftism -- or any philosophy that can trace its lineage to Marx -- is also a horrible operating system, partly because it legitimizes some of the most regretable characteristics of human beings -- both innate and parasitic -- but also because it poses a more or less permanent barrier to obtaining the "true" operating system.

In other words, Marx, like Freud, was informed by the mechanistic science of his day, so that he is wrong a priori. In Freud's case, his key ideas could be adapted to our evolving understanding of reality -- or at least I attempted to do so in my book, my doctoral dissertation, and in a couple of academic papers. But Marx's ideas cannot be so adapted, because they are completely at odds with reality -- economically, psychologically, historically, spiritually, politically, epistemologically, morally, ontologically, and comedically -- which is why leftists are such angry and humorless tighta**es.

Now, having said that, I would guess that the majority of psychoanalysts do not share my understanding of psychoanalysis, to put it mildly. Most do not accommodate the vertical, but reduce it to the cramped dimensions of their psychoanalytic operating system. Freud, for example, was completely hostile to religion. He regarded it as an infantile drive to reunite with the mother in blissful oceanic oneness. Toward the end of his life, he posited a life instinct ("eros") and a death instinct ("thanatos"), and for Freud, the "religious drive" clearly fell into the latter category, since it represented a refusal of reality and a backward-looking impulse to dissolve the ego and fall back into the clutches of the Great Mother.

Now, there is no question that Freud was half right about this. Many people who are outwardly religious are quite obviously seeking infrarational regression and fusion, not post-egoic evolution and union. Not too long ago I saw a fine example of this (certain details have been changed), a remarkably narcissistic and hysterical man who believed himself to possess special spiritual gifts (no, not Petey). On the one hand, he had a split off sub-personality that had led a vaguely sociopathic life at the margins, but he identified with a grandiose part that had been anointed by God from childhood (as a magical compensation for obviously inadequate parents whom he protected from his rage through idealization).

In fact, I am sure that this man's spiritual grandiosity facilitated his rule-breaking, since he was "above the law" and was entitled to certain things because of his disappointing parents. He happened to be a minister in a highly emotionalized and "vital" denomination that allowed him to lose himself in his grandiosity, and to "perform" it for others. In so doing, he could have his grandiosity mirrored, and his flock "benefitted" by taking part in, and identifying with, his flamboyant grandiosity.

This seems to be a common pattern, both in certain Protestant denominations and certainly in the "new age" movement, which is pervaded by grandiose and narcissistic individuals who encourage identification with their grandiosity, such as the dreadful Tony Robbins. This infantile wish fulfillment is also the basis of "the Secret," which is one part spiritual truth to ninety-nine parts pernicious vacuity. There is a proper way to manifest reality through God's grace, but it will not be the reality the ego desires, nor will it be what one expected; and pain will be involved, which is one of the marks of authenticity. Its pathological variant involves the regression to infancy, when wishes could be seamlessly converted into their fulfillment in a pain-free way.

Now, when I mentioned to Dilys that I had been navigating around O with a different operating system, she dropped this cryptic nugget on me:

"Have you heard of the 'learned incapacity' idea, that proper execution of every calling requires the disabling of certain kinds of intelligence? For instance, I know a lot of people who are just too intelligent to be [certain professions], because there are some things one needs not to know in these roles, some mental and emotional strategies that must be disconnected. I imagine a certain incapacity for the numinous would be necessary in the psychoanalytic approach" (emphases mine).

I had never thought of it in exactly this way before, but this is truly a key idea, for it explains how every discipline inevitably takes on a cult-like quality. For example, although my graduate education is in psychoanalysis, and I was even accepted to a psychoanalytic institute, in the end I decided against continuing down that path, and this is why: there was something about a full immersion bobtism in its operating system that I knew would pose a barrier to another part of mybobself that was trying to ovolve and come into being.

For to submit to a discipline, whether it is psychoanalysis, science, law, or climate hysteria, is to begin to interpret the world in terms of that operating system, which only reinforces and reifies the system -- it creates the mental food it eats and digests, making the system grow up big and strong. It is something that cannot be helped. It is why these naively matter-worshiping muddlebrow jerktivists such as Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett believe what they believe: they must believe what they do, given the constraints placed upon them by their scientistic operating system. As the law of Dilys implies, they have disabled certain kinds of intelligence, but call it intelligence; and they must not know many things in order to possess a certain kind of limited knowledge.

As I have mentioned before, one of the great shocks of my life has been the unending discovery of how fruitful the traditionally religious operating systems are for novelgaiting around O. Some 600 posts later, it continues to be an endlessly generative surprise for me. I don't know where it comes from -- well, I suppose I do, in the sense that it comes from O -- but I do know that it would be inaccessible without the proper operating system. These bonehead atheists are simply salesmen who want us to trade down our state-of-the-art operating systems for their archaic old version. No thanks. No Coon in his right cap is gonna work for Maggie's farm no more:

Well, I try my best
To be just like I am,
But everybody wants you
To be just like them.
They sing while you slave and I just get bored.
I ain't gonna work on Maggie's farm no more.
--Bob Dylan


Lisa said...

Yeah, that Dilys is one smart coonkie!

It is interesting how founders of certain movements or styles are operating within the historical timeframe of knowledge available and end up being a priori wrong. Joseph Pilates was the same way. In the early 20th century, it was common to believe that a perfect spine was flat. Pilates based his exercises on that assumption. How many times have you been told to "flatten your back" when doing crunches? How many of you are still doing that?

Actually, science at the moment has discovered that the spine is naturally curved, which completely makes sense if you think about it. Where in nature do extreme straight lines occur? I refer to this naturally curved spine as neutral spine or neutral pelvis, incidentally it is slightly different in each body. The best way to acheive a flexible strong spine and body is to strengthen it mainly in the neutral position without losing the flexiblity to go to the extreme in spinal articulations, such as flexion, extension, rotation, lateral/side bending.

Well, would you believe there are even politics involved in Pilates? There are two main schools of pilates thought easily defined as East Coast style or Classical/NY and West Coast style or Neutral Spine/rehab. I happen to be a blending of both because I was originally trained east coast but incorporated west coast after initial training. After learning about the spine and seeing the science, I have a hard time understanding how anyone could keep training with a flat back. Too many people get hurt and most of the population is not from the NYC Ballet Co. So, if you are about to start a pilates program, look for a teacher that works in neutral spine or pelvis. It is crucial if you have a bad back.

dilys said...

Wow, Bob and Lisa, thanks for taking up my bare little idea that surfaced somewhere deep in E-mail Trance, and feeding and clothing it (isn't there said to be virtue in doing that sort of thing?)

Oh, the people you'll meet and the places you'll go, here in the One and only Cosmos!

MizzE said...

Due to dramatic meteorological events on the Island I'm thankfully and temporally hold up in a dry dock with wifi which allows me to receive and transmit through our intercoonfigured (or is that intra?)O systems.

Re: the use of 'lay' or 'lie' in yesterday's post: Miss Lilly says when in doubt try this on for a fit: People lie; everything else lays.

Well, the laptop battery charge is dropping and the atmosphere outside is rising to user friendly, so I'll lay this aside and depart
with reneudvisions and missions courtesy of today's BigBObRecharge. Besides Leon Russell is waiting for me out in the car and has promised to sing "Back to the Island" to me as many times as I want to hear it.

Roamer said...


Been reading your blog for a month or so now and as a young coon educated in a liberal university I owe you some thanks. It might have taken me years to learn how to completely avoid the nasty horizontal operating systems imposed there, thanks again!

J. Peden said...

I've never understood why people would want to try to wall themselves off from "the everything" or the Infinite - to become "specialized", for example, or conformists, to the exclusion of the rest. It just seems self-contradictory on its face, both logically and personally.

How could it even be pleasant in any way? And I've/we've seen some ludicrous results, more so even recently.

Jamie Irons said...

This comment really refers more to yesterday's post; reading it I became rather discouraged when you referred to the nearly total control of major institutions (the press, academia, and so on) the the left currently "enjoys." And I was wondering if we are ever going to get free of the grip they now have on these institutions.

But reading today's post for some reason it became obvious to me that such thoughts reflect the kind of mentality Jesus referred to when he exclaimed to the disciples, O, ye of little faith!

I need to remind myself that truth cannot long remain subservient to the big lie.

Jamie Irons

Alan said...

Jamie: Right on!

Most people (ok, me especially) are in need of being reminded of being faith-full and that is one of the benefits of a group like this.

Anonymous said...


I am a free market person, who thinks that socialism is unsustainable and inferior to capitalism, but after visiting Peru I began to wonder if maybe socialism has a place in developing countries, almost like training wheels for maybe 20 or 30 years.

Now I am not naive enough to think that people would easily let go of all the handouts they might become accustomed to, but if a political party in one of these countries sold it as strictly a stepping stone process from the very beginning, with sincere intentions of switching to a more capitalistic approach in a specified time frame I think that in that context socialism could serve a purpose.

It might help some of the poorest of the poor, whom are understandably often the ones most easily fooled by the utopian socialist paradise B.S that men like Hugo Chavez and the Euro-peons spew to understand that, the government will funnel an inordinate amount of money into establishing a middle class for a period of time, by levying unsustainabley high and stifling tax rates, but then the training wheels are coming off and we are all going to ride our bikes like big boys and girls.

Obviously the socialist would try cling to power, but i think that reducing the socialist approach to training wheels would stigmatize it, and make people question why they are proponents of their country continuing to ride around with training wheels.

I haven't obviously put enough thought into all the dynamics of this, but more or less I'd like to get your opinion if you ever feel so inclined as to whether socialism has any positive aspects in the above described scenario, or if it would do significant damage to a country no matter how short of a time frame it was in place.

ximeze said...

OMG! the SOB comment page loaded!

Likely should say something pertinent or profound or otherwise impressive, or something.

Rather I'll say:


Beaky misses ya'll too & has broken ALL of her special ceramic bowls in protest & frustration.

better sign, 'cause don't know whether this will post at all.


Smoov said...


Socialism requires the crushing of freedom. Freedom--true freedom of the sort described by the Founders--is the ONLY way forward for nations like Peru.

I have no doubt you are well-intentioned, but socialism is the worst thing you can inflict on ANY society. People need freedom, property rights and the rule of law in order to prosper, not more of what produced Cuba and North Korea.

For a refresher on why American-style capitalism (i.e., a free economy) is always better than socialism in all cases, try this book: Cowboy Capitalism: European Myths, American Reality

that_one_guy said...

It seems strange for you to quote Maggie's Farm considering it is strongly and clearly Marxist in tone and theme.

Gagdad Bob said...

Not with my operating system.

Smoov said...

Smoov said...

Man, blogger sucks. Trying to post a link is completely hit or miss. Anyhow the link I wanted to post is to a Newsweek article which shows that 91 percent of American adults surveyed believe in God.

dilys said...

I can see why anonymous is wondering what he is wondering. There are certainly baby-step societies and people, and, then, those with a bit more perspective and a combination of advantages. For ideological and perceptual reasons (I'm a huge proponent of MBTI temperaments and perceptual types), some observers are overwhelmingly pained, almost maddened, by the existence of iterations of what appear to be human deprivation. No decent person wants others to suffer, but the demand for rush to judgment and insistence on institutional resolution varies IMO.

My sense. There were ways of caring for those who need baby steps. They were monarchies, serfdoms, sharecropping (under which my own father grew up) etc. Those things were not all bad, but set up a serious ceiling on accomplishment, creativity, and independence, and were susceptible to cruel tyranny (though tyranny was not always the case).

However, once you have reins in the hands of the people, the advantage-disadvantage tradeoff is changed, and you can't pick and choose from the two systems. It's like being "this high" for "this ride." And the ride -- modern global life -- isn't optional, so metaphorical nutrition and exercise and as much generous care and education as can be found to help bring everyone up to standard is called for. Absolutely nothing keeps the modern individualist from selling all his goods and going and living among the poor in service, if that is his moral and perceptual priority.

Some suffer under either kind of system, but socialism because it is even internally inconsistent, and is based on and must enforce profound lies about human nature constitutes a dark magnet for dishonesty, random demoralizing force, and corruption. It actually generates no advantage, even materially, looked at in toto and with a proper time frame.

Human nature and patterns imply acknowledged paternal hierarchy, or liberty. The other alternatives are dishonest, incoherent, and worse.

georged said...

Kings and priests and assorted peculiar people can sustain a communal economy based on faith in God and love for mankind. The minute any coercion is applied it comes flying apart or turns into something malevolent. Don't anyone dare call that socialism.

that_one_guy said...

Having suckled at the breast of Marxism as a child, an adolescent and adult, I have a natural incapacity for the numinous and an aversion to expanding my horizons. And your blog frightens me. I can't help myself.

debass said...


I think it was de Toqueville who described the course of politics. Anarchy-republic-democracy-socialist-totalitarian-anarchy and the cycle starts again. I don't have it in front of me, so please correct me if I left something out. Where do you think we in the US are? Some countries go through slow and some fast. How about Iraq?

Bob, I think that most people on the left have never read the works of Marx and Ingalls. Coons should be scared as more of it is put into place, disguised of course so that nobody will complain too much. I still am on at a loss to understand why anyone would want to live under these rules. I don't get it. Of course, I don't get much of anything anymore. Thanks so much for this oasis.

cousin dupree said...

the one guy--

I don't want to freak you out any further, but that wasn't a breast.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for those that took time to answer my question I had posed regarding socialism as a stage and to smoov, for the book recommendation.


I think that America, in terms of the cycle you brought up, will be able to continue to walk that tightrope which is our form of democracy/capitalism for quite a long time despite the pesky and reliable socialist contingent that insists on showing up at the circus simply to root that we fall. That doesn't mean that from time to time we won't wobble up on the wire, but that is when our collective concentration usually kicks in and we block out their nonsense and regain our balance and we find ourselves refocused and refreshed by the realization that we almost fell, and then we decide to just keep on keeping on better than we ever did.

I am an optomist that thinks the american people by and large can spot B.S if not initially than always eventually.

Jacob C. said...

I need to remind myself that truth cannot long remain subservient to the big lie.

Well - long, yes. Forever, hell no.

Van said...

"It wouldn't at all be going too far to say that immersing oneself in psychoanalysis is very much analogous to using a different operating system to navigate one's mind. ... But in order to think about O, or to translate it into local knowledge, we require an operating system. This is where "all the trouble arises," because people tend to fall in love with their operating systems, and not realize that there are other systems -- some very good ones and some very, very bad ones. "

Yes, if you aren't very deliberate in maintaining a perspective of awareness, a habit of stepping back and observing without the rose colored glasses on, one that watches your actions and assumptions in relation to reality - you can easily be assimilated into the Borg of that mindset. I think Ayn Rand had a similar idea which she called 'psycho epistemology', where your assumptions about knowledge, and your expectations of how things work and are become your habitual rituals of behavior and response to routine stimulous (definitely my summary, but I don't think it's that far off).

What I've noticed is that you have to maintain YOU and your involvement in your day to day world by a volitional, active awareness, almost a habit of not falling into habit. Habits which are useful mental macros for much of the activities of life, so easily seduce you into an all pervading habitual ritual of zombie like living (was it Dawn of the Dead where the zombies are walking around the malls as if shopping between eating the living? shiver).

Another Bob said...

I have a comment about "learned incapacity."
In the workplace, for years I have noticed that
competent people who were clearly in possession
of critical thinking faculties somehow became
stupid after about a year in middle management.

I witnessed it happening to a friend and took a
particular interest in sorting it out. It seems that
at some point in the first year, he was ordered to
do something that was based on a lie. His job
was threatened. He now had to enthusiastially
support the activity.

Somehow, he compartmentalized his thinking so
that he could deal with the situation.

However, whenever he was called on to make
decisions that crossed the boundaries of his
internal compartments (sometimes frequently)
stupidity resulted, because he could not look at
both sides of the borderline at the same time.

I think this mental compartmentalization and
splitting goes hand-in-hand with what people
call learned disability.

-Another Bob

walt said...

Van mentioned that "you have to maintain YOU and your involvement in your day to day world by a volitional, active awareness..."

It's that volitional, pro-active part that seems to slither beyond my fingers to some extent most days! Some part of me wants to adopt the Best Possible operating system, and then ignore it. But awareness wiggles around too much to just assume its presence.

cousin dupree said...

Dupree's Saturday evening musical fare.

NoMo said...

Dupree said "I don't want to freak you out any further, but that wasn't a breast." And the nice wine I was sipping is now a red sheen over my screen. Thanks so much! However, D redeemed himself with the link to the very cool Steely Dan video. Got to love it.

Bob - your post today helped explain to me why my college degrees have nothing to do with the way in which I have provided for my family these 30 some odd years. My goal upon graduation (BAs in English and History) in 1977 was to proceed directly to grad school to narrow my knowledge into the very limited area of ancient South American history. I am now so thankful that the reality of family responsibility steered me in an entirely different and seemingly unrelated direction - Human Resources. I've never really had any idea what I'm doing, but have been very successful making it up as I go (25 year career). NOT knowing is definitely the way to go.

A shout out to Dilys for the nugget of the day that, upon entering the atmOsphere, fractured into a shimmering shower of sparkling nuggetites across the night sky.

Van said...

I struggled for some time to pare down the first page of Richard Mitchell's Foreward to his book "Less Than Words Can Say", into a few pull quotes and I can't do it, it's painful to even try. To discard a single word of his writing is, for me, to feel something akin to guilt over murdering a Thought. I'll settle for two consecutive paragraph's from the Foreward where he discusses a memo & questionaire from a once promising colleague in a college, who after moving into administration, has evidenced a cloud creaping into his once clear mind. Mitchell is examining his latest mealy mouthed memo & questionaire, and notes:

"After years of fussing about the pathetic, baffled language of students, I realized that it was not in their labored writings that bad language dwelt. This, this inane gabble, this was bad language. Evil language. Here was a man taking the public money for the work of his mind and darkening counsel by words without understanding.

Words never fail. We hear them, we read them; they enter into the mind and become part of us for as long as we shall live. Who speaks reason to his fellow men bestows it upon them. Who mouths inanity disorders thought for all who listen. There must be some minimum allowable dose of inanity beyond which the mind cannot remain reasonable. Irrationality, like buried chemical waste, sooner or later must seep into all the tissues of thought."

The entire book (available online through the link above) is a gem, but try the Foreward and see what you think.

wv:bleoztv - ???

Van said...

Nomo said "...And the nice wine I was sipping is now a red sheen over my screen. Thanks so much!..."

Remember all you new Racoon kit's out there, this can happen to you too! Attempting to eat or drink when reading One Cosmos is to turn your mouth into a loaded gun, and any one of the sentences could, WITHOUT WARNING pull the trigger of Involuntary Spastic Spewage (ISS).

Help USS Ben & I to raise consciousness and put an end to the untold damage sweeping the land due to ISS; won't you join us in this worth cause, and remember, Gno not to Blow.

Another Bob said...


Thanks for the link to the book.
I'm already in the first chapter.
In my (former) friend's case,
the worm was a lie. Until now,
I had thought he chose stature over sanity.
Mitchell says the worm begat both the
insanity and the quest for stature.

-Another Bob

cosanostradamus said...

"a red sheen over my screen"

A sheet of Super Cling Saran Wrap slapped on the monitor before reading OC is cheap insurance.

Be especially prepared for Sunday...I sense a cuppa April Fools brewing. ;->=

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Bob said:
"There is a proper way to manifest reality through God's grace, but it will not be the reality the ego desires, nor will it be what one expected; and pain will be involved, which is one of the marks of authenticity."

Does that mean the more pain there is the more authentic it is? :^)

Ricky Raccoon said...

No worries Van,

I already have a ribbon magnet on my car that says, “I support an end to Involuntary Spastic Spewage (ISS)”

Problem solved.

Ricky Raccoon said...

Thanks for the link to Richard Mitchell’s work.
I’m hooked by half of the first page. Amazing how I can tell already he won’t be letting me down.
I think I was already hooked by this line: “…politicians and bureaucrats, whose consistently overblown prose offers us inanity in the guise of wisdom.”

I’ve been thinking on this subject lately. Notice how when the President gives a speech – even a primetime speech – the media coverage afterward only selects little sound bites from the speech - especially newspapers. Now I understand this is to so they can take things out of context and then interpret it for my subspecies. It frustrates me that you have to search so hard to find the complete transcription of a speech – which I’m fairly certain not man people do. Wouldn’t it be easier for them to just print the full speech in the paper with no play-by-play?

But getting back to Mitchell’s point, when I do eventually find the full transcript of the speech it often is soooooo long and so ‘lofty’ and ‘flowery’ even I (and I love this type of language - especially in speeches) find myself loosing patience.

Now I love the President, but I agree he has a communication problem. I’m not talking about the unscripted, live Q&A chats. But when it comes to important speeches where people need to know exactly what he means, as in the speeches and the documents drafted before the Iraq mission, these could use a little less ‘lofty’ and ‘flowery’, and if you can get away with it – and I think you can, much less ‘legalese’.

God bless Mr. Mitchell.

Ricky Raccoon said...


New Sunday Morning Post at:

Part 2 of “The Garden of Divine Symbols”

Happy April Fools Day!
March Fourth! …and grab your favorite lefty lib and tell him you’re thinking of converting to his way of thinking.
You’ll get to see a happy lib to boot!
…enjoy it while it lasts.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Van said:
"Remember all you new Racoon kit's out there, this can happen to you too! Attempting to eat or drink when reading One Cosmos is to turn your mouth into a loaded gun, and any one of the sentences could, WITHOUT WARNING pull the trigger of Involuntary Spastic Spewage (ISS)."

Cosonostradamus said:
"A sheet of Super Cling Saran Wrap slapped on the monitor before reading OC is cheap insurance."

Damn! Just like that!
Your a genius Cosostradamus!