Tuesday, May 04, 2010

The Cosmography of Subjective Space

Schuon writes that there are three possible "situations or tendencies" for human beings: "firstly, conformity to the Principle, or the 'upward' tendency; secondly, the expansive affirmation of possibilities, hence 'horizontal' -- or, if one prefers, 'passional' -- existence; and thirdly, non-conformity to the Principle, and thus the 'downward' tendency, the illusory movement in the direction of a 'nothingness' that is nonexistent, obviously, but is possible as a negative and subversive point of reference." (This is in accord with the Vedanta, which speaks of sattva, rajas, and tamas, respectively.)

Obviously, the Raccoon way of life corresponds with the "upward tendency" (accompanied by a horizontal prolongation of Spirit into the world). For our kind, this is the only possible purpose and even justification for human existence, which is to say, transcendence of oneself in the journey back to our Source. One way I know I'm on the right track is if I am slightly or acutely embarrassed about where I was (vertically speaking), say, a year ago -- let alone, 10, or 20, or 30 years ago. I hope I can always say, "what an idiot I was for believing that!"

But if there is no vertical tendency, then there is no possibility of real growth (beyond mere biological development), much less conformity with Cosmic Truth, and thus, no need to ever feel shame or regret.

Here we have struck on one of the great appeals of leftism. Imagine, for example, being Jane Fonda, and being so incapacitated by an absence of shame that one believes the same things at 70 that one believed at 30. Put another way, if a conscious person were Jane Fonda, how would one ever stop cringing at one's past behavior? Easy. By disabling shame. By becoming fixated down and back in developmental spacetime.

Being on the left means never growing, and therefore never having to say one was wrong. In fact, another side benefit of being on the left is that one can never be a hypocrite, since they deny the existence of objective values one can fail to live up to. Thus, no one holds Al Gore or Thomas Freidman to account for consuming more energy than a small city, while hectoring the rest of us to live like cavemen.

Likewise, imagine one day waking up from the awful dream of being, say, Keith Olbermann. The worse the dream, the less likely it is that the person will awaken from it, since the shame would be too overwhelming. Thus, they defend against shame -- for they still have an inchoate awareness of it, and in Keith Olbermann's case, he oozes it -- by building an even stronger fortress against it. To quote the philosopher Butthead, this type of person is always trying to "run away from his bunghole."

Now, most of us have no doubt lived in some version of this dream at one time or another in our lives. But I would guess that all Coons can remember when something in them began to stir them from the dream, since which time their life has been an ongoing process of further waking, or "realization."

This is a good word, since it is real-ization -- which is to say two things. First, conformity with Reality, which automatically creates the tension between lower and higher that makes the "upward tendency" possible. And second, the slow conversion of oneself into something real and solid -- indeed, something eternal, or a self fit for eternity. This results from the metabolism and assimilation of Reality, which is the only thing that leads to real growth. What's the alternative, assimilating falsehood and fantasy?

Looked at in this way, life consists of building a vehicle -- of conceiving, gestating, and giving birth to a "celestial self" or astral body fit for vertical travel. Likewise, to fail to do this is not just to waste one's life, which is tragedy enough. Rather, it is to waste eternity, which is worse than a tragedy. It is plain careless.

It is no surprise that one of the central passions of the left is abortion -- it is an unthinking "way of life" for them, which is to say, a way of death. This is simply a horizontal reflection of the "astral abortion" of the leftist's life. Yes, perhaps this sounds harsh, but I am not saying anything that the leftist does not explicitly believe. From where they stand, they would mock and dismiss the Raccoon point of view as a fantasy at best and probably a pathology. We are wasting our lives on "spiritual fantasies," instead of getting down to the real business of depopulation and income redistribution, i.e., enforced horizontalization of the world.

Again, this is what a horizontal man such as Obama must think, given his admitted horizontality. How could he think otherwise? Like a man living in two-dimensional flatland, he is a rock-solid realist, insofar as he is innocent of any knowledge of the third dimension. He hears of people who speak of cones and spheres, but he knows better, for reality is right there before his eyes, and every leftist knows that perception is reality.

But it is strictly incorrect to say that the leftist simply inhabits the horizontal, "passional" world alluded to by Schuon in the first paragraph. No. This latter world is relatively neutral, but has a naturally upward tendency if left alone, as per the physics of non-linear systems, i.e., chaos and complexity theories. This is why science and the free market lead to such miraculous progress if we simply get out of the way and stop trying to force this or that outcome -- e.g., creating prosperity by forcing banks to give home loans to unqualified people. As Adam Smith noted 230 years ago, the market is an almost magical way to transform man's inevitable passions into something that transcends them, but only if we get out of the way, which the leftist refuses to do, precisely.

This, of course, is why it is such a cosmic hoot to suggest that the left is a great respecter of science, much less, progress. Both the left and right have specific issues with science, issues that are a function of their respective relationships to principial reality. But Yuval Levin points out that the left "has a much more complicated set of problems with science that are explored far more rarely than those of the right":

"Scientific advance, for instance, is the great engine behind capitalism, and is in that respect responsible for much that the left has disliked about the west since the 18th century. Much of what progressives oppose is precisely progress. Science, extended beyond its appropriate bounds, is also the chief contemporary threat to our continued allegiance to the principle of human equality, which has been at the heart of the liberal worldview. Put simply, science seems to demonstrate we are not equal -- this after all is the problem many on the left had with The Bell Curve. Of course, it only seems that way if you take a very peculiar view of what the principle of equality actually is. We are equal not in our natural capacities -- obviously we are not all equally strong, or smart, or tall, or healthy -- but in our standing as human beings in relation to something higher than ourselves. But the left is no longer well equipped to offer that defense of equality, since it requires all manner of premises they have given up."

In short, human beings are equal only in the vertical sense. Obviously, I might add. But if you have jettisoned the entire realm of verticality, then you are reduced to trying to impose horizontal equality, which is simply another word for tyranny. And this is why the left is also so angry. They are perpetually aggrieved -- and basically incapable of true human happiness -- since they have converted the vertical "transcendence drive" into a horizontal "political drive" -- which only ends up pushing them further and further from the goal and purpose of life, which is to say, human reality (which may only be found in the vertical). This results in a kind of nagging existential pain that eats away at the leftist, an itch he can never scratch. Or it is something like "referred pain," in which a lumbar injury causes sciatica in the leg. Leftists are obviously in pain. They remind us of this constantly. They are the Party of Pain. They just have no idea where the pain is coming from.

Which is why leftism is the philosophy of anti-progress. Since it unapologetically sets itself up as the "revolutionary" (which is to say, compulsively reactionary) philosophy of "non-conformity to the Principle," then it is necessarily "centrifugal" in nature, if only because of the Cosmic Law of Gravity, i.e., the Fall.

In other words, from the Raccoon standpoint, you are either with us or with the errorists. Once you become truly committed to that first proudly false step in ontological space, then your cosmic fate is pretty much sealed. You become trapped in the downward, dispersing, or centrifugal principle from which you cannot escape except by waking up -- which involves the acute pain of realizing not only that you have wasted your own life, but that you have spent it doing great harm to others.

No wonder there are so many tenured leftists who have not taken a new cognitive imprint since 1968! The more time that passes, the more intense the pain of waking. One becomes, as Schuon has said, encased under a thick and impenetrable sheet of ice that builds and builds like a glacier, separating one from one's vertical source. Tenure, publications, awards, and academic prizes are piled on, until one sinks beneath the weight.

Tom Sowell describes the problem with his typical lucidity:

"That people on the political left have a certain set of opinions, just as people do in other parts of the ideological spectrum, is not surprising. What is surprising, however, is how often the opinions of those on the left are accompanied by hostility and even hatred.... [F]or many on the left, indignation is not a sometime thing. It is a way of life....

"But how can people work themselves into a lather over the fact that some taxpayers are able to keep more of the money they earned, instead of turning it over to politicians to dispense in ways calculated to get themselves re-elected?...

"Often it is an exercise in futility even to seek to find a principle behind the anger. For example, the left's obsession with the high incomes of corporate executives never seems to extend to equally high -- or higher -- incomes of professional athletes, entertainers, or best-selling authors like Danielle Steel....

"If it is hard to find a principle behind what angers the left, it is not equally hard to find an attitude. Their greatest anger seems to be directed at people and things that thwart or undermine the social vision of the left, the political melodrama starring the left as saviors of the poor, the environment, and other busybody tasks that they have taken on. It seems to be the threat to their egos that they hate. And nothing is more of a threat to their desire to run other people's lives than the free market and its defenders."

Exactly. What can one say except that the chronic anger and hatred of the left is indeed "principled," except, to be exact, it is, as Schuon put it, "in non-conformity to the Principle." Thus the inevitable downward trend of the leftist's passions, including, of course, artistic passion.

Raccoons are hardly dispassionate. But our passion is always upwardly tending toward the Good, the True, and the Beautiful. We passionately love these with all our hearts, minds and souls, always bearing in mind that wisdom is the proper content of knowledge, and beauty the appropriate object of love. Naturally, if everyone were this way -- which is an impossibility, if only because Dupree would be overwhelmed by the number of membership applications -- it would be paradise on earth, would it not?


greyniffler said...

That "referred anger" is one of the great engines of evil in the world. I'm not sure how to counter it, although perhaps Chesterton shows us a way, with the ability to argue from common experience, without rancor. Indeed, a network of roots deep in the good things of life is a source of both strength and nourishment.

Yeah, there is strength in striking root, and good in growing old./For we have found common things at last, and marriage, and a creed/And I may safely write it now/And you may safely read.

In fact, GB, I'd love to see you hold forth on some of Chesterton's work. That quote is from To Edmund Clerihew Bently" a poem which prefaces The Man Who Was Thursday.

(Not to say that Chesterton couldn't express anger; see The Song of the Wheels.)

julie said...

There are a few ways to counter it. One way is mockery, since the anger so often is totally ludicrous. Another is to respond in some way that is completely unexpected; my SIL, a psych nurse, has talked about a method of dealing with a kid in a complete raging meltdown - throw a glass of water in their face (sans glass, of course). They don't expect it, it doesn't hurt them, it forces them to take a deep breath, and hopefully de-escalates the situation. Used sparingly, I understand it can be quite effective.

A third option is to try and address whatever the underlying driver of the anger really is, but that can be very challenging since it often involves exposing that layer (or mountain, as the case may be) of shame that Bob talked about. Best used against someone who is open-minded enough to genuinely consider the source of their anger, and willing to accept the consequences.

And of course, there's usually the option to not engage it at all, and simply go about one's business. But depending on the circumstances, sometimes there is no way around it, only through it. Sometimes, the only appropriate response is to answer referred anger with righteous anger. It all depends on the circumstances.

Ideally, whichever the response, one acts from a dispassionate grounding in the higher vertical - that is to say, not from one's own passionate reactive anger but rather from Authority. Which is tricky, because it is so easy to convince oneself of the rightness of one's position, whether or not that is truly the case.

In short, lots of options, no easy answers. And of course, it's all just my opinion, so take it for what it's worth (something less than the monetary value of the average coupon, I think...)

Gagdad Bob said...

Dennis Prager has one of the best ways, which is to simply clarify differences rather than seek agreement. One quickly discovers either that one holds values completely contrary to the liberal, or -- more often -- that the liberal holds positions that actually clash with his own values, e.g., equality under the law vs. racial quotas.

julie said...

I had forgotten that one; it's been way too long since I've listened to Prager. His clarity of thought was instrumental in helping me to pull my head out of the flatlands, way back when.

greyniffler said...

Sometimes the immediate need is not to take down the font of the anger, but to keep the conflagraation from spreading. Prager's approach seems most effective against the naive apostle of anger. Chesterton and mockery seem more effective in public argument when you are trying to keep the apostle from gathering followers.

Which reminsd me ... GB, if you haven't already got this quote, Chesterton wrote that "Satan fell through the force of gravity."

Grant Maher said...

A world comprised completely of Raccoons would be a better one than we have now, but would still not be a final destination. There is always something higher to shoot for.

The cosmos is problematic because that is precisely what it is for. God had no problems (i.e, nothing to do) and so created cosmos for entertainment.

As any storyteller knows, it all must start with a protagonist and a conflict, or it's just no good.

So, when panning the leftist, keep in mind she functions if nothing else as a thorny problem to crack, and that is her utility in the whole pageant. The role is not insignificant.

Rick said...

Please let us know how the Timothy Scott book is.
Why does his name sound familiar..does he have another book in the Raccoon store?

mushroom said...

I think the anger of the left is mostly drama. Or as my granddaughter used to say, 'tend. I was talking to her Saturday night -- she's now fifteen. One of the topics that kept coming up was all the people who can't control themselves so they are desperate to control someone else. They validate their existence by their "influence" on others.

It's probably why so many actors and other performers are drawn to the left ("I'm not left. I'm just drawn that way"). They are always "using their influence" to do good -- like singing "We are the World" instead of just shelling out some sandwich money.

NoMo said...

A lot of anger can be the result when "illusory fantasies and empty catchwords" come face to face with REALity.

From today’s American Thinker: “The champions of socialism call themselves progressives, but they recommend a system which is characterized by rigid observance of routine and by a resistance to every kind of improvement. They call themselves liberals, but they are intent upon abolishing liberty. They call themselves democrats, but they yearn for dictatorship. They call themselves revolutionaries, but they want to make the government omnipotent. They promise the blessings of the Garden of Eden, but they plan to transform the world into a gigantic post office.” (Ludwig Von Mises, 1944)

“And what is the antidote to the grim utopian schemes of leftist intellectuals and politicians? According to Mises, "Just common sense is needed to prevent man from falling prey to illusory fantasies and empty catchwords."


julie said...

Alas, common sense doesn't seem nearly common enough, these days...

walt said...

Just a fine post, Bob!

There is a kind of continuing "dream" that tells us we can mark time and yet stay the same. We forget that Reality is a verb, and that if we're not movin' on up, we're surely going sideways and/or down.

Schuon's delineation of the three possibilities for Man fits right in with that. And to live an up-standing, up-right life asks us to "bring something" to it every day, i.e., it never happens "willy-nilly."


Jack said...

Someone who trained in Pakistan in explosives tried to set off a bomb in Time Square. Nobody in my lefty college town even is mentioning it. I brought it up at work and my boss--a smart, creative guy--brushed it off with something like "we're lucky that's the best they got...I mean, I know we've got it coming to us".

I finished "America Alone". I think the book killed off the last of any residual leftyism...or at least I hope it did. Either way it was the tipping point for me in really taking off my blinders on the "radical islam" situation.

We may bend over backwards in this country to say we are not at war with islam...regardless, a certain militant segment of islam is definitely at war with us.

Steyn makes the brilliant point that more than anything this is an *ideological war*--one our tepid multicultural postmodernism simply cannot win. We cannot sell out our own civilization and think that this abdication will be what saves us. It will be our DOOM.

But I don't know how to begin my small part in this. Even as a lefty I had a strong interest in Western philosophy, history, culture, art etc. But very few of my "educated" college town neighbors have done the same. We no longer exist in the same conceptual framework.

They are mostly caught in the inane pomo loop "there is no truth except that there is no truth". Always speaking of something being "their truth" or "yes, that's *your* truth". Somehow the word "truth" has replaced "opinion" in the kneejerk postmodernist the semi-uneducated privileged left.

No appeal to showing the fallacy of this seems to work. Even with those I consider the smartest amongst my lefty friends. I had one such friend say "you can never change anybody's mind". Which translates to me as: that's my story and I'm sticking to it!

So I have finally woken up to the threat our civilization faces and everyone else is walking around utterly asleep to it. I have empathy because I was once fast asleep to it myself.

The "ideological war" is not only with islam, but with our fellow citizens. Will it take the horror of a couple of these bombs actually going off to wake us up or will that only increase the denial? The more bombs the more we blame ourselves...

okay, sorry about the verbosity...I'm a bit frustrated.

Any thoughts?

greyniffler said...

Jack, have you read Chesterton and studied his style of argument, if you can even call it that? I've found it helpful in composed (web) replies, but I don't really get a chance to take it mano e mano.

For a start, try chesterton.org . There's also a lot of his work on wikisource (referenced on Wikipedia).

Man shall shut his heart against you and you shall not find the spring,/Man who wills the thing he wants not, the intolerable thing./Once he likes his empty belly better than your empy head/Earth and Heaven are dumb before him; he is stronger than the dead.

Susannah said...

"First, conformity with Reality, which automatically creates the tension between lower and higher that makes the 'upward tendency' possible. And second, the slow conversion of oneself into something real and solid -- indeed, something eternal, or a self fit for eternity. This results from the metabolism and assimilation of Reality, which is the only thing that leads to real growth. What's the alternative, assimilating falsehood and fantasy?"

Assimilating fantasy must account for the strange leftist attitude that: "One thing is as good as another--*unless* it points to the Absolute."

Growing up, I was always amazed at supposed adults treating philosophy or religion as some sort of buffet from which they could pick and choose as they wished, without any curiosity as to whether their hodgepodge resembled reality. But even to suggest the possibility it might not makes you "judgmental, and a bigot." (But calling somebody a judgmental bigot somehow *isn't* judgmental. I never could figure it out.)

BTW, I get a "yes!" every time I read something by Yuval Levin on The Corner.

"The worse the dream, the less likely it is that the person will awaken from it, since the shame would be too overwhelming."

So very true. I believe that's the searing of conscience Paul mentions in Romans, which results in a debasement of mind.

I'm an incurable evangelical: there is only one Remedy for our shame, only One who has the power to forgive and heal the causes of it, the same that sets us on that upward path of growth.

"Brothers, I do not consider that I have made it my own. But one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. Let those of us who are mature think this way, and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal that also to you. Only let us hold true to what we have attained.

"Brothers, join in imitating me, and keep your eyes on those who walk according to the example you have in us. For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, walk as enemies of the cross of Christ. Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things. But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject *all things* to himself." [Emphasis mine]

Jack said...


I have read Chesterton. Not extensively but 2-3 of his books. I will check him out further and see what I can gather from him.

I think humor, and calm, patient presentation of reason and truth. Trying to "win" an argument is the kiss of death. They will only stop listening. At this point my intention is to just plant a small seed of some kind in every conversation. Maybe at first something seemingly innocuous...just a small joke that casts doubt on some minor premise or points out a contradiction. The thing is: I am vastly outnumbered here...so this is going to be more of a ninja-style mission than anything else. To be effective I might have to remain somewhat "invisible".

We'll see how it goes. Thank you for the Chesterton suggestion...

Susannah said...

Jack, the utter horror that was 9-11 is did indeed awaken a few people to reality--people who have gone on to become quite vocal in the war you mention. (I believe Bill Whittle was one of those 9-11 "converts," so to speak.)

I'm not sure if mere awareness is enough to halt our decline.

Being incurably evangelical, I see the old 180*, wholesale repentance (another Great Awakening?), as the only route back. However, kind of like charity, repentance can only begin at home.

Shame no longer denied, but faced, is the first little step to acknowledging that powerlessness Bob noted the other day, the first step to setting aside the ego and "taking up his cross." Without first the shame, without the awareness of lack, without the acknowledgment (indeed, the glorying in) weakness...there'll be no gratitude or joy. No moving upward at all.

It doesn't come about by the usual means, in other words, as much as it *is* our obligation as citizens of the greatest nation of all time to continue to speak the truth to our fellows, and to our representatives in government.

God's movement throughout history has always been an undercurrent among the "foolish" and "weak" things of the world, barely noticed, if at all, by the power-obsessed. When we look like we're losing, that's when we're really winning. (E.g., See the Church, China.)

Susannah said...

Regarding "how to talk to a leftist, if you must..."

Has anybody had much success with the Socratic method?

Gagdad Bob said...

There are some clarifying arguments at Prager University.

Gagdad Bob said...

Thomas Sowell too. Heh.

Gagdad Bob said...

Lot of good Sowell-related stuff. I could spend a couple of hours there...

Grant Maher said...


Your emphasis on evangelism is fully justified.

After suvival needs are met, evangelism is actually the only worthwhile activity that remains. Think this statement over carefully and you will see that this is really the case.

All good art is a form of evangelism; it spreads the influence of O.

All acts of charity and mercy are evangelism; they spread influence as well.

A virtuous human being is by default evangelical.

Beside these tangential influences there is no harm in trying to storm the citadel of a hardened heart by direct or didactic appeal either.

I exhort all good persons to wage unrestricted evangelical warfare to every nook of existence.

Grant Maher said...

I might add that an evengelical married couple working in tandem may be the most potent unit of force for good on the planet.

Van said...

“What can one say except that the chronic anger and hatred of the left is indeed "principled," except, to be exact, it is, as Schuon put it, "in non-conformity to the Principle." Thus the inevitable downward trend of the leftist's passions, including, of course, artistic passion.”

Exactly. The left is anti-principle on principle… and to be and do such thinking, is unavoidably dis-integrating – and with such a philosophical outlook, how can your trajectory be anything other than downward?

“In other words, from the Raccoon standpoint, you are either with us or with the errorists. Once you become truly committed to that first proudly false step in ontological space, then your cosmic fate is pretty much sealed.”

Full of themselves and their causes they charge on, spiraling down into darkness.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

"What can one say except that the chronic anger and hatred of the left is indeed "principled," except, to be exact, it is, as Schuon put it, "in non-conformity to the Principle.""

Aye. Or, as I like to say, the envy n' rebellion principals.

Skully likes: the raisin' Cain principle, when describing consistent leftist principles, not when he's on a bender (or blender) (don't ask) (please).

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

The thing is: I am vastly outnumbered here...so this is going to be more of a ninja-style mission than anything else. To be effective I might have to remain somewhat "invisible".

Doctor Zero has another great post up called Invisible Truth that may be helpful.

Since leftists are often blind to the truth anyway, perhaps invisible, or ninja stealth truth (OMaflage?) may be a helpful tactic.

I mean, Dennis Prager's advice to define the disagreement clearly along with Doctor Zero's advice to appeal to critical thinking is an excellent combination.

Of course, God's grace trumps everything we may try, keeping our ego in check, and there are, as Julie mentioned several tactics to use, depending on the situation, which, again, may be a result of grace.

Any efforts on our part should be, first and foremost, in defense of the Truth, as Bob talked about the other day.

ge said...

~came across this nutty gooroo, for crazywise chuckles check him out--

The Crazy Wisdom of Ganesh Baba: Psychedelic Sadhana, Kriya Yoga, Kundalini, and the Cosmic Energy in Man

Sayings of Ganesh Baba:

Beware of the non-psychedelic.

Wise men don't love wise men, wise men love fools. And you are such divine fools.

Anyone who does not do his duty by the mothers will be fucked by the Tantric forces.

Real saints are mad. In fact, there are no saints only sinners. Real saints won't be declared.

One will have to have an uncanny sense of humour. Abandon your languages, especially the French, Dutch and Germans.

Somebody must write a book 'Kings with Straw Mats'.

God is the supreme shopkeeper, his market is infinite.

Kriya Yoga is cosmic communion through cosmic action. Cosmic action is already going on within you.

It is alright to remain a stranger.

The beads of the rosary are inside your own body. God did this in order to impinge the inner rosary.

In Tantra, if one is a meat eater, we give him so much meat he will ask for dal and chapati.

Let philosophies flourish or be demolished.

We must express the dignity of poverty.

Polar switchback: when you reach the highest point of positivity you'll swing back immediately into negativity.

Real yogis sleep by day and fuck the night.

There is food everywhere, I tell you.

Why is the Westerner coming here to dig our dust?

Let one mystery remain.

A non-psychedelic can never enlighten a psychedelic.

I am a Naga hipster, we don't bother with petty formalities.

Whether they give us one blanket or two blankets it doesn't matter, you see we know this body will not last.

Don't count time if you want to evolve; if you count time you will revolve.

Ganesh Baba says he studied under Dale Carnegie: he was a great master, greater than those modern Indian phonies. He said, 'Stop fucking, start living'.

On sex: 'We cannot be thunderstruck by these tissues.'

Buck up or fuck up.

Once a psychedelic, always a psychedelic.

Sensation should not affect you but the principle behind the sensation.

Ram is the rest point of the mind or soul, not the man with bow and arrow.

No sucking in our ashram.

If you have to pay five rupees to see Rajneesh, then you can pay five rupees to see my doodoo.

I look upon you as a skeleton, then as a complementary circuit.

The history of India is a continuous stream of high hoax.

'Beware of India' this is my last comment.

Another comment: 'India is OK, beware of Indians'.

The first lesson from India you can learn: We will all die.

I have died four or five times and I am still alive and kicking.

Don't cut the vegetables, make them whole.

We will always fuck the mothers of the spiritual, three orgasms an hour, the older the better.

A fool laughs three times. The first time when others are laughing. The second time when they understand the joke.The third time when they wonder why they laughed when they didn't understand the joke.

Ganesh Baba on himself: He is not only the goofy Himalayan psychedelic yoga teacher, but he was a student under Einstein, Schrodinger, Jung, Max Planck, not second or third hand but hot hand, asker of the most insidious questions under the sun. Only by asking the silliest questions can you get the wisest answers.

Ganesh Baba's guru said to Ganesh, 'Sit with your back straight until you drop dead. Then you will be sitting in my lap and I will be sitting in the lap of God.' I believe him and I am still going that way.

Sal said...

Yes, once you accept the fact that, if you are headed in the right direction, you will spend your whole life looking back and going "Wow- you were such an ass", it doesn't sting nearly as much.

And as we are not created equal horizontally, that is why vocation is so important. We can soar if we are in the right 'place'.

julie said...

Bob - thanks for the Prager link. I didn't get a chance to watch until this morning, but that particular video resonates.

The Sowell is good, too - I love the definitions.

greyniffler said...

Jack, one last belated thought on facing The Blast of the Left.

When they have rallied all their rhetorical force, all their anger, on the main front of battle, find a way to attack their flank, or to seize a secondary point that undermines their whole position. (I almost wrote "unhinges their whole position" but unhingedness is their SOP.)

julie said...

That's the tricky part, GN - how do you undermine something that's based on nothing to begin with? It's like fighting Liquid Metal man: there is no underlying form, no Absolute structure, just arbitrariness and a will to power.

I'm not saying it's impossible, mind you, just challenging. As I see it, somehow they must be bound to truth. But if they start with the premise that there is no truth, it will be (or rather, is) difficult.

I like the ninja idea.