Taken from a notebook from around the 2000 year, I was a bit scared of recording thoughts but did so anyway. In 2001 when my Dad offered to burn it for me (I would not be able to destroy it at the time and scenario but that is another story) I said dont and while I am glad I said no it causes a bit of pain to read the totally ignorant and crazy entries in it. Anyways here is an extract, a few pages semi connected : Chatted to Jamie, Davids friend in Glessons today Friday January 28th 2000. Some of the topics were well put. I wonder why he asks Do you believe in God?. Even when all (or most) modern day religions have God in an image of a human, in previous religions earth, animals, stars, suns were all supposed to also be gods [(or in the control of gods, not sure if this part is very correct)] Do we need a figurehead to blame each non understandable in current time event at todays level of knowing We are inherently curious by nature. As time grows into history from each current moment passing into the past - which is now plus now plus now but when change is introduced we look at the previous now as past, thus the past is our memories representation of a series of current moments with the from-to momentum of change. When people pray in silence to themselves they are directly asking some omnipotent power of force to make it OK or make them good people. The mere facts that we as a species have formed our current environment point that we should be developing will power to know ourselves and free will to expand the knowledge to encompass all possibilities and unpossibilities. Evolution takes more time than revolution (which is re-evolution, repeating more of the circle past than evolution implies) - evolution of representational physical objects has moved from to faster, smaller, bigger, smaller, more seen, more unseen etc... - as we have lived with this evolution we have taken for granted its affect on how we think, how we are driven in our individual momentums - information and more importantly how knowledge can be expanded and condensed with vital details and varied ingredients can bring all peoples focus together even if for no other reason than to admit its impossible possibility! (to those who think it impossible before hand). Western societies - are they (or brought up to a manner of) a set of experiencely defined people or a set of thought defining experience people (From the viewpoint of - are current time scenarios ultimately due to past current lifestyle factors affecting decisions which defined how our teachers were thought - should we learn to know how to think (or how we each as individuals think for ourselves) before we learn all the complex web of lies that most of societies fabric is interwoven with and thus form changed by. This form change by the web of lies is the current state of play (for no more lack of appropriate term for many PR jobs done on politics/tragedies etc in current places/spaces) Each thread in the weave - wether directly in contact with the web or not must refocus the direction.) Mostly a set of experiencely defined people. When you learn to forgive yourself it makes it easy to recycle the feeling and thus act in physical space (rather than react) to all. For every mistake, learn a good lesson from it that you can use to improve future decision making. Learn how not to repeat it, close the mistaken circle. Absence makes the heart grow finder. Abstinence does not! Part of the linear time function? - to allow perception of the presented representational world with existence as evolving slowly through the learning curve during the acquiring of knowledge right through to the pinicale (pinacle spellcheck) [23/09/2014 Editor : right spelling is pinnacle} of the crest of the wave of change, right before the the change has happened and right into the moment when the change came into being. Oceans of Emotions. [23/09/2014 Editor : The following extract is from the following book which I must have been reading at the time - Quotes from The Mountain is young by Han Suyin (1958) ] Pg 120 Very soon John, like Anne, like many another arrival in Kathmandu, suffered his own mountain change. Because the anthropocentric framework of the civilisation which had molded him was not tempered by a private originality in his own make up, this change did not affect him in the same way. It became not as in Anne, a dissolving, an understanding by osmosis, a relationship which accepted and found easy the acceptance of the fantastic and divine elements of the valley. To John occured an inflation of his own ego, phenomenon also recognizable in many others of the foreign colony of all Kathmandu. Because these had no other living gods to worship except themselves (since religion, to them, was a thing, apart, hebdomadal boring, exercise to be kept decently away from weekday living), it followed that when the valley changed them, insufflating them with its exuberence of life, this was transformed with in their souls into a sense of their own importance. They became grandiose to themselves; and there was no way for them to mitigate this self-aggrandizement, to restore the equilibrum displaced towards the megalomaniac, by means which were at hand for the humble and the meek, who saw the Divine in all things, and who, at the same time as they became aware of their own godly attributes, also had to know that in the valley of the gods every tree, every stone, pi-dog, cow and ragged porter was also god, Divine, equal and One with themselves
Posted on: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 21:29:18 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015