On Sat, 19 Oct 2002 joseph@electrichands.com wrote:
> Suffering is how we progress our life.
"I have already said before that sacrifice is necessary," said G.
"Without sacrifice nothing can be attained. But if there is anything in
the world that people do not understand it is the idea of sacrifice. They
think they have to sacrifice something that they have. For example, I once
said that they must sacrifice 'faith,' 'tranquillity,' 'health.' The
understand this literally. But then the point is that they have not got
either faith, or tranquillity, or health. All these words must be taken in
quotation marks. In actual fact they have to sacrifice only what they
imagine they have and which in reality they do not have. They must
sacrifice their fantasies. But this is difficult for them, very difficult.
It is much easier to sacrifice real things.
"Another thing that people must sacrifice is their suffering. It is very
difficult also to sacrifice one's suffering. A man will renounce any
pleasures you like but he will not give up his suffering. Man is made in
such a way that he is never so much attached to anything as he is to his
suffering. And it is necessary to be free from suffering. No one who is
not free from suffering, who has not sacrificed his suffering, can work.
Later on a great deal must be said about suffering. Nothing can be
attained without suffering but at the same time one must begin by
sacrificing suffering. Now, decipher what this means."
Everyone suffers. Cheerful people assure you they never suffer. They are
always bright, healthy, and so on. Yet they suffer, in spite of this
rather tiresome picture of themselves. Everyone suffers mechanically. What
is mechanical suffering? It is something quite different from conscious
suffering. It is something so intricate, so devious, so apparently
contradictory, so various, so subtle, so historically long-standing–in
short, a habit–that we do not observe it. We do not see its continual,
inner, private, petrifying action, like that steady drip of
calcium-charged water that builds up those strange pillars in deep caves
between floor and roof. The Work teaches that we all, inevitably, have
mechanical suffering and that this is the only thing we have to offer as
sacrifice. In order to change, one must sacrifice something. Understand
clearly and ask yourself–if it ever does occur to you to ask yourself a
question, which means that you will have actually to think for yourself of
the answer–I say, ask yourself this question: "Can I possibly imagine
that I can change if I do not give up, sacrifice, something?" This means
simply that you cannot change if you wish to continue as the same person.
To change is to become different. If I want to go to London, I must give
up being at Amwell.
Now notice carefully what we have to give up. The sacrifice the Work seeks
is that of our habitual, mechanical suffering. Of course, people will at
this point justify themselves and say they have no such suffering, or that
what suffering they have is logical and reasonable.
`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42
Quoting "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <death@zaphod.terminal.org>:
> > Suffering is how we progress our life.
>
> "I have already said before that sacrifice is necessary," said G.
> "Without sacrifice nothing can be attained. But if there is anything in
> the world that people do not understand it is the idea of sacrifice. They
> think they have to sacrifice something that they have. For example, I once
> said that they must sacrifice 'faith,' 'tranquillity,' 'health.' The
> understand this literally. But then the point is that they have not got
> either faith, or tranquillity, or health. All these words must be taken in
> quotation marks. In actual fact they have to sacrifice only what they
> imagine they have and which in reality they do not have. They must
> sacrifice their fantasies. But this is difficult for them, very difficult.
> It is much easier to sacrifice real things.
How could 'things' exist? Life is a perputual liminal state. You never "have"
anything. When an object leaves my hand, it no longer exists, nor for the
period it was in my hand, did it exist, other than as a form of fluid energy
slowed to match my perceptions (which are flawed) and tricked into matching my
expectations (which are flawed). Only in my mind can I find a perfect pen
meeting my perfect expectation, and it is my unique pen.
>
> "Another thing that people must sacrifice is their suffering. It is very
> difficult also to sacrifice one's suffering. A man will renounce any
> pleasures you like but he will not give up his suffering. Man is made in
> such a way that he is never so much attached to anything as he is to his
> suffering. And it is necessary to be free from suffering. No one who is
> not free from suffering, who has not sacrificed his suffering, can work.
> Later on a great deal must be said about suffering. Nothing can be
> attained without suffering but at the same time one must begin by
> sacrificing suffering. Now, decipher what this means."
I used to wear a cowboy suit that was too tight and uncomfortable, but it made
me look like a real cowboy. I put up with the suit even though the itch and
pain made it hard for me to concentrate and shoot straight, and the pants were
too tight for me to get on a horse and ride. But I was the best looking cowboy
at the rodeo. Only, I was sad that I couldn't shoot and ride. For I really
wanted to be a cowboy because of the shooting and the riding. Either I had to
sacrifice my desire to be a shooting/riding cowboy or my suffering while
looking like a cowboy.
joseph
On Wed, 23 Oct 2002 joseph@electrichands.com wrote:
> How could 'things' exist? Life is a perputual liminal state.
So you think.
> You never "have" anything.
I suppose one has not responsibility either.
You're inappropriately opinionating and dissecting and analyzing
instead of reading.
> When an object leaves my hand, it no longer exists,
Er, right!
> nor for the period it was in my hand, did it exist, other than as a form of fluid energy
> slowed to match my perceptions (which are flawed)
> and tricked into matching my
> expectations (which are flawed). Only in my mind can I find a perfect pen
> meeting my perfect expectation, and it is my unique pen.
Go figure, huh? But that's what false knowledge does to you.
> I used to wear a cowboy suit that was too tight and uncomfortable, but it made
> me look like a real cowboy. I put up with the suit even though the itch and
> pain made it hard for me to concentrate and shoot straight, and the pants were
> too tight for me to get on a horse and ride. But I was the best looking cowboy
> at the rodeo. Only, I was sad that I couldn't shoot and ride. For I really
> wanted to be a cowboy because of the shooting and the riding. Either I had to
> sacrifice my desire to be a shooting/riding cowboy or my suffering while
> looking like a cowboy.
Meaningless.
But as usual, you want to 'wisely pointificate'.
`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42
Quoting "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <death@zaphod.terminal.org>:
> On Wed, 23 Oct 2002 joseph@electrichands.com wrote:
>
>
> I suppose one has not responsibility either.
> You're inappropriately opinionating and dissecting and analyzing
> instead of reading.
Responsibility is not a thing. Nor does one "have" responsibility.
>
> > When an object leaves my hand, it no longer exists,
>
> Er, right!
yes
>
> > nor for the period it was in my hand, did it exist, other than as a form of
> fluid energy
> > slowed to match my perceptions (which are flawed)
> > and tricked into matching my
> > expectations (which are flawed). Only in my mind can I find a perfect pen
> > meeting my perfect expectation, and it is my unique pen.
>
> Go figure, huh? But that's what false knowledge does to you.
False knowledge is knowledge of false information, it "does" nothing to you.
>
> > I used to wear a cowboy suit that was too tight and uncomfortable, but it
> made
> > me look like a real cowboy. I put up with the suit even though the itch
> and
> > pain made it hard for me to concentrate and shoot straight, and the pants
> were
> > too tight for me to get on a horse and ride. But I was the best looking
> cowboy
> > at the rodeo. Only, I was sad that I couldn't shoot and ride. For I really
> > wanted to be a cowboy because of the shooting and the riding. Either I had
> to
> > sacrifice my desire to be a shooting/riding cowboy or my suffering while
> > looking like a cowboy.
>
> Meaningless.
>
What allegories do you read that have meaning?
Joseph
On Wed, 23 Oct 2002 joseph@electrichands.com wrote:
> Responsibility is not a thing. Nor does one "have" responsibility.
Meaningless word-shifting about paired with your psychotic
pointification. One certainly does have responsibility.
If one can.
> > > > When an object leaves my hand, it no longer exists, > > Er,
> right!
>
> yes
Drivel.
> False knowledge is knowledge of false information, it "does" nothing to you.
False knowledge is NOT knowledge of false information.
And yes, it does plenty of damage to you.
> What allegories do you read that have meaning?
The above was not an allegory.
`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42
Quoting "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <death@zaphod.terminal.org>:
>
> > Responsibility is not a thing. Nor does one "have" responsibility.
>
> Meaningless word-shifting about paired with your psychotic
> pointification. One certainly does have responsibility.
> If one can.
Responsibility is not a possession.
>
> > False knowledge is knowledge of false information, it "does" nothing to
> you.
>
> False knowledge is NOT knowledge of false information.
> And yes, it does plenty of damage to you.
It does not, knowledge is not an capable of action, it requires an active
participant.
>
> > What allegories do you read that have meaning?
>
> The above was not an allegory.
>
Did I say it was? I submitted a question.
Joseph
On Wed, 23 Oct 2002 joseph@electrichands.com wrote:
> > Meaningless word-shifting about paired with your psychotic
> > pointification. One certainly does have responsibility.
> > If one can.
>
> Responsibility is not a possession.
Neither did I imply that it is. Have is not equal to possess.
> It does not, knowledge is not an capable of action,
Isn't it?
> it requires an active participant.
You have no idea what knowledge is.
> Did I say it was? I submitted a question.
No, you submitted drivel with a '?'
Quoting "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <death@zaphod.terminal.org>:
> You have no idea what knowledge is.
>
Neither do you.
>
> > Did I say it was? I submitted a question.
>
> No, you submitted drivel with a '?'
And you answered the same.
joseph
On Wed, 23 Oct 2002 joseph@electrichands.com wrote:
> Neither do you.
Actually I do, dearest. Your debasory masochistic impulses
have no bearance on such things.
> And you answered the same.
No, that is not what I answered.
Your illiteracy is your own problem.
`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42