In a follow-up to last week's podcast, Cary McCoy and I discuss what it means to be primal. Topics include: animal transformations, blood lust, unrefined masculine energies, the role of the sexes, the joys of sex and cooking, is there life after the libido, did Jesus preach the sermon on the mount with an erection, stage fright, how to channel hormonal (nervous) energy and chat up pretty girls, Jesus' sin of sins (and the masonic sorcerers secret recipe?), dreams of the anima, role-playing in sex, men-women relations and do strong women like to be dominated?
As Cary suggests on the show, this is a subject listeners might enjoy providing feedback on: ladies, do you appreciate a forthright male offering a no-nonsense, non-loaded appreciation of your sexiness? Guys, do you get uptight whenever in the presence of an attractive female? Would relations between the sexes be easier, more fluid and open - and less tense! - if we were upfront and honest about our sexual feelings, instead of maintaining the perennial mind games and secret agendas?
Oh and has anyone ever tried a mix of lentils, sperm and menstrual blood? ; )
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
34 comments:
I don't have anything particularly worthwhile to say about this subject, but I just wanted to say that I VERY much enjoyed this week's podcast/discussion topics. You two have a great dynamic and work off each other well. I hope you will have this guest on often. And in general I wanted to praise and thank you for your show. I look forward to it every week. So enlightening. Peace
~Eric
www.atlanteanconspiracy.com
Hi Eric
good to hear from you. Interesting site, I will explore it at my leisure and check out your radio show. We should chat some time about the question of "fighting the New World Order" - something i personally abstain from (tho the NWOrderlies may disagree)!
I agree Eric. Great podcasts and challenging. And I'm not even one of Aeolus' "Trust-Fund Occultist" listeners ; )
I have something to submit in answer to Cary's requests. The first is that I can feel very threatened by a man's sexual attraction to me and I think that this is largely contextual- say if I'm in a bar and a stranger comes on to me. But on the other hand if I have had enough interaction with a man to have been able to discern his intentions and have found him trustworthy, getting the attraction thing out in the open can be liberating, more so than having to pretend it's not there.
The other part of it is that being on the receiving end of a man's Anima projection is even more threatening because it is de-humanising and reduces me to a stand in for something or someone else. In this instance talking about it may not help if the man is unaware that he is projecting.
And about the lentil soup thing, isn't the best way to read it is as a metaphor describing the misuse of sexual energy? By making it profane- mixing it with lentils and ingesting it in an ordinary way- thereby turning the movement of the energy on it's head? It seems to me that Jesus would consider that the consequences of doing so would be very serious indeed.
Saying that, it reminds me of something I heard or read about the Bohemian Grove occultists- that they feast upon barbecued bull's testicles during their week-end retreat. True/not-true? Who knows.
Also a question for Aeolus: You seem to be saying that the unrepressed and refined primal would express as playfulness, is this correct?
Thanks for your wonderful podcast, guys.
YES!! ; D
Hey Aeolus... I'd be very interested to chat sometime especially on the topic of "fighting the New World Order." I have some of my friends here in Thailand who have encouraged me not to use the term "fight." I agree that this idea sets up an us/them dichotomy and gets in the mindset of struggle against some greater power. However, having said that, I haven't yet been able to come up with a satisfactory alternative that still encapsulates what I would like to do... and that is to expose and end this global manipulation/conspiracy of elites. Perhaps you can help shed some light on this matter. Peace
~Eric
www.atlanteanconspiracy.com
Hi, aeoulus. I have found that the best place for me to enjoy no-pressured male attention (genuine compliments given for their own sake and not as a seduction ploy) is a Renaissance Faire (I go in costume, but not masked). I for one dearly love sexual banter (I cant speak for other women, but for me being desired and pursued is thrilling). But when an UNWANTED air of seduction or even danger is introduced, the fun goes right out of it, and some men seem very slow to pick up on signals that they've crossed the line. Also unfortunately, some men seem to think that honest means CRUDE (eeewww!!). The key word is REFINED primal, something which so few men here in hillbilly country seem to understand. Plus some men seem driven to turn flirtation into a power issue and forget that the idea of flirtation is to have fun. Introducing power plays makes it frightening instead of fun, something no woman likes. A woman is not a "****tease" because a man didn't "get any" after she flirted with him . Frustration is just the price men sometimes have to pay for being male. If they could please just try to relax and enjoy the GAME for its own sake I think they'd find it lots of fun. After all, if she didn't like him, she wouldn't be flirting with him! I'm wondering if many people just can't bear alot of sexual tension and rush to "get it out of the way", to their own detrement.
P.S. Just to be fair, I am fully aware that women have their own ways of behaving badly in the sexual arena and that men have lots of legitimate complaints of their own. Plus I am in my 50s and maybe the male behavior that made life so unpleasant for women my age during our younger years isn't so prevalent any more amoung young people (at least that is what I hope). Its dismaying, but at least around here, many men my age havent gotten around to growing up sexually at all. Its almost like they think that women are not human.
By the way, I'm sorry I haven't been able to pay more attention to Stormy Weather lately, but 'tis the season of ***-mart hell.
To Vikki: You are absolutely right about anima projections being a total drag. And to get the man to understand what is happening to him is just a study in futility. He really thinks he's seeing the real you and has no idea he doesnt' know you at all. But then, if he's mother-bound, he'll have all the more trouble seeing you as an individual.
Eric,
i think it's the subtle but key difference between RESISTANCE and opposition. Why did Jesus say "Resist not evil"? Becoz resistance (pushing against, as any martial artist will tell you) adds its own force/power to the element being resisted. Opposition on the other hand entails only standing one's ground and not giving in to the adversarial element, thereby allowing/using it to test one's "stance" and potentially turning the adversary into a means of empowerment. Even so, i wouldn't ever say i was "opposing" the NWO, becoz it would be redundant: essentially a sorcerer opposes the forces of existence (be they society, family, or even Nature itself) all the way down the line, becoz s/he does not allow them to influence, shape, or define him/her.
Blake wrote that friendship is opposition. By this token, our greatest (most worthy) opponents are also are greatest friends, and even potential allies.
V & AG, thanks for the insights - keep 'em coming. : )
No surprise to find the ladies more forthcoming with their thoughts than the fellas. ; )
I really enjoyed these two episodes on the primal, and the latest one with Cary was quite humorous. I like when you have Cary on the show since he's artistic and right-brained while you're more analytical and left-brained. Of course, I hate to use those terms since they pigeon-hole you as one or the other, but it's the best way to describe how I view your alchemical relationship with each other. When the two of you converse you engage in "intuitive thinking" and this dynamic always makes for an interesting show. My other favorite guest was Jake Kotze, any chance that he'll be returning for another episode?
Returning to the primal carries the connotation of returning to something original; something that was here "before" but was lost. Before we can understand the primal and attempt to return to it we must first figure out what that something is that the adjective primal describes. In my view this "something" is consciousness.
This inevitably leads to the question as to what exactly is the difference between primal consciousness and normal consciousness? To answer this question we need to to study ourselves; the old adage of know thyself. Who am I?
"I" is perhaps the most enigmatic and least defined term in the English language. What is this "I" which I feel within myself? Is it my body? It can't be because I refer to it in third person. Is it my soul? I also refer to my soul in third person so the "I" is neither body nor soul. What then is the "I"?
The majority of people consciously identify with their personality of which is identified by their name. What then makes up the personality? Inner observation reveals that the content, structure, and functioning of the personality are made up of three centers:
1. Intellectual Center: registers, thinks, calculates, combines, researches
2. Emotional Center: feels, has sensations and passions
3. Motor Center: instincts, action, directs the five senses
Man identifies with this "I" of the personality no matter which facet it represents. Whenever an impulse is received by or emanates from one of these three centers, the other two, although they take part in it, generally adopt a passive attitude. This happens in such a way that the one who is in command at any particular moment speaks in the name of the personality in it's ensemble and represents the person as a whole. These three centers can be further divided or combined in various ways thus creating little "I"s or groups of little "I"s that are each in command of the personality at various times. Through introspection we realize that the "I" of which we're so proud is not always the same self, the "I" continually changes.
This instability models our attitudes. At a given moment, a little "I" or group of little "I"s that composes the personality decides on something and acts. Then it makes way for another little "I" which disapproves of the action taken and it's consequences. The inner life of man is mixed and entangled by all sorts of considerations which either come from the intellectual center, tarnishing the purity of his feelings by its calculations, or from the emotional center which clouds the calculations of the intellectual center. The changes caused by this legion of "I"s can sometimes be so radical, especially if we have acted under the influence of a particular passion or violent feeling, that it appears to us as if a foreigner had acted in our place and we later bitterly regret doing what we did.
The inner life of man is analogous to a glass full of sand in a state of mixture as a result of mechanical action. Every shock received by the glass causes displacement of the sand particles. Any minor shock, agreeable or disagreeable, happy or unhappy, is sufficient to give the inner content of our personality quite a different appearance. The personality offers nothing stable, or at the very least, very little stability, which changes in response to shocks received.
Returning to the question of consciousness let us define normal waking consciousness as consciousness of the personality. Due to its nature this form of consciousness is completely subjective. Do other forms of consciousness exist? Is there a higher state of consciousness that is completely objective?
Through deep meditation and further inner examination one finds a permanent point that exists within us, hidden behind the ever changing personality. This permanent point is always dragged along by the torrent of our thoughts, our feelings, our passions and sensations, which pass through it and involve us in unpremeditated and mechanical acts which we later condemn. This permanent point is an impartial "referee" or "observer" whose voice is often obscured by the inward uproar of the personality. Although weak and passive this evanescent form consciousness is that of the real "I" and is always just and objective.
This real "I" rarely manifests in man, and in general does not do so unless the personality asks him to. The attitude of the real "I" is similar to a judge who remains in his court without seeking to pronounce a sentence, whose passive attitude is opposed to the personality's active attitude. If we introduce a bond between the personality and the real "I" then their reciprocal positions can gradually become reversed. The real "I" then becomes active and the personality submits itself entirely to the real "I" who becomes the new master.
Theoretically the real "I" should have assumed the responsibility for commanding the whole system, but since the fall of Adam the real spiritual "I" has been relegated to the background of consciousness, dominated by the mental "I" of the personality. The personality which commands by default lacks unity and as we have observed is always changing and thus causes us to act in a disorderly manner. The fall of mankind was our identification with the personality and Illusion instead of the real "I". Returning to the primal is a return to the consciousness of the real "I".
Returning to the consciousness of the real permanent and unshakable "I", or primal consciousness, will cause an alchemical fusion of the many composite "I"s of the personality, or the sand in the glass, and outside mechanical shocks will no longer invoke interior change. The sandy personality will have fused into a stone. Having reached the primal man will have acquired a firmness; he will remain himself in the midsts of the many shocks life may expose him to.
Being primal is an ascent up a ladder that goes from being a product towards being a producer, a step that leads from mechanical existence, which leads to death, towards an existence ruled by the creative and playful spirit, which is life. To surrender to the primal is to lose your personality and this is why its so terrifying to the personality/ego and is resisted at all costs. In returning to primal consciousness you lose your personal self but you gain your real self.
In order to identify with your real "I" or primal consciousness instead of the "I" of the personality you need to be present in the moment. Through esoteric work and self-observation the real "I" or primal can be relegated to it's active form and the personality to the passive. Studying the work G. I. Gurdjieff, P. D. Ouspensky, and the lesser-known Boris Mouravieff will greatly help in realigning with the real "I".
In this episode the idea of being primal was associated with animal-like blood lust. We must not confuse the product with the producer. I think blood-lust is an unconscious manifestation of the wish to return to the primal. In a survival situation one must be fully alert and aware. The manifestation of the consciousness of the real "I" can sometimes be provoked by absolute paranoia in a survival situation because one must be fully present in each and every moment. I think some people yearn for the Illuminati to assume overt control and start microchipping the population. In this case they would leave their normal mechanical existence and go into survival mode, retreat into the woods, live off the land, be fully present in every moment to avoid danger and capture, and when the foe was discovered they would in a state of blood-lust destroy him. Man would become primal. Of course the Illuminati is a manifestation from our collective consciousness in order to shock us back into the consciousness of the real "I".
There you have my opinion on the primal through the reality tunnel of my personality. I really enjoy your shows and I wish you continued success with Stormy Weather. I found your show at just the right time; at time when I was getting too caught up in conspiracies and the external world, instead of investigating what really matters, my self.
No disrepect to Lance, but it seems to me that there's a man who likes to keep the primal at arm's length and then some. As for viagra, eeewww!!! I can't help seeing creepy old Bob Dole in those awful comercials. Please guys, lets have a little dignity along with the grey sideburns...thats much better than a chemically induced erection any day (when will these men get their minds off their penises???)
p.s. I read somewhere that insurance coverage of viagra by the auto companies' health plans adds as much as $1500.00 to the price of a new car. Quite a chunk of change just to salve some egos!
Quite the contrary auroragirl, I believe you may want to re-read my post.
Sir.Tom is just an automated spambot which is very common on blogger.com. Aeolus will delete it when he sees it.
Hi, Lance. Well, in your post I see alot of thinking about and talking about being primal, but no actual primal (gut) reactions or feelings. It seems that you have a good intellectual understanding of the subject, but that's not what I meant when I wrote that you seem to keep the primal at arm's length. Since when does one have to think about being primal? Children, who as every parent knows are primal beings, don't think about their reactions, they embody them. Your post leaves the body and feelings and emotions, the very stuff of the primal, completely out of the picture except, again, as something to think about and reflect upon but not to actually live, now, in the moment. I agree that adult primality (is that a word?), especially if it is refined (as in the courtliness so beloved by the female sex) must be filtered through the ego if it is not to be crude, repulsive or even dangerous, but the more the primal is filtered, the less primal it becomes until it can no longer really be called primal at all and is only intellectualization. And yes, I figured that was a spam thingy, but it gave me a wonderful chance to be primal, i.e. to have an emotional and body-centered, as opposed to an intellectual reaction, which is what aeolus invited us all to do.
Good post, that's what I like to see, an honest critique of my thoughts and not a one-liner. It's true that one doesn't have to think to be primal, but one must think in order to describe and communicate about the primal which I was trying to accomplish. I think some people believe (not necessarily you) that you have to abandon all of your higher faculties in order to be primal; however, the primal only magnifies every thought, every feeling, and every action you have.
I don't agree that the body and emotions (or even thought) is the stuff of the primal. One must not make the mistake of confusing the primal with illusion. The primal is beyond the illusion. If one channels this primal energy through the lower centers then it manifests as sexual attraction, flirtation, and perhaps lust. If one so chooses then this primal energy could be directed towards other purposes. For example, a writer could direct the primal energy through his being in such a way to create beautiful melodic poetry. An athelete could channel the primal energy through his body and in a show of athletic prowess break many world records. A couple may even chose to engage in tantric sex and thus transmute this primal energy from the lower centers into another form of primal energy that leads to illumination.
The primal is just that, energy, and by being present in each and every moment as a child this energy flows through you without hindrance. Don't mistake the effects as the cause; sexual attraction is a product of the primal, not the primal. Also, by disassocating yourself with your personality and realigning with the real "I" will help you better direct this primal energy since the real "I" does not judge as the personality/ego does.
nice to see a lively debate going on. I see auroragirl's point and concur to a degree: Lance's analysis does tend towards the cerebral, which is def. the antithesis of the primal in my experience. But the points Lance makes, in his roundabout way, are valid. (But then, so are Sir Tom's! ; ))
If you recall I first brought up the primal as a possible alternative to the idea of the "spiritual," and this is what Lance is getting at: the primal as we experience it is an expression of the most ancient creative force within us. It is Pan, god of All.
Primal = primary consciousness.
It's only because it has been divorced from, and suppressed by, our personal selves that we are obliged to experience it through and as the Shadow. Once that shadow aspect of the primal is integrated, and our ego selves thereby transformed, we can begin to express the less coarse, more refined aspects of the primal, which relate to our "spiritual" or divine being, while still being anchored in the physical-sensual realm.
This is the garden of earthly delight, from which the shame of "sin" (knowledge of good and evil, awareness of self as separate from Nature) has temporarily banished us.
PS. The spambot has proven itself far too intelligent to merely erase it. Its comments are all quite apropos!
but i wholly agree with AG about viagra. stay away from it. pan does NOT approve!
An automated mechanical robot teaching Hue-mans to be primal. Ironic indeed!
Hi aeolus and Lance. I didn't say Lance's points weren't valid, I said he wasn't being primal. If the primal is our name for our primary conciousness, then that conciousness, at least for humans (since we all start out as shitting, pissing, barfing, screaming infants) is bodily and emotional, or a least starts out that way. Adults may (or may not, as the case may be) have learned, through the socialization processes we are all subject to, to express the primal in a metered way, but I don't think that primal energy on its own would express itself (in humans) in anything other than the most basic vocalizations, like screams and moans. And duh, of course the primal is unconditioned energy, not necessarily sexual, and clearly (from watching animals) not even human, but how do we relate to it as a free-floating phenomenon? Through dreams? Well, OK, but it seems to me that most of our experience of the primal comes through relationships with other people...often people we don't like very much! It also seems to me that alot of people don't like having bodies, don't like having to shit and piss and all the other activities that go along with enhabiting a body (dare I mention: especially female bodies and functions like menstruation...horrors!!!), and would like to simply be able to "rise above" all the mess that goes along with primality as embodied in humans. I mean, clearly at some level the body is an illusion, but its the illusion we call home during our time on earth and its (the body's) realities are some of our most basic (primal) concerns. Why is it OK to get shit on our hands when digging for psychic gold, but as soon as I mention that humans actually inhabit bodies (horrors!!!), every one seems to get squeemy? If Pan doesn't like viagra, how do you think He feels about prudishness and denial of the body?
aeolus, I did forget that you used "primality" as an alternative to "spirituality". I don't like the idea of "spirituality" either and am glad for a proper word to use, like you are teaching us to use "sorcery". When I refered to "spirituality" in another post, I meant something far more robust than the wambly pap that most people think of, but didn't have a good word for it just then. My idea of spirituality, or now, primality, is something very messy and demanding, that gives me no peace and makes life very, very difficult. It is also something I live and embody and not something I just think about. I do not make my life like that on purpose...it is something that I seem to be constitutionally and tempermentally driven to do. I would love to be able to take the "just go along to get along" road but find that I just cannot, and I have been like this since I was born.
p.s. sexuality is just the easiest example of the primal to use, and usually gets people's attention. I could have used prize fighting instead, or childbirth (I didn't use childbirth because I thought it would alienate the gentlemen even more than talk of those other bodily functions (horrors!!!).
The child analogy is only useful insofar as you realize that the example works because a child is identified with his body consciousness instead of the consciousness of the personality because the personality is not yet fully developed. The analogy is used to demonstrate that to express the primal you need to lose your judgmental personality/ego. You seem to have in mind that you need to regress back to the consciousness of the body in order to lose the personality instead of shifting your consciousness upwards to that of the real "I" in order to relegate your personality to a passive role and your real "I" to an active one. From this point the primal will flow without hindrance and even moreso than you could possibly imagine.
The real "I" or soul (or whichever term you may prefer) is even more of a stranger to normal man than the personality is to the child. Identification with your real "I" is equivalent to a second birth, and this is where that terminology originated from.
The path towards identification with the real "I" is different for each type of man. One thinks (me), another feels (you), and another acts (Aeolus?). The path for each of us will be different, but as I will freely admit the emotional path will be easier.
If we could communicate in images and symbols instead of written words then this would be much easier to explain and would probably eliminate the confusion. Damn Jehova to hell for his usurpation of imagery.
My point was that the body is given short shrift, like a poor relation that everybody is ashamed of and would rather forget. My invitation to you is to stop talking about being primal and show me some primality, something from your gut and not your head. Stop talking about the spirit of Pan and show me that He lives within you. Because for all the words you've used, I really don't know what you're talking about. The "real" I? How do I know you know what that is?, simply because you assure me that you do and talk like an ivory tower guru? Do you realize you are addressing a woman and so my experience of the primal ("spiritual") may be entirely different than a man's, who has no experience of childbirth? You think the body is not spiritual? Shame on you! Don't you know that human childbirth is an extremely dangerous undertaking for the woman? Do you think that our (womens) willing surrender and joy in the continuance of the species at the risk of our individual lives isn't spiritual? Do tell me you are joking!!
AG, I do get your point, but I am not ashamed of my body and I don't think anyone else who has posted on this blog is either. Of course the body is spiritual, everything is of the spirit, even a rock. The problem is you are ascribing more importance to the body than to the whole system and this is mistake. You need to think in a holistic sense instead of focusing on only one aspect.
Secondly, as I mentioned previously the personality is is made up of three centers, the intellectual center, emotional center, and the motor center of the body. Focusing on only the body is still focusing on an aspect of the personality/ego and not the primal.
The path to the primal is a narrow road indeed. It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God (primality). I am missing the path by thinking too hard, and you too my dear are missing the path by identifying to heavily with your emotions. My invitation to you is to stop being emotional and show me some primality. Stop feeling the spirit of Pan and become Pan.
Quit presuming to tutor me, Lance. When I want your advice on how to be spritual, I'll ask for it. By presuming to tutor me you automatically place me in a lowlly "student" postition against my will and psychically rape me. Don't you dare to presume that you know better than I do what is best for myself, or how is the best way for me to be spiritual or primal or whatever you want to call it, or quote the bible at me from your lofty, cerebral, supercilious perch. The emotions are primal (spiritual), whether you or anyone else understands that or not, as is the body. The symbol for Pan is not half man and half goat for nothing. I think the problem here is that I got your number with my first post and simply embarassed you with ease with which I did it. This is my last post to you, so you can have the last word, but you don't enjoy a genuine critique...as a matter of fact, by all the evidence at hand, you hate one.
I wish to tutor no one and I never said that emotions or the body are not of the spirit (I said the opposite if you read my posts), you yourself put those words in my mouth. The simple fact that my comments have put you on the defensive only demonstrates that you are still identified with your personality/ego and not the primal. I have challenged the authority of your ego and your ego has attempted to re-assert itself instead of letting the primal flow through it.
As far as critiques go, do you not see the irony in saying that I can't accept a critique? I critiqued you, your ego was hurt, and instead of examining the reasons your ego was hurt and integrating those pieces of yourself you attack me instead. As for me, I enjoyed your honest critique and even freely admitted and accepted your analysis that I was being too intellectual in examining the primal. Do you read my posts before you respond? The evidence shows that you do not. There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Best of luck AG!
So I'm "identified" with my body and emotions, so what? As I said, I am a woman and not a man. I don't care if I'm not detatched or primal in the way you mean. As I explained above, my way is very messy and hands-on. Detatchment is not something I strive for as a thing in itself. If I happen to become detatched about something because I have wrestled with it long enough to suit myself, fine, but if not, thats fine too. I am primal enough to suit myself, and that is the only standard that anyone has the right to hold me to, especially someone I don't live with and whose life I don't affect. And you are blind in your own way, when you hold the Feminine to the standards of the Masculine, which angered me, as it bloody well ought to. I am a human woman, not a detatched, unreachable goddess standing on a pillar. Maybe thats why Dionysus is the "god" of women and Apollo is the "god" of men. Women by our nature are attatched creatures, and if that means attatchement to the ego and the emotions, fine. I am detatched and primal about things you know nothing about and in ways I don't think you'd understand. You have shown me nothing in all your posts that makes that kind of detatchment and that kind of spirituality or primality, whatever you want to call it, look the least attractive as an end in itself. If you want to live that way, thats fine and I wish you luck in your endevors, but stop holding me to your standards of primality. And Lance, intentional or not, you do tutor me and talk down to me. And then retreat into other peoples' words, biblical or other. So go ahead an imply that I am immature all you want. I know that I am mature in ways that you will never see because you don't know me, you have no clue what I've endured in my life, the losses I've suffered or what its cost me to get to the point I am at spiritually. I see no compassion in your posts, but only a didactic, officious certainty in spite of all your blather about primality. My maturity comes out in intimate situations (sexual and otherwise) that by their very nature are hidden and privite. You seem to think that there is this universal way of being mature, but there isn't. There are many ways...some of which are Feminine and therefor not even seen as ways of being mature because the current state of the world is so disfunctionally Masculine...just as there are many forms of intellegence, not just the Western Analytical Intellegence that is on the verge of killing the majority of life on this glorious Feminine planet.
p.s. I really do recommend the movie "Sirens" to you. Watch it and maybe you will catch a glimmer of what I am trying to tell you.
By the way Lance, Jehova is already in hell because Jehova IS hell. As a matter of fact patriarchy and the Masculine created hell. Hell is the child of the Masculine, or maybe what happens when the Masculine usurps the function of the Feminine instead of serving it as He should.
wow, auroragirl has some issues
And who doesn't, as your post makes clear about you? That is what makes us human. But at least I am not a cowardly cheap-shot artist afraid to engage people toe to toe even if I can't always engage them face to face. Do I know you from STA? Does your posting name begin with a Y? Whoever you are, you are worth no more of my time.
no it does not begin with a y... and i don't know you
i was just observing that you seem to have some male/female issues since the same issues seemed to crop up with vikki in another discussion on this blog...
i think you need to take a good hard look at both your posts in this discussion and the other one
I have male/female issues? Well, duh! But you grossly insulted me by saying that I "have issues", a cheap, low, dirty thing to do and now you are trying to back-peddle? Well you, who ever you are, may go to hell. And now I am wondering if this is "Stinky" (those elipses leading over a cliff...)
ok kids, let's try to keep this out of the realms of the personal, heh?
AG, i'll give you the benefit of the doubt and suppose that you are stalking your own weaknesses by airing them so publicly, but surely you know that sending people to hell or calling them cowardly cheap-shot artists isn't the way to conduct a sober discussion?
So far as insults being thrown, I'm sure you know that, when we make accusations about something, it's usually because we are guilty of similar behavior ourselves?
This isn't a personal attack, and if it seems unfair to censor you in public, I can only counter that this whole "debate" already seems too personal for the public domain, hence my playing the role of Saturnian Father.
I've got nothing against a lively or even "primal" expression of emotions, but taking our emotions (or our opinions) seriously smacks of the many-headed hydra of self-importance. The Nemesis of sorcerers, SI is to be indulged only at severest cost.
This applies to you all (and to me): let's try not to take criticism personally, and to refrain from personal attacks in this place.
And "anonymous's" nasty "wow, auroragirl has issues" is conducting a sober discussion? Others, like vikki (just as an example) air their personal stuff, too, and yet that seems to be ok. She was also the first to get personal when she and I had our long posting exchange, yet you said nothing to her about that. And maybe what you read wasn't me at all but something primal that has been denegrated for millenia and is tired of it, at least 5,000 years of being thought less-than and held to a standard impossible to meet because the standard is meant to measure something else. Maybe I was letting Her speak through me, using my life as an example. And also as for revealing personal stuff, authors do that all the time. Many an author has bared their soul and the details of their lives to the world and not been thought less of for it, and who knows if some woman read those posts and found kinship and solace in them? Besides, anytime anyone writes something they reveal clues to their psychology. And finally, getting really angry and endulging in a little SI is a very good antidote to depression. I do not think you are "attacking" me, but I do think you are selective with your critisisms and sometimes play favorites.
One thing just occured to me, aeolus...is it possible (I am trying to put this as impersonally as possible) that a dream-life that is curtailed or disrupted or truncated by working overnights comes out as kind of a waking dream? I mean do problems that I would normally work out in dreams have to be worked out in waking conciousness instead? Especially if one has been under tremendous strain?
Makes sense. What did Nietzsche say about doing ten new things every day so as not to go seeking after stuff in dreams? Dreams are vital to working out the Shadow aspects of the psyche. Denied dreamtime, we are denied that outlet, and so the Shadow must inevitably come creeping over into waking consciousness. (See Fight Club for the basic blueprint)
Even Superman had to sleep, for this reason.
Regarding your previous charge, so far as I am aware, i play no favorites. Merely call it as i see it, rightly or wrongly.
On the bright side of this dilemma, blurring the line between sleep and waking, ego and id, self and other, is what sorcery is all about. The twilight zone....
(Word verification Wangus: comattow)
Calling things as I see them, righly or wrongly, is what I was doing in the posts above too. And those people were writing to me, not to you. You are however, the owner of this site and I will try to honor your (unwritten, by the way) guidelines more closely. I have to tell you though that I, like the others who post here, won't always succeed.
This was a very enlightening and entertaining discussion, thanks for sharing all, especially Lance! I enjoyed reading your insights.
Post a Comment