Topic: Why debunking Carlos doesn't work

[Nichi]

The intent to 'attack' does not do any good to anyone.  At one stage of the path, the intent will start directing energy. Dark applications of power (like that of attacking  other person) that are guided by ill intent mean that 5/6 of the applied energy will never leave and will strike the very person who uses it.

True.

[Michael]

Perhaps the title of this thread should be, "Why Debunking Each Other Doesn't Work."

 

[Nick]

It is my deliberate folly.

So you have actually tried deliberately to 'attack' me? Pardon me for taking these attempts for complaints. However, it seems that you are going slightly over the edge in how you make your points.

Ditto on the deliberate folly, so we are utilizing the same strategy.

As far as deliberately trying to attack you, it depends on how you interpret my use of the word attack. I am attacking you, in the same way you attack others. You would not word it that way, but me wording it that way has its strategic benefits. I am putting a mirror to your strategy, so you can, if you wish, see the inherent fallacy in your actions.

The intent to 'attack' does not do any good to anyone.  At one stage of the path, the intent will start directing energy. Dark applications of power (like that of attacking  other person) that are guided by ill intent mean that 5/6 of the applied energy will never leave and will strike the very person who uses it.

My intent is not to attack, not in the way you are interpreting. I am doing more or less exactly what you do, just in my own words. My intent is to flesh out self-understanding, by imagining that I am you.

Now, to clarify what you said, your deliberate folly is to act in a highly ineffective manner?

There is another strategy, one that involves working with one another to come to mutual self-understanding. This strategy also goes counter to the very intellectualistic thinking you state is often viewed as a cancer. This western intellectualism is very conflict driven, but it is not the only viable approach. Yet, it is very much the type of thinking you are employing.

[Jahn]

Loving her - is loving You!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNM6IuA87eM

Loving you
Isn't the right thing to do
How can I
Ever change things that I feel?
If I could
Maybe I'd give you my world
How can I
When you won't take it from me?

You can go your own way!
Go your own way
You can call it another lonely day
Another Lonely day
You can go your own way!
Go your own way

Tell me why
Everything turned around?
Packing up
Shacking up's all you wanna do
If I could
Baby I'd give you my world
Open up
Everything's waiting for you

You can go your own way!
Go your own way
You can call it another lonely day
Another Lonely day
You can go your own way!
Go your own way


You can go your own way!
Go your own way
You can call it another lonely day
Another lonely day
You can go your own way!
Go your own way
You can call it another lonely day

You can go your own way
You can call it another lonely day
You can go your own way

Go your own way.

[Nick]

A Warrior does not laugh at him- or herself out of controlled folly, it is no fun with practicing controlled folly - it is only a must do. A Warrior laughs along with his Source. However, what may amuse a Warrior and his or hers Source is some times, human folly.

This because the funny thing is the revelation of how things "really are set up" in this Universe and how that state of "how it really are set up" is in conflict with the world of the humans. They (the humans, in their folly) got the horse behind the carriage so to speak.

To put it in other terms: We laugh when we get insights - it is as simple as that.

Controlled folly is only trully 'controlled' when one lives from their Source.

It is being from the Source that gives the detachment needed to see how things are "really set up".

It is being from the Source that give the detachment needed to allow folly to be, and thereby controlling it.

Things are set up in such a way that if we are honest it is impossible to know for certain what will happen next.

Knowing how things are set up; that we can not predict what will come next, creates an incongruity between what we know is happening now, and what we can not know for certain for the next moment. An incongruity between what is experienced as sensible, and what can never make sense; the grand mystery of existence.

We can not laugh if we are not already somewhat detached from the normal mind of the masses. The more detached we become the more free we are to laugh.

Therefor living from our Source allows laughter.

If we not at least a little detached we will not laugh,

We will not laugh because we will be too much in our response/reaction to either the known factor or the unknown factor (like when someone can not laugh at a joke about a disabled person because they are to attached to their seriousness concerning that issue),

therefor the impressions will not fall equally and not produce at once the sharp yes and no needed to produce laughter.

Another instance is when you have so much excess energy that it has to fall on both sides of our energy accumulators.

The above would also explain why staying up late and being half very tired, but youthful and full of energy can set us up to laugh a lot. It is that you are tired, a downer, and full of energy, an upper, then bamb laughter. Yawning is also the opposite of laughter. Laughing relieves us of superfluous energy, but yawning pumps in energy. Therefor, if you are tired, and just feeling tired makes you inclined to pump in more energy because of yawn, this may lead to laughter. Plus bent tired distorts our perception of reality, thereby allowing many things to seem sufficiently incongruous.

The process of controlled folly is a process of energy conservation, the more energy we conserve the more likely we will have enough for it to fall on both sides of the accumulators. Also the core of controlled folly, living from our Source, will also fill us with abundant energy.

Laughter is the natural result of living harmoniously.

Controlled folly is fun if you want it to be.

I have also noticed that laughter deepens feelings of reverence, and increases intellectual ability.

I would further propose that laughter can be deliberately coveted and used as a tool to aid in seeing through the veil of illusion/maya. This is due to laugher allowing us to see reality as incongruous.

This is inspired by personal experience, the scientific theory called "Incongruity theory", and Gurdjieff's theory from In Search of the Miraculous pg. 236-37

Also, we have to believe because there is no way of knowing with certainty. Yet believing is a part of our folly, because we know it is only belief and therefor we are not affected by the seriousness of dogmatism. We believe without believing.

[Jahn]

Controlled folly is only trully 'controlled' when one lives from their Source.
 

Yes, that is ”right”.

It is being from the Source that gives the detachment needed to see how things are "really set up".
 

Yes, that is kind of ”right” too.

It is being from the Source that give the detachment needed to allow folly to be, and thereby controlling it.

Detachment and control is not equal to have fun or making a big laugh, but it may be a required condition.

We can not laugh if we are not already somewhat detached from the normal mind of the masses. The more detached we become the more free we are to laugh.
 

We are not detached from the masses, we are in symbiosis with our Self (our Source). It has a certain point to make our transformation into the positive part (alignment, in command, having dominion etc) and not stress the negative as detachment, alienation and alike - which is not true. We go one way, toward our Source, or Soul.

[Nick]

Detachment and control is not equal to have fun or making a big laugh, but it may be a required condition.

We are not detached from the masses, we are in symbiosis with our Self (our Source). It has a certain point to make our transformation into the positive part (alignment, in command, having dominion etc) and not stress the negative as detachment, alienation and alike - which is not true. We go one way, toward our Source, or Soul.

When I say detached from the mind of the masses, I am simply using different terminology than you. By detached from the mind of the masses I mean being free to maintain your own individuality, free to be you, and free to see life with an open mind.  Being in symbiosis with the Self (Source) detaches the inner sphere(ball) of our being from the outer sphere(ball), to barrow Michael's terminology. We can, of course, laugh without this detachment, but it is always selective laughter. To laugh at one's ego-self is much easier if you have breathing room between You and the ego.

[Jahn]

When I say detached from the mind of the masses, I am simply using different terminology than you.

That explain a few things. In Esoteric shools it is rather important to be aware of the use of terminology.

By detached from the mind of the masses I mean being free to maintain your own individuality, free to be you, and free to see life with an open mind.  Being in symbiosis with the Self (Source) detaches the inner sphere(ball) of our being from the outer sphere(ball), to barrow Michael's terminology. We can, of course, laugh without this detachment, but it is always selective laughter. To laugh at one's ego-self is much easier if you have breathing room between You and the ego.

Hmm, it resonates quite alright. Now - ones detached - to use your terms, create no laughs regarding our ego simply because there is none (in the regular sense). Once in symbiosis, the little ego (the parasite) is gone.

So as "detached", from whatever - we laugh when we get insights.

[Nick]

So as "detached", from whatever - we laugh when we get insights.

Except I don't see it as only laughing when we get insights. I see the key being the dual stimulus, a yes and no. Gurdjieff speaks of this:

http://www.infinityfoundation.com/mandala/i_es/i_es_visuv_cha_2_frameset.htm

[Firestarter]

You know... I think I recall reading somewhere, some time, that Michael has Mars in Scorpio... though I might have dreamt it.

(Just an aside.)

Mars in scorpio in the first house, two grand trines, uranus conjunct midheaven which means the path endured much upheaval.

He wears a mask like the mars in scorp in the first house does, and it bleeds through, his more true self. Neptune conjunct ascendant shows hes a tricky bastard, and that the spiritual life preceedes all.

I dont think he minds me sharing.

[Firestarter]

Popped up.

The books are intended to come alive for who the spirit wills. I cant explain it. I know they came alive for me when I purchased the first book, The Teachings of Don Juan, the day I got it, before I even took it home and read it. Literally it all began in the parking lot, outside the bookstore when I purchased it.

For others who the books are not meant to come alive for, they will lay flat like a cool and interesting story, but not be believed. Like Carlos turning into a crow, or jumping into the abyss.

There are some who take his works as metaphorical, and others who take them literal. I know Sustained Action has tried to destroy his work. I have his books and I do also have The Sorcerer's Apprentice, so I have looked at the whole of it all over the years. I do feel Carlos lost his way, toward the end. But this doesn't undermine the connection with don Juan, or his experiences.

Let the world debunk. But it's kind of like Jesus says "let he who has an ear, let him hear." When he spoke in parables, some would get it, others would not. Those who really seek will find.

I do accept don Juan was a real being. I can accept that cause I have had real experiences upon reading the books. Like I said, they came alive for me and impacted my reality, just by reading them.

I dont care what others do say. They were perhaps, not welcome into this world. We were, we know its real, and they do not understand it. It is not meant for everyone. Never was.