The interruption of tonic sensory inhibition (also known as disinhibition), is what allows the senses to function beyond their normal range in psychedelic sessions. Low doses work best for simply augmenting sensory capacity, but higher doses tend to overload the senses with tangentially recursive phantasmagoria. With the proper mild dose of psychedelics it is true you can become super functioning, enjoying better hearing, better vision, better reflexes, better physical acuity, better muscle flexibility, better mood, and a sense of invincibility.
- from some other blog. what the heck is "tangentially recursive phantasmagoria"? cuz i think i have that.
Friday, February 29, 2008
"Heidegger is the only Western Philosopher who not only intellectually understands but has intuitively grasped Taoist thought." - Chang Chung-Yuan (tho' I have no idea who that is and am thoroughly Western and even Christian, or monotheistic/Abrahamic/Ibrahimic in outlook myself///which is maybe Semitic as well, insofar as Semite contrasts with Indo-European and I think it does though I'm not sure how maybe it's agriculturalist vs pastoralist [an idea I got from 'shroom-and-tumor-head Terence McKenna, don't get me wrong] but more aptly (And this then fitting in the Main Line of my thinking) it's the outlook of the Slaved versus the Slave[drive]r, the Peasant vs the Lord. I am an eternal Peasant.)
Some thoughts on going beyond Nietzsche:
1. embrace Kierkegaard. (and by extension, existention--
(The parable of Nietzsche's life scares me, and reminds me how I'm inexorably headed for darkness and hell. None of which bothers me, ultimately, as much as it should bother you!)
To elaborate on concept above (Peasant vs Lord):
Peasant faiths-- Sh'ia, Mandean, Yazdi, Zoroastrian, Sikh, Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist, animist
Lord-- Sunni, Muslim, Jewish, Christian. wow three faiths, exciting. (I guess this is like Nietzsche's evocation of Christianity as "slave morality" except with sociological exactness -- only lords need to go to a church to learn about slave morality.)
Some thoughts on going beyond Nietzsche:
1. embrace Kierkegaard. (and by extension, existention--
(The parable of Nietzsche's life scares me, and reminds me how I'm inexorably headed for darkness and hell. None of which bothers me, ultimately, as much as it should bother you!)
To elaborate on concept above (Peasant vs Lord):
Peasant faiths-- Sh'ia, Mandean, Yazdi, Zoroastrian, Sikh, Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist, animist
Lord-- Sunni, Muslim, Jewish, Christian. wow three faiths, exciting. (I guess this is like Nietzsche's evocation of Christianity as "slave morality" except with sociological exactness -- only lords need to go to a church to learn about slave morality.)
Friday, February 22, 2008
Schedule
It goes like this:
- 5 a.m. - get up. [not MWF, on those days just leave the house, or eat breakfast first:] Meditate for 5 minutes in room, on pillows - breath 10 seconds in, breath 10 seconds out. Eat breakfast. Read in the front parlor in the sun (when the sun is up). (Can also read other places and other things -- like on the internet. Actually, check messageboard on Blackboard daily after breakfast. Then play Riven until it becomes uncomfortable to do so. Actually, play Riven first. Then go on Blackboard.) TTh -- leave house at 6:30 a.m. to ride bike to school. Geology until 10:30 a.m. Go do geology homework and chapter questions, get whatever help you need on math (at least once a week stop in), and read lit text and go on to blackboard to join discussion and type rough drafts of the LMs.) (Saturday -- leave house after lunch to go and work on Literature some more - check out book again, read stories again. Go on blackboard to finish LMs. [Or stay home and do it at home.] -- I work on Geology at school only, on Mathematics at home only, and Literature both.)
- 12:30 p.m. - lunch. (also I read the newspaper while eating). Go into sun room and use laptop (do chapter test for geology after doing homework for that chapter). Can do math homework too.
- 6:30 p.m. - supper. Now I actually watch television: Food Network, or basically Fox, or maybe Family Guy, with exceptions for a few shows such as Man vs. Wild and some others that haven't been on so long due to the writers' strike, I've forgotten about them. Though they're back on now, I guess. Except for the ones that aren't. When I read New York Times articles about this, I feel so embarrassed for Hollywood ("you're making a scene"). TV watching from 6 to 9 is usually downstairs, in my aunt's office, where I feel safe. (Do math homework during commercials or not-want-to-watch programming)
- 8 p.m. - might switch to Comedy Central here.
- 9 p.m. - might switch to DVDs here. Go upstairs usually, anyway, to the living room.
- When I'm sleepy - read a few minutes of whatever book I'm reading, draw a bath. Hit the sack. If I have been lying awake for 20 minutes on the clock, I get out of bed and play Internet Backgammon, I guess.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Now, for a new post...
I may not be a neocon anymore, but I've decided that when it comes to the arts, it is quite uncool to turn anywhere other than neoconservative opinion. This applies to such publications as the Wall Street Journal and the New Criterion. I suppose it would also apply to the National Review, tho' that's less likely seeing as it's strictly a journal of opinion. Still, better than the New Republic, I should think. Or no? I don't. There may be some sort of split here -- if it's got politics right, it doesn't have the arts right, and vice-a versa.
The Nation is a liberal journal. (What -- socialist? Marxist? Can you believe this shit?)
[EDIT: I'm totally socialist now. ? I just don't(can't) let it define my identity.]
The New Republic is a moderate journal. (Generally considered neoliberal I suppose.) Perhaps center-left is better terminology.
The National Review is a conservative journal. (Also, nowadays neocon, but with a trad streak, though not to be found in Jonah Goldberg's columns.)
More outre would be the various Communist, anarchist (such as Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed, which depending on its stance could be considered to be on the left or simply not on there at all) and paleoconservative (up-and-coming category, including the new- [American Conservative] and the old-fashioned [Chronicles]...it isn't fair to say that this movement is indebted to Hayek, but it is).
Also established, and not outre at all, are the neo-libertarian (as opposed to paleo-libertarian, which is frequently indistinguishable from paleocon...I suppose the latter is who writes in print and the former is who writes on the Internet) -- Reason, and the neoconservative (Commentary, The Weekly Standard, etc.).
But what I was saying was that I look for my arts coverage in the conservative world, I guess.
The Nation is a liberal journal. (What -- socialist? Marxist? Can you believe this shit?)
[EDIT: I'm totally socialist now. ? I just don't(can't) let it define my identity.]
The New Republic is a moderate journal. (Generally considered neoliberal I suppose.) Perhaps center-left is better terminology.
The National Review is a conservative journal. (Also, nowadays neocon, but with a trad streak, though not to be found in Jonah Goldberg's columns.)
More outre would be the various Communist, anarchist (such as Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed, which depending on its stance could be considered to be on the left or simply not on there at all) and paleoconservative (up-and-coming category, including the new- [American Conservative] and the old-fashioned [Chronicles]...it isn't fair to say that this movement is indebted to Hayek, but it is).
Also established, and not outre at all, are the neo-libertarian (as opposed to paleo-libertarian, which is frequently indistinguishable from paleocon...I suppose the latter is who writes in print and the former is who writes on the Internet) -- Reason, and the neoconservative (Commentary, The Weekly Standard, etc.).
But what I was saying was that I look for my arts coverage in the conservative world, I guess.
Monday, February 4, 2008
Given the indetermine answer on Japanese culture...
I feel that I should point out, to myself if no one else, that my version of Japanese culture has more to do with its white, Episcopalian (meaning high WASP), American interpretation than with Japan itself. An interpretation, I might add, that is so thoroughly Americanized it allows for the drinking of herbal tea rather than green tea, and the sitting on chairs (or even laying flat on your back) when necessary.
Still, I wonder...is Zen really necessary at all? I mean is it? Or is it just a waste of freaking time? God, I wish I knew.
Because I do feel it might be somehow unnecessary. Doesn't mean I shouldn't practice, but also, if I find it inconvenient to practice, I might want to avoid it.
(OK I'm researching seppuku. Well, it seems to be a samurai practice. As Soto Zen is distinctively "farmer" and not "samurai" Zen [Rinzai] it looks as though I'm well in the clear here. Soto Zen = safe.)
Still, I wonder...is Zen really necessary at all? I mean is it? Or is it just a waste of freaking time? God, I wish I knew.
Because I do feel it might be somehow unnecessary. Doesn't mean I shouldn't practice, but also, if I find it inconvenient to practice, I might want to avoid it.
(OK I'm researching seppuku. Well, it seems to be a samurai practice. As Soto Zen is distinctively "farmer" and not "samurai" Zen [Rinzai] it looks as though I'm well in the clear here. Soto Zen = safe.)
It's time for a post on religion.
OK...I need to get my religious house in order.
I consider myself a Latter-Day Saint. I have no connection to the LDS church, nor do I actively seek one. I believe that the weirdo polygamists will prove to be the center of the Latter-Day Saint movement in the future, because their commitment is by far the strongest (at least compared to the mainstream LDS church).
Not that I would disavow membership in the mainstream LDS church, but I wouldn't actively seek it, either.
I strongly identify with the Peyotist branch of the Latter-Day Saint Movement. It's true, they're intertwined, especially down Arizona way. Like, Southern Arizona. Tucson-ish. I follow the Word of Wisdom - no alcohol, tobacco, tea, or coffee.
Further, I am a Zen Buddhist. Or is it lesser? This is what I am having trouble figuring out. My Zen Buddhism is definitely an American form -- yes, I don't see the trouble with also being a Zen Buddhist. Soto Zen, Shunryu Suzuki lineage (through Zentatsu Baker). If I live in Santa Fe (which I hope to), there is the Upaya Zen Center there. I kind of see Zen as a daily-life religion for this early part of my life. In the end I should gravitate more towards the Latter-Day Saint Movement, and even the LDS church proper.
Zen...what is there to say about it? I feel like philosophical Taoism is the highest of teachings (this comes from John Gray, my fav philosopher). Chuang Tzu, in particular. And yet--the practice of Soto Zen, which comes directly from Southern Chinese (Taoist) Ch'an traditions--I just don't know. Is it more or less important than Peyotism/LDS? Is that even the right question to ask? I suppose it isn't, because I honestly can't answer it. It isn't about religions, or especially cultures; it's simply about practices (namely, Upaya, Crestone, & peyote). Insofar as it is about cultures, I have most affinity with the Mormon world, I think -- including Polynesia. Or do I? Why not Japan? Well, maybe I do have more affinity with Japan. Why not? I suppose certain aspects of Japanese culture scare me. Namely hara-kiri. But yeah given all that is good and great in Japanese culture, it seems unnecessary to single out a few bad practices. Or does it? I suppose I can't help it. I am a creature of the North, as are the Japanese people. Everything else will have to work itself out. Japan scares me, it's true; Polynesia doesn't. But that fear may be irrational; it may not be. Either way, nothing proposes an answer so I'll have to feel my way out.
On the whole, I'm safe with Japan. But to check myself, and because it simply makes sense, I also follow the Leviticus and Deutoronomy books (where applicable) and have taken the Nazerite vow -- all of this through the eyes of the Rastafari movement, though with help from Hasidim/Kabbalah where necessary.
OK...I need to get my religious house in order.
I consider myself a Latter-Day Saint. I have no connection to the LDS church, nor do I actively seek one. I believe that the weirdo polygamists will prove to be the center of the Latter-Day Saint movement in the future, because their commitment is by far the strongest (at least compared to the mainstream LDS church).
Not that I would disavow membership in the mainstream LDS church, but I wouldn't actively seek it, either.
I strongly identify with the Peyotist branch of the Latter-Day Saint Movement. It's true, they're intertwined, especially down Arizona way. Like, Southern Arizona. Tucson-ish. I follow the Word of Wisdom - no alcohol, tobacco, tea, or coffee.
Further, I am a Zen Buddhist. Or is it lesser? This is what I am having trouble figuring out. My Zen Buddhism is definitely an American form -- yes, I don't see the trouble with also being a Zen Buddhist. Soto Zen, Shunryu Suzuki lineage (through Zentatsu Baker). If I live in Santa Fe (which I hope to), there is the Upaya Zen Center there. I kind of see Zen as a daily-life religion for this early part of my life. In the end I should gravitate more towards the Latter-Day Saint Movement, and even the LDS church proper.
Zen...what is there to say about it? I feel like philosophical Taoism is the highest of teachings (this comes from John Gray, my fav philosopher). Chuang Tzu, in particular. And yet--the practice of Soto Zen, which comes directly from Southern Chinese (Taoist) Ch'an traditions--I just don't know. Is it more or less important than Peyotism/LDS? Is that even the right question to ask? I suppose it isn't, because I honestly can't answer it. It isn't about religions, or especially cultures; it's simply about practices (namely, Upaya, Crestone, & peyote). Insofar as it is about cultures, I have most affinity with the Mormon world, I think -- including Polynesia. Or do I? Why not Japan? Well, maybe I do have more affinity with Japan. Why not? I suppose certain aspects of Japanese culture scare me. Namely hara-kiri. But yeah given all that is good and great in Japanese culture, it seems unnecessary to single out a few bad practices. Or does it? I suppose I can't help it. I am a creature of the North, as are the Japanese people. Everything else will have to work itself out. Japan scares me, it's true; Polynesia doesn't. But that fear may be irrational; it may not be. Either way, nothing proposes an answer so I'll have to feel my way out.
On the whole, I'm safe with Japan. But to check myself, and because it simply makes sense, I also follow the Leviticus and Deutoronomy books (where applicable) and have taken the Nazerite vow -- all of this through the eyes of the Rastafari movement, though with help from Hasidim/Kabbalah where necessary.
btw, I'm not a neocon anymore. I do support Mitt Romney. But...that's complicated. He won't win, I don't think anyway -- and I can't bring myself to support Hillary Clinton, despite all the obvious reasons why should be president. Because my vote doesn't matter, nobody listens to me, and Mitt Romney at least deserves my support for trying to be nice about his conservatism.
I know I'll come to regret this later on. But that's OK, for now it serves my purposes to support Mitt Romney. Plus he's a Mormon, which is good, and in fact descends from some of the most original scorched-earth Mexican-colony polygamist Kings of the Kingdom of God Mormons of all time. This guy is American hardcore.
I like Big Love too much not to fall for this guy.
PLUS: Barack Obama -- I like the guy, but he's trying too hard. One sees it in his face: he's tired. He needs to stop, and rest, or he'll have no future at all. Mark my words -- this man is in trouble. Don't support him, guys. You're only egging him on when he needs to chill it. Because no man can fight the Hillary machine (except John McCain -- and that's the other and perhaps most important reason I strategically support Mitt Romney -- John McCain in the White House would be a fiasco of Satanic proportions, not that the man is Satan, but he is too weak to fend of the Dark Lord's minions...and what's more is he knows it too, but doesn't care. He only cares about himself. Kind of like me. Therefore it is my right to not support McCain, as a way of metaphorically mitigating my own propensity to selfishness...plus I really don't want him to win, I want Hillary to win, I want free health care, I want a better funded educational system...But again I can't support Hillary without at least giving credence, or some, to Barack Obama. Or so I thought at the time. Maybe it doesn't matter after all. Maybe I can just support Hillary. Though now I've come out for Mitt, it would be unconscionable to go for Hillary. No, I can't. I must uphold my social obligations and support Mitt Romney. A kind of hara-kiri I know. But when done with precision and elegance, that ain't so bad, is it? I'll think about that.).
I know I'll come to regret this later on. But that's OK, for now it serves my purposes to support Mitt Romney. Plus he's a Mormon, which is good, and in fact descends from some of the most original scorched-earth Mexican-colony polygamist Kings of the Kingdom of God Mormons of all time. This guy is American hardcore.
I like Big Love too much not to fall for this guy.
PLUS: Barack Obama -- I like the guy, but he's trying too hard. One sees it in his face: he's tired. He needs to stop, and rest, or he'll have no future at all. Mark my words -- this man is in trouble. Don't support him, guys. You're only egging him on when he needs to chill it. Because no man can fight the Hillary machine (except John McCain -- and that's the other and perhaps most important reason I strategically support Mitt Romney -- John McCain in the White House would be a fiasco of Satanic proportions, not that the man is Satan, but he is too weak to fend of the Dark Lord's minions...and what's more is he knows it too, but doesn't care. He only cares about himself. Kind of like me. Therefore it is my right to not support McCain, as a way of metaphorically mitigating my own propensity to selfishness...plus I really don't want him to win, I want Hillary to win, I want free health care, I want a better funded educational system...But again I can't support Hillary without at least giving credence, or some, to Barack Obama. Or so I thought at the time. Maybe it doesn't matter after all. Maybe I can just support Hillary. Though now I've come out for Mitt, it would be unconscionable to go for Hillary. No, I can't. I must uphold my social obligations and support Mitt Romney. A kind of hara-kiri I know. But when done with precision and elegance, that ain't so bad, is it? I'll think about that.).
How do you finish the season in NFL history with the most winning games ever by losing the lead in the fourth quarter, gaining it again, and then finally losing it again in the final 90 seconds?
Look, I've rationalized this out: it doesn't matter if they lost the Super Bowl, because they still have the most winning games in a single season EVER. 18-0. That's enough for now. Next year, they'll do better. If they want to.
Goddammit.
Look, I've rationalized this out: it doesn't matter if they lost the Super Bowl, because they still have the most winning games in a single season EVER. 18-0. That's enough for now. Next year, they'll do better. If they want to.
Goddammit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
