++> On 01-29-98 Day Brown write to David Martorana ...
 
 DB> Beyond the 'normal' mind.  Yet, 'normal' people today suspect
 DB> the Guru, mystic, Zen master, Yogi, etc. may have a further
 DB> knowing. Joseph Campbell ads to that list the shamen of various
 DB> primitive cultures.  He further points out the similarity
 DB> between these so- called 'primitive' Amerind, Siberian, &
 DB> Polynesian uses of symbol and myth that seem to be identical
 DB> paleo-Greek myth & iconography found in digs that go back
 DB> 5-10k years.
 
  What reasons might I give myself to believe that anyone
  in history has achieved a knowing of our reality beyond
  that little presented by science? You have expended many
  words of wager and speculation, but not one that would
  satisfy ....either of us                      ......yes?
 
  DB> Published since his death have been reports of psychedelic
  DB> herbs and mushrooms that were used by these pre-historic
  DB> shamen. Thus, I conclude, that they too, had ab-normal
  DB> minds to conceptualize, and deal with, these limits.
 
  Do we need separate the induced illusions of knowing from the
  humorous "realies" that remain behind? I have many times brought
  back epic material from twilight dreams only to find it nonsense-
  .....melting as the strength of iron ice into dripping water.
 
 DM>  DB> The idea that the universe *must* have been created by plan fails
 DM>  DB> to appreciate the enormous amount of time available to simply let
 DM>  DB> it all happen.
 DM>
 DM>      It might be an even more enormous plan, not fully appreciated
 DM>      by time!
 DM>
 DM>  DB> This idea does *not* exclude the existence of God,
 DM>  DB> but suggests that he is the first witness.
 DM>
 DM>> Unable to exclude "ANYTHING", I'm not sure what your "suggestion"
 DM>> means here other than to joy a personal notion! BUT! ....it's OK!
 
 DB> My suggestion is, that God is, by choice or otherwise, subject to
 DB> some limits.  Which too, may well be the 'plan', i.e. to permit a
 DB> degree of free will, if for no other reason.
 
     Assuming all is somewhat relative to, and within, your/our
     assumptions, is awkward to reason over as everything is
     POSSIBLE.
 
 DB> Chaos is like the 'invisible hand' of the market place; it
 DB> presents a set of rules, that no matter how we dislike what they
 DB> result in, we cannot change the fundamentals.
 
     Your soft "Chaos", without form becomes a "wild card" -
     ""....whatever be, is""  ...like it or lump it...!
     Like Frank's "ideology", Yes I would-can understand such
     a new definition.
 
 DM>>  A motive, armed of will and wherewithal, whether born from
 DM>>  "NOTHING/s" or  "SOMETHING/s", is one slippery fish to teach
 DM>>  our logic to. I've thought on it some without any significant
 DM>>  concluding.  That there might be some primal knowings waiting
 DM>>  in such of "otherish" re-ALL-ities, is an awkward bird of
 DM>>  search. That "nonconceptuals" can even be invited into our
 DM>>  limited mentation, does to only tease along tips of incomplete
 DM>>  possibility (other than the extended grasp of math). It is, at
 DM>>  best, in our time, a tightrope some between SciFi and poetry;
 DM>>  with science, in its own context making those few genuine strides.
 
 DM>>     "...what science cannot discover, mankind cannot know."
 DM>>                                       ....Bertrand Russell
 
 DB> 'Science' involves experiment or experience, and cogitation of
 DB> the data to draw conclusions.  Our culture has a pejorative way
 DB> of looking at any alteration of consciousness, either chemical,
 DB> or by sensory deprivation, such as meditation.  This culture is
 DB> so permeated with Christian attitudes, that it does not realize
 DB> that this pejorative view of a psychedelic experience is part
 DB> of the Judaic/Christian dogma.
 
     Though I have a warm feeling for non science knowing, AND enjoy
     it in a hedonistic sense, the inconsistency of the experience
     is difficult to make universal. In the private of my own inner
     pleasures, I can soar through being, any notions of truth most
     malleable to the skill and talents of my reach and measure of
     imagination. Either of us employing "ENHANCEMENTS", more likely
     intensifies some elements of such private realities while
     neutralizing others.   .....goodness! I once smoked ovals!
 
 DB> Not that there is not good reason; such experience is notorious
 DB> in the habit of destroying careers and family attachments.  but,
 DB> even Jesus said as much, that if you want the truth, the whole
 DB> truth, and nothing but the truth, give all that you have to the
 DB> poor and follow him [him being the truth].  But, of course, he
 DB> forgives them all for not doing that, and being hardworking and
 DB> law-abiding family members instead.
 
     We are here getting into the colloquial of everyday concerns,
     verses the more epic to reach and know.   Being a "family"
     person, I've had to share time between mountain and ant-hill
     (probably dulling both some wit). I have no way of knowing how
     alternatives would have played out.
 
 DB> But, the Buddhist monk, does as Jesus said, left his world in a
 DB> dedicated search for the truth.  This dis-engagement does not do
 DB> a whole lot to advance science.  So, as I suggested to Richard:
 DB> what are your responsibilities, and how much do you risk if what
 DB> you want is the whole truth?
 
     There is no way to know if a maximum risk takes you any
     further into knowing than not taking a maximum risk. Little
     of "monkish or shamanish mind games"  is sharable and probably
     at best, little more than intellectual masturbation. I have not
     *AS YET* read (or heard) data to make me think much otherwise-
           ............though I also search ..........AS PLEASURE!.
 
 DB> Because, if you get it, you may, as acid heads often do, discard
 DB> old relationships, responsibilities, and enthralled with the
 DB> visions, set a new order of priorities to your life.
 
     For an individual to expand (or retreat) into a private reality
     probably makes little difference to our species. Through history
     there have been many such monkish meanderings, more religious
     in the earlier days. If they did find some passage into "other"
     dimensions or knowings, not much credible was left behind to
     guide or enrich others?
 
 DB> The 'primitive' cultures uniformly had the young man, *before*
 DB> he had established these responsibilities, undertake a vision
 DB> quest, often with psychedelic drugs, and allowed him time to
 DB> digest the experience later.
 
      We have little data to entertain notions of gain or loss from
      tribal visioning. Probably good for a few/bad for a few & OK
      for the rest.
 
 DB> So, as much as I admire Bertie, and *his* dedication to the many
 DB> physical planes he had such talent with, his vision of 'science'
 DB> is too limited in scope.
 
     "Bertie" is a chilling "limited" realist, ..... WE are so much
     more the blood thumping visionaries!
 
 DB> I don't need understanding: I want a bimbo, maybe a harem.
 
    ........Yes! that makes three of us if we include Bill!
   ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;;      __    __    __
   oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo     @@    @@    @@   ... Dave
   >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>     / |    ||    | \
--- Maximus/2 3.01
---------------