Had a dream suprising
Came through suddenly I heard about the
Text never read it and then village: The Upanishads
. And it internally without any restrain ( in my dream) explained about writing, about being concise and politely meaningfril’
Getting up I looked it up , and found out to summarize it as a sort of connective utility.
)( to wit:
)(
Then this:
()
And talking Orr citing connections, it was a audio-image-less dream, the kind utilizing the ‘magic’ definition ,(see above) that could connect with this:
()
( that is before and behind replacing first and last, creating the emotion of magic…
You mean that which is demonstrated, without/before the demonstration.
The demonstration (image, life) in the mind, before it is spoken in the action.
But such a “that” or “life” unspoken — is more decaying than open rebuke.
Fruit rotting on the vine, diseased.
Faith without action is dead weight.
That’s interesting that Thomas influenced the Upanishads & combatting gnosticism in India. I haven’t studied much about that.
At the very least it supports the argument that Sartre’s idea of the look, presupposes the fact that he preferred William James to Husserl, because he was quoted to have said it.
And from that the ideas people may have of magic, that has associated with the Being It’s self, in contrast to be for it’self, that signifies the emotion, (as if?) pro duced by proof ‘magic’
That is to say such contentious dreams do have source-resource relationships consisting of primary significance, other than.
[(Weather and incidentally the propositional value of dreaming , prefiguratively, non-imaginatively is inversively to dogs being to be able to think phenominologically?)-using data of sense]
You need all three or you don’t have a single one of them.
The sense/ nonsense of that proposition may be indiscriminate, and yet absolutely that without which it could not be conceived. So why not to entertain the partial admission that turned out to be a non sequitur - contest?!?
I may be totally off here, but then a reposition could still be more suggestive here then a partial revision.
W….what?
Got ahead of myself, sorry Isch,
Now let’s see:
Way back my philosophy teacher poo poor sense data, before even paraphrasing Witt, (get stein) so?
Russel was probably under Witt’s spell, of apprehending the source of his knowledge; that way back -Kant proposed, (how synthetic apriori propositions are possible)
But now for the last few secedes , with the compression of timely re-solution, plus this imminently developing urgency, has created a loop, (in reposition/repost) waking up from my double edged slumbers of revelance/deliverence so as to what?
I highly doubt anyone on this website isn’t a weirdo. The more I read, the more it is confirmed.
Especially my own posts.
Psych(ology) upside down?
Or is it down side up?
But admittedly the chances in those scheme of things do favor the 1-2 per cent over the 98-99 % of revisionary tricks, or are they, or how in the world could they ever have become so weird?
Or allowed to become so,
Re-moved , just to show double bonded may not 2faced be.
betta half got hold
Sense discerned, so right on panpsych
Isn’t it weird how there’re two things happening simultaneously? People think that dogs can sense when someone is bad and not like them as a result. On the other hand people think dogs will love their person no matter how bad they are. Kind of on the same level as “a face only a mother could love” — and yet there are mothers who reject their children. But the ones they don’t reject trust their mother‘s instincts about the ones they want to date—or regret when they don’t trust it. On the other hand, sometimes the father’s instincts are more correct than the mother’s. On still another hand (you know, the third one), sometimes parents have their own interests in mind. I suspect you can pose the same question to both dogs and parents.
Do they ever “bracket” out? Do they have what is left after you have bracketed? That irreducible complexity without which one could never bracket?
Do they apply the bracketing to their own selves?
Leaders of packs want to know.
Lone wolf… lone pack… lone world…?
Oooooo look, a squirrel!
Course.yes and if it is that impassable dream moving me on, I’d believe everything is priceless, but then what can one glean out of the almost nearly suggestion behind the necessity of complex simplicity or simple complexity, as if the were not reversible
)(
This above did not does not give credit to the reply, on rereading it is if it wasn’t even written as it should have but leave it anyway.
Trying to write a new epical journey’s progress, as I mentioned in the ahiroshims series, got this masterpiece unfinished as well, so just doodling it in as an excuse why it was? (Left infinished)
So in order to get back into the flow.
Flow died last Thursday
Easy, rider….
()
The river flows
It flows to the sea
Wherever that river goes
That’s where I want to be
Flow river flow
Let your waters wash down
Take me from this road
To some other town
All he wanted
Was to be free
And that’s the way
It turned out to be
Flow river flow
Let your waters wash down
Take me from this road
To some other town
Flow river flow
Past the shaded tree
Go river, go
Go to the sea
Flow to the sea
The river flows
It flows to the sea
Wherever that river goes
That’s where I want to be
Flow river flow
Let your waters wash down
Take me from this road
To some other town…
Byrds, 1969
And incidentally mile Cyrus wants to become a living psychedelic she said today: hot off the presses.
Maybe she’s had too much pressed grape , but must confess there is something to this, even by default to be completely honest?!?
Yes admittedly it has, it percentage wise has become less critical, less conditional on the 50-50 split in view of much higher gaps elongated, blown out of proportion. It admittedly realized it’s role as one unanimous with messaging underlying structural frames,
It demonstrated the sudden change of polarities reduced to the graduated descent/ascent of categorically infused Catholic -universal reform, as a foreshadowed enigmatic parallel, ever since Aristotle’s doubted It, categorically. That built in curiosity, has indeed been accounted for, and the clerical persistence. As everything else is a matter of dollars and sense.
That to alley the dependent clergy-sheepish flicks, and avoid casting them out to feed on barren lands, the responsibility rests on the highest echelons of compassion, to let their hunger for grazing greener pastures not to force feed them ever so brutally.
For in deed, in God’s mansion there are many varieties, and as demos demonstrated, each according to their need, and capacity to find the way to subsist. The flow is there, eternally basking in the sunshine of His/It’s kindness,and as some dare to call it love, it does clasp in an inordinate consequence of it’s necessity.
Wagner was probably right about Nietzche, and that vindication does not reduce its effect, but further imprints its opposite, albeit reversely.
So the message was sent, and received, by the simulation of that primal, original evaluation. Any transvaluation serves its own particular need, for the primal flow like the the Biggest Show in Earth, must go on.
Variations on the theme, echo through the cosmos infinitely, and it does return for ever where even the least duplicates it’s unfinished peculiarity, until cleared totally, scientilogically , deceptively, for some, that science of the mind works like a charm.
Now heading for the mountain temple where Nichiren the secondary Buddha found the keys , to the temple, and seek the Redemption within It’s dubious kernel.
The simulation becomes the peak , as an Original has never ever not been doubted.
