Fight Club = Bhagavad Gita

[QUOTE=vigorous puppy]What's sad about this thread is not that it's still going. What's sad is the missed opportunity to discuss real parallels between Fight Club and the Bhagavad Gita.[/QUOTE]
Hey VP, Could you recommend a good translation or interpretation of the Bhagavad Gita? I'd like to find something balanced, without a theological agenda--I've seen the Hare Krishna kind of versions they used to sell in airports in the used bookstore, but thought those might be molded to market a particular doctrine. I'd also be interested in something less literal in more of a story form, along the lines of Siddhartha by Herman Hesse.

I haven't read the Bhagavad Gita but saw parts of a TV adaptation on PBS years ago. I have also read or heard some of Joseph Campbell's musings on parts of it. I would be interested in a literary criticism discussion of parallels between the Bhagavad Gita and Fight Club. I am not so interested peronally in being indoctrinated in the philosophy of "all things are Atman."

[QUOTE=vigorous puppy]What's sad about this thread is not that it's still going. What's sad is the missed opportunity to discuss real parallels between Fight Club and the Bhagavad Gita.

Bhagavad Gita means "the song of God" and only a handful of religious texts even approach its beauty. It's from the same tradition, mystical Hinduism, that we get the notion of Lord Shiva as the cosmic dancer. All of Creation is merely a part of His dance. When a foot comes down, all that is ceases to be. When his foot lifts again, the Dream of life continues.

"You are the all-dancing, all-singing crap of the universe" is nothing if not a restatement of the same mystical premise. Without the literature of Hinduism, it would never have been cast in exactly those terms, whether Chuck was borrowing consciously or not.

These are the things we [i]could[/i] be discussing in a thread like this one, instead of wild, unqualified generalizations coming up against mere cynicism and indifference.[/QUOTE]
ugh, alright VP, ill participate

chuck borrowed that "all singing...." from a german friend of his i believe. or some european nationality

but whatever, to me, it meant we are always busy, always doing something, to keep ourselves from not doing something, but ultimately it goes nowhere, we are nothings, doing somethings.

[QUOTE=spacemonkey1888]ugh, alright VP, ill participate

chuck borrowed that "all singing...." from a german friend of his i believe. or some european nationality

but whatever, to me, it meant we are always busy, always doing something, to keep ourselves from not doing something, but ultimately it goes nowhere, we are nothings, doing somethings.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, it was a German friend of his who learnt all of their English from old films so (s)he speaks in all those quaint little phrases, 'all singing, all dancing extravaganza', etc.

I took the meaning to be the same as you, I didn't really think about it that much.

[QUOTE=mikandrewz]Yeah, it was a German friend of his who learnt all of their English from old films so (s)he speaks in all those quaint little phrases, 'all singing, all dancing extravaganza', etc.

I took the meaning to be the same as you, I didn't really think about it that much.[/QUOTE]
hmm....you ever get the feeling people with ESL understand english better than us? like true meanings of things. maybe he had it right and we just get confused by the pesky little filler words

They might do, I mean a lot of the time I hear a word being used and gain a vague understanding of what it means but can't specifically express it. Foreign people learn the exact meaning from the start.

[QUOTE=mikandrewz]They might do, I mean a lot of the time I hear a word being used and gain a vague understanding of what it means but can't specifically express it. Foreign people learn the exact meaning from the start.[/QUOTE]
tru dat

sometimes its easier to look in and see whats really what, than to look from inside

[QUOTE=mikandrewz]Yeah, it was a German friend of his who learnt all of their English from old films so (s)he speaks in all those quaint little phrases, 'all singing, all dancing extravaganza', etc.

[/QUOTE]
That. Is truly funny. Where did you guys pick up that tidbit about the German? I figured Chuck maybe had a season of studying Eastern philosophy in his college days, just like I did. Or maybe he got a big Eastern philosophy/ Western Existentialism smoothie when he did The Forum (aka, EST, Erhard Seminars Training, Landmark Foundation).

What I saw in the phrase was pure mysticism given a cynical slant, with the derogatory and scatological creeping into it via the word "crap," eviscerating the notion that just because you're one with the universe that it makes you something special.

This reading is consistent with the cultlike atmosphere that emerges in Project Mayham and the variously stated notion that the people who participate are seeking some kind of Enlightenment. And of course, the emergent meaning in a work of literature can never be pegged down to a limited envelope of interpretation that is defined by authorial inspiration and intent. Certain schools of criticism have tried to do that, reduce literature to biography, but this approach fails to pace or map the full richness of the reading experience.

In my view, (very close to Louise Rosenblatt's Transactionism) multiple readings of the same text are valid. There is such a thing as a "bad reading" or misinterpretation of a work of literature, but there are multiple good readings... not only one. What the reader brings to the text is every bit as important as what the author encoded in the text, and more important than why. It's only a "bad reading" if there is no textual support for the emergent meanings the reader finds.

This is why philosophy and literature can be discussed endlessly, and profitably, without the need for any definitive proof or the taking of sides regarding those ultimate metaphysical truth claims. Thanks for playing.

It was in one of his essays, not sure which one.

[QUOTE=vigorous puppy]That. Is truly funny. Where did you guys pick up that tidbit about the German? I figured Chuck maybe had a season of studying Eastern philosophy in his college days, just like I did. Or maybe he got a big Eastern philosophy/ Western Existentialism smoothie when he did The Forum (aka, EST, Erhard Seminars Training, Landmark Foundation).

What I saw in the phrase was pure mysticism given a cynical slant, with the derogatory and scatological creeping into it via the word "crap," eviscerating the notion that just because you're one with the universe that it makes you something special.

This reading is consistent with the cultlike atmosphere that emerges in Project Mayham and the variously stated notion that the people who participate are seeking some kind of Enlightenment. And of course, the emergent meaning in a work of literature can never be pegged down to a limited envelope of interpretation that is defined by authorial inspiration and intent. Certain schools of criticism have tried to do that, reduce literature to biography, but this approach fails to pace or map the full richness of the reading experience.

In my view, (very close to Louise Rosenblatt's Transactionism) multiple readings of the same text are valid. There is such a thing as a "bad reading" or misinterpretation of a work of literature, but there are multiple good readings... not only one. What the reader brings to the text is every bit as important as what the author encoded in the text, and more important than why. It's only a "bad reading" if there is no textual support for the emergent meanings the reader finds.

This is why philosophy and literature can be discussed endlessly, and profitably, without the need for any definitive proof or the taking of sides regarding those ultimate metaphysical truth claims. Thanks for playing.[/QUOTE]
not to discredit chuck, hes a god to me, but a huge portion of his stuff is from life experiences, friends, acquintances, contacts, things hes heard and seen and such. which i think its great. stories are everything. hes just telling them how they should be told

[QUOTE=spacemonkey1888]not to discredit chuck, hes a god to me, but a huge portion of his stuff is from life experiences, friends, acquintances, contacts, things hes heard and seen and such. which i think its great. stories are everything. hes just telling them how they should be told[/QUOTE]
Oh, I agree with you on that 100%. He not only picks up odd phrases and characterizations from both people he knows and random single serving friends on airplanes... he advises us to do the very same thing.

But if he mentioned the thing about the German friend, and television English as a source of that phrase, I missed it. If it's in one of the workshop essays, it must be in one of the year two essays, because I've done a micro-fine reading of all the first year essays in order to write the summaries.

[QUOTE=vigorous puppy]Oh, I agree with you on that 100%. He not only picks up odd phrases and characterizations from both people he knows and random single serving friends on airplanes... he advises us to do the very same thing.

But if he mentioned the thing about the German friend, and television English as a source of that phrase, I missed it. If it's in one of the workshop essays, it must be in one of the year two essays, because I've done a micro-fine reading of all the first year essays in order to write the summaries.[/QUOTE]

he mentioned his german friend ina gerber and her way of talking in various interiews as a great inspiration.

[QUOTE=scerpica]he mentioned his german friend ina gerber and her way of talking in various interiews as a great inspiration.[/QUOTE]
Ah, that's it. Must be from outside interviews rather than one of the workshop essays.

By the way, hasn't it been at least 50 years since phrases like "an all-singing, all-dancing extravaganza" were part of the audio wallpaper of American television? How old is this Ina Gerber?

she can´t be too old. i guess she is more his age. i even think there is a photo somewhere round here. she has to be the blonde woman in the photo with chuck and brad pitt on the fight club location.

[QUOTE=vigorous puppy]
What I saw in the phrase was pure mysticism given a cynical slant, with the derogatory and scatological creeping into it via the word "crap," [COLOR=Red]eviscerating [/COLOR]the notion that just because you're one with the universe that it makes you something special.
Thanks for playing.[/QUOTE]
Puppy, define [COLOR=red][I]eviscerating[/I][/COLOR]. I came up with the below definition. Is that what you mean?

[I]Disembowelment is [COLOR=Red]evisceration[/COLOR], or the removing of some or all of vital organs, usually from the abdomen. The results are invariably fatal. It has historically been used as a cruel form of capital punishment. The last organs to be removed were invariably the heart and lungs so as to preserve the victim's life force for the full procedure.[/I]

Also, on non-duality. If I recall that was what the [COLOR=Orange]Chemical burn[/COLOR] was about, but its emphasis was on realizing your mortality and [I][B]not [/B][/I]transcending pain into penguin land. In that sense it's in contrast to your argument that we are all heaven, "playing a role." What i took from that was the union of mind and body showing us how MORTAL we are.

"Imagine your pain as a ball of white healing light."
"I don't think so!"

[QUOTE=meatthinker]Hey VP, Could you recommend a good translation or interpretation of the Bhagavad Gita? I'd like to find something balanced, without a theological agenda--I've seen the Hare Krishna kind of versions they used to sell in airports in the used bookstore, but thought those might be molded to market a particular doctrine. I'd also be interested in something less literal in more of a story form, along the lines of Siddhartha by Herman Hesse.

I haven't read the Bhagavad Gita but saw parts of a TV adaptation on PBS years ago. I have also read or heard some of Joseph Campbell's musings on parts of it. I would be interested in a literary criticism discussion of parallels between the Bhagavad Gita and Fight Club. I am not so interested peronally in being indoctrinated in the philosophy of "all things are Atman."[/QUOTE]

Jugal posted a suggested translation earlier along with some good insights here:

[QUOTE=jugal]Hey,
this is but a brilliant comparison or so I must say. Mahabharata the story is a lot about rights and duties.

There's this part where Krishna tells Arjun that he can't do anything but fight the Kauravas for righteousness (dharma) and it was his duty (karma). Even if he didn't want to he would because his want is not finally his own. It's a collective consciousness. Lord Krishna goes on to tell Arjun that everything in the end is but a manifestation of him. Even if he tried he wouldn't be able to ward off the war because in the end, "Even you are me!" This happens after Krishna shows him the might and power that he represents being the incarnation of Vishnu.

The Gita is probably a controversy, some claim it to be religious, some philosophical. It depends on how you read it. It has something for everything and everyone and something different every time you read it. In fact it's a widely agreed fact that Buddhism too has its roots in the Gita. It's probably the most minimalistic, deep dialog ever between two individuals that unravels the mystery of being. I'd suggest you guys pick a copy up and read it. Do not buy 'any' copy because 'any' copy would generally be biased. Just like any other organised religion, even Hinduism (once it started being called so) started disintegrating for selfish interests. My personal recommendation would be: 'Bhagwadgita' by S. Radhakrishnan (HarperCollins). This is a very unbiased translation and closest to it's sanskrit text. I've tried reading a lot of the translations (including ISKCON one) in order to understand the text than just hear the slokas (verses) and this one stands out.[/QUOTE]

I'd also suggest the Stephen Mitchell "translation". I put it in quotes because Mitchell takes some liberties. His purpose is to render works into the English language in a way that retains the spirit and beauty of the text in the original language. He has a beautiful "translation" of The Book of Job". It's not quite like Hesse's Siddhartha, but I consider it very accessible to English speaking readers, beautifully rendered, and true to the original text.

[url=http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0609810340/qid=1138645933/sr=1-5/ref=sr_1_5/103-3090265-9440636?s=books&v=glance&n=283155]Gita[/url]

[QUOTE=mirka]
I'd also suggest the Stephen Mitchell "translation". I put it in quotes because Mitchell takes some liberties. His purpose is to render works into the English language in a way that retains the spirit and beauty of the text in the original language. He has a beautiful "translation" of The Book of Job". It's not quite like Hesse's Siddhartha, but I consider it very accessible to English speaking readers, beautifully rendered, and true to the original text.

[url=http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0609810340/qid=1138645933/sr=1-5/ref=sr_1_5/103-3090265-9440636?s=books&v=glance&n=283155]Gita[/url][/QUOTE]
Why thank YOU..

[QUOTE=Dr.Jekyll&Mr.Hyde]Why thank YOU..:)[/QUOTE]
Indeed. Thank you Mirka. I wasn't ignoring Meatthinker. For some reason his post was invisible to me until your response made me go back and find it.

And yes, good doctor, eviscerating means disemboweling. It's a very harsh word. And I agree with you about the counter-transcendence motif in Fight Club. That's something that again underscores the fact that the text deals with notions of mystical transcendence in the first place.

i remember now

it was in postcards from the future

[QUOTE=mirka]I'd also suggest the Stephen Mitchell "translation". I put it in quotes because Mitchell takes some liberties. His purpose is to render works into the English language in a way that retains the spirit and beauty of the text in the original language. He has a beautiful "translation" of The Book of Job". It's not quite like Hesse's Siddhartha, but I consider it very accessible to English speaking readers, beautifully rendered, and true to the original text.[/QUOTE]
Interesting, I enjoyed Mitchell's rendition? rendering? of Job, although it didn't make me buy the argument any more.

[QUOTE=vigorous puppy]Indeed. Thank you Mirka. I wasn't ignoring Meatthinker. For some reason his post was invisible to me until your response made me go back and find it.[/QUOTE]
Sometimes, it's probably better when I am ignored.

[QUOTE=vigorous puppy]And yes, good doctor, eviscerating means disemboweling. It's a very harsh word. And I agree with you about the counter-transcendence motif in Fight Club. That's something that again underscores the fact that the text deals with notions of mystical transcendence in the first place.[/QUOTE]
Hitting rock bottom is a necessary prerequisite to transcendence.

[QUOTE=vigorous puppy]That. Is truly funny. Where did you guys pick up that tidbit about the German? I figured Chuck maybe had a season of studying Eastern philosophy in his college days, just like I did. Or maybe he got a big Eastern philosophy/ Western Existentialism smoothie when he did The Forum (aka, EST, Erhard Seminars Training, Landmark Foundation).[/QUOTE]
I was deeply entrenched in Landmark Education for about five years. Both Haunted and Fight Club have a lot of the feeling of being a horror show version of the Landmark Forum, especially Haunted.

[QUOTE=meatthinker]Interesting, I enjoyed Mitchell's rendition? rendering? of Job, although it didn't make me buy the argument any more.[/QUOTE]

I don't buy it either, but I didn't read it looking for answers. I read it as literature.

He took in the [URL=http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060812451/103-3090265-9440636?v=glance&n=283155]Tao[/URL] as well. I've leafed through it a few times, but never felt inclined to buy it.

In the interest of absolute accuracy, Chuck's Geman friend is named Carson. He of the all singing and all dancing extravaganzas.

You are thinking of Ina Gerbert, Chuck's best friend, who he has said in many interviews was the inspiration for Marla Singer.

[QUOTE=scerpica]he mentioned his german friend ina gerber and her way of talking in various interiews as a great inspiration.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=mirka]I don't buy it either, but I didn't read it looking for answers. I read it as literature.

He took in the [URL=http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060812451/103-3090265-9440636?v=glance&n=283155]Tao[/URL] as well. I've leafed through it a few times, but never felt inclined to buy it.[/QUOTE]
Ha! I clicked on that link and Amazon's suggested "better together" bundle deal with the Tao Te Ching was James Frey's [i]A Million Little Pieces[/i]. Holy shit. There's nothing very Taoist about an ex-junkie and media hound who fictionalizes his purported memoir to such a degree he ends up getting backhanded by Oprah. Somehow that sounds like the bleeding opposite of the watercourse way of being.

The movie called Fight Club is the Supreme Comedy.
I should know because I AM Tyler Durden.

The Fight Club is the Supreme Comedy not because I’m Tyler Durden but because you are The Narrator.
[B]The Fight Club is my hallucination, and so is its author[/B].

The Fight Club is the Supreme Comedy because in this hallucination I beat the living shit out of you, the Narrator, to convince you that you are real because you have the bleeding-body and broken-bones to prove it.
And this Comedy is Supreme because not only does your bleeding-body and broken-bones convince you that you must you be real but they also convince you that I, Tyler Durden, must be real when both you and I -- and the movie and its author -- is just my hallucination.

And if my bumps and bruises give me any doubts to my hallucination then I just relax into thoughtless-Silence to be Heaven it-SELF that needs hallucinations of brains and bodies like it needs bleeding-bodies and broken-bones.

And the Laughter of this Supreme Comedy makes this hallucination of mine so obvious that it makes all these words into the Supreme Truth because in hallucinations there is no doer, there is no other, not even a Tyler, or his author, that can agree or disagree.
-- UV-gap

sigh...

i liked it when they showed marlas boobs

[QUOTE=Gene Polotas]The movie called Fight Club is the Supreme Comedy.
I should know because I AM Tyler Durden.

The Fight Club is the Supreme Comedy not because I’m Tyler Durden but because you are The Narrator.
[B]The Fight Club is my hallucination, and so is its author[/B].

The Fight Club is the Supreme Comedy because in this hallucination I beat the living shit out of you, the Narrator, to convince you that you are real because you have the bleeding-body and broken-bones to prove it.
And this Comedy is Supreme because not only does your bleeding-body and broken-bones convince you that you must you be real but they also convince you that I, Tyler Durden, must be real when both you and I -- and the movie and its author -- is just my hallucination.

And if my bumps and bruises give me any doubts to my hallucination then I just relax into thoughtless-Silence to be Heaven it-SELF that needs hallucinations of brains and bodies like it needs bleeding-bodies and broken-bones.

And the Laughter of this Supreme Comedy makes this hallucination of mine so obvious that it makes all these words into the Supreme Truth because in hallucinations there is no doer, there is no other, not even a Tyler, or his author, that can agree or disagree.
-- UV-gap[/QUOTE]
Amen, brother.

I feel a merging coming on...

[QUOTE=Riddlegimp]I feel a merging coming on...[/QUOTE]

Me too! Hey, how come we're[I] all knowing [/I]about this?

It's all the Bhagavad we eat for breakfast.

Since you're riding on the same premise and philosophy of your last thread I'm merging the two.

HAHAAH! you bastards are too quick for me:D
[COLOR=DarkRed]Edit[/COLOR]: you're not bastards, i love ya and such.

you can not merge two threads
because the threads themselves do not exist!

And so the prophesy became truth. Penguins turned gay and the seas stayed exactly the same level, but went [I]slightly[/I] warmer.

[QUOTE=vigorous puppy]Ha! I clicked on that link and Amazon's suggested "better together" bundle deal with the Tao Te Ching was James Frey's [i]A Million Little Pieces[/i]. Holy shit. There's nothing very Taoist about an ex-junkie and media hound who fictionalizes his purported memoir to such a degree he ends up getting backhanded by Oprah. Somehow that sounds like the bleeding opposite of the watercourse way of being.[/QUOTE]

oh my! That's kind of hilarious. I'm sure a Sage somewhere is turning it into a koan. .

[QUOTE=Gene Polotas]The movie called Fight Club is the Supreme Comedy.
I should know because I AM Tyler Durden.

The Fight Club is the Supreme Comedy not because I’m Tyler Durden but because you are The Narrator.
[B]The Fight Club is my hallucination, and so is its author[/B].

The Fight Club is the Supreme Comedy because in this hallucination I beat the living shit out of you, the Narrator, to convince you that you are real because you have the bleeding-body and broken-bones to prove it.
And this Comedy is Supreme because not only does your bleeding-body and broken-bones convince you that you must you be real but they also convince you that I, Tyler Durden, must be real when both you and I -- and the movie and its author -- is just my hallucination.

And if my bumps and bruises give me any doubts to my hallucination then I just relax into thoughtless-Silence to be Heaven it-SELF that needs hallucinations of brains and bodies like it needs bleeding-bodies and broken-bones.

And the Laughter of this Supreme Comedy makes this hallucination of mine so obvious that it makes all these words into the Supreme Truth because in hallucinations there is no doer, there is no other, not even a Tyler, or his author, that can agree or disagree.
-- UV-gap[/QUOTE]
Aren't you negating and contradicting your very belief by making this argument?
[COLOR=Red][SIZE=1][I]I don't know why I'm bothering to bring other ideas to the table cause you're preaching your own dogma with no room for air.[/I][/SIZE][/COLOR]

It's like [I]phenomenology[/I], the study of experience, existence before thought or cognition. HOw can you extract pure existence before thought with a formula formed by thought? It's a walking hypocritical contradiction.

This also reminds me of René Descartes [I]brains in the vat theory[/I]. To put it simply, it's what the movie [I]The Matrix [/I]is about. And I wish I could listen to a debate between you two.

"I think therefore i Am," he says.
And you respond, "you don't think."

[QUOTE=Dr.Jekyll&Mr.Hyde]Aren't you negating and contradicting your very belief by making this argument?
[/QUOTE]
Of course he his! Just like I explained [URL=http://www.chuckpalahniuk.net/community/showpost.php?p=777629&postcount=37]here.[/URL] He doesn't [i]have[/i] an argument. He has a wad of solipsism that he seems never to tire of. Do you mean by "merging" that he had the audacity to start a brand new thread spewing forth the very same brand of empty air? That is spamming. It's against the policies of our forum community.

My suggestion would be that if he starts another thread that is obviously more preaching, instead of an invitation to dialogue, it's okay just to delete it.

[QUOTE=Gene Polotas]The movie called Fight Club is the Supreme Comedy.
I should know because I AM Tyler Durden.

The Fight Club is the Supreme Comedy not because I’m Tyler Durden but because you are The Narrator.
[B]The Fight Club is my hallucination, and so is its author[/B].

The Fight Club is the Supreme Comedy because in this hallucination I beat the living shit out of you, the Narrator, to convince you that you are real because you have the bleeding-body and broken-bones to prove it.
And this Comedy is Supreme because not only does your bleeding-body and broken-bones convince you that you must you be real but they also convince you that I, Tyler Durden, must be real when both you and I -- and the movie and its author -- is just my hallucination.

And if my bumps and bruises give me any doubts to my hallucination then I just relax into thoughtless-Silence to be Heaven it-SELF that needs hallucinations of brains and bodies like it needs bleeding-bodies and broken-bones.

And the Laughter of this Supreme Comedy makes this hallucination of mine so obvious that it makes all these words into the Supreme Truth because in hallucinations there is no doer, there is no other, not even a Tyler, or his author, that can agree or disagree.
-- UV-gap[/QUOTE]
im sorry can you repeat that in spanish por favor?

[QUOTE=vigorous puppy]Of course he his! Just like I explained [URL=http://www.chuckpalahniuk.net/community/showpost.php?p=777629&postcount=37]here.[/URL] He doesn't [i]have[/i] an argument. He has a wad of solipsism that he seems never to tire of. Do you mean by "merging" that he had the audacity to start a brand new thread spewing forth the very same brand of empty air? That is spamming. It's against the policies of our forum community.

My suggestion would be that if he starts another thread that is obviously more preaching, instead of an invitation to dialogue, it's okay just to delete it.[/QUOTE]
I've been there and done that "wad of solipsism" thing in fact it makes me cringe. It sounds to me a lot like some kind of post-cult dissociation thing, or maybe he's just dissociating the good old fashioned way. Which is not necessarily a bad thing, but it can be hazardous to your health if you don't get a grip on it.

i think if fight club and the bhagavad gita got into a fight that fight club would win !

[QUOTE=karbunkle]i think if fight club and the bhagavad gita got into a fight that fight club would win ![/QUOTE]
But maybe not with the Koran.

Hey look! We got emoticons for everything :fart:

[QUOTE=meatthinker]I've been there and done that "wad of solipsism" thing in fact it makes me cringe. It sounds to me a lot like some kind of post-cult dissociation thing, or maybe he's just dissociating the good old fashioned way. Which is not necessarily a bad thing, but it can be hazardous to your health if you don't get a grip on it.[/QUOTE]
Dude, I've been there too. In more ways than one. Besides being drawn to various self-improvement cults when I was younger, and without casting any blanket judgments on such organizations, I was experimental enough in my early twenties to recreate Timothy Leary type adventures in my brain. Trust me, I know what a meltdown is like from the inside out.

It's troubling and frustrating when it shows up in the forums. If it's someone who needs to get back on their Lithium... or come down from an LSD trip -- then sleep twelve hours, and have toast, ORANGE JUICE and coffee before logging onto the Cult again -- we can't really help besides encouraging him to do that. And if it's someone just fucking with us, that pisses me off.

But there's no way to tell.

Meantime, it creates an environment in the forums where large and interesting ideas are completely derailed from serious and inclusive discussion, because the person who sparks the big ideas also wants to treat us all like goddamned imaginary friends. And he can't climb down from that selfish little ride in neurosomatic bliss long enough to realize he's preaching an incoherent doctrine.

Mystics who really grasp the place he's coming from and learn to integrate that experience into their lives, they generally recognize the contradiction and even ugliness in preaching it as a doctrine. What we've been looking at is precisely what happens when a shattered psyche tries to reintegrate itself by cannabalizing an experience of unity that the lower nature can never own.

[QUOTE=meatthinker]I've been there and done that "wad of solipsism" thing in fact it makes me cringe. It sounds to me a lot like some kind of post-cult dissociation thing, or maybe he's just dissociating the good old fashioned way. Which is not necessarily a bad thing, but it can be hazardous to your health if you don't get a grip on it.[/QUOTE]
What age is it that you're supposed to grow out of solipsism? Five? Eight?

"The world doesn't revolve around you my friend. It revolves around me."

[QUOTE=Dr.Jekyll&Mr.Hyde]What age is it that you're supposed to grow out of solipsism? Five? Eight?

"The world doesn't revolve around you my friend. It revolves around me."[/QUOTE]
[i]When I was three
I thought the world
revolved around me
I was wrong

and so iiiiiii s i n g ...a l o n g

and if you dance then dance with me...[/i]

U2, Party Girl

[QUOTE=meatthinker]But maybe not with the Koran.

Hey look! We got emoticons for everything :fart:[/QUOTE]

[ATTACH]6302[/ATTACH]

[QUOTE=McMuddle][ATTACH]6302[/ATTACH]

[QUOTE=karbunkle]you can not merge two threads
because the threads themselves do not exist![/QUOTE]
and so they were never apart in the first place

[QUOTE=vigorous puppy][i]When I was three
I thought the world
revolved around me
I was wrong

....

U2, Party Girl[/QUOTE]

BUT YOU WERE TOTALLY RIGHT -- because we are all born perfect spiritual beings until society, religion beat the spirituality out of us until it is a disease, like the Fight Club.

Physics tells us that the observer is always at the center of the universe, and the observer determines the observations, so not only does the world revolve around you but also the whole f'kking universe. And only Religions and society can tell you otherwise... but not physics.

[QUOTE=Gene Polotas]BUT YOU WERE TOTALLY RIGHT -- because we are all born perfect spiritual beings until society, religion beat the spirituality out of us until it is a disease, like the Fight Club.

Physics tells us that the observer is always at the center of the universe, and the observer determines the observations, so not only does the world revolve around you but also the whole f'kking universe. And only Religions and society can tell you otherwise... but not physics.[/QUOTE]
i take physics....i hate physics

i cant find something more tedious and obnoxious

oh and please no more censorship

FUCKING not f'kking

I appreciate the censorship. More of it please! Go nuts, guy!