Regina Spektor – “Laughing With”


Laughing With by Regina Spektor

No one laughs at God in a hospital
No one laughs at God in a war
No one’s laughing at God when they’re starving or freezing or so very poor
No one laughs at God when the doctor calls after some routine tests
No one’s laughing at God
When it’s gotten real late and their kid’s not back from the party yet
No one laughs at God when their airplane start to uncontrollably shake
No one’s laughing at God
When they see the one they love, hand in hand with someone else
And they hope that they’re mistaken
No one laughs at God
When the cops knock on their door and they say we got some bad news, sir
No one’s laughing at God when there’s a famine or fire or flood
But God can be funny
At a cocktail party when listening to a good God-themed joke, or
Or when the crazies say He hates us
And they get so red in the head you think they’re ’bout to choke
God can be funny
When told he’ll give you money if you just pray the right way
And when presented like a genie who does magic like Houdini
Or grants wishes like Jiminy Cricket and Santa Claus
God can be so hilarious, ha ha
Ha ha
No one laughs at God in a hospital
No one laughs at God in a war
No one’s laughing at God
When they’ve lost all they’ve got and they don’t know what for
No one laughs at God on the day they realize
That the last sight they’ll ever see is a pair of hateful eyes
No one’s laughing at God when they’re saying their goodbyes
But God can be funny
At a cocktail party when listening to a good God-themed joke, or
Or when the crazies say He hates us
And they get so red in the head you think they’re ’bout to choke
God can be funny
When told he’ll give you money if you just pray the right way
And when presented like a genie who does magic like Houdini
Or grants wishes like Jiminy Cricket and Santa Claus
God can be so hilarious
No one laughs at God in a hospital
No one laughs at God in a war
No one laughs at God in a hospital
No one laughs at God in a war
No one laughing at God in hospital
No one’s laughing at God in a war
No one’s laughing at God when they’re starving or freezing or so very poor
No one’s laughing at God
No one’s laughing at God
No one’s laughing at God, we’re all laughing with God

Songwriters: Regina Spektor
Laughing With lyrics © Sony/ATV Music Publishing LLC

Here’s How and Why Sexual Identity Exists On A Spectrum (teenvogue.com)

You aren’t alone.

The coming-out moment: It has been a part of pop culture for decades, spanning from ’90s TV sitcoms to YouTube videos. But for some people, the concept of coming out doesn’t quite work, because labels like “straight” and “gay” — along with the idea of being “in” or “out” — are starting to feel too narrow, overlooking an entire swath of sexuality.

“The binary still exists, but we’re realizing more types of sexuality reside between and outside those two categories,” says Juliet, a 13-year-old who identifies as pansexual. Her attitude is characteristic of Gen Z (used to describe people born starting in the mid-’90s) and the current cultural climate.

According to a survey by trend forecasters at Innovation Group at J. Walter Thompson Intelligence, when asked to assign a number to their sexuality (0 being “completely heterosexual,” 6 being “completely homosexual”), 35 percent of Gen Z youth fell somewhere in the middle — compared with 24 percent of millennials. Perhaps more telling: Only 48 percent of Gen Z identified as “completely heterosexual.”

But more and more people seem to be comfortable living in the in-between. “I identify as sexually fluid,” says Mysterie, an 18-year-old transgender man. “My desires have changed a lot throughout my life.” President of the Gay-Straight Alliance at his university, Mysterie — and many younger LGBTQ people — identifies somewhere between straight and gay.

Of course, nuance has always existed within the LGBTQ community, but this new way of thinking is gaining mainstream acceptance. While coming-out moments used to make headlines on national magazines (à la Ellen’s “Yep, I’m Gay” Time cover in the ’90s), today’s celebrities are just as likely to leave their sexuality ambiguous. Consider that actors like Kristen Stewart and Cara Delevingne don’t hide their relationships with women, yet neither plays by the Hollywood narrative of “gay or straight?” Amandla Stenberg also used social media to get her message across, taking to Teen Vogue’s Snapchat to identify as bisexual, but in a later video she said she “would also use the word ‘pansexual.’ ” Adding,“I feel like for people who don’t necessarily know that vocabulary…it’s easier for me to just say that I’m bi.”

That knowledge may be expanding. Miley Cyrus broadened the national vocab when she said she was pansexual, something that only a decade ago would have caused USA Today readers to spit out their coffee. Celebs aside, the Internet has been an amazing place for making us all more sophisticated about sexuality. “I’ve used YouTube and Tumblr to help educate my friends and family,” says Mysterie, who first discovered the term “sexually fluid” on a digital video. The irony is that by ditching conventional labels, we’re finding more words to talk and learn about love.

Edward Carpenter on cosmic consciousness

“Men will not worry about death or a future, about the kingdom of heaven, about what may come with and after the cessation of life of the present body.  Each soul will feel and know itself to be immortal, will feel and know that the entire universe with all its good and all its beauty is for it and belongs to it forever.  The world peopled by men possessing cosmic consciousness will be as far removed from the world of today as this is from the world before the advent of self-consciousness.”

–Edward Carpenter (August 29, 1844 – June 28, 1929) was an English socialist poet, philosopher, anthologist, and early activist for rights for homosexuals. A poet and writer, he was a close friend of Rabindranath Tagore, and a friend of Walt Whitman.Wikipedia

“Everything but the Kitchen Sink”

Saturday 6/5/17
“Everything but the Kitchen Sink”
I find the excursions and directions that I am taken in selecting these pieces to be both exhilarating, exciting, frustrating and rewarding simultaneously….

The Daily Art: https://gwyllm.com/the-daily-art/
(Suyeon Na aka 나수연 (Korean, b. 1980, Jeonju, South Korea, based Brooklyn, NY, USA) – Flow, 2015 Gouache, Watercolors, Fabrics, Sequins, Collage on Paper)

“A Year of Reimaging” by Calvin Harris, H.W., M. (siteofcontact.net)

the silence of the forest.jpg

We are 120 days into the New Year cycle. A year of “Re-imaging the Evolution of You.” Most pages for this year will still need to be written. It is in the doing, your actions that writes the pages of this year, and find Life in bud anew, waiting to be uncovered. How shall we do it?  We all know that life is never uninteresting, it has always had some twist and turns and it is never in a straight line, thou in its seasons you may think it so, it is a non linear time loop.

In this season, we will inevitably be asked to create and breathe into new life concepts that have lost their meaning along the way. Words like “growth” and “accomplishment” must be seeded with new vision and brought alive again in the fire of direct experience.

In many ways, the path has very little to do with just “growing, ” but like Spring time, recycling what appears to be the old branches on a tree.  Branches barren from shed leaves and deflated  canapes. Yet we, like all of nature in Spring are about the business of reorganization, shedding, and sprouting to bring about new growth, .  Thus like the tree, “growing” is also about pruning, recycling, and reorganization. Those processes that make room forsprouts or “new growth” within us.

Let us feel that creative urge bring into being that which has not-seen within us before. Realizing it is the ancient and wild urge of Love wanting a new form from us.  What should that form be? Love’s manifestations in life has many possibilities, thus it is in the realm of your attention to movement within the twist and turns of life, within the field of not-knowing that new meaning can emerge.

For many of us, “success” has come to refer to a condition removed from Love, in which I no longer have to be in direct contact with my vulnerability, my sensitivity, and only in touch with a small band of the emotional spectrum. But this is not “success.”. In part yes, partiality, but it will not satisfy the longing for wholeness that demand that Love fulfills, that has been placed inside us from our Source.

From Source, Agape (Love), as the reference point, makes all of our previous success just organized stepping stones in our life to be re-calibrated answers from questions that move us deeper, into a dark rich pregnant realizations of new discoveries and reformulations that are converted from pure essence.

Yes, the Spring season seems to give clean pages upon which to write. Each day a new page is waiting to be written. New questions to be asked, compared, embraced, and all to be loved. Answers to be discovered and then lived.

Likewise you will find other areas of your life with its demands for some spring cleaning of pass transgressions. For each new future there is a reevaluating, reorganizing, shedding, or cleaning out of the old that takes place. Spring cleaning is in full swing.

Today carve out that quiet time just for yourself in which to dream and consider maybe even jot down a new page or chapter for the year. Remember only dreams give birth to change for this trans-formative year of self-discovery.

I want to close with an action item for you, retold in the words of William James – “To change one’s life:

1.) Start immediately.  2.)  Do it flamboyantly. 3.) No exceptions.”

“All the tools and engines on earth are only extensions of man’s limbs and senses.” – Ralph Waldo Emerson.

for comment on this article, or to talk about mentoring and coaching programs that re-energize, or reconnect you.  Contact me at : things2cal@gmail.com

ALOHA,

Calvin Harris H.W., M

“Facing the Furies” by Rebecca Solnit (harpers.org)

In 1979, a catchy Kenny Rogers song called “Coward of the County” made it to the top of the country charts. It’s about a man named Tommy, whose father, a prisoner, implores him not to follow the example he’s been set:

Promise me, son, not to do the things I’ve done

Walk away from trouble if you can

Now it don’t mean you’re weak if you turn the other cheek

This is early modern country music, so the song takes for granted that you’ve got to honor thy father, but it is also committed to the eye-for-an-eye ethos of the Old Testament; when Tommy’s girlfriend is gang-raped, the paternal instruction falls by the wayside. The former coward of the county beats the hell out of the perpetrators. Only violence can redeem his reputation, and his reputation is indistinguishable from his manhood — Tommy’s masculinity, not recompense for his lover, is what is really at stake in this story. Turning the other cheek, we learn, is weak after all.

“Coward of the County” celebrates rage as an affirmation of the self and of one’s virility. It poses a question to which the right answer is violence. Nine years after the song came out, the same question was posed to Michael Dukakis during his campaign for president. Would he, if his wife was raped and murdered, favor the death penalty for her attacker? The candidate’s answer — “I think there are better and more effective ways to deal with violent crime” — was widely considered to have sunk his campaign. A lack of vengeful bloodlust made him not a model of self-restraint or mercy but the coward of the country.

The philosopher Martha Nussbaum calls the path Dukakis repudiated “the road of payback.” The urge to exact revenge, she argues, derives from our desire for “cosmic balance,” as well as from our attempts to overcome helplessness through displays of power. By this logic, revenge rights the scales, despite doing nothing to restore what was lost or repair what was damaged.

Sometimes there are good reasons for a strong response, including the prevention of further harm. But more often lashing out is a way to avoid looking inward. A 2001 study by Jennifer Lerner and Dacher Keltner found that feeling angry makes people as optimistic about the outcome of a situation as feeling happy. In other words, anger may make people miserable, but it also makes them more confident and obliterates other, more introspective miseries: pain, fear, guilt, uncertainty, vulnerability. We’d rather be mad than sad.

In our political conversations, anger is constantly invoked yet rarely examined. What exactly is it? At its most basic, it is a physiological reaction to threat, one we share with other mammals. Anger manifests as a collection of somatic responses — accelerated heart rate, increased blood pressure, heightened body temperature — that are associated with alertness, focus, readiness to act. But the similarity to animals ends there. Where a dog may growl, bristle, or bite you if you poke it with a stick, it will have no such reaction if you insult its god or its sports team or talk about someone you know who poked another dog.

For our species, with its imaginative and narrative capacities, challenges to one’s status, beliefs, and advantages also count as threats. Human anger is a response to insecurity both literal and imagined, to any sense that our physical or social or emotional welfare is at risk. Attacks of fury can bring on strokes and heart attacks and blood clots. We routinely die of rage.

At its mildest, the emotion is no more than annoyance, an aversion to minor unpleasantnesses. Annoyance with a moral character becomes indignation: not only do I dislike that but it should not have happened. Indeed, anger generally arises from a sense of being wronged. In this respect, my conviction that you should not have cut me off in the merge lane resembles my conviction that we should not have bombed Iraq: in each case, I see an injustice and wish it to be righted. Anger that is motivated by more than a mammalian instinct for self-protection operates by an ethic, a sense of how things ought or ought not to be. But the sentiment’s moral component doesn’t explain its psychological effects. Anger is hostile to understanding. At its most implacable or extreme, it prevents comprehension of a situation, of the people you oppose, of your own role and responsibilities. It’s not for nothing that we call rages “blind.”

Is anyone more possessed by this obliterating anger than Donald Trump? Our nation is currently led by a petty, vindictive, histrionic man whose exceptional privilege has robbed him of even the most rudimentary training in dealing with setbacks and slights. He was elected by people who were drawn to him because he homed in on their anger, made them even angrier, and promised vengeance on the usual targets, domestic and foreign, successfully clouding their judgment as to what electing him would mean for their health care, safety, environment, education, economy.

Yet Trump’s furious and fury-fueled ascent is only the culmination of fury’s long journey toward enshrinement in this country. Our legal system, for example, has been lurching backward for some time from the ideal of impartial justice toward a model based on retaliation. The prison system still employs a plethora of terms that suggest otherwise — “rehabilitation,” “reform,” “correction” — but its current rhetoric and practices are often purely punitive. Families of crime victims are now sometimes invited to the executions of their relatives’ attackers, as though the death penalty were an instrument of personal revenge. (Many of those families decline to participate, and some have protested the sentences.)

Governments regularly manufacture or exaggerate threats to suggest that violence is necessary and restraint would constitute weakness: during World War II, the United States condemned citizens of Japanese heritage; during the postwar period, it targeted leftists. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, it scrambled to find new adversaries, and has now settled on Muslims, immigrants, and transgender people. The provocation of anger is essential to government by manipulation, and the angriest people are often the most credulous, willing to snatch up without scrutiny whatever feeds their fire.

On social media, audiences give perfunctory attention to facts so that they can move on to the pleasure of righteous wrath about the latest person who has said or done something wrong. Anger is the stock-in-trade of many politicians and pundits and of the tabloids and websites that give them voice; it is the go-to emotion, perhaps because it is inherently reactive, volatile — easy to provoke, easy to direct. Indeed, as Jeffrey M. Berry and Sarah Sobieraj argued last year on Vox, it has become a kind of commodity, a product marketed to select customers. Anger-provoking content is more likely to succeed, more likely to “stick,” not least because, you have to imagine, anger itself is a way the mind gets stuck.

Many of the more prominent media outlets trafficking in outrage — making ad hominem attacks, dividing the political world into heroes and villains, giving us this day our daily rage — are aimed at conservatives: Fox News, say, or the talk radio networks. But many on the left are equally smitten with anger. I grew up in the shadow of the slogan “If you’re not angry, you’re not paying attention,” which equates the feeling with engagement, with principles; it suggests that you cannot have the latter without the former. Righteous rage is often seen as a virtue.

Rage is not quite the same thing as outrage. You might say that the latter is motivated less by wrath at what has been done than by empathy for those it has been done to. People showed up to the huge demonstration at the San Francisco airport on January 28, when the ban on travelers from majority-Muslim countries went into effect, not to harm anyone but to prevent others from being harmed. And yet the distinction between love and hate is not as easy to delineate as it might seem. It’s rare that anyone admits to a desire to hurt. The antiabortion movement invokes love for unborn children as justification for its actions, but to nearly everyone else it appears driven mostly by resentment of women’s autonomy. That wrath has led to some of the most serious domestic terrorism in this country.

In part because hate is so often excused or explained by love in these conflicts, it’s dangerous to grant anger a special authenticity. Throughout last year, the ire of conservative voters was regarded as a deep augury of real concerns, real convictions, even as the ease with which crowds can be incited — and the weak factual basis for many of their concerns — was demonstrated again and again. People on both ends of the political spectrum were often furious about things they had not paid much attention to and didn’t know much about. Anger is frequently mistaken for a dowsing rod indicating something deep, when it is better understood as a dial that can be spun with a flick of the finger.

Who has the right to be angry? Anger is considered justified if it is a reaction to outrageous circumstance, so denying the grounds for anger denies its legitimacy. And behind the question of who has the right to be angry is the question of who is allowed to act on his anger.

Denying the reality of racism’s impact is an essential part of demonizing the anger of non-white people as unreasonable, baseless, even criminal. And when women are angry, it’s seen as a character flaw. For decades people have stereotyped feminists as angry, and in doing so have denied aspects of women’s experience that it is reasonable to be angry about. In the conservative Christian culture that the writer Kelly Sundberg grew up in, forgiveness was considered an essential feminine virtue. Praising it in girls and women, she notes, encouraged them to excuse men’s transgressions — beatings, betrayals — again and again. The imperative to forgive made a virtue of powerlessness. Women’s relationship to power will remain uneasy as long as the right to be angry is seen as a masculine prerogative.

There are a few country songs — by Martina McBride, the Dixie Chicks, Carrie Underwood — that describe killing abusive spouses. But violence in “Coward of the County” makes the protagonist manly; in the hymns to killing your husband, no one is made more of a woman — they’re just more likely to survive.

The terms used by primatologists are unsettlingly helpful in understanding the social role of anger: “threat display,” “dominance behavior.” Expressions of rage are a means of exercising control over others and asserting status, a status defined in part by the right to dominate, which belongs to parents, bosses, police officers, husbands. “Dominate” is what Tommy ultimately did, what Dukakis failed to do.

As Nussbaum points out, “People with an overweening sense of their own privilege . . . seem particularly prone to angry displays.” The more you expect to get your own way, in other words, the more upset you are likely to be at being thwarted; those who are most thwarted must learn to apportion their wrath with care. Indeed, the most deeply wronged are often the least interested in resentment. In her essay “The Uses of Anger,” Audre Lorde reflects that women of color “have had to learn to orchestrate those furies so they do not tear us apart.” In an obituary for Nelson Mandela, the writer Stephen Smith makes a similar point. In prison, he writes, Mandela came to see that “hatred and enmity were mimetic, a trap laid by the ‘evil’ other: fall into it and you and your adversary become hard to tell apart.” Mandela, who was as entitled to anger as anyone, nevertheless gave it up. But he did not give up his endeavor to change the world around him. The difference is significant.

Fury is a renewable resource; though the initial anger may be fleeting, it can be revived and strengthened by telling and retelling yourself the story of the insult or injustice, even over a lifetime. Many accounts of American anger focus on what people are angry about, as though reactive anger were inevitable and the outside stimulus provoking it, the only variable. They rarely discuss the status of anger or the habits of mind that support it. Those are discussed elsewhere, in spiritual and psychological literature and in anthropological texts.

In Christianity, wrath is one of the seven deadly sins; patience, a cardinal virtue, is its opposite. Buddhist theology regards anger as one of the three poisons, an affliction to be overcome through self-discipline and self-awareness. “The traditional ethical precept about anger is sometimes translated as not to get angry,” Taigen Dan Leighton, a Zen priest and translator of Buddhist texts, explained to me. “But in modern Soto Zen Buddhism, we say not to harbor ill will.” The Buddhist writer Thanissara Mary Weinberg put it thus:

Anger is traditionally thought to be close to wisdom. When not projected outward onto others or inward toward the self, it gives us the necessary energy and clarity to understand what needs to be done.

We will all feel anger at one time or another, but it doesn’t need to become animosity or be renewed and retained. Buddhism offers an elegant model of anger management. Harness the emotion, feel it without inflicting it.

Some cultures consider anger a luxury in which one should not indulge. The Machiguenga of the Peruvian Amazon, a 1986 study suggests, regard anger as dangerous, undesirable, and closely tied to violence. Jean Briggs, an anthropologist, lived with Inuit people in Canada in the early 1960s, and reported that they highly valued emotional control: “The maintenance of equanimity under trying circumstances,” she observed, “is the essential sign of maturity, of adulthood.” Volatile adults were seen as disruptive, disturbing. Anger was something you were supposed to outgrow.

We in America have not outgrown it; we don’t even think we should. The left in particular has viewed anger as an essential catalyst for change, a belief evident in the names of our demonstrations and movements. In 1969, the Weather Underground organized the Days of Rage, in which the several hundred young radicals who showed up were outnumbered and outfought by the Chicago police. In the 1970s, Britain’s Angry Brigade carried out a series of small-scale bombings. In 1991, the political rock band Rage Against the Machine was formed, and throughout most of the Nineties the anarchist collective Love and Rage put out a newspaper of the same name.

Yet in my observation, those dedicated to practical change over the long term are often the least involved in the dramas of rage, which wear on both the self and others. After hearing, say, hundreds of detailed accounts of rape, you may remain deeply motivated to engage in political action but find it difficult to get emotionally worked up about the newest offense. The most committed organizers I know are frequently indignant, but they’re not often incensed. Their first obligation is to changing how things are — to action, not self-expression.

Much political rhetoric suggests that without anger there is no powerful engagement, that anger is a sort of gasoline that runs the engine of social change. But sometimes gasoline just makes things explode.

(Recommended by Bruce King.)

“Come to the IN-treat!” by Robert McEwen, H.W., M.

The Awakening is right here where you are now.  Not some RETREAT.  In is really  an IN-Treat.  It is not going to the mountains or to the islands to “escape” from the world.  It is BEING RIGHT THERE WHERE YOU ARE NOW!  

It is instant and it is free.  It can be peaceful.  Breathe deep.  Stop what you are doing for 1 minute.  Drop your shoulders and take a conscious breath.  That is how close Nirvana is.  Finding and BEING Truth here and now.  Heaven is at hand.  Not in some ocean retreat with a price tag $4,000.00 to be with other people who agree with you. (yawning)   Speakers all saying the same old  “We are One”.  That will be $500 please.  Such BULL SHIT.  It is right where we sit and interacting with who we are.  It doesn’t matter if they agree or not.  I accept myself and them as is.  That is enlightenment!

Robert W. McEwen, H.W.,  M.

“Super Consciousness” by Colin Wilson; book review by Mike Zonta, H.W., M.

Colin Wilson is one of my favorite writers and “Super Consciousness” is a kind of “Super Consciousness for Dummies” approach to the subject.

Let me quote a few excerpts:

“A musician friend told me how he had returned home one day feeling weary, and had poured himself a large whisky and put on a record of the baroque composer Praetorius — and had suddenly soared into ecstatic happiness — the ‘other mode.” A BBC producer told me how he had been alone in an empty control room and played himself a record of the Schubert Octet and had suddenly become Schubert — that is, he felt as if he was composing the music, and knew just why Schubert had written each bar.  This experience is obviously what Sartre means when he remarked in What is Literature that to read a book with understanding is to rewrite it.”

In speaking of what Abraham Maslow terms “peak experiences” (PE), Wilson says:  “A young mother was sitting watching her husband and children eating breakfast, when she was suddenly overwhelmed by a feeling of how much she loved them and how lucky she was:  she went into the ‘peak experience,’

“But note this:  she was lucky before she went into the peak experience.  The peak experience simply involved becoming aware of how lucky she was.  It really amounts to what G.K. Chesterton once called ‘absurd good news’ — a sudden sense of wonderful optimism about the future, the feeling that life is infinitely complex and infinitely exciting.”

Wilson goes on to say “that man is on the point of an evolutionary leap to a higher phase.  Moreover, I [have] come to feel that, in some paradoxical sense, we have already achieved this.  But, like Maslow’s young mother, who was ‘lucky’ before she was conscious of it, we are not yet aware of it.”

Here’s an excerpt on Dostoevsky:  “As a young man, he was touchy and paranoid. Then, along with several associates, he was arrested as a revolutionary and sentenced to death.  In front of the firing squad, with three minutes to live, he divided his time into three one-minute periods:  one to think about the past, one to contemplate the present, one to think about the future.  And at that point, a messenger rode up with a pardon for the condemned men.  Dostoevsky never forgot that ‘crisis vision’ — the recognition that the world is an incredibly beautiful place and that we are prevented from seeing this mainly by laziness, negativity and force of habit.”

Wilson speaks of Rousseau’s 1761 novel The New Heloise which tells the story of “a penniless young tutor who falls in love with his beautiful pupil Julie, who becomes his mistress.  Rousseau argues that if two people are in love, then they have a right to become lovers.  In 1761, this attitude caused shock all over Europe, since a girl’s virginity was regarded as the property of her future husband — and a valuable asset in acquiring one.”

” . . . Both the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution quickly turned into bloodshed and tyranny.  Rousseau’s vision of an ideal society ended in the guillotine; Marx’s dream of a just society led to Stalin and Mao.  And this as not an unfortunate accident of history.  The bloodshed was already inherent in the dream of Rousseau and Marx because they were unrealistic.  They left out of account the fact that human beings are subject to boredom.  Every schoolboy knows that feeling of delight on the first day of a holiday, and how quickly it turns into habit.   The German philosopher Frichte made this observation when he said:  ‘To be free is nothing; to become free is heavenly.’  That is because when we suddenly become free, the freedom is a pleasant shock.  But it is soon taken for granted and becomes mechanical.”

Wilson quotes Richard Maurice Bucke speaking of his own experience of “Cosmic Consciousness” in the third person:   ” . . . All at once, without warning of any kind, he found himself wrapped around as it were by a flame colored cloud.  For an instant he thought of fire, some sudden conflagration in the great city,  The next he knew that the light was within himself.  Directly afterwards came upon him a sense of exaltation, of immense joyousness accompanied or immediately followed by an intellectual illumination quite impossible to describe.  Into his brain streamed on momentary lightning-flash of the Brahmic Splendor which has ever since lightened his life; upon his heart fell one drop of Brahmic Bliss, leaving him thenceforward for always an aftertaste of heaven.  Among other things he did not come to believe, he saw and knew that the Cosmos is not dead matter but a living Presence, that the soul of man si immortal, that the universe is so built and ordered that without any peradventure all things work together for the good of each and all, that the foundation principle of the world is what we call love and that the happiness of every one is in the long run absolutely certain . . ..”

Wilson quotes Yeats:  “In his poem ‘Under Ben Bulben,’ written towards the end of his life, Yeats talks about how, ‘when a man is fighting mad’:

Something drops from the eyes long blind,
He completes his partial mind,
For an instant stands at ease
Laughs aloud, his heart at peace.

In a chapter called “Strange Powers,” Wilson tells the story of the poet Richard Church.  “As a child [Church] was sent to a kind of hospital to recover from an illness.  One morning, he stood alone in the room, watching a gardener cut down a dead tree.  Suddenly he realized that the sound of the axe did not synchronize with the blow — the sound came when the axe was on the upstroke.  With a flash of intuition, Church felt that space and time are liars and fakes, and that this had suddenly been revealed to him.  ‘I felt both power and exultation flooding my veins . . .’  As a sickly child, he had always felt himself a slave of space and time, and above all, of gravity.  ‘Now I was free.  Space and time were deceivers, openly contradicting each other . . .’   Church says that he realized that he ‘only had to reduce them by an act of will . . . ‘  ‘I exerted my will, visualising my hand and feet pressing downward on the centre of the earth.  It was no surprise to me that I left the ground and glided about the room.’  He felt that he could somehow command the air to flow through  his solid flesh.  He then floated down the empty staircase to breakfast in the dining room.  ‘I entered and took my seat, content now to live incognito among these wingless mortals.'”

And then Wilson tells the well-told tale of Jung and the scarab:              “[Jung] tells how he was having considerable difficulty with a young female patient ‘who always knew better about everything’ and whose rationalism seemed impregnable.  One day, as she was telling Jung about a vivid dream of a golden scarab, there was a tapping on the window:  Jung opened and a gold-green scarab — a rose-chafer — flew into the room. Jung caught it and handed it to the patient.  ‘Here is your scarab.”  This ‘punctured the desired hole in her rationalism’ and broke the ice of her resistance.”

In my own life, I can testify to a similarly strange experience:  I had given an online talk in which I said: ” We all have one lover (the Great Spirit) but he/she appears in many different faces/bodies. They are the youth and youthful, because those are the ones who are still open. Sometimes at home I find myself dancing around the room (sometimes literally) feeling in love and not remembering who it is I’m in love with. Doesn’t really matter, I guess.”

A few nights later I woke up and someone was attempting to scratch my eyes out.  In fact, they succeeded.  According to the VA, I had a 3 millimeter abrasion in my right eye.

To me, this was like a break in the space/time illusion.  I didn’t know this kind of thing was possible.

In the chapter called “Philosophy,” Wilson’s critique of Descartes is off-base, I think.  Wilson says:  “If some god could endow a washing machine with self-awareness, it would probably assume that it operates of its own free will, and might well say, ‘I think, therefore I am.’  It would clearly be mistaken.”

In this day of AI, this is no joke.  And, BTW, if the washing machine  or the AI had self-awareness, then it would be able to operate of its own free will.

A few more riveting quotes:

From Kierkegaard:  “Truth is subjectivity.”

From Rupert Brooke:  “I suppose my occupation is being in love with the universe.”

Wilson speaks of the mathematician  Kurt Friedrich Gödel:  “Until Gödel, mathematicians had tried to create mathematical systems (like geometry) that consist of a number of self-evident axioms, and a superstructure of ‘truths’ built on these.  Gödel showed that this is impossible — that in any such system, there are always certain truths that cannot be proved within the system; they can only be proved within a larger system still, a meta-system.”  [As Translators can attest, a meta-system like universal truth.]

Wilson quotes H.G. Wells from his Experiment in Autobiography:  “People can ask now what would have been an extraordinary question five hundred years ago.  They can say, ‘Yes, you earn a living, you support a family, you love and hate, but –what do you do?’  . . . The originative intellectual worker is not a normal human being and does not lead nor desire to lead a normal human life. He wants to lead a supernormal life. . . . We are like early amphibians, so to speak, struggling out of the waters that have hitherto covered our kind, into the air; seeking to breathe in a new fashion and emancipate ourselves from long accepted and long unquestioned necessities. At last it becomes for us a case of air or nothing.  But the new land has not yet definitely emerged from the waters and we swim distressfully in an element we wish to abandon.”

And W.H. Auden:

Put the car away; when life fails
What’s the good of going to Wales?

And Auden again:

The answer that I cannot find
Is known to my unconscious mind.
I have no reason to despair
Because I am already there.

H.G. Wells again:  “The fish is a creature of the water, the bird a creature of the air, and man a creature of the mind.”

And finally Colin Wilson himself:  “What has been happening since 1740 [with the publication of Samuel Richardson’s novel Pamela, ‘which became the first best-selling novel and turned England into a “nation of readers.”  Lending libraries sprang up soon afterwards solely to supply the ravenous demand for imitations of Pamela’]  is that we have gradually learned to become accustomed to this strange new medium of the mind — a medium that does not even exist for the lower animals.  Our master of this medium is happening so fast that it might even be said that we are learning to ‘fly’ rather than merely walk.”

NASA Live – Earth From Space (HDVR) ♥ ISS LIVE FEED #AstronomyDay2017 ?


Live (2017) NASA Earth from Space – “International Astronomy Day” ?, ISS HD Video is presented. NASA Live stream of Earth seen from space powered by NASA HDEV cameras aboard the International Space Station. Watch the Earth roll Captured by HDEV cameras on board the International Space Station.

Updates:
(4/29) “International Astronomy Day” – Astronomy Day is an annual event intended to provide a means of interaction between the general public and various astronomy enthusiasts, groups and professionals.
(5/4) Happy Star Wars Day! May the fourth be with you.
(5/6-7) Aquarids Meteor Shower – The Eta Aquarids is an above average shower, capable of producing up to 60 meteors per hour at its peak. Most of the activity is seen in the Southern Hemisphere on the night of May 6 and the morning of the May 7.
(5/12) NASA astronauts Peggy Whitson and Jack Fischer will take a spacewalk outside International Space Station starting at about 8 a.m. EDT (1200 GMT) and lasting about 6.5 hours.

The International Space Station – ISS – circles the earth at 240 miles above the planet, on the edge of space in low earth orbit. The station is crewed by NASA astronauts as well as Russian Cosmonauts and a mixture of Japanese, Canadian and European astronauts as well.

Please Stand by (Screen)
The signal is temporary lost from the international space station, live on UStream.tv

SpaceTalk Join our international conversation about:
Believers vs Non-Believers | Religious Debates with Atheists vs Theists. | Alien life exists? (are we alone?)

The ISS passes into the dark side of the earth for roughly half of each of its 90 minute orbits. As the Space Station passes into a period of night every 45 mins video is unavailable – during this time, and other breaks in transmission recorded footage is shown when back in daylight earth will recommence. As seen from the Nasa ISS live stream on the International Space Station –
A real astronaut view of Earth!

Please do not share any personal information on Live chat (Snapchat Whatsapp).

By the courtesy of International Space Station:
UStream live Feed From the NASA HDEV live cameras aboard the ISS. Watch the earth roll
www.nasa.gov

We love ❤ Space
Do you?

❤ https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/1047136…
❤ https://www.facebook.com/dialog/share…
❤ https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=…

▔▔▔
Disclaimer:
This Stream may upset those who believe in a Theory such as Flat-earth (Flat Earth Society!), Please make an effort to share a constrictive comment about your beliefs on #Livechat. (more info: www.theguardian.com/science/2016/jan/20/flat-earth-believers-youtube-videos-conspiracy-theorists)

▔▔
Captured by ISS HDEV cameras on board the International Space Station.

#Music (CC)
“Garden Music” by the amazing Kevin MacLeod
http://incompetech.com/music/royalty-…
https://incompetech.com/wordpress/201…

“Fluidscape” Kevin MacLeod
http://incompetech.com/music/royalty-…

“The beginning of a champion” by Scott Ostler (sfchronicle.com)

Sixty-six years ago, the New York Giants called up a 20-year-old phenom from Triple-A. It worked out well.

The Giants called up Mays from the Minneapolis Millers on May 24, 1951. In 35 games with the Millers, Mays was hitting .477. Manager Leo Durocher had wanted Mays on the Giants’ Opening Day roster but was overruled by team owner Horace Stoneham. Durocher finally got his way after the Giants opened slowly. When Mays arrived, the Giants were 17-19, in fifth place in the National League, 4½ games back.

Mays was watching a movie in Sioux City, Iowa, when a theater employee announced, “If there is a Willie Mays here, call your manager.”

When Arroyo got the call, he was batting .446 for the Sacramento River Cats. It was a desperation call-up. The Giants were in fifth place, 4½ games out of first. The Giants’ stated plan had been to keep Arroyo in the minors for most of the season. I wonder whether they consulted Mays.

Mays, when called up, had just 116 minor-league games under his belt, but also logged some playing time in the Negro Leagues. Arroyo played 359 minor-league games.

Mays felt he wasn’t ready. From Iowa, he told Durocher over the phone, “I’m not coming.”

Durocher asked Mays what he was hitting. Mays said .477.

“Well,” said Durocher, “do you think you could hit two-f—ing-fifty-five for me?”

“Sure,” Mays said, losing the debate.

Mays went 0-for-12 before his first hit, a screaming homer off future Hall of Famer Warren Spahn at the Polo Grounds.

Durocher described the homer thusly: “I never saw a f—ing ball leave a f—ing park so f—ing fast in my f—ing life.”

Scott Ostler is a San Francisco Chronicle columnist. Email: sostler@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @scottostler