I have been reading here for a while and then decided to join. For one thing, I have never met anyone who actually used drugs and I have never done so myself. So this will be the only way I could ever manage to get into the mind of a druggie or two or three...

I will have to consider myself an outsider from the start I guess, I am 40 the year old virgin when it comes to drugs!


Hope to learn a lot!

Oh and yea I meditate...

Welcome!

I prefer the term explorer but if you want to call me a druggie, then so be it. Are you a South African per chance? I notice that your introduction says Hozit...similar to the South African 'Howzit'.

Another South African? Surely not. Damned South Africans are responsible for everything weird that's going on around here.

Hail to thee, metafreak... welcome to the playground.

Meditate. Interesting. Let's talk about it. And let us not be afraid to do so. People who meditate--and I include myself--are usually interested in understanding the nature, value and function of spirituality and how to develop it. In addition, I meditate to understand my own selfhood (spirit).

BTW, do you pray? If so, to whom, or what?

IS THERE A BETTER WAY THAN JUST SAYING ONES PRAYERS?
Me? I admit, there was a time when I used to say my prayers to God. But no longer. While I am not an atheist--and I respect positive atheism--I am not a traditional theist, that is, one who believes in a personal god called God, separate and apart from the physical universe who hears and answers all our prayers.

I DISCOVERED THAT SIMPLY PETITIONING AN ALL POWERFUL GOD IS...
For some time now, I have given up just saying my prayers. That is, I no longer pray, in the traditional sense of the word. By personal experiment I found that asking some divine being called God, out there, separate and apart from me, to do this, that, or the other thing, for me and/or for others is simply not a sure and dependable way to get things done.

PROCESS-CONNECTING/CUMMUNICATING
When I discovered that in Aramaic--the common language in Jesus' day--the word which we translate as 'pray' means to connect and communicate, not just to ask, I looked for a new way of 'praying'.

With the help of the philosophy and theology of Alfred North Whitehead, I came up with what I now call process-connecting/communicating. That is, after I meditate, I frequently ask myself the question:

Wouldn't it be nice if such and such and so and so--having a positive value for all concerned, including me--were to become a reality for me, and for all who are connected with me, in one way or another. In the process, I name and visualize what it is I want. I always add: I only want that which is of universal value.

For example, right now I am asking myself: Wouldn't it be nice if all who are reading this post are willing to communicate lovingly and helpfully with one another so that all who read and participate will benefit?

Don't be shy, Meta. Tell us more about who you--that is, tell us about the kind of self you really want us to know you to be. As I understand it, this is the purpose of this section of the forum. Those who are not interested and find this communicating boring are not compelled to read what anyone I writes.

BTW, if you want to discuss a particlular concept, one in which you are really interested, or if you want to ask certain questions, you can always start a new thread.

Whatever you choose to do, just know that, IMO, you are most welcome.

Your posts are always interesting Lindsay.

I am interested in the concept of praying. OK, to me praying to God is misguided, but what other type(s) of praying is there and what is its value?

Welcome to the Brain Meta community. If you ever feel like picking my mind (the mind of a "druggie"), you are more than welcome~I promise I will be completely honest; I really have nothing to hide Don't be affraid to get overly personal with any questions you might have. Oh and fyi I am sure you have used drugs--caffiene is one of the most powerful drugs I have taken thus far, it is up there with psilocybin.

Oh and if you feel like doing some alternative meditations, I have a few odd practices you may want to try.

HH, you comment to me Before I give you my answer to your question, I will need for you to clarify for me what you meant by the following in-your-face remark, which you made to me a few days ago, and which made me feel rather uncomfortable: ALL of the boards? Did Shawn give you the power to bump any poster who displeases you from ALL of the boards?

I would think that eventually you'll ask yourself wouldn't it be nice if I took the conditions off of everyone and how they must act so that I can give unconditionally rather than try to change the world to agree with my own values?

But then not everyone really understands unconditional love.

For some it takes lifetimes. They never see the reflection when they look in the mirror.

Lol wow J-man, that was neaither loving nor helpful...Maybe you SHOULD listen to Lindsay on this one. What does it hurt to be courteous?

Lindsay, the different boards are set up in an attempt to help organize discussions for maintenance of clarity and continuity. Otherwise we might as well dispense with the boards and have a free for all. Maybe that is the way the world is going, but as a long-standing BM moderator on some boards I will attempt to nurture a little order when I see fit. It has nothing to do with displeasing me in the way you intimate. I have noticed that you tend to divert many discussions away from the topic. A bit of banter, fun and so on keeps things going but deliberate diversion towards your own "beef" areas has become obvious and unacceptable. You are not the only one who does this but as someone who writes many and long responses, you should try and place your topics and comments in the relevant boards. Then people can read you or ignore you as they wish, with the minimum amount of wasted time. Maybe you should complain to Shawn if you feel strongly about this issue. Then I can also put my case to him in reply.

Personally (non-moderating), I do find many of your topics interesting and look forward to reading some of them, when I can see that they are of interest to me.

The post wasn't directed to you Flex, but to Lindsay and his identifications with Agape and with his projections of Gods world if he was God and creating the Universe.

I don't think God looks down on creation thinking damn I wish I had made people differently so that people would all think alike and act differently than they do to each other.

Those who are locked within the confines of the ego want to believe God is in everything but then out of habit continue to project their ideas into the world because they really don't see God in everything.

They See God in what they want to see God in, and the rest is separate from God.

Lindsay is lost in his desire to make friends and gain recognition for his life as it comes to a close.
He makes attempts at comparing his values with others in hopes that he may find peace with his life.

Does he need to interact with like minded people because he cannot sit with himself and accept what he has created as perfection, as he identifies with the suffering he sees around him? Is this the conflict that still lives inside of his mind? Or does he really See God in everything

Without the feedback can he hold the idea of God long enough in his mind because he hasn't anchored it into his awareness as it shifts from judgment to perfection?
He's following the accumulated programs of the mind and they are continually shifting back and forth between the opposing thought and the thought of truth.

Like most preachers he preaches love on the outside without having established peace within.
Until that happens there is nothing perfect about the way people are because God is fragmented rather than ONE.

His reaction to Hey Hey

Was a hissy fit.

The rest of the reply was in defense of his position/evidence. In fact all of his posts are his opinions, based on his evidence or collection of intellectual ideas.
Its not God's position it is his position, which he states clearly and emphatically, or as he put it once, "stroggly suggested strongly," looking to have others give their opinions so he can dialogue/compare, the separation of opinions repeating over and over and over again what GØD means to him in HIS OPINON, backed up by every scientific link he can find to hold it into place.

God does not need evidence of itself and does not have/take a position or opinion.

He demonstrates his character and beliefs as the accumulation of his experience and knowledge and from that identity projects what God/GØD/G'D is, separating God's lesser qualities from God's greater qualities.

HH, thanks for your helpful comments. In the spirit of keeping this thread for "INTRODUCE YOURSELF" I have started a thread in FEEDBACK AND SUGGESTIONS.
Let me know if this is the right board. BTW: Are 'board' and 'thread' one and same?
BTW 2, I feel that the comment of mine, quoted by Joesus, was not to you; it was to CB. I will be more than happy to dialogue with CB in the FEEDBACK thread which I posted.

Joesus, with uncondtional agape--good will, non-sentimental Love--I accept your personal comments about me. However, please use the new thread to express them. Here I ask you: Because I confess that I really do not know who you are, Introduce Yourself, please. I am very interested.

You want me to introduce myself and explain what I think about you on another thread so you can then come to some conclusion about who I am....

God loves stupid people too.
God loves stupid people too.
God loves stupid people too.
God loves stupid people too.
God loves stupid people too.
God loves stupid people too.
God loves stupid people too.
God loves stupid people too.
God loves stupid people too.
God loves stupid people too.
God loves stupid people too.
God loves stupid people too.
God loves stupid people too.
God loves stupid people too.
God loves stupid people too.
God loves stupid people too.
God loves stupid people too.
God loves stupid people too.

Does God love unneccessarily angry people? If you really posess unconditional love, why then can you not abide by the golden rule? I mean unless you want others to treat you how you are treating Lindsay.

What relavence would your feelings towards Lindsay have in an introduction to who YOU are? Are your feelings towards Lindsay so strong that they are a large enough part of your character to be relative to an introduction? I too would love to know how you see yourself--I mean something other than the fact that you are a mirror of the eternal or some other abstraction that holds no worldly relavence.

Oh and BTW Meta Freak you have only had 2 posts so far! Feel free to jump into some conversations and contribute your perspective~ I am always here for you if you need to get into the mind of a "druggie" remember, so ask away

and on another side note, I went to my profile and looked at the stats and saw:

Total Cumulative Posts 405
( 4.9 posts per day / 6750.00% of total forum posts )

lol I think there was a little error on that calculation--or I talk way too much I might have to go with the latter

Is there a moderator's exam going on that they forgot to tell me about?

You do talk/type too much, Flex. But so far you have yet to offend anyone/someone here at BM. So, by all means, keep at it. You are a welcome addition to the community, and from the looks of it, it's safe to say that you won't be running out of gas any time soon. I was ckecking out your signature link, and I noticed that you are a musician. And a good one at that. Too bad I just missed your visit here to Houston. Let me know when you're coming back to this side of the globe again and I'll make arrangements next time. Oh yea! I think Meta was just a troller. His/her last post was 2 months ago, or so.

Absolutely



I always do, absolutely.





IF Lindsay is treating me exactly the way he would want to be treated and I am treating him exactly the way I would have him treat me which one is right?


My thoughts exactly when Lindsay commented:

Because I don't meet him where he wishes me to be I elude his ability to understand me, or so it would seem. Now he wants to create a thread, AGAIN in which others meet him on his terms.
He asks the question again and again of others to provide a biography which he believes makes the person.
He believes his own biography presents the person yet his actions are more like a child who needs attention rather than that of a 77 year old who has achieved widsom of inner knowledge of himself.
Everything he says he is, is backed up by a link, a history, a fact in relative terms and belief.
His Faith is based on facts according to the way he presents himself and he encourages others to meet faith at the same intellectual level of reasoning.


No they have no bearing on who I am or who Lindsay is. That is my point.


I understand your need, it is the same as Lindsays. It is the need to measure yourself against a standard that is created in the mind. I suppose some standard is better than none but then when it is created from the idea that you are separate from others it only perpetuates the illusions of God as a separate entity leaving you with no idea of who you are other than what you decide to believe in the moment.

If you're satisfied with that changing by the minute, then any biography is pointless. If you can't abide in the change that you are, then you are stuck with no where to go other than into the past.

Lindsay recognizes he has a big ego, and has said as much in his introduction thread:

which may explain his emphasis on historical personal details.

My questions to Lindsay:
1) Don't you think a big ego gets in the way of knowing/experiencing that which is greater?
2) Are big egos capable of unconditional love, and if not, then why speak of it?

Ahh no that is my brother that is the musician~ Ronnie Day

January, 26 2007
2502 FM 1960 E., Houston, Texas 77073
Cost : $13

W Meg and Dia / Daphne Loves Derby

I should be able to put you on the guestlist if you like

My brother wrote a little blog about his huge ego, here is a little snippet of it...

"If not for the pride of production, what does one work towards? When so many things seem to be foul and backwards; when men fight in the name of peace, and preach in the name of enlightenment, and kill in the name of life-- what should I be expected to do? Should I be expected to write my music for anybody other than myself? Should I be expected to consider the critics? …When critics write to make a wraith the words of others? When they complain that we’ve nothing to work towards but their grace, and nothing but misery to be our reward? When they strike at an ego as if it’s light alone threatens their darkness, what should we do? We the workers, the writers, the right...

Yes, I am proud, and my ego is huge and healthy, not by any fault, but because I know that what’s right is right. When did society decide that "ego" is a dirty word, that self-esteem is a dirty thing? ...I create, and I share, singing from as true a place as I can find, because I know that I am good. Should I dedicate my life to something other than that one thing I believe myself to do best? No, I shouldn’t..."

I have always, and will always define a variable by iteself. A=A -- Flex=Flex I will always be satisfied with the fact that I am a dynamic individual, and can not be defined by any word other than Flex as I am constantly changing. It is safe to say that there is some domain that is Flex, and the true Flex lies somewhere in the domain of those words at any given time. That domain can only be decribed by past events, as my present cognitive capacity is a result of past experience. I find that an individual is more so defined by those experiences which they DO NOT share with others. I attended middle school, I attended highschool, I played sports, I am going to college--these things are not unique. What makes me unique? At 12 I was homeless. I live in a van and travel about 100,000 miles a year visiting a new state almost every day etc.

I do not have to live in the past to define myself, nor can I live for the future; I can only live for the present, and at any given instant, Flex WILL equal Flex. So is a biography really pointless as far as who you are at any given moment? Yes, but tell that to the college you are applying to, or to a potential employer~A biography tells of a persons past, not their present or future. Does this mean that a biography is useless? No, a biography can tell you a lot about a person, and how they are likely to perform in the future--it also tells you how the individual likes to think of themselves, which when compared to actually observing them can be a good judge of character.

In conclusion, I would still like to see a little biography for the J-man.

Shit yea! That's the area of town where I live too!

I never said ego didn't have a function or utility, but was questioning whether it's capable of unconditional love or experiencing something greater.

Ever herd that expression, that you can't love someone else till you love yourself? I think everyone is capable of unconditional love. I think my ego is unconditional love for myself. I have to develop unconditional love for myself before I can love others. Then there is blind love. I think many religious individuals have blind love, and confuse it for unconditional love. I mean how can you love God if you don't love yourself?

Wonderful stuff!!!! Lot's of fun.

BTW, while I prefer to use the other...the new thread I started, I am not opposed to keeping things going here, if the moderator agrees.

It seems to me that, now, we are beginning to get to know one another--warts and all--a little better. Therefore, it is possible that we have the beginning and the building of authentic community.

a Freudian slip?


I'm not talking about unconditional love for your ego but for all.

I added a bit more to my post--I find you must first love your self before you love others. I think having unconditional love for all is just stupid. I mean I have inital love for individuals, but it is not unconditional. For one if someone is not willing to accept my love, I simply do not love them. If someone say killed my brother, I would hate them indefinitely~ One of Lindsay's posts talked about the three types of Greek love I believe it was: Eros, Philia, and Agape. I initialy feel philia for all individuals, but my friendship can be lost over time with new knowledge of who the individual is. I feel Eros for a rare few extremely hot chicks, unless I discover that they have no mind whatsoever. Agape is different, at least for me. I don't think that God is Agape. I think that Ego (true ego) is Agape. I love myself unconditionally. No matter what I do I will always love myself. Once I attained unconditional love for myself, I was able to extend to to my brother. No matter what he does I will love him. I would have to have a very large ego to have love for all, but I believe since my brother has a strong ego, and I have a strong ego, we can have a fusion of our two egos creating unconditional love.

Flex, pardon me, by paragraphing your post, I made it easier for me to read.

Don't worry, it made it easier for me to read as well

The range of potential of the human is from complete bondage, complete
identification with the objects of perception to complete freedom,
complete identification with the Source. This is the extent of the
possibilities of life - from the absolute absorbption in the Universe
to absolute mastery of the Universe. It is all based on free will.
The human can choose either -- and will choose for whichever seems
more charming.

Unconditional love comes after knowing the Self not the ego and its identification with the personal.


My History:
I was born in Seattle Washington.
Location of physical death to be determined....

What differentiates "self" from "ego"?

ahh Seattle, I will be there in like 3 days I believe. It is a nice city, except I have a bone to pick with the Pikes Market or whatever it's called~

The Self is all. The ego is confined to personality.

Your ego has a bone to pick with the Farmers Market. But the Farmers market is impersonal and doesn't recognize you as something separate because it doesn't identify itself as being something.
The Self is you, everyone else, the Farmers Market and everything else you perceive.

I just don't buy it Dictionary.com defined ego with self... I understand your connotation of self, but it seems to mean something more to the extent of all that exists than ego. Clearly your connotation of self and ego are two different entities--maybe we can come up for a new term for your interpretation of "self"

The dictionary version of enlightenment. Damn I could have gotten there alot quicker had I just consulted the dictionary in the first place.

There is the Self and the self and the ego is the self.

Ah so Self as in a proper noun like God vs self. It was a punctuation thing I didn't catch~