How truth subverts truth

How come no one wonders how they know it is an elephant the blind men are handling? The point of the story is about man's ignorance, but in fact --- the conclusion is dead set before they even investigate the evidence. You cannot wonder if it is an elephant that is being investigated.

Binary thought is the reason. Not only does binary thought assume everything is either this or that, but that assumption includes a sigh of relief when the division is made. That sigh prevents thinkers from pushing on.
The goal of investigating 'what is' does not include investigating the thinking apparatus itself. The sigh when binary thought has divided something distracts the thinker, and that distraction is crucial to the growth of the world we know, and the world we are a part of. That growth though, needs man's understanding not as much as he assumes. 

In the case of the example above, the hack occurs at: it is a teaching story, it is not a teaching story. The gap leaves distracting flows to push the thinker in another direction. 

My analysis might be the case.... 

About Edward Snowden

Edward Snowden's situation presents a great glimpse into the dance of the three laws--- which all manifest in every occurrence every moment. The Creative, The Destructive/Conserving, and the Erelevant,(the irrelevant) are the terms used by Jan Cox. 

My thoughts are about the danger this fellow is in, and my hope that my total ignorance, includes not knowing about greater clevernesses on the part of the technical community, and even Mr. Snowden, --- events and approaches that are mainly effective because no one knows about them.

We may or may not find out about that. 

Who on the planet now can see two sides here-- who can see the appropriateness of the CIA regulations, and the nobility and sweetness of what this young man has done. Both sides are critical to the growth of humanity, both angles at the same time can be in your head. That is a potential of the human brain.

OF COURSE you cannot run an operation based on secrecy if people are leaking to the papers. OF COURSE the flow of power melts the so-called principles of people. OF COURSE the innocence of purity easily flips into self-righteousness. 

And of course the growth of humanity depends on a few flinging themselves into the blades. Ignorant people, beautiful people. This too is part of calculations whirring beyond a murky mathematics which is barely audible.

Those flingers, as we might call them for a moment, include the likes of Jesus, if we can believe the stories. Both Socrates and Jesus died because they would not speak. Reminds me of how glad I was once, to hear Jan say, people are no longer required to die for their  visions. By which I assume he points to a greater economy currently operating within the greater machinery.

Okay, I am a bit off my subject here. Which was: for those who can hear it--- you have to keep two contradictory seeming things together in your head-- the appropriateness of Eric Holder and Edward Snowden, both. At the same time.  

Both Holder and Snowden are -- schooks. Everyone who is not self-observing, --- is a schnook. Holder is a schnook in that he is moving so fast, everything is a blur, and he only occasionally feels things spinning out of control, though, they always are. Snowden is a schnook because he felt a rigorous logic to the analysis that if HE did not act, no one would. Actually this is merely a cellular pressure, this sense of ego, the walls of self which assume the preservation of the self is the preservation of all. The fate of the world is all on his shoulders.  

Nothing at all the matter with being a schnook. In fact, it is necessary for the greater growth of all. 

And that is only two out of THREE facets to the situation. 

A Brief History of the Busy

A example of binary thought could be: describing a real school as

interested in method and goal. The most recent real school stressed that you do not discuss, do not label, the goal. By method we refer to how you get results--- in the case of Gurdjieff that would be self-observation, and Jan Cox called it many things besides self-observation: 'neuralizing', 'considering' are just a few examples. 

Looking back in history we might describe the middle ages as concerned ONLY with the " GOAL." There was no general discussion of how you get to heaven. There were no questions about morality.

Contrast this with the modern era, which has no GOAL, just METHOD. My reference here is to the scientific method and the widespread vacuous assumption that science is atheistic. I'm just making a cheap point here. 

Thesis, antithesis. I cannot say a new synthesis is not in the offing, a synthesis heralded by the inane and vapid--- Whether or not, it falls out that way, my point is --- it could.   

The value of proverbs

When you get that you can't talk about "the baby", ---- 'cause you will definitely be throwing it out by talking about it ---

you might then keep the bathwater too. Useless advice if you can't distinguish baby and bathwater. 

Real Religion

Real Religion excludes belief, in anything. A real religon is a machete in the jungle, not a vine
covered idol. The hunter not looking for bits of stone, but glimpses of sliding fur.

Real religion precludes
conclus....

The opiate of the intellectual

A rage against the rich is the opiate of the elite

The wonder of mortality

http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/05/17/mediocre-poison-eaters-and-the-imperfection-of-evolution/

This is what I wrote on Google Plus about the article inked to above:

"The author maintains in a fascinating article that evolution is successful if the results are good enough, not perfect. The nice argument may well be the case, but the example, an oak tree which has not evolved an immunity to a specific disease, ignores the wondrous fact that in death there is more creation (the animals that live on decayed oak trees) and in fact, faster new creation sometimes. "

I hesitated to point out more, considering the forum, but in fact the situation the article discusses, is a great example of people ignoring the obvious. First -- the oaks-- if they lived forever, they would push everything else off the planet. Death, an aspect of the destructive flow, in fact is crucial to life, to the greater good, and minimally, what Jan Cox called "D" flow, can be said to stabilize the machinery -- steady the Magnus Machina, as he titled one book. 

The binary intellect must consider that things are isolated. In fact "cause and effect,"  takes a new meaning if you try to see beyond the rational, this or that. You could say that the way things interact laterally is as important to understand, as pulling out one thread, and understanding one sequence. The fact is everything interacts with everything, and specifying a single strand as embodying cause and effect, as necessary as this artificiality is, becomes misleading, if the abstraction is taken as more than a temporary tool. 

Widening your vision beyond either/or not only reduces silly statements like oak trees are an imperfect evolution, it allows perhaps a thought about the way things fit together, and what that could mean. To expand your scope to include more "both / and" situations, allows more insight into reality, 

You might even glimpse the way people think.