PDA

View Full Version : recipe



Harnk
02-25-2005, 07:02 AM
Gary filled his trousers with geese and other essentials needed to properly transition himself from Juice to Pluto without losing face between the Penguin Lift Society and his mother's poor old dog who was last seen humping a TV dinner just outside Cosmic Frank's umbrella shop which was the last place you would want to be when you're lonely and bruised. Filtering Jamaican lunch combos before the return of Davis should be handled with the utmost sincerity and humility, this following the Great Surprise that left Wilton scrambling for a # 2 combo, nearly dying hungry and with a relentless hankering for Caribbean treats. Milon took a hipshot from an enormous German woman known to many as Gerbling Gertrude Princess of The Roast, as he hobbled neatly between the city streets and the darting rats who for all good intent were causing traffic by way of Wizard of Oz sketches performed in Arabic Dance at each street crossing, preventing the vexed pedestrians from any reasonable action of commuting. The city stood still as the rats began to take their performance in ways that would be considered French if we did not hate the French so much, subsequently redirecting our perception process to thoughts of rolling tangerines curling between Volkswagen imbeciles dressed with oatmeal pants and Coca Cola decisions. Cadillac enthusiasts were appropriately lined with smart business attire with a money back guarantee that suggested that as good as things may appear, there was certainly a good chance that lunch would not be served. Onlookers responded with Led Zeppelin frowns that peeled back the valves of lantern sheep who patiently stood inline for the best Lethargy Units sold crucially to the warm virus containers that sat quietly on the cupboard shelves of Lewis Cartwright, lead investigator on the Johnson Vs Robert Plant committee. A Nuclear Pink Lung Bravado Chorus Amplifier blocked out the cries of screaming cats who mourned the rebirth of interplanetary space camps for Feline Absurdity. Please hold your pants above your head and say hello, because Jesus is before thee, and he hates mealy tomatoes on his sandwiches.

nice man washing
03-23-2005, 10:04 PM
Ain't that the nature of weed though? It makes your mind draw parallels between things that are otherwise unrelated. So, theoretically, you could do anything whilst smoking weed and have fun. And completely ignore reality . . . That ain't healthy.

birdman
03-24-2005, 08:59 AM
but isnt that also the nature of life. drawing parallels between things that we think are related but really arent. for really what is reality? and more so, do we just f**k it up by stating that there is a reality in the first place?

[Edited on 3-24-2005 by birdman]

Tuff Ghost
03-24-2005, 11:55 AM
no.

birdman
03-26-2005, 09:56 AM
no is not the appropriate way to start a discussion. try harder. there are so many better words that you could use in this situation.

nice man washing
03-28-2005, 05:59 PM
Um, isn't this a little vague? How can you say there's no such thing as reality? If you're talking about how our perception of reality varies and that there is no objective experience, then that's philosophical bullsh*t. Life is real, our bodies are real, pain is real, joy is real, and trying to investigate so-called 'parallel universes' is just a mind game and petty escapism. It takes a subtle human being to experience life as it truly is.

Yeah, weed is fun. I've smoked plenty in my time, but ultimately all drug use is escapism. And what are we escaping? The fact that life is, on the whole, pretty dull. That doesn't mean there aren't wonderful things too, but if you mediate your contact with reality with drugs all the time you numb your sensitivity to what's right in front of your face.

Anyone else get what I'm saying? I'm wary of sounding like a total square here...

acrobat
03-28-2005, 07:34 PM
Originally posted by Harnk
BORN ON SEEEEEEAWEEEEEEEEEEEED!!!!!!!!!

birdman
03-28-2005, 07:44 PM
what i am trying to portray is not that reality does not exist. for as you clearly demonstrate, you are real, i am real. its the whole "i think there fore i am." but through the notion of "real events" i think we lead ourselves astray. by giving events a described value, we rob the event of its true worth, its actual sensation. we state that this is pain, this is happiness, this is real, and by doing so, only destroy the actual pain, the actual happiness, the actual reality. for example, take the notion of happiness. we state we are trying to achieve happiness. meaning, we are trying to get to this frame of mind, this point where we are happy. in doing so, we only end up doing the opposite, shrinking the ability to actually achieve happiness. we close the perspective that was once present to the self. imagine standing in an orchid of trees and only staring at one. around you are thousands of apples, but by creating the notion of happiness, of anything, you limit your self to the apples in only one tree. so through word choice and labeling we take away so many paths in life that we are left with only one. by stating that drug use is bad, that drug use is good, that life is dull, and even including what i just stated, we rob our self of life. our words are our horses blinders.

nice man washing
03-28-2005, 10:05 PM
Fair points. Communication can point to the dead ends that language leads us down, thus leading us to a state of being where words are a signpost rather than a destination.

auxiliaryoctopus
03-29-2005, 09:23 AM
Originally posted by birdman
what i am trying to portray is not that reality does not exist. for as you clearly demonstrate, you are real, i am real. its the whole "i think there fore i am." but through the notion of "real events" i think we lead ourselves astray. by giving events a described value, we rob the event of its true worth, its actual sensation. we state that this is pain, this is happiness, this is real, and by doing so, only destroy the actual pain, the actual happiness, the actual reality. for example, take the notion of happiness. we state we are trying to achieve happiness. meaning, we are trying to get to this frame of mind, this point where we are happy. in doing so, we only end up doing the opposite, shrinking the ability to actually achieve happiness. we close the perspective that was once present to the self. imagine standing in an orchid of trees and only staring at one. around you are thousands of apples, but by creating the notion of happiness, of anything, you limit your self to the apples in only one tree. so through word choice and labeling we take away so many paths in life that we are left with only one. by stating that drug use is bad, that drug use is good, that life is dull, and even including what i just stated, we rob our self of life. our words are our horses blinders.

Don’t talk damned nonsense.

If language is so bankrupt, why are you talking about this? Wouldn't Tuff Ghosts response be the most appropriate?

Anyway, and there are obviously real events. I typed that. You will (maybe) respond to it. Those are events. If we talk about them, how does that make them less real (as you seemed to be saying)?

How do you know describing an event's value robs it of its worth?

Aren't you describing the value of not describing value by saying that it shrinks the ability to achieve happiness? Aren't you ascribing a negative value to description?
Aren't you saying there is value in lack of judgment, which is itself a judgment?

How is saying something like "I love you" robbing yourself of life? Or how about literature? Song lyrics? Actually, they seem to increase enjoyment of life.

Like it or not, everyone does and should evaluate events.

BTW, you use a lot of words for someone who thinks they are "horse blinders." If you are consistent, you won't respond.

birdman
03-29-2005, 11:14 PM
again, i must apologize for any misunderstanding that i portray with my statements for it seems that i have the inability to explain the events that i am trying to get across. i am not stating that there should be a lack of language, that fewer words are better; what i am trying to describe is that there is a distinction between the actual physical, sensual world (the trees that we see) and the descriptive world that exists within our ideas (the notion that what we see is a tree). these two worlds come into conflict, which i am well aware that i am doing now, and well aware that i did in my last post. this is not nonsense or hippy bull sh t, its the realization or the attempt to remove value without removing value. in a way, destruction of the concept of value, so that there can no longer be a value of no value in the mind. i.e. nothing is not nothing, for indeed it is something. i write these words not having achieved this ability only having perceived a possible end.

so now within these two worlds, the physical and descriptive, the conflict arises because of the description of the perception. we see one object, we describe that object, applying value to it. however, we cannot accurately perceive all that is the object, so our value, when reflected upon is wrong. For example, take a three dimensional shape, at times, from one point of view it looks two dimensional but from other views, we see that it is not 2 dimensional, looking at happiness once again, I am trying to prove that we limit the full amount of happiness possible by creating the notion of happiness. Through words we degrade ourselves in drinking out of the cup to the tiniest of straws. Which is why we must remove the words, so we can remove the straws of life and live it to its fullest. i.e. the denver analogy, its not that it is impossible to find denver, it is that we must then travel to denver to find what we need, when all what we need is right next door, or taking this concept one step further, within the self. so through these words, we then prevent ourselves from experiencing life because we have narrowed the spectrum of experience. we remove all other emotions that could equally achieve a state of happiness for they do not match the described notion of happiness. so rather than happiness occurring in your present location, happiness now can only occur in a 900 mile drive to denver.

Again, this is just a notion that I have. Don’t attack me. Attack the argument. This is trying to foster a discussion, don’t try and end it. Go with it.

nice man washing
03-29-2005, 11:52 PM
I think what you're trying to say is that we mediate the direct experience of something with our thoughts about it. True.

nice man washing
03-29-2005, 11:53 PM
Does anyone here meditate? And I'm not talking hippy bullsh t here, I'm talking about sitting with the direct experience of your physical self, pain and weird thoughts and all.

auxiliaryoctopus
03-30-2005, 02:08 PM
Originally posted by birdman
what i am trying to describe is that there is a distinction between the actual physical, sensual world (the trees that we see) and the descriptive world that exists within our ideas (the notion that what we see is a tree).

Okay. The physical world is made of atoms ect., description is made of ideas. I'm with you so far, but...


... its the realization or the attempt to remove value without removing value. in a way, destruction of the concept of value, so that there can no longer be a value of no value in the mind.

But you evidnetly think there IS value in removing value. In the very act of saying that you want to remove all values, you're placing one value above all others (the lack of value) and making it a hyper-value. It's like trying to tear down a building by adding on an extra wing.


i.e. nothing is not nothing, for indeed it is something.

Nothing is nothing. Read Louis Carroll (when the Red Queen talks to Alice about "nothing" coming down the street). This is a language problem, i.e. we have to formulate negative existence as a postive in order to talk about it, but that does not mean it actually has a positive existence. It's a sort of pun and nothing more. Also, I don't see how this connects with anything else you're saying.


so now within these two worlds, the physical and descriptive, the conflict arises because of the description of the perception.

How would you know if there is a conflict, since you're filtering this information through your perception which you've already said is suspect? Might your perception of that conflict too be mistaken? What you're saying is "I can't trust anything I know." Can you see the contradiction? How do you know that then?


we see one object, we describe that object, applying value to it. however, we cannot accurately perceive all that is the object, so our value, when reflected upon is wrong.

Okay. If you're saying that human beings cannot know the complete value of everything, that's fine. We cannot know the Universe exhaustively. That's the great failure of Modernism. However, something may be incomplete without being wrong. Just because I can't veiw the whole forest doesn't mean I can't know about one of the flowers therein. That's what art is about isn't it? Taking those bits and pieces we DO have and presenting them?



I am trying to prove that we limit the full amount of happiness possible by creating the notion of happiness.

How does this follow? Aren't you still trying to achieve "happiness" by eliminating it? You're still holding on to happiness as an idea you want to achieve by getting rid of your idea of happiness. Maybe I'll see if I can get that new guitar I want by smashing the crap out of it.



Through words we degrade ourselves in drinking out of the cup to the tiniest of straws. Which is why we must remove the words, so we can remove the straws of life and live it to its fullest. i.e. the denver analogy, its not that it is impossible to find denver, it is that we must then travel to denver to find what we need, when all what we need is right next door, or taking this concept one step further, within the self.

So, by looking within yourself, you WANT to eliminate all WANTS, right? If you're preaching contentment, then okay, (though there are some situations in which people probably shouldn't be content) I just don't see why we are pretending that happiness doesn't exist.

[Edited on 3-30-2005 by auxiliaryoctopus]

[Edited on 3-30-2005 by auxiliaryoctopus]

birdman
04-02-2005, 09:46 PM
perception is a unique experience like a finger print. no two moments are ever the same or ever be produced to be the same. so if no two events are the same then no two emotions can be the same. they can be similiar, but similiar and same are two different concepts. through words we create sameness. happiness. sadness. pain assuming that we can get back to the same point that happiness or sadness is based off of. since no emotions are ever the same this is impossible. its not that we are destroying the guitar, the emotion itself, its that we are destroying the notion that if you want to make music you must first be able to play the guitar, the drums, the piano, etc. you do not need an instrument to make music just as you do not need the word happiness to be happy.

birdman
04-02-2005, 09:53 PM
as for the statement nothing is nothing for it must be something, it was placed strucuturally wrong, it was providing that even if you believe everything is nothing, as the statement goes, you are still believing in a value, so you might as well continue believing in value. i apoligize for its misplacement and any confusion that it caused.

erik
07-22-2005, 10:13 PM
i like all of this duscussion here, it was a fun read.

this whole thing is partially a joke, even though i actually did it.

drawing parallels is a little weird in this situation, basically it's just a fun combination because there are places that seem to synch up cooincidentally, that's the nature of video & audio. and the weed is just a general mood enhancer, etc. not really even needed for the experiment.

[Edited on 7.23.2005 by erik]

The_new_improved_Kirk
08-21-2005, 08:39 PM
Originally posted by nice man washing
Ain't that the nature of weed though? It makes your mind draw parallels between things that are otherwise unrelated. So, theoretically, you could do anything whilst smoking weed and have fun. And completely ignore reality . . . That ain't healthy.

This is the funniest thing i have scene in a long time.

The_new_improved_Kirk
08-21-2005, 08:39 PM
Originally posted by nice man washing
Ain't that the nature of weed though? It makes your mind draw parallels between things that are otherwise unrelated. So, theoretically, you could do anything whilst smoking weed and have fun. And completely ignore reality . . . That ain't healthy.

This is the funniest thing i have scene in a long time.

The_new_improved_Kirk
08-21-2005, 08:40 PM
Originally posted by nice man washing
Does anyone here meditate? And I'm not talking hippy bullsh t here, I'm talking about sitting with the direct experience of your physical self, pain and weird thoughts and all.


this also.

The_new_improved_Kirk
08-21-2005, 08:40 PM
Originally posted by nice man washing
Does anyone here meditate? And I'm not talking hippy bullsh t here, I'm talking about sitting with the direct experience of your physical self, pain and weird thoughts and all.


this also.

topdownjimmy
08-28-2005, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by The_new_improved_Kirk

Originally posted by nice man washing
Ain't that the nature of weed though? It makes your mind draw parallels between things that are otherwise unrelated. So, theoretically, you could do anything whilst smoking weed and have fun. And completely ignore reality . . . That ain't healthy.

This is the funniest thing i have scene in a long time.
why?

nice man washing
08-28-2005, 08:23 PM
Yeah, why?

And what's so funny about meditation The_New_Improved_Kirk?

The_new_improved_Kirk
08-28-2005, 09:06 PM
Smoking pot to "ESCAPE REALITY" just seemed kinda comical to me, wether you smoke or not, that all seemed like a rather ignorant spew.

also the hole "you could do anything smoking weed and having fun"

the hole post just made me smile. but hey, i was stoned....

nothing at all, i just thought the "hippy bullshit meditation" comment was funny, i have nothing against meditation or people who do.

[Edited on 8-29-2005 by The_new_improved_Kirk]

nice man washing
09-02-2005, 12:59 AM
That's cool.