There is no state; is there a spoon?

[surfsup]

Kaos, My Story about the doggie was that the dog had been diagnosed with cancer and was progressing thru the various stages of the illness when the introduction of the machine happened. Sorry I was not clear on that.
No one has yet addressed my comment on veneral warts being an avenue to various cancers in the genital area.
Also had a friend whos brother died of skin cancer, brought on as a result of being a welder for years in confined pipeline tunnels for the canadian gov. and the reflected exposure at the back of his neck (not Covered) that took him out in three weeks, after he started to exhibt the first symptoms.
I've known several surfers who have succumbed to cancer, these where some of the most "fit" people, both aerobic and condition wise (two of them where on the ASP pro tour) and in that sport it is all about breathing and conditioning and still they contracted this rotten illness. one was from calif. the other from australia. both where in excellent condition at the time of of this cancer attacking them. whats up with that?

[Dirt]

From the words above mentioning cells needing oxygen, and its connection cancer, IMHO I think
that lung "breathing" and cell "breathing" aren't the same thing. So even if you're taking deep breaths a lot, don't smoke, etc. your cells might still be starved of oxygen due to other factors, like overall system dis-ease, or organ damage, etc.

But this whole cancer-aerobic connection is new to me as of this week, so I'm just stating my interpretation at the present time.

[lazerwood]

Lets face it...cancer is a complicated issue.

Factors:

Your air, water, and food are compromised in many ways. A healthy lifestyle is a definite "plus" but is no guarantee of a long healthy life.

Oh, I forgot to mention the hundreds, maybe thousands of atomic "tests" over decades...and now the depleted uranium wars currently taking place . Imagine what the "background radiation" is now, compared to the pre-atomic era? It would be interesting to see a graph showing same for every decade since 1940. I'll bet that knowledge is locked up in military records.

[Darren Dirt]

Wow -- this thread sure veered into interesting territory by the time it drifted into dormancy.

Just encountered this term today, maybe it's a "partial" explanation of the original post:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perennial_Philosophy

[KaosTheory]

DD,

Could you ask some questions so I can get an idea of what your thoughts are on this topic?

I found this part of the wiki link interesting:

All humans possess a capacity, however unused and therefore atrophied, for intuitive perceptions of ultimate or absolute truth, and the nature of reality. This perception is the final goal of human beings, and its pursuit and development are the purpose of their existence.

I would agree with this.

I have always believed that there is an absolute truth but I have come to the conclusion that I only have the ability to see little bits of it. Actually, I can not really see any of it. I can only rely on what my senses tell and what my mind has the capacity to interpret.

[lummox2]

"Humans" I would disagree with this.

Theres no such thing.

[Darren Dirt]

KT, I think you hit the key theme -- that we have a natural intuition, every one of us... children have it especially available. Time passes and we "fall in line", we lose that ability. But some manage to get "in touch" with it again -- perhaps eventually digging and discovering the depth of the rabbit hole of deception and mind control. David Icke believes the facts and his own unique experiences lead to the conclusion that "everything is illusion", and when you consider the religious/political worldviews that are responsible for the most violent controlling violations of natural rights, and contrast those with the worldviews that are the most peaceful, well which of them are more "material world" focused as opposed to "this physical reality ain't all there is" ?


There, is that a question? Sorry if I made little sense.

I'm tired, gotta go home and rest now, this "Pink Eye" is a pain in the a...optics.

[KaosTheory]

Well your initial post seemed to asked questions about the nature of reality in general so I figured a few questions might help me focus in a bit. This topic could go in a lot of different directions really fast.

My current personal worldview is centered around fundemental Christianity and Greek philosophy.

I haven't read any of David Icke's material. The only thing that sticks out about him is something I heard that he said about the British royal family actually being lizard people. heh heh ...not sure what that is all about.

[Darren Dirt]

...lizard stuff is, in Icke's view, just one layer of illusion that most people will never even be open to, let alone the full force of the illusion of physical reality itself.

If you look on Google Video, or YouTube.com, you can search for "Icke" and you might luck out and be able to see video clips from his DVD series, or at least an interview with him that is not as one-sided as many anti-Icke websites (that, as you notice, focus almost entirely on either a) the "lizard people" angle, or b) weak evidence that the lizard stuff is veiled antisemitism (yes you heard me right, talk about reaching).


Also interesting is how he seems to be "not allowed to speak" to paying public audiences up here in Canada -- that's a recent turn of events in the last few years, again apparently cuz of a few vocal folks saying "when he says LIZARDS that's a codeword for JEWS" :gag: (example: youtube.com/watch?v=jICXN7ZrKsg&search=Icke -- that's part of "David Icke, The Lizards, and The Jews (the story of what happens to one man who believes he is getting too close to the truth)" )


I bought and have read most of his last 2 books, and I gotta say though I am still skeptcial about some details, I see it all is not just some baseless theory he came up with one day. A lot of things happened to him, but also (better for answering the critics) a lot of scientific studies of modern times seem to back up a lot of what he says (related: watch the movie "What The Bleep Do We Know", especially re. quantum physics -- or Icke example re. sound and vibrations and emotion ).


I don't know what other question to ask other than that, sorry... I guess it's just The Question, what is the nature of reality itself? ;D


- - -

Update 5 minutes later:

WOW -- yup on both sites:

youtube.com/results?search=Icke&search_type=search_videos

video.google.com/videosearch?q=Icke

Most seem to be video clips that don't dismiss Icke as a Jew-hater... but notice that YouTube.com has a first result with the eye-catching title "David Icke Antisemite?"

>>check out the *very revealing* 2 part "Terry Wogan 2006" interview (apparently Wogan chose Icke as a guest on the first episode of his new program (!) ) at:
1) youtube.com/watch?v=93m0VYdTOk4
and 2) youtube.com/watch?v=3OaL1YXYg9g
"...how easy it is for the few to control the many ... we laugh at sheep because sheep just follow the one in front ... humans keep each other in line, they do it by ridiculing or condemning anyone who commits the crime of being different..."

... and also apparently www.theillumination.tv/ResearchVideos.html or www.consciousmedianetwork.com/ might also have some stuff -- perhaps even full videos )

[Darren Dirt]

"David Icke - Was He Right?" (a recent BBC 45-minute documentary about Icke, found on Google video -- 7 minute excerpt also talks about the late great Bill Hicks)

^ the above and lots of "un[der]-reported news" on the Latest Headlines page.


Also, for anyone interested there is apparently a new DVD release by David Icke: "Freedom or Fascism: The Time To Choose". Perhaps it'll be on Google Video one day soon (like the fascinating 3-part 6-hour series "Secrets of the Matrix")

[Darren Dirt]

there is no reality :-\ <-- "review"(/explanation, sorta) (original/official Yahoo group -- hmm, it seems a uniquely "marketed" package along the lines of The Secret/LOA...)

[lummox2]

That's the problem with people who doubt everything...... they doubt... everything...

I'm never sure with Icke whether he sticks the "lizard man" stuff in so he can talk in front of thousands about how banking really works etc without getting his head blown off or not.

Being dismissed as a kook has probably kept him alive.

[eye2i2hear]

This thread's title is "There is no state; is there a spoon?"

Posts within seem to be saying "there is no individual"... as there is nothing! -- if non-I am hearing it correctly?

For lack of spending time on locating a perhaps more applicable place to post this, or starting yet another, these specifics seem to make this one close enough.
From another forum (doG forbid anyone actually go there now, lest tyranny prevail)

I'd also like to see further exploration from anarchists into vicarious vs direct causal liability re: the state. In one essay Murray Rothbard proposed that a libertarian legal code would be based on the latter, which in my view would exonerate the vast majority of politicians, since they do not personally employ violence.

I think anarchism must rest on a theory that places liability on the people who staff and support the state in order to extend it's contempt and moral objection for the institution itself. But what is lacking, is an explicit theory.

Whatever it is, it has to do with the complex division of labour and chain of command within the state, or any criminal organization. Individual agents or members of the government are responsible for the way in which his or her role contributes to the institutional goals of the state, whether that goal was their specific intention or not, and we cannot pick and choose which ones are "well-intentioned" enough, to be exempt from this consideration.

--Tim Hopkins, posted here; linking: anarcho-objectivist.blogspot.com/

For a bit of background, this was posted in a discussion centering around Ron Paul's presidential candidacy (is there a spoon, is there a president/candidacy? is there a forum, is there a post, is there a poster boy...)

But for me, it touches on what is a quite debilitating mental state (remember here: there IS no state!? otay, easy enuff to do, aye?!) If not debilitating, then definitely de`limiting per a self-induced restricting in individually seeking to be honorable in my claims of innocence (ie "what else could I do? THEY'VE got The Gun") versus culpability (ie "its a great excuse, after all! EVERYbody's doing it!").

Tim expressed this, specifically to my focus point: "I think anarchism must rest on a theory that places liability on the people who staff and support the state in order to extend it's contempt and moral objection for the institution itself. "

For here, I would drop everything after this: "I think anarchism must rest on a theory that places liability on the people who staff and support the state."

But to take it more to point, make it: "I think anarchism must rest on a theory that places liability on the individual who staffs and supports the state, while any other individual's most literal freedom is being denied, yet this one is enjoying their own."

Some may recall that I've asked about this dilemma elsewhere on the board here before. Recent discussion centering around the importance (much less the reality) of only the individual versus group-think (sincere thanks, NonE & others!) has me considering this more, relative to that.

If (since) empirically there is only the individual, what of the appeal to vicarious innocence? Is it honorable? Then how much does taking it yet another step further, via there is no individual because there is no spoon/there is only illusion, impacting what is empirically existent? In other words, are individuals seeking out excuses for personal liability? Discounting away the the state of being and a state of affairs, via a state of mind? (as the only "thing" is nothing?)

It seems "easy" to say there is no "thing"-- "it" is all illusion-- sitting (or being) "out here".

My concern "here" is for the person-- the individual-- sitting this very moment... as he has the last one... and the one before that, and before that, as the minutes, then hours, then days, then weeks, then months, then years in a rape cage called a prison-- as he-- a NonIndividual (he, nor the others like him/her, doesn't exist after all)-- will spend the next moment... the next minute... the next minutes/hours/days/months/years... simply because of my and your mentally positioning of ourselves in the "there is no state" so I'm not the state, state (frame) of mind?

Think with me here, about the amount time passed in reading this "here" (where you are)-- then compare that time being spent behind bars, instead...

With my question being, who put him there and/or who's keeping him there?

Is it "them"?
Is it even, other individuals?

Hopefully more to point, might you and I ask of our selves, just how any group, like say the prison staff, is eliminated?
Is it not simply the individual no longer participating in "it"-- participating with individuals doing certain things?

If no majority (ie "them") exists, but only individuals, then isn't it only possible for any dishonor happening to any other individual(s) to stop when an individual stops doing it-- directly or vicariously?

Would you please re-read that last question again with me here?

How does one- the individual of "me", myself (which is then "you", yourself as well?)-- validate one's claim as honorable to any other individual, locked away in a cage, by hiding behind the potential threat of the gun under/on the table? For those holding there is no state, then there is no gun, is there? R-i-g-h-t.
But centrally, how many know for a fact, that said gun is aimed literally at them, individually? Specifically? Aren't most "merely" holstered?
And even if it literally is, or is statistically validated to assume it as so, would it be, for the vast majority of cases, if most of those wielding it weren't being paid to do so (aka "their job")? Where does the pay check come from? The State? Some group? "The taxpayers"? An individual? You? Me?

I ask again, admittedly seeking an answer amidst great anguish, if not you as an individual, then who?

Who stops the abuse of another individual where the justification for not stopping it is that "If ("mere") I stop, it will still be done, so what difference does "it" make?" (so I might as well continue the enjoyment of MY freedom, to watch tv, play video games, chat on forums-- which is of course freedom, comparatively)

The individual behind the cage doors is asked:

"What are you* doing in there, since you could have just towed the line like the rest of us?"

The individual behind the cage doors asks:

"What are you doing out there-- that's keeping me in here?"

This moment... these seconds... these minutes... this lifetime...
*["you" being the individual who "just said 'no'"... to paying a tax, signing for a license, pledging an allegiance, checking the box for "U.S. Citizen"; said "no" to not growing a plant claimed illegal, or to going to "war"...]

Maybe each individual doing time understands. Do you or I presume that?

Meanwhile, hey, at this posting, its a U.S. holiday weekend! Fire up the grill! Splash around in the pool! Take a cruise of the lake in the boat! Visit an amusement park!


In summary, how do you-- individually-- distinguish an excuse from an honorable reason?

I genuinely welcome your method of validation on this point. I sincerely desire the relief. But please, don't appeal to feelings; the individual sitting in the rape cage has those, as well as they individual earning the paycheck to keep him there.

--eye2i2hear

ps: to those still appealing to "nothing exists", i gladly offer the same test of the hypothesis to you personally again here:
turn off the non-lights,
meditate into non-existence, non-standing (or non-kneeling if preferred/required to "go there") in the non-darkness,
non-while non-I swing the non-2x4 up against the back of your non-head...
substitute any means of sensual experience of course, if the touch sense is non-existent individually/personally]

[NonEntity]

I genuinely welcome your method of validation on this point. I sincerely desire the relief. But please, don't appeal to feelings; the individual sitting in the rape cage has those, as well as they individual earning the paycheck to keep him there.

I recommend for your consideration this excellent article by Stef. You don't want feelings to enter into it, but maybe that is all that is applicable. I'm not saying that's so, but Stef makes a very interesting point.

- NonE

P.S. I know that it is a metaphor that everyone-in-the-entire-world-but-me gets, but my failure to follow the story in The Matrix, perhaps due to my dyslexia, renders me totally stoopid regarding the line "there is no spoon." I have NO idea whatsoever what the hell that means. Therefore I also don't have too much of a clue what all of your no-thises and no-thatses above mean either. Just soes you no.

[lummox2]

A fine body of thinking there Eye. I'll have to have a think about it a bit more, but one of the things that might be removed when you leave the "group" is the (need?) willingness to preserve others at one's own expense.

The same thinking that sees tax for what it is also leads to the conclusion that the guy in the cage isn't anyone's problem but the guy's himself. Is this a guise for selfishness or cowardice? ...... reading your questions, I have to begin thinking it is.

It can't happen because it could be me in there.

The state has to go from people's minds cos it's my families future we are talking about.

I remember seeing a fellow pupil when I was at school succesfully face down a larger lad who was trying to bully him. His attitude was so obviously "sure, I'll lose, but it will cost you." that the other guy gave up quickly.

As far as those inside go, one of the worst things that can happen to them is for them to internalise they have done something "wrong", when in fact they haven't. Tony Martin's case springs to mind, because he refused to lick the hand of his captives he spent extra time "on holiday".

There to, is another thought, it's about the ability of each of us to give up something, maybe? To pay taxes and merely moan about the state is probably the ultimate statist's gambit. "Everybody knows" it's all bullshit...yet hands fly into pickets to pay them bills, don't they?

Again, interesting thoughts and I'll have a ponder....