Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Craig Richards who wrote (25522)	10/13/1998 6:47:00 PM
From: George S. Montgomery	Respond to of 108807

Craig, this will probably be the most humiliating post I have done on this thread.... I will ramble about what I do not know. But not for so long that it will be columns of sheer dribble. You ask me a question about dogma and ritual - subjects, I admit, I brought into the conversation. To the core: I do not believe a gnat or a rock or a quark contemplates or practices what its existence is. Is concerned with. Is here for. Is here to do. Is destined to accomplish. Needs to accomplish. Affects the total scheme of things. I say this because I do not find much to differentiate me from a gnat or a rock or a quark. And I have no real fix on the above objective. The greatest element of my current configuration - a fact that amazes me - is that I feel neither depression nor yearning in my day-to-day. I could be a fern, but I am mobile. A roach, but my survival genes are less sophisticated. A whale, but I am less fortified, near term, against my foes, humans. During my decade-plus excursion away from Catholicism into Nadaness, I went deeply into the existentialists, favoring Camus. It was not until after the decade of search that I met the zan and the tao and that stuff. I drowned myself in the deep convictions of others - finding that the zen had, in my view, little of the table-thumping, ardent, necessities that were so common among the others. To answer you swiftly: I am. That's it. I do not practice on being, or improving my being. Me is me, that's about it. A part of the everything. In whatever state that might find me. The dogmatic and ritualistic statement I offered to you had nothing to do with criticism. It, and this should be a favorite phrase for many, like Sam, had to do with organizing it. You speak of one Buddhist school, and then of another, and there seems to be the assumtpion that "practice makes perfect." Who can teach, or ritualize, that what we do not know - but are? See, I told you, sticky taffy. With blushes for my absurdity, geo