I've discovered that I'm a mystic.
Whaddayaknow. You live and you learn.
"Mysticism is usually understood in a religious context, but as William James and Ken Wilber point out, transcendent experiences may happen to anyone, regardless of religious training or inclinations. Such experiences can occur unbidden and without preparation at any time, and might not be understood as religious experiences at all. A reality shift by an ordinary individual, a momentary unity experience by the artist or athlete perceived as an interconnection with existence or a loss of self accompanied by feelings of euphoria, by the scientist as a spontaneous ecstatic inspiration, by a prophet as an open channel of knowledge or even dismissed as psychological disturbances in modern times. But, the authentic mystic's ultimate goal is a sustained stable state of full consciousness, wholeness/holiness through self-knowledge."
Final Identity ventured:
There's a test at Beliefnet called the Belief-o-matic. You answer about 20 questions, not only giving each a response but also giving each an importance from high to low. Then it tells you whether you're a Sikh or a Liberation Theologian or a Mormon or what. Gives you percentages even.
Yes, it's a fun little thing. Apparently I'm a Hindu. (Though that is actually a big collection of religions.)
Mysticism as such, though, is not a religion. It's more of an attitude or a path.
24 comments:
This is not mysticism, but a chemical----not an imbalance, but a chemical balance.
"Transcendence" is I think the wrong word, because it goes beyond real. Beyond real is unreal. Unreal is fake. This is not right. You do not want to be a fake. You want to be within the boundaries of reality. It's like Disneyland. Outside the boundaries of Disneyland is a parking lot, which is not fun. You do not want to be in a parking lot. Mysticism is the parking lot.
O, and here I thought mysticism was Disney Land.
That's why I wouldn't use the word "mystic." It has a contradictory definition. Is it real or unreal? You would be speaking a different language from most people if you thought mysticism was Disneyland. You had better get yourself a better dictionary, or choose friends who do have a better dictionary.
I think it's more of a case of you and I having different understandings of reality. To a mystic (wikipedia defines it well), what we call "reality" (Earth and so on) is not real, but "god" or "source" is.
I've known I was a mystic since about 22 years old.
But learned the hard way why not to throw what is holy to the dogs.
"I've discovered that I'm a mystic."
Hey, I could've told you that long ago. But you never asked. :-)
To a mystic (wikipedia defines it well), what we call "reality" (Earth and so on) is not real, but "god" or "source" is.
whomever wrote the definition for wikipedia is a fool. if only God is real why would he create this illusion called earth?
misguided people.
Because the motivations of the divine are both incomprehensible and incredibly simple, a mad paradox which no human can grasp because, quite simply, we're much too sane to see things as they really are. ;)
Mysticism can be measured by chemicals in the brain yet I submit that this is merely a physical aspect to something that is much larger. Just because aspects of it can't be measured it doesn't mean those aspects don't exist. Of course the same logic can be applied to dragons and fairies and we don't believe in those. Judging by what our senses tell us there's no reason to suppose the unseen, but on the same token we need to imagine larger realities if we are ever to 1. grasp them 2.create them.
In materialistic terms there's no real benefit to it, but if it is as I believe and there's more to us than flesh and bone we do ourselves a grave disservice by denying the reality of something divine both within and outside us. Any "answers" we have now are merely the skin of a universe-sized onion.
I for one enjoy mystical experiences. I feel the spiritual aspects of life are essential for me to exist happily and purposefully. But there's room for all philosophies in the world so if one prefers a different flavor of tea I hardly mind, though I am intrigued. It's one of the things that keeps life interesting.
earth's reality said...
"if only God is real why would he create this illusion called earth?"
Have you ever played Sims? Or visited SecondLife.com?...
Maybe God simply wants us to learn through experiences while at the same time we have interesting fun. Maybe indeed we cannot be as real as God, by essence...
Actually, and very seriously, the leading experts in fundamental physics themselves have said it: if the Universe was not real, and we were just characters in some cosmic-scale computerized simulation (the Universe then being God's gigantic custom computer with its sim software and data), we would have absolutely no way of witnessing proof of it, because we exist within the rules defined by the programming. (Can Mario in your GameBoy know who's playing or where you're playing?)
Call these rules the laws of Physics. Which, incidentally, are very finely tuned and absolutely need to be, as expressed by Hawking... We can understand how they work, but never find out WHAT they are, where they come from, as long as we're an intrinsic part of that fundamental ensemble.
Which doesn't change the global picture much: whatever the Universe truly is, to us it's our reality, by definition. I'll just remind you that Programmer God has created the possibility of liberty for each of us "autonomously thinking programs", therefore allowing the existence of sin. We are told it shouldn't be done, but we are designed entirely free to comply or not. It's part of Da Rulz.
We also don't find out for sure whether sinnig has a punishment in the Beyond until it's too late to undo it. We can believe, but it's outside the currently running application, impossible to verify beforehand.
Come to think of it, such a computer software, even a very simple one (comparatively) made by us humans, would be a hugely interesting experience. (And a huge sales hit!)
I'm thinking, the Sims which I as a programmer found the most evolved would be saved on my hard drive, and maybe sent to a new programming called Heaven, while those dissatisfactory would be either deleted or, more sensibly, sent back to the simulation to begin anew with different parameters in hope that they would fare better and learn with time. Try and get them to improve and evolve.
Maybe after some thorough debugging with Hell.exe, however long this may take... Or the much milder Purgatory.bat for the intermediate "failures".
Just a geek's two-bit improvised philosophy. :-)
Please, do not ask me to become your cult leader, because that's not my kind of stuff.
Spoiler warning: go to next paragraph if you don't want to learn certain stuff about a good book.
------------------------------
As early as 1970, Philip K. Dick wrote A Maze of Death, which already built on this concept.
Interestingly, it also uses the idea of a "disappearance of the Universe" once the characters realize they're in a man-made computerized simulation. It ends on a very philosophical note.
I think this story would make a great computer/console game, à la Resident Evil...
------------------------------
End of spoilers. At ease, soldier.
"Mysticism can be measured by chemicals in the brain"
You can measure the proportion of each note in a music piece too, and some mathematical elements. It still won't teach you much about why you find it beautiful. :-)
"Of course the same logic can be applied to dragons and fairies and we don't believe in those."
Well, I don't need to measure them. If I can see them, I'll consider them being real. I've never measured a mosquito either, but I believe enough in their existence to swat them. :-)
Dragons are, in part, very real. Fossil skeletons of dinosaurs have been found since centuries, and the popular imagination simply interpreted these terrifyingly huge lizards. (Pterodactyl, wyvern, tomayto, tomahto...) And, since they existed as remains, the Church, which is supposed to have an explanation about everything, gave one about dragons, or unicorns, or leviathans (whales, maybe?), already mentioned in the Bible. Other cultures have had some differing interpretations, but always with an element of fear toward those huge powerful creatures. Hopefully extinct, St George willing!
Every legend spawns from some element of reality. What we do not know, we analyze scientifically, or we guess. We humans have the biological need to explain stuff and feel that we understand the mysterious.
"Judging by what our senses tell us there's no reason to suppose the unseen"
This could perfectly apply to X-rays, or to radio-activity. We can't perceive them, but they can be detected given enough intelligence and effort. They're very real, and can have great consequences on our lives.
The problem is, science has its limits. Intelligence is not an electromagnetic radiation, it's infinitely complex information. Explaining all the physics of how a car engine runs still tells you nada about how it'll be driven by somebody.
"but if it is as I believe and there's more to us than flesh and bone"...
An atheist would disagree with me here, but I say let's not forget about spirit and soul. :-)
Which lie in good part outside the reach of science. Like music.
"Any "answers" we have now are merely the skin of a universe-sized onion."
Please, don't you start peeling or I'll start weeping! ;o)
Jeez, can you imagine, the effects of peeling an onion of such a size? I can already hear Pres. Ahmadinejad frantically bidding for such a weapon of mass distraction! A soldier can't aim with tears in his eyes!!! :-(
There's a test at Beliefnet called the Belief-o-matic. You answer about 20 questions, not only giving each a response but also giving each an importance from high to low. Then it tells you whether you're a Sikh or a Liberation Theologian or a Mormon or what. Gives you percentages even.
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/76/story_7665_1.html
"if only God is real why would he create this illusion called earth?"
According to many paths, such as A Course In Miracles, god did not create the Universe, the ego did (you and I). A perfect god would not create an imperfect universe. We made the dream, and we can unmake it, and rejoin with god (who we actually never left).
Eolake said...
"A perfect god would not create an imperfect universe."
Well, that's questioning God's omnipotence, isn't it? ;-)
Actually, my own belief is that God created us in the same manner that today's scientists create "dumb" artificial intelligences, who know nothing but have a HUGE learning potential. Simply because a "perfect" programming is boring, it fills its purpose perfectly but cannot evolve.
We have been given freedom, which implies that we can and shall make imperfection mistakes, simply because this "imperfection" is way better that a frozen static universe in which everything has its pre-assigned place and won't move. Perfection is boring because it is condemned to immobility. When you're at the top, the only way you may go is down.
In a way, our own intrinsic imperfection is the perfect choice fora Creation that wouldn't bore God Himself to death.
Remember how limited the first videogame platformers were? Every time you play, the exact same thing would happen in the exact same place, the exact same way. One could easily have programmed a flawless AI that would play the game to perfection, all mathematically calculated. Thank God (!), in addition to the computing od some randomness, nearly all of today's videogames react to the way the player behaves, and not simply with enemy sprites leaving their rail to approach you and then perform an attack.
There is, among others, one fundamental difference: we're more than a divine game for pure fun. God loves us. At least inasmuch as we can conceive anybody/thing loving us. The human spirit is virtually infinite in complexity and learning abilities. We're the exact opposite of mindless drones. Even animals are far more than the super-sophisticated automatons that Descartes believed (biased by his thought that only Man could have any form of intelligence beyond reflexes and instinct). We're just more mentally complex than animals. Just like sharks are more hydrodynamically profiled than us, and ants more proportionately strong. Ours is the domain of the mind. This is where we are superior to all other creatures. They surpass us in their own specific domains; to each his own.
"We made the dream, and we can unmake it, and rejoin with god (who we actually never left)."
A creative and rich idea. But I fear it might bear the same design flaw as all other "transcending reality" theories: our sole role IS NOT to realize that we are wasting time in this illusory prison called "life in the Universe" and find the exit. Why? Simply because THEN the Universe would truly be imperfect, if it were just a maze which we have to exist, and the sooner the better. We are part of something, and we have some roles "down here", besides waking up.
After all, biologically, sleeping and dreaming are an essential part of life. If you deprive yourself completely of paradoxal sleep, your memory will fail, you'll enter a functional state of nervous breakdown, your immune system will cease working, and you'll soon die from silent septicemia, poisoned by your own symbiotic bodily micro-organisms.
This may be a "meta-dream", but it definitely has a role to fulfill, and we are part of it. I can't see the meaning of it all as "getting to wake up", like them fangdangled theories that after all the Jews move to Israel, the Rapture of all Evangelist extremists will occur, like the airplane's passengers in Stephen King's The Langoliers.
This is all too sophisticated a Creation to have only one single aim selfishly befitting God alone. The Earth is NOT a super-computer designed by white mice to use our human brains as so many bio-chips to calculate the number 42. Well... okay, so it IS, but it's also much more, too! Really, it is.
I gots ta do me that belief-O-matic test. I'm dead curious to find out whether they even HAVE a word for guys like weird me.
My bet is, it won't be "bigot". Or "Prophet"!
Maybe "Holy heathen, Batman!"? ;-)
Finally, I'll leave you with a deep wisdom to ponder:
"There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.
There is another theory which states that this has already happened." -- (H2G2)
That's very deep, hunh? At least five feet!
I guess this thread could be another example of that whole "old chestnut" thing I complained about a while back.
Of course, *I* don't feel that way. Except for the fact that I'm always lying, even now ... :o
"Old chestnut"? I don't remember that one. Where was it?
And please, answer honestly, try not to lie for once. ;o)
"Pamystical"
"An old chestnut" is an expression in English, indicating a problem that is often approached in rather standardized fashion. A common example of "an old chestnut" would be the assignment of the following term paper for a college-level introductory course on Milton's "Paradise Lost": "Is Satan really the classical hero of the work?"
The expression "an old chestnut" is meant to convey mild disappointment at the predictability and weakly auto-didactic nature of many discussions going on today in popular discourse. I had used it, in a previous thread, to indicate that I found much common conversation in my social circles (whether here on the internet, or in real civilian life) to be empty and lacking meaning.
In one discussion one time I mentioned "Tuesdays with Morrie," a book I found vapid to the point of grating, because it is full of very very tired cliches about the nature of life and death. If one has never thought about death, then I suppose this book is a quaint introduction to the idea of mortality. But it barely skims the surface of the deep history of philosophy and valid discussion of the subject, preferring instead snappy one-liners and a touchy-feely empty emotional dawdling which offers very little cathartic release to any educated reader. Nevertheless, my complaints that "Tuesdays with Morrie" was jejune, were generally met with disapproval and even dismay among friends of mine, who generally missed the point by suggesting perhaps I had not thought about death and mortality yet. In fact, I had; THEY hadn't, as is proven by the notion that such a simple introduction to the subject were found by them to be not only ingenious but also novel. It is not novel. It is predictable to an extreme.
So, too, most internet discussions of religion. This thread here is not SO bad -- I give it a good solid B+, but Nietzsche it ain't.
I first mentioned this on here at Eolake's blog in a discussion of the changing nature of education (for me, I was speaking specifically about North America).
I went on to point out that I am finding in general that I cannot access adequate intellectual stimulation. If this kind of discussion passes for deep spiritual thought among most of my peers, then I am disapointed in my peers. I went further, to suggest that largely, a portion of this weakness comes from a general lack of education. Most of us are madly pursuing practical training in specific technical disciplines rather than learning the basic classical discussions of the important questions of human existence. In the context of such a preponderance of practical training, and a similar context of such an absence of philosophical experience, I suggested, leaves us with the following necessity: we cannot dive into the deep and difficult issues without, first, bringing everyone up to speed on the basics.
For example, this thread spends a great deal of time simply defining mysticism, rather than going further to investigate its utility, speak to its slow death in a scientific world, or, in any other way, actually get at the meat of the matter. Our discussion of mysticism here, feels to me like what it must feel like to be an Oxford Don of English literature trapped among revelers at a "Medieval Tymes" floor show; or sentenced to a lifetime of never asking any question about Milton's "Paradise Lost" except, "Was Satan really the hero?" There are only so many times you can go over "an old chestnut" before it's simply cracked, split, dried, dessicated, and no longer of nourishment to the investigator.
Don't get me wrong, I think that question (and ones like it) is quite useful for a beginning level literature course. I remember the first time I had the privilege to set it as an exam paper, and see the variety of answers, and delight in the mental growth of my young students. But it is rightly applied, as a question, only as an exercise to beginning readers. Full professors are bored by it, except in so far as it proves pedagogically useful.
Likewise, this discussion borders on "an old chestnut." Many have heard these issues before; few new issues arise; yet the writers and readers (wrongly) think we're covering new ground. Because we all of us lack a general education mostly common to us all, we know not what to assume of the others' understandings, and therefore spend all our time either going over "old chestnuts" or, worse, simply defining terms.
Terms like "an old chestnut." The irony is not lost on me, that in order to merely make the point that the discussion is jejune and lacks a common background among participants, I cannot even use a common expression, without first defining it.
I don't mean to castigate participants here. I am as guilty as any, of lightening up the fare, simplifying it to cocktail-party chatter. I'm the one who dashed off the quick note about the Belief-o-matic, for example -- doesn't get much more jejune than that! I'm just suggesting, we as a society (internet participants, or educated English speakers, or what have you) are going backwards. A discussion like this in 1930 among like-minded participants would have nearly immediately scoffed at the idea of a belief-o-matic test; in 1840 the participants would have come from a much more rarefied and homogenized community (and the fact that participation has been widened is of course a good thing). But in those periods the speakers would have had the advantage of, well, knowing what one another already knew, and therefore being free to MOVE ON from the "old chestnuts."
All I'm saying is, "Been there, done that, wish our society were more interested in the deeper real questions, not just the old chestnuts." I know we're not, heck I'm not, but it's still a loss I sometimes feel keenly.
"If this kind of discussion passes for deep spiritual thought among most of my peers, then I am disapointed in my peers."
I agree: as far as spiritual discussions go, I don't like to "peers too deep". Deep is not my goal anyway, just relevance and mutual enrichment.
A majority of philosophical talk, including that published by professionals, bores me lethally because it seems to convolute for the snake of convoluting. (Typo intended here.)
I had noticed long ago what officials in French education are beginning to publicly state: not only is the average language level in the country stunningly catastrophic, but it reflects the problem of students who not only write and speak poorly, but think poorly. Expression reflects the thinking process.
So, on the other extreme, reading many of today's philosophers, and dissecting their sentences to try and make out just what the flark they're supposed to mean, I've become convinced that what they express with caricatural complexity reflects their inability to think simple.
In layman's terms: it's a mess in their heads, yo. It's as if they're trained into thinking and speaking in mumbo-jumbo gibberish.
Not unlike our local politicians here in Lebanon... ):-P
To apply this to books like "Tuesdays with Morrie" (according to your description, since I haven't read it), I think that the general public also tends to praise stuff so convoluted they can't understand it: since they lack intellectual self-confidence (probably with good reason), they consider that anything they can't understand has to be very deep.
Many "mystics" use the same formula: with some charisma and the adequate style of vocabulary, if you make sure people can't understand what you say even though it sounds familiar, they'll act as if they DO understand how intelligent you are.
Symbolically, it's the syndrome of the Emperor's new Clothes.
Reversely, if you speak half-decently intelligent stuff that the uneducated manage to understand, they'll be POSITIVE you're a genius.
I'm always wary of that kind of attitude. I've read Stephen Hawking (A Brief History of Time). Granted, it's not his superlative level equations there, but I simply felt the book was very well written. By a genius, naturally. Writing here a relatively simple book with intelligent stuff.
Sometimes being the smartest means making sure everybody understands you and not seeming like you're flaunting. Hawking doesn't flaunt. I like that in people.
Some of whom I met right here. (You know who you are.)
During the construction of our house, I asked the electrician about a certain type of circuit which is commonly used, but I couldn't guess by myself how it worked. That man, to whom it's daily routine, explained it to me with a simple diagram.
I'm the college graduate, but this local artisan taught me something clever.
So, in conclusion: everybody can find people smarter, or more knoledgeable, in one domain or another. The essential thing is never to take oneself too seriously. Ego is the mortal enemy of true intelligence.
"Most of us are madly pursuing practical training in specific technical disciplines rather than learning the basic classical discussions of the important questions of human existence."
Well, d'uh! There's no MONEY to be made in teaching THAT. :-(
"In the context of such a preponderance of practical training, and a similar context of such an absence of philosophical experience"...
"Science sans conscience n'est que ruine de l'âme." - (François Rabelais)
Science without conscience is a waste of the soul.
Raw knowledge alone is a waste, if one doesn't think over its meaning and consequences. Technology is too easily corrupted by those who have no moral principles.
I am sorry to say, that most religious discussions I usually encounter are verbose: deeply pious folks reciting by-heart cliché formulas and heartily agreeing with each other. Routine torture to a laic mind living in Lebanon: "God is great, faith is beautiful, blah-blah, amen. Oh, and the Westerners are all heathens." Same exact speech as 30 years ago, over and over, scratch that record Mr Deejay. He who wears pink-colored glasses will never see this evidence that the sky is BLUE.
Then again, they say ignorance is bliss...
"speak to its slow death in a scientific world"
Well, I believe you are mistaken there.
"Le 21ième siècle sera mystique ou ne sera pas." - (André Malraux)
Mysticism, beliefs, faith, the irrational, and frequently raw naiveness, are coming back strong. People are feeling lost in an exponentially mutating world, so they're clinging or turning back to reassuring things perceived (rightly or wrongly) as untouchable by the changes of technology, society, politics, or global weather. Astrologists and other fortune tellers were never more prosperous than now in France. And the religion-centered lifestyle is more widespread than ever in the USA, I hear. People feel they need God so badly, they sometimes become easy prey to any charismatic self-appointed vicar of the Creator.
More and more people want prêt-à-porter beliefs, served in individually-sized portions, ready to eat without any effort. Not mysticism the way *I* conceive it, but... its general conception doesn't seem to be wilting in today's Garden of Good and Evil.
Terms like "an old chestnut." The irony is not lost on me, that in order to merely make the point that the discussion is jejune and lacks a common background among participants, I cannot even use a common expression, without first defining it.
Well, I'm glad if I managed to amuse you. Just bear in mind that English is not my first language. To one like me, some (obvious?) expressions are still new discoveries. Movies and TV sitcoms don't mention old chestnuts very often... ;-)
No offense taken, I know you meant no castigation.
("wooatev-ver zat barbareek wohrd meens, oui?") ;o)
"I am as guilty as any, of lightening up the fare"
Well, this is a versatile blog, after all, not Online Oxfordopedia. Not exactly a specialists nest!
Which has its upsides and downsides. But I fear a "high-level blog" might soon turn into a magnet for those pro mumblers I mentioned above. Mentioned AND castigated. (Crastinated? Instigated? Mitigated? Agitated? Bah, forget it!)
Already, the size of this post means that less than 10% will bother to read it. (And, as usual, 0.5% will trash it without even reading it, saying it was nightmarishly long and abyssally hollow. Ainsi va le monde.)
"I'm the one who dashed off the quick note about the Belief-o-matic, for example -- doesn't get much more jejune than that!"
There you go again with your utter lack of modesty. Believe me, there are LOTS better jejuni... jejunums... juice prunes... jet-junes... janjawids... whatever! out there. Your link was actually entertaining, amusing, a fun novel cyber-gadget.
Um... sorry to break it up to you so bluntly? ;-)
All I'm saying is, "Been there, done that, wish our society were more interested in the deeper real questions, not just the old chestnuts."
I happen to like chestnuts, you know. Once, we found in our refrigerator a bag of year-old chestnuts, forgotten from the previous winter. Most of them were perfectly preserved and delicious to eat. Sometimes better in quality that the new ones at the grocery store.
So, please, show a little more consideration for old chestnuts, mister. These stand the trial of time exceptionally well.
F.I.: This *is* a broad forum, of people from many countries, and widely varying educations. I myself did not even finish high school. I think what you're looking for is exactly what you say: a more rarefied collection of people to debate with. I am sure there must be forums like that on the Net.
I suspect that an ability to think in deep and abstract terms will only be acquired by people who have a strong interest in it. Forcing it on people by education will only result in people who at best can Talk The Talk, but never, uh, Think the Walk.
And those with a strong interest in it will find the people and books to help them.
To long-winded Pascal: you missed my point about "Tuesdays With Morrie." It wasn't an overly convolute philosophical work; it was a ridiculously, childishly simplistic work utterly lacking in philosophy. People who found it revelatory even though that had college degrees were simply displaying the lack of content in their degrees.
Final,
It seems *I* was a bit too convoluted there. :-)
I understand you describe "Tuesdays With Morrie" as simplistic, and I acknowledged it. Just took the opportunity to treat both extremes of the subject.
That "long-winded" nickname was spot-on, eh? At least, I'm honest about myself. ;-)
I'm with Final Identity re. "Tuesdays With Morrie." The most annoying book I have ever read -- or was ever required to read (by my graduate school prof. no less).... I nearly gagged trying to get through its maudlin hogwash. I'm not sure if I would liken it to waxed yellow beans, or on Aunt Jemima's syrup. Good for Morrie that he took dance lessons and did t.v. interviews while he was dying, but what the heck was all the hype about this book? Being required to read it and write a paper on it in order to receive a grade from an institution I was paying BIG BUCKS to attend was like being forced to sit and meditate on a Thomas Kincaid painting in art school for graduate thesis on light.
I left that school.
I'm sick of all the drivel out there. Call me elitist. I'm really not smart enough to carry on any kind of debate with Final or Pascal on "mysticism" -- I'm more with Eo. in being of few words on the topic -- but I sure appreciate intelligence when I hear it, thank you both.
Ultimately (and I don't know where you are Eolake on this), but the topic must be delved into through meditation and silence, not through discussion.
That said, and being an elitist, has anyone out there read Spiritual Torrents by Jeanne Guyon (16th century mystic) ? Also, the writings of Simone Weil are profound and worthy of time, for those whose intellects are seeking deep resonance.
Laurie
I just googled Thomas Kincaid's art. Ugh. That's like eating syrup with whipped cream.
"Ultimately (and I don't know where you are Eolake on this), but the topic must be delved into through meditation and silence, not through discussion."
Well, study and discussion can be very helpful, but I'm with A Course In Miracles when it says that in the end it is not what you know, it is what you experience.
Okay, okay, point taken.
I never intended to read "Tuesdays With Morrie" in the first place, anyway. ;-)
But I read "Animal Farm" not long ago, by choice (no part of school curriculum in Lebanon), and quite liked it.
Mandatory reading is like being forced to eat cake: even if you liked it you'll get to hate it. Reading should be a pleasure and nothing else!
If the Bush administration want to deter the young from having sex, all they have to do is make it a mandatory school subject, and 99% of teenagers will flee it like the plague. "Imposed usefulness" is a time-proven method that never fails. :-/
Laurie said...
I'm really not smart enough to carry on any kind of debate with Final or Pascal on "mysticism"
Or maybe this is precisely the sign that you ARE very smart. ;-)
Not because you don't debate with US, but because you don't give the matter a second thought.
Let's keep life simple! :-)
Okay, I confess, I sometimes need several pages to express that very same principle. I'm in love with the sound of my voice! Correction: with the "clicketyclick" of my keyboard.
Ah, sweet music! :-D
Eolake said...
"Ugh. That's like eating syrup with whipped cream."
You're absolutely right, ugh! Without the honey and peanut butter, it's perfectly vile, like drinking sea water on a hot day.
If you're gonna eat sugar, do it for real!
Oh, please excuse me, time for my insulin shot. My, has it already been five minutes? How time flies.
Bzzz, bzzz...
(Shoo, flies! The sugar's MINE!)
Are you a Hindu because I am also a Hindu? Then there will be 2 Hindus who like fmeale beauty in their natural state.
Post a Comment