There is one choice, 1 vote for hirbie's debate

To tense the gut or not to tense the gut, that is the question.

• This "gut"

  is one's "breadbasket". A Hebrew meaning for "Bethlehem" is "breadbasket. It is where we try to contain our stress and angst due to our bewilderment at this phenomenal existance or "world of pain". It is the "seat" of the heart. It is where stresses are released and with this release is the feeling of love. Not "love" as understood by the brain. The "love" the brain understands is of the emotional/chemical variety. The brain through it's desire (desire is the emotional pursuit of comfort rather than real understanding) for control over the body on which it sits (and all other phenomenal bodies like other objectified humans and the earth) and attempts this "control" by subjecting the "breadbasket" to pain. The brain then looks for anaesthetics to disguise this angst through addictions. Addictions to chemicals (chemical/emtional "love", alcahol, drugs and the emotional chemical addiction to cultural conditioning). There you have it. Bethlehem. It is a place of the heart. If it is OBJECTIFIED as a geographical location (therefore a thing of which we attach chemical reactions to in the form of emotions which are the result of the brain/ego) then it becomes some thing to emotionally defend and WAR over. It doesn't REALLY exist as a piece of earth. Everyone has this "heart" wherever they may physically live. People can do whatever they like over a piece of dirt. It has no REAL relevance. "Home is where the heart is". Everyone has a "Bethlehem". We, as individuals, need to own up to our desires and their incumbent stresses. Own up to our own crap then find personal release.

  Voted for by grant.

  View 34 comments Hide Comments

  Please login or register to comment.

  Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!

  • right now

    Adding your comment:
  • hirbie
    October 17, 2006
    Edit | Reply

    Wow

    fear
  • 
    grant
    October 17, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    It is just fear of the unknown. What we come to know and therefore identify with is this knot in the gut. We think we are our stress. Just as someone who mountain climbs identifies himself as a mountain climber. He just looks for the biggest mountain of distraction he can find. No different to alcahol. This "unknown" is freedom. The "known" is ourselves "rehearsing our bondage". Sticking to what we (think we) know. The "unknown" is just the letting go (epiphany felt in "bethlehem" the Gut). We dont actually know anything, we just think we do. Our supposed knowledge about things is part of our bondage.
  • hirbie
    October 17, 2006
    Edit | Reply

    Explanations

    release
  • 
    grant
    October 18, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    Ah, because I assumed (maybe wrongly) that you wanted to discuss fear. As you said at the mention of fear "which is my cue". So here is your cue. Go for it if you want. I obviously share some of your thoughts on the nature of fear and the "gut" hypothesis. I'm not explaining "at you" i'm just expressing my thoughts on the subject you proposed. Why are you telling me what to do? e.g "dont let it go to your head". My head just happens to be the place where my thoughts come from. My ass is quite useless for the same excersise. The brain, in my opinion (I say this to try to undermine your egos reaction with the "explaining at" comment), is most useful as a tool when it's thoughts are just regarded as such. Thoughts as apposed to some truth or dogma. As soon as thinking becomes dogmatic and therefore the brain becomes defensive, the brain regards the thoughts as critical. When it is "critical" (inflated importance) it is felt as a knot in the gut. These are all just my opinions Hirb. What does your gut tell you? Do you think I may be talking sh*t?
  • hirbie
    October 18, 2006
    Edit | Reply

    hrm

    mistakes
  • 
    grant
    October 18, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    The topic of the gut has never been introduced before on here from my knowledge. It is a significant topic. It is the seat of the heart (lower rib area) and the seat of the perceived problems of humanity. Now that is not "poor". No ego is inflated. It is all ego. Mine, yours and everyone elses. But there is something else going on. No point judging the ego because it is the ego that judges. We can only observe the ego without judgement. Then this observer is something other than ego. Now what could that be i wonder?
  • 
    TeChNoWC
    October 18, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    *"We dont actually know anything, we just think we do."* Good to see you firstly opposing my ideas and then attempting to use them for your own gain while my back is turned. What happened to 'I don't believe I have two legs, I know I do.' So you agree you only thought you knew, hey? *"Then this observer is something other than ego. Now what could that be i wonder?"* One who claims to be egoless. You may have observed others showing outer manifestations of purported 'ego', possibly identifiable be relating such manifestations to one's own manifestations, but this does not necessarily indicate that such manifestations are intrinsically and inexorably bound to such inner mental states. You cannot be 'aware' of other beings as similar to yourself (in an 'inner' sense) without the assumption of such, as I tried to point out in an earlier debate. We are all solipsists if we rely solely on the observed plane. We observe only relative to the self, and as such, experience is limited to the self. Whatever your notion of self being, it is only relative to the brain and the entity of the singular embodiement involved. Such an embodiement, without assuming the internal nature of others as being such the same as the embodiement of which is doing the inferring, cannot come to a conclusion that others are in fact of the same distinction, and do in fact have mental states of their own, or are even able to relate (consciously) to the embodiement's dealings and expressions (no awareness of such). In other words, the only escape from such solipsistic thought is via belief (and largely unjustified, too).
  • • 
      grant
      October 18, 2006
      Edit | Reply
      I know i have legs. I possess them, but I dont know any thing. My legs are things. Constructs of chemical matter. I can't know these leg things any more than I can know a table. I know I have a table, but I cannot know it (in terms of relationship). "I" can only be aware of my legs. It is a thing I possess that I cant know. If I treat a human being as a possession or thing I will not get to know their being. A being "possesses" chemical matter to manifest as form. But this "form" is not the "being". Do you get me? I've never claimed to be egoless. I most surely have one. It requires constant vigilance through observation. Do you notice how your ego is competitive? It isn't a criticism of your being. IT IS A CRITIQUE OF THE EGO. It is the nature of ego. You are not your ego. If you think I am criticising your being by pointing out your ego's competitive nature then you are believing you are your ego. Egos compete. It is simply an observation of it's nature. It does not need to be a judgement (is it good or bad that it competes etc.) . Animals compete, plants compete, human egos compete. It is the nature of things. We are not things. A plant isn't a plant. An animal isn't an animal. Our egos have labelled them as such. There is just all this. All this, beyond the egoic nature that possesses things because the ego "thing" attracts, finds attractive other "things", is RELATIONSHIP. Now, is relationship a thing? I suggest not.
  • hirbie
    October 19, 2006
    Edit | Reply

    change

    practice
  • • 
      grant
      October 19, 2006
      Edit | Reply

      Tell me.

      What is it you "preach" hirb?
  • 
    Applehead
    October 19, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    "Own up to our own crap then find personal release." Have you owned up to your own crap? I agree "It requires constant vigilance through observation" I would call this being considerate of others. Again I ask if you are not your ego what are you?
  • • 
      grant
      October 19, 2006
      Edit | Reply
      If in fact you agree that it is necessary to observe the ego then what or who is doing the observing?
  • hirbie
    October 19, 2006
    Edit | Reply

    my apologies

    sorry guys (and applehead). i removed my comments, creating a lot of incongruency. or not. anyway. I wish you all very well!
  • 
    Applehead
    October 19, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    hirbie don't feel you must delete your opinion. Heer it is valid as all opinion is valid unless personal. There are debates intermingled here threw no fault of your own.
  • • 
      grant
      October 19, 2006
      Edit | Reply
      .
    • 
      grant
      October 21, 2006
      Edit | Reply

      I am not an ego

      "I" (this phenomenal body/mind thing) POSSESSES an ego. This phenomenal body/mind/ego is a thing that attracts and reacts to other things. "I" AM NOTHING. (the capitals do not mean shouting just internation)
    • hirbie
      October 29, 2006
      Edit | Reply

      well...

      i delete my opinions, because they no longer serve any good as far as i'm concerned. i'm sorry.
  • 
    TeChNoWC
    October 21, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    *"“I” (this phenomenal body/mind thing) POSSESSES an ego. This phenomenal body/mind/ego is a thing that attracts and reacts to other things. “I” AM NOTHING. (the capitals do not mean shouting just internation)"* Good luck in that. However, you remind me of some sort of emo adolescent teenager in a quest to sound hardcore (which is ultimate ego building).
  • 
    grant
    October 21, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    "One" doesn't build an`ego. "One" has an ego. "You" cant escape an ego. "You" can only be aware of it in the same way as being aware of any phenomena like leg for example. The brain is not aware. The brain evaluates, judges, measures, compares etc etc. This is it's phenomenal function. To evaluate other phenomena. It is simply survival instinct like any other entity, plant or animal. The brain is not interested in evolution. It only wants to understand an evolution of a physical nature which means physical death. Hence, it's survive at all cost and experience as much bodily pleasure it can into the tiny little amount of time that it can exist for, compulsion. To the point that it believes in some bodily pleasures after death (emotional happiness, moderate temperatures, a loving father figure etc...). In the case of the Islamic extremist an eternity with 72 virgins. Of course this particular situation would be hell because once they have sex with each of the virgins they would no longer exist with the dead extremist for eternity. 72 episodes of sexual intercourse and then their heaven ceases.
  • 
    TeChNoWC
    October 21, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    *"72 episodes of sexual intercourse and then their heaven ceases."* Better than nothing, I guess. Although nothing sounds pretty good too. Although, I must point out that you assumed that the extremist only gets to have intercourse with each woman once.... Ok, so, with the other stuff, how do you suppose the 'self' came to be? And I don't want any mystical answer, just a clear cut explanation, if possible. Because if the body/mind all that stuff evolved, then did you, as a supposed outside observer, also evolve?
  • 
    grant
    October 21, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    He cant have sex with a virgin twice because the second time she would not be a virgin. His gods rule is virgins only not woman. The virgin, if he believes in his god, must either vanish after the first f**k or hang around being tantalisingly tempting but untouchable. Both scenarios would be hellishly frustrating for one who was prepared to kill and die for lust.
  • 
    TeChNoWC
    October 21, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    *"He cant have sex with a virgin twice because the second time she would not be a virgin. His gods rule is virgins only not woman. The virgin, if he believes in his god, must either vanish after the first f**k or hang around being tantalisingly tempting but untouchable. Both scenarios would be hellishly frustrating for one who was prepared to kill and die for lust."* I like these sort of talks, because I always win (in that I never lose). Or I guess that means only my ego likes it... But anyway you will have to talk to him for a while really he is a nice guy...... Ok, firstly, his god simply restores the virginity to the woman after the first 'go at it'. Because he is god right, he can do anything! Thats why I always win. In future I ask that you do not use obscene profanity in your comments, or they will be deleted and that is neither good for me or you. Don't even use censors because it is against site policy.
  • 
    grant
    October 21, 2006
    Edit | Reply

    If it is all about winning

    then Yes. you win. But who are "you"? Am i to think by your askings that you are the moderator on this site?
  • 
    TeChNoWC
    October 21, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    To say that I am THE moderator would seemingly be incorrect. To say that I am 'a' moderator on this site would be better. And if winning means being right, then I guess I'm right, and you're wrong, ha! Sorry, but I find it really hard to relate to you, grant. I will endeavour to try, but it is hard.
  • • 
      grant
      October 21, 2006
      Edit | Reply
      That is because you believe you are your phenomena. The phenomenal ego cannot "relate". It competes. It cannot relate as it is a thing ( emotional/chemical matter). I dont believe you. As far as "I" am concerned "you" are not "your" phenomenal chemical emotional and dying body/mind.
  • 
    TeChNoWC
    October 21, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    *"That is because you believe you are your phenomena. The phenomenal ego cannot “relate”. It competes. It cannot relate as it is a thing ( emotional/chemical matter). I dont believe you. As far as “I” am concerned “you” are not “your” phenomenal chemical emotional and dying body/mind."* Well, I hate to tell you grant, but unless your theory posits some sort of infinite existence or life after death or anything like that (because hell is freaky and yeah I would care then) then I don't really care as far as 'meaning' is concerned. Do I care that I will perish? No. Do I want to perish, if there be another option? Depends on what the other option is. I can't wait to see what you are gonna say next.
  • • 
      grant
      October 22, 2006
      Edit | Reply
      You are in fact saying that if my theory "freaks" you out then you don't care for it's meaning. I see.
    • • 
        TeChNoWC
        October 22, 2006
        Edit | Reply
        No, I clearly stated the opposite. I said if the theory freaks me out, then I care. Otherwise I don't. Fairly simple.
      • • 
          grant
          October 22, 2006
          Edit | Reply

          your quote

          " I don't really care as far as meaning is concerned". You only "care" that it freaks you. Not "care" for it's meaning. Surely meaning is where its at. Maybe you could "care" as to why it might freak you as apposed to the feeling of the fear (the "why", therefore the "meaning" of the fear). I am proposing a self reflection principle rather than a reactionary one. There is no principle in reactions (such as to fear) because reactions are purely egoic and chemical. Reactions don't engage the "higher self". Self reflection does.
        • • 
            TeChNoWC
            October 23, 2006
            Edit | Reply
            Wow and so without a prime motivator, you are again, a vegetable. Vegetables don't fear. Vegetables don't find meaning. They just go in my mouth. If I find meaning it is all relative to the self (but hopefully truthful in an external fashion, but to come to such a conclusion seemingly cannot be done of present). If you tell me that there is no God and everything is purely of a natural means, then I would quickly assume (if correct) that there is no such meaning except the very chemicals in my brain to convince me of such. So no, in a general sense, I wouldn't care unless these chemicals prompted me to (hence, fear). However if God is real such 'realisations' are real (or most certainly can be). Like I said earlier, if there is only natural law, I have no reason to be 'me'. I choose non-existence, should this be the case. You go on with your convictions of your supposed consciousness expansion, while I reap the rewards of absolute neutrality.
          • • 
              grant
              October 30, 2006
              Edit | Reply
              good luck
            • • 
                TeChNoWC
                October 30, 2006
                Edit | Reply
                and to you, in your endeavour.
  • 
    grant
    October 21, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    Hell is a negative concept. Negativity is the easiest emotion. There is no hell. "perish" means to rot and die. When one is dead you do not perish because there is no "you" to experience the rotting. Even if one rotted with leprosy one would not feel pain, because that is what leprosy is. The inability to feel physical pain. I'm off to bed. This is NZ and so its late enough.
  • 
    TeChNoWC
    October 21, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    *"Hell is a negative concept. Negativity is the easiest emotion. There is no hell."* Yeah, good to see you got the first part, but you were just as dumb as everyone else to assume the second. I don't care if you reckon there is a hell or not, I just don't want to go there. *"When one is dead you do not perish because there is no “you” to experience the rotting."* Yeah, because you're dead. I so agree with that one. Anyway sleep tight, grant. You're an interesting one if not a confusing one.

  Please register or login to comment! It's totally free
• right now

  Adding your reply:
• Your Comment: