Yes, I do know that I am contrary for the sake of it, and that is a part of my character that I want to keep hold of. It might be a source of irritation to others, and it doesn't always work to my advantage, but I actually think it helps me to see more clearly. My motive for questioning everything, ie, contrariness, isn't very noble, but I can live with that because of how highly I value the outcome. I don't want to stop questioning things.
Honesty does leave you vulnerable to some extent, but I think it also protects you and makes you less vulnerable overall. If you don't live behind a wall of deceit, it can't be broken down to reveal the ugly truth inside. It's often the case that people don't much like me to start with, but they usually come to think I'm nowhere near as bad as they thought if they get to know me. I would much rather have it that way than the other way round. I suppose where you are striving to achieve oneness, I am trying to achieve a perfect state of honesty, but I fear I have probably farther to go than you. I'm doing my best, that's all I can claim.
You have intimated that you were once also a poor wretched soul like me before you set out on the road to spiritual awareness, so can I ask how and to what extent it has improved your state of being?
Oh dear, I feel responsible, what if you don't like her?
I haven't read that. I understand it was compiled from her manuscripts and notes or something, after her death, so I don't know how typical of her work that is expected to be. I'll tell you what: if you don't like it, I'll give you your money back.
Yes, I've read them both, although a long time ago. Kingsley Amis's humour doesn't really appeal to me, but that's just a matter of taste, and I know that many people find him very funny. Martin I'm not keen on at all. I didn't see any humour in his books, I'm afraid. I think I read London Fields and possibly Time's Arrow, but I'm not absolutely sure about that. He was quite a rising star at the time I read the books, and I was a bit disappointed in them. I'm sorry to say that if he's a particular favourite of yours.
I'm sure you would be equally unimpressed be Barbara Pym.
The concept of "oneness" seems to be central to your philosophy. The fact that I am unable to conceptualise it is normal and understandable, you say, and everyone starts from that position. It takes a lot of time and training to achieve an understanding of this and other things you have talked about. I find that a bit worrying. If you start out by completely accepting that this state of being called oneness exists, and you embark on a course of instruction to achieve it, what you are actually going to end up doing is shaping your perception of reality to fit the concept. Which, in my view, is completely the wrong way to go about seeking enlightenment.
When you set out on a voyage of discovery, it is sound practice to wait until you've made the discovery before you determine what you've discovered, you certainly shouldn't make your mind up before you've even set off. People tend to see what they want to see, and feel what they want to feel in matters such as this. Although if you can achieve a sense of fulfilment and satisfaction by constructing your own artificial reality, without any ill effects to yourself or anyone else, I can't actually say it's a bad thing, although I don't find the idea very attractive myself.
In the interest of fairness and honesty, I aught to just admit that my natural contrary streak played a large part in that assessment.
Some books are better than others. I think Excellent Women was what got me started. All her stories tend to be about "clergymen" and the women who gravitate round them, but the emphasis is on the women more than the clergymen. The humour is very subtle and a lot of people wouldn't even recognise it as humour, but that's what I prefer. There also always seems to be at least one anthropologist in the story, I have no idea why.
I read that quite a while ago, but I listened to an audio version on Youtube the other day. In fact I've listened to quite a few of his stories on Youtube. And I do prefer short stories, so that's another plus mark.
I know of Walter Mitty, of course, but never thought of reading it. My taste is very British so I'm not sure how I would find it. Someone once recommended Kurt Vonnegut to me -I can't remember the title- but I abandoned it after a couple of chapters.
I'm too embarrassed to say who my first obsession was when I originally latched on to older books. I will look into Lord Dunsany.
I have to read in bed before I can sleep. I have never been much of a reader, particularly of fiction, and so I’ve never had a favourite author or a preferred genre (I hate that word) of fiction, and so when I first started the practice of reading to get me off to sleep I had to resort to a method of trial and error to find what best suited my taste. To cut a long story short, I have finally arrived at the position of not being able to read anything unless it’s funny.
I read everything on a Kindle device, and there are several reasons for this: It is cheaper, convenient, and I don’t accumulate loads of finished books. Some books that are out of copywrite are very cheap, and in some cases even free; consequently, that is what a lot of my reading has consisted of. I have come across a surprising amount of really good stuff in this way, but I think the best gem I have found is a chap called Saki, or H.H Munro. I’m not sure he would appeal to many people in this day and age, but I have come to revere the man.
The term "oneness" never seems to be far away when spirituality is the topic. I still have no idea what is meant by it, and it isn't for the lack of trying to understand. You talk about making our way back to god/source. That implies you believe in a purpose that we are meant to fulfil, which further implies that there is a conscious entity which has given us this purpose. I don't think we have a purpose other than whatever purpose we might assign to ourselves. As far as the Universe is concerned, we are just matter, and matter no more than rock or water; we are subject to the same laws and have no more significance, except to ourselves.
I can only approach the subject from a rational point of view, which guarantees nothing, as it is dependent on the quality of my reasoning, but even so, my nature won't let me approach it any other way. I might set to work on a lengthy description of our predicament as I see it, but I may well feel daunted by the task and decide not to. Only time will tell.
I have been accused of being a liar and being boring. I can state with confidence that I'm not a liar, believe it or not, but I'm not in a position to refute my boringness.
Just so I'm clear, when you say spirit and god, etc. do you mean it literally or metaphorically?
We have consciousness, and nothing beyond that. I don't think of it as spirit or soul or anything other than consciousness, and I think it is entirely dependant on the living brain for its existence. I can't see any reason to think that consciousness persists after the death of the body, and I don't believe in reincarnation. What we consider to be real or illusion very much depends on definitions. In fact, most of our problems in understanding and communicating come down to definitions. I'm not saying this is how everybody should view things, far from it, we all have to make sense of the world and existence in our own way. That's my way, or part of it. I don't think my opinions and beliefs are particularly radical, and I can't see why anyone would object to them.
Well I haven't got that good a grasp on it, because there are things still puzzling me.
When you talk about spiritual awareness, you seem to be saying that what it amounts to is a state of mind, to put it simply. Now others have talked about the spirit or soul operating remotely from the body, and on the death of the body, returning to the earth attached to a new body. That seems to be quite a different kettle of fish to me. Where do you stand on that?
So are you saying that both those approaches I described are just different roads to the same place?
And is my assessment really that good, did I get it right? One way is purely psychological, while the other is mystical, and involves things that earthly logic simply cannot explain.
Circlip Forum Posts (826)
Silly me. Thanks for pointing that out, Lee, you're a pal. 
What is the difference?
Yes, I do know that I am contrary for the sake of it, and that is a part of my character that I want to keep hold of. It might be a source of irritation to others, and it doesn't always work to my advantage, but I actually think it helps me to see more clearly. My motive for questioning everything, ie, contrariness, isn't very noble, but I can live with that because of how highly I value the outcome. I don't want to stop questioning things.Honesty does leave you vulnerable to some extent, but I think it also protects you and makes you less vulnerable overall. If you don't live behind a wall of deceit, it can't be broken down to reveal the ugly truth inside. It's often the case that people don't much like me to start with, but they usually come to think I'm nowhere near as bad as they thought if they get to know me. I would much rather have it that way than the other way round. I suppose where you are striving to achieve oneness, I am trying to achieve a perfect state of honesty, but I fear I have probably farther to go than you. I'm doing my best, that's all I can claim.
You have intimated that you were once also a poor wretched soul like me before you set out on the road to spiritual awareness, so can I ask how and to what extent it has improved your state of being?