Jun 14, 2022·edited Jun 14, 2022Liked by Abby Wynne
Good day Abby,
DuAnne Redus and Lulu share very insightful wisdom. There is another aspect to the outlier at least in me and fortunately my wife. We don't trust our senses. Just as DuAnne and Lulu have share being strangers in society and also finding out that what society teaches is upside down. Our senses cannot be trusted.
Example: I worked in the woods, brush and grasslands most of my life. Rattlesnakes are common. My dad had no use for them. I asked myself why would a rattle snake bite me?
Well if I step on it, it would bite. I don't think anyone likes being stepped on. Also it is reflexive. If something pricks us or hurts in some way, we try reflexively to free ourselves. So that seemed a good excuse for the snake to bite me.
But I just couldn't believe that the rattlesnake had an instinctual wish to bite humans. They can't eat us etc. So I never killed them. I have never been bitten. I have been more than close enough to be bitten but they stayed coiled.
So I am by nature skeptical and I try my best to understand the other side. I am not always successful at understanding. But that is my short coming.
Why would a virus harm anyone? We drive or ride in cars everyday and at anytime we are riding/driving a car we can be severely injured or killed. No one worries about that. We have air, water, food and soil pollution, no one worries about that. Why this virus?
When I look at all the death and destruction that we actually can do collectively something about and don't, why do we freak out about this virus? Cancer and heart disease, all the autoimmune disease and on and on. Why are we freaked out about this virus?
For me it doesn't make sense. Dr. Lynn Margulis an amazing microbiologist (deceased) said if the micro biome and virome didn't want us here we wouldn't be here. They can easily dismantle us. And virus are not alive. Now days folks on the attack talk about them as intelligent enemies.
So the questions remain and the whole SarsCov2 or MonkeyPox drama reeks. Therefore we remain outliers.
Jun 14, 2022·edited Jun 14, 2022Liked by Abby Wynne
Good day Abby and all,
I am a bit older and my education may have included this idea. With that in mind...
congruence - is a term in geometry
Like you said about as above so below. Two triangles are congruent (symbol for congruence ≅ ) if their angles and sides are exactly the same.
next:
If you are a genuinely good person, you know that you are, and you don’t need to do that.
While I understand what you mean, the above statement is - very subjective. In the book called the Greek Buddha which is about Pyrrho's thought there is this statement:
...saying about every single pragmata
that it no more is than, it is not
or it both is and is not,
or it neither is nor is not. [1]
This is what it means to me. An area of land common to both neighbors is sprayed by an herbicide by neighbor A. Neighbor B is not happy about this as some small amount of his soil is affected by the herbicide.
Their shared culture the general consensuses is that herbicides are OK which is the view of A. But there are those who have be come aware of the side effect of herbicides and there drawbacks this is the view of B. Who is right?
How we apply the above three conditions. A sees it as good and B as bad.
For A then the pesticide is Good. However the follow "it" = pesticide:
it no more is than, it is not
For A it is but in Bs mind it is not
or it both is and is not,
At the same time in A and B - it both is and is not
or it neither is nor is not.
Ultimately the pesticide all by itself "is nor is not" good or bad. It is the view of a mind that determines that.
The last may seem untenable. But in the universe things come into being and then disperse via causes and conditions (i have a small understanding of buddhism). They are neither good nor bad.
[1]
Then Timon quotes Pyrrho’s own revelation of the three negative characteristics of all pragmata ‘matters, affairs, questions, topics’. The ethical meaning of the word pragmata is absolutely clear because other testimonies show that it meant for Pyrrho exclusively ethical ‘matters, affairs, topics’. Accordingly, the word will be so translated below, or given in Greek as pragmata (singular pragma), following these prefatory remarks, Timon says, “Pyrrho himself declares that”
As for pragmata ‘matters, questions, topics’, they are all adiaphora ‘undifferentiated by a logical differentia’ and astathmēta ‘unstable, unbalanced, not measurable’ and anepikrita ‘unjudged, unfixed, undecidable’. Therefore, neither our sense- perceptions nor our ‘views, theories, beliefs’ (doxai) tell us the truth or lie [about pragmata]; so we certainly should not rely on them [to do it]. Rather, we should be adoxastous ‘without views’, aklineis ‘uninclined [toward this side or that]’, and akradantous ‘unwavering [in our refusal to choose]’, saying about every single one that it;
no more is than it is not
or
it both is and is not
or
it neither is nor is not.
seeing oneself as good is a judgement or pramata. There is ethics. As we know ethic in some societies (ours) is very slippery. In Tibetan or Mahayana Buddhism ethics have been determined by the value they provide in stabilizing the mind and emotions thus enabling one to engage and realize the path to enlightenment.
I was out of my depths after congruence. Still the above may help in considering the status of our value judgments.
When I was a young mother, I followed church rules: god first, others second, me third. I remember the day I realized those rules were upside down! I confessed to my children that they should be at the top of the list. That one new belief changed how I began to honor myself not selfishly, but self care. A new truth.
I agree this is something that should be looked into further but I am too cynical to believe that it would be allowed (or acknowledged if it were) as it would provide too many de-programming routes for the majority.
I’ll add my understanding of how I personally believe I became part of the non-compliance group as many will be in a similar situation to me. It’s something I have thought long about, why don’t I think what they think etc, as for me it has been (and still is) an uncomfortable part of my life and one reason why I have no friends and have always found it hard to get along with others in a meaningful way. Loneliness sparks introspection in most of us I think.
I grew up in an abusive home, with a drunk father who beat my mother. As a child I was afraid a lot of the time and learnt to hide, distrust everyone and rebelled in the only way I could - not doing what I was told. Even today if someone tries to tell me what to do, as opposed to ask me, I automatically don’t want to do whatever it is! (I recognise this isn’t particularly helpful in most cases!)
At school I was an outsider because no one could come to play at my house, we had little money and my social skills were poor due to lack of good examples. This meant I didn’t develop the social group programming in the same way as other children.
I firmly believe that the distrust of others that my upbringing taught me, along with the lack of social interaction and therefore programming, is what allows me to see the lines of control and, if I choose to, step outside of them.
I also believe that people who had safe, happy, uneventful childhoods are the ones most likely to fall victim to control as adults. They were taught that other people can be trusted to keep them safe, they have never had reason to doubt, question, challenge or fight for their own safety and sanity. I obviously wish that we could all have happy, safe lives, and do not wish abuse on anyone, but the flip side of that comfort is often a dangerous and short sighted naivety.
Good day Abby,
DuAnne Redus and Lulu share very insightful wisdom. There is another aspect to the outlier at least in me and fortunately my wife. We don't trust our senses. Just as DuAnne and Lulu have share being strangers in society and also finding out that what society teaches is upside down. Our senses cannot be trusted.
Example: I worked in the woods, brush and grasslands most of my life. Rattlesnakes are common. My dad had no use for them. I asked myself why would a rattle snake bite me?
Well if I step on it, it would bite. I don't think anyone likes being stepped on. Also it is reflexive. If something pricks us or hurts in some way, we try reflexively to free ourselves. So that seemed a good excuse for the snake to bite me.
But I just couldn't believe that the rattlesnake had an instinctual wish to bite humans. They can't eat us etc. So I never killed them. I have never been bitten. I have been more than close enough to be bitten but they stayed coiled.
So I am by nature skeptical and I try my best to understand the other side. I am not always successful at understanding. But that is my short coming.
Why would a virus harm anyone? We drive or ride in cars everyday and at anytime we are riding/driving a car we can be severely injured or killed. No one worries about that. We have air, water, food and soil pollution, no one worries about that. Why this virus?
When I look at all the death and destruction that we actually can do collectively something about and don't, why do we freak out about this virus? Cancer and heart disease, all the autoimmune disease and on and on. Why are we freaked out about this virus?
For me it doesn't make sense. Dr. Lynn Margulis an amazing microbiologist (deceased) said if the micro biome and virome didn't want us here we wouldn't be here. They can easily dismantle us. And virus are not alive. Now days folks on the attack talk about them as intelligent enemies.
So the questions remain and the whole SarsCov2 or MonkeyPox drama reeks. Therefore we remain outliers.
Good day Abby and all,
I am a bit older and my education may have included this idea. With that in mind...
congruence - is a term in geometry
Like you said about as above so below. Two triangles are congruent (symbol for congruence ≅ ) if their angles and sides are exactly the same.
next:
If you are a genuinely good person, you know that you are, and you don’t need to do that.
While I understand what you mean, the above statement is - very subjective. In the book called the Greek Buddha which is about Pyrrho's thought there is this statement:
...saying about every single pragmata
that it no more is than, it is not
or it both is and is not,
or it neither is nor is not. [1]
This is what it means to me. An area of land common to both neighbors is sprayed by an herbicide by neighbor A. Neighbor B is not happy about this as some small amount of his soil is affected by the herbicide.
Their shared culture the general consensuses is that herbicides are OK which is the view of A. But there are those who have be come aware of the side effect of herbicides and there drawbacks this is the view of B. Who is right?
How we apply the above three conditions. A sees it as good and B as bad.
For A then the pesticide is Good. However the follow "it" = pesticide:
it no more is than, it is not
For A it is but in Bs mind it is not
or it both is and is not,
At the same time in A and B - it both is and is not
or it neither is nor is not.
Ultimately the pesticide all by itself "is nor is not" good or bad. It is the view of a mind that determines that.
The last may seem untenable. But in the universe things come into being and then disperse via causes and conditions (i have a small understanding of buddhism). They are neither good nor bad.
[1]
Then Timon quotes Pyrrho’s own revelation of the three negative characteristics of all pragmata ‘matters, affairs, questions, topics’. The ethical meaning of the word pragmata is absolutely clear because other testimonies show that it meant for Pyrrho exclusively ethical ‘matters, affairs, topics’. Accordingly, the word will be so translated below, or given in Greek as pragmata (singular pragma), following these prefatory remarks, Timon says, “Pyrrho himself declares that”
As for pragmata ‘matters, questions, topics’, they are all adiaphora ‘undifferentiated by a logical differentia’ and astathmēta ‘unstable, unbalanced, not measurable’ and anepikrita ‘unjudged, unfixed, undecidable’. Therefore, neither our sense- perceptions nor our ‘views, theories, beliefs’ (doxai) tell us the truth or lie [about pragmata]; so we certainly should not rely on them [to do it]. Rather, we should be adoxastous ‘without views’, aklineis ‘uninclined [toward this side or that]’, and akradantous ‘unwavering [in our refusal to choose]’, saying about every single one that it;
no more is than it is not
or
it both is and is not
or
it neither is nor is not.
seeing oneself as good is a judgement or pramata. There is ethics. As we know ethic in some societies (ours) is very slippery. In Tibetan or Mahayana Buddhism ethics have been determined by the value they provide in stabilizing the mind and emotions thus enabling one to engage and realize the path to enlightenment.
I was out of my depths after congruence. Still the above may help in considering the status of our value judgments.
be well
When I was a young mother, I followed church rules: god first, others second, me third. I remember the day I realized those rules were upside down! I confessed to my children that they should be at the top of the list. That one new belief changed how I began to honor myself not selfishly, but self care. A new truth.
Wonderful article, thank you.
I agree this is something that should be looked into further but I am too cynical to believe that it would be allowed (or acknowledged if it were) as it would provide too many de-programming routes for the majority.
I’ll add my understanding of how I personally believe I became part of the non-compliance group as many will be in a similar situation to me. It’s something I have thought long about, why don’t I think what they think etc, as for me it has been (and still is) an uncomfortable part of my life and one reason why I have no friends and have always found it hard to get along with others in a meaningful way. Loneliness sparks introspection in most of us I think.
I grew up in an abusive home, with a drunk father who beat my mother. As a child I was afraid a lot of the time and learnt to hide, distrust everyone and rebelled in the only way I could - not doing what I was told. Even today if someone tries to tell me what to do, as opposed to ask me, I automatically don’t want to do whatever it is! (I recognise this isn’t particularly helpful in most cases!)
At school I was an outsider because no one could come to play at my house, we had little money and my social skills were poor due to lack of good examples. This meant I didn’t develop the social group programming in the same way as other children.
I firmly believe that the distrust of others that my upbringing taught me, along with the lack of social interaction and therefore programming, is what allows me to see the lines of control and, if I choose to, step outside of them.
I also believe that people who had safe, happy, uneventful childhoods are the ones most likely to fall victim to control as adults. They were taught that other people can be trusted to keep them safe, they have never had reason to doubt, question, challenge or fight for their own safety and sanity. I obviously wish that we could all have happy, safe lives, and do not wish abuse on anyone, but the flip side of that comfort is often a dangerous and short sighted naivety.