a reply to:
XipeTotex
Hey. You might think I am stalking you. You would be correct. I happened upon a reply of yours this afternoon and found it interesting in thought. It
was about the need for consumers and producers once the elite take over completely.
As I am unfamiliar with your thinking I decided to check out your threads only to fine two. Not enough for me so I started clicking into some of your
replies and found them intriguing.
Then I found this one. You say you identify as an observer. This struck me in concert with a few other tid-bits you have offered up in your thinking.
When I was 18 and in my first year of college I found myself involved with a number of different esoteric discussion groups. As well, I felt at home
with an equal assortment of political action committees.
All stressed involvement, involvement that would activate my being in it's direction while de-activating my being in others.
And the esoteric, well, those promised the ''truth'' but all would take intense consideration over years which also would leave considerations of
others lacking.
Then one afternoon in the student commons I was contemplating this and that, here and there and realized that I did not need to be a ''doer'' and
could accept being a ''be-er''. And almost immediately I began to observe.
That was 1965 and I have tried to maintain that ''observer status'' since. Not always successfully. I collected information and experiences beyond the
normal of my day but found that the inclination to become a ''do-er'' nagged at me for various reasons. Finally I came in contact with what I thought
would be a very open minded and observing group and was drawn to them.
Turned out they were very very do-ing oriented and I got sucked into a cult for 4 years. I managed my own escape, unlike so many that did not.
Anyway, did you ever hear the story about the two philosophy students? They were in a heavy discussion on the true state of human existence. One was
completely taken with the belief that human consciousness was based on being while the other thought it based on doing. That to be could not be
without action, hence being was dependent upon action, while the other stressed that there could be no action that was not first based on being.
Their debate raged on for hours. Finally, as the dinner hour was nearing it's end, a young woman who had been sitting at a table close by and who had
been listening to their conversation, wiped her mouth and put down her fork and spoon. She got up from her table and walked over to the two young men.
She looked at them both and told them she had been listening in to which they both asked for her opinion as she was rather attractive both thought
that maybe, just maybe that should she side with one of them it might mean a chance to score.
She replied that she was deeply into philosophy as well but followed the teachings of her own personal philosophy of Sinatrianism. They looked
perplexed. Sinatriansim? they both questioned. ''Yeah' you know the philosopher, Frank? He says doobe doobe do.