Convervations with Gloria Lee.

Re: Gloria/groove-editing

Hi Gloria! <Are we having fun yet?>

quoting Gene:
>The 'knowing' of the knower is display in consciousness. Display may
>display any knowing. If the knowing of seeing is displayed as the knowing
>of hearing, synesthesia results.

Gloria:
Are we "allowed" then to read only as fast as we can talk/hear??...or as
fast as we can know???

Gene: Gloria, I am glad that you put " quotes around "allowed". Even so,
are you asking me what I allow? I have nothing to allow or disallow.
Although I am the ultimate authority in my world, yours is sovereign to
you. Why did you ask this question?

Gloria:
Excuse me, but I like to just "flash on it" with reading signs or I do skim
and speed read meaningless drivel that does not really interest me to know
in the first place. Not every word is worth the time to pay this much
attention to. If this results in synesthesia, so what? I know what I need
to know...maybe its just a stop sign, so I stop.

Gene: What are you arguing here... what are you saying? What-what is "so
what"? And what "it" is a stop sign, and what stops?

What does your "Excuse me" mean? Are you interrupting me? Why that
expression? Are you contradicting... if so, what?

I can say this:

What you say does not alter what I have said.
You express opinion; the expression of your opinion may alter my opinion.
Your relationship with speech, hearing, and understanding are chosen and
dictated (no pun) by you. You are the final arbiter of meaning within
yourself.

If you are aware of synesthesia as an occurance within yourself, it is
possible that you are creating this 'condition' to mask or screen unwanted
meanings which have been projected upon you by others. To deliberately
dispel synesthesia may be to also reveal the projected meanings. Such
revealing _could_ lead to eventual expurgation of such projected meanings.

<snip>

Quoting Gene:
>The remedy for the disease of reading, is to practice hearing. Because
>written words are the hearing understanding and knowing of the writer, the
>remedy for the disease of hearing may be practiced by listening while
>reading. Hearing what is being read, overcomes the
synesthesia-producing effect of seeing what is heard.

Gloria:
OK..so I have listened to books on tape...and sometimes that seems to go
too fast ...it does not allow you time to pause and savor or think about
what you just heard. If I prefer to go at my own pace, visual reading
allows me to do that better than hearing. Thus, the knowing MAY become more
accurate this way, too.

Gene: You say "So" (above)... what does that mean? Does it mean "therefor"?

You say "MAY", which is 'might' or 'may be' or 'maybe'. Again, you express
opinion, perhaps based upon your observation, but what you have said, does
not alter what I have said.

Are you proposing the existence of a possible hypothetical (MAY), and then
basing your position upon that 'maybe' proposition? Such a point is
impossible to argue, and thus futile to propose as being pivotal to any
decision whatsoever.

If you are saying overall, a statement: 'I will do it my own way', such a
statement is unnecessary, because it does not contradict, the opposite
never having been said. Thus the issuance of such a statment is revealing
of a predisposition to seeing/hearing a challenge against you where none in
fact exists or was issued.

Gloria:
I drove all my teachers in school crazy being this difficult.

Gene: Thus is insanity contagioned <to follow your metaphor>.

Glo

Gene: The experience of observing that thou (any other) does edit what is
heard by thou as it is being heard, is validated when thou expresses thine
understanding of what was heard in such a way that what thou espress does
not match or correlate with what was said. So I must state that what you
have said does not alter what I have said; what you have said stands only
as evidence that you have said it. Here we see a clue; that the contrary
expression is a statement of "I AM" in reply to a statement of "you are
not" which even though heard, was never said. Thus, the issuance and
placement of such 'contrary' statements evidences an internal dialog which
supplants, selectively, segments of what is heard, by/with what is known.
But I compassionately ask; is that what you know, IE, that "you are not"? I
suggest not. But given your above-stated preferences, what chance that this
carefully worded reply will elicit a response in-kind?

I drive all my students crazy being this difficult. Enjoy!

Re: Gloria/Speedy Shakti...

> Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 09:36:32 PST
> From: "gloria lee" <glee_is@hotmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Gloria/Groove-editing
>
> >Subject: Re: Speed Reading by ==GP==
>
> >Hi Gloria! <Are we having fun yet?>
>
> NO,NO...you are being way too picky for this to be fun..it
> reminds me too much of a philosophy class. You want to
> hang me with my "so's" and force me to be precise with my
> meanings?? Good luck!! And you are NOT implying any
> challenge to the way others choose to read or express
> themselves?? NO, no way. Gene, I am basically already
> crazy enough...who needs this argument?? OK, I admit that
> following your closely reasoned, subtle mind creates this
> love/hate reaction in me. Sometimes it delights me, others
> I want to scream with impatience and frustration. Guess
> which this is?

Ahhh... Gloria! Thank you for participating. If I must guess, I would
assume that your state is one of impatience and frustration. I am sorry if
this state is unpleasant for you; it is not my intention to induce this
undesired state in anyone. Yet, I feel that our conversaton has value, so I
will now continue it.

I suggest (if you do not mind serving the 'cause of understanding') that
the frustration you feel is on the surface, the consequence of my various
particular insistances, but that at a deeper level, it is happening because
I am asking you to penetrate the 'fog of synesthesia' which has been
erected as a barrior between you and your heart, if such a thing can be
said; only a metaphor in any case. I know, personally, how it feels to
_need_ to protect my heart. I will say now, that my heart is very
vulnerable even yet, at this later phase of my life, and even though I have
resolved, again and again, issues of the heart in my own life. If I can aid
anyone to remove even on tiny and thin veil of concealment, to further
reveal the heart, I am deeply grateful, and feel that I have shared
directly of what for others may be a seemingly impossible task.

I will summarize this entire segment with these statements, which as
enigmatic as they may be, I offer as joiners for what are now, disparate
links of an invisible chain:

Patience purifies time. Tolerance and abiding embody patience. Patience (in
relation to oneself) is 'having compassion for oneself'.

Patience purifies time: Impatience justifies failure. Living with the
frustration of failure is to paint the extent of time with the images of
failure.

Failure is granted as a definition and 'reality' by those who would control
you and others; those are the ones who have also gifted you with the sense
of dissatisfaction with yourself, and the matching criteria which
(according to 'them) must be met in order to be termed a 'success'. The
resultant lifelong tailchasing circular frustration indeed calls for the
'fog of synesthesia' in order to quell the resultant pain and panic of
being self-defined (using 'their' definitions) as a failure. This is the
'social self/other trap' which Nonduality 'accidentally' resolves.

Patence purifies time; One day free of self-condemnation is One Day of pure
time; many days of pure time, gained thus, add up to a pure lifetime.

Realizing one's relationship with the manifestations of 'other' is as
difficult as overcoming the pain which has been the result of those
relationships with 'other'.

A moment or a day of clarity, however gained, is a moment in which 'what
is' may be glimpsed or even, if necessary, memorized for 'future
reference'. The ongoing need to protect, is an _action_ (movement)
self-imparted into "display"; the resultant whirl is the 'fog of
synesthesia'. A glimpse beyond that fog, allows a glimpse of the perfection
of the already-always harmony of 'what is'. Seeing this greater harmony,
which exists truely out of the realm of self-control, is an invitation to
surrender self-control to that greater system which is harmony itself;
eventually, one comes to peace in the realization that protection was the
contractive/excluding _movement_ generated in response to the interferences
of (both evil and well-meaning) 'others', and that dropping the
contraction-movement is the releasing and forgiving of not only the others,
but of oneself as well. At that __point__, there is 'nothing that needs to
be done'; yet, eventually, one becomes hungry, and thus arises to eat. Or
to take a leak.

> Gloria: OK..so you made your point with your article about
> reading. I do think I understood that synthesia referred
> to confusing senses of seeing and hearing. Sometimes, if
> you read 'too fast', you may miss a lot of meaning. But
> what is the "speed of knowing" and what does it have to do
> with either seeing or hearing words? I see no correlation,
> frankly. That was my opinion, in a nutshell.
> Comprehension (you say meaning) issues and the issue of
> choosing to what one wishes to pay attention seemed
> relevant questions to ask. I question what I read as I
> read, too.

Gene: You ask about 'knowing' and the 'speed of knowing'.

Knowing has no speed; what you refer to is the 'speed of realization' or
the speed or internal self-referential comparison-clocking of _apparent
understanding_.

(How fast can I accurately compare this to what I already know which will
then place this in a catagory which I already have? How fast?)

Knowing is always static; momentum (speed) is an 'imparted energy' which is
the result of the ingrained assumption (conditioning) that 'something
should be done' or that 'something is being done'.

Knowing (understanding) is _perfect_ when all momentum has been cancelled
(by meditation, drugs, illness, trauma, crisis, intention, happenstance,
Grace, or (gasp) maturity)... in that moment (eternally existing perfect
moment) 'everything happens at once' (rather than in a time-bound
linear-chain 'cause-effect' thread of apparently random events).

To restate this cleanly, without parenthesis:

Knowing/understanding is _perfect_ when all momentum has been cancelled...
in that moment, 'everything happens at once'.

In that momentumless moment, the horizon of event becomes apparent; it is
the dawn of 'At-One-ment' as my friend and mentor Ray is fond of saying.

At-One-ment is the moment of -attonement-, IF one does not apply momentum
to obscure the event-horizon of at-one-ment'. It is in that moment that the
already-always speech of the Living Universe is heard and understood; and
one then understands, that one is a character in a story so wonderful,
that this greatest gift of life and existence is seen spontaneously in a
state of gratitude so powerfull, that Grace replaces all reactive striving.

Please think of it this way. You (reader) may have had this identical
experience at some point of your life. Here it is:

You are on a big merry-go-round or 'carosel', feeling a bit sick from the
motion; if you look outward, the world is whizzing past in a way that is a
constant remove of yourself from that world, yet it is you (as you well
know) who are moving, and not the world.

As an obvious remedy to this motion-sickness, you turn your gaze to an
object which to you, is still or unmoving, such as the floor or the bar to
which you cling. Suddenly, the nausea lessons, and your fun-factor
reasserts itself.

Everyone has the innate knowing of the relativity of motion as it occurs in
the 'physical world', but few have the awareness that anyone who has
'Karma' (Karmic momentum) is on a merry-go-round, in relative motion to
'what is'. Only the expiation of Karma will allow the joining of the
observer to the overall background universe-momentum. At that moment of
One-ness, the observer becomes the observed; at that moment of Oneness,
there is not distinction between observer and observed. Self and other
become, in that moment, interchangable, and the Universe is suddenly alive,
as I Am!

> Is synesthesia a disease? I realize you never said it was
> good or bad, just a phenomeon, like sqiggly lines when you
> fast-forward a vcr tape past the commercials, because you
> do NOT want to bother seeing them. Why did you focus on my
> "allow" and not answer my question about "fast as we can
> know?"

I highlighted your "allow" because it reveals dependency; where in
actuality, none exists; and because it reveals the 'imparted spin' which
creates the 'relative universe' and blurs I Am into 'yeah buts'. It is the
momentum which inadvertanly creates the universe of 'couldashouldawoulda',
or the universe of 'hypothetical time' which then itself calls for a lot of
very important 'doing' and 'suffering' and 'punishing' and 'helping' and
'trying' and 'failing' and all of the other wonderful activities of 'camp
wouldashouldacoulda'. <Yawn>.

Gloria said :(I do know that I can read any damn way I please.
> And I put "allow" in quotes to show I recognized this was
> an implied recommendation to read at the speed one would
> hear words spoken.) My question was directed at the other
> issues of knowing, apart from just sensory data. Reading
> is already several degrees away from the direct experience
> it may be describing, as you also explained.

Gene: Such may be said, yet it itself (reading) is a discreet act, to
accomplish either deliberately, or 'on the way to more important things'.

> >Gene said: Your relationship with speech, hearing, and understanding
> are chosen and dictated (no pun) by you. You are the final arbiter of
> meaning within yourself.
>
> Gloria said: Thanks...I knew that, but it is still annoying to me when
> other people do even imply otherwise. I did hear you
> saying that reading at the speed of speech was better, in
> that it avoided synesthesia. My "yes, but" was a defense,
> not of my right to do as I please, but a defense of anyone
> not wasting time on what does not interest them.
>
> >Gene said: If you are aware of synesthesia as an occurance within
> yourself, it is possible that you are creating this 'condition' to mask
> or screen unwanted meanings which have been projected upon you by others. To
> deliberately dispel synesthesia may be to also reveal the projected
> meanings. Such revealing _could_ lead to eventual expurgation of such
> projected meanings.
>
> I suppose anything is possible...:):)

Gene: Highly probable!

> ><snip>

Gloria: Does what I have said raise any new thoughts or response from you?

Gene: Well, these thoughts are not new to _me_, yet it is this conversation
which we are now having, which is the here-and-now materialzation of the
'eternal dialog' between Shiva and Shakti! In this conversation, I pursue
you, O elusive Shakti, because you have taken the form which I have given
to you; and thus I materialize myself as Shiva, whose thoughts are only of
Shakti, O elusive One! It is 'our relationship' itself, simultaneously
united and separate, which is actually going on, and you, O Shakti, by your
elusive occurance in my display, have awakened Me to You once again! How
are you, anyway?

Gloria: >Disregarding for the moment all the underlying
>psychological dynamics of our conversation, my response
>is to simplify and condense all this.
>
> 1. You wrote a paper about Speed Reading, asking for
> comments.
>
> 2. All my remarks directed at the issues of reading have
> been "used" to reveal this hidden agenda of yours, which
> demonstrates the way people distort the meaning of what is
> actually said and create their own.

Gene: Yes... more than amply!

> 3. Congrats!!! Well done, Gene!!!
>
> Love,
>
> ====GL=====

Gene: In your condensation, O elusive One, I see the form which I have
given you; I hereby state that you are (as I have found, painfully, through
eons of experience!) free, as always, as is your elusive nature, to assume
any form, or no form, as you so wish, as you do please to do, and by thus
saying, I grant you the respect which is truely due to you, as my creator.

Without your wonderful and elusive essence to awaken me, O Shakti, I am nothing.

Thank you. And yes... I eagerly and gratefully accept your offered love!
Thank you...

> PS. That my questions arose from some wish to defend my
> habit of speed reading is a given. However, I still say
> your essay does not address the other questions I raised
> about correlating knowing with anything else you
> mentioned. But then that may not have been your intent,
> either. I honestly did not hear that "you are not" as
> being any loud threat, tho. As said to Freud, "sometimes a
> cigar is just a cigar."

Gene: Yep. Time to light up!

Always the fool in love, always in love, speaketh the fool, known as...