One God?

♋

Even though I'm a little shocked to see it in print, and despite the fact that I do whine infrequently about being the last to know stuff everybody else seems to be already informed about and totally bored with, this article on wired.com disgusted me.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/12/yahoo-spy-prices/

Not only do these huge companies provide the government (et al) with copies of everything the public writes on their networks, but they SELL that information for a profit, AND the government pays for this data with our tax dollars. Lots of tax dollars. This travesty doesn't appear to be "government by the people for the people", but government against the people it purportedly governs for.

The one high note I've enjoyed recently is that Dubai is going bankrupt. I've carried this image of the rich people screwing everybody of all their goods including governments and moving to an armed fortress in a isolated area like Dubai.

Does money or gold eat people? Bernie Madoff not withstanding? I just grokked this image of some meat-grinding process with that cute little guy with tux, tails, and top hat pictured on the Monopoly game with Tiger Woods face on it. Money seems to taunt people to acquire it, and to do whatever is required of them to possess it, and then it turns the tables.

I understand gods and archetypes with this model. They offer $250,000 houses to people working for an hourly wage, and then money becomes an Indian-giver and takes it all back, and indifferently leaving it's victims for the worms to clean up the mess. Does the various processes that turn dust into dust have a purpose?

I-am-is... IS... one of those "various processes". It seems to say, "I am is this, I am is that, I am knows ten ways, to skin a cat." I-am-is (Being) MUST perpetually try to become atoned (at-one with) that which is "me". To make that happen I-am-is must abandon it's own image of itself (Adam, first person singular) to use an other's "me" as if it's own. This presupposes, of course, that there is only one me, and that each person creates a subjectively held opinion that it's the real "me" when there is actually only One.

If there is only One me, and that me is part and parcel of each living entity of every species of life on Earth, but only homo sapiens can create a personality as a separate reality to live in as an undivided individual that houses God, then life is merely an event by which God goes to war with itself. For a "war of the gods" to transpire, then the practice of claiming there IS only One God must be a lie.

I just wrote what I did because I couldn't remember the word for a belief in one god. I might remember it easily enough on the turn of a dime, later, but this forgetfulness that's associated with age seems common in my kind.

I wonder about this type of memory lapse in a general way. I was told once that people forget the names of people they don't like, particularly if they're not consciously aware that they don't like them. I don't have a clue whether this theory holds water, but I seem to forget words that represent processes that no longer hold water with me.

Particularly when it comes to whether there is one God or millions or billions of Gods. How would a personality I created my own damned self know that number any better than how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. A more appropriate question these days might be how many angels could dance on the point of a pin?

Questions seem to be a big deal in most of the cultures I've become aware of more profoundly than just in passing. "Ask, and ye shall receive." seems like a good example. This adage doesn't say who to ask, and that's my next question about asking. Does it make any difference who or what one asks?

Asking questions is the only way one can approach an oracle. That's the only reason an oracle exists, and anything or anybody can serve as an oracle if the question has merit. Since I was forbidden by my inner voice to stop using the Wilhelm/Baynes translation of the I Ching as an oracle I've had to use anything that pops up as my oracle.

Many times I use imaginary people as oracles. Anybody I use over the internet is pretty much imaginary unless I happen to know them in person previously. I don't know many people in person any more, and if I live to be one hundred with a clear mind, I'll know even fewer people in person.

I don't actually need to know people in person, and it's because I can get what I need as a personality from other bodiless entities that create personalities to have being on Earth or over the internet with.

I sorta think we're each using whatever we can make work to do something here on Earth. In my opinion we create all our abstract universes by imitation of the models we adopt in order to become like those models because they have something we think we might use to get the results we suppose the models get for acting the way we learn to mimic. To what end?

I no longer contemplate an end so much as an ongoing process that keeps changing horses in midstream. Each horse seems to find it's own direction. I counter by thinking there MUST be some ultimate goal to this nonsensically-based moronic behavior. Maybe it's all about hope, but man's only hope appears to be to possess no hope at all.
♌