Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 05:47:38 -0800 (PST)
From:
Subject: Re: TT dolls, dools, dransformadions

nyc@com wrote:

that remitters ii, anxa, that scott, yourcurrentman, had huge issues with his mommi, it might dobe fair to actually say that he was in love with his own mother (scott, are you outin there, would that dobe fitting?), ... anyhow, did speranza get promotit to his new mommi ... didoes speranza lick to dobe mommi.... you see, bones, as ii saids, s'mothers are a bood thinkg to cick a round some




In a message dated 1/10/2007 3:27:47 PM Eastern Standard Time, nyc writes:

anxa, could you point to a critiQal post dealing with kitkat's liTTer via the od-channel that could have been penned by you, or, booder: 's.

+ - + - + how about your "own" mama (you freewilled not to go there) .... are you dobeeing a "sparing" relationship with her?

.... oder fliegen die fetzen, ab & an?




ps: will make rent-money for nextmothn by ripping out shelves tomorrow... the beautybeast of liidii.





In a message dated 1/10/2007 11:28:36 AM Eastern Standard Time, speranza@com writes:



nyc@com wrote:



hey anxa, dobefore i forgets=covers it: ii was wondering, unlike jit, and whoever plays around anonod, you never seem to engage in all this pullpushit that kathryn puTsouThere (unlike pit's, which you do, here and there, and which is veryii much appreciated indeed - dankeschoen ~ keep it coming!).... why is that.... does speranza have some un'kind of mutter-complex (to wards older boinds). or why does she never touch the kitkat {of course, you stupid pit, there is all ways the cancge, and maybe not just that, that speranza and kitkat are, so to say, on the same wave lenght)








In a message dated 1/10/2007 9:31:30 AM Eastern Standard Time, nyc writes:






it is rather a musingsong for the ii to watch the klown fliptheflop from her peterlie to the bohmlie to the budhahahalie

       for example: perhaps somebody likes to be flattered and then he finds that the person who flatters him can take advantage of him. it happens again and again and again. he doesnt want that, but it happens. there is an incoherence here because its not his intention to be taken advantage of. but he has another intention he doesnt thinkg about, which is that he wants the glow of feeling that comes from the flattery. you can see that one implies the other because if he accepts the flattery then he also will accept a lot of other thinkgs the person says or does. he can be taken advantage of. therefore he has both a conscious intention, and another one which is going against it. thats a very common situation [note: >geres and >pu&re]

        david bohm TAS, "thought as system", p 10




doolover kitkat, you are such a purpurpurfact fol'lower



ps: is it (you&selves) hurtingtong that much?










In a message dated 1/10/2007 9:14:24 AM Eastern Standard Time, kitkat@com writes:




Frankly, if Peter can’t understand how warped his attitude towards women is, and get past it, - plus claiming to be so into world harmony and all that jazz – not to mention he fancies himself some kind of specialist in BD – who cares?  He doesn’t practice what he preaches any more than my grandfather did.

And if, with all his experience in BD, he can’t get past such an obvious imbalance, certainly “dialogue” - words alone aren’t enough.  Frankly, all this BD is nothing but Bohm’s version of Buddhism, anyway.  Except the Buddhists made more sense.  They say that experience must accompany “word play”.  Something I had posted here before I read the Buddhist pov.  And that new experience has to be accompanied by direct (meaning free of previous reflexive responses and meanings), fresh perception.

If I’m not good enough to be a face to face friend, forget lover – I’m not good enough to talk/email to.

Nobody ever said life is perfect.  Remember “I Never Promised You a Rose Garden”?  The theme to that book is the whole point to life.  Peter is not taking responsibility for changing his contribution to the world’s imbalance.  Until he does, his words about anything else are meaningless.  “Sound and fury signifying nothing.”  And the overwhelming attitude on this list is pessimism.

Peter is a living example of one of the things that needs changing in order for the world to be more in balance.

As for the rest of the names on OD – none of you ever has a different pov from Peter’s.  Why is that?

And no – I don’t hate my children.




On 1/10/07 6:00 AM, "jan" <jan@com> wrote:



kit:  right, and he just hates women.  Certainly my sons, with whom I’ve shared this with, warn me that Peter is most likely physically abusive.  That literally makes me want to cry.

kit, why does that make you want to cry?
 
(is there anyone who is not physically abusive when pushed far enough?)

did the kit never hitshakepushovehate her children?

veriiiviolent&dangerousmadgranniijit

ps, longticeback my kiddos thought it might not dobe a bood idea for the jit to stay at the pits in nyc...at the tice he was calling hisself the axman......laugh....

kiddos can dobe a tad too protective towarddss their mamapapas, such a nuisance to have to pick up the bits of flatteneddistraughtt&sickold parents&theirvictimmmmmms

pps talking of which, how is ute, pit?

From: nyc@com
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 12:54:18 EST
Subject: Re: TT enligtenment (plus...) motherholnessmess
To: ....





before i address your email, ii wants to ask you, again:





k, you ARE like a politician/preacher. you

run on a plat-form of "change" and once

someboind takes you up on that and wants to

know: you blow big smoke.

what kind of crap is that. did you 'learn'

that from bohm/dialogue?

since YOU dont start saying what 'needs' to

be changed, ii will let loose a few TesT

balloons:

kitkat consumes about 40-50 times more than

the average humanimal on 'mother earth' -

now, is that somethinkg k needs=wants to

change? and if so, how so?

can we start there (we might as well),

dobecause this one alone will open a w'hole

lot of bood worms'holes'cans

pit






a - "not addressed how you see k filling this conception of yours": i do not know what you are asking, please say some more

b - "bombardment" of "violent" pix, and also some pills: you are an idiot, kitkat. and you might want to ask yourself why you see pendooming suicide because someboind sends images of that nature. ps: why do you not re-send those pix, since i cant recall, and we all here take a look and talk. how abou that

c - never claimed i or ii was in "love" with liidii... and?

d - you dobeing flip-the-flop, k: one tice you claim peter cant love, then you claim i am loving

e - how was i very "cruel". please, explain

f - why do you say pits diet is "negative thought". it is thought, ok, but what makes it "negative", tell us

g - yes, i dido use different handles and keep playing around with packaging & contents... so what?

h - yes, i and ii plays mind-games, the whole liidii is a mitter-game... and?

i - btw: you never got into your "mind-fuck" thinkg, kathryn. why?

j - what is a "mind-fuck", k... and what does it do

k - "a little bit happier" :  ii didoes not subsribe to that belief/system

l - ii can see a "need" for peter to change. and ii can see a greed for peter to change. and ii can see a no-need for peter to change. and ii can see a noway for peter to change. and ii can see that peter cannot change. and ii can see that peter cannot change himselves and anythinkg else, like "the world"... yes, ii can see many thinkgs

m - does k thinkg she 'needs' to change. herselves? how? and how does she thinkg this is done?

n - did k study systems-dynamics yet?

o - peter has friendships (face to face), and peter does like them, or doesnt like them, or both, all in flux. but peter also has no desire/need to meet kathryn face-to-face.... maybe peter is just picky. also: to deal with you in this forumformat, klown, does satisfy his appetite for kitkatiness.

p - the kitkats of this world love life because this is part of their prokilogramming. it is part of the humanature, part of y'our programm. "love" is an 'invention' of evolution. it is just a(mother) thinkg in the tool-box of tas.

q - lies peter was told: that is a looooong list, kiti. and ii might post a separete  post. but if you 're reading attentively the emails from peter over the past weeks you could have a bood ideage by now.

r - what made ii "decide" it 's lies: liidiing, kiti, open your is and your eyes









In a message dated 1/9/2007 11:17:33 AM Eastern Standard Time, kitkat writes:

You have not addressed how you see Kitkat filling this conception of yours.  But just in case – You have given the impression in these discussions as bombarded with distressing, violent images followed by a handfull of pills – all of which made me think you were ready to commit suicide; stated you really aren’t in love with life; you have gone through mood changes from loving and warm to very cruel in a matter of minutes; you have presented thought that is totally pessimistic and negative as a steady diet – pretended you are several different people (Kris, Zoe) before saying you’re Peter; play mind games and say you love them – and yet cannot see that Kitkat’s concern for Peter is not smother? 
You cannot see where she would want some change for YOU that would make life a little happier for you?
You cannot see a need for YOU to change?
You see the desire to have a friendship that includes the sharing of things we both like – face to face – as smother?
You see the fact that I love life as denial?

Tell us, Peter.  What WERE the lies you were told?  By whom?  What made you decide they were lies?   If ________had REALLY loved me, s/he would have (not) _________________.


On 1/8/07 4:05 PM, "nyc@.com" <nyc> wrote:

a - P.O.L. = prisoner of love. those critters who are (so the attempt) stuffing the(ir) bigappinhole in their liidii with the pro&duction of a child. a baby is all ways the pro&duct of selfishnessmess.  thus the offspring is allready loaded (with expectations and ab use)  before it has even manged to get out of that vaginahole just to end up into another one: the motherasshole (most of them neva struggle out of that).

it all centers on the fact that the mother monopolizes the childs world; at first she IS his world. the child cannot survive w/o her, yet in order to get control of his own powers he has to get free of her. the mother thus represents two thinkgs to the child, and it helps us understand why the psychoanalysts have said that ambivalence characterizes the whole early growth period. on the one hand the mother is a pure source of pleasure and satisfaction, a secure power to lean on. she must appear as the goddess of beauty and goodness, victory and power; this is her "light" side, we might say, and it is blindly attractive. but on the 'other' hand the child has to strain against this very dependency, or he loses the feeling that he has aegis over his own powers. that is another way of saying that the mother, by representing secure biological dependence, is also the fundamental threat.

The child goes through natural stages when s/he begins to separate from this mother dependency.  One is the “no” stage, another is when s/he is able to crawl away and come back at will, then walk and play.
Sometimes, it’s necessary to push them out of the nest.  If the parent inhibits this, there is a problem.  All parents don’t. Mine didn’t, and I, as parent, didn’t.   What was your particular experience?  Do you remember?

Then, in old age, the parent becomes the child.

the humanimal has so many thinkgs that put it into a bind that it simply cannot stand them unless it expiates them in some way. each boind cannot stand his own emergence and the many ways in which his organism is dumbly baffled from within and transcended from without. each boind would literally be pulled off his feet and blown away or would gnaw away his own insides with acid anxiety if he did not tuck himself back into somethinkg,. can you say: escape, kiti.

I don’t understand what you’re saying, Peter.  Please give me a concrete example so I can find one in my own experience, or look for some other way to understand you.


this is why the main general charcteristic of guilt is that it must be shared. can you say: groups, bones. a boind cannot stand alone. archaic wo'man gives ("love") because s'he wants to lose; the psychology is self-sacrificial. thus: what the giver wants to lose is guilt". or, metaphorically, in the gift complex dependence on the mother is acknowledged, and then overcome by mothering -s'mothering- others". society, culture, in other words, is a dramatization of dependence and an exercise in mutual saftey.

I’m lost here, too.  Please give me real experience, metaphor, anything to help me follow you.  I read this to Stephen, and he simply said he couldn’t follow you either because he had not had whatever experience you’ve had that makes you think this way.

I would really like to understand you because I in spite of your mess, I know there’s more than that.


b - you can say whatever about those sons loving mommy. if they dont talk for themselves that means not much, to say the least

If you mean talk to you, they don’t want to be bothered.  They can barely understand why I am.

c - little encore: http://thinkg.net/pit/19.html




In a message dated 1/8/2007 9:56:12 AM Eastern Standard Time, kitkat writes:


Thanks for the correction.  Exactly what are the attributes of that assholishmothernessmess, and exactly how does Kitkat manifest this – in Peter’s eyes?  And yes, my sons do like Kitkat as a mommy.  BTW – both of them strongly advised me AGAINST ever meeting you in person. 

Particularly the youngest is into online groups, and constantly clues me in on various subterfuges people in online groups use.


On 1/8/07 9:39 AM, "nyc" <nyc> wrote:

In a message dated 1/8/2007 8:43:01 AM Eastern Standard Time, kitkat writes:

BTW – did you ever figure out just how i remind you of your Mommie?

kit, you didoe not just get this one wrong=not: kathryn didoes remitters peter not of his mutter, he see in her that assholishmothernessmess that he, yes, correct, abhors. ps: do k's sons like k (as a mama)?

k, my gut-feeling says you are right: this is all peter. that gmail-account too, i bet. think he lost it. wonder why. but cannot waste time on it. whatever

kitkat wrote:

The core beliefs DETERMINE the quality of the inquiry into them. How to get beneath THAT? What is to be done
 

when inquiry itself, has a vested interest in self sabotage? Well, you begin in an area where
 
life is intolerable. You begin where there is readiness to really understand the difference
 
between what is true and what is not. You begin with the question "Is it true?" and then,
 
you suspend the reflexive responses and really take a good look at the clearly stated
 
belief.  And because of the injunction to write the beliefs down, one begins with an idea at least, that these beliefs, facing the light of earnest inquiry, will 'try' to slip out of sight as quickly as possible. In the process, there develops an awareness of the otherwise impossibly slippery nature of implicit beliefs.

This is as insightful and valuable as the questions my mentor gave me to begin with.  And frankly, I have the sense that all of this is Peter – who he really is, whether or not he is bipolar. Or tripolar.  Just know that I cannot and do not take the credit for these insightful questions that are leading me to what I see.  And it’s more than the questions.  It’s the everyday interaction, and the way it makes me feel body-mind.  So if you are Peter – so many things I would say; and if you aren’t, it’s ok, too.  I’m happy to have you as “roommate”. k

On 12/29/06 9:01 AM, "optical dialogue" <opticaldialogue@xyc.net> wrote:

 

http://www.illusionsgallery.com/Girl-Defending-Boug-L.jpg
 

 
K really streamlined the inquiry [into the content of core beliefs] process.
 
This seemed to happen in almost a flukey way {it would not have seemed at all possible to
 
simplify it to the degree she did if I had not seen it [and I saw it hundreds of times] with
 
my own eyes.} The process of inquiry she discovered seemed nothing short of miraculous to me.
 
And obviously to Bohas well (who had spent his life exploring wisdom traditions
 
before encountering HDS). I personally, had discovered a few implicit core beliefs during the
 
years of my mother's exit. But k poured GASOLINE on the inquiry process for me. Talk about the
 
forest and the trees - talk about something being as close as the nose on your face - talk about

the invisibility of that which is everywhere - this is the kind of thing we speak of. The core beliefs
 
DETERMINE the quality of the inquiry into them. How to get beneath THAT? What is to be done
 
when inquiry itself, has a vested interest in self sabotage? Well, you begin in an area where
 
life is intolerable. You begin where there is readiness to really understand the difference
 
between what is true and what is not. You begin with the question "Is it true?" and then,
 
you suspend the reflexive responses and really take a good look at the clearly stated
 
belief.
 

 
And because of the injunction to write the beliefs down, one begins with an idea at least, that these beliefs, facing the light of earnest inquiry, will 'try' to slip out of sight as quickly as possible. In the
 
process, there develops an awareness of the otherwise impossibly slippery nature of implicit beliefs.
 

 
I am new to the list, may I add. X, who wants ro remain nameless, told me about you, gave me the key. I am your room-mate now, if you may.  To find out what thought is all about, this is where I want to invest my life. Thank you for your services!
 


kitkat wrote:
 
 

Why are they starting the Fantasy all over again?


On 12/28/06 9:14 PM, "kitkat" <kitkat> wrote:

 
 

Yes – SO?

On 12/28/06 8:55 PM, "optical dialogue" <opticaldialogue@xyc.net> wrote:

 
 
Mama kitkat http://www.macmaps.com/Galapagos/8-30-2003/8-30-2003-Images/41.jpg
 

 
Ha-ha-ha!!

kitkat wrote:
 
 
 

Peter is NOT full of shit.  I don’t know what else he is, but he’s not that.  Nor is he compassionless.  And I don’t want to get into an argument with anybody tonight because I already feel sick to my stomach and depressed.  I’m listening to Bach, and if you keep messing with Peter, I’ll stop reading.  Leave him alone!

On 12/28/06 7:57 PM, "dwight smith" <dwight@pubnix.net> wrote:

 
 
 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1770205142984768785&sourceid=searchfeed      

optical dialogue <opticaldialogue@xyc.net> wrote:  

 

if i cantnot give wyo myt love at elasyt take thsi one ffork mem and ethe bottpm of me haersat:
 

 
http://www.fontblog.de/C1133814189/E859091379/Media/Rotbaeckchen.jpg
 

 
ypoiur pit

kitkat wrote:
 

 

Not feeling well.  Maybe tomorrow, too.  Got a 2 hour dental procedure then.  k


On 12/28/06 2:39 PM, "optical dialogue" <opticaldialogue@xyc.net> wrote:

I sent that section a couple of days ago.  I’ll resend it tomorrow.  That’s the very first thing that has to be addressed.  It’s still in outline form.  I think best that way.  Then go back and put it in prose structure.


On 12/26/06 11:08 PM, "optical dialogue" <opticaldialogue@xyc.net> wrote:

what is bohm's goal anyhow?

kitkat wrote:

Yes.  That’s the next part.  Got quite a bit done on that, but not enough.  That’s the trick.  To make that as easy to identify as possible.  Otherwise, it’s not useful.  Sally earlier tonight was complaining the Bohm spins his wheels.  Nothing is accomplished.  Had difficulty understanding that the focus has to be on process, proprioreception, and that doesn’t mean “no change”.  It simply means change/movement isn’t going to get done if you don’t sense and see the process at work in yourself and others. Apparently the way it’s been presented, including by Factor, has confused a lot of people on that.
Will send the next sections when I’m almost satisfied with them.  Maybe out of the final sequence, because sequence is important to understanding.  Will work in the morning.  Afternoon is gym time again, thank goodness – then social things.
Takes a lot of actual experience to deal with the “pushing buttons”  and catching the reflexes at work.  OD has been VERY helpful on that one.  (Kathy laughing)
OK – take care.  k


On 12/26/06 10:44 PM, "optical dialogue" <opticaldialogue@xyc.net> wrote:

 

how does it work??

kitkat wrote:
 
Guess you might call it that.  Understand how it works, observe it in action, see what effects it’s had on you and others.  Insights. Add to the content of individual knowledge.  Apply it to relationships, defragmenting the world from the ground up, or the sky down – whichever.  Do you have suggestions for additions or changes to what I’ve said in that paragraph? Any inaccuracies to point out?  I will flesh out those ideas as completely as possible, trying to cut through the sermonizing.  Then people can go read the book on their own.  No easy task. Appreciate your help.   k


On 12/26/06 10:27 PM, "optical dialogue" <opticaldialogue@xyc.net> wrote:


 
are you implying that you -can- understand thought???

kitkat wrote:
 
 
Am synthesizing my understanding of TAS.  The following paragraph is my understanding at this moment, and will serve as my introduction. The rest of my presentation and materials for the BDNYC group will flow from this.  Any comments will be appreciated.  I aim to make it as clear, simple, and concise as possible. 
thanks, kitkat

The world’s problems on both a microcosmic and a macrocosmic scale can be traced to the way thinking works. Thought is a system that is deceptive and hypnotic.  In order to break its grasp on our actions, it is necessary to understand what its processes are; how the system works. Further, it is necessary to observe these processes at work in ourselves and others in order to understand and move beyond them.  One must be careful not to set changing one’s choices/behavior as a goal. It CAN happen, it is not prohibited.  If it happens, that is good.  But the primary focus must be to observe and sense what is happening in our bodies – how thought registers in and affects the body.  Otherwise, there will be no movement towards clarity.



On 12/26/06 8:34 PM, "kitkat" <kitkat> wrote:

 
 
 
Your premise is flawed.  It contradicts all survival instincts and life sustaining patterns. Perhaps those who do this don’t see that they have fallen victim to reflex.  That their intentions are incoherent – that perhaps they are arising out of the pollution.


On 12/26/06 4:26 PM, "optical dialogue" <opticaldialogue@xyc.net> wrote: