Stand-up comedians and the Internet

Did you know that the craft/art/whatever, "Stand-up Comedian" is a very recent development - that prior to about 50 years ago, there was no such thing? Oh, there were examples (Mark Twain, Shakespeare through his plays), but in general, it did not exist as "something humans do" until the 1950's.

People have been walking this planet for hundreds of thousands of years, but only in the last 50 years or so, has there been a "class" of people called, comedians. Why?

Was there nothing to laugh about 100 years ago, 500 years ago, 1500 years ago? Think about it... maybe there was not. That is, maybe the craft/art/whatever, of comedian, is a very recent phenomenon only because the general level-of-consciousness of mankind, today, is equipped/evolved/developed to the point that outloud, upfront, in-your-face humor, can even be expressed, let alone, directed at another human - or group of humans - without fear, without guilt, and without shame.

That, prior to that, if one was to actually stand-up, in front of other people, and MAKE FUN OF THEM, sometimes in an overtly hostile way (which is exactly what all stand-up comedians do, no matter how they color it - even Seinfeld, if you can hear it), they might not "see the humor", that is, they might "take offence", that is, they might kick his sorry ASS!!!

Check this... there is a direct relationship between the "art" of stand-up, and the emergence of the "science" of electronic communication (the internet) - and, that without the capacity for the one, there could NOT be the capacity for the other. Man's consciousness had to develop the ability to laugh outloud at himself and others, BEFORE, he could invent the science of electronic communication.

Huh? Consider the >>opportunity<< that the internet/email affords millions and millions and literally hundreds of millions of people today - the capacity to make fun of other people, without fear, without guilt, and without shame (cloaked and concealed, as they are, behind an utterly impenetrable veil, safe and secure in their "musings".)

You DO see that, right? It also affords people the new-found/acquired capacity, their ancestors (and most probably their parents, and very likely even most of their peers not "into it yet, if ever") were almost totally INCAPABLE of experiencing, to laugh at themselves, to not take themselves >>sooooooo seriously<<.

With the increase in communication between people, comes the increase in making fun of them - because, what on earth is FUNNIER than a talking ape, who says... "I am enlightened, and you're not!", or "I am such-and-such, and you should worship me, and honor me, and take what >>I<< say, seriously!!"

Don't take my word for it... Don't take ANYBODY'S word for anything...

Just look into what's going on - between your own ears - once in a blue moon, and you too, might become your own... favorite... STAND-UP Comedian!

HA, ha, ha...

Talk and the art of silence

It's NOT that you can *not* talk about talking (or it's bigger brother, think about thinking), because you are >>un-able<<, because everybody is perfectly ABLE to do it, nor because you don't want to, because everybody wants to.

It's that 1) nobody ever does it, as 2) it's NOT acceptable "social" conversation, to be continually referencing BACK TO the speech (that just occurred, and is now occurring...)

Do you know what the reason is, that talking about >>the talking<< is unacceptable "social" conversation?

Because as soon as you start doing it, you are confronted with the realization, that 1) you NEVER do it, 2) the only thing you can possibly SAY regarding it, is the exact same thing you can ONLY say regarding >>death<< itself. What can you say after confronting in real time, your dead mother there in her death-bed? Beyond, "well, that's it for her, she's 'done'."

That is, nobody on earth could EVER have come up with the notion, of "life after death", simply by THINKING about some dead person, or even their own impending death. Anything anyone could say after that: "well, that's it for her, she's 'done'." would be in the realm of BELIEF, and though it's necessary and makes one feel much better (to believe she is now alive and in heaven, etc.), it did NOT come about as a direct result of your THINKING about the situation.

That's why, precisely enough for those who already see this, nobody does talk about talking (think about their own thinking, investigate their OWN consciousness). The instant one begins, their ordinary consciousness, their flaw-finding and comparison-making "I's", from memory, >>beliefs<<, abort the process of investigation in realtime. That is, you are momentarily speechless.

There's only one way to investigate consciousness, and that's to THINK about it (not believe about it), and thinking means, original (not from your own memory) thinking - new thoughts - overcoming speechlessness.

The only way to investigate consciousness, is during the process of Thinking (not believing) New (for you) Thoughts, the "state of" overcoming speechlessness.

The investigation in realtime, is not thoughts self-referencing thoughts (which is the memorization and memory-recall process), it is the laying down of NEW track for the train to travel, because in order to observe the landscape, there must already BE landscape.

On the outside looking in...

...versus, on the inside looking out.

Those who deal in ideas, concepts, stories they read or heard about, are on the outside, noses glued to the glass, peering in. Those who don't deal anymore in thoughts from others, but create them for themselves alone, first and foremost, are on the inside looking out.

Any sufficiently complex nerve nexus established primarily as an observational *outpost* will disintegrate within 24 hours if not interlinked with at least one other similarly established outpost.

When at least two outposts are interlinked they immediately begin the triangulation process, thereby providing a triangulated attention whorl in the neural neighborhood - like whirling dervish watch dogs.

Ordinary uncertainty

The difference between the ordinary mind and the certain mind, or upping the ante, ordinary enlightenment and extraordinary enlightenment:

The ordinary always produce a biography, one page or several, describing the causes and effects resulting in the claimed enlightenment. In general, they all have one central thing in common: they detail a moment when they "became enlightened" and then describe the events and circumstances following that nameable event, leading up to that present moment of writing it all down. (there's a little clue there...)

After that - once the book is published, the school is started, the followers are paying monthly dues - it's all "downhill" from there, because there are no more such moments when they newly "become enlightened." For the ordinary, it's a lifetime of redescribing that first, seminal event.

Now, in your head, how would you describe extraordinary certainty?

ps- watch how the ordinary mind deconstructs the terms used, in order to invalidate the premise, piece by piece, thereby avoiding the question entirely.

pps- note how such intellectual endeavors amount to nothing more than missing out on the fun of the exercise; having been presented with the "rules of the game," you "choose" (but, really, that's a laugh, isn't it?) to avoid the playing, and justify the avoidance with copious reasons, which you instantly believe as true and correct... "I might get hurt," "I don't have time right now," "I don't see the point of such a silly game,"

ppps- and the list goes on and on forever...do you still remember the question?

Are you remembering your condition... right now?

The scattered 1% of humanity - who naturally believe they are "on the inside track" when it comes to waking up, attaining enlightenment, becoming liberated - also, >>usually<< (though certainly not always) believe that it's a combination of practice/methods and ideas/concepts that will inevitably result in their ultimate success, and the attainment of their aim, however they define it to themselves.

So they read their "bibles" (books, whatever) every morning, sit in meditation (count breaths, chant, whatever) every afternoon, talk for hours with friends and strangers, and after many years or decades, believe they are making considerable "progress" though defining that "progress" in specific terms, still eludes them as it did many years and decades earlier.

The specific causes of their "condition" is described in the books in many different ways - depending upon countless factors, including date they were written down, nationality of the author, etc. - but always amounts to the same thing, once you get the hang of This.

("This?")

This: being able to determine the difference between the literal and the metaphorical, and not just linguistically (any 15 year old can do that), but consciously - that is, be able to SEE what a metaphor (such, man is asleep) is literally, in realtime, without all the associated bullshit (read, ideas, concepts, parables, similes, symbolism).

This: an instant act of will in the physical moment, as opposed to thinking about acting in your head.

This: is much bigger than two short paragraphs, of course, of course, but expands exponentially as your ignorance (of your true condition) reduces, in the same way the grand canyon expands exponentially as your distance from the edge reduces.

Are you asleep... no seriously... right now!?!

The mystics said, and some even wrote it down, that men are not fully conscious, that they are asleep even while walking around, and that something can be done about that, but, only in those who want to wake up - and that it doesn't just happen automatically, by virtue of the fact that you're "all grown up now," nor even that you've got a college-education and read hundreds of books, nor even that when someone asks you, with a straight and non-accusatory face, "Hey, bub, are you asleep right now?" and you react with, "Me? No, of course not, that's ridiculous." and know that it IS ridiculous (right then, you're not... know why?).

99% of the planet couldn't care less what the dead mystics said, of course, but it's interesting - don't you think - that a few people here and there DO care what they said?

What do you think that "interest" is based upon? Have you investigated the idea that you are, in fact, *literally* asleep (not fully conscious as you could be), while at the same time fully believing otherwise... (except, as noted above, when you remember/are reminded you're not fully conscious, right then, for an instant, you are?... and then, like everything else, it passes.)

The idea of being asleep, is exactly the same idea as, man is unenlightened, and that man lives as though in a prison, and "waking up" is exactly the same as attaining "enlightenment," and becoming "liberated."

But, again, what do you think those metaphors are >>specifically<< referring to, when they suggest "you" are "asleep?" Have you investigated the idea that it is not "you" that is asleep, it is the conscious part of the brain that is running totally on automatic, and that 99% of your day - each and every day - all that flows through the mind, are thoughts you neither planned, decided to think, or invited therein? It's all - up there, between your own little ears, in the gray matter - an accidental affair, morning till night, and during dreamsleep too.

Of course, you may be one of the 99% of the planet who couldn't care less about this - either to SEE it as correct information, or "do something about it, damn it!!" - and why should you or anyone? Afterall, even with all that automatism going on, everything is humming along quite efficiently, you can get dressed, make it to work on time, do your job, negotiate traffic coming home, make your dinner, watch a little tv, carry on conversations with other people just like you, and flop into the sack by 10. "So," you say, "what's the problem?"

No problem, bub.
Just reminding you, you were asleep again.
Remember?