🚀 go-pugleaf

Re: Open Letter:  The Jack Webb of Virtual Religion

joey3c@aol.com (Joey3c) wrote:

>    During the brief time I was confronting Raymond Karczewski here on
>alt.religion.roy-masters, I provided excerpts of his comments and
>methodically attempted to unravel his prolific pretzel-logic.  It was the
>proper college-kid try to present a credible debate.  Now I've come to
>understand just how profound the cliche "you should never argue with a
>crazy man" really is.  

Joey,  

     Do I have a message?  You bet I have.  What is it?  Love one
another as you would love yourself.  For you are at-one with all of
creation.  I am sorry, Joey, that you should consider this the
rantings of a "crazy man."

     Love is based in self-understanding.  Love comes to one  who has
the courage to unflinchingly peer into the mirror of truth which
accurately reflects the many masks and veils  a civilized person must
don before they can go out and face the hypocritical world they have
created for themselves.  The notable outward symptom of one who
operates out of love is integrity; an holistic energy which speaks
loudly of an uncontradicted state which manifests as clarity,
simplicity, directness and honesty.  In that state, one speaks from
the very core of  his soul.  That kind of love is potent indeed, for
it is the indisputable expression of Truth itself.   It is  not the
emotional state of pleasurable imbalance conditioned through man's
thought which calls for mutual codependent psychological stroking.  It
is the act of telling with clarity a loved one or a total stranger
what the other is blinded to due to their living a life in a  fantasy
like hypnotic state.  Its like trying to wake someone from a sound
sleep to share the glorious morning, and the only response is a dulled
moaning utterance of "Leeave mee aloone, I want too sleeep some more,
zzzzzzz!"

   A confused mind can only live in the muddle of its own confusion.
It is unable to penetrate beyond its contradictory existence.
Naturally, anything that does not support their confusion will be
resisted.  A person of truth accepts that "persecution and revilement"
from such limited minds "goes with the territory."  Their love for the
other, however, will cause them to lay it all on the line, risking
even their lives if necessary to awaken such sleeping souls.  

  Early in life one must face bullies.  Bullies on the physical plane,
along with bullies on the mental and emotional planes.  This
contention with bullies never leaves one until such time in life that
one has fully understood the lesson that comes with facing down
bullies.  Those who would live their lives in fear cannot but
capitulate to bullies.  They have been diminished with self-doubt by
the very bullies who control their minds and bodies.  It is only a
person of love who will risk everything to demonstrate to others that
facing down these internal illusory fears which energize bullies is
the only way for them  to recover their lost sovereignty as holistic
human beings and rightful Sons and Daughters of God.  

   The undertaking of awakening sleeping souls is a formidable one
indeed.  The person of truth can anticipate great resistance from the
bullies, but he/she also expects great resistance from those who have
been slightly awakened to their corrupted ignorant state responsible
for their fears. Corrupt minds do not want to be disturbed, yet there
is not a moment of their lives where they are free of disturbance.  It
is understanding that sets one free from their disturbances.

   To understand something, one must merge with it.  It is somewhat
like traversing a hurricane.  The periphery is the most violent and
destructive part and poses the greatest danger.  But it must be passed
through to find the calmness that is the eye of the hurricane. 

    In human terms the peripheral is the violence borne of ignorance
and stupidity of living in the confusion of a dualistic mind.  One
must go through that stage to enter the state of Love, of wisdom, yes,
the eye of the hurricane.  When they have reached that point of
safety, they have their peace even though the danger of the peripheral
violence continues to swirl all around them.  Regardless of the
destruction going on around them, they are untouched by it all, for
they are protected by their love. 

    Life itself is the traversing the uncharted territory from the
peripheral to the eye.  The "fearful" stand immobilized at the
periphery crying out,  "how do I get there from here?"  They refuse to
take a step until they get prior assurances from another of their
safety in movement.  They are fools, for no one but themselves can
protect them from the risky journey that awaits them.  It is the
example of courage in facing the unknown that is the greatest gift one
who loves may give to one who fears.  He/she knows that each must
traverse their own life; they cannot be carried through on the coat
tails of another; they cannot assume another's burden.  It is the
mind-controlling institutions of religious and secular power which
promulgate that lie of accepting another's burden in return for an
oath of servitude.

  Joey, admittedly, we are not connecting.   Clearly our beings
resonate at different vibrations.  It is for all to see and determine
for themselves which vibration is that of love.  I am going to leave
the rest of your message intact so that you may reflect, not on your
words, but on the energy behind your words.  That's where the real
story is told.
                                               Ray
     

>     The real problem here is one simple thing: 
>"Dialectical-dualistic-puddling" aside, Raymond is a brazen abuser of the
>Newsgroup concept --a system that connotes a standard by which mature
>participants contribute IN-CONTEXT, at the very minimum (a delicate
>balance of give-and-take at times but most are sensible enough to abide). 
>His anarchistic approach (which might be admirable if not for his complete
>lack of humanity) has been to eschew all standards of base-line etiquette
>to be his own crusading parasite in this group.  This is the issue.
>     This is not a case for hatred or bullying.  For all I know, Raymond
>is sincere and inspired... but I would certainly respect the guy about
>1000-times more if he initiated his own Newsgroup.  Then he could stay
>in-context and when Joey3c piggy-backs on alt.religion.Raymond-K with my
>patented solution to save the world via mental mumblety-peg exercises then
>I would certainly deserve the drilling that would come upon me.  
>     Again, I see that Raymond believes he is being persecuted for truth'
>sake --a concept that only serves to overstate his importance in the
>mini-culture of Newsgroups.  You'd think the world had been tipped
>off-kilter with his wrath on those who sully his words.  I do not resent
>Raymond.  I just don't have a lot of respect for him... in fact, I find
>this whole matter is kind of sad.
>     Raymond, if you believe it is worth your energy to pound your head
>against a brick wall then I'm sure you will persist.  If you are on a
>mission to enlighten, you might check in with your own credibility when it
>comes to the way you rudely crash in and appropriate free-space for
>peddling your modes of belief, not to be discussed but used to perhaps
>work-out some past trauma.  Your lack of shame seems to be confused with
>it making you more Christlike.  But giving you a generous benefit of the
>doubt, you at least must have a profound case of blind ambition --your
>absolute didactic style also conveys the notion that you present your
>wares as a kind of virtual unsolicited junk mail (most people don't enjoy
>that kind of 'gift', thanks just the same).  You can't humanly relate with
>a two-dimensional billboard. 
>      If you have been given the keys to enlightenment beyond the average
>biped, you certainly lack elementary regard for others that don't --which
>will trip you up every time.  You don't even respect the people here in
>the first place.  You've addressed individuals here as 'shills' and
>'roybots', so why don't you go throw your rocks in another playground? 
>'scuse me, that's 'pearls to swine', right?  Oink.

>  --Joey

Raymond Karczewski  http://www.cdsnet.net/Business/Ark/