I don't post material here unless it is substantial and, to the best of my knowledge, innovative, and very on-topic per the discussion group charter. I think my material has a reasonable amount of redundancy from posting to posting *relative to* the amount of progress and development of the expressions.
I used to spend 99% of my time writing quickly in my private, unreadable, shorthand idea-development notebooks, especially the 1986-1988 era. Then to do idea development, I typed messily in files and occassionally posted (such postings are most of what's currently at my site). A year ago, prior to starting this discussion group, I may have reached a 50/50 point in typing messily in private files and posting publically. It would be really wonderful if I could approach 0% typing messily in private idea-development files and post publically *all* my idea development, if I can do so in a way that provides a solid increment of progress for each screenful.
Does every screen have a novel substantial idea? Every screen should have an insight: "Hey, that answers this key vexing question I've been wrestling with!"
It is rewarding after all those years to be able to brainstorm and watch the ideas connect themselves through my fingers in a way that is actually readable by other people, spelling everything out. It's as though I just sit back and watch the ideas develop and unfold themselves through my fingers, with mostly good ideas and mostly clear writing resulting -- a nice balance and a rapid pace of idea development.
I hope to upload some examples of my cryptic shorthand I used to successfully subdue the Minotaur (slay the bull, bind the serpent), such as scans of my handwritten notebook pages of 12/12/87. I used tons of acronyms I invented on the fly, and all uppercase, largely because I have a handwriting disability. I scored high on all aptitude tests (between top of scale to slightly below average) but scored very low on fine dexterity. I was born to keyboard.
To understand the esoteric meaning embedded in Christianity and the real origin of Christianity, it is necessary for researchers to read many "hermeneutics of suspicion" and "Christianity fabrication conspiracy" books, and carefully combine elements. This will result in knowing the historical truth about Christianity and knowing universal esoteric truth and understanding how that esoteric truth is cloudily reflected in the Christian myth-religion.
Most likely, any existing explanation of the history or the esoteric reflection is partly right, and sheds valuable light on the obscured truth. Be skeptical about any given historical revisionist theory and about the simple dismissal of it. For example, the "Jesus bloodline" theory is "fundamentally" incorrect according to the no-Jesus view, yet tells some important truths about European history.
Each revisionist theory is a more or less distorted perspective on the truth, and perspectives are much needed. We can be sure that the official early-Christian history -- Eusebius' "History of the Church" -- is extremely far from the truth. Similarly, the standard view is that entheogens were rare in medieval Christianity -- if so, how come I smell and sense entheogen-shaped mythic symbolism all throughout it?
It may well be that today's history books are destined for the trash heap. Like in the movie The Matrix, our history books have been designed to hypnotize us into a nearly completely false reality-tunnel.
I wrote the following post just before my Nov. 14th 2001 pivotal breakthrough recognizing Christian myth, then all myth, as clever metaphor for mystic-state insight discovery of determinism.
The Cybernetic Lord posting was enough of a breakthrough for now. I am going offline for a couple weeks to focus on mundane matters.
I don't think anyone has responded to anyone else in this forum yet.
I will postpone my posting, "A modest proposal for a new Christian revival", listing all the many shocking aspects of my proposed description of what original Christianity was really about. Shock the moralists: determinism, entheogens, the Holy Spirit on tap, Christ myth, control-breakdown seizure, meaning-shift of all Christian terms, dismissing freewill as childish, feeding animals Amanita and drinking wine, denying ownership of one's own guilt, and so on.
I spoke with an Evangelical -- I devastated her worldview of what Christianity is one way, then another, then another... totally blew her mind, destroyed her worldview multiple times over. These are the many possessions to let go of to enter heaven, all these egoic notions about what sin, guilt, heaven, forgiveness, eternal life, and salvation are all about. And all these revelations can be demonstrated by administering the Holy Spirit and referencing scholarly books.
My driving purpose for the group is to provide the easiest way for me to upload my latest ideas where people can read them. Yahoo Groups is perfect for this and is exactly what I've needed for many years as an online author and theorist working on breakthrough ideas. Now, if I have an urgent cosmic revelation, I can immediately register it on the Internet from any Web terminal, even when I'm on another continent. The results become available via Google Web-page searches and are sent to inboxes of people who are interested enough to subscribe.
I did not create the group mainly to have extended multi-way discussions and debates. The controversial nature of this field, including determinism, entheogens, and Christ myth theory, discourages postings in this non-anonymous public forum. It's unlikely that famous and valuable thinkers are going to post here. More postings are likely from minimally qualified young people with anonymous accounts, who aren't yet burdened and enslaved by maintaining their appearance of conformist legitimacy.
I have to have a way to get a good return on investment for my email replies that I take the time to compose. If I am going to spend my valuable time replying to an email with substantial information, if that information is of interest to others, I need a way to make it available. So I have been developing techniques for composing content that, although controversial, can be sent as a direct reply to the person and also as a posting to a publically visible area without revealing the identity of the person I'm replying to.
It's these kinds of burdensome issues that make me skeptical about spending time in public interactive discussion. Some emails sent to me have been valuable or have lead to valuable ideas, but it's simpler to read books and the Web and then post my own writing in the form of free-form articles. This technique makes it easy to make the most progress the fastest in these controversial fields.
Writing in the form of an exchange between individuals has pros and cons. The Christian debates about the will have typically been framed as an exchange of publications between pairs of debaters. In Philosophy, the free will debate is often framed as a debate between two people. Allowing personality in writing can help convey ideas and make them relevant.
I sometimes consider the idea of writing for androids rather than humans -- I imagine this style as being extremely stripped-down to core principles, and reading somewhat like an expert-system database. Just like assuming that the Bible is entirely allegorical helps reveal its mythic meaning, assuming that I'm writing to androids rather than humans helps put the mind into an alien state that breaks out of the conventional ruts of the egoic worldmodel."
I have always written postings more in the form of semi-structured articles rather than social chit-chat disposable temporary postings. I'm not into chat; I'm not even into meeting at conventions.
I've posted straight, clear writing, avoiding any trace of personal conversation, humor, irony, fun, or wit; neither cleverly amusing in tone, facetiously playfully, nor given to wit and good humor; not merry, sportive, or jocular, never characterized by wit and pleasantry; certainly not exciting laughter, as in a facetious story or reply.
This is because the world needs new unambiguous clarity, finally, where there has always been haze and confusion. People are so confused about spirituality, about what's important and central, about where the wellspring is and what the point is, what the difference is between good living and that which elevates it. I've written this way to enable reusing these writings; I've put myself under stylistic constraints -- which has pros and cons. As Hofstadter points out in the book Le Ton Beau De Marot, constraints enable.
Le Ton Beau De Marot: In Praise of the Music of Language
So far, the discussion group has remained perfectly on-topic; off-topic postings haven't risen to the level of being a problem at all. Perhaps up to 25% off-topic postings would be ok. I have been like a dictatorial moderator in fear of the slippery-slope effect. I've moderated my postings heavily, often resisting the temptation to post drug news, or guitar-amp postings. Everyone should be allowed their 15% of off-topic postings or passages. I've been condemning heavy-handed moderators lately. Is it really that hard to achieve a reasonable balance?
Is there really such a very high risk of a slippery-slope effect, where all hope is considered lost as soon as there are two or three off-topic postings? I was reading alt.guitar.amps discussion area and was upset about the high percentage of off-topic postings and wanted to ban all of them -- even though I enjoyed reading one particular off-topic thread. I'm undecided on this subject.
There are even professional discussion groups where every posting is moderated, and the number of postings per day is limited, and the hosts often ask contributors to further edit before letting the message go through to the group -- so the Jesus Mysteries group really isn't *that* heavily moderated.
My criticism isn't of the degree of moderation, but rather, of the chosen scope: the moderators *claim* the group has a certain scope, but in *practice*, it has a narrower and less inspired scope; the promised scope attracts, but the delivered scope is grossly inadequate and distorted. Certain off-topic postings are actually on-topic or reasonable, and some aren't.
I want to post a few of my writings on other subjects specifically for the purpose of adding a little bit of complexity to my persona. It seems unfair if I get to do this, while prohibiting others from it. On the other hand, it is undeniable that in practice, this discussion group is the "All About Michael Show", so that fleshing out some peripheral interests and activities of mine, is bound to be more pertinent that hearing about other people.
However, the question arises and risk arises of a personality cult. I used to envision some kind of fame, but I'm increasingly overtaken by apprehension of any attention and any fame; if fame is necessary, it is a necessary evil. I used to picture pictures of me. Now my only reason for pictures is that I'm becoming old and wrinkled. People like biographies. A biography of a thinker is on-topic.
I must be left alone in peace and quiet in my own private corner of cyberspace. The last priority is publicity, which is a synonym of 'distraction' and interference with my work, which I live for -- working on my work, which no one understands.