The pursuit of silence

The pursuit of silence seems to be a peculiarly human activity. Other animals run away from noise, but it is noise made by others that they try to avoid. Only humans want to silence the clamour in their minds. Tiring of the inner chatter, they turn to silence in order to deafen the sound of their thoughts. What people are seeking when they look for silence is a different kind of noise.

Humans seek silence because they seek redemption from themselves, other animals live in silence because they do not need redeeming. 
From
John Gray's "The Silence of Animals"

Stephen

Animals in Nature live in a "dog eat dog" world and "survival of the fittest", they do not have the time to seek redemption. And of course as was said, "It is all God's fault and there must be a reason for it   ." The world of Nature is a mean nasty world with very little compassion in it. And there are two kinds of people, those that are big city folks and those that are rural. And most big city folks go absolutely "nuts" if they are placed in a "quiet" rural reality. To me "humans seeking silence" is another example of the poetry of poets. A normal human being does not seek silence. One only seeks silence when silence calls to them and silence does not call to the normal human being. "Definition: Redeem: 1. To recover ownership of by paying a specified sum." "Humans seek silence because they seek redemption from themselves, other animals live in silence because they do not need redeeming." I don't know, maybe? In my opinion what he is presenting is poetry that has nothing to do with normal reality. Humankind has spent thousands of years working themselves out of an animal mentality, and if someone is seeking redemption, they then are seeking redemption from something that was caused by their animal mentality. There is not any compassion in Nature or in animal mentality, the only place that you can find compassion is in some human beings. And this compassion is a quality that raises these humans above the animal. I love Nature and plants and animals, but that world is a nasty, pushy reality where generally speaking there is not any compassion, there is just eat, breed, and hold territory and the survival of the fittest. And if one actually lives with Nature they find out that animals are not silent unless they are hunting other creatures to kill and eat them. I guess to me, John Grey is poet and good poetry sells well even if it does deviate for actually reality. Love you Stephen    good post! john

"Oh, listen to the birds sing their songs! Isn't Nature wonderful." What people do not realize is that a bird's song is its weapon and that there is a war for territory and mates going on out there. And if you are any good at mimicking a birds song, someone will show up to chase you out of it's territory. I love it! I have lived up close and personal with Nature and it was a constant battle to keep it out of my hair. Whatever you have, it wants, and in the end if you want to live, then you have to be like Nature, "This is mine! You stay out of it or else!" john

I enjoyed your response John.What I find interesting is how different each person
is effected by a particular quote and what thoughts and ideas they come up with.
It is of course a reflection of ones thinking.
I  have never given Nature all that much thought.When younger living in South Africa
I often enjoyed holidays in the Kruger Park and the scenery and animals when traveling up north to then Rhodesia.
It was fun to see the big animals.Occasionaly some nut would get out his car and land
up as a snack for some lions.The animals I most disliked were the baboons and the monkeys.
I am not sure about the quote and it is possibly I took it out of context.
Below is a little more about his book from a review by Thomas Nagel.
John Gray’s “Silence of Animals” is an attack on humanism. 
He condemns this widely accepted secular faith as a form of delusional self-flattery.

“In the most general terms,” he tells us, “humanism is the idea that the human animal is the site of some kind of unique value in the world.”
 “A related aspect of humanism is the idea that the human mind reflects the order of the cosmos.” 
“A third aspect of humanism is the idea that history is a story of human advance, with rationality increasing over time.”

Gray rejects all three of these beliefs, along with the pretension of humanism to offer a scientifically respectable replacement for religion:
 “In a strictly naturalistic view — one in which the world is taken on its own terms, without reference to a creator or any spiritual realm — there is no hierarchy of value with humans somewhere near the top. 
There are simply multifarious animals, each with its own needs.
 Human uniqueness is a myth inherited from religion, which humanists have recycled into science.
Keep well
Stephen

skfarblum wrote:I enjoyed your response John.What I find interesting is how different each person
is effected by a particular quote and what thoughts and ideas they come up with.
It is of course a reflection of ones thinking.
I  have never given Nature all that much thought.When younger living in South Africa
I often enjoyed holidays in the Kruger Park and the scenery and animals when traveling up north to then Rhodesia.
It was fun to see the big animals.Occasionaly some nut would get out his car and land
up as a snack for some lions.The animals I most disliked were the baboons and the monkeys.
I am not sure about the quote and it is possibly I took it out of context.
Below is a little more about his book from a review by Thomas Nagel.
John Gray’s “Silence of Animals” is an attack on humanism. 
He condemns this widely accepted secular faith as a form of delusional self-flattery.

“In the most general terms,” he tells us, “humanism is the idea that the human animal is the site of some kind of unique value in the world.”
 “A related aspect of humanism is the idea that the human mind reflects the order of the cosmos.” 
“A third aspect of humanism is the idea that history is a story of human advance, with rationality increasing over time.”

Gray rejects all three of these beliefs, along with the pretension of humanism to offer a scientifically respectable replacement for religion:
 “In a strictly naturalistic view — one in which the world is taken on its own terms, without reference to a creator or any spiritual realm — there is no hierarchy of value with humans somewhere near the top. 
There are simply multifarious animals, each with its own needs.
 Human uniqueness is a myth inherited from religion, which humanists have recycled into science.
Keep well
Stephen

Humm?   . That does put a different slant on things. Totally too cool! Well, I agree with him about religion even though I am a very religious person that is inclined whenever possible to allow others to have their own version of religion. I do know that God exists, there is a "profoundly powerful force" with a mind out there that one can establish a personal relationship with. But at the same time most of what is called religion is a human created institution that is commercial and has to do with money and power under the guise of establishing a relationship with God or some other version of a Supreme Being or Beings. Creation is a mechanical reality and within that mechanical reality God is not needed. Life is designed to be aggressive and adaptive and the only thing that it needs is a place to establish itself. From there it is everyman for itself, so to speak, and God take the hindmost   . About humans being unique, humans are unique and they have become the gods of Earth creation and are about to be unleashed on the Universe, which is probably causing some consternation in some of the other creatures that live in the Universe   . I love that part. Nope, there is not any need for God, gods, or a supreme Being, but at the same time, those that do establish a relationship with one of those "Things" do have a higher survival potential than those folks that do not. It is ok with me if they want to take God out of everything, I don't care. And it is ok with me if they want to use the human institution called religion as an excuse to take God out of things, I don't care. But there is a "profoundly power force" with a mind and those that are able to establish a relationship with "it" will do interesting things that those that remove God from things will never be able to do. Or understand how it was done. Survival of the fittest and might is right   ! I love that part. Human uniqueness is not a myth, it is a terrible and awesome reality that we as human beings have to deal with. I love that part also. Love you Stephen, this is way too much fun! john

Dear John,
I am very pleased that you enjoyed this post.I am constantly
challenging my beliefs and my so called self-knowledge.
It keeps me humble.
I agree with what you wrote,particularly with  a profoundly powerful force with
a mind.I find great comfort in this.
Thanks for all the comments.
Stephen

A "profoundly power force" with a mind "does" create a conceptual foundation for mind action quite nicely   . Love you! john

The question can become: "Does one's mind reign supreme or does the mind of the "profoundly powerful force" reign supreme?" or maybe, that these minds can be at play in Creation together as loved ones? Maybe   ? Love, john

Genesis says that we were made in the image of God. If this concept was combined with the "twin Flames" concept, then could this conceptual foundation for mind action be created: "God is my twin flame and somehow we seem to have gotten separated?" john

sunmystic wrote:Genesis says that we were made in the image of God. If this concept was combined with the "twin Flames" concept, then could this conceptual foundation for mind action be created: "God is my twin flame and somehow we seem to have gotten separated?" john

 Well it turns out that the problem with the above as a possibility is that it also creates the reality where all human beings would be my twin flame too. To me that is a way to big of a conceptual foundation for "my" mind action   ! Coming to grips with the possibility that one has over seven billion twin flames running around loose in today's world is a bit over whelming.

"The Mysteries of the Flame Tradition"

Greg bringing up the "Twin Flame" concept has created a kaleidoscope of possibilities in a science of metaphysics sense. The ancient "Fae" folk had three main traditions that came together to become one tradition. "The Mysteries of the Tree", "The Mysteries of the Staff", and "The Mysteries of the Flame". In the tradition of the Flame the essence of all living things was a "flame" and each living flame had its own unique "flicker signature". The only exception to this was when a "flame" separated into two "flames" and became twin flames. Over time if these twin flames were separated enough from each other these twin flames would begin to develop their own individual "flicker signature". In the "Mysteries of the Flame" tradition one learned how to separate their flame into two twin flames. One flame was used to anchor and maintain the physical body and the other was used to anchor and be a body for, the conscious mind. The flame that anchored and was a body for the conscious mind, then left the physical body with the conscious mind and traveled around out side of the physical body. This was that traditions way of creating the out of body (OB) phenomenon (Hindu yogi folks and most of the shaman/witchdoctor folks use a different technique). Also in this tradition, if one's flame was strong enough one could manipulate the flame of another by merging their flame with the flame of another. A lot of their healing stuff was done this way as well as other things. 2013 sunmystic/john

Stephen, I seemed to have overtly "hijacked" your topic   opps! this will never do! I have to report this to "staff"   ! john

Please
 continue.
No problem
Stephen

skfarblum wrote:Please
 continue.
No problem
Stephen

 Thank you Stephen, you are a wonderful person! But   , I think I am going to create a "Twin Flame" topic to that post if I can figure out what forum to put it in. Also to bring things back to the original topic post (OP) the concept of seeking "The Silence of Nature", the "flicker signature" of the animal is in harmony with the "flicker signature" of the Goddess Mother. In today's world the "Flicker signature" of most folks is out of harmony with the "flicker signature" of the Goddess Mother. The seeking of "The Silence of Nature" is an attempt by some to bring their "flicker signature" back into harmony with the "flicker signature" of the Goddess Mother. And because the Goddess Mother is perceived as Mother Nature and as a mechanical reality which science can study, God the Father or God the Creator is not necessary. Ah yes   the gift of the rational mind! I love it! john

sunmystic wrote:

sunmystic wrote:Genesis says that we were made in the image of God. If this concept was combined with the "twin Flames" concept, then could this conceptual foundation for mind action be created: "God is my twin flame and somehow we seem to have gotten separated?" john

 Well it turns out that the problem with the above as a possibility is that it also creates the reality where all human beings would be my twin flame too. To me that is a way to big of a conceptual foundation for "my" mind action   ! Coming to grips with the possibility that one has over seven billion twin flames running around loose in today's world is a bit over whelming.

"The Mysteries of the Flame Tradition"

Greg bringing up the "Twin Flame" concept has created a kaleidoscope of possibilities in a science of metaphysics sense. The ancient "Fae" folk had three main traditions that came together to become one tradition. "The Mysteries of the Tree", "The Mysteries of the Staff", and "The Mysteries of the Flame". In the tradition of the Flame the essence of all living things was a "flame" and each living flame had its own unique "flicker signature". The only exception to this was when a "flame" separated into two "flames" and became twin flames. Over time if these twin flames were separated enough from each other these twin flames would begin to develop their own individual "flicker signature". In the "Mysteries of the Flame" tradition one learned how to separate their flame into two twin flames. One flame was used to anchor and maintain the physical body and the other was used to anchor and be a body for, the conscious mind. The flame that anchored and was a body for the conscious mind, then left the physical body with the conscious mind and traveled around out side of the physical body. This was that traditions way of creating the out of body (OB) phenomenon (Hindu yogi folks and most of the shaman/witchdoctor folks use a different technique). Also in this tradition, if one's flame was strong enough one could manipulate the flame of another by merging their flame with the flame of another. A lot of their healing stuff was done this way as well as other things. 2013 sunmystic/john

Staff notation note made by sunmystic: A "Twin Flame" of the above post has been created and placed in the "Myths & Legends" forum under the topic title, "The Mysteries of the Flame Tradition".


http://www.spiritsjourney.net/t2122-the-mysteries-of-the-flame-tradition