Dasher Dancer Prancer Vixen Comet Cupid Donner Blitzen Rudolph Vanity Pride Suggestibility and Ouspensky

of course that last post was all tongue-in-cheek. we all know that st. nick is indeed our all-uni-common-cosmic-father who attained the degree of the sacred onclad through relentless being-parkdolg duty, having harmonized the functions and impulses in the khrh workshop crucible hrhaharhtzaha, and tamed and harnessed the many features and i’s that would otherwise fly off in all directions. and, as we all know, he is a very expensive saint indeed! so that last post was all tongue-in-cheek. or this post is. or maybe that’s just the nature of metaphor – a slippery something, they can go one way or another, or yet another.

but that’s sort of what i want to talk about. because i get hung up on what’s true and what’s false … the yes and no of it all, because i’m limited to that comparing function of the intellectual center.

in the past i’ve gone on about the many wines, and that carbon is the new black, and the differences between all the purported representatives of the higher. but lately, i wonder ... granted the following quote pertains to the mechanical and not people who are on a higher level, except to the extent my perceptions come from the lower level i occupy, i wonder ...

“Quite right,” said G., “people are very unlike one another, but the real difference between people you do not know and cannot see. The difference of which you speak simply does not exist. This must be understood. All the people you see, all the people you know, all the people you may get to know, are machines, actual machines working solely under the power of external influences, as you yourself said. Machines they are born and machines they die. How do savages and intellectuals come into this? Even now, at this very moment, while we are talking, several millions of machines are trying to annihilate one another. What is the difference between them? Where are the savages and where are the intellectuals? They are all alike.

i’ve been reading some martin benson, and some james opie and mme. de salzmann, and they all talk about a certain relationship between the lower and the higher, certain functions, and also service in some mannter which is on a vastly different scale. the most particularly striking correspondences involve the most esoteric parts of the teaching, and it makes me wonder if perhaps they are all talking about the same thing.

Someone asked him about the possibility of a universal language-in what connection I do not remember. “A universal language is possible,” said G., “only people will never invent it.” “Why not?”, asked one of us. “First because it was invented a long time ago,” answered G., “and second because to understand this language and to express ideas in it depends not only upon the knowledge of this language, but also on being. I will say even more. There exists not one, but three universal languages. The first of them can be spoken and written while remaining within the limits of one’s own language. The only difference is that when people speak in their ordinary language they do not understand one another, but in this other language they do understand. In the second language, written language is the same for all peoples, like, say, figures or mathematical formulae; but people still speak their own language, yet each of them understands the other even though the other speaks in an unknown language. The third language is the same for all, both the written and the spoken. The difference of language disappears altogether on this level!’ “Is not this the same thing which is described in the Acts as the descent of the Holy Ghost, upon the Apostles, when they began to understand divers languages?” asked someone. I noticed that such questions always irritated G. “I don’t know, I wasn’t there,” he said.

the point being, as Monty Ptyhon puts it, this is supposed to be a happy occassion, let’s not bicker and argue about who killed who!





happy merry!