Things that I would say to you

Love and hate, hate and love.

Are they really made of separate stuff?

Indifferent, I’ll say, if a spade is a spade

but you want to call it something else

as if I’d be swayed

something Osho said

well I don’t need an old man to tell me what love is

and what it isn’t

Remember that time you said my voice was a smile? 

It ruins my day every once and awhile

You wouldn’t understand why, and probably not how

I’d be surprised if you remember saying it now. 

At times I think you’ve changed your mind

and I cringe at any hopes or thoughts of that kind

But the thing about hope is, 

you don’t know that its there

until it’s crushed out of shape

and it looks like despair

I can’t escape the premonition it will all turn to dust

My hope cannot shatter

but it does seem to rust

Or perhaps we should wait for a later time or place

for my thumb to trace your cheek 

that uninhibited embrace

When I close my eyes, my dreams are beset

Something, always something, won't let me forget

an unfortunate song, 

well timed admiration expressed, 

the invisible grip on my throat and my chest

which stifles my swallows and steals all my breath

Perhaps I will just have to live with the latter

We’d both rather talk about CERN or dark matter.

Your friendship, you see, is most important to me 

But this twist in my heart will not die or recede 

And I do not quite know just how to proceed

To keep quiet is a lie of omission, I suppose

But how does one say, even in prose

That, goddamnit, 

I love you, 

for nothing specific, your mind and your nose

our late at night laughs, your posters, your goals, 

all 193 centimetres

from your head to your toes

But I don’t want anything from you

I just think you should know.

Some people believe you can’t love more than one person,

I’d like to tell them how often the stupid are certain

As if they are the arbiters of the human condition

and all love is the product of presupposition

Here I am, leaving someone kind, someone smart, 

Someone perfectly incapable of breaking my heart

Every day I think of it, it rips me apart

Abandoning a future for something which may not exist

But if I let this chance go, love would call me remiss

Because it’s always been you

I don’t know from where, how, or from when

But my heart is your, if you want it, my friend

Sometimes I wish I knew how you feel.

Other times I’m glad to be spared

the entire ordeal

Because frankly, my darling, my friend, I am scared.

Author's Note

It's becoming an adult Dr. Suess book.

Reviews

[Lyn Anderson]

To the matter at hand, the poem itself, and not the interesting and surprisingly entertaining debate around it. No one can tell you what love is, expert or no. It is a feeling, and we all feel differently. And absolutely, it is ridiculous to think we can only have one love, and that it is not possible to love two or more people, either at different times or simultaneously. It is our cultures, morals, and religions that shape our "rules" and perceptions regarding love. Love doesn't care about any of those things. The poem is thoughtful, candid, and sweet, and well crafted, structurally and grammatically.

[😂]

yep u are right :3

[Winslow Des Totes]

Very poignant words expressing a very real fear: vulnerability. I like the style that you possess and the way that your words seem to jump off the page at certain points even without the over use of punctuation; very nicely done. I noticed just one minor error: third stanza, fourth line should be it's or it is . I make those silly little errors all the time but never see them when I go back over again because I never think to look so I hope that helps. I especially like the stanza "I can’t escape the premonition it will all turn to dust
My hope cannot shatter
but it does seem to rust
Or perhaps we should wait for a later time or place
for my thumb to trace your cheek
that uninhibited embrace"
It is very gripping and bittersweet. I hope love finds this author and gives her the love she deserves. :) great work!

[samparks,sam]

Love and hate, hate and love.
Are they really made of separate stuff?
Indifferent, I’ll say, if a spade is a spade
but you want to call it something else
as if I’d be swayed
something Osho said
well I don’t need an old man to tell me what love is
and what it isn’t

Remember that time you said my voice was a smile?
It ruins my day every once and awhile
You wouldn’t understand why, and probably not how
I’d be surprised if you remember saying it now.

At times I think you’ve changed your mind
and I cringe at any hopes or thoughts of that kind
But the thing about hope is,
you don’t know that its there
until it’s crushed out of shape
and it looks like despair

I can’t escape the premonition it will all turn to dust
My hope cannot shatter
but it does seem to rust
Or perhaps we should wait for a later time or place
for my thumb to trace your cheek
that uninhibited embrace

When I close my eyes, my dreams are beset
Something, always something, won't let me forget
an unfortunate song,
well timed admiration expressed,
the invisible grip on my throat and my chest
which stifles my swallows and steals all my breath

Perhaps I will just have to live with the latter
We’d both rather talk about CERN or dark matter.
Your friendship, you see, is most important to me
But this twist in my heart will not die or recede
And I do not quite know just how to proceed
To keep quiet is a lie of omission, I suppose
But how does one say, even in prose
That, goddamnit,
I love you,
for nothing specific, your mind and your nose
our late at night laughs, your posters, your goals,
all 193 centimetres
from your head to your toes
But I don’t want anything from you
I just think you should know.

Some people believe you can’t love more than one person,
I’d like to tell them how often the stupid are certain
As if they are the arbiters of the human condition
and all love is the product of presupposition

Here I am, leaving someone kind, someone smart,
Someone perfectly incapable of breaking my heart
Every day I think of it, it rips me apart
Abandoning a future for something which may not exist
But if I let this chance go, love would call me remiss

Because it’s always been you
I don’t know from where, how, or from when
But my heart is your, if you want it, my friend

Sometimes I wish I knew how you feel.
Other times I’m glad to be spared
the entire ordeal
Because frankly, my darling, my friend, I am scared.

nice poem

[Shabeeh Haider]

You have poured your heart out on this one. There is so much here that touches the heart of the reader. Loved these lines:

"At times I think you’ve changed your mind
and I cringe at any hopes or thoughts of that kind
But the thing about hope is,
you don’t know that its there
until it’s crushed out of shape
and it looks like despair"

[Rebekah Smith]

But the thing about hope is,
you don’t know that its there
until it’s crushed out of shape
and it looks like despair
But woah, that had me for a moment. Exceptional.

[streetrose]

Good job.
Keep on writing

[The Twin Arenas]

damn straight, 'specially not that homophobic dinosaur.

[The Twin Arenas]

that being said, it's light without being air. what's it an excerpt from? a longer poem?

[Siobahn McKenna]

Yes, I have bits and pieces but I am kind of struggling to make anything cohesive.

[The Twin Arenas]

Poetry doesn't necessarily have to be cohesive. There are no rules to it - I always remind myself of that while I hack that tree. It's anti-prose.

[Siobahn McKenna]

Thank you (: Sometimes I'm a little too rigid in my writing and I need to remember that as well!

[😂]

Aahahhahah I love Osho, groovy dood. But yea, love...hate, wtf eva!

[The Twin Arenas]

Do you really? He was a piece of s**t.

[😂]

haha idk much about the guy rly, i didnt spent a day with him. But he did induce some calming ASMR

[The Twin Arenas]

"if a child is born deaf, dumb, and we cannot do anything, and the parents are willing, the child should be put to eternal sleep", and that people "don't have that permission from existence" to "take the risk of burdening the earth with a crippled, blind child", stating "only the body goes back into its basic elements; the soul will fly into another womb. Nothing is destroyed. If you really love the child, you will not want him to live a seventy-year-long life in misery, suffering, sickness, old age. So even if a child is born, if he is not medically capable of enjoying life fully with all the senses, healthy, then it is better that he goes to eternal sleep and is born somewhere else with a better body".

According to Osho, "Homosexuals, because they were perverted, created the disease AIDS", and also suggested that, rather than being imprisoned, "homosexuals should be given different localities. They can live in their own world, in their own way, and be happy, but they should not be allowed to move in the wider society, spreading all kinds of dangerous viruses."

Couple choice thoughts from a real groovy dude.

[😂]

AH yea you know, i tend to just take the image for what it's worth, not the man behind it. As I'm not going to spend a day with him. But even so, it'd make no diff what he thought so long as he didn't steal my stuff. Telling him his views are wrong , "if it didn't work the last 200 times," won't be making a dent. I kind of want to agree with him about the whole "take the life of a person with no senses." I do find that a horrible circumstance to find yourself in. Although some of us, even with senses, don't like existence. It should prolly be up to the person with the lack of senses. After all it's their life. If they find a joy, they should stick with it. You know ole black man that couldn't see made some fine tunes. Im not sure about the homosexual thing, ill have to look into it. Although it wouldn't surprise me. Again I just think the "Poster" of "OSHO" is cool you know? But im glad you've brought the deeper issues up to discussion.

[😂]

Should have just mentioned I think everyone speaks a truth. He spoke many truths, I wouldn't entirely dismiss him for having a few bad things to say. Just take the good, leave the bad.

[The Twin Arenas]

I'm gonna assume you don't actually think blind people are a "burden on the earth."
If someone tells me that, and also that homosexuals aren't human, I entirely dismiss them. ENTIRELY.

[😂]

Ya . .
well , you kno, people can say anything they want and not mean it. I am sure if a certain circumstance befell him, "namely, that he was put in their shoes, or close enough," he wouldn't be so inclined to say such things. Our experience seems to shape what we say. No, don't think blind people are a burden on the earth, but I think if that condition burdens them, and they want it to end, they ought to have the surgery first. It's a tricky subject really. I am not sure the original poster wants us to debate it here. I can see why you'd dismiss the man, so as I say, just listen to what you are willing to, and take from him what actually has some merit. Speaking of peace, harmony, etc, are all good things I believe. ALthough most of the current teachers in some New Age circles I do disagree with. I mostly disagree with some of the views that are spread, as they do not clarify issues for people like myself, (if such people exist lol).

[The Twin Arenas]

Osho wasn't advocating doctor assisted suicide, just to be clear. There's a difference.
People who actually promote peace and harmony do so without hiding hatred and intolerance in the mashed potatoes. Piece of s**t. Wouldn't dine with him.

[😂]

I certainly agree that hatred and intolerance are not factors in spreading those things. Though the journey to actually expressing peace and harmony, and nothing else, is something that must be unified, "not separated from," the darker aspects of human beings. I wouldn't take his zany ideas seriously. Did this Osho actually do anything with his words? Did he start a rebellion against homosexuals? Have any lives been lost to his words, or has he himself taken a life? That I think is more fundamental than, "waht did this man say?"

[The Twin Arenas]

"Did this Osho actually do anything with his words?"
This is a strange opinion for someone on a writing website to have.
All Osho's words did was validate the opinions of other pieces of s**t, which is a dangerous thing. One need not to look very far to see the ill-effects of such behavior.

[😂]

I assume most people today who have heard of Osho just watch the youtube lectures he does. And I've seen a few. Those that i've watched do not show him discussing the things we've been discussing. I'm sure if what you say is true, then those facets of information are present somewhere else in his archive. I reckon die hard fans would be the ones to dig that far. So the casual youtube philosopher/wanna be seeking knowledge on these things will probably not bother to look that far. I could be wrong, but even so, how much power does one have to stop a person from investigating those rants of his? Ha! I will submit to your saying I have "strange opinions." That is defo true. . .
Looking too far into someone will probably yield the same results as only looking at them from the surface. You can dig and dig into every word they've said and come back still not knowing their true intents, or what they delivered to the world. You can look at but one piece of information they express, and conclude that piece of info is substantial as a message for overall positivity, and individual growth.

[The Twin Arenas]

ha, whatever dude. check out his wikipedia page, and then proceed. maybe read emperor's new clothes while you're at it.

[😂]

will do Waconda Springs! THanks for the chat

[Siobahn McKenna]

Haha. On my news feed all I could see were Waconda Springs comments and I thought they were all the review for this poem and it scared me because I had no idea what he was talking about.

[Siobahn McKenna]

Also, I'd like to add that people can be right about some things and completely wrong about others. I've read some of Osho's writings on love and I sometimes agree with them. I know what you're both saying and I think we can still peg the guy as a barbarian without resorting to moral absolutism.

One of my favourite quotes to assist my point: I can't stand moral absolutism. You know, there's always that guy who wants to point out that Martin Luther King cheated on his wife-- as if he obviously couldn't have been a great person if he did something like that. Or someone will bring out an inspirational quote, and get you to agree, and then inform you that Hitler said it. As if a good thought couldn't come from Hitler. Moral absolutism keeps us from learning from the past. It's easy to say: 'Hitler was a demon. Nazis were all bad seeds.' That's simple. It's much harder to say: 'Is that humanity? Is that me?' -HONY

[😂]

Thank you for giving us a little breather Siobahn, as I kind of felt a tension about this conversation. I do apologize for flooding your page. Though it seems Springs and I had a fairly worthwhile conversation, or so I would hope. I hope everyone gained something from it. It's good to see someone who understood the dynamics of this conversation fairly well, (urself). I am also glad that Springs interjected on my post, and though i'm not sure why I posted it, now it seems i've some substance to work with. Thank you for commenting

[The Twin Arenas]

Yeah, but cheating on your wife is a lot different than calling the blind a burden on the earth, or saying homosexuals aren't human. Not all Nazis were bad seeds, of course, but whenever I run across one of those silly "gotcha" Hitler quotes, what I take away from it is how language can be used to manipulate. It's an insight into evil - the most deceptive kind - not a situation where I'm like, well, oh s**t I guess everyone has some good ideas. Dig the root, not the flower.

[😂]

Though it must be tricky or tacky to suggest to a lad who has favored a mans words that he has no right to listen to them. One might be inclined to put him down even more if the lad decided to start a real movement from those words. But by that point you're too late. The movement is rolling, cults spawn, followers brew, etc. So if you wanted any real potential to stop the situation, you gotta do it right before it even has a chance to begin. And what does that mean? It means distracting the lad from certain pieces of knowledge. Yes, you speak truth when you say language can be used to manipulate. But this is not as possible to someone that is already aware of the illusory nature of language. I could be wrong however, as I think all of us at times feel so isolated that hearing certain words will make us want to follow someone. Is manipulation bad in this respect? Depends on who's manipulating. If it's a man who is trying to bring creative minds together and let them be free to do what they want, I strongly welcome that. If it's someone that feels people should be entrenched in some concrete immutable ideology, then i'd abolish it pronto. So I suppose these thoughts came about from "what you might call," (otherwise wicked notions, acting as catalysts etc.)

[😂]

Oh great add-ons to your work by the way Siobahn !

[The Twin Arenas]

Bringing creative minds together to be free isn't what any of the icons mentioned in this thread were trying to do. As I said earlier, if I find someone's set of beliefs, exclusion - I'm out. Osho had beliefs that ran counter to basic human rights. the rights I would wish extended to someone close to myself or someone close to me (the world at large), be they blind, deaf, or gay Therefore, f**k him.

[😂]

Well you know we participate in atrocities every second. For instance right now we could be helping starving people, (therefore more adequately adhering to moral absolutes.) Yet instead we choose to do this. Osho had some skimpy views, but we're not perfect. Just acknowledge his views are in need of editing, and proceed. ...
Sorry if these rants are a little bothersome but I do it all the time....
And what of the mythical "chain reaction" that resulted in Hitlers rise to tyranny? Somewhere in there is the story of a Jewish art fellow that was not fond of ole Adolf's work. Was this Jew an absolutist or relativist? I would wager the former considering he was religious. Do we blame Hitler for losing his character from the critique, or do we blame the Jewish man for being less intrigued? I haven't really looked into the history of this stuff, but I just recall the event as often mentioned by others. Though I'm not sure what your view on all this is.

[😂]

I just read someone talking about his hatred for the Jews arising mostly from the German loss of WW1. That is probably one part of it, but I would wager a more personal situation, (i.e. the art fiasco), would be a bigger fire-starter. Although he also served on the frontlines. I'm not particularly fond of "nationalism" of any kind, so I do not relate to Mr. Adolf in this respect. If a "nation" loses a war, why do you have hatred for the enemy? Is it because you're cold and tired on the streets due to the attacks? Did you lose family? Was it worse than that? Is it just the revenge you seek since you knew you were there? This might sound atrocious what I'm about to say but: If you didn't want to lose family, your town, etc, you didnt wanna be on a losing battlefield recovering from Mustard gas, then oughta face the underlying causes of the problem of war/etc. not join it.

[The Twin Arenas]

Difference is that we're not advocating starvation for a particular group. "We're not perfect" is a cop-out, and implies that "perfection" is equal to granting basic human rights.
The fact Godwin's Law was invoked so early in this thread is very telling, but I'll indulge. It wasn't the artist that warped Hitler's mind - it was the Viennese media, which was extremely anti-Semetic. This speaks to your "Did Osho do anything with his words?" comment.

[The Twin Arenas]

Hitler hated the Jews because of the anti-Semitism he encountered in the media of Vienna. End of story. He was an easily influenced, evil pissant. It's an old story.

[Siobahn McKenna]

Name someone whose set of beliefs don't include exclusion? I am actually extremely interested. Historical figures that we put on pedestals are products of their society and historical context, which means that their outlook will be tainted by their own special indoctrination, even if they are revolutionaries. Now I am not going defend Osho because I think he's an a*****e haha but I think you'd be hard pressed to find a figure, historically or contemporarily, who doesn't hold some "offensive," "anti-human," or "exclusive" beliefs. To say "f**k you" to people in history, isn't extremely helpful, because that makes it hard to understand where they are coming from. Evil is evil, but it should still be understood, to prevent the same thinking processes from resurfacing. If you look back to people we consider intellectuals and people to be admired Rosseau, Shelley, Marx, Bertrand Russel, etc. their works and writings were often awful and even if they were revolutionary and thoughtful, they didn't line up with their own lives and actions but that does not mean everything they said should be disregarded. I think you must be saying "f**k them" to almost all historical figures.

[Siobahn McKenna]

Also, no offense, but mentioning Godwin's law in a serious way is extremely pretentious haha

[The Twin Arenas]

It's actually pretty simple to find historical figures who didn't hold offensive, anti-human (not sure why you put that in quotation marks) beliefs. Gandhi comes to mind, for starters. Stephen Hawking is another.
You won't catch me praising the writings of Karl Marx....

[The Twin Arenas]

So is dragging Hitler into a debate that can be held without him. The reason the law exists is because of the pretentiousness of that angle. This is actually the first time I've had to mention Godwin's Law in a discussion. Had to look it up.

[Siobahn McKenna]

Ghandi was a racist. Stephen Hawking is a a*****e.

[Siobahn McKenna]

And also anti-semitic

[😂]

I want to make another rant at your top lines...

I do appreciate you clarifying some of this for me, as I have not looked into any of it. I do see a controversy when we go toward: "advocating vs. not advocating" . There's just as much blame on someone for not doing something as there is for doing something. Though i'd wager the former has more weight. The current circumstance is that people are suffering, and so it is moral to act in concert to alleviate the suffering. And I don't see expressing this view as "merely" doing so either. Nor do I believe a persons perspectives of past or their current living should impede on the veracity of this idea, "the one that says we should help people." It's evident how we can help. The issue is just obtaining the tools, individuals, resources. That requires cooperation for the most part. It requires each mind and body is able to do the job as well. I know this was probably off key but it may as well be said. I did read a little about how there were anti-semitic views prior to his arrival of power.

[Siobahn McKenna]

Well, Hitler wasn't brought up specifically as a point of debate in this, he was just part of a quote that demonstrated how demonizing people (and all of their actions, thoughts, feelings, expressions) is ridiculous.

[Siobahn McKenna]

Also, thanks for all of the views this conversation is getting haha (:

[The Twin Arenas]

Gandhi's views on race are debatable, at best. Also, an a*****e? Personality is one thing. Advocating the denial of basic human rights is what this argument is about.

[😂]

This is actually a very good conversation, I wish I could hold my appreciation for it back a little bit, but oh well. I feel very included, welcomed, and among educated well mannered thinkers. I should start hitting the books so I can keep up.

[The Twin Arenas]

It's the aim, right? Views and discussion. Don't thank me, though. I'm not the one that call Osho a "groovy dood." He's a false prophet, and a personal trigger.

[Siobahn McKenna]

Thats your opinion, but Ghandi isn't a good example, he believed in the the caste system at least in part. Stephen Hawking is also a scientist, so he doesn't really write books about what he think of people's sexualities and rights etc, but he is an elitist and an intellectual snob and that has been the root of many evils.( and like I said, anti-semitic.)

[😂]

Well I must thank you for leading me away from his skull schemed inspirations! And luckily my trip into "groovy compliments" to his majesty lead me into the words of one Springs, "also a majesty of sorts." Though it's been about idk 7 months since my last visit to Osho at all prior to this discourse.

[😂]

But thank you for trying to keep me treading lightly sir!

[The Twin Arenas]

Are you accusing Hawking of being an anti-Semite because of the Israel boycott? Boycotting Israel is far from being an anti-Semite. An intellectual snob? C'mon, you're going to have to do better than that.
Gandhi's beliefs changed over time, and if you honestly believe that he's an icon of repression, then, s**t, I don't believe you, honestly. Both Osho and Hitler became more and more convicted of their beliefs regarding sexuality and genetics.

[The Twin Arenas]

Only snobs call people snobs. Hawking is a genius, and we're lucky to have that mind.

[😂]

Recent lectures by a man named Mark Passio suggest that Hawking was indeed a genius, so genius that he swapped minds for a while. He went from very left brain to very right brain. Sadly i've been on that slice n dice for so long I'm jus tryina clean up the mess. No rly, the guys cool, but yo, you were putting me on for revering this Osho guy, "with my rather whimsical and silly , totally not dogmatic" broaching of his name, yet here you are giving Hawking his unsolicited due. How do you do it???? My luck is running out i'm guessing!

[Siobahn McKenna]

Only snobs intimate that other people are snobs for calling other people snobs haha The rest of that sentence isn't even worth replying to because it doesn't really have anything to do with what I was saying.
I'm not saying Ghandi is a symbol of oppression. I'm telling you that disregarding someones entire life and works because they hold some beliefs that are horrible is not a very helpful or useful, regardless of their convictions.
The Stephen Hawking anti-semitism debate could go on forever, obviously the Israel boycott isn't the only reason, but it's a really good way to disguise it.

[The Twin Arenas]

Hawking isn't a piece of s**t. Osho is.
Here's some more influential people who didn't/don't hold beliefs involving the denial of basic human rights:
Keith Haring
Ai Weiwei
Malala Yousafzai
Stevie Wonder
Terry Fox
David Bowie
etc.

[😂]

People who hold beliefs vs your own beliefs. ..
If you can't trust yourself, you can't trust anyone.
If you have to follow the footsteps of the past on the terms you mentioned, then the sand below you will sink deeper just as you. Darling! Don't stand in it!
Find concrete!
Jk, whatever creams your freakin marshmellows m8! It's been fun...

[Siobahn McKenna]

See, you say basic human rights here and there but you also use exclusion, and some other choice words, which aren't the same thing.
If you're really going to argue that we should ignore everything someone says, and say "f**k them" no matter how influential they were, because they hold some beliefs that were/are terrible, then I can't argue with you because it's your opinion.
It's literally moral absolutism though.

[😂]

We weren't arguing, we were just having a nice chitty chatty! Group hug!

[The Twin Arenas]

Define intellectual snob in a way that doesn't make you sound like an anti-intellectual?
Here's the issue. Osho was revered as a "sex guru" advocating a more open attitude towards human sexuality. His personal beliefs? The EXACT opposite - to the most extreme degree. What he professed was the exact opposite of what he believed.
I'm not saying that people aren't all pieces of s**t - they most certainly are - but some are much bigger pieces of s**t than others, and should be exposed as such. Osho falls into this category. If you call the blind, deaf and crippled a "burden on the Earth" and describe homosexuals as "not human" then what you say is of little worth, as what you say does not accept a huge, beautiful, worthy demographic of the world.

"as a homosexual, you are not even a human being […]. You have fallen from dignity."
-Osho, the sex guru.

F**k. That.

[The Twin Arenas]

And f**k Karl Marx!

[Siobahn McKenna]

Intellectual snob: someone who is an intellectual who believes intellectuals are inherently better than non-intellectuals. That was quick.
I completely agree that people should be exposed for being pieces of s**t, and that some pieces of s**t are much bigger than others haha I think we're all in agreement that he was a terrible guy. I'm just saying, to take all of his writing or someone equally bad and throw them out, say they're meaningless now, is a flawed approach.

[Siobahn McKenna]

Yes, Karl Marx was terrible.

[😂]

god it never ends! I dont care , got nowhere to be but here! Did Osho mean "homosexuals that chose or that were born as such?" I know it shouldnt rly matter but it is Osho we're talkin about. If indeed "sex guru" he was, no doubt his views were affected by the particular orgys he dined in. You know living that kinda life is fun, but can lead to some squirrely words. Have you been a member of any orgy as of late Prince? I was granted an invitation to one and declined!

[The Twin Arenas]

I'm just saying you can't be a sex guru, or have that as part of your deal, and have people buy into that, if you hate it when people have sex.

[Siobahn McKenna]

I still think people should read the Communist Manifesto, even though Karl Marx was terrible, I still think people should be able to read Mein Kempf if they want to, even though Hitler was terrible, so I still think people should read and interpret Osho, if they want to.

[The Twin Arenas]

I don't think Stephen Hawking believes he is better than you or I. He probably thinks he's a lot smarter, and so do I, but holding that against him makes ME the snob. Which I think is what I think majority of people who call other people intellectual snobs are doing, at least the ones I've encountered, in almost every single case.

[😂]

Yes well if i was a member of an orgiastic society, I would do my darndest to not push my own desired fantasies upon the group. It's hard I Know, but I would do my best! Though im speaking from a place of ignorance as i've yet to experience the fun to have a valid view on it.

[The Twin Arenas]

Sure they should, but they shouldn't put the book down and say "Hitler was groovy dood."

[😂]

*plays with thumbs in the corner*....Siobahn, should I go?

[The Twin Arenas]

No, Prince hasn't invited me to an orgy.

[The Twin Arenas]

Look, I'm not advocating censorship. Never.

[😂]

You misread my diatribe King I called you Prince , didn't ask if he invited you to one! Would kinda be difficult the man is dead, as is all the other men we're discussing... "Hawking in both realms".

[Siobahn McKenna]

I'm sorry have you heard the way he talks? You should read what his first wife had to say about him initially, before she got in trouble with the publisher. Well he is a lot smarter haha. It's not holding that against him, I believe you're confusing what I am saying. Well you can believe that. To me, an intellectual snob is someone who think they're a better human because they are smarter. Well you can be sure, you're not encountering it in this case. You should ask people what they mean instead of operating on a bias any way.

I personally don't think anyone should say that about anyone haha.

[Siobahn McKenna]

Well I would hope not. However, I do think putting the umbrella of evil over all of someone's work because they were an evil person, is a tiny step in that direction.

[The Twin Arenas]

Agreed. Why'd you say about Stephen Hawking then?
You should hear what any first wife has to say.
I don't think I'm confusing it. I think an intellectual snob is someone who THINKS they are smart, but are really just morons masquerading as an intellectual. A true intellectual obviously wouldn't believe they are better than any one else for reasons of intelligence, otherwise they wouldn't be an intellectual.

[The Twin Arenas]

Have I heard the way he talks? Yeah - it's stunning. He's brilliant. He explained the universe, and I understood it. It was incredible.

[😂]

aye, change the word "evil" for "ignorance". The connotation of which is (to ignore something that is present). Which is distinct from "nescience" which is (to not be able to know something as the knowledge is not present). Though one can always give the illusion that something is not present. WHat did any of these men not know that they shoulda? Why didn't they know it? What did they know that they shouldn't have? I would certain deem "lack of knowledge" as an undermining force above "having the incorrect knowledge." blahblahblah . . .

[The Twin Arenas]

I'm not advocating censorship at all. That's a leap, Siobahn. By all means, read Osho, read Hitler, read Marx - but keep your bullshit deflectors up. And, for Christ's sake, if you're reading the works of a sex guru, read what they believe about sex. The problem is that I don't think that most of the people who find Osho a "groovy dood" also believe that homosexuals "aren't human," as Osho did. That's the definition of a false prophet.

[The Twin Arenas]

False prophets are the f****n' worst.

[Siobahn McKenna]

Why did I say what? I did't say he was evil, I said he had flaws, just like everyone else. His being a jerk doesn't really affect his ability to write about physics, I never said it did. I think you're altering the definition of an intellectual to suit you. Being intelligent does not necessarily mean you have emotional intelligence, empathy, or kindness. I believe Stephen does think he's better than the general populous. I don't hate him, I just think thats a reality.
Yes, you should.
As snob means - thinking there is a correlation between social status and human worth- and in our time intelligent people often have a higher social status.

[The Twin Arenas]

You called Hawking an intellectual snob.
I think being intelligent does mean those things.
Really? Not me. I think intelligent people have a much, MUCH lower social status. Donald Trump is a step away from being leader of the free world.

[Siobahn McKenna]

I know you're not advocating censorship, but look around censorship is definitely coming back. I think we totally agree on keeping the bullshit detectors up. We disagree that because someone holds terrible believes, their opinions on other things are automatically invalid. I don't think everything Osho wrote about love is wrong, examining the source does not mean throwing the source away if you don't like it or if the author is a bad person. Sure false prophets are terrible.

[😂]

Aye, the truth has been set loose! Where are we going with it? Chasing it into Alan Watts as well? Oh he was an alcoholic, I assume a woman beater too! Darn! Shouldn't have heard his educational and funny talks where I learned a great deal about duality, and the two big models for cosmic origins, one of which people still for some reason labor over, "Hawkings included." And I was lucky enough to parse his views from the dangerous ideologies that mighta been produced of his words. There are just so many men to call BS on, yet so many other things to do as well. It's fun I know, but grief befall us! We're turning into those dirty vagrants!

[The Twin Arenas]

There aren't a lot of intelligent, evil people. Hitler killed himself hiding in ruins he created. Smart? Hardly. Evil? Absolutely.

[The Twin Arenas]

I think you can't write about love if you are against love.

[The Twin Arenas]

If you are against love, then you reject love as a concept.

[😂]

oh no Donald Trump! LOL , , , on a poetry site!
I admire the man personally .

[Siobahn McKenna]

Hawking is an intellectual snob.
Being an intellectual does not mean you have empathy, or emotional intelligence. Many great scientists who are terrible mysoginists are considered intellectuals, Karl Marx is considered an intellectual, and they did not hold these values, you can't just change the definition to suit you. Well you can think that, but you're not going to convince me that intelligence and social status have a negative correlation. Donald Trump is ridiculous, but an entirely different issue.

[😂]

"love as a concept"...nifty s**t there. Further extrapolated to, "love as but words." Words... our most ubiquitous most used means of exchange, also the most culturally bound, as well as the thing we grew up learning. Makes one think cautiously about using them....but no fun in that for long!
Makes me wanna get into Chomsky now...

ColOrlEsSs GrEen IdeAs SleEP FuRiOuslY!

[Siobahn McKenna]

You're saying that Hitler wasn't intelligent? Well I don't really have anything to say to that. You can write about anything. Actually, being in opposition with something is a fantastic way to learn about it and think critically about it, not that that applies to Osho, but just in general. That sounds meaningful, but it really doesn't make any sense. You can be against something but not reject it as a concept. And also, love is an incredibly subjective and indefinable thing.

[Siobahn McKenna]

Unless you consider yourself the arbiter of the concept of love and how humans think and feel about it.

[The Twin Arenas]

I believe that to write and speak and be regarded as a worthy teacher of love, you should be for love - not against it, as Osho was.

[The Twin Arenas]

Hitler was evil. He wasn't smart. Do you think Donald Trump is smart? They're the same guy.

[The Twin Arenas]

Saying homosexuals aren't human is an anti-love statement, unless you believe otherwise?

[The Twin Arenas]

"I love love and have worthy things to say about it! Unless you love someone of the same sex in which case you aren't human." Personally, I wouldn't listen to this man.

[Siobahn McKenna]

Osho was for a specific kind of love, he rejected other kinds of love, which means his idea of love was inherently flawed, so I agree with you there. Whether or not someone's worthy of teaching something is decided by readers throughout time. For example, we both agree that his writings on homosexuals was horrible, so we don't read them or we do just to understand and critique. However, that does not mean that his writings on his definition of love are not applicable.

[😂]

Far as creating a fair degree of chaos and controversy as a president, yes, he's smart. And that'd only be evil if order was a reliable source of goodness, which history shows it is hit and miss. Try and try we might to reconcile with every issue that is trivial, not focusing on fundamentals, and then picking at the deeds of ONE MAN with a fake hair dressing and a meme cult following so that we don't have to look into deeper matters. Aye , not at all interested in the endless menagerie of dichotomies set up to separate us from each other. That's sad, really sad. Oh well!

[The Twin Arenas]

Sure. They're applicable if you think homosexuals aren't human, and are cool with that.
His views on homosexuals were PART of his teachings. They weren't just something he dropped in an interview for Maxim magazine or something. They were part of his doctrine.

[The Twin Arenas]

If you create chaos, you aren't smart. Chaos isn't intelligent.

[Siobahn McKenna]

No two people are the same. Hitler was of average intelligence, he wasn't stupid. He navigated well through politics. You're saying that as if evil grants you super powers or something. I hate it when people liken Trump to Hitler. I mean, I don't like the guy, he's not conservative, he's not a republican, he's a racist, and he has verbal diarrhoea, and conflates everything rude and stupid he says to political incorrectness. But likening him to someone responsible for the deaths of millions of people is irresponsible and a sad effort to make him look evil instead of just an a*****e.
Stop trying to smear me as homophobic "unless you believe otherwise," spare everyone haha. Thats also irresponsible and a good way to ruin a debate. Should I intimate that you're a racist? No, because there is no real proof of that and its just underhanded and ridiculous.
Saying people are not human is an anti-human statement. Humans are not love. Humans can love, they are capable of it, we should love each-other, but our personhood is not defined by love.

[😂]

The current "order system" functions under the umbrella of chaos with the edict: "Ordo Ab Chao" or "order out of chaos." We live in a world that functions because of people suffering. At least we do in the political / mass production spheres in a variety of ways. THere is no "pristine order". THe ole utilitarian argument i'm sure you've heard: There's a city where everyone's happy, but the only way this happiness is possible is with the abusing of a child in the basement. Somehow his fear keeps the city running. I know sounds a lil weird, but it's an overarching metaphor for ppl having to give up these "humans rights" you stand for in order to create a world in which we can even debate it. The idea of a truly "human" individual would be to alleviate the need for that suffering child. Chaos as a creative force is extremely intelligent, and should not be underestimated. CHaos is a part of mathematics (the theory of chaos), as is chaos present in the cosmos, yet here we are, discussing it either as function or frivolity. CHaos is the PUSH in this system that constantly seeks to PULL itself back together and keep a crumbling infrastructure standing.

[Siobahn McKenna]

Chaos is inevitable (it's science, entropy). And creating chaos can be an incredibly intelligent move to gain power. Just because someone says something evil, it does not mean that they cannot say anything else that is correct. I don't know how to communicate that in any plainer language.

[😂]

I was looking at chaos as a force that could destroy power, "namely, human power over each other." It should seek to discourage any attempt to achieve such things. There is a certain level of purpose behind even the most seemingly arbitrary actions. I probably lack a particular piece of knowledge here to make this more tenable, but it's something I just know. We have to use that dynamic to help this species, not destroy it. Unless you are venturing into my more nightmarish / zombie movie scenarios. IN which case . . . blah!
I'm par for Social Anarchy atm.

[😂]

The system we live in influences virtually everything we and our locals, family, so on absorb into our/their noggins. Whoever writes the morals of a society has significant power, if not all the power. This is where it gets tricky. Because you know killing is wrong, but what about what people say? If a man says something counter to the mass minds view of things, does he get treated just like how a killer does? The mass mind has issues, and should be thoroughly criticized. When it comes to individuals as creative beings, they should be less criticized, more understood. We're trying to piece together our true motives and experiences with this language. There will be errors, nobody is going to get it right every time. This system propagates "moral absolutes" from the church that are too dogmatic and unforgiving, while at the same time sectors of society propagate a tolerance that is equally dangerous in that it does not account for a dangerous system. I'm not sure if either mind is fixed in either position however. I'm not sure if the dogmatic mind is to be forever condemned as such, or if the overly tolerant are to be walked on forever. THe INDIVIDUAL has a choice. And either side you choose does not really put enough emphasis on individual. The tolerant side would suggest that you cannot have certain thoughts, as they are crude and hurtful, while the dogmatic side will say they are futile sentiments. THere has to be some kind of balance there. But it won't be forever. It's the work of the individual to seek to at least strive for it.

[The Twin Arenas]

If what you are saying is evil, and contradicts, in it's essence, everything else you are trying to say, then you can't be correct. Osho is the definition of a contradiction.

[😂]

We're not talking about Osho. He's weak soup compared to these forces.

[Siobahn McKenna]

Thats a generalization.

[The Twin Arenas]

Creating chaos can be as much a sign of ineptitude as it as a sign of intelligence, and there aren't a lot of example were creating chaos has worked out well for any period of time, or ended well. Chaos, in and of itself, is not intelligent, which is what I said.

[The Twin Arenas]

How is that a generalization? It's the old practice what you preach.

[Siobahn McKenna]

So love is about possession and not appreciation? That you don't need to respect them in order to love them?

[Siobahn McKenna]

Because, those are some of Osho's writings. Are they just inherently incorrect because he said other things that were evil?

[The Twin Arenas]

He was advocating sexual acceptance, and at the same time calling homosexuals perverts. Accusing them of creating AIDS. He was a scumbag, and his notions of "sexual acceptance" were far from accepting. You cannot teach sexual acceptance if you yourself are not accepting of sexuality. It'd be like being taught ideas about racial acceptance by a racist. That is to say, not taught at all. And it paints whatever else he has to say in a really s****y light, at least it did for me. Did I mention he though the blind were a "burden to the Earth?"

[😂]

I apologize for my statement about Osho, although I think what i'm saying oughta be considered thoroughly. Aye sir, I'm not standing for some twisted view of chaos. I'm for something that promotes overall goodness. It's just that "truth" has two sides to it. THere is the "truth we wanna hear" and "the truth we dont wanna hear". You can't get stuck on one too long. We have to strive for our creative self, "emotional self, etc" but also the willing and able self... "survival self" . Passio talks about this extensively in a lecture.

[😂]

ha @ lady, that sounds like good ole fantasy right there..."i love your body"...what's wrong with that? Well nothin! But let's save the planet while we're at it!

[The Twin Arenas]

Anything he said about love is bullshit, because he thought homosexuals weren't human, yes. I'd say the same thing about ANYONE who had something to say about love, and also thought homosexuals weren't human. If you don't believe homosexuals are human, and they're perverts, and created AIDS on and on and on, then everything you have to say about sexuality or any notion of love or whatever, I mean, f**k it dude. More than anything else, he's full of hate.

[The Twin Arenas]

Like if someone comes up to me and says, "hey I hate blind people and deaf people and the handicapped, and homosexuals," I'm going to say, "Man, you're a hateful bird." And then if they're like, "Want me to teach you about sexual acceptance and meditation?" I'm going to laugh my f*****g a*s off.

[😂]

Full of hate that would, no doubt, be less likely to surface were he in a world which had the fortune of being flooded with higher consciousness. And "higher consciousness" does not mean "i love everyone" from my view. It means , well, "and this is gonna sound weird but"...doing yo thang! WHICH has the likelihood of leading to you loving a LOT of people. As you will be recognizing your subjective grounds more readily. I've yet to take a psychedelic at age 23, and i'm deep in the rabbit hole, not tootin my horn, jus bringing it up so u kno where i come from. Ive had several experiences which have made me rethink this "reality," and "language."

[Siobahn McKenna]

Ok. I just want to outlines some things for you.
No one is arguing that Osho wasn't a bad guy, and he didn't say some evil things.
The argument is that just because someone says something evil, believes something evil, or even acts evil, does not mean that everything else they have to say is wrong.
It seems to me that you believe that remove their ability to be correct, extremely emotively, but that's just incorrect. If you are going to following that thinking to a logical end then anything Osho said is incorrect and therefore: love is about possession, we shouldn't learn to be alone, you dont need to respect someone to love them, etc. If thats really the conclusion you're going to draw from this, thats ok, but you should not how limiting you're being.

[The Twin Arenas]

It's not like Osho was teaching a bunch of stuff. His main deal is a towards a more open attitude in regards to human sexuality. That's what makes all of this so ridiculous. It's not like he was a juggling instructor who hated homosexuals.

[Siobahn McKenna]

removes* sorry

[The Twin Arenas]

He was professing a more open attitude towards human sexuality. He taught a lot of things, but that was main. He himself did not have an open attitude towards human sexuality, therefore is a poor teacher in regards to it.

[The Twin Arenas]

I'm not saying the OPPOSITE of what he taught was true, I'm just saying that the things can be better learned from people who actual live or practice what they teach, which is how any sort of worthwhile teaching should conducted.

[The Twin Arenas]

Osho said a lot of s**t so he could f**k a lot women, while at the same harboring awful, awful beliefs about large segments of the population. This isn't a new story. All I said, if you scroll up, was that Osho was a piece of s**t, homophobic dinosaur. I've also said that all people are pieces of s**t. I've also said that it isn't hard to find teachers or examples of people that are not as much of a piece of s**t as he was.
I'm all for taking what you can from whoever you can, but if what you are taking are teachings regarding open attitudes towards sexual acceptance and ideas about love and universality from a man who was so NOT about that, then you best check yourself, because there are better teachers.

[😂]

You guys check out Tantra at all?

[The Twin Arenas]

"Many observers noted that Osho's lecture style changed in the late seventies, becoming less focused intellectually and featuring an increasing number of ethnic or dirty jokes intended to shock or amuse his audience."
He was a f****n' loser who was full of hate, and people bought into it because those were the times. He certainly doesn't deserve the run he's getting from us.

[😂]

"he should live as he teaches" . . . gosh man, shoulda coulda woulda
when uberman crawls out of Nietzsche novels we can take you seriously there.
Otherwise you're kind of advocating a sort of "eugenics". Although you know im just
poking fun at you!
Well you know getting a lot of women is a noble aspiration for anyone, and if offending people gets it for you, i guess that's the less dangerous way to do it. I know I know I sound like a real jerk right now, but dude you go on and on here and I can't seee any other function for it than entertainment.

[😂]

If you know it's true the man was a prick, and you've said it to us as many times as you have, and it has had little effect, by all means, start a youtube channel raving about the man!

[The Twin Arenas]

"She came back to the meeting and […] began to play the tape. It was a little hard to hear what he was saying. […] And the gist of Bhagwan's response, yes, it was going to be necessary to kill people to stay in Oregon. And that actually killing people wasn't such a bad thing. And actually Hitler was a great man, although he could not say that publicly because nobody would understand that. Hitler had great vision."
I mean it goes on and on.

[The Twin Arenas]

"groovy dood" you're coming off great, man.

[Siobahn McKenna]

Words like worthwhile and better are all subjective based on your morality. You've said substantially more than that. Par example: You said "everything he said about love is bullshit," which means they are wrong, and if they are wrong they cannot be correct. Just because someone who is s****y says something, doesn't make what they are saying is false. As long as you understand that. If you agree with that, fantastic, but thats not what you indicated. There may be better teachers, but we should not just disregard the good things people say. The idea that was should only take knowledge from people who practice what they preach is noble but ultimately extremely limiting.

[The Twin Arenas]

On the strength of Sheela's tape recordings, authorities later stated the belief that there had been a plan that sannyasin women and children would have been asked to create a human shield had authorities attempted to arrest Osho at the commune.[143]

nice.

[The Twin Arenas]

"Osho even deconstructed his own authority, declaring his teaching to be nothing more than a "game" or a joke."

Or even bullshit. Emperor's New Clothes.

[The Twin Arenas]

Not wrong. Bullshit. Not right or wrong. Bullshit. There's a difference.

[😂]

Ah yes, very illuminating! Everything is a game. Don't be a poor sport!

[Siobahn McKenna]

You keep arguing how terrible of a person Osho was and I don't understand why. You're aware I agree with you, correct?

[Siobahn McKenna]

Bullshit is defined as nonsense, lies, or exaggeration...So yes. Lies are incorrect, thats why they are called lies.

[😂]

You guys are curing my mania . Gracias !

[Siobahn McKenna]

Other human, who said this: "Well you know getting a lot of women is a noble aspiration for anyone, and if offending people gets it for you, i guess that's the less dangerous way to do it."
Seriously? Please re-evaluate yourself there. You cannot "get" women, because women are inanimate objects. I know its a figure of speech, but its an insulting one. Yeah, everyone wants the b*****s. Spare me. Please don't contribute crap like this.

[Siobahn McKenna]

not* inanimate objects, or objects at all.

[The Twin Arenas]

Not the same. Check out this article on bullshit. I've come back to it often.
http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2005/03/defining_bullshit.html

[The Twin Arenas]

Yeah, we all agree he wasn't a "groovy dood."
I'm also saying that he didn't have anything to say worth listening to, because of how "ungroovy" he was. Which is to say, exceptionally ungroovy. Just as Hitler didn't have anything worthwhile to say, nothing that is going to make me a better person, beyond pointing out the evil people are capable of. If THAT'S your case for listening to Osho, we're in total agreement.

[Siobahn McKenna]

Interesting change in the definition, but I am going to go with webster and not the new one provided.

[😂]

I'm sorry miss. I have a different view on these matters, "particularly that one", but perhaps I should not have brought them up.

[The Twin Arenas]

I think the Webster's definition is much closer to the Slate definition than to "correct or incorrect."

[Siobahn McKenna]

But your opinion that Osho is bullshitting stems from this article? Alright. Sure. If you're going to use it so that it means he didn't know what he was talking about and he made random shots in the dark which still happen to be right, I'm happy with that.

[Siobahn McKenna]

You think women are objects?

[😂]

I think the idea of "objectification" is misunderstood by most. I do not see it as a negative thing. I see it as revering the body. It is one of the most beautiful things to me. It's just that we use terms like "objectification" to distinguish that kind of love for someone.

[Siobahn McKenna]

I think some things he has to say are worth listening to, simple because I believe them to be correct. My case for listening to Osho is both what you said, and also because despite it being "bullshit", some things he had to say were correct.

[😂]

I shoulda just outright said the word "objectification" is ambiguous.

[Siobahn McKenna]

You can think thats what it is, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectification, thats what it means. You can think someone is attractive but that isn't the same as thinking they are an object. I wouldn't intermix the two.

[Siobahn McKenna]

Its not ambiguous.

[The Twin Arenas]

Someone who makes random shots in the dark that happen to be right should not be classified as a guru or teacher. You basically defined a fraud.

[😂]

Well I don't see them as objects, I see them as "physical forms" with profound properties. When and where was it writ that matter and spirit are separate entities? THe term "objectification" may as well be used as a bludgeon to beat someone over the head if they don't appeal to very JudeoChristian conceptions of what a woman should be.

[Siobahn McKenna]

No one here said we should define him as a guru or a teacher. I'm just saying if something is correct, I'll listen to it, regardless of the source.

[😂]

The term might not be ambiguous by sanctioned and expressed definition, but if it has multiple uses as a term for describing ones relationship to a female, it invariably can take on ambiguity. I believe I Just demonstrated this.

[😂]

I know this is a buzz topic but you didn't stop me. I will retract if you wish.

[The Twin Arenas]

I'm gonna step out of this "women as objects" debate because, well, s**t....
Siobahn, we should get a beer when you're back in town. This was a great conversation. I'm at work, and was supposed to be writing my radio show for tonight, and instead this happened.
A listening audience of zero thanks you in advance for what will surely be a s****y program.

[Siobahn McKenna]

And it's ok if I see you as a physical form with profound properties, but instead of thinking you're beautiful and I should get you sexual, I should find men to work for me and do my bidding, just "get some men" because its noble. Just no.

[Siobahn McKenna]

Yeah! We should! Awesome talk! I'll box you my number. Talk about this haha. You can quote me.

[The Twin Arenas]

Igor's All Night Rock n' Roll Dance Castle might not be the most appropriate forum. We'll see how desperate I get, though.

[😂]

I meant no harm by the way. I just have very slippery views, and im tryina work on em myself.
You guys do this all the time eh? Cool! I wish I had a chick to have such enriching debates with :/
Alas, never had one at all.

[Siobahn McKenna]

I appreciate your explanation of your idea on the word objectification. However, that is not even the main point. I think the idea that men need to "get a bunch of women" that sexual promiscuity is some how noble is cancerous to society.

[😂]

I actually overlooked that , and did slip into cynicism. I don't really favor much of the male attitudes toward women. I find it vulgar, mostly because of my nature toward women.

[Siobahn McKenna]

Wonderful, then I believe we are in agreement there.

[😂]

HA, one of the first here. At least without a disagreement attached before/after. Please do give me a shout. My name is Dalton. I hope I didn't come off as too ...... bleh!

[😂]

P.S. , Alan Watts is probably better than Osho , what you think Mr. Springs?

[😂]

LOL LISTENING TO ALAN WATTS, I RETURN TO THIS ....

[😂]

man what a mess this was and still is....good times. Ive become a very political socialistic person sincr this, so the Marx things are buggin meh

[dan]

I am an old man, so I definitely will not attempt to tell you what love is. I have an old write in my archives if you feel interested enough to look back for it; it is called "Love Is..." and it is an awkward yet sincere attempt on my part to define love. Did I succeed? Nah....just a shot in the dark. But it entertained me, if no one else.
Please send me a read request when this poem is finished and titled. It looks like a great start to a great write.
take care...dan