Garbage, all of it.

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by Angela

Yeah

Great answer. Who's creating your avatar? I mean, do you believe in a soul, or the OneConsciousnessWhoCreatesAllAvatars, or what? Am I real, separate, or a figment of your deranged imagination (and it must be to imagine me, eh?). Will you continue forever, and is there a Pink Unicorn as some say?

BBS - off for some choccy just now! Mmmm

[Angela]

Oh. I thought it was a simple yes-or-no question.

I find "TheOneConsciousnessWhoCreatesAllAvatars" a bit cumbersome, don't you? So I call it my Expanded Self. The avatar, "Angela" appears to be separate from the avatar called "John Freestone, Wilderness Priest" but you and I are part of one big soup -- we're in this together. "John Freestone" is not a figment of "Angela's" deranged imagination. They are equally real, as long as you consider projections of my Expanded Self's consciousness "real." (I often do, just because it's a little inconvenient to have to go around discussing the illusory nature of physical reality all the time. There is chocolate to be eaten, after all. ) Angela is no more important than John, just because she happens to be me. My Expanded Self is timeless, but Angela and John appear to be temporary. Structures are unstable.

I'll bet there is a Pink Unicorn, but I don't pray to her or expect gifts on Horn Day. She is not hosting a cocktail reception for my dead parents in Uniheaven, I don't think. But now that I've conceived of it, maybe she is! Have a Brave Bull for me, Mom, cheers!

Boy, that was a lot of smilies, wasn't it? I think I was inspired by the mention of chocolate.

[John Freestone]

...Mmmm... Now, where were we?

Originally Posted by Angela

Oh. I thought it was a simple yes-or-no question.

Yes, it was and it was a great answer. I then thought I'd ask for more info in your words instead of putting words in your mouth and asking if they were something like ones you might say. Still, it's good to know that old synapse is still firing now and then. Wilderness Preacher, you say? Oh frick I'm turning into Yoda.

<snip>
chocolate.

I've cut out the bits I didn't understand. I'm glad I never took you up on that idea of writing as if I were you. ...and as for you pretending you're me...!

[pianoperformer]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

That's weird, I was trying to quote you pianoperformer and I keep getting wolfgang's text in the message box. I even just tried Reply at the bottom and got wolfgang's. WTF?

Probably because I'm god, or something.

Oh, you weren't supposed to hear that. Excuse me a moment as I clear your memory.

...

Originally Posted by John Freestone

Anyway, I just wanted to say thanks for saying that you agree with me.

anytime. If you need a person to agree with you, just call and I'll come and agree.

Originally Posted by John Freestone

That defensiveness is something we all do I reckon, at least I've hardly found anyone who is above it, and I'm not. I understand that it's difficult for some people here to deal with criticism of IM. It's important to recognise that we are not our beliefs, and then we can debate without too much difficulty.

True, it is hard to debate about such topics without getting upset when someone attempts to annihilate our carefully-crafted beliefs.

Originally Posted by John Freestone

BTW, I wonder if you or anyone knows what that multi-quote button does between the quote and quick reply buttons. I'm darned if I can work out if it's doing anything...unless pressing it earlier is why I got the wrong quoted message here? I imagined it would quote each paragraph of a post separately or something, but it just highlights and nothing seems any different.

:- gobless

I hear it allows you to quote multiple posts. I lied; I really had no idea.

[pianoperformer]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

Love could be God, or it could be the experience my genes create in my senses to trick me into passing them on.

I still feel love.

These vague definitions of God really annoy me. I could call my house God and be no better or worse off for it, except that some people might consider me a little out there. As far as I know, every culture, whether they were monotheistic or polytheistic, believed in anthropomorphic gods. When we spout these cliches like, "God is love," it reduces the definition to essentially, nothing.

That's probably why I have so much trouble with defending my position over in the "Does God exist?" thread, because people all have different ideas of God! So I say, "God doesn't exist, because..." and they say, "but that's not how I think of God." And I essentially say, I don't care. That's how countless cultures throughout history have defined God. I can't just one day redefine the word "pizza," can I? If someone tells me that pizza is bad for me, but then I say, "that's not how I define pizza," they are likely not to care, because that's how nearly everyone else on Earth defines pizza.

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by Angela

I really like the name John Freestone. It sounds like one of those survivalist wilderness cult leaders, long beard, several wives, little children carrying buckets, occasional midnight full moon orgies.

I just find that image really endearing.

Which tree you hidin' in, girl? I'll set the darn dogs on ya, mind!

Angela...? I'm getting some kind of golden bridge, feathers, you live on a hillside overlooking the sea, lots of dogs running about - oh, and remember, I don't believe any of this. Yours is a nice name too and thanks. Shucks I'm getting all embarrassed. Can't we go back to arguing please?

[John Freestone]

What memory?

anytime. If you need a person to agree with you, just call and I'll come and agree.

That's damn fine of you. Come all that way just to agree with me?

True, it is hard to debate about such topics without getting upset when someone attempts to annihilate our carefully-crafted beliefs.

Don't be ridiculous.

I hear it allows you to quote multiple posts. I lied; I really had no idea.

LOL
No seriously.
I know, people go LOL when they're just smiling a bit, but really I lolled.

[Angela]

<snip>
chocolate.

No, no, no. I clearly said

chocolate

By the way, you got the "overlooking the sea" part right! But no golden bridge, no feathers, no hillside, and no dogs. That was pretty good, though - one out of five ain't bad!

[coLLege kid07]

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

These vague definitions of God really annoy me. I could call my house God and be no better or worse off for it, except that some people might consider me a little out there. As far as I know, every culture, whether they were monotheistic or polytheistic, believed in anthropomorphic gods. When we spout these cliches like, "God is love," it reduces the definition to essentially, nothing.

That's probably why I have so much trouble with defending my position over in the "Does God exist?" thread, because people all have different ideas of God! So I say, "God doesn't exist, because..." and they say, "but that's not how I think of God." And I essentially say, I don't care. That's how countless cultures throughout history have defined God. I can't just one day redefine the word "pizza," can I? If someone tells me that pizza is bad for me, but then I say, "that's not how I define pizza," they are likely not to care, because that's how nearly everyone else on Earth defines pizza.

I'd say it depends on the perception that you're using to defend all the things you are defending. Same with everyone else. All their "positions" expand from perceptions that they are defending and so on. Including me. So what do you think about that?

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

No, I've been teaching meditation (off and on) for about ten years and think meditation is one of the best things a person can do for their mental health. I must admit I was partly just snapping at ALG, but general advice in Britain and on most English websites I've seen talks about possible dangers and some specifically tell you to check with your GP if you've not done any before.

Really? I just checked five of my meditation books - none of them gave such advice to see a GP.

I also typed "how to meditate" into Google and checked out the seven or eight top hits - again, none of them gave such advice to see a GP.

I typed "meditation class" into Google and checked out the top few hits. Again I did not see any instructions that people interested in signing up should see a GP.

I typed "Britain meditation GP doctor" and all I see among the top few hits is (1) one British doctor talking about how meditation helps him to relax; (2) another British doctor who teaches Zen meditation; and (3) one British doctor talking about some research about how meditation could help lower the risk of heart disease. I saw nothing about the need to see a doctor before commencing meditation.

I typed "meditation precautions" into Google and again I did not see any such advice to see a GP, despite checking another five or six of the top hits. The closest thing I found was that:

(1) some people participating in long silent meditation retreats (two weeks to three months) reported increased tension, anxiety, confusion, and depression.

(2) if you have a psychotic disorder, severe depression or other severe personality disorders, you possibly should not meditate unless you are also receiving psychological or medical treatment.

But I don't see any website saying that people should consult a GP before commencing meditation.

Please enlighten - since you have 10 years of experience teaching meditation. Do you send your students on such medical check-ups as well? I am curious as to what the GP would do. Check blood pressure? Do a blood test? Measure your height? Prescribe Vitamin C? I must say that I am rather surprised by your claim, since in the first place, I don't think meditation would even be mentioned in your average medical school syllabus.

[Acting Like Godot]

In Post No. 267 of this thread, you admitted, in your own words, that:

(1) your attempts to find honest objections often flounder;

(2) you often have plenty of dishonest objections.

May I take it that the below is just another one of your dishonest objections?

Originally Posted by John Freestone

But maybe I'm judging you as a liar when in fact you are actually stupid. You said earlier, "I plan to use LOA to manifest an extraordinary increase in my 1Q and not only get into Mensa, but be rather extraordinary even by Mensa standards. I think this will be quite an interesting experiment, and goodness, there will be an external tester, Mensa with specific methodology to quantify the result of my manifestation (it's called an IQ score)."

This passage suggests that perhaps you didn't just manufacture the other examples to try and throw readers off the scent, because here you demonstrate, apparently quite innocently, the same mistaken thinking, that Mensa's IQ test can demonstrate the causal agency of IM itself (as opposed to your IQ increasing due to study, practice of IQ tests, thinking about intelligence, the passage of time, watching TV, etc. in the meantime).

I laid a simple hypothesis. I said that I could attempt to raise my IQ through IM by a massive score. I didn't say that I was going to study, practice IQ tests, watch TV.

But you immediately say that if I do raise my IQ massively, it is due to other reasons. Such as studying; practising IQ tests; or watching TV.

You see - your argument grows more and more absurd. It's like I could slap you on the face, and you would feel pain, but then instantly you argue, "This doesn't mean that getting slapped on my face causes me pain. It could be a mere coincidence that the nerve cells in my face spontaneously chose to send pain signals to my brain, just as I was being slapped."

[Acting Like Godot]

Oh why do I bother. Discussing with someone who already confesses to a predilection for dishonest arguments is just .... pointless.

Goodbye again, everybody.

[cylon]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Oh why do I bother. Discussing with someone who already confesses to a predilection for dishonest arguments is just .... pointless.

Goodbye again, everybody.

Don't worry ALG, your words are heard by those that are ready to hear. Enjoy your break, but please return soon!

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

In Post No. 267 of this thread, you admitted, in your own words, that:

(1) your attempts to find honest objections often flounder;

(2) you often have plenty of dishonest objections.

May I take it that the below is just another one of your dishonest objections?

No, it is an honest one.

I laid a simple hypothesis. I said that I could attempt to raise my IQ through IM by a massive score. I didn't say that I was going to study, practice IQ tests, watch TV.

It is a hypothesis, but it would require a little more understanding of science than you display to establish.

But you immediately say that if I do raise my IQ massively, it is due to other reasons. Such as studying; practising IQ tests; or watching TV.

Again - are you stupid or pretending? I do not say that an increase in your IQ is due to any of these things. That is the point. That would be the problem to be addressed, should your IQ increase during your experimental phase: what the actual cause was. That way we can eliminate assumptions. And even if you don't watch TV, you will do a lot of other things, and proper research requires you to eliminate these potential effects as far as possible. If you don't understand the principle now, it will remain a moot point until you raise your IQ.

You see - your argument grows more and more absurd.

Methinks you protest too much. This is pure projection, but I suspect not even unconscious. As far as discussing this point is concerned, you have your back against a wall. You'd pretend that magick was all my idea if it would get you off the hook now.

As to your research online on meditation, if your perception of the situation is accurate () then clearly I have got a very distorted impression of it, and concede the point gladly. I may have got a distorted impression from working in mental health and from a lot of my research being into long retreats, or concerning scientific experiments in meditation. The first you have already indicated as showning some evidence of disturbance, and the latter perhaps requires much more stringent protocol regarding possible risks, or is itself conducted by medical practitioners. It was a very minor point in relation to the subject, I think, and I'm happy for us to agree that if someone reading this wants to do meditation, they need not see a doctor first. I was erring on the side of caution, and don't have a high opinion of them anyway.

[moonrambler]

JF -- what would you consider to be significant synchronicity?

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by moonrambler

JF -- what would you consider to be significant synchronicity?

I'm not sure what you mean. What is synchronicity, moonrambler? How would you define it?

[moonrambler]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

I'm not sure what you mean. What is synchronicity, moonrambler? How would you define it?

I would use Jung's definition of synchronicity as meaningful coincidence. When two or more events occur in a certain time frame and are not causally related, and the likelihood of them occurring together is very small. (I think I had read somewhere that he preferred three or more events for definitive significance.) He theorized that these synchronicites point to an underlying pattern to the universe.

This would be opposite of what you've said, about how any of those events occurring together would be random coincidence, and that we only think there's a pattern because humans see patterns even when there aren't any.

But what if Cylon's opposing theory is right? (Cylon's Opposing Theory, that sounds professorial ) That everything is related and reflected in patterns, but we only notice a small fraction of them.

Then when we start noticing these patterns, we find them happening more and more, which some people say is due to the reticular activating system -- like the experience of, for instance, buying a blue Ford Ranger and then seeing blue pick-up trucks everywhere you look. I would say the experience should be more unusual than that.

[cylon]

Originally Posted by moonrambler

But what if Cylon's opposing theory is right? (Cylon's Opposing Theory, that sounds professorial ) That everything is related and reflected in patterns, but we only notice a small fraction of them.

Wow you named a theory after me and defined it in a much more succinct way than I could have. Good job!

And yes, it's much more trippy than noticing a car you weren't aware of before. Much. More. Trippy.

[John Freestone]

I'm not sure what it means when you say "two or more events occur in a certain time frame and are not causally related, and the likelihood of them occurring together is very small". Can you explain? The last bit seems to suggest something, and all I can think of is that it implies either a causal relationship (contradicting the earlier bit) or that they are unrelated (but then they would be coicidental).

I see no problem with cylon's point that everything is related. I think we mean to imply different things by it, though. Everything can be causally related by all the inestimable events following the Big Bang (if we take that theory on board), but most of our coincident events now would be connected by causal chains stretching back a long way - like I'm causally related to chimps - it means not that chimps cause me or vice versa, but that we share a common cause or causes in prehistory. Other syn-chronous events share closer causal links. I used the idea of 'coincidental' events only in a loose sense - because of the big bang, etc., maybe nothing is not causally related if you look from far enough away in spacetime - but since the effects of causation seem to dissipate over time and space, things approach a state where they are not causally related to other things far removed from them, although perhaps never actually getting there. Am I making sense? So I say, for instance, that me eating ice cream when shoemaker-levi 9 hit Jupiter is 'pure' coincidence, but assume it is understood that these events happen in the same universe, and hence share a distant echo of causation.

I think cylon implies something much more useful and TRIPPY by his theory. I suspect sparkly dolphins, sorry.

What does Jung imply when he thinks two events are not coincidental, but not causally related either?

Ouch, my head.

[moonrambler]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

I'm not sure what it means when you say "two or more events occur in a certain time frame and are not causally related, and the likelihood of them occurring together is very small". Can you explain? The last bit seems to suggest something, and all I can think of is that it implies either a causal relationship (contradicting the earlier bit) or that they are unrelated (but then they would be coicidental).

I see no problem with cylon's point that everything is related. I think we mean to imply different things by it, though. Everything can be causally related by all the inestimable events following the Big Bang (if we take that theory on board), but most of our coincident events now would be connected by causal chains stretching back a long way - like I'm causally related to chimps - it means not that chimps cause me or vice versa, but that we share a common cause or causes in prehistory. Other syn-chronous events share closer causal links. I used the idea of 'coincidental' events only in a loose sense - because of the big bang, etc., maybe nothing is not causally related if you look from far enough away in spacetime - but since the effects of causation seem to dissipate over time and space, things approach a state where they are not causally related to other things far removed from them, although perhaps never actually getting there. Am I making sense? So I say, for instance, that me eating ice cream when shoemaker-levi 9 hit Jupiter is 'pure' coincidence, but assume it is understood that these events happen in the same universe, and hence share a distant echo of causation.

I think cylon implies something much more useful and TRIPPY by his theory. I suspect sparkly dolphins, sorry.

What does Jung imply when he thinks two events are not coincidental, but not causally related either?

Ouch, my head.

Jung's idea is that the events are synchronous. They reflect or point to an underlying pattern where events are related, but not causally.

It would be like this. You run across a TIME magazine from the 1950s. There's an ad for a Chevy Bel-Air in there, a 1959 turquoise one, great big gorgeous car. You think for a fleeting moment about how you'd love to have a car like that, in turquoise to boot, and you're not even sure you've ever even seen a '50s Bel-Air in that color. Then you decide to go to the store. There in the parking lot is a '59 turquoise Bel-Air. It's not just in the parking lot, it's in the space you always park in if you can get it.

Then somebody approaches the car and opens the door. This person is carrying a copy of TIME.

"Two or more events occur in a certain time frame and are not causally related, and the likelihood of them occurring together is very small."

Would that be a significant synchronicity in your opinion, or what would you need to make you decide it's not just a random coincidence?

[cylon]

I'm not sure what you mean by dolphins. A couple hours ago my dad told me that my aunt and cousin went to Mexico and he saw pictures of them swimming with dolphins. Is that what you meant?

Experiences people have are experiences people have. If they make the connection they make the connection. I guess it's just something you have to experience for yourself.

[cylon]

Hey moonrambler, here's a long one but I'll share it with you.

It's drawn out over a week or so. One evening I was watching the movie American Psycho, I love Christian Bale's performance in that movie. I love the scene where he starts going off on how great Huey Lewis and the news are. I like the way he carried himself, minus the murdering part. (no I'm not a killer, it's ok). Bret Easton Ellis is also a favorite author.

Thinking of this I'm in a parking lot and I see a guy with a t-shirt from American Psycho. I'd never seen one before. For a minute I thought "cool. Just remember, killing is wrong." lol.

So maybe a week or so later, I'm thinking of how I am getting geared up to release some of my music online, but Im thinking that for some reason 31 is old to do that. So I think, no that's crazy. Many of my heroes wrote great music well into old age. I love David Bowie, so he was sort of my template for that. So I'm thinking, old age is cool, david bowie, old age. For a few days. Kind of obsessed with it.

I see this guy in another parking lot... an old guy with a big white beard, probably in his sixties. He's wearing a freaking David Bowie ziggy stardust t-shirt. It was one of the weirdest things I'd ever seen, it just seemed out of place. And it reminded me of when I saw that American Psycho t-shirt.

T-shirt manifestations. So when I saw this I thought "wow, that was really trippy. It reminded me of the time I saw that American Psycho t-shirt. Now if I saw ANOTHER reference to american psycho right now, that would just blow me away."

Fifteen minutes later I'm renting a movie and the kid that works there walks in and he's holding the book "American Psycho."

No I'm not a killer.

[moonrambler]

Ok, more weirdness -- I'm going to have to try and figure out why I was thinking about Huey & The News this morning before I read your posting here. I was in the shower and the song "Bad is Bad" was going through my mind . . . even though I haven't heard that song in years. It's interesting you mentioned that particular scene in the movie, because it was kind of an aside from the main point.

That was an entertaining story. I love the ziggy stardust t-shirt part! And I do believe people can create more of these events if they pay attention to it.

Now, it's easy for skeptics to dismiss it, and say groups of seemingly related occurrences are bound to happen, statistically, when actually the events are still random. But I think more like you do -- what if the events aren't random, but we just think they are? What if it's all patterns, and we only notice some of them, because they are everywhere all the time? We're always told how we have to filter stimuli because there's so darned much of it, and I think we filter this out too because otherwise our thoughts would be totally fixated on one pattern after another after another.

I get a lot of occurrences that I call reflections, because they are just a simple coincidence. It's because there's so many of them that I get a little weirded out. Yesterday I was at a garage sale and down the street there was a super-loud BANG! We all went into the driveway to see what happened, and a guy had been hauling something on a trailer and a trailer tire blew out. When I got back in the car, immediately on the radio somebody said, "Start your 4th of July with a bang!"

I cashed a check at the bank for $77 and asked for five's. Then I went to the supermarket and the total was $10.10, and I gave the cashier $20.10, and thought maybe I should ask for the change in five's, but I figured I had plenty. She handed me two five's.

In the thread "Things You Never Knew Existed," there was a posting about switchwords, and how using the word 'count' can bring in money. I thought that was pretty wack, but what the heck, I had to walk two blocks to a rummage sale and I was chanting 'count count count' thinking maybe it would bring in a big pile of money (it hasn't - yet! ). At the sale, the wife was razzing the husband because he wasn't helping at the sale, he was just sitting around. I picked up some magazines and said "Who's taking money?" and she says, "He is!" And he goes, "I'm busy!" And everyone laughs, and I hand him the magazines, and he counted them out loud and then said "I'm the book counter."

And so it goes all day.

[cylon]

Originally Posted by moonrambler

Ok, more weirdness -- I'm going to have to try and figure out why I was thinking about Huey & The News this morning before I read your posting here. I was in the shower and the song "Bad is Bad" was going through my mind . . . even though I haven't heard that song in years. It's interesting you mentioned that particular scene in the movie, because it was kind of an aside from the main point.

Wow, this is so cool! We just co-created a Huey Lewis and the News synchronicity.

In my thing with the bowie t-shirt, I think it was simply the thoughts "old people david bowie" being manifested. I don't know if it had meaning beyond that, but I can't not believe I was at the right place at the right time to see it.

Yeah it does go on all day. We're just scratching the surface here.

[mercuryrising]

Over in the Spirituality forum, Aspiring to Clarity started a thread about the movie Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. A week later my 6 year old daughter checks the movie out from the library and we watched it several times.

ATC also talked about watching the movie while smoking weed. My boss was joking with me a few days after that about me being stoned because my eyes were dried out. Another co-worker over-heard our conversation and then I'm talking about who all gets high at work. That weekend, I go out to the bar and see an old friend who offers me a joint. I'm listening to Atmosphere and as I wrote the first sentence of this paragraph, the song Guarantees is playing and the line, "my shorty got caught smokin weed at a concert..." parallels my typing.

And cylon, I'm 31. A friend at work asked me to listen through some tracks he's made this weekend because he wants to do some collaboration. On another forum that I write on, someone put up a pic of Christian Bale from American Psycho. The lead singer from the group I just mentioned was talking about staying relevant as he gets older in an interview I watched on youtube. He's in his mid thirties and I think his latest album (When Life Gives You Lemons, You Paint That Sh*t Gold) is the best that he's made so far.

At work, I keep getting headaches, but I never have any ibuprofen. I'm always borrowing some from somebody. My landlord got on me about my broken down car in the parking lot, so I sold it to a junker. As I'm cleaning out the car before he comes to tow it, I find a couple winter coats in the trunk. In the pocket of one of them is a full bottle of ibuprofen.

We had another broken down car in the parking lot, my girlfriends. It broke down so she went and got a new car. One day last week I got the feeling that if I tried to start her car, it would work just fine. I grabbed the keys and sure enough, it works. She asked me why I thought that happened and I said, "Well, you wouldn't have bought a new car unless that one broke down."

My girlfriend (or whatever she is at this point) is a big Grateful Dead fan. We were listening to some of their stuff on the way to the library and I said, "Man, this brings back memories." A moment later, she turns down a residential street and we just happen to pass a house I used to party in. The couple that lived there were big deadheads.

I could just keep going and going with this. Eventually, I'd have every thread that makes up the fabric of my life because I'm manifesting the whole thing. It's just a matter of awareness. The more awareness, the more intentional you can get about what's being manifested.

It isn't that logic is useless, but that it only sees the most obvious line of causality in any given situation. Life is much more dynamic than that. If there is no other moment than Now, than all cause and effect relationships are happening simultaneously and not in the linear pathway that inductive or deductive reasoning assumes. Reason is a tool and not a governing principle.

And moonrambler: I attended a spiritualist church a few weeks ago and received a reading. The reader said, "Spirit is showing me a large jar of jelly beans and telling me to ask you how many is in it because you'll know without counting. There is something you are not aware of that you are a master at doing. You'll leave here and it will become apparent to you." I just thought it interesting that counting was mentioned and we are discussing manifesting...

My mom also dropped off an old stack of magazines from when I was a kid. Most of them are old issues of Mad magazine. I was just looking at the 80's rock issue.

[cylon]

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

I could just keep going and going with this. Eventually, I'd have every thread that makes up the fabric of my life because I'm manifesting the whole thing. It's just a matter of awareness. The more awareness, the more intentional you can get about what's being manifested.

Yeah you're right. At some point you have to accept this is how it is if you want to take it further. At this point it seems everything we're all talking about is connected, which I think is cool since we don't know each other in "real life", but if everything is connected then EVERYTHING is connected.

I suppose I could list everyone that happens to me too and that would take 24 hours a day to accomplish.

I bet John is gonna have a great time with this one. I know I am.

[moonrambler]

Mercuryrising's post is similar to how I was watching things today. I was thinking about how sometimes it (synchronicity/coincidence patterning) all just flows from one thing to the next, like that ad where somebody grins at a stranger and then that person gives a big smile to the next person, and it goes on like that, being passed along like river waves. And other times, sometimes it gets going on one theme and keeps that up all day long. Or longer.

And I also thought about how I could write all this stuff down only then all I would be doing is writing stuff down and I wouldn't have the ambition to sit here and type it all up, when just covering the morning's stuff would take a big long posting.

I did have a weird one though, which involves the post I did last night about the Bel-Air. I had started that posting with a Mustang, but changed it because vintage Mustangs are too common. I also had a specific Bel-Air in mind, which was our family car when I was a kid, and I was thinking how it wasn't turquoise really, more of an aqua, or maybe a teal, but some kind of blue-green, which is the range of color I like best in any case.

I didn't see a Bel-Air like that today, btw. Yesterday though, I had stopped at a Subway shop and there was a vintage aqua Harley motorcycle there, which I was totally checking out because although I don't want a motorcycle, some of those Harleys are beautiful and unique and unusual, and I love looking at them, especially one in my color. Then today, at the first yard sale I stopped at, they were selling a big print of a Harley that looked just like that one yesterday did. It stopped me in my tracks because I thought this was like the scenario I presented, only backwards -- I saw the unusual vintage aqua Harley and the next day I saw a print of it.

Before leaving the house, I'd been thinking about how I want to spend more time this fall watching Packers games on tv with the friend I was talking about earlier in this thread, because we usually do that but last fall we were both so busy on weekends that we didn't even watch one game together. I was thinking about this because usually I go up to his place (about 30 miles from here) on July 4th (Independence Day) but this year we can't get together till the 5th, and I haven't been up there in ages, and I want to do that more. And it's too bad we didn't do this more last year since it turned out to be Favre's last season.

In the car I stopped the radio search at a country station, although I rarely listen to country music, but it was playing "Rhinestone Cowboy," which I hadn't heard in years and we used to play that song in jazz band in high school, so it was fun listening to it again. After that came the song "Independence Day" (so I left the station on because I like that song) and then "Thank God I'm a Country Boy," which was commonly played during games at Lambeau Field because it was a Favre theme song.

There's more, but I'm not going to sit here transcribing all of it, as it all took place over just four hours and, as mercuryrising said, I could keep going and going, but I have to get some work done.

Cylon -- I was thinking about lots of big-time rock stars who have written great music in their 30s and beyond. One I thought of is Paul McCartney, and then "Let It Be" came on the radio, and a few songs later on a different station, "Maybe I'm Amazed," which was significant to me because that song in particular tends to be ranked up in perhaps his top three or four best songs, and the best I can figure, he was in his late 30s when he wrote that one.

P.S. I saw four vintage Mustangs today. That is probably the reticular activating system, although it was interesting that on one street I parked directly behind one, and on another street directly in front of one.

[cylon]

Originally Posted by moonrambler

Cylon -- I was thinking about lots of big-time rock stars who have written great music in their 30s and beyond. One I thought of is Paul McCartney, and then "Let It Be" came on the radio, and a few songs later on a different station, "Maybe I'm Amazed," which was significant to me because that song in particular tends to be ranked up in perhaps his top three or four best songs, and the best I can figure, he was in his late 30s when he wrote that one.

Thanks for that. Yeah, it's just a limiting belief. What if McCartney had said "whoa! I'm over 30! Stop writing! You're supposed to stop writing!!!" lol.

[cylon]

Checking out a video with a record producer, on that page one of the links was in regards to huey lewis. Maybe I should download "sports" lol.

[moonrambler]

Originally Posted by cylon

Checking out a video with a record producer, on that page one of the links was in regards to huey lewis. Maybe I should download "sports" lol.

How old was Huey when "Sports" was released?