Discussion:
Great Mother Goddess
(too old to reply)
Carl Jones
2004-12-21 02:06:52 UTC
Permalink
Hello Folks!


I've notice that not only are pregnant women close to their own
unconscious processes; but they appear to be connected to the deepest levels
of the collective unconscious. We are becoming increasingly aware that
pregnancy and birth can precipitate transcendent, ecstatic emotional
states. The pregnant woman may transcend the ordinary, familiar sense of
self to achieve an extraordinary understanding of being one with the
cosmos.

Pregnancy commonly awakens a transpersonal awareness or "peak experience.".
For example, Maria, a mother of two in Louisville, Kentucky, reports. "There
were times, during both my pregnancies, when I felt at one with all
creation. It was a profoundly spiritual experience."

Taking part in the miracle of creation seems to link the expectant mother
more closely with the creative life force in the universe. She is somehow
intimately conjoined with the root of all being, the intrinsic source of
life beyond appearances. Perhaps we all have roots connecting us to all
life, with all conscious beings. But the pregnant woman seems to be closer
to those roots.

Can anyone identify with this?

Blessed Be

Carl
Halla
2004-12-21 02:28:26 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 21:06:52 -0500, "Carl Jones"
Post by Carl Jones
Hello Folks!
I've notice that not only are pregnant women close to their own
unconscious processes; but they appear to be connected to the deepest levels
of the collective unconscious. [...]
Can anyone identify with this?
No. HTH.

I remember being kicked a lot, and having trouble standing up and
sitting down and bending over, and having to lie on my side to sleep
(which is when the unborns would wake up, the sods :-) and having to
carry a packet of biscuits about to stave off nausea, and so on and so
forth - but not any greater feelings of being connected to anything
other than two small kicky things. :-) Sorry and all that.

What do you mean by 'unconscious processes' anyway?
Jani
2004-12-21 03:04:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Halla
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 21:06:52 -0500, "Carl Jones"
Post by Carl Jones
Hello Folks!
I've notice that not only are pregnant women close to their own
unconscious processes; but they appear to be connected to the deepest levels
of the collective unconscious. [...]
Can anyone identify with this?
No. HTH.
I remember being kicked a lot, and having trouble standing up and
sitting down and bending over, and having to lie on my side to sleep
(which is when the unborns would wake up, the sods :-) and having to
carry a packet of biscuits about to stave off nausea, and so on and so
forth - but not any greater feelings of being connected to anything
other than two small kicky things. :-) Sorry and all that.
What do you mean by 'unconscious processes' anyway?
He's encountered some mashed-up version of Jung, possibly? Ah - no, that
would be collective unconscious, not unconscious processes. I *think* he's
trying to say that pregnant women are better at accessing subconscious
cognition than anyone else, which is a bit daft since pregnant women's
cognitive processes are usually pretty much at the mercy of physical and
hormonal conditions. In other words, we have Great Insights when pregnant,
on account of the altered state, which don't necessarily make a blind bit of
sense later on.

Personally, I think acid is quicker, cheaper, and you don't have to argue
with the tax people about its student loan twenty years on. But hey, that's
just me.

Jani
Wood Avens
2004-12-21 09:27:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jani
Post by Halla
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 21:06:52 -0500, "Carl Jones"
Post by Carl Jones
Hello Folks!
I've notice that not only are pregnant women close to their own
unconscious processes; but they appear to be connected to the deepest levels
of the collective unconscious. [...]
Can anyone identify with this?
No. HTH.
In other words, we have Great Insights when pregnant,
on account of the altered state, which don't necessarily make a blind bit of
sense later on.
Personally, I think acid is quicker, cheaper, and you don't have to argue
with the tax people about its student loan twenty years on. But hey, that's
just me.
I agree with Halla and Jani - I don't remember any Great Insights
while pregnant (but I expect I'd have forgotten them anyway during all
the subsequent kerfuffle of dealing with the resultant offspring). I
remember that there were times when I felt pretty good, and even when
I felt good about being part of the Cycle of Life and all that, but
these were balanced by the other times when I felt totally exhausted,
sick, depressed and incapable of doing anything and I was sure this
was all a Big Mistake and can I quit now, please? And I don't think
that the occasional Oneness with the Universe feelings were
qualitatively or quantitatively different from similar feelings I've
had under non-pregnant-type circumstances, whether hormonally or
otherwise induced.

Still, if this happens to some, good for them. I wouldn't want to
knock their experience, I just think it's a mistake to elevate it into
a universal law.
--
Wood Avens

spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @
carl jones
2004-12-26 07:06:17 UTC
Permalink
"> >In other words, we have Great Insights when pregnant,
Post by Wood Avens
Post by Jani
on account of the altered state, which don't necessarily make a blind bit of
sense later on.
Personally, I think acid is quicker, cheaper, and you don't have to argue
with the tax people about its student loan twenty years on. But hey, that's
just me.
I agree with Halla and Jani - I don't remember any Great Insights
while pregnant (but I expect I'd have forgotten them anyway during all
the subsequent kerfuffle of dealing with the resultant offspring).
I think your experience is normal and what I am describing is more off the
wall!
Post by Wood Avens
remember that there were times when I felt pretty good, and even when
I felt good about being part of the Cycle of Life and all that, but
these were balanced by the other times when I felt totally exhausted,
sick, depressed and incapable of doing anything and I was sure this
was all a Big Mistake and can I quit now, please?
It would take a philosopher to wax poetic about morning sickness!

And I don't think
Post by Wood Avens
that the occasional Oneness with the Universe feelings were
qualitatively or quantitatively different from similar feelings I've
had under non-pregnant-type circumstances, whether hormonally or
otherwise induced.
They are not hormonally induced, however. They are your experiences.
Post by Wood Avens
Still, if this happens to some, good for them. I wouldn't want to
knock their experience, I just think it's a mistake to elevate it into
a universal law.
I agree, Wood!


Carl

***@usadatanet.net
Halla
2004-12-21 10:58:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jani
Post by Halla
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 21:06:52 -0500, "Carl Jones"
Post by Carl Jones
Hello Folks!
I've notice that not only are pregnant women close to their own
unconscious processes; but they appear to be connected to the deepest levels
of the collective unconscious. [...]
[...]
Post by Jani
Post by Halla
What do you mean by 'unconscious processes' anyway?
He's encountered some mashed-up version of Jung, possibly? Ah - no, that
would be collective unconscious, not unconscious processes. I *think* he's
trying to say that pregnant women are better at accessing subconscious
cognition than anyone else,
Unless my subconscious is entirely concerned with telling me about
aches and pains (unlikely), I doubt it. <g>
Post by Jani
which is a bit daft since pregnant women's
cognitive processes are usually pretty much at the mercy of physical and
hormonal conditions.
<nods> You know you're in trouble when an Andrex advert makes you cry.
Post by Jani
In other words, we have Great Insights when pregnant,
Uh... yeah, right. Rather than our brains turning to cheese, you mean?
I know which one happened to me. <g>
Post by Jani
on account of the altered state, which don't necessarily make a blind bit of
sense later on.
But I could get really really stoned if I wanted insights that don't
make sense later...
Post by Jani
Personally, I think acid is quicker, cheaper, and you don't have to argue
with the tax people about its student loan twenty years on. But hey, that's
just me.
:-)

I do hope we're not destroying the OP's idea of wise fertile women...
<eg> FSR I'm reminded of that poem 'Thoughts After Ruskin', although
I'm not reminded who wrote it... :-/ <googles> OK, now I know who
wrote it, but I want to know who wrote this:
http://www.radessays.com/viewpaper/100141/James_Schoolcraft_Sherman.html
I'm hoping that's a first year of secondary school level module. :-/
carl jones
2004-12-26 07:08:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Halla
Unless my subconscious is entirely concerned with telling me about
aches and pains (unlikely), I doubt it. <g>
grinning...
Post by Halla
Post by Jani
which is a bit daft since pregnant women's
cognitive processes are usually pretty much at the mercy of physical and
hormonal conditions.
<nods> You know you're in trouble when an Andrex advert makes you cry.
Post by Jani
In other words, we have Great Insights when pregnant,
Uh... yeah, right. Rather than our brains turning to cheese, you mean?
I know which one happened to me. <g>
How can a pagan say that? Brains turning to cheese. ???
Post by Halla
I do hope we're not destroying the OP's idea of wise fertile women...
<eg> FSR I'm reminded of that poem 'Thoughts After Ruskin', although
I'm not reminded who wrote it... :-/ <googles> OK, now I know who
Carl
Post by Halla
http://www.radessays.com/viewpaper/100141/James_Schoolcraft_Sherman.html
I'm hoping that's a first year of secondary school level module. :-/
Halla
2004-12-27 00:12:18 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 02:08:33 -0500, "carl jones"
<***@usadatanet.net> blethered:

[people said stuff]
Post by carl jones
Post by Halla
Unless my subconscious is entirely concerned with telling me about
aches and pains (unlikely), I doubt it. <g>
grinning...
Post by Halla
Post by Jani
which is a bit daft since pregnant women's
cognitive processes are usually pretty much at the mercy of physical and
hormonal conditions.
<nods> You know you're in trouble when an Andrex advert makes you cry.
Post by Jani
In other words, we have Great Insights when pregnant,
Uh... yeah, right. Rather than our brains turning to cheese, you mean?
I know which one happened to me. <g>
How can a pagan say that? Brains turning to cheese. ???
Why, what's wrong with saying that? <puzzled>

<sniplet>
Romauld
2004-12-21 15:35:03 UTC
Permalink
Recently, a script from Jani arrived, in which they said:

: He's encountered some mashed-up version of Jung, possibly? Ah - no, that
: would be collective unconscious, not unconscious processes.

He does mention that one as well.

~R
--
Romauld - romauld at necrotheque dot dcu

"Scholarship requires rigour. The internet only provides recursion."
- Me, 2004
carl jones
2004-12-26 07:02:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jani
Post by Halla
What do you mean by 'unconscious processes' anyway?
He's encountered some mashed-up version of Jung, possibly?
Sorry, Jani. I was thinking of Jung when I wrote it.

Ah - no, that
Post by Jani
would be collective unconscious, not unconscious processes. I *think* he's
trying to say that pregnant women are better at accessing subconscious
cognition than anyone else,
Yes. I believe this is so...

which is a bit daft since pregnant women's
Post by Jani
cognitive processes are usually pretty much at the mercy of physical and
hormonal conditions. In other words, we have Great Insights when pregnant,
on account of the altered state, which don't necessarily make a blind bit of
sense later on.
I believe pregnant women do have great insights but not because of any
hormonal changes. Rather because of a transpersonal awareness
Post by Jani
Personally, I think acid is quicker, cheaper, and you don't have to argue
with the tax people about its student loan twenty years on. But hey, that's
just me.
lol. What about mescaline. Or psilocybe (spelling?)


Carl

***@usadatanet.net
Jani
2004-12-26 11:55:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jani
which is a bit daft since pregnant women's
Post by Jani
cognitive processes are usually pretty much at the mercy of physical and
hormonal conditions. In other words, we have Great Insights when pregnant,
on account of the altered state, which don't necessarily make a blind bit
of
Post by Jani
sense later on.
I believe pregnant women do have great insights but not because of any
hormonal changes. Rather because of a transpersonal awareness
I would have thought transpersonal awareness was more easily achieved by
someone who *wasn't* suffering all the various physical discomforts of
pregnancy, actually. Most people don't feel any great one-ness with Nature
when they spend half the day throwing up. Apart from a more intimate
understanding of what really goes on during the occult processes of
digestion, of course.

Jani
carl jones
2004-12-26 17:27:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jani
I would have thought transpersonal awareness was more easily achieved by
someone who *wasn't* suffering all the various physical discomforts of
pregnancy, actually.
Transpersonal awareness is actually more common during a crisis. And
pregnancy is a normal life crisis.
What about discomforts? Don't you recall anything positive about your
pregnancy?

Most people don't feel any great one-ness with Nature
Post by Jani
when they spend half the day throwing up.
It would take a real philospher, I guess :)

Apart from a more intimate
Post by Jani
understanding of what really goes on during the occult processes of
digestion, of course.
lol
Carl

***@usadatanet.net
janet
2004-12-26 19:20:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by carl jones
Post by Jani
I would have thought transpersonal awareness was more easily
achieved by someone who *wasn't* suffering all the various
physical
Post by carl jones
Post by Jani
discomforts of pregnancy, actually.
Transpersonal awareness is actually more common during a crisis. And
pregnancy is a normal life crisis.
So is divorce, and moving house.
Post by carl jones
What about discomforts? Don't you recall anything positive about your
pregnancy?
I do - I had a wonderful time. Doesn't mean I had more
transpersonal awareness, though - means I had a good time.
Post by carl jones
Most people don't feel any great one-ness with Nature
Post by Jani
when they spend half the day throwing up.
It would take a real philospher, I guess :)
Here, present and correct - but still...


Sure, there were times at 5 am, when breastfeeding our second, that
I felt very much at one with her and very much part of a "couple"
with her - it seemed we were the only two awake, and so on.

I got much the same feeling holding our first, the first time he was
put into my arms after a particularly horrific bit of surgery - he
was still attached to all kinds of tubes, wires, etc., and clearly
in pain - but he was *alive* and nothing could ever take away from
that moment.

The first moment was in a normal (natural?) suburban terrace. The
second, in one of the largest teaching hospitals in the country with
all mod cons and high tech. Which is more "natural"?

BOTH of them were - because people are natural.
--
janet
texestentialist
http://www.karlsforums.com/forums/index.php
Jani
2004-12-26 21:08:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by carl jones
Post by Jani
I would have thought transpersonal awareness was more easily achieved by
someone who *wasn't* suffering all the various physical discomforts of
pregnancy, actually.
Transpersonal awareness is actually more common during a crisis. And
pregnancy is a normal life crisis.
So are a lot of other things. I'd rate moving house as more of a life crisis
than pregnancy, personally.
Post by carl jones
What about discomforts? Don't you recall anything positive about your
pregnancy?
Which one? :) My point is that being in a frame of mind to transcend one's
individual physical existence is a little difficult when suffering constant
and uncomfortable little reminders of said physical existence ...
Post by carl jones
Most people don't feel any great one-ness with Nature
Post by Jani
when they spend half the day throwing up.
It would take a real philospher, I guess :)
We have a couple of those around somewhere, I believe ...

Jani
trin
2004-12-27 01:49:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by carl jones
pregnancy is a normal life crisis.
Pregnancy's only a crisis if you don't want it.
Morgana
2004-12-27 08:33:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by trin
Post by carl jones
pregnancy is a normal life crisis.
Pregnancy's only a crisis if you don't want it.
I think if you've never been through it before, it's some kind of crisis to
everybody, as it's uncharted territory!

-Morgana
--
"It is our choices, Harry, that show what we really are, far more than our
abilities..." - J.K. Rowling, "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets"

Obsidiana - http://www.obsidiana.org.uk
trin
2004-12-28 01:46:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Morgana
Post by trin
Post by carl jones
pregnancy is a normal life crisis.
Pregnancy's only a crisis if you don't want it.
I think if you've never been through it before, it's some kind of
crisis to everybody, as it's uncharted territory!
Well until I went through it, I hadn't been through it before, but I still
can't wrap me head around it being a crisis. :)

janet
2004-12-27 08:58:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by trin
Post by carl jones
pregnancy is a normal life crisis.
Pregnancy's only a crisis if you don't want it.
I think Carl J means in terms of life changes, etc. - pregnancy is
rated up there with divorce and moving house as life crises - but it
is one of many, not alone. :)
--
janet
texestentialist
http://www.karlsforums.com/forums/index.php
janet
2004-12-21 10:43:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Halla
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 21:06:52 -0500, "Carl Jones"
Post by Carl Jones
Hello Folks!
I've notice that not only are pregnant women close to their own
unconscious processes; but they appear to be connected to the
deepest levels of the collective unconscious. [...]
Can anyone identify with this?
No. HTH.
I remember being kicked a lot, and having trouble standing up and
sitting down and bending over, and having to lie on my side to
sleep
Post by Halla
(which is when the unborns would wake up, the sods :-) and having to
carry a packet of biscuits about to stave off nausea, and so on and so
forth - but not any greater feelings of being connected to
anything
Post by Halla
other than two small kicky things. :-) Sorry and all that.
THere's also a good amount of research to show that the mother and
baby (babies) are actually more or less at war in the early stages -
the mother's body does its best to expell the foriegn thing which
has lodged in it, and the baby's survival depends on supressing
that.

I loved being pregnant with our two - but I wasn't any closer to
nature during pregnancy than I was, for instance, nursing them,
holding them or indeed, in getting pregnant in the first place.
--
janet
texestentialist
http://www.karlsforums.com/forums/index.php
Halla
2004-12-21 13:32:42 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 10:43:24 -0000, "janet" <***@karlsforums.com>
blethered:

<sniplet>
Post by janet
THere's also a good amount of research to show that the mother and
baby (babies) are actually more or less at war in the early stages -
the mother's body does its best to expell the foriegn thing which
has lodged in it, and the baby's survival depends on supressing
that.
Interesting stuff, that - one of my main laments about the whole
thought of having kids was a distinct objection to being a vessel to
carry round an alien (YKWIM) lifeform. <g>
Post by janet
I loved being pregnant with our two - but I wasn't any closer to
nature during pregnancy than I was, for instance, nursing them,
holding them or indeed, in getting pregnant in the first place.
Quite.
janet
2004-12-21 13:44:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Halla
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 10:43:24 -0000, "janet"
<sniplet>
Post by janet
THere's also a good amount of research to show that the mother and
baby (babies) are actually more or less at war in the early
stages -
Post by Halla
Post by janet
the mother's body does its best to expell the foriegn thing which
has lodged in it, and the baby's survival depends on supressing
that.
Interesting stuff, that - one of my main laments about the whole
thought of having kids was a distinct objection to being a vessel to
carry round an alien (YKWIM) lifeform. <g>
I do - and it's one of the few things I tell newly pregnant people,
that they may well get to the, "there's another HUMAN BEING LIVING
IN ME!!" stage...
--
janet
texestentialist
http://www.karlsforums.com/forums/index.php
carl jones
2004-12-26 17:29:51 UTC
Permalink
<sniplet>
Post by Halla
Post by janet
THere's also a good amount of research to show that the mother and
baby (babies) are actually more or less at war in the early stages -
the mother's body does its best to expell the foriegn thing which
has lodged in it, and the baby's survival depends on supressing
that.
Interesting stuff, that - one of my main laments about the whole
thought of having kids was a distinct objection to being a vessel to
carry round an alien (YKWIM) lifeform. <g>
an alien lifeform? I guess. So many people have posted to this regard that
I'm weakening :)
Post by Halla
Post by janet
I loved being pregnant with our two - but I wasn't any closer to
nature during pregnancy than I was, for instance, nursing them,
holding them or indeed, in getting pregnant in the first place.
Quite.
about getting pregnant and feeling close to nature - ah, that is another
story.

BB


Carl

***@usadatanet.net
janet
2004-12-26 19:22:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Halla
<sniplet>
Post by Halla
Post by janet
THere's also a good amount of research to show that the mother and
baby (babies) are actually more or less at war in the early
stages -
Post by Halla
Post by Halla
Post by janet
the mother's body does its best to expell the foriegn thing
which
Post by Halla
Post by Halla
Post by janet
has lodged in it, and the baby's survival depends on supressing
that.
Interesting stuff, that - one of my main laments about the whole
thought of having kids was a distinct objection to being a vessel to
carry round an alien (YKWIM) lifeform. <g>
an alien lifeform? I guess. So many people have posted to this
regard
Post by Halla
that I'm weakening :)
It does help to have been the one whose body has been through it,
one has to say. :)

A thought occurs, though. I don't mean to be personal to the women
who have responded, but perhaps there is also an age thing? I was
in my late 20s when I fell pregnant the first time - so was well
past the dewy eyed bit anyway....?
Post by Halla
Post by Halla
Post by janet
I loved being pregnant with our two - but I wasn't any closer to
nature during pregnancy than I was, for instance, nursing them,
holding them or indeed, in getting pregnant in the first place.
Quite.
about getting pregnant and feeling close to nature - ah, that is
another story.
And one I still don't see.

Of course, we don't have an agreed definition of "nature" here (you
did ask about philosophers...) :)...
--
janet
texestentialist
http://www.karlsforums.com/forums/index.php
melusine
2004-12-26 19:29:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by janet
Post by carl jones
Post by Halla
Post by janet
I loved being pregnant with our two - but I wasn't any closer to
nature during pregnancy than I was, for instance, nursing them,
holding them or indeed, in getting pregnant in the first place.
Quite.
about getting pregnant and feeling close to nature - ah, that is
another story.
And one I still don't see.
I believe, in that particular instance, by "getting pregnant" Carl meant
"having sex"; I read your response as if you thought he was again
referring to pregnancy itself?
--
miss melusine

( melusine at gwydion dot net )
janet
2004-12-26 19:45:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by melusine
Post by janet
Post by carl jones
Post by Halla
Post by janet
I loved being pregnant with our two - but I wasn't any closer to
nature during pregnancy than I was, for instance, nursing
them,
Post by melusine
Post by janet
Post by carl jones
Post by Halla
Post by janet
holding them or indeed, in getting pregnant in the first
place.
Post by melusine
Post by janet
Post by carl jones
Post by Halla
Quite.
about getting pregnant and feeling close to nature - ah, that is
another story.
And one I still don't see.
I believe, in that particular instance, by "getting pregnant" Carl
meant "having sex"; I read your response as if you thought he was
again referring to pregnancy itself?
Nope, I meant having sex. :) Leaving aside whether or not there are
"unnatural" ways of doing that (honest, guys, just leave that bit
aside!!!) :), I still don't see how that is more "natural" for
humans than say, learning or eating or talking.... :)
--
janet
texestentialist
http://www.karlsforums.com/forums/index.php
melusine
2004-12-26 20:52:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by janet
Post by melusine
Post by janet
Post by carl jones
about getting pregnant and feeling close to nature - ah, that is
another story.
And one I still don't see.
I believe, in that particular instance, by "getting pregnant" Carl
meant "having sex"; I read your response as if you thought he was
again referring to pregnancy itself?
Nope, I meant having sex. :) Leaving aside whether or not there are
"unnatural" ways of doing that (honest, guys, just leave that bit
aside!!!) :), I still don't see how that is more "natural" for
humans than say, learning or eating or talking.... :)
is there not a difference between something *being* natural, and
something causing a particular sense of "communion" with nature?
--
miss melusine

( melusine at gwydion dot net )
janet
2004-12-26 20:56:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by melusine
Post by janet
Post by melusine
Post by janet
Post by carl jones
about getting pregnant and feeling close to nature - ah, that is
another story.
And one I still don't see.
I believe, in that particular instance, by "getting pregnant" Carl
meant "having sex"; I read your response as if you thought he was
again referring to pregnancy itself?
Nope, I meant having sex. :) Leaving aside whether or not there are
"unnatural" ways of doing that (honest, guys, just leave that bit
aside!!!) :), I still don't see how that is more "natural" for
humans than say, learning or eating or talking.... :)
is there not a difference between something *being* natural, and
something causing a particular sense of "communion" with nature?
Yes. :)

That's a lot of what I was getting at.
--
janet
texestentialist
http://www.karlsforums.com/forums/index.php
melusine
2004-12-26 22:09:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by janet
Post by melusine
is there not a difference between something *being* natural, and
something causing a particular sense of "communion" with nature?
Yes. :)
That's a lot of what I was getting at.
Hmm. Icbw, but I was under the impression the latter was being
discussed, and you appear to be arguing about the former?
--
miss melusine

( melusine at gwydion dot net )
janet
2004-12-26 22:16:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by melusine
Post by janet
Post by melusine
is there not a difference between something *being* natural, and
something causing a particular sense of "communion" with nature?
Yes. :)
That's a lot of what I was getting at.
Hmm. Icbw, but I was under the impression the latter was being
discussed, and you appear to be arguing about the former?
Yes, but the latter was being called the former. :)

But it's only a lot of what I was getting at -not all of it.

Even within the idea of communion with nature - where can that take
place?

I'm a firm believer in the immanence of the Divine and the fact that
you don't get much more natural than the Divine -therefore, I can
commune with nature - with the Creator of nature from my POV -
anywhere, in a high rise building, etc.

I also don't accept that "human made" /= natural. :)
--
janet
texestentialist
http://www.karlsforums.com/forums/index.php
melusine
2004-12-26 22:24:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by janet
Yes, but the latter was being called the former. :)
don't thin
okay, I'll grant you that. I certainly agree that just because something
is all fluffy and wholeearth = experience of Deity.
Post by janet
But it's only a lot of what I was getting at -not all of it.
Even within the idea of communion with nature - where can that take
place?
I'm a firm believer in the immanence of the Divine and the fact that
you don't get much more natural than the Divine -therefore, I can
commune with nature - with the Creator of nature from my POV -
anywhere, in a high rise building, etc.
Yes, agreed. However, I'd also argue that there are certain
circumstances which are more likely to precipitate that sort of
communion? Obviously religious experience is the last thing you can make
generalisations about, and I can see why you're fighting your corner,
but personally I *tend* to experience Deity more often in places with
trees than in high rise buildings. That doesn't mean high rise buildings
are impossible, of course.

I think perhaps I'm distinguishing between more "direct" experience of
Deity - through prayer, yes, which *frequently* happens in (eg) offices
- and through the "natural world" (trees etc), and between "indirect"
experience of Deity through interaction with other humans. Whereas for
you there's no difference?
Post by janet
I also don't accept that "human made" /= natural. :)
--
miss melusine

( melusine at gwydion dot net )
janet
2004-12-26 22:32:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by melusine
Post by janet
I'm a firm believer in the immanence of the Divine and the fact that
you don't get much more natural than the Divine -therefore, I can
commune with nature - with the Creator of nature from my POV -
anywhere, in a high rise building, etc.
Yes, agreed. However, I'd also argue that there are certain
circumstances which are more likely to precipitate that sort of
communion? Obviously religious experience is the last thing you
can
Post by melusine
make generalisations about, and I can see why you're fighting your
corner, but personally I *tend* to experience Deity more often in
places with trees than in high rise buildings. That doesn't mean
high
Post by melusine
rise buildings are impossible, of course.
Nodding.... for me, it depends. A beach in a whirling gale is
good - but so is a large cathedral or indeed a large lecture hall.
Post by melusine
I think perhaps I'm distinguishing between more "direct"
experience of
Post by melusine
Deity - through prayer, yes, which *frequently* happens in (eg)
offices - and through the "natural world" (trees etc), and between
"indirect" experience of Deity through interaction with other
humans.
Post by melusine
Whereas for you there's no difference?
There are differences in my *perception* of the experience but
whether those are due to the experiences being different or me
simply not being as good at this kind of thing as I ought to be, I
don't know.

Humans don't seem to be particularly good at living in constant
mystical communion with the Divine - at least not the extreme forms
of it, because it's so all encompassing. But the slightly more -
dare I say, mundane? - levels of interaction with the divine - I
think those are so often unseen and unnoticed.

I tend to wax boring about "all those little prayers" that people
send (up?) during any day, "Lord, get me through this" "Goddess, be
with me now" and so on. I don't have a problem with the prayer - I
just want people to stop for three seconds to hear or feel the
*answer*! I freely admit there have been times I've phoned/msned
people and said, "I need help NOW" and not waited for an answer -
but it's hardly the usual run of things. I'd be far more likely to
send an email saying, for example, "Jani, I need help on x, asap -
can you help?" and *wait for a reply* before rushing off.... why do
we not accord the Divine the same faith we do our friends? See? I
told you - I can wax boring on the subject. :)
--
janet
texestentialist
http://www.karlsforums.com/forums/index.php
melusine
2004-12-26 22:44:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by janet
Nodding.... for me, it depends. A beach in a whirling gale is
good - but so is a large cathedral or indeed a large lecture hall.
yep.

And while I agree that human-made != not spiritual, I'm still going to
use the word "natural" in the whole-earth-y sense, just because
otherwise I'm going to get even more confused.
Post by janet
There are differences in my *perception* of the experience but
whether those are due to the experiences being different or me
simply not being as good at this kind of thing as I ought to be, I
don't know.
It does seem like a false distinction, on a philosophical level. But in
terms of the experience, I think it's also a natural one; humans exert
their own personality on their interactions. We see the divine *through*
their emotions and behaviour, but they can bring more to bear on the
experience so that the "through" is emphasised. Whereas with experiences
through creation, the "route" has less force, and it's easier to just
see it as being divine? I'm not being terribly coherent, I'm afraid :)
Post by janet
Humans don't seem to be particularly good at living in constant
mystical communion with the Divine - at least not the extreme forms
of it, because it's so all encompassing. But the slightly more -
dare I say, mundane? - levels of interaction with the divine - I
think those are so often unseen and unnoticed.
if you mean the "little prayers" you reference below, would you really
describe that as "interaction", if it's not two-way?
Post by janet
I tend to wax boring about "all those little prayers" that people
send (up?) during any day, "Lord, get me through this" "Goddess, be
with me now" and so on. I don't have a problem with the prayer - I
just want people to stop for three seconds to hear or feel the
*answer*! I freely admit there have been times I've phoned/msned
people and said, "I need help NOW" and not waited for an answer -
but it's hardly the usual run of things. I'd be far more likely to
send an email saying, for example, "Jani, I need help on x, asap -
can you help?" and *wait for a reply* before rushing off.... why do
we not accord the Divine the same faith we do our friends? See? I
told you - I can wax boring on the subject. :)
I can't say I disagree with you :) I also think for a lot of people it's
a rhetorical question; an internal habitual "mantra", more than a
genuine request for advice/help.
--
miss melusine

( melusine at gwydion dot net )
janet
2004-12-26 22:47:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by melusine
Post by janet
There are differences in my *perception* of the experience but
whether those are due to the experiences being different or me
simply not being as good at this kind of thing as I ought to be, I
don't know.
It does seem like a false distinction, on a philosophical level.
Quite

But
Post by melusine
in terms of the experience, I think it's also a natural one;
humans
Post by melusine
exert their own personality on their interactions. We see the
divine
Post by melusine
*through* their emotions and behaviour, but they can bring more to
bear on the experience so that the "through" is emphasised.
Whereas
Post by melusine
with experiences through creation, the "route" has less force, and
it's easier to just see it as being divine? I'm not being terribly
coherent, I'm afraid :)
Could be - which might mean it's ... I don't want to use the word,
"better" but... some value of that, to have the experience in
something human made? :>
Post by melusine
Post by janet
Humans don't seem to be particularly good at living in constant
mystical communion with the Divine - at least not the extreme
forms
Post by melusine
Post by janet
of it, because it's so all encompassing. But the slightly more -
dare I say, mundane? - levels of interaction with the divine - I
think those are so often unseen and unnoticed.
if you mean the "little prayers" you reference below, would you really
describe that as "interaction", if it's not two-way?
That's my point - it SHOULD be two way but rarely is noticed as
being such. It probably is two way - the prayers are probably
answered, but the answer is rarely acknowledged.
Post by melusine
Post by janet
I tend to wax boring about "all those little prayers" that people
send (up?) during any day, "Lord, get me through this" "Goddess, be
with me now" and so on. I don't have a problem with the prayer - I
just want people to stop for three seconds to hear or feel the
*answer*! I freely admit there have been times I've phoned/msned
people and said, "I need help NOW" and not waited for an
answer -
Post by melusine
Post by janet
but it's hardly the usual run of things. I'd be far more likely to
send an email saying, for example, "Jani, I need help on x,
asap -
Post by melusine
Post by janet
can you help?" and *wait for a reply* before rushing off.... why do
we not accord the Divine the same faith we do our friends? See?
I
Post by melusine
Post by janet
told you - I can wax boring on the subject. :)
I can't say I disagree with you :) I also think for a lot of
people
Post by melusine
it's a rhetorical question; an internal habitual "mantra", more
than a
Post by melusine
genuine request for advice/help.
Yup.

:(
--
janet
texestentialist
http://www.karlsforums.com/forums/index.php
Jani
2004-12-26 22:17:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by janet
Post by melusine
Post by janet
Post by melusine
Post by janet
Post by carl jones
about getting pregnant and feeling close to nature - ah, that
is
Post by melusine
Post by janet
Post by melusine
Post by janet
Post by carl jones
another story.
And one I still don't see.
I believe, in that particular instance, by "getting pregnant"
Carl
Post by melusine
Post by janet
Post by melusine
meant "having sex"; I read your response as if you thought he
was
Post by melusine
Post by janet
Post by melusine
again referring to pregnancy itself?
Nope, I meant having sex. :) Leaving aside whether or not there
are
Post by melusine
Post by janet
"unnatural" ways of doing that (honest, guys, just leave that bit
aside!!!) :), I still don't see how that is more "natural" for
humans than say, learning or eating or talking.... :)
is there not a difference between something *being* natural, and
something causing a particular sense of "communion" with nature?
Yes. :)
That's a lot of what I was getting at.
Are we going to arrive at the Great Rite any time soon?

Jani
janet
2004-12-26 22:23:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jani
Are we going to arrive at the Great Rite any time soon?
[obcomment] What you do in your own time, dear... :)

[serious comment] I have no idea. I wasn't going that way (in this
discussion, you at the back, thankyouverymuch). I'm not entirely
sure about the connection?
--
janet
texestentialist
http://www.karlsforums.com/forums/index.php
Jani
2004-12-26 22:29:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by janet
Post by Jani
Are we going to arrive at the Great Rite any time soon?
[obcomment] What you do in your own time, dear... :)
(That reminds me, no-one's posted the Internet Initiation recently. Must go
and find it ;)
Post by janet
[serious comment] I have no idea. I wasn't going that way (in this
discussion, you at the back, thankyouverymuch). I'm not entirely
sure about the connection?
Sex as part of nature-in-general, vs sex as "communion". Seemed fairly
logical to me?

Jani
janet
2004-12-26 22:33:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jani
Post by janet
Post by Jani
Are we going to arrive at the Great Rite any time soon?
[obcomment] What you do in your own time, dear... :)
(That reminds me, no-one's posted the Internet Initiation
recently.
Post by Jani
Must go and find it ;)
Yes, dear, fine, dear... :)
Post by Jani
Post by janet
[serious comment] I have no idea. I wasn't going that way (in this
discussion, you at the back, thankyouverymuch). I'm not entirely
sure about the connection?
Sex as part of nature-in-general, vs sex as "communion". Seemed fairly
logical to me?
Ahh.

Ok, but I'm not sure that distinction needs the Great Rite added to
the mixture.

There is sex as, "this is fun". There is sex as gift. There is sex
as "I want to be as close to this person as humanly possible, and
this is one more way of accomplishing that".

There is also, that I know of, no instance of sex that is ONLY one
of the above... :}
--
janet
texestentialist
http://www.karlsforums.com/forums/index.php
Halla
2004-12-27 00:23:29 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 22:33:54 -0000, "janet" <***@karlsforums.com>
blethered:
<sniplet>
Post by janet
There is sex as, "this is fun". There is sex as gift. There is sex
as "I want to be as close to this person as humanly possible, and
this is one more way of accomplishing that".
There is also, that I know of, no instance of sex that is ONLY one
of the above... :}
I've known a few instances of sex that were only one of the above.
janet
2004-12-27 09:09:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Halla
On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 22:33:54 -0000, "janet"
<sniplet>
Post by janet
There is sex as, "this is fun". There is sex as gift. There is sex
as "I want to be as close to this person as humanly possible, and
this is one more way of accomplishing that".
There is also, that I know of, no instance of sex that is ONLY one
of the above... :}
I've known a few instances of sex that were only one of the above.
Yeah, again, I should not post when tired. What I was trying to get
across was that in general, IME, etc., sex has a lot of concomitant
emotional bits to it.
--
janet
texestentialist
http://www.karlsforums.com/forums/index.php
Halla
2004-12-27 14:10:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by janet
Post by Halla
On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 22:33:54 -0000, "janet"
<sniplet>
Post by janet
There is sex as, "this is fun". There is sex as gift. There is
sex
Post by Halla
Post by janet
as "I want to be as close to this person as humanly possible, and
this is one more way of accomplishing that".
There is also, that I know of, no instance of sex that is ONLY
one
Post by Halla
Post by janet
of the above... :}
I've known a few instances of sex that were only one of the above.
Yeah, again, I should not post when tired.
Feh, where's the fun in that? ;-)
Post by janet
What I was trying to get
across was that in general, IME, etc., sex has a lot of concomitant
emotional bits to it.
Can't argue with that. :-)
Jani
2004-12-27 14:04:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jani
Post by Jani
Sex as part of nature-in-general, vs sex as "communion". Seemed
fairly
Post by Jani
logical to me?
Ahh.
Ok, but I'm not sure that distinction needs the Great Rite added to
the mixture.
There is sex as, "this is fun". There is sex as gift. There is sex
as "I want to be as close to this person as humanly possible, and
this is one more way of accomplishing that".
There is also, that I know of, no instance of sex that is ONLY one
of the above... :}
There's also sex as economic commodity, of course ;) However, from what I
understand of the GR, not being Wiccan, it also incorporates deity directly
into the human activity, which seems a reasonable definition of "communion"
in this context?

Jani
janet
2004-12-27 14:12:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jani
There's also sex as economic commodity, of course ;) However, from
what I understand of the GR, not being Wiccan, it also
incorporates
Post by Jani
deity directly into the human activity, which seems a reasonable
definition of "communion" in this context?
Jani
Yesssss, but if one has the idea of an omnipresent divine, what the
GR does is bring about *human consciousness* of that presence,
rather than bring about the presence...
--
janet
texestentialist
http://www.karlsforums.com/forums/index.php
francis
2004-12-27 19:11:57 UTC
Permalink
Yesssss, but if one has the idea of an omnipresent divine, what the GR
does is bring about *human consciousness* of that presence, rather than
bring about the presence...
The GR is really rather different from that and, if I understand you
correctly, you appear to have been misinformed about the relationship
between the GR, the omnipresent divine, and human consciousness. I
wonder what source has led you to the idea of the GR bringing about
human consciousness of the divine presence.
--
Francis
janet
2004-12-27 21:43:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by francis
Post by janet
Yesssss, but if one has the idea of an omnipresent divine, what the
GR does is bring about *human consciousness* of that presence,
rather than bring about the presence...
The GR is really rather different from that and, if I understand you
correctly, you appear to have been misinformed about the
relationship
Post by francis
between the GR, the omnipresent divine, and human consciousness. I
wonder what source has led you to the idea of the GR bringing
about
Post by francis
human consciousness of the divine presence.
None, really - I was responding to Jani, I think.... I only know
what I have read about the GR and in this instance particularly, I'd
assume that reading experience and experience-experience are two
very different things. (NB - GR interpreted as a specific rite
within Wicca...).
--
janet
texestentialist
http://www.karlsforums.com/forums/index.php
Daniel Cohen
2004-12-27 18:39:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by janet
There is sex as, "this is fun". There is sex as gift. There is sex
as "I want to be as close to this person as humanly possible, and
this is one more way of accomplishing that".
And other versions, such as sex as worship.
--
Send e-mail to the Reply-To address;
mail to the From address is never read
janet
2004-12-27 21:41:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daniel Cohen
Post by janet
There is sex as, "this is fun". There is sex as gift. There is sex
as "I want to be as close to this person as humanly possible, and
this is one more way of accomplishing that".
And other versions, such as sex as worship.
Nodding - there are lots of other versions.... I were tired. :}
--
janet
texestentialist
http://www.karlsforums.com/forums/index.php
Wood Avens
2004-12-26 19:56:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by janet
A thought occurs, though. I don't mean to be personal to the women
who have responded, but perhaps there is also an age thing? I was
in my late 20s when I fell pregnant the first time - so was well
past the dewy eyed bit anyway....?
Doesn't follow. I was 22.

As I said already, for those for whom pregnancy was a transpersonal
experience, good for you (truly). Just didn't happen that way for me.
--
Wood Avens

spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @
janet
2004-12-26 19:57:49 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 19:22:09 -0000, "janet"
Post by janet
A thought occurs, though. I don't mean to be personal to the
women
Post by janet
who have responded, but perhaps there is also an age thing? I was
in my late 20s when I fell pregnant the first time - so was well
past the dewy eyed bit anyway....?
(That *really* should have been better written -sorry).
Doesn't follow. I was 22.
As I said already, for those for whom pregnancy was a
transpersonal
experience, good for you (truly). Just didn't happen that way for me.
Yes, I was thinking that this needed saying - I don't mean to deny
that it CAN be. I mean to deny that it MUST be. :)
--
janet
texestentialist
http://www.karlsforums.com/forums/index.php
Trin
2004-12-27 01:24:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wood Avens
Post by janet
A thought occurs, though. I don't mean to be personal to the women
who have responded, but perhaps there is also an age thing? I was
in my late 20s when I fell pregnant the first time - so was well
past the dewy eyed bit anyway....?
Doesn't follow. I was 22.
My thoughts exactly. I was 17/18.
Post by Wood Avens
As I said already, for those for whom pregnancy was a transpersonal
experience, good for you (truly). Just didn't happen that way for me.
<nods> Zackerlay.
Halla
2004-12-27 00:17:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by janet
Post by Halla
<sniplet>
Post by Halla
Post by janet
THere's also a good amount of research to show that the mother
and
Post by Halla
Post by Halla
Post by janet
baby (babies) are actually more or less at war in the early
stages -
Post by Halla
Post by Halla
Post by janet
the mother's body does its best to expell the foriegn thing
which
Post by Halla
Post by Halla
Post by janet
has lodged in it, and the baby's survival depends on supressing
that.
Interesting stuff, that - one of my main laments about the whole
thought of having kids was a distinct objection to being a vessel
to
Post by Halla
Post by Halla
carry round an alien (YKWIM) lifeform. <g>
an alien lifeform? I guess. So many people have posted to this
regard
Post by Halla
that I'm weakening :)
It does help to have been the one whose body has been through it,
one has to say. :)
A thought occurs, though. I don't mean to be personal to the women
who have responded, but perhaps there is also an age thing? I was
in my late 20s when I fell pregnant the first time - so was well
past the dewy eyed bit anyway....?
Generally dewy eyed or about pregnancy?

<sniplet>
janet
2004-12-27 09:08:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Halla
Post by janet
A thought occurs, though. I don't mean to be personal to the
women
Post by Halla
Post by janet
who have responded, but perhaps there is also an age thing? I was
in my late 20s when I fell pregnant the first time - so was well
past the dewy eyed bit anyway....?
Generally dewy eyed or about pregnancy?
<sniplet>
See, I should not post when very tired - I apologise unreservedly
for seeming to say that young mothers are less critical about the
whole experience. :}

In my experience, the younger the mother, the more idealistic they
were about the whole thing - but that is only my experience, and we
all know I am an old crudgemundeon. :P
--
janet
texestentialist
http://www.karlsforums.com/forums/index.php
Perplexed Seal
2004-12-21 16:52:44 UTC
Permalink
"janet"
Post by janet
THere's also a good amount of research to show that the mother and
baby (babies) are actually more or less at war in the early stages -
the mother's body does its best to expell the foriegn thing which
has lodged in it, and the baby's survival depends on supressing
that.
Well they are parasites after all at that stage ;)

I've just printed all this off in case I ever get the urge to produce :)

Alistair
Halla
2004-12-21 17:24:44 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 16:52:44 -0000, "Perplexed Seal"
Post by Halla
"janet"
Post by janet
THere's also a good amount of research to show that the mother and
baby (babies) are actually more or less at war in the early stages -
the mother's body does its best to expell the foriegn thing which
has lodged in it, and the baby's survival depends on supressing
that.
Well they are parasites after all at that stage ;)
I've just printed all this off in case I ever get the urge to produce :)
Here's another snippet then - after the 'parasitic stage' is over they
spend a good deal of time yelling at you then being sick. IME, anyway.
;-)
Jani
2004-12-21 19:46:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Halla
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 16:52:44 -0000, "Perplexed Seal"
Post by Halla
"janet"
Post by janet
THere's also a good amount of research to show that the mother and
baby (babies) are actually more or less at war in the early stages -
the mother's body does its best to expell the foriegn thing which
has lodged in it, and the baby's survival depends on supressing
that.
Well they are parasites after all at that stage ;)
I've just printed all this off in case I ever get the urge to produce :)
Here's another snippet then - after the 'parasitic stage' is over they
spend a good deal of time yelling at you then being sick. IME, anyway.
;-)
Doesn't put some people off. Heard the latest from those amazing
crossponders? Whereas *our* nutbars only whip newborns out of maternity
wards, and pretend they're their own, over there they go straight to the
source.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/12/17/missouri.fetus/index.html

Oh, by the way, don't read it if you're squeamish.

Jani
Halla
2004-12-21 22:11:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jani
Post by Halla
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 16:52:44 -0000, "Perplexed Seal"
Post by Halla
"janet"
Post by janet
THere's also a good amount of research to show that the mother and
baby (babies) are actually more or less at war in the early stages -
the mother's body does its best to expell the foriegn thing which
has lodged in it, and the baby's survival depends on supressing
that.
Well they are parasites after all at that stage ;)
I've just printed all this off in case I ever get the urge to produce :)
Here's another snippet then - after the 'parasitic stage' is over they
spend a good deal of time yelling at you then being sick. IME, anyway.
;-)
Doesn't put some people off. Heard the latest from those amazing
crossponders? Whereas *our* nutbars only whip newborns out of maternity
wards, and pretend they're their own, over there they go straight to the
source.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/12/17/missouri.fetus/index.html
Oh, by the way, don't read it if you're squeamish.
8-/ Oh, that's not nice at all...
carl jones
2004-12-26 07:17:51 UTC
Permalink
"> >>Well they are parasites after all at that stage ;)
Post by Jani
Post by Halla
Post by Perplexed Seal
I've just printed all this off in case I ever get the urge to produce :)
Here's another snippet then - after the 'parasitic stage' is over they
spend a good deal of time yelling at you then being sick. IME, anyway.
;-)
Doesn't put some people off. Heard the latest from those amazing
crossponders? Whereas *our* nutbars only whip newborns out of maternity
wards, and pretend they're their own, over there they go straight to the
source.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/12/17/missouri.fetus/index.html
This is quite a website!
Post by Jani
Oh, by the way, don't read it if you're squeamish.
Thanks for warning - I read it anyway

Jani

BB

Carl
Post by Jani
Jani
Jani
2004-12-21 19:37:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Halla
"janet"
Post by janet
THere's also a good amount of research to show that the mother and
baby (babies) are actually more or less at war in the early stages -
the mother's body does its best to expell the foriegn thing which
has lodged in it, and the baby's survival depends on supressing
that.
Well they are parasites after all at that stage ;)
I've just printed all this off in case I ever get the urge to produce :)
*mmmmppppphhhhffffffff*

You just *know* which rant about which forum just got squicked - er,
squished - into its box, there :)

Jani
carl jones
2004-12-26 07:13:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Halla
"janet"
Post by janet
THere's also a good amount of research to show that the mother and
baby (babies) are actually more or less at war in the early stages -
the mother's body does its best to expell the foriegn thing which
has lodged in it, and the baby's survival depends on supressing
that.
Well they are parasites after all at that stage ;)
I've just printed all this off in case I ever get the urge to produce :)
Hi, Alistair,

I don't agree that the fetus is ever a parasite.

“Recent advances in fetal diagnosis and therapy have provided both the
technology and opportunity to piece together a new picture of the fetus.”
says William Liley M. D., professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the
university of Auckland, New Zealand. “In fact, research reveals that the
fetus may be conscious and capable of learning, communicating, and even of
amazing paranormal feats when not much bigger than a tadpole.”

BB

Carl

***@usadatanet.net
Jani
2004-12-26 07:56:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by carl jones
Post by Halla
"janet"
Post by janet
THere's also a good amount of research to show that the mother and
baby (babies) are actually more or less at war in the early stages -
the mother's body does its best to expell the foriegn thing which
has lodged in it, and the baby's survival depends on supressing
that.
Well they are parasites after all at that stage ;)
I've just printed all this off in case I ever get the urge to produce :)
Hi, Alistair,
I don't agree that the fetus is ever a parasite.
If it wasn't, the maternal immune system wouldn't need to go through such
complex changes to avoid rejecting it.

http://www.rheuma21st.com/downloads/cutting_immunoendocrine_doria_cutolo_041102.pdf

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2393/2/6

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12955462&dopt=Abstract
Post by carl jones
"Recent advances in fetal diagnosis and therapy have provided both the
technology and opportunity to piece together a new picture of the fetus."
says William Liley M. D., professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the
university of Auckland, New Zealand. "In fact, research reveals that the
fetus may be conscious and capable of learning, communicating, and even of
amazing paranormal feats when not much bigger than a tadpole."
Got a cite for that?

Jani
carl jones
2004-12-26 16:51:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jani
Post by carl jones
Post by carl jones
Hi, Alistair,
I don't agree that the fetus is ever a parasite.
If it wasn't, the maternal immune system wouldn't need to go through such
complex changes to avoid rejecting it.
the fetus is nonetheless not an parasite but a conscious participant in the
chilbearing miracle.


1471-2393/2/6
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12955462&dopt=Abstract
Thanks for these websites I will check them out thoroughly.

If you don't mind my asking, how did you get the websites to appear in this
message. I can't imagine you typed all that out. There must be a way to
import websites into a newsgroup message but I don't know how to do it.\
Post by Jani
Post by carl jones
"Recent advances in fetal diagnosis and therapy have provided both the
technology and opportunity to piece together a new picture of the fetus."
says William Liley M. D., professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the
university of Auckland, New Zealand. "In fact, research reveals that the
fetus may be conscious and capable of learning, communicating, and even of
amazing paranormal feats when not much bigger than a tadpole."
Got a cite for that?
It was a personal corresondence.

However, for more of the same, you can check out Dr, David Cheek's website.
I don't know how to import the address but you can find it by searching for
Dr.Cheek.

BB


Carl

***@usadatanet.net
Jani
2004-12-26 21:07:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by carl jones
Post by Jani
Post by carl jones
Post by carl jones
Hi, Alistair,
I don't agree that the fetus is ever a parasite.
If it wasn't, the maternal immune system wouldn't need to go through such
complex changes to avoid rejecting it.
the fetus is nonetheless not an parasite but a conscious participant in the
chilbearing miracle.
We seem to be approaching this from different angles. There's a sizable body
of research demonstrating that the maternal immune system undergoes
significant changes to prevent the foetus being rejected as a foreign body.
I don't know of a similar body of research stating that a foetus is a
"conscious participant in a miracle".
Post by carl jones
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12955462&dopt=Abstract
Thanks for these websites I will check them out thoroughly.
If you don't mind my asking, how did you get the websites to appear in this
message. I can't imagine you typed all that out. There must be a way to
import websites into a newsgroup message but I don't know how to do it.\
Using OE, right-click on the URL on google, hit "copy", go back to your ng
reply message and hit ctrlV to paste it in.
Post by carl jones
Post by Jani
Post by carl jones
"Recent advances in fetal diagnosis and therapy have provided both the
technology and opportunity to piece together a new picture of the
fetus."
Post by Jani
Post by carl jones
says William Liley M. D., professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the
university of Auckland, New Zealand. "In fact, research reveals that the
fetus may be conscious and capable of learning, communicating, and even
of
Post by Jani
Post by carl jones
amazing paranormal feats when not much bigger than a tadpole."
Got a cite for that?
It was a personal corresondence.
It reads as if it's from a news article, but relevant keywords don't turn
anything up on the Web.
Post by carl jones
However, for more of the same, you can check out Dr, David Cheek's website.
I don't know how to import the address but you can find it by searching for
Dr.Cheek.
*goes to look* OK, some interesting theories there. The one about childhood
squints being evidence of sexual abuse is a new one, I must say. He's not
one of the people implicated in the false memory scandals, is he?

Jani
Spyder
2004-12-27 14:04:04 UTC
Permalink
In article <uomdnfYrZIa0cVPcRVn-***@usadatanet.net>, carl jones quietly
whispered...
Post by carl jones
the fetus is nonetheless not an parasite but a conscious participant in the
chilbearing miracle.
The foetus is an independent organism which derives its nutrition solely
from its host, its mother.

From dictionary.com (http://tinyurl.com/jh6p)

par·a·site. n.
1. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different
organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

Is there any gain to the mother from the pregnancy? We can't really
call it a symbiotic relationship if there is, unless we ignore the fact
symbiotes are classified as being from different species
--
404 Error - the requested .sig could not be found
-------------------------------------------------------
Spyder/1.0.27 (Wife01) THC/P1.4A.(2) Server at Mead 40%
janet
2004-12-27 14:13:13 UTC
Permalink
quietly
whispered...
Post by carl jones
the fetus is nonetheless not an parasite but a conscious
participant
Post by carl jones
in the chilbearing miracle.
The foetus is an independent organism which derives its nutrition
solely from its host, its mother.
From dictionary.com (http://tinyurl.com/jh6p)
par·a·site. n.
1. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a
different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of
its
host.
Is there any gain to the mother from the pregnancy? We can't
really
call it a symbiotic relationship if there is, unless we ignore the
fact symbiotes are classified as being from different species
The gain is to the gene.... that is, it is replicated.
--
janet
texestentialist
http://www.karlsforums.com/forums/index.php
Perplexed Seal
2004-12-27 18:56:58 UTC
Permalink
"janet"
Post by Spyder
Spyder
Post by Spyder
Is there any gain to the mother from the pregnancy? We can't
really
Post by Spyder
call it a symbiotic relationship if there is, unless we ignore the
fact symbiotes are classified as being from different species
The gain is to the gene.... that is, it is replicated.
Thats not a gain to the host organism but to society.

Still parasitic in my book :)

Alistair
janet
2004-12-27 21:39:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Halla
"janet"
Post by Spyder
Spyder
Post by Spyder
Is there any gain to the mother from the pregnancy? We can't really
call it a symbiotic relationship if there is, unless we ignore the
fact symbiotes are classified as being from different species
The gain is to the gene.... that is, it is replicated.
Thats not a gain to the host organism but to society.
Still parasitic in my book :)
I agree entirely - twas my word in the first place. :)
--
janet
texestentialist
http://www.karlsforums.com/forums/index.php
Perplexed Seal
2004-12-26 10:45:09 UTC
Permalink
"carl jones".
"Perplexed Seal".
Post by Halla
"janet"
Post by janet
THere's also a good amount of research to show that the mother and
baby (babies) are actually more or less at war in the early stages -
the mother's body does its best to expell the foriegn thing which
has lodged in it, and the baby's survival depends on supressing
that.
Well they are parasites after all at that stage ;)
I don't agree that the fetus is ever a parasite.
Given that the foetus is absorbing from the host and not giving anything
back, what it can achieve and develop during the period really isn't an
issue. A parasite takes and doesn't give back.

It might be considered that there is an experienctial aspect for the host,
but I don't see that as being given by the foetus but a consequence of the
situation, that of nurturing and growing life internally.

Regards

Alistair
carl jones
2004-12-26 16:57:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Perplexed Seal
Post by carl jones
I don't agree that the fetus is ever a parasite.
Given that the foetus is absorbing from the host and not giving anything
back, what it can achieve and develop during the period really isn't an
issue. A parasite takes and doesn't give back.
This doesn't make the foetus a parasite. The unborn child is part and parcel
of the pregnancy. Just because the foetus absorbs and doesn't give back
doesn't make him/her a parasite.

BB


Carl

***@usadatanet.net
Perplexed Seal
2004-12-26 22:59:20 UTC
Permalink
"carl jones"
Post by Halla
"Perplexed Seal"
Post by Perplexed Seal
Post by carl jones
I don't agree that the fetus is ever a parasite.
Given that the foetus is absorbing from the host and not giving anything
back, what it can achieve and develop during the period really isn't an
issue. A parasite takes and doesn't give back.
This doesn't make the foetus a parasite. The unborn child is part and parcel
of the pregnancy. Just because the foetus absorbs and doesn't give back
doesn't make him/her a parasite.
I'm beginning to think that we're working from a completely different set of
definitions.

Given that point and that you haven't said anything to offer me a different
perspective, I fail to see how a foetus is anything other than a parasite,
fitting the normally accepted description.

Just saying that 'it's a foetus, so special' really doesnt convince me.

I'd accept that it's a fundamental part of pregnancy, since without the
foetus it's not pregnancy, but I don't really see that as changing things.

OK, I'll accept that as I'm not a parent this is not something I've been
party to, nor would I wish to be, but I'm pretty sure that pregnancy doesn't
mean throwing out the science.

Regards

Alistair
janet
2004-12-27 09:06:55 UTC
Permalink
Perplexed Seal wrote:
[]
Post by Perplexed Seal
Given that point and that you haven't said anything to offer me a
different perspective, I fail to see how a foetus is anything
other
Post by Perplexed Seal
than a parasite, fitting the normally accepted description.
Just saying that 'it's a foetus, so special' really doesnt
convince
Post by Perplexed Seal
me.
It doesn't convince me, either, and considering my religious and
philosophical views about pregnancy, foetuses (sp??) and so on... :}
--
janet
texestentialist
http://www.karlsforums.com/forums/index.php
Jani
2004-12-27 14:17:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Perplexed Seal
"carl jones"
Post by Halla
"Perplexed Seal"
Post by Perplexed Seal
Post by carl jones
I don't agree that the fetus is ever a parasite.
Given that the foetus is absorbing from the host and not giving anything
back, what it can achieve and develop during the period really isn't an
issue. A parasite takes and doesn't give back.
This doesn't make the foetus a parasite. The unborn child is part and parcel
of the pregnancy. Just because the foetus absorbs and doesn't give back
doesn't make him/her a parasite.
I'm beginning to think that we're working from a completely different set
of definitions.
I had that problem, too ;)
Post by Perplexed Seal
Given that point and that you haven't said anything to offer me a
different perspective, I fail to see how a foetus is anything other than a
parasite, fitting the normally accepted description.
Just saying that 'it's a foetus, so special' really doesnt convince me.
"Special", perhaps, in a very specific biological sense (immune system
doesn't kick in, physiological changes in the mother are within the accepted
parameters of the physical structure) but even with that proviso, one could
still argue that it's a parasite with a well-adapted host :)
Post by Perplexed Seal
I'd accept that it's a fundamental part of pregnancy, since without the
foetus it's not pregnancy, but I don't really see that as changing things.
OK, I'll accept that as I'm not a parent this is not something I've been
party to, nor would I wish to be, but I'm pretty sure that pregnancy
doesn't mean throwing out the science.
I'll happily accept that there are psychological changes during pregnancy
which might allow for different perspectives and insights on life, universe
and mortality (it's a kind of "ohhhhh, shit" feeling, basically) but I fail
to see why that means scientific and medical research has to go down the
drain. I've never been in favour of the conveyer-belt,
stainless-steel-stirrups attitude to labour and delivery, for instance, but
nor do I think that enough candles, joss-sticks and beautiful thoughts in
the delivery room are going to somehow reverse a difficult breech
presentation that requires a section.

Jani
Halla
2004-12-27 01:50:07 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 11:57:18 -0500, "carl jones"
Post by carl jones
Post by Perplexed Seal
Post by carl jones
I don't agree that the fetus is ever a parasite.
Given that the foetus is absorbing from the host and not giving anything
back, what it can achieve and develop during the period really isn't an
issue. A parasite takes and doesn't give back.
This doesn't make the foetus a parasite. The unborn child is part and parcel
of the pregnancy. Just because the foetus absorbs and doesn't give back
doesn't make him/her a parasite.
What would be your definition of parasite, out of interest?
trin
2004-12-27 02:00:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by carl jones
Post by Perplexed Seal
Given that the foetus is absorbing from the host and not giving
anything back, what it can achieve and develop during the period
really isn't an issue. A parasite takes and doesn't give back.
This doesn't make the foetus a parasite. The unborn child is part and
parcel of the pregnancy. Just because the foetus absorbs and doesn't
give back doesn't make him/her a parasite.
But that's exactly the definition of a parasite...

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=parasite
5 entries found for parasite.
par·a·site
n.
1. Biology. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a
different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

...see?
janet
2004-12-26 19:14:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by carl jones
Post by Halla
"janet"
Post by janet
THere's also a good amount of research to show that the mother and
baby (babies) are actually more or less at war in the early
stages -
Post by carl jones
Post by Halla
Post by janet
the mother's body does its best to expell the foriegn thing
which
Post by carl jones
Post by Halla
Post by janet
has lodged in it, and the baby's survival depends on supressing
that.
Well they are parasites after all at that stage ;)
I've just printed all this off in case I ever get the urge to
produce :)
Hi, Alistair,
I don't agree that the fetus is ever a parasite.
“Recent advances in fetal diagnosis and therapy have provided
both
Post by carl jones
the technology and opportunity to piece together a new picture of
the
Post by carl jones
fetus.” says William Liley M. D., professor of obstetrics and
gynecology at the university of Auckland, New Zealand. “In fact,
research reveals that the fetus may be conscious and capable of
learning, communicating, and even of amazing paranormal feats when
not much bigger than a tadpole.”
And that means its not a parasite, how?

BTW, I was the one who posted the bit about babies, not Alistair.

There's a lot more research out there than one article. :)
--
janet
texestentialist
http://www.karlsforums.com/forums/index.php
Halla
2004-12-27 01:35:23 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 02:13:38 -0500, "carl jones"
Post by carl jones
Post by Halla
"janet"
Post by janet
THere's also a good amount of research to show that the mother and
baby (babies) are actually more or less at war in the early stages -
the mother's body does its best to expell the foriegn thing which
has lodged in it, and the baby's survival depends on supressing
that.
Well they are parasites after all at that stage ;)
I've just printed all this off in case I ever get the urge to produce :)
Hi, Alistair,
I don't agree that the fetus is ever a parasite.
“Recent advances in fetal diagnosis and therapy have provided both the
technology and opportunity to piece together a new picture of the fetus.”
says William Liley M. D., professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the
university of Auckland, New Zealand. “In fact, research reveals that the
fetus may be conscious and capable of learning, communicating, and even of
amazing paranormal feats when not much bigger than a tadpole.”
How would any of that rule out parasitism? (is that even a word?)
AFAIC a foetus is completely unconcerned with getting along with its
host/mother, as long as its needs are met it is happy.

Also, it may be conscious, but is that the same as having a
consciousness?
carl jones
2004-12-26 07:11:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by janet
THere's also a good amount of research to show that the mother and
baby (babies) are actually more or less at war in the early stages -
the mother's body does its best to expell the foriegn thing which
has lodged in it, and the baby's survival depends on supressing
that.
I would be interested in a cite for this research.
It is the notion that the fetus is a parasite not an unborn child in
cooperation with his mother.
Post by janet
I loved being pregnant with our two - but I wasn't any closer to
nature during pregnancy than I was, for instance, nursing them,
holding them or indeed, in getting pregnant in the first place.
You never felt closer to nature when nursing - or for that matter getting
pregnant in the first place?

BB


Carl

***@usadatanet.net
janet
2004-12-26 19:16:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by carl jones
Post by janet
THere's also a good amount of research to show that the mother and
baby (babies) are actually more or less at war in the early
stages -
Post by carl jones
Post by janet
the mother's body does its best to expell the foriegn thing which
has lodged in it, and the baby's survival depends on supressing
that.
I would be interested in a cite for this research.
It is the notion that the fetus is a parasite not an unborn child in
cooperation with his mother.
Post by janet
I loved being pregnant with our two - but I wasn't any closer to
nature during pregnancy than I was, for instance, nursing them,
holding them or indeed, in getting pregnant in the first place.
You never felt closer to nature when nursing - or for that matter
getting pregnant in the first place?
No - because I tend to deny the nature/human dichtomy.

Why should I feel "closer to nature" when having sex than when
standing in a classroom, watching students grapple with ideas, and
learn?

Why should I feel "closer to nature" when breastfeeding than when
watching my children learn to walk, or as I did last night, crying
with laughter as they played cards and joked?

It's *all* part of nature.

I don't deny the experience - I deny the dichotomy. :)
--
janet
texestentialist
http://www.karlsforums.com/forums/index.php
Wood Avens
2004-12-26 20:05:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by janet
Why should I feel "closer to nature" when having sex than when
standing in a classroom, watching students grapple with ideas, and
learn?
Why should I feel "closer to nature" when breastfeeding than when
watching my children learn to walk, or as I did last night, crying
with laughter as they played cards and joked?
It's *all* part of nature.
I don't deny the experience - I deny the dichotomy. :)
<Applause>

One of the things that did it for me was seeing the procession of
tail-lights on a dark November rush-hour motorway ... as a necklace of
rubies across the black velvet landscape of the heart of England.
--
Wood Avens

spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @
janet
2004-12-26 20:10:06 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 19:16:49 -0000, "janet"
<***@karlsforums.com>
[ ]
Post by janet
It's *all* part of nature.
I don't deny the experience - I deny the dichotomy. :)
<Applause>
One of the things that did it for me was seeing the procession of
tail-lights on a dark November rush-hour motorway ... as a
necklace of
rubies across the black velvet landscape of the heart of England.
Oh, very much so.

If humans are a part of nature (and I think they are) then what we
make is ALSO a part of nature.

We are tool users - by nature.

Leave us admire both that which is wonderful without us and that
which is wonderful BECAUSE of us.

(And take responsiblity for that which is not wonderful - either
way).
--
janet
texestentialist
http://www.karlsforums.com/forums/index.php
Rhiannon S
2004-12-26 21:02:14 UTC
Permalink
Subject: Re: Great Mother Goddess archetype
From: "janet"
If humans are a part of nature (and I think they are)
Do we have to be? 'Cause nature tends to be awful mucky and dirty, cold and
damp, some of it smells you know. I'd much rather be part of something
central-heated and with tv y'know.

I'm off to commune with the couch right now for example.
--
Rhiannon
http://www.livejournal.com/users/rhiannon_s/
"The trick is to commit crimes so confusing that police feel too stupid to even
write a crime report about them."
Aubrey on remaining at liberty
www.somethingpositive.net
janet
2004-12-26 22:08:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rhiannon S
Subject: Re: Great Mother Goddess archetype
From: "janet"
If humans are a part of nature (and I think they are)
Do we have to be? 'Cause nature tends to be awful mucky and
dirty,
Post by Rhiannon S
cold and damp, some of it smells you know. I'd much rather be
part
Post by Rhiannon S
of something central-heated and with tv y'know.
Grin....
Post by Rhiannon S
I'm off to commune with the couch right now for example.
Sounds very good, but I prefer bubbles and a hot tub atm. :)
--
janet
texestentialist
http://www.karlsforums.com/forums/index.php
M.H.
2004-12-27 00:38:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wood Avens
Post by janet
Why should I feel "closer to nature" when having sex than when
standing in a classroom, watching students grapple with ideas, and
learn?
Why should I feel "closer to nature" when breastfeeding than when
watching my children learn to walk, or as I did last night, crying
with laughter as they played cards and joked?
It's *all* part of nature.
I don't deny the experience - I deny the dichotomy. :)
<Applause>
One of the things that did it for me was seeing the procession of
tail-lights on a dark November rush-hour motorway ... as a necklace of
rubies across the black velvet landscape of the heart of England.
--
Wood Avens
And I had the same experience following a string of lorries up a steep hill
on the M2 after rain, and seeing each one throwing up rainbows across the
road in front of me.
Margaret
Daniel Cohen
2004-12-27 18:39:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wood Avens
Post by janet
I don't deny the experience - I deny the dichotomy. :)
<Applause>
One of the things that did it for me was seeing the procession of
tail-lights on a dark November rush-hour motorway ... as a necklace of
rubies across the black velvet landscape of the heart of England.
I once walked out of a workshop, because I was finding it boring, and
into Oxford Street during sale period. Every bit of waste paper blowing
around was in precisely the place it ought to be.

See Traherne's "Centuries" "The crowds upon the pavement were orient and
immortal wheat ..." Bother, I forget the full wonderful quote.
--
Send e-mail to the Reply-To address;
mail to the From address is never read
Lynne
2004-12-21 19:54:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Halla
What do you mean by 'unconscious processes' anyway?
First thing I thought of was strange dreams. But I've never worked out
quite *why* my unconscious processes needed me to dream of Ex making cheese
by repeatedly boiling a kettle of milk. :-s

Speaking of Ex, some might like to know he's up and walking 4 months on from
his accident - Yuletide miracle, I reckon :-)

L
Halla
2004-12-21 22:11:42 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 19:54:44 +0000 (UTC), "Lynne"
Post by Lynne
Post by Halla
What do you mean by 'unconscious processes' anyway?
First thing I thought of was strange dreams. But I've never worked out
quite *why* my unconscious processes needed me to dream of Ex making cheese
by repeatedly boiling a kettle of milk. :-s
Speaking of Ex, some might like to know he's up and walking 4 months on from
his accident - Yuletide miracle, I reckon :-)
'Rah! :-) That's a bit of good news.
Jymn
2004-12-26 09:22:56 UTC
Permalink
Lynne wrote:
<snip>
Post by Lynne
Speaking of Ex, some might like to know he's up and walking 4
months on from his accident - Yuletide miracle, I reckon :-)
Excellent news, hope he's well on the way to a full and complete recovery

Jymn
Lynne
2004-12-26 12:40:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jymn
Excellent news, hope he's well on the way to a full and complete recovery
Jymn
Thanks :-) It's certainly looking good at this point.

L
carl jones
2004-12-26 16:59:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynne
Post by Halla
What do you mean by 'unconscious processes' anyway?
First thing I thought of was strange dreams. But I've never worked out
quite *why* my unconscious processes needed me to dream of Ex making cheese
by repeatedly boiling a kettle of milk. :-s
Speaking of Ex, some might like to know he's up and walking 4 months on from
his accident - Yuletide miracle, I reckon :-)
What was his accident? At any rate, I'm glad of the yuletide miracle!

BB


Carl

***@usadatanet.net
Lynne
2004-12-27 12:10:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by carl jones
What was his accident? At any rate, I'm glad of the yuletide miracle!
T'was an industrial accident that mostly involved falling a long way. And
thanks, anyway :-)

L
carl jones
2004-12-26 06:58:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Halla
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 21:06:52 -0500, "Carl Jones"
Post by Carl Jones
Hello Folks!
I've notice that not only are pregnant women close to their own
unconscious processes; but they appear to be connected to the deepest levels
of the collective unconscious. [...]
Can anyone identify with this?
No. HTH.
I remember being kicked a lot, and having trouble standing up and
sitting down and bending over, and having to lie on my side to sleep
(which is when the unborns would wake up, the sods :-) and having to
carry a packet of biscuits about to stave off nausea, and so on and so
forth - but not any greater feelings of being connected to anything
other than two small kicky things. :-) Sorry and all that.
LOL You and a lot of pregnant women
I didn't see this post earlier because you have press the right arrow key
to see RE. posts (I guess)
being connected to two small kicky things is a lot more than I can say.
Post by Halla
What do you mean by 'unconscious processes' anyway?
Just the unconscious mind - like prenatal dreaming and such.


Carl

***@usadatanet.net
Trin
2004-12-24 22:50:53 UTC
Permalink
Late I know but...
Post by Carl Jones
I've notice that not only are pregnant women close to their own
unconscious processes; but they appear to be connected to the deepest
levels of the collective unconscious.
Bwahahahhhahaaahaaaaa!!!!!
carl jones
2004-12-26 07:21:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Trin
Late I know but...
Post by Carl Jones
I've notice that not only are pregnant women close to their own
unconscious processes; but they appear to be connected to the deepest
levels of the collective unconscious.
Bwahahahhhahaaahaaaaa!!!!!
I apologize for posting this - all I got was responses that denied a
connection with Nature during pregnancy.
Ah well ...what does a man anyway?

BB


Carl

***@usadatanet.net
Jymn
2004-12-26 09:28:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by carl jones
Post by Trin
Late I know but...
Post by Carl Jones
I've notice that not only are pregnant women close to
their own unconscious processes; but they appear to be
connected to the deepest levels of the collective
unconscious.
Bwahahahhhahaaahaaaaa!!!!!
I apologize for posting this - all I got was responses that
denied a connection with Nature during pregnancy.
I read responses differently to you then:~)
You didn't get replies that wsubstantiated your original post, but hey this
is urp, and automatic agreement and me too posts are generally thin on the
ground. Real feedback and discussion is much more common around here.
Post by carl jones
Ah well ...what does a man anyway?
In light of the thread subject I really dare not answer this :~)

Jymn
carl jones
2004-12-26 17:37:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jymn
Post by carl jones
Post by Trin
Bwahahahhhahaaahaaaaa!!!!!
I apologize for posting this - all I got was responses that
denied a connection with Nature during pregnancy.
I read responses differently to you then:~)
You didn't get replies that wsubstantiated your original post, but hey this
is urp, and automatic agreement and me too posts are generally thin on the
ground. Real feedback and discussion is much more common around here.
Post by carl jones
Ah well ...what does a man anyway?
In light of the thread subject I really dare not answer this :~)
I wonder what you possibly mean by that Jymn!


Carl

***@usadatanet.net
Halla
2004-12-27 01:37:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jymn
Post by carl jones
Post by Trin
Late I know but...
Post by Carl Jones
I've notice that not only are pregnant women close to
their own unconscious processes; but they appear to be
connected to the deepest levels of the collective
unconscious.
Bwahahahhhahaaahaaaaa!!!!!
I apologize for posting this - all I got was responses that
denied a connection with Nature during pregnancy.
I read responses differently to you then:~)
You didn't get replies that wsubstantiated your original post, but hey this
is urp, and automatic agreement and me too posts are generally thin on the
ground. Real feedback and discussion is much more common around here.
Yeah. I agree with this.

<runs away, grinning>
Post by Jymn
Post by carl jones
Ah well ...what does a man anyway?
In light of the thread subject I really dare not answer this :~)
Ah gwan. :-)
janet
2004-12-26 19:12:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by carl jones
Post by Trin
Late I know but...
Post by Carl Jones
I've notice that not only are pregnant women close to their own
unconscious processes; but they appear to be connected to the
deepest levels of the collective unconscious.
Bwahahahhhahaaahaaaaa!!!!!
I apologize for posting this - all I got was responses that denied a
connection with Nature during pregnancy.
Ah well ...what does a man anyway?
Um, no?

You got responses from people who have been pregnant and don't
idealise the situation.
--
janet
texestentialist
http://www.karlsforums.com/forums/index.php
Spyder
2004-12-27 00:23:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by janet
Um, no?
You got responses from people who have been pregnant and don't
idealise the situation.
Now if you spoke to one of my work colleagues, currently pregnant with
her second in 2 years and planning for a large family, you may get a
completely different reply, particularly if you know good techniques for
aiding sleeping through the night.
--
404 Error - the requested .sig could not be found
-------------------------------------------------------
Spyder/1.0.27 (Wife01) THC/P1.4A.(2) Server at Mead 40%
janet
2004-12-27 08:59:03 UTC
Permalink
whispered...
Post by janet
Um, no?
You got responses from people who have been pregnant and don't
idealise the situation.
Now if you spoke to one of my work colleagues, currently pregnant with
her second in 2 years and planning for a large family, you may get a
completely different reply, particularly if you know good
techniques
for aiding sleeping through the night.
Oh, don't.... I figured that was to get you used to the idea of
sleep deprivation!
--
janet
texestentialist
http://www.karlsforums.com/forums/index.php
Halla
2004-12-27 01:36:57 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 02:21:07 -0500, "carl jones"
Post by carl jones
Post by Trin
Late I know but...
Post by Carl Jones
I've notice that not only are pregnant women close to their own
unconscious processes; but they appear to be connected to the deepest
levels of the collective unconscious.
Bwahahahhhahaaahaaaaa!!!!!
I apologize for posting this - all I got was responses that denied a
connection with Nature during pregnancy.
Uh no, you got responses that denied an automatic deeper level of
consciousness and/or spirituality. Not the same thing. :-)
Post by carl jones
Ah well ...what does a man anyway?
What does a man what? :-)
trin
2004-12-27 01:55:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by carl jones
Post by Trin
Post by Carl Jones
I've notice that not only are pregnant women close to their own
Bwahahahhhahaaahaaaaa!!!!!
I apologize for posting this
You shouldn't be; aside from the sweeping generalization (try saying "not
only are *SOME* pregnant women close to" - it raises less hackles ime),
it's providing an Interesting Idea(tm) for exploration... and in here
people like to explore.
Halla
2004-12-27 00:26:54 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 22:50:53 -0000, "Trin"
Post by Trin
Late I know but...
Post by Carl Jones
I've notice that not only are pregnant women close to their own
unconscious processes; but they appear to be connected to the deepest
levels of the collective unconscious.
Bwahahahhhahaaahaaaaa!!!!!
That about sums it up I suppose. <g>
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...