Beelzeboob’s tales to his grand-cousin
“Blue” is a blogger ‘here’ @ WP. “Bloo” is short for Bloobarooo, who, before wordpress, posted and blorged at Yahoo Groups (asylum2) where fewer people read his stuff there than do here. Yeah, imagine that… would hafta be negative nummburz you say, less than zeerow.
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 1:40 PM, oscar olivivas wrote:
rather than clog up your wordpress space with a long rambling diatribe … or a dia-haphazardly-indigenous-collective, i have been considering just running something by you, out of the blue, sort of.
i don’t expect to be a major internet blogging sensation anytime in the next dozen or so years, and maybe it’ll take two or three dozen years and by then internet blogging will have become so obsolete and i’ll be wa a a aa y off the highway of whatever it is everyone will be doing then.
but! i anxiously awaited my first comments (even ‘kept’ the first one, a spam) and when someone commented, a couple-three weeks into it, i hardly knew what to do. then an old friend (well, she’s 25, seems we’ve known each other a long time, she got me into WP) became a follower, that was expected, but when someone i didn’t know started ‘following’, then another, whoa boy. i hovered at about 10 followers for a while, losing, gaining, finally i’ve catapulted higher into the double-digits but still (superficially for many cases) feel i have a handle and ‘know’ to some degree, most of them.
i acquired two more a couple weeks back and ‘went’ to check them out, partly — why would anyone ‘follow ME’?? one was some name like
i am an after school special, no! she’s something like the audaciousamateurblogger, something like that, i could track thru’ the labyrinth of old comments and such, and other was
vodka&cupcakes, but how could we have a name like vodkaAndCupcakes … you know, 2 x “a”s inna row. hmm. something like that.
i went to their respective pages and felt that both were borderline brilliant. fluent with the vernacular. clever. funny. wrote in depth about stuff.
and i “lost” them both.
“audacious” because, i think, she mis-interpreted every comment i left at her place. (“how do i know she’s a she”? well, i assume). responded in a confrontational manner (or so i interpret). it got worse when i grovvelled a little and tried to explain what i previously commented which was twisted into deeper misunderstanding. you might have fun with this one. i can (and will if you ask) get the correct WP address.
vodka& cupcakes REALLY impressed me, lamenting about the tribulations and such of a 20-something, lotsa short little videos to further annotate/illustrate her posts. (“how do i know she’s a …?”. i just have to trust what it seems). i commented frequently, apparently too effusively, obsequiously? on everything i read — i really was impressed and thought she was, if not brilliant, was a candidate for it, and i suspect she thought i was a PSYCHO HOSE-BEAST ROBOT-SPAM PERSON and erased all my comments and quit following me. boo hoo. two big fish out of the net back into the water the same week. i was crushed. how did/do i rebound? one never expects the spanish inquisition, and i sense it’s just around the corner …
you might have fun with this one, too.
now, i’m not telling you this and suggesting checking them only for them to be mean to you and to waste your time further. no. i think there’s a good chance you’ll “get on” and reciprocally … and … if there really is a plot or some deeper mystery from which i’m NOT WORTHY, than, also, perhaps you’ll get a glimpse of how and what and why. but i suspect each will consider you worthy of their plot, and
From: mitchellupagus rex
To: oscar olivivas
Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 10:35 pm
Subject: Re: rather than
See, that’s crazy to me because I really like your posts. You make the “we planted flowers and built 84 inukshuks” ones interesting, and when you’re on a topic, it feels like the gap between your brain and the page, so to speak, is very small. Which I should specify is a good thing.
I know I’ve seen audaciousafterschoolspecial in your comments before…she was saying something about not being vindictive or whatever, and you were like “uh, I never said you were lol”. There’s nothing like people looking to get themselves offended on the internet. I’m not sure about that other person, the name isn’t ringing any bells, but then lots of times my bells don’t ring easily.
It just seems like a lot of people don’t want comments more substantial than OMG DAT IZ SO TRU!!! Now I have no idea if that’s the case with these two, but I do know that when you comment on my articles, you usually actually say something, and I like that. You and (one other person, anonymous here in this post) are usually the only ones that do – she being that (Blue names the WP blog, anonymous here) person and the other half of my entire audience, lol – and you’re the only ones I talk to. With things suddenly turning like that, it makes me envision audaciousafterschoolspecial getting mad for receiving less than total agreement from you, interpreting it as a personal attack and intensely overreacting.
And given the previous sentence, this will sound sexist even though I don’t mean it that way, but my assumption would be female as well. The use of audacious feels more like a girl thing, but like I said, I have no idea.
As for my own blog, I don’t often do much research past Wikipedia (which I think is fine for what I do, but still), and aside from getting lucky with that FP and then encountering Bat World, it’s nothing special. And I kinda dance around my writing too, which is why it’s so seldom…well that and editing it to death. Especially recently an attempt to quit smoking and a much milder TMJ episode is keeping me from it too, but that’ll pass. Jaw’s already almost back to normal. Fucking TMJ sucks…even if it’s mild like this time, you just constantly worry that it’ll become excruciating and it ruins your day as if it actually were excruciating. Can’t win.
Anyway, tangent. Back on track: I’ll check out those blogs, although I admit that afterschool left a bad taste in my mouth with that comment I saw. She said something like she wasn’t vindictive because the “right” to vindicate wasn’t given to her, or something like that. But that’s the thing about being vindictive…nobody gives you permission. It sure wouldn’t be very vindictive otherwise, just obedient. I dunno, it was just this rather hostile comment that seemed to come from nowhere and have nothing to do with what you wrote about. Put me off.
In other words, I think your alternate name for her is probably pretty appropriate. (editor note: no, she uses/used both names, i didn’t make that up) I guess that’s a bit condescending, but she was first, so, Reverse Golden Rule.
Besides, your post about bad people had quite a few comments on it. You’d never know you’d lost two readers. One of whom is passive aggressive. That’s at least a 50% improvement right there. The other one might be awesome though, I have no idea.
Okay wow, lack of sleep is making me babble. Better stop here, it’ll only get less coherent.
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 12:39 PM, oscar olivivas wrote:
as you can and did tell, i just wanted to rant ‘n rave a bit about what may be a mystery, or like you’ve surmised, perhaps isn’t. but as i tried to emphasize, i was impressed by both their posts and sites — ‘cept i think AfterSkookSpeshull re-posts / weaves in other people’s posts. yeah, and you, and perhaps NOBUDDY, needs to go out of their way to encourage constipation. trubbull. un-communication, mesupposes.
sometimes all is write with the whirled, but i’m back to my quasi-normal (“abby somebody”) state of mild ? paranoia. it’s lurking.
could be none other than ms. or mr. Naggy-wall continues to stalk me! who better than me, for that?
From: mitchellupagus rex
To: oscar olivivas
Sent: Thu, Jun 6, 2013 9:43 pm
Subject: Re: rather than
Okay, I have been meaning to ask you this for the longest time: what is the nagual stuff about? Is that how it’s spelled?
Or, you know, the Naggy-wall stuff, if you will. I’m really curious, you’ve mentioned it a lot, and I googled it once a long while back, but I don’t think whatever I found really answered it for me. Didn’t seem like it matched the context in which you talk about it. In fact, I just googled it again and it comes up as a shapeshifter type creature of some sort.
I wouldn’t doubt I’ve asked you this before; if I have and forgot your answer, I apologize in advance. Very curious.
And sure, sometimes you gotta vent. Couldn’t even begin to count how many times I’ve started to write some scathing, fuck-laden fusillade for my blog, then thought better of it, cleaned it up, realized there’s not much left after cleaning, then just scrap the whole thing. Still considering starting another secondary blog where I don’t hold anything back at all.
I only mentioned the possibility that these people might be extremely prone to drama and feeling attacked because my brother is an artist and has had an account on DA for a while. There are TONS of people there like that. You try to offer constructive critique, and they flip out and insist their work is perfect, and in turn de facto ensure that it will never even be close to perfect. I get it…you create something, it means a lot to you, it’s kinda scary to put it out in the world for all to see, but damn. Hell, that’s exactly why I started mine, to get over that. I’m very shy with my writing. Most of my family don’t even know that I write at all. In a very real way, you know me better than my mom does. But you know, I’m just saying I understand being defensive, but I’d never just wipe somebody off my blog like that.
I’m also saying fuck those two, but then I’m in a bad mood tonight. Somewhat severe-ish financial problems that I just found out about. The other day I wrote an email (which raised a bunch of $$$ for a cause Blue believes in) in a few days…if only I could do that for myself.
Well, that sounds bad. It’s good that I was in a position to help, and I’m sure a huge part of that is just how loyal (“the cause”) ‘s supporters are. Certainly don’t begrudge them the money, and I’m happy to be good at something, just like you are.
Wow, this reply was about something in particular at one point, and then it got away from me. Better wrap it up.
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 11:48 AM, oscar olivivas wrote:
ya know, we keep this going an gwan for many weeksenmunths and eventually it’ll be a post unto itself! witsch, reminedz mee: WHEN THIS CHAIN OF BAKKENFOURTH GITS, LIKE, YOU KNOW, HUGE, WE BOTH POST IT ON OUR (W)RESPECTIVE PAGES !
you asked a kwestyun & i’ll get to that. but as for cupcakes, i DID NOT attack nor criticize anything! as stated before, mebbe not only the seemingly obsequious overTHEtop effusive praise, but i musta seamd like a psycho-hose-beast-spam-robot, or something.
naggy wall, as i perceive it: 3/4s of everyone i knew “in the day” read all the Carlos Casteneda books (about his ‘guru’, sorcerer, brujo, a Yaqui Indian named Don Juan). in one of the books, don j. told CC about THE NAGUAL AND THE TONAL. (wish i rite-off-hand (or foot) knew which book) the way i see/perceive it: the ‘tonal’ is everything you can name. DJ & CC were in a restaurant so DJ held up a fork, plate, the tablecloth, the chairs, etc. THE NAGUAL is that inexhaustible infinite abyss of material (maybe it’s ‘dark matter’!) that you cannot name, has no “characteristics”. DJ asked CC to envision the table (with all the name-able things on it) as like an island in a sea of … (the nagual). the unknowable. but from which all knowable things emanate. blah blah. i do so much better in person when i can wave my hands and make the occasional grimaces. pausing, dramatically, sometimes. uvv coarse.
kind of like how i, in my borderline infinite and cosmic sense of what it’s all really about (whatever it is) feel about people who identify characteristics of however they perceive the ultimate deity to be. exclusively masculine? those people are way off the mark. ‘god’ is neither more male nor female, but of an essence which has both “masculinity” and “feminity” but so much more. (and neither). i enjoy rankling such people by proclaiming, though, that god, SHE is really going to be angry about this. or that. just to rankle ’em. i’m not equating the nagual with whatever we think may or may not be a divine underlying presence, cause, effects, totality. spinning off on an aside, many years ago i proclaimed that ALL IS GOD, GOD IS ALL, BUT TOADS ARE MORE GOD THAN ANYTHING. we had pet toads for a while.
totality, toadality. anyhow: i like how hindooism has 3 aspects of the single underlying deity: that which creates, the one who destroys, and the one who/which sustains. nice and complete, eh?
i have filled your head with semi-stale carmel-popcorn enuff for now, eh?
From: mitchellupagus rex
To: oscar olivivas
Sent: Wed, Jun 12, 2013 5:29 pm
Subject: Re: rather than
That’s a good idea, but then we gotta talk about cool shit like the nagual thing. Because I really like that, but I’m getting ahead of myself.
With those kinds of people, you don’t even have to criticize, they’ll find insult in gushing praise if it’s not carefully worded. But no, I didn’t want to insinuate that you’d been critical, only that you don’t have to be in order to upset people like that. And there’s nothing wrong with criticism anyway. I’ll be the first to admit I don’t take criticism well either, but I recognize that as a failing on my part, not whoever’s being critical. Although if they’re being a dick about it, that’s a whole different thing.
And if it’s what you hypothesized, and that you were too praising, then…I’m not really sure how to respond to that. What would they do if they were Freshly Pressed, just delete their blogs?
But back to the nagual thing…that’s a great way to put it. The unknowable symbolized as a shapeshifter, I mean. I mean, it is, isn’t it? I always tend to call it “god” for lack of a better word, but I might have to steal nagual from Mr. Don Juan.
Does anyone else find it hilarious that there’s a shaman guy called Don Juan? Not to denigrate the guy, I’ve always meant to get around to Castenada’s books, but I haven’t quite made it yet. For that stuff, I guess my main source is Aliester Crowley, oddly enough. He’s got that reputation, I know, but he cultivated it himself because he thought it was funny. Like for example: he called himself the Great Beast 666, but it was kind of an inside joke, because when he was little and misbehaved his highly religious mother called him the Great Beast, like from Revelations. And 666 is just a Kabbalistic number. AND because of a possible translation error, the number might actually be 616 anyway.
Took me a while to be open to reading him, but I’m glad I did. He writes a lot of crazy stuff, but all the more down to earth things, like his Eight Lectures on Yoga, have been dead on, in my experience, having put most of it into practice. He also makes a highly logical argument for “god” and/or nagual both existing and not existing at the same time. I gotta say, once I realized he was using logic to argue for the validity of some sort of divine whatever, I was interested to see where he would go with it. Certainly a novel approach.
As far as his writings on magic go, I haven’t ever done much with that due to skepticism. Dabbled exactly once as an angsty teen going through a bit of a goth phase (also when I started writing, lol), and I either experienced a completely insane coincidence or it worked. Haven’t ever been sure what to make of that except that one incident doesn’t mean anything, and that between the two options, you gotta think that the coincidence is more likely, however astronomical the odds were.
So yeah, that’s what I know, with varying degrees of skepticism depending on what precisely I’m reading about.
It’s the double slit experiment that makes me wonder. I guess it seems like just a weird science article, mostly, but if you think about it, the ramifications are pretty crazy.
Keep meaning to write about it…it’s a science article, for one, and it’s legitimately mind blowing. If you’re not aware of it (you probably are), basically they were firing photons through two slits, and when they weren’t measuring to see which slit which photon went through, all indications are that the photons went through both slits at once. When they did measure, they went through a random slit like you’d expect. The measuring devices didn’t interfere with the photons’ paths, it seems that just the mere act of observing caused units of light to behave differently. Science straight up proved that at least to an extremely limited extent, human intention can alter reality. It opened the door for quantum physics, waveform collapse, quantum entanglement (which is also bizarre and seemingly magical) and the general notion that nature acts completely fucking insane when nobody’s looking.
(‘Bloo’ interjects: i wuzza fyzzyx major in skool. the dubbul-slit photon X-peeriment wuzz CRUCIAL. bent a lotta paradigms. yeah.)
So, wow, okay, this is really long. I just try to keep this off the blog because it’s crazy talk to a lot of people, so I don’t get to talk about it often. Which is too bad, because to me it’s just about being open-minded. It’s certainly not about believing or not believing in it, because the whole idea is that you do it, and it either works or it doesn’t. Belief is superfluous. One of these days I’ll get around to more of it, maybe.
See? You mention mystical stuff like the nagual concept and I just go off.
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 10:23 AM, oscar olivivas wrote
i one-durd whut wuzz slowwen THIS CHAIN OF BAKKENFOURTH GITS, LIKE, YOU KNOW, HUGE and it wuzz mee. ah, “life got in the weigh” (thickened) and everything didn’t exactly slow down, no, in fact (or phyxxion) the opposite prawbubbly ohkurd, witch wuzz: “it” sped up, too fast to adequately nor completely do (resolve, finish, consider done) much, if anything.
sigh. Kabbalistic? that’s like Qballah, eh? i should re-read a translation we have — penned by Betty’s great (many times great) grandfather, Rabbi Ishtaak Luria, while hunkered down in a cave many (many) years ago. <– that part is true. i think. and to think at one time i (thought i) understood the optical slit-wave-particle experiment/phenomenon. i'd also like to think "it's still there."
From: mitchellupagus rex
To: oscar olivivas
Sent: Sun, Jul 7, 2013 4:22 pm
Subject: Re: rather than
Say, what book is it that you have? Of the Qabalah, I mean. Most of what I’ve read is modern…I mean, if you consider like early 1900s to be modern. Is it the Zohar? It’d be really cool to read some of the old school stuff that gave birth to all this.
On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 5:10 PM, mitchellupagus rex wrote:
Shit. I should have known you knew about Kabbalah/Qabala/whatever. I just assume people will look at me like I’m crazy, which is perhaps unfair of me.
(‘Bloo’ interjects: NO. i don’t “know” diddly-poo about the K/Q/w. if i read it again, i only hope to “know”, eh, say, 1% of it?)
Or, you know, “look” at me, rather. What with nobody knowing what I look like and all. I did send (the other regular reader/participant of Blue’s blog) a picture of me with a bat on my head, though. The famous Peekaboo of Bat World. When I got invited, I thought maybe if I’m really, really lucky, she’ll land on my head like I know she does with others, and it took her all of like thirty seconds to do it once I got in the flight cage. Flew right over. She’s so light, didn’t even know she was there at first, I thought she’d flown away again. She did that at first: multiple fly-bys, checking out the new guy, you know. That bat has a hell of a lot of personality…you get one good look at her and you know they really are as intelligent as Amanda says they are. I admit, I doubted it at first.
As for the Kabbalah though, I don’t know much about Lurianic. Mostly what I’ve studied is sort of the European white boy version, which I understand proper religious Jews find pretty offensive. I guess like if I came up with my own interpretation of the Bible that deviated from the common understandings. Not that we mean any disrespect; I think it’s a bit silly. Everyone who’s read anything ever has their own private understanding, and sectarian squabbling doesn’t help anybody. What somebody else believes has no bearing whatsoever on one’s own beliefs. Everybody finds the naggy-wall their own way, right?
(Bloo: eventually. may take a while (e.g., several life-lyings/times).
It’s cool though, it kinda goes beyond faith or belief. Not in an empirical way, of course, I mean I couldn’t like prove anything to anyone else, but after you see how the same pattern permeates everything from the cosmic to the subatomic, then you know in the same sense that you know you love your wife or kids or whoever. Can’t empirically prove that either, but you still know it’s true. Then there’s stuff like gematria…not so sure about that. You can connect anything together if you stretch hard enough, but then maybe that’s the point? Jewish belief has always been that “God” is a unity, Kabbalah or not.
Or Qabala. However the alphabet moves you. I like the K, myself.
Trying to think of an equivalent of the nagual in Kabbalah…it might not be any one thing. I’ll have to get back to you on that, lol.
Also need to squeeze in some Casteneda. He’s been on my reading list for years now, it’s about time. And sorry I’m late replying…I got bombarded by emails recently for a thing I’m working on. Dunno when I’ll ever be able to get back to my poor blog.
On Aug 20, 2013 5:27 PM, “oscar olivivas” wrote:
sawr and danced a bunch to asssleeep @ the wheel 11 daze ago! twuzz phunn, of coarse.
(“Mitchellupagus rex responds):
Awesome. We gotta catch up once we get the internet hooked up. And I’ll tell you that I’m working full time at < deleted! “Blue” is working at a new and different place > now. Just don’t throw it up on WordPress anywhere, lol.