Stealing viewpoints

[JTCrace]

I have been perusing this forum for quite a while now and I have seen many, many things. The most common characteristics I see amongst the many posters are that they have, for some reason, put Maynard up on some sort of pedestal. He is become an all-knowing sage. Don't believe me? Read any post on L. Ron Hubbard. You'll find an assortment of put-downs towards the man and Scientology in general. But here's what you won't find: any direct quotes from any Scientology texts. You won't find clear, concise scientific arguments against Scientology. Now, why is that? It is because there are a whole lot of hypocrites here on this forum. On one side of their mouth they talk about questioning authority and thinking independently, but on the other side they simply steal Maynard's viewpoints, which are his and his alone. If you get a chance, ask Maynard from what viewpoints he speaks from. I am inclined to think he'll probably laugh and say something to the effect of, "Who's fucking viewpoints do you think I am speaking from?"

Of course, now I will probably get slammed for defending Scientology, which by the way, I am not doing. Scientology is what it is, I am simply suggesting people research and study the shit before they even begin to put it down. But maybe people will say, "Look at the Church of Scientology, it's bullshit." But you'll have the same people writing about how Christ's true message has nothing to do with the Christian church. Ironic...

I don't think people understand the seriousness of stealing another's viewpoints. JUST BECAUSE MAYNARD SAYS WE ARE ALL ONE MIND DOES NOT MEAN WE ARE ALL ONE MIND. Again, I am not denying that we are all possibly part of the same being, that could be true. But you know what, I don't know. I have never had an experience confirming such a claim. When I read posts concerning this idea, I see a bunch of people spouting some belief, without ever taking the time and effort to find out whether it's really true. Believe me, knowledge beats belief every time.

Here is an extreme example of what happens when someone steals someone else's viewpoints: Hitler blamed the poor economic and political conditions of Germany on the Jews. The German people believed him. They chose to steal his viewpoints, instead of finding their own. And guess what happened: 6 million people died.

What if Scientology really is the ticket? What if what is happening within the Church of Scientology is the same thing that happened within the Christian Church? What if we are really aren't one mind? What if we are just isolated beings? What if...oh shit I can even say it...uhhh...uhhh...what if Maynard is WRONG?

Forgive me, but maybe I am just taking this whole, "Think for yourself, Question authority," thing a bit too far.

[crow011]

i think its interesting that you are (seemingly) treating your opinions as truth . . .

sure, a lot of people spew out the same thing that the singer of a band might; but, guess what? . . . its probably because they share the same view . . . even better, perhaps the musician inspired someone to think about something creatively, and that same person then formed their own opinion on the matter . . .

this forum is not designed to cater for people who post well-referenced essays on one thing or another; just because someone doesnt use something from a scientology text, doesnt mean they havent thought independently on the subject . . .

sure, some people are spewing the same thing maynard says: are they not allowed? . . . perhaps, after deliberation, they agree with him? . . .

why else would they be here? . . .

be careful, too - you are guilty, in your post, of the same thing you are condemning . . . you claim you may be taking this "think foryourself - question authority" thing too far - but is that not simply another quote from another much-admired figure? . . .

i see where you are coming from, but i choose not to be as harsh in judgment . . .

for what its worth, though, it was an interesting post . . .

peace and blessed be . . .

crow011 . . .

[imtheism]

the man has a point. I've been saying this type of thing for awhile. Crow has points also. Mix the 2 together and you have my views :)

[crow011]

kick arse . . .

everyone wins!!! . . .

peace and blessed be . . .

crow011 . . .

[corps d'allumen]

Very nice, although I doubt that they are meant to represent any character, nor do I think Maynard would have put as much detail in as you have described.

@ those dudes that said ticks and leeches around Ænima period, I wouldn't think so as the general thought on ticks and leeches is about the lawyers and law suits they went through, those events occuring after Ænima

the idea of a concept character is not that foriegn; pink floyd, david bowie, eminem, king crimson, to name a few, have all had or have a concept character; an alter-ego or persona alive only in the music. if you look to the band's members or their personal experiences as a direct source of the meanings that are intended to be perceived, then you are missing something vital. if that was the case, all these songs should mean absolutely nothing to anyone but them, more specifically, maynard alone. "i don't think maynard would have put that much detail in..." the band does not revolve around him, nor are his ideas an exclusive definition of the music. there are three other members, you know. to be very literal and singular about it, that's what 'ticks&leeches' is about- people feeding off of them, and him specifically, not taking it as they need to see/feel it, for themselves, but sucking a personal meaning out of another. but also, there is another meaning that ties into the grand story of all of it. the music as a whole is what's important; be lateral about your views, don't just rely on one man's personal life to guide you through yours.

[corps d'allumen]

MK: "I find a lot of this type of stuff interesting. I'm into a lot of different things, including sci-fi events".

Like Area 51, Roswell, New Mexico, or more 2001?

MK: "Yea, I love all that stuff; they're very entertaining".

But L. Ron Hubbard too?

MK: "Well not literally, but in itself I find it interesting".

So you don't take this stuff too seriously?

MK: "No. But it sure is fun to think about".

The members of Tool, I was told, rarely take themselves seriously in terms of beliefs. They acknowledge a complex world and are having fun looking at the various ways in which we can understand it.

MK: "I have very much enjoyed the last ten years of my life and how much people enjoy what Tool is doing. If people can take something positive from Tool's music and use this for self-reflection and discovery, great. But I'm not going to preach to people about what they ought to do".

At this point, I thanked him very much and wished him well. He did the same.

http://www.cdicarlo.com/paper_04maynard.htm

[All-One-Mind]

actually, I have read Dianetics... before I got back into TOOL (I loved Undertow, but didn't get or hear much of Aenima until after Lateralus) and I already concluded that while it is an interesting theory, it dosen't hold water. The very fact that Scientology sprang forth from the short comings of Dianetics, illustrates the fundemental flaws in the theory. They needed to invent a reason why people were not reach the "clear" state, so L Ron Hubbard invented his relgion in which the engrams had to be cleared from previous lifes in order to reach the clear state.

And the reason why I am so into TOOL is because about five years ago I took some acid and realized that we are all one being. We are God. Then, when I got out of prison in 2002 (I was incarcerated from 1999 to 2002) I went and baught Undertow again. And having finally been exposed to materials from Aenima in prison, I went and baught that. And when I first heard 3rd I was blown away by the quotes from Bill Hicks. So then I went and got Lateralus.

My opinions are my own.

Fuck you.

[corps d'allumen]

actually, I have read Dianetics... before I got back into TOOL

-(i loved Undertow, but didn't get or hear much of Aenima until after Lateralus) -

and I already concluded that while it is an interesting theory, it dosen't hold water. The very fact that Scientology sprang forth from the short comings of Dianetics, illustrates the fundemental flaws in the theory. They needed to invent a reason why people were not reach the "clear" state, so L Ron Hubbard invented his relgion in which the engrams had to be cleared from previous lifes in order to reach the clear state.

And the reason why I am so into TOOL is because about five years ago I took some acid and realized that we are all one being. We are God. Then, when I got out of prison in 2002 (I was incarcerated from 1999 to 2002) I went and baught Undertow again.

-And having finally been exposed to materials from Aenima in prison, I went and baught that. And when I first heard 3rd I was blown away by the quotes from Bill Hicks. So then I went and got Lateralus.-

My opinions are my own.

Fuck you.

first off buddy, if you didn't buy or even hear much of ænima until after you bought lateralus, then how exactly did any bill hicks quotes from ænima prompt you to buy lateralus? your overtly agressive, contradictory defense of your "own opinions" has the tone of someone who has been told out of jest that they have a small penis, when in real life they really do, so they vigorusly attack the "threat" out of denial and humiliation.

if you want to tell us that your dick is bigger than ours, we'll understand...

secondly, all religions are "invented" to support (and enforce)
someone's theories about our flaws and the(ir) means to salvation. if you want to condemn religion, that's fine, but don't single one out because it has the same fundamental flaws as EVERY other organized religion.

thirdly, i can't stand the word INCARCERATED. if you went to jail, just say so. it always reminds me of the stereotypical black man that goes to jail, and comes out a muslim w/ a phd. "i was incarcerated by the man..." (i have absolutely nothing against people of african decent, the islamic faith, or higher education)
i've been to jail, more than once, yet i don't say i was 'incarcerated.' i am not ashamed to say i've been to jail.

fourthly, you make taking acid and subsequently 'realizing' that "we are god" sound like you were watching fox primetime and 'realizations of god through lsd' came on @ 7:30 e.s.t.
personaly, i feel that i've come to the realization that our individual realities are more of a singular consciousness manipulating our perceived and seemingly separated and isolated consciousnesses in order to subjectively discover more about itself; many cells slowly discovering that they make up a body, a body that already knows it's made up of cells. this larger body is just a cell in another larger body; within the microcosm and outside of the metacosm, beyond the realm of infinity, is the godhead. that personal canon has been developed over the span
of ten years now, with the help of literature, music, meditation, drugs, sex, guilt, church/religion, psychology, physics/astronomy, modern medicine, movies, fear, the 'occult' and the supernatural, etcetera. with no mention of any other catalyst in your post, i am led to believe that by dropping acid a few times you have trancended eternities of knowledge, practice, experience, and enlightenment in one swift 'trip', if you'll allow the terminology.
i should have said "f*ck this whole thinking thing!" a long time ago and just kept eating acid until my eyes bled with delusion...
if this is truly the case, i commend you on your trancendence, although, the whole "fuck you" thing does not seem to be in congruence with any form of enlightenment or evolution i can fathom.

lastly, perhaps it is better that your opinions are just that,
your own.

[crow011]

harsh, but fucking true . . .

i award you, corps d'allumen, the gold for this event . . .

peace and blessed be . . .

crow011 . . .

[All-One-Mind]

lol... try again n00b. :)

What the fuck was aggressive about my first post, minus the end? I was totally calm, chilling out to some music when I wrote that. I wrote specifically in regards to the issues that JTGrace had presented. That included Scientology... that's why I presented my opinions on the flaw of that religion...because it's flawed... and don't lecture me about the "truth" of relgion... I can find my own truth "buddy", I don't need your self-righteous ass telling me what religion is and isn't.

In further relation to this thread... cannot it be said that maynard has stolen his ideas from Bill Hicks, the Upanishads, the Dhammapada, and his sources of inspiration... I think not.

I didn't say anything about buying lateralus before hearing Aenima, dipshit. My quote "hear much of Aenima until after Lateralus" didn't say anything about buying lateralus. It was chronological, you stupid fuck. I didn't hear much of Aenima or buy it until after Lateralus came out... the only thing I heard of Aenima before than were the singles on the radio in prison.

I don't fucking care what words you don't like, you whinny little bitch... so here... have some more INCARCERATED... INCARCERATED... INCARCERATED... INCARCERATED... INCARCERATED... INCARCERATED... INCARCERATED... INCARCERATED... INCARCERATED...

you know what I don't like... whinny little bitches...

I love how you try and flame me for my wacko spiritual beliefs and then go off into your own ultra right-wing spiritual beliefs. But if this is truly the case, i commend you on your trancendence, although, the whole "dick size" thing does not seem to be in congruence with any form of enlightenment or evolution i can fathom.

I think it's funny you lashed out at me. Thanks for displaying to the world just how enlightened you are.

Finally, I love how you've posted 26 times... and half of them have been the exact same post, posted in multiple threads... like we didn't see the exact same post in the other thread. And they are always written in a "I am right... this is the actual meaning of this song" type of manner.

So in conclusion, shut the fuck up n00b.

[corps d'allumen]

ok buddy. have fun!

[reddish]

I don't like L. Ron Hubbard becuase he exaggerated what he had done to the point of lies.

The main reason I don't like The Church of Scientology is because it costs money (around $300,000 for full enlightenment) to learn new things. They also have a copyright on their name and, I think it was in the 80's, tried to sue their critics.


Why I Hate COS:
xenu.net is very biased so you can't always trust them; this is real though
http://www.xenu.net/fairgame-e.html

As a side note: I hated COS before I heard Ænema

As another side note: Hubbard is a rather good writer.

[JTCrace]

There are two prime differences between lies and truth: persistance. Lies, and the problems they create, persist. Truth, on the other hand, has a delightful ability to cause erasure. Lies are what make the whole unwholesome. Truth is what puts it back together again.

In the same paragraph saying, "We are one god, " and "fuck you," strikes me as pretty sad and pitiful and ironically funny. If you really had such an experience I would think you could be a little more compassionate and patient towards those of us who haven't had the opportunity to get a hold of some "killer acid."

I have never said whether Maynard is definitely right or definitely wrong. I think I have suggested he could be both. My objective was to point out that it can be harmful and damaging to saying something without "knowing" it was true. I have done it before. And it can take a long time to rid one's self of someone else's ideas and experiences.

[Elgyn]

Good thread.

I don't so much concern myself with what beliefs other people hold, but rather with what beliefs I hold. If I can't substantiate a belief within my own mind, I probably shouldn't be either supporting or challenging it. I'll try and learn as much as I can about it and go from there.

Far too often people misinterpret a point of view. Most often the holder of the viewpoint isn't stating their opinion as a final truth. More often it is the result of self-evaluation, and will probably change over time.

I often read over old posts of mine and wonder - What was I thinking?

My belief at present is this: The moment you think you have found the "truth", you abandon the pursuit of knowledge and cease to learn. I hope I never grow stagnant in my beliefs.

I'm interested in learning about Scientology, but the link which reddish posted didn't work. Is L. Ron Hubbard a good starting point?

I'm trying to learn.

[reddish]

Read Dianetics. Dianetics is a book L. Ron Hubbard wrote about his beliefs on how the mind works and his ideas on how to become a better person. It's the book that Scientology is based on.

[JTCrace]

The most comprehensive, complete, and consistent coverage of what is known as Dianetics and Scientology can be found on www.freezoneamerica.org Go to Downloads and there you will find "Excalibur Revisited" by Geoffrey Filbert. He tells his readers exactly when and why L. Ron Hubbard went off the fucking deep end. Geoff was involved with the Church until '67, I believe.

If anyone is truly interested in what Scientology and Dianetics was originally intended to be, they can message me, otherwise I won't waste my time.

[JTCrace]

The most comprehensive, complete, and consistent coverage of what is known as Dianetics and Scientology can be found on www.freezoneamerica.org Go to Downloads and there you will find "Excalibur Revisited" by Geoffrey Filbert. He tells his readers exactly when and why L. Ron Hubbard went off the fucking deep end. Geoff was involved with the Church until '67, I believe.

The reason Dianetics may not be the best book to read is because Hubbard wrote it fairly early on, before he had tons of assistance from many, many bright people (such as Geoff). Other books are "The Phoenix Lectures," "Scientology 0-8: The Book of Basics," and the "Technical Dictionary."

If anyone is truly interested in what Scientology and Dianetics was originally intended to be, they can message me, otherwise I won't waste my time.

[g-bay-be]

i think its interesting that you are (seemingly) treating your opinions as truth . . .

sure, a lot of people spew out the same thing that the singer of a band might; but, guess what? . . . its probably because they share the same view . . . even better, perhaps the musician inspired someone to think about something creatively, and that same person then formed their own opinion on the matter . . .

this forum is not designed to cater for people who post well-referenced essays on one thing or another; just because someone doesnt use something from a scientology text, doesnt mean they havent thought independently on the subject . . .

sure, some people are spewing the same thing maynard says: are they not allowed? . . . perhaps, after deliberation, they agree with him? . . .

why else would they be here? . . .

be careful, too - you are guilty, in your post, of the same thing you are condemning . . . you claim you may be taking this "think foryourself - question authority" thing too far - but is that not simply another quote from another much-admired figure? . . .

i see where you are coming from, but i choose not to be as harsh in judgment . . .

for what its worth, though, it was an interesting post . . .

peace and blessed be . . .

crow011 . . .

You said it well crow... Yet Aenimated isn't wrong either. I love tool and i think thier music is amazing. Think for yourself question authority???? hmm think about that. think for yourself

[radmanics]

"Here is an extreme example of what happens when someone steals someone else's viewpoints: Hitler blamed the poor economic and political conditions of Germany on the Jews. The German people believed him. They chose to steal his viewpoints, instead of finding their own. And guess what happened: 6 million people died."

I think you'll find that very few Germans were extreme Nazis, who would commit the genocide which Hitler ordered.

May I say that there is a difference between stealing and using people's ideas/views. To me, stealing a viewpoint, would just to regurgitate it. If you borrow it, you would simply accept it and then apply it to your life and experiences, which may make the viewpoint change. What I just said may be what someone has already said, just worded differently; however I wrote it myself, so don't be petty and accuse me ;p

To me, the idea of us all being one mind is ridiculous - I have a problem seeing how a self consceniousness of one speices has risen to such a height to supose every consceniosness is one, in different "vesels" if you will. I prefer the idea that we are all of one body, or "matter compressed". Our particles, atoms etc are falling from us all the time, mixing with the air, which someone breaths in, or into the soil, which someone will eat through a plant or animal etc. At the atomic level we are all one (as Maynard says in the interview above - paper04). I came to this myself, through thinking - anyone with a basic knowledge that we're made of atoms should be able to figure this out.

Thankyou, and calm the shit down.

[corps d'allumen]

"Here is an extreme example of what happens when someone steals someone else's viewpoints: Hitler blamed the poor economic and political conditions of Germany on the Jews. The German people believed him. They chose to steal his viewpoints, instead of finding their own. And guess what happened: 6 million people died."

I think you'll find that very few Germans were extreme Nazis, who would commit the genocide which Hitler ordered.

May I say that there is a difference between stealing and using people's ideas/views. To me, stealing a viewpoint, would just to regurgitate it. If you borrow it, you would simply accept it and then apply it to your life and experiences, which may make the viewpoint change. What I just said may be what someone has already said, just worded differently; however I wrote it myself, so don't be petty and accuse me ;p

To me, the idea of us all being one mind is ridiculous - I have a problem seeing how a self consceniousness of one speices has risen to such a height to supose every consceniosness is one, in different "vesels" if you will. I prefer the idea that we are all of one body, or "matter compressed". Our particles, atoms etc are falling from us all the time, mixing with the air, which someone breaths in, or into the soil, which someone will eat through a plant or animal etc. At the atomic level we are all one (as Maynard says in the interview above - paper04). I came to this myself, through thinking - anyone with a basic knowledge that we're made of atoms should be able to figure this out.

Thankyou, and calm the shit down.

two books for a 'good' read:

'the portable jung'- c.g. jung
'tales of power'- carlos castaneda

your mind dictates all realities. without your mind to, in a sense, imagine all these things, atomic structure included, is it really there?

it is the difference between the tonal and the nagual...

[JTCrace]

Good point Corps...in fact your second to last comment sums up my point on stealing viewpoints. If I steal (or borrow) someone else's observation and call it my own, then I am invalidating my own reality. And how can I ever transcend my subjective reality when I don't even know what it is. So hypothetically, I can take Maynard's observation that "We are all one mind," and call it my own. But then I have invalidated my own subjective reality, which underneath all of the lies, may very well be the opposite of Maynard's.

* Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle=By the very act of observation, the observer disturbs the observed.

* Siddhartha Gotama's Anatta Doctrine=An observer can only observe a phenomenan that is wholly different than its self. Analogy: a camera can take a picture of everything except...the film that it records on.

So this means that an objective reality is possible, but it is not observable. Because of Heisenberg's Principle, observing an objective reality would change it therefore rendering it a subjective reality unique to only the observer.

The essence of true Buddhism can be said to encompass two things: the anatta doctrine (no-self) and the boundless states. As far as the anatta doctrine, if it can be observed--it is not YOU. For instance I can say that my body, personality, thoughts, knowledge, truth, matter, spirit, change, emotions, ideas, communication, etc., are NOT ME. They are things I have, kind of like my car. However, Siddhartha said that the anatta approach must be balanced by the boundless states. The boundless states are something I know very little about, and have absolutely no direct experience of.

Let me know what you think of my comments (especially you Corps, maybe you can help my understanding). Also, anyone interested at all in the teachings of Siddhartha Gotama, I highly recommend you visit orunla.org and go to Maximillian's Sandor's website called, "The Little Purple Notebook on How to Escape from the Universe."

[All-One-Mind]

My objective was to point out that it can be harmful and damaging to saying something without "knowing" it was true. I have done it before.

Ummm, just because you believe something to be true, dosen't mean that it is. I've been told the world is round... I have strong reasons to believe this is true... but I don't "know" for sure that it is... I chose whether or not to believe these "objective" facts... and the very fact that i have a choice whether or not to believe these "facts" make them all subjective. This being the case, I have to wonder what objective you have left for this thread.

In the same paragraph saying, "We are one god, " and "fuck you," strikes me as pretty sad and pitiful and ironically funny. If you really had such an experience I would think you could be a little more compassionate and patient towards those of us who haven't had the opportunity to get a hold of some "killer acid."

Hey, thanks for casting total judgement on me. I appreciate that. Oh, you ever hear of a comedian called Bill Hicks... yeah, I didn't think so. It's funny, because 15 seconds after talking about how much of a good thing it was that a stupid motherfucker on acid, thought he could fly, jumped out a window, fell to ground and died, he then proceeds to talk about us all being one.

And by the way,

We are one god, fuck you.

How's that for you? One sentence this time.

[dawn]

Just because I share an opinion with some one else doesn't mean the thought is not my own...or if I am convinced to change my viewpoint...that doesn't make it stolen...


It is not so because Maynard says it...Manard says it because it is so...if there is by chance anyone that is unclear on this...well, I can't help 'em...


My love for Tool stems from thier lyrical content...

[JTCrace]

Maybe I'm not articulating myself effectively...let me try again.

Identification is what prevents beings from seeing the world as it is. In other words, it prevents the dreamer from waking up from this dream. An easy example has to do with the body. When one's body is hungry, one usually doesn't say, "My body needs food." One will probably say, "I 'AM' hungry." But then there is the question: do you, the "I", the essence, the Atman, the Being, really give a fuck about food? Or does your body, which is something you HAVE, not something you ARE, need food? In the song, "The Package," by APC, Maynard says, "I am what I'm after." He is talking about identification.

One cannot LOOK at something, or KNOW it when one is busy identifying with it. So, when when someone says, "We are all one mind," that in itself is an identification, and will in the end, prevent a Being from liberation.

[dischordance]

It is not so because Maynard says it...Manard says it because it is so..
Agreed. I thought the fact that Hubbard was a douche and that his supporters were douchettes was common knowledge.
True, it's not so much a fact as, you know, just my opinion, but then, that's what makes it a fact. Because I'm, like, all-knowing, and shit.

There are hundreds of people out there who despise scientology - they're not all Maynard-clones, either - they came to the conclusion on their own (because, it's common-sense, man - he even LOOKED like a fruitcake).

secondly, all religions are "invented" to support (and enforce) someone's theories about our flaws and the(ir) means to salvation. if you want to condemn religion, that's fine, but don't single one out because it has the same fundamental flaws as EVERY other organized religion.
Personally, I think scientology is a cult, but whatever - there is a difference which seperates scientology and other religions... And that's money. Lots of fucking money.
Regardless of how right Hubbard is or isn't, it's obvious he created scientology for money and for glory, not enlightenment. Why else would you have to PAY to even begin to understand what scientology is about?
I don't have to pay $300,000 to find out all the ins-and-outs of the bible, do I?

Just because people dislike scientology and like Tool, doesn't mean they're just going riding along on Maynard's dick (I mean, come on, six inches? Please. I'd rather shove a cucumber up my ass.). Scientology is a very easy organisation to hate.

I think a lot of people are drawn towards Tool because they agree with and can relate to what Tools say, which is why they have similar viewpoints.
Besides of all that, originality just doesn't exist these days. It's like everything has been said and all people can do is regurgitate the shit that came before.

As for information on scientology, this LA times article (http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/la90/la90.html) was fairly interesting and thorough.

[Restrain_yourself]

Maybe I'm not articulating myself effectively...let me try again.

Identification is what prevents beings from seeing the world as it is. In other words, it prevents the dreamer from waking up from this dream. An easy example has to do with the body. When one's body is hungry, one usually doesn't say, "My body needs food." One will probably say, "I 'AM' hungry." But then there is the question: do you, the "I", the essence, the Atman, the Being, really give a fuck about food? Or does your body, which is something you HAVE, not something you ARE, need food? In the song, "The Package," by APC, Maynard says, "I am what I'm after." He is talking about identification.

One cannot LOOK at something, or KNOW it when one is busy identifying with it. So, when when someone says, "We are all one mind," that in itself is an identification, and will in the end, prevent a Being from liberation.


What if you are wrong? What if your (and say 100 million others) concept of "identification" is a load of crap? What if all we really need to strive for is GOD... or say a really good salad?
No, I dont know that "I 'AM' hungry", but it is pratical to believe so.
"I 'AM' living", again I may not know for sure, but if I believed that I didn't give a fuck about living what is the point of doing so? I believe strongly that I THINK and therefore I AM... and by the way Maynard says,"eye on what I'm after" not "I am what I'm after" at least at the site that i looked at.

[All-One-Mind]

and by the way Maynard says,"eye on what I'm after" not "I am what I'm after" at least at the site that i looked at.

it even says that in the linear notes inside the booklet with the cd.