Books that changed you

[gromit]

Dude, I was just making an off-hand comment on the way ORGANIZED religion tends to to be rammed down the throats of kids since the day they are born.. and they are told that their souls will burn in hell forever if they don't obey a list of rules that's 1900 years old.

A critical look at reality together with the doctrines that make up our beliefs that Create our realities in the first place...

I agree... and it sounds like that's what you are doing.. more power to you, but not everyone on this planet is as awake as you seem to be.

I wasn't having a go or anything, It was probably poor writing on my behalf. Unlike this man <--- and his 'silly' sports articles.

Peace

Edited October 20, 2007 by --{ MAYJA }--

[chilli]

I am unsure of specific christian doctrine within any of the 'holy books' that would suggest this, but there are more than enough people that believe this 'truth'

Sorry for the continued Hijack but the PM system is down (muahaha How convenient! :D )

"Supposedly" being the qualifier word. My point which I made AGAIN and will make yet again is that if the directness and 'purity' of the texts are stressed it must mean No alteration from the lowly mind of man, as we understand that God is the almighty creator standing above man in the story of creation (supposedly) so any word of his we can follow verbatim cuz it is of the highest authority. I merely disagree with the stressing of Direct Word of God as some kind of qualifier for its supreme authority. Sure everything is divinely inspired from the most mundane to the most profound and revelation can be had in reference to either type of creation, so Everything is either the word of god or the concept of god remains as the oldschool archetype of "Big Daddy" instead of "Totality"

I would say that certain texts may be infused with a type of Holy Resonance, especially if that was their intention and they may be inspired by what some call the higher godly concepts of altruism and faith, so in that way they are god-inspired but just like paul said the mirror is dirty so it never is the image of god, just the reflection - on a dirty mirror no less, the trick is to spit-shine that 3rd eye and better see the reflection.

I am so interested in the ancient holy books that i forget which one it was... the Torah or the Talmud, either way they crank funky numerology which is meant to prove their holy authority. mostly dealing with multiples of 7, this I see as intentionally encoding what might have been hidden esoteric knowledge from a distant past or a natural understanding through intuition and observation of the numerological foundations of reality. It is meant to be a reflection of god (as below so above). Further study of biblical numerology in the orginal ancient hebrew finds newer and newer synchs that it seems impossible that all their words with their numerical value that are composed of their own letters which are again words with their numerical values are cross-referenced which are shown to have numeric meaning - were intentionally designed to do so in all their possible iterations of meaning association.

I cannot remember ANY actual examples of the words used but say there is mum =4 and dad =5 then child would, with their alphabet = 9. and then there'd be higher concepts like god with lets say a number like 11 and then the word reality would be 22 suggesting reality is god expressed through duality. stuff like that, although I'm unsure to the extent of these connections and how much cross-refrencing goes on, in any case it's a bit of a holographic principle going on where every word symbolises a number (which is a word with its letters and numbers) and every letter within said word does so again ad infinitum, in this way it is a Very good symbol of god, that is holographically self-referential meaning associations giving way to material reality.

There's the theory about information existing non-temporally or in a timeless space or in a higher dimension. That material realities may be the end product of the totality of experiences and interpretations referencing it. For instance the Torah is a composite of the original writings together with their interpretations which are to this day re-interpreted and perhaps novel synchs found in what may be an infinite puzzle (if one wishes). My point being that the later interpretations may have forward inspired the actual text. It seems that the greater influence something has the more it becomes divinely inspired anyway as it is the influence which builds consensus which is the building blocks of reality which is god. Chicken or egg I dont know?

I still don't believe that such a text must have been 'automatically written' I'm just suggesting that the word of god is everywhere and depending on how influential it is will be networked and cross-referenced to provide experiential 'proof' within personal experiences. god is our creation and the more one or another concept is believed the more it is self-validated.

Numerology is a funky way to imbue a book with Holiness, as numbers and numerology are a part of (at least my) holistic thinking.

Too many a synchronistic resonance has happened in the few days since starting this discussion of god revealing itself in anything but Holy Books that got me thinking that they're not necessary anyway.

Hey El D, seeing as you didn't acknowledge most of my post, and just focuused on the one thing, I hope you don't mind if I do the same

I know you don't think that holy books were 'automatic writing,' I assumed from the start you were talking about other people who believe it... I'm surprised you still haven't realized that. All I'm saying, and will continue to say, is that is not the traditional Christian doctrine, and neither is the idea that the Bible is a complete revelation of God... I don't know how many people you know of who actually believe that, but it mustn't be many and in any case it's not traditional orthodox Christian belief, and yes there is such a thing.

Let me say once again that I'm not arguing for these beliefs, I'm just defining them... really i don't care what most people believe in the privacy of their own heads, nor do i expect them to care what I believe.

[The Dude]

I wasn't having a go or anything, It was probably poor writing on my behalf. Unlike this man <--- and his 'silly' sports articles.

Peace

understood, I guess I more or less agree that mainstream religion is a control mechanism and its mostly been taken over by mainstream media - that is our primary source of moral guidance.

I gotta get off this high horse about religion peddling, it's not for everyone and it's definitely not for me either, I just reckon theres some merits to these holy books even if everyone disses them, like trying to crack the 'code' and that numerology bullshit, anyone seen the movie Pi?

[The Dude]

Hey El D, seeing as you didn't acknowledge most of my post, and just focuused on the one thing, I hope you don't mind if I do the same

I know you don't think that holy books were 'automatic writing,' I assumed from the start you were talking about other people who believe it... I'm surprised you still haven't realized that. All I'm saying, and will continue to say, is that is not the traditional Christian doctrine, and neither is the idea that the Bible is a complete revelation of God... I don't know how many people you know of who actually believe that, but it mustn't be many and in any case it's not traditional orthodox Christian belief, and yes there is such a thing.

Let me say once again that I'm not arguing for these beliefs, I'm just defining them... really i don't care what most people believe in the privacy of their own heads, nor do i expect them to care what I believe.

haha jeez seems like im getting in everyones faces. Argh! part of the post was in response to you the rest was a rant about judaic numerology and the kabbalah - not really directed as a response to you... anyway Internet Arguments are retarded but i feel i must defend my position of misunderstanding you or you me.. well first lets see, the brilliance of internets and quotes eh...

...but there is quite a difference between something being "inspired by God" and "dictated" or "written by God." The traditional Christian view has been that God somehow managed to fully or completely inspire the Scriptures while fully maintaining the individuality and integrity of their human authors...

Not traditional christian doctrine or not traditional christian view? see you may be right here on some semantic technicality but i figure you meant the same thing, sorry for not fully and completely understanding you.

Nevertheless, this is a far cry from some kind of possession or automatic writing as El Duderino understands it, it is more like the way that God is purported to work out his purposes in everything, ie. providence.

I'm not really sure what you meant here, I was obviously discussing the aforementioned traditional christian view but i guess it could be interpreted as my understanding of the holy inspiration attributed to the books. Although you mention just now we were obviously discussing other peoples supposed views you seem to suggest here that it was my understanding, i just want to make this tediously clear that I'm talking about what you earlier discussed as the traditionally held christian view. which was dichotomous to their other views about satanic possession, i figured pointing out the irony may be funny and not this boring...

*edit* Heya, actually you said "supposedly this is the direct word of god transcribed into these prophets who write it out. Is that not automatic writing? or possession?" So what did I do wrong? Also, I don't know of any Christian doctrine that says the Bible is anywhere near a complete revelation of God, in fact Paul says "now we see through a dirty mirror... now we see only in part."

Dude you did nothing wrong I'm just clarifying my position and my belief which you seem to have misunderstood in earlier posts, although you say it was obvious now.

this reminds me of the special olympics

and politically incorrect humour.

Edited October 20, 2007 by El Duderino

[chilli]

haha jeez seems like im getting in everyones faces. Argh! part of the post was in response to you the rest was a rant about judaic numerology and the kabbalah - not really directed as a response to you... anyway Internet Arguments are retarded but i feel i must defend my position of misunderstanding you or you me.. well first lets see, the brilliance of internets and quotes eh...

Not traditional christian doctrine or not traditional christian view? see you may be right here on some semantic technicality but i figure you meant the same thing, sorry for not fully and completely understanding you.

I'm not really sure what you meant here, I was obviously discussing the aforementioned traditional christian view but i guess it could be interpreted as my understanding of the holy inspiration attributed to the books. Although you mention just now we were obviously discussing other peoples supposed views you seem to suggest here that it was my understanding, i just want to make this tediously clear that I'm talking about what you earlier discussed as the traditionally held christian view. which was dichotomous to their other views about satanic possession, i figured pointing out the irony may be funny and not this boring...

Dude you did nothing wrong I'm just clarifying my position and my belief which you seem to have misunderstood in earlier posts, although you say it was obvious now.

this reminds me of the special olympics

and politically incorrect humour.

Haha, no worries, yeah arguments on the internet are pretty retarded, that is true... nevertheless, let's continue with this one a bit longer! In that first quote, I was talking about the Scriptures being inspired by God, there is a big difference between saying all of the Bible is God's word, and all of God's word is in the Bible... do you get what I mean now? I am saying traditionally Christians believe that the Bible is completely God's word, but it is not not a complete revelation of God... ie, we can learn about God in other ways and there is still much about God we don't know that is not in the Bible. Am I making this clearer or even worse?

I meant your understanding of the Christian view of inspiration... I thought you were saying that Christian's believed the writers of Scripture were overwhelmed and performed something similar to automatic writing when they wrote Scripture, if this is what you meant then sorry, I mad a mistake. This is so confusing, and I feel bad for hijacking this thread, but at least it is about a book eh?

Another interesting book I read was Rational Mysticism by (I think) John Hogan... Also The Island by Aldous Huxley.

Edited October 20, 2007 by IllegalBrain

[The Dude]

Haha, no worries, yeah arguments on the internet are pretty retarded, that is true... nevertheless, let's continue with this one a bit longer! In that first quote, I was talking about the Scriptures being inspired by God, there is a big difference between saying all of the Bible is God's word, and all of God's word is in the Bible... do you get what I mean now? I am saying traditionally Christians believe that the Bible is completely God's word, but it is not not a complete revelation of God... ie, we can learn about God in other ways and there is still much about God we don't know that is not in the Bible. Am I making this clearer or even worse?

I meant your understanding of the Christian view of inspiration... I thought you were saying that Christian's believed the writers of Scripture were overwhelmed and performed something similar to automatic writing when they wrote Scripture, if this is what you meant then sorry, I mad a mistake. This is so confusing, and I feel bad for hijacking this thread, but at least it is about a book eh?

Another interesting book I read was Rational Mysticism by (I think) John Hogan... Also The Island by Aldous Huxley.

That is an interesting point that christians allow room for revelation in ordinary reality and not only through reading scripture. fair enough, that does not negate the original point that what was written within said scripture is the 100% unadeulterated word of god, that was the inital point of contention and this further expansion on the idea of revelation and where/how it is revelaed to christians and what the christian view of revelation is, is interesting but it has nothing to do with your apparent misunderstanding and the following misrepresentation about my view of the "traditional christian view" being that scripture is completely and fully the word of god without any influence of the writer himself (of course leaving further room for revelation or 'gods word' outside of the bible but that has nothing to do with this point about the contained 'godword' in the bible).

So yes the bible is a fragment of the completeness of gods word but it is argued by some christians and, as you had said before is "the traditional christian view" that "God somehow managed to fully or completely inspire the Scriptures" that that fragment of gods word is a 100% faithful revelation of it.

That of course is not the message within the scriptures themselves, as you pointed out with the "dirty mirror" scripture, but it is the belief of many a christian and apparently the traditional christian view, for whatever strange reason.

I guess it's similar to the traditional christian view that there was this man named jesus christ that was crucified on a wooden cross to pay for our sins in some twisted form of 'justice' and we celebrate this with chocolate eggs and bunnies. chocolate eggs being a symbol of new life representing jesus dying on the cross and this has nothing to do with the end/beginning of the solar calendar as it moves around our sky dictating the seasons, such as spring the season of new life as symbolised by the egg. (Hemisphere differences apply) - that rant aside, the traditional christian view need not necessarily represent what was intended by the original authors of the heavily symbolised mythology

-Point is I'm over this argument, this has got to be one of the wankiest outpourings of boring technical or semantic clarifications of what i said/meant or how i understood somebody else regarding the misinterpretations of holy books, i've ever had.

I do not believe that 'god-word' contained in the christian or judaic bibles is a 100% faithful transcription of God (there could never be any such thing), as much as it may be inspired by the higher virtues of altruism and goodness and social control or meta-programming of mental constructs, it had a purpose that it still has now, control and direction of the masses. However as we mature as a collective we must take the reigns ourselves and re-program our reality.

I cannot speak for the orthodox view or the tradditional view or the majority view, just replying to your statement re: the traditional view [originally] and my understanding from a few radical christians i've encountered in my time, about the direct transcription theory - that the only valid explanation is possession - which would be a dissociated state from the regular psyche of the individual. - therefore if satanic possession is sinful then their own beliefs are self-contradicting, (all possession would be considered satanic) this was the catch 22 I attempted to logically place these people in, to be a witty little smartarse at my catholic school, to no avail, instead a teacher printed me out a short article about judaic bible numerology (within the torah I believe) far from convincing me of the jewish people as chosen by god to deliver the holy message, it had me slowly (after years) come to the realisation that reality is infintely weird and synchronistic 'highly unlikely' connections may reveal themselves to any person (or especially a devout collective of people) given enough focused intention.

Edited October 22, 2007 by El Duderino

[chilli]

That is an interesting point that christians allow room for revelation in ordinary reality and not only through reading scripture. fair enough, that does not negate the original point that what was written within said scripture is the 100% unadeulterated word of god, that was the inital point of contention and this further expansion on the idea of revelation and where/how it is revelaed to christians and what the christian view of revelation is, is interesting but it has nothing to do with your apparent misunderstanding and the following misrepresentation about my view of the "traditional christian view" being that scripture is completely and fully the word of god without any influence of the writer himself (of course leaving further room for revelation or 'gods word' outside of the bible but that has nothing to do with this point about the contained 'godword' in the bible).

So yes the bible is a fragment of the completeness of gods word but it is argued by some christians and, as you had said before is "the traditional christian view" that "God somehow managed to fully or completely inspire the Scriptures" that that fragment of gods word is a 100% faithful revelation of it.

That of course is not the message within the scriptures themselves, as you pointed out with the "dirty mirror" scripture, but it is the belief of many a christian and apparently the traditional christian view, for whatever strange reason.

I guess it's similar to the traditional christian view that there was this man named jesus christ that was crucified on a wooden cross to pay for our sins in some twisted form of 'justice' and we celebrate this with chocolate eggs and bunnies. chocolate eggs being a symbol of new life representing jesus dying on the cross and this has nothing to do with the end/beginning of the solar calendar as it moves around our sky dictating the seasons, such as spring the season of new life as symbolised by the egg. (Hemisphere differences apply) - that rant aside, the traditional christian view need not necessarily represent what was intended by the original authors of the heavily symbolised mythology

-Point is I'm over this argument, this has got to be one of the wankiest outpourings of boring technical or semantic clarifications of what i said/meant or how i understood somebody else regarding the misinterpretations of holy books, i've ever had.

I do not believe that 'god-word' contained in the christian or judaic bibles is a 100% faithful transcription of God (there could never be any such thing), as much as it may be inspired by the higher virtues of altruism and goodness and social control or meta-programming of mental constructs, it had a purpose that it still has now, control and direction of the masses. However as we mature as a collective we must take the reigns ourselves and re-program our reality.

I cannot speak for the orthodox view or the tradditional view or the majority view, just replying to your statement re: the traditional view [originally] and my understanding from a few radical christians i've encountered in my time, about the direct transcription theory - that the only valid explanation is possession - which would be a dissociated state from the regular psyche of the individual. - therefore if satanic possession is sinful then their own beliefs are self-contradicting, (all possession would be considered satanic) this was the catch 22 I attempted to logically place these people in, to be a witty little smartarse at my catholic school, to no avail, instead a teacher printed me out a short article about judaic bible numerology (within the torah I believe) far from convincing me of the jewish people as chosen by god to deliver the holy message, it had me slowly (after years) come to the realisation that reality is infintely weird and synchronistic 'highly unlikely' connections may reveal themselves to any person (or especially a devout collective of people) given enough focused intention.

I'm totally over it too... I can only repeat the same thing in so many ways before concluding the other person is either not listening, antagonistic or braindead.

But I can't help myself... I never was arguing against the idea that Christians believe the Bible is 100% God's word, I'm not sure where you got that from. You even quoted me saying it. I thought you were saying "how can any book/creation be Fully representative of god if it is not god" and I said there is a huge difference between 100% of the Bible being God's word, and the Bible being 100% of God's word. It seems so simple, I don't know why you want to argue about it.

As far as the rest of it... pfft, you can read my words how you want I can't be bothered defending myself (unusual, I know). In fact, the only reason I usually bother explaining what I meant to anyone at any length is in order to foster open lines of communication for potential future discussions, but I'm slowly learning that it is a bit of a waste of time with most people.

Edited October 22, 2007 by IllegalBrain

[incognito]

anyhu.. fuck this whole religion shit... it is just imposed ingorance.

i think statements like that more resemble imposedignorance...or absorbed ignorancecos that view seems really cool and befitting of a spun-out open-minded crazy kinda guy whos so switched on? and every1 else is not?

i defy u to explain why such a theorysuch aas human evolution/the big bang theory is so much more credible than an organised religion.

face thefactdude, no one knows, no one has ever known , and no one will ever know-wereall clutching atstraws on that one.

so maybee some tolerance may help u along the pixie highway to ur goals of one-ness with the universe or whatever other dogmatic role u strive for.

I like christianity, and i like buddhism. wecant help the fucktards who take it literally, much like psychadelic users who think they arefucking god. its the same conundrum.

[xShiva.spacetechnology]

i love you jono

[The Dude]

i love you jono

Yeah I do like the way you put it.

Fucktards that take the symbolic book too literally, or Fucktards that take the literal world too symbolically. I am god though... in the process of Human Being... err bad Grammar in the process of being human.

================

IB, Now that you mention it again I can see what you were replying to about my argument infering that for the word of god to be wholey accurate it must be complete. It reminds me of goedels theorem (sp?) which mathematically proves that the system of logic cannot be consistent if it is complete, or that it cannot be complete and still be consistent. This proof is then said to apply to any system - implying that any system of thought or deduction or belief, cannot be complete AND consistent.

My argument was that the word of god cannot be accurately contained anywhere without first explaining totality, If the bible is 100% direct godword than it is a consistent but not complete version of 'godword'. I'm suggesting that it is neither, and that the mirror is very dirty indeed.

Although you're focused on the argument that the Bible is only a part revelation of some of gods word which refutes my argument about the christian belief that it is wholly contained within. Fair enough... at the risk of sounding tediously fucking boring... that was not the point of contention, rather that the contained 'godword' within is 100% unadulterated god-word.. How can it be if it is transcribed through a human vessel into human symbology? That was the argument I was repeating over and over, in response to your statement about my understanding of the bible transcription happening by being overcome by some kind of possession (not my belief merely using 'automatic writing' as an argument refuting the bibles holy authority). Just clarifying what I meant, as you misrepresented it. It's really no biggie though I get what you're saying and got your two last posts, I guess you are right that I've been paying more attention to where I saw myself or my view as "attacked"/misrepresented instead of seeing what you're trying to say, which would've made clearing up my position much easier.

I agree with what you say about revelation outside of the bible (I've never had any reading what tiny fragments I've been exposed to) and feel happy that at least some christians aknowledge gods word outside of what is told them is the correct authority to pledge moral alliegance too.

The inexpressable is never revealed apart from moments of oneness with the all, or experiences of totality, that are so far removed from our symbolic models of reality so as to render them impossible to physically replicate, even the automatic writing argument is unnecessary here as it really should only be argued that god is inexpressable as anything but the infinite, cuz anything else is a reduction. Maybe I should read up on some holy texts so I can have a proper opinion. Writing everything about everything really is the only proper method, but as Heisenburg (I think?) demonstrated the higher accuracy we strive for in measurement the more uncertain they must become, the universe has an intrinsic sense of mystery that can never be transcended materially.

I'm becoming the thing I hate, taking shit too literally. I guess the authority or validity is not the question here, rather the message is of prime importance. If when reading the bible, higher virtues of altruism and gods unconditional love and all that good stuff are made self evident then I'll say this again is part of gods word - as interpreted by man - that is the point many a christian would disagree with as [supposedly] gods word leaves no room for interpretation, some people believe every single word as the literal truth. I suppose that the negative aspects must be equally emphasised for a whole representation of god-ness. that is all-ness - then the truly devout literalist christians will feel morally righteous in whatever bad deeds they perform as part of gods work...

Although a philosophy I've read at some point would think of the negative as being only the lack of the positive. So that a positive charge is the absence of an electron. Darkness is the Absence of light, Evil is the absence of Good. Satan is the Absence of God, Ignorance is the absence of Information. It is the Infinte versus the Void. Now even though these are two complementary elements one of them is existance, the other is the absence of it, both always 'exist' in a way. Point is God created everything good, the rest is us getting sucked into the void, as a result of fear, it is as simple as Donnie Darko, Love and Fear.

^^^

It is an idea. I've read Kabbalists say that god is revealed daily in every manifestation of altruism and good will. This may explain how god created everything but is not responsible for negative traits of life (caused by the lack of something - the lack was always there and never created). This is still a dualistic version of god where god is the creative element and the negative is merely the inexistance of god, instead of being gods counterpart or other side of the coin ala yin/yang. I'd say that God as the creative force is what we consider the masculine 'giving' element and the void is the feminine 'godess' space needed for the expression of god. Will penetrates into Matter to form Creation. Holy Trinity stylee, I'm no bible scholar but i read that numerology and the like is heavily codified within the bible, that within the moral allegories lies a hidden numerical allegory of metaphysical elements giving birth to reality. the Trinity being one of the highest concept afaik.

Numeric-allegory means that through the words are letters and numbers that represent more than just themselves. Put together they'd often create a visual geometric layout of some sort that is based on some kind of universal or metaphysical geometry that gives birth to our realities.

================

Our latest correspondence over something that I've never read shows just how much the bible can influence. Likewise during the crusades many a people that have never read the christian bible would've been adversly effected by it.

Edited October 23, 2007 by El Duderino

[indigo264nm]

Damn this thread got raaaaaped.

[chilli]

Damn this thread got raaaaaped.

LOL, I shouldn't laugh, but this comment really did make me LOL.

[incognito]

wooooosh! over my interleckshuwal head man,

qouting dude-Fucktards that take the symbolic book too literally, or Fucktards that take the literal world too symbolically

u owe me that explantion, u owe me cones (just kidding)

mainly the bit about taking z literal world to symbolicly, not being facetious id just really like toget my noggin around that 1.

[gromit]

i defy u to explain why such a theorysuch aas human evolution/the big bang theory is so much more credible than an organised religion.

ok i'll do it in one word...SCIENCE.

[Sparkster]

Why do threads that encourage intellectual conversion get so fucken raped?

Why do people try and outsmart eachother rather than understand eachother?

Since this thread is about Books that changed you & favourite books... Mayjas little Gonzo signature reminded me of one of my favourite authors.

Has anyone seen the Documentaries "Buy the Ticket, Take the Ride" or "Gonzovision" about HST?

highly recommend. yup yup.

[chilli]

Why do threads that encourage intellectual conversion get so fucken raped?

Why do people try and outsmart eachother rather than understand eachother?

I think it's because people are often so emotionally attached to what they believe that it makes "intellectual" discussion difficult because when someone questions our beliefs, we tend to take it as an attack on our character, and things start to get nasty. Also, people tend to work about ten times harder at getting their point across than they do at listening to the other person's perspective. I was thinking about this tonight, and I find that when I engage in a discussion where I disagree with the person, I am listening to their points, but I continue to defend my own view until the end of the talk, as do they... this is not so bad though, because then hopefully each person goes away with an opposing viewpoint to consider and reflect on and possibly synthesize into their own view.

[paradox]

By Dan Millman. I read it a few weeks ago and it is definitely inspirational I'm looking forward to reading Sacred Journey of the Peaceful Warrior next when I can find a copy of it 2nd hand.

Anything by Douglas Adams has been very moving for me too.

i read 'way of the peaceful warrior' when i was about 16 & at the time i found it really inspiring, i loved it, i'm now 24 but anyhoo i've recently found 'sacred journey of a peaceful warrior' & sarted reading it & thought it was absolutely shite, just like the author was just trying to pump out another book & make some more dough & didn't put much soul into it at all.

i think that these books are targeted at mid to late teens & i think this is the age group that would get the most out of them.

perhaps thats why i found the second one crap, dunno?

[gromit]

Has anyone seen the Documentaries "Buy the Ticket, Take the Ride" or "Gonzovision" about HST?

highly recommend. yup yup.

No but I will have to!

Where did you get your hands on these? on dvd or just streaming online?

[Sparkster]

No but I will have to!

Where did you get your hands on these? on dvd or just streaming online?

Torrents dude, 'Buy the Ticket' came out relatively recently and was showing at some film festivals, alot of the stuff they used was from the 70s doco Gonzovision. Theres a few other movies I want a track down as well including "Breakfast with Hunter"

They included alot of these in the Criterion Limited Edition DVD of Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas.

[gromit]

alright cheers man

sorry if contributed to 'raping' your thread too, just tryin to chuck in my 2c

peace

[nothinghead]

In the spirit of reviving life-changing media threads, I want to add a few of books:

George Eliot - Middlemarch: for the sheer amount that can be packed into individual sentences, and into a novel. For an idea of what it meant to come to terms with Darwinist thought in the Victorian era. And for the way consciousness is centered in a town, rather than an individual - making me reflect on the way regions can function as microcosms that bear heavily on consciousness.

JM Coetzee - Life and Times of Michael K: All Coetzee's work is brilliant to some degree, but this one is extra powerful. Reading this novel I learned about disability, disadvantage, and our relationship to the earth (admittedly perhaps not what others would take from it). Disgrace, also, is a work of genius about postcolonial race relations in South Africa, and subjugation of women.

James Joyce - Ulysses: altered the way I thought about art, language, expression, and traditions of cultural inheritance.

Thomas Pynchon - The Crying of Lot 49: Not his best work, but still a fantastic short novel that got me thinking about paranoia and patternmaking (and its dopaminergic explanation), anarchy and communication, surveillance and regulation, conspiracy.

Kathy Acker - Empire of the Senseless: What is language? What can it do? What is the relation of language and art to the political? Also some sweet cyborg action that makes you wonder about the borders of being human.

Mark Twain - Huck Finn: A novel I've read and reread, can always get lost in, that describes some simple joys and struggles. 'Course its politics are important too, but as an adventure tale and a record of dialects/accents alone, it is fantastic.

Ian McEwan - Saturday: Made me think a lot about the place of art on a wartorn earth.

Joseph Conrad - Heart of Darkness: Indisputably a work of artistic genius, but what made it extra significant for me was the strong critical opinion that it was a racist novel. I disagree, and had to think a lot about racism to work out my opinion about it.

Jane Austen - Pride and Prejudice: The farce of Society, the oppressive nature of marriage, plus a sense of humor that I'm sure has impacted on my own.

Shakespeare. In general. What can't you think through, regarding human nature, by reading Shakespeare. Absolute genius.

edit: for readability

Edited September 12, 2012 by racketemensch

[Distracted]

The Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams.

I'd be a very different person right now if I didn't read that book when I was growing up. Probably the single most influential piece of work i've come across.

Edited September 12, 2012 by Distracted

[Xenodimensional]

At the risk of sounding facetious, probably all of them (I mostly read non-fiction).

[goneski]

Currently rereading Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Brings me to tears all the time.

[IndianDreaming]

 

• The Hobbit
  
• Lord of the Rings
  
• Hitch Hikers + Startship Titanic etc...
  
• Encyclopedia Britannica
  
• Euclids Elements
  
• All of Tesla's writings...
  
• The Internet (well some of it, except the debates about religion)