Re: psychoceramics: Does this guy qualify?

[Ernie Karhu <ekarhu @ suneast.east.sun.com>]

RE:

: I know that the realm of kookdom is a shadowy place, and its borders 
: indistinct- we can all recognize physics-kooks, and religion-kooks, and 
: just-plain-kooks -- what about social kooks? Does a statement like the 
: above indicate its speaker should be watched closely for more evidence of 
: kookdom?

>He's attempting an intellectual analysis of "Baywatch"; I'd say, sign him
>up.

That this person has attempted an "intellectual analysis" of Baywatch and
has, in my opinion, failed so miserably, let him remain among his true
calling as an ordinary garden variety kook.  ;-) I'm not here for that.

Actually, this thread points to an interesting issue regarding the varied
nature of "kookdom" and/or "psychoceramics" in general.

People who consider themselves as "kooks" generally are "turn-offs" for me
as are folks who take their "kooky views" zealously or as necessarily real
(as in "seeing is believing").

I have lived through much experience that is quite "extraordinary" or
"unusual" or "psychoceramic." I'm not sure what to make of all of this
experience except that it has been quite interesting and unusual.

I'm fairly convinced that I am well-grounded in a state which is
relatively free of pathology - namely, quite free of discomfort and any
other self-limiting and self-imposed dysfunction. I am quite satisfied
with my own subjective sense of freedom.

On the other hand, I am fairly convinced that 99% of our population 
appears, at least, to be quite out of touch with their own ostensible
reality. What this means is that they seem to be quite frank at stating
that they are "missing the mark" at least in terms of whatever that "mark"
is for themselves. In one way or another they are saying: that they don't
quite know what they want, what it means to be free, what it means to be
whole... They lack a coherent sense of purpose and yet consider this as
sane. Perhaps this is what truly qualifies as kooky. If so, I want no part
of it for my own experience.

If we begin and end with the position that we are the ones who are "weird"
and "dysfunctional" in our society, then we likely are. If we begin and end
with the notion that true "sanity" is to be determined democratically or
imposed by those who "know for certain" - we will become zealous in our
determination to convince others and/or impose our own perceptions on those
who don't seem to get it.

As for myself, I really couldn't care less about such beliefs or 
perceptions. I'm just looking to know as much as I can about the universe
within certain self-imposed limitations about which I am comfortable. This
pretty much translates into: to each their own. I'll keep a low profile
beyond that and honor whatever others choose for themselves as long as they
honor me to my own conjecture. When I have sufficient evidence for myself 
that someone sure as hell isn't able to maintain some "self-consistancy" or
if that "consistancy" jeopardizes me as a person, I'll move on.

Change is inevitable - but even change deserves some integrity.

Ernie