Kirby Urner


Portland, OR

United States

Profile Information:

About Me
Lots online.
Twitter Page

Comment Wall:

Load Previous Comments
  • Forrest Curo

    Yeah, it's a little backasswards how this works -- but then we don't end up with all the liter in the same place. I really agree about The Exam; I get Spot Quizzes instead. (I don't always like the way these turn out!)

    I did a poem once abt:

    'Practice the corpse pose;it will be on The Exam'

    but then so are sunsets.

    The trouble with "How effective were you as an activist?" is that Jesus would have flunked that one. So maybe it's not such a good question. At best (unless you died of being thumped by a cop) you'd still face a further question: "Yes, but what have you done for Me lately?"

  • Keith Saylor

    Hello Kirby,

    Recently you wrote:

    I'm a Wittgenstein student and don't buy that names point to things, even in the simple case. Words are tools and their use defines them, not some mysterious "pointing". "Language on the one hand, real object on the other" -- that's a simplification that only gets one entangled in confusions.

    Mathematics is not metaphorical if it's not trying to be "about" anything beyond itself. Chess, the game, is not really a "metaphor" for a war either, or if it is, it's not a war like we've ever seen. Games have their own integrity. They don't need to be "metaphoric".

    Note: Santa and Satan differ only by letter arrangement, like Dog and God.

    Your words are compelling and I've spent much time with them. I appreciate your observation that "Games have their own integrity" and I agree. In the same way that equations, theologies, institutions, languages, etc. have their own integrity. The physical world has its own integrity. Ecosystems have their own integrity. Economies have their own integrity. Church frameworks have their own integrity. Idols or icons and similitudes have their own integrity. An idol certainly does not need to point to anything beyond itself and often does not. It has its own integrity. This is the reality of things for many people on this earth and I affirm the truth of it.

    With that said, there are others on this earth who re-create (for example, participate in gaming or worship) in the very activity of living itself so that we do not engage in setting aside outward frameworks within which we go about re-creating or worshipping for that matter. While we acknowledge the existence of outward gaming and worship frameworks or platforms, we may not participate in them because we live in the activity of re-creating or worshipping itself in itself. Living in the activity of re-creating or worshipping in all moments and circumstance in daily life makes entering into an outwardly established gaming, economic, religious, worship, and political, platforms or frameworks unnecessary. As with many of the founding Quakers (not all), we do not participate in the establishment or setting aside of outward religious institutions and instrumentalities and practices because those outward forms are not relevant to our experience which is established Itself in itself. We participate in the activity of worship and re-creating in every moment of our lives. Our conscious is not anchored in and our conscience is not informed by outward gaming or worshipping frameworks. In the same way,  we do not set aside or participate holy-days because a conscious anchored in and a conscious informed in the activity of re-creating or worshipping itself in itself knows a life that is holy in all moments and circumstances. It is just not necessary to set aside outward special days and times of holiness or celebration; even as we acknowledge the "integrity" of those outward holy-days for many people even when those holy-days and the language of those holy-days are not metaphoric in any way.

    Thanks you for your words.


  • Keith Saylor

    Hello Kirby,

    While I agree with your sentiment to it is not about either/or.

    For me, it is an issue of just being honest about the reality. There just are many people, by their own admission and not my characterization, whose conscious is anchored in and whose conscience is informed by outward forms generally speaking. These people make up the majority of people on this earth. There is also a smaller number of people on this earth whose conscious, generally speaking, is anchored in and whose conscience, generally speaking,  is informed by direct and unmediated inherent self-existence or Presence itself in itself without regard to outward practices, institutions, teachers, leaders, theologies, religions, etc. 

    The very nature of the former is to break up into various outward "brands," as you say, while the later has no real issue with outward branding because they do not participate in that way of existence. They profess no outward marks, forms, or practices by which they themselves or others may know them as under the pale of direct and unmediated Presence itself in itself. It is the establishing of outward forms that nurture the manifestation of various brands. Those early Quakers, who followed Foxonian innovation, and eventually turned back again to established outward ways, practices, and traditions, nurtured the manifestation of the various brands that now make up the Quakerism of today that is anchored in and informed by outward forms. 

    There has been those from the beginnings of the Children of Light, as there are today, who are not  stakeholders in the establishment and perpetuation of any outward religion, practice, tradition, politic, economy, institutions, etc. so that there is no occasion for branding or disunity amongst those gathered into and governed by direct and unmediated Spirit itself in itself.

    Anarchy is the lack of governance. The Children of Light whose conscious is anchored in and whose conscience is informed by Presence know the direct and unmediated governance of the same Presence itself in itself. 

    Thank you, Keith