In defence of George Michael

A friend of mine refused to analyse George Michael (the singer) beyond 'fag...homo....gay..'

Is George Michael a criminal because he indulges in homosexuality? Does George Michael not have depth as a human being because he has a drug-alcohol problem?

I do not endorse homosexuality, but I am not AGAINST it. I am neutral to it.

People who are 'PASSIONATELY AGAINST' homosexuality/bisexuality are, at some level, badly attracted to this mode of sexuality. If homosexuality STARTLES you, it means it turns you on at some level. The pure heterosexual is neutral to homosexuality. Neither for it nor against it.

If the reader is, by now, 'startled' by these statements of mine, and thinks I am crazy, I would like to draw his attention to the famous saying 'you lie so much you believe yourself'. Which means--a state of existence in which delusions and repression prevent the mental-emotional construct from realising its own desires.

The tragedy of human existence is that people do not understand and want to avoid thinking about what moves them at what point, and because of that they are very confused about their actions so many times in their life. They lie, not just to others but even to themselves about what makes them tick.

George Michael has drug problems...yes. Many things may go wrong in the drug-dependant's life. He may turn into a vampire that preys on his family or friends, emotionally and/or financially.

But it's not necessary that a drug dependant will become a financial-emotional vampire. There are so many drug/alcohol dependants out there, who lead productive lives and do not feed on other people. George Michael is such a person. He does not harm anyone and his music suggests he is a compassionate person who is very much worried about suffering of the people.

Charities supported by George Michael:
Barnardo's, ChildLine, Children with AIDS Charity, Elton John AIDS Foundation, Gray Cancer Institute, Help a London Child, Jubilee Action, Macmillan Cancer Relief, Marie Curie Cancer Care, Nottinghamshire Bereavement Trust, Outcome, Outline, Positive Nation, Rainbow Trust, Red Cross, Red Hot Organization, Rhys Daniels Trust, St John's Hospice, Swan Lifeline, Terrence Higgins Trust, The Food Chain, UK Thalassaemia Society, War Child.

There's Something About Monogamy...

Monogamy is perhaps nothing more than a lifestyle choice. It is a part of nature, but there is nothing 'natural' about monogamy. The existence of fighter/blocker/killer sperm seems to point to this.

The fighter/blocker/killer sperm exists for the sole purpose of preventing competition from impregnating the egg. Research indicates that 90% of the sperm is fighter/blocker/killer sperm. (Only 10% is designed to fertilise the egg.) This is also referred to as 'sperm competition'.

The fighter/blocker sperm builds a barrier in the cervix area, a barrier that does not allow sperm from a competing male to make it to the ovaries.

The killer sperm neutralises sperm from a competing male.

This scenario, of fighter/killer sperm fighting and killing each other over who impregnates the egg reminds me of jealous lovers fighting and killing each other over the woman..

Jokes apart, it is clear that nature has built into us mechanisms that are designed to ensure that a woman does not get impregnated by two males simultaneously.

Sounds like nature has given us the go-ahead to lead polyandrous/polygamous lifestyles, by offering this biological mechanism!

(Though this mechanism is not foolproof and there have been cases, although rare, in which human females have given birth to twins fathered by two different males.)

I read somewhere that just half a spoonful of semen is enough to impregnate a very large number of women. Perhaps this is a pointer that says men are allowed to get sexual with as many women as they want.

So:

1) Nature protects twins from being fathered by different fathers.

2) Nature has given the power to the male to impregnate a large number of women.

Current Hypothesis:

All lifestyle choices, polyandry, polygamy etc. are equally valid in the eyes of nature. Monogamy is just a choice, not the default.

Love-II

This post highlights the difference between addictive clinging and real love. It was written when I was drunk. Read on...
_________________
Here's some lyrics by Barbra Streisand from her song 'woman in love'.

I am a woman in love
And I'll do anything
To get you into my world
And hold you within
It's a right I defend
Over and over again
What do I do?

I am a woman in love
And I'm talking to you
Do you know how it feels?
What a woman can do
It's a right I defend
over and over again..

what lyrics...... :-/

"I'll do anything to get you into my world and hold you within, its a right I defend over and over again."
Sounds like 'I'm planning to plant my flag on your ass, its a right I defend, over and over again". Wtf is 'its a right I defend'? Right my ass. And I'll say this. Over and over again.

"I stumble and fall, but I give you it all."
Keeping in with the spirit of the song, what she really means is "I stumble and fall, but I'll plant my flag on your ass after all".

"Do you know how it feels? what a woman can do?"
Hell I know EXACTLY what a woman can do if its a woman like you. Because I've experienced it first hand. Do you know how THAT feels?

Ms. Streisand's song is a typical example of what Eckhart Tolle calls 'addictive clinging that humans call love'.

Someone should introduce Ms. Streisand to Osho Rajneesh, who repeatedly says 'possess by not possessing'.

Or to Scott Peck who says 'Love is separateness'.

Eckhart Tolle [paraphrased]: "Love is not a portal into anything. Love is what starts flowing through you, as your connection with the formless dimension starts re-forming."

This is the sanest thing I've ever heard. And it points something. That some degree of spiritual growth is necessary before love can be given/experienced. A person who finds security in his/her connection with the cosmos is perhaps the only one who can give love. The rest of us, well, we are unfortunately not that blessed. We are in the grip of 'addictive clinging'.

Some more lyrics:

I'll close my eyes and then I won't see
The love you don't feel, when you're holding me
Morning will come, and I'll do what's right
Just give me till then, to give up this fight
And I will give up this fight..

Wonderful words that have no trace of the 'addictive clinging' quality. Very well sung by George Michael, in the song 'I cant make you love me' from his album 'older'. Lyrics by a lady named Bonnie Rights or something.

None of George Michael's love songs (own or borrowed) have the addictive clinging quality to them. Not even one. That's a sign of a being on the verge of awakening, on the verge of enlightenment.

His high degree of spiritual evolution is also evident in the following lyrics from his song 'the strangest thing':

"Take my life...time has been twisting the knife...I don't recognise the people I care for...there's a liar in my head, there's a thief upon my bed, and the strangest thing is I cannot seem to get my eyes open...please don't analyse...please just be there for me."

Words of wisdom. These lyrics suggest that perhaps the condition of George Michael's ego has finally entered George Michael's awareness. The seed has been planted.

Here is the wonderful George Michael number, 'I can't make you love me'. Worth listening to. Wonderful experience. Switch off those lights and close your eyes. ;-)



Update:
I was just listening to 'Love is a battlefield' by Pat Benatar....and I'm like...'wha..?' Why should love be a battlefield? Sex may be a battlefield ;-) but why should love be a battlefield? Humans have made everything a battlefield. If its a battlefield, I don't know what it is, but its not love.

George Michael, in his song 'Father Figure' sings 'If you are the desert, I'll be the sea....if you ever hunger, hunger for me'. This line is a good example of the (necessary) separation between two lovers. Beautiful lyrics by George Michael.

Summary:
So Scott Peck writes of separateness, Osho Rajneesh writes of separateness (possess by not possessing). George Michael says the same thing. Eckhart Tolle says the same thing -- Do not try to possess your lover, do not be an addictive clinger. Your lover is a distinct person, not an extension of your ego, not your toy. Find security in yourself and your life, and then relate to your lover like a mature person - one who does not try to possess, is not jealous, and does not drain the other emotionally.

The Passion of the Christ

For a long time I wondered why the Christ archetype has the effect on people that he does. Perhaps the following passage by Eckhart Tolle explains it:

"Why is the suffering body of Christ, his face distorted in agony and his body bleeding from countless wounds, such a significant image in the collective consciousness of humanity? Millions of people, particularly in medieval times, would not have related to it as deeply as they did if something within themselves had not resonated with it, if they had not unconsciously recognized it as an outer representation of their own inner reality---pain. They were not yet conscious enough to recognize it directly within themselves, but it was the beginning of their becoming aware of it. Christ can be seen as the archetypal human, embodying both the pain and the possibility of transcendence."