Inkwell: Authors and Artists
John Shirley (john-shirley) Sat 24 Apr 04 18:45
"I discovered that Gurdjieff had the peculiar property of appearing to be a different man to everyone who met him. said Bennett. Certainly it's true that different people have different gifts. Ouspensky had the experience of the Movements but didn't pursue them personally much. Hard to imagine him doing them. (Not that you have to be good at them--that's not the point. The point is to create a certain inner dynamic while doing the Movements, it seems to me; to create conditions for greater all-around attention; to create the possibility for productive struggle. That's there for anyone. God knows it's all struggle with me. I don't do them much. I sit, I do other things.) Naturally different people have different gifts and the general course of someone in the Work is going to be toward something he's gifted in, crafts or writing or whatever. But then again, when I have gone to Work days I've been given carpentry to do, not writing.Do you think I'm good at carpentry? NOOOOO. That's why I am getting it, just now--just as the literary critic Orage was given ditches to dig for awhile (later he oversaw the editing and translation of much of Beelzebub's Tales.) People take on things counter to their general tendency, at times, to create a law-of-three kind of dynamism, and even get good at things they never thought they'd be good at, and it is one of many methods for creating a harmony where there was none before...Still, human beings are individuals. The Work (or any other spiritual praxis) is not going to be tailored for them but teachers will see "where they're at" and what they need to look at. They make that assessment, in a nonintrusive kind of way. Gurdjieff, being more awake and not identified inwardly, could radically alter his outward modality to challenge people in whatever way they needed to be challenged. He was like a dancer, moving in this turn or that glissande, depending on appropriate need, the music of the moment. Teachers in the Work now are less likely to have such gifts for seeing into people and responding variously according to their chief features, but in a general way they try to do just that, it seems to me. So in time, you'd be guided the way you need to go. Not that anyone tells you what to do with your life itself, but they might suggest a direction for reading, or that you should do more physical work, or less physical work and more mental work (during Gurdjieff work conditions, not, again, in your personal life, no one touches that). Gentle guidance like that. Plus you feel your OWN way. You sit, as we're taught, you read, you try to be present on several levels, and you participate in things to the extent you can, and you feel your way along and as you have more presence the way to go will probably get clearer to you...But for a time you just do the basics. For a LONG time probably. The basics involve seeing a whole new world, after all...
John Shirley (john-shirley) Sat 24 Apr 04 18:49
. Heres the Buddha, from the Dhammapada, translated by John Ross Carter and Mahinda Palihawadana: Among those unaware, the one aware; Among the sleepers, the wide-awake; The one with great wisdom moves on Among the sleepers, says the Buddha in that quote from the Dhammapada-- as if the one with great wisdom is all alone in the world; one man awake, surrounded by sleepers. Calling Gotoma the Awakened One suggests he is very nearly the only one awake. The idea that were insufficiently awake is fairly commonplace, especially among people with some interest in spirituality, while those whove experimented with psychedelic drugs claim to have witnessed the relativity of consciousness first-hand. But Gurdjieffs notion of what constituted mans sleep is far more challenging. As Gurdjieff blithely informed PD Ouspensky, people are asleep when they think theyre awake. They sleepwalk through life. They live and die for the most part asleep, at best half-waking in fitful starts. If they think theyre more awake than the next person, most of the time theyre probably at least as deeply asleep. Gurdjieff was quite blunt: The most characteristic feature of a modern man is the absence of unity in him and, further, the absence in him of even traces of those properties which he most likes to ascribe to himself, that is, lucid consciousness, free will, a permanent ego or I, and the ability to do. It may surprise you if I say that the chief feature of a modern mans being which explains everything else that is lacking in him is sleep. A modern man lives in sleep, in sleep he is born and in sleep he dies But at present just think of one thing, what knowledge can a sleeping man have? And if you think about it and at the same time remember that sleep is the chief feature of our being, it will at once become clear to you that if a man really wants knowledge, he must first think about how to wake
John Shirley (john-shirley) Sat 24 Apr 04 18:51
The above is a slight quote from my book. ANd m book quoting In Search of the Miraculous by Ouspensky.
Jeffrey M. Field (topsy-turvy) Sun 25 Apr 04 04:05
I'm mildly bipolar. During one of my "ups" I published on my blog a scathing criticism of school policies where I teach 7th grade Social Studies. I then pointed my principal and vice-principal to the blog. Was I asleep, or awake? ...In light of the fact that my criticisms were valid. Now I am faced with the prospect of not being rehired (although I apologized for my actions and have tried to make up for it by photographing just about anything that moves for the school's online photo albums). Last Sunday I walked the plaza in old Mesilla. The old man saw my motorcycle helmet and said he had what I needed - a framed watercolor of St. Christopher. I explained my situation at school and asked him to recommend a saint. I paid $22 plus tax and took home Saint Thomas Aquinas. Was I asleep or awake during the transaction? Finally, this. For most of my adult life I've wrestled a mystery which transpired when some 30 years ago I woke from sleep to witness a monk-like figure (picture the monk on the cover of the book, A Canticle for Leibowitz) "looking" down at me. I say "looking" because no physical features were visible. It was like looking at an animated monk's robe/hood. Here's what happened. My eyelids opened. I was totally paralyzed. No fear shook me. No thought transpired. The figure slowly raised and lowered his "arm" (the time it took for this motion was about 10-15 seconds). Twice more the arm raised and lowered. My eyelids closed. I woke that morning to find this albatross around my neck. I've spent my life trying to decode the event because I consider it spiritually significant. Three years ago I moved from Alabama to New Mexico. I think part of the answer may lie in a monastery in northern New Mexico... http://www.christdesert.org/ Am I awake or asleep? I like to think I'm awake, at least when I ponder the reaction of Americans to the situation in Iraq. I wrote a minimalist poem to express my dismay... Janet's breast Hundreds dead Silly me. I'm quite thrilled to have discovered this conversation. Normally I visit the WELL just to read the videogame section. You folks have gotten my Sunday off to a rousing start.
flying jenny (jenslobodin) Sun 25 Apr 04 07:54
Oh, now I need to read your book, John Shirley. I encountered Gurdjieff's teachings thirty-odd years ago. Powerful. At the time, I was more drawn toward a Sufi master, Pir Vilyat Khan, rest his soul. This book seems as if it is a must-read. I wonder whether the SF library has it yet. Will find out directly. Good discussion. Thanks. I love in post <24>, AL Stavely's "merciless compassion."
Jon Lebkowsky (jonl) Sun 25 Apr 04 11:06
John, a friend of mine who is acquainted with the Gurdjieff work and lives in Paris, France has told me that the European Fourth Way groups are quite different from those in the U.S. Can you comment on this?
John Shirley (john-shirley) Sun 25 Apr 04 13:05
Will try to respond to several questions in this posting. JEFFREY: Gurdjieff, at any rate, felt that most of us are asleep all or most of the time, when we suppose ourselves awake. We can have degrees of being more or less conscious, and we can work on ourselves to make ourselves more conscious, but being really awake is rare. It doesn't come free. It doesn't come by itself--though life may offer some moments of vividness that are more wakeful than others--and on the whole we have to pay for it in advance by doing some inner work, deliberately. So in answer to your question, the great likelihood is that you were asleep, and are. This of course is not what you're likely to want to hear. Gurdjieff can be relied on to tell us things we don't want to hear. I see no harm in giving an old man some money for a pleasant picture of a saint. But you were probably asleep. Since you now regret your sort of blurting, perhaps a bit too harshly, what was wrong with the school, you were even more likely to have been asleep then, probably--Gurdjieff (and I am not saying Everything He Says Is So, but we're talking in context of his ideas here)--says that when we're caught up in one "I"--one superficial state of mind that defines our identify at that moment--we "run up debts" that we are surprised by later, that must be paid off though it wasn't "you" making that "debt". Your *state* at that time, the state you were in, made that debt. Debt in the sense of getting yourself in trouble with the school and having to apologize and maybe losing your job. (BTW if they fire you for telling the truth you might have legal recourse.) Just briefly, what you describe with the monk vision--especially the paralysis--sounds like certain kinds of sleep disorders, which often cause people to feel someone is holding them, or they're paralyzed, and they may see things then. Hence a lot of "UFO abduction experiences". It's likely neurological. And since it was in the middle of the night, you woke to see this, it's likely that in fact you were doing some *form* of dreaming (yes, with your eyes open, it happens), and I wouldn't put too much significance in it were I you, especially when you consider your having to deal with being in any degree bipolar. That's not Gurdjieffian advice it's just my subjective opinion based on experience and life. (I've had sleep paralysis and though I didn't see things I *felt* things). Look for a book called "Wherever you Go, There You Are" -- this primer on mindfulness might be of great help in keeping you balanced. FLYING JENNY: I have heard good things of Pir Vilyat Khan. I once read something by him, if I recall rightly. Sufism has much in common with Gurdjieff and he with it though there are of course several sorts of Sufism. He probably had the most in common with the Naqshbandi, but I'm not expert enough to say for sure. JON: I haven't had much contact with the Work in Europe and can't really give much opinion on it. I have a sort of impression that the French are very committed and serious, and the English have a tendency to create their own odd variations, but I don't really know for sure. To get a sense of the Work in France (where it's probably more established than in other parts of Europe), you might read the works of Michel Conge and Henri Tracol, which have been translated...
John Shirley (john-shirley) Sun 25 Apr 04 13:09
PS TO JON How are those groups different, in Europe? I'd like to hear. Those here have their form because of Jeanne de Salzmann, who was very definitely doing what Gurdjieff wanted, and Lord Pentland, whom Gurdjieff appointed. Keep in mind that some outfits who claim to be Gurdjieffian groups may be peculiar little offshoots who have little or nothing to do with the Work. I'm not saying that's who your friend is in touch with. But I know of some like that there,.
John Shirley (john-shirley) Sun 25 Apr 04 13:13
PPS to JON It just occurs to me that the Gurdjieff Foundation (the primary exponent of the Work in this country) in America is supervised by the French! So it couldn't be too different. First Michel de Salzmann, son of Jeanne, now passed on, then Paul Reynard...They're not like the Fearless Leaders of the Work but they were or are the main guiding figures as far as I can make out, along with various committees...Mostly it's quite democratic but there's a certain guidance...
Jon Lebkowsky (jonl) Sun 25 Apr 04 15:07
I'm going to ask my friend to read and comment, when I wake up!
William H. Dailey (whdailey) Sun 25 Apr 04 15:31
When I got into this I thought it was going to be about heaven, the next world. But it seems really to be about alternatives in the present.
Kathy (kathbran) Sun 25 Apr 04 15:44
Hi John, Thanks for joining us for this discussion. When I read your book the small thing that jumped out was Gutfjieff's explanation of the apparent speeding up of life as we get older. Our childhood seems to crawl by. Our adulthood races. If I understand his view, the reason is that children are more present in their lives. Adults have learned to sleep rather than experiencing. It reminded me of how new routines can exhaust us--presumably because we haven't figured out to sleep during them.
Jay Kinney (jay-kinney) Sun 25 Apr 04 19:28
What gets me, is how our culture and economy are ever more geared towards not only assuming we are asleep, but putting us further asleep. In other words, in order for the economy to do well, we have to produce and buy stuff that most "awake" people (IMHO) would want nothing to do with. But if we are slavishly running after our unexamined desires or seeking the approval of others or wanting to belong by participating in a fad, or seeking fame and fortune, and so on, then we are the ideal consumer. End of rant. Everyone's heard it a zillion times before.
John Shirley (john-shirley) Mon 26 Apr 04 00:09
JAY: there's no doubt that mindless consumerism is a trancelike condition pervading our society; one thinks of the original DAWN OF THE DEAD. People are stunned by the faux dazzle of the Media WOrld we live in now, confused and depressed by it. There was a recent article in Scientific American called the Tyranny of Choice that offers some insight; I blogged about it at johnshirley.net (click on the blog link to get to it, a summary of the article and my thoughts). Anyway Gurdjieff wrote about this mindless consumerism in some bits on America, as I recall, in his wildly idiosyncratic and profound tome, Beelzebub's Tales to his Grandson...Nowdays we use media and shopping and entertainment as additional 'buffers' against discomfort. But on some level people sense they're lost; hence, as I pointed out in my book, all the movies about people realizing they're in virtual reality, in some dreamlike artificial place, asleep, etc. The Matrix, Thirteenth Story, Fight Club, Vanilla SKy and so on. WILLIAM DAILEY: The afterlife is seen differently, from the point of view of Gurdjieff's teaching, than the usual sense of it we get from exoteric religion. Esoterically, though, in terms of the teachings that some traditions keep behind closed doors, many of them agree with him (maybe nearly all, really, if you talk to the right people) that human beings don't have a soul that survives death unless they create one. We have spirit, that connects with the sort of ocean of consciousness that invests the universe, and that has its own phenomena, that may lead to some variant of reincarnation, but survival as a real individual, that's rarer, and requires work on oneself, the development of will (Edgar ALlen Poe seemed to have a kind of vision of this, in his odd way, in his story LIGEIA). The person who develops real individual "I" and real being, a sort of spiritual maturity that maintains individuality, can then move into more inclusive (a term I prefer to "higher") planes where they are less restricted by the oppressive conditions of the level we live on before we die. Not that I'm clear on it. It's all quite mysterious to me, I'm just vaguely paraphrasing...Personally I'll know the afterlife exists when I see it. It's hypothetical to me. I am convinced that the Gurdjieff work and other esoteric traditions can help us here in this life, liberate us to live life better--that I can be confident of. Life after death--who knows? I do think that professional mediums are crooks... KATHY "It reminded me of how new routines can exhaust us--presumably because we haven't figured out to sleep during them." That's interesting, something to think about. New routines, according to doctors, help keep our minds alive...When we fall too much into rote and habit it seems to me we're accelerating the slide into death...
Kindness does not require an infrastructure (chrys) Mon 26 Apr 04 08:07
(Logging in from Switzerland...) Jay's post brings to mind Gurdjieff's idea of the 'kundabuffer'. <all the movies about people realizing they're in virtual reality, in some dreamlike artificial place, asleep, etc. The Matrix, Thirteenth Story, Fight Club, Vanilla SKy and so on.> John, do you think films like these are helpful? Or can they serve to make this slumber easier? Which brings another question - have your efforts in the Gurdjieff Work changed anything about your approach to writing for film/television?
John Shirley (john-shirley) Mon 26 Apr 04 12:19
CHRYS Yes sometimes entertainment and consumerism is artificial kundabuffer. It's kundabuffer created by kundabuffer. What's KUNDABUFFER some people are wondering...This is a neologism found in Gurdjieff's allegorical novel (for want of a better term) Beelzebub's Tales to his Grandson, for an organ placed at the base of the human spine by the "Archangel Loosisos" (the book is allegory, fiction, parable, none of this is literal, and Gurdjieff made Loosisos up, I assume), the organ Kundabuffer preventing people from seeing the reality of their situation. It enables them to see reality upside down and put their pleasure, their desires first, so that they can remain safely asleep, so to be exploited by the cosmos. This imaginary organ (symbolizing some tendency that isn't imaginary,in us) keeps us 'buffered' from the discomfort of waking up, seeing our own near-helpless mechanicality and enslavement... About those films: I don't know if such films are particularly helpful, but they're *indicative* of people stirring restlessly in their sleep, waking a moment to look sleepily around before falling back. They're just more dreams but, like poetry, have resonance and to some people may be part of a learning process that eventually leads to liberation--who knows where it might start? If people watch them without pondering their underlying meaning then they just deepen slumber. SOme people are more ready than others; are like fertile soil waiting for the mustard seed. My efforts in the Work might make me more patient, objective. I might be alert for the chance of creating a legominism...I did write a script of a certain cryptogurdjieffian novel by a certain professor...which is about to be shown around town...we'll see if anyone's interested...
Jay Kinney (jay-kinney) Mon 26 Apr 04 16:59
It strikes me that one possible drawback to the Work's emphasis on awake vs asleep is that it could encourage a certain "awaker than thou" attitude on the part of people in the Work. Also, when one views the majority of humanity as mechanical and asleep, then it is not too big of a jump to viewing them as less than human. Perhaps this is one reason that some quasi-Gurdjieff groups have taken a cultish turn.
John Shirley (john-shirley) Mon 26 Apr 04 23:53
Well Jay if they've taken a cultish turn it's because they're QUASI Gurdjieffian! I keep saying I'm not awake. I work at improving that, and maybe have some moments, but I'm not saying I'm awaker than thou. I've never encountered any such attitude, in fact the opposite, because people who do the inner Work find out how NOT awake they are, how very prone they are to being mechanical, so they're damned humble about it. WHen I say the majority of human ity is mechanical and asleep, I don't mean the majority--I mean EVERYONE. Except like, maybe, a few dozen. Out of SIX BILLION. And are those few dozen in the Gurdjieff work? I don't know. I don't know if there are a few dozen. Maybe there's TWO. Now, there are some people who are learning to be more present and are creating some kind of real "I" as opposed tothe kneejerk subpersonalities we tend to be. THey're working at it, and they make some progress. That's all I'm sure of. But going about being awaker than thou? Not at all. Gurdjieff died in 1949. Though the tradition mayve existed in some form somewhere, ifyou believe the Sarmoung stories literally, and there are versions in Tibet and, doubtless, the Middle East, in Sufi schools, Gurdjieff's take on things, his system, is really very new, and people are just starting to get somewhere with it. But it could be revolutionary.
John Shirley (john-shirley) Mon 26 Apr 04 23:54
PS Jay Let me be clear: I don't know how many are really awakened. But I'm pretty solidly willing to guess that it's very damned few. Very few indeed...
Jeffrey M. Field (topsy-turvy) Tue 27 Apr 04 02:46
I made an attempt to wake up back when I read Ouspensky (never read Gurdjieff but will give your book a go). I remember lying on the floor and focusing on each limb in turn. Unlike meditation, I found it quite exhausting and so gave up after a few tries.) This morning I googled "Gurdjieff+moon" and the first hit came up thusly - http://skepdic.com/gurdjief.html John, please comment on Gurdjieff's fixation on the moon. Is he speaking metaphorically? Finally, on your blog I mentioned the veterinarian who saved my cat's life. He's a Scientologist. What's your thinking about Scientology? (Hi Jon L! Good to see you're still gainfully employed (8^))
Jon Lebkowsky (jonl) Tue 27 Apr 04 13:02
Though I was aware of Gurdjieff when I was a teen, I didn't actually try to work with his teaching 'til I was exposed to the Robert De Ropp version in _The Master Game_. Any comments on De Ropp? That was tough work - trying to deal with the random chatter in my feverish little brain, a discipline that has influenced be through thirty years of mostly Buddhist approaches. (Hi, Jeff... saw that you were here! You should mention your own preoccupation with the moon!)
John Shirley (john-shirley) Tue 27 Apr 04 14:56
JEFFREY: who gave you that method of lying on the floor and all that? Gurdjieff's meditational methods, if done right, are not exhausting but relaxing and/or energizing, though there are challenging things to undertake too. Did you come up with that on your own? Or read about it somewhere? At any rate, if you want to try his methods you have to get them from someone who knows what they're talking about and show reasonable patience with the process. As for the 'food for the moon' thing, that's a good question. I don't blame skeptics for hearing some secondhand version of that stuff and making a face or whatever. In fact, I don't blame skeptics for being skeptical about anything. I identify more, agree more, with the Skeptical Inquirer and the skeptical dictionary, etc, than with most of what is taught as 'spirituality' or new age or religion. I also don't think Gurdjieff was--or has to be--right about everything, in order for his main ideas to be right. He was born (according to him) in 1866, after all. He was essentially a 19th century man. Still, I think he was mostly right. Now to FOOD FOR THE MOON...here roughly is what I said in the appendix of my book about it: // Are We Food for the Moon? Some people are stopped dead in their reading of Gurdjieffian work books when they come upon the idea, usually as it was repeated by Ouspensky, about humanity being food for the moon. (A prominent teacher of the work once insisted to me that Gurdjieff never taught that idea after 1917 or so and had basically abandoned it. Perhaps Gurdjieff let it slide because people were taking it too literally.) The idea is that unevolved humanity exists merely to create emanations that are consumed by the moon to be used to promote the moons physical evolution into a future state when it will be something like the Earth. This sounds absurd and improbable-but only if you suppose he meant the moon per se. My personal-I emphasize personal-interpretation of this teaching is that the moon in this teaching represents the inert, more-or-less lifeless part of the cosmos. It stands for all the "lower" cosmos. The moon is the first stop in a kind of energy sink where our life energies will go if we dont work on ourselves. Our crude energies are then absorbed by the cosmos for the general encouragement of life, and the moon is the nearest example of a lower planet where these energies could be used. Its not likely to ever become like the Earth-but some lower planetary state somewhere will receive these and other energies, and will be encouraged, on some quantum level perhaps, to evolve...There does seem to be a tendency-the anthropic principle, its called in some physics circles-for life to develop, almost on its own initiative, in dead matter, setting the stage for the arising of life in general and humankind in particular. Matter seems frontloaded to generate life. The energies harvested from people, from beings everywhere, might help create that frontloading, that priming of the evolutionary pump. But of course this interpretation of Gurdjieffs teaching is very speculative indeedwhich is why its in the appendix of this book. // TO JON L: I read the Master Game and was impressed by De Ropp's grasp of general principles, but somehow didn't like him as a person, as far as he came across in the book. I admire him for his thorough-going quest. But I think he'd have been better off staying with the current of Gurdjieff's teaching, and those teachers Gurdjieff appointed. I think he left before he was ready (there is a time for people to leave any esoteric or spiritual 'school' for sure...unless they remain as teachers...)
John Shirley (john-shirley) Tue 27 Apr 04 15:08
A quote from Gurdjieff: "Observe [yourself] without prejudice. While accepting for a time this idea of lies. And if you observe in this manner, paying of yourself, without self-pity, by giving all your false riches for one moment of reality, maybe someday you'll see all of a sudden something you never saw in you before. You will see you are someone else from what you thought you are. You will see that you are two. One that is not, but takes the place and plays the other's role. And the one that is, but so weak, so inconsistent, that just brought forth it disappears immediately. It cannot stand the lies. The smallest lie kills it. It doesn't fight, it does not resist, it is vanquished in advance. Learn to look until you have observed the difference between your two natures, until you have seen the lies, the imposter in you. When you will see your two natures, that day, in you, the truth will be born." --GI Gurdjieff
Jay Kinney (jay-kinney) Tue 27 Apr 04 23:37
John, you noted: >>As for the 'food for the moon' thing, that's a good question. I don't blame skeptics for hearing some secondhand version of that stuff and making a face or whatever. In fact, I don't blame skeptics for being skeptical about anything. I identify more, agree more, with the Skeptical Inquirer and the skeptical dictionary, etc, than with most of what is taught as 'spirituality' or new age or religion.<< I think I appreciate where you are coming from re skepticism and not buying into other people's ideologies that are marketed as religion, etc., but I think we part ways over the _Skeptical Inquirer_ (and its companion journal _Free Inquiry_). I think the SCICOPS/Secular Humanist camp (who are behind both journals) take atheism, rationalism, and materialism as a given and criticize religion and spirituality for not being provable (or proven) by conventional science. That just doesn't hold water for me. Any subjective (or inner) state that an individual has eludes scientific confirmation. What scientific instruments or measures could prove that one is "awake" or "asleep" (in the Gurdjieffian sense)? What repeatable scientific experiments could prove the existence of a soul? My sense is that any engagement with spiritual matters, whether those of Gurdjieff or those of "'spirituality' or new age or religion" involves areas that are simply outside the realm of objective, materialist science. The (professional) skeptics, in clinging to scientific proof as their measuring stick, further the "asleepness" of those who buy into their rationale. Gurdjieff preceded the rise of Paul Kurtz and the SCICOPS gang. If Gurdjieff were alive today and presenting the Fourth Way in present time, the "skeptics" would be attacking his teachings with the same obtuseness that they disparage any other spiritual teachings.
Jeffrey M. Field (topsy-turvy) Wed 28 Apr 04 02:34
John, the only book on Gurdjieff I've read is Ouspensky's The Fourth Way. I can't remember, however, if the exercise I mentioned came from there. More likely from another text, because, if I remember correctly, The Fourth Way is heavy on ideas and light on meditational exercises. Our conversation here has resparked my interest, so I'll keep my eyes peeled for some good ones. Jon, Fatty Moon has been a blessing and a curse, as you probably know. I needed a name to go with my shtick at EMinds. I sat back in my chair and closed my eyes. The image of a full moon appeared, followed by a piece of fatty meat. I put the two together... Fatty Moon John, I joined Howard Rheingold's Electric Minds shortly after it went public. I realized my intellectual capabilities were not sufficient in this rarefied realm, so I adopted a shtick and a name to go with it. "Fatty talk you this way hahahaha! Guard your lions FattySue false pretenses maybe for sure maybe." And so on. I found it extremely interesting that people read into my gibberish whatever they wanted. Some people found tiny gold nuggets while others discovered piles of steaming horse shit.
Members: Enter the conference to participate