- Joined
- Jan 19, 2012
- Messages
- 134
Oh...
I read your post via email and then after reading Ghislain's last posts, I couldn't find your post, thought it was on the last page, and went back into email
and quoted it.
I quoted something out of nothing.
-
The migration to this new platform is complete, but there are a lot of details to sort out. If you find something that needs to be fixed make a post in this thread. Thank you for your patience!
. A Big Trap of the Alchemist
- Thread starter Moshe
- Start date
Oh...
I read your post via email and then after reading Ghislain's last posts, I couldn't find your post, thought it was on the last page, and went back into email
and quoted it.
I quoted something out of nothing.
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2009
- Messages
- 4,436
Yes. But I am seeing the same as Salazius and Androgynus.
I am willing to go so far as to say God's will is for us to make know the unknown,
as I said above. But God cannot have a will or determined outcome for us and
love us unconditionally. God could not have a will that would not be absolute.
Thus, not killing, for example, cannot be God's will or no one would be able to do it,
unless our will is greater than God's, in which case we have to redefine the whole
system with man at the top and God as some lesser force, which is rediculous IMO,
God not having a will being more reasonable, for how can undefined no limits have
will?
So if I have said something to the effect of surrendering my will to God's, which I don't
disagree with, what this means to me, God's will, is "what is", the present/Presence/moment
of no time/separation - surrendering my knowledge self, which is a part, to the no knowledge,
no will, no self, which is the whole, and in the whole we have "silent knowledge" of what
one may call "purpose" or "God's will" or one's place in everything, but it is natural and
evident and not a projection of knowledge or interpretation. One doesn't have any thoughts
like that - one cannot have the separate thought "I am doing God's will". One just senses
completely a unification with consciousness. A truly "enlightened" man will not think the
thought "I am enlightened." It cannot occur to him. The same with "God's will". Which is
a clue that the "sleeping" are doing "God's will" just as much as the "awakened".
God's will is absolute. We cannot not do it. Therefore we may surmise that God's will is
for us to be whatever we are and do whatever we do. But to put it more poetically, God "said",
"Discover me! Go and make of me what you will. I wish to know Myself through you, the
conscious (awakened) lights of Me (the unconscious sleeping void which became aware of Itself,
became conscious...
Let me go into this further, for clarity. So when the unconscious became conscious of Itself, there
was light - a big bang of sorts. What I wish to clarify is that the slumbering void remains unmodified.
It is the never-changing, eternal fount, immoveable rock, etc, never sullied by the doings of the conscious
part. So, for me, I do not imagine the whole of the "void"/infinity became conscious and awakened/aware.
This is an important point. There must be the stable, never-changing, never-moving relative to the light,
primum mobile, dimensions of creation. This is the True subject-object relationship, and all the conscious
parts/lights/us are objects of the uncreated subject. In Gnosticism, there is the story of the Demiurgos,
the blind creator god, who actually exists a few levels down from the 8th (which is their highest level).
But the Demiurgos looks around and seeing nothing/no one, declares himself god. They also say the
Demiurgos was Sophias attempt at creating without her consort, the void or True God, and it came out
deformed because of this. And this god/Demiurgos created the earth and man and everything, so (to Gnostics)
all creation is "evil", blind, deformed, a lie.
Anyway, one way we can interpret this story (besides the literal) is that the ego also imagines itself the subject
in all relationships (we say "I") when it's true place is actually an object of the uncreated. For me, there is no
difference between the ego and the Demiurgos. The ego/idea of the separate self/false image and its demons/
archons are what rapes Sophia/wisdom and turns her into a whore. Only the unconditional light of Christ/8/
infinity can save Sophia, as It does in the story. This is also the story of alchemy and the first matter, the most
pure (Sophia) trapped or disguised in a saturnine filth, used by all and casts upon the dungheap... Anyway...
So I have established my understanding of the unconscious and conscious "division" of unity and the nature of
the true subject and object relationship which has been mistaken by every human ego - an important mistake to
make! But so relatively few rectify it. And I might as well add here, being unselfish by thinking of others and
giving to others - which is great and an improvement, a bigger picture - does not rectify the ego to the uncreated,
the true subject/source. It's true, those who have seen the truth, the true relationship, are very unselfish and giving.
But mimicking this does not manifest the realisation any more than surgery cures cancer. (Read - the cause of cancer
is not enough surgery. !?!? of course not.)
So... human being... this needs some definition for me. But I did want to add some more to what I said in the past.
I said my God is not human and I am not human, consciousness is not human... I just wanted to say I am not
inhuman either. Human is a part, an expression of the totality, a collection of emanations (and necessary rejection
of other emanations if one is to remain human). So I am not scary enough to not relate to human beings.
I'mnot psychotic, at least to that degree. I just see human as an extension of fracturing/dividing - not whole, not the All.
So a human (part of the whole) cannot know God's will (the whole); by definition they are dimensionally separated,
even though this separation is only psychological; psychological = real to humans/egos.
In Samkya philosophy, as with Gnosticism, we see the "I-maker" (ahamkara means "I-maker") comes in at a lower level:
Perhaps in Kabbalah we may associate this level with Da'ath/knowledge, which is not
a true sephiroth! Just as the ego/knowledge/past is but an image.
But it does make the game interesting.
Oh - here is a clearer, larger version of the above image:
http://www.energyenhancement.org/ayurveda/images/samkhya creative philosophy.GIF
It shares the same elements as I have described, coincidentally. I did not intend to describe a Samkya view
of creation, just the one I have seen. But in both we have the unmanifest/uncreated (Purusha), the created (Prakriti),
intelligence/consciousness (Buddhi or Mahad), and then ego/identity/separate self (ahamkara). So one can say I
am describing a state of solving ahamkara into buddhi.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2009
- Messages
- 4,436
"It shares the same elements as I have described, coincidentally. I did not intend to describe a Samkya view
of creation, just the one I have seen. But in both we have the unmanifest/uncreated (Purusha), the created (Prakriti),
intelligence/consciousness (Buddhi or Mahad), and then ego/identity/separate self (ahamkara). So one can say I
am describing a state of solving ahamkara into buddhi."
Buddhi, intelligence, consciousness... the awakened, enlightened... this is what I refer to as the conscious
lights/parts/points of God. Buddha = enlightened = to be in light of, which one may go further and say
"to be in knowledge of", but the knowledge of light/gnosis/silent knowledge must be distinguished from
the knowledge of the ego/thinking/past.
In Krishnamurti, intelligence is perception without images/past/knowledge which is different than the
intellect, the thinker. This intelligence/perception is also love, the unconditioned aspect of consciousness.
Who wants to be associated with "the most evil man who ever lived", Aleister Crowley? And yet he saw
the first precept of his mysticism, which he named Thelema, to be "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole
of the Law"; this copying Rabelais. Is it evil? Or simply affirming free will, God's unconditional love?
Of course most humans/egos don't agree that you can do whatever you want. What about law and order?
Isn't this a lack of faith or insight into "God's (unconditioned) law and order"? Man believes injustices
occur all the time, while some spiritual traditions or seeing insist that the universe is just/balanced/perfect.
For me, there came a time when I could see man's law and "God's law", and they have nothing in common.
Man does not care about the unconditioned ineffable infinite true God. Ego-man only cares/places meaning
in that which is self-serving/knowable/useable. Even the ark of the covenant became a weapon to kill other
men! Yes, there are "good" people, but that is of no consequence. The ego must be removed from the picture,
not conditioned to be good. A wolf in sheep's clothing comes to mind.
Crowley's second precept is/was "Love is the law... love under will." I don't presume to know what that meant
to Crowley, but one can see how the wording, "love under will" sounds like putting the cart before the horse.
But it's really a matter of definitions. For me, there is no distinction between love and will until ego came into
being, and even then all the ego does is encompassed and empowered by love and freedom. Again, for me,
God "said" "Make known the unknown in whatever way you are able, the subtle and the gross, the high and
the low..." whatever. Of course those distinctions didn't exist for God. There was/is no "out of bounds" for
the unconditioned true God. The Demiurgos is responsible for the "out of bounds", the "thou shalt not...", etc.
An important distinction is that the true God is not a creator god, while many systems/religions freely confuse
the two. It is us, the conscious lights, that are creating as we go, from the void into mass - we are making
known the unknown. Though most of us (as humans anyway, most of us conscious lights aren't humans)
have become trapped in a very narrow band of the infinite, becoming obsessed with the ego-illusion-game,
only recycling the known. The things that humans do here on this earth...
it isn't even 1% of what is possible for consciousness. That doesn't cheapen any of it. It is wonderful. But we
already know this part of consciousness. One can interpret that man has forgotten God, forgotten the mandate
to make known the unknown, has thus sinned or gone against God. Okay, I get it. But this is also still within
God; this is something possible to God - to forget Itself in a dream of matter. There are lights of God smeared
through all the dimensions into mass, separated and connected by time and frequency, creating the appearance
of Jacob's ladder. So there is no judgement on it, no "we must wake up and remember God!" That becomes
religious fanaticism because it is partial truth, the rest of the truth being that to sleep is still an option in God,
and never judged by God. There is no time limit imposed by God; or maybe there is - maybe the conscious
parts are destined to return to slumber once again?? If so, that is what it is and I wouldn't interpret it as a reason
for pressure or haste... haste to what? there is no pre-ordained goal in making known the unknown. As objects
of God, we cannot grade or evaluate our success and failure - such meanings are irrelevant; relevant only to
those who believe themselves to be subjects. It's both funny and frightening that the one's who have forgotten
their true relationship to God are the ones who have made the rules for everyone, rules about god, rules about
right and wrong, about what is and isn't acceptable... all lies, all error, all from the blind, misinformed Demiurgos/ego.
Christ is not welcome here, nor is Aleister Crowley. But on occasion beings who draw
outside the lines will come and go, and society will call them saints or demons, genius or psychotic, guru or
cult-leader, christ or anti-christ...
What I hope will be recognised is the radical change in consciousness/awareness that is necessary to even
begin to see outside the box. All the methodical disciplinary approaches which emphasize this and avoid that
are only more of the same. If one desires to know God, the only reasonable "approach" must be something
whole and total, not partial and separative/fracturing. The ego/knowledge/Demiurgos (half-maker; thus two,
duality) must be "seen through", seen for what it is. Then it will have no power over you. The ego is an object
of an object, which is crazy: an object without a subject! It is an illusion. It is as if you drew a portrait and the
character in the portrait took on a life of its own - imagined itself to be the artist, a subject!
But part of what God is/can do is to make worlds out of illusions. Some have learned these secrets and
become mischievious tricksters, coyote shamans, Hermes, etc.
of creation, just the one I have seen. But in both we have the unmanifest/uncreated (Purusha), the created (Prakriti),
intelligence/consciousness (Buddhi or Mahad), and then ego/identity/separate self (ahamkara). So one can say I
am describing a state of solving ahamkara into buddhi."
Buddhi, intelligence, consciousness... the awakened, enlightened... this is what I refer to as the conscious
lights/parts/points of God. Buddha = enlightened = to be in light of, which one may go further and say
"to be in knowledge of", but the knowledge of light/gnosis/silent knowledge must be distinguished from
the knowledge of the ego/thinking/past.
In Krishnamurti, intelligence is perception without images/past/knowledge which is different than the
intellect, the thinker. This intelligence/perception is also love, the unconditioned aspect of consciousness.
Who wants to be associated with "the most evil man who ever lived", Aleister Crowley? And yet he saw
the first precept of his mysticism, which he named Thelema, to be "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole
of the Law"; this copying Rabelais. Is it evil? Or simply affirming free will, God's unconditional love?
Of course most humans/egos don't agree that you can do whatever you want. What about law and order?
Isn't this a lack of faith or insight into "God's (unconditioned) law and order"? Man believes injustices
occur all the time, while some spiritual traditions or seeing insist that the universe is just/balanced/perfect.
For me, there came a time when I could see man's law and "God's law", and they have nothing in common.
Man does not care about the unconditioned ineffable infinite true God. Ego-man only cares/places meaning
in that which is self-serving/knowable/useable. Even the ark of the covenant became a weapon to kill other
men! Yes, there are "good" people, but that is of no consequence. The ego must be removed from the picture,
not conditioned to be good. A wolf in sheep's clothing comes to mind.
Crowley's second precept is/was "Love is the law... love under will." I don't presume to know what that meant
to Crowley, but one can see how the wording, "love under will" sounds like putting the cart before the horse.
But it's really a matter of definitions. For me, there is no distinction between love and will until ego came into
being, and even then all the ego does is encompassed and empowered by love and freedom. Again, for me,
God "said" "Make known the unknown in whatever way you are able, the subtle and the gross, the high and
the low..." whatever. Of course those distinctions didn't exist for God. There was/is no "out of bounds" for
the unconditioned true God. The Demiurgos is responsible for the "out of bounds", the "thou shalt not...", etc.
An important distinction is that the true God is not a creator god, while many systems/religions freely confuse
the two. It is us, the conscious lights, that are creating as we go, from the void into mass - we are making
known the unknown. Though most of us (as humans anyway, most of us conscious lights aren't humans)
have become trapped in a very narrow band of the infinite, becoming obsessed with the ego-illusion-game,
only recycling the known. The things that humans do here on this earth...
it isn't even 1% of what is possible for consciousness. That doesn't cheapen any of it. It is wonderful. But we
already know this part of consciousness. One can interpret that man has forgotten God, forgotten the mandate
to make known the unknown, has thus sinned or gone against God. Okay, I get it. But this is also still within
God; this is something possible to God - to forget Itself in a dream of matter. There are lights of God smeared
through all the dimensions into mass, separated and connected by time and frequency, creating the appearance
of Jacob's ladder. So there is no judgement on it, no "we must wake up and remember God!" That becomes
religious fanaticism because it is partial truth, the rest of the truth being that to sleep is still an option in God,
and never judged by God. There is no time limit imposed by God; or maybe there is - maybe the conscious
parts are destined to return to slumber once again?? If so, that is what it is and I wouldn't interpret it as a reason
for pressure or haste... haste to what? there is no pre-ordained goal in making known the unknown. As objects
of God, we cannot grade or evaluate our success and failure - such meanings are irrelevant; relevant only to
those who believe themselves to be subjects. It's both funny and frightening that the one's who have forgotten
their true relationship to God are the ones who have made the rules for everyone, rules about god, rules about
right and wrong, about what is and isn't acceptable... all lies, all error, all from the blind, misinformed Demiurgos/ego.
Christ is not welcome here, nor is Aleister Crowley.
But on occasion beings who drawoutside the lines will come and go, and society will call them saints or demons, genius or psychotic, guru or
cult-leader, christ or anti-christ...
What I hope will be recognised is the radical change in consciousness/awareness that is necessary to even
begin to see outside the box. All the methodical disciplinary approaches which emphasize this and avoid that
are only more of the same. If one desires to know God, the only reasonable "approach" must be something
whole and total, not partial and separative/fracturing. The ego/knowledge/Demiurgos (half-maker; thus two,
duality) must be "seen through", seen for what it is. Then it will have no power over you. The ego is an object
of an object, which is crazy: an object without a subject! It is an illusion. It is as if you drew a portrait and the
character in the portrait took on a life of its own - imagined itself to be the artist, a subject!
But part of what God is/can do is to make worlds out of illusions. Some have learned these secrets and
become mischievious tricksters, coyote shamans, Hermes, etc.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 23, 2009
- Messages
- 2,500
I feel what is and as I have written before, I am not that well-read and cannot see myself being so
anywhere in the near future; so excuse me if I cherry pick from that which others write.
As it is meant to be...IMHO
All is one therefore we are part of God (for want of a better word). Those that appear trapped
are just the children starting their journey, or the bottle-white holiday-makers starting out on their
sunshine trip, walking on the beach among the bronzed bodies of those who arrived earlier; most
likely to be burned before bronzed. They are no more ‘Trapped’ than you or I but have to see this
for themselves, learning from their own and others mistakes.
Although I am still searching I have come to the realisation that I can enjoy the ‘Trap’, it is a privilege
bestowed upon us; hence the jealous Angels. When you escape the ‘Trap’, and I am guessing, all that
can be taken with you is the memories of your moment spent in it, and what you may think you have
learnt from the experience; like the holiday snaps from the vacation.
In Robert Monroe's books he talks of "last timers" <- feel free to correct me if I am mistaken. These
are (shall we say souls/spirits?) that have repeated the journey here on earth over and over, addicted to
being human, until they become aware and leave humanity for the last time. Perhaps those of us
drawn to this forum are 'last timers' just a thought.
I am a human being, we are human beings, but we are pluralising the wrong word, it should read
‘we are humans being’ or to put it a better way ‘we are being humans’.
Below I have placed a link to a thread set up purposely for this post.
The Game of Life
Now we can play God...metaphorically speaking.
Ghislain
anywhere in the near future; so excuse me if I cherry pick from that which others write.
As it is meant to be...IMHO
All is one therefore we are part of God (for want of a better word). Those that appear trapped
are just the children starting their journey, or the bottle-white holiday-makers starting out on their
sunshine trip, walking on the beach among the bronzed bodies of those who arrived earlier; most
likely to be burned before bronzed. They are no more ‘Trapped’ than you or I but have to see this
for themselves, learning from their own and others mistakes.
Although I am still searching I have come to the realisation that I can enjoy the ‘Trap’, it is a privilege
bestowed upon us; hence the jealous Angels
. When you escape the ‘Trap’, and I am guessing, all that can be taken with you is the memories of your moment spent in it, and what you may think you have
learnt from the experience; like the holiday snaps from the vacation.
In Robert Monroe's books he talks of "last timers" <- feel free to correct me if I am mistaken. These
are (shall we say souls/spirits?) that have repeated the journey here on earth over and over, addicted to
being human, until they become aware and leave humanity for the last time. Perhaps those of us
drawn to this forum are 'last timers'
just a thought.I am a human being, we are human beings, but we are pluralising the wrong word, it should read
‘we are humans being’ or to put it a better way ‘we are being humans’.
Below I have placed a link to a thread set up purposely for this post.
The Game of Life
Now we can play God...metaphorically speaking.
Ghislain
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2008
- Messages
- 1,613
My blank page made a lot of pixels appear.
Emptyness always call for something to come in. Or out.
Ok. God's Will ... If God is a primordial Nothing/FullNothing, then there is no will, since there is no one there to express something.
Now if you ask for the Will of the created Light, First Matter, Out of the Nothing or In it, -same thing-, then I would say that the Laws at play in the Universe are expressing it. Gravity and creation, preservation, evolution, and destruction, and me sitting in front of this computer, and me having my feet cold, and me blah blah blah about me now.
Whatever can do the creation in the video game of the universe is an expression of the Will.
Since the Nothing can hold anything ... everything is God/dess' Will.
So, what you want is what God wants, since you are God expressed. Loop.
Emptyness always call for something to come in. Or out.
Ok. God's Will ... If God is a primordial Nothing/FullNothing, then there is no will, since there is no one there to express something.
Now if you ask for the Will of the created Light, First Matter, Out of the Nothing or In it, -same thing-, then I would say that the Laws at play in the Universe are expressing it. Gravity and creation, preservation, evolution, and destruction, and me sitting in front of this computer, and me having my feet cold, and me blah blah blah about me now.
Whatever can do the creation in the video game of the universe is an expression of the Will.
Since the Nothing can hold anything ... everything is God/dess' Will.
So, what you want is what God wants, since you are God expressed. Loop.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2009
- Messages
- 4,436
"When you escape the ‘Trap’, and I am guessing, all that
can be taken with you is the memories of your moment spent in it, and what you may think you have
learnt from the experience; like the holiday snaps from the vacation."
Well, not for me. I don't care for memories. They are the substance of the trap.
When we are free from "traps" or eddies/whirlpools in the sea of awareness
(which are created by our attention - fixation of attention - just as matter is gravitationally
trapped light) we are free to explore other areas, or the same area without being attached,
or to create new attachments if you like. Without memory/past, there is nothing to trap you,
nothing that identifies you, nothing especially relative or associated to you.
can be taken with you is the memories of your moment spent in it, and what you may think you have
learnt from the experience; like the holiday snaps from the vacation."
Well, not for me. I don't care for memories. They are the substance of the trap.
When we are free from "traps" or eddies/whirlpools in the sea of awareness
(which are created by our attention - fixation of attention - just as matter is gravitationally
trapped light) we are free to explore other areas, or the same area without being attached,
or to create new attachments if you like. Without memory/past, there is nothing to trap you,
nothing that identifies you, nothing especially relative or associated to you.
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2012
- Messages
- 134
Solomon, you're offering only a narrow spectrum of the possibilities regarding God's will and free will.
I believe you are operating under the assumpting that everything that is... now, and everything that happens, is a result of God's will. As I recall all that you have written in this long thread, you have implied that what is, is God's will. All that is, if it is, or has happened, it is God's will.
And I can see, now, after all we have said, this is something I disagree with and it may be why I find many of the things you say to be untrue, bc it rests on this foundation which is also untrue.
Can we not be living here, in this realm of existence, making choices based in our own free will, which is not aligned with God's will?
This is HUGELY important.
So can God's will be that we NOT kill each other and yet we do simply because we are not in alignment with God's will?
That just seems so right and true.
The rest makes little sense and has no resonance of depth and truth.
So if I have said something to the effect of surrendering my will to God's, which I don't
disagree with, what this means to me, God's will, is "what is", the present/Presence/moment
of no time/separation - surrendering my knowledge self, which is a part, to the no knowledge,
no will, no self, which is the whole, and in the whole we have "silent knowledge" of what
one may call "purpose" or "God's will" or one's place in everything, but it is natural and
evident and not a projection of knowledge or interpretation. One doesn't have any thoughts
like that - one cannot have the separate thought "I am doing God's will". One just senses
completely a unification with consciousness. A truly "enlightened" man will not think the
thought "I am enlightened." It cannot occur to him. The same with "God's will". Which is
a clue that the "sleeping" are doing "God's will" just as much as the "awakened".
God's will is absolute. We cannot not do it.
back to this again...
oh yes we can, and we often do not do God's will.
We sometimes do God's will because there is a sense of truth within a human being, which can be listened to, sometimes is not, sometimes is...
back this too, again.
murder?
rape?
subjugation of poor people in poor countries by multinational corporations, taking away their crops, their rights to free water, etc.
c'mon!!
So... human being... this needs some definition for me. But I did want to add some more to what I said in the past.
I said my God is not human and I am not human, consciousness is not human... I just wanted to say I am not inhuman either. Human is a part, an expression of the totality, a collection of emanations (and necessary rejection of other emanations if one is to remain human). So I am not scary enough to not relate to human beings.
I see your point.
a better version of the question is, then, can a human being know God's will for that human being?
Or... as another sort of question: can a human being know God's will in any given situation for themselves?
(knowing God's will for another is a whole other ballgame and beyond the scope of this discussion.
)this is a bit of an "aside" but i do not attribute a sense of "I Am" to Ego.
to me, Ego is the separate self. when a human being has a rift in truth, has a block of love, therein dwells the ego, which brings with it a sense of self that is not a part of I Am, but more like, I am not, or i am separated.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2012
- Messages
- 134
Although I am still searching I have come to the realisation that I can enjoy the ‘Trap’, it is a privilege
bestowed upon us; hence the jealous Angels
can be taken with you is the memories of your moment spent in it, and what you may think you have
learnt from the experience; like the holiday snaps from the vacation.
the angels are not jealous of us because we are trapped and can remain so if we wish.
they are jealous / envious / whatever you call it because they do not know themselves as individuals and we do.
in their wisdom, as it emanates from God, they know the parameters of what is of God and what is not.
Love vs what is not love.
what they seek is to be the Love of God as they are and to know themselves, as we have the potential to do both.
(although few have succeeded fully)
In Robert Monroe's books he talks of "last timers" <- feel free to correct me if I am mistaken. These
are (shall we say souls/spirits?) that have repeated the journey here on earth over and over, addicted to
being human, until they become aware and leave humanity for the last time. Perhaps those of us
drawn to this forum are 'last timers'
I am a human being, we are human beings, but we are pluralising the wrong word, it should read
‘we are humans being’ or to put it a better way ‘we are being humans’.
Below I have placed a link to a thread set up purposely for this post.
The Game of Life
Now we can play God...metaphorically speaking.
Ghislain
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2009
- Messages
- 4,436
"Can we not be living here, in this realm of existence, making choices based in our own free will, which is not aligned with God's will?
This is HUGELY important.
So can God's will be that we NOT kill each other and yet we do simply because we are not in alignment with God's will?
That just seems so right and true.
The rest makes little sense and has no resonance of depth and truth."
Well, then let that be your truth.
But I can tell you why it doesn't seem that way to me.
Because I chose not to use that system of measurement.
I chose to look without prejudice.
You are giving God a will for no reason.
Why must God have a will?
People do that, not God.
God IS One. God IS absolute. God IS infinite.
Because God IS those things, it makes no sense that God can have a will.
Your god is a lower version, a dualistic god, having a will that isn't absolute because
he wants human beings to choose him of their own free will.
That's a story. Mine's direct perception of what is.
Mine isn't mine, so I don't wonder if it's true.
What is the point of imagining a god if it's going to be just like human beings?
I had a girlfriend just like your god - she wanted me to give her what she wanted
without her having to ask for it, otherwise, she said, it wasn't love on my part if
she had to ask for it.
"murder?
rape?
subjugation of poor people in poor countries by multinational corporations, taking away their crops, their rights to free water, etc.
c'mon!!"
Yes. Everything. You just don't see that it is everything or nothing.
If it could be some things, as you prefer, how does God know where to draw the line?
Tell me the location, the coordinates of this line in infinity/Oneness.
Right. You're god is not the God of Oneness.
What's so bad about rape and good about ice cream?
You really think that's real?
You think box jellyfish are evil?
You think tornados are evil? or tsunamis?
People suffer. It's called "life".
What does it matter if a bad man kills you or your own diet?
This really makes a difference to you?
No wonder you're not free.
The whole planet is sufferring.
ALL planets are sufferring.
Everything in the universe, because it exists, suffers in some way.
So what. Why should I emphasize kittens over puppies, or poor people over rich,
or people over dinosaurs...?
What is this obsession with human beings?
Association.
You see, I have done a lot of work on my associative memory, so it isn't automatic -
it doesn't dictate who I am and what I should care about. You have surrendered
the free will that God gave you for knowledge/memory.
You've mentioned several times that you have heard people like me.
Well, you don't think I've been and heard 1000s like you?
You don't have free will. No one who identifies has free will.
But I bet you won't look at that scientifically because you are certain we must have free will.
I bet you would have difficulty telling me how one could objectively measure if it is free
will or not. If the solution doesn't come to mind immediately, why are you immediately
sure you have free will?
I've been more scientific/objective than you this whole time, and still you speak as if I am
the one untrue, "little sense"... ha! You didn't even provide an explantion or argument for
your view of God with a will! Mine's as solid as mathematics and you say it's little sense.
You just want to see what you want to see and I want to see what's actually there. You're
a believer. All you bring to the table is your biased human perspective on humans. At least
I can tell you about humans from outside of them as well as inside. That's called objectivity -
the thing you laughed at how obviously it must exist and yet rarely perform. How much
thought have you given to bugs raping bugs? You don't know what objectivity is. You're
identified with your cause of good vs evil and truth. It's in your signatures:
"All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Nothing is easier than to sell gullible persons nonsense for truth, especially if one knows how to
wrap this nonsense in an enigmatical language." Theoricus
I just can't care what you think when I see that there is no flexibility or room FOR you to think.
Your thought is mechanical, not free. It's totally subjective. It would be a miracle for you to
come to some other conclusion than good and evil, right and wrong, god's will and man's will.
You never give me a satisfying/complete answer and all I have to do to for my part is say 1 is not
2, and this isn't sensible enough for you. Everyone will agree that 1 isn't 2. But not everyone will
agree that God can't have a will, but they are the same equation, the same statement. For you to
get to god's will you have to leave the sound logic of 1 is not 2 and somehow magically the One
has a will - 1 IS 2, and you cannot explain that, but I don't make sense/have the resonance of truth!?
You're impossible to reason with because you want to believe.
This is HUGELY important.
So can God's will be that we NOT kill each other and yet we do simply because we are not in alignment with God's will?
That just seems so right and true.
The rest makes little sense and has no resonance of depth and truth."
Well, then let that be your truth.
But I can tell you why it doesn't seem that way to me.
Because I chose not to use that system of measurement.
I chose to look without prejudice.
You are giving God a will for no reason.
Why must God have a will?
People do that, not God.
God IS One. God IS absolute. God IS infinite.
Because God IS those things, it makes no sense that God can have a will.
Your god is a lower version, a dualistic god, having a will that isn't absolute because
he wants human beings to choose him of their own free will.
That's a story. Mine's direct perception of what is.
Mine isn't mine, so I don't wonder if it's true.
What is the point of imagining a god if it's going to be just like human beings?
I had a girlfriend just like your god - she wanted me to give her what she wanted
without her having to ask for it, otherwise, she said, it wasn't love on my part if
she had to ask for it.
"murder?
rape?
subjugation of poor people in poor countries by multinational corporations, taking away their crops, their rights to free water, etc.
c'mon!!"
Yes. Everything. You just don't see that it is everything or nothing.
If it could be some things, as you prefer, how does God know where to draw the line?
Tell me the location, the coordinates of this line in infinity/Oneness.
Right. You're god is not the God of Oneness.
What's so bad about rape and good about ice cream?
You really think that's real?
You think box jellyfish are evil?
You think tornados are evil? or tsunamis?
People suffer. It's called "life".
What does it matter if a bad man kills you or your own diet?
This really makes a difference to you?
No wonder you're not free.
The whole planet is sufferring.
ALL planets are sufferring.
Everything in the universe, because it exists, suffers in some way.
So what. Why should I emphasize kittens over puppies, or poor people over rich,
or people over dinosaurs...?
What is this obsession with human beings?
Association.
You see, I have done a lot of work on my associative memory, so it isn't automatic -
it doesn't dictate who I am and what I should care about. You have surrendered
the free will that God gave you for knowledge/memory.
You've mentioned several times that you have heard people like me.
Well, you don't think I've been and heard 1000s like you?
You don't have free will. No one who identifies has free will.
But I bet you won't look at that scientifically because you are certain we must have free will.
I bet you would have difficulty telling me how one could objectively measure if it is free
will or not. If the solution doesn't come to mind immediately, why are you immediately
sure you have free will?
I've been more scientific/objective than you this whole time, and still you speak as if I am
the one untrue, "little sense"... ha! You didn't even provide an explantion or argument for
your view of God with a will! Mine's as solid as mathematics and you say it's little sense.
You just want to see what you want to see and I want to see what's actually there. You're
a believer. All you bring to the table is your biased human perspective on humans. At least
I can tell you about humans from outside of them as well as inside. That's called objectivity -
the thing you laughed at how obviously it must exist and yet rarely perform. How much
thought have you given to bugs raping bugs? You don't know what objectivity is. You're
identified with your cause of good vs evil and truth. It's in your signatures:
"All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Nothing is easier than to sell gullible persons nonsense for truth, especially if one knows how to
wrap this nonsense in an enigmatical language." Theoricus
I just can't care what you think when I see that there is no flexibility or room FOR you to think.
Your thought is mechanical, not free. It's totally subjective. It would be a miracle for you to
come to some other conclusion than good and evil, right and wrong, god's will and man's will.
You never give me a satisfying/complete answer and all I have to do to for my part is say 1 is not
2, and this isn't sensible enough for you. Everyone will agree that 1 isn't 2. But not everyone will
agree that God can't have a will, but they are the same equation, the same statement. For you to
get to god's will you have to leave the sound logic of 1 is not 2 and somehow magically the One
has a will - 1 IS 2, and you cannot explain that, but I don't make sense/have the resonance of truth!?
You're impossible to reason with because you want to believe.
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2009
- Messages
- 7,636
Following simple Arithmetic:
If a = b
then when each half of the equation contains a number minus itself:
a^2 − b^2 = ab − b^2
(like you did above)
then this always amounts to zero.
A number minus itself equals zero, right?
So, the rest of the equations are based on a being zero, and in this case, one time zero is equal to two times zero, and does NOT prove that 1 = 2.
NOW:
Philosophically speaking:
How much is Zero?
First, it's One.
And how much is 0 + 1 ???
The answer:
First it's 1
Then it's 2
Then it's 3
Then it's 1 again...
And finally equals 0 (Zero)
(And in-between, it's 'Ten Thousand Things' and more
)---------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you see how? And why?
0 = 1
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 23, 2009
- Messages
- 2,500
Moshe
I was saying the Angels were jealous of the privilege bestowed upon us, the trap is not my analogy.
Love is a word banded around, which I dont have any idea of the meaning.
There is a thread called "love" on the forum and in it Androgynus posted a quote from the great POO
Piglet: How do you spell love
Poo: You don't spell it, you feel it.
I like that, but still not sure what it is I am supposed to feel.
Ghislain
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2009
- Messages
- 7,636
You outed my zero
A matter of outing experience
Nowhere? In a one sided loop?
It's the Trap-Thread after all, and we need to find a way to ESCAPE it
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2012
- Messages
- 134
Ghislain, have you not felt love ever? had an experience of love for someone / something that gave you the feeling of love?
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2008
- Messages
- 9,576
I think the above is the reason why the whole debate seems to have no end. The participants of the debate are clearly speaking about different Gods. It is the Demiurge story again... Robert A. Heinlein said it best: “Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child.”
Perhaps human beings are too small and stupid to even discuss God? I don't deny God's existence, but I won't verify it either. Belief is not good enough for me. The only truth I have is what I have seen and experienced. I have never seen or experienced God yet... I have experienced infinite forces and the intelligence of nature... perhaps this is God who knows... but if it is then it seems very estranged from the Gods that figure in Holy Books.
In fact IMO all Holy Books are nothing more than political propaganda of its day... perhaps people will worship TIME magazine 1000 years from now?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2009
- Messages
- 1,189
Like many im sure, ive watched this conversation and it usually makes me laugh, and i mean that in a good way.
The thing i find most funny, is the lack of understanding (from what ive seen).
SL - you try to keep your focus on the Whole, the "all that IS" aspect of God; both the perceived good, and perceived bad. This is the ouroboros perspective - the All is One perspective. Its important to understanding the bigger picture.
Moshe - you tend to stay focused on the fractal form of here and now; the perceived good vs the perceived bad. This is the caduceus perspective - the One is All perspective - the Dual forces acting on one another. Its important to understand our individual here and now picture.
Both of these sides/pictures are the same, just at different angles of perception. I dont think its a matter of "different God" (from what im seeing), but rather, a different view of that God.
The concepts of rape and murder keep getting thrown around, and they are good points, so i'll use them:
Moshe, I myself, like most Christians and infact "sane" people will agree that rape and murder (shedding of innocent blood) is bad/wrong/"evil". Infact, a question was posed before if anyone would intervene, and if my memory served, most everyone agreed they would, or likes to think they would. People tend to want to do good. Sometimes a person seems to not - maybe they really dont. But here lies the point then:
Anyone who reads Job realizes the "devil"/"enemy" is on a leash. Such a creature is part of the creation - it is not the creator God, it creates nothing. It can be argued that every thought, and action, and all that IS has enough Truth to it, to exist, the enemy included (especially since the enemy cannot create - hence being full of lies, rebellion from what IS, which is folly in and of itself). Part of this, is because God is All-Knowing, All-Powerful, Omnipresent etc...etc... Do you honestly believe the enemy, or even some half-witted dumb-ass human can surprise such a being? Or do something so outrageous that its outside of His thinking, or Will? Thats madness.
God using the enemy to accomplish His goals, is not evil. A hurting human with a victim mentality may for the moment think so - but that is them undercutting themselves and not seeing the bigger picture. For instance - youre only a victim if you allow yourself to be, and no one is innocent (born into sin (ignorance?) etc).
It is said that NO ONE is given more than they can bare - in Truth they just have to realize the bigger picture, use any supposed negative to become stronger, wiser etc...
God is thought to be the Greatest Alchemist - the Macrocosmic Alchemist - so why is it surprising He would use various degrees of fire to perfect the matter - His living Stones, His People? Develop the larger view. It doesnt shatter your individual-here-and-now view, it simply allows you to see your place within the whole.
Solomon Levi, your focus on the Whole/Ouroboros aspect is done quite a lot, and im sure is probably vexing to an extent to always strive to view from that height/angle. (Not saying it is, i myself tend to jump back and forth all the time, but maintaining only one for so long would be bothersome to me. )
The Ouroboros perspective is an important one, but does not negate also the individual choice/polarity of the fractal person/time/event here and now. For me to say any more than that, would be redundant as im sure you know/understand this already - if memory serves you also opted for helping the "victim" in the scenario, so you see what im saying im sure.
See the Whole, so that nothing shocks or offends you, so you can understand and respect those on the other side of the board/battle-field etc... and when you understand/see yourself, you'll understand/see where your place in that Whole is. Neither invalidates the other - both ARE = Truth = God's thumb-print is on it. Its ok.
The world is evil - the world is hurting - the world is healing - the world is good. <---- this is a linear/dual polarity.
The world IS - all that is in the world IS - God = Truth = what IS = God is part of the world - the world is part of God - what IS is the world. <---- this is an ouroboros/circular polarity.
The One serpent encompasses the warring/Dual serpents, and the warring/Dual serpents make-up and evolve the One serpent.
With that, PEACE my brethren, peace and understanding.
On a bit of a lighter note, but somewhat equally relevant; me and my brother were talking earlier, and he mentioned that Death gets thrown into the Lake of Fire. I responded that "The Lake of Fire is the second death - so Death gets thrown into the Second Death..." and he picked up my train of thought and concluded "So Death gets thrown into itself. O_O" and i smiled and said "Like the ouroboros."
Which then reminded me of a quote from the Game of Thrones show ive been watching; the swordsman asks his student if she prays to the gods. She says, "To both the old and the new." He smiles and says:
Bit of tongue-in-cheek humor there.
All is One and One Is All.
~Seth-Ra
The thing i find most funny, is the lack of understanding (from what ive seen).
SL - you try to keep your focus on the Whole, the "all that IS" aspect of God; both the perceived good, and perceived bad. This is the ouroboros perspective - the All is One perspective. Its important to understanding the bigger picture.
Moshe - you tend to stay focused on the fractal form of here and now; the perceived good vs the perceived bad. This is the caduceus perspective - the One is All perspective - the Dual forces acting on one another. Its important to understand our individual here and now picture.
Both of these sides/pictures are the same, just at different angles of perception. I dont think its a matter of "different God" (from what im seeing), but rather, a different view of that God.
The concepts of rape and murder keep getting thrown around, and they are good points, so i'll use them:
Moshe, I myself, like most Christians and infact "sane" people will agree that rape and murder (shedding of innocent blood) is bad/wrong/"evil". Infact, a question was posed before if anyone would intervene, and if my memory served, most everyone agreed they would, or likes to think they would. People tend to want to do good. Sometimes a person seems to not - maybe they really dont. But here lies the point then:
Anyone who reads Job realizes the "devil"/"enemy" is on a leash. Such a creature is part of the creation - it is not the creator God, it creates nothing. It can be argued that every thought, and action, and all that IS has enough Truth to it, to exist, the enemy included (especially since the enemy cannot create - hence being full of lies, rebellion from what IS, which is folly in and of itself). Part of this, is because God is All-Knowing, All-Powerful, Omnipresent etc...etc... Do you honestly believe the enemy, or even some half-witted dumb-ass human can surprise such a being? Or do something so outrageous that its outside of His thinking, or Will? Thats madness.
God using the enemy to accomplish His goals, is not evil. A hurting human with a victim mentality may for the moment think so - but that is them undercutting themselves and not seeing the bigger picture. For instance - youre only a victim if you allow yourself to be, and no one is innocent (born into sin (ignorance?) etc).
It is said that NO ONE is given more than they can bare - in Truth they just have to realize the bigger picture, use any supposed negative to become stronger, wiser etc...
God is thought to be the Greatest Alchemist - the Macrocosmic Alchemist - so why is it surprising He would use various degrees of fire to perfect the matter - His living Stones, His People? Develop the larger view. It doesnt shatter your individual-here-and-now view, it simply allows you to see your place within the whole.
Solomon Levi, your focus on the Whole/Ouroboros aspect is done quite a lot, and im sure is probably vexing to an extent to always strive to view from that height/angle. (Not saying it is, i myself tend to jump back and forth all the time, but maintaining only one for so long would be bothersome to me.
) The Ouroboros perspective is an important one, but does not negate also the individual choice/polarity of the fractal person/time/event here and now. For me to say any more than that, would be redundant as im sure you know/understand this already - if memory serves you also opted for helping the "victim" in the scenario, so you see what im saying im sure.
See the Whole, so that nothing shocks or offends you, so you can understand and respect those on the other side of the board/battle-field etc... and when you understand/see yourself, you'll understand/see where your place in that Whole is. Neither invalidates the other - both ARE = Truth = God's thumb-print is on it. Its ok.
The world is evil - the world is hurting - the world is healing - the world is good. <---- this is a linear/dual polarity.
The world IS - all that is in the world IS - God = Truth = what IS = God is part of the world - the world is part of God - what IS is the world. <---- this is an ouroboros/circular polarity.
The One serpent encompasses the warring/Dual serpents, and the warring/Dual serpents make-up and evolve the One serpent.
With that, PEACE my brethren, peace and understanding.
On a bit of a lighter note, but somewhat equally relevant; me and my brother were talking earlier, and he mentioned that Death gets thrown into the Lake of Fire. I responded that "The Lake of Fire is the second death - so Death gets thrown into the Second Death..." and he picked up my train of thought and concluded "So Death gets thrown into itself. O_O" and i smiled and said "Like the ouroboros."
Which then reminded me of a quote from the Game of Thrones show ive been watching; the swordsman asks his student if she prays to the gods. She says, "To both the old and the new." He smiles and says:
There is but one God, and his name is Death. Do you know what we say to Death? We say "Not today."
Bit of tongue-in-cheek humor there.
All is One and One Is All.
~Seth-Ra
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2009
- Messages
- 7,636
This is also the way I see it. (Everyone please note that I didn't say "You're 'right'/'correct'/etc...")
The founder of scientology started as a Sci-Fi writer until he finally saw he could get much further (money and power - wise) by penning a religion.
No reason it could not have been the same 'back in the days' when the older religions were penned.
And the keys to penning a successful religion are to mix in natural and 'supernatural' phenomena PLUS a good dose of regulations and emotional manipulation with a reward and punishment system. And a good story, of course. It's all in the story.
There is also the level of Alchemical allegories, but you can find these everywhere, in fairy-tales, Music and Film and Art in General.
I've recently read a novel by Carlos Ruiz Zafón (called 'Angel's Game' in English), where the main character (a writer) is commissioned to actually write a religion.
- Joined
- May 23, 2009
- Messages
- 2,500
Write a religion...I like that idea...but will it catch on?
I have stumbled across a few interesting items that seem to fit this thread...
"Imagine not being able to distinguish the real cause, from that without which the cause would
not be able to act, as a cause. It is what the majority appear to do, like people groping in the
dark; they call it a cause, thus giving it a name that does not belong to it. That is why one
man surrounds the earth with a vortex to make the heavens keep it in place, another makes
the air support it like a wide lid. As for their capacity of being in the best place they could be
at this very time, this they do not look for, nor do they believe it to have any divine force, but
they believe that they will some time discover a stronger and more immortal Atlas to hold
everything together more, and they do not believe that the truly good and 'binding' binds and
holds them together."
—Plato, Phaedo 99
"In the poetic theory of William Blake, the act of creation requires a type of visionary activity
quite beyond the ordinary, especially if that creativity is to be powerfully original and
revolutionary. In the classic Romantic view of the role of art and the functioning of the
artistic personality, imagination is epistemologically central--a philosophy and method which
Blake was quite in advance of his time in formulating for himself at the tail end of the 18th
Century "Enlightenment" of reason. There must be, in this anti-rationalist theory of the mind,
a certain unmoored willingness to experience the horror and beauty of the sublime, of that
which goes beyond the common norms of awareness and experience, and which springs from
unseen sources at the roots of being. This functioning of the creative mind, later characterized
finely by the French poet, Rimbaud, as the derangement or disordering of the perceptive
faculties in order to allow for real vision (le déréglément de tous les senses ), ever seeks the
new and unpredictable muse. For Rimbaud, however, the tendency is toward a dissipated
intoxication with egotistic novelty. Blake’s disordering of the conventional is not an end in
itself nor merely the means toward an avant garde art. Rather, it is the revolutionary alchemy
of a salvational transformation of the mind, perceptions and emotions of the human
individual. This process is geared towards not only the mirroring of the idea of a divine Man,
or Christ, but also the creation of that nature within each person so revivified. It is the
reconstitution of the "fallen," unrealized nature of mankind. Blake’s artistic self-salvation
enacts, in essence, the creation of the soul through imaginative activity. Made unteleological
by its emphasis upon the freeing-up of energies and the loosing of bindings from the
perceptive and conceptual faculties, it is a way wherein the process of self-creation through
vision is all. Where teleological thinking argues an inherent purpose of existence, Blake
posits emphatically that what meaning there is in life is that which we make, and that realities
are conditioned by mental perspective. Thus he defines the real distinction between human
beings as that between the artistically awakened and those who accept reality as given.
By nearly all of the normative standards of his day, William Blake was strangely inverted,
wrapped in idiosyncrasy, seemingly lacking an advanced, formal style in his art, and clear,
sensible thought in his poetry. Yet he, more than any poet of his day in England, saw the as
yet unformulated ways in which art and knowledge were to advance.
As Evelyn Underhill characterizes his and other "mystics’" making of new prophetic and visionary "maps,"
"Such maps are often wild in drawing, because good draught-manship does not necessarily go with a talent
for exploration. Departing from the usual convention, they are hard -- some-times impossible -- to
understand. As a result, the orthodox have been forced to regard their makers as madmen or heretics: when
they were really only practical men struggling to disclose great matters by imperfect means"
-The Anti-Teleological Dialogism of the Imagination in William Blake’s The
Marriage of Heaven and Hell by Steven M. Streufert
Read on...
Religions are the maps.
Ghislain
I have stumbled across a few interesting items that seem to fit this thread...
"Imagine not being able to distinguish the real cause, from that without which the cause would
not be able to act, as a cause. It is what the majority appear to do, like people groping in the
dark; they call it a cause, thus giving it a name that does not belong to it. That is why one
man surrounds the earth with a vortex to make the heavens keep it in place, another makes
the air support it like a wide lid. As for their capacity of being in the best place they could be
at this very time, this they do not look for, nor do they believe it to have any divine force, but
they believe that they will some time discover a stronger and more immortal Atlas to hold
everything together more, and they do not believe that the truly good and 'binding' binds and
holds them together."
—Plato, Phaedo 99
"In the poetic theory of William Blake, the act of creation requires a type of visionary activity
quite beyond the ordinary, especially if that creativity is to be powerfully original and
revolutionary. In the classic Romantic view of the role of art and the functioning of the
artistic personality, imagination is epistemologically central--a philosophy and method which
Blake was quite in advance of his time in formulating for himself at the tail end of the 18th
Century "Enlightenment" of reason. There must be, in this anti-rationalist theory of the mind,
a certain unmoored willingness to experience the horror and beauty of the sublime, of that
which goes beyond the common norms of awareness and experience, and which springs from
unseen sources at the roots of being. This functioning of the creative mind, later characterized
finely by the French poet, Rimbaud, as the derangement or disordering of the perceptive
faculties in order to allow for real vision (le déréglément de tous les senses ), ever seeks the
new and unpredictable muse. For Rimbaud, however, the tendency is toward a dissipated
intoxication with egotistic novelty. Blake’s disordering of the conventional is not an end in
itself nor merely the means toward an avant garde art. Rather, it is the revolutionary alchemy
of a salvational transformation of the mind, perceptions and emotions of the human
individual. This process is geared towards not only the mirroring of the idea of a divine Man,
or Christ, but also the creation of that nature within each person so revivified. It is the
reconstitution of the "fallen," unrealized nature of mankind. Blake’s artistic self-salvation
enacts, in essence, the creation of the soul through imaginative activity. Made unteleological
by its emphasis upon the freeing-up of energies and the loosing of bindings from the
perceptive and conceptual faculties, it is a way wherein the process of self-creation through
vision is all. Where teleological thinking argues an inherent purpose of existence, Blake
posits emphatically that what meaning there is in life is that which we make, and that realities
are conditioned by mental perspective. Thus he defines the real distinction between human
beings as that between the artistically awakened and those who accept reality as given.
By nearly all of the normative standards of his day, William Blake was strangely inverted,
wrapped in idiosyncrasy, seemingly lacking an advanced, formal style in his art, and clear,
sensible thought in his poetry. Yet he, more than any poet of his day in England, saw the as
yet unformulated ways in which art and knowledge were to advance.
As Evelyn Underhill characterizes his and other "mystics’" making of new prophetic and visionary "maps,"
"Such maps are often wild in drawing, because good draught-manship does not necessarily go with a talent
for exploration. Departing from the usual convention, they are hard -- some-times impossible -- to
understand. As a result, the orthodox have been forced to regard their makers as madmen or heretics: when
they were really only practical men struggling to disclose great matters by imperfect means"
-The Anti-Teleological Dialogism of the Imagination in William Blake’s The
Marriage of Heaven and Hell by Steven M. Streufert
Read on...
Religions are the maps.
Ghislain
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2009
- Messages
- 7,636
Watch the video below with great attention to the lyrics and to the images.
A song by an amazing duo of gay girls - The Indigo Girls.
(We know how much your biblical god of right and wrong/good and evil 'loves' gays, and just for this 'he' can burn in his own hell for all I care, so damn right I'm 'insolent' - not that I don't have plenty of other reasons
)'Love' ??? Gimme a break...
Some of the lyrics of the amazing song linked below:
"There's more than one answer to these questions"
"The less I seek my source for some definitive, closer I am to fine"
Closer To Fine (click to watch on youtube, it turns out embedding has been disabled on this one)
Also, from U2's 'One':
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is nothing outside the Absolute. There's Nothing inside it, either.
But 'we' can dream and imagine ('Lost Word'), dreams within dreams, even to the point of believing that our particular dream is the only thing that's 'true' or 'real'.
'We' can even dream that we are separate dreamers, while we are merely the same dream dreaming itself in different ways. Dreamer and dream are the same, and made out of the none and the same 'matter'.
When you no longer identify with the particular dreamer and realize you ARE the dream - you are 'Closer to fine'
So unless you relinquish your particular dreamer specifications, you are not too well equipped to discuss Universality or the Absolute.
You can only project what you see/imagine/hallucinate in your dream.
Finally, Moshe, IMO, you are taking this particular dream of yours WAY too seriously
So I'd say - Do what you feel is right for you, and save the value judgments for the bible club or whatever dream company of shared hallucination you are keeping.
As a side note - there are a few christian/bible adhering alchemists here on AF, much younger by the way (hint
), and IMO having the great wisdom to strongly hold on to their faith without conducting value judgments on others. Such people have my utmost respect, in spite of disagreements on particularities. There may be something to be learned here...
---------------------------------------------------
Important Note: This is all my perspective, and in no way do I claim to present it as 'absolute truth' or as 'right' or 'closer to the heart' or whatever...
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2009
- Messages
- 4,436
From Byron Katie:
I've heard you say you're a lover of reality. What about war and rape and all the terrible things in the world? Are you condoning that?
Quite the opposite. I notice that if I believe it shouldn't exist when it does exist, I suffer. Can I just end the war in me? Can I stop raping myself and others with my abusive thoughts and actions? Otherwise I'm continuing through me the very thing I want to end in the world. I start with ending my own suffering, my own war. This is a life's work.
So what you're saying is that I should just accept reality as it is and not argue with it. Is that right?
The Work doesn't say what anyone should or shouldn't do. We simply ask: What is the effect of arguing with reality? How does it feel? This Work explores the cause and effect of attaching to painful thoughts, and in that investigation we find our freedom. To simply say that we shouldn't argue with reality is just to add another story, another philosophy or religion. It hasn't ever worked.
I've heard you say you're a lover of reality. What about war and rape and all the terrible things in the world? Are you condoning that?
Quite the opposite. I notice that if I believe it shouldn't exist when it does exist, I suffer. Can I just end the war in me? Can I stop raping myself and others with my abusive thoughts and actions? Otherwise I'm continuing through me the very thing I want to end in the world. I start with ending my own suffering, my own war. This is a life's work.
So what you're saying is that I should just accept reality as it is and not argue with it. Is that right?
The Work doesn't say what anyone should or shouldn't do. We simply ask: What is the effect of arguing with reality? How does it feel? This Work explores the cause and effect of attaching to painful thoughts, and in that investigation we find our freedom. To simply say that we shouldn't argue with reality is just to add another story, another philosophy or religion. It hasn't ever worked.
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2008
- Messages
- 9,576
There is no power struggle here, no agenda... maybe this is what is your issue? As long as people debate without personal attacks what's the problem? Not everyone will agree with you. The forum will continue... mainly because the best minds have NOT left... how can I say this?
We don't rank minds here. No one is above the other. Also please note that they have NO POWERS as moderators other than keeping things clean... stuff you never see... spam that gets deleted etc... this is the job of moderators. If someone becomes abusive they can ban such a person, but this is never done without a discussion first. Don't be paranoid. Let me add also that I don't see myself as having any power here either. I, nor the moderators, have ever claimed to be GURU or MASTER of anything (not to my knowledge)... people who claim they are is, IMO, suspect. Also let me add that no moderator here ever asked to be one, I asked them based on the fact that they are NOT telling people they are wrong and that their world view is supreme.
There is no conspiracy, and there never will be. How do I know this?
Because it is so fucking uninteresting.
All we are doing here is making friends and talking about subjects that fascinate us. That's it. We are not looking for leaders nor followers. Most members here agree with this and the only time problems arise are from people who come in and want to either Rule, Sell or Recruit something, or make a name for themselves in Alchemy. But if someone wants to do any of this Alchemy Forums is not the place. It is way too modest for any of that.
Yes, it is I (and have, and will always be).
I'm not making money on this forum, nor do I intend to. There are many forums like this one, I prefer to be here the most... I have friends here and we are, most of the time, having adult debates about things. Last time I gave up autocracy the forum got sabotaged... so I will not repeat that mistake btw.
If people want to leave they are free to do so. This is not a political party that needs its members to survive... this forum is what people put into it nothing more. If everyone leaves I will be here posting by myself. I don't fear that everyone will leave to follow someone else because here they are not following anyone least of all me or the moderators. Since neither money nor followers is what I get from having this forum the threat of people leaving is utterly ludicrous. When this forums started many years ago I never expected so many people to join... so if they all leave nothing has been lost. Personally I have only gained friends and knowledge. That's it.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2008
- Messages
- 9,576
Anyone claiming to be a know-it-all is making themselves a target. Everyone should think about this. I did the same mistake many years ago on another forum... that kind of tactic doesn't work.
For example: this is the way it is, you are all wrong and deluded!
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2008
- Messages
- 9,576
Maybe because no one has yet agreed with you. What is wrong with that? No one agrees with me on certain beliefs I have... so what? Maybe you are right, that there aren't any people who think like you here... again so what? Everyone thinks differently, I just hope we agree that we shouldn't kill, rape or steal from each other. What else do we really need to agree on?
God is a joke, and evil is an illusion. You won't agree with me. I don't agree with you. So what?
The only advice I can give: chill out...