GENIUS FORUMS

Shardrol wrote:It was quite bizarre, especially the juxtaposition of this black-leather-coated creature attempting to be sexy & his conservatively-dressed audience of trained seals. Looking into his utterly vacant eyes was not a happy experience.

Yes, his eyes were pretty vacant. Are you too young to remember the seventies?

Responses to Laird's discussion:

The problem with generalisations is in trying to decide how to prove that the exceptions do not constitute a contradictory generalisation. Let me provide you with a couple of exceptions: examples given>>>

As long as men continue to think of women as idiots…they WILL BE a holiday for man and a frustration for women, but I do not associate with men like them for their “intent” is obvious….and it may be the type of women they surround themselves with that support their theories. As long as women are idiots, there will be men that take holidays. Part of me is a skeptic to think that Kevin was intimating he was on a holiday in our discussion…but, it doesn’t matter whether that was his intention or not – I’ve learned a lot about this forum and its philosophy…a different perspective than my own and interesting.

My ideal is to show people the different paths by which they can arrive at the point that I wish to emphasise, without actually repeating the point itself.

I wish you luck.

I think that it's possible that God is the driving force whether or not we see him or bring him on as such.

Yes, he is, but if we do not realize this, then we think we are…it is the illusion of free will.

However, I've only recently rediscovered my belief in God and my life has been far more positive for it, so in terms of your assertion it may be that by focussing on divinity I invite God's will into my life.

By knowing God is the driving force, his will becomes your will…you’ve, in a sense, awoken to the true reality. If you never awaken, you will die by choice.

That phrase comes across to me as quite weak though - "to invite God's will into my life" - but I'm open to the possibility that it's the reality. Do you also perceive it as a weak phrase? Can you think of a stronger way to phrase/view it?

It is only weak if you think you have the power to invite rather than accept his revelation to you about what is reality. Recall when Jesus Christ went before Pontius Pilate.

John 19-9-11: Pilate said. "Don't you realize I have power either to free you or to crucify you?" Jesus answered, "You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above."

God is reality. You have been given free will (consciousness) to figure it out…choose wisely.

Agreed. But I like the positive feeling and effects that optimism brings. :-)

Whatever gets you there.

This is a little tangential in that it doesn't directly address the concept of madness, but I want to share with you an affirmation that I've written that deals in part with the idea of love and suffering. It comes under the heading "Proof of Jesus' love":

To believe that love requires suffering is evil. Is Jesus' death a symbol of evil? To suffer for others is noble. Nobility is good. Good triumphs over evil. Jesus' death on the cross is a symbol of good.

Now, look on either side of the cross at the two prisoners, who went mad and who did not?

Those are some good points. How about this rephrasing then: does not also outside influence open us up to new possible interpretations of ourselves and of our behaviour?

Yes, but not out of shame or domination, but teaching and enlightening…not many people have the talent to pull this off…some are immature and some are after your soul. We all make mistakes, sometimes even tragic ones, they should teach us something, but sometimes we crucify ourselves over it…destroying what energy we have…reducing us to unconscious heaps of nothingness (learned by experience) It is not healthy…God is the ultimate teacher, others pale but he uses them whether they are good or bad.

Also note that I use the term “God,” to describe something I cannot describe, but am beginning to recognize in life.

I think that we can resolve our differences. I will concede that some people have bad intentions if you will concede that God has only good intentions. In this way we get to keep the idea that it is foolish to blindly act on the assumption that others want to lead us to what is immediately beneficial, whilst at the same time maintaining an optimism that we can trust that through God that even the people with bad intentions are leading us all to what is ultimately good.

This statement seems to be consistent with the resolution I suggested above.

Ditto ;-)

Assuming a God of majesty and omnipotence, isn't it more important that God chooses us than that we choose God?

Here is where Kierkegaard comes blazing through the fence. He wrote in Either/Or:

“A choice – not between red and green, not between silver and gold – no, a choice between God and the world! Do you know anything in comparison to a choice? Do you know of any more overwhelming and humbling expression for God’s condescension and extravagance towards us human beings than that he places himself, so to say, on the same level of choice with the world, just so that we may be able to choose; that God, if language dare speak thus, woos humankind – that he, the eternally strong one , woos sapless humanity? Yet, how insignificant is the young lover’s choice between her pursuers by comparison with this choice between God and the world!

A choice! Or is it perhaps an imperfection in the choice under discussion where that a human being not only can choose but that he must choose? Would it not be to the young lover’s advantage if she had a zealous father who said, “My dear girl, you have your freedom, you yourself may choose, but you must choose.” Or would it be better that she had the choice but coyly picked and picked and never really chose?

No, a person must choose, for in this way God retains his honor while at the same time has a fatherly concern for humankind. Though God has lowered himself to being that which can be chosen, yet each person must on his part choose. God is not mocked. Therefore the matter stands thus: if a person avoids choosing, this is the same as the presumption of choosing the world.” (Provocations: The Spiritual Writings of Kierkegaard)

And we all know what that means, don’t we?

passthrough wrote:
Through cause and effect we learn what poor choices can render, if we are wise, we change…if not, we die.

Survival of the fit...

The fit being those who choose God.

I came across the idea in the second podcast of The Reasoning Show where Nat and Kev discussed whether it is useful/wise to discriminate between people based on consciousness. It was towards the end of the show.

I haven’t listened to the show. If Nat is member Unidian, he is a wise and thoughtful person…however, discriminating has two meanings…like discrimination on race creed or color in access to jobs (negative aspect) or discriminating as in type, such as the difference between fat-free, 1%, 2% or whole milk (non-moral)?

In either case, a wise teacher should speak to all levels, leaving the rest to God; otherwise, he is ego-driven and not free.

I'd be tempted to phrase it even more strongly as "the universal is all sides."

I’ll think on that one a bit, but it would seem then that truth cannot be universal because it would cause a contradiction.

I'm not sure that I follow your point. Is it even possible to recognise spiritual love without being righteous?

Well, this is my current dilemma. Kevin, I think, said that spiritual love is only recognized by the conscious, and yet, he said he was not always conscious. I know I am not always conscious, most not than am…but there are moments when I get a little wisp of that type of love, very rarely…it is like a brief awareness of something completely foreign. But yes, if a man can be conscious and then not be conscious, while not conscious, he could defy God. I don’t know if you appreciate scripture, some people scream about it, but here is one that I was referring to that sort of ties in Kierkegaard’s notion of choice and type of love:

Matthew 10: 34-39 ~ "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn
" 'a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her motherinlaw—
a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.
"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

Yes, and that's how I would characterise our interactions: as a mutually beneficial discussion. Would you agree?

Well, yes, but others might not. I do not mind your method of delivery as others seem to. Frankly, I’m not sure what all the fuss was about.

passthrough wrote:I’ve learned a lot about this forum and its philosophy…a different perspective than my own and interesting.

As much as I can't accept many of the ideas of the rational infinitists as absolute truth, I do accept that their method of arguing from a strong position stimulates thought in those that they come into contact with. So, yes, I've learnt a lot here too, and I do find their ideas interesting albeit simply that: ideas.

passthrough wrote:One and she is an adult…or learning to be.

I thought that you might have had another late child because in one of your posts you spoke of nagging vs one-time guidance as though you were practicing it in the present moment with a young one.

Laird: I think that it's possible that God is the driving force whether or not we see him or bring him on as such.

passthrough: Yes, he is, but if we do not realize this, then we think we are…it is the illusion of free will.

Does it not though require free will to be able to make a choice though? Or should we say that God makes the choice to accept himself into his life?

passthrough wrote:If you never awaken, you will die by choice.

You speak of spiritual death? Or are you implying that literal eternal physical life is available here and now to those who accept God?

passthrough wrote:John 19-9-11: Pilate said. "Don't you realize I have power either to free you or to crucify you?" Jesus answered, "You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above."

God is reality. You have been given free will (consciousness) to figure it out…choose wisely.

I'm not sure that I'm comfortable with the way that you're framing things. You seem to be saying that the one and only purpose for free will is to decide that it is an illusion. I want to know then, what practical consequences you believe that this decision has. e.g. do you feel more positive about life; do more curious coincidences occur; do you gain more strength? And how do you know that these consequences are a result of your decision?

passthrough wrote:Now, look on either side of the cross at the two prisoners, who went mad and who did not?

At your prompting I've reread those sections of the four Gospels and can find no reference to madness. One prisoner became abusive, the other berated him, and that's as far as the story is told.

Laird: How about this rephrasing then: does not also outside influence open us up to new possible interpretations of ourselves and of our behaviour?

passthrough: Yes, but not out of shame or domination, but teaching and enlightening…

I agree that teaching and enlightening are more pleasant ways to grow.

passthrough wrote:We all make mistakes, sometimes even tragic ones, they should teach us something, but sometimes we crucify ourselves over it…

Yes, this is a lesson that one of my close friends learnt the very hard way. He fell into a funk so deep that he quit his studies and didn't know where to go. He did a lot of writing, engaged in counselling and swallowed anti-depressant pills. He is now back on track: he finished his medical degree and is working as an intern in a Darwin hospital. When I speak to him about his experiences he tells me that the main realisation that he had is that he was too hard on himself. He was a perfectionist and when he failed to achieve perfection he would as you put it "crucify" himself. He tells me that he sees the same tendencies in me, and warns me to be gentle with and accepting of myself.

passthrough wrote:Also note that I use the term “God,” to describe something I cannot describe, but am beginning to recognize in life.

How close is your conception of God to the Christian conception? You seem to be well acquainted with Christian texts (the Bible) and philosophers (Aquinas and Kierkegaard).

passthrough wrote:Kierkegaard: [...] God’s condescension and extravagance towards us human beings [...] the eternally strong one , woos sapless humanity

This is classic Christian thinking, and I am wary of it. It seems condescending in itself to view God in this way: that I am so important that it is up to me whether to involve God in my life, and not the reverse. I'd rather view it as a balance: that we are equal aspects of God who are striving to realise our God-like natures and in which the completely-realised God is striving to assist us.

passthrough wrote:Kierkegaard: Therefore the matter stands thus: if a person avoids choosing, this is the same as the presumption of choosing the world.”

And we all know what that means, don’t we?

I don't think that you believe in damnation so I don't think that you're referring to searing flames and white-hot coals. Do you then refer to untempered global warming, unchecked third-world poverty, cruelly increasing warfare and the pain of soulless consumerism?

passthrough wrote:If Nat is member Unidian, he is a wise and thoughtful person…

He is, and he is.

passthrough wrote:however, discriminating has two meanings…like discrimination on race creed or color in access to jobs (negative aspect) or discriminating as in type, such as the difference between fat-free, 1%, 2% or whole milk (non-moral)?

I think you mean that we can use our discrimination to good or bad effect. I also think that there's a lot of ambiguity to the term "conscious". OK, so we might describe some of the great spiritual teachers of the past uncontroversially as "very conscious". But what of the brilliant concert piano player? S/he is highly conscious of the way in which the keys of a piano can be manipulated to produce the complex melody of whose notation s/he is also highly conscious. So I believe that most (almost all) people are quite conscious in at least some way, and that it is more inspiring for us to try to look at how people are conscious than how they are not. We've learnt, as you write, as a society that discrimination on the basis of race, religion, gender and appearance can be harmful; do we really want to add into the mix a focus on a new means of discrimination?

Laird: I'd be tempted to phrase it even more strongly as "the universal is all sides."

passthrough: I’ll think on that one a bit, but it would seem then that truth cannot be universal because it would cause a contradiction.

In the logical systems that we have evolved with, contradiction is synonymous with impossibility. It is possible though for us to imagine that there are higher, more divine logical systems that encompass contradiction as a natural feature.

passthrough wrote:Kevin, I think, said that spiritual love is only recognized by the conscious [...] I know I am not always conscious, [...] but there are moments when I get a little wisp of that type of love

I'd like to think that even those who are not conscious of what they are doing can be instruments of spiritual love.

passthrough wrote:[W]hile not conscious, [a man] could defy God.

Isn't defiance a conscious act?

passthrough wrote:Matthew 10: 34-39 ~ "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. [...] [A]nyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.

I interpret this passage to be saying that to be righteous requires suffering and that those who have not the strength to suffer for the sake of righteousness will seek in their jealousy to bring the righteous down to their own level - hence the battle between the righteous (suffering) and the unrighteous (worldy-pleased), in which the suffering of the righteous is increased.

The trouble that I have with this is the notion that suffering is a requirement for love. Sometimes I firmly believe that this is the truth, and other times I think that it is an evil belief. Perhaps it is both.

Laird: Yes, and that's how I would characterise our interactions: as a mutually beneficial discussion. Would you agree?

passthrough: Well, yes, but others might not. I do not mind your method of delivery as others seem to. Frankly, I’m not sure what all the fuss was about.

I think the fuss was that I introduced myself to this forum in posts that were quite strongly against the idea that the truths pushed on this forum are absolute, and that I then proceeded to push views on love and femininity that are quite contrary to those typically pushed in this forum. Contrariness sometimes breeds irritation, if not outright anger.

Good grief, Leyla, what is that?

Homo divus non compos mentis, Shardrol! As for the crowd…..[shrug]

Oh, those seventies.

Wonder if you guys remember this dude:

Yeah, oh yeah…

[jigs to the rhythm across the Genius floorboards in her socks...]

Edit:

PS: and, in case there are some who don't know how big this guy got:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPAKohAZrvg

[jigs even mooore...]

Laird:

That's funny, I would have thought that a Zen madman would have more power to mystify than a fuzzy-haired proponent of free love. Nevermind, my sister as a child was perpetually frustrated that she could never beat me in an argument too.

That’s not it, Laird! You seem to like-um peace pipe. You don’t like to argue. Makes it pretty hard when I do.

Am I still the nice guy now? ;-)

Yes.

A Google search for hukkah turned up mostly stories about hookah bars being closed. What in the world is a hukkah smoothie? Anything to do with huckleberries?

Hookahs make for a cool, smooth smoke. Couple that with a cherry tobacco mix and you have what I call a cool, hukkah smoothie.

Laird wrote:

Laird: no one is ever wrong in an absolute sense (but I could be wrong...).

Kevin: Yes, you are wrong. If a person says that "A" is identical with "B", based on the definition that "A" is entirely different to "B", you can say they are absolutely wrong.

You might be able to. All that I can say is that I cannot yet imagine how that person might be right.

Perhaps this would be a good time to work out what definition of "insane" we're using!

Friend, I reckon Kev is hoping you're a bit shy yet to admit that you're 100% sure that you're dead wrong, otherwise he might not expend many more brain cells on you. :)

Leyla Shen wrote:That’s not it, Laird! You seem to like-um peace pipe. You don’t like to argue. Makes it pretty hard when I do.

I'm over that whole adrenaline thing of "what-if-I'm-wrong". We can both be right if we approach each other with the intention of discussing rather than proving a point (it feels a lot better to reach agreement than to fight over who's better).

Laird: Am I still the nice guy now? ;-)

Leyla: Yes.

Lesson learnt about Leyla: unphased by mildly arrogant teasing.

Leyla wrote:Hookahs make for a cool, smooth smoke. Couple that with a cherry tobacco mix and you have what I call a cool, hukkah smoothie.

You have what I call five minutes of confused light-headed spin-out.

keenobserver wrote:Perhaps this would be a good time to work out what definition of "insane" we're using!

"The state where the apparently illogical is transcended by higher systems of rationality."

keenobserver wrote:Friend, I reckon Kev is hoping you're a bit shy yet to admit that you're 100% sure that you're dead wrong, otherwise he might not expend many more brain cells on you. :)

Yeah, well in that case Kev's going to be disappointed to learn that I'm seeking more of his brain cells - I'm not 100% sure of anything (except that I exist and that I experience).

--
Masculinity is the quest into madness; femininity is the affirmation that holds it from the brink.

Laird wrote:

I'm over that whole adrenaline thing of "what-if-I'm-wrong". We can both be right if we approach each other with the intention of discussing rather than proving a point (it feels a lot better to reach agreement than to fight over who's better).

I'm not 100% sure of anything (except that I exist and that I experience).

Prove it.

.

Laird wrote:

Masculinity is the quest into madness; femininity is the affirmation that holds it from the brink.

Define "masculinity" and "femininity", and then explain what you're on about.

-

Laird wrote: I'm not 100% sure of anything (except that I exist and that I experience).

Sue: Prove it.

Sue I'm not sure what you're getting at. The whole point is that I can't prove anything ultimately. If I could, then I would be 100% sure of it.

Laird: Masculinity is the quest into madness; femininity is the affirmation that holds it from the brink.

Sue: Define "masculinity" and "femininity", and then explain what you're on about.

Masculinity is that part of human nature that we (I) most closely associate with men, perhaps due to genetic and biological trends. Femininity is that part of human nature that we most closely associate with women. Both femininity and masculinity are or at least can be present to some degree in both men and women.

As for what I'm on about, I refer you to my very first post in this thread. My position has not changed.

I will preface the continuance of this discussion on the fact that my theological theory is a work-in-progress and I am a mere plebe in philosophical thinking, which is obvious by the number of perplexities you seem to have encountered with my thought process…this is a good thing, for I must be able to defend my position and in so answering your questions, it lends me towards that end.
 
I am closer to your theological leanings than to the forums theories, but find their theories not so far out as to not be viable.  The way I look at it is: who holds God in their hand such that they have perfect knowledge of the Creator of all things?  What is attractive in their theory is it is logically and, to some degree, scientifically based, whereas, what I believe takes a “leap of faith,” to overcome the hurdle where Aquinas ran out of logic…as did Kierkegaard, who is famous for the addage.  By the way, I am no expert in either of these two men’s philosophy; however, I intend to study them over the next year or so in depth.  Aquinas for his logic approach and Kierkegaard for his “back to basics” Christian approach.
 
L: Does it not though require free will to be able to make a choice though?  Or should we say that God makes the choice to accept himself into his life?
 
Absolutely, but it is illusory.  Think about it.  I guess the most important thing is: do you believe in the theory of causality, even if we clarify that the first cause is God?  If you don’t believe this much, then we have a problem.  If God is the first cause, then everything follows naturally from God, right?  So, in the regressive chain of things, we are made of “God stuff,”  but through many factors it seems we have become clouded in thoughts of the worldly rather than the spiritual.  We make a choice every day, every second to live either “in” the world or not…
 
So, going back to causal beginnings, if God has the ability to cause, and all things are inherently good because God is good, then those that choose God over the world will then strive towards goodness.  No one being perfect, we falter, but we are cognizant of that misstep, readjust, realign with God and continue on.  So the question is does God choose us or do we choose him?  If I could answer that knowing I was correct, I suppose I’d be writing books.  But in order to give you an answer, the only thing that I can express is how I see it work in my life… each move you make is countered by God.  You move, he moves to counter…each time you are given an opportunity to see the world or see him, you choose to see what you want to see….but he is always there, all around and within.  Now, here is where it gets a little gray because you say, how do you know it’s God rather than delusion?  I know delusion, been there…this is a presence that presents itself in times of wavering in faith or in situations needing guidance…and the choice is very clear, it is God or the world.
 
So, if you choose God what have you added or taken away from your own creation?  Nothing.  If you don’t choose God, then what have you added or taken away from your own creation?  You have taken away God and added yourself as god-a finite being, and truly not a god at all.  Therefore, free will is an illusion because reality is God…any other choice is illusory and defying what IS.
 
L:  You speak of spiritual death?  Or are you implying that literal eternal physical life is available here and now to those who accept God?
 
No to the physical, yes to the eternal.  I believe in body and soul…the body being the physical – the finite, while the soul has the ability to become infinite if aligned with God, therefore eternal life…now, as to this notion of what may be Christian physical rising at some point in the span of time…I think that is something someone said to appease their terror of dying or something.  If God is the Creator and we came from God, then we return to God in the form of the essence he used to give us physical life…We have all witnessed the death of physical beings…we know that corpses rot and decay, what we don’t know is that of the spirit except only through our own experience of it. 
 
If we do not align ourselves with God, the physical is all there is.
 
L:  You seem to be saying that the one and only purpose for free will is to decide that it is an illusion.  I want to know then, what practical consequences you believe that this decision has.  e.g. do you feel more positive about life; do more curious coincidences occur; do you gain more strength?  And how do you know that these consequences are a result of your decision?
 
No, the one and only purpose of free will is to choose God or choose the world…if you choose God, you realize it is an illusory choice because what do you have if you do not choose God?  Nothing.  What do you have if you choose God? All things.  The practical consequences are that life becomes more and more difficult in the world…you begin to be very alone because what you believe in is not what you see…the issue I raised earlier on with the fine line between consciousness and insanity….  The only way that I can state that these consequences bear out to truth is by quoting Romans 5:3-5:
 
Not only so, but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope.  And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us.
 
Anything else and you lose your mind…to me, it is that fragile of a line.
 
As to the prisoners, in Luke there is an account of two prisoners, one who griped about how Jesus could save them if he would just do it, while the other told him to be quiet, that they deserved what they got, but that Jesus did not.  He asked Jesus to remember him when he went to his kingdom, to which Jesus replied, you will be with me.  I suppose I got a little carried away with the madness, more like blindness to the truth, which is, in a way, madness.
 
L:  …he tells me that the main realization that he had is that he was too hard on himself.  He was a perfectionist and when he failed to achieve perfection he would as you put it “crucify” himself.  He tells me that he sees the same tendencies in me, and warns me to be gentle with and accepting of myself.
 
Perfectionism…such a curse, me too.  However, having someone tell you to be gentle and accepting of yourself doesn’t change anything…I think some people are hard-wired that way…you have a low threshold conscience and yet you still do what isn’t right, so it affects you much worse than one who is not as conscious of his actions.  Unfortunately, it bleeds into everything…becoming an illness…you are then focusing on yourself rather than God, relying on yourself to be perfect, when you are not.  It is hard to let go, but I am learning….(one of those ways in which God asks you to choose him or the world.)  
 
L:  Conception of Christianity:
 
I consider myself to be a Christian, but not an institutional Christian.  I had to reject all prior notions of God when I found myself facing an abyss of an unknown through some difficult circumstances.  This is hard to explain without breaking my rule of getting too sappy and personal, which I have violated a few times already.  Suffice it to say, that, in my mind, God has established his existence over a period of years where I have been tried beyond my abilities to cope.  He exists by virtue of this experience, so what now?  I began this journey to determine what God is by reading, going to class, and discussion in places such as this forum and with others in my personal life to rebuild a fundamental basis underwriting my belief system.  I suppose people could call it creating your own religion, but that is not the case. 
 
Jesus Christ is part of this fundamental basis, although this notion of being saved by his death and the “once saved, always saved” mentality does not work with me.  I think there is a deeper meaning to his life than just some representational gesture of sacrifice…in other words, it was not by his death that he saved us but by his life…whether or not he is God, his purpose of life seemed to show us how to live, not die.  I, for one, believe that we all have a piece of God within us as he is our creator.  If we are conscious of God, we know his will, and by knowing and acting upon his will, we become one with him.  Therefore, by virtue of the fact that Jesus Christ lived the will of God, it isn't out of the realm that he could be God incarnate. 
 
He is the way, the truth and the life…Jesus Christ said to know him is to know God and that no one can get to God save from going through him…but he also said:
 
love your enemies so that you may be sons of the Father…
 
be perfect as YOUR heavenly father is perfect…
 
Do not be like them, for YOUR Father knows what you need before you ask him. 
 
Whoever does God's will is my brother and sister and mother 
 
My mother and brothers are those who hear God's word and put it into practice   
 
In Matthew, there a many, many more references with Jesus Christ speaking as if God were OUR father – not just his.  Therefore, by following his example, accepting God as the absolute truth, we have life…otherwise we are dead, spiritually and, inevitably, physically dead. 
 
L:It seems condescending in itself to view God in this way: that I am so important that it is up to me whether to involve God in my life, and not the reverse.  I’d rather view it as a balance: that we are equal aspects of God who are striving to realize our God-like natures and in which the completely-realised God is striving to assist us.
 
Well, I think you are looking at it from a different perspective…we are part of him who gives us a choice between one with him or being one with the world.  Let me ask you this question:  if we were not given a choice, illusory though it may be, what is the point?  If we are our own god, then why do we need another one in life?  The problem is that we eventually face our own mortality and we can do nothing to stop it, so you can live life as if there is no tomorrow or you can live life eternally (again, there is that leap of faith).  I’m not sure you and I are saying different things except for the fact that it seems to me that by saying we are “equal aspects of God” you are raising your level of importance to the height of God when you are nothing…BUT you have the opportunity to be everything if you pay attention to the assistance.
 
L:  Do you then refer to untempered global warming, unchecked third-world poverty, cruelly increasing warfare and the pain of soulless consumerism?
 
Hmmm, hell on earth…well, it’s a good theory, but what I had in mind was death …what you described is a painful slow death. 
 
L:  So I believe that most (almost all) people are quite conscious in at least some way, and that it is more inspiring for us to try to look at how people are conscious than how they are not….do we really want to add into the mix a focus on a new means of discrimination?
 
Frankly, I don’t go around analyzing people’s consciousness, as I seem to have enough work to do on my own.  It seems to me that those who do are still in the whole masculine psychosis Kevin was speaking about.  Although Kevin did not reply to my comment when I stated that the masculine was a weak state to be in although not as bad as the feminine when he said that the ego is driven by its hunger for power until it eats itself up and then one becomes enlightened…being masculine is an intermediary step to this enlightenment…one step up from being feminine.  So it goes feminine (unconscious) to masculine (conscious) to neither (enlightenment).  Therefore, I can only surmise that those who would be running around judging others consciousness levels are still in the masculine state of being and not free.
 
I think that the confusion between you and the forum is semantics with regard to the masculine and the feminine.  Had David used “OG” for the masculine and “IG” for the feminine, it may change your outlook on what they mean.  David seems to have picked up where Eastern spirituality left off with the masculine and the feminine.  He stated that most women are 98% feminine and most men are 90% feminine, but the masculine is deeply rooted within the male of the species, which I am willing to concede based on evolution and roles assumed by virtue of this inherent nature.  I really have no argument with how they define OG and IG until they genderize it…then is where your issues come in.  I urge to reread David’s essay when he is describing the masculine and the feminine, replacing those associated “gender” terms with my made up terms…just to see if you agree with the idea behind it.
 
Their problem comes in when they associate feminine to women in the terms that seem to be bothering you…this is where I leave their line of reasoning to side with you.  Other than knowing Sue Hindmarsh is affiliated with them and she seems very masculine in thought (so she would have to be an exception), I can only imagine the type of women that they surround themselves with…and why they focus their studies on those types who don’t represent the class of all women.  I think they are short-sighting those women who have made great strides in creating schools and running hospitals, to include those who dedicate their lives to good will, such as Mother Theresa.  In fact, all theology aside, nuns are incredible women and manage to do quite a lot of masculine things in this world, but they may be more akin to enlightened than either masculine or feminine. But, it is no use, for I am talking to a wall.
 
L:  It is possible though for us to imagine that there are higher, more divine logical systems that encompass contradiction as a nature feature.
 
It is interesting that you brought this up because I had at one time started a conversation about this with Kelly who states that God is everything but then went on to state that it is by rationality and logic that we can come to know the God.  I posed to her that if God is all things, then he is also irrational as well as rational, logical as well as illogical.  I think she agreed except she alluded to the fact that we cannot understand that which is irrational and illogical.  The only thing that I can conclude is that if we know what is rational and logical that we can know its opposite.  However, where I can understand what you state, I still believe there to be a truth between the contradiction.  I wish I could explain this to you, but I came to this conclusion by writing papers for class.  I found that in arguing different view points that truth was not in the specific view points but a gray area somewhere in the mix of them all.  It is also one of the things that I came on this board to learn…to see a side other than Christianity…to try to bridge a gap and find God in that gray area.
 
L:  I’d like to think that even those who are not conscious of what they are doing can be instruments of spiritual love.
 
I think God works through every thing as an instrument of his divine love, for every thing comes from God….the trick is to be aware of it.
 
L: Isn’t defiance a conscious act?
 
Well, that is true>>>>>>I got a little carried away, but read on…
 
L:  I interpret this passage to be saying that to be righteous requires suffering and that those who have not the strength to suffer for the sake of righteousness will seek in their jealousy to bring the righteous down to their own level – hence the battle between the righteous (suffering) and the unrighteous (worldly-pleased), in which the suffering of the righteous is increased.
 
Now Laird you are admitting by your own proof that there exist those with bad intentions.  Do you think that it is that conscious of an act-that is, to have feelings of jealousy and then act upon it?  Maybe I live in the clouds. Let’s look at the argument from your perspective internally, since to speak of others gets too convoluted.  If I hold high standards and I am a perfectionist, when I fail my own standards, I suffer.  So, in this dual nature my unrighteousness battles the righteousness and the righteousness suffers the failure of yielding unto the unrighteous – that is, unless you become numb to the suffering and become unconscious of your own actions…then you are spiritually dead.  In applying this argument to the external world, I suppose it would lend the same results.
 
But I still interpret that passage to be exactly what I think it means…you have to choose.  Think about the story of Abraham and Isaac while reading this passage again. 
 
L:  The trouble that I have with this is the notion that suffering is a requirement for love.  Sometimes I firmly believe that this is the truth, and other times I think that it  is an evil belief.  Perhaps it is both.
 
Kevin stated that spiritual love is truth.  If spiritual love is truth, then you suffer for the truth and that is not evil…we suffer this in the slow progression of alienation from the world…that which is not truth.
 
L:  I think the fuss was that I introduced myself to this forum in posts that were quite strongly against the idea that the truths pushed on this forum are absolute, and that I then proceeded to push views on love and femininity that are quite contrary to those typically pushed in this forum.  Contrariness sometimes breeds irritation, if not outright anger…
 
I am beginning to notice that I am nagging my point and taking things a little personal such that I find myself getting worked up over it unnecessarily…this is not a good thing on discussion forums, level heads and rational thinking is a must because you may be debating with the wall for as much as you will get another to concede a point. It is also why I may take a break from here after we conclude our discussion to a logical end.   I will say that at least you are passionate about your beliefs, which I believe to be a good thing – one should be…but members on this forum are as equally passionate about their own.  They are “masculine,” so they will fight you…don’t say they didn’t warn you….there is not a feminine one in the bunch.    ;-)

Laird wrote:

Laird wrote: I'm not 100% sure of anything (except that I exist and that I experience).

Sue: Prove it.

Sue I'm not sure what you're getting at. The whole point is that I can't prove anything ultimately. If I could, then I would be 100% sure of it.

Laird, you don't see the problem others might have with this? I have a problem with this because on the one hand you make the claim of being 100% certain that you exist and experience and then at the slightest questioning you revert back to complete uncertainty.

That's makes it extremely difficult to enter into any sort of meaningful , philosophical discussion with you. Do you really not see that?

Leyla Shen wrote:

Laird wrote:

Laird wrote: I'm not 100% sure of anything (except that I exist and that I experience).

Sue: Prove it.

Sue I'm not sure what you're getting at. The whole point is that I can't prove anything ultimately. If I could, then I would be 100% sure of it.

Laird, you don't see the problem others might have with this? I have a problem with this because on the one hand you make the claim of being 100% certain that you exist and experience and then at the slightest questioning you revert back to complete uncertainty.

That's makes it extremely difficult to enter into any sort of meaningful , philosophical discussion with you. Do you really not see that?

His postmodernism, relativity, and deconstructionism completely repulses me.

Laird wrote: I am interested to read Kierkegaard too. Both Kevin and Kelly speak highly of his writings.

My professor recommended starting out with Hirmmse's Encounters with Kierkegaard and Hong's The Essential Kierkegaard. I have started the former, and from what little I know of Kevin, I can see why he speaks highly of his writings. If Kierkegaard would have married, Kevin could have likely been his progeny or at the very least of his lineage (I'm being a little dramatic here) but his method of delivery befits the same type of influence. I'm surprised that Kelly would like his writings because she seems so Eastern influenced in thought.

People wrote that Kierkegaard was very bright, had a critical eye...and although devoutly spiritual was also a mischeiveous rascal, in a good sort of way. I can see this in Kevin and in some ways Leyla, but Kelly seems more monastic. It would be interesting to meet some of the people here, but I suppose it is amazing enough to have something like the Internet to connect people all over the world...I'm showing my age.

Encounters is a book that is a collection of numerous recollections of people who had been around him in life, some highly complimentary and some critical, but it gives you a flavor about the man....they say any autobiographical work of his own is scant. FYI, just in case you are interested ....

Laird wrote: I'm not 100% sure of anything (except that I exist and that I experience).

Sue: Prove it.

Laird: Sue I'm not sure what you're getting at. The whole point is that I can't prove anything ultimately. If I could, then I would be 100% sure of it.

Leyla: Laird, you don't see the problem others might have with this? I have a problem with this because on the one hand you make the claim of being 100% certain that you exist and experience and then at the slightest questioning you revert back to complete uncertainty.

Perhaps I did misunderstand what Sue was getting at. It seems that you interpreted her as asking me to prove my existence and experience. In that case, my answer is not to revert to uncertainty but to assert that it is a personal truth that can only be known to oneself, and not proven to another.

Leyla wrote:That's makes it extremely difficult to enter into any sort of meaningful , philosophical discussion with you. Do you really not see that?

Meaningful discussion can take account of possibilities, uncertainties and imaginings. Indeed it must.

passthrough: reply forthcoming.

--
Everything can be justified in the imagination. Does the absolute transcend the imagination or the reverse? I imagine both.

Wow, passthough that post was full enough that you could have presented it to your theology lecturer for partial credit...

You seem to want to come to a conclusion, so I'll try to not raise too many more perplexities (although I will try to leave you with some things to ponder).

passthrough wrote:The way I look at it is: who holds God in their hand such that they have perfect knowledge of the Creator of all things?

Likewise - I'm willing to entertain new theories about God.

passthrough wrote:I guess the most important thing is: do you believe in the theory of causality, even if we clarify that the first cause is God?

I believe that it operates in this universe, and I'm comfortable with the idea of God as first cause, but I think that there are some curly ones in there. For example, God could be simultaneously first and last causes. Also, it is said by scientists that time is a property of our universe, that there is no time outside of it. How does causality operate outside of time?

passthrough wrote:So, in the regressive chain of things, we are made of “God stuff,” but through many factors it seems we have become clouded in thoughts of the worldly rather than the spiritual.

And so then must the world be made of "God stuff". The world too must then be spiritual.

passthrough wrote:So, going back to causal beginnings, if God has the ability to cause, and all things are inherently good because God is good, then those that choose God over the world will then strive towards goodness.

And yet choosing the world - being equally made of "God stuff" - must be the same as choosing God's goodness.

passthrough wrote:You move, he moves to counter…each time you are given an opportunity to see the world or see him, you choose to see what you want to see….but he is always there, all around and within. Now, here is where it gets a little gray because you say, how do you know it’s God rather than delusion?

Or to put it in other words, you are uncertain of God's full nature yet somehow you see his action in your life. This comes back to the question that I asked before - what are the effects of your decision? And your answer seems to be: God counters bad decisions.

passthrough wrote:So, if you choose God what have you added or taken away from your own creation? Nothing. If you don’t choose God, then what have you added or taken away from your own creation? God. Therefore, free will is an illusion because reality is God…any other choice is illusory and defying what IS.

It seems that we could also say that any and every choice is God, because God being first cause, all things are made of "God stuff". Free will might be an illusion from a personal perspective but from God's perspective it might be real. I'm equally open to the possibility that personal free will is the most intrinsic component of reality.

passthrough wrote:I believe in body and soul…the body being the physical – the finite, while the soul has the ability to become infinite if aligned with God, therefore eternal life

I know that we're supposed to be concluding things but I'm curious to know what properties you ascribe to the soul - memory? emotion? capacity for thought?

passthrough wrote:No, the one and only purpose of free will is to choose God or choose the world…if you choose God, you realize it is an illusory choice because what do you have if you do not choose God? Nothing. What do you have if you choose God? All things.

If God is all things, then how can you fail to choose God? As the saying goes: all roads lead to Rome. So it seems that indeed the choice is illusory, unless you want to start believing in the Devil's evil, in which case there is a genuine choice - but let's not tread that path.

passthrough wrote:It is hard to let go [of perfectionism], but I am learning….(one of those ways in which God asks you to choose him or the world.)

Would you accept this phrasing?: God expects us to do our best but to believe that whatever level we achieve God will find a way to make it perfect anyway.

passthrough wrote:Suffice it to say, that, in my mind, God has established his existence over a period of years where I have been tried beyond my abilities to cope.

I am very curious to know what those experiences have been but I respect your desire to keep matters impersonal.

passthrough wrote:In Matthew, there a many, many more references with Jesus Christ speaking as if God were OUR father – not just his.

Yes.

passthrough wrote:Therefore, by following his example, accepting God as the absolute truth, we have life…otherwise we are dead, spiritually and, inevitably, physically dead.

I'm still not sure exactly what you think it means to "accept God as the absolute truth" - I still don't have any idea of the practical consequences beyond what you've described as God countering us when we are unaccepting. Perhaps this is another way in which the choice is illusory: it has no practical consequences.

passthrough wrote:Let me ask you this question: if we were not given a choice, illusory though it may be, what is the point?

Perhaps this of my aphorisms will explain my view:

The One is splintered. How else might it know itself?

passthrough wrote:If we are our own god, then why do we need another one in life?

Perhaps because the unlimited timelessness of God simultaneously requires a limited temporal environment for meaningful self-realisation. In other words, perhaps because God needs us as much as we need God. It's one possibility anyway.

passthrough wrote:I’m not sure you and I are saying different things except for the fact that it seems to me that by saying we are “equal aspects of God” you are raising your level of importance to the height of God when you are nothing…BUT you have the opportunity to be everything if you pay attention to the assistance.

The only quibble that I have with that is the word "nothing". I don't think that it's good for anyone's self-respect to think of themselves as "nothing", and I think that self-respect is a requirement for respecting others, and that respecting others is a requirement for a peaceful, balanced, healthy world.

passthrough wrote:I think that the confusion between you and the forum is semantics with regard to the masculine and the feminine. Had David used “OG” for the masculine and “IG” for the feminine, it may change your outlook on what they mean.

Very likely.

passthrough wrote:I urge to reread David’s essay when he is describing the masculine and the feminine, replacing those associated “gender” terms with my made up terms…just to see if you agree with the idea behind it.

I haven't yet read it but intend to do so. My understanding of the ideas of masculinity and femininity preached by the rational infinitists comes mostly from personal discussions with Kev, who is my real-life neighbour.

passthrough wrote:Their problem comes in when they associate feminine to women in the terms that seem to be bothering you…this is where I leave their line of reasoning to side with you. [...] I think they are short-sighting those women who have made great strides in creating schools and running hospitals, to include those who dedicate their lives to good will, such as Mother Theresa. In fact, all theology aside, nuns are incredible women and manage to do quite a lot of masculine things in this world, but they may be more akin to enlightened than either masculine or feminine. But, it is no use, for I am talking to a wall.

You are at least making an impression on me (albeit that the impression was already formed) but alas I agree that you are unlikely to make a dent on the rational infinitists.

passthrough wrote:I found that in arguing different view points that truth was not in the specific view points but a gray area somewhere in the mix of them all. It is also one of the things that I came on this board to learn…to see a side other than Christianity…to try to bridge a gap and find God in that gray area.

That's a wonderfully balanced view that again impresses me.

Laird: I interpret this passage to be saying that to be righteous requires suffering and that those who have not the strength to suffer for the sake of righteousness will seek in their jealousy to bring the righteous down to their own level – hence the battle between the righteous (suffering) and the unrighteous (worldly-pleased), in which the suffering of the righteous is increased.

passthrough: Now Laird you are admitting by your own proof that there exist those with bad intentions.

But passthrough we've already resolved this! I accepted people with bad intentions and you accepted God's purely good intentions... remember?

passthrough wrote:Do you think that it is that conscious of an act-that is, to have feelings of jealousy and then act upon it?

Perhaps it is not so conscious, and so I would say then that it is not so much an act of defiance as of ignorance.

passthrough wrote:But I still interpret that passage to be exactly what I think it means…you have to choose. Think about the story of Abraham and Isaac while reading this passage again.

The thing is, it's clear what the choice needs to be when you literally hear the voice of God. And when you are bereft of such direct guidance, then which voice do you listen to? Your conscience? Your rationality?

And if it is conscience and rationality, then both of those would tell me not to kill my son. So God's literal voice can conflict with the lesser guidance with which we are normally granted? Or perhaps this is a symbolic rather than a literal story.

passthrough wrote:I am beginning to notice that I am nagging my point and taking things a little personal such that I find myself getting worked up over it unnecessarily

I haven't noticed that - your posts have seemed level-headed and rational to me.

passthrough wrote:They [the members of this forum] are “masculine,” so they will fight you…don’t say they didn’t warn you….there is not a feminine one in the bunch. ;-)

Warning acknowledged, thank you. :-)

Faust13 wrote:His postmodernism, relativity, and deconstructionism completely repulses me.

Thank you, now I know how to describe myself (not that I have yet researched each of those terms). Perhaps I will make up a little badge to wear around the place: "I am a postmodernist, relativistic deconstructionist. Let's do lunch."

The variability of my thought precludes a tattoo.

If you were to make up a badge to describe your position, then what would it be? Would you rather a tattoo?

--
The only permanence is impermanence.

passthrough wrote:I'm surprised that Kelly would like his writings because she seems so Eastern influenced in thought.

It's not a matter of east vs west. Hakuin's exhortations are as religious and as lively as Kierkegaard's upbuilding discourses.

People wrote that Kierkegaard was very bright, had a critical eye...and although devoutly spiritual was also a mischeiveous rascal, in a good sort of way. I can see this in Kevin and in some ways Leyla, but Kelly seems more monastic.

This reminds me of Dan's tip, "No philosopher ever got away with merely being intelligent. You have to be immoral first and foremost. All the great thinkers were thoroughly sordid."

Perhaps the monasticism is hangover trauma from my violent upbringing, a concern about chaos. It's fading, slowly though.

It would be interesting to meet some of the people here, but I suppose it is amazing enough to have something like the Internet to connect people all over the world...I'm showing my age.

There's much to be said for a video version of the Reasoning Show. It wouldn't be hard, but the files would be much bigger.


-

Laird wrote:it is said by scientists that time is a property of our universe, that there is no time outside of it. How does causality operate outside of time?

You previously said that by "universe" you mean "everything", but science doesn't define "universe" to mean "everything", so scientists are talking about something else entirely.

And so then must the world be made of "God stuff". The world too must then be spiritual.

It depends how you want to define "spriitual". In the normal usage of the word, it's not spiritual to lie and cheat and live in delusion.

The world is made of "God stuff" only if you define "God" to be everything.

And yet choosing the world - being equally made of "God stuff" - must be the same as choosing God's goodness.

One may choose truth or untruth. By choosing truth one is said to be choosing God.

The person who chooses untruth, lies, and violence is not conscious of God (the All), and so is said to not have a relationship with God - even though all these things happen within God, out of God's body.

If God is all things, then how can you fail to choose God?

A person fails to choose God by failing to be conscious of God. That is, by failing to know God.

God expects us to do our best but to believe that whatever level we achieve God will find a way to make it perfect anyway.

The All is not a conscious being, with a particular purpose.

passthrough wrote:nuns are incredible women and manage to do quite a lot of masculine things in this world

You are dreaming. I once stayed at a nunnery, and explained to one of the nuns that the personal God they were praying to didn't really exist. The nun had never thought about this before, and said, "So . . . if God doesn't exist . . . then who are we praying to?"

Oh so masculine!

Laird wrote:

In that case, my answer is not to revert to uncertainty but to assert that it is a personal truth that can only be known to oneself, and not proven to another.

OK. So, what is the difference between such a truth and things about which you are uncertain? That is, what proof is it that an individual accepts in gaining such a certainty that others do not, hence making it impossible to prove such a thing to them?

Meaningful discussion can take account of possibilities, uncertainties and imaginings. Indeed it must.

Sure, but it is nonetheless more difficult to get meaningful discussion from those who are perpetually uncertain of everything, including their certainties.

Leyla Shen wrote:OK. So, what is the difference between such a truth [the certainty of one's own existence and experience] and things about which you are uncertain? That is, what proof is it that an individual accepts in gaining such a certainty that others do not, hence making it impossible to prove such a thing to them?

I have trouble expressing this in words, but I will try. The personal proof is simply the undeniability of one's personal conscious perspective on the world. It is one thing for me to take in sensory data, to perceive that Leyla appears to have abilities similar to my own and to (imperfectly) surmise that she is therefore likely to be a conscious being with her own perspective on the world, much like my own. It is quite another, I imagine, to actually be in that "Leyla-perspective", which is beyond all surmising and rather is perfectly and incontrovertibly real.

Laird: Meaningful discussion can take account of possibilities, uncertainties and imaginings. Indeed it must.

Leyla: Sure, but it is nonetheless more difficult to get meaningful discussion from those who are perpetually uncertain of everything, including their certainties.

And yet when I express my uncertainties with strength and confidence, I am criticised (by Kevin) for not revealing weakness in probability estimates. So what exactly do you guys want from me?

Laird: it is said by scientists that time is a property of our universe, that there is no time outside of it. How does causality operate outside of time?

Kevin: You previously said that by "universe" you mean "everything", but science doesn't define "universe" to mean "everything", so scientists are talking about something else entirely.

You have not addressed the crucial question, which I will repeat: how does causality operate outside of time? (I have my own answer which I have expressed to you in private email already; I am interested though to know your answer)

Kevin Solway wrote:The world is made of "God stuff" only if you define "God" to be everything.

I understand that you define God that way.

Laird: And yet choosing the world - being equally made of "God stuff" - must be the same as choosing God's goodness.

Kevin: One may choose truth or untruth. By choosing truth one is said to be choosing God.

Also: one may choose conscious enactment of love or be subject to its unconscious expression anyway.

Laird: If God is all things, then how can you fail to choose God?

Kevin: A person fails to choose God by failing to be conscious of God. That is, by failing to know God.

If God is all things, then to know and be conscious of God is to know and be conscious of *everything*. Who can have such knowledge but God?

Laird wrote:If God is all things, then to know and be conscious of God is to know and be conscious of *everything*. Who can have such knowledge but God?

You've made an error of identity. If God is everything, then God cannot be something that can know, because all the things that cannot know are excluded from "everything". Everything does not have any nature, not consciousness, not unconsciousness. These are things included in "everything".

One can know the nature of the Absolute, but not all the countless ways it can be divided.

-

Laird wrote:how does causality operate outside of time?

Who says that it does?

It depends what you mean by "causality". There is causality in time, and there is logical causality in which time does not play a part. For example, the number 3 is caused by adding a 1 to the number 2.

Kevin Solway wrote:The world is made of "God stuff" only if you define "God" to be everything.

I understand that you define God that way.

You are implying that you define the word "God" differently. What do you define it to mean? If you don't provide a definition of what you mean by the word, anything you are say about God is meaningless to the reader.

One may choose truth or untruth. By choosing truth one is said to be choosing God.

Also: one may choose conscious enactment of love or be subject to its unconscious expression anyway.

Unless you define what you mean by "love" this is meaningless to the reader also.

For example, when a mass-murderer is torturing and killing his victims out of hatred, is he unconsciously expressing love?

If so, then I think you are trying to destroy the notion of love.

If God is all things, then how can you fail to choose God?

A person fails to choose God by failing to be conscious of God. That is, by failing to know God.

If God is all things, then to know and be conscious of God is to know and be conscious of *everything*.

That's right.

Who can have such knowledge but God?

The enlightened person is the consciousness of God. Jesus was both God and man.

Laird: how does causality operate outside of time?

Kevin: [...]It depends what you mean by "causality". There is causality in time, and there is logical causality in which time does not play a part. For example, the number 3 is caused by adding a 1 to the number 2.

And what of the cause of a universe which engulfs time as a property of itself, meaningless outside of that universe? (by "universe" here I do not necessarily mean "everything", merely "our self-contained bubble of space-time with its associated laws of physics").

Kevin: The world is made of "God stuff" only if you define "God" to be everything.

Laird: I understand that you define God that way.

Kevin: You are implying that you define the word "God" differently.

I am implying that because you hold the second part of your statement to be true, that you must therefore hold the first part to be true. In other words, that you must believe that the world is made of "God stuff".

Kevin wrote:What do you define [God] to mean?

I feel that we are going over old ground here but if so I will accede to repeating myself. I define God to be the answer to the ultimate paradox of reality: the answer to the mystery of uncausedness. As our scientific understanding of reality progresses, so does our understanding of what we mean by "God". Could it be that one day we will understand so much that there is no longer a mystery? I doubt it but it is possible. It is equally possible that in our complete understanding there is still room for the concept of "God". Finally, it is possible that complete understanding is beyond us, and that only that enigmatic concept that we refer to as God can fully comprehend reality.

Kevin: One may choose truth or untruth. By choosing truth one is said to be choosing God.

Laird: Also: one may choose conscious enactment of love or be subject to its unconscious expression anyway.

Kevin: Unless you define what you mean by "love" this is meaningless to the reader also.

I am astounded at your audacity in making this statement. You have twice before in two separate threads asked me to define love (and once since in a personal email), and I have done so. Alright, I accept that I tend to view the world through a more love-centric perspective than you do, and that it is perhaps harder for you to come to terms with it than it naturally is to me. But really Kevin, how many times and in how many situations are you going to ask me for a definition before finally realising that you have to do some work on your own to work out what I mean? I've given you enough clues. But OK, I am bound as Leyla points out to play the nice guy, so here I go again with more clues:

Kevin Solway wrote:For example, when a mass-murderer is torturing and killing his victims out of hatred, is he unconsciously expressing love?

I have already explained how this can be viewed as part of the evolution of love: it is the embodiment of the realisation that the self-satisfied enforcement of pain on other people is merely harmful to one's self; and this realisation permeates all those who come into contact with it, spurring them on to the opposite and more loving path.

Laird: Who can have such knowledge [of everything] but God?

Kevin: The enlightened person is the consciousness of God. Jesus was both God and man.

I like that way of looking at things.

--
Life is the process of learning how to love, which we already know.