In today's political climate, there is a great divide between some Conservatives and some Liberals, that have played out here on Gather, and everywhere else, with a lot of conflict over being right and/or wrong, where one side accuses, and the other reacts in defense ... some just call that "cognitive bias" ... others see it as bigotry ... I am not sure, maybe I will have to Google the terms.
The one thing that stands out the most, is the "polarization" ... and I believe that is the result of unfair judgment where mere discernment would be more than sufficient.
When one person decides they are right and another is wrong, that is but a discernment, a personal subjective decision ... until it is acted out and affects the other person, the one considered wrong, in a negative way, such as a condemnation declaration ... that being an "expressed" judgment and a de facto "sentencing" ...
There would be no reaction by the second party, a natural defense, if they did not reject the initial judgment of the first party, so it comes down to action followed by reaction, cause and effect ... sometimes ad-infinitum.
Too many people feel they have the only truth on things, then, when another does not fit their example of what truth should be, the other is criticized, maybe even considered or called untruthful ...
There is only ONE TRUTH that could be considered Absolute, and that would be associated only with the best concept of God. All other concepts of truth would be but a fraction of the ONE (1) as in 1/x ... and would thus be "at best" relative truths, relative to other x's on the same (or different) level(s), but never FULLY equivalent to the (1). ... except ... for what I call the Basic Equation of Truth, the BET as (+=-) which IS UNIVERSAL TRUTH, that of God ! THE Absolute Truth ... IMnsHO.
So that might be stated, that there is no real truth but God's truth ... and it is God in the form of a Trinity relationship that makes up the Creation that IS God ... (+=-) where the complete "outer" unity of God would be defined by the pair of parentheses ( ), within which is contained every possible potential, (+) and (-), separated by, yet completely conjoined by, the Spirit of God (=), the equalizer of opposites, non-judgmental, yet fully discerning and karmically accounting ... (+=-) being the BET.
Short of THAT TRINITY (+=-), which results in peaceful cooperative harmony of natural diversities resulting in win/win synergy, we have but Dualism (+/-), which amounts to a judgmental dichotomy of conflicts where there is supposedly only one good and right, making all else less, bad and wrong ... of course that "naming" so often begins with the "righteous" labeling of the others BY the one the most militant about being right ... the way of our world today and getting worse it seems.
So in the end, we can rightly label as a tool for discernment, but should never be judgmental about it such that it insults and causes hard feelings ... anybody can be, say, a liberal or a conservative rightly and truthfully, it is no different than being a man or a woman, they are just facts of life and are nothing to be ashamed about or guilty of requiring defensiveness and conflict over ... let us instead find our natural Spiritual common ground in the middle (=) and work it all out based upon just that, agreeing to disagree if needed, but cooperating when we can for the synergy we are capable of and which God intends for us all ... Peace.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 62
Libramoon C.: Exchanging of ideas and consideration of differing views is the essence of a real intelligent mind. Unfortunately, as I point out above, our partisan political system (although it has worked well most of the time in our history) discourages this sort of thing in favor of creating intellectual conflict and a resulting power vacuum which can be exploited by special interest groups. That is why we have an actual oligarchy instead of a true democracy. Our aims have been laudable and high but realization of those aims has been sadly lacking, alas.
That is not quite true Donald, Bush's support crumbled when we found out he lied us into a illiegal and unnecessary war with a country that did us no harm what so ever.
I think the divide between Liberal and Conservitive is because no one seems to know what a Liberal or a Conservitive is. I have been called a Lib, Liberal, Conservatve, Bushite, Right wing, Left wing and a few names I don't care to repeat.
However I have never changed my stance and shall not. I am a Constitutionalist and a RON PAUL REPUBLICAN.
The American people...and the Congress...supported the decision to attack Iraq because we were fed a line of total BS by Bush and his gang. I wish the Democrats running for Congress or (in Hillary's case) President would quit trying to rationalize their error in voting to approve the war. All they need to say is, "We believed Bush and he lied to us."
Now if the bickering stops we might insist on a much better government and go back to for the people by the people and what would the big business' do so best to keep us fighting amongst ourselves.
Imagine how an ant would interpret the actions of a human being that decides to remove the lone little creature from harm's way.
Bent, thanks :-) As for what the ant might think ? I could only guess, but I suspect it would be the rare ant that would think it an act of love or kindness and not fear the move greatly ... but then, maybe ants are more understanding of such things than most people ???
This is a great topic and all I want to do in the following comment is to provide some info that I looked up in an e-Thesaurus to provide some information to add to your classifications of both 'completeness' and 'dualism'. In order to understand better the political ideas of both 'conservatism' and 'liberalism' , common ideas may provide ''start-off points. . You know that I am a grateful lover of both GOOGLE and WIKIPEDIA and Dictionary-Thesaurus information for trying to better understand and enlighten key contrasts which you have provided us. As our human race proceeds, progress toward deep insights and conversations that matter must develop to raise consciousness between another dualism: "anger and joy".
Thanks, as usual,
Dick
>> Stoic |st-ik|
she accepted her sufferings with remarkable stoicism patience, forbearance, resignation, fortitude, endurance, acceptance, tolerance, phlegm. antonym intolerance.
noun
1 a person who can endure pain or hardship without showing their feelings or complaining.
2 ( Stoic) a member of the ancient philosophical school of Stoicism.
adjective
1 another term for stoical .
2 ( Stoic) of or belonging to the Stoics or their school of philosophy.
ORIGIN late Middle English : via Latin from Greek stïkos, from stoa (with reference to Zeno's teaching in the Stoa Poikil or Painted Porch, at Athens).
==========
>> Liberal
Dictionary
ORIGIN Middle English : via Old French from Latin liberalis, from liber 'free (man).' The original sense was [suitable for a free man,] hence [suitable for a gentleman] (one not tied to a trade), surviving in liberal arts. Another early sense [generous] ( compare with sense 4 ) gave rise to an obsolete meaning [free from restraint,] leading to sense 1 (late 18th cent.).
====
Thesaurus
adjective
1 the values of a liberal society tolerant, unprejudiced, unbigoted, broad-minded, open-minded, enlightened; permissive, free, free and easy, easygoing, libertarian, indulgent, lenient. antonym narrow-minded, bigoted.
2 a liberal social agenda progressive, advanced, modern, forward-looking, forward-thinking, progressivist, enlightened, reformist, radical. antonym reactionary, conservative.
3 a liberal education wide-ranging, broad-based, general.
4 a liberal interpretation of divorce laws flexible, broad, loose, rough, free, general, nonliteral, nonspecific, imprecise, vague, indefinite. antonym strict, to the letter.
5 a liberal coating of paint abundant, copious, ample, plentiful, generous, lavish, luxuriant, profuse, considerable, prolific, rich; literary plenteous. antonym scant.
6 they were liberal with their cash generous, openhanded, unsparing, unstinting, ungrudging, lavish, free, munificent, bountiful, beneficent, benevolent, bighearted, philanthropic, charitable, altruistic, unselfish; literary bounteous. antonym careful, miserly.
=========
Thesaurus
>> Conservative
adjective
1 the conservative wing of the party right-wing, reactionary, traditionalist; Republican; Brit. Tory; informal redneck. antonym socialist.
2 our more conservative neighbors may object to the modern architecture being proposed traditionalist, traditional, conventional, orthodox, old-fashioned, dyed-in-the-wool, hidebound, unadventurous, set in one's ways; moderate, middle-of-the-road, buttoned-down; informal stick-in-the-mud. antonym radical.
3 he wore a conservative blue suit conventional, sober, modest, plain, unobtrusive, restrained, subtle, low-key, demure; informal square, straight. antonym ostentatious.
4 a conservative estimate low, cautious, understated, moderate, reasonable.
noun
liberals and conservatives have found common ground right-winger, reactionary, rightist, diehard; Republican; Brit., Tory.
==========
>> Enlightened
adjective
without a free press there cannot be an enlightened people informed, well-informed, aware, sophisticated, advanced, developed, liberal, open-minded, broad-minded, educated, knowledgeable, wise; civilized, refined, cultured, cultivated. antonym benighted.
And that, I think, demonstrates that one must be cautious, even in pursuing agreement, or compromise. There really are dishonest people in the world, and I mean seriously dishonest, not just run of the mill 'every human that ever lived' dishonest. Part of the problem with our system, and virtually any system, is that dishonest people already realize that most folks would like to find common ground, and they exploit that. If they want to get something, they just ask for double, and accuse their adversary of being unwilling to compromise, when they are not met half way. One must therefor, not wed themselves to compromise, in a dogmatic sense, or they invite corrupt dealings.
There is no simple solution possible, because some are truly "evil", and many don't want to acknowledge that. So, those opposing them are forced to begin with an extreme position too, in an attempt to avoid looking uncompromising to those many who just assume that halfway is a good compromise. We're so far into that reality now, that the truth is rarely spoken, and just about everyone is "spinning" just about all the time.
And this way of dealing has been taken up by many who discuss issues with that same tactical approach. Honesty has become a "weakness" in public discourse, and is often pounced on, rather than appreciated. Often, the person pouncing doesn't even realize their "opponent" is being honest, but simply assumes they have out foxed them, and grows more extreme and demanding.
Only occasionally, this being only the second time I recall of, in two years, that I will lose any sleep over Gather relationships. Each of these times being when people I like, and have called a friend, have seemed to turn on me in personal ways, away from the relationship that I thought we had had, and which I have tried hard to work within as a Gather friendship.
This most recent one actually fits the title of this here article, though the experience had no bearing, nor relationship, to this article when it was written from my mind. The other "relationship" that I lost a bit of sleep over, that happening relatively recently also, is still ongoing, though on a bit of touch and go contention of sorts yet ... this one though, that I am commenting upon here, demands this comment ... in part because some of the people we know in common might be interested, and in part because I would prefer to "salvage" whatever "relationship" I thought I might have once had with this individual if possible, and most of all, because it fits so well within the subject of this here thread ... besides, it has become so contentious now, with claims of lying being charged against me ... something I am so very much against, the "untruths" of any side, especially mine, that this needs some "airing out" IMnsHO ...
First off, I will mention what is a sort of "dis-claimer" that I always attempt to include in my comments, because the first guy I mentioned, that I lost sleep over, taught me to include long ago, the "In My [not so] Humble Opinion" (IMnsHO) ... which I use to denote that THAT IS the way I "see" the issue mentioned ... NOT THAT it is an absolute declaration of incontrovertible "fact" ... "just my" opinion, but NOT a humble one ... because if I was as humble as many think I should be, about my mostly "Spiritual" declarations (the humbleness that all have been brainwashed to expect that spiritual people such as Jesus and the Dali Llama are "supposed to" exhibit) I might as well just keep my silence and live in a dark cave and be just a "wall flower" there ... which would mean that I would be "hiding" my message (out of extreme humbleness) to humanity ... never getting enough attention to be able to pass it on ... and "this" being a message of peace that this world need these days, I believe that to get into another "ones face" is more effective in getting the attention needed to pass "the word," than hiding out "in humbleness" would a accomplish.
So ... for the purpose of the "comparative nature" of this "lesson," as it relates to this article, I will call the more "conservative" of us two individuals here involved, "B" and the more "liberal" of us, "A" ...
[And in retrospect, this now being a later insert, after I wrote this whole comment, I saw that while I was calling the "other fellow" in this example the "B," (because his name begins with B), I really "should" have used the opposite letter designations for the two of us, because "his" personality is really more "Type A" as in most "Agressive" ... but too late to change it all now, just thought I would mention it so the readers would be less confused ... hopefully]
[I also must add here in explanation, that all of this comment is more of a personal "record keeping" for me as to the totality of what I do here on Gather overall, meaning that it is NOT all that useful to the casual reader here ... only for those dedicated to the deeper truths ... something "B" hates and stays clear of, saying that he never reads my articles. He also has deleted my comments to his threads before, causing me to repost them in a new article by me, explaining the complete story all about that. He also now "claims" that I am stalking him in effect, and lying about him ... I am doing neither, just expressing to him the repercussions of what comes from his own attitude of nasty and dismissive aggresiveness when action begs reaction ]
"A"(me) sought Gather friendship with "B" a long while ago, because he saw the potential of that friendship, in that "B" was a bit of a "seeming" conservative that seemed to want to be more liberal ... liberal being used here in the uncapitalized versions to denote dictionary definitions rather than political descriptors.
[this being different in that sense than the article title, yet the "two uses" (political and dictionary) do coincide anyway in reality, that being why the words are shared as they are]
In this case, I would classify "A"(me) as being politically, slightly left of center, and "B" (him) being slightly right of center "politically" ... and probably the same socially, using (the lower case letters of) "dictionary definitions" of the words liberal and conservative ... then, which for the purpose of "political" differentiation, I will use Lib and Con from now on here. [ later I mention that I combine both Lib/lib and Con/con]
My articles have historically claimed for two years now, that I see Cons as related to cons ... in that both are much more committed to a group of authorized leaders, and/or, authorities, who they seem to prefer to trust to get behind for their protection, advice, and especially "direction," as in the "commanding" of an unquestioned following of trust and loyalty ... a more hierarchical "social" structure ... what I have called in it's extreme forms, approaching narrow mindedness, something that comes from being afraid ... especially of change ... sort of a "fortress" mentality of the self requiring protection from the opposite mind set who is deemed the enemy, that usually being the Lib/libs.
It is then, by default usually, that the Lib/libs become defensive first, based upon what they see as unfair charges by the Con/cons [(lets just now combine all of that into "A" and "B" from now on, because for all practical purposes it fits)] ... so "B"(him) charges "A" (me) and "A" counter charges in defense, which is then seen as an offense requiring a defense, which is seen as an offense (you get the picture), ad-infinitum ... like the Hatfields and the McCoys ... carried through generations ... much as the strife in the Balkans between the states of Kosovo and Serbia ... or between the settlers of America and the indigent natives ... !?!?
Anyway, that is what can eventually take place when extremes are carried to extremes ... and this is NOT what I want to take place in the world ... naturally because I, as an "A", would tend to be more of a "dove" and thus more likely to be the "victim" of the other, the "B", who would be in relative relationship, a "hawk" ... sort of like the Lions versus the Lambs, or Men versus the women ... get the picture ??
Thus in "this" case, of the very personal relationship of "A," who would like to be cooperative and even compromising if need be, a "peace maker" ... I am rejected by "B" who seeks to more "forcefully" seek to achieve his goals and purported "needs" ... (have his government kill all would be terrorists ?)
Me ("A"), by seeking a Spiritual middle ground, based upon love and forgiveness, if possible, because of my nature as an "A" ... and him the opposite (he prefers a conflict) as is his nature as a "B" ...
The main point being though, I suspect, that because he thinks that my spiritual claims requires humbleness and acquiescence on my part, as a self professed spiritual person, that when I exhibit the ns in between the IM and the HO (of IMnsHO), that I am being a lying "hypocrite" ... and I say NOT SO !
I am just being my natural self, in touch with my Spiritual Self, who says it is OK to react when acted upon, PROVIDED the main goal is to make the point of what goes around comes around, that to live by the sword means to die by the sword ... UNLESS peace is sought by someone first !!! (that being my intended "lesson")
So when these "natural" tendencies between the "A's" and the "B's" collide, as they so often do ... what is to be done ???
If the "B" is to have his way, the "A" must surrender to the "B" ...
If the "A" is to have his way, he is usually willing to compromise, though he prefers to not have to ... but he will seldom, if ever, completely surrender ... thus conflict it seems.
BUT ... taken to a higher more transcendent level of relationship with the INternal Spirit (INtuition) with the God withIN ... it would be the "A" that would be the more likely to take that route, due to the more likelihood of his natural nature "allowing" such a surrendering of the ego experience ... making that person then even willing to give up his earth-life for the cause of earth peace, knowing then that he had nothing to FEAR, because his future was eternal in the experience promised of unconditional love forever with God ...
On the "other hand", IF any form of spirituality is introduced, it is the "B's" that would be more likely to "require" a middle man Priest (religious authority) to lead, instruct, and tell them what any relationship should consist of to God, usually the God of Institutionalized dogma and creed ... that which traps the followers under the said leadership, keeping them subservient to that authority which actually prevents them from seeking the Spirit withIN that would be the Truth that would set them Free ... free from the limitations of type "B" thinking ...
So it is, IMnsHO, the objective ego self that causes most of the problems in our world, and the stronger the ego, the more dominant the person, the more type "B" they will be ... and the worst enemy of any egotistical person, is another ego that seems to challenge them ... the bigger the ego, the more willing that ego is to kill others to protect itself ...
I suspect that this has been enough to open an area of inquiry for some readers ... ??
I think I will now go catch up on my rest and get back to this later ... :-)
The comment I like best is from The Realist - Patriot at large.
There are too many concepts of 'God' for any truth to be agreed upon at that source.
I was expecting something quite different in an explanation about the differences between Liberal and Conservative.
I will skip around here a bit in acknowledgements, first, Thanks Liz, you have also said well, what I have long thought, and the more busy our world gets, the more "sound bite" inspired it will become, an outcome of our electronic communications industry it seems, along with the intensity of competition with others to accomplish more with the same amount of time that is seemingly a common limitation to each and all, most notably to the ultra ambitious and those the most greedy, attempting to amass a greater wealth for whatever reason, often rather negative reasons it seems in too many cases because of the unwillingness to invest back to the root causes of poverty and disparity amongst peoples..
Richard B., there may well be no fuss for some people that are comfortable with their place in society, possibly because they already practise some form of moderation and it works for them ... maybe then NOT caring very much for the "other" extremist considerations, feeling that "those" two sides of conflict just create their own realities and deserve each other ... there probably is a lot of truth in that, and one need not concern themselves with the problem when they have not contributed to it if they prefer not to ... so, well said, IF you are in fact one of the more balanced innocents in all of this. As for me, I am concerned about the overall problem and where it is trending, towards ever more polarization ... which at some point will suck in the middle also I believe ... I would prefer to help all people understand the fundamental basics of why this is happening so they can better see if they might want to modify their thinking and subsequent actions prior to it being too late for them ...
John, well said also, I agree with every word of it, based upon my own take of the meanings ... and I would hope that Ruth sees it "that" way also, as I assume she does. Thanks both of you !
Realist, my answer to you would then be, whether you "trusted" any other, or not, you would never be any more in danger than making a simple flip of the dice to determine your willingness or not to believe or go along with another ... life then being just a crap shoot anyway IF one did NOT believe in a truly non-judgmental God that relates to us all and will never allow anything to happen (no such things as accidents due to Karmic accounting) that is not for our and the universes greater good ...
The latter thinking, mine, being an intuitive connection direct to the spiritual source found withIN each of us, bypassing all "questionable" books and outside "authorities", most who are confused and others who often lie.
david W. your daddy was a very wise man ! What he told you was the basis of the BET (+=-) ! Highest Truth is a balanced mixture of all other relative truths !
And finally, Dick ... I really am extremely appreciative of your wise contribution here ... so well said and factual ... unbiased also ... the truth !
It is such participation as yours that I have always hoped for here on Gather (and everywhere) where people could contribute their knowledge towards a peaceful understanding of the issues that lie at the very base of so many problems.
I myself spent much of life looking for solutions to mine and world problems, beginning at the most obvious place of recognition of said problems, the very place they directly impacted me personally and the place and time where they hurt me the most. But I found that that always seemed to travel in a more of a peripheral circular outer circumference type route, just always intersecting with other problems and never seeming to really progress towards solving of any of them ... sort of like continually opening ever more cans of worms ...
That being the reason I eventually sought only the deepest truths of all such, and I was then led intuitively to the fundamental basis, the very essence of all problems, the dualistic nature of how we look at so much ... and how the common spiritual 3rd aspect of Trinity sheds light in that otherwise contentious darkness, allowing real understanding and a basis for building a meaningful and lasting peace based upon natural diversities becoming appreciated rather than condemned ...
Donald, Bert, and Col George, for what I did not jump into the middle of about what you are contending of each other, so much the better, thanks for contributing here anyway, each and all very wise also.
First, the person declares that they intend only good, and are against a given form of iniquity. Then, they condemn a group of people for committing that injustice. It looks like this:
I am for non-judgmentalism, and that is why [group X] is repugnant to me, they are judgmental.
I am for unity, and that's why [group X] is disruptive and worthy of condemnation, they are too exclusive.
I abhor hypocrisy, and that's why I can't stand [group X] , they are hypocrites.
People who claim they're way is right, are wrong..
I oppose those who lump others into groups based on some common characteristic, and don't treat people as individuals, guilty only of the "sins" they themselves commit, and people in [group X] are always doing that, so I oppose them.
Human beings in general are not capable of comprehending this form of hypocrisy (when they perform it), as hypocrisy, and so commit it frequently. They foolishly believe that if they say they are against a given form of behaviour, they are not susceptible to committing that very behaviour, by default. They think they're champions, fighting it.
If that previous comment was "aimed" at me as an accusation, just come out and say so, why beat around the bush ?
But without waiting for the reply from you, I will just say that it is more of your own hypocrisy in "supposedly" defending everybody while you condemn what I do ... maybe you can tell me how that differs from what you seem to be accusing me of ???
Me thinks that you are never happy unless you are fighting with someone, me in this case, for two years now.
What say you ?
I'm trying to point out a real problem, which many people have, being consistent, and therefor potentially effective, in dealing with what they see as one or another real injustice turned into a "they", whom are then seen as "the problem". As I said;
"When one tries to point it out, one is seen as accusatory, and not listened to seriously, often."
You calling me hypocritical is precisely the sort of thing I meant. I am trying to get folks to comprehend hypocrisy, and how it can become a habit among the very folks who believe they are fighting it. Please think about the actual nature of hypocrisy, and perhaps get into a discussion about how it actually works. That's what I'm good at; looking at the actual.
If you are considering that I am being a hypocrite (you have not yet, even though I asked, come right out and said what is really on your mind), then I would suggest that you are that ... along with being sanctimonious and Pharisaic ... in other words, yours is a pious cant. IMnsHO.
If it is not permitted to examine how hypocrisy actually works, without being accused of doing something wrong, how on earth will people learn to avoid being hypocritical? You throwing yourself in front of what I said is not a good start to examining the nature of hypocrisy. Perhaps you could start again? Perhaps you could look at what I actually said?
Anyway, I only lost sleep that one time over him, and now that I commented about it, he is just history.
But that "other" guy I mentioned seems determined to give me some insomnia tonight.
I really tried to be "neutral" with my wording, as far as I could without destroying any relevance to typical forms I witness regularly. Your article asks a question, and I am trying to further the development of a meaningful answer. While you know darn well I see some of your statements as hypocritical at times, I did not feel that way about the vast majority of your article here. Still, I think it is a big part of why the "divide" you allude to flourishes, and feel it is "on topic" and serves to help understand how that divide stays wide, despite many on both sides whom genuinely wish it would narrow.
"there is no human on earth that isn't a hypocrite at one time or another"
I can think of no better reason to begin to take it seriously, and openly discuss how it functions in the mind that has fallen into it. If we all are liable to fall into a trap, I think it wise to learn how to avoid or escape it, as best we can.
A human can't learn about hypocrisy? Someone that learns how hypocrisy functions in the mind can't better avoid doing it?
I don't believe either of those concepts are even vaguely realistic.
John, OK, that is a "better" beginning ... I just couldn't relate to the term "hypocrisy" in regards to the article or my comments as far as I am/was concerned.
What's on your mind ?
If I understand the point of your article, you are describing attitudes and behavior that could be illustrated in the following hypothetical comments:
"I am totally against violence and I'll beat up anyone who is for it."
"I am totally against censorship and anyone who is favor of it should be silenced."
"We should all be free to believe whatever we like, as long as it is based on Christianity and the Bible."
"People should have complete and total freedom, as long as certain conditions and restrictions apply."
I think certain oxymorons would also be helpful.....Such as:
Liberal Conservative
or
Atheistic Deitism
or
Open-Minded Censorship
or
Peaceful War
I haven't followed your deliberations with each other carefully enough to feel confident that what I have planned to say in this present comment will serve any essential purpose. I must say up front John that I know that I understand Jerry's likely position better than I do yours.
I have tried for many years to explore -- privately -- the deep meanings of MYSTICISM and have read much about this historical (psychological, philosophical) factually defensible position from many points of view. I think that Jerry's position and yours hinges meaningfully on linking the ideas of a (desirable and truth seeking mystical) proper perspective onto a pragmatic one. As I see mysticism it is a TRUTH SEEKING effort rather than a TRUTH KNOWING accomplishment. Since our Earth is finite, think of mystical experiences as reaching out to TRULY GRASP the essential meanings by looking closely at the linkages between the infinite view and the finite view of 'things and thoughts'. The notion of CREATIVITY is at the core of knowledge acquisition that strives to know the ABSOLUTE truth. EARTH(LING) truths are ever dynamic and changing -- but for the MYSTIC, s/he is ever bolstered by the SELF-knowledge that to honor the idea of GODLINESS in deliberations about Earth truths is the essence of the TRUTH by which each and every human being must strive to live-by if life is to be worth living on our blessed planet. (Serious questions about Earth survival must grasp us soon or we ALL may disappear in the hazardous days ahead.)
In such a present and future world, no one would ever want to be a hypocrite or -- for that matter -- a sceptic. As I see the word 'hypocrite' it suggests to me that the person who exemplifies such a HYPOCRITICAL state of being is within the grasp of the major conflicting dualism (Truth seeking vs Falsity creating). Such a person -- deep within such a intelligent and striving SELF -- KNOWS (properly) that there is no simple pragmatic TRUTH (i.e. Things and Thoughts are ever changing) and can thus argue 'this or that' with a sense of 'so what'). In some real sense this reality, semantically, now makes the HYPOCRITE a legitimate SCEPTIC (as I see the differences in the two characterizations). Skepticism provides a legitimate scientific method of inquiry : ALTERNATIVE VIEWS GENERATION, in the eternal quest for better answers for important questions.
The thought full HYPOCRITE (e.g. Sceptic) has likely explored all the many, many alternative views and concludes that it is OK to differ with an idea expressed by another person (in a joint quest for a better view, most oftentimes). Alternative hypotheses always provide ways to explore ANY complex issue. Given any real issue it is necessary to 'ring around the issue' with as many relevant perspectives as one can garner up into the debate. [ I personally made many friends and enemies when I was young on just such paths. Looking always to this way, and that way, and another way, and so on and on.].
The MYSTIC too is a SCEPTIC, but never a HYPOCRITE (if the formative experience has TRULY been mystical. But it must always be noted that there is the TRUTH SEEKING instinct in the MYSTIC who KNOWS -- from her/his experiences that there is a 'MORE THAN', and -- most importantly -- that there is a GOD (i.e. an infinite-eternal presence and guide). So in some sense the MYSTIC is in a bind, wanting ALL persons to be both Infinite and Finite simultaneously. This is the Jerry contribution as I see it : (+= -). The Holy Ghost in the middle of the Infinite GOD Consciousness and the Finite HUMAN Consciousness, trying always to reconcile key intellectual and emotional differences
May GOD love you both, and may you always love one another. Thanks for my opportunity to intrude.
Dick
In the previous comment I have used key words about descriptions of persons: (1) Hypocrites, (2) Skeptics, (3) Mystics. Here below are the thesaurus-Dictionary definitions that I think may add substance to present and future IMPORTANT discussions.
I've added one additional word that I did not use because it seemed to me NOT to be too relevant : (4) cynic. But it is worth noting generally in debates that attempt to link the meanings of the infinite to the finite realistically and psychologically.
Dick
=============
(1)hypocrite
noun
I've been made to feel inadequate my whole life by someone who turns out to be a total hypocrite pretender, dissembler, deceiver, liar, pietist, sanctimonious person, plaster saint; informal phony, fraud, sham, fake.
(2)skeptic |skeptik| ( Brit. sceptic)
noun
1 a person inclined to question or doubt all accepted opinions.
• a person who doubts the truth of Christianity and other religions; an atheist or agnostic.
2 Philosophy an ancient or modern philosopher who denies the possibility of knowledge, or even rational belief, in some sphere.
The leading ancient skeptic was Pyrrho, whose followers at the Academy vigorously opposed Stoicism. Modern skeptics have held diverse views: the most extreme have doubted whether any knowledge at all of the external world is possible (see solipsism ), while others have questioned the existence of objects beyond our experience of them.
(3)mystic |mistik|
noun
a person who seeks by contemplation and self-surrender to obtain unity with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or who believes in the spiritual apprehension of truths that are beyond the intellect.
adjective
another term for mystical .
ORIGIN Middle English (in the sense [mystical meaning] ): from Old French mystique, or via Latin from Greek mustikos, from musts 'initiated person,' from muein 'close the eyes or lips,' also 'initiate.' The current sense of the noun dates from the late 17th cent.
(4) cynic
noun
he was a cynic who deflated all the hopeful aspirations of his children skeptic, doubter, doubting Thomas; pessimist, prophet of doom, doomsayer, Cassandra, Chicken Little. antonym idealist, Pollyanna.
No, the kind of thing I'm trying to relate has nothing to do with skepticism or mystics, just very poor reasoning and behaviour. Berf speaks of it quite directly, and perhaps if you reread her comment, and my second in this thread, you will see the thing more clearly. I don't think there is any point in getting overly sophisticated about it, and that may very well make it impossible to approach as an actual occurrence. Berf perhaps caught it most simply with this hypothetical;
"I am totally against censorship and anyone who is in favor of it should be silenced."
What I'm saying is that people are packing such self contradictory declarations in all sorts of blither blather, and passing it off it as justification for attacking others. The difficulty Jerry seems to be asking about, relating to opposing camps and such, often appears virtually intractable, I'm saying, cause many people can't detect such irrationality in themselves.
"This is one of the reasons why our kind of life form is designed to be able to communicate with a higher "authority."
Well, I agree we are designed to be able to communicate with a "higher authority", but that's only because we are designed to communicate. It's not that we have any sort of "radio" like capacity, it's that He is aware of what we're thinking, and can interact with it at will. He comes to us, we do not "go" anywhere, I don't believe. If He ain't on the line, we are talking to ourselves.
John, in thinking I know you as I do (the little people in my head) due to two years of experience with you, based upon your initial words about hypocrisy, I could not remember the basis of the word in the thread requiring it's discussion, so naturally I assumed it was a veiled insinuation that I was exercising it on this thread, that seeming to me an accusation unfounded in my opinion ... thus to save time I expressed my concern as I asked for clarification. I eventually got some clarification, enough to continue and I then asked "what's on your mind ?" At this moment I am still not sure, but I could guess ... I always try to seek the bigger picture, to "guess" about the potentials so as not to miss anything in the deliberation towards highest truth in all matters, objective AND subjective.
The major difference between myself and most "normal" people, is that I have had personal and extremely profound subjective (mystical and spiritual) experiences to the degree that I highly value such subjectivity, often over objectivity, especially that which denies subjective values such as mine.
As for : "I am totally against censorship and anyone who is in favor of it should be silenced."
I would agree that that is a wonderful example of what you would call hypocrisy ... but I see nowhere in this thread, prior to BERF's introduction of it, a similar example to address, but I may well have missed something, but surely NOT in my own expressions. But I would be more than happy to have such pointed out to me if I am guilty ... but directly and specifically issue by issue rather then vague inference ...
Donald and Dick ... I REALLY APPRECIATE your inputs to this, they are very intelligent and wise additions to the thread, I honour you both because of your seeming neutrality, which to me is what being truly spiritual is all about.
In my own "spirituality", I used to really miss being able to share it with others, sometimes seeking out like thinkers by investigating certain groups of folks that "seemed" (at first) to share similar interests ... but I was always greatly disappointed because in the "group" settings I came across, it always turned out to be a bunch of egos vying for dominance of who was the "more" of something, then the usual "followers" who were seeming enthralled by the most vocal of the "more" person ...
So I moved into a relative no-where in the mountains and now connect via Gather instead of seeking in person, that/this works just fine for me, because I believe as Jesus said " If two or more connect in my name, I will be there" ... that always working IMnsHO because I see Christ as the SPIRIT that connects those of us that would allow, that being a part of the ubiquitous "Mind of God" to me ...
But I must say, that if I were to ever select two people that I would most want to meet face to face physically to discuss such matters with that which we attempt to do here, it would be you Dick and Donald ... because of your infinite wisdom and mostly your lack of judgmentalism (which I think comes from the wisdom).
John, I would love to meet with you also, but maybe later, because at the moment I think there might be too much fireworks involved between us ... Gather being safer :-)
A quick response from me here. Unusual because, as you know, I always TRY to look at situations through many lenses, and that normally means long presentations and lots of time for a reader to read..
I have been attempting in the last few months to get a handle on PERSONAL human rights and to try to link the major ones up logically into a system perspective.. A few weeks ago I was listening to radio and a woman brought up a new phrase for me (and a few million other listeners too, I presume). She used the term "SOCIETAL rights".
Translating --as I see the meaning there -- she meant that we human beings who are deeply wedded to the notion of "our personal rights" had to realize that "our group rights UNIVERSALLY (worldwide)" are getting ever more important for our COLLECTIVE (linked) futures. [Think gasoline, heating oil, food, water, housing, health, travel, education, etc]. Those needed linkages suggest the dire ubiquitous need to 'get along with one another and to sacrifice and relate, at times, our personal needs for societal needs. It means adding into our educations and behaviors a significant 'dash' of common responsibilities -- among which may be a comnmon AUTHENTIC concern for ALL others on OUR planet.
LIFE has few simple TRUTHS in it. Complexity (and thus research and breadth of thought) have major roles to play. There really is very little that is SIMPLE for human beings in thoughts OR behaviors -- as I see the future!!
Dick
I did not mean to imply that none of what you spoke of has relevance to the matter I raised, for I think it did, but rather; the approach you took was not conducive to discussing the sort of "double-talk" I was attributing much of the rancor between "factions" such as Jerry alludes to in this article. Your recent comment is, I feel, closer to the mark, and perhaps I can use it to illustrate my point better.
Therein you speak of two forms of "rights". One, you speak of, as what is generally accepted as "rights", and another, as a new or "evolutionary" form of "rights". I am saying that such delineations themselves are an impediment to sound reasoning, for they distract from the actual matters of contention, and create a secondary conflict about whether one is "stuck in the past", or "willing to be open-minded", and so forth.
Consider; If one was in the Soviet Union three decades ago, the concept of "societal rights" would be spoken of generally, as the entrenched view, and "individual rights" as the new and "evolutionary" view. Yet, there was of course, a time when the concept of "societal rights" was seen as the needed "evolutionary" step (literally embodied in the term "Socialism"), and "personal rights" were considered the impediment to progress. I am proposing that such characterizations are themselves part of the problem Jerry is ostensibly dealing with in this article.
The "game" of characterizing one viewpoint as "evolutionary" can be carried on, in the realm you mention, by declaring that a "balance" of these two conceptual forms of "rights" is needed, and evolutionary; but that, I say, is nothing more than further reaction ism, and the attempt to establish another rhetorical solution, to what is not a rhetorical problem at all. We can trundle off debating the saving graces of "balance", versus the evil trap of "extremism", and thereby transform the matter into another oppositional, and meaningless war of words and ideas, but never actually approach the actual problems confronting actual human beings.
If one was successful in establishing the notion of "balance" as the generally accepted solution, then "debate" would center around who's view was more balanced, and one could enter the "public discussion" as the visionary, by simply focusing on aspects which are not amenable to a "balanced approach", such as say; matters of personal taste, such as in music or clothing styles, or haircuts, wherein "conformity" can be rhetorically set up as the impediment to our "evolution", and "individuality" is portrayed as our needed remedy to our troubles.
This reactionary rhetorical gamesmanship has no end, and has become the thing we actually fight about, with the combatants striving to out-define their opponents in realms of ideas and words, wherein picking the appropriate linguistic stance, swamps real life perception and interaction. So, if one is "against the war", one becomes a bundle of presumed opinions and interests which the listener associates with those so inclined, and the beat goes on. Unfortunately, in the real world, of real live human beings, so do the wars.
The idea of my defining the polarization that does exist, and does seem to me, to be getting worse world wide rather than better, does require the recognition of the problem first before it can be realistically expected to be solved ... it is in my view about dualistic thinking, solved by trinity thinking rather than monistic thinking. Very simple when understood.
It does NOT necessarily hold that suggesting that dualists come together towards a center balance point involving some peace overall, will ONLY make for even more arguments as you are seeming to claim.
Whatever it is that you seem to be complaining about, I fail to see where you suggest a "better" solution ... in fact I fail to see where you suggest a solution at all. But then maybe you see no problem in the way things are ... ?
You are the most dualistic person I have ever met. You define EVERYTHING dualistically, as opposites that need resolving. You create the problem of dualism, which your "philosophy" declares a wrong way to see things, and then propose a solution which is nothing more than inventing a midpoint between those invented opposites. You are building a linear world around your own beliefs, which places you at the center of everything. There is no linear world, it's just the illusion generated by a human mind, which is, like all human minds, incapable of containing or generating realistic, non-hyper-simplified representations of real things.
The things in the mind are not real, nor do they appear real, or possess the qualities of real things. Look at an image in your mind, and that will be readily apparent; It flickers and waivers and fades. We can only regenerate very simplistic things, in an ongoing sense, such as linear projections. You coming up with some words that consistently produce what to you are "steady" images and ideas, indicates that you have simplified all of it, to the point where a human mind can return over and over to the same (to it) things within.
None of it has anything whatsoever to do with me. Just your hyper-simplified images and ideas of me. You thinking that is not true, has nothing to do with me either. It's just you, farting around in your imagination. That's why NONE of your diatribes ever proposes anyone actually DO anything at all, besides adopt your words and images. This is really nothing more than the childish notion that if everyone saw the world as oneself, we would all get along just fine.
That is all very evident to me, simply based upon the words you keep writing where you attempt to tell me what it is that I think, while you deny me the ability to decipher what you think ...
It is you John, that denies the interconnectivity of our minds via Gods Spirit, as you claim all such mind considerations are strictly self-contained, completely untrustworthy, imaginations, as if consisting of "little people", only made up (envisioned) and trapped in only our own mind (which you evidently relate only to the objective "brain").
Maybe you can tell me John, how you think that you know so much more about all of this, and how I know so little, according to you.?. Never mind bothering to tell me again how you think I know so little, you have already done that hundreds of times, but please, PLEASE tell me how you really know that you know more and better ... please ... I await ...
And to the best of my recollection, I try very hard to answer your questions of me ... only to be charged by you of not doing so ... makes me wonder John if you are only here to cause conflict ... ?
But then, life would sure be boring without you, and my threads so much shorter ... :-)
"It is you John, that denies the interconnectivity of our minds via Gods Spirit"
And if that were true, why would it not be just as valid a position as believing such interconnection does exist? YOUR "philosophy" supposedly grants that the "subjective" aspects of the mind, are just as valid for one as another, does it not? What the hell happened to me being encouraged to listen to myself, to search my deeper intuition and spiritual understanding, and not be swayed by folks like you?
. . . Well, I think what you meant, is folks like "them". You virtually beg people to listen to YOUR religious concepts, each and every day here.
So, which is it?? Seek and trust our own highest intuition?
Or trust yours?
Of course I believe we are interrelated on all sorts of levels in all sorts of ways. And, within that incredibly complex array of relations, may very well be some feeble "ESP" style connectedness. We are, nonetheless, linked in vastly more blatant and potent ways, and not the least of which is the one you now scan with your real world eyes. We can speak! We can translate internal conscious experience into sounds (or their proxy), and cause others to understand what we see, or imagine, with some degree of precision. To get all concerned about how much of those conveyances are actually being handled by the obvious physical/mental channels, and how much is being mystically beamed to us through some slight ESP type capacity, is not worth ten minutes thought or worry. Let alone the thousands of hours the average human will waist trying to pin a tail on that donkey.
What we get, is what we get. It doesn't MATTER whether 4% or 40% comes over the ether you suppose, and wishful thinking won't change a thing. What we get to work with, is not dissectable into discreet definable categories of data, it's ALL mushed and woven together, before ever we realize it exists. And we, including you, mess up all the time. We get, what we get. I say, we all need to shun pride.
You turning belief of some vast collective consciousness into an 18th century style test of True Faith, is your trip, not mine.
Now if you were honest with me, yourself, and others who read these threads, you would KNOW that when I ask someone to listen to me, what I am asking them to do is to value and use their OWN INtuition, "that" being the main thrust of my message, always ... that being their direct INternal connection to God through their own Soul ... I have even asked that you actually pray for guidance on this matter, sure that if you had the connections you claim in that regard, that you would be given the truth and it would require you to agree with me ... it is obvious that you have not. :-)
PS ... I would still like an answer to "that" question earlier.
Now go ahead and deny that, if you dare ... prove what I already know about you.
Chew on this (simple-complex) thought : the mystical experience DOES create a DUALISM.
But it is a dualism that points to the great human need. That need is to find ONENESS in learning to know that there is to be an eternal 'gap' between us human beings as both persons AND god(desse)s. That's what enlightening FAITH is all about! That is what science is finally coming to understand as I see the meaning of the CUP (Creating Universal Process) which past sciences have characterized as Natural Law versus the (non) anthropomorphic vision of a human-like GOD-HEAD (e.g. think of the angers generated in unsophisticated discussions of INTELLIGENT DESIGN).
Eternal uncertainty will remain with us humans forever while we think FINITELY (without GOD) and only INFINITELY when we learn HOW to think about GOD (and affiliated GODHEAD) and the Infinite, as GAP CLOSERS. In mathematical and logical set theory terms any finite number is INCLUDED within the infinite set of numbers. The INFINITE SET 'swallows' all FINITENESS and thus? -- no dualism.
The INFINITE (MYSTICAL) view is that which 'swallows up' the FINITE (PRAGMATIC) view and the MYSTIC sees the non-dualism (ONENESS) when s/he understands the TRINITARIAN VIEW (CUP, Son, Holy Spirit) and the need to over-arch and put properly into position those issues that derive from a pragmatic assessment of MATERIAL ISNESS!
God Bless,
Dick
"John, without reading your comment twice for any missed meaning, you now seem to depart from your usual diatribe of "no interconnection of minds", all thoughts being completely untrustworthy little people in ones head, never having the slightest meaning outside of there ..."
No Jerry, the inconsistency appears because you are comparing YOUR images about what I "must have" been saying, with the words you see before you. In reality, I have explained much the same position on the matter a few times before to you. And though tracking them down in comments would be incredibly time consuming, I did so once in an article I wrote on this precise subject; Sympathetic Magic
This is the ending paragraph in a comment I made to you there;
"But again, as I told Liz, I think it's action and understanding that really matter most, and these "details" of how we might effect one another, or some field or whatever, are of little importance. If my clear and virtuous thoughts and feeling somehow effect others on some such level, cool. If not, so be it. I'm going to try to be wise and good regardless, and speak the truth as best I can. It's all I can do to keep up with that, I see no reason to spend my time attempting any sort of "mind meld" stuff, at least till I see some evidence it really exists, and isn't just some indecipherable byproduct of the functioning of consciousness itself."
Your response begins so;
Thanks John for the thorough explanation. It is surely a natural belief that you are entitled to and though I 'could' say it is a bit restrictive for my taste . .
So the truth is, you have never been listening to me on these matters, at least since that moment, for all these absolute renunciations you speak of, have nothing to do with me. They are ideas that come from your own mind. You not only missed any "spiritual connection" to me, you missed the black and white real world connection too.
"Maybe you can tell me John, how you think that you know so much more about all of this, and how I know so little, according to you.?. Never mind bothering to tell me again how you think I know so little, you have already done that hundreds of times, but please, PLEASE tell me how you really know that you know more and better ... please ... I await ... "
Well, other than the obvious implications of the things I just spoke of, I would have to revisit any such situation as you seem to think occurred so many times, and see what was what. I don't disallow in any sense, that the next thing anyone says, may be brilliant, or inane or insightful or repetitious . . I just listen and wonder and all that useful stuff. I don't place "MY" self, above or below the idea of another self.
There is this notion of a competition of some sort, a comparison of simplistic identities, to garnish some sort of right to believe one could see error in the words of another . . . or something ?? Why on earth would I waste my time performing such fantasy duals? What point would there be in winning such a mock trial? I am a humble man, not a weigh-er of souls or minds. If you ask me to compare coffees, I'll give it a whack. Much beyond that, and each moment becomes a thing unto itself, like it really is, not comparable to any other moment's awareness. I have no way to see your reality as I see mine, it's a meaningless comparison at best.
I see all the views presented to me. I go where I please, I am a free man. I am not a mystic, or a pragmatist. I see no dualism or trinitarianism or qaudranarism. I observe without presumption or "package".
I am not a Christian because anyone told me to be, or it seems like a good philosophy, or attitude, or worldview. I asked a God I did not believe existed, in all honesty and humility, to remove my doubt of His existence if He willed it. He willed it, and demonstrated beyond any rational doubt that He heard me, and could see into the most intimate of my thoughts and senses, at will. He did things such that real world events reflected things only I could know, only I had any awareness of. He did it numerous times. And He did it in relation to that Book, most pointedly, and precisely. SOMETHING made an incredibly strong "recommendation" that I take that Book very seriously. I have made no choice in the matter, one does not say no to such a something.
Then I came to see the incredible nature of the Book. Whoever "authored" it, is completely out of my league, not human.
The sort of things you speak of are what they are to me, the words of a gentleman on the Internet. I think you're a very smart gentleman, but until you demonstrate something at least vaguely in the league of blatant supernatural powers, not the author of Truth. I think about what you write, and see order and logic in it, but it's just a man's order and logic, like mine. There is no way I could know such things as you propose are really true, without magical powers I simply do not have. I am just a man.
You ain't got nothing in there about something I know exists. You don't account for the reality I have witnessed. You have no "person" God. I have met that person. Honest, it's not easy to ignore such things.
I've just returned from a college graduation where one of my eighteen grandchildren has just received her college undergrduate degree (History). My wife passed on more than 25 years ago and never saw or knew this dear young person. I have seen for years my growing grand-daughter's growing interest in the meaning of LIFE and the WONDER of it all. She graduated with 2300 other youngsters that I suspect think and feel and quest to understand and love -- similarly.
After the ceremonies we went to an out of doors luncheon with about one hundred other persons and I was fortunate enough to 'find', later in the glorious sunny and warm afternoon a couple of New Yorkers who were presently living near the town where I spent a reasonably happy youth of my own. They were of three faiths, curiously, Jewish, Christian, and Muslim. We all had a spirited and most friendly converstion about trends in world affairs in these present days, and some concerns about the futures of personkind and notions about freedoms and responsibilities and intensive and extensive co-dependencies. We spent some time talking about three great prophets as PERSONS, not mystics : Moses, Christ, and Muhammed. The discussions were very friendly and spirited deliberations and full of emergent perspectives that added immeasurably to our greater interfaith understandings among the all of us. There can be no freedom for anyone without the support of similer (and articulated) beliefs with other presons who are integrally or remotely linked to each of us. Our GREAT BOOKS speak similarly and differently. As I experienced when in college : "at this time the questions about life and glory are still the same BUT the answers are always changing." Viva history and new insights as the Universe shifts and changes, with us thinking 'reeds' and 'minds' shifting and thinking too.
The setting yesterday was in a rather remote setting of glorious lakes, small mountains and blossoming trees, and barns and FARMS with lovely homesteads sprinkled here and there with the modern and far older buildings on the University campuses (many, many colleges). In all human lives, INTERDEPENDENCIES exist and will ever persist. No one is truly free -- and yet in this great land of ours -- many of us are free-enough to be able to say we are FREE. If however, one looks deeply, there really is no argument that says that I am or you are totally free. Nor should we wish to be TOTALLY free.
The food at the post-graduation party was just great. I didn't prepare one snip of the offerings that so delighted me as I ate. I didn't grow one vegetable. I didn't have anything to do with the construction of the facilities of the home I was visiting. I didn't teach any of the youngsters who were present. I had nothing to do with the garments that were worn by me or others. YET -- I felt FREE! Here with these few prior illustrations, I am simply trying to explain that it is only by the works of others, present and past (like my wife, my grandchild's never-known to her, grandmother) that my joys existed yesterday and my feelings were that I am, and have been, a free and happy man for most of my life (there were parts when I was not free, but under the dominant control of others). My war experiences made me aware of differences in the feelings of being or not being free. ORDERLINESS, and the awareness of MUTUAL DEPENDENCIES RECOGNIZED, moot and mooted the idea that I AM or was A TOTALLY FREE MAN, at least in the pure-philosophical sense. Quite to the contrary, in a pragmatic sense I, and you, are NOT FREE -- in some deeply pragmatic sense -- at all; we depend on the works and contributions and thoughts and actions of many other HUMAN BEINGS who will ever remain UNKNOWN to us. DESTINY CREATION, for me and you (and ALL Other human beings on our planet) , is largely the result of UNKNOWN forces that act upon our individual lives.
SO? Co-dependence sets the background for 'INDEPENDENT'- INTERDEPENDENCE where personal and societal rights and obligations must become enmeshed in a broad vision -- if you will -- of BOTH respect and affection. If not, this coming world of my beloved grand-daughter will not become the HEAVEN that it might become, and instead we will create a RAVEGED PLANET (we humans in today's world have the ability to do this) that seems on its way to REALLY becoming , unless we manage -- in an orderly way -- to find the CHANGE-METHODS to avoid a PLANETARY catastrophe.
FREEDOM is NOT a simple state of being as we presently understand it here in our United States. GRATEFULNESS is not exemplified and honered as it should be. WE must learn how to be FREE with LOVE to LOVE all divine WONDERS (things and thoughts) which lie at the basse of all PROMISING beingness.
AS I commented to one of my new Muslim friends yesterday who told me that he was becoming an atheist because ' GOD seemed to be creating so much despair and hurt and evil in today's world' : "It is only when we find out about that which we DO NOT want, that we find out what we DO want". Does that define a 'course of to be developed action' for each human being? With FREEDOM are we free to do evil or not, with no distinction?
Dick
Dick, you surely have "the" picture I attempt to pass on and you "say it" so much more eloquently than I am able !
John, I do follow everything you say also, very closely and to the best of my ability which is considerable ... especially in that I put so much more "faith" in the intuitive connections that you so blithely (and often vehemently) disregard as some worthless "slight and feeble form of ESP" ...
As for your own "faith" in the "The all powerful personal EXTERNAL God of THE Book" that has shown you what you claim ... well, that is YOUR faith and I maintain it is, as all things are under the GOD (not God) of MY view, a reality of our own "creative" construction ... as we think so shall it be ... (we being created in "The Image of" our Creator GOD or God and subsequently also creators in our own light ... secondarily to "His" ...
The "problem" between you and I John, is that you are still dualistic (+/-) and that being an ego prioritization that places you in your mind separate from all others yet having (in your mind) a personal relationship to "your" God of a very narrow and separate category also that you believe makes you "superior" to those who you think do NOT have what you claim for yourself ...
Thus you will NOT allow me (for one mere example, of which I am extremely aware) what I claim to be my own reality and it's being a potential valid reality to be shared by others ... NO, you deny any validity or value to what I offer, claiming you understand when you most surely do not, and then twisting my words and meanings in some kind of competition generated by you to feel superior while claiming that you are "just a man" and non-mystical as IF that were as good as it gets, that there was nothing "higher" to be offered (that which I call "transcendence") that you are NOT egotistical (when it is clearly evident that you are) as you claim that I am ... to an extreme.
It is your refusal to expand your own very limited (relatively speaking) "reality" to one actually higher, while you claim your own the highest and what I offer as less, that shows your ignorance and real position and condition associated with such relativities ... I would, and do, say, "your loss John" from a position of actual knowing what I speak of by experience ... the kind of experience that you still deal with, PLUS the transcendent mystical experience that puts it ALL INTO PERSPECTIVE ... you speak from a position of dualistic negativity (-) and claiming it the one and only positive (+) (good, to you) while you deny "my" positive(+) and CALL IT negative (-) as you seek one OVER the other REJECTING the other ... NO Spirit (=), ONLY VOID(s) (/) as in (+/-)>(+=-).
IF, and then WHEN, you ever come to truly understand, you also will come to know then that the TRUTH (Transcendent variety) is written this way: (+=-)>(+/-) !!!
Meanwhile you FOOL yourself with a LESSOR reality of your own choice and making ... and I always say: THERE IS SOMETHING FOR EVERYONE, TO EACH THEIR OWN ... ENJOY "yours" John ... but you can never deny me mine ... no matter how hard you try. :-)