Time for a change.
bigfl...@gmail.com
unto thee'.
How do I know?
Life told me.
BOfL
Immortalist
wrote:
Well, it would seem to work most of the time but one exception would
be, "in the beginning life created life..."
bigfl...@gmail.com
Not if you take into account that man created the concept of
beginning.
Look around. Life is constantly creating life.
I used to. I should get out more :-)
BOfL
I better be careful with this interpretation. Some may suggest Im
actually suggesting, by my sig....BOfG.
AAAAGGGHHHHHH...
zinnic
After the "beginning" energy "created" life.
Before the "beginning" did energy "create" energy?
Who knows, who knows? The Immortalist or as he claims, the BofL?
Art
wrote:
There are no beginnings and there's nothing that's not alive. Problem
solved :)
bigfl...@gmail.com
I suggest you ad art to the list.
Who knows? First you have to acknowledge at least the possibility of
knowing.
One of the laws of metaphysics states that a the mental projection of
a an individual has to be "right" in the mind of that individual. In
other words, if you believe that such questions have no answers, then
that is what you will experience. You will automatically reject
evidence to the contrary.
Two aspects that have covered this subject here are the "I see no
ships" experience of the first view of the natives when the first
fleets landed (here and the US), and of course, the whole subject of
quantum mechanics.
This was well understood befor the brain specialists recognised the
process of the former, and predated the whole subject of quantum
reality.
Of course, you dont see this...and by my own perception, you are of
course, right.
I also have experienced the shift from one view to another. Vey
painful initially. Its hard to let go of anything we hold onto,
including our 'comfort zone' perceptions.
In case I still have you attention, as I experienced more, I became
very grateful to have understood this principle. Otherwise what I
started to realize would have been intollerable.
Why am I mentioning this to 'thee who doesnt see the ships"?
Because somebody mentioned the principle to me when I was wrestling
with my attatchments.
ZerkonX
> "in the beginning life created life..."
"in the beginning life created god"
bigfl...@gmail.com
If you contemplate 'beginning' then there must have been a 'befor
beginning' and logically an 'after' ending.
There is nothing more preposterous than this perception.
Scientists and mathematicians who brilliantly theorise about big bangs
etc, always get stuck with a scenario where the laws of physics break
down.
Im sure to such brilliant people, the zen koan of angels dancing on
the head of a pin seems suitably analogical.
BOfL
zinnic
> On Tue, 20 May 2008 08:26:09 -0700 (PDT), zinnic <zeenr...@gate.net>
>
> - Show quoted text -
I see no problem in the inability of the part (humans) to encompass
the whole universe.
Your human concept of Eternal and Omniscient life does not escape
the confines of the Universe.
Zinnic
zinnic
wrote:
> On May 21, 1:26 am,zinnic<zeenr...@gate.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 20, 12:05 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 19, 5:12 pm, "bigflet...@gmail.com" <bigflet...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > Simply change the word Life for God, and all answers will be 'added
> > > > unto thee'.
>
> > > > How do I know?
>
> > > > Life told me.
>
> > > > BOfL
>
> > > Well, it would seem to work most of the time but one exception would
> > > be, "in the beginning life created life..."
>
> > After the "beginning" energy "created" life.
> > Before the "beginning" did energy "create" energy?
> > Who knows, who knows? The Immortalist or as he claims, the BofL?
>
> I suggest you ad art to the list.
Is'nt that a capital offence?
> Who knows? First you have to acknowledge at least the possibility of
> knowing.
No! firrst you have to come to agreement as to what it is to know (or
Know)!
> One of the laws of metaphysics states that a the mental projection of
> a an individual has to be "right" in the mind of that individual. In
> other words, if you believe that such questions have no answers, then
> that is what you will experience. You will automatically reject
> evidence to the contrary.
As usual you are playing with words. If I believe something then I do
not "automatically reject evidence to the contrary". I assess
whethether or not the new information is valid or not and then modify
(or not) my belief accordingly. Is'nt this what you do?
> Two aspects that have covered this subject here are the "I see no
> ships" experience of the first view of the natives when the first
> fleets landed (here and the US), and of course, the whole subject of
> quantum mechanics.
> This was well understood befor the brain specialists recognised the
> process of the former, and predated the whole subject of quantum
> reality.
> Of course, you dont see this...and by my own perception, you are of
> course, right.
MY concept of "right" in this i that my mind-set approximates more
closely to reality than does yours. It is as simple as that.
> I also have experienced the shift from one view to another. Vey
> painful initially. Its hard to let go of anything we hold onto,
> including our 'comfort zone' perceptions.
> In case I still have you attention, as I experienced more, I became
> very grateful to have understood this principle. Otherwise what I
> started to realize would have been intollerable.
It will be hard for you to let go of the "comfort zone perceptions"
that you now "hold onto". But when you do, you will find things are
easily tolerated.
> Why am I mentioning this to 'thee who doesnt see the ships"?
> Because somebody mentioned the principle to me when I was wrestling
> with my attatchments.- Hide quoted text -
Yep! There ar more things in heaven and Earth... etc, but mystical
detachment from approximation to reality is not one of them!
Zinnic
bigfl...@gmail.com
> On May 20, 7:34 pm, "bigflet...@gmail.com" <bigflet...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 21, 1:26 am,zinnic<zeenr...@gate.net> wrote:
>
> > > On May 20, 12:05 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 19, 5:12 pm, "bigflet...@gmail.com" <bigflet...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > Simply change the word Life for God, and all answers will be 'added
> > > > > unto thee'.
>
> > > > > How do I know?
>
> > > > > Life told me.
>
> > > > > BOfL
>
> > > > Well, it would seem to work most of the time but one exception would
> > > > be, "in the beginning life created life..."
>
> > > After the "beginning" energy "created" life.
> > > Before the "beginning" did energy "create" energy?
> > > Who knows, who knows? The Immortalist or as he claims, the BofL?
>
> > I suggest you ad art to the list.
>
> Is'nt that a capital offence?
>
> > Who knows? First you have to acknowledge at least the possibility of
> > knowing.
>
> No! firrst you have to come to agreement as to what it is to know (or
> Know)!
I came to that agreement years ago, and then started to understand the
subtlties of poets like Rumi, could see the limitations of
'professionals' like Chopra, and enjoyed and recognised growth in the
likes of Wayne Dyer and how each of them had a role to play.
The cornerstone for me was understanding the limitations of the
interpretation of Plato, and his limitations in his interpretation of
Socrates.
Befor, I didnt know, after I did.
Thats is the difference between group consciouness expansion and self
realization. One is based on subjective mutual but temporary
agreements (beliefs), and one is not.
Different interpretation of the word 'agreement'.
>
> > One of the laws of metaphysics states that a the mental projection of
> > a an individual has to be "right" in the mind of that individual. In
> > other words, if you believe that such questions have no answers, then
> > that is what you will experience. You will automatically reject
> > evidence to the contrary.
>
> As usual you are playing with words.
Would you prefer sign language?
That was a trick question, because writing is sign language.
>If I believe something then I do
> not "automatically reject evidence to the contrary".
You do.We all do. It is automatic. Part of the 'brain science
discovery'. You believe it is not the case, I know it is, and
scientific research confirms, but is not necessarily accepted.
The Perth Nobel prize winners were confronted with that scenario when
their peers rejected their scientific findings .
One reason was that those 'peers' found it hard to accept they had
been damaging their patients with misguided medication based on a
false premise.
This is 'par for the course' for' everyone.
Like the laws of physics in 'black holes', so do beliefs 'break down'
when confronted with knowing.
Different laws for different 'states'.
> I assess
> whethether or not the new information is valid or not and then modify
> (or not) my belief accordingly. Is'nt this what you do?
When dealing with beliefs, which play relatively minor roles in my day
to day life.
>
> > Two aspects that have covered this subject here are the "I see no
> > ships" experience of the first view of the natives when the first
> > fleets landed (here and the US), and of course, the whole subject of
> > quantum mechanics.
> > This was well understood befor the brain specialists recognised the
> > process of the former, and predated the whole subject of quantum
> > reality.
> > Of course, you dont see this...and by my own perception, you are of
> > course, right.
>
> MY concept of "right" in this i that my mind-set approximates more
> closely to reality than does yours. It is as simple as that.
Of course. Concepts include approximations, part of the mind set.
>
> > I also have experienced the shift from one view to another. Vey
> > painful initially. Its hard to let go of anything we hold onto,
> > including our 'comfort zone' perceptions.
> > In case I still have you attention, as I experienced more, I became
> > very grateful to have understood this principle. Otherwise what I
> > started to realize would have been intollerable.
>
> It will be hard for you to let go of the "comfort zone perceptions"
> that you now "hold onto". But when you do, you will find things are
> easily tolerated.
A common belief.
>
> > Why am I mentioning this to 'thee who doesnt see the ships"?
> > Because somebody mentioned the principle to me when I was wrestling
> > with my attatchments.- Hide quoted text -
>
> Yep! There ar more things in heaven and Earth... etc, but mystical
> detachment from approximation to reality is not one of them!
Thanks for confirming my position. And you say that I play with
words!!!
Also a common belief, followed by common confrontations.Notice how
believes often clash?
Your belief that the term mystical somehow contradicts intellectual
understandings, is your safety net.
Holes appear...and some appear to be black.
BOfL
> Zinnic- Hide quoted text -
Art
wrote:
>> There are no beginnings and there's nothing that's not alive. Problem
>> solved :)
>I see no problem in the inability of the part (humans) to encompass
>the whole universe.
>Your human concept of Eternal and Omniscient life does not escape
>the confines of the Universe.
To explain my meaning:
To avoid the absurdity of a infinite regress, it's time itself that
must have had a "beginning". In fact, I think matter, space and
time are continually (contiguously) being created by the universal
substrate I call consious energy. This conscious, psychic, and
creative energy exists "outside of" and is independent of matter,
space and time. It's "God stuff" that just IS. It not only forms
everything but it's also "in" everything. Atoms, for example,
are "alive" and teeming with this psychic energy. Thus, there is
nothing that's not alive.
Our human psyches, or souls, are also made of this stuff, and
they are also independent of matter, space and time. Our
"real homes" are in spiritual realms also constructed of the same
universal substrate that forms the physical illusion. Our "deaths"
are mere transitions. We are here in earth school learning
lessons, but there are many kinds of schools and many kinds
of lessons. We are in the process of becoming responsible
co-creators.
bigfl...@gmail.com
> On Wed, 21 May 2008 12:56:03 -0700 (PDT), zinnic <zeenr...@gate.net>
Hi Art,
Such understanding is not learned in the traditional way, as we both
know. Im curious. Did any specific teachings confirm your awareness
growth?
The one that confirmed everything I used to suspect was Eckankar.
Reading the books of Paul Twitchell was like reading my own
psyche.Therafter,everything I read on the subject made sense.
I tasted the meaning behind the biblical statement "seek ye first the
kingdom" (the inner source) and all things etc etc. "Know thyself"
became a reality, not a search.
If anyone else is reading this, I would describe the whole experience
as having a melody in your head, and then you discover the score in
written form, which is why I always use the term 'confirmation' as
opposed to 'information', and therefor see the futility of argument.
Of course, until one is ready for such experiences "Battle Ground
Belief' has to suffice :-)
BOfL
BOfL
Art
Yes. Back in the late seventies I immersed myself in the many Seth
Books by the late Jane Roberts.
>The one that confirmed everything I used to suspect was Eckankar.
>Reading the books of Paul Twitchell was like reading my own
>psyche.Therafter,everything I read on the subject made sense.
My wife Peg was a member of Eckankar back then. I couldn't get
into it at all. She worked for a lawyer who was into Eckankar,
and I invited him over for a discussion. He loaned me some
books by the German theosopher Rudolph Steiner, and also a copy
of "Seth Speaks". The only thing I got out of Steiner was his
continual admonition to listen to the experiences of others
with a open mind. Well, my hard head had much difficulity at
first with Seth's teachings, but there was something about
them that began to work on me, gradually creating a crack in
my hard head :)
>I tasted the meaning behind the biblical statement "seek ye first the
>kingdom" (the inner source) and all things etc etc. "Know thyself"
>became a reality, not a search.
Yes. A person has to "open up" to his or her inner self or
psyche. The first step of course is to begin to suspect that
certain spiritual teachings may have some validity.
>If anyone else is reading this, I would describe the whole experience
>as having a melody in your head, and then you discover the score in
>written form, which is why I always use the term 'confirmation' as
>opposed to 'information', and therefor see the futility of argument.
>
>Of course, until one is ready for such experiences "Battle Ground
>Belief' has to suffice :-)
>
>BOfL
Of all people, I've long thought that Albert Einstein was the
embodyment of a well advanced soul. He mentioned something
about feeling like a stranger here. I had that feeling myself as
a kid and a young adult. I have difficulty relating to the petty
preoccupations of the majority of mankind, as did Einstein. We
also share a strong dislike of authority and disgust with the
insanity of wars and militarism.
Maybe if I had his intellectual capacity I'd be able to make some
headway on the question of how time, space and matter are
continually created. Seth talks about the process but it's
difficult to tie it in with known physics.
bigfl...@gmail.com
> On Thu, 22 May 2008 07:40:13 -0700 (PDT), "bigflet...@gmail.com"
Thanks for that ;-)
With A.E.,what you describe is an individual who was on the cusp of
wholistic understanding. To feel like a stranger here is quite common,
but to me, it is the inner connections that causes that feeling.One
part of that stage, is to see war etc as as you describe.
One of my transitional experiences, was I rapidly started to
understand how the whole nteraction worked, and why.
Often I would wake up in the morning with a clarity that simply didnt
exist the day befor. Of course, to have any stage of clarity, we each
look for something to be clear about. This understanding also opened
the way to further investigation, that deeper search did not equate to
deeper frustration., that questions actually lead to answers unlike
the laws of physics :-)
BOfL.
I remember one of Twitchell's lines "simply learn to accept your own
humanity"
One of the dillemas is to try to reconcile physics and 'metaphysics',
for want of a better term. Even the likes of Hawking, decided on
'imaginary time' being the 'otherside' of the black hole. Of course,
heis still using the reference language relevant to his intellect.
This is where Twitchell was brilliant. His capacity to 'translate'
using day to day examples that he knew where barriers to people who
"knew what it wasnt, but were not sure what it was'
I met a friend a few months ago called Seth. My instant response when
introduced was "I was always intending to read about you".....Some
people dont have the greatest sense of humor ;-).
kevirwin
wrote:
What if being part of "all that always is" just isn't for you?? No
choice??
btw, did your e-mail address change???
looking for the "exit" sign,
K e v
zinnic
> On Wed, 21 May 2008 12:56:03 -0700 (PDT), zinnic <zeenr...@gate.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> There are no beginnings and there's nothing that's not alive. Problem
> >> solved :)
> >I see no problem in the inability of the part (humans) to encompass
> >the whole universe.
> >Your human concept of Eternal and Omniscient life does not escape
> >the confines of the Universe.
>
> To explain my meaning:
> To avoid the absurdity of a infinite regress, it's time itself that
> must have had a "beginning". In fact, I think matter, space and
> time are continually (contiguously) being created by the universal
> substrate I call consious energy.
Why do you call energy conscious? Just because you wish it?.
>This conscious, psychic, and
> creative energy exists "outside of" and is independent of matter,
> space and time. It's "God stuff" that just IS. It not only forms
> everything but it's also "in" everything. Atoms, for example,
> are "alive" and teeming with this psychic energy. Thus, there is
> nothing that's not alive.
>
> Our human psyches, or souls, are also made of this stuff, and
> they are also independent of matter, space and time. Our
> "real homes" are in spiritual realms also constructed of the same
> universal substrate that forms the physical illusion. Our "deaths"
> are mere transitions. We are here in earth school learning
> lessons, but there are many kinds of schools and many kinds
> of lessons. We are in the process of becoming responsible
> co-creators.
And here lies the crux of your inventions. Your terror of the
mortality of yourself and your loved ones. I agree it is not fair!
Naughty, naughty cyclones and earthquakes deal out death to even the
very best of humans!Nature has to be cogniscent of justice because
humans are?
I have no way of refuting your story other than to say it is not my
story?
Your story is good for you, mine is good for me.
What else is there to say when an insignificant part of the 'Existent
Universe' insists that it is significant. See if telling it to the
exploding mountain, to the earthquake, to the murderous terrorist has
an effect. Dream on!
Zinnic
bigfl...@gmail.com
Hi Kev,
I have had a new email for a while now. I thought it showed up on the
ng. bigfl...@gmail.com.
There is no choice regarding the waves that come along, only how you
try to ride them.
To rephrase your comment.... "what if 'you' is not for 'you' "?Sounds
rediculous and indicates a state of mistaken 'I'dentity'.
Part of 'all there is' is the way you are currently seeing
things.Growth is ALWAYS seeing things from a greater perspective. We
either welcome that or resist. Either way the wave of the renewed
perspective keeps arriving.
I also am convinced that the discomfort of resistance actually
'trickles down' to and effects our biological condition, which is
the'bottom line' for the desire for remotivation.
To 'get it over with' is not about time, but about such resistance,
about seeing things differently.
Im sure that during combat training, you would have learned that there
is a 'hell' of a difference between anticipation and actual
participation.
BOfL
bigfl...@gmail.com
Your comments here are great examples of the hypothetical mind at
work.
Realily is what actually happens to you.It is 'those' experiences that
you learn from. So speculating about earthquakes and volcanoes, is not
unlike going to a horror movie. A safe haven to observe, and the
approach of someone who is actually scared of being scared.
Of course, if you dont acknowledge there is an ongoing learning curve,
then your responses are in accord.
You suggest that people like Art and myself are deluded 'dreamers' and
ask 'how do you know you are not'?
Your questions are often followed by conclusions that you already know
there are no 'known' answers.
You had your own personal 'earthquake' with your hip replacements. How
did that change your perspective, if you compare before (anticipation)
and after the operation?
The shift in your pov is actually spiritual growth. I agree it is
a ;dud; word, because of all the religious connotations that go with
is, just as you respond to 'mystical'.
The realy meaning is relating to everyday growth, and recognising that
'personal ' events change your pov
BOfL
kevirwin
wrote:
> On May 23, 10:04 am, kevirwin <kevir...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 19, 8:12 pm, "bigflet...@gmail.com" <bigflet...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Simply change the word Life for God, and all answers will be 'added
> > > unto thee'.
>
> > > How do I know?
>
> > > Life told me.
>
> > > BOfL
>
> > What if being part of "all that always is" just isn't for you?? No
> > choice??
>
> > btw, did your e-mail address change???
>
> > looking for the "exit" sign,
> > K e v
>
> Hi Kev,
>
> I have had a new email for a while now. I thought it showed up on the
>
> There is no choice regarding the waves that come along, only how you
> try to ride them.
>
> To rephrase your comment.... "what if 'you' is not for 'you' "?Sounds
> rediculous and indicates a state of mistaken 'I'dentity'.
>
> Part of 'all there is' is the way you are currently seeing
> things.Growth is ALWAYS seeing things from a greater perspective. We
> either welcome that or resist. Either way the wave of the renewed
> perspective keeps arriving.
>
> I also am convinced that the discomfort of resistance actually
> 'trickles down' to and effects our biological condition, which is
> the'bottom line' for the desire for remotivation.
>
> To 'get it over with' is not about time, but about such resistance,
> about seeing things differently.
>
> Im sure that during combat training, you would have learned that there
> is a 'hell' of a difference between anticipation and actual
> participation.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hi Brian,
I updated my address book....
It looks like you have a new "kindred spirit" in Art. You've both
evidently done quite a bit of research into your common "view of
reality". I'm not about to get into the middle of one of your
"sessions" with Zinnic, but I want to say (what I've been saying all
along) that while your philosophy/world view/belief is optimistic and
hopeful, I haven’t had the **personal epiphany** to say, “Holy Cow!
That’s it!! What took so long to get it??”
While I tend to be pragmatic and very straight-forward in matters of
cognitive reasoning, I **do** trust my intuition and feelings on a
subject. So far, nothing has come; while I haven’t accepted any
explanation for this “reality thing”, I haven’t really rejected
anything, either (There might actually be flying pink unicorns
somewhere in the vast universe).
If there was a way you could convey the strength of your belief, I’d
be receptive to receiving it {in the same way that I literally felt
the wave of sadness generated by my niece in Florida while we were
discussing her break-up..It was very powerful; if I had been unsure
about her emotional state before, that over-powering sense of sadness
certainly cleared that issue up…And there are probably people in this
forum that don’t think it’s possible to **feel** another’s emotions;
if I tell them they’re wrong, what’s my proof -- the life
experience??}….
Anyway, I’m taking a break from traveling (almost need a job to
relax), so see ya’ around the forum (and I still have a bunch of e-
mails from Sean to sift through),
K e v
bigfl...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
There are some 'spiritual exercises' that, for me, created that
epiphany you referred to.
Within a couple of weeks, I started to recognise how differently I saw
life.
I was 'sort of'" receptive to the idea that such exercises could work,
because I knew the physical version did!
I used to think I was too pragmatic for my own good....;-)
I had to know that I knew I could know....
Ill describe a couple direct if you wish, as will Sean no doubt.
Drop me an email anytime.
BOfL
Art
wrote:
>> To explain my meaning:
>> To avoid the absurdity of a infinite regress, it's time itself that
>> must have had a "beginning". In fact, I think matter, space and
>> time are continually (contiguously) being created by the universal
>> substrate I call consious energy.
>
>Why do you call energy conscious? Just because you wish it?.
I borrowed the terminology from Seth.
It's not my invention and it has nothing to do with wishful
thinking. It was a matter of searching for a theory large enough to
contain all experience, and not just those of the five physical
senses. It's a matter of getting your head out of the sand :)
zinnic
> On Thu, 22 May 2008 19:47:43 -0700 (PDT), zinnic <zeenr...@gate.net>
Though my head may be in the sand and your's in the clouds, neither
of us can be objective about what is inside our heads!
IMO subjective induction is the source and (dis-)satisfaction of all
our (including BofL's) '(dis-)comfort zones'. :)
Zinnic
zinnic
wrote:
> On May 23, 12:47 pm, zinnic <zeenr...@gate.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 22, 6:53 am, Art <n...@zilch.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Wed, 21 May 2008 12:56:03 -0700 (PDT), zinnic <zeenr...@gate.net>
> > > wrote:
>
That is the nature of my mind. Absent your mystical certainties, I am
content with the hypotheses and theories I infer from inductive
probabilities.
> Realily is what actually happens to you.It is 'those' experiences that
> you learn from.
Gee! thanks BofL. How on earth did you 'divine' that in kindergarten I
skipped Platitudes 101?
>To speculating about earthquakes and volcanoes, is not
> unlike going to a horror movie. A safe haven to observe, and the
> approach of someone who is actually scared of being scared.
I inductively reason that volcanos, earthquakes and cyclones have no
concern for human suffering and loss of life. If you think this is
merely speculation on my part, describe the appeals for mercy that
are effective in moderating the 'cruelty' of such natural disasters.
> Of course, if you dont acknowledge there is an ongoing learning curve,
> then your responses are in accord.
Of course, the antinomy of this is 'if I DO acknowledge there is an
ongoing learning curve then my responses are NOT in accord'.
So where do two non-sequiturs get us?
> You suggest that people like Art and myself are deluded 'dreamers' and
> ask 'how do you know you are not'?
I believe Art and you are not alike! He is his own man. You obviously
need to recruit allies.
> Your questions are often followed by conclusions that you already know
> there are no 'known' answers.
My questions are certainly not "followed" by answers from you or
other mystics. Your 'known' answers are incoherent so, as an
empiricist, I conclude that you do not 'talk' what you are 'knowing'
about'!
> You had your own personal 'earthquake' with your hip replacements. How
> did that change your perspective, if you compare before (anticipation)
> and after the operation?
"Personal earthquake"? No such thing. See above.
Why would it change my perspective! I saw it coming and after the fact
''took steps' until I was able to walk four miles in one hour.
Sensibly, I did not start running again!
I accepted the reality of biological mechanics and adapted to my
changed circumstance. Nothing myst(ic)erious or 'self-realising' about
it.
> The shift in your pov is actually spiritual growth. I agree it is
> a ;dud; word, because of all the religious connotations that go with
> is, just as you respond to 'mystical'.
> The realy meaning is relating to everyday growth, and recognising that
> 'personal ' events change your pov
I guess you 'believe' that I also skipped Platitudes 201!
Your generalities invite ridicule.
Is it "spiritual growth when I change my pov regarding falling as I
ascend a ladder? Is a change in pov always 'generate (productive) or
can it be degenerate?. Both Hitler and Stalin constantly changed their
pov with the 'growth' of evil. Or is your definition of 'spititual
growth' the is acceptance of your pov.
Please Brian, stop sloshing me with such banalities ! Your brand of
'self-realisation' encourages segregation from, as opposed to
immersion in, the realities of life! 'Experience' does not elevate one
to 'life-spectator', it makes one a better life-player!
IMO you claim to be a spectator. Like it or not, we are both life-
players!
Zinnic