more brainwashed bs from temecular
maz
authored the course, we did" and "the body is in the mind"
what could be more anti-christ anti-course than this?
peace, maz
from
http://www.acimmonk.com/facim-d4-entering-gods-presence.html
>>quote: Again, all notes courtesy of Jane-Admin:
We don't know what is motivating us, so we make up stories.
The Jesus you want to relate to is not the historical man, but the Jesus who
is a symbol of your right mind.
This book will lead you home if you follow it. It will lead you to the right
mind, and the right mind undoes everything else. But be aware of your
resistance to it. The problem is that we don't want to go home.
Guilt is timeless. Time did not come into being until we projected out the
wrong-minded thought system.
The body is in the mind, because ideas leave not their source.
Helen was able to gain access to the pure love in her right mind and the
symbol of that love, for her, was Jesus. But to localise and specify that
voice as Jesus denigrates your true self.
Ken isn't talking to me; my right mind is telling me what I already know.
Before we can return to God -- our source -- we have to return to our
decision-making source. To get there we have to recognise that the world of
time and space is not real.
In the context of the Course, to grow up is to realise that we are not
bodies, we are minds.
Don't take anything in your life seriously. If you are serious, Jesus will
get mad. Or if he doesn't, Helen will. And you can negotiate with Jesus. You
can't negotiate with Helen.
We -- the one mind -- are the authors of the Course. That is why neither
Helen nor Jesus have their names on the cover.
Anything that differentiates you from anyone else should not be taken
seriously.
The ego is like a magician, keeping our attention in the world so we don't
see what is happening in the mind.
You have a choice, at any given moment, to identify with the ego or the Holy
Spirit.
You are not responsible for the actions of other egos.
If something is happening in my dream, I can't blame anyone else for it. At
the moment that it happens, you have a choice: how you react to it now --
with the Holy Spirit, or the ego. A flat tire is a wholly neutral thing.
Just see it as neutral and change it. Don't analyse it, don't ask why it
happened, or why you chose it -- that is making the past real. Just think
whether whose eyes you will look at it through. 'The ego analyses, the Holy
Spirit accepts.'
If you make anything real, you give it power over you. If you have any
reaction other than perfect peace, it's your ego.
We think there's a difference between mirco- and macro-organisms because we
think we think.
If you judge one person, you are judging everyone, as we are all part of the
Sonship, including Jesus. Likewise, if you forgive one person, you forgive
everyone.
The ego would have you believe that you can love some people and hate
others. You can't. It's one or the other. You love everyone or no-one. What
is not love is murder. Don't feel guilty; just see what you are doing.
Condemning yourself, them, and Jesus.
You must want to be upset, otherwise you would not be upset.
There is an old joke in New York when someone asks: How do I get to Carnegie
hall? Answer: Practice, practice, practice. It's the same with the Course.
We need to train our minds. If you don't want to practice, that's still
useful information: I am resistant.
The issue is never the form of what I do, but who I do it with. What happens
here is important only to the extent that it is a classroom. The Holy Spirit
does not choose the script, we do. The Holy Spirit does not cause things to
happen so we learn a lesson -- that would be cruel.<, unquote
Carrie
> gee, folks, Ken is still teaching that "guilt is timeless", "jesus
> has not authored the course, we did" and "the body is in the mind"
Well, if we are all one and One with God (the Sonship/Christ, thus we
would be one with Jesus we would all be part of the course. which is a
manifestation of "Mind". And the body is a manifestation of the Mind? We
think we are in form, separated in bodies- and all that goes with this. But
all is Mind.
I can see the point of this.
> what could be more anti-christ anti-course than this?
What is anti-christ anti-course?
Error? Can error be real and have any meaning?
aumorchestra
Yes. How many fotos do you shoot, and when at home how many do you let
go of as not exactly representing what you wanted to catch or share.
How many have landed in the bin instead of on the HD?
It meanse we need contrast and differences to learn what to seek and
what to avoid.
And thats an almost verbatim quote. :-)
Carrie
I keep just about all my photos, unless they turn out blurry or something.
I keep saving them on DVDs and putting ones I like, or want to work with
in files.
But, I see your point.
On the other hand, it might seem like "error" is in the mind of the one
deciding it. To some a blurry photo might have it's own design, beauty and
value.
I was taking pictures of frost (swirls) on the window this morning.
Philomene
> gee, folks, Ken is still teaching that "guilt is timeless", "jesus has not
> authored the course, we did" and "the body is in the mind"
"We don't know what is motivating us, so we make up stories.
The Jesus you want to relate to is not the historical man, but the
Jesus who is a symbol of your right mind."
I relate to Jesus, the author of A Course in Miracles as an elder
brother, and as a Son of God. Jesus is part of the Sonship like I am
part of the Sonship. Jesus is real, exist and has a unique identity
like all Sons of God are real, exist and have a unique identity.
Because reality, existence and identity is the gift of eternal life
given by the Father to all His creations.
Jesus existing and real as teacher and elder brother and Son of God
has little to do with bodies and even less to do with a "historical
man." Instead it has everything to do with the irreducible creative
love relationship the Father has with His every Son.
The Father and Son share being but not identity. The Oneness of
relationship, not the Oneness of Wapnick's "Crazy God," sans any
relationship. That's pretty much a straight reading of The Course.
Monk, if you choose to be condensing to course students who believe
Jesus is author of ACIM, you should at least attempt to understand
alternative views. A Course in Miracles reduced to a clever Cosmic
Solipsism of a Crazy God attempting to awaken Himself can hardly make
sense unless the author is first made unreal and just a symbol and the
text just metaphor.
Carrie
> On Nov 18, 1:31 pm, "maz" <m...@solcon.nl_> wrote:
>> gee, folks, Ken is still teaching that "guilt is timeless", "jesus
>> has not authored the course, we did" and "the body is in the mind"
>
> "We don't know what is motivating us, so we make up stories.
>
> The Jesus you want to relate to is not the historical man, but the
> Jesus who is a symbol of your right mind."
>
> I relate to Jesus, the author of A Course in Miracles as an elder
> brother, and as a Son of God. Jesus is part of the Sonship like I am
> part of the Sonship. Jesus is real, exist and has a unique identity
> like all Sons of God are real, exist and have a unique identity.
> Because reality, existence and identity is the gift of eternal life
> given by the Father to all His creations.
>
> Jesus existing and real as teacher and elder brother and Son of God
> has little to do with bodies and even less to do with a "historical
> man." Instead it has everything to do with the irreducible creative
> love relationship the Father has with His every Son.
>
> The Father and Son share being but not identity. The Oneness of
> relationship, not the Oneness of Wapnick's "Crazy God," sans any
Your perception/interpretation of it.
Doesn't mean anyone else is wrong.
Philomene
> Your perception/interpretation of it.
> Doesn't mean anyone else is wrong.
Your perception/interpretation that this is a perception/
interpretation . . .
Carrie
Of course.
If it's not mine, who's would it be?
I guess it could be your perception/interpretation that it's that way for
me...LOL
This reminds me of trying to have discussions with members of E.A. on
Marianne's old discussion boards. It used to go in circles with them ending
up saying "there is no world!" If you pinned them down to anything. Having
any real discussion with them was like trying to hold water in your hand.
Debinski
> On Nov 18, 1:31 pm, "maz" <m...@solcon.nl_> wrote:
>
> > gee, folks, Ken is still teaching that "guilt is timeless", "jesus has not
> > authored the course, we did" and "the body is in the mind"
>
> "We don't know what is motivating us, so we make up stories.
>
> The Jesus you want to relate to is not the historical man, but the
> Jesus who is a symbol of your right mind."
>
> I relate to Jesus, the author of A Course in Miracles as an elder
> brother, and as a Son of God. Jesus is part of the Sonship like I am
> part of the Sonship. Jesus is real, exist and has a unique identity
> like all Sons of God are real, exist and have a unique identity.
> Because reality, existence and identity is the gift of eternal life
> given by the Father to all His creations.
>
I wonder if you could explain what characteristics distinguish
Philomene -- or any other son -- as a unique identity from Jesus as a
unique identity. Are those characteristics eternal or temporal? I also
wonder how this explanation is reconciled with the Father having only
One Begotten Son.
I don't know this Monk and have only read one of Wapnick's books --
"ACIM and Christianity" -- but *I* think he rejects "the historical
Jesus" -- because he mistakes him with the stories that grew up over
the millennia ABOUT him.
> Jesus existing and real as teacher and elder brother and Son of God
> has little to do with bodies and even less to do with a "historical
> man." Instead it has everything to do with the irreducible creative
> love relationship the Father has with His every Son.
>
> The Father and Son share being but not identity. The Oneness of
> relationship, not the Oneness of Wapnick's "Crazy God," sans any
> relationship. That's pretty much a straight reading of The Course.
>
> Monk, if you choose to be condensing to course students who believe
> Jesus is author of ACIM, you should at least attempt to understand
> alternative views. A Course in Miracles reduced to a clever Cosmic
> Solipsism of a Crazy God attempting to awaken Himself can hardly make
> sense unless the author is first made unreal and just a symbol and the
> text just metaphor.
<
I'm going to assume by "Solipsism" you mean "anything that can be
known to exist can only be known to exist in my mind (or what is
called my mind)." Is that correct? If so, in what way do you say that
contradicts A Course in Miracles?
Philomene
> On Nov 18, 7:26 pm, Philomene <qqjo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 18, 1:31 pm, "maz" <m...@solcon.nl_> wrote:
>>
>>> gee, folks, Ken is still teaching that "guilt is timeless", "jesus has not
>>> authored the course, we did" and "the body is in the mind"
>> "We don't know what is motivating us, so we make up stories.
>>
>> The Jesus you want to relate to is not the historical man, but the
>> Jesus who is a symbol of your right mind."
>>
>> I relate to Jesus, the author of A Course in Miracles as an elder
>> brother, and as a Son of God. Jesus is part of the Sonship like I am
>> part of the Sonship. Jesus is real, exist and has a unique identity
>> like all Sons of God are real, exist and have a unique identity.
>> Because reality, existence and identity is the gift of eternal life
>> given by the Father to all His creations.
>>
>
> I wonder if you could explain what characteristics distinguish
> Philomene -- or any other son -- as a unique identity from Jesus as a
> unique identity. Are those characteristics eternal or temporal?
Well "characteristics" is not the right question. The nature of heaven
and Sonship is that all abilities hence characteristics can be shared.
In philosophy and most metaphysics, identity is often construed in terms
of isolation and separateness.
In Course metaphysics identity or SELF is not isolated or separate, but
rather a creative relationship between Father-Son, Mind-thought,
Cause-Effect
In Course metaphysics God creates God. God does so by giving/sharing
life/being with his creation.
What the Course tells us about self --
1. Selves are created. Creation proceeds from Father to son and
creation is not reciprocal.
2. They represent the union, common experience and common identity of
Father/Son, Mind/Thought, Cause/Effect
3. Selves are of a lower order, but a like quality to the self's
creator; it is a lower order from the creator because the creator sets
the rules, laws and limits by which the self must abide.
4. The creator transmits or communicates life and being to the created
self. Therefore, the "content of a self," is always its creator. The
creator is however, limited in the experience shared with the created
self by the same rules, laws, and limits, He imposed on the created self
5. It follows that when God created the Christ self, God gave Christ
everything but self-creation. Creation expanded the Kingdom and allowed
the uncreated God to know the limits of a created God -- while still
maintaining His original uncreated "self" as God. God increased became
God "squared," or God the Father and God the Son
6. The Father acts as "guidance," in the creative relationship, while
the son initiates novelty and new experiences.
The son knows himself as one with the Father yet created by the Father.
That is, he is under rules, laws, and limits set by the Father.
The Father knows the son as one with Himself yet His shared experience
with his Son is limited by the rules, laws and limits set by Himself.
In their shared experience of self, the Father willing becomes as
dependent on the Son as the Son is on Him.
The Father accepts the limitation of experience he imposed upon the Son.
This shared experience increase the Father and increases the Son --
and the Son is inspired to create like the Father.
7. The creative relationship from the consciousness of Sonship is
articulated by Jesus: "I and the Father are one and the Father is Greater."
(Greater, because, the Father is creator.) It can be assumed then, the
consciousness of Father or creator would be articulated as "I and the
son are one and I am greater."
8. "Ego," is the self the Son of God made, rather than created.
The ego self is an idea in the Mind of the Son of God and the ego is
the "son," in this creative relationship. While the Son of God is
creator or father.
The ego self is the shared experience of The Son of God and ego under
the extreme limits of "ambiguous love," set forth in ego's miscreation.
Miscreation of ego was a decent from magnitude into littleness for the
Son of God.
9. The ego has reversed Father and Son role in its creative relationship.
In other words, the ego thinks it is Father/God and undertakes guidance
in the creative relationship. On the other hand, the Son of God, as
"true Father," in this relationship can reassert authority at any time.
10. It follows then, that we have two selves: Our true self which we
share with God, our Father and Creator, and another self shared with our
creation, ego. These are two powerful yet mutually exclusive states. A
Son of God can either identify with his Father or identify with ego.
But not both at the same time.
11.. The "I," is the decision maker. It chooses self. It can either
choose the true self it shares with God, or the ego self it has miscreated.
In short then, identity or self is not about unique distinguishing
characteristics, but rather identity or self is the very gift of
existence and life.
I also
> wonder how this explanation is reconciled with the Father having only
> One Begotten Son.
In my understanding God created many Sons but one pattern --the Christ
pattern. Together all the Sons in perfect communication is the One Son
or Sonship. The Sonship is holographic mind. The part is the whole and
the whole is the part.
>
> I don't know this Monk and have only read one of Wapnick's books --
> "ACIM and Christianity" -- but *I* think he rejects "the historical
> Jesus" -- because he mistakes him with the stories that grew up over
> the millennia ABOUT him.
>
>> Jesus existing and real as teacher and elder brother and Son of God
>> has little to do with bodies and even less to do with a "historical
>> man." Instead it has everything to do with the irreducible creative
>> love relationship the Father has with His every Son.
>>
>> The Father and Son share being but not identity. The Oneness of
>> relationship, not the Oneness of Wapnick's "Crazy God," sans any
>> relationship. That's pretty much a straight reading of The Course.
>>
>> Monk, if you choose to be condensing to course students who believe
>> Jesus is author of ACIM, you should at least attempt to understand
>> alternative views. A Course in Miracles reduced to a clever Cosmic
>> Solipsism of a Crazy God attempting to awaken Himself can hardly make
>> sense unless the author is first made unreal and just a symbol and the
>> text just metaphor.
> <
>
> I'm going to assume by "Solipsism" you mean "anything that can be
> known to exist can only be known to exist in my mind (or what is
> called my mind)." Is that correct? If so, in what way do you say that
> contradicts A Course in Miracles?
No that's not right.
In Philosophy, Solipsism is the theory that only the self exists, or can
be proved to exist.
When reductionist thinking is applied to course teaching, then the only
self which can possibly exist is God. In other words, "I am God." rather
than "I am the Son of God."
This is the authority problem and contradicts a literal reading of ACIM.
Debinski
> Debinski wrote:
> > On Nov 18, 7:26 pm, Philomene <qqjo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Nov 18, 1:31 pm, "maz" <m...@solcon.nl_> wrote:
>
> >>> gee, folks, Ken is still teaching that "guilt is timeless", "jesus has not
> >>> authored the course, we did" and "the body is in the mind"
> >> "We don't know what is motivating us, so we make up stories.
>
> >> The Jesus you want to relate to is not the historical man, but the
> >> Jesus who is a symbol of your right mind."
>
> >> I relate to Jesus, the author of A Course in Miracles as an elder
> >> brother, and as a Son of God. Jesus is part of the Sonship like I am
> >> part of the Sonship. Jesus is real, exist and has a unique identity
> >> like all Sons of God are real, exist and have a unique identity.
> >> Because reality, existence and identity is the gift of eternal life
> >> given by the Father to all His creations.
>
> > I wonder if you could explain what characteristics distinguish
> > Philomene -- or any other son -- as a unique identity from Jesus as a
> > unique identity. Are those characteristics eternal or temporal?
>
> Well "characteristics" is not the right question. The nature of heaven
> and Sonship is that all abilities hence characteristics can be shared.
>
Exactly. Except I would say ARE shared rather than "can be." So what
do you mean "characteristics" is not the right question? You said that
you exist and Jesus exists seemingly as separate beings, so I am
asking what distinguishes "you" from "Jesus" what attributes do you
have that can always be said to be "Philomeme and not Jesus' or what
attributes does Jesus have that can always be said to be "Jesus and
not Phimomeme?"
> In philosophy and most metaphysics, identity is often construed in terms
> of isolation and separateness.
>
> In Course metaphysics identity or SELF is not isolated or separate, but
> rather a creative relationship between Father-Son, Mind-thought,
> Cause-Effect
>
> In Course metaphysics God creates God. God does so by giving/sharing
> life/being with his creation.
>
> What the Course tells us about self --
>
> 1. Selves are created. Creation proceeds from Father to son and
> creation is not reciprocal.
>
> 2. They represent the union, common experience and common identity of
> Father/Son, Mind/Thought, Cause/Effect
>
> 3. Selves are of a lower order, but a like quality to the self's
> creator; it is a lower order from the creator because the creator sets
> the rules, laws and limits by which the self must abide.
>
What? I thought the Course said the Father is a Father not because he
is greater than the Son, but only because He is first. Who are these
"selves" you call "a lower order?"
> 4. The creator transmits or communicates life and being to the created
> self. Therefore, the "content of a self," is always its creator. The
> creator is however, limited in the experience shared with the created
> self by the same rules, laws, and limits, He imposed on the created self
>
> 5. It follows that when God created the Christ self, God gave Christ
> everything but self-creation. Creation expanded the Kingdom and allowed
> the uncreated God to know the limits of a created God -- while still
> maintaining His original uncreated "self" as God. God increased became
> God "squared," or God the Father and God the Son
>
> 6. The Father acts as "guidance," in the creative relationship, while
> the son initiates novelty and new experiences.
>
> The son knows himself as one with the Father yet created by the Father.
> That is, he is under rules, laws, and limits set by the Father.
>
> The Father knows the son as one with Himself yet His shared experience
> with his Son is limited by the rules, laws and limits set by Himself.
>
> In their shared experience of self, the Father willing becomes as
> dependent on the Son as the Son is on Him.
>
> The Father accepts the limitation of experience he imposed upon the Son.
> This shared experience increase the Father and increases the Son --
> and the Son is inspired to create like the Father.
>
> 7. The creative relationship from the consciousness of Sonship is
> articulated by Jesus: "I and the Father are one and the Father is Greater."
>
Where does that quote come from? The only similar quote that comes to
MY mind is "The Father and I are one, without Him I can do nothing" --
which I don't understand to mean "I can only do what He allows me to
do" but that what He does He does through me. IOW, "a me without Him
can do nothing."
> (Greater, because, the Father is creator.) It can be assumed then, the
> consciousness of Father or creator would be articulated as "I and the
> son are one and I am greater."
>
> 8. "Ego," is the self the Son of God made, rather than created.
> The ego self is an idea in the Mind of the Son of God and the ego is
> the "son," in this creative relationship. While the Son of God is
> creator or father.
>
> The ego self is the shared experience of The Son of God and ego under
> the extreme limits of "ambiguous love," set forth in ego's miscreation.
> Miscreation of ego was a decent from magnitude into littleness for the
> Son of God.
>
> 9. The ego has reversed Father and Son role in its creative relationship.
>
> In other words, the ego thinks it is Father/God and undertakes guidance
> in the creative relationship. On the other hand, the Son of God, as
> "true Father," in this relationship can reassert authority at any time.
>
> 10. It follows then, that we have two selves: Our true self which we
> share with God, our Father and Creator, and another self shared with our
> creation, ego. These are two powerful yet mutually exclusive states. A
> Son of God can either identify with his Father or identify with ego.
> But not both at the same time.
>
> 11.. The "I," is the decision maker. It chooses self. It can either
> choose the true self it shares with God, or the ego self it has miscreated.
>
The "I" also choses what to call "not I" or "you." Without the first
person "I" there is no second person "you" or third person "it."
> In short then, identity or self is not about unique distinguishing
> characteristics, but rather identity or self is the very gift of
> existence and life.
>
Of course. But YOU are the one who said you exist AND Jesus exists so
I am asking you what distinguishes "you" from "Jesus" and is whatever
distinguishes "you" from "Jesus" eternal or temporal?
> I also
>
> > wonder how this explanation is reconciled with the Father having only
> > One Begotten Son.
>
> In my understanding God created many Sons but one pattern --the Christ
> pattern. Together all the Sons in perfect communication is the One Son
> or Sonship. The Sonship is holographic mind. The part is the whole and
> the whole is the part.
>
So in your understanding, it's not possible that the Father created
only One Son appearing as many?
Or "I am IS God." Sounds to me like you are saying the Son is not God.
Certainly, the Son is not the Father -- although as far as I can tell
they are identical in essence, different only in function,.
> This is the authority problem and contradicts a literal reading of ACIM.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Philomene
> On Nov 21, 8:54 pm, Philomene <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Debinski wrote:
>>> On Nov 18, 7:26 pm, Philomene <qqjo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Nov 18, 1:31 pm, "maz" <m...@solcon.nl_> wrote:
>>>>> gee, folks, Ken is still teaching that "guilt is timeless", "jesus has not
>>>>> authored the course, we did" and "the body is in the mind"
>>>> "We don't know what is motivating us, so we make up stories.
>>>> The Jesus you want to relate to is not the historical man, but the
>>>> Jesus who is a symbol of your right mind."
>>>> I relate to Jesus, the author of A Course in Miracles as an elder
>>>> brother, and as a Son of God. Jesus is part of the Sonship like I am
>>>> part of the Sonship. Jesus is real, exist and has a unique identity
>>>> like all Sons of God are real, exist and have a unique identity.
>>>> Because reality, existence and identity is the gift of eternal life
>>>> given by the Father to all His creations.
>>> I wonder if you could explain what characteristics distinguish
>>> Philomene -- or any other son -- as a unique identity from Jesus as a
>>> unique identity. Are those characteristics eternal or temporal?
>> Well "characteristics" is not the right question. The nature of heaven
>> and Sonship is that all abilities hence characteristics can be shared.
>>
>
> Exactly. Except I would say ARE shared rather than "can be." So what
> do you mean "characteristics" is not the right question?
What I mean is your question pre-supposes identity in terms of isolation
and separateness, when I have already explained identity rests on a
creative RELATIONSHIP.
You said that
> you exist and Jesus exists seemingly as separate beings,
No. You are insisting on thinking in terms of isolated, separate things,
rather than minds. I believe from my reading of the Course that minds
(plural) exists; that minds by virtue of their creation have a unique
identity/self and WILL shared with their Creator and by mind's ability
to COMMUNICATE with other minds can never be "separate," in the sense
individual, seemingly isolated things can be separate.
If I had to speculate --"WILL", ie, "Free Will," rather than mind is the
gift of life, self-awareness, uniqueness and individuality.
When The Father creates WILL, Will like a black hole of infinite
gravitational potential captures a portion of shared mind/one mind and
becomes alive, self-aware, and God or better "created God." When WILL is
in harmony and complete communication with its Creator and other created
minds the result is HEAVEN.
What I mean then is Jesus and I SHARE MIND but have distinct, unique
wills. What else can "Free Will" possibly mean? Sometimes our wills
are out of harmony and complete communication where so called identity
and uniqueness is blatant.
Sometimes our wills are in such harmony and full communication such
distinctions are blurred and our identity seems one.
Nevertheless our wills are still free, communication and harmony are
desired but not ordained and as such "Free Will," for all purposes
constitutes unique identity.
so I am
> asking what distinguishes "you" from "Jesus" what attributes do you
> have that can always be said to be "Philomeme and not Jesus' or what
> attributes does Jesus have that can always be said to be "Jesus and
> not Phimomeme?"
>
>> In philosophy and most metaphysics, identity is often construed in terms
>> of isolation and separateness.
>>
>> In Course metaphysics identity or SELF is not isolated or separate, but
>> rather a creative relationship between Father-Son, Mind-thought,
>> Cause-Effect
>>
>> In Course metaphysics God creates God. God does so by giving/sharing
>> life/being with his creation.
>>
>> What the Course tells us about self --
>>
>> 1. Selves are created. Creation proceeds from Father to son and
>> creation is not reciprocal.
>>
>> 2. They represent the union, common experience and common identity of
>> Father/Son, Mind/Thought, Cause/Effect
>>
>> 3. Selves are of a lower order, but a like quality to the self's
>> creator; it is a lower order from the creator because the creator sets
>> the rules, laws and limits by which the self must abide.
>>
>
> What? I thought the Course said the Father is a Father not because he
> is greater than the Son, but only because He is first. Who are these
> "selves" you call "a lower order?"
Read the course.
>
>> 4. The creator transmits or communicates life and being to the created
>> self. Therefore, the "content of a self," is always its creator. The
>> creator is however, limited in the experience shared with the created
>> self by the same rules, laws, and limits, He imposed on the created self
>>
>> 5. It follows that when God created the Christ self, God gave Christ
>> everything but self-creation. Creation expanded the Kingdom and allowed
>> the uncreated God to know the limits of a created God -- while still
>> maintaining His original uncreated "self" as God. God increased became
>> God "squared," or God the Father and God the Son
>>
>> 6. The Father acts as "guidance," in the creative relationship, while
>> the son initiates novelty and new experiences.
>>
>> The son knows himself as one with the Father yet created by the Father.
>> That is, he is under rules, laws, and limits set by the Father.
>>
>> The Father knows the son as one with Himself yet His shared experience
>> with his Son is limited by the rules, laws and limits set by Himself.
>>
>> In their shared experience of self, the Father willing becomes as
>> dependent on the Son as the Son is on Him.
>>
>> The Father accepts the limitation of experience he imposed upon the Son.
>> This shared experience increase the Father and increases the Son --
>> and the Son is inspired to create like the Father.
>>
>> 7. The creative relationship from the consciousness of Sonship is
>> articulated by Jesus: "I and the Father are one and the Father is Greater."
>>
>
> Where does that quote come from?
Have you read the text?
The only similar quote that comes to
> MY mind is "The Father and I are one, without Him I can do nothing" --
> which I don't understand to mean "I can only do what He allows me to
> do" but that what He does He does through me. IOW, "a me without Him
> can do nothing."
Really? Read about the authority problem.
You are a creature of love and you are NOT allowed to mis-create or
change Yourself into something else.
The entire basis for Atonement.
No, this is a simplistic understanding.
Course-think is about learning to think in terms of irreducible
relationships. This is a bit hard to grasp. To regular ego thought a
relationship must imply a thing --or separate things.
On the other hand if a relationship is irreducible, this relationship
cannot be broken down to component parts. Hence in course
metaphysics-the metaphysics of mind--there is no such thing as a
"thing." Anything we might perceive of or think of as a thing is always
a relationship. That relationship is between Mind and thought or the
"relationship which implies being."
As such God is NOT a thing. And most certainly NOT a thing in the way we
commonly think of things.
Neither is the Son a thing. Rather a irreducible relationship between
mind and thought.
>>> I'm going to assume by "Solipsism" you mean "anything that can be
>>> known to exist can only be known to exist in my mind (or what is
>>> called my mind)." Is that correct? If so, in what way do you say that
>>> contradicts A Course in Miracles?
>> No that's not right.
>>
>> In Philosophy, Solipsism is the theory that only the self exists, or can
>> be proved to exist.
>>
>> When reductionist thinking is applied to course teaching, then the only
>> self which can possibly exist is God. In other words, "I am God." rather
>> than "I am the Son of God."
>>
>
> Or "I am IS God."
I have no idea what this is suppose to mean.
Sounds to me like you are saying the Son is not God.
> Certainly, the Son is not the Father -- although as far as I can tell
> they are identical in essence, different only in function,.
The Son is a created being. Created by the Father. Hence the authority
problem. Basic ACIM 101.
Debinski
> On the other hand if a relationship is irreducible, this relationship
cannot be broken down to component parts. Hence in course
metaphysics-the metaphysics of mind--there is no such thing as a
"thing." Anything we might perceive of or think of as a thing is
always
a relationship. That relationship is between Mind and thought or the
"relationship which implies being."
As such God is NOT a thing. And most certainly NOT a thing in the way
we
commonly think of things. <
You're stating the obvious, insisting I don't understand what you say
and therefore not even considering that anything *I* say may be of any
value. That's okay. Seems to me you're trying to explain what you
believe to be true because you read it in a book. I'm trying to
describe what I know to be true using your words to do it. That's okay
though. You are certainly entitled to believe whatever you choose to
believe.
> No. You are insisting on thinking in terms of isolated, separate things,
> rather than minds.<
*I* would say that's exactly what YOU are doing. I am asking you why
you are doing it and you are giving me a boatload of second-hand
information as explanation.
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Philomene
> On Nov 21, 11:13 pm, Philomene <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On the other hand if a relationship is irreducible, this relationship
> cannot be broken down to component parts. Hence in course
> metaphysics-the metaphysics of mind--there is no such thing as a
> "thing." Anything we might perceive of or think of as a thing is
> always
> a relationship. That relationship is between Mind and thought or the
> "relationship which implies being."
>
>
> As such God is NOT a thing. And most certainly NOT a thing in the way
> we
> commonly think of things. <
>
>
> You're stating the obvious, insisting I don't understand what you say
> and therefore not even considering that anything *I* say may be of any
> value. That's okay. Seems to me you're trying to explain what you
> believe to be true because you read it in a book.
Cupcake--you asked why I thought of Jesus as a unique being.
I answered that in terms of free will.
The proper thing to do in a discussion is to acknowledge my response to
your question and in some manner address my response to this question
you asked me three times. A thoughtful response equal to the thoughtful
response I gave your question is how you get what you write considered.
Instead I get a bunch of static and bullshit.
What makes you think I've never considered your standard,
run-of-the-mill reductionism and after careful thought rejected it? Its
amazing to me how people who wish to glory in their so called cutting
edge spiritual thinking and unimpeachable paradigms haven't a clue how
to think or how to properly handle themselves in an exchange of ideas.
Pieter
"Debinski" <debdan...@yahoo.com> schreef in bericht
news:e9800606-b400-4552...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>> 7. The creative relationship from the consciousness of Sonship is
>> articulated by Jesus: "I and the Father are one and the Father is
>> Greater."
>>
> Where does that quote come from?
T-1.II.4:7: ". . . ." and my Father are one," but there are
two parts to the statement in recognition that the Father is greater."
(See the preceding text for why this comes up.)
The Urtext is a bit more extensive:
"259. This appears to contradict another statement:
"I and my Father are one." It doesn't. There are still
separate parts in the statement, in recognition of the
fact that the Father is GREATER. Actually, the original
statement was "are of one KIND." "
(Again: see the preceeding text.)
Pieter
"Philomene" <ph...@gmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:heah6g$v5t$1...@aioe.org...
> If I had to speculate --"WILL", ie, "Free Will," rather than mind is the
> gift of life, self-awareness, uniqueness and individuality.
>
> When The Father creates WILL, Will like a black hole of infinite
> gravitational potential captures a portion of shared mind/one mind and
> becomes alive, self-aware, and God or better "created God." When WILL is
> in harmony and complete communication with its Creator and other created
> minds the result is HEAVEN.
>
> What I mean then is Jesus and I SHARE MIND but have distinct, unique
> wills. What else can "Free Will" possibly mean? Sometimes our wills are
> out of harmony and complete communication where so called identity and
> uniqueness is blatant.
Do you think Jesus' will is ever out of harmony with God?
Debinski
> Debinski wrote:
> > On Nov 21, 11:13 pm, Philomene <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On the other hand if a relationship is irreducible, this relationship
> > cannot be broken down to component parts. Hence in course
> > metaphysics-the metaphysics of mind--there is no such thing as a
> > "thing." Anything we might perceive of or think of as a thing is
> > always
> > a relationship. That relationship is between Mind and thought or the
> > "relationship which implies being."
>
> > As such God is NOT a thing. And most certainly NOT a thing in the way
> > we
> > commonly think of things. <
>
> > You're stating the obvious, insisting I don't understand what you say
> > and therefore not even considering that anything *I* say may be of any
> > value. That's okay. Seems to me you're trying to explain what you
> > believe to be true because you read it in a book.
>
> Cupcake--you asked why I thought of Jesus as a unique being.
>
> I answered that in terms of free will.
>
> The proper thing to do in a discussion is to acknowledge my response to
> your question and in some manner address my response to this question
> you asked me three times. A thoughtful response equal to the thoughtful
> response I gave your question is how you get what you write considered.
>
> Instead I get a bunch of static and bullshit.
>
And how -- do I dare to ask -- do you determine what is and is not
"the proper thing to do" in this conversation or any other? Which is
actually all *I* seem to get from what your responses. I am asking the
wrong questions. I am not responding "properly." I am wishing to glory
in my so-called cutting edge spiritual thinking and unimpeachable
paradigms haven't a clue how to think or how to properly handle
themselves in an exchange of ideas<
I am simply asking you how YOU came to the "unimpeachable paradigms"
you express. I am asking you to explain this in a way that I can see
it for myself -- not in a conceptual manner -- but in the actuality
the concepts seemingly point toward, assuming the concepts you offer
do actually point to something real. I am asking you to explain the
"knowing basis" for your perceptions in a manner I can sufficiently
understand to know where *I* can look to see for myself that what you
say is true. I'm sorry that my methods of doing that don't measure up
to your standards of how that should be done. Where would *I* look for
this "free will" you say reveals to you that you and Jesus are
separate beings rather than unique expressions of one being? I'm not
trying to tell you that you ARE "unique expressions of one being" I am
asking how you know that you are not. You say you are answering that
question and I am not understanding your answer. You may be right, but
at the risk of again being accused of being "too simplistic" or
"rhetorical" or offering only "standard run-of-the-mill reductionism"
-- even though I don't recall offering you any system at all but only
questioning your system -- I will offer a quote said to have come from
Einstein (paraphrased from memory) "If you can't explain what you know
in a manner a five-year-old can understand it, you don't understand it
yourself."
So I am going to dare to show my ignorance of proper protocal one more
time and ask you the same question for perhaps the fourth time, where
can *I* look for the boundary that separates what you would apparently
call "Deborah" from what you call "Jesus" -- not conceptually but
fundamentally. You said -- correctly in my opinion -- "The "I," is the
decision maker. It chooses self. It can either choose the true self it
shares with God, or the ego self it has miscreated."
I am asking you if the same "I" that chooses "self" or "the true self
it shares with God" is not also the "I" who chooses to call one
apparent self "Jesus" and another apparent self "Philomene" and
another apparent self "cupcake." Is there a real basis for that choice
or only a conceptual basis? You, of course, are perfectly free to
answer that question -- or not -- as you see fit.
> What makes you think I've never considered your standard,
> run-of-the-mill reductionism and after careful thought rejected it? Its
> amazing to me how people who wish to glory in their so called cutting
> edge spiritual thinking and unimpeachable paradigms haven't a clue how
> to think or how to properly handle themselves in an exchange of ideas.- Hide quoted text -
Debinski
The proper thing to do in a discussion is to acknowledge my response
to
your question and in some manner address my response to this question
you asked me three times. A thoughtful response equal to the
thoughtful
response I gave your question is how you get what you write
considered. <
In my "ignorance" I might add that in order to give thoughtful
consideration to your explanations I first have to know where to look
for the "things" you are explaining -- "free will, lower selves,
identities, etc." Help me see where to look for those things and I
will do my best to respond to them in a manner acceptable to you.
> to think or how to properly handle themselves in an exchange of ideas.- Hide quoted text -
Debinski
> "Debinski" <debdaniel...@yahoo.com> schreef in berichtnews:e9800606-b400-4552...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> 7. The creative relationship from the consciousness of Sonship is
> >> articulated by Jesus: "I and the Father are one and the Father is
> >> Greater."
>
> > Where does that quote come from?
>
> T-1.II.4:7: ". . . ." and my Father are one," but there are
> two parts to the statement in recognition that the Father is greater."
> (See the preceding text for why this comes up.)
>
> The Urtext is a bit more extensive:
>
> "259. This appears to contradict another statement:
> "I and my Father are one." It doesn't. There are still
> separate parts in the statement, in recognition of the
> fact that the Father is GREATER. Actually, the original
> statement was "are of one KIND." "
> (Again: see the preceeding text.)
>
Thanks, Pieter. THAT was helpful. That is something I can look at and
consider. That passage goes on to say this:
T 1 B 41b. A miracle has thus the unique property of abolishing time
by rendering the space of time it occupies unnecessary. There is NO
relation between the time a miracle TAKES and the time it COVERS.
It substitutes FOR learning that might have taken thousands of years.
It
does this by the underlying recognition of perfect equality and
holiness
between doer and receiver on which the miracle rests. T(44) -44 It is
unstable, but perfectly consistent, i.e., it does not occur
predictably
across time, and it rarely occurs in comparable forms. But within
ITSELF
it is perfectly consistent. Since it contains NOTHING BUT an
acknowledgment of equality and worth, all parts ARE equal. This
establishes
the prerequisite for validity."
In another passage, we are told this:
"Yet truth is offered FIRST, to be received, even as God
gave it first to His Son. The first in time means nothing, but the
First in
Eternity is God the Father, Who is both First and One. Beyond the
First, there is no other, for there is no order, no second or third,
and
nothing BUT the First.
T 13 I 2. You who belong to the First Cause, created by Him like unto
Himself, and part of Him, are more than merely guiltless. The state of
guiltlessness is only the condition in which what is NOT there has
been
REMOVED, from the disordered mind that THOUGHT it WAS. This
state, and only this, must YOU attain with God beside you. For until
you do, you will still think that you are separate FROM Him. You can
feel His Presence NEXT TO you, but CANNOT know that you are one
with Him. This need not be taught. Learning applies ONLY to the
condition IN WHICH IT HAPPENS of itself.
>
How do you suppose this statement relates to the former? Are we merely
being reminded that parts (sons/thoughts) are equal but no part
encompasses the whole (Father) and that effects (sons) can't establish
Truth but only extend it? Or is it indeed more complicated than that?
>
> > The only similar quote that comes to
> > MY mind is "The Father and I are one, without Him I can do nothing" --
> > which I don't understand to mean "I can only do what He allows me to
> > do" but that what He does He does through me. IOW, "a me without Him
> > can do nothing."- Hide quoted text -
Pieter
> On Nov 22, 3:26 am, "Pieter" <hrdou...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Debinski" <debdaniel...@yahoo.com> schreef in
> > berichtnews:e9800606-b400-4552...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > >> 7. The creative relationship from the consciousness of Sonship is
> > >> articulated by Jesus: "I and the Father are one and the Father is
> > >> Greater."
>
> > > Where does that quote come from?
>
> > T-1.II.4:7: ". . . ." and my Father are one," but there are
> > two parts to the statement in recognition that the Father is greater."
> > (See the preceding text for why this comes up.)
>
> > The Urtext is a bit more extensive:
>
> > "259. This appears to contradict another statement:
> > "I and my Father are one." It doesn't. There are still
> > separate parts in the statement, in recognition of the
> > fact that the Father is GREATER. Actually, the original
> > statement was "are of one KIND." "
This is said of part and whole:
"The recognition of the part as whole, and of the whole in every part,
is PERFECTLY natural. For it is the way God thinks, and what is
natural to Him IS natural to you."
On establishing God's Reality:
"Your creations cannot establish your reality, any more than you can
establish God's. But you can KNOW both. Being is known by sharing.
BECAUSE God shared His Being with you, you can know Him. But
you must also know all He created, to know what they have shared."
More passages on the whole, being in every part:
"I thank you, Father, knowing you will come to close each little gap that
lies between the broken pieces of Your holy Son. Your holiness, complete and
perfect, lies in every one of them. And they ARE joined, because what is in
one is in them all. How holy is the smallest grain of sand, when it is
recognized as being part of the completed picture of God's Son! The forms
the broken pieces seem to take mean nothing. For the whole is in each
one. And every aspect of the Son of God is just the same as every other
part."
"There is no order of difficulty in miracles because all of God's Sons are
of
equal value, and their equality is their Oneness.The whole power of God is
in every part of Him, and nothing contradictory to His Will is either great
or small."
"If you are part of God and the Sonship is one, you CANNOT be limited to the
"self " the ego sees. Every loving thought held in ANY part of the Sonship
belongs to every part."
"God gave Himself to you in your creation, and His gifts are eternal."
"When God gave Himself to you in your creation, He established you
as host to Him forever. He has not left you, and you have not left Him."
- I hope these passages help you answering your questions!
Debinski
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thanks, Pieter. Yes, those passages are helpful. My questions weren't
really about who the Creator is nor do I have a problem with the
Father being greater in the sense of the whole being greater than the
sum of the parts. I DO, however, have a problem with the Father being
greater in the sense Philomeme said it -- as in the Father sets the
"rules, limits and laws,
which made it sound like the Son really could do things without the
Father, so the Father -- being greater -- has to keep him reigned in.
I was pretty sure the Course didn't say anything like that. Certainly
THESE passages don't. If the Son really did have the power to disobey
the Father -- or could oppose the Father -- there could be no
assurance of salvation or freedom from fear.
My other question about the whole being in the parts was more about
the whole being in each part only outside of time/space/perception as
the passage about there being no second or third says. In wholeness
there is no relationship. Within time/space -- the perceptual world --
the whole is in relationship not in the parts that relate. Thanks
again for your help!
Pieter
> Thanks, Pieter.
- You're welcome!
> Yes, those passages are helpful. My questions weren't
> really about who the Creator is nor do I have a problem with the
> Father being greater in the sense of the whole being greater than the
> sum of the parts. I DO, however, have a problem with the Father being
> greater in the sense Philomeme said it -- as in the Father sets the
> "rules, limits and laws,
> which made it sound like the Son really could do things without the
> Father, so the Father -- being greater -- has to keep him reigned in.
> I was pretty sure the Course didn't say anything like that.
I'm sure of that as well.
The following passage speaks of "everything"
being "limited in some way by the manner
of its creation." Then it is explained that this
"in some way" is meant in the negative,
miscreative sense:
"Everything is limited in some way by the manner
of its creation. Free will can temporize, and is
capable of enormous procrastination. But it
cannot depart entirely from its Creator, Who set
the limits on its ability to miscreate by virtue of its
own REAL purpose. The misuse of will engenders
a situation which, in the extreme, becomes altogether
intolerable. Pain thresholds can be high, but they are
not limitless. Eventually everyone begins to recognize,
however dimly, that there MUST be a better way.
As this recognition becomes more firmly established,
it becomes a perceptual turning-point."
So miscreation or misuse is limited, in the sense
that it cannot abolish what God created:
"While he believes he is in a body, however, man
can choose between loveless and miraculous
channels of expression. He can make an empty
shell, but he CANNOT express nothing at all.
He can wait, delay, paralyze himself, reduce his
creativity to almost nothing, and even introduce
a developmental arrest or even a regression. But
he CANNOT abolish his creativity. He can
destroy his medium of communication, but NOT
his potential."
One could say: the limits man poses on himself,
because of his belief in separation, are not limitless.
On the limitlessness of God's creations:
"1230. The creative power of both God AND
His Creations is limitless".
"1301. . . The Oneness of the Creator and the Creation
IS your wholeness, your sanity, and your limitless power.
This limitless power is God's gift to you, because it is
WHAT YOU ARE."
"1530. . . . You can know yourself only as God knows His Son,
for KNOWLEDGE is shared WITH God. When you awake in
Him, you will know your magnitude by accepting HIS limitlessness
as YOURS."
"1644. The peace of YOUR Soul lies in its limitlessness. Limit
the peace you share, and your own Soul MUST be unknown to you."
"1756. Your learning POTENTIAL, properly understood,
is limitless, because it will lead you to God."
"3277. Fatherhood is creation. Love MUST be extended. Purity
is not confined. It is the NATURE of the innocent to be forever
uncontained, without a barrier or limitation."
"3431. . . . what is done to him whom God so loves is done
to God Himself. Think not He wills to bind you, Who has made
you co-creator of the universe along with Him. He would but
keep your will forever and forever limitless."
"3434. Idols are quite specific. But your will is universal, being
limitless."
> Certainly
> THESE passages don't. If the Son really did have the power to disobey
> the Father -- or could oppose the Father -- there could be no
> assurance of salvation or freedom from fear.
>
> My other question about the whole being in the parts was more about
> the whole being in each part only outside of time/space/perception as
> the passage about there being no second or third says. In wholeness
> there is no relationship. Within time/space -- the perceptual world --
> the whole is in relationship not in the parts that relate. Thanks
> again for your help!-
maz
PMFJI,
this is what is meant by reductionism unfit for ACIM metaphysics.
in ACIM, Father, Sonship and Holy Spirit constitute Wholeness while Being in
Relationship. Creation is sharing.
"In timelessness we co-exist with God" ~Jesus
peace, maz
"Pieter" <hrdo...@zonnet.nl> schreef in bericht
news:4b0aa2f2$0$5376$bf49...@news.tele2.nl...
Philomene
> Thanks, Pieter. Yes, those passages are helpful. My questions weren't
> really about who the Creator is nor do I have a problem with the
> Father being greater in the sense of the whole being greater than the
> sum of the parts. I DO, however, have a problem with the Father being
> greater in the sense Philomeme said it -- as in the Father sets the
> "rules, limits and laws,
> which made it sound like the Son really could do things without the
> Father, so the Father -- being greater -- has to keep him reigned in.
> I was pretty sure the Course didn't say anything like that.
A sure way of knowing what the author of A Course in Miracles writes is
to read ACIM and make an effort to understand what is written.
A easy, fast but not comprehensive method would be to do a search on an
digital version of ACIM for "rules," "limits," "laws," "will," "free
will," "self," "selves," and read what the author has to say about these
concepts.
In reading ACIM, in fact, reading any religious, spiritual or
philosophic text it helpful to suspend judgment on the ultimate validity
and truthfulness of the thought system of text. That's because the
reader has no ability to judge ultimate validity, only the ability to
judge the given thought system as internally consistent, having
corresponding to reality, and having some demonstrable utility value.
Hence we can say with surety and confidence that the reality of God is
part of the ACIM thought system, we cannot say with surety and
confidence that God ultimately exist, or if God exists that God has any
correspondence at all to the author's description.
As knowledgeable, sophisticated readers/thinkers, we should be concerned
with fair, LITERAL, straight-forward reading of text. In other words,
give the author a level playing field and every possible concession to
make his best case and to fully expound his philosophy and thought system.
To this end, the reader concedes the author is sane, honest, truthful
and knowledgeable about his subject. Further concedes the author desires
to make his best case and fully, accurately expound his
philosophy/thought system within the limits of language and the limits
of his intellectual abilities.
A fair reading also implies that the reader suspends, to the best of her
ability, prior beliefs and assumptions about the subject matter such
that direct statements of the author are not unfairly interpreted as
metaphors, half-truth, white lies, etc, in order to accommodate a
thought system other than the one the author is directly expounding.
As such the author directly states the Father put a limit on the ability
to mis create. One assumes this means "free will" gives the Son the
ability to create or mis create in opposition to the will of the Father,
NOT without the Father.
On the other hand, if you see putting limits on the ability to mis
create as contradictory or paradoxical to your present metal map or
paradigm of the relationship of Father/Son, Mind/Thought, then realize
this is your freakn' paradigm. Your paradigm could be wrong, inaccurate,
or insufficient to reconcile a seeming contradiction or paradox.
As a sophisticated/knowledgeable reader one assumes that the author
reconciles seemingly contradictory and paradoxical statements with an
adequate mental map, theory, explanation or paradigm. And that is
exactly what the reader finds if the reader just looks. Its found in the
author's detailed metaphysics of self and selves, which is for the most
part overlooked, and often replaced with simpler or foreign, or
contradictory explanations of creation. Or replaced even with a DENIAL
of creation.
Again it not whether the metaphysics of ACIM is ultimately true. That's
a judgment beyond the present ability of the reader to discern. But a
fair, intelligent reading of the text should and does reveal a complete
thought system. In fact reveals a magnificent thought system light years
a head of the crazy god, reductionist, "I am God," metaphysics often
unfairly imposed on the text by agenda driven "enthusiasts."
I'd say the course reveals a holographic God extending and creating His
holograph. The part is the whole, the whole is the part.
People who think in terms of "I am God" reductionism, don't get it at all.
Debinski
> >> In wholeness there is no relationship.<<
>
> PMFJI,<
What is PMFJI ?
>
> this is what is meant by reductionism unfit for ACIM metaphysics.
>
> in ACIM, Father, Sonship and Holy Spirit constitute Wholeness while Being in
> Relationship. Creation is sharing.<
>
> "In timelessness we co-exist with God" ~Jesus
>
Seems to me we've had this discussion before, Maz. <smile> Where does
the statement "In timelessness we co-exist with God" come from? I
searched my urtext for it and it didn't come up. The only references I
saw to "co-exist" referred to what cannot "co-exist" not to anything
that can or does "co-exist." Even if "co-existence" IS a valid
concept, how does co-existence prove relationship? It just seems clear
to me the the Father exists with or without a Son -- but would not be
called "Father." The Son, however, cannot exist without the Father. To
me co-existence implies that He could not only exist without the
Father but could actually choose to go his own way. "ONE in essence
(or Kind) different only in function."
I don't disagree that creation is extension, but the word "sharing"
implies lack to me. Is all of this just semantics? I don't know.
Obviously whatever we conceptualize ABOUT God is far removed from
Reality. In fact even to say the word "God" implies "not God." But it
DOES seem important to me that however God is conceptualized does NOT
include the possibility of opposition -- which to me "relationship"
does. How would "All That IS" relate to "All That Is?"
As for "Holy Spirit" that concept is valid only when separation is
believed, isn't it?
Debinski
>
> "Pieter" <hrdou...@zonnet.nl> schreef in berichtnews:4b0aa2f2$0$5376$bf49...@news.tele2.nl...
> >> again for your help!-- Hide quoted text -
Philomene
> On 23 nov, 05:42, Debinski <debdaniel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks, Pieter.
>
> - You're welcome!
>
>> Yes, those passages are helpful. My questions weren't
>> really about who the Creator is nor do I have a problem with the
>> Father being greater in the sense of the whole being greater than the
>> sum of the parts. I DO, however, have a problem with the Father being
>> greater in the sense Philomeme said it -- as in the Father sets the
>> "rules, limits and laws,
>> which made it sound like the Son really could do things without the
>> Father, so the Father -- being greater -- has to keep him reigned in.
>> I was pretty sure the Course didn't say anything like that.
>
> I'm sure of that as well.
Lol. Amazing how you can be "sure" about a statement which on its face
denies "free will."
Got any profound insights into "free will" ?
No. I didn't think so. Low level textual analysis. Yeah, most likely one
of those metaphors which shouldn't be taken as "really true."
Debinski
How does this relate to "words are but symbols of symbols?" Obviously,
the words are not the thing. Words point TO something real or to an
absence of something real.Words are meaningless if we are not using
them to refer to the same thing. I honestly don't know who you are
arguing with, but I can assure you it is not this "cupcake." I can't
argue with you. I can't even get on the same page with you because you
won't give me hint where to look for what your words point toward. Nor
did *I* ever say "I am God."
>> A easy, fast but not comprehensive method would be to do a search on an
digital version of ACIM for "rules," "limits," "laws," "will," "free
will," "self," "selves," and read what the author has to say about
these
concepts. <<
Obviously, but I'm not conversing with the author of A Course in
Miracles, I'm trying to communicate with Philomeme. Or are you saying
your use of those words always points to exactly what the author of
the Course was pointing to when he chose them?
Debinski
Debinski
maz
On Nov 23, 10:13 am, "maz" <m...@solcon.nl_> wrote:
> >> In wholeness there is no relationship.<<
>
> PMFJI,<
What is PMFJI ?<
"Pardon me for jumping in."
>
> this is what is meant by reductionism unfit for ACIM metaphysics.
>
> in ACIM, Father, Sonship and Holy Spirit constitute Wholeness while Being
> in
> Relationship. Creation is sharing.<
>
> "In timelessness we co-exist with God" ~Jesus
>
>> Seems to me we've had this discussion before, Maz. <smile> Where does
the statement "In timelessness we co-exist with God" come from? I
searched my urtext for it and it didn't come up. The only references I
saw to "co-exist" referred to what cannot "co-exist" not to anything
that can or does "co-exist." Even if "co-existence" IS a valid
concept, how does co-existence prove relationship? It just seems clear
to me the the Father exists with or without a Son -- but would not be
called "Father." The Son, however, cannot exist without the Father. To
me co-existence implies that He could not only exist without the
Father but could actually choose to go his own way. "ONE in essence
(or Kind) different only in function."<<
The quote is this:
"625. Time is under MY direction, but Timelessness belongs to God alone. In
time, we exist for and with each other. In Timelessness, we coexist with
God."
>> I don't disagree that creation is extension, but the word "sharing"
implies lack to me. Is all of this just semantics? I don't know.<<
Hmm. Looks like it... ;-)
>> Obviously whatever we conceptualize ABOUT God is far removed from
Reality. In fact even to say the word "God" implies "not God." But it
DOES seem important to me that however God is conceptualized does NOT
include the possibility of opposition -- which to me "relationship"
does. How would "All That IS" relate to "All That Is?"<<
My (limited) understanding would say: All That Is relates to All That Is
through unconflicted Expansion and Communication.
>> As for "Holy Spirit" that concept is valid only when separation is
believed, isn't it?<<
No, the Holy Spirit, in ACIM, has a temporary DUAL or DOUBLE function.
Rooted in Knowledge the Holy Spirit is also the Atonement principle which
heals through RIGHT perception or HEALED perception. The latter part is
limited to the Atonement process, and thus will end at some point (or has
ended at some point, as its all Done and Over in Truth). The eternal
Function is discribed as Communication, but I'd need to dig up the
quotations to back this up with Jesus' 1st hand instructions on that.
peace, mazinski
maz
The answer lies in the teachings of the Atonement as the only Defense. It
sets a limit to the miscreative abilities of the Sons, hence what they
think/do/learn in the realm of perception is NOT affecting Reality, and has
technically never occured in Reality but in dreams. The age-old discussion
of determinism versus free will should probably be examined. While the
Outcome to the Atonement proces is set, the way there seems not. Or is it?
Free will does not mean we can make real what is not real. It means to me
that we can try to usurp God's Authority and enjoy a little self-imposed
tyranny of some millions of years until we're just sick and tired of it.
Only God's will is Free and His Sons share the same Will. But this has
nothing to do with feverish dreams of imprisioned will or denied will.
Not sure.... there's a nice philosophical clip of Waking_Life: check it out
at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VxQuPBX1_U (David Sosa, Professor)
Philomene, how about a little podium discussion with Sosa? I'd love that.
namazt�
Philomene
What? You want a whole dissertation on linguistic philosophy?
Most people understand the word "God," is not God. And understand a
statue of Jesus is not Jesus. Some people even understand a entire
paragraphs of words articulating a concept may not be pointing to
anything but other words.
How it relates? Words are how we communicate concepts and ideas.
Obviously,
> the words are not the thing. Words point TO something real or to an
> absence of something real.Words are meaningless if we are not using
> them to refer to the same thing. I honestly don't know who you are
> arguing with, but I can assure you it is not this "cupcake." I can't
> argue with you. I can't even get on the same page with you because you
> won't give me hint where to look for what your words point toward. Nor
> did *I* ever say "I am God."
>
>>> A easy, fast but not comprehensive method would be to do a search on an
> digital version of ACIM for "rules," "limits," "laws," "will," "free
> will," "self," "selves," and read what the author has to say about
> these
> concepts. <<
>
> Obviously, but I'm not conversing with the author of A Course in
> Miracles, I'm trying to communicate with Philomeme. Or are you saying
> your use of those words always points to exactly what the author of
> the Course was pointing to when he chose them?
I'm saying that is the ideal.
I'm also saying if one wishes to understand the author the best way to
do so is to give the author a fair, intelligent reading, trusting he is
saying what he means, and means what he says.
Debinski
No. It just took me a bit longer than it could have to realize you
were only trying to communicate your interpretation of the text, which
doesn't interest me much. If I doubted the validity of the Course then
I would be interested in analyzing the text, but I don't. I AM
interested in talking about various understandings of the Course if
the understanding communicated is based upon experience or
observation. But comparing interpretations of second-hand information
doesn't interest me much.
>>I'm also saying if one wishes to understand the author the best way to
do so is to give the author a fair, intelligent reading, trusting he
is
saying what he means, and means what he says. <<
Are you referring to yourself or the author of the Course? I have no
doubts about the author of the Course. If I were to trust that you say
what you mean and mean what you say though I would have to conclude
that I am (or one of us is) a radical reductionist cupcake, among
other things. I know better.
Yes. But I didn't realize you were arguing the validity of the text or
its author -- although it seems clear now that I should have. If the
concepts and ideas we are discussing aren't based upon direct
experience or observation, what good can come of it? Is there some
benefit to be derived from having the "best concept?" As I said, for
me to give thoughtful consideration to your concepts I have to know
where to look for what the concepts and ideas point toward.
Debinski
- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
maz
"Deborah" <deb...@anywhere.ca> schreef in bericht
news:v9jlg5d4bjeog43ko...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 10:21:17 -0600, Philomene <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>As such the author directly states the Father put a limit on the ability
>>to mis create. One assumes this means "free will" gives the Son the
>>ability to create or mis create in opposition to the will of the Father,
>>NOT without the Father.
>
> self we made and the world we made were made without God.
>
> We are either co-creators with God or miscreators.
> Deborah (BC)
I believe I hear Jesus teach that even in miscreation the laws of Creation
are NOT suspended. Up-side down, yes, but not violated at all, still in
effect and still NOT subject to free choice. Example: Even in miscreation
the laws of cause and effect are valid. They maybe be perceived wrongly,
yes. Bummer! :)
namazt�
george
Wouldn't the only way to understand the author be to do what the
author says to do in his course and see if it rings true and proves
itself to the one actually taking and applying ACIM. That ACIM is
meant to be applied and taken and without that, it can't be understood
as the application IS it's meaning.
Debinski
>
> - Show quoted text -
Actually, when I get answers like "if I had to speculate" about what
distinguishes "Philomeme" from "Jesus" I would say it is "free will,"
I am so surprised the first thing I DO is search the Course to try to
determine where such ideas come from. So, yes,I did that. I didn't
find anything that even remotely indicated "free will" is the agent or
determiner of identity though. I did find passages that seem to me to
contradict that idea, but by that time I wasn't sure you were
interested in what the Course actually says.
"T 8 C 4. That is why the ego IS the denial of free will. It is NEVER
God Who coerces you, because He SHARES His Will WITH you. His voice
teaches ONLY His Will, but that is not the Holy Spirit’s lesson,
because that is what you ARE.
***The LESSON is that your will and God’s CANNOT be out of accord
because they ARE one. This is the
UNdoing of EVERYTHING the ego tries to teach.***
It is not, then, only the DIRECTION (of the curriculum?) which must
be unconflicted, but also the CONTENT."
"T 2 A 9. The world, in its original connotation, included both the
proper creation of man by God, AND the proper creation by man in his
Right Mind. The latter required the endowment of man by God with
free will, because all loving creation is freely given. Nothing in
either
of these statements implies any sort of level involvement, or, in
fact,
anything except one continuous line of creation, ** in which all
aspects
are of the same order." **
Philomene
>> I'm also saying if one wishes to understand the author the best way to
>> do so is to give the author a fair, intelligent reading, trusting he is
>> saying what he means, and means what he says.
>
> Wouldn't the only way to understand the author be to do what the
> author says to do in his course and see if it rings true and proves
> itself to the one actually taking and applying ACIM. That ACIM is
> meant to be applied and taken and without that, it can't be understood
> as the application IS it's meaning.
Well yeah. But wouldn't application imply the student has given the
author a fair reading so the students has a general notion about what
the author wishes him to apply?
george
For sure.
Philomene
Well the reasons you are getting such skewed results, is the notion of
free will presuppose you have some intelligent grasp of the notion of
identity besides "boundaries."
It seems to me that identity is not so much beliefs about one's self, as
the existential awareness that one exists which in turn gives the
privative notion of "I" or identity.
It also seems to me this existential awareness of life and existence
would be as true in the perceptual world as the Kingdom of Heaven.
It also seems to me that free will is closely associated with this
existential awareness of existence, because free will would be pretty
much useless to the non-existing.
>
> "T 8 C 4. That is why the ego IS the denial of free will. It is NEVER
> God Who coerces you, because He SHARES His Will WITH you. His voice
> teaches ONLY His Will, but that is not the Holy Spirit�s lesson,
> because that is what you ARE.
>
> ***The LESSON is that your will and God�s CANNOT be out of accord
Pieter
- A question of conscience:
did you read the rest of my post?
Debinski
Well excuse my ignorance yet again. I can only formulate questions
based on my own experience/observation. It simply never occurred to me
that you were suggesting "I" was a private notion.How does that relate
to the Course saying "there are no private thoughts?" If "I" is a
private notion arising in separate minds, does each separate mind
project a separate world so that experience can only be shared
verbally? Or are these separate "I"s observing an objective world that
exists independently of their awareness of it? How does that relate to
the Course saying "within and without are exactly the same thing" or
"The Kingdom of God IS you? The Kingdom is private, too?
> It seems to me that identity is not so much beliefs about one's self, as
> the existential awareness that one exists which in turn gives the
> privative notion of "I" or identity.
>
> It also seems to me this existential awareness of life and existence
> would be as true in the perceptual world as the Kingdom of Heaven.
>
> It also seems to me that free will is closely associated with this
> existential awareness of existence, because free will would be pretty
> much useless to the non-existing.
>
I don't recall saying you don't exist. My question was how do you know
your existence is separate from my existence or from God rather than
being a unique expression of ONE existence? Or as the Course says "You
ARE the Will of God." IF what you say is true then is there any way
you can explain it simply enough for ME to understand it rather than
just mocking my questions? Or maybe I am also ignorant to assume I am
not the only one here who doesn't understand what you are saying.
>
>
>
>
> > "T 8 C 4. That is why the ego IS the denial of free will. It is NEVER
> > God Who coerces you, because He SHARES His Will WITH you. His voice
> > teaches ONLY His Will, but that is not the Holy Spirit’s lesson,
> > because that is what you ARE.
>
> > ***The LESSON is that your will and God’s CANNOT be out of accord
> > because they ARE one. This is the
> > UNdoing of EVERYTHING the ego tries to teach.***
>
> > It is not, then, only the DIRECTION (of the curriculum?) which must
> > be unconflicted, but also the CONTENT."
>
> > "T 2 A 9. The world, in its original connotation, included both the
> > proper creation of man by God, AND the proper creation by man in his
> > Right Mind. The latter required the endowment of man by God with
> > free will, because all loving creation is freely given. Nothing in
> > either
> > of these statements implies any sort of level involvement, or, in
> > fact,
> > anything except one continuous line of creation, ** in which all
> > aspects
> > are of the same order." **- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
maz
God Father, God Son or God Holy Spirit?
With God? No, I'm saying that miscreation can only occur based on the
miscreative use of Creation's Law, which remains intact.
peace, maz
> Because to say that
> is to say, in effect, that our miscreations are real.
> Deborah (BC)
>
Philomene
The word should have been privative rather than private. I'm saying
self-awareness of existence constitutes a primitive awareness of identity.
If "I" is a
> private notion arising in separate minds, does each separate mind
> project a separate world so that experience can only be shared
> verbally? Or are these separate "I"s observing an objective world that
> exists independently of their awareness of it? How does that relate to
> the Course saying "within and without are exactly the same thing" or
> "The Kingdom of God IS you? The Kingdom is private, too?
>
>
>> It seems to me that identity is not so much beliefs about one's self, as
>> the existential awareness that one exists which in turn gives the
>> privative notion of "I" or identity.
>>
>> It also seems to me this existential awareness of life and existence
>> would be as true in the perceptual world as the Kingdom of Heaven.
>>
>> It also seems to me that free will is closely associated with this
>> existential awareness of existence, because free will would be pretty
>> much useless to the non-existing.
>>
>
> I don't recall saying you don't exist.
I'm not talking about simple existence. A rock exists.
I'm talking about self-awareness, or the existential, immediate,
primitive apprehension of existing.
My question was how do you know
> your existence is separate from my existence or from God rather than
> being a unique expression of ONE existence?
Immediate, existential awareness of existing is phenomenal. In other
words, DIRECT experience.
Questions about separateness or under lying unity pre-supposes existence
and would only be meaningful to that which does exist.
Or as the Course says "You
> ARE the Will of God." IF what you say is true then is there any way
> you can explain it simply enough for ME to understand it rather than
> just mocking my questions? Or maybe I am also ignorant to assume I am
> not the only one here who doesn't understand what you are saying.
Simple?
Here goes --can God create? Can God create life? Can God create God?
If so then God has created the notion of "the other," relationship,
multiplicity, sharing, communication, love and extension of His Kingdom.
90% or more of course disagreements is between the denial and
affirmation that God can create.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>> "T 8 C 4. That is why the ego IS the denial of free will. It is NEVER
>>> God Who coerces you, because He SHARES His Will WITH you. His voice
>>> teaches ONLY His Will, but that is not the Holy Spirit�s lesson,
>>> because that is what you ARE.
>>> ***The LESSON is that your will and God�s CANNOT be out of accord
Philomene
The word should have been primitive rather than private.
Debinski
> >> Well the reasons you are getting such skewed results, is the notion of
> >> free will presuppose you have some intelligent grasp of the notion of
> >> identity besides "boundaries."
>
> > Well excuse my ignorance yet again. I can only formulate questions
> > based on my own experience/observation. It simply never occurred to me
> > that you were suggesting "I" was a private notion.How does that relate
> > to the Course saying "there are no private thoughts?"
>
> The word should have been privative rather than private. I'm saying
> self-awareness of existence constitutes a primitive awareness of identity.
>
No matter what question I ask I can't find any connection between the
question and the answer. So are you saying the "I" thought IS
universally shared or is not universally shared? Awarness IS
universally shared or is not universally shared?
>You're saying there ARE separate minds in which
> If "I" is a
>
>
>
>
>
> > private notion arising in separate minds, does each separate mind
> > project a separate world so that experience can only be shared
> > verbally? Or are these separate "I"s observing an objective world that
> > exists independently of their awareness of it? How does that relate to
> > the Course saying "within and without are exactly the same thing" or
> > "The Kingdom of God IS you? The Kingdom is private, too?
>
> >> It seems to me that identity is not so much beliefs about one's self, as
> >> the existential awareness that one exists which in turn gives the
> >> privative notion of "I" or identity.
>
> >> It also seems to me this existential awareness of life and existence
> >> would be as true in the perceptual world as the Kingdom of Heaven.
>
> >> It also seems to me that free will is closely associated with this
> >> existential awareness of existence, because free will would be pretty
> >> much useless to the non-existing.
>
> > I don't recall saying you don't exist.
>
> I'm not talking about simple existence. A rock exists.<
Independently of awareness of it? That's the point I'm trying to get
to and I don't know if you are purposely avoiding it or what. Does the
rock objectively exist or subjectively exist?
>
> I'm talking about self-awareness, or the existential, immediate,
> primitive apprehension of existing.
>
> My question was how do you know
>
> > your existence is separate from my existence or from God rather than
> > being a unique expression of ONE existence?
>
> Immediate, existential awareness of existing is phenomenal. In other
> words, DIRECT experience.
>
> Questions about separateness or under lying unity pre-supposes existence
> and would only be meaningful to that which does exist.
>
I don't know what that means or how it relates to the question. That
*I* exist is unquestionable -- to me anyway as I assumed it was to
you. Although you seem to me to be saying "I think therefore I am" and
I would say "I am, therefore I think."
> Or as the Course says "You
>
> > ARE the Will of God." IF what you say is true then is there any way
> > you can explain it simply enough for ME to understand it rather than
> > just mocking my questions? Or maybe I am also ignorant to assume I am
> > not the only one here who doesn't understand what you are saying.
>
> Simple?
>
> Here goes --can God create? Can God create life? Can God create God?
>
Only God creates and only like Himself. Can the Father create another
Father? No. Can the Son create unlike the Father? No.
> If so then God has created the notion of "the other," relationship,
> multiplicity, sharing, communication, love and extension of His Kingdom.<
Just when did I ever suggest He didn't create the notion of "the
other" In fact I thought I clearly said it wasn't the thought of
separation -- without which there could be no experience, no
relationship, no communication -- that causes problems. It's the
belief that separation is REAL. Or maybe that was a different
conversation. At any rate that's why I asked if whatever distinguishes
you from Jesus is eternal or temporal.
>
> 90% or more of course disagreements is between the denial and
> affirmation that God can create.
>
So you've been trying to argue with me over what you believe 90% of
course disagreements are about even though *I* never suggested God
doesn't create? I not only didn't suggest God doesn't create, I'm
rather notorious in some circles for being "the lunatic who just can't
get it through her head that God didn't create the universe and
refuses to accept that the goal of the Course is the disappearance of
the universe. Or are you saying you don't believe God creates?
>
>
>
> >>> "T 8 C 4. That is why the ego IS the denial of free will. It is NEVER
> >>> God Who coerces you, because He SHARES His Will WITH you. His voice
> >>> teaches ONLY His Will, but that is not the Holy Spirit’s lesson,
> >>> because that is what you ARE.
> >>> ***The LESSON is that your will and God’s CANNOT be out of accord
Philomene
> On Nov 23, 4:08 pm, Philomene <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Well the reasons you are getting such skewed results, is the notion of
>>>> free will presuppose you have some intelligent grasp of the notion of
>>>> identity besides "boundaries."
>>> Well excuse my ignorance yet again. I can only formulate questions
>>> based on my own experience/observation. It simply never occurred to me
>>> that you were suggesting "I" was a private notion.How does that relate
>>> to the Course saying "there are no private thoughts?"
>> The word should have been privative rather than private. I'm saying
>> self-awareness of existence constitutes a primitive awareness of identity.
>>
>
> No matter what question I ask I can't find any connection between the
> question and the answer. So are you saying the "I" thought IS
> universally shared or is not universally shared? Awarness IS
> universally shared or is not universally shared?
I have no idea what you asking.
If God gives life and creates it would seem to me awareness of being
alive and existing would be a natural part of that gift.
>
>> You're saying there ARE separate minds in which
>
>> If "I" is a
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> private notion arising in separate minds, does each separate mind
>>> project a separate world so that experience can only be shared
>>> verbally? Or are these separate "I"s observing an objective world that
>>> exists independently of their awareness of it? How does that relate to
>>> the Course saying "within and without are exactly the same thing" or
>>> "The Kingdom of God IS you? The Kingdom is private, too?
>>>> It seems to me that identity is not so much beliefs about one's self, as
>>>> the existential awareness that one exists which in turn gives the
>>>> privative notion of "I" or identity.
>>>> It also seems to me this existential awareness of life and existence
>>>> would be as true in the perceptual world as the Kingdom of Heaven.
>>>> It also seems to me that free will is closely associated with this
>>>> existential awareness of existence, because free will would be pretty
>>>> much useless to the non-existing.
>>> I don't recall saying you don't exist.
>> I'm not talking about simple existence. A rock exists.<
>
> Independently of awareness of it? That's the point I'm trying to get
> to and I don't know if you are purposely avoiding it or what. Does the
> rock objectively exist or subjectively exist?
In course-think the rock would exist in the mind of its creator.
How this works is speculative.
>
>> I'm talking about self-awareness, or the existential, immediate,
>> primitive apprehension of existing.
>>
>> My question was how do you know
>>
>>> your existence is separate from my existence or from God rather than
>>> being a unique expression of ONE existence?
>> Immediate, existential awareness of existing is phenomenal. In other
>> words, DIRECT experience.
>>
>> Questions about separateness or under lying unity pre-supposes existence
>> and would only be meaningful to that which does exist.
>>
>
> I don't know what that means or how it relates to the question. That
> *I* exist is unquestionable -- to me anyway as I assumed it was to
> you. Although you seem to me to be saying "I think therefore I am" and
> I would say "I am, therefore I think."
If I exist is unquestionable, then why put I in quotation marks?
It seems to me the direct apprehension of existence is always singular.
True, one can say "we exist," instead of "I exists," but then this
simply presupposes the existence of others and identity as a group.
It seems to me the direct apprehension of existence is singular,
pre-conceptual, and before any need or desire to elaborate on what "I"
means.
>
>
>> Or as the Course says "You
>>
>>> ARE the Will of God." IF what you say is true then is there any way
>>> you can explain it simply enough for ME to understand it rather than
>>> just mocking my questions? Or maybe I am also ignorant to assume I am
>>> not the only one here who doesn't understand what you are saying.
>> Simple?
>>
>> Here goes --can God create? Can God create life? Can God create God?
>>
>
> Only God creates and only like Himself. Can the Father create another
> Father? No.
Well in course think that is not so. God creates the Son to be Father to
his own creations.
We are told God is self-creating and even creates the rules and laws by
which He creates.
We are also told God was not created by a greater God.
So we are left to wonder if God even knows how He exists.
Can the Son create unlike the Father? No.
>
>> If so then God has created the notion of "the other," relationship,
>> multiplicity, sharing, communication, love and extension of His Kingdom.<
>
> Just when did I ever suggest He didn't create the notion of "the
> other" In fact I thought I clearly said it wasn't the thought of
> separation -- without which there could be no experience, no
> relationship, no communication -- that causes problems. It's the
> belief that separation is REAL. Or maybe that was a different
> conversation. At any rate that's why I asked if whatever distinguishes
> you from Jesus is eternal or temporal.
>
>> 90% or more of course disagreements is between the denial and
>> affirmation that God can create.
>>
>
> So you've been trying to argue with me over what you believe 90% of
> course disagreements are about even though *I* never suggested God
> doesn't create? I not only didn't suggest God doesn't create, I'm
> rather notorious in some circles for being "the lunatic who just can't
> get it through her head that God didn't create the universe and
> refuses to accept that the goal of the Course is the disappearance of
> the universe. Or are you saying you don't believe God creates?
If you are arguing with Renardians you are not exactly arguing with deep
thinkers.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>>>> "T 8 C 4. That is why the ego IS the denial of free will. It is NEVER
>>>>> God Who coerces you, because He SHARES His Will WITH you. His voice
>>>>> teaches ONLY His Will, but that is not the Holy Spirit�s lesson,
>>>>> because that is what you ARE.
>>>>> ***The LESSON is that your will and God�s CANNOT be out of accord
ellie
How's that ACIM application working for you these days John? :)
MikeRyder
lol
Debinski
> Debinski wrote:
> > On Nov 23, 4:08 pm, Philomene <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> Well the reasons you are getting such skewed results, is the notion of
> >>>> free will presuppose you have some intelligent grasp of the notion of
> >>>> identity besides "boundaries."
> >>> Well excuse my ignorance yet again. I can only formulate questions
> >>> based on my own experience/observation. It simply never occurred to me
> >>> that you were suggesting "I" was a private notion.How does that relate
> >>> to the Course saying "there are no private thoughts?"
> >> The word should have been privative rather than private. I'm saying
> >> self-awareness of existence constitutes a primitive awareness of identity.
>
> > No matter what question I ask I can't find any connection between the
> > question and the answer. So are you saying the "I" thought IS
> > universally shared or is not universally shared? Awarness IS
> > universally shared or is not universally shared?
>
> I have no idea what you asking.
>
Well, having read this post, maybe it would help if I rephrase those
questions -- or not. Assuming there are other minds than the one you
call "yours" -- which btw YOU said you believe in "minds" (plural) --
is the awareness in "other minds" the same awareness in "your mind"
and is the "I thought" that arises in your mind the same "I thought"
that arises in other minds. To ME that does sound like a speculative
question. Something that can't really be known, but I am not the one
who said there are "separate minds" either. Personally, I don't even
know how the idea of "separate minds" can be supported.
I'm asking the questions because although *I* personally have not and
am not likely to say "I am God." I can't help wondering if your
objections to the statement "I am God" and arguments against it are
based upon your own assumption that it means the person saying it is
God. Which may indeed be the case and is why *I* don't say it. Because
to most people, to say "I am God" would sound the same as saying
"Deborah is God" when in Reality "Deborah" is only a tiny fraction of
what exists -- or seems to exist -- within what is encompassed by the
"I thought." I put that in quotation marks btw in an attempt to keep
it singular.
> If God gives life and creates it would seem to me awareness of being
> alive and existing would be a natural part of that gift.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> You're saying there ARE separate minds in which
>
> >> If "I" is a
>
> >>> private notion arising in separate minds, does each separate mind
> >>> project a separate world so that experience can only be shared
> >>> verbally? Or are these separate "I"s observing an objective world that
> >>> exists independently of their awareness of it? How does that relate to
> >>> the Course saying "within and without are exactly the same thing" or
> >>> "The Kingdom of God IS you? The Kingdom is private, too?
> >>>> It seems to me that identity is not so much beliefs about one's self, as
> >>>> the existential awareness that one exists which in turn gives the
> >>>> privative notion of "I" or identity.
> >>>> It also seems to me this existential awareness of life and existence
> >>>> would be as true in the perceptual world as the Kingdom of Heaven.
> >>>> It also seems to me that free will is closely associated with this
> >>>> existential awareness of existence, because free will would be pretty
> >>>> much useless to the non-existing.
> >>> I don't recall saying you don't exist.
> >> I'm not talking about simple existence. A rock exists.<
>
> > Independently of awareness of it? That's the point I'm trying to get
> > to and I don't know if you are purposely avoiding it or what. Does the
> > rock objectively exist or subjectively exist?
>
> In course-think the rock would exist in the mind of its creator.
>
And would "the mind of its creator" be the same mind the Course would
call "your mind?" i.e. The Course says "God is in everything I see
because God is in my mind." and the difference in vision and the way
you see is that vision seeks to join with what is seen, not keep it
apart from you. So would what you call "your mind" be the same as what
you are calling "the mind of the creator?"
> How this works is speculative.
>
I'm not talking about how it works. I have no idea how it works. I'm
trying to get at how we can KNOW anything we say to be true. So to me,
it is speculative to say "a rock exists" since I have no way of
knowing IF the rock exists independently of my awareness of it.
.>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> I'm talking about self-awareness, or the existential, immediate,
> >> primitive apprehension of existing.
>
> >> My question was how do you know
>
> >>> your existence is separate from my existence or from God rather than
> >>> being a unique expression of ONE existence?
> >> Immediate, existential awareness of existing is phenomenal. In other
> >> words, DIRECT experience.
>
> >> Questions about separateness or under lying unity pre-supposes existence
> >> and would only be meaningful to that which does exist.
>
> > I don't know what that means or how it relates to the question. That
> > *I* exist is unquestionable -- to me anyway as I assumed it was to
> > you. Although you seem to me to be saying "I think therefore I am" and
> > I would say "I am, therefore I think."
>
> If I exist is unquestionable, then why put I in quotation marks?
Those are asterisks -- for emphasis.
>
> It seems to me the direct apprehension of existence is always singular.
>
> True, one can say "we exist," instead of "I exists," but then this
> simply presupposes the existence of others and identity as a group.
>
Well, for heaven's sake. That's what I've been trying to get to all
along -- unless, of course, I am totally misunderstanding you again. I
KNOW "I exist" but I cannot know that anything other than I exists
outside of or independently of my awareness of it. IOW, everything I
say "exists" can only be said to exist in relation to me -- "me" being
Self, not self.
.> It seems to me the direct apprehension of existence is singular,
> pre-conceptual, and before any need or desire to elaborate on what "I"
> means.
>
>
>
> >> Or as the Course says "You
>
> >>> ARE the Will of God." IF what you say is true then is there any way
> >>> you can explain it simply enough for ME to understand it rather than
> >>> just mocking my questions? Or maybe I am also ignorant to assume I am
> >>> not the only one here who doesn't understand what you are saying.
> >> Simple?
>
> >> Here goes --can God create? Can God create life? Can God create God?
>
> > Only God creates and only like Himself. Can the Father create another
> > Father? No.
>
> Well in course think that is not so. God creates the Son to be Father to
> his own creations.
>
I would have thought it was clear in that context that what I meant
was God the Father (Source) does create a second "God the
Father" (Source)
> which He creates.
>
> We are also told God was not created by a greater God.
>
> So we are left to wonder if God even knows how He exists.<
If we think of God as a thing, I suppose we would be left to wonder
that.
>
> Can the Son create unlike the Father? No.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> If so then God has created the notion of "the other," relationship,
> >> multiplicity, sharing, communication, love and extension of His Kingdom.<
>
> > Just when did I ever suggest He didn't create the notion of "the
> > other" In fact I thought I clearly said it wasn't the thought of
> > separation -- without which there could be no experience, no
> > relationship, no communication -- that causes problems. It's the
> > belief that separation is REAL. Or maybe that was a different
> > conversation. At any rate that's why I asked if whatever distinguishes
> > you from Jesus is eternal or temporal.
>
> >> 90% or more of course disagreements is between the denial and
> >> affirmation that God can create.
>
> > So you've been trying to argue with me over what you believe 90% of
> > course disagreements are about even though *I* never suggested God
> > doesn't create? I not only didn't suggest God doesn't create, I'm
> > rather notorious in some circles for being "the lunatic who just can't
> > get it through her head that God didn't create the universe and
> > refuses to accept that the goal of the Course is the disappearance of
> > the universe. Or are you saying you don't believe God creates?
>
> If you are arguing with Renardians you are not exactly arguing with deep
> thinkers.
>
I don't argue with them. I just point out the contradictions between
what they say and what the Course says and they THINK I am arguing
with them. I don't even do that much any more though. It feels too
much like beating your head against a brick wall.
>
>
>
>
> >>>>> "T 8 C 4. That is why the ego IS the denial of free will. It is NEVER
> >>>>> God Who coerces you, because He SHARES His Will WITH you. His voice
> >>>>> teaches ONLY His Will, but that is not the Holy Spirit’s lesson,
> >>>>> because that is what you ARE.
> >>>>> ***The LESSON is that your will and God’s CANNOT be out of accord
Philomene
> On Nov 23, 6:30 pm, Philomene <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Debinski wrote:
>>> On Nov 23, 4:08 pm, Philomene <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Well the reasons you are getting such skewed results, is the notion of
>>>>>> free will presuppose you have some intelligent grasp of the notion of
>>>>>> identity besides "boundaries."
>>>>> Well excuse my ignorance yet again. I can only formulate questions
>>>>> based on my own experience/observation. It simply never occurred to me
>>>>> that you were suggesting "I" was a private notion.How does that relate
>>>>> to the Course saying "there are no private thoughts?"
>>>> The word should have been privative rather than private. I'm saying
>>>> self-awareness of existence constitutes a primitive awareness of identity.
>>> No matter what question I ask I can't find any connection between the
>>> question and the answer. So are you saying the "I" thought IS
>>> universally shared or is not universally shared? Awarness IS
>>> universally shared or is not universally shared?
>> I have no idea what you asking.
>>
>
> Well, having read this post, maybe it would help if I rephrase those
> questions -- or not. Assuming there are other minds than the one you
> call "yours" -- which btw YOU said you believe in "minds" (plural) --
> is the awareness in "other minds" the same awareness in "your mind"
> and is the "I thought" that arises in your mind the same "I thought"
> that arises in other minds.
I'd say a straight reading of the course says the Father created
multiple Sons. Whether these Sons somehow share mind, or created with
minds, again is speculative. I'm inclined now to believe mind is shared.
I'd also say that since these Son's are created and given the gift of
life, then yes, awareness of being alive would be a common experience
across the Sonship.
To ME that does sound like a speculative
> question. Something that can't really be known, but I am not the one
> who said there are "separate minds" either. Personally, I don't even
> know how the idea of "separate minds" can be supported.
Since minds are naturally in communication, separation would indicate a
mind which has limited or eliminated communication.
>
> I'm asking the questions because although *I* personally have not and
> am not likely to say "I am God." I can't help wondering if your
> objections to the statement "I am God" and arguments against it are
> based upon your own assumption that it means the person saying it is
> God.
I couldn't care less if someone says, "I am God."
What I object to is someone saying the course teaches "I am God," if one
just reads the text as metaphor and inserts their own beliefs or
claims to direct knowledge.
Which may indeed be the case and is why *I* don't say it. Because
> to most people, to say "I am God" would sound the same as saying
> "Deborah is God" when in Reality "Deborah" is only a tiny fraction of
> what exists -- or seems to exist -- within what is encompassed by the
> "I thought." I put that in quotation marks btw in an attempt to keep
> it singular.
>
>> If God gives life and creates it would seem to me awareness of being
>> alive and existing would be a natural part of that gift.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> You're saying there ARE separate minds in which
>>>> If "I" is a
>>>>> private notion arising in separate minds, does each separate mind
>>>>> project a separate world so that experience can only be shared
>>>>> verbally?
I think souls are microcosms of God. I also think souls are created
perfect but must learn to co-create with the Father and learn from their
mis-creations.
The notion of a separate mind is a soul wrapped up in a false creation
and forgetting it is a soul and a microcosm of God. I'm inclined to
believe what the Course calls the dream is multiple souls contributing
to, and participating in the same dream. That is because the Course
often talks about our brothers in the dream. On the other hand, there is
way of reading the course where it is one mind projecting one dream.
Or are these separate "I"s observing an objective world that
>>>>> exists independently of their awareness of it? How does that relate to
>>>>> the Course saying "within and without are exactly the same thing" or
>>>>> "The Kingdom of God IS you? The Kingdom is private, too?
The way I understand it is spirit/soul is perfected God-mind. It
projects, thinks, creates mind so that the soul creates and can
experience through mind what it creates.
That where we get the Course notion of spirit and mind as spirits'
entire creative potential.
At first glance it would seem spirit is something other than mind. But
its not. Its simply perfected or God mind and perfected mind is creating
mind.
When spirit creates mind, it creates what the course calls a self. The
Son is God's Self. The Ego is your false self.
Self is identification. In true creation identification with one's
creation is a good thing. This extends the Kingdom.
However identification with a false mis-created self is a bad thing
because spirit loses awareness of itself in its own creation. This is
not simply as a human being. That's only part of the identification. As
God being we are creating an entire world/universe and projecting or
incarnating in the world which is made up nothing more than our mind.
In other words, the entire projected universe/world is a false creation
and thus a false self. Not just the body and the sense, "I am so and
so," or "I am Deborah." The entire dream is self and the ego self, not
just the body and the immediate ego identity.
Are there real separate "I" in this scenario? Or other "I"'s simply
dream figures? Again, I inclined to think multiple Sons of God are
participating in the same dream.
Debinski
> >>> On Nov 23, 4:08 pm, Philomene <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> Well the reasons you are getting such skewed results, is the notion of
> >>>>>> free will presuppose you have some intelligent grasp of the notion of
> >>>>>> identity besides "boundaries."
> >>>>> Well excuse my ignorance yet again. I can only formulate questions
> >>>>> based on my own experience/observation. It simply never occurred to me
> >>>>> that you were suggesting "I" was a private notion.How does that relate
> >>>>> to the Course saying "there are no private thoughts?"
> >>>> The word should have been privative rather than private. I'm saying
> >>>> self-awareness of existence constitutes a primitive awareness of identity.
> >>> No matter what question I ask I can't find any connection between the
> >>> question and the answer. So are you saying the "I" thought IS
> >>> universally shared or is not universally shared? Awarness IS
> >>> universally shared or is not universally shared?
> >> I have no idea what you asking.
>
> > Well, having read this post, maybe it would help if I rephrase those
> > questions -- or not. Assuming there are other minds than the one you
> > call "yours" -- which btw YOU said you believe in "minds" (plural) --
> > is the awareness in "other minds" the same awareness in "your mind"
> > and is the "I thought" that arises in your mind the same "I thought"
> > that arises in other minds.
>
> I'd say a straight reading of the course says the Father created
> multiple Sons. Whether these Sons somehow share mind, or created with
> minds, again is speculative. I'm inclined now to believe mind is shared.
>
Are we perhaps actually having a conversation now, Philomeme? Kinda
feels that way to me. Since I try to stick to what can actually be
known -- by anyone, anywhere, anytime -- I usually think of the whole
“other” concept this way. I can believe that other minds, people,
things exist outside my awareness of those things but I can’t know
that they do. There is certainly plenty of evidence that there is
something “out there.” I have no memory of writing the songs, books,
television programs, etc that appear in “my world” but that evidence
does not prove the source of that stuff is what I think it is. I don’t
know what the source of anything I don’t recall making or doing is.
Letting go of the belief that I DO know turns the world into a very
different place.
What was formerly “Oh that’s just this or that …” Becomes “Wow! What
is that and where did THAT come from?” It’s like being a child --
looking at clouds for instance --having never been taught what a
“cloud” is. Everything becomes extraordinarily interesting when I
don’t presume to already know what it is and what it means.
As the Course says “come empty.” The way *I* see that however, is NOT
the “anti-intellectualism” so often touted these days. It’s just a
reversal of where thought comes from -- or seems to come from. I often
wonder why so many Course students seem to think the Holy Spirit can
use just about anything except intellect. Actually, I don’t wonder.
Seems to me if you can convince people the intellect is useless or
bad, you can lead them like sheep to the slaughter. The difference --
seems to me -- in what the Course calls “Right mindedness” and “wrong
mindedness” is in whether the intellect is used to serve an already
established belief system or not. In my book, “I don’t know” is the
door to right minded thinking. Not to replace old beliefs with new
beliefs, but to let go of belief altogether and see what is AS it is.
Quite honestly, I don’t think A Course in Miracles can be understood
any other way. But for it to be more than just another intellectual
exercise it has to be used. One of the things I love most about it is
that it does NOT claim to put absolute truth into words. In fact, it
SAYS the text is a “theoretical foundation” and the workbook “need not
be believed or even accepted.” It SAYS “this is only a beginning.”
And yet, I hear Course students all the time saying “this forgiveness
process will take lifetimes upon lifetimes.” Really? If the
forgiveness process will take lifetimes upon lifetimes and is only a
beginning we should be in for an interesting ride here. <smile>
> I'd also say that since these Son's are created and given the gift of
> life, then yes, awareness of being alive would be a common experience
> across the Sonship.
>
> To ME that does sound like a speculative
>
> > question. Something that can't really be known, but I am not the one
> > who said there are "separate minds" either. Personally, I don't even
> > know how the idea of "separate minds" can be supported.
>
> Since minds are naturally in communication, separation would indicate a
> mind which has limited or eliminated communication.
>
Yes, the question is “Why would the mind chose to limit itself?" I
think the Course clearly gives us that answer. We did/do it for fun
but then we forget. We CAN however remember any time we choose to do
so. All that is needed is a willingness to let go of attachment to
outcome.
>
> > I'm asking the questions because although *I* personally have not and
> > am not likely to say "I am God." I can't help wondering if your
> > objections to the statement "I am God" and arguments against it are
> > based upon your own assumption that it means the person saying it is
> > God.
>
> I couldn't care less if someone says, "I am God."
>
> What I object to is someone saying the course teaches "I am God," if one
> just reads the text as metaphor and inserts their own beliefs or
> claims to direct knowledge.
>
Well, I think the Course DOES say “I am the Savior of the world” and
“You are the kingdom of God.“ That only becomes a problem -- as I said
-- when it is taken personally to mean ‘Deborah is the savior of the
world” when, in fact, Deborah is nothing more than a character
appearing in the world.
But I think I understand what you mean about caring only when people
claim their own beliefs are “what the Course teaches.” I don’t care
who says “God didn’t create the universe” or “when the son of god
wakes up the universe disappears” either. But I do care when they say
that is what the Course teaches, when clearly it is not. *I* happen to
think that is a rather mindless way of using the Course to answer the
age-old question “How could a good God create such an evil world?” I
don’t presume to know that IS where that interpretation comes from but
it is about the only reasonable answer *I* have heard to why the
Course is interpreted that way. To me, the Course becomes a very
inconsistent and “crazy” thought system when it is used to prove “this
is a kill-or-be-killed world where we can’t even breathe without
attacking God.”
When I first began to converse with other Course students I spent
quite a lot of time asking “Why does the Course say God is in
everything I see” when what it really means is “God is in nothing I
see?” And “Why does the Course say ‘God loves the world’ -- in fact --
‘loves the world so much that He gave it to His Only Begotten Son’
when what it really means is “God isn’t even aware of the world.”
The ONLY answer I got to those questions was “it’s a different world”
-- usually a world that cannot be seen with the body’s eyes, making
the “the real world” one that excludes anything and everything said to
be “physical” and in so doing makes “the real world” as isolated and
private as “the world ego made.“
That is also the answer I always got to why does the Course say God
created the universe and the earth. “That’s a different universe -- a
spiritual universe. The Course itself, however, does NOT say that. It
certainly speaks of two worlds -- the world you see and the real or
forgiven world. But it never speaks of two universes or two earths.
> Which may indeed be the case and is why *I* don't say it. Because
>
>
>
>
>
> > to most people, to say "I am God" would sound the same as saying
> > "Deborah is God" when in Reality "Deborah" is only a tiny fraction of
> > what exists -- or seems to exist -- within what is encompassed by the
> > "I thought." I put that in quotation marks btw in an attempt to keep
> > it singular.
>
> >> If God gives life and creates it would seem to me awareness of being
> >> alive and existing would be a natural part of that gift.
>
I‘m not convinced that God creates life. That He extends life and in
so doing expands it, I have no doubt. But that life can be created,
I’m not sure. The forms in which life appears I would say are created.
But Life -- I think -- is just another word FOR God.
But that> >>>> You're saying there ARE separate minds in which
> >>>> If "I" is a
> >>>>> private notion arising in separate minds, does each separate mind
> >>>>> project a separate world so that experience can only be shared
> >>>>> verbally?
>
> I think souls are microcosms of God. I also think souls are created
> perfect but must learn to co-create with the Father and learn from their
> mis-creations.
>
I think the Course says souls are not in need of healing, having never
forgotten that separation isn‘t real. Only the mind needs healing. I
will add, however, that having the word “soul“ returned to the Course
in the urtext version was -- for me -- like opening a thousand
windows. As was the return of the word “fact.”
> The notion of a separate mind is a soul wrapped up in a false creation
> and forgetting it is a soul and a microcosm of God. I'm inclined to
> believe what the Course calls the dream is multiple souls contributing
> to, and participating in the same dream. That is because the Course
> often talks about our brothers in the dream. On the other hand, there is
> way of reading the course where it is one mind projecting one dream.
>
> Or are these separate "I"s observing an objective world that
>
> >>>>> exists independently of their awareness of it? How does that relate to
> >>>>> the Course saying "within and without are exactly the same thing" or
> >>>>> "The Kingdom of God IS you? The Kingdom is private, too?
>
> The way I understand it is spirit/soul is perfected God-mind. It
> projects, thinks, creates mind so that the soul creates and can
> experience through mind what it creates.
>
I can’t really say for sure that there even is a thing called “mind”
but can understand how the thought of a mind can be helpful in
articulating where thought comes from and even more so in
communicating the contrast between “right“ use of thought and “wrong“
use of thought. But apart from that I tend to agree with what you say
here. Which is actually why I can‘t buy into the “God didn‘t create
the physical universe, but only a spiritual universe.” I don‘t know
how to tell what is “physical“ and what is “spiritual“ EXCEPT that
what is called physical is changeable, what is called spiritual is not
changeable but DOES expand through creation.
As the Course says ‘You can’t see the Holy Spirit but you can see his
effects and unless you do you will not know that He is here.”
I CAN see the difference in “the world you see” -- which is always
private and can only be “shared” verbally and “the real world” --
which is universally shared. But I can’t see a “spiritual universe.”
Of course, people often tell me that’s because I am not as
“spiritually advanced” as they are. <smile>
> That where we get the Course notion of spirit and mind as spirits'
> entire creative potential.
>
> At first glance it would seem spirit is something other than mind. But
> its not. Its simply perfected or God mind and perfected mind is creating
> mind.
>
> When spirit creates mind, it creates what the course calls a self. The
> Son is God's Self. The Ego is your false self.
>
> Self is identification. In true creation identification with one's
> creation is a good thing. This extends the Kingdom.
Yes. Identification with the totality of what appears or is created in
any given moment not with any specific part.
>
> However identification with a false mis-created self is a bad thing
> because spirit loses awareness of itself in its own creation. This is
> not simply as a human being. That's only part of the identification. As
> God being we are creating an entire world/universe and projecting or
> incarnating in the world which is made up nothing more than our mind.
>
> In other words, the entire projected universe/world is a false creation
> and thus a false self. Not just the body and the sense, "I am so and
> so," or "I am Deborah." The entire dream is self and the ego self, not
> just the body and the immediate ego identity.
>
This is where we disagree. I don‘t see the universe as false creation.
“God IS the universe.” The false creation is belief in thoughts ABOUT
the universe -- what it is, what it means and what it is for, which to
my way of thinking the Course calls “the world you see.”
> Are there real separate "I" in this scenario? Or other "I"'s simply
> dream figures? Again, I inclined to think multiple Sons of God are
> participating in the same dream
>
I don‘t know whether they are or are not. I only know that IF they
are, I can only know them in relation to myself.
Debinski
Philomene
> Are we perhaps actually having a conversation now, Philomeme? Kinda
> feels that way to me. Since I try to stick to what can actually be
> known -- by anyone, anywhere, anytime --
>I usually think of the whole
> �other� concept this way. I can believe that other minds, people,
> things exist outside my awareness of those things but I can�t know
> that they do.
Really? What exactly constitutes "knowledge," superior to your direct
apprehension that other minds, people, things exist?
Please don't give me some convoluted, highly theoretical, woo-woo answer
which begs the question if there is in fact some state of mind which is
in fact infallible, incapable of being wrong or somehow deceived.
You might have read there is such a state, you might wish to believe in
it; someone channeling a superior being might have told you there is a
state of knowledge; knowledge might "make sense," but none of this
constitutes knowledge, and clearly none of this is infallible, and
without the possibility of deception.
Clearly even claims of direct knowledge/experience of God cannot pass "I
might be deceived," test.
Yeah, I'm giving you a hard time. Enlightened skepticism is a valuable
tool when you find yourself apologizing for being human to that circus
of mind fuck artists and agenda-driven course enthusiasts who wish to
engage you in course talk.
Here's a head up. Very few people know much of anything about what they
talk about. The limits of so called expertise are quickly revealed by
probing questions and challenges to concepts. Truly intelligent people
recognize and admit to the limits of knowledge --as in "I don't know."
This heads up is even more RELEVANT in the airy-fairy world of
institutionalized, systemic bullshit called "spirituality."
This is especially true in the vocal, activist, "teaching," cult-driven
and agenda driven portion of the course community. Which besides Flying
Saucer cults, must have one the greatest concentrations of irresponsible
air-heads and mind fuck artists you could possibly find. If you are
engaging these people instead of the mind of the author, it not
surprising you feel you must justify believing there is an "other."
Debinski
> Debinski wrote:
> > Are we perhaps actually having a conversation now, Philomeme? Kinda
> > feels that way to me. Since I try to stick to what can actually be
> > known -- by anyone, anywhere, anytime --
> >I usually think of the whole
> > things exist outside my awareness of those things but I can’t know
Well, I'm happy to have given you an opportunity to get all of that
off of your chest. <smile> As I said, I try to stick to what can be
directly observed/experienced by anyone, anywhere, anytime, I did NOT
say that method was deception proof -- only that thus far, no one in
my world has offered a contradictory direct observation. IF you -- or
anyone else -- see/observe/experience the world differently than the
way I describe it I am more than happy to compare those observations
in a reasoned manner and answer any questions I can answer. But using
your beliefs -- or "anti-beliefs" -- to explode at me about things I
didn't even say seems to be your specialty. What does that do for us?
>> The limits of so called expertise are quickly revealed by
probing questions and challenges to concepts. Truly intelligent
people
recognize and admit to the limits of knowledge --as in "I don't
know."
This heads up is even more RELEVANT in the airy-fairy world of
institutionalized, systemic bullshit called "spirituality." <<
Yes. Probing questions is exaclty the method I used in trying to get
on the same page with you so we could have a reasoned conversation
rather than you just lecturing me on what you believe and don't
believe. Perhaps you didn't notice I wrote "I don't know" quite a few
times in my previous response to you.
Debinski
> > Are we perhaps actually having a conversation now, Philomeme? Kinda
> > feels that way to me. Since I try to stick to what can actually be
> > known -- by anyone, anywhere, anytime --
> >I usually think of the whole
> > things exist outside my awareness of those things but I can’t know
> > that they do.
>
> Really? What exactly constitutes "knowledge," superior to your direct
> apprehension that other minds, people, things exist?
>
I might add -- since you are so fond of telling me what the proper
protocal for "intelligent conversation" is, that to my way of
thinking, the intelligent response here would have been. "Here is how
I know that other minds, people and things exist outside of my
awareness of them" followed by an explanation of how you know that.
THEN we could have a reasonable conversation about it -- just as we
did, or I think we did, when you said you believe in separate minds,
but when questioned about that statement turned around to say "I am
inclined to think minds are shared." In my book, that is not only how
an "intelligent conversation" proceeds it is the ONLY way I know to
discover where and how one may BE deceived -- comparing our
perspectives of experience. For that to happen though, we have to be
talking about the same things. And for me to have much interest in the
conversation I have to perceive that you are describing actual
experience, not just things you believe because you read them in a
book.
Ted
> Try again
>
> The word should have been primitive rather than private.
Any fair reading of your posts here demonstrates that your philosophy is
not any better than your spelling.
It is also evident that you are John "loopy" Lopez the infamous newsgroup
troll, back with yet another of your long line of handles, this time on an
anonymous server. Last time you were here you were fully exposed for the
fool that you seem to continue to insist on playing here over and over.
Locked in your mind and worshiping the idols that you have made of your
thoughts you continue to trash anyone who does not agree with you
fundamentalist crap.
So John, you have as much right as anyone else to be here and post here, but
just don't expect anyone here to see your mindwash as anything other than
the same old mental garbage it's always been.
Philomene
> On Nov 24, 1:32 pm, Philomene <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Debinski wrote:
>>> Are we perhaps actually having a conversation now, Philomeme? Kinda
>>> feels that way to me. Since I try to stick to what can actually be
>>> known -- by anyone, anywhere, anytime --
>>> I usually think of the whole
>>> things exist outside my awareness of those things but I can�t know
What exactly are you trying to figure out with your method?
IF you -- or
> anyone else -- see/observe/experience the world differently than the
> way I describe it I am more than happy to compare those observations
> in a reasoned manner and answer any questions I can answer. But using
> your beliefs -- or "anti-beliefs" -- to explode at me about things I
> didn't even say seems to be your specialty. What does that do for us?
>
>>> The limits of so called expertise are quickly revealed by
> probing questions and challenges to concepts. Truly intelligent
> people
> recognize and admit to the limits of knowledge --as in "I don't
> know."
> This heads up is even more RELEVANT in the airy-fairy world of
> institutionalized, systemic bullshit called "spirituality." <<
>
> Yes. Probing questions is exaclty the method I used in trying to get
> on the same page with you so we could have a reasoned conversation
> rather than you just lecturing me on what you believe and don't
> believe. Perhaps you didn't notice I wrote "I don't know" quite a few
> times in my previous response to you.
Its very easy to get on the same page with me.
Intellectually I'm interested in a fair, straight forward, largely
literal reading of the Course text, and what can be articulated as
course metaphysics by accepted scholarly methodology.
Experientially I'm interested in the Atonement or correction process and
not interested at all in generic "forgiveness."
Together, what I am interested in generally puts me at odds with the
prevailing woo-woo circus of course study based on the text and Jesus as
metaphor, and mental healing as some form of forgiveness to destroy.
More, I think ACIM is the fully articulated Christianity, and ACIM is
the most fully articulated and sophisticated metaphysical thought system
the world has ever seen. So this generally puts me at odds with the
agenda-driven air heads who wish to re-write and re-interpret A Course
in Miracles without Christianity, without Christ and without Jesus.
More, Wapnick and Renard are air heads, and couldn't pass freshman
philosophy with much of the garbage-think they attempt to pass off as
profound.
That's pretty much my page.
Philomene
> On Nov 24, 1:32 pm, Philomene <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Debinski wrote:
>>> Are we perhaps actually having a conversation now, Philomeme? Kinda
>>> feels that way to me. Since I try to stick to what can actually be
>>> known -- by anyone, anywhere, anytime --
>>> I usually think of the whole
>>> things exist outside my awareness of those things but I can�t know
>>> that they do.
>> Really? What exactly constitutes "knowledge," superior to your direct
>> apprehension that other minds, people, things exist?
>>
>
> I might add -- since you are so fond of telling me what the proper
> protocal for "intelligent conversation" is, that to my way of
> thinking, the intelligent response here would have been. "Here is how
> I know that other minds, people and things exist outside of my
> awareness of them" followed by an explanation of how you know that.
You don't "know." That's the whole point. That's the whole point of the
radical skepticism of Decartes. What can one know without the
possibility of deception. His answer was the ergo sum: "I think
therefore I am."
From that (to him) undeniable axiom he built through deductive
reasoning his entire thought system. That's why Decartes is considered a
Rationalist.
As a course student you should perhaps recognize a similar process of
scrutinizing all your beliefs.
Even better is scrutinizing your beliefs about beliefs such as
"knowledge." One often comes to the realization that you don't much and
neither does anyone else. A realization that levels the playing field
when engaged in deconstruction spiritual games.
Carrie
What is your problem with John, he seems perfectly okay, civil, into real
discussion and not name calling and attack.
If that's how you saw him in the past, that's the past.
Is that how you want him to be, how you see him based on past perception
of him?
Debinski
> Debinski wrote:
> > On Nov 24, 1:32 pm, Philomene <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Debinski wrote:
> >>> Are we perhaps actually having a conversation now, Philomeme? Kinda
> >>> feels that way to me. Since I try to stick to what can actually be
> >>> known -- by anyone, anywhere, anytime --
> >>> I usually think of the whole
> >>> things exist outside my awareness of those things but I can’t know
> >>> that they do.
> >> Really? What exactly constitutes "knowledge," superior to your direct
> >> apprehension that other minds, people, things exist?
>
> > I might add -- since you are so fond of telling me what the proper
> > protocal for "intelligent conversation" is, that to my way of
> > thinking, the intelligent response here would have been. "Here is how
> > I know that other minds, people and things exist outside of my
> > awareness of them" followed by an explanation of how you know that.
>
> You don't "know." That's the whole point. That's the whole point of the
> radical skepticism of Decartes. What can one know without the
> possibility of deception. His answer was the ergo sum: "I think
> therefore I am."
>
> From that (to him) undeniable axiom he built through deductive
> reasoning his entire thought system. That's why Decartes is considered a
> Rationalist.
>
> As a course student you should perhaps recognize a similar process of
> scrutinizing all your beliefs.
>
> Even better is scrutinizing your beliefs about beliefs such as
> "knowledge." One often comes to the realization that you don't much and
> neither does anyone else. A realization that levels the playing field
> when engaged in deconstruction spiritual games.- Hide quoted text -
>
What part of "I don't know" did you not understand in my post? I said
"I don't know" many times, included a reminder to "come empty" and
wrote this:
>> Letting go of the belief that I DO know turns the world into a very
different place.
What was formerly “Oh that’s just this or that …” Becomes “Wow! What
is that and where did THAT come from?” It’s like being a child --
looking at clouds for instance --having never been taught what a
“cloud” is. Everything becomes extraordinarily interesting when I
don’t presume to already know what it is and what it means. <<
That is what makes conversation next to impossible with you. I say "I
don't know" and you lecture me about presuming to know.
I mentioned a couple of posts back that you seemed to be saying "I
think therefore I am" adding that *I* would say it the other way
around "I am therefore, I think." Now you throw Descartes statement at
me as though I need to be reminded "I think therefore I am" is all
that can be known. Sounds to me like you believe you know nothing
because Descartes says you know nothing.
The primary point I've been trying to get to all along was that "I
am" (Awareness not the thought of existence) is the only unchangeable
constant and that you have no way of knowing "I am" is not universally
shared. It's not easy to get any point across though when you argue
with yourself and lecture yourself each step of the way. That IS what
you've been doing btw. You don't argue with anything I actually write.
You argue with your own reactions to what I write -- perhaps actually
believing you are arguing with me.
Only rarely can *I* find any connection between what I write and your
response.
maz
The answer I'm prompted to share, to this mindless and ignorant attack is
this, Carry:
1204. What you must understand is that, when you do not SHARE a thought
system, you ARE weakening it. Those who BELIEVE in it therefore perceive it
this as an ATTACK ON THEM. This is because everyone identifies himself WITH
his thought system, and EVERY thought system centers on WHAT YOU BELIEVE YOU
ARE.
namazt�
Carrie
You are thinking that somenoe can attack someone else, in any way?
And giving attention to it helps change it?
Philomene
> What part of "I don't know" did you not understand in my post? I said
> "I don't know" many times, included a reminder to "come empty" and
> wrote this:
I'm sorry if it seems we are talking past one another.
But lets review. You asked this question.
> I relate to Jesus, the author of A Course in Miracles as an elder
> brother, and as a Son of God. Jesus is part of the Sonship like I am
> part of the Sonship. Jesus is real, exist and has a unique identity
> like all Sons of God are real, exist and have a unique identity.
> Because reality, existence and identity is the gift of eternal life
> given by the Father to all His creations.
"I wonder if you could explain what characteristics distinguish
Philomene -- or any other son -- as a unique identity from Jesus as a
unique identity. Are those characteristics eternal or temporal? I also
wonder how this explanation is reconciled with the Father having only
One Begotten Son."
I've explained that true or fundamental "identity," in Course
metaphysics is a function of the time-less or outside of time
holographic structure of mind/spirit, not a function of a temporal
linear structure predicated on separation, boundaries and differing
characteristics.
As such this position makes suspect or brings into question the
ASSUMPTION that Jesus is not real, has no identity and is merely a
"symbol of your right mind." In other words, a charge of "level
confusion," or the mis-guided assumption that thinking at one level is
applicable and appropriate to all levels or another level.
This is important because the entire Wapnickian, "non-dual,"
neo-advaita, reductionist interpretation of course study rests on a
fundamental confusion about identity, where no identity can possibly
exist beyond the identity of God.
If there is confusion in our conversation, its because I'm in
philosophic, not conversational mode. Your question provoked thought.
You gave me an opportunity to re-think and refine my position.
Thanks.
Ted
Well Carrie, if he is perfectly okay and civil them why would he try to hide
his identity and use an anonymous server. We have all seen his patterns over
and over. All I've done is to expose Philomene and point out the fact that
he is not who he says he is. If he is here to just discuss the course why
would he need to hide his real identity? All one needs to do is look in the
archives to see what John is here, and it is those archives that expose him
to be the troll that he is, all I have done is to let a little light in and
expose his most recent deception.
Ted
So you think that maintaining a belief in an unreal thought system has some
magical properties, yet it is the very belief in the magical that keeps you
bound to the mind and unable to see past your mental veil. If you want to be
free let these beliefs in the unreal fall away and then you will see what is
left.
Carrie
He didn't hide his email, which was what I noticed as John.
Maybe he feels the need to hide, because of people (like you) who tend
to keep seeing him based on the past.
Why not ask why anyone hear hides their identity and uses an anonymous
ISP?
Maybe you don't agree with what the course says about the past being
over, illusion and not real (then and now)
Otherwise why would you bring what you think John is, from the archives,
here into the present?
I've had people do that to me, but I don't feel need to post
anonymously. I'm learning how to pick and choose what I tie into and what I
don't.
But, that's me.
maz
>
> So you think ...
LOL!
ellie
> Debinski wrote:
> > What part of "I don't know" did you not understand in my post? I said
> > "I don't know" many times, included a reminder to "come empty" and
> > wrote this:
>
> I'm sorry if it seems we are talking past one another.
>
> But lets review. You asked this question.
>
> > I relate to Jesus, the author of A Course in Miracles as an elder
> > brother, and as a Son of God. Jesus is part of the Sonship like I am
> > part of the Sonship. Jesus is real, exist and has a unique identity
> > like all Sons of God are real, exist and have a unique identity.
> > Because reality, existence and identity is the gift of eternal life
> > given by the Father to all His creations.
>
> "I wonder if you could explain what characteristics distinguish
> Philomene -- or any other son -- as a unique identity from Jesus as a
> unique identity. Are those characteristics eternal or temporal? I also
> wonder how this explanation is reconciled with the Father having only
> One Begotten Son."
>
> I've explained that true or fundamental "identity," in Course
> metaphysics is a function of the time-less or outside of time
> holographic structure of mind/spirit, not a function of a temporal
> linear structure predicated on separation, boundaries and differing
> characteristics.
How does one go about being a unique identity in All that Is?
Pieter
"Ted" <octag...@gmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:6YKdnby0HJEL1pHW...@centurytel.net...
Hi Ted,
Could it be that John is a screen for you
to project all things on which you deny
are in your own mind?
If they were not in your own mind, why
worry about illusions you see in a brother?
Would not the Christ in him be more
important to pay attention to?
Pieter.
expires
Pieter <hrdo...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
Could it be that whatever in any/all
mind(s) is not real? What would be in
a/your mind, if there was no wanting?
Would any mind be/exist at all, if
there were no wanting whatsoever?
Isn't it lack/wanting/desire that
creates and fills (*all*) mind(s)?
--expires
Carrie
uplifting ABBA music is. I got a DVD of them (videos of their songs) which I
played till I got bored. Stopped in my daughter's house the other day and
she had the movie on, said she leaves it on because of the music.
I just got the CD of the soundtrack and playing it.
Though it doesn't have "Fernando" (which is especially uplifting) it's
good stuff.
I think I (for one) tend to forget about music and how it can lift the
spirits and get one in a better state of mind.
Carrie
I projected onto John for a long time, too. I think he came here for
that purpose. To help people see themselves and their issues. Even though he
might not have realized in a conscious way he was doing this.
Gratitude is the only response we should have to our Teachers.
I am grateful to John (and a lot of others here). Some teach by giving
us a chance to remember what ACIM says, and to "live" it, and some teach by
showing us what ACIM teaches, put into their lives.
Both are part of the whole (lessons)
Pieter
"expires" <expires.20...@maxi-bayern.de> schreef in bericht
news:hellda$tcs$1...@svr7.m-online.net...
> Could it be that whatever in any/all
> mind(s) is not real? What would be in
> a/your mind, if there was no wanting?
> Would any mind be/exist at all, if
> there were no wanting whatsoever?
> Isn't it lack/wanting/desire that
> creates and fills (*all*) mind(s)?
> --expires
IMO lack and want are only in a split mind,
which identifies itself with the split-off part.
Mind as it was created has all in itself, since
God gave all of Himself to it in its creation.
As I understand the verb 'create':
Creating is out of abundance, and
what is created is like its source,
and does not leave it.
Debinski
> Debinski wrote:
> > What part of "I don't know" did you not understand in my post? I said
> > "I don't know" many times, included a reminder to "come empty" and
> > wrote this:
>
> I'm sorry if it seems we are talking past one another.
>
> But lets review. You asked this question.
>
> > I relate to Jesus, the author of A Course in Miracles as an elder
> > brother, and as a Son of God. Jesus is part of the Sonship like I am
> > part of the Sonship. Jesus is real, exist and has a unique identity
> > like all Sons of God are real, exist and have a unique identity.
> > Because reality, existence and identity is the gift of eternal life
> > given by the Father to all His creations.
>
> "I wonder if you could explain what characteristics distinguish
> Philomene -- or any other son -- as a unique identity from Jesus as a
> unique identity. Are those characteristics eternal or temporal? I also
> wonder how this explanation is reconciled with the Father having only
> One Begotten Son."
>
> I've explained that true or fundamental "identity," in Course
> metaphysics is a function of the time-less or outside of time
> holographic structure of mind/spirit, not a function of a temporal
> linear structure predicated on separation, boundaries and differing
> characteristics.
>
About all I can say to that is that if metaphysical understanding is
not translatable to actuality -- here/now -- what good is it? Over and
over again in the Course I read that identity is shared. That we in
fact cannot set a barrier around ourselves because God placed none
between Himself and us. As far as I can tell, you still haven't
answered the basic question. All I hear you saying is that what
distinguishes "you" from "Jesus" IS eternal but you have no idea what
that distinction is.Or perhaps you are still relying upon "free will"
as the distinction? If so, then perhaps this passage would speak to
that:
"T 26 H 10. What is the Will of God? He wills His Son have everything.
And this He guaranteed when He created him AS everything. It is
impossible that anything be lost, if what you HAVE is what you ARE.
This is the miracle by which creation became YOUR function, sharing it
with God. It is not understood APART from Him, and therefore has no
meaning in this world. Here does the Son of God ask NOT too much, but
FAR too little. He would sacrifice his own identity WITH everything,
to find a LITTLE treasure of his own. And this he cannot do, without a
sense of isolation, loss, and loneliness. This IS the treasure he has
sought to find. And he COULD only be afraid of it."
So for me, the question still comes right back to the "I" thought --
which you said yourself is the decision maker choosing to identify
with self/ego or Self. When identified with Self, do not the thought
of "Jesus" and the thought of "Philomeme" arise in exactly the same
place -- here/now? Is it not the exact same I who decides whether to
identify with ego or Self that decides what thoughts to call "Jesus"
and what thoughts to call "Philomeme" or "Deborah" or any other name
by which the One Son of God may be called? Identified with ego --
Jesus and Philomeme seem to be separate persons with separate minds.
Identified with Self they appear to be distinct expressions of the One
and Only Mind (or preferably Awareness) that I can actually know to
exist.
> As such this position makes suspect or brings into question the
> ASSUMPTION that Jesus is not real, has no identity and is merely a
> "symbol of your right mind." In other words, a charge of "level
> confusion," or the mis-guided assumption that thinking at one level is
> applicable and appropriate to all levels or another level.
>
> This is important because the entire Wapnickian, "non-dual,"
> neo-advaita, reductionist interpretation of course study rests on a
> fundamental confusion about identity, where no identity can possibly
> exist beyond the identity of God.
>
Well, I still wonder if it isn't your wish to see "non-duality" as
"reductionist" that gets in the way of seeing it for what it actually
is. All I can say about it is that I spent about 30 years as a
Christian before I ever found A Course in Miracles in my hands or ever
heard of Ken Wapnick. When I DID begin to read the Course it sounded
exactly like the same Jesus I had known and loved. It didn't strike me
as anything new but rather as a clarification and expansion of what
Jesus had been teaching me all along. And WHAT he had been teaching me
all along WAS "non-duality."
"I am the way the truth and the life" -- "I am" not Jesus.
"Before Abraham was, I am." "I am" not Jesus.
"The Father and I are One, without Him I can do nothing" and "I pray
that they may all be one even as you and I are one."
The funny thing about that was that I had never even heard the term
"non-duality." So I can assure you that for me Jesus is very real. BUT
that does NOT mean the name of Jesus doesn't represent something
different for each and every one of us. Unless it did, there truly
would be no identity. We -- in our uniqueness -- really would be one
indistinguishable blob.What is real isn't a person called "Jesus" and
a person called "Deborah" but the relationship.
> If there is confusion in our conversation, its because I'm in
> philosophic, not conversational mode. Your question provoked thought.
> You gave me an opportunity to re-think and refine my position.
>
> Thanks.
Thank you and Happy Thanksgiving everyone!
Debinski
Philomene
>> I've explained that true or fundamental "identity," in Course
>> metaphysics is a function of the time-less or outside of time
>> holographic structure of mind/spirit, not a function of a temporal
>> linear structure predicated on separation, boundaries and differing
>> characteristics.
>
> How does one go about being a unique identity in All that Is?
Unique identity makes little sense if one wishes to assume or assert
that the nature of "All that is" is Non Dual.
On the other hand, unique identity makes complete sense if the nature
and structure of "All that is," is holographic.
Non-duality and holographic are two different paradigms. Two different
ways of thinking/conceiving of "All that is."
As such these two different paradigms lead to different and often
mutually exclusive metaphysics.
Mutually exclusive in the sense Non-duality presupposes a resolution of
apparent multiplicity and "others" to a ideal, Non-dual state.
Where as the course based holographic paradigm assumes a whole/part
relation, ---the part is the whole (All that is) and the whole is the
part. More, that the wholeness, unity and integrity of this holographic
relationship CANNOT be broken apart, reduced to component parts, or
reduced to beginnings or origin. In other words, understood
holographically, "All that is" is whole, holy and one in a much more
sophisticated way than simply the oneness of a thing, or the oneness of
an all encompassing thing.
More --as the way God thinks and structures his Kingdom, multiplicity in
the holographic paradigm asserts wholeness, integration and reality, not
fracture, disunity and illusion. Even infinite multiplicity--because in
the holographic paradigm even parts of parts equal the whole.
Most importantly this makes suspect the Non-dualistic inspired notion
that "All that is," somehow fractures Itself into multiple false,
illusionary selves in a cosmic game of peek-a-boo with Itself.
Highly suspect in the sense, that's clearly NOT how God thinks.
In short then, in course terms, Non dualism is a ego corruption and ego
misinterpretation of the course based notion of holographic thinking.
Philomene
Unique identity makes little sense if one wishes to assume or assert
expires
Pieter <hrdo...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
> expires wrote:
>> Could it be that whatever in any/all
>> mind(s) is not real? What would be in
>> a/your mind, if there was no wanting?
>> Would any mind be/exist at all, if
>> there were no wanting whatsoever?
>> Isn't it lack/wanting/desire that
>> creates and fills (*all*) mind(s)?
>> --expires
>
> IMO lack and want are only in a split mind,
> which identifies itself with the split-off part.
> Mind as it was created has all in itself, since
> God gave all of Himself to it in its creation.
> As I understand the verb 'create':
> Creating is out of abundance, and
> what is created is like its source,
> and does not leave it.
Hmmm, obviously I can't quite align
with your idea of what mind is, which
isn't saying mine or yours is better.
FMPOV a split/separation is inevitable
if more than one "I" is to be. Anyway,
"I" doubt your "I" is less reluctant
to merge with mine than mine is with
yours ;-P
--expires
Debinski
Pardon me for butting in here, but to me non-dualism does not seek
resolution of apparent mutiplicity at all. It allows multiplicity in
all its glorious forms WITHOUT fracturing the whole in the appearance
of parts. It allows freedom for no part to express the whole in and of
itself but for the whole to be expressed in the relationship of the
parts. I still don't see any possibility of or reason for relationship
in the "holographic paradigm" you suggest. If All is ever present in
each part what reason could there ever be for relationship,
communication, experience -- any of those wonderful things this
experience SEEMS to be about. Non-dualism allows all to be exactly as
it is. The only thing that changes is that the appearance of
separation is not believed to be real but chosen for the sheer joy of
experience. Nothing that appears within it effects Reality at all --
nothing real is threatened,
So whatever it is you are trying to say that makes the "holographic
paradigm" superior to the "non-dualistic" paradigm still totally
escapes me. I can see how a "holographic" theory can SEEM to resolve
the question of how *I* seem to exist and YOU seem to exist but I
don't see why that is important when the only thing *I* have any
control over is my relatationship to what appears to me anyway.
Debinski
> Where as the course based holographic paradigm assumes a whole/part
> relation, ---the part is the whole (All that is) and the whole is the
> part. More, that the wholeness, unity and integrity of this
> holographic relationship CANNOT be broken apart, reduced to component
> parts, or reduced to beginnings or origin. In other words,
> understood holographically, "All that is" is whole, holy and one in a
> much more sophisticated way than simply the oneness of a thing, or the
> oneness of an all encompassing thing.
>
> More --as the way God thinks and structures his Kingdom, multiplicity
> in the holographic paradigm asserts wholeness, integration and
> reality, not fracture, disunity and illusion. Even infinite
> multiplicity--because in the holographic paradigm even parts of parts
> equal the whole.
>
> Most importantly this makes suspect the Non-dualistic inspired notion
> that "All that is," somehow fractures Itself into multiple false,
> illusionary selves in a cosmic game of peek-a-boo with Itself.
>
> Highly suspect in the sense, that's clearly NOT how God thinks.
>
> In short then, in course terms, Non dualism is a ego corruption and
> ego misinterpretation of the course based notion of holographic
> thinking.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Debinski
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Just for clarity, I might add that if "part" is understood in terms of
"time" -- "the present moment" or "holy instant" in which the whole IS
always Present -- rather than in terms of "identity" I can't find any
inconsistencies in the Course at all -- not yet any way. If anyone
else sees any, I'd love to look at them.
Debinski
Philomene
Isn't shared identity a common concept? Isn't it a common notion that
one is part of humanity, is an American, Italian, or Cuban; consider
themselves, liberal or conservative. If someone says "I'm a heavy metal
rocker," isn't he expressing shared identity with other heavy metal
enthusiasts?
That we in
> fact cannot set a barrier around ourselves because God placed none
> between Himself and us.
Wouldn't the meaning you give this highly abstract statement be largely
a product of whatever paradigm you organize your thinking and thoughts
As far as I can tell, you still haven't
> answered the basic question. All I hear you saying is that what
> distinguishes "you" from "Jesus" IS eternal but you have no idea what
> that distinction is.
That's because differences and distinctions are not the measure of
unique identity in a holographic structure where sharing traits and
abilities are assumed.
The measure of unique identity is the desire by God to give everything
to His creations such that His creations are a perfect microcosm of
Himself. More, the measure of uniqueness or what might be accurately
called "specialness," is a function of God's desire to create
holographically, where each part of the whole is the whole and each part
is special. As Jesus writes in this passage, "all my brothers are special."
"When the Atonement has been completed, all talents will be shared by
all the Sons of God. God is not partial. All His children have His total
Love, and all His gifts are freely given to everyone alike. Except ye
become as little children means that unless you fully recognize your
complete dependence on God, you cannot know the real power of the Son in
his true relationship with the Father. The specialness of Gods Sons does
not stem from exclusion but from inclusion. All my brothers are special.
If they believe they are deprived of anything, their perception becomes
distorted. When this occurs the whole family of God, or the Sonship, is
impaired in its relationships."
In the light of this passage it's counter intuitive then to attempt to
deconstruct uniqueness or better, specialness in terms of what
distinguishes you from your brother. Certainly specialness implies what
is special is real and not illusionary. And created to be special, ie,
specialness is an attribute of creation.
This affirmation of specialness of each member of the Sonship, appears
to resolve the question if Jesus actually exist and is more than simply
a symbol of my right mind.
Or perhaps you are still relying upon "free will"
> as the distinction? If so, then perhaps this passage would speak to
> that:
>
> "T 26 H 10. What is the Will of God? He wills His Son have everything.
> And this He guaranteed when He created him AS everything. It is
> impossible that anything be lost, if what you HAVE is what you ARE.
> This is the miracle by which creation became YOUR function, sharing it
> with God. It is not understood APART from Him, and therefore has no
> meaning in this world. Here does the Son of God ask NOT too much, but
> FAR too little. He would sacrifice his own identity WITH everything,
> to find a LITTLE treasure of his own. And this he cannot do, without a
> sense of isolation, loss, and loneliness. This IS the treasure he has
> sought to find. And he COULD only be afraid of it."
Free will is inherent in the holographic paradigm where God is creating
microcosms of Himself, which necessitates the bequeathing of free will
in order to fulfill the notion that God gives Everything to His
creations. Clearly without free will, God would be only creating robots
or automatons, not Gods in His own image.
Moreover free will pretty much explains the attribute of specialness
that is inherent in each of God's creation.
The above passage talk of God's will. Clearly a more appropriate passage
would be one which speaks of Free will. There is nothing in this passage
which contradicts free will or the specialness of each of God's Sons.
>
> So for me, the question still comes right back to the "I" thought --
> which you said yourself is the decision maker choosing to identify
> with self/ego or Self.
>When identified with Self, do not the thought
> of "Jesus" and the thought of "Philomeme" arise in exactly the same
> place -- here/now?
Place? I doubt Self, identity as Son of God, or God's self has anything
to do with place.
The question is if God thinks holographically, ie, the part is the whole
and whole is the part, then why would it be unlikely that each special
Son understand his relationship to God and his relationship to his
brother's holographically?
Clearly, inherent in your question is denial of specialness of each of
God's sons in a context that presumes an ego based understanding of the
"parts and whole," relationship.
>Is it not the exact same I who decides whether to
> identify with ego or Self that decides what thoughts to call "Jesus"
> and what thoughts to call "Philomeme" or "Deborah" or any other name
> by which the One Son of God may be called?
Why would it be the exact same I, if all God's Son have everything
including free will? Was there some lack "I's" when God decided to
create microcosms of Itself?
Again you presume God Son as a thing without a holographic relationship
between each Son and the whole.
Clearly you have an example of a Son (yourself) making a choice for ego,
while an example of a Son Jesus) making a choice for Sonship. If the
choice is somehow illusionary then clearly this rejects the notion of
both free will and specialness. This is resolved by making the choice
real and consistent with free will, while the choice is between reality
and illusion.
Identified with ego --
> Jesus and Philomeme seem to be separate persons with separate minds.
What you mean is separate parts based on a ego notion of "parts and whole."
> Identified with Self they appear to be distinct expressions of the One
> and Only Mind (or preferably Awareness) that I can actually know to
> exist.
Only if one commits rampant level confusion.
>
>> As such this position makes suspect or brings into question the
>> ASSUMPTION that Jesus is not real, has no identity and is merely a
>> "symbol of your right mind." In other words, a charge of "level
>> confusion," or the mis-guided assumption that thinking at one level is
>> applicable and appropriate to all levels or another level.
>>
>> This is important because the entire Wapnickian, "non-dual,"
>> neo-advaita, reductionist interpretation of course study rests on a
>> fundamental confusion about identity, where no identity can possibly
>> exist beyond the identity of God.
>>
>
> Well, I still wonder if it isn't your wish to see "non-duality" as
> "reductionist" that gets in the way of seeing it for what it actually
> is.
What do you think reductionist means?
All I can say about it is that I spent about 30 years as a
> Christian before I ever found A Course in Miracles in my hands or ever
> heard of Ken Wapnick. When I DID begin to read the Course it sounded
> exactly like the same Jesus I had known and loved. It didn't strike me
> as anything new but rather as a clarification and expansion of what
> Jesus had been teaching me all along. And WHAT he had been teaching me
> all along WAS "non-duality."
What do you think "non-duality" means?
>
> "I am the way the truth and the life" -- "I am" not Jesus.
For someone who purports to understand non-duality, you appear stuck in
either/or and do not consider and/both
Pieter
Again IMO: our false individual selves
don't need to merge but will be undone,
and our true nature doesn't need to merge
either, since it already IS one with everyone.
There is no spiritual path teaching that one
has to merge with the false self one sees
in another. :-)
Philomene
> Pardon me for butting in here, but to me non-dualism does not seek
> resolution of apparent mutiplicity at all.
Really? That's strange. Every course discussion I have every had where
the non duality card was played involved the assumption multiplicity was
the illusion and direct evidence of illusion.
This makes sense if one considers "non-dual" on its face translates as
not two, and without the possibility of two. Two or more indicating
separation and disunity, while unity is described as one thing without
parts or distinctions, all of which would indicate "duality."
To be sure duality and non duality are buzz phrases in new age think,
where nearly everyone understands the phrases to mean something different.
The historical context from Eastern metaphysics apparently is more
concerned with the relationship between subject and object, or the
relationship between the perceiving mind and the objects it perceives
rather strict multiplicity --but over time the notion of non duality has
become an easy short hand method to "prove" everything and all identity
must reduce to God or "All that is."
It allows multiplicity in
> all its glorious forms WITHOUT fracturing the whole in the appearance
> of parts. It allows freedom for no part to express the whole in and of
> itself but for the whole to be expressed in the relationship of the
> parts.
I still don't see any possibility of or reason for relationship
> in the "holographic paradigm" you suggest. If All is ever present in
> each part what reason could there ever be for relationship,
> communication, experience -- any of those wonderful things this
> experience SEEMS to be about.
Strange. When someone is arguing against unique identity and for only
God existing and only God possibly having identity, this is clearly a
denial of relationship, and communication for a non dual God, or
non-dual "All that is"
When everything is an expression of The One, this is generally
understood as a denial of relationship and multiplicity.
Non-dualism allows all to be exactly as
> it is. The only thing that changes is that the appearance of
> separation is not believed to be real but chosen for the sheer joy of
> experience. Nothing that appears within it effects Reality at all --
> nothing real is threatened,
>
> So whatever it is you are trying to say that makes the "holographic
> paradigm" superior to the "non-dualistic" paradigm still totally
> escapes me. I can see how a "holographic" theory can SEEM to resolve
> the question of how *I* seem to exist and YOU seem to exist but I
> don't see why that is important when the only thing *I* have any
> control over is my relatationship to what appears to me anyway.
It not important at all, unless you are a course student who takes
seriously the statement God think holographically and unless she
attempts to think holographically to the best of present ability then
she is most likely attempting to interpret the course with ego/alien
thoughts and paradigms.
BTW, I hope you do know that the notion of non duality is NOT mentioned
in the course, while the notion of holographic thinking and structure is
mentioned in the course several time.
Debinski
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 14:10:48 -0600, Philomene <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >BTW, I hope you do know that the notion of non duality is NOT mentioned
> >in the course, while the notion of holographic thinking and structure is
> >mentioned in the course several time.
>
> just like you won't get a single hit if you search on the word "non
> duality".
>
> "Relationship" as God knows it is not for us to define. The course
> does employ the word "oneness" a lot, and it refers to the word
> "being" a lot ("being" as in "the ground of being".) If you have ever
> paid a visit to the ground of being you have to know there is nothing
> to distinguish your ground of being from anybody else's ground of
> being. It is beyond images and concepts, contrasts comparisons and
> differences. In it lies your reality. Everything "above the ground"
> is noise. That is why the lessons in the workbook tells you to "go
> deep down" when you are doing the meditations. Not down to your
> abdomen. Down to the ground. Under all the noise to the stillness of
> being. It comes alive in its own way when we are there.
>
> Deborah (BC)
Exactly. Where is identity there? Ooops there I go calling it a place
again, but that's the nature of language isn't it? I don't have the
time right now to respond to these posts but I've gotta say on the
surface it looks to me like you have made up your minds that what I am
saying contradicts the Course. It even sounds as though you're both
saying that if I want to do the Course "properly" I'll get out of this
"ego think" and with the program. That's a judgment I think you're
making a bit too hastily. Most of what I see being argued AGAINST what
I wrote has nothing to do with what I meant. But that's okay. I just
saw the harsh judgments being made about other Course students/
teachers and thought perhaps that judgment was based on
misunderstanding. If it wasn't. It wasn't and I'll shut up about it.
As for myself personally I have no need to change my "metaphysical"
view of anything. The theology of it doesn't matter to me in the least
-- except when I see Course students judging each other so harshly.
But that, too, will pass. I did want to say thanks though for pointing
out that the word "holographic" is not in the Course. In fact the
concept of holography -- although there -- IMO isn't nearly as
prominently as the concept of Oneness.
Debinski
Debinski
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 14:10:48 -0600, Philomene <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >in the course, while the notion of holographic thinking and structure is
> >mentioned in the course several time.
>
> just like you won't get a single hit if you search on the word "non
> duality".
>
> "Relationship" as God knows it is not for us to define. The course
> does employ the word "oneness" a lot, and it refers to the word
> "being" a lot ("being" as in "the ground of being".) If you have ever
> paid a visit to the ground of being you have to know there is nothing
> to distinguish your ground of being from anybody else's ground of
> being. It is beyond images and concepts, contrasts comparisons and
> differences. In it lies your reality. Everything "above the ground"
> is noise. That is why the lessons in the workbook tells you to "go
> deep down" when you are doing the meditations. Not down to your
> abdomen. Down to the ground. Under all the noise to the stillness of
> being. It comes alive in its own way when we are there.
>
> Deborah (BC)
Well, Deborah. It looks as though I owe you an apology. In my haste
awhile ago, I somehow though Philomeme had written one of the above
responses to me and you had written the other. I see now that
Philomeme wrote both. Sorry for the reference to "both of you" in my
previous response.
Debinski
expires
> expires wrote:
I doubt anyone will really 'see' a true self
in any other before one knows/realizes one's
own true self beyond any thoughts/beliefs
about one's/any true self. AND having learned
and believing what true self is from a book is
just as much *false* knowledge/realization as
the ego-"I" is a false self. IMO most if not
all thoughts are part of 'THE' illusion :-))
BTW, has Jesus ever posted in this newsgroup?
--expires
maz
"Deborah" <deb...@anywhere.ca> schreef in bericht
news:keptg51c0j4rs0knj...@4ax.com...
>>in the course, while the notion of holographic thinking and structure is
>>mentioned in the course several time.
>
> just like you won't get a single hit if you search on the word "non
> duality".
>
<whisper> the best explanation of holographic in acim terms on this board
came from tom fox. I'd wish we could dig it up. <whisper off>
<noise on> Stillness is Sound <noise off>
Philomene
>> in the course, while the notion of holographic thinking and structure is
>> mentioned in the course several time.
>
> just like you won't get a single hit if you search on the word "non
> duality".
I wrote notion --not word.
The notion of a holographic structure of heaven is most certainly
written about in several places.
Consider the passage:
To you the miracle cannot seem natural, because what you have done to
hurt your mind has made it so unnatural that it does not remember what
is natural to it. And when you are told what is natural, you cannot
understand it. The recognition of the part as whole, and of the whole in
every part is perfectly natural, for it is the way God thinks, and what
is natural to Him is natural to you. Wholly natural perception would
show you instantly that order of difficulty in miracles is quite
impossible, for it involves a contradiction of what miracles mean. And
if you could understand their meaning, their attributes could hardly
cause you perplexity."
The phrase,"The recognition of the part as whole, and whole in every
part," is commonly recognized as a holographic relationship of parts to
whole.
In contrast one would hard pressed to find any passage at all which
states two or more are impossible or that Oneness must be the oneness of
a thing and not the oneness of a relationship.
>
> "Relationship" as God knows it is not for us to define.
So how is reading, "The recognition of the part as whole, and whole in
every part, defining relationships as God know it? It would seem to me
the author is defining relationships as God knows it.
The author tells us that one must think as God think to know God again.
As such it seems as course student, that we should pay careful attention
to passages that tell us directly how God thinks.
"The power of the Sons of God is present all the time, because they were
created as creators. Their influence on each other is without limit, and
must be used for their joint salvation. Each one must learn to teach
that all forms of rejection are meaningless. The separation is the
notion of rejection. As long as you teach this you will believe it. This
is not as God thinks, and you must think as He thinks if you are to know
Him again."
The course
> does employ the word "oneness" a lot, and it refers to the word
> "being" a lot ("being" as in "the ground of being".)
Exactly. And both oneness and being are defined.
>If you have ever
> paid a visit to the ground of being you have to know there is nothing
> to distinguish your ground of being from anybody else's ground of
> being.
How could you possibly know that if you are not privy to anyone else's
"ground of being"?
On the other hand I suspect this is true --but so what? Experience does
not determine or demonstrate ontology.
It is beyond images and concepts, contrasts comparisons and
> differences.
True. There is no universal theology but there is a universal experience.
Nevertheless because there is no universal theology doesn't mean there
is not a universal ontology.
It would seem to me if the author thinks universal ontology is important
enough to write about and include in his curriculum, then it is
important enough for the student to read, understand and discuss,
without someone suggesting that working one part of the curriculum is
somehow evidence that the rest of the curriculum is being ignored
Philomene
> Exactly. Where is identity there? Ooops there I go calling it a place
> again, but that's the nature of language isn't it?
What do you mean where's the identity?
How many times do you have to read that God the Father established your
identity as a Son of God in your creation?
Debinski
Perhaps we have a different definition for the word "identity,"
Philomeme. So, let me rephrase that question. Where is individuality
there? Is that better? The bottom line is, you seem only interested in
the words. I am only interested in the Reality the words point toward.
You seem only to be interested in better concepts. I am interested
only in the practical application of concepts. As I think I said from
the beginning if anyone, anywhere, anytime -- whether they have read A
Course in Miracles or not -- can't look and see for themselves that
what I say is true, it isn't true. They may choose NOT to see it. But
it's there to be seen at any moment they choose to look.
You can believe whatever you want. I have no interest in arguing with
beliefs. As I also said from the beginning if you can tell me where to
look to see for myself what you describe -- not in the words of a book
but in reality -- then please do. Tell me where to look and I will
look and report back to you what I see. But thus far, you have not
told me where to look. You offer only theories, attempt to use the
Course to verify those theories and ridicule anyone who does not see
your theories in the book.
My Father created One Son, appearing as many and called by many names,
each a unique expression of the Father. I celebrate that uniqueness
and have no doubt whatsoever that nothing is hidden or withheld from
any one of us -- ever. That does not mean, however, that any
individual person expresses or extends the whole at any given moment.
Atonement is NOT a concept we are working toward. It is what is here/
now -- with or without my acceptance, permission or belief.
Debinski
Philomene
> On Nov 26, 7:57 pm, Philomene <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Debinski wrote:
>>> Exactly. Where is identity there? Ooops there I go calling it a place
>>> again, but that's the nature of language isn't it?
>> What do you mean where's the identity?
>>
>> How many times do you have to read that God the Father established your
>> identity as a Son of God in your creation?
>
> Perhaps we have a different definition for the word "identity,"
> Philomeme.
Well that's easy to fix. State your idea of what you think the author
means by "identity."
So, let me rephrase that question. Where is individuality
> there? Is that better?
Marginally better. I know you are concerned about individuality or the
lack of individuality as this pertains to identity. On the other hand, I
have no real idea of your definition of individuality or what you
believe are the necessary conditions to demonstrate individuality. Nor
do I have any idea if these are private notions are notions you gleen
from reading ACIM.
The bottom line is, you seem only interested in
> the words. I am only interested in the Reality the words point toward.
Lol. That's hardly fair. Why wouldn't I be interested in the Reality
pointed to be a fair reading of ACIM?
> You seem only to be interested in better concepts. I am interested
> only in the practical application of concepts.
if that were honest, why would you be interested in why I believe the
author exists and is not just a symbol pointing to my right mind?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears to me you are not exclusively
engaged in the meditation and experiential aspects of course study but
are actively engaged in debate on whether a concept is right or wrong.
As I think I said from
> the beginning if anyone, anywhere, anytime -- whether they have read A
> Course in Miracles or not -- can't look and see for themselves that
> what I say is true, it isn't true.
Well that's a sure formula for one detractor impeaching what you say!
They may choose NOT to see it. But
> it's there to be seen at any moment they choose to look.
Yeah. I see where you are coming from. You can't be wrong and if someone
doesn't see your infallibility then its because he doesn't choose to
see it.
>
> You can believe whatever you want. I have no interest in arguing with
> beliefs. As I also said from the beginning if you can tell me where to
> look to see for myself what you describe -- not in the words of a book
> but in reality -- then please do. Tell me where to look and I will
> look and report back to you what I see. But thus far, you have not
> told me where to look. You offer only theories, attempt to use the
> Course to verify those theories and ridicule anyone who does not see
> your theories in the book.
>
> My Father created One Son, appearing as many and called by many names,
> each a unique expression of the Father.
Of course. The Father created many sons all which constitutes the Sonship.
Carrie
>
> <whisper> the best explanation of holographic in acim terms on this
> board came from tom fox. I'd wish we could dig it up. <whisper off>
>
> <noise on> Stillness is Sound <noise off>
How about digging up Tom Fox and asking hm?
Philomene
> "Deborah" <deb...@anywhere.ca> schreef in bericht
> news:keptg51c0j4rs0knj...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 14:10:48 -0600, Philomene <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> BTW, I hope you do know that the notion of non duality is NOT mentioned
>>> in the course, while the notion of holographic thinking and structure is
>>> mentioned in the course several time.
>> You won't get a single hit when you search on the world "holographic,
>> just like you won't get a single hit if you search on the word "non
>> duality".
>>
>
> <whisper> the best explanation of holographic in acim terms on this board
> came from tom fox. I'd wish we could dig it up. <whisper off>
>
> <noise on> Stillness is Sound <noise off>
Lol. If a holograph is a difficult concept, then we must be grateful
that the author wasn't writing for an audience of Steven Hawkings',
David Bohms and Albert Einsteins.
Debinski
You are wrong. I am a writer. I write from experience/observation and
these days seem to be doing so primarily in the language of A Course
in Miracles. I DO question people about their beliefs about the Course
and I do write a blog most days. But hardly a week goes by that I
don't include a reminder to "Please don't believe anything I say. Find
out for yourself if the words are true or not,"
From the beginning of this conversation I have tried to get you to
tell me where to look for what your words and concepts point toward.
Instead, you just keep expounding upon theories and telling me if I
want to understand A Course in Miracles I first have to accept your
theories. Which actually reminds me quite a lot of students telling me
when they attend seminars with Ken Wapnick they spend the first couple
of days studying his “metaphysical chart” because he also says they
can’t possibly understand the Course without it. Nonsense.
Debinski
Philomene
How am I wrong? Even a cursory review of this thread shows you arguing
and debating concepts. You weren't simply questioning me about my
beliefs but actively arguing for your beliefs.
It seems to me if you were only interested in practical application and
not concepts then our conversation would have had the form, "I'm not
concerned whether Jesus exists or not, or concerned whether God created
one Son or many Sons, or concerned about identity, I'm concerned about
the practical means of reaching inner peace.
As such you commit one of the cardinal sins of the beginning writer
--lack of candor or the unwillingness to admit what must be obvious to
your readers. Better to write, "Yes, I enjoy lively discussion and
debating ideas, but my main interest is practical application of concepts.
I write from experience/observation and
> these days seem to be doing so primarily in the language of A Course
> in Miracles. I DO question people about their beliefs about the Course
> and I do write a blog most days. But hardly a week goes by that I
> don't include a reminder to "Please don't believe anything I say. Find
> out for yourself if the words are true or not,"
>
> From the beginning of this conversation I have tried to get you to
> tell me where to look for what your words and concepts point toward.
Well this would be an interesting point, when in this thread you were
arguing concepts you demonstrated something other than arguing concepts.
> Instead, you just keep expounding upon theories and telling me if I
> want to understand A Course in Miracles I first have to accept your
> theories.
Really? What exactly leads you to the conclusion that believing identity
couldn't possibly have anything to do with individuality isn't a theory
or based on a theory, and your willingness to engage in debate where you
argue for and expound your theories is not an assertion that to
understand ACIM one must first accept your theories and understanding?
Its disingenuous to initiate and willingly enter into a spirited and
heated debate then complain you were done wrong because you really
wished to talk about the practical means of attaining inner peace.
Which actually reminds me quite a lot of students telling me
> when they attend seminars with Ken Wapnick they spend the first couple
> of days studying his �metaphysical chart� because he also says they
> can�t possibly understand the Course without it. Nonsense.
>
> Debinski
Pieter
According to ACIM seeing the divine in one's
brother precedes knowing it is in oneself as well.
And it is my own conviction that I cannot be
aware of the divine (or: the truth) in me when I
cannot see it in my brothers.
> AND having learned
> and believing what true self is from a book is
> just as much *false* knowledge/realization as
> the ego-"I" is a false self.
If reading and learning from ACIM
is not attended by experiencing oneself
the truth it points to, then it is of no use.
Debinski
>> Phil: How am I wrong? Even a cursory review of this thread shows you arguing
and debating concepts. You weren't simply questioning me about my
beliefs but actively arguing for your beliefs.
It seems to me if you were only interested in practical application
and
not concepts then our conversation would have had the form, "I'm not
concerned whether Jesus exists or not, or concerned whether God
created
one Son or many Sons, or concerned about identity, I'm concerned
about
the practical means of reaching inner peace. <<
I don’t doubt what I’ve written looks like argument to you, But as
I’ve said several times, I don’t know who you are arguing with but it
is not me. Anything I actually write has played very little role in
this conversation. I can only assume that’s because I questioned your
assessment of what ACIM Monk had written, you put me into a category
of people you enjoy railing against, perhaps even thinking I was
defending him. Consequently your responses -- which I would agree have
been argumentative -- rarely had any connection to anything I actually
wrote.
>Phil: As such you commit one of the cardinal sins of the beginning writer
--lack of candor or the unwillingness to admit what must be obvious
to
your readers. Better to write, "Yes, I enjoy lively discussion and
debating ideas, but my main interest is practical application of
concepts. <
You clearly don’t understand anything I write because your ideals are
so strong you judge against what you read before you even give it a
chance. I am not a beginning writer, but a former newspaper reporter,
feature writer, community newspaper editor with published stories in
several national magazines having also written on assignment for the
world’s most widely read Catholic newspaper. Now, tell me that the
people who published my stories must have been incapable of discerning
good from bad writing or whatever ridiculous judgment you decide to
make this time. It makes no difference to me. Nor does my writing
experience really have anything to do with this conversation except I
DID say “I am a writer.”
IF you did more than “a cursory reading” of this thread, I think you
would find I did NOT argue any concepts, but only described what I see
-- which WAS the way to lasting inner peace for me. I AM interested in
lively discussion when the person I am trying to communicate with
writes from experience as I also said from the beginning. If I’m not
sure whether they are writing of what they know or only
intellectualizing, I question them as I questioned you.
But I am not here to defend myself any more than I am here to defend
ACIM Monk or Ken Wapnick.
>Deb: I write from experience/observation and
> these days seem to be doing so primarily in the language of A Course
> in Miracles. I DO question people about their beliefs about the Course
> and I do write a blog most days. But hardly a week goes by that I
> don't include a reminder to "Please don't believe anything I say. Find
> out for yourself if the words are true or not,"
> From the beginning of this conversation I have tried to get you to
> tell me where to look for what your words and concepts point toward.
>Phil: Well this would be an interesting point, when in this thread you were
arguing concepts you demonstrated something other than arguing
concepts. <
Actually, as I’ve said all along. You’ve been arguing with yourself.
In fact, I’ve frequently wondered if you even read anything I wrote.
> Deb: Instead, you just keep expounding upon theories and telling me if I
> want to understand A Course in Miracles I first have to accept your
> theories.
>> Phil: Really? What exactly leads you to the conclusion that believing identity
couldn't possibly have anything to do with individuality isn't a
theory
or based on a theory,<<
Observation.
>> Phil: and your willingness to engage in debate where you
argue for and expound your theories is not an assertion that to
understand ACIM one must first accept your theories and
understanding?
Its disingenuous to initiate and willingly enter into a spirited and
heated debate then complain you were done wrong because you really
wished to talk about the practical means of attaining inner peace. <<
I’m not complaining, just stating observations and I didn’t say I
wished to talk about practical means of attaining peace. That’s the
other thing you and I have disagreed about from the beginning. You
seem to believe inner peace is something to be achieved or attained
through better beliefs and ideals. I say it is just the opposite of
that. It is what is, when beliefs and ideals are undone.
Debinski
expires
You, Pieter, just wrote:
" According to ACIM seeing the divine in one's
" brother precedes knowing it is in oneself as well.
" And it is my own conviction that I cannot be
" aware of the divine (or: the truth) in me when I
" cannot see it in my brothers.
" If reading and learning from ACIM
" is not attended by experiencing oneself
" the truth it points to, then it is of no use.
If I were experiencing "the truth ACIM points to"
I wouldn't write "according to ACIM" like you've
just done, I'd have written "I experience the truth
ACIM points to". IOW, FMPOV you've obviously inter-
nalized ACIM's doctrine very well intellectually
and on the "conviction"/belief level, but FMPOV
nothing more, so you're obviously not on the level
of REALLY experiencing "the truth ACIM points to".
Not that I don't appreciate a little philosophizing
and intellectual exchange now and then. Unfortunately
my hope of meeting an AWAKENED/REAL ACIM TEACHER here
in this newsgroup can't be fulfilled by *cute* stuff
like that.
--expires
Philomene
>> Deb: Instead, you just keep expounding upon theories and telling me if I
>> want to understand A Course in Miracles I first have to accept your
>> theories.
>
>>> Phil: Really? What exactly leads you to the conclusion that believing identity
> couldn't possibly have anything to do with individuality isn't a
> theory
> or based on a theory,<<
>
> Observation.
Hmmm...I'm trying to imagine what possible observations could lead to
that conclusion without violating nearly every principle of logic, and
empirical science, and completely confusing and totally f**king up all
common and accepted notions of inductive reasoning from observation.
Pieter
> You, Pieter, just wrote:
>
> " According to ACIM seeing the divine in one's
> " brother precedes knowing it is in oneself as well.
> " And it is my own conviction that I cannot be
> " aware of the divine (or: the truth) in me when I
> " cannot see it in my brothers.
> " If reading and learning from ACIM
> " is not attended by experiencing oneself
> " the truth it points to, then it is of no use.
>
> If I were experiencing "the truth ACIM points to"
> I wouldn't write "according to ACIM" like you've
> just done, I'd have written "I experience the truth
> ACIM points to". IOW, FMPOV you've obviously inter-
> nalized ACIM's doctrine very well intellectually
> and on the "conviction"/belief level, but FMPOV
> nothing more, so you're obviously not on the level
> of REALLY experiencing "the truth ACIM points to".
>
> Not that I don't appreciate a little philosophizing
> and intellectual exchange now and then. Unfortunately
> my hope of meeting an AWAKENED/REAL ACIM TEACHER here
> in this newsgroup can't be fulfilled by *cute* stuff
> like that.
>
> --expires
You will have to take me as I am (as I do you).
I just express what I think of what you write.
- Love to communicate with you!
Btw my opinion is: one can never choose
an external teacher above one's own inner teacher.
It is always one's chosen inner teacher who is in charge.