What is Truth?
Larry Allen
I am still alive in 6 months from today, I will be bucking (if not
breaking) the consensus of the entire worldwide medical establishment,
in terms of their collective experience of what is possible, (and what
is not possible), for a human being.
In other words he told me I was dying.
Hello?
I could have told "him" that.
And spared him an unspeakably expensive and time consuming education
to boot.
(but alas, I both kept (and held) my silence within).
Knowing as I do the distinction between truth and fact, reality and
fiction, love and fear, hope and futility.
Now I will tell you a truth, (if you can receive it, I do not know),
but I will tell it to you, in either event. For now I have nothing to
lose.
A fact is always true, but a truth is not always a fact.
For facts belong to the mind of man, whereas truth belongs to the
heart & soul.
Thus the inquiry demanded is one of the distinction between a mans
mind, and his heart, and his soul.
Do I err?
I think not.
For Divine Providence herself has brought me to this place, and I
trust she will not be denied.
Certainly not upon my death bed.
For I have lived too long (and too richly and too deeply in love) with
all of humanity, to be denied.
Thus I ask:
What is Truth?
And I confess: "It is you".
The facts of your existance being wholly insignificant relative to the
presence of the truth of your individual (magnificant) being.
For the presence of your very being has been the definer of all of the
facts (that seemingly defined you).
In other words, you are beautiful beyond human measure, for being who
you are.
And I tell you another truth (my friend), I wish it were possible for
me to give to you, what it is I understand, in simple terms. But it is
not possible. For these are the simplest terms Providence herself has
given me to express.
I cannot prove to you that you are both beautiful and perfect,
(exactly as you now are), but this truth remains to be "the" truth.
Here then is the distintion between the mind, the heart and the soul.
The mind, by design, serves to accomodate the heart, the heart by
design, serves to accomodate the soul, the soul by design serves to
accomodate God.
In love there is order.
And love is the essence of what you are.
For love is the essence of what God is.
And we are not the creators of God, but rather God is the creator of
ourselves.
Now we can (and do) fancy ourselves as being self-created beings.
But such foolishness defies even the most fundamental premises of the
physical sciences to which we afford our deepest and greatest
allegiances. In our sleep.
For what being can exist in the absence of a father/mother of it?
No. None can. Save for in the fanciful fabrications of the sleeping
mind.
My life is over.
I understand.
I have no regrets.
It is my time to pass away.
But the Divine Providence that has been living her life in the
disguise of me, is living her life in the disguise of you, and shall
live on and on and on and on.
This is Truth.
Larry Allen
1 a : archaic : FIDELITY, CONSTANCY b : sincerity in action,
character, and utterance
2 a (1) : the state of being the case : FACT (2) : the body of real
things, events, and facts : ACTUALITY (3) : often capitalized : a
transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality b : a judgment,
proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true <truths of
thermodynamics> c : the body of true statements and propositions
3 a : the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or
reality b : chiefly British : TRUE 2 c : fidelity to an original or to
a standard
4 : capitalized Christian Science : GOD
- in truth : in accordance with fact : ACTUALLY
Pronunciation Key
© 2001 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated
Merriam-Webster Privacy Policy
Robert Kolker
Larry Allen wrote:
>
> I understand.
>
> I have no regrets.
>
> It is my time to pass away.
Bon Voyage. I plan to bitch and moan a lot and be a perfectly bad sport
about the entire matter. Do not go gently into that Good Night. Rage,
rage against the failing of the light.
Since I can't beat entropy my hope is to keep my wits till the Bitter End.
Bob Kolker
MIKE
061710....@posting.google.com>...
> Knowing as I do the distinction between truth and fact, reality and
> fiction, love and fear, hope and futility.
>
> Now I will tell you a truth, (if you can receive it, I do not know),
> but I will tell it to you, in either event. For now I have nothing to
> lose.
>
> A fact is always true, but a truth is not always a fact.
>
> For facts belong to the mind of man, whereas truth belongs to the
> heart & soul.
>
> Thus the inquiry demanded is one of the distinction between a mans
> mind, and his heart, and his soul.
>
> Do I err?
>
> I think not.
>
> For Divine Providence herself has brought me to this place, and I
> trust she will not be denied.
>
> Certainly not upon my death bed.
>
> For I have lived too long (and too richly and too deeply in love) with
Larry ,
In the short time that I have been on this HPO I've come to
regard your posts as visits to serenity , some times I don't
understand, and some times I think I understand and other times I
have realizations that lack words and other times sense wisdom that
that I suspect can only be grasped in the process of dying.
I agree , we are , life is ,there is no measure ,no comparison.Every
thing in the universe is perfection as it is.
In a man's life that perfection is framed by his coming and going in
that beautiful cycle that is life.We come, we touch others they, touch
us we build our lives we raise our children we try to leave more
goodness than harm ,then our bodies grow frail and we know it is time
to leave ; to leave space for those that follow.There is purpose to
all this and although I don't know what it is, the sence of it is
enough though* .I like Pierre De Chardin's theory that we become at
one with all of life when we pass.I sometimes have a feeling when I
read your posts that you are already in touch with this unity.
I've decided that I am not an objectivist at heart so I will be
leaving HPO good bye to every one. Ad Dieu Larry, you have good
friends here.
mike
ps * perhaps it isn't.Thank you.
michael price
ttbi.com>...
> Larry Allen wrote:
> >
> > I understand.
> >
> > I have no regrets.
> >
> > It is my time to pass away.
>
> Bon Voyage. I plan to bitch and moan a lot and be a perfectly bad sport
> about the entire matter. Do not go gently into that Good Night. Rage,
> rage against the failing of the light.
And scare your enermies. They know you have nothing to lose at the end
and it's your last chance.
Larry Allen
Dear Bob,
The wits you speak of were yours before the (beautiful) beginning.
And will remain with you, after the (bitter) end.
Entropy is not without its opposite.
So to speak.
Larry Allen
bobk...@attbi.com
> and it's your last chance.
Good point. My very last word will be - Banzai!!!!!-. Let my enemies
tremble for there is nothing more invincible than someone with nothing
further to lose.
Bob Kolker
tom neville
> 061710....@posting.google.com>...
> > Knowing as I do the distinction between truth and fact, reality and
> > fiction, love and fear, hope and futility.
> >
Larry, did you think you would exit so easily? If at all!
The old lady who said "you can live too long you know" was
correct.
So unlike others who would suggest this is an excellant time
to excact revenge, retribution and carefree destruction may I
offer the suggestion, based on Envy as follows:
Look forward to it! Let the dead bury the dead and let the living
go on living. From the day of birth we are all dying, so the day
of our death is better than the day of birth? You understand.
Now a ridiculous list of "Things to miss out on" by the dead(?)
The 3rd world war.
The continued stupidity of man.
Sex (A divine humor).
Not being able to interfere with your chidrens lives.
Being unbelievably tortured by "fellow humans"
Not able to remember (I like that one) Wow.
Isms no longer exist.
No more work, worry or pain.
No money.
So why the sorrow, you will still be my best friend.
In the thunder will be your laughter
The lightning your witt.
Hey you have not replyied to my complete demolition of
your "all are creatd equal" post.
Popescu Lucian
061710....@posting.google.com>...
I'll tell you what the truth is. It's very simple, yet EVERYONE avoids
it: PEOPLE ARE RUNNING AWAY OF RESPONSIBILITIES. If you're a
Christian, learn about PENITENCE.
You are gonna die... SO WHAT? Want compassion? What makes you then so
special to DESERVE it? Nothing. It appears you lived a miserable
anonymous life, seeking confort among other people and pisspoor
feel-good answers (the usual kind with "love" and "God"). Animalistic
existence is impossible to be attributed with an essence. Animals die
and nobody cares. I was pretty upset my cat died, SO i bought another.
There is no love in this world. When someone says he's in love of
someone else it ALWAYS turns out he loves anything BUT himself. Also
there is, of course, no afterlife. This is the most ridiculous thing
mankind has ever invented just to remain iresponsable.
You might be asking yourself what made me put such a strong message.
First, the topic. Second, I felt a sence of PITTY reading about
someone who's dying and inviting people on USENET to care about him.
Thus I offered my service puting yourself in a situation which, at
least for a moment, compells you to give a MANLY answer. Always
remember: pain reveals great truths. Before I became a non-believer, I
always liked the essence of SIN, for which you must always redeem.
This is the highest quality of all monotheisms: the institute a rigid
sence of morality and, consequently, RESPONSIBILITY. Such a pitty
since it has never been practiced literally...
Reading these lines, I make no false hope you will ever aggree with
me. It's possible you don't even read these very words, but if you do
I'm sure aside of motivations and excuses, you ARE somewhat conscient
everything I said is the Truth, the one you thought to be looking for,
yet the very opposite of what you WISHED.
puppe...@hotmail.com
> about the entire matter. Do not go gently into that Good Night. Rage,
> rage against the failing of the light.
Right on Bob! If Death comes near me I'm gonna rip his nipples off!
Socks
Don Matt
> someone else it ALWAYS turns out he loves anything BUT himself.
Prove it.
> Also
> there is, of course, no afterlife.
This conclusion doesn't comes from your premisses.
Don.
Homer
Death is when the life goes out of a once
living organism. It is a thing seen from our
human perspective. We are so fallible in so
many simple things, we almost have to be wrong
when we are clearly over our head.
What being anti-life is is up in the air.
Atheism is limiting. Why go that road?
Homer
Popescu Lucian
401...@posting.google.com>...
> Prove it.
I don't have to, I don't evangelize truth.
tom neville
14.1b...@posting.google.com>...
No, but why do you evangelize hate? Are you Romainian?
Count Dracula, Vampires etc. Your post dripped with blood.
Why?
Tom-N
Popescu Lucian
46.54...@posting.google.com>...
> No, but why do you evangelize hate? Are you Romainian?
> Count Dracula, Vampires etc. Your post dripped with blood.
Well, you kinda explained it yourself: I'm in the service of Count
Dracula. I'm member of a worldwide alliance of Forces of Evil (just a
lay member, nothing important), planning to rule the world and enslave
mankind. You should better summon some of your superheros to defend
you good, caring, compassionate, loving, ideologically correct
Gentlemen. Maybe Cpt. Planet or Major Glory will do...
> Why?
I'm evangelizing responsibility to those taking feel-good escapes.
Sometimes, when I'm turned upside down by what I'm seing, I'm doing
the VIOLENT way. Why? Because I like to see those idiotic
self-contented greasy faces shatter in pain and have the glimpse of
the little vermin they are.
J. Hall
So you come here calling us all "irresponsible" and "sinful" without
reason, then you accuse us of being "post-modern" and "cultists"
without evidence to prove it ?
It looks like you're the one taking the "feel-good escape", whilst
shirking the (dare I say it) "responsibility" of providing evidence
for your many accusations.
> Sometimes, when I'm turned upside down by what I'm seing, I'm doing
> the VIOLENT way. Why? Because I like to see those idiotic
> self-contented greasy faces shatter in pain and have the glimpse of
> the little vermin they are.
You need help. Calm down.
Popescu Lucian
59...@posting.google.com>...
> So you come here calling us all "irresponsible" and "sinful" without
> reason, then you accuse us of being "post-modern" and "cultists"
> without evidence to prove it ?
That man was looking for compassion. This is an irresposible thing to
do by a "rational man"]. You are here to defend the hive ["us" used
for TWO times]. This is an irresposible thing to do by a
self-proclaimed individualist]. For start, am I talking to ARI's
spokesmachine or a real person? If you are a person, please use "me"
instead of "we". "We" means you all think the same and even though I
have a conversation with Mr. Bernstein, it's like I have it with you
or Mr. Spartakist.
tom neville
35.33...@posting.google.com>...
> tom neville <nuc...@clear.net.nz> wrote in message news:<b0e69798.03051614
> 46.54...@posting.google.com>...
> > No, but why do you evangelize hate? Are you Romainian?
> > Count Dracula, Vampires etc. Your post dripped with blood.
> Sometimes, when I'm turned upside down by what I'm seing, I'm doing
> the VIOLENT way. Why? Because I like to see those idiotic
> self-contented greasy faces shatter in pain and have the glimpse of
> the little vermin they are.
I can understand, after watching documentaries of Romanian
orphanages and the treatment of children, how someone may
become phrenetic later in life, however no matter the "reason"
it is a persons choice whether to waste their life "blaming"
others, as an "excuse" for not facing up to the "fact that the
majority of the human race is insane".
If you wish to spend your life trying to change that by bullying,
exterminating and other phsycopathic behaviour, by all means go
ahead, the choice is yours.
Having just about finished my three score and ten, let me assure
you, the only one you will destroy will be yourself and those
close to you.
As Larry Allen suggests in his unique way "seek wisdom my friend"
to which I would add "seek contentment".
Tom-N
Popescu Lucian
46.29...@posting.google.com>...
Sir,
please spare me of $1 psychobabble. I'm not "deep-inside suffering"
because "I was abused during childhood" (au contraire, my parents
treated me with lots of love), nor because "You have no life" (i live,
therefore have a life) and certainly NOT because "it's so painful to
see those poor kids wandering on streets. someone should do something
about it". Nor am I "turning this pain against others". This
pseudo-freudian bullshit is now termed "psychology" and applied as an
absolute religious truth.
For the record, I take no responsability on other people's lifes. If
they have problems, they should solve them themselves. Gee, at least
on this aspect I thought we were on aggreement, since Objectivism is
"acting selfish". Also, my eyes don't burst into crocodile tears when
I see those "poor homeless kids". It's like those people who say they
like Blacks but never seen one in their entire life. Those "street
children" are irrecuperable animalized pseudo-humans. No program, no
matter how generous, will make them different of what they are now:
smelly, dirty, violent, dangerous animals, in every aspect lower than
dogs. Of course, this is unfortunate, but it's solely the fault of
their irresponsible parents. If I'd have a kid, would I leave him
behind as they did? NO. Thus, it's not my business, PERIOD. If you
want to be yours, SO BE IT.
In the end, as any good Evangelist confronted to an unsubmissive
primitive, I shall remind you commiting, solely in the few words you
have sent me now, a couple of mortal sinns (requiring attentive
introspection, in order to redeem). First, you much too commonly use
recipes of thinking (re-read your psychobabble in order to better
understand). Second, you have commited the aggravated sin of taking
parcimoniously the "compassionate" side, which proves you being an
utter hypocrite of "humanist" sort (this is harder to solve and
requires special attention. you can start with this line "WHAT IF I
don't care?" or "WHAT IF I'm doing this to get support?").
> As Larry Allen suggests in his unique way "seek wisdom my friend"
> to which I would add "seek contentment".
Since it appears you're in the mood of epitaphs, here's one:
Here lies my wife
So let her lie.
Now she's at rest,
And so am I.
Beautiful, huh? Now wipe your artificial tears and write down all the
appropriate conclusions.
CLASS DISMISSED.
Joey
the spirit, our dreams are not matter they are energy. By the laws of
physics an energy cannot be destroyed only transformed. Evidence of
past life spirits have existed for centuries. I personally have not
seen them but I have many friends who have. I know of a family living
in gettysburg who share their house with a spirit who is basically
considered part of the family. Some of these spirits show no
recognition of their modernday environment and seem to be like replays
of he past, however some show cognitive awareness of their roomates
and react or communicate to them. How glorious it must be to rid
onesself of this cumbersome body and exist entirely as an energy. How
wonderful it must be to live in this dream state with no need for
food, oxygen, or shelter. Exploring the farthest reaches of our
universe, transversing time. A reality limited to only your wildest
imaginations. You are not alone as we all must cross that threshold
someday as millions have before us and millions will after. Life is
merely the egg that we hatch from to spend our eternity observing and
living that which we questioned and couldn't acheive our entire lives.
You have lived a life perfecting your ideals. This will carry you on
to a true purpose that many fear or scorn. This is because they are so
enslaved to thier body that they fear losing the small amount they
have here for the riches of the afterlife. Material thoughts have no
purpose there. Only idealism cultured by a long and painful material
existance. Life on this earth is only a prelude for what is to come.
Kind of a boot camp for the afterlife. Our pain on this earth is there
to teach us the empathy for others. Once learned we don't need it any
longer. Don't fear the future. Life has just begun and we will all be
there with you in a short while.
tom neville
27.27...@posting.google.com>...
> tom neville <nuc...@clear.net.nz> wrote in message news:<b0e69798.03051715
> 46.29...@posting.google.com>...
> please spare me of $1 psychobabble. I'm not "deep-inside suffering"
> because "I was abused during childhood" (au contraire, my parents
> treated me with lots of love...
I remind you of your previous quote:
> There is no love in this world.
A contradiction?
> I shall remind you commiting, solely in the few words you
> have sent me now, a couple of mortal sinns
Are you God? Where do you get the authority to judge others,
for "sins" that only exist in your mind, the result no doubt
of previous Catholic-type conditioning?
What is your definition of Sin?
Your authorative and provocative style is for what purpose?
Is it to Command respect? Is that a sin?
Why do you call a mortal sinner...Sir?
Would the real Popescu stand up!
Tom-N
Homer
Joey <res0...@verizon.net> wrote:
Our pain on this earth is there
>to teach us the empathy for others.
God doesn't hurt us. People hurt us. Anybody
in pain is the victim of others. God challenges us
only in a managable way.
I can't imagine God saying love your evil neighbor.
Leave him/her to heaven as in Hamlet is OK.
But good people ordered to love evil is a
contradiction.
Homer
Popescu Lucian
23.29...@posting.google.com>...
> What is your definition of Sin?
I told that before. Read my previous posts. I define "Sin" as a
commited act against responsibility for yourself. This goes in
accordance with the religious teachings, with some important
exceptions:
1. there is nobody to take someone's sinns upon himself
2. there is no salvation whatsoever. We all die and we get practically
no advantage (except intellectual) for working out to redeem our
sinns.
3. religion, being socially oriented, imagines a Warrant since people
need PERSONIFICATION in order to feel themselves submitted to moral
power. Since there is no God, I naturally take no Warrant except
miself. As Plato once said: "Man is the measure to everything". A sin
is first and foremost an act against myself, while in Christianity
it's first and foremost and act against others.
A "mortal sin", similar to Catholicism, means a repeated act of sin
that endangeres your very intellectual foundations.
Someone "lost" denotes a sinner no longer able to redeem himself. What
exactly does this mean? Example of lost man: "Mr. Bernstein". After
carefully analyzing his answers to my posts, I decided that man is
impossible to be evangelized because of the amount of MORTAL sinns he
commited against his very individuality. He's LOST and I'm no longer
trying to enlighten him. I'm only interested in INTELLECTUALS, for the
simple reason masses would never like this, because they HATE being
held responsible for their acts.
In my "religion", a man that makes a mistake must REDEEM this mistake
by an act of introspection over:
1. what determined the sin
2. how can the sin be for the future NEUTRALIZED
3. how can the commited act of sin be REDEEMED?
What exactly does this "redeeming" business mean?
Example (although I hate giving examples, because only SINNERS need
them):
Let us say that at one certain point Lucian finds himself parroting
words which don't belong to him...
1. First, he must determine why. This is the easiest phase of all. If
he's uncapable of doing this, he must be LOST. In the above case, the
SOURCE of sin is a very basic need of worship determined by an
incomplete individuality.
2. Now the sin, once it has been identified, it must be NEUTRALIZED.
In the above case, the need of worship must be neutralized.
3. Neutralizing one sin doesn't stop other related sinns from being
commited. The REDEEMING phase bases itself on the reality that sin is
like a tree. You might cut its branches, but others will eventually
emerge. However, you cannot completely destroy it either, because that
would be a contradiction with our status of incomplete beings.
Redeeming means the tree must be cut to its most possible and
prevented from growing again. In the above case, redeeming is working
to complete your individuality, a task which is, however, impossible
BY DEFAULT being completed.
> Why do you call a mortal sinner...Sir?
Because I wanted to remind you this is an INFORMAL discussion. I try
not making things personal. That's one of the MORTAL SINS.
Joey
c...@reader0.news.skynet.be>...
We are given free will to hurt each other because god wants us to
follow him by choice and not command. Its like having a wife that
loves you or one thats obedient to because she is forced to be. It is
people who hurt people because of this free choice, however we are
allowed to feel pain so we can understand the gravity of our actions.
Our earthly lives are a grain of sand on the beach as compared to
eternity and our earthly bodies are a burden and of little value as
compared to our everlasting spirit, so we actually suffer very little
on earth as compared to our actual existance. Those who take earthly
life as the most serious part of our existance are those who suffer
the greatest. God does not punish he teaches and the severity of those
lessons depends greatly on how fast we learn. "He who tries to save
his life will lose it and he who gives up his life will receive
everlasting life"
J. Hall
No problem, he's only here to parody objectivism anyway.
> After
> carefully analyzing his answers to my posts, I decided that man is
> impossible to be evangelized because of the amount of MORTAL sinns he
> commited against his very individuality. He's LOST and I'm no longer
> trying to enlighten him.
You continue to insist that objectivism is "post-modern", despite all
of the evidence to the contrary that was posted by Mr Hertle (which
you did not reply to, surprise surprise). Does that mean that you, in
your attempt to evade this evidence, are refusing to be held
responsible for your dishonesty (an act against yourself) and are
therefore "LOST", just like Mr. Bernstein ?
> I'm only interested in INTELLECTUALS,
I think the real question here is : Are "intellectuals" interested in
you ?
tom neville
50.1e...@posting.google.com>...
> tom neville <nuc...@clear.net.nz> wrote in message news:<b0e69798.03051815
> 23.29...@posting.google.com>...
> > What is your definition of Sin?
>
> I told that before. Read my previous posts.
So many words...So little substance.
Like Objectivists you are a victim of a form of
Intellectual Esotericism.
"there are those who though not blind cannot see,
though not deaf cannot hear"
I have arogantly planted a few seeds in the garden
of your subconscience mind. %-)
Tom-N
Homer
Joey <res0...@verizon.net> wrote:
Those who take earthly
>life as the most serious part of our existance are those who suffer
>the greatest.
I am not a mystic. I am a simple man. I don't know the
eternal answer. But I go by what I see.
It is only this life that gives us clues to
what lies ahead. Take Socrates and Jesus.
Socrates asked questions because he was human.
Jesus taught because he was God.
When Jesus said love thy neighbor as thyself,
I don't understand it. God's words are
hard to understand. I don't think He was
saying love evil people. That's a formula
for creating more evil people. Jesus was
saying most of your neighors are decent,
upright folks. These people are the ones
to love. So you yourself will be just like them.
This is why I oppose anything evil or deceptive.
Life on Earth is more important than most
think.
Homer
.
I just decided to post here to reply to you. I have never actually
looked at this objectivism philosophy before, there was something on
the news about an art exhibition in denmark where some artist put
goldfish into a blender, I was researching people's opinions of that
on usenet when I came upon this objectivism branch.
I decided to share with you a little episode of about 10 seconds of my
life that happened a good few years ago, which I think could be
relevant to your situation.
Firsly I'd like to point out that I'm not an objectivist viewpoint
believer, I hadn't researched it before until I came here (via the
goldfish). But now that I have spent some time reading up on it I find
that it doesn't hold any water with me.
I came upon this conclusion (fairly quickly) after reading the faq on
objectivism at http://www.aynrand.org/faq/, where her views on for
example charities and capital punishment contravene with my own.
To be precise, one of her statements were: (in an interview with
Playboy magazine 1964):
"I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider
it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if
and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them."
Her opinions expressed using the words "There is nothing wrong in..."
didn't strike me as a particularly encouraging and positive advocacy
for a healty advancement of this race.
In addition, her comments on capital punishment:
"She thought it was morally just, but legally dangerous--because of
the possibility of jury errors which could not be rectified after the
death of the innocent man."
In my opinion it may perhaps be legally just, but for precisely the
reason that is given; morally dangerous.
To conclude my opinion on objectivism, Ayn Reid, from what I can
gather about her writings, was not a woman with great concern, care
and empathy for the human race. Perhaps this is why she had no
children.
Anyhow, I didn't start this post to solely express my views on
objectivism. I started this post to share with you an experience that
I had a few years ago that you may find interesting or helpful to you.
Some background information on me, I'm 28, I graduated as Bachelor of
Science (theoretical physics). I'm not a religious person as you might
guess, but I don't vehemently deny the existence of (in some way)
superior beings somewhere. Perhaps even beings or "intelleings" if I
can invent that word, that may have even made our universe.
I just don't know. All I do, day in day out is try my hardest to delve
deeper and deeper into the function and mechanics (and when I'm very
lucky: reason) behind our environment and that of the whole of the
universe(s).
I believe it is important that you know atleast that much about me to
make sense of what happened a few years ago. A few years ago I was
witness first hand that there is more to the human mind, in terms of
space atleast, than the volume of the skull.
I was talking to a friend of mine on a cloudy day outside. Someone who
I did not know very well and who I had been introduced to only a few
days before. He seemed a pleasant enough person, but to me atleast
seemed to be very introverted, very untalkative, almost to the point
of seemingly being very methodical to not meet new people that he had
not been introduced to by someone that he trusted.
The conversation changed at a point to my profession and to physics,
meta-physics and to the question of the capabilities of the human
mind. This is when he mentioned something that I did not understand at
first, that he was very different to average people. I asked him to
elaborate, but he didn't.
Later on, he did and said that he had a brain which was different, so
I asked him to demonstrate, then something happened that changed how I
have looked at life ever since. It is very, very, very difficult to
talk about or try to honestly and sincerely describe things that you
have experienced that are not within socially accepted ranges, that I
can understand why most people would choose not to. Believe me it is
very difficult to try to explain something ludicrous to someone who
has never experienced the same thing. If what is being discussed is
something that has a probability of occuring perhaps once in every 100
million, it is possibly very difficult if not impossible to explain to
the general public period. So the very few (sincere ones) would choose
to remain silent.
What happened was that as this person looked at me, a gust of wind
came out of his face and struck mine. It did not stop at the skin of
my face and dissipate around my head as you would expect, but this
gust of air continued to move and pass through the skin and my skull
and I could actually feel it inside the confines of my head.
That's when i realised that it wasn't a gust of wind. There was no
moving air involved. That is the best that I can describe it, like a
gust of wind, with no moving air that penetrates your head.
What clinched this very strange natural occurence as emanating from
the person infront of me, at his will, was this; As this occured and
kept occuring for perhaps upto 2 seconds, I became afraid, my vision
had also become blurred, much like when your eyes are fixated on
something when you are tired, everything else becomes blurry. In much
the same way I realised that all I could see were his eyes, everything
else was a blurr of its original shape and colours. I became very
afraid and cold, and shook my head to the side sharply.
When I then asked him "did you just do something?" he replied yes, but
that he had stopped when it became evident that I became frightened.
A few months after that he was transferred elsewhere and I did not see
him again, and that was the first and absolutely last time that I have
witnessed anything like that in my 28 years of life.
Being a physicist it is not something I discuss with people that I do
not know very well, eventhough it was the single most defining moment
of my opinion of life in general. A topic or claim like this is often
ridiculed, not surprisingly, considering how many actually con people
into giving them money for telling their future.
However, to me it has signified something very simple. That there is
more to the human mind than the flesh of its substance. What more I
don't know, telepathy, telekinesis, people who see the future, heaven,
hell, god?
I don't know about any of these,... I just don't. All that I
experienced was what I explained to you above.
I don't know why not more people claim such occurences in their lives
after examining all others possibilities or chances where I may have
erred in my interpretation. Perhaps they are genuinely afraid of the
ridicule. Perhaps it is something which is truly very, very rare to
see occur, or to witness.
I see it as this, and this is how I explain it to myself. Every
religion has a book or series of books that are aimed at telling
people about the afterlife.
Every book is different and so to me cannot be seen as the conclusive
manual to life. Each book has a different number of pages, etc.
I believe (firmly) that what I experiencd was just, only one
-character-, in an indistinct sentence, from an unknown paragraph, on
an indistint page, of the real manual of what actually happens to us
after we die.
I don't know about the name of the book, I don't know about the page,
I don't even have the paragraph let alone a sentence. But I have one
real, true genuine, authentic, single character.
I thought I would share that with you, thank you for taking the time
to read it, I hope that it gives you something to think about, and
perhaps even others who -scientifically- study these types of
occurences.
To everyone else, thank you for having granted me the space within
your discussions to share this.
Larry Allen <loveroft...@aol.com> wrote in message news:<f60dff2c.030
5061710....@posting.google.com>...
> This morning, my doctor, (of near countless years), advised me that if
> I am still alive in 6 months from today, I will be bucking (if not
> breaking) the consensus of the entire worldwide medical establishment,
> in terms of their collective experience of what is possible, (and what
> is not possible), for a human being.
>
> In other words he told me I was dying.
>
> Hello?
>
> I could have told "him" that.
>
> And spared him an unspeakably expensive and time consuming education
> to boot.
>
> (but alas, I both kept (and held) my silence within).
>
> Knowing as I do the distinction between truth and fact, reality and
> fiction, love and fear, hope and futility.
>
> Now I will tell you a truth, (if you can receive it, I do not know),
> but I will tell it to you, in either event. For now I have nothing to
> lose.
>
> A fact is always true, but a truth is not always a fact.
>
> For facts belong to the mind of man, whereas truth belongs to the
> heart & soul.
>
> Thus the inquiry demanded is one of the distinction between a mans
> mind, and his heart, and his soul.
>
> Do I err?
>
> I think not.
>
> For Divine Providence herself has brought me to this place, and I
> trust she will not be denied.
>
> Certainly not upon my death bed.
>
> For I have lived too long (and too richly and too deeply in love) with
> all of humanity, to be denied.
> I understand.
>
> I have no regrets.
>
> It is my time to pass away.
>
> But the Divine Providence that has been living her life in the
> disguise of me, is living her life in the disguise of you, and shall
> live on and on and on and on.
>
> This is Truth.
>
> Larry Allen
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 1 a : archaic : FIDELITY, CONSTANCY b : sincerity in action,
> character, and utterance
> 2 a (1) : the state of being the case : FACT (2) : the body of real
> things, events, and facts : ACTUALITY (3) : often capitalized : a
> transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality b : a judgment,
> proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true <truths of
> thermodynamics> c : the body of true statements and propositions
> 3 a : the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or
> reality b : chiefly British : TRUE 2 c : fidelity to an original or to
> a standard
> 4 : capitalized Christian Science : GOD
> - in truth : in accordance with fact : ACTUALLY
>
> Pronunciation Key
>
> © 2001 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated
> Merriam-Webster Privacy Policy
Popescu Lucian
15.63...@posting.google.com>...
Sir,
you should have described where I was wrong in my otherwise clear
description of what are sinns and how can they be redeemed.
Answers could have been:
-there are no sinns (thus people always behave responsibly) +
EXPLANATION
-my methodology of dealing with them is incorrect + EXPLANATION
I tried to force this discussion towards being informal and carried
out in straightforward terms. However, by the gratuitous insults you
offered as "arguments" against me, it's clear your're trying to make
this personal, since this is a much safer ground FOR YOU. Very well, I
shall declare you THE WINNER. Yet, what does this victory mean? Just
one day where you can blame the other for your own mistakes...
I shall no longer answer to your posts, SIR. You can take that in two
ways:
1. he was defeated and he's afraid of being humiliated again
2. he's disgusted by the amount of self-indulgence in someone who
doubtlessly considers himself "rational".
I'm absolutely sure you wouldn't waste one second choosing the first
alternative. YOU are LOST, SIR.
Popescu Lucian
a2...@posting.google.com>...
> No problem, he's only here to parody objectivism anyway.
You might be right. His answers sound too extreme for the usually
milder form of cultism found among Objectivists. He might be a fake
but he might be true. Man must not forget ideological extremism is
very popular today and if someone visits any "human rights" or
"activist" groups he will realize people there, as one-dimensional
they sound, are REAL, unfortunately...
> You continue to insist that objectivism is "post-modern", despite all
> of the evidence to the contrary that was posted by Mr Hertle (which
> you did not reply to, surprise surprise). Does that mean that you, in
> your attempt to evade this evidence, are refusing to be held
> responsible for your dishonesty (an act against yourself) and are
> therefore "LOST", just like Mr. Bernstein ?
Any analysis should be investigated on following grounds:
1.Is the premise correct?
2.Is the methodology used correct?
3.Is the conclusion correct?
Argument one: Objectivism vs. Post-Modernism AS PHILOSOPHIES
1. Premise
Characteristics of Objectivism (according to Rand herself):
Metaphysics: Objective Reality
Epistemology: Reason
Ethics: Self-interest
Politics: Capitalism
Characteristics of Post-Modernism (no source, nobody accepts himself
as such):
Metaphysics: Relative Reality
Epistemology: Feelings
Ethics: Community-interest
Politics: Socialism
2. Methodology
Analysis of both philosophies on grounds of ideology only.
3. Conclusion
Objectivism is the philosophical negation of Post-Modernism. Who
preceded one another? Post-Modernism. What chances are, with the
available given premises, that Objectivism being deffined through
post-modernism's negation? HIGHEST.
What is the similarity between A and non-A? HIGH. Why? Because A and
non-A retain characteristics of the same class, be that normal or
negated. Natural numbers are similar to their negation: negative
numbers. If put under a module, they all have an identical form. Thus,
Natural numbers belong to class "N", while cummulating with their
negations a class "Z". Natural numbers, however, are greatly disimilar
with complex numbers, although complex numbers aren't the negation of
natural numbers. This law, so well discussed by the theory of
mathematics, can be extended to Philosophy without losing anything of
its purity. Conclusion? Post-Modernism and Objectivism, one negating
another, belong to a SAME super-class.
How was Lucian's argument in light of the above rationale? Correct!
Gurdjieff
c...@reader1.news.skynet.be>...
> Joey <res0...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Those who take earthly
> >life as the most serious part of our existance are those who suffer
> >the greatest.
Homer wrote:
>
> I am not a mystic. I am a simple man. I don't know the
> eternal answer. But I go by what I see.
>
> It is only this life that gives us clues to
> what lies ahead. Take Socrates and Jesus.
> Socrates asked questions because he was human.
> Jesus taught because he was God.
>
> When Jesus said love thy neighbor as thyself,
> I don't understand it. God's words are
> hard to understand. I don't think He was
> saying love evil people. That's a formula
> for creating more evil people. Jesus was
> saying most of your neighors are decent,
> upright folks. These people are the ones
> to love. So you yourself will be just like them.
> This is why I oppose anything evil or deceptive.
> Life on Earth is more important than most
> think.
>
> Homer
My dear friend Homer,
As usual, you are up to your old tricks, of saying much while
pretending to say little. Forcing (as it were) your readers to ponder
the possibilities of the various meanings of your words. For those
readers that are capable of such introspection, contemplation and
conclusion. Which in fact, tend to be few.
So be it.
Having (neccessarily) been unavailable to this forum for a period of
time, I had hoped that either you or I would have had sufficient
realizations to find ourselves closer (in theory) to our fundamental
conclusions as to the essential basis (or reality) of the human
condition, as it relates to humanities religion. In both general and
in specific terms. I.E. Christianity vs. all other world religions.
But alas, I can see that we have not succeeded. For you are clearly as
persistent in your convictions now, as before, as I am persistent in
mine.
The mark of a budding wisdom, wherein ignorance and error lay claim.
Thus I am forced, once again, to attempt to articulate, with
sufficient force, a position I hold to be true, that will cause you to
reconsider your convictions.
No small task.
But a thoroughly enjoyable one my friend.
You offered us 3 paragraphs, 17 sentences, 33 words (not counting your
name) to cover a host of deep ideas. Thank you.
You began with the idea that a mystic and a simple man are mutually
exclusive.
You did err.
For simplicity is the essential characteristic of all true mystics
throughout all time.
It is the complexity of the mind of the non-mystic that results in
such a mistaken perception. A form of psychological projection ala
Jung et al.
By the way, Carl was a mystic. (notwithstanding his penetrating
perception which appeared indeed to be complex). For he, like all true
mystics, are simple men and women. Gifted with spiritual intellect.
Easy to dismiss. Difficult to understand.
And now I am tired.
Having barely touched the first of what I perceive to be 12
substantial ideas you presented. (I desired to answer them all on this
eve).
Perhaps it will take me twelve days to respond. (one down, eleven to
go).
Please bear with me my friend, as I love your spirit, and your mind,
and your heart, and your soul.
Larry Allen
J. Hall
> non-A retain characteristics of the same class, be that normal or
> negated. Natural numbers are similar to their negation: negative
> numbers. If put under a module, they all have an identical form. Thus,
> Natural numbers belong to class "N", while cummulating with their
> negations a class "Z". Natural numbers, however, are greatly disimilar
> with complex numbers, although complex numbers aren't the negation of
> natural numbers. This law, so well discussed by the theory of
> mathematics, can be extended to Philosophy without losing anything of
> its purity. Conclusion? Post-Modernism and Objectivism, one negating
> another, belong to a SAME super-class.
I can see my error here, because I've omitted the factor of the error
parralax that states irrefutably that black is white, night is day,
and objectivism is post-modern. I should have paid more attention to
the "chewbacca" court case in that episode of South Park.
> How was Lucian's argument in light of the above rationale? Correct!
If you believe that, then you will believe anything.
HPO JURY = Malenor
<lamoo...@juno.com> wrote:
>Larry Allen
Aka "George Gurdjieff," a 20th-century mathematician turned mystic
whose Fourth Way teachings led to modern-day Enneagram theory.
---------------
"I want you to know that this will go down on your permanent record!"
"Oh yeahhhh? Well don't get so distressed. Did I happen to mention
that I am impressed?"
Violent Femmes
Homer
Gurdjieff <lamoo...@juno.com> wrote:
>Having (neccessarily) been unavailable to this forum for a period of
>time, I had hoped that either you or I would have had sufficient
>realizations to find ourselves closer (in theory) to our fundamental
>conclusions as to the essential basis (or reality) of the human
>condition, as it relates to humanities religion.
Where does it ever say that God loves a sinner?
If God loved sinners, God would love people who
destroy innocent people and themselves. It's not
hard to understand that God loves sinners when they
repent. That is, when they see the light and
are no longer evil.
You are saying that God loves sinners who do
not repent. They play a role, are necessary.
What about a sinner who corrupts other people?
He destroys many so only the morally strongest
are left standing. This can't be a good thing
and consistant with the will of God. This
person is in trouble even if he asks God
for forgiveness.
There is enough natural suffering to make us
strong and wise. We have no need of bad
people. Which sounds consistant with the
Old and New Testament.
Homer
Gurdjieff
c...@reader1.news.skynet.be>...
> Gurdjieff <lamoo...@juno.com> wrote:
> >Having (neccessarily) been unavailable to this forum for a period of
> >time, I had hoped that either you or I would have had sufficient
> >realizations to find ourselves closer (in theory) to our fundamental
> >conclusions as to the essential basis (or reality) of the human
> >condition, as it relates to humanities religion.
Homer wrote:
>
> Where does it ever say that God loves a sinner?
> If God loved sinners, God would love people who
> destroy innocent people and themselves. It's not
> hard to understand that God loves sinners when they
> repent. That is, when they see the light and
> are no longer evil
I respond:
A sinner can only see the light when God chooses to have that sinner
see the light Homer. This is fundamental. Man does not choose his
spiritual condition.
God chooses the condition that man finds himself in. Is the created
senior to the creator? I think not. Man is a definition God is making
of himself.
You labor under the notion that man has a choice in the matter,
apparently oblivious to the reality that man cannot add a single hair
to his head, let alone make such substantial spiritual decisions as to
whether or not to be good or to be evil.
And what is good?, (in the absence of evil). It is non-existent, as an
experience. And experience is the substance of wisdom. And wisdom is
the calling card of Love.
Your position would suggest you should be proud of your spiritual
condition.
Such pride is a consequence of an error in understanding the
relationship between good and evil, as well as an error in
understanding the nature of Love.
You continued:
> You are saying that God loves sinners who do
> not repent. They play a role, are necessary.
Please do contemplate this my friend.
Is left necessary to the understanding of the meaning of right? Is up
necessary to the understanding of the meaning of down? Is error
necessary to the understanding of the meaning of truth?
I tell you a truth, above there is yes, 3 times. (in heaven and on
earth)
In addition, you seem to perceive God as being capable of experiencing
the absence of love. Which perception is wholly the result of man made
teaching.
Can light suffer the presence of darkness, whilst the light is
present. No.
Neither can God suffer the experience of the presence of anything less
than unconditioned love.
Have you not read the scriptures my friend? Where on the 7th day God
saw all that he had created, and was satisfied, and rested from all
the works he had done?
This is the 7th day Homer.
All and everything you behold is a perfect presentation of the perfect
creation of a perfect God, at rest. The operational idea is usefulness
Homer. Usefulness.
You furthered your position with (an inquiry):
> What about a sinner who corrupts other people?
> He destroys many so only the morally strongest
> are left standing. This can't be a good thing
> and consistant with the will of God. This
> person is in trouble even if he asks God
> for forgiveness.
Corruption is the opposite of incorruptability. You can't have one
without the other, in terms of conceivabilities in a 3-dimensional
field of physical expression.
Your belief in the possibility of any expression that is contrary to
the will of God is equally devoid of substance (wherein substance is
truth). My friend.
You apparently still yet labor under the false idea that persons
exist, independent of Gods perfect creation of them, and their
existence. Wherein their existence is called experience.
According to your perception, followed to its final conviction, we
should all yet remain in the garden of eden, having never eaten from
the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, being ignorant robots, of
the organic variety, being precluded from ever experiencing the
meaning of the spiritual ressurection of our infinite and eternal
being. Being sons and daughters of God.
Opps, God made a "mistake" in his creation. (more foolish words were
never spoken).
Lastly you penned:
> There is enough natural suffering to make us
> strong and wise. We have no need of bad
> people. Which sounds consistant with the
> Old and New Testament.
>
> Homer
The sounds of consistancy are wholly subject to the hearer of such
sounds.
There are presently over 2000 demoninations of Christian Dogma
established throughout the world. All convinced they are following
such sounds of truth.
They are following nothing of the sort. They merely fancy themselves
as they do.
For these are following the inner-audible utterances of their own
personal convictions of what they presently believe truth to be.
Subject to change with growth, or shrinkage. For life is not stagnate,
it moves up and down.
Lastly then, there is no such thing as "natural suffering".
For suffering itself is a phenomena belonging to the mortal mind of
man.
If you think I err, then tell me, where does your suffering go, when
you go to sleep at night?
It disappears my friend, along with the personal sense of your
individual being.
And when you awaken, it arises with you, for you are the author of it.
When you awaken into the spiritual understanding of the perfection
(via the usefulness) of all of Gods creation, your experience of
freedom will preclude any possibility of an experience of suffering.
For light and darkness do not co-exist in terms of spiritual (and
physical) reality.
Now hit me with your best shot Homer. (as I have hit you with mine).
Larry Allen
Homer
Gurdjieff <lamoo...@juno.com> wrote:
>Now hit me with your best shot Homer. (as I have hit you with mine).
>
>Larry Allen
My best shot will miss you by a hundred miles and you
will kill me. What does our creator say is the
ammunition I will use. You might want to sit down
for this.
Homer
Homer
Gurdjieff <lamoo...@juno.com> wrote:
>> Where does it ever say that God loves a sinner?
>> If God loved sinners, God would love people who
>> destroy innocent people and themselves. It's not
>> hard to understand that God loves sinners when they
>> repent. That is, when they see the light and
>> are no longer evil
>I respond:
>
>A sinner can only see the light when God chooses to have that sinner
>see the light Homer. This is fundamental.
Goodness, truth, justice are visible to everyone.
But you gotta look in that diretion.
In the NT there is a story of a widow who has
been the victim of injustice. She pestered
the judge endlessly until he finally heard the
case. This means the burden is on us.
Homer
HPO JURY = Malenor
<ihateadv...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>What happened was that as this person looked at me, a gust of wind
>came out of his face and struck mine. It did not stop at the skin of
>my face and dissipate around my head as you would expect, but this
>gust of air continued to move and pass through the skin and my skull
>and I could actually feel it inside the confines of my head.
>That's when i realised that it wasn't a gust of wind. There was no
>moving air involved. That is the best that I can describe it, like a
>gust of wind, with no moving air that penetrates your head.
Maybe he was trying to tell you you're an air head.
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
Larry Allen
6j8ufuln5le...@4ax.com>...
> On Tue, 20 May 2003 04:56:45 +0000 (UTC), .
> <ihateadv...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >What happened was that as this person looked at me, a gust of wind
> >came out of his face and struck mine. It did not stop at the skin of
> >my face and dissipate around my head as you would expect, but this
> >gust of air continued to move and pass through the skin and my skull
> >and I could actually feel it inside the confines of my head.
>
> >That's when i realised that it wasn't a gust of wind. There was no
> >moving air involved. That is the best that I can describe it, like a
> >gust of wind, with no moving air that penetrates your head.
Malenor wrote in response:
> Maybe he was trying to tell you you're an air head.
Malenor
Dear HPO (aka Malenor),
Me thinks you are being a bit brutal here, to no purposeful end. Do I
err?
IF you yourself have not yet experienced an experience that is wholly
outside the conventional realms of definition, your (not so subtle)
ridicule is understandable. Which I trust is the case. Thus
forgivable.
However your assignment of the meaning of the word airhead to the
author of the words you find intellectually offensive resembles a
psychological boomerang, so to speak, for those whom have had such
transcendental experiences.
That physical reality is severely limited in its scope, relative to
the inherent range of its well documented possibilities goes without
saying.
It would seem that anything that exists outside of this limited range
of human perception and experience is deemed foolisness by you. Do I
err?
Given your numerous posts as a guide, you strike me as being fortunate
in the arena of intellectual capacities, however, your emotional
sensitivities seem to lag a bit behind.
Of course I could not even make such a bold assessment of you, if I
did not recognize in you, what is inherently present in me, in terms
of deficiencies, so to speak.
One day my friend you shall find yourself in the presence of an
experience of being that is wholly and completely un-communicatable to
the world at large.
And your attempts to do so will be met with mockery and ridicule.
Until finally you come to understand the power and the usefulness of
silence itself, which apppears in the form of discretion.
If the author of the post you have demeaned has erred, it is on my
account, and the fault, if any, belongs to me HPO.
I would rather you ridicule, mock and demean me then, then to do so to
him, or her.
I trust you understand.
Larry Allen
Homer
Gurdjieff <lamoo...@juno.com> wrote:
>You labor under the notion that man has a choice in the matter,
>apparently oblivious to the reality that man cannot add a single hair
>to his head
Here you are absolutely right.
let alone make such substantial spiritual decisions as to
>whether or not to be good or to be evil.
Here I take exception. To love God is to want
to be like Him. To want to do the right thing
by your neighbor is to be like God. People
struggle with their conscience all the time.
People do. No other life form does. You always
say how important love is. I think you are
referring to animals. A dog that is mistreated
is going to be viscious. One who is treated
kindly is going to be loving. But people
are capable of being mistreated and being
loving or being treated well and being cruel
to others.
Homer
Homer
Gurdjieff <lamoo...@juno.com> wrote:
>And what is good?, (in the absence of evil).
Happiness. There is a ton of good in this
world. Sometimes we are eveloped by it and
we say we are happy. This is the best it
can get. Living and dying happy rules.
Take Satan, evil, democrats, flush them
down the tiolet. They damage the order of
God's universe. We don't need them.
Homer
Homer
Gurdjieff <lamoo...@juno.com> wrote:
And experience is the substance of wisdom. And wisdom is
>the calling card of Love.
There is a novel by Saul Bellow called More Die
of Heartbreak. These people don't live or
die happy.
Homer
Homer
Gurdjieff <lamoo...@juno.com> wrote:
>Your position would suggest you should be proud of your spiritual
>condition.
I am arguing with everything I have against
you, a rare like mind as myself, whose days
are numbered, like mine aren't. I am kind of proud.
Carmichael would take the diplomatic route. Fuck
everything else. Truth and truth only matters.
Homer
Homer
Gurdjieff <lamoo...@juno.com> wrote:
>Such pride is a consequence of an error in understanding the
>relationship between good and evil, as well as an error in
>understanding the nature of Love.
I admitted I am a bit proud. If someone falls
in the street it is an act of love to assist them.
Kicking them in the face is an act of hatred.
Homer
Homer
Gurdjieff <lamoo...@juno.com> wrote:
>> You are saying that God loves sinners who do
>> not repent. They play a role, are necessary.
>
>Please do contemplate this my friend.
>
>Is left necessary to the understanding of the meaning of right?
Trick of the trade. Who cares what the meaning of something
is? Slick willy cared what is, is. The actual thing
matters. We matter. Our happiness matters.
Homer
HPO JURY = Malenor
<loveroft...@aol.com> wrote:
>HPO JURY = Malenor <Mal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<jrlocv8qko5
>6j8ufuln5le...@4ax.com>...
>> On Tue, 20 May 2003 04:56:45 +0000 (UTC), .
>> <ihateadv...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >What happened was that as this person looked at me, a gust of wind
>> >came out of his face and struck mine. It did not stop at the skin of
>> >my face and dissipate around my head as you would expect, but this
>> >gust of air continued to move and pass through the skin and my skull
>> >and I could actually feel it inside the confines of my head.
>>
>> >That's when i realised that it wasn't a gust of wind. There was no
>> >moving air involved. That is the best that I can describe it, like a
>> >gust of wind, with no moving air that penetrates your head.
>
>Malenor wrote in response:
>
>> Maybe he was trying to tell you you're an air head.
>
>Malenor
>
>Dear HPO (aka Malenor),
No, I am Malenor AKA HPO JURY = Malenor.
>Me thinks you are being a bit brutal here, to no purposeful end. Do I
>err?
That depends on what '.' thought of my joke.
>IF you yourself have not yet experienced an experience that is wholly
>outside the conventional realms of definition, your (not so subtle)
>ridicule is understandable. Which I trust is the case. Thus
>forgivable.
>
>However your assignment of the meaning of the word airhead to the
>author of the words you find intellectually offensive resembles a
>psychological boomerang, so to speak, for those whom have had such
>transcendental experiences.
I didn't find it offensive at all. His story was quite interesting.
However, that doesn't mean I can't make a little joke, does it?
>That physical reality is severely limited in its scope, relative to
>the inherent range of its well documented possibilities goes without
>saying.
Or perhaps his colleague was a master of hypnosis.
>It would seem that anything that exists outside of this limited range
>of human perception and experience is deemed foolisness by you. Do I
>err?
Since I haven't experienced it, as you said, then I can't judge it.
>Given your numerous posts as a guide, you strike me as being fortunate
>in the arena of intellectual capacities, however, your emotional
>sensitivities seem to lag a bit behind.
Thank you! But perhaps you place your emphasis on the emotional. I try
to make up for my lack in that area with a little humor, and all I get
in return is a lecture...
>Of course I could not even make such a bold assessment of you, if I
>did not recognize in you, what is inherently present in me, in terms
>of deficiencies, so to speak.
Such contrasts are very useful.
>One day my friend you shall find yourself in the presence of an
>experience of being that is wholly and completely un-communicatable to
>the world at large.
The problem is, if one cannot communicate it, that is, if the
experience is not in the public realm, then there is little proof that
the experience had any particular origin, be it spiritual or mundane.
>And your attempts to do so will be met with mockery and ridicule.
>Until finally you come to understand the power and the usefulness of
>silence itself, which apppears in the form of discretion.
How do you know that "." didn't actually laugh at my comment, or would
if he read it?
>If the author of the post you have demeaned has erred, it is on my
>account, and the fault, if any, belongs to me HPO.
Perhaps he made the whole thing up.
>I would rather you ridicule, mock and demean me then, then to do so to
>him, or her.
>
>I trust you understand.
....Better than you think.
Popescu Lucian
3b...@posting.google.com>...
> I can see my error here, because I've omitted the factor of the error
> parralax that states irrefutably that black is white, night is day,
> and objectivism is post-modern.
Black isn't the opposite of white. Night isn't the opposite of day.
Objectivism IS the opposite of Post-Modernism. Even to the very name.
Post-Modernism is a range of beliefs having ONE thing in common:
Relativism. Objectivism is the exact OPPOSITE of Relativism. It exists
solely by negating EVERY issue of Relativity, including ones that most
philosophies assumed as obvious long before (the subjective character
of human observation, rationality serves no purpose other than
itself).
Homer
Gurdjieff <lamoo...@juno.com> wrote:
>In addition, you seem to perceive God as being capable of experiencing
>the absence of love.
What God experiences I will not even say one word
about. To create persons with free will is what
He has done. These are the critters who either
experience love or unhappiness.
>Can light suffer the presence of darkness, whilst the light is
>present. No.
Sure it can. One room in a house has light. Another
is dark. People decide which room to reside in.
>Have you not read the scriptures my friend? Where on the 7th day God
>saw all that he had created, and was satisfied, and rested from all
>the works he had done?
Giving us all a chance is wonderful beyond anything.
The rest is up to us. Or more accurately, it is up
to the individual. That's why I love God and Rand.
Homer
Homer
Gurdjieff <lamoo...@juno.com> wrote:
>All and everything you behold is a perfect presentation of the perfect
>creation of a perfect God
The creation of God is another place I am
unwilling to delve into. My hands are full
arguing with you.
>You furthered your position with (an inquiry):
>
>> What about a sinner who corrupts other people?
>> He destroys many so only the morally strongest
>> are left standing. This can't be a good thing
>> and consistant with the will of God. This
>> person is in trouble even if he asks God
>> for forgiveness.
>
>Corruption is the opposite of incorruptability. You can't have one
>without the other
You are playing with words. That's fine if it
enhances human happiness. To me you are only making
excuses. When using reason yields results for instance
that there must be masters and slaves. I would go
back to my premises before continuing.
Homer
Homer
Gurdjieff <lamoo...@juno.com> wrote:
>Your belief in the possibility of any expression that is contrary to
>the will of God is equally devoid of substance (wherein substance is
>truth).
If God has will, which we believe he does,
then he prefers freers over enslavers,
scholars over the ignorant and kind
people over those who murder and torture.
Some bastards are not going to like
hearing this. But we handle it in stride.
>You apparently still yet labor under the false idea that persons
>exist
We have changed the appearence of the earth. We exist.
Manhattan is evidence we exist. All the chicks
provided is evidence God loves us and wants us
to be happy.
Homer
Homer
Homer
Gurdjieff <lamoo...@juno.com> wrote:
>You apparently still yet labor under the false idea that persons
>exist, independent of Gods perfect creation of them, and their
>existence. Wherein their existence is called experience.
God didn't create men perfect. He gave us free will.
Kept His true knowledge to himself and said do
your best. That's why I always argue for the
better thing.
>According to your perception, followed to its final conviction, we
>should all yet remain in the garden of eden, having never eaten from
>the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, being ignorant robots
Adam ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil
and now we are stuck with it. You have tried to
reverse arguments. Good and evil matter. We
have proven we are not capable of being like God.
We have to go about doing the next best thing.
Good and evil are things comprehensible to us.
God isn't.
Homer
Gurdjieff
c...@reader0.news.skynet.be>...
> Gurdjieff <lamoo...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> >Now hit me with your best shot Homer. (as I have hit you with mine).
> >
> >Larry Allen
>
> My best shot will miss you by a hundred miles and you
> will kill me.
> What does our creator say is the ammunition I will use.
Love formed in the casing of humility.
You might want to sit down
> for this.
>
> Homer
Though I walk the earth as a man, I am ever seated within my friend.
Gurdjieff
c...@reader1.news.skynet.be>...
Larry Allen wrote:
> >
> >A sinner can only see the light when God chooses to have that sinner
> >see the light Homer. This is fundamental.
Homer corrected Larry with:
>
> Goodness, truth, justice are visible to everyone.
> But you gotta look in that diretion.
Why is it, I wonder, my friend, that man cannot perceive the
relationship between understanding and wisdom? One being infinite. One
being finite.
Homer wrote:
> In the NT there is a story of a widow who has
> been the victim of injustice. She pestered
> the judge endlessly until he finally heard the
> case. This means the burden is on us.
>
> Homer
Perhaps so. Perhaps not. I respect your interpretation.
Larry Allen
Gurdjieff
c...@reader1.news.skynet.be>...
You seem to relate happiness to goodness, unequiovcally.
I do not.
Larry Allen
Gurdjieff
c...@reader1.news.skynet.be>...
Truth is a fiction planted in the mind of man.
By God.
Larry Allen
Gurdjieff
c...@reader0.news.skynet.be>...
That depends upon ones experience and interpretation of "who" has
fallen.
If George W. Bush had fallen on your street, in your presence, I sense
you would not display an act of love, and assist him. Do I err?
Larry Allen
Gurdjieff
c...@reader0.news.skynet.be>...
You are correct.
Larry Allen
Homer
Gurdjieff <lamoo...@juno.com> wrote:
>Lastly then, there is no such thing as "natural suffering".
>
>For suffering itself is a phenomena belonging to the mortal mind of
>man.
You say suffering doesn't exist and then that is
experienced by man. This type of suffering is
great. It is designed for us by the one whose
name we are unworthy to use. In our grasping
we say God.
>If you think I err, then tell me, where does your suffering go, when
>you go to sleep at night?
No place we have anything to do with.
We have to resign ourselves to experience peace.
Resign ourselves to the greatest ideas knowable.
Homer
Homer
Gurdjieff <lamoo...@juno.com> wrote:
>If George W. Bush had fallen on your street, in your presence, I sense
>you would not display an act of love, and assist him. Do I err?
I know the scum is evil. I care more about you and
me. I love you, my opponent whose integrety
is intimidating.
Homer
Homer
Gurdjieff <lamoo...@juno.com> wrote:
>You seem to relate happiness to goodness, unequiovcally.
>
>I do not.
I am not an expert, but it sounds amazingly
more reasonable than equating happiness to evil.
Homer
Gurdjieff
c...@reader0.news.skynet.be>...
But evil people are happy Homer. Hitler was thrilled. Saddam
overjoyed.
A bank robber is ecstatic to get away with the robbery.
Goodness is subject to intellectual interpretation whereas happiness
is not. The former consequential to the mind, the later consequential
to the heart.
It is your "unequivocal" marriage between the two that I dispute.
One cannot relate happiness to goodness or to evil absent an
intermediary interpretation of the meaning of what is good and or evil
is. Slippery slope.
Happiness is but a shadow of contentment. It comes and it goes with
the winds of change. Whereas contentment remains undaunted.
Thus I say, better to be content than happy.
Larry Allen
bobk...@attbi.com
c...@reader0.news.skynet.be>...
>
> I admitted I am a bit proud. If someone falls
> in the street it is an act of love to assist them.
> Kicking them in the face is an act of hatred.
>
It is also very bad manners to do such a thing.
Bob Kolker
Homer
Gurdjieff <lamoo...@juno.com> wrote:
>Homer <Home...@athens.com> wrote in message news:<3eceda78$0$11121$ba620e4
>c...@reader0.news.skynet.be>...
>> Gurdjieff <lamoo...@juno.com> wrote:
>> >You seem to relate happiness to goodness, unequiovcally.
>> >
>> >I do not.
>>
>> I am not an expert, but it sounds amazingly
>> more reasonable than equating happiness to evil.
>>
>> Homer
>
>But evil people are happy Homer. Hitler was thrilled. Saddam
>overjoyed.
Larry, anybody but you saying this would have made
me ruluctant to respond to the uninspirational question.
It would be depressing to me to analyse Clinton's
or Saddam's condition of happiness.
Larry, if you could be Bush, Saddam or yourself,
which one would it be?
Your decision would have be made according to which
one lived happiest.
>A bank robber is ecstatic to get away with the robbery.
Then go out and rob a bank.
>Goodness is subject to intellectual interpretation whereas happiness
>is not. The former consequential to the mind, the later consequential
>to the heart.
But all people think and have hearts. So people
who are happy doing wrong can only be evading.
They must sense something is wrong. This
must be subtracted from their total happiness.
>It is your "unequivocal" marriage between the two that I dispute.
>
>One cannot relate happiness to goodness or to evil absent an
>intermediary interpretation of the meaning of what is good and or evil
>is. Slippery slope.
We are human beings. We pass our wisdon from one
generation to succeeding generations. We've
been around for a while and many great people
have spoken on important subjects. In this sense
we can say we have knowledge if good and evil.
>Happiness is but a shadow of contentment. It comes and it goes with
>the winds of change. Whereas contentment remains undaunted.
>
>Thus I say, better to be content than happy.
>
>Larry Allen
Then everything was a misunderstanding. I am also
a student of stoicism.
Homer
Gurdjieff
c...@reader0.news.skynet.be>...
> Gurdjieff <lamoo...@juno.com> wrote:
> >Homer <Home...@athens.com> wrote in message news:<3eceda78$0$11121$ba620e4
> >c...@reader0.news.skynet.be>...
>
> Larry, anybody but you saying this would have made
> me ruluctant to respond to the uninspirational question.
> It would be depressing to me to analyse Clinton's
> or Saddam's condition of happiness.
Thanks Homer. I appreciate it. Truth be known I am not in your league.
>
> Larry, if you could be Bush, Saddam or yourself,
> which one would it be?
A rhetorical question if ever there was one. Though sometimes I think
I'd rather be you than me, for no other reason than to experience the
essence of your reality.
>
> Your decision would have be made according to which
> one lived happiest.
>
> >A bank robber is ecstatic to get away with the robbery.
>
> Then go out and rob a bank.
>
> >Goodness is subject to intellectual interpretation whereas happiness
> >is not. The former consequential to the mind, the later consequential
> >to the heart.
>
> But all people think and have hearts. So people
> who are happy doing wrong can only be evading.
> They must sense something is wrong. This
> must be subtracted from their total happiness.
Perhaps so, perhaps not. A psychopath is seemingly incapable of
experiencing such truth.
>
> >It is your "unequivocal" marriage between the two that I dispute.
> >
> >One cannot relate happiness to goodness or to evil absent an
> >intermediary interpretation of the meaning of what is good and or evil
> >is. Slippery slope.
>
> We are human beings. We pass our wisdon from one
> generation to succeeding generations. We've
> been around for a while and many great people
> have spoken on important subjects. In this sense
> we can say we have knowledge if good and evil.
In this sense we err. And we do so greatly my friend.
We merely pass along our prejudices and biases in regard to the
knowledge of good and evil. Which so called knowledge is subject to
personal interpretation.
For wisdom and knowledge are not cut of the same cloth of being.
Wisdom is universal, knowledge local. Wisdom is absolute, knowledge is
relative. The later being food for the former.
I wrote:
> >Happiness is but a shadow of contentment. It comes and it goes with
> >the winds of change. Whereas contentment remains undaunted.
> >
> >Thus I say, better to be content than happy.
> >
> >Larry Allen
You wrote:
>
> Then everything was a misunderstanding. I am also
> a student of stoicism.
>
> Homer
Which is why we intuitvely respect one anothers posts and points of
view.
For I am a teacher of the same. Not armed with worldly decrees of
degrees of the ritual passing of the accumulation of knowledge, but
rather being a man whom instinctively understands the beauty of being
unmoved by the sensations of either pleasure or pain.
Larry Allen
Homer
Gurdjieff <lamoo...@juno.com> wrote:
>>
>> Larry, anybody but you saying this would have made
>> me ruluctant to respond to the uninspirational question.
>> It would be depressing to me to analyse Clinton's
>> or Saddam's condition of happiness.
>
>Thanks Homer. I appreciate it. Truth be known I am not in your league.
Nice, but you don't fool me. Most posters here
are in pretty much the same league. all I say
was your question was uninspiring. But since
you are inspirational there has to be something
more to your question that met my eye at first.
>> Larry, if you could be Bush, Saddam or yourself,
>> which one would it be?
>
>A rhetorical question if ever there was one.
So what there is nothing we can do about it.
You can still answer the question. The majority
of people I would bet wish they were someone
else. Someone with more money or power,
especially.
Though sometimes I think
>I'd rather be you than me, for no other reason than to experience the
>essence of your reality.
I would choose you over anybody else I know. So
what you said so far and what I said answers
my question of is you could be yourself, Hitler or
your congressman, who would you be.
>> But all people think and have hearts. So people
>> who are happy doing wrong can only be evading.
>> They must sense something is wrong. This
>> must be subtracted from their total happiness.
>
>Perhaps so, perhaps not. A psychopath is seemingly incapable of
>experiencing such truth.
Your psychopath is an animal, not a human.
>> We are human beings. We pass our wisdon from one
>> generation to succeeding generations. We've
>> been around for a while and many great people
>> have spoken on important subjects. In this sense
>> we can say we have knowledge if good and evil.
>
>In this sense we err. And we do so greatly my friend.
>
>We merely pass along our prejudices and biases in regard to the
>knowledge of good and evil.
Most accept what has been passed on but a few
do independent research. Larry, we are not
talking about them. We are talking about us.
Homer
Gurdjieff
c...@reader1.news.skynet.be>...
Homer wrote:
> >> We are human beings. We pass our wisdon from one
> >> generation to succeeding generations. We've
> >> been around for a while and many great people
> >> have spoken on important subjects. In this sense
> >> we can say we have knowledge if good and evil.
Larry Allen wrote:
> >
> >In this sense we err. And we do so greatly my friend.
> >
> >We merely pass along our prejudices and biases in regard to the
> >knowledge of good and evil.
You responded:
>
> Most accept what has been passed on but a few
> do independent research. Larry, we are not
> talking about them. We are talking about us.
>
> Homer
If only this truth were available to the minds & the hearts of the
common man.
But alas, it is not.
For we look into the mirror of the world, calling the ugliness we see,
not our own, but that of another.
Not understanding the relationship between recognition and perception.
Not knowing the truth of God and of Man.
We suffer our ignorance.
And we do so greatly.
Larry Allen
Homer
Gurdjieff <lamoo...@juno.com> wrote:
>If only this truth were available to the minds & the hearts of the
>common man.
Don't worry about that. God made it available
to everyone.
>For we look into the mirror of the world, calling the ugliness we see,
>not our own, but that of another.
What about the beauty we see done by others?
Homer
Gurdjieff
> >For we look into the mirror of the world, calling the ugliness we see,
> >not our own, but that of another.
>
> What about the beauty we see done by others?
>
> Homer
Same mirror.
To perceive beauty done by others demands that "recognition" be
present.
One cannot recognize outside of oneself what does not exist within.
Elsewise one would not how to identify the meaning of the impression
impinging upon the consciousness one is engaging.
The the Pure all is Pure. To the Holy all is Holy. To the Perfect all
is Perfect.
Larry Allen
TommCatt
>
> Truth is a fiction planted in the mind of man.
And that's the, uh, truth.
> By God.
Who is the Ultimate Truth. So, according to the definition above, God
must be the Ultimate Fiction planted in the mind of man.
--
Tomm
He is YOUR god, they are YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell.
Lance Seidman
that is often used in every day vocabulary. You must ask yourself what
really becomes the truth and what doesn't make the truth. Is the truth
a meaning opposite of lying, lying meaning stating something that is
incorrect or false?
Well to really understand the real definition of the word "Truth" you
need to know what is reality and/or actuality. The truth is sincerity,
the act of we use it in every day life is telling a story, statement
or providing a historical feedback in truth, meaning facts that are
not false but positive. Facts that are positive are now proven as what
we call the "Truth".
As to my current life experience with the word "Truth", that is how I
can define the word to my best knowledge for you.
Sincerely,
Lance Seidman