Attacking Religion and Larry for no reason! (explicative)
myfan...@my-deja.com
The question that compells us is why attack or defend 'religion'
for any reason?
The Gods may or may not exist; and if we define them carefully
their existence can be made to lie outside of possible knowledge...
Kay wrote:
>Bryn,
>I always respected your posts even if quite a few between Ariane and
>yourself were over my head. This post wins the prize on my list for
>most insulting and tactless post I have EVER read and please include
>all the ones from Karen Horn in that list. What is your reason for
>this?
Although my post was never an attack it was a dimissal of Larry's
position? Ariane was arguing that drawing conclusions from
repeatable observation, to the Universal was erroneous simular
to drawing universal conclusions based on religious indoctrination.
I didn't think Larry got that this is not a pro-religion stance...
The stance is using religion as an annalogy for error,... I think
that Arians position is for 'Metaphysics' over physics.
> Why attack Larry Seiler for his religious beliefs?
Larry never posted what he believed... He pussy-footed
around he could be Zoroastrian or Islam, but since he was
born here, he is Christian, but what christian means is
purely nominal() Jesus is both esoteric and ambigous;
Christianity instead of admitting that Jesus is hard to
understand has instead split into a thousand simplified
religions that don't accurately represent Jesus or Judiasm
nor in truely postmodern style will any religion +ever+
adequately represent Jesusism.
> Do they
>threaten you?
Yes and no. Traditionally religion is no guarantee of its
own moral proscriptions, or of any profound spirituality.
This is why ultimately religion is teleologically a failure.
If the gods have chosen to exist they have also chosen to
make their existance unknowable through presently known
rational means.
> He is the most *spiritual* person here
I have been at times the most spiritual person here, Ariane
also; as you will be in time...
> and his posts
>are never mean and nasty. This is uncouth and uncalled for and of all
>the people here, Larry Seiler does NOT deserve this from anyone.
Larry was not hurt by what I said, he drew a blank, my post was
a refusal to wage a three-way war; between the tu-quo-qua' stance
taken by some religion and Arianes Metaphysical position.
I don't think Larry would want to discuss religion here, since it
is really 'he' that would be waging the three-way-war; I can only
imagine what Mani and Hutto would have called him;
Bryn Ayers
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
The devil and god were walking through a field and saw a man
gathering grains of truth. God turned to the devil and said
"aren't you going to stop him?" The devil said "No I am going
to help him organize it!"
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Ciao! - In any language good-bye,
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Larry Seiler
I believe I have.....without necessarily doing so directly.
Of course....if I follow thru with the expectation of the stereotype my
faith sometimes has earned.....I'd be a spiritual bull in a China shop.
However, this is not rec.arts.religion
I think at the same time it would be inconsistent to deny a worldview
premise that is at the core of what makes me as an artist tick...yet
welcome others to express their sense of "drive" because such is found much
to their relief not to be a religious one.
> He pussy-footed around ...
I have well stated that in times past I had been more than willing to lock
horns, but we do learn things hopefully after awhile. One, that a picture
exists in the minds of others of just "what" a Christian is or is like. I
don't exactly fit in that mold or construct and tired of the bias that
continuously forced me such. So, in some sense...I withdrew. Human
nature. Dodging bullets maybe? I found people not very nice....and at the
same time observed their sense of justification for such thinking
immediately I must like "all others" embrace the Christian Coalition, the
conservative right, the moral majority...must watch Brylcreem
prophets/evangelists on television, approve of bombing abortion
clinics...etc.
> born here, he is Christian,
That is as about an outdated view as I've heard in a long time.....just
simply not true. Not anymore true than being born at MacDonalds makes one
a cheeseburger.
If you must know....I was baptized Catholic, confirmed Lutheran, and in
between was for a time a Methodist, a Moravian, a Presbyterian. In college
I fully gave myself over to marshal arts..was an athelete representing our
school traveling for tournnaments, and was whole heartedly absorbed in zen
buddhism. My mother is a Nichiren Sogo Gakkai Buddhist. My sister a
fantastic musician with her own band on the East Coast, a rhythm and blues
artist who is a come out lesbian, and plays many Womyn's Festivals.
My background and heritage is Welsch...and we are directly related to the
Romonov people...which were celtic and druidic, and much superstition and
neo-paganistic interests are reviving in that land among those that would
be my ancestors.
I consider myself today a "Pedestrian." One who walks with God......
While many people are "born" to a family given over to a particular
religious denominational bent here in the US.....I came to a time in my
life that questioned things. I still do. True truth is not something to
be feared in seeking out...and such fear only reveals the shaky ground
one's worldview belief system stands upon.
Still, many are born with no religious interests.....
> but what christian means is
> purely nominal() Jesus is both esoteric and ambigous;
for you....your intense studies and conclusions have become so. Do not be
so arrogant or foolish to assume no one else questions life with your
convictions should they arrive at a different conclusion.
It sounds like we are in "Worldview- Religion and Ideas 101" here or
something. Good grief.
> Christianity instead of admitting that Jesus is hard to
> understand has instead split into a thousand simplified
> religions that don't accurately represent Jesus or Judiasm
> nor in truely postmodern style will any religion +ever+
> adequately represent Jesusism.
Hhhmmmm....you oversimplify the issue.
Christians as a whole are caught between two camps of thought- Nature and
Grace. Law or Liberty.
I won't go into depth here with exception to say that people have a nature
to desire yet to be god of their own lives....a desire they hide from their
own selves often when they elect to call themselves Christians. Such
results in many living "religiously" that is they pray their prayers but
they go their way. An insurance policy if-you-will against fears of the
unknown that lie beyond the grave.
Others see their natures as fallen....and needing a saviour not just for
the world to come....but now. Today. A saving from themselves. They
enter into a process of denying their selves. Not to "earn" heaven....but
out of desire to reflect the life of Christ. It further breaks down from
there of those that attempt to deny their fleshly cravings by understanding
the standards and absolutes of scripture and then "striving" with much
tears to bear the change in the nature out in their own strength. It
breaks down from that camp to those that in their failings believe grace
exists to forgive those that fail, from those that see God as standing
there with a baseball bat ready to smack 'em one for screwing up.
Some see the process of denial....a dying daily. A picking up of their
cross as a cooperative effort with a living God whom will also supply the
strength, thus with this supplying comes the realization that you don't
need to go out and look for that which needs to be changed, but that such
that needs to be changed will be revealed.
Some believe that adhering to laws will earn heaven's entrance. Others
believe that simply trusting in Christ as saviour having satisfied the
penalty for sin is heaven's entrance.
It is complicated NOT necessarily proving Christianity is not the answer,
but proving that human beings are complicated, and it is easy for someone
with a belly full of philosophy to feel properly and justly positioned to
ridicule.
For myself....I don't find Jesus hard to understand. He is clear. Not
complex. What is complicated are the myriad of my own thoughts, and those
of others. His way is clear- JUST NOT EASY......and that is what
complicates things.
Further more....the complication becomes more intense as modern man has
decided they can reinvent Jesus....choose to ignore what scriptures say to
instead imagine getting into the writer's heads and imagine what instead
they might have meant. Assuming because of the predominance of our
scientific age that none of the miracles are true. Assuming with a
postmodern premise that no true truth exists thus no actual knowing can
exist to freely have at it.
What some fail to understand is....this simply is not a group or system of
thought independent above existing worldviews, but actually falls into a
worldview system itself. It is given by persuasion of its proclivity
toward its enculturation of worldview ideas to see things through their
colored glasses.
By the way....many religious systems exist to deal with the burden of man
having a nature which desires....and sometimes desires things injurious to
others. They in their own right are very complicated.
Then there are the adherents which believe they rise above by having no
religious beliefs....yet, indeed they do, just not a god that is clearly
defined. It is obvious to people of other worldviews that indeed these "no
religious belief" people do have religious beliefs. Rare is it to begin
with that anyone is aware of the persuasion existing in the form of a
worldview that so controls them.
> > Do they
> >threaten you?
>
> Yes and no. Traditionally religion is no guarantee of its
> own moral proscriptions, or of any profound spirituality.
> This is why ultimately religion is teleologically a failure.
<shaking head>
Man is complicated Bryn........pure and simple. As artists, do we not know
this and are we not delighted actually by the depth and dimension such
offers?
My faith can be broken down simply into two categories...those that see the
grace as Christ offers as complete, to be accepted as a gift. That nothing
they can do can ever measure up....and thus, must humbly accept salvation
as a free gift. Then there are those that would like to accept Christ as a
gift from God...but they live with the burden all mankind carries that
everything simply has to be "earned." Thus....these people enter into the
faith and add works onto what Christ has done.
Does that make the faith complicated.....or has man complicated it because
man is by nature complicated? To despise and discount all religion because
it is complicated is simply to despise all mankind because mankind is by
nature complicated. C'mon...can't you see that so plainly?
Of course there is no guarantee of moral ground being adhered to...at
least, that is the demise Christianity recognizes plagues mankind. Not to
discount or disrespect the existence of other religions....but in speaking
about Christ as though He were real and had a sense of mission in
coming....religion already existed. Christ as God's Son came on a mission
because man was not able to save himself. Clearly no man was able to walk
perfectly....and none have been able to since. Only He could carry out the
moral proscriptions required, and then offered Himself a sacrifice as the
only perfect God/man.
That won't fit into everyone's theology or philosophy, nor will I argue it
here. For me.....I find great freedom and liberty in faith BECAUSE we are
all failures! That great weight upon us to be perfect in order to be
accepted has been lifted! The tendency of man to demand to get what he
earns has to be resisted. Man loves to gain attention and approval from
his peers also, which comes from striving for perfection. Our sports,
degrees, awards.....these all reinforce such. But...it becomes a yoke of
slavery.
What I have found is simply this....by giving my heart to Christ...and
walking out the realities of my stubborn and resisting nature now for 20
some odd years as a believer....I have found little by little it is not the
good I choose of my own strength to do that counts. This would after all
only be a credit to me and be cause of my own boasting. I do discover
however, that little by little the old "want-to's" in my heart that
resisted God are themselves disappearing and new "want-to's" find their way
into my heart. Such "wanting" to please God finding its way into my heart
is not burdensome to me.
It is a product of relationship.
I've been married now 22 years. Man....have I found out how stubborn and
resistent to change I am through this experience! However....working REAL
issues out over many years....my old demands and selfish ways have or are
slowly, ever so slowly dying to value and desire such that would please and
honor my wife. I am coming to the place as an artist now to see what great
sacrifices my wife has made to tolerate my dreams.....to participate in
them, and to even want them for me....often at great sacrifice to herself!
She has done without much that ordinary women would simply have demanded or
walked away.
I am finding old "want-to's" dying as I grow older with my wife. I am
finding newer desires with a broader context inclusive of her wishes slowly
ebbing their way INTO my heart. That is relationship. That is a product
of much time.
In the same way......there are truths of scriptures of living in ways
pleasing to God that many (including myself for a good number of years),
insist must be carried out immediately. Like a slave's taskmaster holding
a whip...lashing out without patience....without love. I have found that
this God....this Jesus that you claim is so difficult to know, that I have
come to know in time....through relationship similar to the relationship
with my wife bit by bit deals with the stubborness and demands of my heart.
Over the years....my old want-to's have and are yielding and dying...and
new want-to's are filling their place.
Christianity appears very complex.....again because man is complex, but it
seems to fall between those that discover change that scripture calls for
comes with God's help, in God's way....and in God's timing, versus those
with the idea and agenda that such change ought to be immediate.
For such reasons....on a number of newsgroups I spend some time on, I have
actually appeared to oppose a GREAT many posters that call themselves
Christians for obscurring this Grace that God offers through their
impatient demands, rudeness.....meanness....just plain old nastyness!
I must apologize that I have gone on so long. I had been hoping to avoid
being brought into an accounting of who and what I am.....but your
ideological jousting seems to have left me no choice but to otherwise
appear spineless or even possibly ashamed of my belief system. You have
made the challenge publically....thus, I must answer so for otherwise
thoughts you suggest would lie without defense on my part in the back of
many minds. Such things being complicated....are not easily answered with
short responses.
> If the gods have chosen to exist they have also chosen to
> make their existance unknowable through presently known
> rational means.
Again.....that is a presumption based upon a dominant worldview idea which
not only do you hold....but holds you.
> I have been at times the most spiritual person here, Ariane
> also; as you will be in time...
We are all spiritual beings.....some simply in denial of it, others in
celebration of it, sadly many in defense because of it.
> Larry was not hurt by what I said, he drew a blank,
yes...it was unexpected. Nor did I choose to respond. Again....until the
challenge was made...I was able to simply read and respond to posts as an
artist with Christian faith ....and not as a Christian doing some art.
my post was
> a refusal to wage a three-way war; between the tu-quo-qua' stance
> taken by some religion and Arianes Metaphysical position.
I think it would be a challenge for us now to simply let the truth that
people are complicated sink in....and perhaps go back to enjoying the
discussion of art knowing the obvious- that there lies behind every artist
that which fuels their drive. A worldview.
> I don't think Larry would want to discuss religion here,
I didn't want to.....but, I do sometimes elsewhere. I do belong to a
couple international discussion communities online for Christian Artists.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that a personal "religious"
agenda would not be welcome on a fine arts newsgroup. I have a double art
major from a fairly liberal state university, and especially during a time
Dadaism was huge. I also have a public education degree and taught art a
good number of years. I know beforehand where discussions will tend to go.
Something must exist higher than our own agendas for some sense of
community to exist, wouldn't you say?
> since it
> is really 'he' that would be waging the three-way-war; I can only
> imagine what Mani and Hutto would have called him;
They have.....I'm not new here. I wear "brass underwear".....I've been
wounded by the best and have thick skin.
take care Bryn.....
Now...you might note an inclusion to my signature. You claim I have been
silent...no, wait...."pussy footed around" as concerns my faith. My
artist's web page is here for all to see, my arts missionary page...which
sometimes I include or delete when I feel the need to be sensitive. They
are there for anyone with an ounce of curiosity to check out. I've not
been playing hide and seek. I'm just maybe a bit different than the
convenient stereotype we have of Christians that we can then so easily
dismiss. I would hope you wouldn't think that necessarily a bad thing.
Peace......
Larry
Larry Seiler
artist's site- http://cwinc.net/larryseiler
WetCanvas Artists page- (shorter and quicker loading)
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Gallery/S/Larry_Seiler/index.html
music review-
http://www.tollbooth.org/reviews/lseiler.html
my ACT ministry home page-
http://netministries.org/see/charmin.exe/CM00117
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress
depends on the unreasonable man." George Bernard Shaw
myfan...@my-deja.com
"Larry Seiler" <lse...@execpc.com> wrote:
I wrote in Response to Kay:
> > Larry never posted what he believed...
Larry writes to me:
> I believe I have.....without necessarily doing so directly.
> However, this is not rec.arts.religion
However artists dictate what is seen in visions<> The
representations of the Budda, Krishna, and Christ do influence
heavily what the faithfull see. I remember reading Krishnamurti's
account of how he realized that in his visions he was seeing
the animation of the religious artifacts placed in front of him
by his society.
> I think at the same time it would be inconsistent to deny a worldview
> premise that is at the core of what makes me as an artist tick...
I am willing to be inconsistant since like other ambigous Ideas I
don't know exactly what 'world-view' premise's are.
You defined them previously as being limited to Xtian, Marxist,
secular and cosmic humanist- whatever these things are??? I
contend that there are more. Postmodern is a worldview, and
so is Epicureanism...
> > He pussy-footed around ...
Let me say that I am sorry about the wording. It is always better
to be cautious than careless...
> I have well stated that in times past I had been more than willing to
> lock horns, but we do learn things hopefully after awhile.
Lock Horns sound futile, ...If have something to reveal out with it,
There is no vested interest in changing your beliefs, since whatever
you come to believe will not necessarily be the truth... This is I
think the lesson of Santa Clause, a half dozen mutually exclusive
main religions and thousands of sub-cults of each - not to mention
the other unique religions too..... Belief is what needs to be
put on trial not a segment of belief...
> don't exactly fit in that mold or construct and tired of the bias that
> continuously forced me such. So, in some sense...I withdrew. Human
> nature. Dodging bullets maybe? I found people not very nice....
> same time observed their sense of justification for such thinking
> immediately I must like "all others" embrace the Christian Coalition,
> conservative right, the moral majority...must watch Brylcreem
> prophets/evangelists on television, approve of bombing abortion
> clinics...etc.
> > born here, he is Christian,
> That is as about an outdated view as I've heard in a long
> time.....just simply not true.
But it 'is' true. I know the logic is bad but you +are+ an Xtian.
I thought when I read the post at first that you weren't, that
you were a Buddist(in college). The Snafu is completely possible
born here you can become a Bahi, or a Buddist, I've seen it happen
I dont contend that if you are born here you are Xtian -obviously-
> > but what christian means is
> > purely nominal() Jesus is both esoteric and ambigous;
> for you....your intense studies and conclusions have become so.
What I mean by nominal(name-oriented) is that if someone is called
a Xtian we do not know that much about them. There are Xtians who
are peacefull liberal and Charitable. And there are those (-who
you mentioned earlier-) who poinson the well, by using the rules
as an excuse for hatred and aggression.
> Do not be
> so arrogant or foolish to assume no one else questions life with your
> convictions should they arrive at a different conclusion.
I imagine that everyone who questions life with my conviction comes
to a different conclusion.
> > Christianity instead of admitting that Jesus is hard to
> > understand has instead split into a thousand simplified
> > religions that don't accurately represent Jesus or Judiasm
> > nor in truely postmodern style will any religion +ever+
> > adequately represent Jesusism.
> Hhhmmmm....you oversimplify the issue.
No doubt it is even more complicated than I state. However your
next statement ups the oversimplification by a truely exponential
factor...
read:
> Christians as a whole are caught between two camps of thought-
> Nature and Grace. Law or Liberty.
Now we are at two??? What about the thousands of Xtian sects?
The born-agains, the war-mongers, the Unitarians, the Islams and
Hindu's that treat Jesus as a profit? The children of God?
We can of course play a yin/yang game with all belief systems.
-snip-
>people have a nature
> to desire yet to be god of their own lives...
If the gods have failed to exist then all people who hear the
voice of allah are their own god.
> For myself....I don't find Jesus hard to understand. He is clear.
> Not complex.
Many think this, The many who do can't agree. Can you say what
the bible means or how to interpret it and what those interpretations
are that will be agreed upon by 'all' who think they are great bible
scholars. If you are a Xtian in the sense that you take meaning
from the Old and New testament, can you interpret the book of Job
for the Jews, or say if we must always eat bread made in the way
described in Ezekial or only occaisonally for salvation?
C'est la vie! Ciaao Babes,
>
Bryn Ayers
Kay
myfan...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7kr97l$ek5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
:In article <7kob7i$1...@newsops.execpc.com>,
: "Larry Seiler" <lse...@execpc.com> wrote:
:
:I wrote in Response to Kay:
:> > Larry never posted what he believed...
:
:Larry writes to me:
:> I believe I have.....without necessarily doing so directly.
:
:> However, this is not rec.arts.religion
:
:However artists dictate what is seen in visions<>
(snipping non-art segment of post)
Bryn,
How about talking about your art? How about talking about some artists?
Galleries? Museums? You are just being confrontational and you really
should go to rec.arts.religion for this dialogue. I would prefer to not
discuss any religion here. Frankly, you are becoming a bore.
Kay
Jillian
>What about the thousands of Xtian sects?
>The born-agains, the war-mongers, the Unitarians, the Islams and
>Hindu's that treat Jesus as a profit?
LOL -- Jesus as profit...
I have always considered organized religion, like
organized art, to be all about profit and less
about belief systems... Har-d-har har...
myfan...@my-deja.com
"Kay" <scarl...@theriver.com> wrote:
>
> myfan...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7kr97l$ek5
$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> :In article <7kob7i$1...@newsops.execpc.com>,
> : "Larry Seiler" <lse...@execpc.com> wrote:
> :> However, this is not rec.arts.religion
> :
> :However artists dictate what is seen in visions<>
>
> (snipping non-art segment of post)
>
> Bryn,
> How about talking about your art?
Gladly right now I am painting some trees sticking out of
water, I am trying to be as true to Nature as possible however
the images I am working from have a kind of unreal quality to
them so the end product will not be strictly high-realism and
I am also trying to use Sumi ink on paper, copper leaf in
preparation for gold leaf guilding. I have lost my latest
sketchbook which is upsetting to me,
> How about talking about some artists?
For your interest there is a French movie called Artimesia on
Gentileschi, and another on Van Gogh.
> Galleries? Museums?
Tomorrow I will go to the Art Institute in Chicago, and to
the gallery district in that town.
> You are just being confrontational and you really
> should go to rec.arts.religion for this dialogue. I would prefer to
not
> discuss any religion here. Frankly, you are becoming a bore.
Learn to see the figuers in the drips and you will find both
drizzel and drivvel fascinating...
Bryn Ayers,
myfan...@my-deja.com
ca...@email2me.com (Jillian) wrote:
>I have always considered organized religion, like
> organized art, to be all about profit and less
> about belief systems... Har-d-har har...
Too True I'm afraid...
>
BRyn AYers
myfan...@my-deja.com
myfan...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <7kob7i$1...@newsops.execpc.com>,
> "Larry Seiler" <lse...@execpc.com> wrote:
> > I have well stated that in times past I had been more than willing
A cock fight no less...
> > continuously forced me such. So, in some sense...I withdrew. Human
> > nature. Dodging bullets maybe? I found people not very nice....
The Issue is like a lock that has been forced, people are defensive,
Might makes right!
Jillian
>I have lost my latest
>sketchbook which is upsetting to me,
What memories that brings back.
One of the the finest days of my life was finding
the sketch book which I had been keeping all through
graduate school, which was also my personal journal.
After I'd graduated and moved I lost the one hard-bound
one that had ALL of my graduate school notes and many
of my sketches in it. I was devastated since it was
specifically kept for graduate school stuff. I searched
and re-searched and re-re-searched for that book for years,
feeling certain it had to turn up somewhere -- after all,
it had my address and phone number in it.
It popped out of a packing carton when I moved two
years ago.
And so I wish you good luck in finding yours.
Larry Seiler
> water,
what medium?
We can relate on this!
I just put a frame on a somewhat still tacky oil plein air I painted last
weekend which I was excited about. It was a bend in a creek, with an
overhanging huge tree...reeds in the foreground mixed with grasses and
wildflowers.
I was drawn to the patterns of the sky reflecting on the water..and the
pond's duckweed encroaching one shore's edge.
> I am trying to be as true to Nature as possible
working from a photo then?.....or from sketches done on site?
> however
> the images I am working from have a kind of unreal quality to
> them so the end product will not be strictly high-realism
I've been looking more for abstract qualities existing in actual life.
Using my matboard viewer to frame images outdoors 'till something "clicks!"
> I have lost my latest
> sketchbook which is upsetting to me,
Man cannot live by sketches alone! However....I have sketchbooks all over
the place. My favorite drawing tool is a BIC medium black ball point pen,
and I draw very rapidly...just enough pressure applied for light lines and
then heavy.
Very expressive when I draw live things. Then....I like to go over these
with watercolor colored pencils and bleeding them into washes with clear
water and a brush.....or actual watercolor.
I went to Borders Books Music and Cafe.....and found they had these 100
page black & green colored hardbound sketchbooks for under $10...and often
on sale for around $6....about 8" x 10".
It is common for artists to hide their processes for making art and show
the public the finished product only. Going along with that mystique idea.
But, I like getting very personal with people, and get very transparent
and usually drag my sketchbooks with. As it goes....people are often more
intrigued by the raw spontaneous energy of my sketchbooks than my expensive
originals.
I bring them everywhere. If there is a speaker speaking.....I'll draw the
speaker...the overhead screen behind...the camera man video sending the
speaker...the people listening to the speaker.....and move around.
Hundreds and hundreds of drawings.
If artists aren't sketching....in my opinion, they are missing a crucial
element in developing their eye.....control over their hand, etc; IMHO
> Tomorrow I will go to the Art Institute in Chicago, and to
> the gallery district in that town.
I've had a 10 year invitation to move to Chicago and become part of an
artist's community down there. Being Chicago is considered 2nd (I read) to
New York for the arts....I really should consider it. But....I get this
sick feeling when surrounded by huge buildings and crowds of people that
obviously could care less about anyone around them just by the look on
their faces.
I've been down there about a dozen times.....and love the Institute. I've
made connections with the Windy City Artists down there. But...<grimace>
I just can't seem to shake my (paranoia?). I'll be down there once or
twice again this year. I'd like to find a gallery for my landscapes down
there...but so far, I have found that basically Chicago artists or dead
artists have work favored there. Thus far....I haven't been too interested
in either of those criterias.
peace,
have fun at the Institute.....! I envy you.
Larry
Larry Seiler
artist's site- http://cwinc.net/larryseiler
WetCanvas Artists page- (shorter and quicker loading)
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Gallery/S/Larry_Seiler/index.html
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man
Larry Seiler
> Might makes right!
Some...might be right.
I can't help being an offense being whom I am, given if my only choice is
to cease believing and being that which makes me who I am....but you should
know it is not my nature to enjoy dissension. I think if we can simply
understand that different things drive us creatively, that on a public
forum is enough to find cause to enjoy the arts.
In a way...its unfortunate, because I realize all that fuels and drives us
should be the stuff we as artists take interest in. However...there is not
a very good track record now is there, for those discussions where that
"fuel" or "drive" is spiritual? Knowing that up front....means we have the
choice for more diplomacy. Thus...I'm open to discuss such perhaps off
this group where discussing such would be less offensive to others.
peace,
Larry
Larry Seiler
artist's site- http://cwinc.net/larryseiler
WetCanvas Artists page- (shorter and quicker loading)
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Gallery/S/Larry_Seiler/index.html
Bartelby
>In article <7ks3d2$oju$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, myfan...@my-deja.com says...
I have recently unearthed all my bits of personal metrial culture
from the salad days... and it has been a real hoot. It seems
the table was always covered with goodies, or like I was in one
of those see through boxes where they blow cash around and you
try and grab it... and the stuff you end up with out of all the
crap you generated is kind of random, who knows if its the best
or worst of, but its precious all the same. Just today I
listened to one tape with about 6 or seven old friends on it,
spanning lots of years. The poems are Soooooo bad!
>>I have lost my latest
>>sketchbook which is upsetting to me,
>
myfan...@my-deja.com
"Kay" <scarl...@theriver.com> wrote:
> myfan...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7kr97l$ek5
> Bryn,
> How about talking about your art? How about talking about
> some artists? Galleries? Museums?
After being away from the 'newsgroup' and the internet for a while
it occured to me that the post 'bryn attacks larry for no reason'
which you(Kay) wrote is the only reason I ended up writing the post
to which you are refering. I had no intention of engagin Larry views
since I don't buy his world-view theory as a basis of thought(at all).
>You are just being confrontational
No -you are the one being confrontational here- in a strange way no
less. I responded to your post then Larry responds to mine and I to
his -wham your response- No Dialogue or Dialectic,
What you see as a confrontation is the self restisting inquiry into
its own nature of belief. I am asking the inevitable question...
> and you really
> should go to rec.arts.religion for this dialogue.
There is no rec.arts.religion anywhere on usenet IYO
>I would prefer to not
> discuss any religion here.
Lets delve into this -why would you prefer not to discuss religion
here or there? What is religion? Is confrontation inherent in
religious debate or does it start when one identifies themselves
with a belief and not with another?
I pointed out before that you have not engaged in any 'Dialectic'
and thus your preference has been realized, I therefore post these
as open questions not linear ones....
I had already meant not to discuss religion on raf/ap' you opened
the apparent can of worms to be consumed, you should eat them
instead of engaging in tangential attacks based on your 'value
judgement' of your interpretations of posts bearing the words
Bryn Ayers.
Kay
:> Bryn,
:> How about talking about your art? How about talking about
:> some artists? Galleries? Museums?
Bryn wrote:
:After being away from the 'newsgroup' and the internet for a while
:it occured to me that the post 'bryn attacks larry for no reason'
:which you(Kay) wrote is the only reason I ended up writing the post
:to which you are refering.
Kay writes:
Fine. Good. (You've only been away for a week.)
I had no intention of engagin Larry views
:since I don't buy his world-view theory as a basis of thought(at all).
Good. Fine. No problem. I wonder why you posted the subject title "Jesus
comes to RAF?" Sounded confrontational to me. I couldn't discern a
specific purpose other than to make fun of Larry's beliefs. Larry doesn't
flame or react to flames so I took it upon myself to respond in a manner
appropriate as I saw fit.
:>You are just being confrontational
:No -you are the one being confrontational here- in a strange way no
:less. I responded to your post then Larry responds to mine and I to
:his -wham your response- No Dialogue or Dialectic,
You started it. No one cares anymore.
:What you see as a confrontation is the self restisting inquiry into
:its own nature of belief. I am asking the inevitable question...
Can you perhaps find your own answers without the guidance of RAF?
:> and you really
:> should go to rec.arts.religion for this dialogue.
:
:There is no rec.arts.religion anywhere on usenet IYO
Well, I know there is a Mormon group. Maybe you could confront them...
:>I would prefer to not
:> discuss any religion here.
:
:Lets delve into this -why would you prefer not to discuss religion
:here or there?
I have no beliefs and don't care to search out answers about my lack of
curiousity. Anti-religious sentiment can bore me as much as excessive
religious sentiment. However, if someone truly believes in anything
spiritual, why should I attempt to argue the point with them and try to take
away something that provides comfort to the individual? Am I the
*enlightener* of the world? Are you? Maybe they are right and I am wrong.
Both extremes, to me, are directly akin to racism, classism, homophobia,
etc. by virtue of intolerance.
What is religion? Is confrontation inherent in
:religious debate or does it start when one identifies themselves
:with a belief and not with another?
Either you try and figure it out or you have figured it out and want to
spread your own beliefs. As for myself, I don't care.
::I pointed out before that you have not engaged in any 'Dialectic'
:and thus your preference has been realized, I therefore post these
:as open questions not linear ones....
Thanks. I hope we have cleared the air on this topic.
:I had already meant not to discuss religion on raf/ap' you opened
:the apparent can of worms to be consumed, you should eat them
:instead of engaging in tangential attacks based on your 'value
:judgement' of your interpretations of posts bearing the words
:Bryn Ayers.
:
I'll prey for you, Bryn...
Kay
"Do you know what he needs? Two or three shock treatments,"
Mary George said. "Get that artist business right out of his head once
and for all." (from "An Enduring Chill" by Flannery O'Connor)
myfan...@my-deja.com
"Kay" <scarl...@theriver.com> wrote:
> :Lets delve into this -why would you prefer not to discuss religion
> :here or there?
> I have no beliefs
As you have spelled it out lie is at the center of beliefs;
> and don't care to search out answers about my lack of
> curiousity. Anti-religious sentiment can bore me as much as excessive
> religious sentiment.
What is my point of view? Like both the never existant religious
debate, and the inquiries into rationalism I have never stated
my 'beliefs' pro or con on religious doctrins.
The truth of religious doctrins is irrelevant here since one
cannot ever recieve or interpret religious doctrins except
through ones own mind. The mind uses insight, religion is
insight into the mind, but if the Universe cares is the
issue the mind cannot answer... And hence the core division
of 'belief' system cannot resolve theoretical differences,
especially when self-interest is in the way.
> However, if someone truly believes in anything
> spiritual, why should I attempt to argue the point with them
> and try to take away something that provides comfort to the
> individual?
Religion(theism) does not provide comfort it provides a question,
Am I Insane? Will there be a reward for falsely resolving an
issue that has no answere, that lays outside possible knowledge?
Both Atheist, Theists, Whatever have the right to ask the same
questions. Any theist(god forbid?) can ask PA"can god be certain
his power is not derived from some other being who is all-powerful
and tricking god by every possible means into thinking +he+ is
the only and actual supreme being?"
When a mind believes its position is weak it sees question as an
assalt. Religion is not extrinsically important here since I
think my point applies across the landscape of human thought and
belief systems -Perhaps to Neitche and Science Where we began.
> Am I the
> *enlightener* of the world? Are you?
Yes and no! Individually I am but collectively I am not. The
world cannot recieve enlightenment from a teacher, the path to
truth is internal, or impossible.
Many 'enlighteners' of the world have become obsticals on the
path on enlightened thought. Ultimately the mind as a fragment
of the body is inconsistant, secondary seers are never as
enlightened as the first, and at worse make the first even
moderately attainable.
> Maybe they are right and I am wrong.
Is it possible both are wrong or right? The question in the
classical sense for religion is what role does belief play
in the Universe? What does a supreme being if any exist
gain by having people believe in that beings existance, and
further more that that being exists conforming to certain
stories of creation and by certain names?
I exist with a certain name and a certain story of my creation.
But from this you don't know me. I have a mind and I think
in a certain way that changes from time to time, as do you.
If I am just slightly more intelligent or hold back any detail
of my existance from you it is +impossible+ that you will
ever know exactly who I am. Much less will we as human beings
ever know what an infinite being thinks, who they truly are.
And never based solely based on transitive things such as
a self-identifier, such as name, race, creed. etc. This is
nearly irrelevant in knowing.
> Both extremes, to me, are directly akin to racism, classism,
homophobia,
> etc. by virtue of intolerance.
B.
myfan...@my-deja.com
"Larry Seiler" <lse...@execpc.com> wrote:
> I can't help being an offense being whom I am, given if
> my only choice is to cease believing and being that which
> makes me who I am....
Belief is an unresolved conflict in the mind.
> but you should
> know it is not my nature to enjoy dissension.
I am not offering dissention, since as you poetically have
described it is futile(lock horns) I can offer partial resolution
to the conflict called belief.
> I think if we can simply
> understand that different things drive us creatively,
I think that what drives us creatively will remain a mystery.
Larry on art:
> there is not a very good track record now is there, for those
> discussions where that "fuel" or "drive" is spiritual?
I think that the emotions and Ideas that I associate with
'spiritual' are the driving force behind some of my best art
and my reaction to my favorite works.
If you mean 'spiritual' based on belief you are otherwise stating
that you dont know, If you mean 'spiritual' as you experience
it then what you say is truth.
B. Ayers
myfan...@my-deja.com
> I have no beliefs
myfan...@my-deja.com
rdav...@my-deja.com
myfan...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <7ktfn5$p...@newsops.execpc.com>,
> "Larry Seiler" <lse...@execpc.com> wrote:
> > I can't help being an offense being whom I am, given if
> > my only choice is to cease believing and being that which
> > makes me who I am....
>
> Belief is an unresolved conflict in the mind.
knowing. Belief in oneself is really based upon the degree in which we
know ourselves.
>
> > I think if we can simply
> > understand that different things drive us creatively,
>
> I think that what drives us creatively will remain a mystery.
It has to be this way because true creation comes from that "place"
beyond our rational mind.
>
> Larry on art:
> > there is not a very good track record now is there, for those
> > discussions where that "fuel" or "drive" is spiritual?
>
> I think that the emotions and Ideas that I associate with
> 'spiritual' are the driving force behind some of my best art
> and my reaction to my favorite works.
Me to.
>
> If you mean 'spiritual' based on belief you are otherwise stating that
> you dont know, If you mean 'spiritual' as you experience
> it then what you say is truth.
Good point, although I think a discussion on what constitutes a
spiritual experience could cover a lot of ground.
ARdee
Larry Seiler
what??? and unbelief? That IS resolved?
The human mind simply put, cannot know what it cannot know. That makes
nearly all thought suspect right? It requires faith where most issues seem
to have arrived at a conclusion that is most aptly resolved. Faith that
even one's own mind is capable of comprehension. As such, your limitations
for understanding (as well) require taking a stand...(an aspect of faith),
for which finding zeal supplants a religious undertone or fervor. Though
holding to opposite poles we are by necessity much the same, though I will
hold by virtue to the good fortune of my findings no animosity & sarcasms,
or sense of superiority which would belie false security and arrogance on
my part. I hope you likewise sense the same.
I arrive at belief when I endeavor to resolve the conflict.
You are speaking of and assuming "blind" faith or belief.
> > but you should
> > know it is not my nature to enjoy dissension.
>
> I am not offering dissention,
It does not have to be a mental assertion.....but is the nature of the
beast when as adults we know full and well where such discussions go and it
lies in our capability to guard against such.
> described it is futile(lock horns) I can offer partial resolution
> to the conflict called belief.
to "offer".....hhmm...you would have to know something of what I as an
individual require to appease that which propels my inquisitiveness and
needs. I require that beyond myself....beyond the limitations of human
entity, beyond the fraility that finiteness holds no promises. That puts
basically the best of humanity's thinkers in the same category ultimately
of that which does not impress me.....even though their writings shredded
would promise to cushion my head's rest whilst lying in my casket.
You are convinced. Persuaded. You are thus equipped to face the
challenges of life, and are to be commended. I hope that with such comes
peace. Even peace when others are least interested. Like William
Wallace's quote...."all men die, but not all men really live"..... may
you live well. May you find full contentment as you breathe your last.
> I think that what drives us creatively will remain a mystery.
hahahahh.....well, then.....it is a "mystery" that we should at all
endeavor to discuss it! What a mystery we humans are. What a pleasure to
speak with you and come to know others.
> I think that the emotions and Ideas that I associate with
> 'spiritual' are the driving force behind some of my best art
> and my reaction to my favorite works.
There I would agree......but, I know that for the most part people have a
greater need to exist than to inquire the "whys" of other's existence.
Since I know most would be disinterested in that which makes me whole and
driven.....and since I believe that the mind convinced without evidence of
bondages must of its own accord seek....why push a currency upon those not
interested in spending, or a product no one is buying? We have arrived
ideologically where answers cannot be contemplated upon until there comes
an interest in asking questions. Thus, I'm simply observing that where no
questions are being asked, supply and demand requires none of my answers
without great resentment.
The building of relationships IMHO will do more to gain a hearing should
and if ever minds begin again to ask the questions. In that sense, it is
good to quote a Proverb that says, "kindness makes a person attractive."
It is one thing to offer a sandwich....another to grab someone by the neck
and force them inside to eat it. I guess its enough to wait until someone
gets hungry!
The arts reveal a hunger there.......that spiritual thing you speak of,
however, it is like everyone has a voice, but no ears to hear. That being
said, it requires patience and the resolve to be kind...not forceful, not
vindictive....not sarcastic, not insistent.
> If you mean 'spiritual' based on belief you are otherwise stating
> that you dont know, If you mean 'spiritual' as you experience
> it then what you say is truth.
Some experience great personal pain to themselves by their openness and
hunger for "experience" which thereafter creates reality. Until that pain
comes, they "believe" their experience's temporal pleasure is reality.
That simply put is human nature being led blindly about by appetite.
Also....since the mind is finite, and limited....what it does observe and
know is often only a partial representation of the truth. Having access to
something "in part" does not equate experience to great confidence in
truth. It is foolish to assume oneself so capable. It may simply be an
experience that evidences the possibility of what one can get away with.
Anyone that is a teacher with a classroom filled with delinquents can
attest to that.
A student goofing off hears only part of what he/she wants to hear, and
disinterest remembers even that little portion obscurely. Their
recollection may be as close to the truth as they may know it....but
certainly it will have no bearing on the actual.
I will say this about my own marriage. I've been married 22 years. I've
been in and out of love....I've been kind and hostile. I've been patient
and full of hope, and impatient and disillusioned. What I thought I
was....and whom I've become reveal my own immaturity and lies I was willing
to hold onto for reasons of self-centeredness. My "truth" based upon my
experiences changed so many times that if I called them truths would demand
to hold me suspect. Such were only conveniences and selfish demands
revealing a very pitiful character.
That we held to a higher standard that did not ALWAYS conform to us..but
necessarily "us to it" was a pervasive transcendent path that created a
"glue" such that when the blindnesses of my own ambitions were willing to
think of escapes, pleasures...of greater loves, whatever....in time, I was
able EACH time to see me for what I was in hindsight. Each challenge for
which others (thinking "experience is truth" and thus living as though in
reality they were) would choose to separate, my wife and I have learned to
grow through and find a strength. In time....one becomes less demanding
and less the individual and conforms to the other where only a oneness
develops based on love rather than what is agreeable to one's delusions.
I wish not to offend others whom felt no other choice but escape to resolve
painful circumstances....and am only giving my own testimony here.
Some truths by experience which you advocate never reach certain heights or
familiarity because the resolve for such fails. It requires a
transcendence beyond one's own knowing.....and the "faith" ..the
experience- (I'll grant you that) of "learning to trust" in the source of
that which transcends, for any man who thinks he knows.....knows nothing
yet as he ought.
peace,
Larry
burnin...@my-deja.com
"Larry Seiler" <lse...@execpc.com> wrote:
> > Belief is an unresolved conflict in the mind.
>
> what??? and unbelief? That IS resolved?
>
> The human mind simply put, cannot know what it cannot know.
This is an interesting statement. If we assume it to be true
and follow it to its logical end, you cannot make this assertion
with any validity.
The reason for that being that you can not know whether or not
something is "unknowable".
Something of an endless loop, that.
> That makes
> nearly all thought suspect right? It requires faith where most issues
seem
> to have arrived at a conclusion that is most aptly resolved.
Faith is something which you have decided to be true with supporting
evidence. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
> Faith that
> even one's own mind is capable of comprehension. As such, your
limitations
> for understanding (as well) require taking a stand...(an aspect of
faith),
> for which finding zeal supplants a religious undertone or fervor.
Though
> holding to opposite poles we are by necessity much the same, though I
will
> hold by virtue to the good fortune of my findings no animosity &
sarcasms,
> or sense of superiority which would belie false security and arrogance
on
> my part. I hope you likewise sense the same.
>
> I arrive at belief when I endeavor to resolve the conflict.
>
> You are speaking of and assuming "blind" faith or belief.
When you are lacking facts, there is no other type of faith.
And why not before then?
>
> > I think that what drives us creatively will remain a mystery.
>
> hahahahh.....well, then.....it is a "mystery" that we should at all
> endeavor to discuss it! What a mystery we humans are.
You give them too much credit.
That might be true. It will do little to feed either you or your
children, and that is the choice much of the world faces.
> It is one thing to offer a sandwich....another to grab someone by the
neck
> and force them inside to eat it. I guess its enough to wait until
someone
> gets hungry!
>
> The arts reveal a hunger there.......that spiritual thing you speak
of,
> however, it is like everyone has a voice, but no ears to hear.
> That being
> said, it requires patience and the resolve to be kind...not forceful,
not
> vindictive....not sarcastic, not insistent.
Prior to all of the above, it requires food, clothing ,etc.
>
> > If you mean 'spiritual' based on belief you are otherwise stating
> > that you dont know, If you mean 'spiritual' as you experience
> > it then what you say is truth.
>
> Some experience great personal pain to themselves by their openness
and
> hunger for "experience" which thereafter creates reality. Until that
pain
> comes, they "believe" their experience's temporal pleasure is reality.
You believe this to be true. You do not know it to be true.
> That simply put is human nature being led blindly about by appetite.
As are other animals. No surprise there.
>
> Also....since the mind is finite, and limited....what it does observe
and
> know is often only a partial representation of the truth.
Again, your statement is contradictory. If we assume what you say is
true, you can not, with any certainy, make the statement.
The old case of how can someone blind from birth know that a color
red exists when they aren't capable of understanding color. There
is no frame of reference. Lacking that, there is no communication.
For that matter, how do you know that what you believe to be red
is what other people see?
Larry Seiler
> something is "unknowable".
>
> Something of an endless loop, that.
.....ah...but, the track record of human inquiry discovering its errors of
presumptions makes it reasonably safe to assume we don't know all that we
know currently- fully. We are also aware of questions existing that
pertain to the transcendent....and that our speculations without going
beyond the finite bodily existence are simply that. Speculation. We can
take on faith what we may believe, believing that a source that transcends
our finite existence does have such knowledge and "may" make some knowing
known.
Endless loops are fun though, aren't they? Like those that say
emphatically that there is "no truth!"....as though that statement itself
were true. Or state absolutely that no absolutes exist.
> > That makes
> > nearly all thought suspect right? It requires faith where most issues
> seem
> > to have arrived at a conclusion that is most aptly resolved.
>
> Faith is something which you have decided to be true with supporting
> evidence. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
agreed....
> When you are lacking facts, there is no other type of faith.
faith of course is not faith where "complete" facts known or fully known,
exist. Yet a measure of facts existing compel enough ground for founding
belief where complete knowing of facts lacks.
Literary....historical, archaeological, ethical, philosophical....grounds
exist. And science...a tool available for all worldviews, not with full
rights owned by any one select group. The extent of interpretation to
scientific finding often reveals the biases connected to the enculturation
of one's worldview.
Aside from stating this....I really don't want to use an arts group to get
into a full blown debate on apologetics, etc., for which I am capable. I
am responding here to state I would be capable.....and responding because I
wish to be polite in acknowledging your post.
I think though there is some validation that a measure of interest of
spiritual content be found reasonable for artists working....as we draw
from a creative pool fed by whom we are as complete persons. Though the
definition of that content must necessarily be understood to exist as
broad, or in this age...pluralistic. That we are not able to discuss
things easily, or without inciting sarcasm and flame is cause for me to
believe it necessary at least for me at this juncture of my life to be
gracious....cautious, and respectful.
> May you find full contentment as you breathe your
> last.
>
> And why not before then?
I would hope all would be thus so blessed! And you as well....
Perhaps...some will find this life as their only reward......
> > hahahahh.....well, then.....it is a "mystery" that we should at all
> > endeavor to discuss it! What a mystery we humans are.
>
> You give them too much credit.
<g> ;^)
<snip>
> > The arts reveal a hunger there.......that spiritual thing you speak
> of,
> > however, it is like everyone has a voice, but no ears to hear.
> > That being
> > said, it requires patience and the resolve to be kind...not forceful,
> not
> > vindictive....not sarcastic, not insistent.
>
> Prior to all of the above, it requires food, clothing ,etc.
base existence.....yes, whom can argue?
> You believe this to be true. You do not know it to be true.
ahh...well, I happen also to be a blues musician. I know it to be true for
many. It is the many that I speak for. For those not having been tested
by pain.....no song of remorse yet need be sung.
As for my own pain....that, I know to be true. As to my knowing that I am
not unique in the misfortunes of circumstance....that I also know to be
true. For the many many prison inmates I have performed for, and spoken
to...I know this to be true. Call my world small then....but existentially
speaking....experience has borne it out and made room for my small world to
exist.
> > That simply put is human nature being led blindly about by appetite.
>
> As are other animals. No surprise there.
nope....
> > Also....since the mind is finite, and limited....what it does observe
> and
> > know is often only a partial representation of the truth.
>
> Again, your statement is contradictory. If we assume what you say is
> true, you can not, with any certainy, make the statement.
Sure we can. Someone recognizing their own ability is limited, has no
problem making the comment of their own ability being limited. It is when
they elect to state that which is beyond their possibility of knowing. It
is not beyond my possibility of knowing that my knowing has its
limitations. My limitations might make the degree of that knowing
unsure....but the very fact of my limitation is evidence alone.
> The old case of how can someone blind from birth know that a color
> red exists when they aren't capable of understanding color.
simple.....
I take a math class. Eighty percent demonstrate understanding the concepts
and are able to perform the calculations. Say I fall in the twenty percent
that does not. I don't understand the concept. I am able to understand by
evidence of seeing others getting what I do not....that something is
eluding my comprehension. I know I am not knowing something. I may not
know or comprehend the degree of that extent to which I do not know....but
the awareness (knowing) that parts of the whole are missing to which would
make for me a difference is possible.
There is a past. A present. A future. I know the past only in part.
With the reading of many books, I get some kind of consensus of the facts.
Perhaps visiting the cultures gives me a greater "sense" of the that which
contributed to the facts.
I know the present only in part. I live in Wisconsin. Not California. I
do not know what is going on in California, though I hear there is a hippy
movement and a rather active punk culture. I have to take that on faith
from those that I met and live there. Knowing I do not know all of that
which happens in Wisconsin, I can assume to not know much at all of what
currently is going on in California. I can safely say I do not know even
that of which I do not know. Stuff...I haven't even considered.
As to the future....I can only speculate. I lack the transcendence for
such and am a prisoner of my own limited existence.
>There
> is no frame of reference. Lacking that, there is no communication.
There exists a limited knowing...a knowing that such knowing is restricted
by limitation. Such is frame of reference enough to know one's own
limitations indeed exist. That we are always learning AND forgetting
infers information yet beyond our grasping, awareness, and ability to
retain. That we will do so until our faculties prevent us from learning
more or we meet the grave suggests enough information to go around.....more
than we could ever fully know. That we have yet to die, and come back to
make a report easily infers a realm beyond our finite mortal limitation. A
level of knowing for which we anticipate surprises. Even the expectation
that a death of knowing....that is complete cessation, cannot be here known
absolutely. Such lends to necessarily acknowledge that which cannot be
known.
> For that matter, how do you know that what you believe to be red
> is what other people see?
You make my point. Here...seeing "red", is an area of knowing...that we
cannot know. Correct? It lends to infer that many elements exist with the
common plight that such unknowing likewise exists.
Now...after all this.....<smile> ....what were we talking about?
take care....!!
Please don't be offended, and I don't wish to be rude....but I've said
perhaps far too much....and my pleasure speaking thus is not justification
to indulge beyond the tolerances of most here. Meaning, you'll probably
not see me respond further on this thread.
peace,
Larry
burnin...@my-deja.com
"Larry Seiler" <lse...@execpc.com> wrote:
... big snip
> You make my point.
Quite the opposite.
> Here...seeing "red", is an area of knowing...that we
> cannot know. Correct?
No. Subjectively a person who can see can "know" what red is.
Given that, it is possible to build a frame of reference between
two people... irrespective of what either person sees when they
see "red".
> It lends to infer that many elements exist with the
> common plight that such unknowing likewise exists.
>
> Now...after all this.....<smile> ....what were we talking about?
Your limitations.
If you were limited in an area, you would not be qualified to make
that determination. The inverse is also true: many people are limited
and don't understand it.
> Please don't be offended
I have no reason to believe that you were being offensive.
>, and I don't wish to be rude....but I've said
> perhaps far too much....and my pleasure speaking thus is not
justification
> to indulge beyond the tolerances of most here.
Much of what passes for discussions here are echoes from people
terrified of being alone.
> Meaning, you'll probably
> not see me respond further on this thread.
Not a problem... it's unlikely I would have either. I rarely will
become involved in philosophical discussions. This one just took
an unexpected, interesting turn. :P
Larry Seiler
>
Indeed I humbly submit.....I AM severely limited. That being said, peace
to you.
We'll talk again....I'm sure. 8^)
Larry
br...@wralaw.com
> what??? and unbelief? That IS resolved?
Never. There is no resolution that is the answere.
The question is 'why do we as human beings try to
answere questions who's answeres lay outside of
transferable and sometimes even possible knowledge?'
Why do +these+ questions in particular lead to
division? to war? to misery that goes well beyond
any intent?
> The human mind simply put, cannot know what it cannot know.
> That makes nearly all thought suspect right?
Yes. It is arrogance and egotism that leads us to believe
that we can comprehend reality or god or whatever. We only
know ourselves, our perceptions, our prejudices. A finite
mind cannot comprehend an infinite one. A finite mind
simularly does not comprehend an infinite reality. A prejudice
that the 'infinite' does exist is not understanding.
> It requires faith where most issues seem
> to have arrived at a conclusion that is most aptly resolved.
>Faith that even one's own mind is capable of comprehension.
You arrive at faith because you know that certainty in such
comprehension does not exist, and may in fact be impossible.
> I arrive at belief when I endeavor to resolve the conflict.
Yes. Belief tries to resolve the conflict but conflict remains.
Each group that claims that it has the will of god is in
conflict with god. None demonstrate the infinite in knowledge
the infinite in power, or the infinite in benevolence of god.
The false resolution internally of belief becomes the outer
conflict of war. We know that this 'war' is not the cause of
god since the infinite in power wins instantly, the infinite in
knowledge resolves any conflict through enlightenment and the
infinite in benevolence does not make war.
Is it possible to have inner peace, inner resolution, and at
the same time be in conflict with others?
rdav...@my-deja.com
br...@wralaw.com wrote:
> In article <7ltc2c$r...@newsops.execpc.com>,
> "Larry Seiler" <lse...@execpc.com> wrote:
> > > Belief is an unresolved conflict in the mind.
>
> > what??? and unbelief? That IS resolved?
>
Perhaps resolution occurs when we step beyond the duality of me and they
and realize our Buddha nature.
>
> > The human mind simply put, cannot know what it cannot know.
> > That makes nearly all thought suspect right?
>
> Yes. It is arrogance and egotism that leads us to believe
> that we can comprehend reality or god or whatever. We only
> know ourselves, our perceptions, our prejudices. A finite
> mind cannot comprehend an infinite one. A finite mind
> simularly does not comprehend an infinite reality. A prejudice
> that the 'infinite' does exist is not understanding.
Our finite mind however is attached to the infinite mind like leaves
on a tree, therefore comprehension is possible.
>
> > It requires faith where most issues seem
> > to have arrived at a conclusion that is most aptly resolved.
> >Faith that even one's own mind is capable of comprehension.
>
> You arrive at faith because you know that certainty in such
> comprehension does not exist, and may in fact be impossible.
>
> > I arrive at belief when I endeavor to resolve the conflict.
>
> Yes. Belief tries to resolve the conflict but conflict remains.
> Each group that claims that it has the will of god is in
> conflict with god. None demonstrate the infinite in knowledge
> the infinite in power, or the infinite in benevolence of god.
> The false resolution internally of belief becomes the outer
> conflict of war. We know that this 'war' is not the cause of
> god since the infinite in power wins instantly, the infinite in
> knowledge resolves any conflict through enlightenment and the
> infinite in benevolence does not make war.
>
> Is it possible to have inner peace, inner resolution, and at
> the same time be in conflict with others?
I read a book about a Chinese Buddist master who did much to revive and
restore Buddhism in China ( the early part of this century). I am sorry
I can't think of the name but if you are interested I could find it for
you. Anyways he lived to a ripe old age of 120 and had received
confirmation of his enlightenment at a much younger age. At the age of
110 he was nearly beaten to death by Red Guards.
It seems some people just can't stand to see someone who has found true
inner peace.
ARdee
Chris
rdav...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <7m5l7f$jt3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> br...@wralaw.com wrote:
>
> >
> > Yes. It is arrogance and egotism that leads us to believe
> > that we can comprehend reality or god or whatever. We only
> > know ourselves, our perceptions, our prejudices. A finite
> > mind cannot comprehend an infinite one. A finite mind
> > simularly does not comprehend an infinite reality. A prejudice
> > that the 'infinite' does exist is not understanding.
I usually pass over these threads, but the statement above intrigues me. Why
should the universe be infinite? We have no reason to believe that it has to
be, other than our normal linear modes of thought balk at the idea it not
being so. The only 'evidence' (and note that that is in quotation marks) we
have in any case is physics and mathematics, which currently imply it is
finite (maybe :)
Cheers;
Chris
andrew mc sweeney
<br...@wralaw.com> wrote in message news:7m5l7f$jt3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <7ltc2c$r...@newsops.execpc.com>,hows it going,i dunno wheather or not you`ll appreciate this but i reckon it
could be worth getting,a few hundred years ago there was a man named
descarte(he`s pre-kantian so theres no head the ball involved)and he came up
with something that was absolutely brilliant,he said that we as people exist
spatially and corporeallry in the world,the world that we see, and our
hearts and souls and spirits exist in a similar fashion within God,this is
better than it sounds,,y`know life is more than energy being converted,how
does grass and trees and animals and stuff live,what is life,how does life
work,it aint synthithsis or energy or process,we exist within God the same
way our bodies exist on land,if God left something that was living then it
would be dead,rocks dont exist within God and so do not live or have
life,just goes to show that they were coming out with better stuff 300years
ago than they do now,i`m refering to the gaia theory,you may or may not want
to play with this,i dunno,its pretty profound,kinda like where two worlds
meet,
andrew mc sweeney
her...@linknet.com.au
of the cross (which was around many years and in many cultures before
christianity). The vertical bar for the spiritual world and the horizontal
for the material. Humanity sits in the middle.
Zom
----------
In article <7md7tn$4vb$2...@scotty.tinet.ie>, "andrew mc sweeney"
<mack...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> <br...@wralaw.com> wrote in message news:7m5l7f$jt3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> In article <7ltc2c$r...@newsops.execpc.com>,
>> "Larry Seiler" <lse...@execpc.com> wrote:
>> > > Belief is an unresolved conflict in the mind.
>>