KEN WAPNICK'S RESPONSE TO THE OPEN LETTER
TomWFox
ROBERT PERRY AND ALLEN WATSON
by Robert Perry
Allen and I have received a response from Ken Wapnick to our open letter. We
will not share his response publicly, since he seemed to wish that it remain
private. We would like to share the gist of it, however, since so many people
are waiting for a response from him.
Ken declined to respond to the substance of our letter, saying that he feels
that public communications always serve an ulterior motive. Instead of
addressing any of the questions or issues we raised, he instead chose to
correct four "of the more glaring mischaracterizations and misrepresentations,
not to mention misinformation" contained in our letter.
First, he said that George McOwen's manuscript contained not simply a few
paraphrases, as I had said; rather, almost the entire book was a paraphrase.
Second, he said that Judy's remarks to me were decidedly different from what I
reported.
Third, he said that he and I dialogued in the past, and that he is never
against true dialogue.
Fourth, he said that FACIM has not categorically denied permission to quote,
and in fact, has granted permission to many people, including authors who see
the Course differently from Ken.
MY COMMENTS
Before commenting futher, I would like to respond to Ken's four corrections.
The following is from my letter responding to Ken:
"Let me respond to the four points you made about inaccuracies in my letter.
First, about George's manuscript. I think we are using the word 'paraphrase'
differently. My understanding is that a copyright holder owns not the ideas,
but only his work's expression of those ideas. So I combed George's work for
sentences in which he had taken a particular line from the Course and changed
some of the wording around, since I assumed that these paraphrased lines were
the only part of his work that a copyright holder had any say about. So, when I
said, 'a few paraphrases,' I was referring to his paraphrasing of particular
lines from the Course, rather than his paraphrasing of overall ideas from the
Course." [Note to readers: George did acknowledge the Course as inspiration for
the ideas in his book in the book's introduction.]
"Second, as to Judy's remarks to me, I stand by those. Not only do I have a
good memory, I have a written record of the main conversation I refer to in my
letter, a record I faxed to Judy shortly after that conversation to give her a
chance to correct any inaccuracies I may have inadvertently included (she did
not). I will include a copy of that fax along with this letter. It contains
support for all three things I claimed she said, that she 1) 'expressed
enthusiasm about [our] proposal,' 2) said 'that the copyright pendulum needed
to swing back to center,' and 3) 'instructed her lawyer to get together with
the lawyer who was helping us to amicably resolve these issues, and work out
the details.'
"Third, you are of course correct that we have had many exchanges in the past.
Were I to write the letter again, I would refer to our dialogues in the 80's.
As the letter stands, I was referring to your refusal to dialogue over the last
(I believe) seven years, which seemed much more relevant to my current attempt
to dialogue with you than the exchanges we had so long ago.
"Fourth, my letter never stated that you have categorically denied permission.
How would I know that? Rather, I asked: 'Will anyone be granted permission to
quote from A Course in Miracles?' I would still like to know who is being
granted permission and who is not, and what specific criteria are being applied
in granting permission. Specifically, have you granted anyone permission to
prepare detailed commentaries on the Course which do not reflect your views of
the Course, but which reflect the level of quoting that you have established
through your own works as necessary for such commentaries?
"I made the utmost effort in that letter to be accurate, balanced, and fair.
For this reason, I intend to append the above statements to that letter
wherever it is posted."
In light of the above, I leave the reader to decide for him- or herself how
accurate or inaccurate our open letter was.
Clearly, there will be no public dialogue between myself and Ken. In fact, I
think we have heard about all that we are going to from Ken on these matters.
He has responded to the letters of several students with the same message: The
situation is not as it has been represented. FACIM is simply upholding standard
copyright practice and is absolutely not trying to suppress discussion or
commentary on the Course.
In the meantime, FACIM continues to take action. Ironically, on the day we
released that open letter to Ken, July 12, The Circle of Atonement received a
letter from FACIM's law firm, Epstein Becker & Green. This letter requested
that we cease and desist from the distribution of our series of booklets and
books, our Workbook Lesson Commentaries and Electronic Text Commentaries (which
go out over the Internet), and our Manual Study Series (which is on audio
tape). This amounts to most of what we distribute.
I believe that our most important response to this situation, and the most
important response of all Course students, is to practice forgiveness. Rather
than being outraged by what is happening, let's commit ourselves to embodying
the ideals of our path here at a time when its ideals seem most threatened. Let
us resolve to watch our minds for anger and, whenever we notice it, to practice
forgiveness as the Course teaches it. If we perceive that Ken Wapnick is
attacking, let us truly "be willing to forgive the Son of God for what he did
not do" (T-17.III.1:5). If we perceive that myself, Allen, and others are
attacking, again, let us try to practice forgiveness with genuine sincerity.
From the outside, this situation may look like the failure of the Course and
its principles. But this is the kind of situation for which the Course was
made. Let us endeavor to stand forth as examples of its beautiful teachings.
And then, I propose, let us ask within for guidance about what we each should
do. We do have to act in this world. As The Song of Prayer says, "There are
decisions to make here, and they must be made whether they be illusions or not"
(S-1.I.2:4). Yet only with the help of a far higher and broader perspective
than our own can we make these decisions well. And only with the help of
forgiveness can we carry them out with nothing but good will in our heart.
Please join us in practicing forgiveness and asking for guidance about this
situation.
stairs to heavenly relationships
--
Posted via Talkway - http://www.talkway.com
Exchange ideas on practically anything (tm).
tomwfox
Don wrote: " TomWfox, I'd rather deny the denial of truth but you know
me. "
Dogbert:
"My dominion over the planet
is not widely recognized by the dolts
who are breathing my air.
" So I've declared sovereignty over a small,
ever widening zone surrounding my body."
Dilbert:
"How big is the zone?"
Dogbert:
"You have just entered Dogbertland.
"Please show your passport and
leave the oxygen alone!"
If denying the denial of truth doesn't work,
maybe laughing at it will.
With love,
Tom Fox
GMath76300
>If denying the denial of truth doesn't work,
>maybe laughing at it will.
8-)))))
Peace,
Gwen
Jimmywitz1
Thanks for posting the Whoppingknickers reply.
I have only one suggestion at this time.
PUBLISH AND BE DAMNED.
Of course, some good may yet come out of it. Epstein, Becker and Green will
become rich. Mrs. Epstein wiill get the new Lexus she always wanted and the
Becker children will get new ponies and trips to Disneyworld.
However, I am ofthe opinion that U.S. law will be firmly on your side and not
KW's in this manner. Fair use doctrine is well established in publishing
precedence, especially as it applies to "scholarly" works and it will be very
hard for KW to show that he (or at least FACIM) has been at all damaged by your
publications. Were he able to do this, he would also be showing that his own
publications, which are numerous and include VAST extracts from ACIM have also
damaged it. I have the feeling that U.S. law will see it for what it really is:
an attempt to limit any opnions but his own, and that runs flat up against the
first amendment. I, for one, would not like to be the lawyer taking that
particular case on!!!
Fear not about this issue. Somehow, I feel that everything is working out just
fine!
Jimmy
Richard Mallett
>fine!
Jimmy
I agree with you; everything is working out just fine, but does this
mean that if you're wrong and the copyright is ruled valid, you'll
counsel compliance?
Richard
Jimmywitz1
I'm sorry if I was not clear enough. I expect the copyright WILL be ruled
valid, but I don't think that that will in itself prevent others from writing
about ACIM and publishing commentaries using a "reasonable" amount of the
original text.
As I stated there are two reasons.
1. Fair use precedence allowing public commentary on works of public or
scholarly importance.
2. The fact that Whoppingknickers has placed himself in a very difficult
position having already published many commentaries of his own with
considerable quoting from the Course. He has, in effect, placed already a
precedence in allowing public commentary and debate on The Course by starting
it himself, with his own writings. I don't think any US judge is going to be
too impressed with any arguments he might now make that he is the only one
qualified to make public discussion of the work. He was not the original writer
after all, (whether that be ruled legally Jesus or Helen, and I suspect the
legal ruling will be Helen. U.S. copyright law says that legal copyright exists
the moment an intellectual idea leaves the originator 's mind and is put into
some material form such as on paper, tape or film)
And this does NOT have to include getting prior permission from FACIM in order
to publish. KW himself has already put discussion (with reasonable "fair use"
quotes) of The Course in the public domain, and under the guidlines of the
first amendment.
Of course, as you point out, I could be wrong. I will burn that bridge when I
cross it, heh heh!
Jimmy
Gene Ward Smith
jimmy...@aol.com (Jimmywitz1) wrote:
> Dear Richard,
> I'm sorry if I was not clear enough. I expect the copyright WILL be ruled
> valid, but I don't think that that will in itself prevent others from writing
> about ACIM and publishing commentaries using a "reasonable" amount of the
> original text.
I also think it will probably be ruled valid, but it is likely to be a rather
limited copyright protection--less than if it had been published under Helen's
name as her own work.
He was not the original writer
> after all, (whether that be ruled legally Jesus or Helen, and I suspect the
> legal ruling will be Helen. U.S. copyright law says that legal copyright
exists
> the moment an intellectual idea leaves the originator 's mind and is put into
> some material form such as on paper, tape or film)
I doubt Judge Sweet will rule on who the author is--there are too many ways
to get around it, and there would need to be a clear claim from one side
that Helen was the author in order for there to be something at issue to
rule on. Such a claim is unlikely to be made, for sound legal reasons if
if for no other.
Books like ACIM are in a special legal category because of case law. This
is why the contentions of Endeavor are not going to simply be dismissed;
they seem to have a serious legal case, a much more serious case than I
had realized until I began looking at this business.
--
Gene Ward Smith
gsm...@blazenetme.net
stairs to heavenly relationships
abandonment of CIM for something sound. Simple meditation of breath
counting does no harm only good which is more than I can say for CIM.
Wapnick would respond to maximum financial loss but little else. Don
Jimmywitz1
What a good point:
>Books like ACIM are in a special legal category because of case law. This
>is why the contentions of Endeavor are not going to simply be dismissed;
>they seem to have a serious legal case, a much more serious case than I
>had realized until I began looking at this business.
I had not really thought about this deeply until that last couple of weeks or
so when a good and kind friend from this NG shared her concerns about the
issue.
Your analysis seems very clear on this point, and I think that Whoppingknickers
may have pushed himself into rather a tight corner here.
I must admit that I am beginning to feel a little sorry for him, because I
think that he firmly believes that his motives in this are very pure and
unselfish. But it's a great lesson for the rest of us in showing us that no
matter how much progress we appear to make, the ego can appear to be even more
tireless in it's efforts to derail us from our spiritual path. However, I
firmly believe that the Holy Spirit will find a solution to this in which
everyone wins and no-one loses. After all, if someone loses out of this, then
the problem hasn't really been solved at all. I forget where in the text, I saw
that, but it made a deep impression on me, as I was gping through a lot of pain
because of my divorce litigation. As a result of this section in the text, I
was able to pray to God for a solution to my and my wife's conflict where
neither of us would lose.
If nothing else,
I at least have become a net winner out of this, as it has been a great
learning tool for me.
God Bless
Jimmy
TomWFox
know that.
Since you know the unconscious mechanical associations your choice of words are
bound to trigger in sleeping sheep headed for the slaughterhouse, I assume you
aspire to allow them the opportunity to observe their own unthinking
mechanicality.
Or not.
Did you ever study Gurdjieff or Ouspensky?
With love,
Tom Fox
Gene Ward Smith
jimmy...@aol.com (Jimmywitz1) wrote:
> I must admit that I am beginning to feel a little sorry for him, because I
> think that he firmly believes that his motives in this are very pure and
> unselfish.
I quoted this before, but it bears repeating, and applies to anyone on any
side of this issue:
Trust not your good intentions. They are not enough. But
trust implicitly your willingness, whatever else may enter.
T-18.IV.2.
> But it's a great lesson for the rest of us in showing us that no
> matter how much progress we appear to make, the ego can appear to be even more
> tireless in it's efforts to derail us from our spiritual path. However, I
> firmly believe that the Holy Spirit will find a solution to this in which
> everyone wins and no-one loses. After all, if someone loses out of this, then
> the problem hasn't really been solved at all. I forget where in the
text, I saw
> that, but it made a deep impression on me, as I was gping through a lot
of pain
> because of my divorce litigation.
Maybe it was this, if or not, something like it:
Salvation is rebirth of the idea no one can lose for anyone
to gain. And everyone *must* gain, if anyone would be a gainer.
T-25.VII.12.
> If nothing else,
> I at least have become a net winner out of this, as it has been a great
> learning tool for me.
I've found some wonderful opportunities for learning and teaching because
of it, which is why I listed myself under "GAIN" when that question was
asked.
Edwin Stewart
TomWFox <tom...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19990807235715...@ng-fu1.aol.com>...
> Don - Your thinking is way too advanced for this group. Of course you
already
> know that.
>
>
Dear Tom,
Allow me to quote back to you words from the man you think so advanced:
stairs to heavenly relationships <nog...@yahoo.com> wrote in article
<wA5r3.15219$J5.1...@c01read02-admin.service.talkway.com>...
> Jimmy, I don't blame the jews for my problems but all of the world's
> problems. A philosopy of slavery keeps us bound in chains which is
> just what the catholic church wants everywhere. And now people try to
> fathom CIM and bind themselves with more chains. Don
> --
THIS you find advanced?
With love,
Linda Stewart
PatrickS65
Linda) REALLY are, I have little "problem" remembering Me! Everything I see
must be a part of me...You are the sleeping Child of our Loving God, whatsoever
you see, IS YOU! Check lesson 136...it's pretty clear, I love you, Patrick S
Edwin Stewart
Pardon me for being dense, but what question are you answering your
empathic YES! to? I'll try to respond to the rest of what you said. I
agree, as I see who and what you and Don, et al, REALLY are, I have little
'problem' remembering Me, also. I'm not deluded to think words expressing
wrong-minded thinking are truth, but I also know that seeing those words is
my projection. I reject those words. I accept truth.
With love,
Linda
PatrickS65 <patri...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19990808103034...@ng-fj1.aol.com>...
mr bill
to heavenly relationships" <nog...@yahoo.com> writes:
>Tom, the only thing that will work is mass burning of books and
>abandonment of CIM for something sound. Simple meditation of breath
>counting does no harm only good which is more than I can say for CIM.
>Wapnick would respond to maximum financial loss but little else. Don
don, if this is seriously your view
why are you here?
just curious
:)
i am responsible for what i say and do
not for what you hear and see
peace
bill
TomWFox
From: "Edwin Stewart" el-st...@worldnet.att.net
Date: Sun, 08 August 1999 07:51 AM EDT
Message-id: <01bee194$230fccc0$30bc4f0c@default>
TomWFox <tom...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19990807235715...@ng-fu1.aol.com>...
> Don - Your thinking is way too advanced for this group. Of course you
already
> know that.
>
>
Dear Tom,
Allow me to quote back to you words from the man you think so advanced:
stairs to heavenly relationships <nog...@yahoo.com> wrote in article
<wA5r3.15219$J5.1...@c01read02-admin.service.talkway.com>...
> Jimmy, I don't blame the jews for my problems but all of the world's
> problems. A philosopy of slavery keeps us bound in chains which is
> just what the catholic church wants everywhere. And now people try to
> fathom CIM and bind themselves with more chains. Don
> --
THIS you find advanced?
With love,
Linda Stewart
----------------
Linda,
Yes, I think that Don's thinking is quite advanced, but I understand him in a
way that is very different than the way you do.
If I understood Don the same way you understand him I would not think him
advanced.
Your loss.
With love,
Tom Fox
afr
>
> Dear Tom,
> Allow me to quote back to you words from the man you think so advanced:
> stairs to heavenly relationships <nog...@yahoo.com> wrote in article
> <wA5r3.15219$J5.1...@c01read02-admin.service.talkway.com>...
> > Jimmy, I don't blame the jews for my problems but all of the world's
> > problems. A philosopy of slavery keeps us bound in chains which is
> > just what the catholic church wants everywhere. And now people try to
> > fathom CIM and bind themselves with more chains. Don
> > --
>
> THIS you find advanced?
>
> With love,
> Linda Stewart
> ----------------
>
> Linda,
>
> Yes, I think that Don's thinking is quite advanced, but I understand him in a
> way that is very different than the way you do.
>
> If I understood Don the same way you understand him I would not think him
> advanced.
>
> Your loss.
>
> With love,
>
> Tom Fox
Tom,
I would /sincerely/ appreciate your explaining how you see
advanced thinking here. I am serious. Thank you,
Ava Rosenblum
afr
On 8 Aug 1999, PatrickS65 wrote:
> Hi Linda! You didn't ask me, but YES! and as I saw Who and What Don (and
> Linda) REALLY are, I have little "problem" remembering Me! Everything I see
> must be a part of me...You are the sleeping Child of our Loving God, whatsoever
> you see, IS YOU! Check lesson 136...it's pretty clear, I love you, Patrick S
So does this mean that every perpetrator of bigoted, racist or other
hate-oriented language in this ng gets "elevated" to the level of an
elevated thinker because we are working on forgiveness within this thought
system? Seems a bit loopy, not to mention perverse to me.
ava rosenblum
>
> >> Don - Your thinking is way too advanced for this group. Of course you
> >already
> >> know that.
> >>
> >>
> >
Edwin Stewart
You believe in victims? That I can suffer loss? Think again, then choose
again, please.
With love,
Linda Stewart
TomWFox
Are you deaf?
With love,
Tom Fox
Edwin Stewart
With love,
Linda Stewart
TomWFox <tom...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19990808144858...@ng-fh1.aol.com>...
Gene Ward Smith
<el-st...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> THIS you find advanced?
He mentioned Gurdjieff in this connection. Gurdjieff thought that after
you die, the Moon will reach out and spear you with a cocktail fork,
and have you as a canape. The Moon, of course, would not do this to
Gurdjieff, since he was special. In this context why isn't Don a sage?
Gene Ward Smith
Gene Ward Smith
tomwfox
It is impossible to know whether something is being done well or poorly
unless one first knows what it is that is being done. In Course terms,
it is >What is it for?< Or, what is it useful for?
If you >assume< that Don's *intention* is to slander the Jewish people,
then viewing him as a crackpot might well be justified. However, I do
not understand that to be his intention.
How would you react if I said that Jews are afraid of God and it is
this Jewish mentality that is the source of all our problems? Is that
any different than saying Jews are afraid of freedom and this Jewish
mentality is the source of all our problems?
What if I said the Irish are afraid of freedom and this Irish mentality
is the source of all our problems? Do you find that to be less
personnaly offensive?
If so, then the question is whether you are more interested in taking
offense then you are in hearing the truth?
Would it make a difference to you if I first listed all the positive
contributions of the Jewish people before making the observation that
they are afraid of God and freedom?
Would it make any difference to you if I told you that I am Jewish?
So, if you do *not* assume that Don's intention is to be an offensive
bigot, the question remains: What is his intention and is he
accomplishing it?
What if his intention is to demonstrate how people mechanically
assimilate information filtered through habitual biases, preconceptions
and assumptions without any awareness those biases, preconceptions and
assumptions even exist?
What if his intention is to piss you off?
With love,
Tom Fox
--
afr
> How would you react if I said that Jews are afraid of God and it is
> this Jewish mentality that is the source of all our problems?
I would say that it is an erroneous and potentially very dangerous
assumption to hold about a group of people.
>
> What if I said the Irish are afraid of freedom and this Irish mentality
> is the source of all our problems? Do you find that to be less
> personnaly offensive?
No. I believe it is an erroneous and potentialy very dangerous assumption
to hold about a group of people.
> Would it make a difference to you if I first listed all the positive
> contributions of the Jewish people before making the observation that
> they are afraid of God and freedom?
No. I know many people who are afraid of god and freedom, as I know many
people who are liberated and independent. Religion is an irrelevant
variable. However, statements such as the above are not irrelavant; they
have demonstrated throughout history that they generate fear and hatred
and result in horrific social situations such as that which occurs today
in the former Yugoslavia.
> Would it make any difference to you if I told you that I am Jewish?
No.
ava
afr
> What if his intention is to piss you off?
Well, when comprehenible (2 % of posts?), he's not a bad agent
provocateur. ;)
a.
afr
On Mon, 9 Aug 1999, Gene Ward Smith wrote:
> In article <Pine.GSU.4.05.990808...@garcia.efn.org>, afr
> <a...@efn.org> wrote:
>
> > However, statements such as the above are not irrelavant; they
> > have demonstrated throughout history that they generate fear and hatred
> > and result in horrific social situations such as that which occurs today
> > in the former Yugoslavia.
>
> Who sees a brother as a body sees him as fear's symbol. And
> he will attack, because what he beholds is his own fear external to
> himself, poised to attack, and howling to unite with him again. Mistake
> not the intensity of rage projected fear must spawn. It shrieks in
> wrath, and claws the air in frantic hope it can reach to its maker and
> devour him.
> W-pI.161.8.
Shame on you Gene for using Course metaphysics to justify anti-semitism.
ava
Bill Hasselbach
>Dear Ava,
>
>It is impossible to know whether something is being done well or poorly
>unless one first knows what it is that is being done. In Course terms,
>it is >What is it for?< Or, what is it useful for?
>
>If you >assume< that Don's *intention* is to slander the Jewish people,
>then viewing him as a crackpot might well be justified. However, I do
>not understand that to be his intention.
>
>How would you react if I said that Jews are afraid of God and it is
>this Jewish mentality that is the source of all our problems? Is that
>any different than saying Jews are afraid of freedom and this Jewish
>mentality is the source of all our problems?
>
>What if I said the Irish are afraid of freedom and this Irish mentality
>is the source of all our problems? Do you find that to be less
>personnaly offensive?
>
>If so, then the question is whether you are more interested in taking
>offense then you are in hearing the truth?
>
>Would it make a difference to you if I first listed all the positive
>contributions of the Jewish people before making the observation that
>they are afraid of God and freedom?
>
>Would it make any difference to you if I told you that I am Jewish?
>
>So, if you do *not* assume that Don's intention is to be an offensive
>bigot, the question remains: What is his intention and is he
>accomplishing it?
>
>What if his intention is to demonstrate how people mechanically
>assimilate information filtered through habitual biases, preconceptions
>and assumptions without any awareness those biases, preconceptions and
>assumptions even exist?
>
>What if his intention is to piss you off?
>
>With love,
>
>Tom Fox
Then He Is A teacher of Ego.
Love, Forever
Bill
"And would you demand, in your projection,
And in your desire born out of separation-
Would you desire that God punish you,
Or hold you responsible for simply being in a state
Where you do not know the perfection
And the beauty of what you are?
That is the worst of it.
Simply that you do not know." -- The Other Voice p.178
Bill Hasselbach
>In article <Ox5r3.15214$J5.1...@c01read02-admin.service.talkway.com>, "stairs
>to heavenly relationships" <nog...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>>Tom, the only thing that will work is mass burning of books and
>>abandonment of CIM for something sound. Simple meditation of breath
>>counting does no harm only good which is more than I can say for CIM.
>>Wapnick would respond to maximum financial loss but little else. Don
>
>don, if this is seriously your view
>why are you here?
>just curious
>:)
>
To teach that the Ego is strong and real.
Just another teacher of ego.
Pay him no Mind.
>
>i am responsible for what i say and do
>not for what you hear and see
>
>peace
>bill
TomWFox
Bill - Which part of my post were you referring to?
With love,
Tom Fox
DrTom787
Well Tommy, now that you've "officially" claimed the theory of "the Jewish
Problem" as your own, would you care to expound on it any further? Do you have
a "Solution"?
While you're at it , why not drop the "Don" cloak.Heck you didnt even switch
back to aol to post this message and posted it thru talkway just as you post
the "Don" messages:
>
>With love,
>
>Tom Fox
>
>--
>Posted via Talkway - http://www.talkway.com
>Exchange ideas on practically anything (tm).
C'mon bucko, give it to us straight! Would it help if I told you I'm not
Jewish? (though I'm not a real big fan of bigotry).
I am interested in comparing and contrasting your "Solution" to the one they
had across the big pond in the 1930's.Do you think their reasoning was just as
"rational" as yours?Apparently a whole nation thought so.
Tom
Amminadab1
>>What if his intention is to piss you off?
drivel wrote:
>Then He Is A teacher of Ego.
>
Not at all. How can you find center without exploring what it is that pisses
you off? You are just again saying: "don't stir the pudding". Remember, it is
the pissed who is in error, not the pisser-offer.
When one can meet their beloved equal with their pisser-offer, then one becomes
a Master. The workbook dwells upon this. Give thanks to your own pisser-offer
who gave himself to you for use in the lessons leading to your transformation.
Honor and glory be yours,
Amminadab
Read "Blasphemy!"
http://members.aol.com/amminadab1/blasphmy.htm
Richard Mallett
Perhaps, but just because the pissed-off has lessons to learn does not
mean that the pisser-off doesn't have lessons to learn also.
Richard
Gene Ward Smith
> However, statements such as the above are not irrelavant; they
> have demonstrated throughout history that they generate fear and hatred
> and result in horrific social situations such as that which occurs today
> in the former Yugoslavia.
Who sees a brother as a body sees him as fear's symbol. And
he will attack, because what he beholds is his own fear external to
himself, poised to attack, and howling to unite with him again. Mistake
not the intensity of rage projected fear must spawn. It shrieks in
wrath, and claws the air in frantic hope it can reach to its maker and
devour him.
W-pI.161.8.
--
Gene Ward Smith
gsm...@blazenetme.net
Gene Ward Smith
> Shame on you Gene for using Course metaphysics to justify anti-semitism.
Here we have an interesting demonstration of that peculiar tendency to
read things in symbolic terms which stem from our own thoughts and
preoccupations and not from what is actually before us. Of course,
what I did was precisely the opposite of what Ava saw in it, but
why did he see what he did? By not making any comment, but by simply
quoting the Course, I've somehow created a collection of symbols into
which Ava can read what isn't there. In the same way, seeing our brother
as what he is not leads people to place a symbolic interpretation in
the place of the truth, and to project what is inside of them onto the
Other. Hence, among many other things, all of which are essentially
the same, Anti-Semitism.
By the way, did other people find it difficult to follow my train of
thought? Perhaps I need to be sure always to include some sort of
commentary, and never to let the words of the Course speak for themselves,
however clear that speech may sound to my own ears. I'd be interested to
learn what point other people thought I was attempting to make.
DrTom787
I think if you look at the context in which you placed this quote, you might
see why Ava thought what she did.
You quoted Ava and then went on to post a quote from ACIM which began with
"Who sees a brother" which could be (I think ) easily interpreted as saying
that the person(Ava) who made the statement you quoted was "seeing a brother as
a body",etc.
It would have been more clear if you had quoted the ACIM quote after quoting
the post Tom Fox had made about the Jewish problem.
Adding to the problem is the possible ideation that a good ACIM student
shouldnt speak up against or be outraged by anti semitism since it is part of
the illusion and should be "seen through" with the help of HS and forgiveness
(perhaps a point for discussion).The quote you posted from ACIM could also be
taken as an admonition to overlook and forgive ala ACIM regarding antisemitism.
Tom
DrTom787
I think if you look at the context in which you placed this quote, you might
see why Ava thought what she did.
You quoted Ava and then went on to post a quote from ACIM which began with
"Who sees a brother" which could be (I think ) easily interpreted as saying
that the person(Ava) who made the statement you quoted was "seeing a brother as
a body",etc.
It would have been more clear if you had quoted the ACIM quote after quoting
the post Tom Fox had made about the Jewish problem.
Adding to the problem is the possible ideation that a good ACIM student
shouldnt speak up against or be outraged by anti semitism since it is part of
(perhaps a point for discussion).Obviously, I choose to speak up as I think
this is a misuse and misinterpretation of ACIM ideation.One can "speak up" and
forgive with HS help.The quote you posted from ACIM could also be taken as a
(rather strong lol) admonition to overlook and forgive ala ACIM regarding
antisemitism or any fear we project outward.
Tom
DrTom787
I think if you look at the context in which you placed this quote, you might
see why Ava thought what she did.
You quoted Ava and then went on to post a quote from ACIM which began with
"Who sees a brother" which could be (I think ) easily interpreted as saying
that the person(Ava) who made the statement you quoted was "seeing a brother as
a body",etc.
the post Tom Fox had made about the Jewish problem.
Adding to the problem is the possible ideation that a good ACIM student
shouldnt speak up against or be outraged by anti semitism since it is part of
the illusion and should be "overlooked" with the help of HS and forgiveness
(perhaps a point for discussion).Obviously, I choose to speak up as I think
this is a misuse and misinterpretation of ACIM ideation.One can "speak up" and
forgive with HS help.The quote you posted from ACIM could also be taken as a
Bill Hasselbach
>
>
>>>What if his intention is to piss you off?
>
>drivel wrote:
>
>>Then He Is A teacher of Ego.
>>
>
>Not at all. How can you find center without exploring what it is that pisses
>you off? You are just again saying: "don't stir the pudding". Remember, it is
>the pissed who is in error, not the pisser-offer.
>
>When one can meet their beloved equal with their pisser-offer, then one becomes
>a Master. The workbook dwells upon this. Give thanks to your own pisser-offer
>who gave himself to you for use in the lessons leading to your transformation.
>
>Honor and glory be yours,
>Amminadab
How much love is in attack?
Does it give Knowledge or fear?
Bill Hasselbach
>Bill wrote: Then He Is A teacher of Ego.
>
>Bill - Which part of my post were you referring to?
>
Your descriptions. If they could apply to Don then Don.
Bill Hasselbach
Smith) wrote:
>In article <Pine.GSU.4.05.99080...@garcia.efn.org>, afr
><a...@efn.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, 9 Aug 1999, Gene Ward Smith wrote:
>> > In article <Pine.GSU.4.05.990808...@garcia.efn.org>, afr
>> > <a...@efn.org> wrote:
>
Gene,
I think you are very clear, and a good teacher.
It is surprising to me that people keep thinking
you are attacking them, but you seem to be getting a lot of flack.
Gene Ward Smith
drto...@aol.com (DrTom787) wrote:
> Dear Gene:
> I think if you look at the context in which you placed this quote, you might
> see why Ava thought what she did.
Oops, I see I made another slight error on the level of the confusion of
the Lindas. Anyway, welcome to the conversation!
> You quoted Ava and then went on to post a quote from ACIM which began with
> "Who sees a brother" which could be (I think ) easily interpreted as saying
> that the person(Ava) who made the statement you quoted was "seeing a
brother as
> a body",etc.
I've been thinking about this, and I wonder if very often simply quoting the
Course can appear as an attack. If the Course is viewed as authoritative,
and therefore right, quoting it to someone might seem like an attempt to
make them wrong, and hence as an attack. Especially if you think this is
how the Course is normally used, it might seem that simply quoting it,
without further comment, almost must be a way of making someone wrong
and hence be a form of attack.
In any case it seems Ava and I have before us a wonderful opportunity to
forgive each other for what didn't happen, because in this case it is
particularly clear that it didn't happen.
> It would have been more clear if you had posted the ACIM quote after quoting
> the post Tom Fox had made about the Jewish problem.
Probably. The phrase "Jewish problem" always seems a little dubious to me,
since it seems to contain an assumption that there is a problem. One simple
notion which might help well-meaning people from falling into a trap is
to think "What problem?" when you hear about the X problem, or to think
"What question?" when someone talks about the X question. Well-meaning
people talked so much about the "Jewish problem" in Germany that even they
became convinced it must exist, and since it existed, some answer to it
had to be found. The radical notion that there was no such thing as a Jewish
problem, which would be easy to a Course student, might have helped quite
a bit.
> Adding to the problem is the possible ideation that a good ACIM student
> shouldnt speak up against or be outraged by anti semitism since it is part of
> the illusion and should be "overlooked" with the help of HS and forgiveness
> (perhaps a point for discussion).
Actually, it seems to me quite a good topic. Do we need outrage in order to
correct error, or is the simple determination not to accept it (the "great
crusade" to correct error which we are invited to join) enough? Outrage
is a very human reaction, but the Course often seems to invite us to go
beyond such reactions. I spent, literally, years on Usenet flaming people
for various forms of what seemed to me to be bigotry. It was my peculiar
axe to grind, and of outrage I had a more than abundant supply. But did
it really serve to teach anyone anything? Does outrage work? The answer
of the Course seems to be "no", and I find nothing in my long experience
with outrage to contradict it.
Gene Ward Smith
(Bill Hasselbach) wrote:
> I think you are very clear, and a good teacher.
> It is surprising to me that people keep thinking
> you are attacking them, but you seem to be getting a lot of flack.
Considering how much I post, I've been surprised at how little flack
I've gotten. Knowing the ways of Usenet, I expected more.
TomWFox
Does it give Knowledge or fear?
That's interesting. If you are suggesting that fear can be shared are you not
implying that fear is real?
With love,
Tom Fox
TomWFox
Bill,
Then you and I are in fundamenal disagreement about what is useful. Biases,
preconceptions and hidden assumptions are among those psychological devices the
ego used to maintain internal conflict without acknowledging it. To bring them
to light will expose the fear and anger the ego wishes to hide.
It is impossible to piss anyone off. It is possible only to create a context
for the preexisting anger to be observed.
With love,
Tom Fox
TomWFox
You seem to equate "Jewish mentality" with the Jewish people. You seem to
equate "Irish mentality" with the Irish people. Are you a racist?
Do you equate the "Nazi mentality" with the German people?
If I point to the moon, don't look at my finger.
The Course assures us we ARE afraid of God and we ARE afraid of freedom.
Are you the awakened one?
With love,
Tom Fox
TomWFox
commentary, and never to let the words of the Course speak for themselves,
however clear that speech may sound to my own ears.
If you aspire to communicate in a way that cannot be misinterpreted then: lots
of luck to you.
With love,
Tom Fox
Bill Hasselbach
>Bill wrote: Then He Is A teacher of Ego.
>
>Bill - Which part of my post were you referring to?
>
Your descriptions. If they could apply to Don then Don.
Love, Forever
Edwin Stewart
I think you can include a commentary - or not. Each will hear in his own
way and state of willingness.
I read your quote as exactly what it was - a quote from the Course that
states the action of the ego who thinks he sees a body and thinks it real.
It is a Universal statement.
With love,
Linda Stewart
Edwin Stewart
wrong-minded thinking - just as I think when I was angry at my neighbors
for putting up a fence, I was in a state of wrong-minded thinking. The
trick here is not to judge, but to observe and choose again.
Love, L
Edwin Stewart
I'm not sure what the comment below means. Does it mean since there are
two Linda's who post here, it is easy to get confused about whom one is
talking with?
Love, L
Gene Ward Smith <gsm...@blazenetme.net> wrote in article
Soknip33
This is just more evidence that we, in illusion, are incapable of
communication. I did not read your post as an intention to support
anti-semistism. But that is not the point. Ava read it and understood it
differently and I am sure she was not the only one.
>By not making any comment, but by simply
>quoting the Course, I've somehow created a collection of symbols into
>which Ava can read what isn't there.
It is there for her. And that is the point. So not to worry, welcome to the NG
where we learn that we do not communicate. Some will hear you and others will
not..
Peace,
Elaine
GMath76300
>The Course assures us we ARE afraid of God and we ARE afraid of freedom.
Or does it say we THINK we are afraid of God and of freedom. . .perhaps its
really not true. . . not our real thoughts. . .
Peace,
Gwen
TomWFox
.perhaps its
really not true. . . not our real thoughts. . .
Dear Gwen -
If you can reliably distinguish between your real thoughts and your imagination
then it may be a useful way to think about it. But, as long as we deny that
fear and keep it hidden from the light it is a moot point.
With love,
Tom Fox
TomWFox
wrong-minded thinking . . . .
Golly Linda, I was amost sure that you would have said for you to perceive a
statement as being antisemetic was an example of wrong-minded thinking.
With love,
Your mirror
afr
Gene wrote:
> Here we have an interesting demonstration of that peculiar tendency to
> read things in symbolic terms which stem from our own thoughts and
> preoccupations and not from what is actually before us.
When it comes to language, there is no such thing as "what is actually
before us." Language is thoroughly symbolic. That is why arguing for any
essentialist interpretation of any text is futile.
ava
afr
what you mention below as a point for possible discussion, the idea that a
good ACIM student should look beyond what he or she experiences as racist
discourse.
I believe that people like Jesus and Ghandi did not see their function
as separate from the realm of politics. What I mean by politics is this:
although they recognized the world of form as illusion, their behaviors
demonstrated that illusions that harmed humans within the illusion are not
to be supported here; Humans are brothers and sisters and as such are
socially responsibile creatures. Thus, my interpretation of ACIM teaches
people that we are responsible within as well as without the illusion; It
isn't easy, but to me, is a big piece of the business of being a spiritual
being while in a body.
I know some folks interpret "I need do nothing" literally. It always
makes me a bit sad when I see this because there are numerous places
within the Course that speak to a concept of right action, similar to
buddhist thought. In the Course, the language usually employed is to
listen to the HS for guidance.
Yes, we are spiiritual beings having a temporary experience within a body,
but the point of the Course (to me) is to make this world as close to
heaven as we can while we are here. People will have different takes on
what that means (which us why publishing freedom is so vital, and I pray
that remains with Course-related texts). And I do find it disturbing how
some can read the Course as license to accept all forms of social
behavior. However, language is fluid, and I suppose we read in it what we
need to this time around on the wheel.
ava
On 9 Aug 1999, DrTom787 wrote:
> Dear Gene:
> I think if you look at the context in which you placed this quote, you might
> see why Ava thought what she did.
> You quoted Ava and then went on to post a quote from ACIM which began with
> "Who sees a brother" which could be (I think ) easily interpreted as saying
> that the person(Ava) who made the statement you quoted was "seeing a brother as
> a body",etc.
> It would have been more clear if you had quoted the ACIM quote after quoting
> the post Tom Fox had made about the Jewish problem.
> Adding to the problem is the possible ideation that a good ACIM student
> shouldnt speak up against or be outraged by anti semitism since it is part of
> the illusion and should be "seen through" with the help of HS and forgiveness
> (perhaps a point for discussion).The quote you posted from ACIM could also be
> taken as an admonition to overlook and forgive ala ACIM regarding antisemitism.
> Tom
>
>
afr
> In any case it seems Ava and I have before us a wonderful opportunity to
> forgive each other for what didn't happen, because in this case it is
> particularly clear that it didn't happen.
I'm going back to your post Gene to try and "get it" from your angle. I'm
told by folks who know me pretty well that I'm pretty high on the empathy
meter. Upon re-read, I really didn't understand what you meant! But, I'll
give it a few more readings.
Cheers and forgiveness,
ava
>
> > It would have been more clear if you had posted the ACIM quote after quoting
> > the post Tom Fox had made about the Jewish problem.
>
> Probably. The phrase "Jewish problem" always seems a little dubious to me,
> since it seems to contain an assumption that there is a problem. One simple
> notion which might help well-meaning people from falling into a trap is
> to think "What problem?" when you hear about the X problem, or to think
> "What question?" when someone talks about the X question. Well-meaning
> people talked so much about the "Jewish problem" in Germany that even they
> became convinced it must exist, and since it existed, some answer to it
> had to be found. The radical notion that there was no such thing as a Jewish
> problem, which would be easy to a Course student, might have helped quite
> a bit.
>
> > Adding to the problem is the possible ideation that a good ACIM student
> > shouldnt speak up against or be outraged by anti semitism since it is part of
> > the illusion and should be "overlooked" with the help of HS and forgiveness
> > (perhaps a point for discussion).
>
> Actually, it seems to me quite a good topic. Do we need outrage in order to
> correct error, or is the simple determination not to accept it (the "great
> crusade" to correct error which we are invited to join) enough? Outrage
> is a very human reaction, but the Course often seems to invite us to go
> beyond such reactions. I spent, literally, years on Usenet flaming people
> for various forms of what seemed to me to be bigotry. It was my peculiar
> axe to grind, and of outrage I had a more than abundant supply. But did
> it really serve to teach anyone anything? Does outrage work? The answer
> of the Course seems to be "no", and I find nothing in my long experience
> with outrage to contradict it.
>
mr bill
gsm...@blazenetme.net (Gene Ward Smith) writes:
>By the way, did other people find it difficult to follow my train of
>thought? Perhaps I need to be sure always to include some sort of
>commentary, and never to let the words of the Course speak for themselves,
>however clear that speech may sound to my own ears. I'd be interested to
>learn what point other people thought I was attempting to make.
>
actually gene
i found it to be concise
and to the point
it seemed to describe both sides of the debate
thank you for "letting the words of the course speak for themselves"
:)
i am responsible for what i say and do
not for what you hear and see
peace
bill
mr bill
>Dear Gene:
> I think if you look at the context in which you placed this quote, you
>might
>see why Ava thought what she did.
> You quoted Ava and then went on to post a quote from ACIM which began with
>"Who sees a brother" which could be (I think ) easily interpreted as saying
>that the person(Ava) who made the statement you quoted was "seeing a brother
>as
>a body",etc.
> It would have been more clear if you had posted the ACIM quote after
>quoting
>the post Tom Fox had made about the Jewish problem.
> Adding to the problem is the possible ideation that a good ACIM student
>shouldnt speak up against or be outraged by anti semitism since it is part of
>the illusion and should be "overlooked" with the help of HS and forgiveness
>(perhaps a point for discussion).Obviously, I choose to speak up as I think
>this is a misuse and misinterpretation of ACIM ideation.One can "speak up"
>and
>forgive with HS help.The quote you posted from ACIM could also be taken as a
>(rather strong) admonition to overlook and forgive ala ACIM regarding
>antisemitism or any fear we project outward.
>Tom
>
i don't agree with this tom
gene's course reference described the statement don made
as well as describing the response ava made
emotional context not withstanding
gene's statement was technically relavent to both
mr bill
>Shame on you Gene for using Course metaphysics to justify anti-semitism.
ava why are you attempting to use shame as a tool here?
mr bill
<el-st...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>The trick here is not to judge, but to observe and choose again.
not to be a thorn in your butt here linda
how does one observe and choose again
if the observation does not lead to a judgement
that leads to the choice?
Edwin Stewart
You're not a thorn in my derriere or anywhere else. You're helping me to
watch my words and the way I communicate my thoughts and that is just
great. I'm not going to give a quick answer on this - I'm going to mull it
over and answer it as well as I can. I still feel I have a point but I'm
not sure how to express it right now. I'll get back to you.
Thank you.
With love,
Linda Stewart
mr bill <billw...@aol.comphaque> wrote in article
Amminadab1
>By the way, did other people find it difficult to follow my train of
>thought? Perhaps I need to be sure always to include some sort of
>commentary, and never to let the words of the Course speak for themselves,
>however clear that speech may sound to my own ears. I'd be interested to
>learn what point other people thought I was attempting to make.
This reminds me of my early days on the ng. I would respond with ONLY a Course
or Biblical quote.... that approach tended to get people really angry. Curious
indeed!
Honor and glory be yours,
Amminadab
Read "Blasphemy!"
http://members.aol.com/amminadab1/blasphmy.htm
afr
On 9 Aug 1999, mr bill wrote:
>
>
> >Shame on you Gene for using Course metaphysics to justify anti-semitism.
>
> ava why are you attempting to use shame as a tool here?
> :)
> i am responsible for what i say and do
> not for what you hear and see
:)
Amminadab1
>Considering how much I post, I've been surprised at how little flack
>I've gotten. Knowing the ways of Usenet, I expected more.
>
Want more flack? Here are some tips:
1. Ask for others to join you in praying for world peace.
2. Advocate feeding the poor and housing the homeless.
3. Insist that Jesus means exactly what He says.
4. Assert your perfection as Christ.
5. State that no man has the right to deny others the use of Jesus' Words.
6. Laugh at their posturing.
GMath76300
for our fear in all its many forms and then ask Jesus to help us to see it
differently. We either Trust Jesus' interpretation of what we are seeing or we
don't.
Otherwise, why read/study for year's on end a book that is your ego's worst
nightmare and responds by sending its avenging angels - terror and despair.
Who needs it unless perhaps for a holy instant or two one has seen that what
Jesus' is saying is the Truth!! Out of that instant(s) one can then begin to
truly forgive and deny the denial of truth. Or one can go deeper into denial.
Peace,
Gwen
stairs to heavenly relationships
the jewish problem but if there is one, you have it being involved in
ACIM which came from a jew? If it is outside your ken to discuss it,
forget it because you cannot resolve it. If you can discuss it, stick
to the point that ACIM came from a jew. But I have to add
that Ken Wapnick is certainly acting like someone who cannot be
spiritual, has an exoteric religion and is terrified of free choice. I
cannot but observe Carl Rogers gave the running of his department at U
of Chi to everyone having learned to abdicate authority and thus
enjoyed unparalleled creativity in their efforts as a result. So Ken is
the authority in terror of free choice whereas Carl abdicated his
authority and reaped the rewards. Does anyone have Wapnick's month day
and year birthdate so I can compare his profile to Carl's? We cannot
fully evaluate Ken without his character reading. Don
--
Posted via Talkway - http://www.talkway.com
Exchange ideas on practically anything (tm).
TomWFox
be vigilant for our fear in all its many forms and then ask Jesus to help us to
see it
differently. We either Trust Jesus' interpretation of what we are seeing or we
don't.
I agree that one of the main teachings of the Course is to undo fear:
Fear cannot be controlled by me, but it can be self-controlled. Fear prevents
me from giving you my control . . . The correction of fear <is> your
responsibility. When you ask for release from fear, you are implying that it
is not. You should ask, instead, for help in the conditions that have brought
the fear about. These conditions always entail a willingness to be separate.
At that level you <can> help it. You are much too tolerant of mind wandering,
and are passively condoning your mind's miscreations.
With love,
Tom Fox
Edwin Stewart
Well, thanks to you I've been spending the day roaming around the Course
CDRom looking up passages that include judgment, choice and miracles.
After I had such a long compilation of verses that supported my ideas, I
decided to delete them and just talk from my heart of understanding.
Although I quote occasionally from the Course, and sometimes I cut and
paste passages, the fact is - anyone can quote and paste til they are numb
but that doesn't mean they have understood what they are talking about.
Besides, I was raised the the Southern Baptist Bible Belt where people
practiced what I call "shotgun bible thumping". They could pull endless
memorized quotes to prove that God was going to punish us, the Catholics
were evil, that homosexuals were doomed to hell, that God thought parents
should beat their children, etc., etc,.
Let me try again to say what I was thinking:
The teachers manual says that the Teachers of God do not judge.
I also know that a miracle is a change of mind affected by choosing to
listen to the Holy Spirit (who does not judge) - choosing right-minded
thinking over wrong-minded thinking. My answer to you would be that if I
observe a situation in which I think there is a choice between two thought
systems and I listen to the Holy Spirit in deciding which one to choose,
how could I have made a judgment by listening to the HS? That would
insinuate the Holy Spirit judges. I still say it is merely making a
choice.
Love, Linda
Gene Ward Smith
afr <a...@efn.org> wrote:
> I'm going back to your post Gene to try and "get it" from your angle. I'm
> told by folks who know me pretty well that I'm pretty high on the empathy
> meter. Upon re-read, I really didn't understand what you meant! But, I'll
> give it a few more readings.
I'm not sure if it is the sort of question where empathy is of much help;
maybe it would be best if I simply explain my reasoning.
We had:
:Who sees a brother as a body sees him as fear's symbol. And he will
:attack, because what he beholds is his own fear external to himself, poised
:to attack, and howling to unite with him again. Mistake not the intensity
:of rage projected fear must spawn. It shrieks in wrath, and claws the air
:in frantic hope it can reach to its maker and devour him.
If you think about what bigotry entails, it always involves seeing a
brother as a body. In some cases this is blindingly obvious, for it will
revolve around questions like what color someone's skin is, or what the
sexual characteristics of the body are, or whether how the body behaves
matches how you think it should behave, based on those characteristics. In
the case of Anti-Semitism, it is clear that quite a lot of the thinking is
thinking about bodies on the most obvious level.
Even so-called religious bigotry, when examined, generally seems to have
remarkable little to do with religion. When the "Catholics" and the
"Protestants" come into conflict in Ireland, or "Muslims" and "Orthodox" in
the former Yugoslavia, it isn't a conflict about theology, but about what
sort of family someone was born into--which is to say, about bodies.
Even when it is less immediately obvious that seeing a brother as a body
is what is involved, I think that simply seeing someone as the Other
is to think of them as a body. Minds join, but bodies embody, as it
were, the thought of separation.
I'm still not sure what your reasoning was, but if you think it is not
productive to pursue this any farther, we can drop it.
PRICH1053
>From: "Edwin Stewart" el-st...@worldnet.att.net
>Date: Mon, 09 August 1999 07:49 AM EDT
>Message-id: <01bee25c$feabe7a0$18bc4f0c@default>
>
>Hi Gene,
> I'm not sure what the comment below means. Does it mean since there
are
>two Linda's who post here, it is easy to get confused about whom one is
>talking with?
>Love, L
Hi Linda,
I recall a little confusion on Gene's part about which Linda wrote the NDE
book. I think that's what he referred to.
>
Love, Pat
Gene Ward Smith
On the most basic level, I meant that in the words themselves there
was nothing that could be taken as an defense of Anti-Semitism without
bringing in an inference. You rightly deduced I expected you to draw
an inference, but then drew a different one than I had expected.
However, this raises the question of what the Course teaching is about
the nature of language. On the one hand we have this:
Let us not forget, however, that words are but symbols of symbols. They
are thus twice removed from reality.
M-21.1.
On the other hand we have this:
I have made every effort to use words that are almost impossible to
distort, but it is always possible to twist symbols around if you wish.
T-3.I.3.
The first suggests only a very imperfect form of communication is available
by the use of words. The second at least comes close to essentialism, and
arguably crosses the line. It seems to suggest that Jesus can use words in
such a way that intellectual honesty would compel us to give them only the
meaning he gave them. Even if it isn't essentialism, it would certainly
qualify as "logocentrism", and bring with it the wrath of postmodern
thinkers everywhere.
There is also this nice quote to consider:
You can speak from the spirit or from the ego, as you choose. If you speak
from spirit you have chosen to "Be still and know that I am God." These
words are inspired because they reflect knowledge. If you speak from the
ego you are disclaiming knowledge instead of affirming it, and are thus
dis-spiriting yourself.
T-4.in.2.
The words "reflect knowledge", but on the ego level of thought they are
certainly capable of a wide variety of interpretations. Even if the words
are inspired, the reading will also need to be at least a bit inspired, or
you won't get the message.
In Course terms, I think there *is* a privileged interpretation for a text:
the Holy Spirit, which can deal on the level of symbols, is capable of
interpreting symbols by reference to what is true. This interpretation may
be not be available to us, and may be peculiar in that it would probably
define a great deal of what we might think of as meaning as actually being
nonsense, but the Course certainly suggests to me that it is there, in some
absolute sense. The Course tells us "God does not understand words", but
He did understand the need for the Holy Spirit to bridge the gap between
symbol and reality.
Gene Ward Smith
<el-st...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Besides, I was raised the the Southern Baptist Bible Belt where people
> practiced what I call "shotgun bible thumping". They could pull endless
> memorized quotes to prove that God was going to punish us, the Catholics
> were evil, that homosexuals were doomed to hell, that God thought parents
> should beat their children, etc., etc,.
That kind of proof-texting is a particularly bad way to read the Bible, since
it is based on an implicit assumption that the Bible has a single author
(the real author being the Holy Spirit) and hence must present a consistent
point of view. It seems to me much less dangerous when you are dealing with
something which actually *does* have a single author and which does present
a consistent point of view, but even then it is hardly without its dangers.
I may use it more than I need to, but I think some people would do well
to discipline themselves for a while by trying to proof-text *everything*
they say about what the Course teaches. You can learn a lot that way, and
as you indicate, you can always put your work product in the background
and explain things in words of your own choosing.
> Let me try again to say what I was thinking:
> The teachers manual says that the Teachers of God do not judge.
> I also know that a miracle is a change of mind affected by choosing to
> listen to the Holy Spirit (who does not judge) - choosing right-minded
> thinking over wrong-minded thinking. My answer to you would be that if I
> observe a situation in which I think there is a choice between two thought
> systems and I listen to the Holy Spirit in deciding which one to choose,
> how could I have made a judgment by listening to the HS? That would
> insinuate the Holy Spirit judges. I still say it is merely making a
> choice.
Here's a proof-texting challenge for you: try to proof-text the contention
that Jesus and the Holy Spirit do not judge. If you do, watch out--that
one is loaded!
Gene Ward Smith
ammin...@aol.com (Amminadab1) wrote:
> This reminds me of my early days on the ng. I would respond with ONLY a Course
> or Biblical quote.... that approach tended to get people really angry. Curious
> indeed!
Why do you think that was?
Gene Ward Smith
<el-st...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Dear Gene,
> Are you asking me to do a word search to prove that the Holy
Spirit and
> Jesus do not judge? It's that language thing again. I'm not sure what you
> are asking.
It's up to you. I think it might be educational, but if you try it I hope
you will take it as a teaching-learning challenge and not some kind of
sneak attack. I don't want to become defensive about this quoting business,
but I don't want to make other people defensive either.
Gene Ward Smith
<mirac...@dellsnet.com> wrote:
> if A Course In Miracles/Jesus, is telling me the truth then there really is
> [only me] singular [one self]
Do you think you could show where in the Course it says this, and explain
what it means by what you pick to quote? Try it if you feel it would help
you to learn.
afr
On 10 Aug 1999, Amminadab1 wrote:
> Gene wrote:
>
> >You rightly deduced I expected you to draw
> >an inference, but then drew a different one than I had expected.
> >
>
> However, the quoted passage was extremely relevent to both inferences.
> Remember, there is no difference between the bigot and the object of the
> bigotry. The intense reaction showed how well picked were the words which
> touched some sore spots.
Ammi,
Can you elaborate on what you mean by "there is no difference between the
bigot and the object of the bigotry"?
Thank you,
Ava
afr
> >
> >
> >
> >
> Gene and Ava,
> I still
> speak up for people's right to be whatever sexual preference, but Gay Bashers
> no longer disturb my peace.
I think you hit the nail on the head with this sentence gwen. The issue is
twofold (imo): 1) maintaining inner peace and 2) being sensitive to the
fair treatment of others. Losing the inner peace is what puts one out of
whack spiritually, so to speak. But a thought system that justifies
exploitation of others in the name of it being an illusion, imo, is just
as out of whack, spiritually, so to speak.
Peace to you too,
ava
Richard Mallett
I don't know, Ava. I didn't see Gene as justifying anti-semitism as
much as explaining why it exists. Don is afraid (like the rest of us)
and that is all.
Richard
Amminadab1
>You rightly deduced I expected you to draw
>an inference, but then drew a different one than I had expected.
>
However, the quoted passage was extremely relevent to both inferences.
Remember, there is no difference between the bigot and the object of the
bigotry. The intense reaction showed how well picked were the words which
touched some sore spots.
>Even if the words
>are inspired, the reading will also need to be at least a bit inspired, or
>you won't get the message.
This is why the true message of the Bible could never be distorted.
mr bill
(Amminadab1) writes:
>Want more flack? Here are some tips:
>
>1. Ask for others to join you in praying for world peace.
>
>2. Advocate feeding the poor and housing the homeless.
>
>3. Insist that Jesus means exactly what He says.
>
>4. Assert your perfection as Christ.
>
>5. State that no man has the right to deny others the use of Jesus' Words.
>
>6. Laugh at their posturing.
>
these all work
especially number 6
nothing upsets a pharasee more
than people not taking them as seriously
as they take themselves
:)
i am responsible for what i say and do
not for what you hear and see
peace
bill
mr bill
<el-st...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>Dear Bill,
>You're not a thorn in my derriere or anywhere else. You're helping me to
>watch my words and the way I communicate my thoughts and that is just
>great. I'm not going to give a quick answer on this - I'm going to mull it
>over and answer it as well as I can. I still feel I have a point but I'm
>not sure how to express it right now. I'll get back to you.
thats cool linda
i will wait
mr bill
(GMath76300) writes:
>Exactly! The whole purpose of the Course as I understand it is to be vigilant
>for our fear in all its many forms and then ask Jesus to help us to see it
>differently. We either Trust Jesus' interpretation of what we are seeing or
>we
>don't.
one slight technical note here gwen
my opinion of course
to be vigilant for truth
rather than
to be vigilant for our fear
we create what we focus on
focus is vigilance
mr bill
<el-st...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>Let me try again to say what I was thinking:
>The teachers manual says that the Teachers of God do not judge.
>I also know that a miracle is a change of mind affected by choosing to
>listen to the Holy Spirit (who does not judge) - choosing right-minded
>thinking over wrong-minded thinking. My answer to you would be that if I
>observe a situation in which I think there is a choice between two thought
>systems and I listen to the Holy Spirit in deciding which one to choose,
>how could I have made a judgment by listening to the HS? That would
>insinuate the Holy Spirit judges. I still say it is merely making a
>choice.
please do not mistake me here
i have not put any value on judgement here
i simply show that it exists
i believe that it was a man named jesus that said:
judge not by appearances but
judge righteous judgement
as thinking beings
judgement is unaviodable
the key is awareness
conciousness of thought
if i know what i am thinking
at all times by my choosing
then my judgements are concious also
and not simply out of habit
i am also more likely to lay aside judgement
and allow things to be what they are
not what my beliefs paint them as
mr bill
hahahahahahahahahaha!
o god don
forget manure
this is priceless comedy!
you should be on tour!
ride...@mindspring.com
>In article <19990809142511...@ng-fw1.aol.com>, gmath...@aol.com
>(GMath76300) writes:
>
>>Exactly! The whole purpose of the Course as I understand it is to be vigilant
>>for our fear in all its many forms and then ask Jesus to help us to see it
>>differently. We either Trust Jesus' interpretation of what we are seeing or
>>we
>>don't.
>
>one slight technical note here gwen
>my opinion of course
>to be vigilant for truth
>rather than
>to be vigilant for our fear
>we create what we focus on
>focus is vigilance
>:)
>
Well, actually, bill, I believe the Course does tell us to be vigilant
against our illusions. Illusions = fear.
Mike
ride...@mindspring.com
Smith) wrote:
>Here's a proof-texting challenge for you: try to proof-text the contention
>that Jesus and the Holy Spirit do not judge. If you do, watch out--that
>one is loaded!
----> <big grin>
Edwin Stewart
Are you asking me to do a word search to prove that the Holy Spirit and
Jesus do not judge? It's that language thing again. I'm not sure what you
are asking.
Linda Stewart
Gene Ward Smith <gsm...@blazenetme.net> wrote in article
Edwin Stewart
I never denied that judgment exists, and the ego always speaks first. I
just said we have a choice to not judge.
You said: i believe that it was a man named jesus that said: judge not
by appearances but judge righteous judgement
You said: >> as thinking beings judgement is unaviodable
My response: Respectfully, I disagree. I think, quite specifically, we
are given the opportunity to exercise right of wrong minded thinking.
Right-minded thinking, with the Holy
Spirit does not include judgment. At least that's my understanding.
You wrote: i am also more likely to lay aside judgement and allow things
to be what they are not what my beliefs paint them as
With love,
Linda Stewart
PatrickS65
the judging over to One who can judge! It would be interesting, though, to
know how many times that advice is given! Thanks Patrick S
>
>
>
>
>
Edwin Stewart
Nope sweetheart, I don't feel any attack by you, sneak or otherwise. I'm
open to learning. And I will do a word search. Thanks.
With love,
Linda Stewart
Gene Ward Smith <gsm...@blazenetme.net> wrote in article
> > Are you asking me to do a word search to prove that the Holy
> Spirit and
> > Jesus do not judge? It's that language thing again. I'm not sure what
you
> > are asking.
>
GMath76300
Outrage against bigots is really the flip side of the same coin. . .being
bigotted against bigots. I found this out the hard way. Boy was that ever hard
to look at. Miss Self-righteous herself I was. I have a sister who is Gay and
I used to go absolutely ballistic over the Gay Bashers until in a right minded
moment of willingness I saw that I was bashing Gay Bashers! LOL!! I still
speak up for people's right to be whatever sexual preference, but Gay Bashers
no longer disturb my peace. I hear their call for love, which is my own. But
it was definitely a tough pill to swallow - very humbling.
Peace,
Gwen
GMath76300
>is not. You should ask, instead, for help in the conditions that have
>brought
>the fear about. These conditions always entail a willingness to be separate.
>
>At that level you <can> help it. You are much too tolerant of mind
>wandering,
>and are passively condoning your mind's miscreations.
>
>With love,
>
>Tom Fox
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Exactly, the denial of the denial of Truth!!!
Peace,
Gwen
GMath76300
>>
>>>Exactly! The whole purpose of the Course as I understand it is to be
>vigilant
>>>for our fear in all its many forms and then ask Jesus to help us to see it
>>>differently. We either Trust Jesus' interpretation of what we are seeing or
>>>we
>>>don't.
>>
>>one slight technical note here gwen
>>my opinion of course
>>to be vigilant for truth
>>rather than
>>to be vigilant for our fear
>>we create what we focus on
>>focus is vigilance
>>:)
>>
>
>Well, actually, bill, I believe the Course does tell us to be vigilant
>against our illusions. Illusions = fear.
>
>Mike
>
>
>
>
>
>
Until we see how much we believe the illusions. ..cling to them. . .cherish
them. . . we can't let them go. . .deny the denial of Truth. It just becomes a
mind game we play with ourselves. . .playing at being a good Course student.
8-)
Peace,
Gwen
Amminadab1
>This is just more evidence that we, in illusion, are incapable of
>communication.
This is not a Course teaching. You seem to have many non-course ideas which you
wish to interject. This is sometimes received as "trying to re-write the
Course."
Amminadab1
>Why do you think that was?
As I said, curious. It was a puzzle to me. For some, it seemed as if they
really resented the Bible (albeit the words of Jesus) as an authority. I find
this resentment among a large segment of Course students.
However, I think that subterfuge. I think the reaction is because the words of
Jesus are sharper than a double-edged sword, and cut straight to the heart.
Gene Ward Smith
ammin...@aol.com (Amminadab1) wrote:
> As I said, curious. It was a puzzle to me. For some, it seemed as if they
> really resented the Bible (albeit the words of Jesus) as an authority. I find
> this resentment among a large segment of Course students.
You could try quoting only the Course and see where it got you. For instance,
you could quote something out of the Bible about helping the poor, and get
reactions because it is the Bible. Or you could quote from the Course, which
says the same thing, and see if the response is any different.