Persons, "each a unique expression of the Father"?
expires
On Fri Nov 27 2009 03:41:20 GMT+0100
Debinski wrote:
>
[...]
> My Father created One Son, appearing as many and called by many names,
> each a unique expression of the Father. I celebrate that uniqueness
> and have no doubt whatsoever that nothing is hidden or withheld from
> any one of us -- ever. That does not mean, however, that any
> individual person expresses or extends the whole at any given moment.
> Atonement is NOT a concept we are working toward. It is what is here/
> now -- with or without my acceptance, permission or belief.
>
> Debinski
Hmmm, the Son(s), person(s), with name(s),
"each a unique expression of the Father"?
That would mean the Father/God creates
bodies or at least identities that become
persons by experiencing self in and through
a body-(experience) in and through a time-
experience. That doesn't sound like ACIM
to me. Although, I do wonder how often the
ur-text refers to man/mankind, which to me
is puzzling in view of what ACIM says about
bodies. Without the experience of being (in)
a body in time, how could/would one have
come to the perception/conviction/illusion
that one is a person? Newly born babies do
appear to not have a clue what a person is.
And infants need a couple of years or so
to refer to themselves a "I", where "I"
is AFAIK never the first word infants
learn to understand and use to refer to
themselves. IOW, without having experienced
and learned their 'his-story' in time, what
is a person?
--expires
Debinski
wrote:
Agreed. In fact, I'm not sure there is anything harder to teach a
young child than the concept of "mine and yours." When my grandson
Hank was first learning to talk every time he was asked his name, he
would answer "I'm Lyle." Lyle was his older brother -- or so the story
goes. We, of course, would laugh and tell him "No, you're not Lyle.
You're Hank." Eventually he gave up and agreed that he WAS Hank. That
body has responded to that name ever since. I don't know who created
bodies or even if they are created. All I know is that the body does
NOT represent what it is commonly believed to represent -- a person
with continuity. I don't happen to remember the moment I first came to
believe I really was a person called "Deborah" but I'm pretty sure it
was around the age of four as I have a recurring memory of sitting on
the back steps of our home feeling utterly alone in the world. What I
now know beyond a shadow of a doubt is that there is no Deborah and
never was. That doesn't prevent me from telling stories about Deborah.
I just don't believe them any more. When I say each is a "unique
expression of the Father" I don't mean in any continuous or fixed
manner that would make persons real. That's actually why I've been
questioning the whole holographic identity theory and suggested that
the Course makes much more sense to me if the part that contains the
whole is considered in terms of time -- the present moment or holy
instant -- or relationship than in terms of individual identity. It
seems to me the idea of personhood isn't grounded in bodies. It's
grounded in language. The Course tells us it is a thought of
separation. Thought is based on language. So without language how
could separation BE thought, let alone believed.
Which is also why I've been asking how anyone can possibly know there
are separate "I's" deciding what thoughts to attribute to which so-
called persons. Try as I might I can't get an explanation of the
"holographic identity" concept that doesn't just sound to me like a
desperate attempt to hold onto false identification as persons --
eternal persons at that.
Debinski
expires
> expires wrote:
>> Subject was: "Re: more brainwashed bs from temecular"
>>
"Thought is based on language"? Hmmm, I doubt that
in the sense that IMO there obviously are other and
more or less abstracter/deeper levels/dimensions of
thought below/besides/beyond language/words. Generally
little more about other levels of thought is said/known,
other than words like inspiration and intuition point to.
'Trouble' is, expressing these other levels in words in
a meaningful/unambiguous way is mostly next to impossible,
it seems. Another 'trouble' is, the human/language based
thought-level is intensely noisy, hypnotic and mostly
extremely compulsive. Try to invite/find a friend to
spend an hour or two with you on a park bench in silence
on a regular weekly basis. Very few people will want to
try, even less will find a willing friend, and even less
will enjoy being silent together, don't you think? IOW,
seems that people are addicted to and enslaved by very
compulsive and noisy brain input/output. Sure, I'm also
one of those 'hypnotized by words/stories', it seems ;-))
--expires
maz
"Debinski" >>Try as I might I can't get an explanation of the
"holographic identity" concept that doesn't just sound to me like a
desperate attempt to hold onto false identification as persons --
eternal persons at that.<
"person" comes from Latin 'per-sonare' which means something like "sounding
through".
971. "The constant GOING OUT of [God's] love is blocked when His Channels
are closed, and He IS lonely when the minds He created do not communicate
fully with Him."
Mind and person addresses the same level at times. It might also be
interesting to examine all references to "man" and "mankind" in the Course.
One of the miracles principles teaches that, by the miracle, man is placed
in the celestial order "where man is perfect". Other passages describe the
evolution of mankind as a collective process evolving while correcting
previous missteps.
In 1244. we find an interesiting statement in this regard:
"A PERSON conceives of himself as separate, largely because he perceives OF
himself as bounded by a body. ONLY if he perceives as a MIND can he overcome
this. THEN he is free to use terms like "intramental" and "intermental"
WITHOUT seeing them as different and conflicting, because minds CAN be in
perfect accord."
and in 3437 we are taught:
"Creation gives no separate person and no separate thing the power to
complete the Son of God."
which again suggests to me that Jesus' definition of "persons" is in the
range of those identifying with mind, joined and unseparated, ie. celestial
man, and those conceiving of themselves as separate and bound by a body, ie.
'separated ones'.
...early in the text we find:
126. "Christ-controlled miracles are part of the Atonement, but
Christ-guidance is personal, and leads to PERSONAL salvation. The impersonal
nature of miracles is an essential ingredient, because this enables Me to
control their distribution as I see fit. Christ-guidance, on the other hand,
leads to the highly Personal experience of Revelation. This is why it
involves PERSONAL choice."
Debinski
wrote:
Well, I don't call that "thought," Maz. And it doesn't look to me like
you really do either. You seem to me to be calling it "inspiration"
and "intuition." Only when inspiration or intuition takes form --
which requires language -- do I call it "thought."
"In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word
was God." Without words, how could anything possibly be believed to be
apart from you?
> 'Trouble' is, expressing these other levels in words in
> a meaningful/unambiguous way is mostly next to impossible,
> it seems. Another 'trouble' is, the human/language based
> thought-level is intensely noisy, hypnotic and mostly
> extremely compulsive. Try to invite/find a friend to
> spend an hour or two with you on a park bench in silence
> on a regular weekly basis. Very few people will want to
> try, even less will find a willing friend, and even less
> will enjoy being silent together, don't you think? IOW,
> seems that people are addicted to and enslaved by very
> compulsive and noisy brain input/output. Sure, I'm also
> one of those 'hypnotized by words/stories', it seems ;-))<
I totally agree. Most people I know literally can't stand silence.
There must be music or a tv or some form of noise going on for them to
feel "comfortable with themselves." They don't even really have to pay
any attention to the noise as long as it's there to turn to if they
DO get too close to the "silence within." Silence between friends is
not to be enjoyed but a void to be filled -- because silence is "my"
demise -- literally.
> --expires- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Debinski
This is where you always confuse me, Maz. Where is a "person" when
minds are joined and unseparated? Identification with any specific
form is "personhood" isn't it? What difference could it possibly make
whether the form identified with is called "physical" or "mental?"
Although, identifying with a mind certainly seems more helpful than
identifying with a body, it's still false identification isn't it?
When the Course says salvation is born in recognition that "I don't
know who I am" I don't think it means replace the belief that you are
a body with a belief that you are a mind. What else did God create but
you?
Debinski
maz
I don't have the power nor the ability to do that, ever. ;-)
>> Where is a "person" when minds are joined and unseparated? <<
Look up "the way God Thinks" which explains it. Every part contains the
Whole, and the Whole transcends the sum of all parts. A person is a either a
channel of God (joined with every other channel) or it is a blocked channel
(believing to be separate, and then no love but only fear extends from it).
>> Identification with any specific form is "personhood" isn't it?<<
Why? Its just one possible way a person functions. A Person (Channel/mind)
can also see itself as Mind without specific idolatry. I just posted the
quotes. Did you read and contemplate them?
>> What difference could it possibly make whether the form identified with
>> is called "physical" or "mental?" <<
?
>> Although, identifying with a mind certainly seems more helpful than
>> identifying with a body, it's still false identification isn't it?<<
Why? Every mind is a Creation of God. Did you read the Course or did you
read Wapnick? The confusion is yours, friend.
>> When the Course says salvation is born in recognition that "I don't know
>> who I am" I don't think it means replace the belief that you are a body
>> with a belief that you are a mind.<<
Deborah, when we do not refer to the same text and the same teaching, we'll
get lost in semantics. "I don't know who I am " is the mind losening its
grip on up-side down thinking, starting to question its own miscreation
which DEFIES Knowledge and replaces it with illusion. This does NOT mean
that you are NOT a mind. You are mind just as I am mind, and we are MIND
together. There is a little fenced-off part in it that is called ego, the
questioning department. Part of you who are mind has invented its own cause
and invited fear (ego/small self) to replace the Christ (Self). And this
will be healed and undone. Not the mind, the mind is NOT the problem, it is
the creation of God in which a dream of a problem and a solution is
temporarily acting out. (IMO)
>> What else did God create but you?<<
967. "[...] Creation and communication are synonymous. God created every
mind by communicating His Mind to it, thus establishing it forever as a
channel for the reception of His Mind and Will. Since only beings of a like
order can truly communicate. His Creations naturally communicate with Him
and communicate like Him. This communication is perfectly abstract, in that
its quality is universal in application, and not subject to ANY judgment,
ANY exception, or ANY alteration.
namazt�
> Debinski
"Debinski" <debdan...@yahoo.com> schreef in bericht
news:51174a24-f080-43ac...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Debinski
> >> This is where you always confuse me, Maz. <<
>
> I don't have the power nor the ability to do that, ever. ;-)<
>
> >> Where is a "person" when minds are joined and unseparated? <<
>
> Look up "the way God Thinks" which explains it. Every part contains the
> Whole, and the Whole transcends the sum of all parts. A person is a either a
> channel of God (joined with every other channel) or it is a blocked channel
> (believing to be separate, and then no love but only fear extends from it).<
>
> >> Identification with any specific form is "personhood" isn't it?<<
>
> Why? Its just one possible way a person functions. A Person (Channel/mind)
> can also see itself as Mind without specific idolatry. I just posted the
> quotes. Did you read and contemplate them?
>
> >> What difference could it possibly make whether the form identified with
> >> is called "physical" or "mental?" <<
>
> ?
>
> >> Although, identifying with a mind certainly seems more helpful than
> >> identifying with a body, it's still false identification isn't it?<<
>
> Why? Every mind is a Creation of God. Did you read the Course or did you
> read Wapnick? The confusion is yours, friend.
>
Well, of course, in YOUR mind the confusion must be "mine."How else
COULD someone who insists on granting reality to individual persons
and separate minds view confusion except by insisting it must belong
to someone and "someone other than me?"
No, Maz, I have not read anything of Wapnick's except "ACIM and
Christianity" in which I disgreed with his view of the Course as much
or more than I disagreed with his co-author's view of Christianity.
Why must anyone who disagrees with you be immediately judged
"Wapnickian" and "confused?" Well, again, if you believe in fixed
persons then it follows all persons must fall into fixed categories,
hey? Kind of makes communication not just difficult but darn near
impossible. I am quite familiar with the one and only passage I can
find that includes the term "the way God thinks" but for the life of
me I can't find any reference to persons in it.
Let me ask you something that perhaps YOU will contemplate, Maz. Did
you extend the invitation for me to join you here so you could
convince me to conform to your way of interpreting A Course in
Miracles or so that together we could see beyond where we seem to
disagree? I can assure you, for me, it is never a question of right
and wrong. If there appears to be conflict it can only be
misunderstanding and misunderstanding does NOT have to belong to
anyone in particular -- in fact it cannot.
Debinski
> >> When the Course says salvation is born in recognition that "I don't know
> >> who I am" I don't think it means replace the belief that you are a body
> >> with a belief that you are a mind.<<
>
> Deborah, when we do not refer to the same text and the same teaching, we'll
> get lost in semantics. "I don't know who I am " is the mind losening its
> grip on up-side down thinking, starting to question its own miscreation
> which DEFIES Knowledge and replaces it with illusion. This does NOT mean
> that you are NOT a mind. You are mind just as I am mind, and we are MIND
> together. There is a little fenced-off part in it that is called ego, the
> questioning department. Part of you who are mind has invented its own cause
> and invited fear (ego/small self) to replace the Christ (Self). And this
> will be healed and undone. Not the mind, the mind is NOT the problem, it is
> the creation of God in which a dream of a problem and a solution is
> temporarily acting out. (IMO)
>
> >> What else did God create but you?<<
>
> 967. "[...] Creation and communication are synonymous. God created every
> mind by communicating His Mind to it, thus establishing it forever as a
> channel for the reception of His Mind and Will. Since only beings of a like
> order can truly communicate. His Creations naturally communicate with Him
> and communicate like Him. This communication is perfectly abstract, in that
> its quality is universal in application, and not subject to ANY judgment,
> ANY exception, or ANY alteration.
>
> namazté
>
> > Debinski
>
> "Debinski" <debdaniel...@yahoo.com> schreef in berichtnews:51174a24-f080-43ac...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> > involves PERSONAL choice."- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
expires
> you really do either. You seem to me to be calling it "inspiration"
> and "intuition." Only when inspiration or intuition takes form --
> which requires language -- do I call it "thought."
I don't mind you limiting your concept of thought
to language. That will however restrict what we
can exchange by means of words/language. If
"inspiration" and "intuition" were never the
effect of thought on some deeper level(s) and/or
from some other dimension(s), then I would definitely
have experienced/received/perceived "inspiration"
and "intuition" far less often than I have.
> "In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word
> was God." Without words, how could anything possibly be believed to be
> apart from you?
Sorry, but that to me is far too anthropocentric,
and to me looks as if you are confusing one effect
and level of thought (i.e. language) with what
thought in all its variations and dimensions is.
>> 'Trouble' is, expressing these other levels in words in
>> a meaningful/unambiguous way is mostly next to impossible,
>> it seems. Another 'trouble' is, the human/language based
>> thought-level is intensely noisy, hypnotic and mostly
>> extremely compulsive. Try to invite/find a friend to
>> spend an hour or two with you on a park bench in silence
>> on a regular weekly basis. Very few people will want to
>> try, even less will find a willing friend, and even less
>> will enjoy being silent together, don't you think? IOW,
>> seems that people are addicted to and enslaved by very
>> compulsive and noisy brain input/output. Sure, I'm also
>> one of those 'hypnotized by words/stories', it seems ;-))<
>
> I totally agree. Most people I know literally can't stand silence.
> There must be music or a tv or some form of noise going on for them to
> feel "comfortable with themselves." They don't even really have to pay
> any attention to the noise as long as it's there to turn to if they
> DO get too close to the "silence within." Silence between friends is
> not to be enjoyed but a void to be filled -- because silence is "my"
> demise -- literally.
>
>> --expires
"silence is 'my' demise -- literally"?
Seems to me that you overlook that
most thinking goes on unconsciously.
IOW, a lake/mind without ripples/thought
on the surface does not mean there is no
movement/thought below and/or above.
BTW, I'm sure that not all thoughts and
dreams that I observe/perceive in my
mind are my own thoughts/dreams. FMPOV
my mind is in varying degrees always
also a non-verbal/non-physical trans-
and receiver, and it depends on who/what
I've (unwittingly) tuned into and/or
who/what has (unwittingly) tuned into me,
if I/we feel better or worse. In consi-
deration of that it might be much better
for me/us to not post here any longer, as
that also tends to attract others to tune
into me/we in a way where I suppose we'd
feel better if they had not. Seems that
might have effects many weeks after no
longer posting/reading anything here.
Reminds me of "who knows does not write,
who writes does not know". IOW, in con-
tradiction to ACIM, it's not always
healthy/wise to share/join/tune-in ;-))
--expires
Debinski
Well, my goodness, *I* am quite confused today aren't *I*? If you want
to call feelings or energy exchange "thought" that's okay with me. But
a feeling is just a feeling -- neither bad nor good -- until it is
named.
> "silence is 'my' demise -- literally"?
> Seems to me that you overlook that
> most thinking goes on unconsciously.
> IOW, a lake/mind without ripples/thought
> on the surface does not mean there is no
> movement/thought below and/or above.
>
Unless or until it surfaces how could you possibly know it is there,
let alone what it means or who it belongs to? What is the practical
application of these abstractions?
Debinski<
> --expires- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
maz
COULD someone who insists on granting reality to individual persons
and separate minds view confusion except by insisting it must belong
to someone and "someone other than me?"<<
Here's a news flash for you, honey. Jesus is the one explaining the our
Father in Heaven grants reality to individual, separate minds. Are you
illiterate? Because if you are, I don't have to post the quote one more
time. I guess you're not, you're just acting stubborn and arrogant.
>> Let me ask you something that perhaps YOU will contemplate, Maz. Did you
>> extend the invitation for me to join you here so you could convince me to
>> conform to your way of interpreting A Course in Miracles or so that
>> together we could see beyond where we seem to disagree? <<
What an utterly dishonest question. I shared a philosopher's essay on POG,
you asked where to find more, I showed you the way.
Frankly, I couldn't care less what or who convinces you if even Jesus isn't
able to convince you. A mind functions best when open, just like a
parachute.
>> I can assure you, for me, it is never a question of right and wrong. If
>> there appears to be conflict it can only be misunderstanding and
>> misunderstanding does NOT have to belong to anyone in particular -- in
>> fact it cannot. Debinski<<
Agreed. Care to contemplate the quote again?
970. God, who encompasses ALL Being, nevertheless created separate beings
who have everything individually, but who want to share it to increase their
joy. Nothing that is real can be increased EXCEPT by sharing it. That is why
God Himself created you. Divine Abstraction takes joy in application, and
that is what creation MEANS. How, what, and to whom are irrelevant, because
real creation gives everything since it can only create like itself.
Remember that in being, there is no difference between having and being, as
there is in existence. In the state of being, the mind gives everything
always.
> namazt�
Debinski
> >> Well, of course, in YOUR mind the confusion must be "mine."How else
>
> COULD someone who insists on granting reality to individual persons
> and separate minds view confusion except by insisting it must belong
> to someone and "someone other than me?"<<
>
> Here's a news flash for you, honey. Jesus is the one explaining the our
> Father in Heaven grants reality to individual, separate minds. Are you
> illiterate? Because if you are, I don't have to post the quote one more
> time. I guess you're not, you're just acting stubborn and arrogant.<
Of course, how could I have forgotten? It isn't Maz who sees
confusion, illiterateness, stubbornness, arrogance and calls it "yours
not mine." It's Jesus! I keep forgetting that not only are individual
personalities fixed, God projects, too.
>
> >> Let me ask you something that perhaps YOU will contemplate, Maz. Did you
> >> extend the invitation for me to join you here so you could convince me to
> >> conform to your way of interpreting A Course in Miracles or so that
> >> together we could see beyond where we seem to disagree? <<
>
> What an utterly dishonest question. I shared a philosopher's essay on POG,
> you asked where to find more, I showed you the way.
>
> Frankly, I couldn't care less what or who convinces you if even Jesus isn't
> able to convince you. A mind functions best when open, just like a
> parachute.
>
Yes. Your open-mindedness is quite glaring. If "I didn't do it, you
did" isn't enough to convince me, then surely "I didn't say it, Jesus
did" will, hey?
> >> I can assure you, for me, it is never a question of right and wrong. If
> >> there appears to be conflict it can only be misunderstanding and
> >> misunderstanding does NOT have to belong to anyone in particular -- in
> >> fact it cannot. Debinski<<
>
> Agreed. Care to contemplate the quote again?
>
Quite frankly, Maz, if you COULD convince me A Course in Miracles
teaches what you say and demonstrate I would never read it again.
> Remember that in being, there is no difference between having and being, as
> there is in existence. In the state of being, the mind gives everything
> always.
>
Doesn't sound like a formula for calling everything negative I see
"yours not mine" to me. Must be that I'm illiterate and too arrogant
and stubborn to hear Jesus for myself.
Debinski
> > namazté
expires
When I write "to me looks as if you are"
I definately don't mean a plain "you are".
And what in what I wrote got you to 'see'
me saying anything about "energy, feelings
or bad/good" is beyond me.
>> "silence is 'my' demise -- literally"?
>> Seems to me that you overlook that
>> most thinking goes on unconsciously.
>> IOW, a lake/mind without ripples/thought
>> on the surface does not mean there is no
>> movement/thought below and/or above.
>
> Unless or until it surfaces how could you possibly know it is there,
> let alone what it means or who it belongs to? What is the practical
> application of these abstractions?
>
> Debinski
What does not exist can hardly "surface", can it?
And to know what "it means or who it belongs to"
one could consider trying to learn to 'see' below.
"practical application"? Apparently none for you
*now*.
--expires
Pieter
> On Nov 28, 5:01 am, expires <expires.2009sep31....@maxi-bayern.de>
> wrote:
> > "Thought is based on language"? Hmmm, I doubt that
> > in the sense that IMO there obviously are other and
> > more or less abstracter/deeper levels/dimensions of
> > thought below/besides/beyond language/words. Generally
> > little more about other levels of thought is said/known,
> > other than words like inspiration and intuition point to.<
>
> Well, I don't call that "thought," Maz. And it doesn't look to me like
> you really do either. You seem to me to be calling it "inspiration"
> and "intuition." Only when inspiration or intuition takes form --
> which requires language -- do I call it "thought."
>
> "In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word
> was God." Without words, how could anything possibly be believed to be
> apart from you?
In the Course is spoken of this statement.
Here is the passage on it, from the numbered Urtext;
maybe does it prompt you to reconsider your
idea of 'thought':
"734. All words, at best, are preparatory. THE word is
really a thought. No one WORD is universally meaningful,
because a word is a symbol, but thought is not divisible by
creation. The original name for "thought" and "word" was
the same. The quotation should read
"In the beginning was the thought, and the thought was with
God, and the thought WAS God."
How beautiful indeed are the thoughts of God, who live in
His light. Your worth is beyond perception because it is
beyond doubt."
(NB Only a little bit of this quotation
can be found back in the FIP-edition;
it is in T-3.V.10:6,7.)
Debinski
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thanks, Pieter. Certainly, I think within the context of defining Self
as "A Thought of God" it is helpful to replace word with thought in
that quotation. But in practical application it simply isn't possible
to think without verbal language. I didnt say communication was
limited to verbal language -- not by a long shot. But if you -- or
anyone else -- has a way of thinking without language, please explain
how you do that. And like I said, if you have any way of determining
that anything you see is apart from you other than through language, I
would be interested in hearing about that, too. Feelings certainly
can't tell me anything is apart from me. Inspiration, intuition or
energy certainly can't tell me that anything is apart from me. So what
-- other than language and thought baed upon language -- ever could?
Debinski
maz
teaches what you say and demonstrate I would never read it again.<<
Here's a little essay just for you, which will clear up all confusion. This
you will understand. Forget the Course, its too explicit, unambiguous and
straight forward. A mind like yours needs less words and more sense. I got
it. Why? York, or Newport, where they are gobbled up by many-moneyed
matrons. If Mrs. Freddy Van Dyne found the supply of available lions
limited, why should she not try to content herself with a jackal or so?
Ivy was asked. Until then she had contented herself with gazing at her
hero. She had become such a hardened baseball fan that she followed the game
with a score card, accurately jotting down every play, and keeping her watch
open on her knee. She sat next to Rudie at dinner. Before she had nibbled
her second salted almond, Ivy Keller and Rudie Schlachweiler understood each
other.
Rudie illustrated certain plays by drawing lines on the table-cloth with his
knife and Ivy gazed, wide-eyed, and allowed her soup to grow cold. The first
night that Rudie called, Pa Keller thought it a great joke. He sat out on
the porch with Rudie and Ivy and talked baseball, and got up to show Rudie
how he could have got the goat of that Keokuk catcher if only he had tried
one of his famous open-faced throws. Rudie looked politely interested, and
laughed in all the right places.
But Ivy didn't need to pretend. Rudie Schlachweiler spelled baseball to her.
She did not think of her caller as a good-looking young man in a blue serge
suit and a white shirtwaist. Even as he sat there she saw him as a blonde
god standing on the pitcher's mound, with the scars of battle on his
baseball pants, his left foot placed in front of him at right angles with
his right foot, his gaze fixed on first base in a cunning effort to deceive
the man at bat, in that favorite attitude of pitchers just before they get
ready to swing their left leg and h'ist one over.
namazt�
maz
anyone else -- has a way of thinking without language, please explain
how you do that. <
Try listen to truly good music. Nahda Brahma, the universe is sound and
light.
Debinski
> >>Quite frankly, Maz, if you COULD convince me A Course in Miracles
>
> teaches what you say and demonstrate I would never read it again.<<
>
> Here's a little essay just for you, which will clear up all confusion. This
> you will understand. Forget the Course, its too explicit, unambiguous and
Talking to yourself again, Maz? Actually a mind like mine needs the
words to MAKE sense. A mind like mine needs what you say and what you
do to match up -- at least a bit. A mind like mine doesn't accept
"straightforwardness" that hides behind "external authority." I was
referring to your tendency to judge, categorize, dismiss and condemn
anything you find disagreeable, see it outside yourself, then run and
hide behind Jesus when you are called on it. If I believed THAT is
what the Course teaches I would never read it again. What else can I
expect from someone who refuses to even consider that "communication"
and "thought" are not the same thing, that perception without a
knowing basis is meaningless or that words are just words unless they
point to something real. Find something real you can point me toward
that I can SEE as a "person" or a "mind" and I will reconsider your
theories about what the words of the Course really mean.
Debinski
Carrie
Babies, before they know words and can talk, must think without language.
I suppose animals do, too, but they might have a language of their own.
maz
On Nov 28, 11:48 am, "maz" <m...@solcon.nl_> wrote:
> >>Quite frankly, Maz, if you COULD convince me A Course in Miracles
>
> teaches what you say and demonstrate I would never read it again.<<
>
> Here's a little essay just for you, which will clear up all confusion.
> This
> you will understand. Forget the Course, its too explicit, unambiguous and
> straight forward. A mind like yours needs less words and more sense.<,
>> Talking to yourself again, Maz? Actually a mind like mine needs the
words to MAKE sense. A mind like mine needs what you say and what you
do to match up -- at least a bit. A mind like mine doesn't accept
"straightforwardness" that hides behind "external authority." I was
referring to your tendency to judge, categorize, dismiss and condemn
anything you find disagreeable, see it outside yourself, then run and
hide behind Jesus when you are called on it. If I believed THAT is
what the Course teaches I would never read it again. What else can I
expect from someone who refuses to even consider that "communication"
and "thought" are not the same thing, that perception without a
knowing basis is meaningless or that words are just words unless they
point to something real. Find something real you can point me toward
that I can SEE as a "person" or a "mind" and I will reconsider your
theories about what the words of the Course really mean.
Debinski<<
Sure, Deborah,
when we consider what energy and genius have for years been brought to bear
upon the perfecting of our educational methods,--how thoroughly our best
schools are now graded and systematized, until each day's lessons become a
Procrustes-bed to which all must fit themselves,--how stimulating the
apparatus of prizes and applauses, how crushing the penalties of reproof and
degradation,--when we reflect, that it is the ideal of every school, that
the whole faculties of every scholar should be concentrated upon every
lesson and every recitation from beginning to end, and that anything short
of this is considered partial failure,--it is not exaggeration to say, that
the daily tension of brain demanded of children in our best schools is
altogether severer, while it lasts, than that upon which Scott based his
estimate.
love, maz
Debinski
Maz, can you grasp the idea that listening to music and thinking or
talking ABOUT music are not the same? Is it conceivable to you that
listening to or seeing the universe and thinking or talking ABOUT the
universe are not the same thing? Just wondering.
Debinski
maz
Debinski<<
You don't need to wonder because I have just made clear that music is a
universal way of thinking without language, beyond words, and yet it is a
thought process. It is much more abstract than words, and much more abstract
than images or any other symbol used in verbal language. I can't explain it
better, because you must experience it yourself. Like explaining to someone
what sex is or an orgasm will not reveal to him or her what sex or an orgasm
actually is.
I am not surprised that this went over your head. Have you been a school
teacher or something, for a living?
namazt�
Debinski
> "Debinski" <debdaniel...@yahoo.com> schreef in berichtnews:0c608843-683e-485c...@s20g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
This is exactly what I mean, Maz. But I am obviously wasting my words
and time. Will YOU ever understand that you can demean, devalue and
condemn only yourself? One day you will, but I see little indication
it will be any time soon. Do you honestly believe your intelligence
depends upon seeing other people as ignorant?
Debinski
maz
> This is exactly what I mean, Maz. But I am obviously wasting my words
and time. Will YOU ever understand that you can demean, devalue and
condemn only yourself? One day you will, but I see little indication
it will be any time soon. Do you honestly believe your intelligence
depends upon seeing other people as ignorant?
Debinski<
What are you talking about? You asked and you were given an answer. Instead
of listening, you dig up some more shit from your ranting confusion
department to fill some more bandwidth with vile disgust.
BTW, lady, YOU are the one shouting from the rooftops that there are no
persons or individuals in Truth as you understand ACIM and dare anyone to
share with you what its Author is saying about that.
What the f*ck do you think you're doing? Asking me about "other people's
intelligence" now? Make up your mind, and clean up your obvious cognitive
dissonance syndrom. Then come back to me with something intelligent, and try
to behave yourself, grandma.
namazt�
Debinski
> "Debinski" <debdaniel...@yahoo.com> schreef in berichtnews:c2362a73-59e7-4b78...@p35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>
> - Show quoted text -
What I am talking about is A Course in Miracles according to Maz,
which goes something like this:
My intelligence depends upon calling other people's thoughts
"brainwashed bullshit."
My humility depends upon seeing other people as "arrogant."
My literacy depends upon seeing other people as "illiterate."
If you can't find anything degrading or demeaning to say to or about
someone who disagrees with you, don't say anything at all.
Listening to good music or having an orgasm should be sufficient proof
for anyone that words are not necessary to prove that separation is
real.
And IF anyone is too ignorant to accept your assessment of them as
"illiterate, arrogant, brainwashed, Wapnickian, then maybe you can
prove your superior intelligence and understanding by saying "I didn't
say it. Jesus did." If THAT still doesn't work, just curse them and
call them grandma.
I didn't shout anything from the rooftops or anywhere else. I asked
you to show me where to look for something real that would prove the
existence of separate persons or minds. "If you can do that I will
reconsider your theories about what the words of the Course really
mean, I said. Thus far, your responses since then have been even less
meaningful than the ones before I asked the question.
Debinski
Mike
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Actually, linguists would agree that thought is based upon language.
See Wittgenstein's 'ordinary language of common sense'. There are
very few words in any language that seem to go past this. One is
the
word mom or mother, the m sound being one infants can easily form.
Most language is a matter of convention, learned behavior,
therefore,
the thoughts we think are bound up with our vocabulary. Feelings,
however, are not so restricted by vocabulary, language. This is why
poets are so highly regarded in all cultures.
maz
> the existence of separate persons or minds. <
So what? Go ask God, the Holy Spirit or Jesus Who delivered the Word of God.
Do you think I can give you proof for something you deny God? Where were you
raised, in Gotham City?
Too freaking bizarre. LOL.
Calling someone "Grandma" is a curse! Yeah you're for real. Your ego sucks.
Get over it already.
>> Listening to good music or having an orgasm should be sufficient proof
for anyone that words are not necessary to prove that separation is
real.<<
Were you born an idiot or did you work hard to become one? You asked for
"thinking without words" example.
Take a hike.
bye, maz
Debinski
First of all, I wasn't referring to the "grandma" as a curse but the f
*&^l. Calling me "grandma" didn't exactly sound like a term of
endearment though. At any rate, it escapes me how anyone could use
hearing or feeling as examples of thinking without words. But that is
just as good a way to avoid the question as any I suppose. Are sight,
taste and smell also "thinking without words?" The whole point was you
can sense without separation. You cannot, however, think or talk ABOUT
what is sensed without separating the speaker/thinker from the
sensation. But I suspect you have a way of doing that, too.
Debinski
Debinski
>
> - Show quoted text -
Finally, a voice of reason. Thank you, Mike. That's exactly what I
meant. Sensation is closer to reality than words but even feellings
are only feelings until they are given a name. Anger is no more
inherently anger than anything else I could hear/see/touch/smell/
taste. Words are what bind us -- IF we believe them.
Debinski
maz
how you do that. <<
maz: >>Music is a universal way of thinking without language, beyond words,
and yet it is a thought process. It is much more abstract than words, and
much more abstract than images or any other symbol used in verbal language.
<<
Debinski > At any rate, it escapes me how anyone could use hearing or
feeling as examples of thinking without words. <
maz: I didn't say "hearing or feeling". I said MUSIC is my way of thinking
without language, ( because you, Debinski, asked if anyone knows how to
think without language). You also asked tto please explain how to do that. I
said I can't explain it as I can't explain an orgasm or making love.
debinski: >>You cannot, however, think or talk ABOUT what is sensed without
separating the speaker/thinker from the sensation. But I suspect you have a
way of doing that, too.<<
maz: why bring in separation at all? I told you that IMO its an experience.
Highly personal, and highly Universal, as in one must experience it to
understand that its a thinking proces without language.
Debinski
Why bring in separation at all? Because the question was without words
and thought based upon words how could anyone ever concieve of
separation? The question wasn't is music, or mathematics or anything
else a universal language or can music be considered "thought." I
never suggested that communication is limited to verbal language. The
question was without words how could separation be concieved at all,
let alone believed? The question is firmly grounded in what the Course
says is the cause of separation -- thought. I don't THINK the author
meant the cause of separation is the language of music but what is
commonly considered thought -- words. Only *I* can conceive of a
"you,' a "they" or an "it" apart from itself. The suggestion was that
a child who has not yet developed verbal language has no way of
conceiving anything it senses as being apart from him. Or any way of
distinguishing "I" from "not I." Does music suggest to you that it
comes from outside of you?
But here's a question that ONLY you can answer. It seems to me that
over the past couple of days as it has been repeatedly suggested that
"God thinks holographically" and that in order to understand A Course
in Miracles, we must learn to "think holographically" too, you have
said you wished you could get your hands on a description of the
anaology of holography you read some time ago and you would post it.
Now that description has been given to you and its author pointed out
that he thinks the hologram analogy is more descriptive of the
apparent world than Heaven, why haven't you posted the analogy and his
opinion of it here? Or did that conversation go over my head, too?
Debinski
expires
Mike <gurus...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> See Wittgenstein's 'ordinary language of common sense'. There are
> very few words in any language that seem to go past this. One is
> the
> word mom or mother, the m sound being one infants can easily form.
> Most language is a matter of convention, learned behavior,
> therefore,
> the thoughts we think are bound up with our vocabulary. Feelings,
> however, are not so restricted by vocabulary, language. This is why
> poets are so highly regarded in all cultures.
"linguists would agree that thought is
based upon language"? Hardly surprising,
like in "those that have a hammer as
their only tool see nails everywhere".
Sure, thought *can* be (not just *is*
IMO) based on language. However, IMO
all languages are founded on thought,
if one 'looks' deep enough. IOW, with-
out thought/thinking already being no
language could/would ever be, have been.
Or perhaps better expressed: Without
thought/thinking no language could/would
ever be, have been created, learned,
understood. FMPOV abstract art, not all
abstract art of course, is a good example
of thinking/creating without language :)
Feelings? Feelings are thought? Hmmm. Well,
FMPOV feelings are primarily the result of
thought, interpretation, creation and com-
prehension, all of which can be or perhaps
seem faulty, meaningless or ugly, just to
name a few examples. Of course feelings
can trigger further thinking, which might
cause/trigger further feelings...
Perhaps the confusion/disagreement here
arises if unconscious thoughts and
thinking are not considered to also be
thoughts and thinking. A baby, for
example, can recognize faces long
before it can recognize words/language.
FMPOV recognition of faces, persons
and individuals in general would be
impossible without thought/thinking
unconsciously. IOW, the creation and
comprehension of any form, meaning
or information without thinking hav-
ing occurred 'somewhere' would IMO be
impossible. Thus, when a baby recog-
nizes differences, as in different
faces for example, the recognition is
a result of unconscious thought, IMO.
Thus the recognition/differentiation
between friendly and unfriendly faces
(or noises, voices for example) IMO
are also the result/effect of thought,
unconscious thought.
--expires
Pieter
> The question is firmly grounded in what the Course
> says is the cause of separation -- thought.
Could you mention the place(s) where this is said?
Thanks in advance!
> Debinski
maz
"Debinski" <debdan...@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:f1d59fa3-c209-487f...@m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
Debinski
no you couldn't have been a school teacher, rather a grand inquisitor as it
sounds....
Mike
> "Debinski" <debdaniel...@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitragnews:f1d59fa3-c209-487f...@m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>
> - Show quoted text -
I am surprised by your reactions to Debinski. Have you reached
the
point where only agreement with you evokes oneness?
Debinski
> "Debinski" <debdaniel...@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitragnews:f1d59fa3-c209-487f...@m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>
> - Show quoted text -
Far better for me to assume the worst I could possibly think of you,
believe those thoughts and shout them from the rooftops than to ask,
hey? That makes sense.
Debinski
Debinski
> "Debinski" <debdaniel...@yahoo.com> schreef in berichtnews:f1d59fa3-c209-487f...@m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > The question is firmly grounded in what the Course
> > says is the cause of separation -- thought.
>
> Could you mention the place(s) where this is said?
> Thanks in advance!
>
idea, at
which the Son of God remembered not to laugh. In his forgetting did
the thought become a serious idea, and possible of both accomplishment
and real effects. Together, we can laugh them BOTH away, and
understand that time can NOT intrude upon eternity. It IS a joke to
think that time can come to circumvent eternity, which MEANS there
is no time. A timelessness in which is time made real; a Part of God
Which can attack Itself; a separate brother as an enemy; a mind
WITHIN a body; all are forms of circularity, whose ending starts at
its
beginning, ending at its cause.
Debinski
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 15:38:01 -0800 (PST), Debinski
>
> <debdaniel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Try as I might I can't get an explanation of the
> >"holographic identity" concept that doesn't just sound to me like a
> >desperate attempt to hold onto false identification as persons --
> >eternal persons at that.
>
> are not self-created (or uncreated) like God. That, imo, led to an
> unfortunate result because they DO carry the imprint of God's entire
> "DNA" so to speak, including the self-createdness (or uncreatedness).
> Thus God's creations can believe in the error that they can create
> themselves, and the entire illusion of separation follows from that.
>
> God's creations are NOT uncreated or self-created, hence they are not
> God and not the whole. Holographic is just a way of expressing what
> they are. Not the whole, but in every way except origin, the same as
> the whole.
>
> Where some of the theorists on this ng err, imo, is in the belief that
> "the whole" refers to all of the Sonship collectively. Thus they DO
> believe that as parts of the whole they are one son in the Sonship.
> But the whole is God, not the Sonship. Even the whole Sonship is not
> the whole.
>
> So, imo, they've got their holographic identity idea confused.
>
> Deborah (BC)
Yes, I think so, too, Deborah. Although, as I said I have no problem
with the whole being fully present in a part IF the "part" is thought
of in terms of time -- as in every instant is (potentially) a Holy
Instant -- or relationship as in every encounter is (potentially) a
Holy Encounter. But the whole being in any part in terms of identity
seems completely wrong to me, even more than just the simple fact that
the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Of course, it also
sounds wrong to me to say "God creates God" or "God is self-creating"
as has also been said in explaining that theory. God extends God. Yes.
God creates only like Himself. Yes. But God creates God? Just doesn't
sound right to me. Does it to you?
Debinski
Philomene
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 15:38:01 -0800 (PST), Debinski
> <debdan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Try as I might I can't get an explanation of the
>> "holographic identity" concept that doesn't just sound to me like a
>> desperate attempt to hold onto false identification as persons --
>> eternal persons at that.
On Nov 28, 1:53 pm, Deborah <debo...@anywhere.ca> wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 15:38:01 -0800 (PST), Debinski
>
> <debdaniel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Try as I might I can't get an explanation of the
> >"holographic identity" concept that doesn't just sound to me like a
> >desperate attempt to hold onto false identification as persons --
> >eternal persons at that.
>
> It's fairly simple, really. God's creations are not God because they
> are not self-created (or uncreated) like God. That, imo, led to an
> unfortunate result because they DO carry the imprint of God's entire
> "DNA" so to speak, including the self-createdness (or uncreatedness).
> Thus God's creations can believe in the error that they can create
> themselves, and the entire illusion of separation follows from that.
Well yeah. But in what sense would it be better not to have free will
and not make mistakes as long as the mistakes are not made real,
permanent, while having the mistakes effect and alter the whole?
>
> God's creations are NOT uncreated or self-created, hence they are not
> God and not the whole.
Perhaps. But God's creations are so close to representing the whole that
one should not too quickly dismiss the parts to whole relationship.
For example, the formulation that you are both God and the Holy Spirit;
the HS is both God and you, and God is you and the HS, suggests perhaps
something else, and something we don't yet understand is going on.
One has to ask when God created, ie thought the Son . . did God alter an
existing holographic expressing Itself, or did the initial act of
creation create the holographic relationship?
If Steven Hawkings, David Bohm, and Albert Einstein were course
students, they'd be asking themselves and asking each other similar high
level questions, similar to the high level cognition used to formulate
black hole and string theory.
Most likely we are simply dealing with a type of level confusion. Why
should we expect an exact one to one correspondence of what we know of a
physical hologram to a living, mental hologram? Or perhaps The Father,
Son and Holy Spirit each are a hologram and interfacing such that what
we now call God/existence/reality is possible?
> Where some of the theorists on this ng err, imo, is in the belief that
> "the whole" refers to all of the Sonship collectively.
Interesting. The author never refers to the whole, entire, collective,
or complete Sonship?
I'd say whatever the author appears to mean by the whole Sonship is what
is meant when the holographic paradigm is applied to understanding the
Sonship.
expires
> Pieter wrote:
>> Debinski wrote:
>>> expires wrote:
>>>> "Thought is based on language"? Hmmm, I doubt that
>>>> in the sense that IMO there obviously are other and
>>>> more or less abstracter/deeper levels/dimensions of
>>>> thought below/besides/beyond language/words. Generally
>>>> little more about other levels of thought is said/known,
>>>> other than words like inspiration and intuition point to.<
>>> you really do either. You seem to me to be calling it "inspiration"
>>> and "intuition." Only when inspiration or intuition takes form --
>>> which requires language -- do I call it "thought."
>>> "In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word
>>> was God." Without words, how could anything possibly be believed to be
>>> apart from you?
>> In the Course is spoken of this statement.
>> Here is the passage on it, from the numbered Urtext;
>> maybe does it prompt you to reconsider your
>> idea of 'thought':
>>
>> "734. All words, at best, are preparatory. THE word is
>> really a thought. No one WORD is universally meaningful,
>> because a word is a symbol, but thought is not divisible by
>> creation. The original name for "thought" and "word" was
>> the same. The quotation should read
>>
>> "In the beginning was the thought, and the thought was with
>> God, and the thought WAS God."
>>
>> How beautiful indeed are the thoughts of God, who live in
>> His light. Your worth is beyond perception because it is
>> beyond doubt."
>>
>> (NB Only a little bit of this quotation
>> can be found back in the FIP-edition;
>> it is in T-3.V.10:6,7.)
>
> Thanks, Pieter. Certainly, I think within the context of defining Self
> as "A Thought of God" it is helpful to replace word with thought in
> that quotation. But in practical application it simply isn't possible
> to think without verbal language. I didnt say communication was
> limited to verbal language -- not by a long shot. But if you -- or
> anyone else -- has a way of thinking without language, please explain
> that anything you see is apart from you other than through language, I
> would be interested in hearing about that, too. Feelings certainly
> can't tell me anything is apart from me. Inspiration, intuition or
> energy certainly can't tell me that anything is apart from me. So what
> -- other than language and thought baed upon language -- ever could?
>
> Debinski
Pieter wrote/quoted:
" In the beginning was the thought,
" and the thought was with God,
" and the thought WAS God.
Debinski wrote:
" within the context of defining
" Self as "A Thought of God"
Hmmm, seems very weird to me to
believe God/Self is thought. But
then, the word thought can be
understood as a noun and/or verb.
Either way, FMPOV a thought or
thinking can not be the absolute
"beginning"/source, not beingness
itself, because IMO beingness itself
is absolutely formless, whereas a
thought or thinking is or at least
presupposes form respectively what
forms/thinks. Very mysterious, at
least while one's awareness and/or
the frequency of Self (one's Love?)
remains below the speed of light ;)
--expires
Debinski
wrote:
>
> " within the context of defining
> " Self as "A Thought of God"
> Hmmm, seems very weird to me to
> believe God/Self is thought. But
> then, the word thought can be
> understood as a noun and/or verb.
> Either way, FMPOV a thought or
> thinking can not be the absolute
> "beginning"/source, not beingness
> itself, because IMO beingness itself
> is absolutely formless,
"Father" - Awareness
>whereas a
> thought or thinking is or at least
> presupposes form respectively what
> forms/thinks. <
"Son" -Thought
The two are One.
Debinski
>Very mysterious, at
> least while one's awareness and/or
> the frequency of Self (one's Love?)
> remains below the speed of light ;)
> --expires- Hide quoted text -
expires
Debinski
Hi Pieter,
As I was reading this morning, this passage came up so I thought I
would throw it in, too.
T 31 E 6. Concepts are learned. They are not natural. Apart from
learning
they do not exist. They are not given, and they must be made. Not
one of them is true, and many come from feverish imaginations, hot
with hatred and distortions born of fear. What is a concept but a
thought to which its maker gives a meaning of his own? Concepts
maintain the world. But they can NOT be used to demonstrate the
world is real. For all of them are made WITHIN the world, born in its
shadow, growing in its ways, and finally “maturing” in its thought.
They are ideas of idols painted with the brushes of the world, which
cannot make a single picture representing truth.
Debinski
expires
> Hi Pieter,
>
> As I was reading this morning, this passage came up so I thought I
> would throw it in, too.
>
> T 31 E 6. Concepts are learned. They are not natural. Apart from
> learning
> they do not exist. They are not given, and they must be made. Not
> one of them is true, and many come from feverish imaginations, hot
> with hatred and distortions born of fear. What is a concept but a
> thought to which its maker gives a meaning of his own? Concepts
> maintain the world. But they can NOT be used to demonstrate the
> world is real. For all of them are made WITHIN the world, born in its
> They are ideas of idols painted with the brushes of the world, which
> cannot make a single picture representing truth.
>
> Debinski
So ACIM isn't full of concepts?
I doubt if ACIM('s)-teaching can
be learned/believed/understood
without learning/believing some
(new) concepts. If "T 31 E 6"
is true, why not just throw
ACIM's-Textbook theories and
concepts away, instead of end-
lessly discussing it/them here?
--expires
Pieter
If thoughts are "tiny, mad" by definition, then
it is not necessary to qualify one of them as such.
As I already quoted under the topic "thinking vs. perceiving":
"Delusional ideas are NOT
thought, but you CAN think that you believe in them.
But you are wrong. The function of thought comes
FROM God and is IN God. As part of HIS thought,
you cannot think APART from Him." (T-5.V.6:13-16)
So even being able to misuse thinking we owe to God.
Stating "the cause of separation is thought", imo, is
throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Mike
wrote:
> Debinski wrote:
> > Hi Pieter,
>
> > As I was reading this morning, this passage came up so I thought I
> > would throw it in, too.
>
> > T 31 E 6. Concepts are learned. They are not natural. Apart from
> > learning
> > they do not exist. They are not given, and they must be made. Not
> > one of them is true, and many come from feverish imaginations, hot
> > with hatred and distortions born of fear. What is a concept but a
> > thought to which its maker gives a meaning of his own? Concepts
> > maintain the world. But they can NOT be used to demonstrate the
> > world is real. For all of them are made WITHIN the world, born in its
> > They are ideas of idols painted with the brushes of the world, which
> > cannot make a single picture representing truth.
>
> > Debinski
>
> So ACIM isn't full of concepts?
> I doubt if ACIM('s)-teaching can
> be learned/believed/understood
> without learning/believing some
> (new) concepts. If "T 31 E 6"
> is true, why not just throw
> ACIM's-Textbook theories and
> concepts away, instead of end-
> lessly discussing it/them here?
>
> - Show quoted text -
A concept is defined as being an abstract or generic idea conceived
in the mind and generalized from particular instances. If ACIM is
divinely inspired there is nothing conceptual about it. The Truth
it
purports to relate is not abstract but, in fact, the only Reality.
And
it could be described as generalized if one considers God to be a
particular instance Who is doing the generalizing.
Most discussion - not all - goes in a never ending circular motion
because of the ever present and always intrusive introduction of
level confusion. Level 1 is the Absolute Level: God or the ego;
non-
duality or duality; truth or illusion. Between these apparent
opposites
there can be no compromise; it is either one or the other.
Level 2 is the everyday world of the practical approach, very much a
dual world of opposites: hot and cold; up and down; sweet and sour;
me and not me. All conflict arises from confusing the two levels
i.e.
applying the ideas of Absolute Truth to the practical world and also
applying the 'concepts' :-) of the practical to the level 1 world of
Absolute Truth.
But this confusion is not limited to this ng. It is, however,
limited to
everyone on the face of the earth.
Pieter
> On Nov 28, 11:14 am, "Pieter" <hrdou...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
> > On 28 nov, 13:34, Debinski <debdaniel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > . . . . Only when inspiration or intuition takes form --
> > > which requires language -- do I call it "thought."
>
> > > "In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word
> > > was God." Without words, how could anything possibly be believed to be
> > > apart from you?
>
> > In the Course is spoken of this statement.
> > Here is the passage on it, from the numbered Urtext;
> > maybe does it prompt you to reconsider your
> > idea of 'thought':
>
> > "734. All words, at best, are preparatory. THE word is
> > really a thought. No one WORD is universally meaningful,
> > because a word is a symbol, but thought is not divisible by
> > creation. The original name for "thought" and "word" was
> > the same. The quotation should read
>
> > "In the beginning was the thought, and the thought was with
> > God, and the thought WAS God."
>
> > How beautiful indeed are the thoughts of God, who live in
> > His light. Your worth is beyond perception because it is
> > beyond doubt."
>
> > (NB Only a little bit of this quotation
> > can be found back in the FIP-edition;
>
> Thanks, Pieter. Certainly, I think within the context of defining Self
> as "A Thought of God" it is helpful to replace word with thought in
> that quotation. But in practical application it simply isn't possible
> to think without verbal language.
The passage explains 1. the difference between
"word" and "thought", and 2. that unfortunately,
and mistakenly, the inferior meaning of the
original name was chosen for its translation.
Of course you are free to still give priority to
words over thought. To me that is interchanging
form and content. Form does not produce content.
In the world of perception content has to be given
form, through which it can be communicated to a
perceiver, since man making himself a perceiver
did mean he does no longer accept but what can
be perceived.
> I didnt say communication was
> limited to verbal language -- not by a long shot. But if you -- or
> anyone else -- has a way of thinking without language, please explain
> how you do that.
We are asked to learn to think with God.
We are not asked to learn something
we cannot accomplish.
"We said before that you must learn to think WITH God.
To think WITH Him is to think LIKE Him. This engenders
joy, not guilt, because it is natural. Guilt is a sure sign that
your thinking is Unnatural. Perverted thinking will ALWAYS
be attended with guilt, because it IS the belief in sin." (T-5.V.4:5-9)
> And like I said, if you have any way of determining
> that anything you see is apart from you other than through language, I
> would be interested in hearing about that, too. Feelings certainly
> can't tell me anything is apart from me. Inspiration, intuition or
> energy certainly can't tell me that anything is apart from me. So what
> -- other than language and thought based upon language -- ever could?
>
> Debinski
expires
> expires wrote:
>> Debinski wrote:
>>> Hi Pieter,
>>> As I was reading this morning, this passage came up so I thought I
>>> would throw it in, too.
>>> T 31 E 6. Concepts are learned. They are not natural. Apart from
>>> learning
>>> they do not exist. They are not given, and they must be made. Not
>>> one of them is true, and many come from feverish imaginations, hot
>>> with hatred and distortions born of fear. What is a concept but a
>>> thought to which its maker gives a meaning of his own? Concepts
>>> maintain the world. But they can NOT be used to demonstrate the
>>> world is real. For all of them are made WITHIN the world, born in its
>>> They are ideas of idols painted with the brushes of the world, which
>>> cannot make a single picture representing truth.
>>> Debinski
>> So ACIM isn't full of concepts?
>> I doubt if ACIM('s)-teaching can
>> be learned/believed/understood
>> without learning/believing some
>> (new) concepts. If "T 31 E 6"
>> is true, why not just throw
>> ACIM's-Textbook theories and
>> concepts away, instead of end-
>> lessly discussing it/them here?
>> --expires
>
Thanks Mike, very much appreciate your posting :)
Really clear and talented FMPOV. After reading it
twice, and pondering over it for a few minutes,
I see only one substantial *contentual* weakness
in it. The following statement:
" If ACIM is divinely inspired there
" is nothing conceptual about it.
I've never doubted that ACIM is mostly divinely
inspired. I also have next to no doubt that some
*not* divine/inspired content and form/language
has crept into ACIM at varying degrees from the
human authors/scribes. And then, of course, I'd
be a fool to not doubt my comprehension of
various places in ACIM. The little "if" in the
statement I've quoted becomes a very big *IF*,
when I *try* to 'correct' it as follows:
" IF ACIM were entirely divinely inspired,
" without any exceptions, ambiguities,
" etc, it would be wholly consistent and
" much easier to understand as a whole,
" and readers/students would not tend to
" get lost so much in the conceptual level
" ACIM must inevitably make use of, the
" language level.
I assume you could express that much better.
BTW, have you ever or would you consider
writing and publishing "ACIM for dummies"?
--expires
expires
> Debinski wrote:
>> "Pieter" wrote:
>> "Debinski" wrote:
Another example of ACIM's IMO weird
use/redefinition of "thought",
"ideas" --i.e. language-- into what
then looks like nonsense to me:
a) " delusional ideas are NOT thought
b) " but you CAN think that you
" believe in delusional ideas
c) " you as part of God's thought
" cannot think APART from God
IF "(c)" is to be true, how can
then "(a)(b)" also be true?
--expires
Debinski
Actually, Reality can't be put into words. To describe it conceptually
requires focusing in on parts, which is always relative. And then of
course the words are still just symbols of symbols. So the best
concepts can do is point toward -- or away from -- the symbols of
Reality. Which is why even the Course tells us no concepts are true
and says the text is a "theoretical foundation." In my opinion The
Course points quite consistently toward Truth/Reality. Like any thing
else, it can be used to prove just about anyting you want it to prove
though when isolated passages are taken out of context of the whole.
> And
> it could be described as generalized if one considers God to be a
> particular instance Who is doing the generalizing.
>
> Most discussion - not all - goes in a never ending circular motion
> because of the ever present and always intrusive introduction of
> level confusion. Level 1 is the Absolute Level: God or the ego;
> non-
> duality or duality; truth or illusion. Between these apparent
> opposites
> there can be no compromise; it is either one or the other.
There are no opposites at either level. Opposites are only implied in
language. Dark doesn't exist. It is really only an absence of light.
Ditto cold = absence of heat. There is no line at which dark becomes
light or cold becomes heat, just varying degrees of light and heat.
Ego = absence of God/Truth in the mind. Illusion = absence of God/
Truth in the world. If ego actually was the opposite of God there
could be no guarantee of salvation.
Debinski
> Level 2 is the everyday world of the practical approach, very much a
> dual world of opposites: hot and cold; up and down; sweet and sour;
> me and not me. All conflict arises from confusing the two levels
> i.e.
> applying the ideas of Absolute Truth to the practical world and also
> applying the 'concepts' :-) of the practical to the level 1 world of
> Absolute Truth.
> But this confusion is not limited to this ng. It is, however,
> limited to
> everyone on the face of the earth.- Hide quoted text -
expires
>
[...]
> In the world of perception content has to be given
> form, through which it can be communicated to a
> perceiver, since man making himself a perceiver
> did mean he does no longer accept but what can
> be perceived.
>
"man making himself a perceiver"!?
Does not "man" mean "mankind",
IOW "homo-sapiens / human"?
And if so, and "man" usually
referring to body with a brain
and senses, and senses usually
referring to physiological methods
of *perception*, does then
"man making himself a perceiver"
not say that 'sock-puppets'
"made *themselves* perceivers"!?
--expires
Philomene
> A concept is defined as being an abstract or generic idea conceived
> in the mind and generalized from particular instances.
A concept defining a concept.
If ACIM is
> divinely inspired there is nothing conceptual about it. The Truth
> it
> purports to relate is not abstract but, in fact, the only Reality.
> And
> it could be described as generalized if one considers God to be a
> particular instance Who is doing the generalizing.
I suspect the defining notion is that concepts are believed not known.
In the perceptual world, one might believe God is love, truth, one,
"All there is," etc., but does NOT know, hence the lack of knowledge
makes "God is love," a conception.
On the other hand, Jesus can write, "God is love," and for him this is
not a concept, because he knows God is love.
>
> Most discussion - not all - goes in a never ending circular motion
> because of the ever present and always intrusive introduction of
> level confusion. Level 1 is the Absolute Level: God or the ego;
> non-
> duality or duality; truth or illusion. Between these apparent
> opposites
> there can be no compromise; it is either one or the other.
Perhaps. But most likely a product of course think--where people who
wish to rid themselves of all duality and opposition do so by thinking
in terms of the most extreme opposites.
Instead of thinking in terms of extreme opposites, which leads to a
lot of crap thinking, I find it more helpful to process course ideas
in terms of "possible/impossible"
I mean consider the assumption the God and the ego are opposites. How
can this be true if God is in my mind, and we wish to claim opposition
itself is an illusion? How can a conceptual opposition between God
and ego have any correspondence to Reality when the author tells us
directly that the ego has the inherent power to extend the Kingdom if
its thinking wasn't so totally and irreparably screwed up.
Hence the ego is not an conceptual opposite of God, rather the ego is
impossible. Impossible in the sense its existence cannot be extended
or long maintained before its creator withdraws the thoughts which
created the ego.
Debinski
> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 20:20:37 -0800 (PST), Debinski
>
> <debdaniel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Ego = absence of God/Truth in the mind. Illusion = absence of God/
> >Truth in the world. If ego actually was the opposite of God there
> >could be no guarantee of salvation.
>
> encompassing but with the proviso that He encompasses only what He
> created, only what is real.
>
> Which leaves the ego a mere illusion, never to gain greater status
> than that.
>
> The ego is the product of miscreation on the part of the separated
> sons. And their's to choose against.
>
> Deborah (BC)
That's true. As the Course says "ego does not exist" just as "dark
does not exist." That's the whole point. There is no more struggle
going on between ego and God than there ever could be between dark and
light or cold and heat. Light comes, dark disappears. Heat comes, cold
disappears. Remembrance of God/Truth comes ego disappears.Reality
comes illusion disappears.
The suggestion was never "stop thinking." If I was opposed to thinking
I certainly wouldn't say so. I'd be sitting on a prayer cushion
chanting. <smile> The difference is in whether thought comes from
knowledge/truth or attempts to lead TO knowledge/truth. Dark can't "go
to" or find light. Light must come to it. It's easy enough to see
that, which is why the Course compares ego to darkness. Ego can't
"find God" any more than dark can find light. We can't "find God or
Truth" through a thinking process. God/Reality/Truth must come to us.
It can only be revealed when we recognize we do NOT know -- It "is
what is" when what is not (belief) is undone or seen through.
What I suggested was that without some form of language, there is no
thought and without thought, there can be no "tiny mad idea." Without
language, it isn't possible to even conceive of separation, let alone
believe it. You can't even say the word "God" without SEEMING to give
reality to "not god." We say "God is" and cease to speak. Anything
that can be SAID -- or thought -- beyond "God is" or "I am" is
relative or "not all-encompassing." Even what man calls "the Word of
God" is not Truth, but only a reflection of Truth. Concepts/ideas
reflect truth or make/perpetuate illusion.
W 325 L 2. “Our Father, Your Ideas reflect the truth, and mine apart
from Yours but makes up dreams. Let me behold what only Yours reflect,
for Yours and Yours alone establish truth.”
"Let me behold," is a very different request than "let me believe."
The Truth sets us free. Belief in truth is no less binding than belief
in illusion.
Debinski
Debinski
Which is still "oppositional thinking." To "think as God thinks" one
would evaluate concepts in terms of "helpful" and "not helpful" -- as
the Course suggests. Nothing is "impossible" to God.
Debinski
Debinski
> would evaluate concepts in terms of "helpful" and "not helpful" -- as
> the Course suggests. Nothing is "impossible" to God.
>
Okay. I'll play referee this time and call my own "foul" as I ALSO
just used the "possible/impossible" comparison in writing -- "Without
language, it isn't possible to even conceive of separation, let alone
believe it.
Debinski
>
>
>
>
> > I mean consider the assumption the God and the ego are opposites. How
> > can this be true if God is in my mind, and we wish to claim opposition
> > itself is an illusion? How can a conceptual opposition between God
> > and ego have any correspondence to Reality when the author tells us
> > directly that the ego has the inherent power to extend the Kingdom if
> > its thinking wasn't so totally and irreparably screwed up.
>
> > Hence the ego is not an conceptual opposite of God, rather the ego is
> > impossible. Impossible in the sense its existence cannot be extended
> > or long maintained before its creator withdraws the thoughts which
> > created the ego.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Mike
Which is way I called them apparent opposites. The opposite of
truth is not false but illusion. However, on the practical level,
level
2, hot and cold, sweet and sour are perceived as opposites, or at
the
least, two sides of the same coin. We know one by the other. In
Truth they are not opposites, but we do not exist in the world of
Truth.
We exist in the world of duality. Our chore is to see and to find
the
Absolute obscured by the dual nature of practical reality. I do not
think of Truth as being something that is lost and so must be found.
Truth has gone no where, but we have. We hide it behind our ideas
of truth, opposites if you will, that the Course calls illusions.
Opposites are only implied in
> language. Dark doesn't exist. It is really only an absence of light.
> Ditto cold = absence of heat. There is no line at which dark becomes
> light or cold becomes heat, just varying degrees of light and heat.
> Ego = absence of God/Truth in the mind. Illusion = absence of God/
> Truth in the world. If ego actually was the opposite of God there
> could be no guarantee of salvation.
Enter the pronoun 'it'. Cold and heat are properties. The 'it'
has
the property of being hot or cold. If cold became hot or hot became
cold there would be no need for the 'it' The stove is hot. The ice
is
cold. Perception creates the duality. But it is still hot or
cold. When
you were a prehistoric human and you first picked up a burning ember
you did not know the word hot, but you still felt the pain and
probably
died from gangrene a few days or weeks later. :-)
>
> Debinski
>
>
>
> > Level 2 is the everyday world of the practical approach, very much a
> > dual world of opposites: hot and cold; up and down; sweet and sour;
> > me and not me. All conflict arises from confusing the two levels
> > i.e.
> > applying the ideas of Absolute Truth to the practical world and also
> > applying the 'concepts' :-) of the practical to the level 1 world of
> > Absolute Truth.
> > But this confusion is not limited to this ng. It is, however,
> > limited to
> > everyone on the face of the earth.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Mike
> On Nov 29, 5:06 pm, Mike <gurustom...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > A concept is defined as being an abstract or generic idea conceived
> > in the mind and generalized from particular instances.
>
> A concept defining a concept.
We have to start somewhere.
>
> If ACIM is
>
> > divinely inspired there is nothing conceptual about it. The Truth
> > it
> > purports to relate is not abstract but, in fact, the only Reality.
> > And
> > it could be described as generalized if one considers God to be a
> > particular instance Who is doing the generalizing.
>
> I suspect the defining notion is that concepts are believed not known.
I agree.
>
> In the perceptual world, one might believe God is love, truth, one,
> "All there is," etc., but does NOT know, hence the lack of knowledge
> makes "God is love," a conception.
To us, yes, but not to the Author of ACIM. He wants us
to
accept His point of view over our own and realize that ACIM is
not
> conceptual.
> On the other hand, Jesus can write, "God is love," and for him this is
> not a concept, because he knows God is love.
Yep.
>
>
>
> > Most discussion - not all - goes in a never ending circular motion
> > because of the ever present and always intrusive introduction of
> > level confusion. Level 1 is the Absolute Level: God or the ego;
> > non-
> > duality or duality; truth or illusion. Between these apparent
> > opposites
> > there can be no compromise; it is either one or the other.
>
> Perhaps. But most likely a product of course think--where people who
> wish to rid themselves of all duality and opposition do so by thinking
> in terms of the most extreme opposites.
And we could both name not only a whole bunch of posters
who do this here but also many, many authors who share
their ideas about ACIM with all of us.
>
> Instead of thinking in terms of extreme opposites, which leads to a
> lot of crap thinking, I find it more helpful to process course ideas
> in terms of "possible/impossible"
>
> I mean consider the assumption the God and the ego are opposites. How
> can this be true if God is in my mind, and we wish to claim opposition
> itself is an illusion? How can a conceptual opposition between God
> and ego have any correspondence to Reality when the author tells us
> directly that the ego has the inherent power to extend the Kingdom if
> its thinking wasn't so totally and irreparably screwed up.
I do not disagree. In fact, I heartily agree with you.
I have said here numerous times that Lesson 152
is, for me, the cornerstone of ACIM. "Truth cannot
have an opposite." That is why, "Nothing real can
be threatened', and why, "Nothing unreal exists."
But the ego believes it is god and that God wills to
destroy the ego. So, in order to preserve its own
existence, the ego expends all of its energy con-
vincing us that we are the ego. And it has done a
fine job of it.
> Hence the ego is not an conceptual opposite of God, rather the ego is
> impossible. Impossible in the sense its existence cannot be extended
> or long maintained before its creator withdraws the thoughts which
> created the ego.
Cannot be maintained indefinitely. However, Jesus implies
that this struggle has been going on for millions of years.
To me, that seems like a long damned time.
Mike
wrote:
> Mike <gurustomper...> wrote:
> > expires wrote:
> >> Debinski wrote:
> >>> Hi Pieter,
> >>> As I was reading this morning, this passage came up so I thought I
> >>> would throw it in, too.
> >>> T 31 E 6. Concepts are learned. They are not natural. Apart from
> >>> learning
> >>> they do not exist. They are not given, and they must be made. Not
> >>> one of them is true, and many come from feverish imaginations, hot
> >>> with hatred and distortions born of fear. What is a concept but a
> >>> thought to which its maker gives a meaning of his own? Concepts
> >>> maintain the world. But they can NOT be used to demonstrate the
> >>> world is real. For all of them are made WITHIN the world, born in its
>
> - Show quoted text -
I am one of the dummies.
It is highly likely that some of the ACIM
material was 'contaminated' by human
interpretation - accidentally or otherwise.
But there is such a vast amount of information
that surely it is possible to disregard that
which seems to have been undivinely
influenced in favor for that which has not.
Debinski
> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 04:45:46 -0800 (PST), Debinski
>
> <debdaniel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >What I suggested was that without some form of language, there is no
> >thought and without thought, there can be no "tiny mad idea." Without
> >language, it isn't possible to even conceive of separation, let alone
> >believe it.
>
> clear from your own abundance of words that thought and language are
> intricately bound, for you. But it is not the case with everyone.
> What words are necessary for, in this world, is communication with
> others.
>
> I don't need words to know the difference between red and yellow, but
> I need words to convey the idea (that I don't need words to know the
> difference) to you.
>
> Deborah (BC)
Right. Without words you can sense that red and yellow are in some way
different, but without words you can't THINK about what that
difference might mean whether you intend to communicate that
difference to anyone else or not. Knowledge is direct. Thought ABOUT
knowledge is not. Either way I wasn't so much asking anyone to
theorize about whether it's possible to think without words --
although I still say it is not and nothing anyone else has said
indicates they actually DO think without words. Communicate without
words? Sure. Think without words? No. That is so fundamental to A
Course in Miracles that quite frankly I'm surprised anyone would even
argue with it. Without preconceived ideas there simply IS no gap
between subject and object. It isn't there to be observed or known.
Language implies it by separating the speaker/thinker from the object
spoken or thought ABOUT. I'm beginning to feel like a broken record
repeatedly referring to lesson 30, where the fundamental difference in
vision and the way you see is explained -- vision seeks to join with
what is seen rather than keeping it apart from you. What I am saying
is that without language there would be no need to "seek to join"
because the gap between subject and object could never have been
imagined in the first place.
Debinski
Carrie
> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 01:11:54 +0100, "Pieter" <hrdo...@zonnet.nl>
> wrote:
>
>> "We said before that you must learn to think WITH God.
>> To think WITH Him is to think LIKE Him. This engenders
>> joy, not guilt, because it is natural. Guilt is a sure sign that
>> your thinking is Unnatural. Perverted thinking will ALWAYS
>> be attended with guilt, because it IS the belief in sin."
>> (T-5.V.4:5-9)
>
> separation from God.
>
> Deborah (BC)
Sin is an old archery term, no longer used, that means "missing the mark".
i.e. error or mistake.
Carrie
> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 20:20:37 -0800 (PST), Debinski
>
>> Ego = absence of God/Truth in the mind. Illusion = absence of God/
>> Truth in the world. If ego actually was the opposite of God there
>> could be no guarantee of salvation.
>
> encompassing but with the proviso that He encompasses only what He
> created, only what is real.
>
> Which leaves the ego a mere illusion, never to gain greater status
> than that.
>
> The ego is the product of miscreation on the part of the separated
> sons. And their's to choose against.
>
> Deborah (BC)
How are you feeling Deborah?
Better than you had been awhile back?
Pieter
"expires" <expires.20...@maxi-bayern.de> schreef in bericht
news:hevh52$c2d$1...@svr7.m-online.net...
Thinking is a God given function;
it can be misused. Even the possibility
of its misuse we owe to God.
Btw. You state " "ideas" --i.e. language-- "
as if they were the same by definition.
>
> --expires
Pieter
"Debinski" <debdan...@yahoo.com> schreef in bericht
news:797e82f6-1497-481c...@z7g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> Without
> language, it isn't possible to even conceive of separation, let alone
> believe it.
>
> Debinski
- Do you mean the "tiny, mad idea" was "language",
and the introduction of it caused the separation?
expires
Well, Pieter, I find it odd that
you state what ACIM says about
absolute truth AS IF YOU know
absolute truth yourself. FMPOV
belief is not knowledge, IOW the
word 'believe' means effectively
the same as 'opinion'.
BTW too: I wrote
" "ideas" --i.e. language--
and not
" ideas --i.e. language--
so your
" as if they were the same
" by definition
is simply a result a) of you
overlooking or misinterpreting
the quotes I put the words
"thought" and "ideas" into,
and b) me while writing not
being aware enough of how strong
bias affects a readers will to
understand what is intended by
a writer. So here follows a
clearer version of what you've
overlooked or misunderstood:
" Another example of ACIM's
" IMO weird use/redefinition
" of THE WORDS 'thought',
" 'ideas' --i.e. language--
" into what then looks like
" nonsense to me:
--expires
Carrie
> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 04:45:46 -0800 (PST), Debinski
> <debdan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> What I suggested was that without some form of language, there is no
>> thought and without thought, there can be no "tiny mad idea." Without
>> language, it isn't possible to even conceive of separation, let alone
>> believe it.
>
> clear from your own abundance of words that thought and language are
> intricately bound, for you. But it is not the case with everyone.
> What words are necessary for, in this world, is communication with
> others.
>
> I don't need words to know the difference between red and yellow, but
> I need words to convey the idea (that I don't need words to know the
> difference) to you.
Good example.
Babies (and animals) tend to communicate and convery without languare
(words) too.
>
> Deborah (BC)
Pieter
> FMPOV
> belief is not knowledge,
Completely agreed.
> IOW the
> word 'believe' means effectively
> the same as 'opinion'.
Imo it is easier to give up
an opinion than a belief.
Debinski
> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 10:41:45 -0800 (PST), Debinski
> don't see anyplace where it binds language and thought together, so as
> to make them inseparable. Sorry, but I don't.
>
> Deborah (BC)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
No need to be sorry, Deborah. I wasn't asking you to agree with me. I
wouldn't have expected the Course to say much about thought and
language being inseparable because it seems rather obvious to me that
they are. What seems to me to be happening here is that sensation,
inspiration, intuition are being equated with "thought." Certainly
language is not needed for those things which are more direct. But
seeing and thinking about seeing are two very different things.
Inspiration and thinking about inspiration are two very different
things.Thinking ABOUT being is not being.
Debinski
Debinski
> "Debinski" <debdaniel...@yahoo.com> schreef in berichtnews:797e82f6-1497-481c...@z7g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Without
> > language, it isn't possible to even conceive of separation, let alone
> > believe it.
>
> > Debinski
>
> - Do you mean the "tiny, mad idea" was "language",
> and the introduction of it caused the separation?
Yes. Self-image (ego) is learned.Without language there is no choice
but to be as God created you. But the thought of separation isn't the
problem -- belief in the thought of separation is the problem.
Debinski
MikeDreaming
> "expires" <expires.2009sep31....@maxi-bayern.de> schreef in berichtnews:hf1sa7$dh9$1...@svr7.m-online.net...
>
> > FMPOV
> > belief is not knowledge,
>
> Completely agreed.
>
> > IOW the
> > word 'believe' means effectively
> > the same as 'opinion'.
>
> Imo it is easier to give up
> an opinion than a belief.
Do you really believe that?
Mike
>
> - Show quoted text -
I like your approach to the Course. You do not abandon your
common sense. You do not mindlessly accept ideas that seem
unreasonable at the time though you seem to have the capacity
to change your mind when reason dictates.
I do have a question for you concerning the existence of words
as they relate to the separation. You quoted the Course saying
that words are symbols of symbols. This being true what symbols
existed in the Kingdom of Heaven at the time of the separation?
Debinski
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thanks, Mike. I try to follow one simply rule "never repeat anything
you don't know from experience to be true," which I would translate
into Course language as "perception with no knowing basis is
meaningless." If you don't know what a word points toward, certainly
looking it up in a dictionary or comparing how it is used in one
context to how it is used in another can be helpful. But you still
don't know what it means until you observe or experience what it
points toward yourself. But words/concepts/information/
intellectualizing are generally valued far more than experience. Never
mind that anyone willing to look can easily see thinking
(intellectualizing) never solved a single problem anyone ever had.
<smile> The way to solve a problem isn't to think about solutions but
to look at the problem, which brings me to your question.
What I hear you asking is "In the kingdom of heaven what symbolizes
separation?" If that's what you're asking, my answer is nothing.
That's the point. In fact, I would say that is why the Course calls it
a "tiny mad idea" because it does NOT point to anything real, possible
or doable. IOW, it is a perception with no knowing basis. How it arose
or why, God only knows. But since there is no will but God's, it seems
only reasonable that He (God the Son in Course terms) introduced it
for the very purpose of experience. As they say, "Even God doesn't
like to eat alone." So, I think it was introduced for the sheer joy of
sharing experience. Only when we forget that it is only a thought and
not real does fear of loss and the whole illusion of opposites enter
into the picture. But please don't take my word for anything. Do YOU
see anything that would suggest separation except belief?
Debinski
Mike
Two points: 1.words are symbols of symbols
2.you contend that words existed at the
time of separation, therefor
3. a 'thing' must have existed in the Kingdom
of Heaven at the instant of separation
for which the word was a symbol.
Example: the word rock symbolizes, obviously, a rock. Yet
the rock itself is also a symbol. The question
arises
what is a rock a symbol of? Or one could ask,
why is a rock? Also, the word body
is a symbol for the body. ACIM tells us that
the body is a symbol for the ego. Therfore, if
words
as symbols existed at the time of the separation did
the body, for example, exist at the moment of
separation? Did it exist perhaps an instant prior
to the separation?
Many ACIM students ascribe to the belief that the
statements concerning the existence of only One
Mind which we all share indicates that in Reality
there exists only one Being, and, therefore, all
are
God. I do not share this interpretation.
To the point: if you contend that words and
thoughts
are inevitably linked together and that a 'tiny,
mad
idea' crept into our minds then that idea must
have
had as its object some 'thing'. Something must
have
existed for the word or words to symbolize.
To address your last sentence: what existed that
induced the belief in separation and where did it
come from? I have ideas about this, of course.
But
the Course does not go into detail about it, I
suspect,
because it merely focuses on the error making it
real. Still, it is, for me, impossible not to
think
about it,
Debinski
According to A Course in Miracles, a rock symbolizes God. "God is in
everything I see."
> Also, the word body
> is a symbol for the body. ACIM tells us that
> the body is a symbol for the ego. Therfore, if
> words
> as symbols existed at the time of the separation
the body, for example, exist at the moment of
> separation? Did it exist perhaps an instant prior
> to the separation?<
I don't know that bodies exist independently of my awareness of them
now. What I am suggesting is that nothing existed or appeared to exist
to which the thought of separation referred. That is why I think the
Course calls it a "mad idea" because the thought did/does NOT point to
anything real. I can only refer to my own experience -- or speculate
as I did in suggesting the thought of separation may have been
introduced for the sheer joy of sharing experience. In MY experience,
I think the belief in separation came around the age of four -- NOT
because of anything I observed or experienced, but as a result of what
I was taught. "this is you and that is not you. This is yours and that
is not yours. You are this and not that, etc." In other words. the
world is not you, you are only a tiny part of the world. THAT is when
I think my thinking was reversed to what the Course calls "the ego
thought system" -- when I identified with a body and ceased to be as I
was created to be, adopting a false image of myself instead. In
retrospect it seems I never totally believed it, nor do I think anyone
else does. It's just easier to accept the role assigned by family/
society/culture than to buck the system.
Here/now I see nothing to suggest separation is real except belief --
particularly belief that "I am a person in a body." If I am a person
in a body, then my brothers and sisters must be persons in bodies,
too, and separation seems real. Without that belief everything is what
it is -- images, sensations, thoughts-- all arising in exactly the
same time/place -- here/now. But that is why I asked YOU and have
asked others the question. "What do YOU see that suggests to you it
exists independently of your awareness of it?"
Debinski
> Many ACIM students ascribe to the belief that the
> statements concerning the existence of only One
> Mind which we all share indicates that in Reality
> there exists only one Being, and, therefore, all
> are
> God. I do not share this interpretation.
> To the point: if you contend that words and
> thoughts
> are inevitably linked together and that a 'tiny,
> mad
> idea' crept into our minds then that idea must
> have
> had as its object some 'thing'. Something must
> have
> existed for the word or words to symbolize.
> To address your last sentence: what existed that
> induced the belief in separation and where did it
> come from? I have ideas about this, of course.
> But
> the Course does not go into detail about it, I
> suspect,
> because it merely focuses on the error making it
> real. Still, it is, for me, impossible not to
> think
> about it,- Hide quoted text -
Debinski
> On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 10:35:55 -0800 (PST), Debinski
>
> <debdaniel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >In MY experience,
> >I think the belief in separation came around the age of four -- NOT
> >because of anything I observed or experienced, but as a result of what
> >I was taught. "this is you and that is not you. This is yours and that
> >is not yours. You are this and not that, etc." In other words. the
> >world is not you, you are only a tiny part of the world. THAT is when
> >I think my thinking was reversed to what the Course calls "the ego
> >thought system" -- when I identified with a body and ceased to be as I
> >was created to be, adopting a false image of myself instead. In
> >retrospect it seems I never totally believed it, nor do I think anyone
> >else does. It's just easier to accept the role assigned by family/
> >society/culture than to buck the system.
>
> lays full responsibility on you, for everything you experience. In
> doing so it gives you back the only remaining freedom you have in this
> world: the freedom to choose between truth and illusion. Either the
> world is your father, or God is.
>
> Deborah (BC)
Yeah, I hear that a lot, Deborah. My responsibility was/is to believe
what the world tells me about myself -- or not. Maybe you didn't
notice I said that was when *I* identified with a body and ceased to
be as I was created. No one forced that decision on me. That's
actually exactly what the Course says as well, isn't it? "The world
would teach you many false images of yourself?" This forum is actually
getting a little silly. Does anyone ever look for anything except
error to correct?
Debinski
Debinski
> On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 10:35:55 -0800 (PST), Debinski
>
> <debdaniel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Here/now I see nothing to suggest separation is real except belief --
> >particularly belief that "I am a person in a body." If I am a person
> >in a body, then my brothers and sisters must be persons in bodies,
> >too, and separation seems real. Without that belief everything is what
> >it is -- images, sensations, thoughts-- all arising in exactly the
> >same time/place -- here/now. But that is why I asked YOU and have
> >asked others the question. "What do YOU see that suggests to you it
> >exists independently of your awareness of it?"
>
> can't GET outside my own mind. If there IS anything outside my own
> mind, I don't know about it. The course says "There is nothing
> outside of you". And that is a pretty phenomal statement, unless I
> can realize that my mind encompasses the universe.
>
> That's not really very hard to do.
>
> Lie on your back on the grass some clear summer night, and look up.
> That starscape is not outside of you. Your awareness encompasses it
> all, and if it didn't, it wouldn't be there. Not for you, anyway.
>
> Deborah (BC)
Thank you, Deborah. That's exactly what I've been saying and getting
argument every step of the way. IF anything exists outside of my
awareness of it I have absolutely no way of knowing it -- so where is
separation?
Mike
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
In as much as perception is a function
of physicality it is impossible for my
body to exist independent of my
perception of it. I believe the 'tiny
mad idea' refers to the belief that
God's Will could be replaced by
one of our own making. What we
are seperated from is direct
Communion with God.
You cite your personal experience
as a child as an example of accepting
separation as a fact. Or maybe more
accurately having it thrust upon you
by the culture in which you were born.
Is it your position that the separation
occurred for you at this time? If so,
do you think this is so for all of us?
Or is this just a for instance? Don't
think that I am trying to correct any
errors in you or anyone else. I am
just trying to communicate clearly.
Pieter
Lol!
No, it is but my opinion, as I said.
Mike
>
> - Show quoted text -
Pieter, you laughed! That makes me happy. But not HappyMike.
I'm still Harcourt. :-)
expires
> "expires" wrote:
>
>> FMPOV
>> belief is not knowledge,
>
> Completely agreed.
>
>> IOW the
>> word 'believe' means effectively
>> the same as 'opinion'.
>
> Imo it is easier to give up
> an opinion than a belief.
How much "easier" in relation to knowledge?
BTW, from
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/opinion
" 1. A *belief* or conclusion held with
" confidence but not substantiated by
" positive knowledge or proof
" [...]
" Synonyms: opinion, view, sentiment,
" feeling, *belief*, conviction, persuasion
--expires
Pieter
> On Nov 30, 5:18 pm, "Pieter" <hrdou...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
>
> > "Debinski" <debdaniel...@yahoo.com> schreef in
> > berichtnews:797e82f6-1497-481c...@z7g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > Without
> > > language, it isn't possible to even conceive of separation, let alone
> > > believe it.
>
> > > Debinski
>
> > - Do you mean the "tiny, mad idea" was "language",
> > and the introduction of it caused the separation?
>
> Yes. Self-image (ego) is learned.Without language there is no choice
> but to be as God created you.
Imo the very fact of being born within
this world does mean one already believes
in separation, or at least is not yet free of it.
That would mean that "learning" separation
in fact is: becoming aware of one's belief in it;
the attendant, but still hidden belief then is
brought to one's awareness.
> But the thought of separation isn't the
> problem -- belief in the thought of separation is the problem.
Sure!
>
> Debinski
Pieter
> Pieter wrote:
>> "expires" wrote:
>>
>>> FMPOV
>>> belief is not knowledge,
>>
>> Completely agreed.
>>
>>> IOW the
>>> word 'believe' means effectively
>>> the same as 'opinion'.
>>
>> Imo it is easier to give up
>> an opinion than a belief.
>
> How much "easier" in relation to knowledge?
One's will to know the truth is proven by
one's readiness to let all illusions be undone,
equally.
expires
> "expires" wrote:
>> Pieter wrote:
>>> "expires" wrote:
>>>
>>>> FMPOV
>>>> belief is not knowledge,
>>> Completely agreed.
>>>
>>>> IOW the
>>>> word 'believe' means effectively
>>>> the same as 'opinion'.
>>> Imo it is easier to give up
>>> an opinion than a belief.
>> How much "easier" in relation to knowledge?
>
> One's will to know the truth is proven by
> one's readiness to let all illusions be undone,
> equally.
Really? Well, IMO there are key components
missing in your statement, like:
" One's will to know the whole truth
" is proven by absolute fearlessness.
So, Pieter, how about you trying to merge
both statements into one we both consider
to be complete?
--expires
Debinski
No we're not. We can believe we are separated from God just as we can
believe ego is who we are, but thank God belief can't make it true.
> You cite your personal experience
> as a child as an example of accepting
> separation as a fact. Or maybe more
> accurately having it thrust upon you
> by the culture in which you were born.<
No, I did not suggest it was thrust upon me. In fact, I said in
retrospect I don't think I ever totally believed it nor do I think
anyone else does. It was just easier to conform than to buck the
system -- then, as it is now. Instead of analyzing what *I* say, why
not do as I suggest? Find out for yourself. Forget the words. Look
around at what the words point toward. Ask yourself what is valued in
this world? Do we value freedom or do we give lip service to freedom
while insisting upon conformity? Do we value creativity or do we give
lip service to creativity while valuing the accumulation of
information? Do we value cooperation or do we give lip service to
cooperation while encouraging competition? What happens to children
who do not conform? Are the valued or are they disciplined and
medicated?
The last thing in the world *I* am interested in is perpetuating the
problem by convincing you to conform to MY beliefs. Beliefs are the
problem, not the solution.
> Is it your position that the separation
> occurred for you at this time? If so,
> do you think this is so for all of us?<
No, it is my position that the separation never occurred. But it isn't
a position, it's the truth.
Debinski
Debinski
> On 1 dec, 12:53, Debinski <debdaniel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 30, 5:18 pm, "Pieter" <hrdou...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
>
> > > "Debinski" <debdaniel...@yahoo.com> schreef in
> > > berichtnews:797e82f6-1497-481c...@z7g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > Without
> > > > language, it isn't possible to even conceive of separation, let alone
> > > > believe it.
>
> > > > Debinski
>
> > > - Do you mean the "tiny, mad idea" was "language",
> > > and the introduction of it caused the separation?
>
> > Yes. Self-image (ego) is learned.Without language there is no choice
> > but to be as God created you.
>
> Imo the very fact of being born within
> this world does mean one already believes
> in separation, or at least is not yet free of it.<
So you think a person who is now called "Pieter" existed and believed
in separation prior to the birth of a body identified as this
"Pieter?" Think about that. I don't know how old you are, but I
suspect if you look at what you define as "Pieter" and compare it to
what you defineded as "Pieter" when you were five years old you will
find that without reference to a body -- as in gender, hair and eye
color, etc. -- you will find little if anything is the same now as it
was then. In fact, I would suggest that not only does what defines
"Pieter" today bear little resemblance to what defined "Pieter" ten
years ago, there is actually no consistency or continuity to what
defines "Pieter" from one day to the next, quite often from one moment
to the next. Continuity of personality is a belief, not a fact. Find
THAT in yourself that has NOT changed. Ask it if it was ever born into
a world.
> That would mean that "learning" separation
> in fact is: becoming aware of one's belief in it;
> the attendant, but still hidden belief then is
> brought to one's awareness.
>
Yes, but it isn't a personal belief. There are not six billion
separate minds believing in separation. There is ONE mind -- a part of
which believes in and teaches separation. Or perhaps I should say if
there IS more than one mind, I have absolutely no way of knowing it.
Debinski
> > But the thought of separation isn't the
> > problem -- belief in the thought of separation is the problem.
>
> Sure!
>
>
>
>
>
> > Debinski- Hide quoted text -
>
expires
> "Pieter" wrote:
[...]
What is mind, even 'One Mind',
without a story, without stories?
What is 'God' without 'creation'?
Absolutely what is absolutely?
--expires
Mike
> > In as much as perception is a function
> > of physicality it is impossible for my
> > body to exist independent of my
> > perception of it. I believe the 'tiny
> > mad idea' refers to the belief that
> > God's Will could be replaced by
> > one of our own making. What we
> > are seperated from is direct
> > Communion with God.<
>
> No we're not. We can believe we are separated from God just as we can
> believe ego is who we are, but thank God belief can't make it true.
I take it as a given that what we are talking about is the belief
that
the separation has occured that makes the separation seem real.
I don't feel it necessary to reiterate the fact that the ego's
thought
system which includes the belief in seperation is but a belief
when by definition it is a belief. To me that would be like
referring
to ACIM as the book ACIM. Redundant. :-)
>
> > You cite your personal experience
> > as a child as an example of accepting
> > separation as a fact. Or maybe more
> > accurately having it thrust upon you
> > by the culture in which you were born.<
>
> No, I did not suggest it was thrust upon me. In fact, I said in
> retrospect I don't think I ever totally believed it nor do I think
> anyone else does. It was just easier to conform than to buck the
> system -- then, as it is now. Instead of analyzing what *I* say, why
> not do as I suggest? Find out for yourself. Forget the words. Look
> around at what the words point toward. Ask yourself what is valued in
> this world? Do we value freedom or do we give lip service to freedom
> while insisting upon conformity? Do we value creativity or do we give
> lip service to creativity while valuing the accumulation of
> information? Do we value cooperation or do we give lip service to
> cooperation while encouraging competition? What happens to children
> who do not conform? Are the valued or are they disciplined and
> medicated?
In the next paragraph you state that you are not interested
in convincing me to conform to your beliefs while in the
previous paragraph you admonish me to do as you suggest
and look at the world in your terms. The questions you ask
in the previous paragraph may have great value to you:
freedom vs. conformity
creativity vs. 'the accumulation of
information'
(I didn't know they were engaged in
a struggle)
co-operation vs. competition
disciplined children vs. medicated
children ????????
Perhaps all of the above are central to something or other,
but damned if I know what that might be. Why not just state
something like, 'deny the denial'?
>
> The last thing in the world *I* am interested in is perpetuating the
> problem by convincing you to conform to MY beliefs. Beliefs are the
> problem, not the solution.
>
> > Is it your position that the separation
> > occurred for you at this time? If so,
> > do you think this is so for all of us?<
>
> No, it is my position that the separation never occurred. But it isn't
> a position, it's the truth.
At the risk of being redundant myself let me say that I
understand, as does everyone else who posts here,
that the separation is based upon the belief that the
separation has occured. That is basic and fundamental.
Carrie
>>
>> No, it is my position that the separation never occurred. But it
>> isn't a position, it's the truth.
>
>
> At the risk of being redundant myself let me say that I
> understand, as does everyone else who posts here,
> that the separation is based upon the belief that the
> separation has occured. That is basic and fundamental.
The belief in it. Without the belief in it, it woudn't even be an
issue, or mentioned (in the course, or elsewhere)
So, it seems a given that people must and have to believe it in a
way, just to even use the word.
Which, I guess is what you said here LOL
Mike
:-)