Rekrabm: "Discoursing is stating the obvious to those who already know
it. Unity in search of itself but lost in Nous. Worthful or worthless
are meaningless. No soul can be evaluated as the Dao can not be
evaluated. Only intellect insists on evaluating what cannot possibly
be evaluated and dividing what can't be. Intellect or Nous is only
worthful until it's surpassed, as Javascript, as Objective-C. Fear is
a non-existent fancy of a bored intellect. As are numbers as are
assignments. In eternity, there's no difference between things. There
are no things. There is nothing. All things are one thing in eternity
so there is no difference, no nous, no we, no I, no you."--Just
nihilism!
dolf: "You are only speaking from your constraints and understanding
of nothing. I have no such constraints. That I am able by this
paradigm, to make a logical grounding of infinity within the tem****al
as instigated time--And I am also able to do this with language.
It has been suggested by some, that the only reason supernatural
monotheism survives in our scientific age is because of a desire for
Eternal Life--as an extrapolation of the instinct of self-
preservation.
This truth quotient as soul is all about reflexive self preservation
of equilibrium in traversal of a continuum as eternity.
Accordingly language is imbued with this aspect of soul by being
representative of a logical grounding of infinity within the tem****al
as instigated time."
Rekrabm: "To say 'I' and 'You' is to demonstrate constraint. Nothing
can neither be understood nor constrained, only experienced. Nothing
can be obscured by Somethingness. But it's Something that's nothing,
not Nothing. Such heavy, heavy burdens, clutching nothing so tightly
in hopes of it becoming Something, only to end up again with nothing."
On Jul 12, 2:28=A0pm, Barry OGrady <god_free_jo...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting
>
>
> Dolt will do anything to annoy and harass other users and even big
cor****=
ations.
> It seems Dolt hates everybody. One thing Dolt has done is to bring hope
t=
o harassed
> users by pretending he was going to top himself, only to dash their
hopes=
by returning.
>
> >But Ramchal (Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzatto 1707-1746 CE) makes a very
> >astute point that has bearing on a lot of things having to do with how
> >we=92re to grow in our spirit.
>
> >He asserts that while one person might be moved to change by one thing
> >or another, someone else might be repelled by the very same thing, and
> >vice versa -- and yet both would need to grow. So it=92s obvious that
> >we=92d have to know what inspires us and what doesn=92t if we=92re to
mo=
ve
> >ahead. He says that there are three sorts of people over-all as far as
> >spiritual yearnings are concerned: =93those who fully understand (what
> >matters most)=94, =93those of somewhat lesser understanding (than
they)=
=94,
> >and =93the great majority of people=94; or, put simply, there are
people
> >in search of spiritual excellence indeed, there are also people not
> >quite there but on the way, and there are some who are willing to
> >settle for spiritual mediocrity but who could be inspired to do better
> >if given the right impetus.
>
> >For the truth of the matter is that not everyone yearns for nearness
> >to G-d or for a chance to dwell close to Him and to bask in His light
> >forever. While we contend that everyone=92s soul yearns to do that,
> >since the soul originated in G-d=92s Being and would love to =93go back
> >home=94 for good, the lower elements of one=92s being can actually be
> >repelled by the thought. [Spiritual Excellence, (c) 2008 Rabbi Jaakov
> >Feldman, The Path of the Just Ch. 4 (Part 1). Project Genesis]
>
> >Within Integral Psychology =96 Consciousness, Spirit, Psychology,
> >Therapy, =A9 2000 Ken Wilber provides the following minor reservation
> >with respect to Spiral Dynamics as =93not sufficiently includ[ing]
> >states of consciousness nor the higher, transpersonal structures of
> >consciousness; and it is an example of a phase-2 model {ie.
> >Specifically evolutionary or developmental (a =91growth-to-goodness=92
> >model), with the spectrum of consciousness unfolding in developmental
> >stages or levels} and not enough phase-3 {ie. autonomic developmental
> >lines added to those developmental levels=97that is, numerous different
> >developmental lines (such as cognition, cognitive, affective, moral,
> >psychological, spiritual, etc.) proceeding in a relatively independent
> >manner through the basic levels of the overall spectrum of
> >consciousness}. Phase-4 added the idea of the four quadrants=97the
> >subjective (Intentional - Formula of Universal Law), objective
> >(Behavioural - Formula of Humanity), intersubjective (Cultural -
> >Formula of Autonomy), and inter-objective (Social - Formula of
> >Progression of individual phenomena) dimensions=97of each of those
> >levels and lines, with the result being=97or at least attempting to be=
=97a
> >comprehensive or integral philosophy (vMeme/Moment Kabbalah Cube
> >Matrix -- 9(9=B2+1)/2 =3D #369 : Organisation of the myriad or number
of
> >things)=97The present book Ken Wilber claims, is of course a phase-4
> >work.
>
> >That is, there is not enough sensitivity to the empirically
> >demonstrated fact that different developmental lines can be at
> >different levels in the same instance: not just that a person can be
> >using a red meme in one cir***stance and an orange meme in another,
> >but that a person, in the same cir***stance, can be cognitively orange
> >and morally red. Finally Spiral Dynamics does not sufficiently
> >distinguish between enduring and transitional.=94
>
> >Although this vinaigrette really is in the field of analytical
> >psychiatry, the neural-linguistic fascination I presently have here as
> >my current informal research conundrum is the meta descriptor [#174 /
> >#209 - Good or #174 / #142 - Bad] inclination and moral dichotomy as
> >occurring outside the spiral level of development equated to the
> >discriminating norm of human rationalism and cognition. But as
> >occurring at the vBeige level which Ken Wilber calls the "sensorimotor
> >instincts and perceptions" and providing the obvious analogy to a path
> >(way) of good conveyed by vBeige: [0, 3, 3, 3, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0] as
> >computed meta descriptor [#174 / #209] for a 'snack food vending
> >machine':
>
> >Super / Ego
> >#0 / #0
> >#69 / #69
> >#58 / #70
> >#47 / #70
>
> >Super: #69 - Profound Use/ Function of the Mysterious; I-Ching: H34 -
> >Strength of Greatness; Tetra: #22 - Resistance, Ego: #69 - Profound
> >Use/ Function of the Mysterious; I-Ching: H34 - Strength of Greatness;
> >Tetra: #22 - Resistance, Nuance: #69 - Profound Use/ Function of the
> >Mysterious; I-Ching: H34 - Strength of Greatness; Tetra: #22 -
> >Resistance
>
> >"And the Lord God said, 'It is not proper that man should be alone; I
> >will make for him a partner similar to himself.'"
>
> >Super: #58 - Political Reversal/ Adaptation to Change; I-Ching: H43 -
> >Resolution; Tetra: #29 - Decisiveness, Ego: #70 - Difficulty in
> >Knowing How/ Difficult to Understand; I-Ching: H53 - Gradual Progress;
> >Tetra: #14 - Penetration, Nuance: #58 - Political Reversal/ Adaptation
> >to Change; I-Ching: H43 - Resolution; Tetra: #29 - Decisiveness
>
> >"And from the ground the Lord God created every beast that is on the
> >surface of the field and all the birds of the heavens; and he brought
> >them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called
> >a living creature in the language of the sanctuary, that was its
> >name."
>
> >Super: #47 - Ignorant Guides/ Viewing the Distant; I-Ching: H43 -
> >Resolution; Tetra: #30 - Bold Resolution, Ego: #70 - Difficulty in
> >Knowing How/ Difficult to Understand; I-Ching: H53 - Gradual Progress;
> >Tetra: #14 - Penetration, Nuance: #47 - Ignorant Guides/ Viewing the
> >Distant; I-Ching: H43 - Resolution; Tetra: #30 - Bold Resolution
>
> >"And Adam gave their names to all the cattle and to the birds of the
> >heavens, and to all the wild beasts that are on the surface of the
> >field; Yet for Adam he did not find a partner similar to
> >himself." [(c) 1992 The Order of Saint Benedict, Aramaic Targum of
> >Genesis 2:18-21]
>
> >Rabbi Dovid Rosenfeld commenting on Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzatto
> >(1707-1746 CE) treatise "Ma'amar Ha'Ikkarim" and whom he - considers
> >one of Judaism's all-time great philosophers. Writes of the many
> >petty, superficial reasons which drive individuals to fulfill the
> >mitzvos (commandments), be they peer pressure, social considerations,
> >nostalgia, or sheer blind habit.
>
> >And he cautions that a lifetime of empty acts may be worth far less
> >than one moment of true inspiration: "It should be mentioned at the
> >same time that not every mitzvah (commandment) is readily meaningful
> >to us. A significant minority of the commandments, known as the
> >"chukim" {ie. As mitzvot that transcend rational reason. The
> >quintessential chok (singular for chukim) is the mitzvah of the red
> >heifer}, do not have reasons for them readily understandable to man.
> >Such mitzvos sanctify us as well -- in ways our souls more than our
> >intellects can appreciate -- and too ready us for that ultimate
> >relation****p with G-d. They additionally demonstrate our devotion to a
> >G-d in our observing even that which we don't understand. More
> >generally, in spite of the great significance to understanding the
> >mitzvos, we are obligated to observe G-d's commandments whether or not
> >we've mastered the reasons behind them. The fulfillment of the words
> >of an infinite G-d can in no way be dependent upon the understanding
> >of finite puny man." [(c) 2008 Rabbi Dovid Rosenfeld, Maimonides on
> >Life (Laws of Understanding), Chapter 1, Law 6(b) Do We Really Want G-
> >d? Part II, Project Genesis]
>
> >Whereas the notion of evil was obtained from a language source and is
> >conveyed by meta-descriptor [#174 / #142]:
>
> >Super / Ego / Nuance
> >#35 / #31 (#31)
> >#38 / #36 (#67)
> >#60 / #21 (#7)
> >#41 / #54 (#61)
>
> >Super: #35 - Great Guiding Signs?/ Virtue of Benevolence; I-Ching: H17
> >- Allegiance; Tetra: #19 - Following, Ego: #31 - Military Strategies
> >as Guides/ Quelling War; I-Ching: H32 - Endurance; Tetra: #51 -
> >Constancy, Nuance: #31 - Military Strategies as Guides/ Quelling War;
> >I-Ching: H32 - Endurance; Tetra: #51 - Constancy
>
> >"So, the Lord has said, 'You may not eat of any of the trees of the
> >garden?'"
>
> >Super: #38 - Consequences for Virtuosity/ Discourse of Virtue; I-
> >Ching: H62 - Small Excess; Tetra: #11 - Divergence, Ego: #36 - Natural
> >Reversals/ 'Secret' Explanation; I-Ching: H4 - Youthful Inexperience;
> >Tetra: #12 - Youthfulness, Nuance: #67 - Three Treasures; I-Ching: H10
> >- Tread Carefully; Tetra: #48 - Ritual
>
> >"We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; but of the fruit of
> >the tree that is in the middle of the garden, the Lord has said, 'You
> >shall not eat it, and you shall not draw near to it, and (thus) you
> >shall not die.'"
>
> >Super: #60 - Skill at Ruling/ How to Maintain One's Place; I-Ching:
> >H15 - Modesty; Tetra: #5 - Keeping Small, Ego: #21 - Guiding and the
> >Physical/ Emptying the Heart; I-Ching: H31 - Influence; Tetra: #42 -
> >Going to Meet, Nuance:
>
> ...
>
> read more =BB
|
