I agree. Simone was capable of a quality of detachment and attention that she simply could not be defined by things. This is why she is one of those rare people beyond classification.

I just don't like lumping versions of Christendom together and calling them Christianity. If Christianity exists, it is an expression of objective quality. Its degeneration into subjective qualities of appreciation should be called as such to preserve the theoretical quality of Christianity. Since I respect Christianity, I refer to all the sects as Christendom.

Eh


You are free do and think what you want. When it becomes time to concern myself with it, then I'll send you a bill.



The neglected garden has produced what we call the "world" and its associated madness.


Stop reading secular interpretations. the next thing is to take the Jesus Seminar and Bishop Spong seriously after which it becomes impossible to understand anything.


I am referring to the esoteric definition of involution and evolution when taken together create the Breath of Brahma and not the secular dictionary definition.

If I wanted to prostitute my path I could make a good buck at it. A lot of New Age philosophy is just egotistic degenerations of the depth of ideas on my path so I could easily grab my share but I couldn't do it.


OK so you only believe in things and it is things that can be subjectively labeled good and bad. You don't recognize the universal process of connecting things as a value. If it floats your boat: fine.

thank you for your reply...be assured..i do not reject you...and only try to understand ...and wish you well on your continued journey...i have tried to share with you how you seem to come accross..and dont feel from you what i read ...that may sound silly to some but dont know how else to say it.....

and dont feel from you what i read

You've lost me on this one. I don't know what you mean?

Rather than rise to the bait of the hecklers, let's hear your version of the truth.
You got me interested.

It really is hard to explain in a post but understanding the cosmological structure of the universe and of a human being is essential. If you are truly interested, I must ask you to read Chapter One of "A Sense of the Cosmos; The Encounter of Modern Science and Ancient Truth" by Jacob Needleman. If you are open to what he introduces, then I may begin to make sense. Right now, and without context, all I would be expressing is partial truths. But really beginning to understand truth as I do is when parts become part of an organic whole.

Welcome to rawpaint.com

Your arrogance is truly astounding. Are you actually suggesting that there is a singular cosmological structure of the universe and humanity? Are you actually suggesting that you have an understanding of a singular universal truth? Your messianic delusions are becoming infuriating to me.

When Shaw-n confronted you with a simple question of your definition of the "truth" you tell us it's "hard to explain" and tell us to go read a book. Unacceptable. Do you have ANYTHING original to add or are you merely a regurgitation-machine for token "philosophers."

You certainly have the right to believe whatever you want, but peddle your intolerance and omnipotence someplace else. Clearly, most of us don't want any of it.

__________________
"The Lord can make you tumble, the Lord can make you turn, the Lord can make you overflow...but the Lord can't make you burn." - Randy Newman

I started reading some of the bits and it is interesting.
Some that I read, such as the universe being conscious on some level, is in alignment with what I believe.
But if a person cannot sum up the basics of what they believe in a short format, then they do not truly understand it.
Don't misunderstand.
I'm not toying with you.
You seem to be sincere in what you are believing and that is a good thing, yet to "get the message across to others" can be at times difficult, as we all are in our own learned paradigms and speak from our own contexts and biases.
So the idea here is that you are well versed in this ideology which you are discussing and seem to be sounding the depths and using us as a sounding board.
That is fine.
We all do that here.
So while I am interested in your ideas I am not going to embark on another study project when I have several on the go already.
Perhaps you should start another thread where you work out your ideas for us to comment on.
Consider it a conceptual forge.
But please refrain from so many quotes.
I know they say it so well, but you need to speak in your own right, not just voice the quotes of others.
In this way you can acquire better abilities to express your beliefs and we can all perhaps learn something in the process.
That is, after all, what this forum is all about.

I made comment in another thread once that 10 people can say the same thing and a person not register what there saying and the 11th person comes along and tells it sounds the same to the other 10 that told it, but there must be something different for now the light comes on for the one there sharing it with...... it is all good...

You can be infuriated all you like but cosmology is a very ancient and IMO a very true conception of universal structure. The fact that I've had the audacity to read up on such things and actually try to understand them is most offensive to the modern secular mindset and I do plead guilty but as yet cannot feel ashamed for this obvious affront to modern educational standards.

We are conditioned to try and define "truth" by things. We've forgotten that essential truths can only be considered as part of a process. For example you can ask for a definition of fa on a seven tone musical scale. People can argue over this until they realize that it can only be defined in terms of the scale itself and its place between mi and sol and doesn't have an independent existence. Understanding universal truths is the same. They can only be defined in context which is why it is necessary to use deductive reason when considering such questions in addition to the normal inductive reason of science.

Nothing original can be added that isn't fantasy until universal structure is understood.


If the rest are equally as backward and dogmatic in their thinking, then I go. No harm no foul. As I've said, these ideas have to be kept alive in society for the minority and culture as a whole that benefit by them. If no representatives of this minority are here even in potential, then there is no reason for me to be here.