ian
, my sincere thanks for the cogency of ur response....
 specificallllly, specifically and praise God thankfully for this point of 
definitional issues.

 i would offer that i, and perhaps others who seem to be making a kind of sense 
to me, are not only touching this, but, in my case, refusing to leave until we 
have some.

thus, whilst i might appear here to be a ravening wolf...it's because, yeah. 
i'm a ravening wolf.

 thus, ;"The meaning of 'compatible' is very simple and straight forward: 
compatible
is not contradictory to the substance or intent of a statement either
directly or by logical consequence."
 is u demanding i agree to what some suits said, and i say, no, thank u, but no.
  compatible means" don;t screw each other over."
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+compatible&btnG=Google+Search
now..i can see u abstracting out something like  "intent" out of what i would 
call "behaviour" which i find consistent with the Master's repeated comments 
about mineral life, etc.
i can get sense testing (while recallling that no, sense reporting is not 
perception--see william james--but the organising on the fly of sense 
signalling, and thus removed, since the organisational system pre-exists the 
sensation.

:"but nonetheless an
effort must be made to narrow the focal point of discussion. 

 only if we already >>intend<< to build common ground. without such hearing of 
intent, and of motive, ur statement is a terorism.
 normally, at bnut, where i try to concretely engage these issues, i would put 
this:
   ok, there's a field, and an agreement to report what we see. we see a round 
thing, maybe a ball, maybe a rock; we see a stick. we begin to share an 
interplay of our images of them. we may see something, that could become 
baseball, or cricket...but we >>>do not know<<< unless we share. hey, a ball..a 
stick...
   not a rock, a stick..becuase what we will build will become different.

:"Philosophical
distinctions are especially useful because they often bring to light
distinctions easily lost e.g. unity/extrinsic unity/intrinsic unity. "
 or they are compleatly and utterly useless for the same reason. one may ocean 
for "cow" and "philiospher" near an awwesome pilgrim;s note, "see, I told you 
americans liked jokes."

:"Why wouldn't they be social laws? Any laws passed by human beings are, in my
mind, social laws. They may contradict nature - but human law does not
always take guidance from nature.

All man-made systems decay and require renewal. "
 that causes me to have a perception we may be seeing something similar--or 
seeing different things in a similar way. 

   yeah... allll systems decay. System includes decay within renewal..the Two 
Angels guarding heaven. my dim recall says the Master comments on this, as does 
actually, poe's eureka, and my own fave for now...blake's awakening to the 
Coming Breeze.
   specificallly,. in this discussion the infalllible UHJ authrosiing the use 
of the term "necessity" in the original cite from century of light.
  
:"Any laws passed by human beings are, in my
mind, social laws."
  in my mind, as someone who has been a peace officer, and lecturer of police 
ethics, and other even stranger things, laws passed by cultures are reflections 
of perceived Form.
  social laws would, de facto, require pre-existent socialising..which contains 
within it signals form the brain stem, etc..which are not "human" but rather 
animal. ...see everyone from james to piaget to the sainted fred rogers.
 in the example being looked at, a dictator might demand that anyone not 
levitating whilst listening to his speeches be shot. he will cease havung 
anyone to dictate to shortly thereafter, thru one mechanism or another. because 
the world view, the system, the whatever is corrupt, self-undermining.

:"but human law does not
always take guidance from nature."
 i would strenuously disagree and offer instead that human law alllwaysss takes 
guidance from >>>perceived <<< nature.
 when perceptions agree..a word that means 'pleasede by" thus putting that 
brain stem right back in the loop, there is now pleased by/ not pleased by ; 
us/other; separator. wall. sharing walls? community. preserve community? 
pretend that the agreement is a response to nature and not self; eventually, 
Nature, not self. so that we can have the infalllible Guardian saying "3 false 
gods" and i can be pretty sure that my view of the field, the ball the stick, 
the ability to burn rock and get chalk dust and mark out boundries, and play 
stickball is similar to what the Guardian saw.
  then, i can >>>>>move<<<<within that now demarked, and thus limited 
field...at which point i find out, by testing, reflecting, etc....not by being 
told by anyone except my own eyes, and not the eyes of others. 
  now i have "equity" . and no equity until i have that---moving. 



 
 
The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments thereto ("e-mail") 
is sent by the Johnson County Community College ("JCCC") and is intended to be 
confidential and for the use of only the individual or entity named above. The 
information may be protected by federal and state privacy and disclosures acts 
or other legal rules. If the reader of this message is not the intended 
recipient, you are notified that retention, dissemination, distribution or 
copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail 
in error please immediately notify JCCC by email reply and immediately and 
permanently delete this e-mail message and any attachments thereto. Thank you.
 
 
__________________________________________________
 

You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe: send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe: send subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe: http://list.jccc.edu:8080/read/all_forums/subscribe?name=bahai-st
Baha'i Studies is available through the following:
Mail - mailto:[email protected]
Web - http://list.jccc.edu:8080/read/?forum=bahai-st
News - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st
Public - http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist
Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]

Reply via email to