--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@...> wrote: > > I still think he's a capital fellow (-: > ________________________________ > From: authfriend <authfriend@...> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 3:42 PM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Capitalization, on FFL > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: > > > > On 02/19/2013 12:06 PM, Buck wrote: > > > "Although it would seem at ï¬rst a minor item, one of the most > > > troublesome issues in undertaking the editing of our work has been > > > the establishing of a consistent policy for capitalization of words. The > > > normal procedure of reserving such usage for proper names, the Deity and > > > His immediate attributes is brought to a sorry dilemma > > > in a work which has as its major thesis the unity of all creation. > > > > > > This matter is made even more puzzling by the subtle fashion > > > in which writers gradually draw the consciousness of the > > > reader from the concept of The Unified Field in Its unmanifest states to > > > those > > > stages of development in which the individualized soul is apparently > > > furthest from realizing his essential eternal oneness with The Field. > > > A strictly rational policy on capitalizations during such a progression > > > of development, ending in a ï¬nal re t u rn to full union with the > > > Being, is apparently unobtainable, and therefore the editors have > > > adopted the more feasible usage of capitalizing the Deity and His > > > immediate attributes, and thereafter have used capitals primarily for the > > > sake of emphasis and helping the reader to distinguish readily between > > > conditions associated with the higher as contrasted > > > with the more gross planes (i.e., E n e rgy of the subtle planes compared > > > to nuclear energy)." > > > > > > > > > > This is the what happens when Capitalism runs rampant. ;-) > > Oh, excellent, Bhairitu! > I suggest that for proper names of physical entities we use standard capitalisation, e.g., Barak Obama; Buck in the Dome.
For metaphysical entities, whose existence cannot be demonstrated to those that require physical evidence, i.e., scientific verification, we capitalise the last letter of the name. That is, goD, shivA, etc., to distinguish them from actually observable entities. (I am speaking of purported entities here, not the delusion of GC, where the nervous system fabricates an experience based on the remaining samskaras; emotionally embedded beliefs, in the system.) I am not sure how to deal with pseudo entities such as Sherlock Holmes, which are not classified as metaphysical, but fictional physical. Capitalise the second letter?, i.e., sHerlock hOlmes?. This would create a problem with two letter names, for example if it was stated that iK was the creator of the universe, we could not tell if iK was a pseudo entity or a non verifiable non physical entity. Unfortunately unless we use rich text (HTML) we cannot use italics or bold etc., to emphasise words. If anyone is guilty of over emphasis on FFL it is turquoiseb, who uses capitalisation, asteriks, and other devices to needle his object of the moment. My only question is, has that needle got a thread stringing together the pearls of existence as it weaves in and out of the intended target. My own opinion is that it does, but opinion is not universal, because it is not real.
