You are right Molly, I have not presented a clear idea. I have tried to get you to discuss something that is common in the mind of all mankind. You can't bear to talk about it as being common to mankind. It is the justifier of all that you believe in and if it is the justifier of all that others believe in your beliefs would loose their superiority.
I'm really happy that you are not calling me a scientologist :-) My ideas are the common threads of all kinds of religious dogmas. So now I will ask, what, exactly is your answer to the conundrum of > life, tinker? To establish a common recognition of the common link in the minds of mankind. What symbol do your propose and how will it work to > bring the sum total of humanity into the same stage and state of mind? The symbol will come after understanding the way to, bring the collective mind forward from the subconscious to the conscious. Then mankind will evolve spiritually, as all the great religions have sought. peace & Love On May 15, 1:54 pm, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > I did respond directly to you. As far as your idea, you may think you > have presented a clear idea, but you have not. Communication is a > tricky thing, especially when we are responding to posts days after > they were saved, and the conversation has gone beyond them already. > We all use the language and ideas accumulated thoughout our lifetimes > and they reflect our culture, education, etc. You, for example, sound > like a scientologist. I'm not saying you are, I'm saying your ideas > sound similar. > > So now I will ask, what, exactly is your answer to the conundrum of > life, tinker? What symbol do your propose and how will it work to > bring the sum total of humanity into the same stage and state of mind? > > On May 15, 1:43 pm, Tinker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Molly, I am wide open to everything presented on this forum. I read > > (to understand) every word posted. I don't use the "rare and wonderful > > opportunities for self reflection" as a means of escape. > > I apologize for being so arrogant as to stand fast on knowledge that I > > have gained and tested over and over again from different point of > > views to know the truth. Everything that I know has ground in the > > great teachings. But it's a bit here and a piece there that all come > > together to form a 'new knowledge'. > > You are the one who is not open to insight. You have the most > > magnificent construction of collected dogmas that I've ever seen. I > > don't think there is a bit of it that you have developed through your > > own insight. > > There is no need for you to "go on", I see the great collection of > > intelligence on this forum, that's why I'm here. > > You keep trying to pin some kind of ignorance on me. I know what you > > know, and you won't even talk about what I know. > > > Why do you come down the page to defend Fran and not respond to me > > above? > > > peace & Love > > > On May 15, 7:38 am, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > e, I think that the handle that Francis chose to use in this group > > > reflects a very real sense of humility. He speaks to us as Francis > > > the man - not a god or a saint, but fully human. As you get to know > > > him, you will find his responses compassionate and real. His insight > > > into tinkers responses here should not be dismissed lightly. It takes > > > two hands to clap, and tinker has voiced very strongly that he is here > > > to enlighten us. He may, indeed, have some insights. But if he not > > > open to the insights of Francis or anyone else here, he will be > > > missing out on rare and wonderful opportunities for self reflection > > > and growth. If he thinks that he has grown all he can, and that > > > "others" are here for him to enlighten, I would say he has a long way > > > to go. This is the message he conveys. This is what Francis, in his > > > compassion, is trying to tell tinker - that there is an arrogance to > > > this position that screams unenlightened. > > > > Tinker, if you mean something different than this, let us know. You > > > have an interesting perspective. Everyone here does. One is not > > > better or more enlightened than the other. Justin has incredibly deep > > > insights and enjoys the structure of philosophical discourse. Pat > > > will string it all out for us like a true physicist whose observations > > > change the experiment. Francis has a wealth of understanding in > > > theology and psychology, and the heart of a poet with a command of the > > > language to do it justice. I could go on and on but will end > > > suggesting that you stay open to what is offered here. > > > > On May 15, 6:46 am, e_space <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > fran! u seem a bit bothered in your last couple of posts...maybe a > > > > vacation in the arctic would help u chill out a bit. i personally > > > > havent read a book of significance in about 40 years because i also > > > > found what i was looking for...this does not mean that one should not > > > > put their views out there does it? maybe tink does what to spread his > > > > light around...anything wrong with that? u can take what u want from > > > > it, or not, no? speaking of conceited, at least he doesnt call himself > > > > 'tinktheman' ;-^) > > > > > On May 15, 4:57 am, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On 15 Mai, 02:43, Tinker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > I don't intend to say that the great works of a lot of people are > > > > > > not > > > > > > great. I don't need to study anymore, I have found that which I was > > > > > > seeking and am trying to go forward with it. > > > > > > This attitude makes discussion with you difficult, Tinker. If you are > > > > > convinced you have found the Philosopher's Stone, then why do you > > > > > enter into discourse with us here? Do you see any possibility of > > > > > dialectical development in discussion with others? Is there a > > > > > possibility that your views will develop and even change under the > > > > > influence of the insights of others? If so, then I would see your > > > > > dismissal of the need to study what others have written about many > > > > > topics to be somewhat short-sighted. If not, then I have to conclude > > > > > that your only purpose here is to enlighten those of us who haven't > > > > > reached your elevated level of satori, or to indulge in mutual back- > > > > > scratching with others who have achieved this exalted position. > > > > > > Such posts remind me of Lucy van Pelt, in Schulz's "Peanuts", > > > > > following the motto, "I used to be conceited, but now I'm perfect." > > > > > > peace & Love > > > > > > Francis --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
