Sir, I do hope that I have not been guilty of the misinterpretation. I would maybe draw the rein a bit for my intent of shining the light on our 'collective intelligence'. It of course does reach out into the cosmos.
Along the line of your 'energy thought', the physical brain generates the mind and all the wonders it creates/imagines. When dead, the brain stops generating. Life is sacred. It is sacrilege to make it second to something construed by the mind, which is generated by Life. peace & Love On May 17, 11:49 am, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > My statement has been referenced multiple times, and I think mistaken in its > intent. > "Sacred" is a spiritual perception, and one that I really don't have. I > merely noted that I believe the experience to be similar to that of a > spiritual experience, while being secular in nature. When I make a > connection, I'm speaking on an intellectual experience, i.e. solving some > code bug, reconciling two explanations of concepts in physics, etc. When I > began reading String Theory, and progressed to Super String, and then to > Higgs-Boson, and achieved that mental picture in my head of how that would > work, physically in the universe, it was one such moment. Although it was an > "A-ha!" moment of recognition of connectedness of all matter and energy in > the universe, I didn't attach anything sacred to it. In fact, it was almost > the opposite. The energy I share is exactly that of a rock, and although I > am fortunate enough to have an organization of such energy that allows me to > be a sentient, active organism, capable of thought and action, this will > only be the case as long as my complex organization of matter and energy > remains functional. Asking Wolfram Alpha, I find that there is no way to > reverse the effects of entropy in the universe, and as such, my time here is > limited. Even my Newtonian guarantee of zero sum energy is not so; M theory > shows that there will be some energy bleed as particles/waves travel through > the edges of black holes across the 11th dimension of gravity. > > In summation, there is no Me after death. There is no sacred, above and > beyond what I choose to hold so while alive. All the more reason to treat > the things which I do choose to hold so as sacred while I am alive. This > concept of a perpetuation of identity, in any form, seems to originate from > the Ego's fear of an endpoint...a concept tied to the fact that humans > perceive the universe through the mind, seated in the ego, and cannot > subconsciously comprehend the universe existing without our being here to > perceive it. > > On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 8:10 AM, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > "synoptic trope of the overcoming > > > of the cesura between sacral and secular, developing this further in > > > the concept of Word (Logos) made flesh." > > > By the way, this, in my humble opinion, is one of the most beautifully > > crafted statements that I have seen here or anywhere on the web. > > > That said, tinker, Logos is the meaning that passes between us, and as > > such, would be your symbol. The non dual union of sacral and secular > > would be the Unity of your idea. The sacral (Chris' ah ha all > > encompassing realization of the sacred nature of all life) might be > > the subconsicous, secular (our understanding of our external world as > > temporal) , conscious. > > > I am a believer in recognizing patterns that come into awareness and > > this is one of the more profound for me. That is to say that you may > > have something here, tinker, something timeless that is part of all of > > us. It sure would be wonderful if collectively, we recognized it. > > But between us friends, and I say this with all due respect, your > > approach could use a little work. > > > On May 16, 5:07 pm, Tinker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On May 16, 10:25 am, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Nicely done, Francis. > > > > > "synoptic trope of the overcoming > > > > of the cesura between sacral and secular, developing this further in > > > > the concept of Word (Logos) made flesh." > > > > > I wonder if this is something of what tinker was trying to express. > > > > Molly, please tell me how you would make a connection to anything that > > > I've said from that statement. > > > > peace & Love > > > > On May 16, 10:25 am, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Nicely done, Francis. > > > > > "synoptic trope of the overcoming > > > > of the cesura between sacral and secular, developing this further in > > > > the concept of Word (Logos) made flesh." > > > > > I wonder if this is something of what tinker was trying to express. > > > > > It is interesting to me that when most people think of the anger of > > > > Jesus in the biblical stories, this is the one they come up with. Are > > > > there others? > > > > > Anger moving between the sacral (I am assuming your meaning here is > > > > sacred, and not referring to a vertebrate) and secular (external or > > > > temporal world) might still honor the sanctity of the temple (our body > > > > or self) if it also honored the sacral, secular and possibly even the > > > > cesura (still point.) There are many schools of thought based on the > > > > ideas that feeling is what moves thought into manifestation. A couple > > > > of contemporaries are Gregg Braden and Neville Goddard. > > > > > I like to distinguish between feeling and emotion, feeling being pure > > > > and from the heart, emotion being more complex and carrying the past > > > > events where we felt the feeling - the template stored in ego. I > > > > think that e's idea of self examination (even witnessing ourselves > > > > while we are having the feeling) can stop us from expressing the more > > > > ego based emotion and make way for a purity of feeling. > > > > > I know some rageaholics who will fly of the handle with anger often > > > > and unexpectedly. I don't know if they enjoy it or if it has become > > > > second nature to them, a reactionary way of life that involves little > > > > or no self examination. > > > > > We do all seem to experience anger. I have known it to be expressed > > > > with respect for all involved parties. I have known it to do a great > > > > deal of damage to relationships and lives as it is expressed with the > > > > intent to destroy, resulting in, at the very least, the need for > > > > distance and loss of trust and respect. Ultimately, we can choose how > > > > we process all of our emotions including love and anger, and how we > > > > express them. Or allow our egos to do this work for us, reacting > > > > instead of responding to our experience. > > > > > On May 16, 8:21 am, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > :-) Hey, it's been decades since I've done this proto-Marxist, > > > > > liberal, liberation-theology infuenced, biblical exegesis kind of > > > > > stuff - I suppose there just some things that atomatically come back > > > > > to you ...! > > > > > > On 16 Mai, 14:14, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > On 16 Mai, 12:44, e_space <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Jesus displayed righteous > > > > > > > > indignation when "barbarians" were using a "holy temple" as a > > place to > > > > > > > ply their trades. Lets think about this for a moment. Does it > > really > > > > > > > matter where one makes their gold from selling frankincense and > > > > > > > myrrh? > > > > > > > > First of all, if "god" created heaven and earth, then all places > > on > > > > > > > earth are holy. Secondly, Jesus didn't design or build the > > temple, > > > > > > > wasn't a member of it, and really had no business telling the > > > > > > > merchants what to do there. NO place is holier than another, > > except in > > > > > > > perception, which of course motives a large percentage of homo- > > > > > > > sapians, > > > > > > > On a point of fact, e, your exegesis of this event, is based on a > > > > > > factually false impression of the backround of and the actual > > issues > > > > > > involved in the cleansing of the temple, the earliest description > > of > > > > > > which can be found in Mark 11:15-19 (the story is also told in Mt > > > > > > 21:12-17, Lk 19:45-48, Jn 2:14-16). The general consensus is that, > > > > > > given the presence of congruent narratives in all the first > > sources, > > > > > > the story has a pretty firm grounding in the earliest traditions > > and > > > > > > has a high likelihood of factual origins. > > > > > > > The basic point is that the Temple system was a massive parasitic > > rip- > > > > > > off machine. The High Priests nominated the Temple area as sacrally > > > > > > holy ground, which would prohibit the exercise of commerce within > > its > > > > > > presincts. Given that Jews saw themselves as divinely obliged to > > make > > > > > > pilgrimage to the Temple and sacrifice there, this was an > > > > > > inconvenience to those who wished to purchase sacrificial animals > > (the > > > > > > weren't always killed - doves were released) on the spot. The > > priests > > > > > > upped the ante however; sacrificial animals had to be certified for > > > > > > purity. So you either had to buy a certificate of purity on the > > spot, > > > > > > or buy a ritually certified as pure, also on the spot. But commerce > > > > > > was forbidden on the Mount. No problem, you just had to establish a > > > > > > ritually pure temple currency - with these coins you could then > > trade > > > > > > in the Temple area. So you had to have ritual money-changers. > > > > > > Certified as ritually pure, of course. And who did all the > > > > > > certification? Right, the priests. > > > > > > > This is the kind of scheme worthy of comparison with Newman and > > > > > > Redford in "the Sting." With the difference that it was completely > > > > > > legal, not subject to any outside interest and completely in your > > > > > > face. And this was the system which got Jesus pissed. This is > > > > > > certainly the point emphasised in the synoptic stories. It was a > > > > > > strike against exploitative corruption and also against - rather > > than > > > > > > in favour of, as you claim - the separation of the sacral from the > > > > > > secular world. One of Jesus' central teachings was the overcoming > > of > > > > > > the sacral-secular duality - everything is sacred; so there's no > > > > > > reason to prohibit the use of ordinary money on the Temple Mount. > > > > > > > The Johannine version (written 70 years after the events they > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
