I'm not sure I can communicate with you, tinker, if you see me as wanting to put blame on you so I can refuse to acknowledge anything. I suggest we leave it alone for now. I don't know how to talk to you. I am stumped.
On May 17, 2:04 pm, Tinker <[email protected]> wrote: > I agree with the craftsmanship of the statement, it's real > intellectual. > It's a poor excuse for communicating an idea amongst common folk. > If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS :-) > > "non dual union of sacral and secular" is some of the above > referenced. > The heart of the idea I present is to remove the "sacral" self- > righteousness from the common link of mankind. > > I do have something here, dear molly, and you want to put the blame on > me so you can refuse to acknowledge it. > No approach will succeed with any who cling to the self-righteous > denial of our common link. > > I asked you before, when family rescued you from answering. > What do you call the connection in our mind? > > peace & Love > > On May 17, 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 > > > > > > described and a result of intensive meditation on, discussive and > > > > > > reworking of the tradition [under strong influence of other > > > > > > philosophical and religious traditions]) goes on with deeper > > > > > > symbolism > > > > > > with the opening of deeper themes through allusions to Jesus' body > > > > > > as > > > > > > Temple, a prophesy of the passion, etc. But, fundamentally the > > > > > > Johannine tradition concurs with the synoptic trope of the > > > > > > overcoming > > > > > > of the cesura between sacral and secular, developing this further in > > > > > > the concept of Word (Logos) made flesh. > > > > > > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
