'Owning' Life here and now is the absolute, from my view. My mantra is; Love is All is God is Love is All is God is Love is All is God is... I've been round the infinite circle with it, the universe comes back as the energy that creates the matter of our physical world. Hows that for "out there"?
I would argue that you 'are' "really here" and that the disconnection is in/through your mind. I think it's okay to escape "really here" for rest/recreation/inspiration but feel it is escapism to deny Life as the base from which one wanders. I wallowed on Bonaire, Netherlands Antilles for eight years, I did and felt as you did with Hawaii. It was experience there and then. I would argue again that you seem to have a great deal of training in the here and now, with only a slight tendency to give authority to 'other than' here and now (re. "I may or may not be on the cutting edge of reality"). peace & Love On Jul 29, 12:01 pm, BB47 <[email protected]> wrote: > On Jul 28, 6:05 pm, Tinker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > To be alive is to own Life, here and now. > > This seems to be your mantra. I am all for living in the now, but it > is damn hard. I am sort of a space cadet. Do you offer specific ways > of doing this? (assuming that is what you mean, it is still unclear to > me) > > In other words, when I am thinking about something, I am doing it in > the now, but I am not really here. I may or may not be on the cutting > edge of reality, I am certainly not paying attention to the external > world. Is that OK? (it doesn't seem that OK) > > Let me give you an example. When I went to Hawaii, I wanted to > "take it in" as much as humanly possible. I really enjoyed it, but I > got the nagging feeling that I was not able to take it in. Not fully. > I spent time "absorbing" it, feeling it, smelling it, wallowing in it > (wallowing is really fun, are you a wallower?) > > I don't think I have the proper training in the here and now. What > would be really great is if you could elaborate more. In a language I > can understand. So far, your language is semi-foreign to me > > > > > peace & Love > > > On Jul 28, 12:02 pm, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > In the course of the recent discussion here concerning the reposting > > > of Minds Eye contributions in other internet fora, the question of > > > copyright arose. It got me to thinking about the idea of intellectual > > > ownership and the idea of possession in general. > > > > We have all seen the Westerns in which the Native Americans sold away > > > title to land for nothing, or pittances because the white man's > > > concept of "owning" land was incomprehensible to them. Throughout > > > history, many of those whom we regard as great thinkers have been very > > > critical of the benefits of possessions and owning things. Indeed, a > > > controversy centred on the absolute poverty of Christ raged throughout > > > the medieval Christian Church and completely split the Franciscan > > > movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ > > > Franciscans#Renewed_controversy_on_the_question_of_poverty). In this > > > context, it is perhaps interesting to note that one of the all-time > > > heroes here on Minds Eye, William of Occam, was a proponent of the > > > principle of absolute poverty and lost his job as English Franciscan > > > provincial and was excommunicated as a result. > > > > Personally I spent almost a decade as a Dominican friar, during which > > > time I took a "vow of poverty." I don't want to go into a discussion > > > on the extent to which Catholic monks actually live according to this > > > vow here, personally, I always found it to be the expression of an > > > attitude of freedom from a dictatorship of "things." It may also have > > > left an indelible mark on me in that in almost a quarter of a century > > > since leaving the order I have been pretty bad at earning, > > > accumulating and retaining material wealth and possessions. During my > > > life I have gone through a number of pretty radical changes, which > > > have often involved leaving nearly everything behind and starting > > > again. Such processes have been, inevitably, traumatic, although not > > > necessarily negative. One of the things that has helped is the fact > > > that I have never felt particularly attached to "things". But maybe my > > > sense of "ownership" is just underdeveloped, or damaged! > > > > There's a German saying which states that "he who has possessions has > > > worries." Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, one of the founders (!) of modern > > > anarchism went farther with his statement that "property is theft." > > > What does it mean to "own" something anyway? > > > > To use Molly's words: What do you think? > > > > Francis- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
