On Jul 29, 6:51 pm, Tinker <[email protected]> wrote:
> '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"?
Do you literally talk this way all the time? Say you are chatting
with someone at the hardware store?
> 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.
Well I am going to need a "here and now" trainer. Are you
available?
I would imagine getting slapped in the face a lot, but I bet you would
not take that approach
> 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").
I am a space cadet tinker. I don't spend 10% in the here and now
>
> 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 -- 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
