"how does, or is ther ea way that the chemical process of 'sublimation' relates to the process of communion". - Pat
much has been written on the Logos, but I would love to hear your thoughts, Pat (maybe in a private email if you think its better.) "At which point we'd all have laughed." - Pat Sharing a laugh - one of the best forms of communion, I think! On May 28, 7:29 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > On 27 May, 20:41, iam deheretic <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Pat,, not to insult you but some times you add more to confusion than > > understanding Molly is very right communion is sublime. > > Oh that's no insult, it just points out that I tend to travel deep > into the mathematics of the mechanisms and that many people are > happier with 'simpler' explanations. I've no problem with that and > 'communion' is a great word that can sum up a very detailed process. > I didn't mean to add to the confusion, rather, I was trying to define > certain aspects OF the details of the process OF that communion. As > for me, the word communion stands for a process, but I want to know > the details OF that process and the mechanisms that allow it to > occur. These cannot be explained using simpler words, so I tend to go > deeper than some may care to. But really, it's only out of a great > desire to know the details and, once discovered, try to explain them. > However, I gladly acknowledge that many are happier without the > details. For example, most people that drive cars don't worry about > the pistons and camshafts and/or transaxles that are involved in > getting them around the next corner; yet, at the same time, their are > mechanics out there who MUST know these intimate details. For > example, when I read the words above "communion is sublime", my first > thought was "how does, or is ther ea way that the chemical process of > 'sublimation' relates to the process of communion". It's just the way > my brain works. I drive right to the core details and, without doubt, > sometimes lose myself and others in the process. I think, if you knew > me better and we were in the same room when I'd responded the way I > did, you'd have just said, "Oh, FFS, Pat!". At which point we'd all > have laughed. > > > > > Religious confusion is exactly what is causing most of the problems to day, > > it is used to justify the dance of the golden calf. > > Allan > > > On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 27 May, 06:51, Ash <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I would say that the moment of conception of "something else" sort of > > > > defines the landscape of theological evolution. However that hinges on > > > > the belief that spiritual awakening is a very personal process that is > > > > to a lesser extent shared through rituals and other communication. You > > > > could say I believe in that intimate exploration. > > > > > I guess my view on God would look like multiple intelligences and hold a > > > > critical view of the extroverted and simplified political feedback > > > > version used for propagandist purposes (quantitative ends). To me it is > > > > much more interesting to understand what and why people believe than the > > > > fact of it. Anyways- I sort of navigate many views depending on the need > > > > or desire, with a personal tendency toward constructive analysis (it > > > > comes out in person/phone discussions). Sometimes I view theology, > > > > cosmology and metaphysics much like an engineering challenge neutrally, > > > > sometimes as a profound experience full of meaning and at others I mourn > > > > the stone cold lack of meaning. There are many arts and sciences I use > > > > in exploring those archetypal 'pathways', I don't trust a single one > > > > enough to become branded with and much prefer an eclectic mix. This is a > > > > very simplified answer and any one of these topics could turn into > > > > voluminous discussions. > > > > > "In second place to my statement, if God is not the old wise man, then, > > > > what is God? > > > > Could God be the energy or the cosmos of the universe?" > > > > > I don't see why not, actually one of my favorite ideas is that the > > > > domain of experience and material existence are the same thing from > > > > different viewpoints and switch between or try to work out the > > > > science/metaphysics. I began with asking 'why', learned a bit of 'how', > > > > and found a great question in 'what if'. That's the nutshell version (no > > > > finale)... :) > > > > I would go so far as to just say, yes, God IS the energy, or, more > > > properly, energy is the 'substance' of God. It is neither created nor > > > destroyed (like God) after making that link, the rest is down to the > > > geometry of the system. Given the right geometric spaces (time > > > included as a slightly defective approximation of 'eternity'), then > > > energy and mass can easily convert back and forth between one another > > > and account for all that we encounter in this universe. > > > Consciousness, however, is slightly trickier, but fields of > > > 'consciousness energy' are easily manipulated given the number of > > > dimensions afforded by string theory, and string theory even allows > > > for the 'atemporal spaces' required for eternal consciousness as well > > > as regions where abstract concepts can be stored (in a Platonistic > > > way) given the right topology WITHIN the right geometry. > > > > > On 5/25/2010 5:33 PM, Manfraco Frank Elder wrote: > > > > > > It make sense to me, because I believe that everyone of us believes > > > > > and sees things in a different way, and therefore, if you do not see > > > > > God or religious beliefs like me it is ok. > > > > > Now, if I say that God might not be an old wise man as most of us have > > > > > been thought to believe; but he/it could be something else, what would > > > > > you say to that? > > > > > In second place to my statement, if God is not the old wise man, then, > > > > > what is God? > > > > > Could God be the energy or the cosmos of the universe? > > > > > My regards > > > > > Manfraco > > > > > > On May 23, 9:27 am, Ash<[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> Manfranco, I don't mind at all, besides I think you were here first. > > > :) > > > > >> There seemed to be some similarity between FSM and Cthulhu (the > > > octopus). > > > > > >> Before answering your questions directly I would like to give you an > > > > >> idea what I think of 'beliefs', as there could be many kinds or we > > > could > > > > >> have two very different ideas of what they are. I have personal > > > > >> experiences that inform beliefs that I don't have words for, and the > > > > >> ones that do I usually seek to make an accord with reality in a more > > > > >> universal sense. So I allow a long leash for my 'romantic' side, and > > > the > > > > >> analytical looks more like a meta-battlefield. > > > > > >> Belief in absolutes is incomprehensible to me, I can no longer > > > associate > > > > >> any sane expression to that. I am trying to make peace with the world > > > of > > > > >> potentials I've found myself in, and my association with it. This is > > > all > > > > >> difficult to describe, as I've been losing the distinction between > > > > >> belief and disbelief. Many of the symbols and ideas in the world have > > > > >> been stepping stones for me. I am speechless when confronted with > > > > >> this > > > > >> question, not being evasive, there are no convenient answers at my > > > > >> disposal but I can assure you somehow I manage to believe in many > > > things > > > > >> both great and small. > > > > > >> I could conceive of a cosmos wherein the FSM and any arbitrary > > > > >> combination of other beliefs also reside. I consider it all > > > 'narratives > > > > >> of truth' at this time. If it makes sense to you, that makes one of > > > us. :) > > > > > >> On 5/20/2010 6:26 PM, Manfraco Frank Elder wrote: > > > > > >>> Hi Ash! Your link is very colourful and fun, but it seems to me a > > > > >>> direct attack to God and all religious beliefs; are you sure you are > > > > >>> on the right tracks? Anyhow, I hope you don't mind my coming in > > > > >>> these > > > > >>> discussions, as I would like to ask you a question about beliefs; Do > > > > >>> you believe in any god? And if you don't why? As I am under the > > > > >>> impression that you don't believe in anything; Am I right? > > > > >>> Greetings > > > > >>> Manfraco > > > > > >>> On May 19, 10:12 am, Ash<[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >>>> 'Obey your noodley master' - > > >http://www.venganza.org/materials/#flyers > > > > > >>>> That was Lovecraft right? > > > > > >>>> On 5/18/2010 7:37 PM, Chris Jenkins wrote: > > > > > >>>>> /Ia Ia/! Yog Sothoth > > > > > >>>>> On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 7:18 PM, Ash<[email protected] > > > > >>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > > >>>>> Please forgive our ignorance Gabby.>:) > > > > > >>>>> FF may be referring to the belligerent Demiurge > > > > >>>>> (Yaldabaoth?) > > > > >>>>> presiding over this universe, and it's acolytes. Purely > > > speculative. > > > > > >>>>> On 5/18/2010 1:18 PM, gabbydott wrote: > > > > > >>>>> Pat is mistaking himself for God, but he's not the only > > > one here, > > > > >>>>> which makes them bearable. > > > > > >>>>> On 18 Mai, 16:16, DarkwaterBlight< > > > [email protected] > > > > >>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > > >>>>> I must be missing something here FF... Who's the > > > > >>>>> determinist conmen > > > > >>>>> that "we" are mistaking? I also have no feeling that > > > God's > > > > >>>>> understanding is anything less than infinite. The > > > illusion > > > > >>>>> that the so > > > > >>>>> called "haves" have created, has been a veil of > > > > >>>>> perception. I think I > > > > >>>>> can agree on that point provided I am understanding > > > you > > > > >>>>> correctly. > > > > >>>>> Would you care to continue in your discourse and > > > elaborate? > > > > > >>>>> On May 16, 10:18 pm, Fiercely Free<[email protected] > > > > >>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > > >>>>> > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
